7 ms·

Comcast Wins Protest Against “Shake Down” of BitTorrent Pirates

88 points by lightspot 14y ago

jknupp 14y ago
Even if there is no relevant legal precedent, Comcast's common sense argument that the plaintiff in the case had a clear history of not using the identities of the subscribers the court compelled ISPs to release in any litigation is the kind of argument that, in a perfect world, would become the norm. However, IANAL so I have no idea how likely it is to be successfully used again.
- lrs 14y ago
  I don't know, man - I'm no ally of the Plaintiffs in this case, but I don't think I buy that argument. What Comcast characterizes as "shakedowns" are really just negotiated settlements. The fact that the claims didn't go to litigation doesn't necessarily indicate that they aren't valid; it just means that they were settled before it became necessarily to file a lawsuit.
  - justinlink 14y ago
    This one law firm has had cases against tens of thousands of internet users. To this date they have never served a single one. Here's proof from Prenda itself in a court filing: "Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases." http://www.scribd.com/doc/83287284 http://www.scribd.com/doc/83287284 (page 4 - all cases)
lrs 14y ago
The fact that Comcast is carrying this banner almost makes me want to switch to Comcast in support. I say "almost" because I quickly remember their frequent random connection drops, slower-than-promised speeds, intentionally misleading promotional advertising, legendarily bad customer service, and ruthless nationwide campaign against affordable municipally-provided high speed Internet access.
- ajross 14y ago
  Also: DNS response forgery, bittorrent throttling via packet inspection and clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network. I'm as pleased as anyone with this, but honestly I think the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast. That said, I'm a customer. They're my only good choice in broadband. And honestly I've been reasonably pleased -- it's reliable and fast, if not cheap.
  - ars 14y ago
    Also: Very easy to disable DNS forgery (unlike some), DNSsec on their entire network (which also disables the DNS forgery, but they knew that), IPv6, and since they got hit so hard on the bittorent thing, they won't dare do it again - which makes them perfect. > clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network That's isn't real. They are not doing that. Someone analyzed their TV over IP service a little while ago and verified it. > the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast Not me. They were evil when they did the bittorrent thing, but ever since then they've been great.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Most of that is a judgement call, and I won't argue. But the network neutrality thing is very much real. They enforce a cap on general traffic, but lift it for partner streaming. That's a discount. The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers, and thus they were (plausibly, technically) within the letter of network neutrality. They were quite clearly violating the spirit.
      - ars 14y ago
        They do the same thing for PPV. It makes no difference that it's TCP/IP vs some other protocol. Those packets do not flow over your internet connection, they flow over the dedicated wires comcast runs to the customer specific for video. They don't prioritize it over other traffic - it uses a totally different channel which you pay extra to get. It's exactly what they should be doing. > The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers No, that's not correct. The packets used a different DOCSIS channel, after the cable modem the packets were not special. If the packets went over your regular connection AND were prioritized, then that would be a violation. Anything else is not a violation, not the letter, not the spirit. Comcast is a video provider, I bought some video and they used their wires to provide it to me. Other providers don't have the same access to the customer, but that's because they have no wires to the customer. For network neutrality, other providers should have the same internet access as the customer as comcast, but this service doesn't use your internet connection, so network neutrality simply doesn't apply.
_delirium 14y ago
This article doesn't mention it, but I wonder whether the fact that plaintiffs were pornography producers (http://paidcontent.org/2012/06/20/comcast-crushes-porn-owners-shakedown-of-subscribers/ http://paidcontent.org/2012/06/20/comcast-crushes-porn-owner...) was relevant to the court's decision. The decision is just a one-paragraph notice saying "for reasons stated in open court...", so it's hard to know. But I could see the Court being more worried about discovery being used for harassment in such a context. On the other hand, given the lack of a written opinion, it's possible the Court didn't care about this "shakedown" aspect of the argument at all, and instead quashed the subpoenas for some more technical reason, like the improper-joinder argument that the article mentions.
justinlink 14y ago
Comcast has only recently started fighting back against this one law firm (Prenda) because they were not promptly paying Comcast's fee for handing over subscriber information. Comcast charges $45 per IP address for civil cases. Prenda was late with payments in another case and the dispute even made the court docket. Comcast said to the court they discussed payment terms with Duffy (Prenda's main counsel) and resolved their differences. I do not know if Prenda ever ended up paying Comcast, but Comcast's refusal to comply to me seem more rooted in the costs to their legal department than to protecting their customers. Comcast had no problem giving out thousands of customer's information for two years to these black mailers until recently. The merits of the case have never changed. They sue people in favorable jurisdictions and only Comcast could have stepped forward with the contact information and fought that with real evidence. Kudos to Comcast, but don't consider them for sainthood yet.
- jdp23 14y ago
  Thanks for the background. When I first saw that Comcast was doing the right thing here, my head almost exploded. Now I understand :)
  - hbhanu 14y ago
    Haha, I did a doubletake, too - the background definitely helped.
    - ars 14y ago
      A reputation is a hard thing to shake isn't it. Even if they do something good, please will look for other reasons for everything you do.
- danielsiders 14y ago
  can someone find a citation for this?
  - justinlink 14y ago
    Here's a document which speaks of the payment and the problems Comcast was having: http://ia600806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214.7.0.pdf http://ia600806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152... On February 2, 2012, AF Holdings served the Subpoena on Comcast. Fourteen days later, on February 16, 2012, Comcast objected to the Subpoena on four separate grounds: inadequate time for compliance, inadequate assurance of payment, improper joinder and lack of personal jurisdiction. After a good faith meet-and-confer conference on the same day, Comcast agreed to withdraw its objection regarding assurance of payment, but indicated it would stand on its remaining objections. --- It's more recent, so they also raised other issues other than non-payment. The inadequate time issue is relating to staffing while joinder and lack of jurisdiction, I do commend comcast for fighting.
RedwoodCity 14y ago
I guess now I know where comcast has been spending my subscription fees. Apparently on very expensive lawyers. Now if comcast would only upgrade there service so American broadband would be more comparable to Sweden or Japan.
ericson578 14y ago
wow, at least we know not to settle out of court. They need to prove I did the sharing first (I am not my IP address).

88 points by lightspot 14y ago

Even if there is no relevant legal precedent, Comcast's common sense argument that the plaintiff in the case had a clear history of not using the identities of the subscribers the court compelled ISPs to release in any litigation is the kind of argument that, in a perfect world, would become the norm. However, IANAL so I have no idea how likely it is to be successfully used again.

lrs 14y ago
I don't know, man - I'm no ally of the Plaintiffs in this case, but I don't think I buy that argument. What Comcast characterizes as "shakedowns" are really just negotiated settlements. The fact that the claims didn't go to litigation doesn't necessarily indicate that they aren't valid; it just means that they were settled before it became necessarily to file a lawsuit.
- justinlink 14y ago
  This one law firm has had cases against tens of thousands of internet users. To this date they have never served a single one. Here's proof from Prenda itself in a court filing: "Although our records indicate that we have filed suits against individual copyright infringement defendants, our records indicate that no defendants have been served in the below-listed cases." http://www.scribd.com/doc/83287284 http://www.scribd.com/doc/83287284 (page 4 - all cases)

lrs 14y ago

The fact that Comcast is carrying this banner almost makes me want to switch to Comcast in support. I say "almost" because I quickly remember their frequent random connection drops, slower-than-promised speeds, intentionally misleading promotional advertising, legendarily bad customer service, and ruthless nationwide campaign against affordable municipally-provided high speed Internet access.

