• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cox sent me DCMA letter....hmmm....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
"Have you guys been in his house and seen this "alleged" file and see this Movie?

If not, then you do not have any more proof than the MPAA"

🙂
 
I would say to lay off the bt's for a while and go back to the tried and true ways of obtaining stuff like the newsgroups and IRC, not that I know anything about using these sources. 😉
 
Every news source for the last 3 or 4 months has carried stories about people getting busted for downloading files....
You might call that a major clue.
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
Obviously bittorent has been targeted by the mpaa as a main site for unauthorized distrobution of their movies. I got a letter from the isp (cox) statin that I had a file that was in violation.

Anyone else have this experience? Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks,

Gravity
Click to expand...

I've E-mailed my friends at EFF, hopefully will have the appropriate response in time before they turn his Internet Access off in 24 hours.
 
Originally posted by: db
"Have you guys been in his house and seen this "alleged" file and see this Movie?

If not, then you do not have any more proof than the MPAA"

🙂
Click to expand...

What makes you think the MPAA lacks proof? They've been smacked down for acting on bogus file names before, but they've also got people out there scouring the networks checking files. An mpg is viewable if only a small portion is present, you don't need the entire file to see what's on it. All it takes is an MPAA spy on BitTorrent to get 10 megabytes of the file, which equates to about 1 minute of movie. He/she can check the content, confirm that it's copyrighted and trace IPs. There's no guarantee that they KNOW it's a pirated file, but this is not the time to thumb your nose at the accusations and say "prove it!!".

Face it, trading in copyrighted material is illegal and they're watching. If you're going to do it you need to be smart about it. There are ways to protect yourself, using BitTorrent is quite obviously not a good way to do it. Answer the letter with the standard "Ooops, I wasn't aware that file was copyrighted, I'll never do it again. Please accept my monthly payment as a sign that I've learned my lesson". That'll get Cox off your back, just be smart enough to not get caught next time.
 
If this is a registered letter, be careful. Otherwise, ignore it.
If it's not registered, you can just pretend you never got it and they have no proof otherwise.
 
You're getting busted for a CAM?


AHAHAHAH.....I can undestand a misplaced Divx or something, but a FREAKIN' CAM?!? GO WATCH IT IN THE THE THEATERS YOU CHEAP BASTARD!!

Seriously, I never understood why people would ever watch CAMs.. the directors put a lot of work into the audio and video for you to bismerck their work by judging it in such a crude form.
 
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: Chadder007
The DMCA has become one of the worst laws ever made. Companies are starting to abuse it like a mofo now.
Click to expand...

Yea, its stop people from doing illegal things. Thats really bad!
Click to expand...

Actually, the DMCA has some rather draconian facets to it.

For instance, when "bunny" published his book on how he hacked the XBox (titled "Hacking the XBox"), there were serious questions about whether or not what he did was illegal according to the DMCA.
 
Originally posted by: Gravity
Obviously bittorent has been targeted by the mpaa as a main site for unauthorized distrobution of their movies. I got a letter from the isp (cox) statin that I had a file that was in violation.

Anyone else have this experience? Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks,

Gravity
Click to expand...

Well, IANALB... here's how I would proceed.

From their letter:

Accordingly, Cox will suspend your account and disable your connection to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if the offending material is not removed.
Click to expand...

So I would reply saying "The offending material (Love.Actually.CAM-UTi.Kvcd.mpg) has been removed." (After removing it, of course.)

According to the letter, that's all they asked you to do in order to keep your internet connection.

(And I, personally, would not share copyrighted material, especially after an incident like this... but that's just me.)
 
Originally posted by: AnyMal
Why do people get pissed when someone reminds them that they are breaking the law?
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Hey idiot, get bent.

KK
 
"Unless the complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior to the expiration of those ten (10) business days, Cox will reactivate your account."

This is in the letter too. Apparently, the mpaa or the studio may be in the process of getting a court order to keep my net connection down as well as other action. I can keep the connection by telling cox the material is gone but in 10 days I may have a whole world of hurt coming 🙁
 
Originally posted by: Geekish Thoughts
Are they after IRC users much? That's where I download almost all my stuff.
Click to expand...
No, but they are now.............

I guess the moral of the story here is that there is a way around this, and you probably won't be in any trouble. Just for now on, either watch your back more carefully or stop doing it all together.
 
My friend at the EFF has forwarded this to the others there that are IP (Intellectural Property) "Experts". Hope to hear from them early today before the 24 hour Internet Access cutoff time for Gravity.

