US ISP Disconnects Alleged Pirates for 6 Months

Ernesto
September 24, 2010
182
Suddenlink,
three strikes
Print

The United States Internet Service provider Suddenlink has effectively implemented a three-strikes policy for repeated copyright infringers. After three DMCA notices, alleged copyright infringers are disconnected from the Internet for six months, without a refund. According to a company representative, the DMCA requires them to take such drastic measures.

suddenlink Just a few days ago France started warning thousands of file-sharers as part of the controversial Hadopi anti-piracy law that was introduced there earlier this year. Upon receiving their third warning, alleged copyright infringers will lose their internet connection for several weeks.

Across the pond in the United States, there is an Internet provider that has single-handedly implemented a similar scheme. Suddenlink, one of the top 10 cable companies in the country, disconnects subscribers for six months after they have received three DMCA notices. According to a company representative, Suddenlink is required to take this action under the DMCA.

TorrentFreak has been in contact with one of the customers who had his Internet connection disconnected for three alleged copyright violations. The affected subscriber provided detailed chatlogs with Suddenlink where the following explanation for the drastic measure is given.

Customer: I want to reconnect my internet service. They said I got 3 DMCA letters and they said that by law I had to be disconnected. Is that true?

Suddenlink rep: Yes, your internet was disconnected due to DMCA. When the internet is disconnected due to DMCA, it can not be reconnected for a minimum of 6 months.

Customer: The DMCA makes that requirement?

Suddenlink rep: Yes.

Customer: So you’re stating, for the record, that by law, the DMCA law, that you have to disconnect users for receiving 3 DMCA letters?

Suddenlink rep: You have no choice in the matter.

Suddenlink rep: It is the DMCA policy that it can not be reconnected for 6 months.

Suddenlink rep: It may be the DMCA policy or it may be the way we go about following the DMCA guidelines.

Customer: The law states that?

Suddenlink rep: Once the 3rd offense occurs, it can not be reconnected for 6 months.

Suddenlink Rep: The information I have on the DMCA states: This law was enacted in 1998 to protect against illegal downloading of copyrighted material like movies, music, etc. As an Internet Service Provider (ISP), Suddenlink , and other ISPs, must implement a policy of terminating internet service of customers who repeatedly share copyrighted files.

The explanation given above is pure nonsense of course. The DMCA does not and never has required ISPs to disconnect users. For some reason Suddenlink customer support was told to communicate this lie to its users. What is true, however, is that Suddenlink will disconnect subscribers after three alleged warnings.

TorrentFreak contacted the company and we were told that this measure is hidden in their Terms of Service. Although there is no word about a three-strikes policy, we did find the following sentence that could be used to justify the disconnections.

“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.”

In reality, this means that subscribers will be disconnected from the Internet for 6 months without a refund. The subscriber we talked to was informed about the penalty over the phone and never received any documents to back it up.

Although Suddenlink’s three-strikes policy is the most extreme, the company is not the only US Internet provider that has implemented it. Cox is using a similar scheme, but with the major difference that the disconnection is limited to a few hours, not six months.

Disconnecting users based on claims of copyright holders and without any form of trial seems to be an extreme measure for a company that provides such an essential service as Internet access. Suddenlink told TorrentFreak that they are within their rights, just like Comcast said two years ago when they started blocking BitTorrent traffic.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

wtf??

and some complained about hadopi??
RouteDog

If you use this provider I would say please try to find new provider as fast as you can.
Flying Dutchman

Just give them the finger and switch ISP, problem solved =)
politux

paging 4chan.
barton71

ISP’s acting as judge, jury and executioner? What ever happened to due process? Three DMCA letters sent to a subscriber does not prove guilt. It simply means that someone in an office some place, sent three DCMA letters to a customer. Only a court of law can confer guilt on a person. There must be a law suit against the ISP here, surely?
Mikey

Vote with your dollars. They’ll cut the sh*t when their revenue dries up.
GrX

they are going to have to change their company name to

“Suddenly Disconnected”

Please take out our super fast special broadband offer and as a customer you will find that we will disconnect your internet offer no reason lie about the reason when prompted and offer no refund.

subscribe to our super fast 20mbit broadband to download movies, games, music and much much more super fast with no inconvenience other than if you use our service for the sole purpose we supply it to you for you will find yourself without internet for the next 6 months.

where do i sign up?? lol
Anonymous

I say take down their website for 6 months. Not like that’s difficult to do – just ask the RIAA.
Ninja

Oh, what a sweet sure-win lawsuit the user has here. And how Suddenlink has shot themselves in the balls, erm, feet. If it was here the options would be quite shitty but in the US there’s plenty of alternatives.

As wisely said, hit them where it hurts the most, their pockets. And don’t forget to sue ;)
Dingo_RG

quote from 3:
“Just give them the finger and switch ISP, problem solved =)”
——–

This is not so simple, idiot.

If all of you (the USA citizens) don’t do something about it, soon many USA ISPs (or maybe all) could implement these stupid measures and you will lose the right to choose.

Or maybe, don’t you realize THE FACT that Obama administration is the worst enemy of the internet in this moment?
anonymous

goes to show that there is no respect for customers at all. has any proof been presented that infringements actually took place, or is this based on hear-say from the entertainment industries? i suspect the latter. it obviously means that a person is judged guilty without definitive proof that they have committed the ‘crime’, using dubiously gathered evidence probably based on an ip address alone. i hope that a lot of people change from this internet provider, so they are under no illusion of the damage they are doing to their business. trouble is, sooner or later, there will be no internet provider to move to. when that happens, the only option left will be to forgo any internet access. maybe that will make providers realise that this sort of customer treatment is going to lead to companies failing completely. that may ultimately mean a change in attitude as well as the law. the stupidity of what is happening is not going to mean any increase in revenue for the entertainment industries, just make them more despised!
andalites

It’s also unfortunate that for several cities in my area, this is the only company around for Internet. How does one vote with their dollars then?
Brandon

Once they disconnect all of their paying customers they can file for bankruptcy…lmao…. Morons…
Milo

Idiots imo. If they’re disconnecting people without proof, they’ll lose customers. It’s been proven that false positives for stuff like this crops up fairly often:

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
Concerned Mother

If there isn’t a shit storm over this I can imagine other ISPs following suit. I knew it wouldn’t be long before the home of MPAA/RIAA caught up with France.
DeltaPan

And their customer base is within their rights to vote with their feet, suddenlink will suddenly find their customer base suddenly reduces and friends and family of those they bully may also suddenly leave suddenlink in sympathy etc.

Methinks ISP’s who refuse to bully P2P downloaders etc are going to have much more healthy profit margins in the future and suddenlink and those like them will suddenly realise they were FOOLS.

But it will all be too late and they will sudedenly start to suffer the karma they deserve!!!

Peace. : )
Wolfy

I wonder…imagine if this went to trial, and the customer showed the screenshot of this chat with the customer service rep, would the judge allow it as evidence? They allowed screenshots in the pirate bay trial…
Wolfy

My response would have been three short sentences.

1. I have a copy of the DMCA, link provided, it does not mention disconnections at all.

2. Get me your superior right now.

3. Expect to hear from my lawyer, who will kindly explain in a court of law that you cannot punish me based on the hearsay of others (well, at least not just yet).
RouteDog

Here are the states that Suddenlink covers:Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma.
Cobra

Soon to become SuddenlyBankrupt
anon6

Won’t they lose money doing this?
lol

@18 Yeah that’s exactly what I would have done. They are clearly in the wrong. Fair enough they do say that their it’s in their tos, but they are using DMCA to cover up whatever they have been paid to
aaaaaaaaaron

could you not just join a different isp, then next day? and then tell Suddenlink to eat a dick?
thermoman

Hi,

just registered suddenunlink.com domain which will point to this article in a couple of hours :)

Ciao

thermoman
MG

Don’t be afraid to give suddenlink your same thoughts you write on this board.
Milo

@23
Yes, but you’ve then lost out on cash you piad to them for net access
Pingback: [TF] US ISP Disconnects Alleged Pirates for 6 Months - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net
Anonymous

Time warner shut me off so I attempted to switch providers… just to find out it’s time warner or dsl. We have no choice in my area, luckily with a lot of complaining and playing dumb they turned my service back on :)
Pingback: illunatic's blog » Blog Archive » BTGuard – A bittorrent proxy for anonymous file transfers!
Anonymous

6 MONTH JAIL SENTENCE FOR RECORDING FILMS IN CINEMA

http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/
hmm

it all this crap started in the land of the free
Anonymous

Judge John Anderson said: ‘It may be suggested in some quarters especially among young people that this is harmless fun and film in the cinema is fair game.

It is not. Your action was a deliberate cheat on the film companies and the film industry.
Fraudulently making and distribution of copies for whatever purpose and whatever quality has the effect of depriving the film industry of revenue.

In current society it’s difficult to imagine an audience wider than the internet having access to such illegal material. Your dishonesty strikes at the heart of that industry.

This was deliberately planned and carefully executed offending which I have no doubt would have continued if you had not been caught.

I accept that there has been no fraudulent gain for you and I accept your motivation was for self-glory. However, you knew what you were doing was wrong.’
Caveman

I will download illegally until the end of times, you fuckfaces!!
hmm

what you were doing was wrong haa ya sure
Kaptain Krunch

Ar! See kids. This is why they make you sign a three year contract. They own your balls and can do whatsoever they please.
Milo

@28
Copying is not Theft
Dingo_RG

It’s incredible how ignorant and stupid are the USA citizens about their own laws, even the point that MANY of you who writing here on torrentfreak indirectly think that the free exchange of information (copyrighted or not) with others, with non-commercial purposes is an illegal act.

In fact, the USA constitution doesn’t condemn this practice.

Any person with a MINIMUM of knowledge about law, knows very well that the laws can’t be above the constitution… in other words, any law which is not based on the constitution is worthless and complete ILLEGAL.

The trick is not to argue about DMCA with the pro-copyright fascists, the trick is to declare DMCA unconstitutional, and working on this base.

DMCA is an illegal and unconstitutional law, in the same way as the racist law which was abolished in the past by Martin Luther King.

What has happened with the spirit from the USA citizens who in the past fought by the civil liberties which now you are enjoying, and which was an example for many in the world? Is this gone?

Or maybe, won’t you fight and allow that mediocre politicians as Joe Biden and his prefer puppet called Obama steal their civil liberties?

Remember the USA citizens that all this madness about “copyright infringement” began in their country, by negligence, and this is their responsibility to clean the house…
d’oh

Not good news if this sticks…

But wouldn’t they have to get you to sign a new contract with this in it?

Unless the have in the fine print that they have the right to change or alter their service at any time.

I guess the 20 10′s will go down as the law-suit decade hopefully including the great revolution of 2012… i’m giving myself chills…
Kaptain Krunch

@30 STFU!
lulz

I totally sent them threatening hatemail via proxy. You should all do the same.
Dascrilla

fight back against draconian anti-piracy companies while simultaneously demanding more from your torrent site.
http://www.sharktorrents.com, they have a verified selection of torrents as well as a search bar that indexes over 15 torrent sites to find the most popular results to your query.
http://www.sharktorrents.com
Sam

If they weren’t the only ISP here, they would have just lost my business.
Judge John Anderson

I’M gay.
Jason

Good.

And as for anyone who claims you need a “trial” to be disconnected, give me a break. Does YouTube give you a trial when they delete your account? Does the electricity company give you a trial before they cut off your power? Do cops give you a trial before they give you a parking/speeding ticket?

A private company has the right to refuse service and enforce their TOS.

Good for this ISP for actually doing so.
jd

I really get sick of the posters here who have this stupid idea that this only happens in America. What a joke. All you ever do is insult Americans because you are some kind of racist.

FACT is, our Government is corrupt, and they get reelected because they get big money from these big corporations…. such as the RIAA/MPAA.
Anonymous

Major Areas of Operation: Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma

Corporate Headquarters: St. Louis, MO

Regional Headquarters: Greenville, NC; Charleston, WV; Tyler, TX; Lubbock, TX

Customer Call Centers: Greenville, NC; Parkersburg, WV; Lubbock, TX; Tyler, TX

Employees: 5,036

Annual Revenue: $1.565 billion2

Revenue Generating Units: 2.93 million3

Customer Relationships: 1.265 million3
cofree

Major Areas of Operation: Texas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma

Corporate Headquarters: St. Louis, MO

Regional Headquarters: Greenville, NC; Charleston, WV; Tyler, TX; Lubbock, TX

Customer Call Centers: Greenville, NC; Parkersburg, WV; Lubbock, TX; Tyler, TX

Employees: 5,036

Annual Revenue: $1.565 billion2

Revenue Generating Units: 2.93 million3

Customer Relationships: 1.265 million3
Gargamel

Land of the un-free strikes again lol.
GrX

and after this news goes main stream

Corp HQ burned down
employes n/a (most fearing for their lives lol)

Annual revenenue: nothing no customers means no money

customer anti-relationships 1.265 million + 10 billion more people who knows to keep well clear of this stupid isp

suddenly they will find themselves out of business lol

offering a service that is provided for no other reason but to download then terminating your inet for doing just that??????

these people must think when people get cut off they don’t talk about it on social sites news blogs etc they must think people will just coninue to fund them and pay them every month their disconnected lol

has it really got this bad that company’s supplying a service is now yanking it away for using it???

is it really that bad company’s who survive of nothing more than customers using their service think by denying customers that service they will continue to keep paying??
Dark06

I just got disconnected from them and contacted a good lawyer friend about it.

He told me that at the stage that the FCC , net neutrality and all things copyright are right now it could easily take over a decade to sort something like this.

He told me while theres no law that says you have to do this there is no law saying you cant do it either.

It is a very big iffy gray area
Kermit The Toad

@41 Jason, You have no friends right? This company is loosing long term customers by doing what they are doing. If they were smart, they would provide service to their customer base and quit trying to please the anti p2p community.
Dingo_RG

quote from 42:
“I really get sick of the posters here who have this stupid idea that this only happens in America.”
——————

Nobody here has said that… That if is a verifiable fact is that all this madness BEGAN in USA, [sarcasm]the land of the free[/sarcasm], as also the financial crisis…

Why are you think that the rest of the world is obligated to pay for the crimes from USA and supporting its absurd wars?
NetUnneutrality

As a Suddenlink customer, I can’t believe that they would decide to take up the role of judge, jury, and executioner like this. I’m going to vote with my wallet and switch ISPs.

Oh wait, I can’t. They’re the only cable company in town, and no one offers Fiber or fast DSL.

How exactly does the US have enough competition such that Net Neutrality isn’t necessary?
GrX

your all blinded by “the internet”

oh wait i can’t they’re the only cable company in town that offers fibre or fast DSL

the whole point your getting this service in the first place is to download nothing more nothing less otherwise why would anyone need fast internet fibre DSL????

some people here are “well it’s good that they’ve done this”

and i am sat here thinking they no doubt have super fast broadband which they are paying a shitload a month for as is everyone else lol

so why if your against downloading media do you need or even want fast internet or even broadband connections for that matter?

i’m sorry but if i buy a service that is designed and created for the purpose of fast downloads and i’m paying a shitload of money a month for this service i’m going to get my money’s worth as is everyone who has broadband
Doink

land of the living dead
Jason

@48: Of course, it is big business for ISP’s to support piracy. That was exactly U2′s manager’s contention and he was lambasted for it by pirates just like you.

