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

[bilbravo]

Exactly. There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc) but considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.

"Hey, what you're doing is violating copyright and can bring a hefty fine! So why don't you stop it?"

Common sense is what we preach, but I have a feeling this won't be good enough for most here on /.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[someone1234]

Haha, so avoiding the 'legal' system and taking a curve around it, makes it more 'legal'?
If they use the same arguably 'illegal' methods on determining their victims, this is probably even more 'illegal' than before.
This just removes any 'legal' supervision and keeps all the 'illegal' parts (from what we know).

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.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Shakrai]

There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)

In New York State that would be a felony:

250.05 Eavesdropping.

A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.

8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.

Common sense is what we preach

It's not common sense. RIAA can get my internet access revoked on their word alone with zero proof to back up the claim? How the hell is that common sense?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[bilbravo]

That's a slippery slope. And it's a fallacy.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[L4t3r4lu5]

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.

The bully just so happens to play the flute, and makes a little money by selling recordings of him playing. He's punching you in the face because you might have bought a recording, might not, but you're giving it out copies of it for free.

We can all make dumb analogies. I'm just surprised you didn't include a car in there.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Antidamage]

Well, that seems OK. Everyone line up for their 3-wheeled plastic car accident. The RIAA does it because deep down, it loves you.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TechForensics]

It may be noncriminal but whether it is legally remediable is another issue. The Constitution guarantees us certain rights against being deprived of any "property interest". Lawyers, lick your chops. Whether cutting off someone's internet (akin to cutting off his electricity) based on mere allegations by (or questionable Media Sentry evidence from) RIAA is deprivation of a "property interest" without compensation, due process or equal protection, or will give rise to damages will be a ripe, litigable issue.

At base and in the simplest terms, you just can't screw people without legally sufficient justification. This will include elements of equal protection and due process every time, whether state action is involved or not. In a case of sufficient gravity (internet loss more widespread than the lawsuits ever were), Charlie Nesson is going to have another great project for his Harvard law students.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[poetmatt]

The rest of the world seems to realize that baseless accusations that could end in something being done without anything being done in court, is kind of the problem.

This is RIAA skipping around the legal system because they can't afford to prove what they're accusing.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[leonardluen]

it seems they are trying this

The door in the face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that the respondent will obviously turn down. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second, more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first, extreme request.

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

[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?

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

[Applekid]

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

Well, sure. The RIAA abuses the courts, fabricates data, intimidates victims and shakes them down for settlement money. Recently the justice system has been fighting back, demanding proper behavior from those pitbulls.

They found a way to punish people on suspicion of wrongdoing and avoid embarrassing court documents and judgments from leaking to the public and circumventing niggling little problems like "preponderance of evidence" (civil) and "reasonable doubt" (criminal).

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Keeper Of Keys]

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

That's what you get for living in the "free West". In Soviet Russia, you terminate your own services.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[codegen]

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

Except that it is not always feasible to do that. That is why, in the past at least, monopolies were limited in the actions that they could take,.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Or you could pay for your music.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[blitzkrieg3]

There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)

I don't believe they are snooping data. In fact they don't have to in order to detect pirated media. The nature of p2p is such that the files need to be advertised!

To use typical nomenclature, evesdropping is when:
1) Alice calls Bob (or makes a connection to Bob's server)
2) Bob answers the phone and discloses the secret meet up location (or sends it digitally over the wire)
3) Eve intercepts the information and shows up.

What's happening in this case is:
1) Bob tells the entire world that he's got the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and is going to let anyone download it.
2) Alice connects and downloads the pirated movie.
3) "Eve" connects and downloads the movie.
4) "Eve" issues a takedown notice.

Of course they might be doing waveform analysis or whatever it is they do on the wire, but I don't believe they are there yet. Illegal warrantless wiretapping is much more serious issue than just connecting to someone's p2p, which is why it's important that we don't get these confused.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheRealMindChild]

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

You sound pretty sure of yourself...

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

[Jawn98685]

In New York State that would be a felony:

250.05 Eavesdropping.

A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication. Eavesdropping is a class E felony.

8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.

This is assuming that the information that lead to the take down requests came from the interception of traffic between end-points. If the RIAA enforcers are keeping track of which end-point has willfully advertised content as available, and then provided that content upon request, it absolutely can not be argued that the cited laws apply.

We are making a rather large assumption here, that the ISP's are actively monitoring streams of data looking for copyrighted material despite the many legal proscriptions (it's not like we're looking for "terrorists", after all) and the formidable expense of such an operation. Someone show me that the ISP's are acting in such a fashion or STFU, already.

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

[Shakrai]

This is assuming that the information that lead to the take down requests came from the interception of traffic between end-points

You didn't bother to read the text I quoted did you? I was quoting that law in response to someone saying "There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)"

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[justaguylikeme]

The bully just so happens to play the flute, and makes a little money by selling recordings of him playing.

The bully is Ian Anderson?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Hijacked Public]

Usually.

I'm sure there are places where the only possible ISP is ATT but I don't think it is common. Where I am there is no DSL or cable broadband at all, but I can choose from any of several satellite providers. And if I were the type who tried to ratify my will via purchasing decisions, and I didn't like any of the satellite guys, there are probably a dozen dial up options.

Regardless, I don't think that because there are a few exceptions to what I suggested above that the freedom of a company to make the kind of business deal we are discussing should be restricted.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[ShieldW0lf]

What's stopping you?

I can't build the infrastructure by myself, and I can't build it fast enough for my liking. That's about it. Making progress though, in the designing, in the recruiting, and in the raising awareness...

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[bilbravo]

So at what point in the post above is proof offered that the ISP serving take down notices will ultimately lead said ISP snooping any and all data for any third party that asks for it?

I also fail to see how my suggestion that it is slippery slope/fallacy is off-topic. It is entirely on-topic; I am suggesting that the reply to my initial comment is not valid. Maybe I was incorrect with my assertion, but that doesn't make it off-topic! ::face palm:: *this wasn't directed at fredklein, but I didn't want to make another post.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[MadKeithV]

No, in Soviet Russia the (secret) service terminates you!

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Jason Levine]

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

That's assuming two things:

1. You know who has made similar arrangements. Apart from the occasional leak, the ISPs are likely to keep these deals as under wraps as possible.

2. You can find another broadband Internet provider. Most people in the US have one, maybe two broadband options available to them. Where I am, my options are Time Warner Cable's Roadrunner or Verizon's DSL. (FIOS isn't available in my area yet.) If Time Warner makes a deal with the RIAA, I can go to Verizon. If Verizon turns out to have a deal as well, who can I jump ship to? Dial-Up/AOL is out of the question so I'm trapped in a "RIAA-reporting" system.

(For the record, I don't pirate movies/music or anything else for that matter. I do worry about being falsely reported though and having to either pay to defend myself against baseless charges or being pressured into settling to avoid those charges.)

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[iksbob]

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

And who might that be? It seems the RIAA is deliberately keeping that list private, minimizing the public's ability to intelligently make such a decision.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheRealMindChild]

Comparing DSL/Cable with Satellite and even dial-up is almost an insult. Its like comparing a tank, an SUV, and a moped. Very few people would consider all of those technologies as even viable. Would you take a moped into battle? Would you drive your tank to a local amusement park? Would you take your SUV on the Appalachian Trail?

Dial-up and Satellite aren't an option to someone who uses their internet connection for "hardcore gaming". You wouldn't want to be using VOIP on either of these as well.

Face it. You oversimplified the subject so you could condemn everyone as a crybaby, when closer to the truth is, there ISN'T always a viable alternative. If you only have one friend, no matter how shitty they are, it may not be in your best interest to tell them "I'm taking my toys and going to play with someone else!"

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[johannesg]

I've been thinking about that. Let's say I organize my building into a single network - we buy our own fiber, run it to every house (48 of them), and then organize a shared link to the outside world. We'd be like a mini-ISP that way.

And of course we could peer with the building next door. Running that 50m of cable is not going to be much of a problem, so now it is two buildings.

In densely populated areas you could build quite significant networks this way, I would think... And it would be beautifully decentralized, the way internet was intended to be in the first place.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

>>>This, correct me if I'm wrong, is completely legal

No it isn't. It violates the Constitutional right to a trial by your peers. It presumes guilt before innocence, and is therefore contrary to existing law. AT&T / RIAA should be required to maintain internet connectivity until *after* they have proved their case in court, and then and only then should ISP access be canceled.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

>>>RIAA is punching you in the face because you might have bought a recording, might not, but you're giving it out copies of it for free.

That's vigilante justice and it's not allowed. Removal of access violates the Constitutional right to a trial by your peers. It presumes guilt before innocence, and is therefore contrary to our basic principles. ------ Instead AT&T should be required to maintain internet connectivity until *after* RIAA has proved their case in court (i.e. you are innocent until proven guilty), and then and only then should AT&T cancel internet access.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob tells the entire world that he's got the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and is going to let anyone download it.

Bob has Pirates of the Caribbean? Nice! Any idea how I can get ahold of him? Also, fuck Eve, why does that stupid bitch have to ruin everything? I've been trying to find that movie for awhile!

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Hijacked Public]

No, I didn't oversimplify the subject. I dislike the idea that the actions of private companies should be restricted based on the possibility that they might infuriate a couple of hardcore gamers who the RIAA thinks violate copyrights.

I haven't condemned anyone or called anyone a crybaby. Although now that you mention it a person who has no alternative to ATT yet cannot either stop themselves from violating copyright or convince ATT that they aren't doing it, over the course of whatever their 'graduated response' turns out to be, may be worthy of condemnation. This goes double if they actually have alternative ISPs but refuse to consider them due to ping times.

