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 :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician