

EUS

Kill cancer

Premium Member

join:2002-09-10

canada EUS Premium Member Shame on the ISP's Who are on board with this.

On the flip side, they have an extra 'cost' to create yet another revenue stream.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 1 recommendation openbox9 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's Shame on them for extending multiple warnings for alleged infringing actions and in the end maybe doing nothing much at all about it? The horror..... You should be much more concerned with your acknowledgment of infringing actions after the third and fourth warning that the copyright holders will most likely use against you in legal action.

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: Shame on the ISP's very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online.



firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's said by hottboiinnc4: very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online.

Right because the letter I could just send to your ISP concerning your activity associated with my copyrighted work is totally legit.

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: Shame on the ISP's once notice maybe....3 and 4?? com'on. there is NO way 3 and 4 notices are going to be fake.



thedragonmas

Premium Member

join:2007-12-28

Albany, GA ·VOIPO

Netgear R6300 v2

ARRIS SB6180

1 recommendation thedragonmas to firephoto

Premium Member to firephoto

said by firephoto: said by hottboiinnc4: very true. If you get three and four notices; you are in deed knowingly doing illegal activities online.



Right because the letter I could just send to your ISP concerning your activity associated with my copyrighted work is totally legit.



because we know their record of never ever ever making an error is so high right? and because the ISP's check to make sure the so called "movie" was actually downloaded. i.e. 4GB "movie" but user only used 400MB's that day.because we know their record of never ever ever making an error is so high right?

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: Shame on the ISP's ISPs don't check to see what was downloaded only because we'd have people on here claiming its in violation of their rights and the Network owners have no right to be able to do that. So you can't have your cake and eat it to.



Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.



thedragonmas

Premium Member

join:2007-12-28

Albany, GA ·VOIPO

Netgear R6300 v2

ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's said by hottboiinnc4: ISPs don't check to see what was downloaded only because we'd have people on here claiming its in violation of their rights and the Network owners have no right to be able to do that. So you can't have your cake and eat it to.



Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.





for the record, i do not do illegal file sharing. (i DO use bittorrent for LEGAL content, i.e. linux distro's once or twice every few months)



as to that one notice remark, fine by me, if they pay each person falsely accused say $10k for the slander/liable aspects of falsely accusing them of a crime alone. i never said to verify the CONTENT, but if the MPAA says i suposadly downloaded a freakin movie on X day, but i used all of 1GB the ENTIRE week. its obvious there full of it. and the DMCA is eronious. so i should be punished for their lack of verification? i dont think so.for the record, i do not do illegal file sharing. (i DO use bittorrent for LEGAL content, i.e. linux distro's once or twice every few months)as to that one notice remark, fine by me, if they pay each person falsely accused say $10k for the slander/liable aspects of falsely accusing them of a crime alone.

FandBal

join:2011-03-16

Whittier, CA 1 recommendation FandBal to hottboiinnc4

Member to hottboiinnc4

said by hottboiinnc4: Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me.



They deserve it for their criminal activities.

It's not like they use the internet for any other useful activities anyway (like real education, we got schools for that) Besides, the MPAA and RIAA will educate them far more than a wikipedia ever will, at least in matters of copyright.



I mean, it'd just be like a time machine. Who didn't like the 80's?

I liked them a lot. Back then Copyright was broken in a much smaller scale, this law will bring the 80's back, it's a win for the MPAA, RIAA and fans of the 80's. A win/win as they say.



We would really just be much better off if ISP's handed over control of who is worthy enough to use the internet and who isn't.

I'd trust someone like that to make very good judgements on who deserves the service and who doesn't.



And before people get all defensive on me. You have to remmember, the sole reason people use the internet is to watch videos and music, nothing more.

It has no educational value, and sharing files with people isn't all that important, so the top 200 sites should be enough for people like that. (everyone, except those pirates of course)



Or better yet... they should just go ahead and just allow only the top 200 sites for EVERYONE. that way there would be no risk what so ever of copyright being infringed on.

What do you guys think?



And if they still managed somehow to download a pirated picture, book, moving picture or sound. well, they could still go ahead and just disconect them altogether like planned.



As i said... the internet is not an important tool outside of watching movies and listening to music, so it wouldn't be too much of a loss to those pirates, i'd say it would be letting them off the hook easy if you ask me.

