×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US ISP Adopts Three-Strikes Policy

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the them's-our-rules dept.

Piracy 280

Andorin writes "Suddenlink, a United States ISP that serves nineteen states, has implemented a three-strikes policy. Subscribers who receive three DMCA takedown notices are disconnected without compensation for a period of six months. According to TorrentFreak, the takedown notices do not have to be substantiated in court, which effectively means that subscribers can be disconnected based on mere accusations. In justifying the policy, Suddenlink turns to an obscure provision of their Terms of Service, but also claims that they are required by the DMCA to disconnect repeat offenders."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

Beat them to the punch (5, Insightful)

Briden (1003105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693340)

If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.

Re:Beat them to the punch (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693346)

Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693388)

Until him, or another neighbor, takes down your internet connection.

In the end, only the ISP and the ??AA wins.

Re:Beat them to the punch (4, Funny)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693458)

Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.

Nevermind your neighbor... suppose I give you this box... if you push the button your internet speeds will shoot right up. But be forewarned... someone you don't know will be cut off the internet forever. Do you push the button? ;)

Re:Beat them to the punch (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693492)

while (1) { press_button(); }

why, yes. yes, I would.

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693606)

Cool. Tomorrow I'll ask someone =you= don't know the same question... ;)

Paraphrased from a weak movie (The Box) loosely based on a better short story (Button, Button).

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693996)

I still would, because there is around a 1 in 2 billion chance it would be me. And if it happend to be me, I can always get internet from my work (WISP).

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693796)

Its great news. If I get my neighbour's internet connections taken out my download speeds should shoot right up.

Nevermind your neighbor... suppose I give you this box... if you push the button your internet speeds will shoot right up. But be forewarned... someone you don't know will be cut off the internet forever. Do you push the button? ;)

ISP: If you push that button too much, you'll go blind!
Mini-me: How many times can I push it and just need glasses?

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693802)

Absolutely, I push it and push it and keep pushing it until my internet speeds accelerate sufficiently.

Your question is an exercise in how greedy and selfish we humans can be, and the answer is very (seriously folks, step outside and have a good look at "the environment" these days).

Would be *much* more relevant if it disconnected somebody you DO know.

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693914)

Would be *much* more relevant if it disconnected somebody you DO know.

The followup is actually more poignant: "Tomorrow I ask someone =you= don't know whether they'll push the button."

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

Eristone (146133) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694154)

Luckily, I friended *everybody* on MySpace and Facebook. Let's see 'em find someone I don't know.

Okay, someone please turn my meds back on now?

Re:Beat them to the punch (3, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693450)

I doubt that'll get enough response to hurt them - the subscription fees of a few tech savvy customers don't amount to that much. Ideally a few rich and powerful businesspeople would lose their connections because of this; once the lawsuits start flying that should take care of things.

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693576)

Ideally a few rich and powerful businesspeople would lose their connections because of this; once the lawsuits start flying that should take care of things.

The rich can always afford something better than residential grade Internet service at the mass market price. P2P is irrelevant when you have $50,000, $100,000, $250,000 and up invested in front projection home theater.

Re:Beat them to the punch (3, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693624)

On the other hand, there are all the (very valid) reasons that Slashdot so often points out for DMCA takedowns being a bad thing: open WiFi, kids using the computer, automated takedown bots, faulty IP address gathering, and probably many others that I've forgotten to mention here.

Just because Dr. Rockerfeller J. Richington doesn't need to turn to P2P for a copy of The Hurt Locker, it doesn't mean he's immune to DMCA letters.

Re:Beat them to the punch (5, Interesting)

darpified (698235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693494)

Suddenlink is my provider. They are my *only* choice for reasonably fast internet service. The DSL service here is capped at 1 Mbps and spotty at that. Satellite service is out of my price range, and there is no wireless provider. I'm not happy with them over this, and will send them a message, but cancel my subscription and not have Internet isn't an option. It's an effective monopoly, and they know it.

Re:Beat them to the punch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693680)

You should send them three DMCA take down notices for their site. They have to follow their own rules, right?

Re:Beat them to the punch (2, Interesting)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693730)

Many people are in your exact situation, and it's a tough one to be in. You'd like to tell them that you'll be taking your business elsewhere, but when they're the only ones who offer that service, you have no choice but to stick with them or go without. Perhaps you could send them a strongly-worded letter expressing the flaws in this policy and voicing your displeasure? If enough people make enough of a fuss, something might get done - particularly if the news outlets get wind of a 'big company exploiting the poor folks without any other options'.

Re:Beat them to the punch (4, Interesting)

hoeferbe (168081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694054)

It sounds like Suddenlink has somewhat of a monopoly in your area. If that is the case, they are probably regulated by your local government. Although I am not optimistic this will have much effect, you should complain to the franchise authority / regulatory commission that oversees Suddenlink.

If enough people did, Suddenlink would have no choice but to deep-six this program.

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694092)

but cancel my subscription and not have Internet isn't an option.

What will you do if they kick you off in a few weeks?

Re:Beat them to the punch (5, Interesting)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694102)

Start your own WISP then. It's easier than you might think. I got sick of the lack of options here (6/1, reasonably reliable, in fact), and now I provide internet to my neighbours, 100% legally. It cost me a couple thousand to get started and some sweat ethic, but I now enjoy a 30/4 connection and my neighbours are good enough to pay the bill for me.

Re:Beat them to the punch (3, Interesting)

freeballer (1160851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693640)

now that I have some options (dsl, cable) I'd immediately cancel if my isp followed suit.
Its not that I'm for or against dmca, frankly to me its a pandora box they can never close imo.
If people were proven without a doubt violated copyright then I could see disconnections. But without a
trial or whatever there is nothing to the accusations. No real proof, or even a proponderance of evidence.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. (5, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693674)

If you are a customer of theirs, immediately cancel your service and tell them why you are doing it. that ought to send the right message.

That it does.

It tells them that they have shed another geek who clogs their pipes and will never upgrade his service.

Re:Don't let the door hit you on the way out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33694150)

"It tells them that they have shed another geek who FLOGS their pipe and will never upgrade his service."

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Beat them to the punch (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693690)

Immediately cancel your service and explain that your conscience requires that you refrain from paying them for any further service you may have agreed to previously, even if you're in a 6-month agreement or whatever.

Re:Beat them to the punch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693744)

IMMEDIATELY.

Re:Beat them to the punch (2, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694034)

I'm a subscriber, and this is easier said than done. My only other choice in this locality is AT&T, who are infamous for bending over and spreading for Bush's illegal wiretapping.

Put them out of business! (5, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693362)

OK, everybody start submitting DMCA reports. They'll be out of subscribers in no time flat.

Re:Put them out of business! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693384)

Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...

Re:Put them out of business! (5, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693594)

Technically yes, but a "good faith" belief that someone is doing something illegal is pretty fucking vague. If previous court ruling are any indication, hearing a rumor about "someone" pirating "something" is probably all you need to justify yourself.

Re:Put them out of business! (5, Insightful)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693698)

Isn't that technically committing perjury?

Of course it is. That's why everyone with half a brain who's heard of these three-strikes rules in the US and abroad wants to rip people like this a new one--because they enable perjurers to be successful at abusing the law without court review.

Of course, if you were to send three bogus DMCA takedown notices to the ISP CEO's home--or to their home office--they would notice the fact that it's a crime and cry foul (or simply break policy and ignore them), but they are more than willing to enable criminals as long as they don't see the blowback themselves.

Re:Put them out of business! (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693880)

A DMCA notification requires:

`(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Notice the placement of the "and". To make the precedence explicit:

`(vi) A statement that (the information in the notification is accurate) AND (under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.)

You only perjure yourself if you misrepresent yourself as representing a rights holder. Any other specific claims in the notice do not matter. If you represent a rights holder you can accuse whoever you want without fear of being prosecuted for perjury.

Re:Put them out of business! (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694056)

That would only be the part about being the copyright holder (or on their authority) of the work you claim is infringed. To be sued for any of the rest you have to match:

(f) Misrepresentations. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owners authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

In other words, the court must find proven that you did this intentionally. I never heard of anyone ever proving that, but I suspect a barrage of false DMCA notices just might be the first.

Re:Put them out of business! (2, Insightful)

dcavanaugh (248349) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694062)

Isn't that technically committing perjury? Not that I've ever heard about anyone facing consequences for such things...

It is, but that doesn't seem to be stopping the bogus DMCA complaints. If large corporations are getting away with it, why shouldn't everyone else?

Re:Put them out of business! (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693408)

Call off the DDOS attack. I'm pretty sure my complaint about the IP range *.*.*.* took care of everything.

Re:Put them out of business! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693412)

I'm sure that if someone went to 4chan, the /b/tards would happily take up the cause after their fine effort against Aiplex.

Re:Put them out of business! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693446)

We might want to save that power for when we really need it. The first time we use it will also be the last, before it's quickly put into law that only large corporations get the power to censor the net through DMCA.

Re:Put them out of business! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693700)

Should be easy enough to generate DMCA reports. Just connect to a couple dozen highly populated torrents, check for SuddenLink IP addresses and then email off some official looking DMCA notices.

Here's their netblock! Get to work!

http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-208-180-0-0-1 [arin.net]

NetRange 208.180.0.0 - 208.180.255.255
CIDR 208.180.0.0/16
Name SUDDE-NETBLK-208-180-0-0
Handle NET-208-180-0-0-1
Parent NET208 (NET-208-0-0-0-0)
Net Type Direct Allocation
Origin AS
Nameservers NS2.SUDDENLINK.NET
NS1.SUDDENLINK.NET
Organization Suddenlink Communications (SUDDE)
Registration Date 1999-05-07
Last Updated 2006-08-10
Comments ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RESTful Link http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-208-180-0-0-1 [arin.net]

Re:Put them out of business! (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693866)

I don't know what's worse. The fact that the ISP is implementing a 3-strike rule, or the fact that they are copying FRANCE to do so.

Their contract terms are what they are... (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693364)

...but the reference to the DMCA is horseshit.

Re:Their contract terms are what they are... (2, Insightful)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693420)

... DMCA is horseshit.

I wholeheartedly concur.

Re:Their contract terms are what they are... (3, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693534)

They are probably referring to this, in section 512:

`(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.

Re:Their contract terms are what they are... (1)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694168)

the reference to the DMCA is

At the very least arguable. The "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (absent which, an ISP is per se liable for copyright infringement, at least under pre-DMCA precedent, see, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla., 1993)) apply only to the extent an ISP "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." 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html [copyright.gov]

School Rules. (4, Insightful)

centuren (106470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693368)

Get a movement within their customer base and employ the classic school scenario where a rule doesn't work if it has to be applied to everyone. Start filing tens of thousands of DMCA take down notices for suspected violations. If their policy is as described, cutting service to that many people will put a direct stop to it.

This is actually not that bad (3, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693370)

Time Warner's Roadrunner service has had a similar policy for a while, and it's really not that bad of a deal. Basically, if the RIAA/MPAA sees your IP address, instead of trying to extort you for money, they just tell TWC, who redirects you to an angry-sounding webpage next time you try to use the Internet. You click "Accept" or whatever, and then the problem goes away. No subpoenas, no lawsuits. You can do this twice. It's not until the third time that something actually bad happens, and if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet.

Re:This is actually not that bad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693394)

> if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet
Three accusations. Not three convictions.

Re:This is actually not that bad (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693892)

really? i could send in 3 DMCA notices on same persons ip and get them kicked off for 6 month's. cause most companies take them at face value and don't even check to make sure the notice is even legit.

Re:This is actually not that bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693974)

Three accusations. Not three convictions.

Sure, three accusations.

But you and I both know that in this age of always-on internet connections, your IP address is not changing frequently enough for false positives to be very likely. If the RIAA's lackeys spot your IP address stealing music, there are only three plausible scenarios:

  1. You are guilty as charged.
  2. Someone else in your household is guilty; as the head of the household, you are responsible for preventing that.
  3. You are an idiot who doesn't know how to set up a secure WPA2 passphrase, and disconnecting you from the internet will be doing the world a favor.

