need some SERIOUS help on cablevision/copyright infringement

breatheeasy

I'm posting this here rather than the CH forum cause i think more people read this, and I'm posting this on brooklynian.com rather than anywhere else bc i think in the past, when i was inquiring about internet providers i was warned about cablevision. BUT no other service comes to my hood, so i got cablevision

anyway, i got a letter in the mail today saying that owners of copyrights filed a claim that i was transmitting their copyrighted material over the internet.

i'm basically just scared of legal action, and confused on how this happened, and what to do now

they are only talking about me UPLOADING copyrighted stuff, through a p2p sort of program, so if this is hypothetically what had happened, could i hypothetically make sure this never happens again by just downloading and never uploading stuff back? anyone ever gotten busted for straight downloading?
even the letter form cablevision tells me to shut off my share folder to copyrighted material... just sounds fishy. so i can (hypothetically) keep on downloading illegally, i just can't upload?

do i contact the copyright holder? cablevision? there are three letters that came but it seems to be more informative on what happened, not what i should do.

any advice/help from someone whose experienced this would be greatly appreciated : ) : )

alafairnadia

the big deal that cablevision looks at is movie piracy. if you're uploding items that are the size of movies and/or using p2p software where youcan torrent movies, you're going to have problems. get verizon dsl.

breatheeasy

alafairnadia wrote: the big deal that cablevision looks at is movie piracy. if you're uploding items that are the size of movies and/or using p2p software where youcan torrent movies, you're going to have problems. get verizon dsl.

thanks -- i'll keep that in mind from here on out (verizon doesn't come to me, unfortunately)

any idea about what to do about it right now, though?

devincf

I hope you go to jail.

alafairnadia

breatheeasy wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]the big deal that cablevision looks at is movie piracy. if you're uploding items that are the size of movies and/or using p2p software where youcan torrent movies, you're going to have problems. get verizon dsl.

thanks -- i'll keep that in mind from here on out (verizon doesn't come to me, unfortunately)

any idea about what to do about it right now, though?

no. I actually stopped torrenting when I moved into cablevision territory. good luck.

devincf

Yeah, good luck with your illegal piracy.

How about a thread for how to hold up a liquor store?

jayce

Subject: Re: need some SERIOUS help on cablevision/copyright infringe

breatheeasy wrote: I'm posting this here rather than the CH forum cause i think more people read this, and I'm posting this on brooklynian.com rather than anywhere else bc i think in the past, when i was inquiring about internet providers i was warned about cablevision. BUT no other service comes to my hood, so i got cablevision

anyway, i got a letter in the mail today saying that owners of copyrights filed a claim that i was transmitting their copyrighted material over the internet.

i'm basically just scared of legal action, and confused on how this happened, and what to do now

they are only talking about me UPLOADING copyrighted stuff, through a p2p sort of program, so if this is hypothetically what had happened, could i hypothetically make sure this never happens again by just downloading and never uploading stuff back? anyone ever gotten busted for straight downloading?
even the letter form cablevision tells me to shut off my share folder to copyrighted material... just sounds fishy. so i can (hypothetically) keep on downloading illegally, i just can't upload?

do i contact the copyright holder? cablevision? there are three letters that came but it seems to be more informative on what happened, not what i should do.

any advice/help from someone whose experienced this would be greatly appreciated : ) : )

Wow.
So you know that posting here can be traced back to your IP address right? And when they bring legal action against you (kinda sounds like thats already in progress), they can do a pretty easy check on data coming from your IP address and will find this post basically admitting you know its illegal and are working on how to do it anyway. I mean, wow. I thought people who were playing around with p2p apps to violate copyrights already weren't so bright... but this is kind of a whole new level of "wow, thats not so bright."

so good luck with that.

doctorj

Subject: Re: need some SERIOUS help on cablevision/copyright infringe

breatheeasy wrote:
they are only talking about me UPLOADING copyrighted stuff, through a p2p sort of program, so if this is hypothetically what had happened, could i hypothetically make sure this never happens again by just downloading and never uploading stuff back? anyone ever gotten busted for straight downloading?

I'm no expert on this area, but to answer your question, I believe it makes a difference whether you are using a torrent vs non-torrent type of network. If you are using torrents, you cannot practically download without uploading; peers will refuse to share with you if you give nothing back. If you are using an older style of p2p, such as fasttrack protocol, not uploading will tend to make you unpopular with peers but doesn't rule out downloading. However the supernodes in fasttrack make it easier to identify major infringers and the material they are offering.