I can think of much better ways of dealing with them, but i won't get into that right now. Yes. Chances are his malicious kids are up to no good if he stoped infringing and STILL got notices. They shouldn't discriminate and just disconnect the whole family at that point.They deserve it for their criminal activities.It's not like they use the internet for any other useful activities anyway (like real education, we got schools for that) Besides, the MPAA and RIAA will educate them far more than a wikipedia ever will, at least in matters of copyright.I mean, it'd just be like a time machine. Who didn't like the 80's?I liked them a lot. Back then Copyright was broken in a much smaller scale, this law will bring the 80's back, it's a win for the MPAA, RIAA and fans of the 80's. A win/win as they say.We would really just be much better off if ISP's handed over control of who is worthy enough to use the internet and who isn't.I'd trust someone like that to make very good judgements on who deserves the service and who doesn't.And before people get all defensive on me. You have to remmember, the sole reason people use the internet is to watch videos and music, nothing more.It has no educational value, and sharing files with people isn't all that important, so the top 200 sites should be enough for people like that. (everyone, except those pirates of course)Or better yet... they should just go ahead and just allow only the top 200 sites for EVERYONE. that way there would be no risk what so ever of copyright being infringed on.What do you guys think?And if they still managed somehow to download a pirated picture, book, moving picture or sound. well, they could still go ahead and just disconect them altogether like planned.As i said... the internet is not an important tool outside of watching movies and listening to music, so it wouldn't be too much of a loss to those pirates, i'd say it would be letting them off the hook easy if you ask me.I can think of much better ways of dealing with them, but i won't get into that right now.



cordwainer

@rr.com cordwainer Anon Re: Shame on the ISP's Um...you do realize the Internet is how all email is sent? Just for example.



I thought at first your post was sarcastic, but you really do seem to think the "Internet" is something different from what it is: a worldwide network of millions of computers we rely on for hundreds of things every day.



I'm still hoping you were joking, but if you really do think the Internet is used only for listening to music and watching, videos, and should be restricted to whomever ISPs decide is "worthy", then I hope you're also wiling to live in a world where only the "worthy" can send e-mail, access reference materials from home, pay bills without having to write a check and put it in an envelope...where there are no ATMs, or affordable merchant accounts for small businesses, where software such as TurboTax no longer exists...where there is no longer any possibility of "telecommuting", or a mother with children running a profitable small business from home, even if the children are crying...



Also good luck at this point easily booking a cheap plane flight, or finding all the products you would like in stock at your local grocery store, or sending a letter without paying 3 times as much for postage. Say good-bye to attending college while working, no matter what your schedule is, and go back to correspondence courses by snail mail, or having to take time off from work to attend a class that is offered only during work hours on a weekday.



The vast majority of Internet traffic is still NOT music or video...and not all the video or music is for entertainment purposes anyway.



So tell the businesses and individuals who rely on off-site backups they can no longer access them, because they are not "worthy" to have Internet access since they waste part of their time accessing educational videos or attending on-line traffic school or posting their resume online looking for a better job so they can support a family...



And tell the military, so sorry...but soldiers will no longer be able to see their families while they chat with them over webcam, and, for that matter, will be waiting in line a long time for their turn at the telephone, because IM and VOIP are no longer available to them...oh, and also sorry that overseas call, instead of being free, is going to cost you or your family $50.



Yes, again, I hope I've read the message wrong, and you are being extremely sarcastic...but I have to say, it sure doesn't sound like it.



Prepared to be laughed at, but willing to risk it,

cord



Gbcue

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Santa Rosa, CA Gbcue to hottboiinnc4

Premium Member to hottboiinnc4

said by hottboiinnc4: Maybe they should just refuse to service you with one notice? Sounds fair to me. What would the ISP shareholders think when the company they invested in knowingly disconnects a profit stream?



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX 1 recommendation r81984 to openbox9

Premium Member to openbox9

said by openbox9: Shame on them for extending multiple warnings for alleged infringing actions and in the end maybe doing nothing much at all about it? The horror..... You should be much more concerned with your acknowledgment of infringing actions after the third and fourth warning that the copyright holders will most likely use against you in legal action.





ISPs need to stick to what the customers are paying for.

