I got one of those letters last night

vbimport

#1

My internet stopped last night and my computer went to my internet provider site, they posted a letter to me saying I had downloaded red dawn 2012 and that I had to remove it from my computer. They also wanted me to agree that I had been warned and that I would never do it again. When I called them they acted like I had to have done it because it showed my ip address.
It was at 6am December 25 and the only one up was me and I was not on the internet. Beside I did not like the first red dawn and have no use for the 2012 copy. I checked every computer here at my house and none had re dawn on it. I told them that either the person who said it was my ip address got the wrong ip address, or they themselves got it wrong, or someone cloned the ip address, because it did not come from my home. They still made it sound like someone here had to do it. I told them in plain English that that was not so and I was not going to agree that I had been warned about something I did not do. They restarted my internet and I sent them a email asking for there upper management to call me. I HATE BEING TOLD THAT I DID SOMETHING I DID NOT DO. Did not like it when I was a kid and I do not like it at the age of 65.


#2

Your situation is why this new intimidation system is doomed to failure. They will cut off someone’s Internet service at some point and doing so will cause financial damage (stock trading, work related delays etc.), or the threat of physical harm by disconnecting alarm systems etc., and then the law suits will start flying. They are relying on people to roll over and admit guilt so they can then do whatever they want without fear of reprisal by the customer. This is going to get real messy, real fast, IMO.

Then there are the suits relating to the issue of due process not being adhered to that will start hitting the courts. Wait until these ISPs try and intimidate a wealthy, smart attorney that is itching for a precedent setting legal battle. I can even see a class action suit against the ISPs developing from this. Stay tuned.


#3

[QUOTE=samlar;2670579]I told them that either the person who said it was my ip address got the wrong ip address, or they themselves got it wrong, or someone cloned the ip address, because it did not come from my home.[/QUOTE]
Just to be on the safe side. Do you have a Wi-Fi router at home, so someone could have abused your Internet connection from outside either by using a weak password or weak encryption (like WEP)?


#4

I do have wi-fi but I live out in the country and someone would have to been standing out side my house in the cold and had my password to do that. it funny they act like someone could not hack the ip address and use it or that they could not have been wrong.


#5

Would it be possible to scan the letter, of course with your personal details blurred/removed? Maybe it can help if we give it some publicity, at least please keep us updated!


#6

[QUOTE=Liggy;2670589]Just to be on the safe side. Do you have a Wi-Fi router at home, so someone could have abused your Internet connection from outside either by using a weak password or weak encryption (like WEP)?[/QUOTE]

That’s always a possibility and why I keep telling people to make sure their Wi-Fi is as secure as possible.

Not just because of minor copyright infringement issues but because the people involved in much more serious illegal activity such as credit card fraud (or even worse) aren’t going to risk using their own connection when it’s so easy to piggyback on someone else’s and cover their trail.

You have my sympathies Samlar as it must be extremely annoying when something like this happens.

I hope you manage to get this sorted.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#7

The ISP is not going to do anything about it they just wanted me to agree that I have been warned, which would be simple to do but I do not as stated like having to say I have been warned about something I did not do.


#8

[QUOTE=samlar;2670598]The ISP is not going to do anything about it they just wanted me to agree that I have been warned, which would be simple to do but I do not as stated like having to say I have been warned about something I did not do.[/QUOTE]

That sounds like you’ve been caught up in the ‘Six strikes’ system or something similar but the way they’re applying it doesn’t seem right according to what I’ve quoted in this article.

In the circumstances, I wouldn’t be agreeing to anything you’re not happy with as these infringement records will presumably be shared between ISPs.

Are you on a fixed or dynamic IP?

[B]Wombler[/B]


#9

dynamic ip address


#10

[QUOTE=samlar;2670605]dynamic ip address[/QUOTE]

As you’re probably already aware dynamic IPs are allocated at random and reused when required.