FWIW, I suspect the powers that be will first go after people who rip popular or high profile US material in sizeable quantities and create and publish the torrents, or run the websites where torrents are published. At this point it would seem technically more fiddly and difficult (and less effective from an enforcement, not to mention PR standpoint) to prove someone had downloaded (and hence to some extent uploaded) a work via its torrents, without obtaining their machine. So far, convictions for using torrents are few. This doesn't stop the infringed parties from cooperating with Cablevision to identify likely downloaders and send such warning notices. And as always, please don't break the law unless you're prepared to get caught and pay the price.

Might I suggest another way to modify your behavior: if one were instead to develop e.g. a taste for obscure 25-year-old TV shows from other countries that are hard to obtain in the US, and which may never have been aired or licensed here, while downloading some of these might be illegal, the likelihood of the copywrite being enforced is rather small. Not all good art in the world is new, popular, or American. If it's recent and it's Hollywood or a major network, wait for it to come out on DVD and go to the local store or netflix and rent it.

breatheeasy

I knew I'd be setting my self up for some self-righteous people to make some comments but i needed the help so it's all good.
As far as what Jayce said, I didn't actually say anything incriminating -- I merely stated what the letters said. It's not illegal to use torrents, there are many LEGAL torrents to download.

anyway, to the people who actually answered my question -- thank you!! alafairnadia, i guess i'm in your boat now. & thanks doctorj for explaining all that to me, thats exactly the sort of answer i was looking for : ) i really appreciate it.

But yeah, why don't they shut down torrent sites & stuff like that??

jayce

breatheeasy wrote: As far as what Jayce said, I didn't actually say anything incriminating -- I merely stated what the letters said. It's not illegal to use torrents, there are many LEGAL torrents to download.

anyway, to the people who actually answered my question -- thank you!! alafairnadia, i guess i'm in your boat now. & thanks doctorj for explaining all that to me, thats exactly the sort of answer i was looking for : ) i really appreciate it.

But yeah, why don't they shut down torrent sites & stuff like that??

I wasn't self-righteous. But you said you would stop uploading copyrighted material, would it still be a problem if you downloaded it. Saying you uploaded copyright material to a p2p app is exactly incriminating. But you could totally play stupid with that. Now saying you are just going to download copyrighted software through a p2p is equally incriminating, but the kicker is you are basically saying you know its not legal, but is it something that is going to get you busted. As in which of the two crimes is worse. Either way, all I am saying is you might want to think twice about putting the debate in your head up onto a board in a way that is that easy to nail you.

read that as self-righteous if you want. I think its not such a bright thing to do.

sterling2000

I think if you can show you have adequately removed/deleted any files you have up/downloaded and then stated you won't do it again, you may be able to fall into a "safe harbor" part of digital copyright law. But, don't take my word for it...

That being said, what you have done is stealing. I have worked for the past ten plus years in IP licensing and people's idea that they can conduct themselves online in a copyright free-for-all undermines the solvency of individual artists, those who represent them and a good portion of the US economy.

There are a number of people on this board who are visual, musical and other types of artists. Illegal up/downloads of copyrighted material is akin to walking into these people's homes and robbing them.

Nice.

Happy New Year.

dw438

Thank you Sterling 2000. I was at a conference focusing on HD television that had among its panelists the woman who heads technical operations at Warner Bros. She said her worst problem is piracy -- of all kinds, whether illegal downloads, dvd/tape copying or the 'ol uptown point the video camera at the screen bs.
It's stealing. Out of my pocket.

breatheeasy

well I don't think it's a big deal -- I still think i didn't say anything incriminating, I didn't (and don't) admit I did anything illegal, I was just trying to figure out what the letters were saying. because it was really confusing that basically CABLEVISIOn said, "if you are uploading, stop, but you can download all you want." It was just strange to me.

You're right, it's probably not a bright thing to do -- but we all have different things, different perceptions. I guess I shouldn't say anything else, though? : )

breatheeasy

sorry that was to jayce ^^
and again, you guys don't know what I took if I did or how much or if it was a mistake blah blah... I don't like the accusations of being like walking into someone's house and stealing : / I wasn't just trying to be cute when I said there are a lot of free torrents out there. Anyway, Happy New Year too : )

alafairnadia

breatheeasy wrote: well I don't think it's a big deal -- I still think i didn't say anything incriminating, I didn't (and don't) admit I did anything illegal, I was just trying to figure out what the letters were saying. because it was really confusing that basically CABLEVISIOn said, "if you are uploading, stop, but you can download all you want." It was just strange to me.