Whichever way it is, it's hard to argue that you're innocent; you're either a criminal or criminally negligent. The only question is what level of punishment is reasonable. Bankrupting you is excessive, but disconnecting you? Seems to fit the crime.

You've left out a couple of plausible scenarios (4, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33694026)

4. The methods used by copyright holders to identify infringement are not very reliable, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
5. Somebody who's out to get you makes a false complaint and your ISP is too lazy to investigate, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.

Re:This is actually not that bad (5, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693418)

You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.

Re:This is actually not that bad (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693488)

Incidentally, why don't we hear about people pursuing that "penalty of perjury" bit in the more obviously spurious takedown letters?

Re:This is actually not that bad (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693604)

Because you don't have to have evidence. You have to have a "good faith belief" that someone is doing something wrong. A "good faith belief" can be justified with minimal information. It's another result of this poorly written DMCA.

Re:This is actually not that bad (1)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693654)

I would guess that proving--beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is a criminal matter--that it was willful rather than a mistake is difficult in most cases. After all, it is not illegal to make a statement that is false if you genuinely believe it to be true.

Re:This is actually not that bad (0, Troll)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693716)

You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.

You assume the complaints are illegimate. But where is the proof your assumption is right?

Re:This is actually not that bad (2, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693780)

"Innocent until proven guilty" tends to be regarded as a sensible method in most societies. I know it's not a court of law, but establishing someone's guilt (to some level higher than a simple accusation that anyone can make with almost no evidence) before they suffer adverse consequences is still a good idea.

Re:This is actually not that bad (2, Informative)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693900)

You assume the complaints are illegimate. But where is the proof your assumption is right?

No, the problem is that you ASSUME that *each and every single complaint* is *always* legitimate.

They've already had cases thrown out of court because they got their basic facts wrong. So there's *at least* one case of proven failure to be 100% correct - therefore the ASSUMPTION that they're always correct is INVALID.

Re:This is actually not that bad (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693984)

Here's one notable example [washington.edu]. I'm sure you can find [lmgtfy.com] many others.

Part of the problem is that filing a DMCA notice requires no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, and that the automated systems used in detecting infringement are far from perfect.

Re:This is actually not that bad (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693456)

And what do you do when they report you the third time, even you did not break any laws?

Re:This is actually not that bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693528)

Change ISPs. And sue them for falsely advertising their service. You signed up for internet access, not for MAFIAA bulletin messages.

Re:This is actually not that bad (5, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693544)

you subpoena your ISP for a copy of the complaint and sue the filer for libel, tortious interference, harassment, and lobby your state's AG to investigate them criminally for filing a false instrument.

Re:This is actually not that bad (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693710)

Ah yes. You plan on filing those lawsuits yourself? Be forewarned - he who represents himself has a fool for a client. Not to mention that they can be time intensive. You plan on hiring someone? That'll cost you a pretty penny. And lobbying your state AG? He's too busy running his campaign for governor. Now if you can contribute a few 100k to his campaign, maybe something can be arranged...

tl;dr: this works only if you're rich and connected. Otherwise, you're part of the unwashed masses, unfit to be paid attention.

Re:This is actually not that bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33694094)

And what do you do when they report you the third time, even you did not break any laws?

The same thing you do when they come to take your guns away.

That is to say, who cares? It isn't going to happen.

Of course, a particularly easy way to make sure it doesn't happen is not to infringe copyright in the first place. It's not hard. That way, even if a mistake is made, you still have two lives left. This is preferable to the lawsuit approach, where you could face a choice of extortion or legal fees after a single mistake.

"Oh, but what about the people stealing my internets?"
Use a secure WPA2 passphrase, change it once in a while, you're safe.

"Oh, but it's not me, it's my teenager!"
There's this thing called "parenting", you should try it sometime.

"Oh, but teh man is totally ripping us off demanding a whole 99 cents for a song!"
Get a job.

Really, it's not rocket science. Don't break the law and this will never affect you.

