ISP's respond to responses from report's
by cmjcmjcmj - 8/14/11 1:58 AM
In Reply to: Well now by DADSGETNDOWN
The problem ISP's have is that a claimant representative can have as many adjusters as they would report the same issue multiple times so if there were only two they would send the ISP same info but with their signatures but they do not encrypt it or have cookies with it and is unsecure to what they boast about to their clients as being exclusive protectors of the clients materials. This can go from two up to ten or more depending on how they organize their internal operations since there are many documents regarding such disclosures required to file a court case and duplicate issues of the same matters hit the ISP's at the same time. Hatred builds and state representatives also begin receiving documentation that some professional's are spamming the evidence they claim is Infringement. Each one claims issue to settle the case and a ISP has no jurisdiction in the state they are in which means their actions are illegitimately assembled spam of no value whatsoever in violation of the ISP member's rights to understand what it is that is the issue and decide if that issue was of such value or something considered as trash as some people refer to issues being discussed, meanwhile virus situations are the point at which ISP's are majorly concerned and this being the end result of email spamming documents derives nothing but a trash issue. How can a ISP avoid the slamming of documents in multitude of the same issue? It becomes another issue if the BBB becomes involved or another issue when corruption is detected and the members can block illegal access to their computers. The ISP stays their ground highly respected for reporting one issue of spam and one issue of corruption and many issues of illegal computer access. The game they are playing is not legal according to California. When any business forces a individual to do something they are against entirely it violates those rights. It don't matter if they have pictures on a site depicting what is in a movie or not if the individual don't like advertising it is their right to reject it and also their right to inspect whatever they want to, the outcome depends on the individuals rights to accept or deny products and allegations relative to descriptive's that turned out to be false in they views of what the product was advertised as being. Right & Wrong does not rest with a court it rests only if there was no annoyances encountered, you would refuse a product too if you became annoyed at what someone keeps telling you over and over again and again like it was a religious Sunday thing but instead every three days, instead of one time a week. Setup using inside membership or even hackers to determine hash numbers son't impress me any, they did not download the entire file they obtained a segment and their program read a hash number off it and they reported what they learned to whom they are hired by - THAT IS THE ILLEGALITY, someone that downloaded the issue also has the same segment they got to report it and nothing else to analyze until their viewing of the issue continues which could take a very long time as their computer usage could only be a couple hours each day. Viewing is not a Infringement, Downloading is not a Infringement, and trashing downloads is not a Infringement. So what the issue boils down in the end is actually SPAM & ANNOYANCES to ISP's and members of ISP's. WE WANT IT TO STOP. INTERNET IS A FREE SERVICE THAT ISP's PROVIDE FOR CONNECTIVITY TO MEMBERS THAT DO NOT WANT TO BE ANNOYED (The members pay for this service from ISP's). Can you agree to those terms that ISP's respect? ISP's do not PHISH their customer's.
When a Group of cons manage a Infringement Copyright Law Group for clients they are hiring X-Prostitutes X-Law Breakers to run computers to seek out who is downloading & who are members does not matter. They are violating the rights of Free Enterprise themselves, slamming ISP's hoping to get a break of someone selling matters they hold hash numbers on which are not part of their clients sales routines. When you walk into a store to buy a CD there is no hash number displayed. ISP's are not buying hash numbers neither is it a requirement that ISP's have to make their members buy hash numbers. Digitized data is a JOKE, a CD quality is limited to five or ten years at the most because makers of the bulk CD used to make many movies are low quality, go to a rental CD business and you will see just what I am referring to, check the scratched content for less than $2, clearances place the same hash numbers up for sale at ridiculously low prices, same ones found in searches on Google being sold or downloadable for free. How is it a Producer gets to choose whether a shooting goes to their so called CD movie product and no one else is allowed to decide whether they want that CD or not by how they are advertising it to you and spamming ISP's?
It is of no value for a ISP to spy on people they hope to do business with everyday of the year, their policy requires installation costs, a satellite company can show you how to install and they do not have to install anything for you but the big difference is that a satellite company will only allow you to participate with them one time and no more while a cable company will not care if you disconnect a number of times a year and reconnect, they have understanding but not a satellite company. See what satellite companies thinks about all those documents coming in to them from all of the Infringement Copyright Law Group's for client's in America, is that the real issue here or the overcrowding of courts on trivia and jails that must feed people paid for with state tax money. We should just start a new one called "Annoyance Infringement Law Group" for clients and protect every member of ISP's whether they are satellite or they are cable, now what happened to telephone connections cause I removed my modem and don't want a spammer to invade my computer to get access to my modem or home phone number service and how is it that you distinguish a ISP as being AT&T/BELLSOUTH or other telephone service provider that has digital quality lines available to connect a computer to? The exact same way and then it is called ILLEGAL PHONE HACKING WHEN A GROUP ATTACKS USERS AT THEIR HOMES, IT IS CALLED SLAMMING, IT IS CALLED ILLEGAL WIRE TAPPING LIKE WIKILEAKS DEFINES TO THE WORLD AGAINST THOSE WHOM PARTICIPATE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THEY WISH THE WORLD TO KNOW ABOUT.
Here is one for the road, we once had a Lowe's Credit Card, it was a old card, found to have had its account closed back in 2001 but it was a joint account. When we called to reactivate it Lowe's representative kept asking to speak with the other card holder, same number both cards and when he got on the phone he specifically answered "Why For", "I do not want a Credit Card", "I did not make this phone call", "Is that all" then handed phone to the other member. This still didn't settle in the mind of the representative that a joint member was refusing the Credit Ratings they occupy in banks for joint accounts and only one other prior member was interested in the account and kept on asking to speak with the member that don't want a Credit Card to get some information from them (are they phishing). It went on for about 45 minutes looking for numbers and answering the same questions (nothing changed since prior activation before the card expired and the account was paid in full and closed properly)that we finally got tired and decided to leave home and hung up the phone. Now isn't that annoying enough to tell you the people that are suppose to know how to respond are not responding appropriately even if it were not Hispanic it still meant specifically what we stated, The member that wanted the Credit Card Renewed did not desire to talk on the phone, could not see well enough to read the number on the Credit card and would not want to go shopping unless they were with someone that was going to make decisions and they could agree or disagree. How Idiotic is that, that is live in a bottle. We decided Lowe's was not who we want to deal with anymore after this discussion. Thank you.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)