Comcast Terminates Accounts of Persistent Pirates

[fletch to 99]

Under the DMCA Internet providers have an obligation to take action against persistent pirates. While the law doesn’t define under what circumstances this should happen, Comcast is very clear about its policy. Talking to TorrentFreak, the Internet provider confirms that subscribers who are caught for “repeated and egregious” copyright infringement will have their accounts terminated. 

 As one of the largest Internet providers in the United States, Comcast is alerted to the existence of pirating customers on a daily basis.
When the provider receives DMCA notices it is required to forward them to the customers in question, and if the copyright holder is part of the six-strikes Copyright Alert System the notice results in an official ‘strike’.
The above is nothing new, but the situation gets more complex when it comes to the effects these DMCA notices have on the long term. Although those participating in the six-strikes system have made it very clear that no accounts will be terminated, outside the program it is certainly an option. 
TorrentFreak has received information suggesting that Comcast is actively terminating the accounts of repeat infringers under certain circumstances, without a court order. When we asked the ISP about their policy with regard to repeat copyright infringers, this was confirmed.
“Termination is a requirement of the DMCA and applies to all ISPs, not just Comcast, as a consequence of repeated and egregious copyright infringement,” a Comcast spokesperson told TorrentFreak.
Comcast is indeed correct in stating that Internet providers have to act against repeat infringers. The DMCA requires ISPs to “… adopt and reasonably implement a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers.”
However, legal experts and Internet providers interpret the term “repeat infringer” differently. For example, AT&T previously said that it would never terminate accounts of customers without a court order, arguing that only a court can decide what constitutes a repeat infringement. 
Comcast, however, informs TorrentFreak that a court order is certainly not required under the DMCA and that the company’s interpretation of the law is appropriate. 
Comcast is not the only company to take this stance. Verizon’s terms of service also suggest that account termination is an option, without due process. Similar policies are also applied by other service providers, such as YouTube for example. Needless to say, terminating an Internet connection will have more impact than shutting down a YouTube account. 
While the DMCA has been in place for more than a decade, the launch of the Copyright Alert System puts the repeat infringer issue in a new light. Previously, ISPs were not obliged to keep logs of copyright infringement notices for a set period of time, but under the new system they are. 
In addition, as part of the alert system ISPs are required to track the number of notices “repeat infringers” receive. This means that providers are keeping a database of the most persistent pirates, which outside of the CAS can lead to terminations in Comcast’s case. 
Comcast assured TorrentFreak that “termination of a customer’s Internet service is not part of the Copyright Alert System,” but didn’t deny that these notices can eventually lead to account terminations under the ISP’s acceptable use policy. 
Under what circumstances this would take place, and how Comcast defines “repeated and egregious” copyright infringement, remains unknown for now.

 

source: Torrentfreak

 

My thoughts: Less customers = less income however I guess they are doing the right thing from a moral standpoint because they can clearly tell who is pirating and who isn't

[Lord Pantaloons]

Wrong from my pov, but morally sound from theirs. If they are ok with less business there's nothing else we can do to them.

[fletch to 99]

Wrong from my pov, but morally sound from theirs. If they are ok with less business there's nothing else we can do to them.

 

I agree with you, they shouldn't just terminate their accounts. Perhaps warn the users and maybe throttle them on their piracy downloads but not terminate their account

[nsyedhasan]

That should not be possible.Their an ISP which means they provide a connection to the internet. It is the users choice what they do.

[Matsy]

Complete bullcrap.

They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

What people use there internet connection for is no one elses business (at least not the ISP's)

[afa7336]

And? This is not only right, but legal. I'm always surprised people don't read the Terms of Service, considering you're signing them.