You're right, it's probably not a bright thing to do -- but we all have different things, different perceptions. I guess I shouldn't say anything else, though? : )

trust me, if you start DLing significant MB worth of stuff, you're going to get another letter from Cablevision.

and to the rest of you who are discussing theft and piracy: how else am I supposed to get my hands on super hot german porn that I can't buy anywhere that ships here? eh? thank goodness for german friends and megadownload.com

devincf

You just made me feel queasier than you normally do.

doctorj

alafairnadia wrote:
trust me, if you start DLing significant MB worth of stuff, you're going to get another letter from Cablevision.

My connection is often maxed out for days at a time, GBs not MBs, and I haven't had a letter. Presumably there's some sort of correlation between what kind of data you are downloading on what ports to/from how many IP#s, and whether Cablevision sends you a letter. If they start to bug me for using the bandwidth I'm paying for to move around my own data, just because they're randomly guessing I might be doing something illegal just because lots of other heavy bandwidth users do, I will not be impressed.

alafairnadia

doctorj wrote: [quote=alafairnadia]
trust me, if you start DLing significant MB worth of stuff, you're going to get another letter from Cablevision.

My connection is often maxed out for days at a time, GBs not MBs, and I haven't had a letter. Presumably there's some sort of correlation between what kind of data you are downloading on what ports to/from how many IP#s, and whether Cablevision sends you a letter. If they start to bug me for using the bandwidth I'm paying for to move around my own data, just because they're randomly guessing I might be doing something illegal just because lots of other heavy bandwidth users do, I will not be impressed.

I think it has to do with movie sizes or movie sites. or maybe movie torrenting sites? but it's possible to trigger their "alarm" through DLing alone.

whyfi

They are more concerned with uploadng, rather than downloading (but, as DrJ mentioned, they are inseparable when it comes to P2P). They once capped my UL speeds because I was actually using the bandwidth that I was paying for. :roll: They never contacted me about it, but rather told me that I was capped when I called to complain. They said that any constant UL streams were red flags, and that they were primarily concerned with misuse of the account, such as hosting a server, but I'm sure that they keep an eye on IPs, too...

alafairnadia

well, I deffers snicked their alarm by DLing alone (I'm one of those (ex) horrid users that only DLs) and got the letter. this was a few years ago.

doctorj

WhyFi wrote: They are more concerned with uploadng, rather than downloading (but, as DrJ mentioned, they are inseparable when it comes to P2P). They once capped my UL speeds because I was actually using the bandwidth that I was paying for. :roll: They never contacted me about it, but rather told me that I was capped when I called to complain. They said that any constant UL streams were red flags, and that they were primarily concerned with misuse of the account, such as hosting a server, but I'm sure that they keep an eye on IPs, too...

Pretty outrageous. Why should hosting a server (for non-commercial purposes, depending on the terms of contract) be considered misuse? Traffic is traffic and we're paying for the bandwidth.

carnivore

FYI, the RIAA has announced that they're abandoning their strategy of suing downloaders.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?

We'll see if the MPAA follows their lead

madman

How many viruses and spyware have you downloaded with your torrents, or do you even know?

amandapetunia

Maybe this will help:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html

squindar

doctorj wrote:
Pretty outrageous. Why should hosting a server (for non-commercial purposes, depending on the terms of contract) be considered misuse? Traffic is traffic and we're paying for the bandwidth.

For most ISP's, their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP, a.k.a. the Fine Print you didn't read when they turned your service on), will contain language about transmission of copyrighted materials &/or "overuse" of the bandwidth they're selling you.

Cablevision's AUP forbids "Excessive use of bandwidth, that in Cablevision's sole opinion, places a burden on the network or goes above normal usage" -- so that would apply to both downloads and uploads, in their sole determination. This is especially a concern for cable network operators, because of the way cable networks share the bandwidth amongst users in a particular area.

god

Thanks for taking food out of my kids mouth. I really hope they catch you.