If only they were not monopolies. Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions.ISPs need to stick to what the customers are paying for.If only they were not monopolies.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's So basically, you have no idea what you're actually paying your ISP for. You may not want to pay for those things, but in reality you are.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's said by openbox9: So basically, you have no idea what you're actually paying your ISP for. You may not want to pay for those things, but in reality you are.



If I had a choice I could leave them for a company that only gives me what I want to pay for. What I pay for and what I get are two different things as I have no choice or providers. My ISP can do whatever it wants to regardless of what I am paying for.If I had a choice I could leave them for a company that only gives me what I want to pay for.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo to r81984

MVM to r81984

said by r81984: Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di ··· ight_Act



ISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders. ISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX 1 recommendation r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's said by SpaethCo: said by r81984: Customer's are not paying for ISPs to record the IP address we use, we are not paying them to use people to foward letters, we are not paying them to implement hearsay sanctions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di ··· ight_Act



ISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders.

ISPs lose their protection from prosecution for dissemination of copyright material if they don't actively participate in passing on notices from the copyright holders.

An ISP that provides internet service to the public and is not a private network. A business would be responsible for what goes on their private network. A public ISP like comcast, ATT, verizon, etc are not responsible for anything that customers do on the internet no more than ATT is responsible if someone commits a crime over the telephone or a cell phone.

If there was any way an ISP could be sued then all phone providers would also be sued anytime something illegal happened over a phone call. Really, that is a fake excuse and they wrote that into the law knowing that.



The major grey area that may get protection from that line would be schools like a major university with dorms. They are not really a public ISP, but can be considered a private network. Public ISPs do not need to worry. An ISP don't need any protection. That line is an excuse that has no backing.An ISP that provides internet service to the public and is not a private network. A business would be responsible for what goes on their private network. A public ISP like comcast, ATT, verizon, etc are not responsible for anything that customers do on the internet no more than ATT is responsible if someone commits a crime over the telephone or a cell phone.If there was any way an ISP could be sued then all phone providers would also be sued anytime something illegal happened over a phone call. Really, that is a fake excuse and they wrote that into the law knowing that.The major grey area that may get protection from that line would be schools like a major university with dorms. They are not really a public ISP, but can be considered a private network. Public ISPs do not need to worry.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Shame on the ISP's



There is a reason they pushed through the



They're not mailing out letters just because they wanted to spend money sucking up to copyright holders -- they're spending the money because they want safe harbor status to be exempt from prosecution for the actions of their subscribers.



The cost of setting up a department to deal with mailing notices and getting a "get out of jail free" card is far lower than the costs would be of taking a case to court for non-compliance. Read the bill.There is a reason they pushed through the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act that sets up provisions for Online Service Providers to have provisional safe harbor status if they adhere to certain criteria in dealing with DMCA violations.They're not mailing out letters just because they wanted to spend money sucking up to copyright holders -- they're spending the money because they want safe harbor status to be exempt from prosecution for the actions of their subscribers.The cost of setting up a department to deal with mailing notices and getting a "get out of jail free" card is far lower than the costs would be of taking a case to court for non-compliance.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's

What you linked to definately does not apply to public ISPs as they do not host any content and they lease an IP address to the customer.



If they tried to argue that the offending IP address goes through their network than any backbone or network the data traverses would also be responsible, which makes no sense. Then as I said before anyone that has any illegal activity over their network like phone companies would also be liable.



Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties" said by your link : § 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online



(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providers transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections Section (j) relates to if they have a court order for the ISP.



Sorry, but your own link states what I have said. Public ISPs are not liable in any way for customers traffic on their network. They do not need to forward any letters as they have no liablity. Your linked information seems more to apply to sites or data hosted by an ISP.What you linked to definately does not apply to public ISPs as they do not host any content and they lease an IP address to the customer.If they tried to argue that the offending IP address goes through their network than any backbone or network the data traverses would also be responsible, which makes no sense. Then as I said before anyone that has any illegal activity over their network like phone companies would also be liable.Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties"Section (j) relates to if they have a court order for the ISP.They do not need to forward any letters as they have no liablity.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Shame on the ISP's said by r81984: What you linked to definately does not apply to public ISPs as they do not host any content and they lease an IP address to the customer. said by r81984: Your own link states "the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) still protects the ISP from liability for content provided by third parties"