I admire this ISP for having the balls to stand up and do what’s right, rather than just what brings in the most customers. They will be on the right side of history.
Dingo_RG

quote from 41:
“A private company has the right to refuse service and enforce their TOS.”
——————

Idiot.

The “private company” has totally lost this right when its TOS violates explicitly basic civil liberties and civil rights, as OBVIOUSLY is the case of the ISP Suddenlink.
Jason

@54, “when its TOS violates explicitly basic civil liberties and civil rights, as OBVIOUSLY is the case of the ISP Suddenlink.”

Not true. The US government has already passed a law in 2008 allowing university ISP’s to disconnect/throttle pirates.

You do not have a fundamental right to the Internet any more than you have a fundamental right to electricity, or any other privately consumed commodity.

If you use that ISP’s infrastructure to break the law repeatedly, even after warnings, they have the right to terminate your account.

Just like any other service provider.
Snapek

I’ve contacted Suddenlink in order to communicate my dissatisfaction. I was given the opportunity to move to an area for a job, that was serviced by Suddenlink. Their policy was the deciding factor in me choosing to reject the job opportunity.

Way to go Suddenlink, not only have you cost yourselves a reliable customer – your policy is affecting immigration to your country.
Anonymous

I contact suddenlink as well. I encourage others to do so.
wth

@56 Snapek

“Way to go Suddenlink, not only have you cost yourselves a reliable customer – your policy is affecting immigration to your country.”

What are you smokin?
… by the way pass it to the left.

and good, we should have shut the doors years ago ;)
Steve

Now when is Anonymous going to pick up on the use of fake DMCA notices to shut down it’s enemies?

What will be said about three strikes then?
Snapek

See reply #56 ;

My reply from Suddenlink, was admittedly amazingly fast (with 15 minutes of me posting comment #56) but was typically-uninformed;

“I apologize, sir! But I’m not quite sure as to what disconnect policy you’re referring to. We do not have any cancellation fees or contracts, and you’re free to leave our company without any charge or penalty. “
Snapek

@Steve #59 – That’s brilliant. @Anonymous style fake takedowns spammed all over the place would devalue DMCA-Takedowns to the point that they’re ignore by and and all ISP’s in the US.
Dingo_RG

quote from 55:
“Not true. The US government has already passed a law in 2008 allowing university ISP’s to disconnect/throttle pirates.”
—————–

Idiot.

I want that you show me where on the USA constitution says that the free exchange of information (copyrighted or not) with others, with non-commercial purposes, is an illegal act.

And you know, any law not based on the constitution is not valid and illegal… a government can write all the laws that they want, but this doesn’t mean that these laws are valid, particularly DMCA and derivatives which violate basic civil rights.
Anonymous

then I guess you dont get the business and someone else will, sad stupid idiots, the customer is always right not you.
Snapek

And again, Suddenlink shows remarkably awesome Customer Service in that they’ve responded to my email within a few *minutes* ;

“Thank you for your email in regards to the DMCA Violation. I appreciate the opportunity to assist you today.

I apologize that you do not approve of this, sir.”

Rather bland an un-informative, eh? :)

My response is as follows ;

“Wow, I’m glad that you’re only customer-service related response is ‘
I apologize that you do not approve….’….

Please pass this on to your department manager. Not your direct
Supervisor, but the head of the department in which you work. Your
policy does nothing but alienate your customer-base, and is nothing
short of self-serving. As shown, the DMCA requires no-such drastic
measure as your company has chosen – and your aggressive stance on
such users does nothing but harm to your company. I encourage any
management within your company that should read this, to reply to and
communicate with me or – better yet – Torrentfreak.com – on the
matter.

This is an incredibly volatile topic these days – and your company has
a choice to cater to the financial/governmental backing in place – or
to those customer who provide your company with income. Please don’t
make the wrong choice, as it’s a lasting one.”
me

I just hope that the customers of this isp realise how they are bieng treated and move providers as soon as possible.
I would never be a customer to a company that would take my money and remove my internet based on a claim with no evidence to back it up.
Anon

http://www.suddenunlink.com now directs to this article.
no understando

@everyone saying just change isp’s.

Most areas in North America have only ONE service provider. How do you change when there is nothing to change to.

When companies have no competition they can do and charge what they want… and they do.
cool

sh*t is getting worse and worse everyday for US/EU
Anonymous

@63, the constitution also doesn’t have anything stating that bank robbery, or counterfeiting, or drug dealing, or prostitution, or even murder are illegal.

That’s not how the constitution works.
Snapek

And as per #56, SuddenLink has all but ignored my subsequent responses ;

“I might add, that your lack of response to my previous reply is
heavily indicative of your corporate and business policy as a whole.

If whichever customer service monkey who read my previous response did
not feel the need to reply and disarm my previous response… well,
boo on you.

Normally most Customer Service Management would tell the CSR to reply
with a vague an generic ‘I am forwarding this to my
manager/supervisor…. I apologize for your concerns… I’m so sorry
you are upset by…”.

Instead, SuddenLink Customer Service chose to disregard my response.
Such a shame….

The previous two replies were recieved within single-digits of their
being sent… yet the most recent has all but been ignored. At the
very least I’d expect a ‘I’ve passed this along the my Supervisor, and
I apologize for the concerns you have…..”.

Instead I get…… silence.

Way to go Suddenlink. Lack of response really helps confirms the
suspicions of the many hundreds-of-thousands of readers that
TorrentFreak.com have. Your lack of response, and unwillingness to
communicate on the subject are only reinforcing the common perception
that most Internet Denizens have of your company (and the average USA
ISP) at this point.
Anonymous

@71, cry more.
BlueBeard Prime

@54 Dear Jason, Copying is not stealing son. You obviously have NO idea what you re saying! It is simple human nature to share things…food, clothing, MP3 s, Software, games. Movies..get it? WHY should we protect corporate Americas profit margin by screwing people…most people who SHARE files couldn’t afford the product anyway.. you are messing with culture, our public domain. Current copyright laws are ridiculous! These works, music, movies after a period of time need to become a part of the public domain to enrich people’s lives, stimulate art & create more culture.& Recent studies suggest sharing is a form of free advertising for Hollywood. Everyone benefits. For the US Government to create a department to merely protect Hollywood’s profits is evil. Hollywood has had record profits for 3 years in a row! Yet they cry about piracy! All Lies! Then they buy off our politicians to create draconian laws & a police state to terrorize & demonize people who did nothing more than share. Maybe if they created a business model that was fair people would buy more? They want to bring back the “Good old days” when a music CD cost $35.
Karin

If anyone creates a false DMCA they will most likely be dealt with very harshly. So the chances of three DMCA’s being targeted at one individual and/or site is highly unlikely unless the individual and/or site is actually doing illegal activities. Such as using creative works that do not belong to him/her/them. As a designer, I am very happy with this action. It has truly gotten out of hand. Meaning, there are those, to many for that matter that presume that if they can download it it belongs to them. Even worse, they take the step further and profit off the works of others without permission in using the works in question. It is illegal, period. Why is it such an impossible act to take personal responsibility these days?
GrX

@Karin if you don’t want anyone to to take a copy of your work then don’t put it up online for millions to view

it’s simples
Karin

So, if I park my car on the street with the keys in it, anyone can take it?. If I lean my bicycle along side a tree, anyone can take it. If I place a cup of coffee on a table, anyone can take it? As I said, people aren’t taking personal responsibility. It is called stealing! Wake up!
Cujo

I’m still connected ,, through a US VPN ;)
Anonymous

The part about no refund will bite the isp in the ass, via class action lawsuit.
Abbernomad

@73 Beautiful, but fantastical speech. I agree with Jason, he’s grounded in reality. Companies my be “evil” and our laws may be “draconian” but that’s the reality of it. A company can terminate a customer for whatever reason. Bitch and complain that our world is not as utopian as you would like, Jason is still correct. If you could tell it to a Judge and have him buy your story, I’ll listen to you then.
Anonymous

Karin try to read carefully nao:

Learn the difference between copying something and actually taking/removing something.
You’re comparing the copying of Digital data with a car.
Are you a 3 y.o ?
If you were, this would make sense.

