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.'"

48 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. A "graduated response"? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A "graduated response"? by gravos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As far as I can tell, this only increases their liability. Services providers have typically received immunity from the actions of their users, so long as there is a clear line between the service provider and the actions of their users. By blurring that line, it only opens them up to further liabilities. Universities learned this the hard way by giving in to the RIAA.

    2. Re:A "graduated response"? by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By dealing with the RIAA at all the ISPs are making a huge mistake. Is my utility company liable if I install grow lamps and start a marijuana farm because they failed to alert the authorities about the power increase? Is my phone company liable if I start calling the state prison regularly and it turns out that I'm organizing to have an informant killed because they weren't monitoring my phone records and didn't recommend a phone tap?

      By playing along even in a small role, the ISPs are really stepping in it...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:A "graduated response"? by scotts13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're probably right. I do quite a bit of consulting for K-12 schools; the watchword there is that once you attempt to filter content, you'd better filter perfectly, as you're responsible for anything that gets past. Does this translate into sanctioning your own users for inappropriate actions? I think it does.

    4. Re:A "graduated response"? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So if I build four new computers and start to run them constantly for folding, the police are going to come bust down my door thinking I'm growing?

    5. Re:A "graduated response"? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I could be wrong, but if there is a spike in usage of water or power, utility companies will inform police of a possible grow op.

      Even if that's true (and I have no idea but it sounds fishy without a warrant), they are dealing with the government and not some self-declared police agency like the RIAA.

      If the phone company started looking for a burst of phone calls to Mexico and informed the Minute Men if there was a spike, people'd be furious.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:A "graduated response"? by samriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes, AND they'll confiscate your computer to look for CP and other illegal stuff. Murder somebody, though, and no cop will even look up your address.

      That's just, like, your opinion, man.

    7. Re:A "graduated response"? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. It's likely that they'd illegally use a FLIR camera to look in your house before breaking down the door. Of course, when they get caught, they backpeddle.

    8. Re:A "graduated response"? by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      No but the GP is close. The power company does look for odd balancing issues vs power usage. People who grow large quanities of dope tend to be a bit stupid and cheap. Including putting a couple thousand watts of lights on a single circuit in their basement. The in balanced loadis noticed by the power companies. Normally as long as you pay your bill they don'tcare. However the stupid and cheap part comes into play. They forget to pay their bill. And police eventually get called.

      I know of several arrsetts over the years from just such situations.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:A "graduated response"? by panoptical2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as I can tell, this only increases their liability. Services providers have typically received immunity from the actions of their users, so long as there is a clear line between the service provider and the actions of their users.

      What you are referring to is "Common Carrier" status. It prevents companies like UPS from being criminally liable for shipping cocaine, for example, overseas. It also prevents Telcoms from being liable for carrying information used to conduct criminal activities. If they actually get involved, though, they lose common carrier, and thus can become sued (or charged) for anything that occurs over their network.

    10. Re:A "graduated response"? by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the phone company started looking for a burst of phone calls to Mexico and informed the Minute Men if there was a spike, people'd be furious.

      That is absolutely correct and more to the point, the story tag 'sneakernet' is the process that will ensure that file sharing never dies, and in fact directly robs the RIAA members of revenue. When you and 25 of your friends make a list of music you like, then each of you buys one new CD and copies it 25 times and passes them around to your CD group, the RIAA members lose directly. This is not a try-before-buy thing like a lot of file sharing is, it's full on loss of CD sales revenue :-)

      Besides making the ISPs culpable in any file sharing, they drive the problem to a place where it can't be detected or stopped. At that point, the RIAA members will have to admit that they aren't making money because all the do is promote crap at extortionate prices.

      This house of cards will fall too, as soon as NYCountryLawyer starts ISPvsThePeople blog and documents all the legal crap that starts happening when ISPs start narcing for the RIAA. Once they lose safe harbor protection via a law suit over P2P it will be interesting to see what other legal trouble they get into. Will they then be liable for voice traffic issues? If someone calls and threatens me and I ask the ISP to block voip calls from that person, will they become liable if they don't? Can I get a court order to force them to? There are literally thousands of issues that can arise if they lose safe harbor status. I kind of look forward to it in a weird sort of way.

