http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/time-warner-cable-tries-to-put-brakes-on-massive-piracy-case.ars

Short Version: They are telling some RIAA group to go fuck them selves over several hundred IP requests for lawsuits saying they are crazy to actually expect to send all of them to court, and also saying they overburden their system which was setup for real law enforcement problems, child porn, threats, etc.

Quote :

"Time Warner Cable has no intention of complying with thousands of requests asking it to identify copyright infringers. Remember the US Copyright Group? They're the DC legal outfit that is turning P2P copyright infringement into cash, partnering with independent movie studios (the big players are not involved) to sue individual file-swappers in federal court—and ISPs are not pleased with the plan. Too busy busting terrorists Yesterday, Time Warner Cable told a federal court overseeing a massive 2,094-person lawsuit targeting the poor folks who downloaded (and, what's worse, apparently watched) Uwe Boll's Far Cry that the US Copyright Group's subpoenas were out of control. "Copyright cases involving third-party discovery of Internet service providers have typically related to a plaintiff's efforts to identify anonymous defendants whose numbers rank in the single or low double digits," wrote the cable company. "By contrast, plaintiff in this case alone seeks identifying information about 2,049 anonymous defendants, and seeks identifying information about 809 Internet Protocol addresses from TWC." Time Warner Cable does not have enough employees to respond to these requests. In a typical month, the company receives an average of 567 IP lookup requests, nearly all of them coming from law enforcement. These lookup requests involve everything from suicide threats to child abduction to terrorist activity, and the company says that such cases take "immediate priority." Once law enforcement is served, the four full-time workers (and one temp) who make up the ISP's Subpoena Compliance team can turn to other matters, such as subpoenas in civil cases. The company says that it has the capacity to handle 28 subpoenas from the US Copyright Group per month. Instead, TWC was hit with a request for 809 names within 30 days. In addition, the company has received two other subpoenas, both from the same law firm, asking for another 398 and 224 IP address lookups. Each lookup costs TWC $45. "If the Court compels TWC to answer all of these lookup requests given its current staffing, it would take TWC nearly three months of full-time work by TWC's Subpoena Compliance group, and TWC would not be able to respond to any other request, emergency or otherwise, from law enforcement during this period," said the filing. "TWC has a six-month retention period for its IP lookup logs, and by the time TWC could turn to law enforcement requests, many of these requests could not be answered." A page of suspected IP addresses from the Far Cry case Quash, baby, quash! The ISP has now asked the court to quash the subpoena for three reasons. First, because US Copyright Group lawyer Tom Dunlap "has now simply reneged" on an agreement that he worked out with TWC to manage the flow of subpoenas. Second, the entire approach to these lawsuits may be invalid. Filing lawsuits can be expensive; Most federal courts charge a $350 filing fee per case, along with a new set of paperwork. Each case also creates another docket to keep track of, making thousands of cases an administrative nightmare. Instead of going this route, plaintiffs have gone the RIAA route, simply filing mass lawsuits against groups of "John Does," in some cases by the thousands. But, says TWC, channeling its inner Ray Beckerman, "It is not evident from the complaint in this case that there is anything common to the 2,094 defendants that would justify joining them in a single litigation... Courts facing these identical circumstances have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may not join in a single action multiple defendants who have allegedly downloaded or facilitated the download of copyrighted material at different times and locations. "Thus, if the plaintiff wants to sue these 2,094 defendants, it owes this court 2,094 separate filing fees, and it must file individual actions. Plaintiff then would be unable to combine together a single, massive discovery request with which to burden non-party ISPs such as TWC." Third, plaintiff lawyers keep expanding the scope of their subpoenas. The first complaint filed alleged 426 infringing IP addresses belonging to TWC subscribers. But when the company finally received a subpoena, it found requests for 809 IP addresses. Taken together, said TWC, these "discovery abuses" mean that the judge should quash the subpoena. Alternately, the judge should limit the plaintiff to 28 TWC subpoenas each month. According to the court docket, Comcast and Cablevision are trying to work out their own deal with the lawyers to keep the work to a minimum, though they could also ask the judge to quash the subpoenas if no agreement can be reached. The power of self-interest Time Warner Cable has not always had the reputation of a white knight when it comes to helping its subscribers—the company famously tried to squeeze more cash from broadband users by applying ridiculous data caps, an issue so sensitive to it eventually drew the wrath of senators and congressmen. But in this case, with its own self-interest also on the line, TWC has made an argument that strikes not just at a single subpoena but also at the overarching legal strategy behind the US Copyright Group's work. "

5/15/2010 12:49:20 AM

I'd hate to have TWC's systems act overburdened

5/15/2010 1:05:35 AM

Hope other ISPs use this as a precedence, this lawsuits are an abuse of the legal system

5/15/2010 3:03:59 AM

lol THIS

this should really go in the Hurt Locker thread but basically my research says this is a "legal extortion" racket that just somehow hasn't been stopped yet

5/15/2010 4:45:39 AM

lol actually the first commenter on that page makes some scary good points, not so fast...

