Cablevision Disconnects Persistent Pirates for 24 Hours

[Pardus]

Article

Cablevision / Optimum Online has revealed how it will respond to serial copyright infringers under the six strikes system. The Internet provider says it will temporarily disconnect customers from the Internet after they have received multiple copyright alerts. The disconnection will last for 24 hours but will be lifted when the customer calls a Cablevision hotline.

Earlier this week the six strikes anti-piracy system kicked off in the United States.

Interestingly, the participating Internet providers didn’t seem too eager to talk about their plans, and the RIAA and MPAA also remained silent.

While it’s not a surprise that the ISPs initially chose to keep a low profile, they should have at least informed their customers about what to expect. However, after a short delay Verizon and Comcast released some details on their six-strikes schemes, and now Cablevision have followed in their footsteps.

Interestingly, Cablevision / Optimum Online is the only provider to opt for a temporary suspension of all Internet access. This suspension will be administered if subscriber copyright infringements persist after several educational alerts.

“If instances of alleged copyright infringement continue, Optimum may temporarily suspend your Internet access for a set period of time, or until you contact Optimum,” the ISP writes.

The “set period of time” is later specified as a full day and night.

“Your Internet access will be temporarily suspended for 24 hours unless you call in to the Cablevision number provided on the notice,” we read in the help section.

The provider gives no details on what will be discussed during that call, or whether there will be any further repercussions. There is also little detail about how the customers will receive the alerts and what the educational message looks like.

We encourage everyone who sees a copyright alert in the wild to let us know.

As reported earlier not all U.S. providers are participating in the six-strikes system. Centurylink, Charter and Cox all have millions of subscribers, but are not taking part. The same is true for the 100+ smaller providers across the United States who weren’t even asked to join.

A Cox spokesperson informed TorrentFreak last year that they “have decided not to participate for internal reasons.”

TorrentFreak also asked the RIAA and MPAA to share their expectations of the copyright alert system, but both groups chose not to respond.

It’s expected that more details on the copyright alerts will come in during the weeks ahead. The ISPs and copyright holders agreed to share statistics on the number of warnings internally, but whether this information will also be made public has yet to be seen.

 

[CrackRabbit]

This may be the only time I ever get to say this; Hooray for Cox Cable!

 

[Rakehellion]

So how are they supposed to know who's a pirate?

 

[Ns1]

not seeing a problem here.

 

[TwiceOver]

Good? If you aren't smart enough to hide it then you shouldn't be a pirate.

 

[pyonir]

not seeing a problem here.

You don't see a slippery slope problem with companies deciding to "police" the internet? Uh, okay.:hmm:

 

[Newbian]

So how are they supposed to know who's a pirate?

They watch you while you fap, they watch you while you sleep...

 

[Ns1]

You don't see a slippery slope problem with companies deciding to "police" the internet? Uh, okay.:hmm:

Bandwidth costs money and pirates are breaking the law. I don't see this any different from a security guard at the door of a club bouncing out people who do lines of coke in the bathroom.

 

[MaxPayne63]

You don't see a slippery slope problem with companies deciding to "police" the internet? Uh, okay.:hmm:

No more a slippery slope than no shirt, no shoes, no service.

 

[Rakehellion]

Bandwidth costs money and pirates are breaking the law. I don't see this any different from a security guard at the door of a club bouncing out people who do lines of coke in the bathroom.

Why would a night club want to keep out coke?

 

[Crono]

You don't see a slippery slope problem with companies deciding to "police" the internet? Uh, okay.:hmm:

They aren't policing "the internet". They are a business with a ToS agreement with the customer. You break the rules of the agreement, they have the right to disconnect your service.

Think of the reverse situation: if the ISP/cable company doesn't provide what they say they will provide, you have the right to go to another service.

 

[lxskllr]

Think of the reverse situation: if the ISP/cable company doesn't provide what they say they will provide, you have the right to go to another service.

No, that's how a properly working capitalistic system works. Some people are lucky to have a single provider, and the "other" service is mailing hard drives around the country.

It's getting to the point network access is essential for proper integration in society. The network needs to be absolutely neutral, and if someone has a legal complaint, they can take it to court.

 

[Crono]

No, that's how a properly working capitalistic system works. Some people are lucky to have a single provider, and the "other" service is mailing hard drives around the country.

It's getting to the point network access is essential for proper integration in society. The network needs to be absolutely neutral, and if someone has a legal complaint, they can take it to court.

Except there is no such thing as "neutral" in the offline world or the world period, everything is regulated.

You want to use a service, even something "essential"? There are things called reasonable expectations and laws. You might be entitled to have water and electricity piped into your house, but you can't do whatever you want with the infrastructure or service.

The "look the other way" attitude doesn't world in the real world in regards to crime, nor should it. If ISPs see that you are using their service for piracy, they have some responsibility.

 

[lxskllr]

Except there is no such thing as "neutral" in the offline world or the world period, everything is regulated.

You want to use a service, even something "essential"? There are things called reasonable expectations and laws. You might be entitled to have water and electricity piped into your house, but you can't do whatever you want with the infrastructure or service.

The "look the other way" attitude doesn't world in the real world in regards to crime, nor should it. If ISPs see that you are using their service for piracy, they have some responsibility.

That's not true. When you buy electric service, you don't get shut off because someone thinks you're running a grow room in your basement. You pay your bill, and they send you electricity. If someone thinks enough that you're running a grow room, they can get a warrant to find out. It isn't the electric company's concern at all.

 

[bradley]

They aren't policing "the internet".

The aformentioned companies policing the Internet are being represented by the RIAA, MPAA and BSA. I have a huge problem with corporate vested interests having any control (except for providing content) over the 'integrity' of a telecommunications company.

Obviously these associations would need to go through the proper channels and respect the rule of law. Just like you wouldn't want pharmaceuticals running and abridging power from the FDA, like they do now. Just like you wouldn't want lobbyists on K Street running Congress, like they do now.

 

[Theb]

Six is a lot of strikes.

 

[techs]

Six is a lot of strikes.

They're only alleged strikes.

 

[lxskllr]

They're only alleged strikes.

In a proper legal system they'd be alleged. With this system, they're treated as facts, reality be damned.

 

[Anonemous]

Awaits the day where the cableco/telco deems that the content on hulu/netflix/youtube (due to content disputes) as not allowed and then shuts down your internet...

 

[techs]

I'm no lawyer but the question would seem to be is it "reasonable" to take action against a subscriber for violations of TOS based on an unrelated companies lawyer saying they saw your ip was being used for something.

It would seem to me that would not be enough evidence.

I need to buy some stock in some vpn companies.

 

[Newbian]

I'm no lawyer but the question would seem to be is it "reasonable" to take action against a subscriber for violations of TOS based on an unrelated companies lawyer saying they saw your ip was being used for something.

It would seem to me that would not be enough evidence.

I need to buy some stock in some vpn companies.

It's never stopped them before.