On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 17:04 -0700, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: > > Sorry, dude, but that's why you got your DMCA notice. Cox apparently > has a unique way of alerting the owner of the IP address of the > violation, and thinking about it, it's technically brilliant. You > certainly couldn't ignore it.
It is one hell of an idea, but disconnecting a service (essentially canceling a contract) without prior warning, for breaking a law that would require them to provide evidence of, and in the process of gathering such evidence would require them to follow Due Process, is more illegal than the alleged copyright violation. Warning the owner of the IP via written notice via snail mail (in accordance with California and Federal law) is the only acceptable type of notice I would accept. Even then, I would be all over the ISP requesting all information regarding the alleged violation. > > So you completely blasted a Cox employee for suspending your service > because of a clear violation of your terms of service, which you > agreed to when you got the account. A violation that you later found > out to be true. Cox violated Due Process, as did the entity that informed Cox of the alleged violation. Cox is obligated to inform you of all facts surrounding the alleged violation, including the entity that reported you, how they got the evidence, what the evidence is, etc. I don't care what their Terms of Service agreement says. Due Process has legal precedent over it. People haven't been bitch slapping the RIAA and MPAA of late because Due Process does not matter, folks have actually been standing up to these fascist, greedy SOBs and putting them in their place. > > Personally, I'd bitchslap any visitor that caused my ISP account to > get bounced like that. So would I, followed by bitch slapping the ISP. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