Then again, you’re probably the same assclown who posts the exact same crap on TF under different names everytime.

Bawwwww away doofus.
tz.

Mediacom does the same thing, except permanently. you can never open another internet account with them using your SSN.
karin, karin, karin

@karin…

don’t act like your bike is worth stealing.

The people that download your garbage would not buy it to start with.

Stop counting your chickens before they hatch. You greedy farmer.
Anonymous

@74 Karen

Can you name anyone that has ever gotten punished for sending fake DMCA notices?
T.H.E. S.W.A.R.M.

more popcorn ,, sec
Anonymous

@83, you’d be a fool to send out fake DMCA’s. You’ll be charged with fraud and tried in a criminal court for it.
T.H.E. S.W.A.R.M.

ok ,, yum yum lol

you assholes can’t stop this ,, this is a digital war you will never win

I want you assholes to think about that for a sec

WE ARE THE SWARM
Anonymous

@74 Karin

Oh, the same entertainment parasite paid troll again.

No need to change your name with neostyle and the like to make us believe there is few of yourself.

You are not fooling anyone.

Since you are there just tell your bosses that they are basically dead.

Hijacking our government is not going to save them, specially since we are going to replace it.

Look for a real job troll.
Anonymous

@85

Name someone. Lawyer, company, anyone that has ever gotten punished by the law for sending fake DMCA’s.
Anonymous

@80 and others who parrot copying =/= stealing:

It doesn’t matter. Copying money is also not ‘stealing’ since the original $100 bill will still be there.

But it is illegal because each copy you make devalues the real $100 bills legitimately in circulation.

Simple enough for you?
Snapek

Hey look! It’s Anonymous SuddenLink trolls trying to obfuscate the issue at hand…. are we surprised?!?!
Anonymous

@89

Copying money doesn’t devalue the original until the copier exchanges it for something of value.

Your example is a worthless comparison for people who only copy.
Anonymous

@89

Artificially limiting the production or copying of a good simply to raise it’s value is a distortion of the market. Frankly I can artificially raise the price of anything (information, cars, gold, oil, etc…) by limiting the supply, that isn’t an excuse to do so as the whole market suffers as do the people who depend on the market. Additionally such actions only lead to the formation of underground groups and a rampant culture which will shun any laws made against it (take the prohibition era as an example). Information can not be protected, and can not be kept secret. It is the very nature of reality to create and spread information. I can give you a quick and dirty proof:

Information is entropy According to Claude Shannon (and information theory), by the laws of thermodynamics entropy can not be destroyed (as such information can not be destroyed), and in fact the spread of heat (or in this case specific information) can not be halted. At best you can impede the flow of all heat by putting up adiabatic wall (censoring), but no insulator is perfect and heat will regardless of what you do leak.

Trying to wall up information behind ligation isn’t just wrong, it physically impossible. I’m sorry but I have issues when legislator (corporations) try to legislate that I not obey the laws of fucking physics.

The mega media groups seek to destroy our society. We are only try to take it back!
REF

Neither side will ever understand the other… simple as that.

Only solution is to take this outside and put fists to face like real men or cat fighting girls :)

ding, ding…
Anonymous

@91, agreed. If you copy the files and then never use them, run them, play them, listen to them, watch them, or upload them, it does not devalue anything.

Otherwise it does, since market value for digital content is based solely on maintaining demand through artificial scarcity, just like currency or patented pharmaceuticals.
Abbernomad

@91 You are incorrect. If you copy a $100, you devalue money in circulation. If you copy music, you also devalue it. This is because you did not buy it, you could share it, distribute it…which is what this is all about, distribution rights.

Now here’s the funny thing. You can’t go into a store, buy a CD, copy it, and return it. You couldn’t copy the Cd in the store and walk out. You can’t steal the CD. You can’t get the music through some other way than by buying it through a store…or can you? You can get a copy from your friend. You can legally copy music off of the radio (years ago we used a thing called … um…oh yeah, casette tapes! What a pain in the balls those were!)
Anyway, What downloading does is take away their rights of distribution by offering another model as an alternative. I mean, who here actually uses CD’s anymore??? Until this new model is accepted, they’ll all be fighting tooth and nail to keep it illegal. Same for movies and other media.
#89 was right, and it is a good comparison, because what we download DOES have value.
Like water in a lake. Take out a little water, no big deal. Keep it up, no lake. (repercussions)
I want to see the music industry DIE. Downloading is copying on a global scale and has value. That’s why the industry gives a shit and ISP’s will continue to cover their asses until this changes.
Snapek

@93 ;

That specious logic only applies if you assume that every pirate would otherwise purchase the content they copy.

The fact is that pirates copy hundreds if not THOUSANDS of times the content they would otherwise purchase, due to it’s ease of access and lack of cost. Should you remove their ability to pirate/copy that content, they would very most likely go without ; as opposed to pay money for it as most corporate/mpaa/riaa shills would have you believe.

Glad to know you’ve bought in to their party-line though…
Anonymous

@95, There are two ways piracy costs money.

The first is in directly lost sales. Every pirated copy is not a 1:1 lost sale. But some percent of pirate copies most definitely are. Those are lost directly when a person finds they can just torrent what they want and spend their money on something else instead.

The second is in driving down perceived value.

Piracy unfairly forces the property owner to compete with himself at a price he didn’t set and can’t beat. ie. “Free”.

And by making pirate content as easy to get as a mouse click and $0, it eliminates the prestige associated with legitimately owning the content in question.

So yes, piracy does cost money and devalue IP.
Anonymous

@97

There’s no way of proving, in a court of law, that copying costs IP owners money.
John Doe

Why does not some smart person who owns a copyright figure out all the IP addresses owned by this company and then file DMCA notices.

Problem – Solution.
Connor

Less like suddenlink, more like suddendisconnect!!

Lol
Anonymous

@10

Human stupidity relected bush and look where we got. People say acta won’t pass but please look at patriot act. Bush has passed it even tho it violated the amendments. Let them disconnect cause of illegal downloading. Cause all their doing is hurting themselves. And if they do it to everybody they may end up going bankrupt.

So in the end there won’t be internet or it’ll be so shitty it won’t be worth using.
A.Photographer

If someone sends your ISP a DCMA-takedown notice, they are required to notify you.

You then can file a counter-notice that makes your claim that you actually own the copyright, or that your use in this instance would likely be ruled fair use.

The ISP is required, by the DCMA, to allow you to leave the disputed material in place until a court has made a decision.

If Suddenlink is only following part of the law, and not allowing you to submit a counter-claim, then you may have a case.
Pingback: ISPs Agree to “3 Strikes and You’re Out” DMCA Policies
REF

@93 Snapek

you feeling alright?