ajross 14y ago
Also: DNS response forgery, bittorrent throttling via packet inspection and clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network. I'm as pleased as anyone with this, but honestly I think the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast. That said, I'm a customer. They're my only good choice in broadband. And honestly I've been reasonably pleased -- it's reliable and fast, if not cheap.
- ars 14y ago
  Also: Very easy to disable DNS forgery (unlike some), DNSsec on their entire network (which also disables the DNS forgery, but they knew that), IPv6, and since they got hit so hard on the bittorent thing, they won't dare do it again - which makes them perfect. > clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network That's isn't real. They are not doing that. Someone analyzed their TV over IP service a little while ago and verified it. > the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast Not me. They were evil when they did the bittorrent thing, but ever since then they've been great.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Most of that is a judgement call, and I won't argue. But the network neutrality thing is very much real. They enforce a cap on general traffic, but lift it for partner streaming. That's a discount. The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers, and thus they were (plausibly, technically) within the letter of network neutrality. They were quite clearly violating the spirit.
    - ars 14y ago
      They do the same thing for PPV. It makes no difference that it's TCP/IP vs some other protocol. Those packets do not flow over your internet connection, they flow over the dedicated wires comcast runs to the customer specific for video. They don't prioritize it over other traffic - it uses a totally different channel which you pay extra to get. It's exactly what they should be doing. > The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers No, that's not correct. The packets used a different DOCSIS channel, after the cable modem the packets were not special. If the packets went over your regular connection AND were prioritized, then that would be a violation. Anything else is not a violation, not the letter, not the spirit. Comcast is a video provider, I bought some video and they used their wires to provide it to me. Other providers don't have the same access to the customer, but that's because they have no wires to the customer. For network neutrality, other providers should have the same internet access as the customer as comcast, but this service doesn't use your internet connection, so network neutrality simply doesn't apply.

_delirium 14y ago

This article doesn't mention it, but I wonder whether the fact that plaintiffs were pornography producers (http://paidcontent.org/2012/06/20/comcast-crushes-porn-owners-shakedown-of-subscribers/ http://paidcontent.org/2012/06/20/comcast-crushes-porn-owner...) was relevant to the court's decision. The decision is just a one-paragraph notice saying "for reasons stated in open court...", so it's hard to know. But I could see the Court being more worried about discovery being used for harassment in such a context. On the other hand, given the lack of a written opinion, it's possible the Court didn't care about this "shakedown" aspect of the argument at all, and instead quashed the subpoenas for some more technical reason, like the improper-joinder argument that the article mentions.

justinlink 14y ago

Comcast has only recently started fighting back against this one law firm (Prenda) because they were not promptly paying Comcast's fee for handing over subscriber information. Comcast charges $45 per IP address for civil cases. Prenda was late with payments in another case and the dispute even made the court docket. Comcast said to the court they discussed payment terms with Duffy (Prenda's main counsel) and resolved their differences. I do not know if Prenda ever ended up paying Comcast, but Comcast's refusal to comply to me seem more rooted in the costs to their legal department than to protecting their customers. Comcast had no problem giving out thousands of customer's information for two years to these black mailers until recently. The merits of the case have never changed. They sue people in favorable jurisdictions and only Comcast could have stepped forward with the contact information and fought that with real evidence. Kudos to Comcast, but don't consider them for sainthood yet.

jdp23 14y ago
Thanks for the background. When I first saw that Comcast was doing the right thing here, my head almost exploded. Now I understand :)
- hbhanu 14y ago
  Haha, I did a doubletake, too - the background definitely helped.
  - ars 14y ago
    A reputation is a hard thing to shake isn't it. Even if they do something good, please will look for other reasons for everything you do.
danielsiders 14y ago
can someone find a citation for this?
- justinlink 14y ago
  Here's a document which speaks of the payment and the problems Comcast was having: http://ia600806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214/gov.uscourts.dcd.152214.7.0.pdf http://ia600806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.dcd.152... On February 2, 2012, AF Holdings served the Subpoena on Comcast. Fourteen days later, on February 16, 2012, Comcast objected to the Subpoena on four separate grounds: inadequate time for compliance, inadequate assurance of payment, improper joinder and lack of personal jurisdiction. After a good faith meet-and-confer conference on the same day, Comcast agreed to withdraw its objection regarding assurance of payment, but indicated it would stand on its remaining objections. --- It's more recent, so they also raised other issues other than non-payment. The inadequate time issue is relating to staffing while joinder and lack of jurisdiction, I do commend comcast for fighting.

RedwoodCity 14y ago

I guess now I know where comcast has been spending my subscription fees. Apparently on very expensive lawyers. Now if comcast would only upgrade there service so American broadband would be more comparable to Sweden or Japan.

ericson578 14y ago

wow, at least we know not to settle out of court. They need to prove I did the sharing first (I am not my IP address).