Again, this comes down to a really simply cost analysis:



$$ - setup a department to mail out notifications that gets you complete immunity from prosecution under the safe harbor provisions.



$$$$$ - the cost to proceed with even a single legal case to defend their position in a DMCA violation that prosecutors choose to pursue. (that the ISP would likely win anyway, due to the provisions you outlined above)



It's setup that you would have to be completely stupid to not position your company to have safe harbor protection. It would be akin to operating a business without liability insurance. This becomes murky if the content is being served from an ISP where the ISP isn't a purely transit network (like a backbone IP provider). There have been cases filed against hosting providers in the past, including dedicated server providers who simply lease out a server and a block of IP space for an end-user. They have little control over how people use the server, but legal action has still been pursued for a couple providers who were defiant in handling DMCA complaints.Yes, that was an argument that came up in one of the court cases I just mentioned.Again, this comes down to a really simply cost analysis:$$ - setup a department to mail out notifications that gets you complete immunity from prosecution under the safe harbor provisions.$$$$$ - the cost to proceed with even a single legal case to defend their position in a DMCA violation that prosecutors choose to pursue. (that the ISP would likely win anyway, due to the provisions you outlined above)It's setup that you would have to be completely stupid to not position your company to have safe harbor protection. It would be akin to operating a business without liability insurance.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's

I will cut out the good part.

said by yourlink : A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the providers transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections



A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link. You ignored your own link.I will cut out the good part.A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Shame on the ISP's said by r81984: A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link. Lawyers for Chen had argued that Akanoc and Managed Solutions were protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA), which limits the liability of ISPs for activities by its customers that might constitute copyright infringements. The defense lawyers said Chen and his companies could not be held liable for the actions of Web sites they might have hosted but did not directly own or operate.



Louis Vuitton claimed that Chen and his hosting companies were contributing to the illegal activities by providing the infrastructure that enabled the sale of counterfeit goods. They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.



The verdict "establishes a standard" for trademark infringement complaints on the Internet, said Andy Coombs, Louis Vuitton's counsel, in a statement. "It represents a positive contribution to existing case law and marks the first time statutory damages have been awarded against those found contributorily liable for trademark infringement," Coombs said. Source: »www.computerworld.com/s/ ··· myId=144



This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints. I'm not ignoring the link, and despite what you think that says, the courts have already ruled differently in a web hosting case.This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's



What you stated about Akanoc and Managed solutions does not apply to an ISP. WHat you stated applys to web hosting and the arguement was for dummy web hosting vs web hosting and controlling the content. said by your quote : The defense lawyers said Chen and his companies could not be held liable for the actions of Web sites they might have hosted but did not directly own or operate. You seem to keep confusing web hosting with

transmitting, routing, or providing connections (including temp storage during transmission)



An ISP is 100% protected from lawsuits from any customer that transmits or receives copyrighted material. Forwarding letters is not required and has nothing to do with that protection. Forwarding letters is required if the ISP is "hosting" content in terms of a web server.



The law does not require an ISP to forward letters for protection and the customers are not paying for that activity. Again you ignore what the law that you link to says.What you stated about Akanoc and Managed solutions does not apply to an ISP. WHat you stated applys to web hosting and the arguement was for dummy web hosting vs web hosting and controlling the content.You seem to keep confusingwithAn ISP is 100% protected from lawsuits from any customer that transmits or receives copyrighted material. Forwarding letters is not required and has nothing to do with that protection. Forwarding letters is required if the ISP is "hosting" content in terms of a web server.The law does not require an ISP to forward letters for protection and the customers are not paying for that activity.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Shame on the ISP's said by r81984: You seem to keep confusing web hosting with

transmitting, routing, or providing connections (including temp storage during transmission) said by r81984: An ISP is 100% protected from lawsuits from any customer that transmits or receives copyrighted material. Forwarding letters is not required and has nothing to do with that protection. Forwarding letters is required if the ISP is "hosting" content in terms of a web server. if they have not been informed of a violation. Basically you can't be implicated for material in violation going over your wires if you haven't been been given the opportunity to rectify the situation. said by r81984: The law does not require an ISP to forward letters for protection and the customers are not paying for that activity. MUST take action or they become complicit in the violation. The distinction isn't important in this context. Their role also wasn't web hosting, they were providing colocation services for the websites in question. They did nothing but provide space, power, and connectivity for the servers hosting those websites.An ISP is only provided immunity. Basically you can't be implicated for material in violation going over your wires if you haven't been been given the opportunity to rectify the situation.The ISP is only granted immunity until they are informed of the violation. (They can't be prosecuted for violations they are not informed about) After they've been informed, as this court ruling shows, theytake action or they become complicit in the violation.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's said by SpaethCo: The ISP is only granted immunity until they are informed of the violation. (They can't be prosecuted for violations they are not informed about) After they've been informed, as this court ruling shows, they MUST take action or they become complicit in the violation.

said by yourlink : Section 512(j) describes the forms of injunctive (i.e. court order) relief available to copyright holders. Even though OSPs have immunity from monetary damages under Section 512, they may be compelled by copyright holders, in appropriate situations, to stop providing access to infringing material or to terminate the account of a particular infringer.



Your link clearly states that ISP are protected from customers transmitting and receiving copyright data. An ISP is under no obligation to forward any letters for any protection. They are already 100% protected. Not according to your link which say the ISP is protected unless they do not comply with the court order.Your link clearly states that ISP are protected from customers transmitting and receiving copyright data. An ISP is under no obligation to forward any letters for any protection. They are already 100% protected.



Gbcue

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Santa Rosa, CA Gbcue to SpaethCo

Premium Member to SpaethCo

said by SpaethCo: said by r81984: A public ISP is 100% not liable for any copyrighted material. The clause you are speaking about to forward letters is not needed as they are already 100% protected from being liable as stated in your link. They further said that Chen and his companies had been informed of the activity by Louis Vuitton but still refused to implement a policy for removing the offending sites, which was their responsibility.



This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints.

Louis Vuitton claimed that Chen and his hosting companies were contributing to the illegal activities by providing the infrastructure that enabled the sale of counterfeit goods.This is no different than the subscriber of an ISP distributing copyrighted material, a DMCA notice is supplied to the ISP (who owns the IP), and the ISP takes no action. Given that there are now cases to establish precedence, there is no way in hell an ISP is going to simply ignore DMCA complaints.



Most ISPs forward you the copyright notice. Since they don't own any of the infringing content, it is up to the END USER to comply with any notice. For webhosts to have safe harbor provisions intact, they need to remove the infringing material quickly. In the case of LV vs. Chen, it sounds like Chen did *not* remove the material quickly (24-48h) and therefore, should be liable.Most ISPs forward you the copyright notice. Since they don't own any of the infringing content, it is up to the END USER to comply with any notice.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN SpaethCo MVM Re: Shame on the ISP's said by Gbcue: For webhosts to have safe harbor provisions intact, they need to remove the infringing material quickly. In the case of LV vs. Chen, it sounds like Chen did *not* remove the material quickly (24-48h) and therefore, should be liable. said by Gbcue: Most ISPs forward you the copyright notice. Since they don't own any of the infringing content, it is up to the END USER to comply with any notice. The Managed Solutions Group division in question was AKANoc which provided pure colocation services out of Market Post Tower in San Jose. They had no control over the servers as they didn't own any of the server hardware. Their role was very similar to an ISP in that they only provided network connectivity to their clients along with space and power for the servers. They still lost the lawsuit because they had no records of any attempts to notify their customers of the complaints they'd received.The act of identifying and recording the end user information along with submitting notice of the copyright violation is what provides the ISP with safe harbor protection under OCILLA.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's If you can't read the words in your own link and read the law then please stop posting.

Really you are arguing against your own link to the law, not me. This is pretty sad.



SpaethCo

Digital Plumber

MVM

join:2001-04-21

Minneapolis, MN 1 edit SpaethCo MVM Re: Shame on the ISP's said by r81984: If you can't read the words in your own link and read the law then please stop posting.

Really you are arguing against your own link to the law, not me. This is pretty sad. (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.

(1) In general. A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider

(A)

(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. There is a word that describes the folks who made the same argument you did that simply being a transit provider gives them blanket immunity: guilty. It's a misunderstanding of what a transit provider is in the context of the law, which proved costly in the Managed / AKANoc case.



The transit network provider clause in section (a) only applies to true transit networks like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, etc. Network providers that serve other networks, where the carrier has no way of knowing the end user of an IP because they don't own the network responsible for being the source of the infringing material. What's sad is that you took the time to read that link, and didn't read section (c) of the same law and see why Managed Solutions Group & Akanoc lost the case. They owned none of the servers in question, had no control over what content was on the servers -- they simply provided space, power and network.There is a word that describes the folks who made the same argument you did that simply being a transit provider gives them blanket immunity:. It's a misunderstanding of what a transit provider is in the context of the law, which proved costly in the Managed / AKANoc case.The transit network provider clause in section (a) only applies to true transit networks like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, etc. Network providers that serve other networks, where the carrier has no way of knowing the end user of an IP because they don't own the network responsible for being the source of the infringing material.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX 1 recommendation r81984 Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's This is really sad.

You keep confusing web hosting with

transmitting, routing, or providing connections (including temp storage during transmission)



(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.

Section A covers and ISP from all liability - for "transmitting, routing, or providing connections "



(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users

Section C covers "for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage"

Section C clearly states "Residing", not "transmitting, routing, or providing connections".



If a users places content on an ISPs network somewhere like in remote email, web hosting, backup space, file servers the ISP needs to forward a takedown letter for protection as stated in section C.

If an ISP just provides a connection from the customer's network to the internet and transmits and receives the customers content they are 100% protected as stated in section A.



The words are pretty clear and distinct, I do not understand what is so damn confusing about this.



EUS

Kill cancer

Premium Member

join:2002-09-10

canada EUS to openbox9

Premium Member to openbox9

Shame as it's none of their business.

Another system of policing is the last thing I want, or require, or want my monthly bill go up for 'anti-theft charge'.



r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 to EUS

Premium Member to EUS

Customer are not paying for this!!!!



EUS

Kill cancer

Premium Member

join:2002-09-10

canada EUS Premium Member Re: Shame on the ISP's Not yet.

It won't be long before another below the line expense pops up, whether you're involved with copyright infringement or not.



zalternate

join:2007-02-22

freedom land 1 edit zalternate Member extortion



By the way? Do you get your $35 dollars back(plus the time spent to contest the punishment) when you are found to be 100% INNOCENT of any crime? I rather doubt it. The law states that you are Innocent until proved guilty(in a court of Law) and to be imposing a punishment based on an "accusation" is a crime(wheres all the evidence as well??). Time to sue the ISP's in small claims court for violating your constitutional Rights(Right of innocence). quote: Users who feel they're falsely accused can pay a $35 fee to have a supposedly (we'll see) independent review take place:



A qualified, independent entity, separate from the Center for Copyright Information, will be engaged to establish and operate the Independent Review mechanism. Under this system, before a Mitigation Measure is imposed, a subscriber may request independent review to invalidate the alert and avoid any Mitigation Measure on the basis that the online activity in question is lawful (e.g. protected by fair use or authorized by the owner of the copyrighted material) or that the subscribers account was identified in error. This is a non-exclusive alternative, and subscribers retain the right to challenge any action in a court of law. An independent reviewer will have access to expert advice on copyright law. Make sure to check the background of any "independent reviewer", as some of them are nothing but paid shills, to give the impression of an 'unbiased third party'. Extortion is quite the profitable business model. And crime pays, until they hit the one Judge who is actually educated on how the Law is supposed to work.By the way? Do you get your $35 dollars back(plus the time spent to contest the punishment) when you are found to be 100% INNOCENT of any crime? I rather doubt it. The law states that you are Innocent until proved guilty(in a court of Law) and to be imposing a punishment based on an "accusation" is a crime(wheres all the evidence as well??). Time to sue the ISP's in small claims court for violating your constitutional Rights(Right of innocence).Make sure to check the background of any "independent reviewer", as some of them are nothing but paid shills, to give the impression of an 'unbiased third party'.

raythompsontn

join:2001-01-11

Oliver Springs, TN raythompsontn Member New Bill Line Item I can see a new line item on the bill:



Government Mandated Copyright Enforcement Recovery Fee - $9.95



Even though you did not download, or upload anything that was infringing nor was the fee enforced by the government.

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: New Bill Line Item most fees are NOT even imposed by the gov't- nothing new.



Gbcue

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Santa Rosa, CA Gbcue to raythompsontn

Premium Member to raythompsontn

It's not government mandated. It should read:



Pocketbook-lining Copyright Enforcement Recovery Fee - $9.99 + tax

Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22

Des Plaines, IL Joe12345678 Member what about false positives, bad clames, fake clame false positives have been a issues in the past does this do any thing to fix that?

Let's say some without HSI but has cable some how get some HBO VOD data flagged? or just that they flag the wrong subscriber.



Bad clams

The bank's have done foreclosure on loans they don't even own so what stopping someone from makeing a clam on stuff they don't own or that may be free but some how they thing they own the rights to? What if a game is free but someone flags it based on in game music?



fake clams



One business may just make clams just to DOS a other business.



What about places with FREE WIFI or hotels? (A lot of hotels use cable HSI)



What about if you HAVE the rights to that Copyright and the right to download it and you still get flaged



hhawkman

Premium Member

join:2001-02-08

Port Hueneme, CA hhawkman Premium Member who? Avoiding the obvious "Are you kidding?, Now what?" aspect of all this....

Where they talk about Mitigation Measures:

Before a Mitigation Measure is imposed, a subscriber may request independent review. To request an independent review, there is a $35 filing fee, which is waivable. This is a non-exclusive procedure, and any subscriber may choose to challenge any action in a court of law.

Who would we request "an independent review" from? Who picks the "reviewer"?

rootberg

join:2000-08-30

Vernon Hills, IL rootberg Member Gas Next, gas stations will be required to charge bank robbers (or more likely people who could be potential bank robbers in the Banking Industries opinion) the price of premium gas, but actual give them regular gas.... cause you know.... They could use the vehicle to rob a bank.



Oh... and if they are suspected multiple times, they will be required to pay for premium gas without getting any at all.

Paxio

Premium Member

join:2011-02-23

Santa Clara, CA Paxio Premium Member No Throttling here...







P.S. Support your local, small ISP! I'm happy to report that the OTHER "major ISP" -- Paxio -- has no such agreement with Hollywood.P.S. Support your local, small ISP!

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member supply side economics without $$ MONEY $$ from the entertainment industry (to the major isps) this is toothless and meaningless.. finally the industry seems poised to put their MONEY where their mouth is.. YOUR ISP will have to be SUBSIDIZED for eforcement measures which potentially limit their profitability to leave customers to their own ends with internet access..



doing this on the cheap will get this agreement where so many have been left in the past.. worth less than toilet paper and civil copyright infringement judgment award$



nevertheless, there will be those on the other side will who have a response for every collusion of foes. we await the pong for the latest ping...

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29

Eustis, FL Mr Matt Member Does the customer pay to contest the first letter from ISP. Does a customer have to pay the $35.00 fee to contest the first letter they receive if the incident was a blatant mistake. Say the ISP claims that files were downloaded while the customer was on vacation and their modem turned off. what happens if the matter was caused by an indifferent ISP employee misidentifying which customer the IP address was assigned to when the dirty deed was done. If the reported incident was a mistake the customer should receive triple damages or $105.00. Does a customer have to pay the $35.00 fee to contest the first letter they receive if the incident was a blatant mistake. Say the ISP claims that files were downloaded while the customer was on vacation and their modem turned off. what happens if the matter was caused by an indifferent ISP employee misidentifying which customer the IP address was assigned to when the dirty deed was done. If the reported incident was a mistake the customer should receive triple damages or $105.00.

hottboiinnc4

ME

join:2003-10-15

Cleveland, OH hottboiinnc4 Member Re: Does the customer pay to contest the first letter from ISP. they don't even need to pay actually. Why contest anything that doesn't mean shit?



Bill Neilson

Premium Member

join:2009-07-08

Alexandria, VA Bill Neilson Premium Member As others have pointed out, innocent people are left with questions about what they can do and this idea of forcing them to pay $35 is a bit of a joke.



I understand those who bring up the legality of this (in terms of not being able to sue the ISP's directly), but I figure someone will bring something to the Court rooms about these ISP's doing something to their account (even if it is in the terms which DOES NOT make it 100% allowable) without any specific proof



HB61

Maru Maru Mori Mori

Premium Member

join:2011-06-21

00000 HB61 Premium Member What is in it for the ISP? Why should they bother spending money to protect RIAA and MPAA interests?



If this is okay, how about they also police online banking for the banks. I'm sure Bank of America would love Comcast to police online credit card fraud for them.



And $35 is simple junk fee extortion. How about the ISPs charge $35 to investigate a billing error, or any other mistake the ISP makes?



The *IAA is nothing but a bunch of racketeers engaging in blackmail and extrusion. They are an organized crime syndicate and should be charged with RICO violations.

HB61 HB61 Premium Member So the RIAA accuses you of felonious behavior And how is that not defamation? That is like me going to your ISP and accusing you of child porn. You can't do that. It's defamation.



And if the MPAA or RIAA do get it wrong and your service is throttled or cancelled, how of they not responsible for the consequential damages? The ISP gets out of it likely because it's in their TOS/AUP, but the RIAA/MPAA would be directly responsible for the tort since they are well aware of the outcome of their complaint to the ISP.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Hard to catch violators? So don't try I see way too many here subscribe to the theory: if malefactors are hard to catch, then don't bother. And people wonder why criminality is rampant in the US. So crime is OK if it is hard to catch the criminals.

deadzoned

Premium Member

join:2005-04-13

Cypress, TX deadzoned Premium Member More going on.. There is no way that the ISP's and the RIAA/MPAA have agreed to do something like this together if it is not directly benefiting them all in some way.



All of the entities involved in this little endeavor have long histories of putting profits above all else. My guess - Fat Checks to the ISP's in exchange for data collection and delivery to the MPAA/RIAA.



Absolutely no way that they all agreed to voluntarily do something of this magnitude without specific and tangible benefits.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus Member EL OH EL? I'm loving this, they are incredibly desperate. They really, really wish progress just stopped for their sake.



Well, it's too bad. You can write all the laws you want, sue everyone into oblivion, it doesn't matter, you've already "lost" (quotes are needed because they still make very little investments and get more returns than almost everyone in the planet)



I do have to thank the RIAA and MPAA for showing us who the government works for. Not that a lot of us didn't know this already with the "war on drugs", but still, a nice reminder. (War on drugs perfect analogy, the user is treated like a criminal. And hey, the 30,000+ body count in Mexico is bad... but drugs are worst right? so it's worth it!)



AlexNYC

join:2001-06-02

Edwards, CO AlexNYC Member Good luck with that ... Another futile attempt to control file sharing ... proxy, VPN, encrypted connections, USENET ... somehow I don't see this new thing making much of a difference.



Good luck!



kdwycha

join:2003-01-30

Ruskin, FL kdwycha Member Well.... I don't even read my verizon.net email and have not for years! If they started sending me warnings I would have no clue I was getting warnings. I use my gmail email address.

cornelius785

join:2006-10-26

Worcester, MA cornelius785 Member A sad sad day Maybe it's time to COMPLETELY shun anything big media. just don't watch it, buy it, pirate it, look at it, rent it, etc. maybe then they'll get the hint that absurdly huge salaries and raping customers at every corner isn't a good business plan.



Transmaster

Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20

Cheyenne, WY Transmaster Member As long as I can get my documentary shows from the UK I'll be happy. I don't download movies, and I get my music from iTunes. I have a certain pleasure in iTunes because I know iTunes has the minions of the RIAA by the 'nads and I am very careful to only get music from indie bands that are not indentured servants to the studios and there are a lot of them on iTunes. I like the percentages they are getting paid as well. What is going to be interesting is cloud storage. Apple has already indicated on their paid accounts what you store there is your business. Apple is paying the recording industry for the right to have these remote files so in a sense Apple is going to monetize bootleg music. Of course the RIAA won't see it that way

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26

Springfield, MO TheRogueX Member Charge us? The ISPs should bill the RIAA and MPAA for any charges incurred in setting up and maintaining these new systems. They're the ones demanding the new plan, after all, so they should have to pay for it.



Only logical, right?



cork1958

Cork

Premium Member

join:2000-02-26 cork1958 Premium Member Re: Charge us? Somebody needs to "educate" the RIAA and MPAA. What century are those idiots still living in anyway?