What does me saying to put fists in the face of entertainment corps and afils’ have anything to being on the side of the said corps?

maybe you had a few to many tonight?
General Snus

Something vaguely similar happened to me ~5 years ago in the US. One day my DSL connection, thru the local phone company, was dead. I called support and they told me they had sent 3 warnings to me by email before disconnecting me. THe thing is,t hey sent them to the email account provided with the subscription, which I’d never used as I already had a .edu address I’d been using and no reason to change. Anyways they agreed to reinstate me, but said if I got another warning it would be permanent.

I know many say peerblock is useless, but I installed that, and never had another problem – and I didnt change my filesharing behavior.
General Snus

clarification, I was using PG2 back then.
Cheechako

I see people complaining about no other choice for broadband. I don’t think that’s 100% true. There’s always satelittle providers…. I have a friend that lives in rural alaska… i mean completely rural, gotta fly there, no paved roads, no streetlights, no businesses besides the one shop in the whole village… his only choice was dialup. He found a satellite provider (which will work anywhere in the US) that somehow combines dialup with satellite… your upload speed is limited to dialup, but he gets 5mbps down thru the satellite… obviously not good for filesharing, but fine for downloading.
StevO

You people NOT in the U.S. dont realize that we dont have a choice in FAST service providers. Most of us have only one. Cable. Thats it for the most of us here. Yeah theres some places that may have DSL but it isnt very good and its NOT available to 90% of us. They have us boxed in pretty good.
Dingo_RG

quote from 70:
“the constitution also doesn’t have anything stating that bank robbery, or counterfeiting, or drug dealing, or prostitution, or even murder are illegal.

That’s not how the constitution works.”

————–

Are you CYNIC? Or maybe, IMBECILE?

I can remember to you this:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, referent to the right to freedom of speech and expression, states that:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and TO SEEK, RECEIVE and IMPART INFORMATION and ideas through ANY MEDIA and regardless of frontiers.”

The USA constitution protects this basic right, through of the first Amendment.

Moreover, wikipedia has a nice explanation for you, clown…

“Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right recognised in international law, which is today understood more generally as freedom of expression in any medium, be it orally, in writing, print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.”

DMCA and derivatives are unconstitutional, not valid and illegal at the same time because this VIOLATES all the human rights explained here, as also the same USA constitution. Moreover, your malicious insinuation of comparing free exchange of information with bank robbery or murder denotes not only how stupid you are… also shows that you don’t care at all about the persons and their rights, putting you in the same position as a Nazi.

The fact that pro-copyright fascists as you have had some success is because the p2p community has demonstrated in general to be very ignorant in the moment of treating with legal issues, that’s all… but this could definitely change soon because nazi people as you do not know at what point to stop the abuses. The DMCA is illegal, that’s a verifiable fact, and only is a matter of time when all the copyright farse collapse.
freddy

This is Bullsh1t.
That company will lose customers.
Anonymous

I don’t want to bash on a company for following the law. If you look at their website, if you were falsely accused, you can file a counter claim as well.
http://www.suddenlink.com/terms-policy/DMCA.php
Anonymous

Suddenlink “Your Disconnected” is their new advert? Also Sudden Link purchased Cox Internet subscribers in many markets many years back. At least in College Statin & Bryan Texas they did.

Also with the 20MB package, I dunno what you would to with that besides download movies, videos, games , albw, etc. Bottom line here is get a vpn or another way to maintain your privacy.
Tigersteps

3 strikes with mediacom and your internet service is cut off
Anonymous

@107 pretty much all of the satelight internet services cap your dl to 5GB per month, = download 5 movies and your done for the month, which means 1/2 day of downloading = no internet for 29 1/2 days after that, what a waste.
Otto

I find it quite amusing to see the misinformation being spread here by people who were disconnected for file sharing.

Seriously, stop being whiny twits about it. You were caught. You were given notice to stop SHARING (downloading doesn’t matter, just don’t share it) specific files (you were given dates and file names) and you still didn’t stop. If no one in your home actually did do it and your computer isn’t being zombied for file sharing, then you left your wifi unsecured and would not secure it (also suggested in letters) and it’s seriously your fault.

As far as a “refund” goes, that’s stupid. No one signed a contract. You only pay a month in advance and that’s returned to you. You get no refund for services you don’t pay for and if your net has been termed, you are not paying for it.

No, neither the BoR or the Constitution allow you to commit copyright infringement. In this situation, this occurs when you share the file (or file parts) after/during downloading. Stop sharing it and there’s no issue. Go nuts on the downloading because, indeed, most broadband packages are configured for fast downloads, not uploads.

As far as that bs about the TOS violating civil liberties. It is a private company. Your civil liberties include the right to choose service with them or not choose service with them. You do have a right to choose service with them if they wish you to have it, to expect them to change their TOS just for you and also to cry at night when you’re quite disappointed in your outlandish expectation.

Some of SL’s own employees have even had their net termed. From call center to regional managers and other upper level executives. You know who tend not to have their net termed? NOC and other engineering teams, because they tend to not be silly twits and know how to share without being caught. To those of you SL customers that also know how to hide your file sharing…

MORE POWER TO YOU!
Hanni

It’s FREEDOM and LIBERTY according to capitalism, as enacted in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

Hey, why sit at home and download stuff anyway?

Why not go and save the world from Evil, by invading a small country that is either 1) rich in oil or 2) strategically located…

What are you complaining about? ;-)
The Canadian

gezz.. And here I though bell was bad for not proving service and still atempting to pre-auth debit ones payment method.

Be real funny if u had a 1 year contract and got terminated then had to pay for the year lol
Bjorn

I hope 4chan will consider a DDOS against these thieves!

I have my LOIC ready.
B

#62: the content industries have already taken care of that, basically.
momoola

This is a great idea! Disconnect customers whose jobs might even depend on having internet access without a fair trial!

Also, there’s a lot of trolls in here. More so than usual. Anyone who posts about supporting this is either a troll or completely insane, unless of course they’re somehow profiting from this.
momoola

Often times, people will mention that piracy is somehow the same thing as stealing and that it has a negative impact on the developer(s) that created the product that is being pirated. Soon, I will explain why both of those statements are incorrect.

Before I do so, however, let me state a few things that may or may not be obvious already. I’m sure you’ve heard about and/or looked at those statistics that claim to know how many pirates pirated certain products, how many pirates there are, or how many sales were “lost” to pirates. Those are very likely incorrect. Why? It would be an impossible task to scour every torrent and website in existence in an attempt to count how many pirates there truly are. It’s simply not plausable due to the sheer amount of websites and torrents. I’m also sure that you’ve probably heard of and/or come across something known as DRM (digital rights management). You’re probably already aware that it was designed to stop (or at least reduce) piracy. What some fail to realize, however, is that it fails to do even that, and instead, it just causes harm to the actual customers themselves due to the fact that the DRM limits what the customers can do with their legally acquired product while the pirates crack or remove the DRM from the product, and, consequently, can use it restriction free. This makes DRM effectively useless against piracy, and ultimately only harms the buying customer. Oh, and, just because piracy is illegal, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Plenty of things have been illegal in the past that shouldn’t have been, and saying that something is wrong just because it’s illegal is illogical.

One very small reason that piracy doesn’t actually harm anyone is the fact that you can’t consider every instance where something is pirated as a lost sale. It’s simply not logical to do so, as you have no idea if the pirate would have bought the product if they had been unable to pirate it. It is more likely to assume that they would not have bought the product. Reasons for which include: the company which made the product has bad policies or treats its customers badly, the pirate lacks the money needed to buy the product, the product contains DRM, or the pirate simply felt that he/she would rather spend his/her money on more important things. Assuming that every instance of piracy is a lost sale (as many people seem to do) is simply illogical.