Re:This is actually not that bad (4, Informative)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693858)

it's really not that bad of a deal. Basically, if the RIAA/MPAA sees your IP address, instead of trying to extort you for money, they just tell TWC, who redirects you to an angry-sounding webpage next time you try to use the Internet. You click "Accept" or whatever, and then the problem goes away. No subpoenas, no lawsuits. You can do this twice. It's not until the third time that something actually bad happens, and if you're incompetent enough to get caught three times, you shouldn't be on the Internet.

You sir are a complete idiot.

I've had noticed issued against IP addresses on my network that *have never been active*, not ever.

It is literally not physically possible for said IP address to have *ever* issued a packet. Their reporting mechanisms are *broken*, it is not just possible, but *likely* that you will be "issued with a notice" even though you have never violated copyright ever.

Some people will have their only possible internet connection dropped with extreme prejudice for at least six months even though they have not done anything wrong.

Dumb business decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693374)

What happens when some troublemaker sends 3 takedown notices for all their subscribers?

Underground Networks will becoming like CB Radio. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693380)

This will only detach the people from the Internet.

I have a dream, that with every advanced WIFI router
is a clustered Peer2Peer protocol that will replace
ICANN with a more Freenet-inspired system of independent
routing of packets.

If only the world was Free again like 4Chan, but without
the CIA/NSA back-end that Moot forwards the logs to.

Re:Underground Networks will becoming like CB Radi (1)

dieth (951868) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693628)

Moot's Canadian, he sends it to CSIS, they sell it to the CIA/NSA.

SuddenLink's new name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693392)

is of course SuddenDisconnected

The real reason... (3, Insightful)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693400)

Their network is overloaded and it easier to trim the fat (heavy downloaders=pirates after all) then to build out their network.

Re:The real reason... (1)

oscarh (40635) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693658)

I love apologetics - "heavy downloaders=pirates after all."

Why not simply stop buying CDs and stop going to the movies? When their products no longer have support (not to mention revenues) their attitude will change. But then continue to refuse.

Re:The real reason... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693820)

heavy downloaders=pirates after all

Or maybe netflix users. I replaced cable with internet video including netflix, I bet I am quite the heavy downloader.

Quick question (1)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693402)

Do they serve business customers as well? Because if they do, this is probably going to get them sued before long.

Re:Quick question (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693584)

...only if there are SLA agreements. That, and most business customers of a (generally) consumer ISP are going to be fairly small, and without a war chest for litigation. There are exceptions (Verizon stands out as one), but mostly this is the case.

Most of your bigger businesses (and therefore those more able to litigate) will have providers who also provide SLAs, and have contracts that can actually be negotiated, given the money involved (ISPs such as Integra, AT&T, et al). The smaller guys with the "Comcast Business DSL" connections will be presented with a ToS, and are told to take it or leave it.

DMCA does NOT require disconnection (4, Informative)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693414)

And getting a takedown notice (or multiple takedown notices) has NO indication of guilt. There are plenty of cases where MAFIIA robots have sent automated takedown notices without anyone actually taking the time to find out that they didn't own the material in question.

People should drop this company, ASAP.

Re:DMCA does NOT require disconnection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693600)

If they want to retain Safe Harbor:
US Code Title 17, section 512 (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.

How would you comply with this without disconnecting repeat infringers, counselor?

Re:DMCA does NOT require disconnection (4, Insightful)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693818)

How would you comply with this without disconnecting repeat infringers, counselor?

You wait until the person is convicted in court of infringing at least twice, of course. The RIAA's word should not be sufficient evidence for considering a customer a "repeat infringer".

Re:DMCA does NOT require disconnection (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693846)

termination in appropriate circumstances

See that word I bolded?
We call that a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it. You just decide only a criminal conviction for copyright infringement is the appropriate case and you put that in your subscriber agreement.

Submit DMCA reports on management of suddenlink (4, Informative)

viking80 (697716) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693496)

Submit DMCA reports on the board and management of suddenlink. They all most likely have full speed connections. Maybe you think they are misusing your IP.

The policy allows no review of the DMCA, so it would be interesting to see how that develops.