:evil:

carnivore

Great comment on this from Reddit today:

In 2003, the industry sold 656 million albums. In 2007, the number fell to 500 million CDs and digital albums, plus 844 million paid individual song downloads -- hardly enough to make up the decline in album sales.

Wait a sec. That last statement depends entirely on what one means by "make up the decline".

In a gross revenue sense, that is probably true. CDs still cost ~$16 so a loss of 156 million CD sales = ~$2.5B reduced revenue. Individual songs sell for ~$1 so the online songs only make up ~$844M for a net revenue loss of about $1.65B. That's to the entire industry including the retailers though.

The net loss to the labels is much less. Taking out the packaging, shipping, and retail costs associated with the CD but not the download, CD sales only bring in $9.60 revenue. This reduced the label revenue loss to $653M.

And this is a worst case scenario based on a $15.99 CD. Lots sell for cheaper than that so the loss would be less.

But that's from the labels' income interpretation of "make up the decline". The economics of buying music has changed so the real issue isn't income, it's whether or not the "piracy" market has caused a reduction in legal purchases.

From the number of music sales, the story is different. There are 156 million few sales in the form of CDs, but 844 million more sales in the form of online (legal) downloads. That's a net increase of 688 million sales from 2003 to 2007. In terms of sales, that last statement in the article is wrong. Online sales more than make up for lost CD sales.

From the consumer's point of view, we only purchase the songs we're interested in. That's impossible to know exactly since CDs come with many songs, but we can bound the problem.

If consumers had been buying whole CDs because they were interested in only 1 song (and got another 14 songs they didn't care about), then each CD sale reduced represents only 1 reduced song sale we care about and each online sale represents one increased song sale we care about, for a net increase of 688 million songs purchased -- that we actually want to buy.

At the other extreme, if we purchase CDs because we want all of the songs, with say 14 songs on a CD average, that would be a net loss of 1.34 billion song purchases.

The cross-over is at 5.4 songs (844 million increase / 156 million loss). If we buy CDs because we want at least 5.4 songs on the CD, on average, then this represents an exact break-even in terms of music consumed. We've reduced our song consumption by 5.4 songs X 156 million CDs = ~844 million songs we purchase less through CD sales and purchase exactly 844 million more online.

So what's the reality? If it's anything like anybody I've ever known, most CD purchases have always been for fewer than 5.4 songs. I've bought CDs for as few as 1 song I was interested in, typically for 2-3, and on rare occasion for 7-10 ("Best Of", mixed hits, classic albums). On average, for me, I'd put it somewhere around 3 songs at most that I'm actually interested in paying for per CD.

If that holds true on average, the actual music market has increased in terms of the number of songs purchased on purpose legally. As with other more formal analyses, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that "piracy" is hurting the legal market. The net effect seems to be that it is forcing labels to only sell the songs that people want to pay for instead of bundling them with songs they don't want to pay for.

That is why revenues are down. Labels have been making money off of a dishonest business model and that is now going away. Granted, there wasn't a big opportunity do it differently in the past. Singles (CD, tape, vinyl) couldn't do as well because of the overhead costs. Printing, shipping, and other overhead costs for singles were almost the same as a whole album so they couldn't reduce the price much, certainly not to, say, $1 per CD single. Whole albums were a much better deal for the consumer. Even if only 2-3 songs were of interest, it'd be cheaper to pay $15 for the whole CD than, say $21 for three $7 CD singles.

But that has changed. The labels need to come to grips with that. And they need to stop blaming piracy and the consumers.

niner

squindar wrote:

For most ISP's, their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP, a.k.a. the Fine Print you didn't read when they turned your service on), will contain language about transmission of copyrighted materials &/or "overuse" of the bandwidth they're selling you.

Cablevision's AUP forbids "Excessive use of bandwidth, that in Cablevision's sole opinion, places a burden on the network or goes above normal usage" -- so that would apply to both downloads and uploads, in their sole determination. This is especially a concern for cable network operators, because of the way cable networks share the bandwidth amongst users in a particular area.

1. Why did this thread get revived?

2. Yeah, Cablevision blows. I got one of those letters about 4 years ago, and nothing came of it. In fact it was a roommate that was downloading. And it was a shitty movie he was actually embarrassed to have dl'ed.

3. I LOVE how Cablevision will cap your connection at will, without cause or notice, but their commercials will tell you how fast the connection is so you can download unlimited movies, music, and pictures.