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
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!
Missing original CNET News article link :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10151389-93.html
Corporate america is creating a legal regime and prosecution system outside the law.
This has to be stopped.
http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850 Text here to thwart the filter.....
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
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.
LAN parties are even better - more productive and a greater selection.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Comcast et al are seeking cover to squash p2p to relieve their bandwidth problems. RIAA makes a nice scape goat is things go badly.
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.
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.
Nono, that's the first A.
"Recording Industry Assholes of America."
=Smidge=
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's all start growing cucumber indoors.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
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.