As a result tracking of dynamic IPs by a copyright holders is notoriously unreliable due primarily to issues such as IP reallocation, proxies, and the potentially large number of hops between the end user and the Internet backbone.

I’d guess that the copyright holder has misidentified your IP and although you weren’t active your router was presumably connected to this misidentified IP address.

Again I’m only guessing but I’d imagine that all the ISP has done is warn the user of the IP specified by the copyright holder and I’d doubt that they’ve bothered to check to confirm if a large download was actually carried out using that IP at the time alleged.

Tell them again that you weren’t downloading anything at that particular time and demand that they provide all the evidence they have that the IP address in question was being used for large downloads at the time they allege.

With luck, and providing there isn’t anything more sinister going on here, it should be fairly obvious that the connection wasn’t being actively used.

Does your router have any logs that might support any of the above or confirm which IP you were connected to at the time in question?

[B]Wombler[/B]


#11

A plausible issue is that the anti-piracy organisation is on a different time zone to the ISP and that this difference was not taken into account when looking up IP allocation records.

For example, assuming the customer’s IP changes daily (typical for many ISPs) and there is a 3 hour difference between the anti-piracy organisation and the users they are checking, then roughly 1 in 8 look-ups of these IPs by the ISP will identify the wrong customer, unless the time-zone difference is taken into account.

Another example - A Comcast customer on the West coast could be assigned an IP address released by a customer on the East coast. So if the East coast customer did some illegal downloading just before its router changed IP and an IP look-up was carried out by Comcast on the West coast, then without adjusting for the time-zone difference, the West coast customer would be the one falsely identified.


#12

That’s a very good point Seán as they’re never that thorough when checking these things. :iagree:

It’s something I wouldn’t have thought of either as we’re all on GMT here.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#13

My ISP is suddenlink. I have left the name out of it so far but there
advanced support keeps sending me answers like this instead of haveing there upper management call as I requested.

The copyright infringement notice policy is put in place for you protection and Suddenlink’s protection. It is just a notice informing you of the notice we received from the copyright holder. This notice does not state that you did in fact do any copyright infringement act yourself. the notice is for the IP address that was assigned to you at the time of the infringement. If you would like to look at the acceptable use policy you can do so here:http://www.suddenlink.com/terms-policy/acceptable-use-policy.php or go to suddenlink.com and click on Terms & Policies at the bottom of the page.

I guess they missed the point that by cutting off my internet they were saying I or someone here at my house did it, which is not so. I told them again that I will not stop sending them emails until upper management calls me.


#14

I find it interesting that they seemed to back off the stronger accusation of you breaking the law in the beginning correspondence. When they couldn’t brow beat you into pleading guilty they extricated themselves from the situation.

You should ask them who specifically made the accusation and what proof did they show your ISP that your IP address was involved. I see all kinds of legal issues with this new policy. What right does any ISP have to interrupt a person’s Internet connection based on third party comments that are not vetted in a court of law or by the police. IMO, this behavior is going to bring on numerous headaches for the ISPs and I can’t see why they would agree to expose themselves to this type of liability. The copyright holders are also opening themselves up to litigation because they are going to be falsely accusing a lot of people and getting their Internet service interrupted.


#15

UTRyou are so right. They are to stupid to see that by cutting off my iternet without cantacting me first leaves the wide open for some lawyer to bring suit. Not to mention the other things you said that also leaves them wide open to suit.


#16

[QUOTE=samlar;2671125]UTRyou are so right. They are to stupid to see that by cutting off my iternet without cantacting me first leaves the wide open for some lawyer to bring suit. Not to mention the other things you said that also leaves them wide open to suit.[/QUOTE]

Keep the pressure on them and as I said above ask them for whatever evidence they have that you were downloading files via that IP at the time alleged.

Bearing in mind Seán’s comments I’d also ask them to confirm that they’ve correctly allowed for any timezone issues.

[B]Wombler[/B]