
Ask HN: Copyright infringement alert from ISP - yeukhon
I am a TWC customer. They said my network is allegedly used for illegal content download. So far my tenants said no illegal activity. I am asked to do an independent review by AAA CCI ($35 fee) or they will shut down my service again.<p>I have a few questions.<p>1) Do you have any experience with dealing ISP alerts like this and ever used the AAA CCI review? It has options such as &quot;I do not wish to challenge&quot; or &quot;Unauthorized use of account&quot; and etc. What&#x27;s the safest bet? If I did find out my tenant is lying and said &quot;do not wish to challenge&quot; will they used this against me?<p>2) Any monitor tools to identify possibly bittorrent traffic? The same film content was reported to have been downloaded FIVE times from five different timestamps, so something is really suspicious there.
======
zzalpha
EFF has a page on this topic, in case you haven't come across it:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/six-strikes-
copyright-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/six-strikes-copyright-
alert-system-faq)

See the section on "What can I do if I receive a notice?", as it covers the
arbitration process for dispute resolution.

The upshot is:

1\. You have to challenge within 14 days, dropping the $35 fee at that time.
2\. You only get six choices of defense. 3\. Case is argued in front of an
arbitrator ( _not_ a judge) and the judgement is legally binding. 4\. If you
win, you get your $35 back.

The second defense _might_ apply... maybe... but you only get to assert it
_once_.

Assuming, of course, your arbitrator isn't more worried about retaining their
clients than about delivering a fair judgement...

Meanwhile, as for monitoring, frankly, no, there's very little you can do. A
standalone firewall with basic port blocking enabled for common bittorrent
clients would probably cover most uses, but for anyone determined, you need L7
packet inspection to identify BT traffic, and even that only works if
encryption isn't being employed.

Lucky for the group involved in CAS, they've managed to foist this
technological impossibility onto their end users... convenient for them, not
so much for the consumer. :/

Your best bet is, unfortunately, to stop offering broadband to your tenants in
this fashion, as it opens you up to these kinds of legal issues.

Edit: Fun Fact: TWC claimed account termination would _not_ be a sixth strike
penalty:

[http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six-
strikes/#OImwJenOiiq...](http://mashable.com/2013/02/27/isps-six-
strikes/#OImwJenOiiqn)

Everything else I can find seems to suggest account termination is not
supposed to be a consequence of multiple violations... is there additional
background, here, that we're missing? You indicate a previous termination of
service. What was that about?

~~~
yeukhon
> Case is argued in front of an arbitrator (not a judge) and the judgement is
> legally binding.

By in front did you mean digitally?

Yeah. I am going to print the page and have my tenant seriously look at it. I
will see how much I can block.

But thanks for the help here.

~~~
zzalpha
Alas, that I don't know. I'm sure a bit more online research would bear fruit.
My bet would be that you present evidence along with your challenge and they
render judgement accordingly, but that's just a guess.

------
doctorshady
I don't have any advice for you here (I wish I did), but I have to ask - do
you think this sort of enforcement is a result of the Cox vs Rightscorp case
that just happened this month?

~~~
zzalpha
Nope, CAS goes back to 2013 (see the EFF link I posted above).

~~~
doctorshady
Right, but I thought Cox got in hot water for not taking the CAS seriously.

