Account Suspension for copyrighted material, common?

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Account Suspension for copyrighted material, common?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

573 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#78592 18-Jul-2007 13:05

I don't understand what the problem is here - surely if you don't like something your ISP is doing, you'd just find another ISP? If you hate it that much, then any early disconnection fee shouldn't be a problem either.

You'll find every ISP has the same clause in their terms and conditions, some just like to enforce their T's & C's more than others.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#78593 18-Jul-2007 13:11

Other isps take a little more then an email from someone claiming to be representing a copyright holder quoting law that is not relevant to NZ.

Richard rich.ms

willnz

573 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#78595 18-Jul-2007 13:14

Have you not read the posts from the WxC guys? They check logs once they receive the email, match it up, and then notify & suspend, as is their right to do so. It's their company.

EDIT: It doesn't matter if the law quoted in the email is not relevant to NZ, it's still against their terms and conditions.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#78597 18-Jul-2007 13:17

Yes, I have read their posts, and I still find the idea of suspension of services in these cases pretty disgusting.

Richard rich.ms

willnz

573 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#78599 18-Jul-2007 13:19

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinions. But again, it's their company, they stated their policy which was freely available to anyone before they joined, and if you didn't agree to their terms and conditions, you shouldn't have purchased services from them. I would've thought that was reasonably straight forward....

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#78601 18-Jul-2007 13:22

Quite right, and with this policy in place I will not be getting service from them, and actively advise others not to as well. All ISPs have things in their T&C about not using it to abuse people etc, do you ever hear of other isps turning off internet for calling someone a name on a forum? Its in the same ballpark except for the big name on the email that they are sent.

Richard rich.ms

willnz

573 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#78604 18-Jul-2007 13:26

That's true, but then again, calling someone names isn't a criminal activity (with some exceptions). Copyright infringement (in almost every country) is. See the Copyright Act.

I'd say copyright infringement, being illegal, is in a slightly different ballpark to calling someone names.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

#78610 18-Jul-2007 13:52

richms: Ok, so you don't hide this policy like you do your port 25 block, thats good to know.

What the hell are you talking about? They don't block port 25? If they have, it's probably because you are a [removed] and can't maintain a secure mail server...

[Moderator edit (MF): no personal attacks. first strike]

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#78612 18-Jul-2007 14:01

Policy may have changed, but when a friend joined in the free national traffic days, it was blocked, had to get a static to get around the block, and they were itching to take that static off him using the expiration of one of his domain names as an excuse to do so. Ended up getting another static because their unlimited national traffic wasn't actually unlimited. - thats a hidden policy there.

My flatmate wanted to change to xnet, this is at the time that orcon doubled the cost of data with their new plans. Got on it, couldn't hit port 25 on the servers he maintained, someone there wouldn't offer a static when requested, so it was back to orcon. They had the cheek to invoice for a full month for a few days, I think he paid it because hes placid about things like that, whereas I would have refused.

It may be different now, but it sure was blocked on those 2 connections, with no warning on the site about it

Getting back on topic, I think that the ISP has a duty to pass on the information about an alleged copyright violation, but to suspend a vital service over an allegation like that is totally unacceptable IMO.

Richard rich.ms

cokemaster

Exited
4927 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#78614 18-Jul-2007 14:03

Snikch:
richms: Ok, so you don't hide this policy like you do your port 25 block, thats good to know.

What the hell are you talking about? They don't block port 25? If they have, it's probably because you are a [removed] and can't maintain a secure mail server...

[Moderator edit (MF): no personal attacks. first strike]

He is probably referring to Xtras port 25 filtering policy, which was implemented (and you can opt out) of it. There were warnings and information was issued before and once (I got several emails) they started filtering however it did not appear to reach everyone.

Edit: I see that I'm mistaken - please disregard the above ;)

However, this is off topic. Please focus on the topic at hand which is WXC's policy of suspending internet connections based on emails from 'big companies' (ie. from the RIAA and MPAA crime families (which given some of their ethics and practices is justified at times)).

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

cokemaster

Exited
4927 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#78615 18-Jul-2007 14:05

richms:
Getting back on topic, I think that the ISP has a duty to pass on the information about an alleged copyright violation, but to suspend a vital service over an allegation like that is totally unacceptable IMO.

Exactly.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

willnz

573 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#78616 18-Jul-2007 14:06

richms:I think that the ISP has a duty to pass on the information about an alleged copyright violation, but to suspend a vital service over an allegation like that is totally unacceptable IMO.

Internet's hardly a "vital service". There's nothing unacceptable about running your company the way you want to, so long as it complies with the law.

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

#78617 18-Jul-2007 14:08

richms:
Getting back on topic, I think that the ISP has a duty to pass on the information about an alleged copyright violation, but to suspend a vital service over an allegation like that is totally unacceptable IMO.

Agreed.

But it's only so shocking for everyone because nobody has heard of it happening in NZ before. Well I haven't and nobody I've asked has.

I think that at the end of the day, their policy is fine and acceptable, but we are used to getting away with it, and it's come as a shock to have the rules enforced for once. I'm not about to change ISP's and the thought never crossed my mind as xnet have provided superior quality service in every aspect, I just would have appreciated a phone call first

Snikch

74 posts

Master Geek

#78618 18-Jul-2007 14:09

willnz:
Internet's hardly a "vital service".

I couldn't get my email!!!! How is that not vital

willnz

573 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#78619 18-Jul-2007 14:09

I agree, a phone call should've been made before suspension, or at least an email. We used to get literally hundreds of these notifications a day at Orcon though, so I could imagine that would tie up a fair amount of staffing resources to do so. Then again, it seems a bit easier than going through logs and suspending accounts.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8