Next, you have to ask yourself what it is that pirates are actually stealing. Are they stealing the product itself? That can’t be true, as they are simply making a copy of it. To steal something means to take something away, and the pirates aren’t doing that. So, what are they stealing, then? The next conclusion that would likely be drawn is that the pirates are stealing future/potential profit. However, logically, this holds no ground for a few reasons.

First of all, if stealing future/potential profit was illegal, then competition in general would also be illegal. Why? If a customer decided to buy a product from one business instead of buying it from another business, under the “potential profit” rule, that would mean that the first business actually stole future/potential profit away from the second business.

Secondly, if stealing future/potential profit was illegal, then warning people about a company/product would also be illegal. Why? The people who were informed not to buy the product/buy from the company might be scared away from future purchases, which, under the “potential profit” rule, would mean that the informant actually stole future/potential profit away from said company.

Finally, there’s really not much difference between a person who pirated a product and a person who just didn’t buy the product at all (yet also didn’t pirate it), except for the fact that one is enjoying a product for free while the other is not. Neither of them granted the creator of the product any profit at all, so under the “potential profit” rule, that would mean that they actually somehow stole potential profit from the creator(s) of the product for not granting them their money. There are many, many more examples of how the “potential profit” argument is illogical and holds no actual ground. That was but a few.

Despite there logically being no negative aspects to piracy, there are some positive aspects to it. The pirate could eventually grant the author(s) money if they liked the product, they could inform people who are not pirates of the product if it is good (resulting in free word of mouth advertising), and, though it doesn’t directly benefit the author, it will save the pirate money for use on more important things (food, water, and shelter).

“But, what about the artists? If everyone pirated everything, there would be no one to create anything good!”

If you read the above with an open mind, you will see that this is not actually the fault of the pirate itself, but the fault of the capitalistic ways of our society. The flaws of which are becoming more and more apparent as each day passes. It is highly unfortunate that many good artists will likely have to suffer due to our capitalistic practices until they are changed. It is not the fault of piracy.
C0RR0SIVE

One thing I saw a bit, people telling people to just change providers, yes, there are several dozen providers in the states, but one downside, most areas only have one, maybe two providers, or none at all and have to resort to dial up.

The worst part, most ISP’s here force a 1-4 year contract, you cancel, they (the ISP) bill your credit card that instant, you agreed to it when signing up for that ISP, so you can’t stop the payment either. I have seen it done plenty of times.
@35

Anticonstitutionality never stopped governments. They simply don’t care, especially if the law was made on the demand of lobbies.

You want to go against a law that is anticonstitutional ? Be my guest. And let’s talk about it in 15 years, when you have been told off by all the institutions supposed to make the constitution applied.

Sad but true. Laws serve political interest, and certainly not justice.
AnarchyNow

DMCA = infringement of the 1st amendment, because filesharing is a matter of opinion and choice not to pay for 0s & 1s, so use the 2nd amendment and bring the U$ tyranny to an end!!!
Thinker

Might be an acid test….
lets see how many customers take off after this titbit of info. Hope they go bust.

two-faced basta*ds.
Pingback: Anonymous
BIOS HazarD

@121

I appreciate this level of explanation and totally agree with the points you have made.
Dingo_RG

quote from 123:
“Anticonstitutionality never stopped governments. They simply don’t care, especially if the law was made on the demand of lobbies.”
————-

The point is… Why are you the USA citizens allowing that their government take away their rights so easily?

Your constitution has all the legal resources to cancel DMCA and derivatives completely, that’s a fact and is the reality…

Why, you having all this resources; haven’t you done anything about it?

This seems that the USA citizens have become in a bunch of lazy people, unable to organize for giving a real fight for preserving their civil liberties.

USA, the land of the free? that a joke!!!

You should be ashamed of their response.
Anonymous

@ 98
Well you completely failed to address any of my points on the matter. Instead you fly on some tangent with arguments that are easily refutable. But I’ll humor you for now and address your points.

Your statement regarding lost sales isn’t valid. You do not know how piracy effects sales because no one has ever managed to complete a good formal study of it. Every paper published that I have read has had major flaws behind ether it’s methodology or it’s underling theoretical work. In fact it’s quite possible that piracy may have an overall boost to the sale of intellectual works.

Fundamentally if what your saying was true then groups which sell intellectual works should have suffered massive crippling losses and be on the verge of bankruptcy. However reality shows a completely different picture with media groups leading many other markets with record sales and growth. I’m sorry but if they where truly losing significant market share to pirates then there bottom line would show it and it doesn’t.

Hell Piracy may even help sales. I my self never ever bought music until I started pirating shit, and now my media rack has a good 100 or so CDs. It seems that during the months I pirated more I also bought more music. So at lest in my case your argument doesn’t stand up. Of course my friends have similar buying/pirate trends so again from what I have seen you argument is wrong. Are there leaches in society? Of course, but just like in any torrent swarm there are also seeds and these seeds more then make up for the bandwidth sap that leeches take.

As for competing with a price you didn’t set, that’s the whole point of the market. People how make or produce things are free to set what ever price they want on something, but if that price doesn’t meet market demands then guess what, it wont sell. That capitalism pure and simple. The producer of a work has to compete with other groups who distribute a similar or in some cases the same product. The only reason why IP groups seem to be different is because they have a monopoly on there products. Piracy comes about in part because the market is out right broken in these sectors. Rather then fix the problem these groups lobby congress to change the laws and pass the buck to citizens such as my self.

So I’m sorry to say you don’t have a single argument that can stand and you completely failed to address any of my actual points, such as that copyright it self is fundamentally unworkable due to the very laws of the universe. I’m sorry but given the choose between following the laws of some idiot on capital hill or the fucking laws of physics I think I’m going to chose physics.
Karin

What’s this. Changing my name??? I wasn’t online, lol. Though, the mention of a bike as not being the same as a digital and/or binary file is correct. I understand that there are complete ass wipes out there, that can be quite a pain to deal with. It does not take away the fact that ones property needs to be protected some how. Removing the property from display is not the answer. In fact, it is a very foolish answer and scape goating. Rather, someone needs to come up with a idea on how one can protect their works. I suppose we can all work at a non-related internet job and spend our precious time creating internet related works for all to take. I wonder what would be left exactly? Also, I do not like being called a troll. I simply am clicking on a link via Slashdot to this page as the subject matter intrigues me. If you wish to have responses directed to your way of thinking only, than simply say so. Or, maybe using your own pattern of thinking, take the page down!
new saying

http://www.suddenunlink.com

google page ranking needed !
Anonymous

DR
All of this is nonsense. The number one reason for any sort of “piracy” is that its easier than paying for it. And even if you jump through ALL of the various hoops to obtain the media legally it is only available on a small range of today’s devices.

Hoop 1 Wait for the media to be available legally. (ours in an instant society)

Hoop 2 Find a provider of the content that offers a reasonable price, reliable service, legitimate return to creators of the media, and acceptable quality.

Hoop 3 Jump through any extra hoops said provider puts into place (registration, account setup, renewal…)

Hoop4 Wait for the slow download process of a direct or secure download.

Hoop 5 The media that you just “bought” is only available through a very narrow band of devices. (iTunes, iPod, validated machines, devices that offer the proper codec…)

Hoop 6 Keep various records to show that you actually obtained the media legally. Other than the decreased functionality if “your” copy there is no way to differentiate without altering the content.

Hoop 7 Your screwed when that device is obsolete.

Piracy Hoop 1 Find a provider with good quality.

Piracy Hoop 2 download from a much faster technology

Piracy Hoop 3 enjoy your content on any and everything you own ( you already obtained it “illegally” so there is no reason not to alter the format, make multiple copies to all your devices, backup to your off-site storage….)
Anonymous

Disconnecting people from the Internet without proof of a crime being committed, is the same as a hate crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
Pingback: ACS:Law Anti-Piracy Law Firm Torn Apart By Leaked Emails – TorrentFreak | Piracy Network
Anonymous

Curious how they suddenly “discover” the DMCA “forces them to do it”, after, uh, twelve years. It’s a bad law and has been under lots of heated debate and scrutiny, so this claim is a tad shaky. I think it’s more of a case of suddenly discovering how it is pretty nice to pocket six months of revenue without having to deliver anything at all. Since hadopi is coming into force, the time must be right for this, no?

Because allegations don’t need to be substantiated, all Anonymous needs to do is come up with a list of IP addresses and send complaints about every single one of them at least three times.

And, of course, all their subscribers need to be made aware of these shenanigans so that they may indeed vote with their dollars and leave, perhaps leaving for a going away present a lawsuit for failure to deliver on contract, abuse of law, and so on.
Jeffrey A. Williams

I wonder what this ISP provider does in the potential case their subscriber’s ID was hijacked which happens all too often?
bo

Americans, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO YOUR COUNTRY? You used to be the prime example of individual freedom, now you are getting fucked by corporativism?
Otto

@132 …. that is one of the silliest comments on this page. It’s the company’s right to not provide you with service.

@133 no revenue is pocketed. There is no contract. You don’t pay an ETF when they (suddenlink) term you internet service. It’s like a regular disconnect. You get a prorated credit for what you paid (one month in advance) last month.

Also, for those situations were those that receive notification of DMCA violations are innocent and no one physically in that building has done it, then if those people actually call in and troubleshoot with the company, repeat violations don’t happen.
@127

I’m not american. It’s like this in all the so-called democracies.

I’m ashamed, for sure.

But talk to 100 people.
95 won’t even know what a constitution is.

Among the 5 remaining, 2 know but don’t care, because it doesn’t touch them. 2 know but want it that way because they can profit of it. And the last one is you.

Feeling lonely ? Understandable.
Anon

FUUUCCKK
I have them as my ISP, and there is no one around that offers the same speed. I’m too far away from the DSLAM to get good speeds on DSL.
Ehh cable can be hacked, so if it comes down to it i’ll do it that way.
uJonesing

I urge anyone who’s dealt with SuddenLink to visit http://www.socialsmack.com/brands/suddenlink rate them, and comment on this new policy of theirs.
neb

Going to discon me and charge me for it?

Come on Verizon. I have 5 strikes already……….

Where is Larry Parker when you need him.
HawkPunk

I’m in Chicago and every torrent server is down. From Pirate Bay down to recent startups; all are reading sever error. Why am I involved with Suddenlink? who are these righteous fools. (has anyone got around this?)
Master X

I’ll play both sides on this issue.

He got caught, they disconnected him. Fine. Return his money for that month, minus the days he received service, and don’t allow him to use your services for half a year.

Seems fair to me.

Now to other side. What DMCA Notices? I was under the assumption that they had to send you a PHYSICAL copy of the notice and allow you a chance to provide evidence to dispute the claim. Appears to me that he received to notice at all. For what we know the company could have been bullshitting him.

Secondly were does the DMCA say that he must be disconnected for half a year?

And for you who say the DMCA is unconstituional… The constution was written by people who lived 234 years ago, following the moral, cultural, and technological standards of 234 years ago. They would have never been able to perceive even the most basic of todays technologies.
Anonymous

@141

use Google’s DNS or opendns.
Horrendous

142:
The constution was written by people who lived 234 years ago, following the moral, cultural, and technological standards of 234 years ago. They would have never been able to perceive even the most basic of todays technologies.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

The problem with having the eyes always connected, is the risk of reading stupid comments as this.
Anon

suddenlink is from my experience the BEST isp…it’s too bad they implemented this idiotic policy. They are leaps and bounds ahead of shitcast.
Pingback: Suddenlink 3 Strikes Policy For Copyright Infringers – Is This Legal? « The Blade by Ron Schenone, MVP
MD3

Bunch of PUSSIES, will lose 80% of your subscribers in less than 6 months too!
Otto

@146

Suddenlink implemented this three strike policy a year ago. Nearly all of the termed net accounts are reconnected in six months.

The accused either call in for help and resolve the issue with better security/beating their kids, learn how to cover their tracks so that they don’t continue to receive violation notifications (certified letters) or they cry about being disconnected because they couldn’t do without uploading.

At least they are nice about it. When Cox decides to term internet service to remove you as a liability, they don’t let you back in.
tommy

insight http://www.insightscommunications.com

also has been doing the same.
Gavin

If they are under so much presure from the copy right holders, why don’t they just block bittirrent traffic for six mouths. In this way at least the cotomer can use the internet, albiat limated, and the copy right holds will not be on your back so much because this costomer is not bracking copy right laws.
Master X

@144

I’ll say the same thing to all who call the DMCA unconstutional. If you have no constructive comments to add, then don’t post.

And to all of you who say that they will go out of buisnuess because of this… Grow up, please? I know this might be a suprise to some of you but not every person with a internet connection is a pirate.

And for the record im not siding with anyone on this issue. Im just trying to disprove some of the made up bullshit that each side is spewing.
Jerry in Detroit

Not long ago, Comcast offered free anti-virus software with their Internet service. The problem came when the customer attempted to install the software, the Comcast network would halt the transfer as it was transferring copyrighted material.
Dingo_RG

quote from 150:

@144
“I’ll say the same thing to all who call the DMCA unconstutional. If you have no constructive comments to add, then don’t post.”
—————-

I think that ‘Horrendous’ (comment 144) is totally right.

Ironically, the only person here who has not had constructive comments to add has been YOU, ‘Master X’.

In your comment 142 you are explicitly DISQUALIFYING the USA constitution, suggesting that this is so old that cannot be taken as a reference for questioning the legality or non-legality of existing laws. Any person with a MINIMUM of common sense will find your statement to be very disrespectful, complete idiotic, false, and totally out of all logic.

In my post 109 (which you misread completely) I explained very carefully and with evidencies why DMCA is illegal and unconstitutional, that’s a verifiable fact, based justly on the USA constitution and ACTUAL international law… These are INALIENABLE and BASIC human rights, which are violated explicitly by the DMCA.

And you pretend to disqualify all this saying something as stupid as that the USA constitution is “so old”… In this point, you are the only one who has posted bullshit and annoying comments, that nothing have to do with the topic in question.

BTW, ‘Master X’ is a dynamic audio compressor used commonly in recording studios, which is the responsible of many annoying and heavily compressed audio recordings today… Are you a paid music industry troll?
6Metal6Head6

When a provider like suddenlink protects your privacy and does not give up any info about you so you cannot be sued by the comnpany that spotted you downloading that’s great to me, you get a smack on the hand for downloading until you’re disconnected instead of sued by the company you illegally downloaded copywright material from, quit whinning people or go get sued your choice. Illegal Downloading is still illegal until that changes that policy is great.
DERP

***SUDDENLINK DOES NOT CHARGE YOU FOR SERVICES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED*** That would be the most stupid policy ever since they dont make you sign a contract. Plus they do not turn your info over to the copyright holder. If you are so thick that you get caught 3 times then why are you surprised that they cut you loose? Once again because some of you seem so derptastic… ***SUDDENLINK DOES NOT CHARGE YOU FOR SERVICES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED***
Pingback: The Content MAFIAA vs. The People (Week 38/2010, MPAA > ACTA) « indiworks
Will

Bring IT TWC! I will sue your asses if you try something stupid like this!
someone in the cable internet industry

Most ISPs do see what type of traffic that goes through the modem, though they can’t disconnect you if they see p2p traffic being used 24/7. But as pointed out it looks like that person didn’t heed the warning, as I’m sure most people, including cox customers that get the warnings by email, dont read or just disregard.