 

I know the whole pirating issue is sensitive, but lets be real, you're breaking copyright law. You have no room to fuss because you got caught multiple times, became a persistent pirate (Which takes at least 6 warnings I bet) and they finally terminate you. You broke a contract you signed, sorry. I know internet is important in this day and age, but so is having transportation. If you break too many traffic laws, you lose the privilege to drive. If you steal things on the bus, you won't be allowed on a bus. So why is it okay if its a movie, or a game? If I were to take a game from your house would you be mad if I didn't ask?

[SMURG]

I agree with you, they shouldn't just terminate their accounts. Perhaps warn the users and maybe throttle them on their piracy downloads but not terminate their account

To throttle their 'piracy downloads' specifically would be an awful lot of effort, and might not even be possible really. Realistically the only middle-ground option would be to throttle them on all their traffic as they have done in the past. Honestly though I don't think it's the ISP's job to police the traffic, they're just the provider. At most they might be expected to block content like paedophilia, but terminating people's accounts for piracy? No.

The silver lining here is that people who really want to pirate will just change ISP, thus denying Comcast of revenue and giving it to someone else.

[Lord Pantaloons]

That should not be possible.Their an ISP which means they provide a connection to the internet. It is the users choice what they do.

The idea that it should or shouldn't be possible is irrelevant, clearly it is possible and they've done it. The outcome remains to be seen but I imagine many will be up in arms soon.

[tycheleto]

Don't see anything wrong with this, even if it is a bit harsh to do it without a court order. These users are breaking copyright law, and as long as they are served the appropriate notices and warnings, I see no reason they shouldn't act to protect copyright laws and prevent them from breaking more laws.

[SethAFitzgerald]

Time and time again, studies show that piracy is not killing creators. Therefore, terminating people because of pirating content is absolutely absurd. 

[SMURG]

And? This is not only right, but legal. I'm always surprised people don't read the Terms of Service, considering you're signing them.

 

I know the whole pirating issue is sensitive, but lets be real, you're breaking copyright law. You have no room to fuss because you got caught multiple times, became a persistent pirate (Which takes at least 6 warnings I bet) and they finally terminate you. You broke a contract you signed, sorry. I know internet is important in this day and age, but so is having transportation. If you break too many traffic laws, you lose the privilege to drive. If you steal things on the bus, you won't be allowed on a bus. So why is it okay if its a movie, or a game? If I were to take a game from your house would you be mad if I didn't ask?

I agree they are quite within their rights to do it, but firstly the law(s) that enable them to do it are stupid (and thankfully not so draconian in their enforcement elsewhere in the world), and secondly it's detrimental to their own interests.

Also do not try to tell me that stealing something and piracy are the same thing. Stealing implies loss or permanent denial of access to the item in question, which piracy does not do. In the UK it falls under a completely different criminal charge for this reason, though I expect in the US this is not the case since over there taking down a website is considered an act of 'terrorism' it seems

[tycheleto]

To throttle their 'piracy downloads' specifically would be an awful lot of effort, and might not even be possible really. Realistically the only middle-ground option would be to throttle them on all their traffic as they have done in the past. Honestly though I don't think it's the ISP's job to police the traffic, they're just the provider. At most they might be expected to block content like paedophilia, but terminating people's accounts for piracy? No.

The silver lining here is that people who really want to pirate will just change ISP, thus denying Comcast of revenue and giving it to someone else.

If the ISP does not police the traffic, then who would? It appears that no matter who is trying to police the internet, others will be up in arms. Well, if there was really zero copyright protection, I doubt we would have much new media coming out anymore.

Throttling does seem to be a better solution, but then that would get into the whole argument of net neutrality instead of arguing over whether copyright protection should be allowed. This topic just creates too many arguments.

[Fetzie]

And? This is not only right, but legal. I'm always surprised people don't read the Terms of Service, considering you're signing them.

 

I know the whole pirating issue is sensitive, but lets be real, you're breaking copyright law. You have no room to fuss because you got caught multiple times, became a persistent pirate (Which takes at least 6 warnings I bet) and they finally terminate you. You broke a contract you signed, sorry. I know internet is important in this day and age, but so is having transportation. If you break too many traffic laws, you lose the privilege to drive. If you steal things on the bus, you won't be allowed on a bus. So why is it okay if its a movie, or a game? If I were to take a game from your house would you be mad if I didn't ask?