A private company cutting off a person's internet access is not a human rights violation regardless of how upset it makes you to think about it. Even when the groupthink has your back.

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

[digitig]

No problem then. Give him a push and he'll topple over.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Jane Q. Public]

What they do is "Deep Packet Inspection" and they are most definitely there. They have been doing it for some years now, using various combinations of hardware & software.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[HartDev]

Isn't there something to be said about giving them an inch they'll take a mile? Precedence is falled back on all the time to move different agendas forward.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[NotBornYesterday]

Hey! Watch what you're saying! Stop maligning pitbulls. ;)

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[mishehu]

Actually, the bully does NOT play the flute. He simply wants to be the only one on the block selling recordings of other people playing the flute...

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.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[AndersOSU]

No decently populated area is going to let you run cable willy-nilly between buildings. You could probably bury it, but that gets expensive fast.

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.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheRealMindChild]

I tell you what. When you lose your only broadband option because you were downloading YOUR legally ripped MP3's from your PRIVATE ftp server, while on vacation, and they cut you off because "You were downloading music", don't complain. It is what you wanted. Just bend over and take it.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[blitzkrieg3]

What they do is "Deep Packet Inspection" and they are most definitely there. They have been doing it for some years now, using various combinations of hardware & software.

That's essentially eavesdropping. Sounds like the EFF or someone similar might have a case. In states like New York (as another poster pointed out) they have laws against this.

Course we all know how well that worked with the Bush and Obama administrations.</cynic>

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TeXMaster]

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

Maybe, and anyway only insofar as the provider issues the notice including documented, solid, and legitly-acquired proof that you were indeed infringing copyright, and only if you are allowed, at no cost, to challenge the proof (or the legality of the acquisition of such proof). Otherwise, it's a 'guilty unless proven innocent' stance which is NOT legal.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[networkBoy]

Wireless link is fairly valid if we're talking about 50'
High gain directional antenna on each building and you're good.
-nB

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[L4t3r4lu5]

I envision a series of tubes...

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheGratefulNet]

when 'teh internets' were young, they were decentralized and no one 'owned' them. no one could stop the traffic since it was a shared thing.

now, its all changed. it went 'commercial' and law enforcement also saw this as something they can 'use' for their own benefit (in a twisted way).

the gov has access to ALL key core routers. don't think otherwise.

the corporations own the government.

add those 2 concepts up, mate.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[JasterBobaMereel]

When At&T have no broadband customers then they will think again about this

If they will disconnect people who are "accused" of illegal filesharing then they will eventually have to disconnect just about all their customers looking at RIAA's random scattergun targeting of illegal filesharers ....

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheGratefulNet]

in most areas it is illegal to start up your own ISP

the time is right for mesh wireless FOR THE PEOPLE.

running cables is something the gov can stop us from doing. we don't have 'right of way' (I hate that term, btw).

but there is NO concept of ROW in wireless!

imagine if the country created a mesh with redundancy and no central way to 'stop up the works'.

this is the very DEFINITION of freedom!

I hope it happens. wire-based comms is limited but wireless may be the future. problem is, how to get enough rebel like people to DO this and make a real enough network that end-to-end means more than just down your street.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[element-o.p.]

I don't think that's what the article is describing. TFA is light on details, but -- at least at the ISP where I used to work -- it works like this: RIAA sends copyright infringement notice, including time, date and IP address, to the ISP. The ISP forwards complaint to customer with a notice to knock it off or the account will be suspended or terminated. Rinse and repeat as required until the customer knocks it off or gets disconnected.

To the best of my knowledge, we never actually disconnected a customer for copyright infringement where I used to work, but we did suspend quite a few people for a few days.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[element-o.p.]

Well, yeah...but it ran you over because you were laying on the center line of the highway, at night, wearing black clothes, just so you could show how 1337 you are.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Xoltri]

Eve is a bitch. I always knew.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

Even if you could, it wouldn't matter because the local and/or state politicians are bribed by Corporations like AT&T or Comcast or Verizon to NOT allow alternative carriers to lay cable. i.e. To stifle competition.

Yay.
 

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

>>>we buy our own fiber, run it to every house (48 of them), and then organize a shared link to the outside world. We'd be like a mini-ISP that way.

The local government won't let you do that without a permit, and since Comcast/Verizon/whoever bribes them Not to grant permits, you will be denied. Aren't our corporate-run politicians great? They are bought and paid for to maintain the monopoly.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

>>>The rest of the world

No. The "rest of the world" are the ones who originated the idea, in places like France and Australia and the UK.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[seandiggity]

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

I've never had more than three choices for an ISP; I've only lived in a few towns in an affluent state with a large IT infrastructure (Connecticut). In some cases I only had one choice.

This "vote with your wallet" stuff only works if:
A. You have choices.
B. You have enough money to choose based upon other factors besides cost.
C. Every one of your choices isn't engaging in the dubious behavior you're trying to avoid.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[element-o.p.]

You can run cable between buildings in a populated area. You just have to get a permit, first. That might not be trivial, but it's certainly *possible*.

What GPP failed to realize (well, sort of -- he did mention a shared link to the outside world) is that at some point, you have to arrange an Internet feed from an upstream provider. If you abuse that link by filesharing, sending spam/viruses, harrassing others online, etc., the upstream will eventually contact you about it. If the problems persist, they will eventually terminate your connection.

That's the problem with shared networks. When you annoy others on-line, they eventually stop sharing with you.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Besides, most people using the Slippery Slope argument are using a 'worst case' scenario to show what MIGHT happen, not what necessarily WILL happen.

Well, in that case, everything is a slippery slope towards nuclear war, or a meteor wiping all life on earth out. Sure it's a long shot, but it is technically the worst case scenario.

Besides, I disagree with your analysis of the slippery slope's fallaciousness. The problem isn't with transitivity at all, since many of implications don't exist in the first place. The implications put forward are gross oversimplifications of several complex factors, that are often completely incorrect, and reflect more on the person grinding their favourite axe, than it does on the situation they're commenting on.

The real problem with most slippery slope (and frog-boiling) arguments is that they essentially try to pass of hyperbole as a legitimate argument. Think about it: that's really what it is. We take a small piece of erroneous information, ignore several mitigating, equilibrium factors, run with it as far as we'll go, and there you have it: a grotesque hypothetical situation that has only a passing resemblance to reality.

It's true, this hypothetical situation, no matter how absurd, cannot be disproved, and is still technically possible, but that's no reason to give it serious consideration. Just like Intelligent Design can't be disproved, but that doesn't mean we consider it a serious scientific theory (just the opposite, in fact).

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[phoenix321]

I pay for the music I acquire. I do not pay for the music I allegedly download, allegedly offer for download or that I allegedly own pirated copies of.

If the difference between alleged and proven is claimed to be written in an ASCII textfile, I call bullshit every time.

I have a long and entirely credible ASCII textfile proving that Jesus was responsible for 9/11. That I also have notepad.exe installed is only a coincidence.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[phulegart]

Cutting off someone's internet is NOT akin to cutting off the electricity. That is why for people who use electric heat in the winter, the electric companies WON'T turn off the electricity. Why? They could kill that former customer. No heat + winter = illness or death. The pumps that pull water from the artesian wells run on electricity. There are far more people counting on electricity to keep their food from spoiling, than there are earning their living off direct home internet access.

Regardless of personal usage, the internet is a luxury. Electricity is not.

Look. If you believe or don't believe that downloading music and sharing it on the net is wrong... it doesn't matter. Most people don't think that driving 5 to 10 mph over the posted speed limit should be illegal. That does not stop them from getting the speeding ticket. They believe that since they haven't gotten a ticket yet, it is an OK thing. That feeling continues right up until they get stopped for speeding.

Just because it is out there, begging to be plucked, does not mean it SHOULD be plucked. The internet is a great exercise demonstrating the futility of resisting temptation.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[element-o.p.]

At the ISP I used to work at, we threw away any copyright notices that did not include the offending IP address, the date, the time and the time zone that the offending file was found, the name of the offending file, and what the offending file was supposed to be.

With date, time, time zone and IP address, we could uniquely identify the account that was used to share the file. The file name and description allowed us to verify that the complaint was for a legitimately copyrighted work.

In other words, your "far more likely" scenario is, at least in my experience, almost certainly not what is happening.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[phoenix321]

That's a piece of cake. Until you have two skilled black hats, twelve skript kiddies, twenty non-paying bandwidth hogs, an undisclosed number of perverts and one FBI party van bearing down on you.

In a world gone insane, all sane people must disclaim from everything they do, all the time. If you claim responsibility for a network like this in times like these, you're insane. Or a glutton for punishment.

Ten years down the road, people will get imprisoned for writing a practically anonymous comment like mine on a practically anonymous forum like /. - but I wouldn't want to be on the forefront of rebellion, but if you do, feel free to roll out some fiber. I would gladly pay more than my share, though, if you did it in my neighborhood. In cash only, of course.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[element-o.p.]

Otherwise, it's a 'guilty unless proven innocent' stance which is NOT legal.

At risk of being an armchair lawyer (IANAL, etc., so this does not constitute legal advice), you are mistaking what the government is and is not allowed to do with what a private business is and is not allowed to do. While I'm sure there is some overlap, I'm pretty sure that the laws covering the two entities are not the same.

In other words, when accused of a crime by the government, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. When a private business seeks to terminate a business relationship with you, they don't always have to prove *anything at all*. Ever notice those "We reserve the right to refuse service..." notices in contracts or posted on the walls in many businesses? This is why.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

Regulated monopolies have to follow the same rules as the government. An electric company can not arbitrarily cut-off access just because you started a catering service & burn-up a lot of electricity in your kitchen. Nor can a phone company cutoff access because you tie it up 24/7 making calls, thereby abusing the $15/month unlimited fee. Nor can an internet company. They all must follow due process of law and prove their case FIRST before a judge. After guilt has been proved, then the regulated monopoly may cutoff access, and only with permission of the court.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[johannesg]

I only have to go to the next few buildings: the one across the street (50m), the one across the park (80m - it is not a big park), and that's it (my building is sort-of in a corner). I'm not going to pay for their infrastructure; if they want to connect to further buildings, they can do it on their own.

The urban sprawl in which I live allows you to reach maybe 180,000 people in that way, just moving from building to building. No one would have to pay for more than, say, 200m worth of digging. And no one would be paying for that alone; each time you can make a mini-ISP as I proposed above, with a couple of home owners together.

Would the protocols actually work with this sort of connectivity? How much would it cost to wire up one building plus, say, 2-3 outbound connections?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[johnsonav]

Regulated monopolies have to follow the same rules as the government.

No, they don't. What rules are you talking about?

An electric company can not arbitrarily cut-off access just because you started a catering service & burn-up a lot of electricity in your kitchen. Nor can a phone company cutoff access because you tie it up 24/7 making calls, thereby abusing the $15/month unlimited fee. Nor can an internet company.

Here's your problem: You can't lump ISP's in with the electric and phone monopolies. There are major differences in the laws governing these different services.

Can you cite a relevant law or judgment which backs up your claim? Because your constitutional argument falls flat.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TeXMaster]

In other words, when accused of a crime by the government, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. When a private business seeks to terminate a business relationship with you, they don't always have to prove *anything at all*. Ever notice those "We reserve the right to refuse service..." notices in contracts or posted on the walls in many businesses? This is why.

Good objection. However, for many forms of business relationship, esp. when it comes to providing services, you are usually allowed (1) a 'grace period' before termination to look for alternatives (2) the possibility to challenge the termination. Of course, it does depend on the form of relationship, the enforceable contract terms, and a plethora of other things, though.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[HiThere]

I think he was talking about scatter-spectrum wireless. Or possibly a sort of grid-net.

Remember, he said, specifically, "it can't be metered".

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In other words: "Hey, how about a BJ?" *slap* "Then I guess dinner's out of the question."

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[HiThere]

It's a bit absurd to call AT&T a private business. They're a regulated monopoly. (Not very heavily regulated, admittedly. Mainly the regulations prevent any competitors from entering the business.)

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[gtx]

Except he isn't punching you for giving out copies of his own flute recordings, he is punching you for giving out copies of any recordings, whether they are your business or not.

The worst part is that he's not all that bright, so a lot of times he'll punch you for no good reason at all and then expect you to apologize.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I hope it happens. wire-based comms is limited but wireless may be the future. problem is, how to get enough rebel like people to DO this and make a real enough network that end-to-end means more than just down your street.

Good as far as it goes, but how do we get to servers and content overseas if not through the backbone of a major provider?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Except that this is simply a business terminating service that they never guarantee in the first place. There's no constitutional right to a trial by peers required when the issue at hand is a business deciding that it doesn't want to do business with you anymore.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[HiThere]

It's not just a matter of "can't afford". When the RIAA have been challenged on specific points they have frequently been proven not merely wrong, but wrong without a valid reason to have made the assertion in question. AND to have used illegal methods in deriving their bat-shit crazy result.

What can you say about an organization that sues people who have been dead for years, and grandmothers that have never even owned a computer, for abusing the computer?

My guess is they just got tired of trying to prove obviously fallacious cases, so they decided to use an approach that didn't allow people to challenge their assertions.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[mea37]

I'm afraid this is an example of assuming a problem is easy, if you don't know what's involved in solving it.

A LAN won't scale to an Internet.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[NeutronCowboy]

I know, it's alerady been talked about. But it bears repeating ad nauseam. Let's follow this line of thought, shall we? In my particular area, it's Comcast, ATT, or ISPs that lease their lines from ATT. Since Comcast is also in on the deal, I have no options that do not involve a deal with the RIAA. And why is that? Because almost all municipalities granted a local monopoly to a DSL and cable company, in exchange for the companies bearing some of the cost of the installation.

Let me make that crystal clear to you: there is no free market in ISPs. There are natural and government granted monopolies (if we're lucky, oligopolies). The only way we can control what happens to us (beyond just bending over) is by regulating those monopolies and oligopolies.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[aaandre]

The issue here is that you (and I) are paying the bully's salary and bonuses. We are the ISP's client and main source of profits.

Unfortunately, the ISP's responsibility is not to us, its stakeholders, but to its shareholders. Thus, we are seen as a resource and treated as such.

Spending on advertising and getting lots of new customers is statistically cheaper than investing in better infrastructure, raising the quality of the service and keeping the picky ones.

Making a deal with third parties and selling the customer's activity logs, dropping privacy commitments and automating customer abuse from said third parties brings more profit than the loss of the few customers on the receiving end of the abuse.

Lobbying for laws disrupting the competition is cheaper than competing through a better offering and value.

Just some of the issues with only being in a business for the money... the business decision makers only care about the bottom line.

If we, the millions of customers start acting differently and are willing to put up with some discomfort (no internet service from home for a month or dial up or switching to a different provider etc.) en masse, then the game will change in a matter of weeks. As individuals we have little to no power. Talking about it may influence the stand of the brand, temporarily, and is usually dealt with via PR.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[aaandre]

This is not about the music, and whether you are paying for it or not. This is about the breach of privacy.

The USPS does not open all my letters to check for mp3 cds or a photocopied page from a cookbook.

The phone company does not listen to all my phone calls just in case I may whistle a popular tune on someone's voicemail or using a trademarked phrase without paying royalties.

I am a paying customer and I am paying for data traffic between my computer and the other computers I want to communicate with. I am not interested in paying for another business entity scrutinizing my behavior to protect their business interests by making my life miserable.

I am my ISP's client and they are responsible to me. Making agreements about my data with a 3rd party is unacceptable.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rudisaurus]

With date, time, time zone and IP address, we could uniquely identify the account that was purportedly used to share the file. The file name and description allowed us to believe that the complaint was for a legitimately copyrighted work.

There -- fixed that for you.

You see, just because someone -- whether individual or corporation -- alleges that something happened in the way they said it did, that does not constitute factual evidence. They should have to provide something a bit more substantial -- i.e. the actual file, rather than just a file name and description -- before something as dramatic as a cut-off of service takes place.

Just because they said I downloaded Britney Spears - Hit Me Baby (One More Time).mp3 -- when, in reality, I abhor BS music -- is not sufficient; they should have to demonstrate that they were able to download the file from me and it should be independently verified that the file's contents are indeed what they alleged they were. But, by removing the action from the courtroom, they neatly dance around requirements for substantive evidence and the means of procurement thereof.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Hijacked Public]

I don't see, in this article or any other, where a backbone provider has agreed to cancel the lease of another ISP if that ISP's customers are accused of copyright violations. If you know where I can find that information please provide a link.

And it bears repeating ad nauseum that if you have a specific set of needs that only a few companies carter to, either for your internet service or nearly any other thing, your choices for satisfying those needs will be limited. Self limited. Your needs don't and shouldn't obligate ATT to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, they legally can.

It also bears repeating that the government granted monopoly that limits competition is part of the reason why you have any broadband at all anyway. If as a condition of accepting that grant your government didn't provide some open ended means of preventing things you don't like you should be upset with your government, not your ISP. And in this case you might avoid looking to your Federal government for relief.

Where do you live that you can't purchase internet service from any of at least 3 satellite providers?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[NeutronCowboy]

I don't see, in this article or any other, where a backbone provider has agreed to cancel the lease of another ISP if that ISP's customers are accused of copyright violations. If you know where I can find that information please provide a link.

Irrelevant. Unless you want me to negotiate my own peering agreement with a Tier 1 provider. But we weren't talking about that, were we?

Your needs don't and shouldn't obligate ATT to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, they legally can.

Of course. But we weren't talking about that either. We were talking about why the assumption that a free market will result in a solution that serves a customer interest does not apply in this situation.

It also bears repeating that the government granted monopoly that limits competition is part of the reason why you have any broadband at all anyway. If as a condition of accepting that grant your government didn't provide some open ended means of preventing things you don't like you should be upset with your government, not your ISP.

No shit. That's exactly the point. The ISP cannot and will not do anything, because there's no reason.

Where do you live that you can't purchase internet service from any of at least 3 satellite providers?

Ever try to run a webex remote control session over a satellite link? It's ugly. Not to mention I'm covered by Hughes only.

You've brilliantly pointed out the only solution that everyone's been talking about: only the government can prevent the abuse of a monopoly that's been granted by the government. It's a little scary when that same government works for organizations who hare working diligently to turn the internet into TV.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[digitig]

If the ISP says "we have received a complaint that on at or about date you download file filename from url or whatever in violation of copyright.

Of course, when I was previewing I missed the fact that /. had read my intended variables as invalid HTML, and deleted them!

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[digitig]

They may have records to determine that a specific account uploaded or downloaded a specific file. What they are unlikely to know is whether the owner of the account knew about the transaction or whether the owner of the account has the legal right to upload or download the file.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rakarra]

Good luck having that fly in court. Slashdot has a lot of geeks who think that because they can modify a text file that an ISP log won't be admissible in court.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rakarra]

If you offend enough with the BJ request, dinner's out of the question even if it would have been a possibility before.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rakarra]

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

And who might that be? It seems the RIAA is deliberately keeping that list private, minimizing the public's ability to intelligently make such a decision.