    11. Re:A "graduated response"? by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Informative

      Incidentally, ISPs are not Common Carriers. Their protection comes from the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions instead.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:A "graduated response"? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, "graduated response", is right out of the LBJ handbook on how to loose a war. His Rolling Thunder bombing campaign was advertised as a "graduated response" to NVA incursions in the South. From 65 to 69 it never did anything but increase the population of the Hanoi Hilton.

      If LBJ was trying to loose a war, he did an excellent job!

      (If you really meant "lose" instead, then that changes the entire meaning of your post. Sometimes spelling is actually important!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:A "graduated response"? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Replace "sneakernet" with VPN tunnels to a central datacenter location. Us IT folks are a fairly resourceful bunch. VPN tunnels can be explained away as work connections. Why so much traffic? I do graphics/video design work for a living sir!

  2. Surprised? by iron-kurton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Surprised? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lets compare apples to rocks why don't we.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Surprised? by iron-kurton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are two points I was trying to subtly make:

      1. AT&T has shown that it is willing to sacrifice its consumers for its own agenda (and profit?) - as in the wiretapping case.

      2. Given that they have snooped on users' data in the past, I am not really surprised that they are doing it again, since a) they were protected by immunity the first time, and can probably do it again should this turn out to be illegal, and b) they have the technological framework in place already.

      Perhaps I should stop trying to be subtle in my posts and carry a sledgehammer... (yea, I'm new here)

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    3. Re:Surprised? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps I should stop trying to be subtle in my posts and carry a sledgehammer... (yea, I'm new here)

      It's not a bad idea. Subtlety doesn't go over well with some geeks (that whole denser-than-rocks thing and all). One need only look at the number of posts that simply say "wooosh" to back this up.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:Surprised? by just_another_sean · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets compare apples to rocks why don't we.

      Apples, rocks, it seams that AT&T is perfectly willing to throw both at it's customers...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  3. Re:What is with this? by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems that the RIAA part would Imply the United States.

    --
    You mad
  4. Good to know. by snarfies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been thinking of ditching Comcast for Verizon (the only two broadband options in Philadelphia) - if Verizon is not on board, then I guess that seals the deal!

    1. Re:Good to know. by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Informative

      No idea if this still holds true, but Verizon was the company that refused to hand over their logs to the RIAA all those years ago. They certainly earned my respect at the time, and they still have my business.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  5. Missing original CNET News article link : by suraj.sun · · Score: 4, Informative

    Missing original CNET News article link :

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10151389-93.html

  6. What is wrong here?! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Corporate america is creating a legal regime and prosecution system outside the law.

    This has to be stopped.

  7. Re:What is with this? by punkass · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850 Text here to thwart the filter.....

    --
    "Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
  8. A good counter-strategy by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:What is with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Assholes?

  10. I stopped downloading years ago by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I now have almost 200gigs of music. There's only so much I can listen. also, when I want "new" or "more" I just bring my drive over to a friend's house and bingo - a year's worth of downloads in what, 5 minutes?

    LAN parties are even better - more productive and a greater selection.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:I stopped downloading years ago by Sir_Dill · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Amen.

      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.

    2. Re:I stopped downloading years ago by jamesshuang · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's true, bandwidth is pretty sweet with portable drives. The other day I biked about 40 miles with a 1tb hard drive in my bag. I calculated that my bandwidth was about 110 mb/s. Latency was a bit rough though, at 2.5 hours...

  11. Its all about the bandwidth by anticlone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comcast et al are seeking cover to squash p2p to relieve their bandwidth problems. RIAA makes a nice scape goat is things go badly.

    1. Re:Its all about the bandwidth by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Comcast is seeking to squash P2P to avoid upgrading and maintaining their bandwidth. 90% of their problems is that they have too small backbone pipes going into headends. If they would run a REAL ISP instead of the half ass job they do they would understand how to do it.

      disclaimer: I used to be a Comcast manager, I know the cable-modem system inside and out. It's one reason why I will never use Comcast as an ISP.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  12. Music piracy. Crime of the century! by hack++slash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wondeful, because there's no other crime that even comes close to music piracy.