5/15/2010 4:51:33 AM

Suddenlink finally canceled my $44.95 15/1.5 meg service because of my roommate's careless downloading. (dirty trackers)

Oct 09 - First incident
Nov 09 - Second incident
Feb 10 - Final Notice issued letting me know that unfortunately my service would eventually be terminated because "I" did not heed the previous two warning.

Now I'm on a 6 month blacklist which kind of sucks. I have 10/.8 through CenturyLink for $60/mo a la carte or 40/mo if I sign a contract, but I'm splitting the overage with 3 people so I'm not going to lock my name in for a full year for a savings of 7 bucks a month.

5/15/2010 5:59:58 AM

Hahaha...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/time-warner-cable-a-good-isp-for-copyright-
infringers.ars

Quote :

" Time Warner Cable "a good ISP for copyright infringers" By Nate Anderson | Last updated 25 minutes ago If you're wearing an eyepatch as you read this, pay attention: Time Warner Cable is the ISP for you. According to lawyers currently suing thousands of P2P users in federal court, TWC "is a good ISP for copyright infringers." The outrageous behavior that provoked this claim? TWC's unwillingness to process in a timely manner hundreds or thousands of subscriber subpoenas sent from the law firm of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver. That firm, now billing itself as the US Copyright Group, has filed thousands of "John Doe" lawsuits on behalf of indie film producers, including the backers of Far Cry and The Hurt Locker. ISPs don't enjoy processing this many subpoenas to match IP addresses with subscriber names, so companies like Comcast and Verizon have worked out their own compliance deals with Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver. Not TWC. "Copyright cases involving third-party discovery of Internet service providers have typically related to a plaintiff's efforts to identify anonymous defendants whose numbers rank in the single or low double digits," the cable company told a federal judge earlier this month. "By contrast, plaintiff in this case alone seeks identifying information about 2,049 anonymous defendants, and seeks identifying information about 809 Internet Protocol addresses from TWC." It continued: "If the Court compels TWC to answer all of these lookup requests given its current staffing, it would take TWC nearly three months of full-time work by TWC's Subpoena Compliance group, and TWC would not be able to respond to any other request, emergency or otherwise, from law enforcement during this period. TWC has a six-month retention period for its IP lookup logs, and by the time TWC could turn to law enforcement requests, many of these requests could not be answered." TWC claimed to have spare lookup capacity for only 28 of these subpoenas each month—a rate at which it would take more than two years to get through them all. And that's just for the Far Cry case; TWC faces numerous other subpoenas from other cases involving other films. Standing up for pirates? Tom Dunlap, the lead lawyer on the case for his firm, last week filed a brief with the judge in which he absolutely trashed TWC's stance, and its motivations. "TWC highlights the fact that it is not a party to this case," he wrote, "but it appears that TWC is utilizing that fact to garner public support for its position and possibly in an attempt to gain more subscribers who would value TWC's efforts to protect the privacy of demonstrated copyright infringers. To the extent TWC’s tactics are just that—letting the public know that TWC is a good ISP for copyright infringers because TWC will fight any subpoenas related to infringers’ activities—TWC exposes itself to a claim for contributory copyright infringement." This certainly ups the ante—the clear implication is that TWC might find itself on the receiving end of a separate lawsuit alleging contributory copyright infringement. Dunlap cited the Grokster case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court and ended with a Grokster loss (and shutdown). The complaint doesn't let up on the charge that TWC's resistance to these mass subpoenas is just about providing aid and comfort to its piratically minded customers. "TWC’s tactics show that it is more intent on trying to avoid compliance, while currying favor with its subscribers and potential subscribers," wrote Dunlap. Dunlap clearly enjoys administering a good beatdown both inside and outside the courthouse; his bio notes that he plays rugby, has "US Army Humvee and M1 Tank drivers licenses," and in 2002 was a "National Silver Medallist in full contact Burmese kickboxing, called Bando.""

So I guess the RoadRunner will be wearing an eyepatch and saying "ARRRRR" instead of "Meep Meep" now? I am definitely not an advocate of TWC, however, I feel that for once they are doing something valuable for the customer. And I wouldn't say hell is freezing over yet, although I think someone left an air-conditioner running.

Edit: I am not trying to say that I agree with pirating or that TWC is defending pirates, I am saying that TWC is protecting general consumer privacy against blatantly obtuse accusations ... aka: Extortion.



[Edited on June 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

6/1/2010 9:17:23 AM

Since you wont' take the stand, I will:

I agree with and defend pirates.

6/1/2010 10:02:26 AM

I've been running peer block and one of the IP's on the block list is Road Runner RRWE whenever I'm seeding/downloading torrents.

6/1/2010 10:40:26 AM

peer block. lmao

6/1/2010 10:42:25 AM

my false sense of security is good.

6/1/2010 11:02:39 AM

its like how a cop has to tell you they're a cop if u ask them.

6/1/2010 11:08:03 AM

Dang you gs7 I just saw the article on Ars and thought to post

Edit now that ive had a chance to read it.
They are threatening to take TWC to court. Grokster wasn't TWC and no way TWC would lose this. They only would have to say look we arnt required by anyone except by subpoena to do this, yet we do it voluntary, and we are giving fair reason for the delay. No court is gonna let this go through as TWC is gonna say in reply ok we will run it, no child porn cases are going through though till we get done with it.

While I do fault TWC for being greedy in a sense, I really dont blame them. Let the lawyer pay them for this.

Edit part dux

10 bucks TWC threatens to start putting up ads actually looking for subscribers as stated the lawyer is saying they are doing. And blocking any of the content handled and saying to consumers oh sorry we are being sued, go tell your lawmaker to prevent us from being sued and you can have your movies back.

[Edited on June 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM. Reason : !]

6/1/2010 3:42:43 PM

Odd that they only have 5 staffers for IP lookup. If I was TWC, I would make a separate business venture in this and charge a base fee for each lookup on top of the filling fee's the lawyers have to pay, then have a clause that the US gov collects a large percentage of the infringement fines that actually get a guilty verdict. While it sucks for people who download, it would also deter massive amounts of frivolous lawsuits from lawyers on people who probably have a three digit number in their bank account.

6/1/2010 8:41:08 PM

^ While that would be nice, you cant charge for subpoenas, as its a legal thing and they have to do.

That and the fees bit would require legislation, which I dont see happening.

6/1/2010 9:22:52 PM

I did not read the post but no fucking way TWC does anything smart. Im calling your bluff right now you master yoda mother fucker.

6/2/2010 12:07:08 AM

I agree with and defend pirates.

6/2/2010 9:51:49 AM

6/2/2010 9:56:25 AM

Anyone convicted just needs to throw this paper in front of the judge.

Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks –or– Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/index.html

6/3/2010 1:08:08 PM

Shocking report! Amazing study shows you can put whatever the fuck in a lawsuit. Retards attempt to use this to prove all lawsuits are therefore wrong!

6/3/2010 1:13:11 PM

Make no mistake. TWC doesn't care about their users. They just don't want to spend money doing the barely legal look ups.

6/3/2010 2:15:11 PM

TWC is no doubt gonna use this to get rid of problem users. They have a list of their top users and those 5 guys spend all day matching them to requests from the RIAA. Cant say I blame 'em either. Get rid of some liability and improve the network at the same time.

6/3/2010 2:21:13 PM

Two good Ars articles.

The first one has excerpts from some initial complaint responses...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/handwritten-legal-filings-cant-stop-p2p-lawsuit-juggernaut.ars

...and then the ACLU gets involved.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/aclu-eff-seek-to-sever-gigantic-p2p-lawsuits.ars

6/3/2010 8:41:53 PM

FUCK TWC. None of my HD channels work since the move. I shouldn't have to call customer care to receive channels I'm already supposed to have.


So an unplug/plug in and let it reboot is the fix


Really hi-tech company you got there TWC

[Edited on June 8, 2010 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2010 11:42:45 AM

with the new TWC channel lineup, does anyone know how to "show favorites" when you hit "GUIDE" on your remote. I've gone through and selected favorite cahnnels, but can't find where to customize it to show only those channels when I hit "guide" on the remote, instead when I hit guide I get the thousands of channels they have???????

6/8/2010 4:16:29 PM

the assholes took the favorites away

6/8/2010 4:18:09 PM

This thread made a turn.

6/8/2010 6:19:49 PM

So... why did they move all the HD channels to 1105+? Seems like a REALLY dumb move on TWC part.

If i didn't have $30 built into my rent for TWC, i'd switch to DirecTV. TWC is so incompetent. I REALLY wish Uverse would come out here...

6/8/2010 7:28:47 PM

Back to the original topic:

Quote :

"Judge may dismiss 4,576 of 4,577 P2P defendants from lawsuit Federal judge Rosemary Collyer sits on the DC District Court, where several of the recent US Copyright Group lawsuits against alleged P2P users have been filed. A few of those lawsuits ended up on Judge Collyer's calendar, one of them filed against over 4,000 anonymous "John Does" at once. This week, Judge Collyer issued a terse demand to the lawyers behind these cases: convince me within two weeks that jamming 4,577 people into a single lawsuit is a proper use of the court system."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/judge-may-dismiss-4576-of-4577-p2p-defendants-from-lawsuit.ars

6/9/2010 6:14:09 PM

As far as the original topic, TWC is more cheap than concerned about their user's ability to pirate.

Quote :

"TWC is so incompetent. I REALLY wish Uverse would come out here..."

I was pretty excited to see UVerse was offered in my area, until I saw I would have to pay almost 3x as much for it.

6/9/2010 6:29:53 PM