+Red King Subscriber² Posted October 3, 2015 Subscriber² Share Posted October 3, 2015 Comcast User Hit With 112 DMCA Notices in 48 HoursBy Andy on October 2, 2015 According to a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania this week, a Comcast user was sent a staggering 112 DMCA notices in just 48 hours after downloading and sharing a single torrent. The unlucky user was targeted for sharing the discography of Dog Fashion Disco, a long defunct metal band previously known as Hug the Retard. Every day, DMCA-style notices are sent to regular Internet users who use BitTorrent to share copyrighted material. These notices are delivered to users' Internet service providers who pass them on in the hope that customers correct their behavior. The most well-known notice system in operation in the United States is the so-called "six strikes" scheme, in which the leading recording labels and movie studios send educational warning notices to presumed pirates. Not surprisingly, six-strikes refers to users receiving a maximum of six notices. However, content providers outside the scheme are not bound by its rules – sometimes to the extreme. According to a lawsuit filed this week in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (pdf), one unlucky Comcast user was subjected not only to a barrage of copyright notices on an unprecedented scale, but during one of the narrowest time frames yet. The complaint comes from Rotten Records who state that the account holder behind a single Comcast IP address used BitTorrent to share the discography of Dog Fashion Disco, a long-since defunct metal band previously known as Hug the Retard. "Defendant distributed all of the pieces of the Infringing Files allowing others to assemble them into a playable audio file," Rotten Records' attorney Flynn Wirkus Young explain. Considering Rotten Records have been working with Rightscorp on other cases this year, it will come as no surprise that the anti-piracy outfit is also involved in this one. And boy have they been busy tracking this particular user. In a single 48 hour period, Rightscorp hammered the Comcast subscriber with more than two DMCA notices every hour over a single torrent. "Rightscorp sent Defendant 112 notices via Defendant's ISP Comcast from June 15, 2015 to June 17, 2015 demanding that Defendant stop illegally distributing Plaintiff's work," the lawsuit reads. Read Further,https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-user-hit-with-112-dmca-notices-in-48-hours-151002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Just do what I do when comcast sends one of those BS notices, delete and ignore CrashG 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted October 3, 2015 Author Subscriber² Share Posted October 3, 2015 Just do what I do when comcast sends one of those BS notices, delete and ignore They cut your internet off after the first 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 They cut your internet off after the first 6. Not where I live, gotten around 15 notices over the last 5 or so years, probably helps to be paying for the fastest speeds they have in our area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 sounds like how assnine disney is and they send these notices to everyone.... all the while they make it hard as ###### to legally watch thier ###### online.... they make services liek MGO and Vudu exempt disney movies from any kind of promo, have a 4 month rent blackout window to where the only option is to purchase for 20 dollars to watch on both services, and they are the most expensive of the titles even compared to MGO's "same day as theaters" releases! I can stream a "same day as theaters" release at the same cost as a 1 year out of theaters disney film!!! I boycott disney and fobid even anyone in my house from accessing any disney related websites and if you stream a disney movie you get your access cut off I hate them so much for that ######. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashG Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 So the copyright trolls hammer this person for sharing a obscure, defunct band. I guess the record label has to try and recoup their investment into the (failed) band somehow. The thing I don't get is, in order to "see" the IP of "violators" you must also be in the swarm (downloading/uploading), so the copyright trolls should be charged too IMO. Your ISP wants your money every month, they don't want to lose that revenue and a customer unless you get as many in a short time as the person in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeusProto Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 You really should be using a VPN when using public swarms for sensitive content. That or limit yourself to closed swarms ("private trackers") where cease and desists are not an issue. +Anarkii 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The thing I don't get is, in order to "see" the IP of "violators" you must also be in the swarm (downloading/uploading), so the copyright trolls should be charged too IMO. They have permission from the owner/rights holder to do this, so no violation is occurring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashG Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 They have permission from the owner/rights holder to do this, so no violation is occurring. So they legally have permission to share a file illegally, kinda sounds like entrapment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 So they legally have permission to share a file illegally, kinda sounds like entrapment. Well I'm no lawyer, but I don't think entrapment would apply because the downloader is already violating copyright. In this case the owner/rights holder didn't do anything to cause the user to break the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayW Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 So they legally have permission to share a file illegally, kinda sounds like entrapment. entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. -- Wikipedia Not quite, but certainly an interesting way to be looking at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashG Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Yeah, wrong choice of terms, but how about Criminal facilitation: generally refers to knowingly assisting another in the commission of a crime. Not that it really matters, most of the junk coming out of Hollywood isn't worth the bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fulcrum Subscriber¹ Posted October 5, 2015 Subscriber¹ Share Posted October 5, 2015 I pretty much lost interest at Dog Fashion Disco aka Hug the Retard... but sucks for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts