Slashdot Mirror
AT&T, Comcast To Join RIAA Team
suraj.sun writes "AT&T and Comcast, two of the nation's largest Internet service providers, are expected to be among a group of ISPs that will cooperate with the music industry in battling illegal file sharing, three sources close to the companies told CNET News. The RIAA said last month that it had enlisted the help of ISPs as part of a new antipiracy campaign. The RIAA has declined to identify which ISPs or how many. It's important to note that none of the half dozen or so ISPs involved has signed agreements. But as it stands, AT&T and Comcast are among the companies that have indicated they wish to participate in what the RIAA calls a 'graduated response program.'"
I'm sure that's right out of the CIA 'Robust Interrogation' handbook. When do they get to pulling out the fingernails?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Does this really surprise anyone given that AT&T was at the forefront of the illegal wiretapping scandal?
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
It seems that the RIAA part would Imply the United States.
You mad
Corporate america is creating a legal regime and prosecution system outside the law.
This has to be stopped.
the one that the RIAA operates in?
what does that last A stand for on your side of the pond, teabag?
Encrypt everyting. No more tapping, HTTP ad injections and other shit. They have no right to your internet information.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Comcast et al are seeking cover to squash p2p to relieve their bandwidth problems. RIAA makes a nice scape goat is things go badly.
They just want to stop all the bittorrent traffic, so they can still claim to have "unlimited" download rates. Next step is to retry the "make all content providers that AREN'T us pay us to use our bandwidth".
That includes iTunes, Zune, etc.
Work out how much money the record companies think they are losing from piracy
Setup filtering on the ISP's networks to prevent file sharing.
charge people even more for their internet connections while throttling the speed.
Record companies get their money (well, so they think)
ISP's provide less service for more money.
Win win.
Unless you are a customer, in which case its a lose lose. Less access to music, less access to internet, pay more money.
This is the easy solution that will actually be implemented.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
There are no other broadband ISPs in many places, including where I live. Hell, I don't even get to choose DSL -- cable is the only option.
AT&T and Comcast know this. They don't give a shit about their customers, because they're usually the only game in town. So the only option is to abandon broadband entirely and stick with a dial-up, spend ridiculous amounts on a leased line, or spend even more ridiculous amounts on satellite Internet (which has lag times that are way too high for VoIP or online gaming). If there were another option I'd be jumping on it in an instant.
When will these companies realize who their customers are? It is the subscriber.
If they'll give my information to a corrupt trade organization whose strategy is suing grandmas, kids dead people and folks without computers, who else would they be willing to sell my personal information to?
They are either getting some money from the labels to do this to offset the customers who they are going to piss off, or they are counting on being a natural monopoly in certain markets. That or they've sold more broadband at cheap prices to get folks off dial up and realized that they can't turn a profit when you have folks choking down their connection. If Net Neutrality wins the day, and they can't throttle or shape the user's traffic any more, the only recourse companies will have is kicking their "excessive" users off the plan by either invoking the AUP or getting the RIAA to sue them into being a non-customer so they can let the *AA look like assholes instead of the ISP.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Yuo hit the nail on the head. A company like Verizon can suddenly gain market share if they announce they will NOT join with the RIAA and condemn what Comcast and AT&T are doing.
Suddenly, everyone that does not like it has a very strong reason to switch to Verizon (where they can) even if rates were higher.
but honestly, corporations today are ran by weasels. They dont care if they screw the customer, their only care is if the next bonus is large enough to buy a new vacation home.
They hate you as a customer. Completely and utterly hate you. If they did not then they would stand up for you instead of rolling over and playing dead.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It reminds me of an old saying(not THAT old but old in regards to the internet)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a semi-truck full of backup tapes.
Considering that many of us are running around with 100+ gig pocket drives, downloading (at least for some of us) is mostly a thing of the past. At a local level and even a regional level, a guy in a car with a 500GB drive has more bandwidth than *most* residential and small business internet connections. I don't know about you but the last time I tried to download a multi-gig file it took a few days. Even flat out it would take several hours at least.
I think RIAA and the like are in for a very very hard uphill battle on this. There are also far reaching effects of this type of relationship. As a previous poster commented;
"Corporate america is creating a legal regime and prosecution system outside the law."
Thats exactly what this is. RIAA can't win legally so they make a deal with the ISPs to cut off customers who are file sharing or worse, just enough pressure and cooperation to release customer information that can then be used to "coerce" individuals into "compliance".
Also, doesn't this put the ISPs into potentially hot water? What happens when one of their subscribers argues that its the ISP's responsibility to prevent sharing and since they failed to protect the copyright on behalf of RIAA, its not the fault of the subscriber? IANAL but it seems to me that this may be more trouble than its worth. I know the ISPs are no angels but really this is like getting into bed with the devil.
Yeah, I always find it surprising that more people aren't concerned about the sort of vertical integration that is involved with a company like Time Warner Cable, and the potential conflicts of interest in providing "good service" for each individual service.
They own the infrastructure, they run the Voice/TV service provided over that infrastructure, and then they also run the Internet service that provides potential competition to their own Voice and TV services. In addition, they also own some of the channels provided over their own TV service, as well as owning the rights to many TV shows and movies shown on those channels.
In each case, there must be some kind of temptation to favor their own products over the competing products that they're also providing access to. To be clear, I'm not alleging that they've done anything wrong, but only that there's an inherent ethical problem. For example, let's say Netflix comes up with a plan to partner with ISPs nationwide to provide a service for video-on-demand. They go to negotiate with Time Warner Cable's ISP division to talk about the idea and negotiate a deal. Do you foresee that TWC is going to seriously consider the deal that would diminish their own video-on-demand services? Or that they might partner with Vonage to provide VoIP?
It's for this sort of reason that I think it may be wise to institute some kind of law that limits vertical integration of ISPs with other services. I've thought for some time that we should probably forbid the people who own the infrastructure (the actual hardware and cable) from providing any service, and require that they provide open access at set fees without any opportunity to negotiate special deals. Since these companies own a monopoly (or duopoly) and represent public infrastructure, they shouldn't be allowed much control over what's sent through their hardware.
Awesome, you'll be the first against the wall.
I agree with your basic premise that the vast majority of filesharing involves "technically illegal" material.
A better analogy would be if you broke into my house and copied all the contents of my laptop and/or ipod and then left. I tell the police that my data has been stolen but can't prove it, since its all still there.
Its difficult to apply logic and reasoning based on physical goods to bits of data which can be reproduced perfectly and VERY easily.
You can't accurately gauge how much "damage" has been done because technically nothing was damaged. The sharee still has a perfectly usable copy of what ever was shared with whomever and the copyright "owner" is out no more revenue than they would be if the sharee sold the CD used. In the second sale example the seller is responsible for removing the contents from their systems, however since RIAA can't invade your home and seize your computers (yet), enforcing that obligation on the seller is impossible. Granted this analogy has its problems and to be accurate the seller would have to be able to sell an infinite number of copies, that however brings us back to my previous statement about laws designed to regulate physical "things" can't be applied to something which can be infinitely copied perfectly. If I could push a button and produce an identical copy of a car, is that stealing?
I especially liked how you placed the artists first in your list of who we are wronging when you know damn well that they are the LAST people on the list. And lets not forget that when the money does actually show for the artist, RIAA and the like charge the artists for things like breakage (WTF? last time I checked, we weren't using records in the mainstream anymore)
I posit a different approach.
Download all the music you possibly can. But go to the shows when the artists come to your town. It used to be that the music was essentially advertising for the artists when they come to perform. So by stealing the CD you are hurting RIAA but by patronizing the shows and buying the merch at the shows more money goes directly to the artists.
OH NOES! that means that being a musician might actually require some dedication and GASP...TALENT!!! It used to be that being a successful musician meant producing a quality product and touring for your money.
Am I stealing when I learn how to play my favorite song on the instrument of choice?
How far do you go down this road? Am I eventually going to get charged a fee for humming or singing the "hook" of a song?
Lowid or not, you shouldn't be scared to post your opinions in the open just because people here might disagree with you. If you have been here long enough and contribute regularly and competently you can afford a little Karma to play devils advocate.
To what? buy off the politicians? lol
I can't believe it would be absolutely *impossible* for them to allow another company to go through the trouble of running their own copper to residents homes. If they did that I'm sure we would see a quick about face in the customer service departments of these companies.
That's the dammed problem.. You get DSL or Cable, one choice or the other and either ones service only needs to be as good as the other guys crappy service.. why can't we have 2 choices each? Maybe allow some little local or regional providers in, they wouldn't act this way and they use to exist in the age of DialUp.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Or, even more likely, RIAA will sign on about 75% of the ISP market, then start a vindictive, focused litigation campaign against the customers of the last 25%. The relatively lighter treatment given to AT&T and Comcast customers will drive customers from the 25% stalwarts to the 75% sell-outs. This divide-and-conquer strategy works pretty much all the time, as long as consumers keep buying with their short-term, rather than long-term, interests in mind. Just look at laid-off Wal-mart employees who continue to shop at Wal-mart.
So after this doesn't work will the RIAA simply resort to some how introducing legislation that will allow them to go house to house, break in the door, and demand money at gunpoint based solely on the basis that the residents have a pc with an internet connection?
"Sure, laugh..." I said.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
you're forgetting the exorbitant costs involved with keeping those baddies off the system. They might have to increase your bill. To keep you safe, of course. Oh, and think of the children.
And AT&T and Comcast get exactly what they want:
1. No more illegal file sharers on their network
2. Less traffic (ie no P2P) so they can then oversell the service even more than they do today
3. Not be bothered by the RIAA
4. Profit!!!
(Note the unnecessary ??? step)
Forgot to post anonymously did you?
:)
That little check box is quite important sometimes
Sorry, but in my opinion there is a very definitive line between 2 groups of people on this issue and you happen to fall in with the side that I feel is almost as bad as the RIAA - there are those that do NOT support piracy, content theft, etc. but disagree with how the RIAA pursues these issues and the "solutions" the end up leading to - there is a separate side, like yourself, that hates the RIAA because you want to have any song or movie you can for free or as cheap as (illegally) possible.
Your post above proves a perfect example of that - you point out how bad most bit-torrent rips are, saying that you would rather just use netflix and pirate the DVD yourself. As somebody that despises the RIAA, I do not want you to think that we are the same.
The RIAA is all about taking away legitimate user control of legally purchased files because they would rather everyone's rights be taken away to stop pirating rather than find a way to actually stop only piracy. That is wrong, IMO, and THAT is why I don't like them.
The fact of the matter is you ARE stealing from people - it is true that they are morons for assuming 100% of pirated files would be legally purchased otherwise, but that doesn't make piracy alright. Your Linux and OSS examples are full of holes considering those are developed and deployed with the end user's freedom in mind - band's that wish for their content to be freely available will often make it so on their website. To assume all band's are alright with that simply because you want their newest song is a ridiculous argument (that I know you don't even believe).
You use the hatred people have for the RIAA as a guise to try and somehow rationalize your piracy as legitimate and it isn't - you're as big a part of the problem as they are. Thanks for continuing your habbits and making the RIAA actually feel validated in what they do.