It seems to me like you ought to be able to get an honest answer out of the ISPs themselves. So if you're interested in a prospective ISP, ask them. Either they'll say "yes we do," "no we don't," or "we can't tell you that" (which means "yes we do"). Sure, you can get someone clueless, but that's the case for any question you might want to ask your ISP anyway.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rakarra]

Satellite service is too poor-quality for a large portion of the Internet-using population now. It's good for 1990s-era web browsing, but not much beyond that. The latency is crippling for anything other than full direct downloads.

It can't be considered a service on par with Cable/DSL. I'd put it on the same Tier as dial-up.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[fredklein]

The real problem with most slippery slope (and frog-boiling) arguments is that they essentially try to pass of hyperbole as a legitimate argument.

That's true, IF there is no further evidence. If I can show 15 examples of situations where 'A' lead to 'B', and in 14 of those cases, 'B' lead to 'C', then I'd be pretty correct to say it's possible, even likely, that 'A' leads to 'C'.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Shagg]

The file name and description allowed us to verify that the complaint was for a legitimately copyrighted work.

Really? You can tell the contents of the file just by looking at the name? You can tell that the supposed file even existed based on a notice?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[mpeskett]

I think that one's more a case of the "Foot in the Door" technique - start with a small request that they're likely to agree to, and then they're likely to also agree to a bigger request. Asking the small thing first means the second request doesn't sound so big, and agreeing the first time puts them in an agreeing mood.

So it'd go "Hey, want to come out to dinner", then after dinner, ask them back to wherever and, "while you're here, how about a BJ?"

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheGratefulNet]

packet radio.

I used to be in ham radio (years ago) and going across the ocean was TRIVIAL with 100watts of power or even less.

its not too hard. you may have to work around sunspot times (some times of day or nite are better for radio propagation) but with enough redundancy, it COULD work.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[element-o.p.]

My, what a big tin-foil hat you have there...

Yes, the **AA's are out to get you, for no other reason than pure malice. /s

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Endo13]

If you really think that the other major ISPs won't shortly follow suit, you're just burying your head in the sand. (In fact, most of them have already started something similar, or have it in the works.) The only thing that surprises me is that it hasn't already happened. So, once ATT, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner are all doing the same, where exactly do you suggest we get broadband internet from in the US? I'm sure there's a few cities where you might have another option, but for most areas (including most cities) we're fortunate if we have as many as two of those four.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[zach297]

The only problem with that is that ISPs are businesses that can choose to serve or not serve whatever customers they wish for whatever reason.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Rich0]

Yeah, but the HF options (which easily cross oceans) are generally limited to very low baud rates. The whole amatuer specrum allocation at those frequencies is probably less than 1MHz - how much bandwidth are you going to get sharing that with everybody within 500 miles?

Once you get into the 10s of GHz frequency ranges then there is some real bandwidth available, but you're well into microwaves at that point and you're not going to be sending that over oceans unless it is via a satellite.

Of course, if you can get enough mesh traffic to an endpoint the economics would make it possible to sell conventional terrestrial bandwidth - you've solved the last mile problem.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Velocivus]

The missing part of this I would think is you would have to not only look at when A leads to B, but whenever A is considered at all to link A to C.

There may be 15 examples of A leading to B, and 14 follow through to C.

But if there are 100 examples of A never even leading to B, then you would be wrong to say it was likely that A will likely lead to C.

This would also continue every step of the way, when connecting A-D or further. You have to take into account every possibility starting with A to make your 'chance of linking statement' accurate.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Xenographic]

> 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.

The 14th Amendment ought to apply, given that the telcos get all kinds of special rights from the government.

Also, internet access is only becoming more essential with time. It's not something you can just "cut off" simply. It's about one step away from banning people from using phones. You don't think it's necessary, but it's pretty much becoming necessary.

(And before anyone claims phones are unnecessary, I have one number for you: 911.)

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[commodore64_love]

The previous two persons are mistaken. An ISP is a government-granted, regulated monopoly, and regulated monopolies (like electricity, natural gas, phone) are held to a higher standard. They are expected to prove their case *before* disconnecting a customer.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[hurfy]

*Runs off to calculate how many USB ports are needed to run his heating system*

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Ashriel]

No, this is worse. If the RIAA wants to make a bad name for themselves passing around a reverse lottery to their customers, that's something I'm willing to live with, especially since they will eventually piss off the courts enough to get this method shut down (the fact that this is already happening is probably the main reason for a change in tactics).

This is the ISPs regulating their traffic/customers based on content. This is terrible. The ISPs should not be held accountable for the content that passes through their pipes - isn't that the whole idea behind net neutrality?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Dun Malg]

Precedence is falled back on all the time

Precedent is fallen back on all the time

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[HartDev]

Thanks

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Larryish]

IP via ham radio?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[easyTree]

It's true, this hypothetical situation, no matter how absurd, cannot be disproved, and is still technically possible, but that's no reason to give it serious consideration.

And yet, for this grotesque hypothetical situation (from the GGGP):

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

there's already something very similar in-place in the UK. Various ISP's have made a deal with a company to insert targeted ads into your html stream.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[tyrr]

The problem with your argument is that you have no idea what the telecommunication industry is.
Large telecoms are regulated pretty heavily and the regulatory agency will hardly allow a telecom to deny service based on some hearsay complaint.
Every heard of FCC? They have the power to make life of any telecom miserable. Your state Attorney General can make life of any telecom miserable.
Internet and telephone service is not a privilege for selected few that can be denied without a well-substantiated reason.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

OK, you're not seeing the difference between following a trend and following a trend to hyperbole. Allow me to explain the difference.

Say person A buys several rock albums from person B. Person B could potentially interpret this fact in one of these two ways:

1) Person A is likely to buy at least a few more rock albums
2) Person A has an insatiable hunger for rock, and will continue to buy rock more and more, no matter how much he spends on rock, and no matter how much he listens to rock

Situation 1) is a reasonable extension on a perceived trend. Situation 2) is hyperbole, that observes a trend, and applies it over and over again without taking into account the possibility that by following the trend, the factors that created the trend change.

Think about it.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[ivan256]

Let me guess. Your logic here goes something like this:

Somebody smarter than me once pointed out that a certain "slippery slope" argument was a fallacy, thus all "slippery slope" arguments must be a fallacy.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[tjonnyc999]

With trucks involved too. Don't forget the trucks.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[traumamama]

I always thought it was an absolute hoot that AT&T had a big banner saying "Reach out and Touch Someone" in the bowling alley at the local army base. Isn't there supposed to be a policy something like "Loose Lips might Sink Ships", if too many of the military reach out with the wrong information??? Beyond that, where does the music industry get off charging $15-20 (and more) for music CD's that cost pennies to make?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Tuoqui]

I agree... this may not be 'illegal' but it is 100% immoral.

Firstly it assumes 'guilty even if proven innocent'.

Secondly it takes the whole 'government issued monopoly' that DSL and Cable providers typically enjoy and makes it abusive. Without the monopoly position they enjoy and the public funding thrown at these ISPs to get them to build the infrastructure they would not be permitted to take these steps. I think it might be a good opportuity to take the companies to court and/or the municipal governments that are letting this go on.

Thirdly it is effectively taking the law into their own hands. If they do this then I would suggest that people push really hard that 'common carrier' defense no longer applies. I'd love to see the next person who gets busted for child porn after this goes into effect to claim that the ISP is responsible for distributing it and they can nolonger claim common carrier because they are doing throttling and deep packet inspection they should be responsible for distribution.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Tuoqui]

No its more like the bully happens to play the flute and makes a little money by selling recordings (CDs) of him playing. He also gives away recordings by broadcasting them over the radio for 'free'. Now he's punching you in the face because you downloaded an MP3 off the internet which may have been from the 'free' stream or potentially from the 'paid' stream of CDs. Regardless it is being given away for free and therefore the value of the music is virtually nil.

PS: The bully gets charged with assault because assault is a criminal offense while copyright infringement is a civil matter.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Tuoqui]

Yes... the RIAA is losing the battle in the court system. What they are trying to do is win the war with backroom deals. Unfortunately the first time someone is cut off because of these RIAA goons is the time the EFF jumps on the ISP's case to get them declared a regulated monopoly.

Hopefully municipal governments will stop giving exclusivity contracts to ISPs. Perhaps we might be able to create ISPs of our own based on fiber to future-proof our networks then set up peering arrangements.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[careykohl]

The person driving the car is the RIAA executive laughing his ass off all the way to the bank.

He's amused as hell that he's been ripping the flute player off for years now, but has managed to convince him it's all his fans fault.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Ozlanthos]

Have you ever read 1984? To some people that whole monitor that monitors you and tells you to worship big brother is THE PLANNED FUTURE FOR DIGITAL MEDIA. They looked at Orwell's nightmarish future and said, "yeah I could be big brother too!...wouldn't that be cool?"

"Permission given is permission given to abuse. Be wary of what you permit others to do".

-Oz

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?

[furby076]

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.

Re:Defense?

[fredklein]

Screenshot? Trivial to fake.

Hmm. That gives me an idea. Who provides the RIAA with internet service, again?

Re:Defense?

[plasmacutter]

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

Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.

or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.

Re:Defense?

[furby076]

or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.

You could, but if your options are like mine you have: Verizon DSL (crap-tastically slow)
Satellite (worse then DSL)
Comcast
AT&T (i don't know what they offer but I am sure they ahve something) And I live in downtown philadelphia. I need speed I can't go below Comcast. Once I get fios (maybe 2 years it will be available) then I will be switching. But still, I am sure verizon will help the riaa too.

