AT&T Has Begun Issuing RIAA Takedown Notices

suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNet: "AT&T, one of the nation's largest Internet service providers, confirmed on Tuesday the company is working with the recording industry to combat illegal file sharing. At a digital music conference in Nashville, Jim Cicconi, a senior executive for AT&T told the audience that the ISP has begun issuing takedown notices to people accused of pirating music by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to one music industry insider who was present. In December, the RIAA, the lobbying group of the four largest recording companies, announced the group would no longer pursue an antipiracy strategy that focused on suing individuals, but rather would seek the help of broadband providers to stem the flow of pirated content. The RIAA said an undisclosed number of ISPs had agreed to cooperate but declined to name them. This is important because the RIAA has said that repeat offenders faced the possibility of losing service — at least temporarily — as part of the music industry's 'graduated response' plan."

Comments

At least this is better than the legal system

[KyleTheDarkOne]

This, correct me if I'm wrong, is completely legal; so I would rather them pursue this vein of inquiry than through legal action.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[fredklein]

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy."

In other words, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if you assume (with no further evidence) that 'A' must inevitably lead to 'Z'. If you have evidence that supports each step of the way, it isn't a logical fallacy.

Besides, most people using the Slippery Slope argument are using a 'worst case' scenario to show what MIGHT happen, not what necessarily WILL happen. It makes sense to avoid scenarios where bad things can happen. (ie: wear your seatbelt, or if you get in an accident, you could get thrown out of the car and die. Using that argument doesn't mean you WILL get in an accident, or that you WILL die if you get in one, but rather that it is a possibility, and because of the severity of the results, it is good to avoid scenarios with such possibilities.)

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Hijacked Public]

It is common sense because the company providing you with internet access is free to terminate that access for any reason at all, or no reason. If they believe it benefits them to arrange some kind of 'graduated response' against copyright violation then they are free to do so.

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Demonantis]

I think when he says slippery slope he is not arguing the guarantee of abuse but the ramifications of the action on future actions. The ISP is acting as a legal body by serving its customers legal documents. Thusly breaking the Client-Service boundary. This can be likened to a person that felt harassed by you requesting that your telephone provider disconnect you because you "harassed" them over the phone. I for one dislike the corporate big brother that this alliance suggests.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Shakrai]

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

For better or worse internet access is usually provided by someone with a governmentally granted monopoly. In exchange for that monopoly it is usually accepted that we can regulate how they can behave. I would agree with your underlying notion if we had anything remotely approaching a free market for internet service but we alas we don't.

So we can either change that and end the granted monopolies (my preference) or we can regulate what the ISPs are allowed to do. In the latter scenario I don't happen to think they should be allowed to terminate customers based solely on the word of an outside party.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[muntis]

Jo mean, something like, hmm. Internet?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[NotBornYesterday]

This removes the RIAA's campaign from the courts, where it was starting to show embarrassing losses, and where its underhanded and possibly illegal methods were subject to scrutiny, and allows it to operate in a realm where there are few, if any, checks on its abuses.

I don't support copying music illegally, but I also don't want my ISP in the back pocket of a powerful and ruthless corporate entity that has repeatedly shown lack of restraint, bad faith, bad judgment, and a complete disregard for those it wrongfully harms.

I have rights in the courts. What rights do I have if my ISP decides to cut my service? What happens when the RIAA wrongfully accuses someone, as they have in the past?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[johnsonav]

Removal of access violates the Constitutional right to a trial by your peers.

Where does the constitution state that you're entitled to a jury trial before a private business can refuse to have you as a customer? Because I'm pretty sure it's not in there at all.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rich0]

Ok, I see your argument - companies should be free to do whatever they want and we're free to do business with however we want.

However, before we allow ATT to take these kinds of actions, shouldn't we first repeal any laws restricting who is allowed to string fiber optic cables on telephone poles, or put telephone poles up in the first place?

In most areas it is illegal to start up your own ISP (and I mean a true end-to-end solution - not just renting lines from ATT/etc which doesn't solve the problem). If that is to be the case, then it seems reasonable for society to be allowed to regulate how the monopoly providers behave.

Also - because telecom is a natural monopoly you're still going to need regulation to get companies to play nicely. That theoretical right to string your own wires is worthless if the Tier-1 providers refuse to route your traffic. Due to technical issues with routing I can even see why they might do so for semi-legitimate reasons.

The problem is that ATT wants libertarian policies when it benefits them, and a command economy where competition is concerned.

Defense?

[oahazmatt]

Is there anyway to defend yourself from these claims? Is there no burden of proof on the RIAA's side? Will AT&T simply punish those accused?

In short, screenshot or it didn't happen.

Re:Defense?

[TechForensics]

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.

This is probably not true since internet access has become akin to a public utility on which people's livelihoods depend. Is it OK to put Ted Telecommuter out of work because Ted Jr. can't be disciplined out of unauthorized downloading?

Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Porchroof]

Note that the accused is just that: the accused. Being accused of piracy is enough to get you kicked off the Internet. No trial. No jury. No judge. To AT&T and others, to be accused is to be guilty. God help us all.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[pentalive]

If you have one available.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[MadKeithV]

If you're at a party and someone who is notorious for crashing parties and telling the host that random people (who may or may not actually be at the party) are hitting on his wife tells the host you're hitting on his wife, does he have to give you a jury trial before he throws you out?

There, fixed that for you.

That's nice, but...

[LoganTeamX]

When are they doing to do something about the plethora of zombie computers on their home subscriber feeds? They'll police the "illegal sharing" of content but they don't care how much spam their users generate? Sounds a little fishy to me.

This is why we need pay-per-byte

[Mr. Underbridge]

I still find it amazing that ISPs go along with thi....wait...we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic. I guess we can assume that if you're shut off for 3 months for downloading music, there will be a fee greater than the bill for 3 months of service you missed to reinstate your account.

It took me a while to figure out what was in it for them as well. After all, this is a lot of work just to piss off your customers. But you hit it with the comparison to P2P throttling - what they want to do is get rid of their most unprofitable customers - those using the most bandwidth. One subset of people using lots of bandwidth includes people downloading music illegally. As it happens, that's a group easy to go after - but they certainly won't stop there.

If you want to see this go away, we need to push for the demise of flat-rate pricing. If the carriers were *more* money by the people using more bandwidth (for whatever reason), they'd be telling the RIAA to go pound sand.

Re:Fine

[theaceoffire]

As long as They don't screw with my traffic, I can accept this.

As long as you can accept this, they will screw with your traffic.

Cyberpunk/Shadowrun

[whisper_jeff]

I remember, as a younger lad, playing games like Cyberpunk and Shadowrun and thinking that these future-fantasy worlds where megacorps ruled the world, competing and colluding with each other in a massive game, with governments relegated to the role of their legislative pawns was a lot of fun but far out there and obviously fictional.

Oh, how I miss my youthful days... Getting older and watching fiction become reality is not pleasant...