4 ms·
Ask HN: Copyright infringement alert from ISP
I am a TWC customer. They said my network is allegedly used for illegal content download. So far my tenants said no illegal activity. I am asked to do an independent review by AAA CCI ($35 fee) or they will shut down my service again.
I have a few questions.
1) Do you have any experience with dealing ISP alerts like this and ever used the AAA CCI review? It has options such as "I do not wish to challenge" or "Unauthorized use of account" and etc. What's the safest bet? If I did find out my tenant is lying and said "do not wish to challenge" will they used this against me?
2) Any monitor tools to identify possibly bittorrent traffic? The same film content was reported to have been downloaded FIVE times from five different timestamps, so something is really suspicious there.
- zzalpha 11y agoEFF has a page on this topic, in case you haven't come across it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/six-strikes-copyright-alert-system-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/six-strikes-copyright-... See the section on "What can I do if I receive a notice?", as it covers the arbitration process for dispute resolution. The upshot is: 1. You have to challenge within 14 days, dropping the $35 fee at that time. 2. You only get six choices of defense. 3. Case is argued in front of an arbitrator (not a judge) and the judgement is legally binding. 4. If you win, you get your $35 back. The second defense might apply... maybe... but you only get to assert it once. Assuming, of course, your arbitrator isn't more worried about retaining their clients than about delivering a fair judgement... Meanwhile, as for monitoring, frankly, no, there's very little you can do. A standalone firewall with basic port blocking enabled for common bittorrent clients would probably cover most uses, but for anyone determined, you need L7 packet inspection to identify BT traffic, and even that only works if encryption isn't being employed. Lucky for the group involved in CAS, they've managed to foist this technological impossibility onto their end users... convenient for them, not so much for the consumer. :/ Your best bet is, unfortunately, to stop offering broadband to your tenants in this fashion, as it opens you up to these kinds of legal issues. Edit: Fun Fact: TWC claimed account termination would not be a sixth strike penalty: http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six-strikes/#OImwJenOiiqn http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six-strikes/#OImwJenOiiq... Everything else I can find seems to suggest account termination is not supposed to be a consequence of multiple violations... is there additional background, here, that we're missing? You indicate a previous termination of service. What was that about?
- yeukhon 11y ago> Case is argued in front of an arbitrator (not a judge) and the judgement is legally binding. By in front did you mean digitally? Yeah. I am going to print the page and have my tenant seriously look at it. I will see how much I can block. But thanks for the help here.
- zzalpha 11y agoAlas, that I don't know. I'm sure a bit more online research would bear fruit. My bet would be that you present evidence along with your challenge and they render judgement accordingly, but that's just a guess.
- doctorshady 11y agoI don't have any advice for you here (I wish I did), but I have to ask - do you think this sort of enforcement is a result of the Cox vs Rightscorp case that just happened this month?
- zzalpha 11y agoNope, CAS goes back to 2013 (see the EFF link I posted above).
- doctorshady 11y agoRight, but I thought Cox got in hot water for not taking the CAS seriously.