we are working toward compliance, right now we are forwarding the notice to our powercode ticketing email, then reassigning it to the customer in a customer viewalble ticket. when we implement we will do the contract redirection to a specific contract pretty much saying if you want service restored you acknowledge that you recieved the notice and we offer no advice either way, some links to info on dmca and notification that we will not discuss the matter with them. It will have an assurance that their info has not been provided to anyone, but will be if a subpoena or other such forceful legal requirement is met. blah blah blah, and if it continues we may further address the matter up to and including termination of service. We will come up with a formal guideline of how far they have to push to get terminated. Our NAT customers i just notate the ticket, NAT unable to identify customer and close it to show good faith for identification.
FYI IP-Echelon Compliance attaches an xml file, when powercode fetches it, it only brings in the attachment and strips the email body. we have one customer who has gotten a bunch lately which will force us to complete our policy soon. Mediacom, my home internet has a 3 strikes over the lifetime. No apologies, no 4th chance, lifetime ban. The only reason I am getting concerned is that its a matter of time until they find a way to hammer the streaming devices like the illegal firesticks. when they get that hammered out I think there will be a bunch of enforcement action On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Cassidy B. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > We send the notice and call them after to make sure they ack it. On the > third strike, we suspend their service until they call in. Letting them > know at that time if we receive future notices it’ll be a $100 > administrative fee per notice we receive. They usually decide to go > elsewhere at that point. > > On Feb 2, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Usually we send a couple notices and never hear about it again. They > usually quit the offending activity, or encrypt their traffic. When they > just keep going and going we have to do something. > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I will never forget the first time I shut somebody off for pirating a >> movie. Porn movie. Turns out to be the kid of a principal of a local >> school. Dad was pretty hot for being shut down until I explained the >> reason. I told him once he makes nice with the copyright holder we can >> turn him back on. I think he was worried it would leak into the press or >> the schoolboard would become aware. That never happened. >> >> *From:* Jeremy <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:41 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] DMCA Time Management Fee >> >> Yeah, we expect them to switch. We are uninstalling the equipment. I am >> just trying to figure out how long we should ban them for. I really don't >> care if they ever come back. Pirates are a hassle for me, and could >> potentially land any of us in front of a judge. >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Ryan Ray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Realistically if you shut me off I would switch to a new provider within >>> a day. I don't know what kind of person would stick around on a ban no >>> matter what the length of time is. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> For those of you who actually do some sort of enforcement, what amount >>>> of time do you ban them for? I figure even at 90 days they will get a new >>>> provider. So I was just going to go with one year. Is that excessive? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Justin Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You designate an “agent” within your company. I typical register the >>>>> CEO, operations, or someone like that that as the agent. You would have >>>>> no >>>>> issue registering yourself as the agent. I would recommend you create a >>>>> copyright@ e-mail address and use that as the designated e-mail >>>>> contact. That way you know a request to copyright@ is most likely >>>>> someone following protocol. >>>>> >>>>> It’s like CALEA. Their just needs to be the proper person on file to >>>>> contact, and server due process should it come to that. >>>>> >>>>> Justin Wilson >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO >>>>> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth >>>>> >>>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I really have no idea about that. So I need to hire an agent, and >>>>> then ignore all but the requests that come to me from that agent? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Justin Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The biggest thing I use in a determination is did they send it to the >>>>>> Registered Copyright Agent on file? You do have one correct? :-) >>>>>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/ >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have one, and it’s not sent to that agent, it’s not a real >>>>>> request IMHO. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Justin Wilson >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO >>>>>> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com COO/Chairman >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 1:34 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It can't charge the copyright holder, but could it charge to company >>>>>> sending out the notices if they aren't the CRH? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Keefe John <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This has been discussed before, the DMCA safe harbor doesn't allow the >>>>>> provider to charge the copyright holder for this. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/2/2016 12:03 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's going to end up in a big mess of a lawsuit eventually. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Sterling Jacobson < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Haha! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If it’s against your AUP, make sure you have a clause in there that >>>>>> says >>>>>> you >>>>>> charge per incident. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Then go ahead and charge the customer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sounds like if you are just going to kick them off eventually, might >>>>>> as >>>>>> well >>>>>> try to keep them, but make it costly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If they don’t pay it, then they are off. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing legally wrong with it if its in your policy I think. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On >>>>>> Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:57 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] DMCA Time Management Fee >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh wow, youre seriously looking for a fight with customers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you thing about charging a fee every time that a customer >>>>>> gets a >>>>>> DMCA takedown notice. These notices take time to track down and >>>>>> follow >>>>>> up >>>>>> on. If we charged $20 every time it would make it not really worth >>>>>> it to >>>>>> pirate that $10 movie. I would think that it should be legal, so >>>>>> long as >>>>>> we >>>>>> add it to our customer agreement. Anyone ever thought about this? >>>>>> Right >>>>>> now we pass on 5 of them and then make them find a new provider. It >>>>>> seems >>>>>> like they would be less likely to hit 5 if they had to pay $20 for >>>>>> each >>>>>> one. >>>>>> We really don't want these guys on our network anyway, so no sweat if >>>>>> they >>>>>> just cancel. Is anyone out there charging customers a fee for >>>>>> these? I >>>>>> know most of you just ignore them, but we like passing them on, as it >>>>>> lowers >>>>>> our overall usage. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>> team >>>>>> as >>>>>> part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