Now one company that I do know of will treat DCMA fairly (as it’s a grey area), as if you didn’t read the T&Cs on signup, if you get disabled from DCMA, then the first time they will advise you on removing the offending file (whether you know about it or not) and make sure your connection is secure (you wouldn’t believe the amount of people i have seen with unsecured wireless). You would be warned of more action if the activity continues (as in they get a complaint from someone again)

2nd time, you would need to do a written fax to confirm you would stop/find the person to stop the filesharing. Surely by then you would know the actions from this.

3rd time, you get disabled and the local office will decide.

Honestly I too believe what happened in the article is very harsh, but if the user didn’t heed the warning, they have themselves to blame.
@132

No. 132… Disconnecting someone without proof is not a hate crime…its idiocy, but not a hate crime

read what you link please.
Master X

I’ll pull that statement back then and say this. If he wants to make a claim that something is stupid he/she needs to at least try to back up his/her claim. Perhaps i wasn’t on the right line of thought but i, at least, tried to back up what i said with reasoning that made sence to me.

And i didn’t mean for that comment to sound like that. What i was meaning that their are some things that the constution doesn’t address because it was written way before those things existance. Although some aspects of it could be used as refrence for laws on this subject the majority of it would be diffrent from what the constution allows because it is outdated in comparison to some of todays moral and cultural standards. While the freedom of speech is protected, piracy does harm the people who produce/publish the materials pirated. And as any person should know freedom of speech only goes so far and ends when it starts to harm another person in some form, financially as example. And although no set amount of monetary loss can be decided only a idiot will say that piracy causes no monetary loss.

And before you start saying that im a paid troll, im not. Unlike some of you i relize that piracy is wrong but continue to pirate because it allows me to use my money for more important things.

But i never knew that. My name is from a video game, not a music program.
Legion

I think copying files doesn’t harm companies, but artist who try to survive working every day, some with 2 or 3 jobs.

Some examples:

Microsoft products are the most “pirated” software, but they “almost” had monopoly and very big profits.

Compare Top 10 Weekend Box Office in USA with top 10 P2P movies downloaded.

And now look how many artist are using CC or free licences to allow people to download their work, making money from services and not for the product.
CT

The explanation given above is pure nonsense of course. The DMCA does not and never has required ISPs to disconnect users.

Actually, the DMCA does require ISPs wishing to take advantage of the limitations on liability (safe-harbors) to implement a system for disconnecting repeat infringers.

17 USC 512(i)
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and

(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
Pingback: Does the DMCA require Internet disconnections? | BJD Productions Blog
Bob Robertson

Keep in mind the immense legal pressures the ISPs are under, to maintain their status as “common carriers”.

All the MPAA/RIAA has to do is print out a list of IP addresses from a torrent tracker. It may be impossible to prove for certain that a specific individual was pulling the file, but it is part of every protocol to show what their IP address is and that’s absolutely trackable to a specific ISP.

Without common carrier status, the ISP could be charge as an accessory to the crime.

We in the US are lucky, damned lucky, that Bittorrent hasn’t yet been shut off completely.
Anonymous

“We in the US are lucky, damned lucky, that Bittorrent hasn’t yet been shut off completely.”

And just how would one do that? BitTorrent is a protocol, and can be obfuscated in many ways, and “blocking” a protocol can be worked around with say http or ssl traffic tunneled in its place. There are also many “legit” services that use torrent style tech, good luck shutting off WOW updaters…
Pingback: P2PTalk » Does the DMCA require Internet disconnections?
Pingback: Does the DMCA require Internet disconnections? « Gyrovague's Raves
Pingback: Does the DMCA require Internet disconnections? « Technology
Thad

To all the people saying “Just switch to another ISP”:

According to consumer reports, 96% of the US has access to only 1 or 2 broadband providers.

There is no competition in the broadband market. There is no free-market solution to ISP overreach, because there is no free market.
Dingo_RG

quote from 157:
“And as any person should know freedom of speech only goes so far and ends when it starts to harm another person in some form, financially as example.”
———-

Well, I don’t see as this could “start to harm another person in some form, financially as example”.

As exactly a good EXAMPLE, the MPAA did around 10 Billion of dollars in profits in the year 2009, despite of the fact that in the same year 2009 millions of persons around the world shared freely copies of MPAA movies on the net, you see.

This is an EXCELLENT REFERENCE of as freedom of information (as an extension of freedom of speech) has been DEMONSTRATED to not harming to anyone in an economical form.

And clearly, this is impossible to prove beyond of any doubt that freedom of information, as an INALIENABLE right human, could harm to anyone in an economical form… Can you? Obviously NOT… CLOWN!!!

—————
Again, quote from 157:
“And although no set amount of monetary loss can be decided only a idiot will say that piracy causes no monetary loss.”

I am sure that the only IDIOT here is you, ‘Master X’; for exactly, talking BULLSHIT.

An excellent article for you:
http://torrentfreak.com/high-profile-high-damages-file-sharing-conviction-was-a-farce-100926/
Pingback: Does the DMCA require Internet disconnections? - Free Web Design Phoenix
pissshivers

@152

Suddenlink is not doing anyone any favors. You aren’t lucky to be slapped on the wrist by suddenlink instead of being sued by the rights-holder. why? Because you can still be sued by the rights-holder. Suddenlink is just policing their own network and kicking users off who they think are infringing by BS infringement letters. The rights holder can still sue. Suddenlink turn over subscriber info just like any other isp who is issued a subpoena. In my friend’s case with Suddenlink, the restored service but said hey, HBO still might sue you for downloading all those true blood episodes.
magellan

@Karin
I’d strongly advise against leaving your keys in an unlocked car. Doing that can land you in court for negligence…
Jack

I wipe my a$$ with suddenlink. I will continue to relentlessly d/l whatever I want!!!!
Rob

I got cut off from suddenlink for 6 months last week now im stuck with shitty fuckin 6mb DSL with AT&T for that time.
They are also a bunch of lying motherfuckers, when I called them about the letter they said you will get disconnected but you will get to a page and it will tell you to pay your bill immediately and then it will reconnect you.
True to their word the page came up, made me pay $110 then turned me back on. FOR A DAY.
They then told me oh we didn’t disconnect you, the DMCA did. Then I talk to another rep who tells me it wasn’t suddenlink it was the government. Fuckin cunts.
Rob

Oh I should add this, I called to dispute the DMCA allegation telling them I had the movie on netflix (which I did) at the time it happened so why would I download a torrent of it and told him I want to dispute it he said you need to contact the DMCA. I unfortunately was playing the role of computer illiterate idiot at the time so I couldn’t jump on him about it, wish I had now.
Anyway he said call the number on the letter and I told him there is no number on the letter ‘cept this number I called and got you. Then he just told me hmm well you can get a program and go to youtube and get your music.

Thanks for the help asshole, so the shittiest part is there is NO WAY to fight the disconnect or warnings.
suddenlinknc

I know someone who had their internet cut off after three letters a couple months ago. Surprised it took this long for people to pick up on this story. The people who got their internet cut off didn’t really care and moved and now just got the internet back from the same company. Suddenlink runs a monopoly almost with broadband here. Centurylink is the only alternative.
Pingback: Online Global Week in Review 1 October 2010 from IP Think Tank

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

US ISP Disconnects Alleged Pirates for 6 Months

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed