Anonymous01
@comcast.net
| Comcast Letter...COPYRIGHT Infringement
I just got a letter from comcast saying the following:
COMCAST
Notice of Action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Abuse Incedent Number: XXXXXX
Report Date/Time: March XXXXXXXXXXXX
ADDRESS
Dear Comcast High-Speed Internet Subscriber:
Comcast has received a notification of claimed infringement made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"). This notification, made by a copyright owner or its authorized agent, reports an alleged infringement of one or more copyrighted works made on or over Comcast's High-Speed Internet service (the” Service"). The works identified in the notification of claimed infringement are listed below. In accordance with the DMCA and Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy, Comcast request that you immediately remove the alleged infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access to the works.
If you believe in good faith that the allegedly infringing works have been removed or blocked by mistake or misidentification, then you may send a counter notification to Comcast. Upon Comcast's receipt of a counter notification that satisfies the requirements of the DMCA, Comcast will provide a copy of the counter notification to the party who sent the original notification of claimed infringement. We will then follow the DMCA's procedures with respect to a received counter notification.
For more information regarding Comcast's copyright infringement policy, procedures, and contact information, please read our Acceptable Use Policy by clicking on the Terms of Service link at »www.comcast.net.
Sincerely,
Comcast Network Abuse and Observance Team
Copyright work(s) identified in the notification of claimed infringement:
Title: Scarface
Infringement Source: BitTorrent
Initial Infringement Timestamp: April XX
Recent Infringement Timestamp: April XX
Infringer Username:
Infringing Filename: Scarface..xxxxxxxx
Infringing Filesize: 1458304667
Infringers IP Address: XX.XXX.XX.XXX
Ingringers DNS name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXcomcast.net
Infringing URL: XX.XXX.XX.XXX:
WHAT SHOULD I DO? SHOULD I REPLY TO THEM OR NOT? ALSO...I NEVER EVEN HAD THE COMPLETE FILE...HELP... |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| do what I did.
send an acknowledgement that you got the email, and that's it. Don't admit to actually doing anything. Don't deny anything. Just acknowledge the email and dont worry about it.
Really.
You're fine, don't worry about it.
--
low cost public gameservers www.clanpubs.net |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs:
| reply to Anonymous01
said by Anonymous01:
WHAT SHOULD I DO? SHOULD I REPLY TO THEM OR NOT? ALSO...I NEVER EVEN HAD THE COMPLETE FILE...HELP...
QUIT SHARING AND THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU.
ALSO, WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS NOT HELPING.
--
AIM | irc.removed.us - #dslr | dslr@removed.us |
|
Vivi
Mr Happy
join:2002-07-28
MD
| reply to Anonymous01
Oh man it's like I said: BITORRENT IS INSECURE! What don't people understand about that? It's now worth the risk. That's actually the place with the most surveilence, not kazza. It's annoying as hell to be bothered with those greedy bastards I know, but play it safe. |
|
Anonymous01
@comcast.net | reply to Anonymous01
I would acknowledge the email...but thing is...it was an official letter i got...no email... |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Just send an email to the abuse dept. for Comcast and don't wory. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to Anonymous01
Don't send anything, it doesn't matter the only time it will matter is if you get 2 more, then your account will be suspended for "abuse" and you'll get a call to discuss the issue.
--
Forum Posts:4326 |
|
Anonymous01
@comcast.net | reply to jsouth
What should i say in the email back? |
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| said by Anonymous01:
What should i say in the email back?
"Say hello to my little friends!"
--
[BBR] Jehu | BBR SOCOM
Listen to better music. |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| reply to Anonymous01
said by Anonymous01:
What should i say in the email back?
I deleted the file, sorry for the inconvenience I caused.:)
--
Science-fiction yesterday, fact today, obsolete tomorrow. - Otto O. Binder |
|
Jarmann
Will eat for food
Premium
join:2003-05-25
clubs:
| reply to Anonymous01
The letter says:
..immediately remove the alleged infringing works from the Service or Comcast will be forced to remove or block access to the works.
You said you never finished the file. So what's the prob? File removed, just like they asked for. Just send an email declaring that you do not have the the file on your PC. Just don't mention that you've ever had it, or that you have removed it. Capiche? |
|
Karajabola
Premium
join:2003-02-22
MI, USA
clubs: | So then, here's my question. Should I worry about using usenet for files? |
|
Jarmann
Will eat for food
Premium
join:2003-05-25
clubs:
| said by Karajabola  :
So then, here's my question. Should I worry about using usenet for files?
downloading is fine, so for now: no worries  |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | reply to Anonymous01
usenet is fine, if you're worried then get a pay service. Justify it like this - you probably get more value (and security) out of paying $10/mo.
--
low cost public gameservers www.clanpubs.net |
|
Lieodes
@swbell.ne
| reply to Anonymous01
About comcast warning, that was a warning for a movie download I had the same thing. The movie industry is only sending out warnings to movie downloaders, they won't sue you. They will just email your provider and they will war you 3 times then cut your service off. If you want to download movies goto efnet orsome movie channel on irc where you don't have to upload it. Also bittorrent is safe to get apps or games so far they haven't been going after downloaders like the music and movie picture industry have.
Don't stress they did that to me over a year ago.
|
|
Anonymous01
@comcast.net | reply to Anonymous01
thanks for the replies =) i guess i wont be writing them back then... |
|
add14pw
join:2004-01-26
1 edit | reply to Anonymous01
It's impossible for Comcast to have received a valid DMCA infringement notice from a copyright holder for a Bit Torrent stream. Bit Torrent streams are not hosted on the computers of the ISP.
I suggest that you reply noting:
1. You have no knowledge of the claimed infringement and have confirmed that the file mentioned is not currently available via Bit Torrent through any computer attached to a Comcast system which is in your control. Were the DMCA to apply in this situation, you believe that this notice satisfies the requirement that Comcast ensure that the material is removed expeditiously. (and make sure that this is true at the time you write it - this part tells Comcast that there is no outstanding issue for them to deal with so even if they agree with the RIAA, they have no reason to disconnect you! Note that the law says they must act expeditiously, not immediately, but at least one writer suggests telling the customer to act immediately.)
2. Ask that they note the invalidity of such DMCA notifications in the light of the District of Columbia RIAA v. Verizon decision of December 20, 2003, which confirmed that 512(a) transitory communications through the Comcast network are not subject to the 512(c) take down, 512(g) put back and 512(h) identification subpoena provisions of the DMCA. The decision can be found at »www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon···1219.pdf (PDF document)
3. Ask that they confirm that they have not received, or if they have received, have not improperly responded to, an invalid 512(h) subpoena to identify you on the basis of an invalid 512(c) notification.
4. This reply from you is not a DMCA counter-notification because no valid DMCA infringement notice has been served to Comcast or you and no DMCA action is lawfully required from either of you.
5. Ask Comcast to inform the notifying party that their DMCA notification is invalid, citing the RIAA v. Verizon decision as the reason and also including your statement that you have confirmed that the work is not available from your systems, so it's a moot point whether it applies or not.
For background you should read the 512(a) and 512(h) sections of the Wikipedia article about the DMCA/OCILLA and the current state of the case (the RIAA tried appealing and was turned down by the court) at the EFF.
If you want to reduce the chance of legal action against you, you should only use part 1 - there's a chance that the party which sent the notice will try to make an example of you if you send the rest. The RIAA is undoubtedly not happy that its tactic of sending invalid DMCA notices to scare people is losing in court.
I'm not a lawyer, we do not have a lawyer-client relationship and this is not legal advice.
I hereby dedicate this post to the public domain. It may be freely quoted as necessary to respond to such questions in the future. Before using it, please check the EFF page to ensure that later action in the case,like a successful RIAA appeal, hasn't made it incorrect! |
|
add14pw
join:2004-01-26
| reply to Lieodes
It's worth remembering that section 512(i) of the DMCA/OCILLA requires that the ISP have a policy to terminate the accounts of those who repeatedly receive valid infringement notices. It's worth telling your ISP that the notice is not a valid infringement notice and ask them to note that since it is invalid, their DMCA requirement to have an account termination policy for repeat DMCA offenders does not apply in this case. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to add14pw
said by add14pw :
It's impossible for Comcast to have received a valid DMCA infringement notice from a copyright holder for a Bit Torrent stream. Bit Torrent streams are not hosted on the computers of the ISP.
It doesn't matter who hosts the initial stream as he was downloading he was also uploading the file to everyone else therefore making himself a host of the file
Also if he gets multiple DMCA/RIAA complaints his connection WILL be terminated regardless of any arguments he might have about it.
The TOS basically states that Comcast holds the sole right to terminate any subscriber at any time for any reason. Comcast would rather terminate the customer then waste legal money sorting out the issue.
Bottom line - If you don't want to risk getting yourself in trouble, don't upload copyrighted material.
--
Forum Posts:4326 |
|
add14pw
join:2004-01-26
| You're right that the location of the host for the initial stream doesn't matter and for that reason I didn't mention the location of the initial stream host.
Where this customer was hosting it does matter, because it affects which parts of the DMCA/OCILLA apply. If it was on the computer of the subscriber it was a 512(a) situation (just network connectivity) and there is no provision for DMCA takedown notices.
If the stream was instead hosted from personal web space allocated to the account, that would allow a valid DMCA takedown notice under 512(c).
If the holder of the peer to peer file distribution rights wants to take action in these 512(a) situations, they can do it via the usual process, a John Doe court action to obtain identity and then normal infringement action. That's what the appeal decision in the Verizon case told the RIAA to do. That's more expensive than sending inapplicable DMCA infringement notices, so it isn't surprising that some copyright holders choose to use invalid DMCA notices instead.
Comcast, of course, could decide to terminate the account even though the action isn't DMCA-related. Personally, I hope that it wouldn't do so on the basis of invalid DMCA notices. Sending invalid legal notices isn't much of a testament to the accuracy and credibility of the claims of the complaining party.
I wrote "peer to peer file distribution rights" instead of just "copyright" above because it is unclear whether some music labels were ever assigned either those rights or general internet distribution rights. Copyright in the US isn't a single lump these days. Some sources have reported that no person who asked for proof that the infringement complainant actually has the peer to peer rights has yet had legal action taken against them, suggesting that the record companies are well aware of this problem and are trying to dodge it or at least the work it would take to work out whether they do actually have the rights. |
|
