sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Qwest blocking users without passing along DMCA notices
I just got blocked by Qwest twice in two weeks for illegally downloading, without ever being notified beforehand or telling us exactly what the file in question was. The first time they claimed that they sent an email, which of course we were unable to read because the internet was blocked, but once they unblocked us, there was no email. This time, they claimed that they sent an email the first time but couldn't guarantee that it was delivered, then backtracked and said that they don't send such emails, that they can just block people at will. I insisted that they had to tell us what we were accused of downloading and was told that "they have more lawyers than me" and that they didn't have to. Finally, someone agreed to send an email and after verifying that they unblocked us again and that the email was sent, I got off the phone with them. Turns out they had received 5 DMCA notices from NBC/Universal (twice in one day one time), all about a single episode of The Office, but had not passed along any of them. Isn't that illegal not to notify us of these DMCA notices? I talked to a friend who used to work with Qwest and he said that it was policy while he was there not to pass such notices along. Anyway, I thought potential or current customers might be interested in these probably illegal practices of Qwest, which I'm sure are another in a long list of such practices, such as when their salesperson blatantly lied to me 3 years ago about the speeds of the internet service they were selling me. |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
1 edit | I'm not aware of any legal requirement to notify an infringer before shutting them down: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop···tion_Act
The law also requires that an ISP cut off repeat infringers and makes no provisions for any minimum time interval to be considered more than one infringement act. Since there's plenty of case law to support each unauthorized sharing to be a separate infringement, you aren't going to get very far arguing that twice in one day shouldn't be considered two events.
Sounds like you got spanked and didn't like it. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Umm, Look at Step 5 in your link: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop···_example
That's the step they never did. The DMCA is well-understood and used by now, I can't help it if the morons at Qwest choose not to comply. Kinda hard to be a repeat infringer when I was never notified of my precise infringement. I only received notification after being cut off twice and insisting that they pass along the DMCA notices. I didn't argue that twice in one day shouldn't be considered two events, but now that you mention it, that is ridiculous. If NBC notified them twice in one day about the same file and they never notified me, I'm pretty sure that will not be considered two events in any court of law. Sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about and just like to mouth off: do you work for Qwest by any chance? Cuz you sound just like the woman I just talked to in your willingness to make statements while remaining wholly ignorant. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Your "step 5" is a theoretical example of how such an action might be played out regarding a site that hosted copyrighted material.
There's no legal requirement to notify before shutting down service in response to a DMCA complaint. Also note the Qwest TOS- you'd have been in violation of that too.
You got busted and got your hand slapped. Don't play the victim. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| It's not a theoretical example, it's what the law requires. Let me quote you another section of that wikipedia page:
"After the notice has been complied with the OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action.[18] Note that the OSP is not prohibited from doing so in advance, only required to do so afterward. If there is a counter notification from the alleged infringer, the OSP must respond appropriately to it."
I'm sure all this is spelled out exactly in the legalese, as it's exactly the procedure that's followed at every webhost and ISP that I've heard of. It's fascinating that Qwest acts like they have some loophole out of this law, more likely they just don't have proper policies in place and the employees I talked to are completely ignorant. I'm not playing the victim, I'm accusing Qwest of breaking the law in how they're handling these situations. Funny how you dimwits keep defending Qwest when there's much precedent and legalese to back up what I'm saying, if you'd only bother to read it before making your obtuse statements. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| said by sprewell  :It's not a theoretical example, it's what the law requires. Let me quote you another section of that wikipedia page: "After the notice has been complied with the OSP must take reasonable steps to promptly notify the alleged infringer of the action.[18] Note that the OSP is not prohibited from doing so in advance, only required to do so afterward. If there is a counter notification from the alleged infringer, the OSP must respond appropriately to it." I'm sure all this is spelled out exactly in the legalese, as it's exactly the procedure that's followed at every webhost and ISP that I've heard of. It's fascinating that Qwest acts like they have some loophole out of this law, more likely they just don't have proper policies in place and the employees I talked to are completely ignorant. I'm not playing the victim, I'm accusing Qwest of breaking the law in how they're handling these situations. Funny how you dimwits keep defending Qwest when there's much precedent and legalese to back up what I'm saying, if you'd only bother to read it before making your obtuse statements. An OSP referrs to an entity hosting content, not delivering it as in an ISP. In the case of an OSP, notification need not be before service is interrupted, and doesn't have to involve forwarding the actual DCMA notification.
»www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
Question: Must the reciever of a take-down notice notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice?
Answer: No. Nothing in the DMCA requires the reciever of a take-down notice to notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice. The DMCA only requires a service provider to notify the subscriber that the material has been removed or access to the material has been disabled, in cases where the allegedly infringing material is residing on the network controlled or operated by service provider at the discretion of the subscriber. [17 U.S.C. 512(g)(2)(A)] Rather than throwing around insults, perhaps you'd best review the law yourself before claiming to be a victim of lawbreaking.
You got busted infringing copyright and violating the Qwest Terms of Service. Deal with the consequences of your own actions and perhaps learn from them. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| In this case, the relevant OSP is the ISP, just as a content creator can give a DMCA notice to a network/data center provider who would then pass it along to the appropriate webhost who's serving the content. It's hilarious that you chose to quote that FAQ as the actual quoted question refers to whether the OSP must notify the content creator, not the infringer. However, in passing, it specifically says that the alleged infringer, "the subscriber," has to be notified of the infringement. This is so that they can file a counter-notice if necessary, I suggest you read the referenced legalese at 512g2A, as I just have. I never received any notice of infringement and was refused notice, until I kept insisting that they had to do it and they finally capitulated. In this case, it appears that my insult was valid as you keep making claims that are specious and contradicted by your own evidence. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for you to learn that you have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Fine- I quoted the wrong section. Meanwhile, you have quoted nothing to support your contention that they broke any law in suspending your account without prior notification.
If you had read the relevant statutes as you (almost certainly falsely) claim, you'd know that there is no requirement to notify the infringer in advance. I'm unaware of any specific timeframe for such notification to be made after the fact.
You got busted. Man up and take responsibility for your actions rather than whining about the consequences. You should be thankful you're not facing the prospect of an expensive lawsuit. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| I have provided repeated quotes and provided you with the exact section of the law, that you can easily read by following the same link from the bottom of the wikipedia page that I did. If you're too dense to do so, that's your problem, not mine. However, you keep repeating that advance notification is unnecessary, so that's presumably what you're hanging your hat on. But other than an offhand comment in my original post, I haven't even been hammering on advance notice, just any notice. In fact, in my first response to you, I specifically quoted a block of text that said advance notice was not necessary and I haven't mentioned advance notice since. It's immaterial what timeframe Qwest has for notification after the fact as they refused all notification whatsoever!
I have never once whined about the consequences because there are none. I'm pointing out Qwest's illegal behavior to others so they can avoid this shitty company. I'm not worried about any lawsuits as that will get them nowhere, just as this entire legal strategy of suing your customers has gotten them exactly nowhere. Times have changed, they need to come up with a better content strategy rather than desperately clinging to the past. It won't matter much as internet video will soon kill off NBC and their ilk. |
|
CopperMonkey
join:2007-12-18
united state
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb :» www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgiQuestion: Must the reciever of a take-down notice notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice?
Answer: No. Nothing in the DMCA requires the reciever of a take-down notice to notify the sender of the action it takes regarding the notice. The DMCA only requires a service provider to notify the subscriber that the material has been removed or access to the material has been disabled, in cases where the allegedly infringing material is residing on the network controlled or operated by service provider at the discretion of the subscriber. [17 U.S.C. 512(g)(2)(A)] I think this is all anyone needs to know. Qwest doesn't have notify you of anything. I hate copyright laws as much as the next person, but I'm not going to slander a company over enforcing them, regardless of if they actually notify me or not. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Jeez, do you guys understand english? Let me quote you the relevant portion of that FAQ that you decided to quote to me again. "The DMCA only requires a service provider to notify the subscriber that the material has been removed or access to the material has been disabled." I received no such notification, before, after or whenever, until I insisted that they had to notify me and broke through their stonewalling, although they still insisted they didn't have to. If you actually look at the section of the DMCA referenced, the reason they have to tell me what the supposedly infringing file is so that I have a chance to file a counternotice if it's not infringing. The first part of the chillingeffects FAQ refers to the content creator: Qwest doesn't have to notify NBC of what they did. They do have to notify me, the subscriber. |
|
CopperMonkey
join:2007-12-18
united state
| said by sprewell :I received no such notification, before, after or whenever, until I insisted that they had to notify me and broke through their stonewalling, although they still insisted they didn't have to. You still don't understand what the quoted part means. They are required to notify you that they cut you off, but they DO NOT have to notify you why they are doing it or what file they suspect you downloaded. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| No, you don't understand that that FAQ is incomplete, as it leaves unclear if the material has to be named, which is why I also said you guys should read the referenced section of the law. Funny how you go from saying they don't have to notify me of anything to incorrectly claiming they just don't have to name the file. However, if you actually read the relevant section of the DMCA or had any knowledge whatsoever of the loads of cases that have been written up ad nauseum in the press, they are absolutely required to notify me of what the infringing file is, as that's the whole point. I'm supposed to be able to file a counternotice for the infringing file if I claim it's non-infringing, in which case they're supposed to put it back up within a certain timeframe, given certain conditions. Please read the the relevant sections of the DMCA and stop talking out of your ass, it took me 2 mins. You guys've brought your intellectual knives to a gunfight, with how dumb your arguments are. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to sprewell
hey, I'm just a caveman. how did all this get started? prior to someone deciding if they did or didn't need to notify you, did you download copyrighted material without the permission of and without compensation to the copyright owner? yes or no. I'm not making any value judgments, I just don't understand how of all their millions of customers, somebody fingered you. |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| Umm, customers don't finger people, NBC fingers people. NBC must be monitoring peer-to-peer networks and they claim that I was infringing, so they sent several DMCA notices to Qwest saying so. Qwest didn't pass along any of this information and blocked me twice. At first they claimed they sent the info, then claimed they couldn't be held responsible if it wasn't delivered, then said they do not send the info, then sent the info while still claiming they didn't have to. However, according to the same law which NBC is using, Qwest has to notify me of exactly what the allegedly infringing files are, at some point. Qwest, or at least their idiot representative that I talked to on the phone, is however claiming that they do not have to do so and it appears to be their company policy from what I can tell. Needless to say, potential or Qwest current customers would be interested to know that Qwest pulls such gestapo tactics of blocking your internet with no notice whatsoever, only to claim they don't have to follow the law. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| said by sprewell : they claim that I was infringing Was NBC correct that you were infringing? |
|
sprewell
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Phoenix, AZ
| That's irrelevant, I thought you didn't want to make any "value judgments" and just wanted to figure out how we got fingered? There are 5 people living in this house and using 3 different computers, who knows what's going on at any given time. What's ridiculous is that Qwest then expects us to figure that out without ever naming what the actual infringement was. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| said by sprewell : and just wanted to figure out how we got fingered? that's right. got to do this step by step. you said there are 5 people living in your house. let's start with you. did you yourself download something that triggered all the activity? |
|
adsldude
always learning
Premium,Ex-Mod 2003-9
join:2000-11-10
Colorado
| reply to sprewell
said by sprewell :That's irrelevant, I thought you didn't want to make any "value judgments" and just wanted to figure out how we got fingered? There are 5 people living in this house and using 3 different computers, who knows what's going on at any given time. What's ridiculous is that Qwest then expects us to figure that out without ever naming what the actual infringement was. I agree that if an upstream provider takes action on a user then the user should be told why the action was taken especially if the TOS was violated. I also believe that all parties need to be responsible for their actions including the end users.
If you have 5 people using the same connection then you have to have "house rules" and all users should be aware of, and abide by, the service provider's TOS. If the group doesn't have the skills or desire to adhere to "house rules" and violates the TOS of the upstream provider then this is the result.
You most likely got fingered by IP address for whatever TOS violation occurred. An IP address is easily traceable to the end user if direct connections are made. The only way to avoid direct connections is to use a 3rd party proxy service. BTW, a 3rd party proxy service will have a TOS too. |
|
questionable
join:2005-10-18
Phoenix, AZ
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to sprewell
said by sprewell :Turns out they had received 5 DMCA notices from NBC/Universal (twice in one day one time), all about a single episode of The Office, but had not passed along any of them. Isn't that illegal not to notify us of these DMCA notices? didn't you actually say you know what the infringement was about. Might have taken some time but now you know. Who watches "The Office" I would assume that is who did it. |
|