    Just imagine it, you get arrested and put in a cell with a dozen other people:


    Cell occupant 1: "Hey pale skinny white guy, what you in here for?"
    Cell occupant 2: "I bet he got caught jacking a 7-11"
    Cell occupant 1: "That's what I'm in here for"
    Cell occupant 3: "No shit, that's what I did last week, but I got caught today mugging someone"
    Cell occupant 1: "So what is it boy?"
    You: "I downloaded a Backstreet Boys album without paying for it.."

    *all the other cell occupants slowly back away*

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Music piracy. Crime of the century! by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...the group W room. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! So one of 'em comes up and said "kid, what'r ya in for?"

      So I said "I was arrested for litterin'".

      And they all backed away from me.

      So I said "and creatin' a nuisance" and thay all came up, shook my hand and we had a good old time playin with the pencils...

      Oh shit now Arlo Guthrie is going to sue me for copyright infringement... and creatin' a nuisance!

  13. Re:easy solution by greywire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. Not too surprising... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that the RIAA/MPAA create music and movies, and that telecoms are bundling TV channels as well as internet services, and the people producing the content for the TV channels are pretty much all members of the RIAA/MPAA or share their interests in protecting their copyrighted works, it's hardly a surprise that ISPs are willing to cooperate. In fact, I'm surprised more ISPs aren't.

    Those ISPs that are purely providing connectivity and don't also have cable/satellite TV services among their offered products may hold out against the RIAA/MPAA a bit longer, but I don't expect that it'll last. The major players will bundle with content producers, and will comply with assisting in copyright enforcement in order to secure the revenue that their TV packages provide.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Not too surprising... by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  15. Re:What is with this? by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nono, that's the first A.

    "Recording Industry Assholes of America."

    =Smidge=

  16. This should be fun... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since we're stuck with ConCast, I'll have to do a lot more P2P if they're going to team with the Rabid Idiot Asshole Industry. I don't share any files the copyright holders don't want shared, but The Station's The Fog will likely be confused by ConCast and the RIAA by a tune by one of their artists by the same name.

    If they try to sue me, I'll have Dave sue THEM for infringing HIS copyright, and I will also sue them for slander.

    This should be fun.

  17. And monkeys might fly... by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    These ISPs like to complain about the excessive bandwidth used by filesharers. I can only assume that once they start kicking these evil users off the system, my connection speeds will increase to the advertised rates, and soon they will be able to reduce my monthly bill.

  18. Re:There go the customers (?) by glindsey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Customers by Ohio+Calvinist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:It will not work by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  21. A marriage of convenience by indytx · · Score: 4, Informative

    This too shall pass. A couple of observations. First, P2P accounts for between one-third and four-fifths of internet traffic, depending on the entities collecting the data and the regions from where the data is collected. Either way, it seems like a lot. Second, internet usage continues to grow. People love YouTube, just wait until the quality improves. How many people are watching Netflix's Watch Now as a result of if being available on so many systems? Third, the economy will prevent many, if not most, ISPs from adding additional bandwidth. Thus, in order to keep up with increased legitimate demand without adding more capacity, it makes since that ISPs would want to reduce demand from file sharing. Simple, really.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
    1. Re:A marriage of convenience by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they were willing to get off of their behinds simply because of bandwidth problems, then why don't they shut down or at least throttle spambots? I've seen similar numbers to yours for spam bandwidth consumption.

      With spambots all it would take is a throttle and an email and automated phone call to the customer telling them that their computer is infected and that they need to get it checked out to restore full service.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  22. Re:Dude... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's all start growing cucumber indoors.

  23. Re:Get out and make something by Sir_Dill · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Your analogy has some fundamental flaws.

    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.

  24. Re:Dude... by ubercam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My ex gf's dad built a garage in the middle of winter one year, and in order for the concrete to set properly, he had to run two big electric heaters day and night to keep it warm. The police came with a warrant to search the property for a grow op (alerted by the electricity company for abnormally high power usage), but found a new garage instead. They were a bit embarrassed, but turned their attention towards the fact that he now had 2 garages and too much of his property covered by outbuildings. He said he would knock down the old garage when the new one was all finished, but he lied, it's still there.

    As for grow ops, people get busted here all the time, at least weekly, often more frequently. They've moved into affluent neighbourhoods too, and now the law says home sellers have to disclose whether or not a home was used for a grow op (only within the past year though IIRC), because of all the mold and other problems that come from grow ops. The address list is also published on the police website.