 
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: db
"Have you guys been in his house and seen this "alleged" file and see this Movie?

If not, then you do not have any more proof than the MPAA"

🙂
Click to expand...

What makes you think the MPAA lacks proof? They've been smacked down for acting on bogus file names before, but they've also got people out there scouring the networks checking files. An mpg is viewable if only a small portion is present, you don't need the entire file to see what's on it. All it takes is an MPAA spy on BitTorrent to get 10 megabytes of the file, which equates to about 1 minute of movie. He/she can check the content, confirm that it's copyrighted and trace IPs. There's no guarantee that they KNOW it's a pirated file, but this is not the time to thumb your nose at the accusations and say "prove it!!".

Face it, trading in copyrighted material is illegal and they're watching. If you're going to do it you need to be smart about it. There are ways to protect yourself, using BitTorrent is quite obviously not a good way to do it. Answer the letter with the standard "Ooops, I wasn't aware that file was copyrighted, I'll never do it again. Please accept my monthly payment as a sign that I've learned my lesson". That'll get Cox off your back, just be smart enough to not get caught next time.
Click to expand...

Bittorrent sends chunks with checksums. If you send just one chunk (256kb or less sometimes) and the checksum matches, I personally would consider that beyond reasonable doubt that you are in the process of violating the law (you don't have to be a seed to be sharing illegal stuff).
 
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: db
"Have you guys been in his house and seen this "alleged" file and see this Movie?

If not, then you do not have any more proof than the MPAA"

🙂
Click to expand...

What makes you think the MPAA lacks proof? They've been smacked down for acting on bogus file names before, but they've also got people out there scouring the networks checking files. An mpg is viewable if only a small portion is present, you don't need the entire file to see what's on it. All it takes is an MPAA spy on BitTorrent to get 10 megabytes of the file, which equates to about 1 minute of movie. He/she can check the content, confirm that it's copyrighted and trace IPs. There's no guarantee that they KNOW it's a pirated file, but this is not the time to thumb your nose at the accusations and say "prove it!!".

Face it, trading in copyrighted material is illegal and they're watching. If you're going to do it you need to be smart about it. There are ways to protect yourself, using BitTorrent is quite obviously not a good way to do it. Answer the letter with the standard "Ooops, I wasn't aware that file was copyrighted, I'll never do it again. Please accept my monthly payment as a sign that I've learned my lesson". That'll get Cox off your back, just be smart enough to not get caught next time.
Click to expand...

Bittorrent sends chunks with checksums. If you send just one chunk (256kb or less sometimes) and the checksum matches, I personally would consider that beyond reasonable doubt that you are in the process of violating the law (you don't have to be a seed to be sharing illegal stuff).
Click to expand...

"beyond reasonable doubt that you are in the process of violating the law"

Minority Report, Logan's Run

Glad your happy in such a Nanny State Society.
 
Exactly. Many of these fools don't even know what the law in question is, but already have their pants down and their sphincters open. "Yessir! I'm a good little citizen! Whachoo say is surely good fo' me!".


 
Originally posted by: BlipBlop
Exactly. Many of these fools don't even know what the law in question is, but already have their pants down and their sphincters open. "Yessir! I'm a good little citizen! Whachoo say is surely good fo' me!".
Click to expand...

They say such things because they are not directly affected in any way. Once they get their balls caught in a vise they'll see.

 
Just remove the offending material, you don't have to reply.
The:

"Unless the complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior to the expiration of those ten (10) business days, Cox will reactivate your account."
Click to expand...

bit refers to if you fail to remove the offending material within 24 hours and Cox disables your connection. If you don't get it off in 24 hours, and the studio complains again, then Cox shuts you down, then you have to jump through the hoops to get back online. (The counter-notification)
 
The other problem with this is that this does not constitute actual proof on theor part that you have an infringing file in your possesion. They merely "captured" a file with the NAME of something that they say is their property. However the file may be something completely different.

This was illustrated in a case in a College recently where the Professor was falsely accused of having a file and it was a report that just happened to have a similar name to a song.
Click to expand...
Correct. It just happens to be an infringing file the vast overwhelming majority of the time. Note that the poster has yet to say or imply whether or not the accusation is true. How he responds would primarily depend on whether it was true.
 
I strongly dislike the dmca, but you have to admit there isn't alot to argue in this instance is there? You were sharing copyrighted material and got busted. Tell cox you removed the offending material, and life moves on. I'd probably quite pirating stuff though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top