Just because something is in a Terms of Service document does not make it "right".

[Lord Pantaloons]

Just because something is in a Terms of Service document does not make it "right".

Right or wrong, they agreed to the T&C so they can't do anything about it.

[afa7336]

I agree they are quite within their rights to do it, but firstly the law(s) that enable them to do it are stupid (and thankfully not so draconian in their enforcement elsewhere in the world), and secondly it's detrimental to their own interests.

Also do not try to tell me that stealing something and piracy are the same thing. Stealing implies loss or permanent denial of access to the item in question, which piracy does not do. In the UK it falls under a completely different criminal charge for this reason, though I expect in the US this is not the case since over there taking down a website is considered an act of 'terrorism' it seems

 

So as you are pirating say a game costing 59.99 USD, are you taking that money from their pockets? Lets multiply that money, to say 2000 downloads. Thats 119,980 USD in lost sales because you decided to steal their product. What is the difference in going into a store and taking the box and walking out without paying and just downloading it from a torrent. We see the argument, don't block ads, it takes away revenue from Linus. Well, are you okay taking revenue from a game company that make games you like to play? If we start just downloading and not paying, how to they pay their employees to make games? There are many levels of theft, as you might be aware of, not just walking into a store. You ARE stealing whether you are walking into the store and taking it, or downloading without paying. Theft is theft. Don't want to pay for something, don't steal it, just don't play it.

 

 

Just because something is in a Terms of Service document does not make it "right".

 

And just because its not a physical copy doesn't mean it isn't theft.

[SMURG]

Well, if there was really zero copyright protection, I doubt we would have much new media coming out anymore.

There is no evidence to support this assertion, and a fair amount of evidence to show that piracy and sales are not so intrinsically linked. Japan for example introduced jail sentences for pirates in the hope that it would boost music sales, but it hasn't (http://torrentfreak.com/jail-for-file-sharers-does-nothing-to-increase-music-sales-131003/). It drove piracy down sure, but there was no corresponding rise in sales because, surprise surprise, most people who pirate would not have bought the content otherwise.

[MrSuperb]

 

 

 I guess they are doing the right thing from a moral standpoint because they can clearly tell who is pirating and who isn't

 

Yeah, but they shouldn't. I wouldn't like it when my telecom operator is listening to my phone conversations either.

[SMURG]

So as you are pirating say a game costing 59.99 USD, are you taking that money from their pockets? Lets multiply that money, to say 2000 downloads. Thats 119,980 USD in lost sales because you decided to steal their product. What is the difference in going into a store and taking the box and walking out without paying and just downloading it from a torrent. We see the argument, don't block ads, it takes away revenue from Linus. Well, are you okay taking revenue from a game company that make games you like to play? If we start just downloading and not paying, how to they pay their employees to make games? There are many levels of theft, as you might be aware of, not just walking into a store. You ARE stealing whether you are walking into the store and taking it, or downloading without paying. Theft is theft. Don't want to pay for something, don't steal it.

 

 

 

And just because its not a physical copy doesn't mean it isn't theft.

No, I am not taking that money from their pocket - especially if I would not have bought that game were I not able to pirate it. The difference between taking the box is that when your pirate something, nothing is lost, and there is no denial of access for anyone else. Like it or not, this is a crucial distinction because it makes it impossible to demonstrate a loss of sales or revenue.

Most pirates would not have bought the content if they could not pirate it, a fact which we see demonstrated time and time again. Most recently in Japan (http://torrentfreak.com/jail-for-file-sharers-does-nothing-to-increase-music-sales-131003/).

[Lord Pantaloons]

Yeah, but they shouldn't. I wouldn't like it when my telecom operator is listening to my phone conversations either.

they probably already are

[MrSuperb]

 

 

So as you are pirating say a game costing 59.99 USD, are you taking that money from their pockets? Lets multiply that money, to say 2000 downloads. Thats 119,980 USD in lost sales because you decided to steal their product. 

That is a fairly ignorant statement ... A lot of those 2000 pirating wouldn't buy the game for 59.99USD anyways, so there is only the loss from those who would have bought it.

 

 

And just because its not a physical copy doesn't mean it isn't theft.

The difference is, that by a download the seller doesn't lose a cent, except for those who would buy the game.

[tycheleto]

There is no evidence to support this assertion, and a fair amount of evidence to show that piracy and sales are not so intrinsically linked. Japan for example introduced jail sentences for pirates in the hope that it would boost music sales, but it hasn't (http://torrentfreak.com/jail-for-file-sharers-does-nothing-to-increase-music-sales-131003/). It drove piracy down sure, but there was no corresponding rise in sales because, surprise surprise, most people who pirate would not have bought the content otherwise.

Yeah I understand. But in my opinion doing these penalties isn't effective at all, and a lot of people who do download these things wouldn't have bought the thing in the first place, so there's very little impact on sales. This occurs with copyright protection though.

If we really had zero patents and zero copyright protection, I doubt many of the retailers could survive. There would be so little incentive to pay the creators for their effort, and they would suffer greatly. This is different from saying that more copyright protection is always good, it's just saying that none is probably worse.

Note: I'm doing this to play devil's advocate. Find it sad that many people only see one side of the story.

[SMURG]

Yeah I understand. But in my opinion doing these penalties isn't effective at all, and a lot of people who do download these things wouldn't have bought the thing in the first place, so there's very little impact on sales. This occurs with copyright protection though.

If we really had zero patents and zero copyright protection, I doubt many of the retailers could survive. There would be so little incentive to pay the creators for their effort, and they would suffer greatly. This is different from saying that more copyright protection is always good, it's just saying that none is probably worse.

Note: I'm doing this to play devil's advocate. Find it sad that many people only see one side of the story.

Yeah, I'd be apprehensive to get rid of all copyright protection, but I think a balance needs to be struck whereby the DRM doesn't impact on your usage of the product. Steam is an excellent example of this; the Steam client software is just a DRM-center essentially, yet it recieves little hate because it is flexible and generally lets you use your games as you want to.

[Fetzie]

Right or wrong, they agreed to the T&C so they can't do anything about it.

They could take Comcast to court and argue that Comcast is restricting their freedom of expression as guaranteed under the 1st Amendment, referring to judgements passed in other jurisdictions, the UN World Summit on the Information Society (2003) and the UN Special Rapporteur report (2011). Their argument being upheld would nullify that segment of the T&C and that segment of the DMCA.

[MrSuperb]

they probably already are

 

well maybe the NSA (or the british counterpart aka. NSA of Europe) is listening, but I don't think my mobile phone operator is.

[Matsy]

I wouldn't buy any movies or tv-shows if I couldn't pirate.

Far to expensive for what they are, especially movies. £15 for an hour and half movie? HA, how about no.  Also I'm not going to fork over that amount of money for something I might not even enjoy....that's just silly.

Also most tv-shows are impossible to watch anywhere without going through loads of hoops or using VPN's, I don't have the internet speed to be able to stream netflix or something similar, so I pirate them, big deal.

I do have a phyiscal library of movies and tv-shows which I have bought AFTER pirating them to see if they where worth the money or not, allot of them weren't.

As far as games go, i use piracy to DEMO the games and buy the games I believe are worth it when they come up in a steam sale or if they are cheap at the time.  Game dev's not even bothering with demo's just encourages piracy.

 

If piracy didn't exist, sales will not go up lol, I dunno where people think it will come from.

Yes I'm a terrible person, get over it.  Things should be easier to access and not cost as much as they do.