Company name:
Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC
and from their web page:
Mr. Jerald L. Kent Chairman
Mary Meduski EVP - Chief Financial Officer Age: 51 314-315-9603
Mr. Thomas P. McMillin Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Age: 48
Ralph Kelly SVP - Treasurer 314-315-9403
Mr. James Fox Chief Accounting Officer and Senior Vice President Age: 40
Mike Pflantz VP - Corporate Finance 314-315-9341
Mr. Terry M. Cordova Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President Age: 49

Re:Submit DMCA reports on management of suddenlink (2, Funny)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693786)

There's the problem right there - they're all old people. If only old people knew how awesome pirating was, they'd probably jump on board instead of trying to shut it down.

Well, maybe. But they're the ones with the money to actually pay for that shit, so they might not.

New Domain (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693498)

suddenunlink.com is now a registered domain name that points to the original article.

Nothing unusual in this. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693610)

You have no need to worry about this if your not doing anything wrong...Anyone that says otherwise is the reason for this policy in the first place.

Could they be getting paid? (1)

rs1n (1867908) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693614)

It just doesn't make sound business sense to me to voluntarily implement this when there aren't other ISPs doing the same -- especially the major ones. Could this ISP be getting some incentive money to implement this? I just hope the folks who are currently with them have an alternative high-speed alternative.

it's all about profit, or the lack there of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33693632)

The residential access business is low profit, especially for the little guys that use the incumbent carrier's network. AT&T's DSL pricing for independent ISPs, where AT&T is providing a simple data circuit, is higher than what they sell to their residential full-service customers. So the ISP is making $3.50/mo/user. The time spent servicing a DMCA request, whether valid or not, eats that profit quickly. Residential internet access is a crappy, crappy business.

Major Areas of Operation... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693652)

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

Oh.

Need to report suddenlink's site (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693662)

I see tons of frivolous items that could be reported on throughout their site to the DMCA. Just start submitting and eventually 3 notices will make it through....Should be great to see Suddenlink have to take their own site down.

We don't need no due process... (2, Insightful)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693672)

Of course, it's not like so many ISPs don't have a ton of other obscure terms that allow them to terminate your service on a whim.

i'm a Canadian, and I still think this stinks; (4, Interesting)

Lukano (50323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693682)

I've been reading the TF thread for about an hour now, and I still can't help but think this is a horrible and stinky decision;

I've written Suddenlink to communicate my dissatisfaction :

@SuddenLink : "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."

Their response was to play dumb ;

"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. "

To which I replied and pointed them in the direction of the TorrentFreak article ;

"The disconnect policy in which I refer to, can be found here;
http://torrentfreak.com/us-isp-disconnects-alleged-pirates-for-6-months-100924/ [torrentfreak.com]"

And their reply was ;

@SuddenLink : "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.'

wow... I'm glad that they 'apologize' that I don't approve of their policy. Great customer service skills - both on a CSR level and Company-Wide, that this is the best response they can come up with.

Time Warner does it too (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693728)

I got a notice from Time Warner about three years ago regarding a movie I was supposedly sharing. They suspended my internet until I clicked a button promising I wouldn't pirate anyone. They also warned me I only had one warning left (i.e. on my third strike they would discontinue my service).

Funny how it's the two-bit operators .... (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#33693944)

Whoring themselves out to this kinda of organized crime.

NONE Of the *big* service providers, who run a large, successful, and well managed network are jumping on this bandwaagon.

This ias *nothing* to do with "catching criminals" or 'stopping piracy', it's a trivial manner for them to legitimize disconnecting the heavy users so they can continue to run a network without having it implode.

Failure to run your business properly is not a good reason to pound your customers in the ass.

Just get a VPN.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33694090)

Personally, I ended up recently getting a cheap VPS and just using it for any of my torrenting. The owners are Canadian so they're very anti DMCA anyways.

http://buyvm.net

I get good speeds then just FTP it off. Of course, you could just use it as a literal VPN and run it from home.

Dooot dee dooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33694194)

This sounds like a job for 4chan! lol

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...