U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

September 27, 2010 -

While it sounds like something that might emerge from France’s Hadopi law, a suspected copyright infringer had his account suspended for six months by his Internet service provider in the United States.

According to TorrentFreak, a customer of the ISP Suddenlink had his account deactivated after a trio of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices of copyright violations. In a chat log posted on the site the affected customer is arguing with a Suddenlink representative, who implied that the DMCA forces such a disconnection, though that comment was quickly amended to, “It may be the DMCA policy or it may be the way we go about following the DMCA guidelines.”

As TorrentFreak notes, “The DMCA does not and never has required ISPs to disconnect users.” A phrase used in Suddenlink’s Terms of Service agreement does not mention a three-strike policy per se, but alludes to what might happen if copyright laws were broached:

If you continue to transfer Copyrighted Material illegally, you are violating Suddenlink’s policies and Suddenlink may take further action, including limiting your Internet download capacity, suspending or terminating your account, or a range of other measures.

Suddenlink claimed that they were “within their rights” to take such measures, which TorrentFreak labeled “an extreme measure.”


Comments

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

I find it funny an ISP is turning away a paying customer.... here's a thought have a policy as so anyone who uses to much of the service move up a plan because they use to much bandwidth or something....


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

 Right because the person using high amounts of bandwith is always going to be an illegal downloader.  Unless there is a clause in the agreement that sets a cap on bandwith then there is no reason the ISP can go against one heavy user over another.  In this case, the heavy user could also be a netflix streaming movie addict who streams 5-10 movies a week or someone who enjoys buying video games over digital download services such as Steam or downloading demos on PS3 to try out every game available.  It is simply not practical to distinguish between infringing activity and non-infringing activity because to do so you would have to monitor individual use.  

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

First of all, an infringment notice means nothing legally. It is simply a document stating that a content owner believes a given user has infringed upon the content owner's intellectual property. It has to be proven in a court before you can say that the user actually infringed. There is no infringment without conviction. That is the first thing wrong with what Suddenlink did.

Second issue is that Suddenlink is opening themselves up to legal attack, by directly intervening they may be implicitly giving up their safe harbor provision protections. Once they start policing their user's copyright infringment the content owners can sue THEM for not doing a better job or for allowing it to happen.

Third, Suddenlink should be protecting the people who pay them, i.e. that customer who shells out money every month to recieve internet service. Why should they lose business over a DMCA notice? They are shooting themselves in the foot here, not only losing business, not only engendering customer ill will, but all to service a content owner who provides them with nothing but the cost of forwarding a DMCA notice. To add insult to injury a DMCA notice does NOT mean that actual infringement has taken place.

It saddens me when I read these types of articles. I don't know why some businesses feel obligated to act against their own best interests in cases like this. Are you a Suddenlink customer? Then I would start looking for a new ISP.

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

I think this is a case of both sides being in the wrong. The customer should have been illegally downloading copyrighted materials, but the isp did not gad the right to disconnect the user like that (with regards to what the DMCA states).

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

Again, you're assuming, without any evidence to back it up, that the copyright holders' allegations are correct and the user actually WAS illegally downloading copyrighted materials.

Where's the proof?  Innocent until proven guilty.

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

Well what I read in the original artical on torrent freak the person in question wasn't making any counter clams to the DMCA notices.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: U.S. ISP Disconnects User after Three-Strikes

Makes no difference. Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Why would you continue to download after receiving notices?

I do not support the position of the ISP that it is somehow OK to shut off a user after sending a specified number of DMCA notices.  However, I think any prudent downloader would seriously get shaken up by receiving one notice, let alone two.  While the DMCA may not require the ISP to cut off a user, at a certain point the user should use the notices as confirmation that he is no longer an anonymous user in the sea of downloaders.  Instead, you are now a watched user who some large company knows is engaging in illegal downloading.  

When you continue to download after receiving such notices, it sends the message that you don't care about the consequences.  I have known people who terminated downloading completely after receiving one notice directly from the copyright holder of material they like to post online.  Once you receive that notice, you may as well terminate all copyright infringement or at the very least switch ISPs.   

Re: Why would you continue to download after receiving ...

You're operating under the assumption that the user actually WAS engaging in copyright infringement.  Maybe he was, but there have been plenty of examples of DMCA takedown notices and RIAA lawsuits against people who were innocent.

On the other hand, you've indirectly pointed out how this is going to escalate: as ISP's start disconnecting pirates, pirates will start using encryption and proxies.

Re: Why would you continue to download after receiving ...

So basically if your download activity is a little high or you, gasp, when to a torrent site, they label you as guilty and try to have yoru srvice shut off, or make you pay more than you make in a year.

Re: Why would you continue to download after receiving ...

Pretty much, yeah.  Until somebody actually takes it to court instead of settling.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corphttp://www.polygon.com/2015/7/27/9050375/street-fighter-5-beta-offline-delayed Street Fighter 5 beta taken offline, now postponed indefinitely07/27/2015 - 9:51pm
Goth_Skunk@eZeek: Noooooooooo.... ;)07/27/2015 - 8:44pm
MechaTama31Re: Google+, wow. I never in a million years thought they would backpedal on that. I just resigned myself to not using commenting functions on any of their services.07/27/2015 - 6:21pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, are you saying all women are fat. ;)07/27/2015 - 5:38pm
benohawkMake it more adorable and more gender neutral! Widescreen Dog and 16:9 their 16 kitten sidekicks07/27/2015 - 5:15pm
Goth_SkunkOr, if you prefer, Widescreen Woman.07/27/2015 - 4:12pm
Goth_SkunkWho will save us from this abominable practice?! Introducing WIDESCREEN MAN and his sidekick 16:9!07/27/2015 - 4:10pm
Andrew EisenInteresting coincidence. I tweeted about the evils of vertically oriented video just last night. https://twitter.com/AndrewEisen/status/62549836960397312007/27/2015 - 4:01pm
PHX Corphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ_I9-CkzDE The Great Atari Ransack (The Jimquisition) Warning Vertical video syndrome in one scene07/27/2015 - 3:40pm
MattsworknameBout time google07/27/2015 - 3:33pm
james_fudgeugh. TG man :)07/27/2015 - 1:15pm
MechaCrashGoogle drops Google+ requirements for YouTube and other services: http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/27/google-is-dropping-its-google-requirement-across-all-products-starting-with-youtube/07/27/2015 - 12:55pm
benohawkThat still isn't Steam pay royalties. At best it is Bethesda not being willing to relicense the music,07/27/2015 - 12:51pm
Infophile(cont'd) different service. This often happened with TV shows, where music was only licensed for broadcast, but not for DVD release. So for many older shows, they either have to relicense it or use different/no music for the DVD release.07/27/2015 - 12:36pm
Infophile@benohawk: It most likely comes down to the original licensing agreement for the music in it. Often those agreements only license it for the medium it first releases in, so it has to be re-licensed if it's rereleased in a different form or through a ...07/27/2015 - 12:35pm
benohawkWhy would steam be paying royalties on anything in quake?07/27/2015 - 12:01pm
black mantaI recommend using the KMQuake II patch which supports .ogg music files, then downloading the music from someplace, then dropping it in to a music folder into the \baseq2 directory.07/27/2015 - 10:32am
black mantaI got Quake 2 during the Steam Quakecon sale. Funny thing is, there's no music for it! Guess Steam didn't want to pay the royalty fees or something.07/27/2015 - 10:30am
black mantaLike EZK, I also have a backlog of games. Right now I'm playing Crysis 3 for the first time, and replaying Quake 2.07/27/2015 - 10:29am
E. Zachary KnightZippy, No. It is because I have a backlog of games a mile long and have not bought to many new games, which includes Mass Effect.07/27/2015 - 9:28am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician