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

Will it matter?

[Jerrei]

Will it ever get to the point where they're truly hurting the "pirating" community? And when they do, will they respond to what will undoubtedly be a negative impact on music sales? Yeah it sucks to have your internet shut down or having to switch providers, but will it really matter in the long run?

Solution

[Sasayaki]

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.
- Step two: Tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.
- Step three: Rename the recordings. Britney Spears - Toxic, Metallica - Until it Sleeps, etc. The more popular and highly prosecuted the better.
- Step four: Copy files to a VM and install every virus-encrusted file sharing program you have on there. TRY to get caught.
- Step five: Await lawsuit. Counterclaim for piracy.
- Step six: Repeat three times. Three strikes, RIAA's out! ... wait. I forgot that laws only really apply to people, not massive media conglomerates. Oh well, time to come up with another cunning plan...

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[_bug_]

considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.

The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.

So we start with ISPs monitoring your traffic and keeping a record of every mp3 you download. Then after takedown notices are no longer effective (or the RIAA takes the next step of their plan) you start getting a bill in the mail every month for each song you downloaded. Then you start getting targetted advertising as a third-party steps in and makes a deal with the ISP. So now they're going to try and sell you rock because the vast majority of music you download is rock. Pretty soon there's no longer any such thing as privacy between you and your ISP and the world can take a peek at your activity for a few pennies.

But each step seemed less harsh than the previous one, so it's okay.

The Devil's in the Details

[javacowboy]

I'm opposed to downloading copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright holder.

Having said that, I'm extremely suspicious that AT&T's process is fair. I have questions:

1) Is this truly targeted towards copyright violators, or is this just a bandwidth management strategy? That is to say, if I download 100 Gb of Linux ISO's, will I get nailed?
2) Is this is 3 strikes (accusations) and you're out policy?
3) Is there any dispute resolution process or recourse for those who believe they're falsely accused? After all, identifying users by their IP addresses does yield false positives?
4) If I actually did download or upload something illegally several times, will I lose my internet access? What if I still need to pay bills, etc? Losing internet access is almost like losing phone service nowadays.

I think the process would be much fairer if there was a dispute resolution process and that the ultimate punishment would be getting your connection relegated to dial-up speeds.

However, I suspect that AT&T's motives aren't entirely towards being fair to their customers.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[ShieldW0lf]

Maybe it's time to move off these carriers completely and use a communications infrastructure that can't be metered or switched off at a central point because it's technologically impossible to do so?

Here's my view of the long term results of this...

[cyberjock1980]

I see the long term results of this strategy similar to electricity and phones. Companies can not arbitrarily turn off your phone without a valid arguement that can withstand courts. This is due to many medical equipment devices requiring electricity and phone lines be available. To many people, going without the internet is as serious as going without electricity (albeit very arguably). I'm sure after a few years legislation will attempt to be passed protecting the internet connections to homes the same way. What is the RIAA and the ISPs in the RIAA's back pocket going to do then? Use the excuse of "we've always done it this way"? At some point someone is going to deem the internet a necessity in the home, and the RIAA is going to have to change their tactic or attempt to buy out the legislation.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[digitig]

It depends what the process is.

If the ISP says "we have received a complaint that on at or about you download file from in violation of copyright. Our records confirm that this appears to be correct. If you do not explain, with evidence, why this was not a copyright violation we will consider further action which may include suspension of your account" then not too bad.

If -- as seems far more likely -- the ISP says "We have received a complaint that at some unspecified time you downloaded some unspecified file, which might have been in breach of copyright, so we've suspended your account" then I'm not impressed.