Re:Defense?

[TechForensics]

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?

All of your questions have answers, which respectively, are: Yes, but it will involve an expensive lawsuit; No, not at first until enough people complain or someone sues; Yes, until enough outcry forces something like a due process standard. See the insightful post by bug (#27328451) above.

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?

Re:Defense?

[oahazmatt]

So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent

And how exactly do you do that for "file-sharing"? While I can argue the point that file-sharing in itself is not illegal, the RIAA has previously sought legal action for this and has found themselves losing ground in a court of law. They are in effect seeking non-legal proceedings for what they have addressed as a legal issue.

And AT&T won't check their logs to make sure you haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure the burden of innocence will be put on the customer.

Re:Defense?

[TheDarkMaster]

The Virtual Private Network is your friend

And put a bear trap in front of your house to catch the MAFIAA lawer, just in case :)

Re:Defense?

[TechForensics]

There are already laws (in the form of mandatory tariff inclusions) that require phone companies to provide "emergency access" (a virtually no-cost line) for persons who otherwise could not summon help.

Re:Defense?

[ivan256]

So you have four competing options, and you're bitching?

You don't even know what AT&T offers, but you're sure that it's even more Comcastic than Comcast?

If you have verizon DSL in your area, you should consider getting a business line. They're not significantly more expensive than residential lines, they have a SLA, and they wouldn't dream of pulling shit like this on their business customers.

Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[RagingFuryBlack]

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.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[furby076]

we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here

No we are talking about AT&T. You didn't even have to RTFA to see that. Look at the title, or hell the first word in the snippit

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[furby076]

Forgot to mention Comcast is one of the companies participating. It's in the article. They have been doing this for years (I get letters every 3-6 months)

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[RagingFuryBlack]

AT&T is in TFA, however, Verizon and Comcast are both participating companies in the scheme of things.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[Aerynvala]

What do you do when you get a letter? Do you reply at all or just ignore it?

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[Shakrai]

we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic

When has Verizon throttled any traffic?

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[furby076]

I called my friends, laughed and ignored it. But they were spot on their accusation. They had the IP, the time, the name of the file, the contents of the file. It was detailed. Unfortunately I do not have it anymore or I would scan it and post it for you guys to see.

If you are actually doing the stuff just stop for a while you will be fine.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[NotBornYesterday]

Sneakernet meets Limewire on a terabyte scale??

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[furby076]

LOL. Though Limewire? isn't that like saying "hey come here, i have a few gigs available for your viruses" :)

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[Rakarra]

Or find a network of committed music sharers who have large external drives and become friends with them :) The RIAA can't do anything about that until they install rootkits on everyone's computers.

I don't think the RIAA would care about that. They don't care if you establish your offline file-sharing network. They're not really after 100% of the file-sharing. They'd be happy with reducing it by, say, 95%.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money...

[tjonnyc999]

I've gotten a couple of those too.
Did you get a 3-page letter, first page from the ISP + 2 pages from copyright holder (printout of XML file showing all the stats)?

(Ironically enough, both letters were for completely SHITTY content that I was glad I could preview for free & save my money to buy a legit DVD/iTunes download of something worthwhile.)

A while ago, there was a thread on [house of m00t] with the OP showcasing a pic of his 100+ collection of those letters. Lulz were had by all.

My letters are over a year old, and there's been no escalation whatsoever. Still the same ISP, the same level of service. I honestly have no idea why they even bother killing the trees. (*whoosh* - and cue Slashdot lawyers in 3... 2... 1...)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

[mea37]

If you're at a party and someone tells the host you're hitting on his wife, does he have to give you a jury trial before he throws you out?

AT&T is a private company. Access to the service they provide is not a right. All allusions to due process, burden of proof, trial, etc. are off-point in this conversation. Why shouldn't AT&T be able to make the business decision to drop some ISP customers?

If it's disruptive to too many customers, it'll cost them money (at the benefit of their competitors). If it's a money-losing business decision (putting cooperation with the RIAA above profits), perhaps the shareholders can sue.

But meanwhile, you might want to check your contract, because the things they're agreeing to monitor are likely to be against the ToS already.

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.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[fprintf]

You can always* switch to a competitive ISP, with the associated startup fees. Those fees can add up to 10s or 100s of dollars.

*may not apply if you live in a rural area, or if there is only one high speed internet ISP

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Kjella]

The answer is still no, though.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[NotBornYesterday]

Except the RIAA is telling the host that someone is hitting on the RIAA's wife, and expects the host to do something about it, rather than take care of it themselves.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[TheGratefulNet]

FIAT?

"filter it again, tony!"

(its a car joke, folks)

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[mcgrew]

After this, I'd rather be on dialup (or even do without internet) than give those rat bastards my money.

Of course, I have a few other issues with AT&T (my former cell carrier) as well, but that 's a bit offtopic, except for the fact that AT&T is comprised of a bunch of sociopaths.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[mea37]

That doesn't actually matter. If the host is willing to "do something about it", that's the host's right.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Ceseuron]

First off, AT&T is not a private company. It's a publicly traded company.

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=ATT

Second, AT&T cannot do whatever they want, even if they were a private company. There are laws in place that govern everything from employment to the actual business of communications that prevent "private companies" from running afoul of the consumer's rights.

Consider Comcast and their throttling of BitTorrent traffic. If we consider your theory of private companies being able to do whatever they want under the guise of it being a "business decision" to be correct, Comcast should be able to get away with bandwidth throttling of BitTorrent, right? Wrong.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking

Companies, whether they are privately owned or publicly traded, have laws and regulations that they are supposed to abide by. AT&T can't make a decision, no matter how good it is for the business, if it violates the law. While the system of laws and regulations doesn't always work, it does provide some measure of defense against companies trampling all over the consumer.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[mea37]

"First off, AT&T is not a private company"

You are sadly mistaken.

"It's a publicly traded company"

That is correct. Shares are publically bought and sold, and AT&T is privately owned by the shareholders. In other words, like almost all publically-traded companies, they are a private company.

"Second, AT&T cannot do whatever they want"

I never said they could 'do whatever they want'. I said they can terminate their contract with a customer without legal procedings; which they can.

"There are laws in place that govern everything from employment to the actual business of communications that prevent "private companies" from running afoul of the consumer's rights."

And which of those is appilcable to the topic at hand? Be specific.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[drinkypoo]

AT&T is a private company. Access to the service they provide is not a right

You have a right to phone service not just so that you can call 911, but because it is considered a necessity today. With more and more companies offering parts of their service repertoire only online, and paring back telephone call centers in favor of internet support, internet access has become a necessity for participation in the modern world. It is long past time to declare internet access a "necessary utility" like power, water, or the phone, where you can't just be cut off because someone feels like it.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[NeutronCowboy]

And what the AC is saying is that you failed. What you completely miss is the actual lack of interconnection between leaf nodes, and the fact that you control the internet access of Alice, Bob, Charlene and David. Without you, ABCD have no internet access. The question is - do ABCD have options beside you? In the real world, they largely don't.

Take a look at an internet map to understand exactly how little of a web it is, and how much more of a hub and spoke system it is.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[skeeto]

AT&T is a private company. Access to the service they provide is not a right.

AT&T is a government granted monopoly because another ISP can't come in and wire people up. Therefore, they are carefully regulated and don't have the same flexibility of a normal private company. There will probably be no other ISPs for a customer to go to instead, so they shouldn't be allowed to deny service to customers who pay taxes to the government that grants AT&T their monopoly.

Internet access should be treated as a utility like phones, water, sewage, gas, and electricity.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[mea37]

I see that as a lack of perspective. I think you'd be surprised at the percentage of people who don't have this "basic necessity".

Probably the best example of why I think you're wrong, though, is cars. People's dependence on cars is a lot more engrained than their dependence on Internet service in this country, and has been for a long, long time. But if someone doesn't want to sell you a car, or gas, or repair service... they don't have to.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[mea37]

I think you're confusing "phone company" with "ISP".

There are many ISP's in most places. AT&T is not a monopoly, government-granted or otherwise, in the internet access market.

You can claim that they "should" be handled like a utility, and I can (and do) disagree, but it doesn't really matter, because legally they aren't.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[ZerdZerd]

When you signed the contract, both parties agreed to deliver something in return for something. If one of the parties doesn't hold up their part, they can invalidate the contract. But you can't invalidate the contract just because someone accuse you of breaking your part.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[skeeto]

To get water and electricity, I have to go with only one company. No one else can provide that service. If they refuse to service me, I have to move.

Where I live, I have only one choice of broadband ISP. If my ISP ever decides not to give me service, I would have to move somewhere else to get broadband. As another example, my parents another state over also only have one choice, so it's the same situation for them.

Some places are a bit luckier and have a whopping two choices, like DSL vs. cable or something.

My ISP struck up a deal with my local government and so they are the only company allowed to provide me broadband. That's a government granted monopoly. The government says they are the only one who can sell broadband here. This is the reason why they shouldn't be allowed to cut people off just because they feel like it.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[mea37]

So now not only is ISP service a necessity, but specifically broadband service is a necessity?

Fricking kids these days.

BTW, there are sat-based services that are available everywhere. Just because you're only aware of one option, doesn't mean there's only one option. (And no, I don't care about reasons why you might not like that option; monopoly means you don't have another option.)

Oh, and if your local government somehow created a monopoly (a very much doubt they have that authority, but for the sake of argument), then it would be your local government's job to regulate that company's action within its jurisdiction. Good luck with that.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Xenographic]

> The answer is still no, though.

If I pay to attend the party, things aren't quite that simple. You can't just take their money and then throw them out based on an unsubstantiated accusation from a third party.

Also, when AT&T is taking billions of dollars of our tax money to subsidize their services, they really, really can't claim to be an ordinary private business any more.

It's more like a private citizen banning you from going to the public park where he's holding a party based on someone's unsubstantiated allegations.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Tweenk]

If it's disruptive to too many customers, it'll cost them money (at the benefit of their competitors).

You know, that's the problem. There is no competition in broadband in the US due to lack of regulation. This is why people are complaining. Being denied access from one provider usually means an Internet death penalty. I have at least 5 real broadband options where I live (Warsaw). Most people in the US have 1 or, if they're lucky, 2.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Ashriel]

There is no competition in broadband in the US due to lack of regulation.

Actually, you have it backwards. There's no competition in broadband in the U.S. because of regulation. You see, our government does not control nor own our public infrastructure, and only one power line, one phone line, and one cable line is permitted in any particular area because, well, that's the law (and it kind of makes sense, I give it that).

Since the infrastructure is owned by private companies, and only one set of infrastructure is permitted in any locale, utility companies are given government-granted monopolies.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[ivan256]

It depends. Is the notorious person actually right the vast majority of the time, except for a few highly publicized errors?

The RIAA wouldn't have gotten away with it's crap for so long if there weren't an undercurrent of truth to it's statements. People who actually violate copyrights through file sharing are helping the RIAA get away with their unconscionable tactics.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[ivan256]

Ugh. I lost part of my point in the rambling:

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?

No. No he doesn't.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Tuoqui]

AT&T is a private company but almost all of their business is done on public property. Therefore access is a right as long as you are able to pay the monthly charge.

AT&T is a REGULATED MONOPOLY, just like the power company. Technically internet access is becoming more and more like a utility and as a result cutting off internet access should have the same burden of proof as cutting off your electricity, water or gas line to your house. In many cases people's internet access is also their phone line (VOIP) and thus their access to 911 and emergency services as well.

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[DJRumpy]

I'm sorry but did no one even read TFA? AT&T has refused to suspend a users account without a court order. Seems they are taking the correct approach here.

"Reached Wednesday morning, Claudia Jones, an AT&T spokeswoman, said the company's letters do include a mention that company retains the right to terminate service. She wanted to make it clear that AT&T has no intention of doing so, however. Jones also said the ISP never shares customers' names or any other personal information. What the company does do is send a "cover letter" to the accused customer along with the letter the ISP received from the RIAA stating that the person's IP address was flagged.

AT&T goes on to tell the accused customer that the problem may be caused by a teenager in the house who may be illegally downloading or that the customer might have an insecure Internet connection and that someone could be using it to steal content.

The ISP also informs the customer that downloading unauthorized copies is illegal and should be prevented. As for chronic offenders, Jones was less specific but said: "We can't assume that people are stealing. All we know is that they are using a lot of bandwidth. We can't be the police or the copyright enforcer...that's up to the content owner."

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?

Re:Will it matter?

[pentalive]

The remaining channel for music...

Home copied CDs originating from independent artists, shared hand-to-hand.

Re:Will it matter?

[russotto]

And when they do, will they respond to what will undoubtedly be a negative impact on music sales?

Yes. By stepping up the crackdowns. Ain't positive feedback grand?

Re:Will it matter?

[Ashriel]

Nah, I'll just go back to buying used Cd's, copying and returning them. The music labels under the RIAA haven't gotten a cent from me since 1997; I didn't start downloading music until 2000.

I don't mind paying the $2-4 per cd that it costs to do this; I simply refuse to give any money to the record labels.

Guilty until proven innocent

[elrous0]

And no recourse.

And I, for one, welcome our new telecommunications overlords. I'd like to remind them that, as a long-time member of /., I can be valuable in helping them round up violators to slave in their fiber-optic tunnels.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[houstonbofh]

And no recourse.

Well... A libel suit against the RIAA for telling your ISP that you are a pirate. Expensive unless someone makes it a business model.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[DigitAl56K]

The scary part is that our new telecommunications overlords are us.

For the sake of argument: As a malicious copyright holding member of the public, what power does the RIAA have over an ISP that I do not? If I furnish some documents against someone I don't like to an ISP and tell them either to follow the same practice as they employ for the RIAA or face a suit themselves what's going to happen?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[castironpigeon]

And no recourse.

Well... A libel suit against the RIAA for telling your ISP that you are a pirate. Expensive unless someone makes it a business model.

Or a class action suit... can you have a class action libel case?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[elrous0]

"Find a competing service."

I'm not sure where YOU live, but in most parts of the U.S. there are only one or two ISP's available (for broadband, anyway). The only alternative most people have to their DSL provider (i.e. AT&T or similar) is one cable provider. And that cable provider is usually some big-name ISP (Time-Warner, Comcast, etc.) that's probably going to follow right on AT&T's heals in kowtowing to the RIAA/MPAA thugs.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[houstonbofh]

And no recourse.

Well... A libel suit against the RIAA for telling your ISP that you are a pirate. Expensive unless someone makes it a business model.

Or a class action suit... can you have a class action libel case?

Ask a lawyer. If he suddenly looks happy in his pants, there is a good chance!

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:Solution

[ionix5891]

tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.

...

Britney Spears - Toxic.

aha that explains it!

Re:Solution

[agentc0re]

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.

Not to rain on your parade but they'd probably have an OC-12 line or greater :P :D

Re:Solution

[homes32]

step six: ...
step seven: profit!!!??

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself. I don't think a Judge in the world, regardless of whether they are in someones pocket or not, would agree with your stance that there is piracy, or copyright infringement occuring when the copyright holder themselves are wilfully doing the distribution.

The issue the RIAA have is you are distributing their content to other people, when you do not have a distribution license to do so.

I know I'm going to get murdered on here for sticking up for the RIAA, but the vast majority of comments professing ways to catch the RIAA out are sheer fantasy. Such as yours.

Re:Solution

[AVonGauss]

No, you're close. Wait until your ISP disconnects you based on the unsupported RIAA claim then file a lawsuit against your ISP and the RIAA members.

Re:Solution

[fredklein]

I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself.

They would need to prove I was the one to seed that file.

Re:Solution

[n3tcat]

- 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...

- Step seven: You cut a hole in the box.
- Step eight: You put your junk in that box.

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

No they don't, they simply have to prove that your peer transferred a significant portion of the file to another peer - that is still distribution under Copyright Law, and enough of a case against you to procede to court under.

Slashdotters seem to absolutely love hiding behind technology when it comes to other peoples content. Heres a novel idea - if you don't like the copyright terms, or the licensing terms, avoid that content and find something else. Its that simple - you do not have to have the latest Britney Spears right now, you don't have to watch the latest TV program right now, you don't need that movie right now. Find someone else who is distributing content under terms you agree with, and work with them rather than opening yourselves up to potential harm and thinking hiding behind technology and weak beliefs shouting 'nah nah nah cant get me!' simply because you want the current mainstream content.

Re:Solution

[that IT girl]

Ah, you beat me to it. ;)

Re:Solution

[fredklein]

No they don't, they simply have to prove that your peer transferred a significant portion of the file to another peer - that is still distribution under Copyright Law, and enough of a case against you to procede to court under.

So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.

Sheesh.

if you don't like the copyright terms, or the licensing terms, avoid that content and find something else.

I prefer putting it this way: If I don't like the the way content is offered (price, ads, DRM, etc), I avoid that channel and find a different way to get that content (p2p, BT, etc).

Re:Solution

[b4dc0d3r]

Funny. But they will probably be able to show that the files came from the copyright owner.

If you reverse-mount Warner's website URLs and find a cache of recordings, you would be able to claim good faith belief that the copyright owner was making them available. You can easily claim typo or mouse misfire or keyboard malfunction led you to find them, and not reverse mounting.

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.

Sheesh.

Well, I am no longer entirely sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish - are you going to sue your friend for copyright infringement? I think not...

In either case, the RIAA are not distributing your recording, and thus are not breaching copyright law, so you do not have a case against them for copyright infringement or piracy.

I prefer putting it this way: If I don't like the the way content is offered (price, ads, DRM, etc), I avoid that channel and find a different way to get that content (p2p, BT, etc).

Right, then you are actually breaching both the terms and spirit of copyright law and there is a valid case against you. Don't moan when you get caught.

I guess I'm going to get modded Troll for this post as well, since I'm not condoning your course of action...

Re:Solution

[Shagg]

So I have my friend (who has a different IP from me) seed the file.

Then you sue your friend for distribution of your copyrighted recording. It still has nothing to do with the RIAA. The fact that they download a song, regardless of who they get it from, does not make them guilty of distribution. The uploader is the one who potentially violates copyright (either you or your friend).

Re:Solution

[fredklein]

In either case, the RIAA are not distributing your recording, and thus are not breaching copyright law, so you do not have a case against them for copyright infringement or piracy.

IF I "distribute" their shit when I BT it, then they "distribute" my shit when they BT it.

Right, then you are actually breaching both the terms and spirit of copyright law and there is a valid case against you. Don't moan when you get caught.

If I can't get the type or quality veggies at the local supermarket at reasonable prices, then I'll go to a different store. Or I'll go to the Farmers Market. Or I'll grow them myself. I might even end up buying some that 'fell off a truck' from a guy in an alley.

If the local supermarket wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my car registration revoked.

If the RIAA/MPAA wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my internet access revoked.

Re:Solution

[fredklein]

Then you sue your friend for distribution of your copyrighted recording. It still has nothing to do with the RIAA. The fact that they download a song, regardless of who they get it from, does not make them guilty of distribution. The uploader is the one who potentially violates copyright (either you or your friend).

Then they can't use the fact that I download a song to get my internet access cut off.

The fact is, both BitTorrent and P2P programs like emule (or whatever) both Download AND Upload at the same time. SO, if they are downloading the file, they are most likely uploading it, too. Unless they hacked the program to not upload anything, which probably violates the copyright of the program's creator. And, of course, if they don't bother to DL the file at all, but just go by the filename, then a case could be made on that, as well.

Re:Solution

[fredklein]

Damn Italics tags.

In either case, the RIAA are not distributing your recording, and thus are not breaching copyright law, so you do not have a case against them for copyright infringement or piracy.

IF I "distribute" their shit when I BT it, then they "distribute" my shit when they BT it.

Right, then you are actually breaching both the terms and spirit of copyright law and there is a valid case against you. Don't moan when you get caught.

If I can't get the type or quality veggies at the local supermarket at reasonable prices, then I'll go to a different store. Or I'll go to the Farmers Market. Or I'll grow them myself. I might even end up buying some that 'fell off a truck' from a guy in an alley.

If the local supermarket wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my car registration revoked.

If the RIAA/MPAA wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my internet access revoked.

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

IF I "distribute" their shit when I BT it, then they "distribute" my shit when they BT it.

Thats some mighty assumption you are making there - I can easily download from BT and never, ever upload one packet of content to anyone else. And the RIAA can as well.

Thats the problem, people are jumping into BT swarms and exchanging blocks like there is no tomorrow - they *are* actually distributing the content. All an RIAA investigator needs to do to avoid the situation you are trying to place them in is leech, which can still be done with BT.

If I can't get the type or quality veggies at the local supermarket at reasonable prices, then I'll go to a different store. Or I'll go to the Farmers Market. Or I'll grow them myself. I might even end up buying some that 'fell off a truck' from a guy in an alley.

If the local supermarket wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my car registration revoked.

If the RIAA/MPAA wants my business, then they should lower their prices, not sue me. And certainly not get my internet access revoked.

Thats a rather facetious argument and a hell of a bad analogy - you are not 'going else where' in this case, you are simply taking.

And thats my point - if you dislike the terms of the sale, actually go elsewhere! Find another band you like, that sells under terms you agree with. Find independent music that you can buy direct from the band. Find someone that legally distributes their music without any DRM or strings attached.

Because at the moment, you are not. You are simply taking what you think you are entitled to have. And that is still breaking copyright law, and it is certainly giving the RIAA a case against you.

Re:Solution

[fredklein]

And thats my point - if you dislike the terms of the sale, actually go elsewhere!

I do. I don't buy the carrots, I walk out of the shop, around to the back alley where someone else is offering carrots. I get them from him.

You contention that I should eat rutabaga instead is... silly.

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

But thats not what you say you are doing in this case, so where you buy your carrots from is academic.

If you don't like the terms, buy something else. You are not entitled to anythign the RIAA are selling, no matter how much you tell yourself you are - all you are doing is proving them correct.

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

Again, the same falacy - no peer to peer applications demand two way traffic, so all they have to do is turn off uploading and they are not distributing in any fashion at all. Thus no copyright infringement on their part.

And no, hacking an existing application to turn the upload function off doesn't breach any copyright because they haven't necessarily distributed it - and copyright covers distribution, not usage. They could even create their own client to do exactly as they wish, including downloading from peers but never ever sending content packets out to a peer.

So yes, they *can* most certainly use the fact that you download songs, unless you do exactly the same thing. And guess what happens then? You dont get prosecuted, but the someone else who is distributing does. See how that works?

I'm sorry, but you are coming across as someone who has an extremely niave understanding of how both copyright law works, and what it takes to breach copyright law.

Re:Solution

[acohen1]

Nice thought, but the names of the artists and songs themselves may be copyright, so you have infringed by using their name to popularize your own shitty shower singing. Technically, it would be a different violation, but you get the idea.

Re:Solution

[Shagg]

Then they can't use the fact that I download a song to get my internet access cut off.

They don't. Every case has been about uploading.

Re:Solution

[Rakarra]

You have some huge legal flaws in your step 5.

Plus, actual file-sharers tend to get peeved when you introduce a wanted file that has garbage in it (No offense, but your shower singing probably is ;( ). Your plan won't last all that long, as others, especially the RIAA and MPAA, have already tried to do what you've done, albeit for different reasons. The better file sharing networks route around damage like that.

Re:Solution

[Rakarra]

Did the guy in the back alley steal the carrots?

If not... then your analogy falls apart. You don't want just "a carrot," any more than you want "a pop song." You want a specific carrot. But if you try looking any deeper into that example the analogy falls apart again since the distribution and quality of carrots and music aren't close to comparable.

Re:Solution

[Rakarra]

Again, the same falacy - no peer to peer applications demand two way traffic, so all they have to do is turn off uploading and they are not distributing in any fashion at all. Thus no copyright infringement on their part.

In addition, if they are the copywrite holders or are authorized by them, they may be fully legally entitled to distribute the song in such a manner, and it would still be illegal for the recipient to redistribute it.

Re:Solution

[Sasayaki]

But what if a corporation I start owns the recordings, and I as director state that they take a strong stance against piracy, then distribute them privately? The company's policy is not my own policy. They are separate entities.

Remember, corporations are people with all the rights associated thereof- but they can't be effectively punished because they don't really exist.

Re:Solution

[Richard_at_work]

I'm not quite sure what scenario you are striving to put across there - if you are the sole owner and operator of the corporation, then you, in the capacity of the company, would have to sue you, in the capacity of the individual, for the unlawful distribution of company property. Highly unlikely. You do understand that Copyright Infringement suits dont 'just happen' of their own accord, right?

The second scenario I can take your post to mean is you are the sole owner but have enabled a Board of Directors to run the company, which you are a member of in the capacity of Director. The Board could have a legal basis against you for making their job of ensuring the company is well run and financially sound a hard one, and indeed infringement of copyright since your enacted Board has not allowed the companies assets to be released by yourself in that way, but what is more likely is that your Board would quit in disgust and you would have to find more patsies.

The third scenario is if you are the creator of the company, but you are not the sole owner and there are other shareholders involved. They would certainly have a case against you for infringement and potential fraud, since you yourself do not hold the rights but your company does and your actions would be of detriment to their holding in the company.

To be quite frank, your post is baffling to say the least, and seems to be a contrived effort to produce a scenario in which something bad happens to those who claim copyright infringment?

Oh, and corporations get punished all the time - they are fined, assets are siezed, restrictions are placed on them, and they are even wound up and shut down. Board members are banned from sitting on a board for a period of time, and in a lot of countries they can go to jail for certain actions (Enrons executives spent time in jail, Boeings executives spent time in jail, and there are quite a few Corporate Manslaughter charges which carry jail terms).

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.

Re:That's nice, but...

[denis-The-menace]

They don't care.
Most ISPs' outsourced their email because it was cheaper to outsource than block or nag clients with infected PCs.

Re:That's nice, but...

[bsDaemon]

Practically every major ISP blocks port 25 now. Comcast seems to have taken to blocking port 25 AND listing their customer IP ranges with Spamhaus.

Re:That's nice, but...

[element-o.p.]

At the ISP where I used to work, we would quarantine the account of anyone sending spam or viruses from their accounts. Quarantine was a sandbox where you could use HTTP/HTTPS, DNS and POP3, but couldn't do much of anything else. This way, you could get on-line to download A/V software, search Google for ways to fix your machine, and read the notice explaining what happened to your account and why that we would e-mail to you. (We'd usually try to call you as well, but that didn't always happen.)

It is impossible for an ISP to prevent an end user from infecting their machine with malware and becoming a zombie computer, but we did everything we could to keep our customers' zombie machines from being a nuisance to everyone else on-line.

Re:That's nice, but...

[element-o.p.]

Wanna bet? When zombie hosts spew their crap on-line, other ISPs begin to blacklist you if you don't care. Once enough users can't e-mail their friends on AOL, you begin to care.

Re:That's nice, but...

[tjonnyc999]

Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense? What ISP is this?

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.

No word on delivery method, no legal force harassm

[plasmacutter]

If the "letter" is delivered via email, it's merely an empty gesture.

If it's delivered by snail mail, I'd consider it a form of harassment, as i've heard it mentioned here by lawyers that "notice and takedown" only applies to intermediaries such as webhosts/isp's. If it's against the terms of service cancel the service, otherwise don't worry people or get kids in trouble based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.

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.

What should happen

[houghi]

First the RIAA should not be able to retrieve the addresses directly from the provider. Privacy and such.
Second the provider does not know what is legal and what is not. IANAL defence and such.
So the RIAA can only directly ask for removal after a court order. And I mean first an official request and only later if the person repeats it, an official lawsuit.

What the RIAA can do is send a letter to the provider. That provider can then be so nice as to say that they have received this letter and if the person does something that is not legal to please stop doing this as it is against their AUP.

That is where it stops. All the rest should be going through the courts where the courts must make a serious difference between people who just share and people who make money of it.

But then that would require the RIAA to think and comprehend.

Re:What should happen

[Rakarra]

First the RIAA should not be able to retrieve the addresses directly from the provider. Privacy and such.

Umm, that's nice, but why do you think that is the case? If the RIAA and ISP collude, so far no laws are being broken.

Second the provider does not know what is legal and what is not. IANAL defence and such.

This is the nice part about working with an ISP instead of going through the court system -- legality is unimportant. If the RIAA says "this user/ip was sending material owned by us at " and the ISP says "ok," that's all that's needed.

The RIAA is finally able to take advantage of the great weakness in the American system -- lack of choice in broadband ISPs.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[Shakrai]

As much as I love encryption and would like to see more bittorrent clients using it I hope you realize that it means absolutely nothing with regards to keeping RIAA from knowing you are sharing.

The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers. In the end all RIAA is going to accomplish is to drive file sharing underground.

Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to? ;)

Two words from common law:Tortious interference

[NZheretic]

Tortious interference

Cool

[Seth Kriticos]

Does that mean that we now finally get viable mass darknet solutions?

Why have broadband?

[JohnnyKrisma]

Ok, so if they kill all illegal means of obtaining content, and they severely restrict legal means of getting TV and movies (i.e. removing hulu access from Boxee), explain why I need broadband?

Re:Fine

[houstonbofh]

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

I would consider disconnection with no burden of proof "screwing with my traffic" but I am funny that way.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[meist3r]

How easy...

Doesn't solve the problem of direct logging though. Yeah, your data transfer once the swarm is established will be hidden but everything until then (accessing the torrent portal, downloading a torrent file, transferring tracker data) is all unencrypted (on most sites). People that don't use BitTorrent and rely on other means of sharing don't have any feasible alternative other than using proxy servers which are either slow or expensive.

Fullstream Encryption for BitTorrent should be a no-brainer but there are many unsolved problems with this in any case.

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...

Re:Cyberpunk/Shadowrun

[Bios_Hakr]

It wasn't really fiction back then, either. We were just too stupid to notice it or too drunk to care. Those with money have always stood behind those with power.

And it'll always be that way.

Re:Cyberpunk/Shadowrun

[Jane Q. Public]

"And it'll always be that way."

Please stop making such nasty prognistications.

Re:Cyberpunk/Shadowrun

[CodeBuster]

Getting older and watching fiction become reality is not pleasant...

Look on the bright side, you may finally be able to write "Street Samurai" as your profession on your income tax return...

Re:Cyberpunk/Shadowrun

[jollyreaper]

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.

On the plus side, I wasn't jumped on my way in to work today by two street samurai and an elf mage.

Interesting, but ISP TOS is ISP dictated.

[plasmacutter]

Tortious interference

It's rather unfortunate that ISP contracts can be changed at will by the ISP but not the customer.

The ISP can merely add a clause including the MAFIAA as a party to the contract and suddenly this possible angle for lawsuits disappears.

Re:Interesting, but ISP TOS is ISP dictated.

[Jane Q. Public]

If that is true then it is a contract of adhesion, and probably not enforceable.

Leaving the customer free to again pursue tortious interference.

Re:Interesting, but ISP TOS is ISP dictated.

[Rakarra]

And yet this happens all the time. ISPs change their terms, credit card companies, online game companies, and so forth. Has one of these TOS changes been invalidated before as an adhesion contract?

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:The Devil's in the Details

[element-o.p.]

I can't say how AT&T will handle things, but where I used to work, here's how the process went:

1) Yes -- we received a complaint from **AA and acted on it. If you were torrenting Slackware ISOs for example, we didn't care. For that matter, if you were torrenting copyrighted material, we didn't care until we got a complaint about it.
2) Sort of. We'd sometimes suspend accounts until we could talk to you, but I seem to recall having five or six strikes against some accounts but we didn't disconnect them. I can't recall of a case where we ever disconnected someone permanently for copyright infringement.
3) We would always communicate with the customer. First complaint -- we'd e-mail you a copyright infringement form letter. Second complaint -- we'd e-mail you again and call you. Third time or more, we'd suspend your account until we called you (or you called us). I'm curious how identifying users by IP addresses yields false positives, however. It might not identify the *person* who was file sharing, but it certainly identifies the account that was used. Whether you were file sharing, someone was hijacking your WiFi or you have a zombie host that is file sharing, identifying the account is sufficient from the ISP's point of view. For seeking damages in court...no, identifying the account, in my non-expert, non-lawyer opinion FWIW, is not sufficient.
4) Not where I worked. Other ISPs may do things differently. If you need to still pay bills...don't file share copyrighted material. Short story, if you abuse the account, expect to lose it. Can't afford to lose it? Don't abuse the account.

I think the process would be much fairer...

Agreed on the dispute resolution process. As for getting relegated to dial-up speeds, like I said above: if you abuse the account, expect to lose it.

Re:The Devil's in the Details

[KharmaWidow]

I agree with both your opening statement and the idea that this is something impossible to justify.

Here are additional reasons
1) Just because the RIAA issues a take down statement, doesn't mean its a valid complaint.

2) AT&T is in no position to evaluate what kind of content an individual has legal access to.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[bsDaemon]

Of course, this will just lead to legions of under-cover RIAA hot chicks with an unusual knack for seeking out the fat and pasty...geeks will start to think that any time a girl talks to them, it's part of an RIAA entrapment scheme and will just give up on girls all together. Soon, the chance of us reproducing in self-sustaining numbers will approach closer to zero until, one day, we're an extinct breed.

And then, the RIAA will have won.

Who needs the legal system

[Drakkenmensch]

... when you can have the ISPs act as your own personal police and be above the law? Guilty upon accusation shall be the law of the land, and there shall be neither trials nor appeals. The music industry has become its own level of authority sitting on the side of the judicial, and shall not be accountable for any of the many, many abuses of power that are sure to follow.

Re:Who needs the legal system

[element-o.p.]

Good grief...If providing service to you costs the ISP more money (by staffing to handle a never ending stream of copyright infringement complaints regarding your account) than they make by having you as a customer, why do you feel it is your God-given right to have an account with them?!?!?

Re:Who needs the legal system

[Drakkenmensch]

I do not claim a "god given right" to an ISP account (as you so eloquently put it - your words, not mine) but rather I decry the fact that the MUSIC industry has taken a position where it can choose to disconnect people's INTERNET service without having to bother with minor technicalities like "due process" or "evidence". Their argument to using a "graduated response" is rather flimsy, since you don't get to defend yourself from being on the receiving end of ANY of those steps.

Re:Who needs the legal system

[element-o.p.]

The music industry *can't* choose to disconnect your Internet service; your statement to the contrary is, IME, hyperbole. All the **AA's can do is contact your ISP and ask them to enforce their ToS, which may be as simple as asking you to remove the allegedly infringing content or as severe as disconnecting your service. However, that is *always* at the ISPs discretion.

During my tenure as an ISP sys admin, I never once received a copyright infringement notice that asked for anything more than "please enforce your ToS, thanks" Our legal department did occasionally get subpoena requests, but whether they were from the **AA's for legal action against the customer or whether they were from irate people being flooded with spam and/or viruses, I don't know (based on other abuse complaints taken against some of these customers before the subpoenas, I suspect the latter, but I never saw the actual subpoena requests).

And I apologize...in hindsight, my initial reply to you came off a lot more snarky than it should have.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[Shakrai]

And then, the RIAA will have won.

The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Ambiguous title

[pjt33]

I was all prepared to cheer for AT&T and watch to see whether the RIAA refused to take down whatever it was that was at issue. I am now bitterly disappointed.

Did you pay ...

[DodgeRules]

... the fees for recording whatever song you just performed? If not, make sure you sing a song that is in the public domain, otherwise you can be sued even though it is only your voice.

Re:Did you pay ...

[eht]

He never indicated to sing copyrighted songs. Make up your own tuneless song, which you automatically get copyright over when you record it.

Them downloading your "Britney Spears" song is piracy since you as copyright holder did not give them permission to do so.

Re:Did you pay ...

[fredklein]

"Them downloading your "Britney Spears" song is piracy since you as copyright holder did not give them permission to do so."

Unfortunately, they don't bother to download the song at all, they just take a screenshot of the filename and your IP and contact your ISP.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[Zsub]

I see what you did with that cute-girl-music scenario, but face it. No one on /. will have the guts to actually talk back to her, so the conversation will go something like:
"Hi"
-"Uhhh... hi..."
"can you download $album for me?"
-"uuussure..."
"Ok, I'll come pick it up tomorrow, thanks!" *walks off*

That is, if she even knows a geek lives there. I mean, he doesn't get out of the basement...

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[fredklein]

The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers.

Or proxy connections. I see a new type of BT program. In addition to connecting to a 'file tracker', it also connects to a 'proxy tracker' (both probably the same machine). Your BT program offers one or more proxy connections, and takes advantage of an equal number of proxy connections offered by other users. Yes, this will use more bandwidth, but who really uses all their bandwidth anyway? If the RIAA/MPAA comes calling, simply point out that you offer proxy connections to others, and that you'd be ever-so-happy to pass on their notice to the real infringers, but golly-gee, you don't keep logs.

SENT.. damn typos..

[plasmacutter]

based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.

don't know if this is a typo or freudian slip, but "sent" is the proper spelling.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[Richard_at_work]

Fullstream encryption will never solve the issue of you and the other peer having to communicate at some point - and the moment you offer the other peer blocks, there is a good legal basis for them having a case from you.

Re:Fine

[DigitAl56K]

1. Who pays your ISP for service, you or the RIAA? Is the RIAA a law enforcement agency? Who is the burden of proof on? Is there a reasonable and established standard of evidence? Is there any real way to dispute a false allegation? What happens when someones life is ruined because of this (can't work from home any longer, can't order goods online, can't communicate with friends)?

2. The RIAA has stopped suing individuals because they realize that's too many people to scare. Now they're waving a big legal stick at the ISPs and the ISPs are caving in based on nothing but a threat. Fantastic. Maybe I'm wrong, but have there been many/any cases where the courts have actually ruled against an ISP for an end-user P2P'ing? Have damages been established for such a case which could threaten the business of the ISP? Have the ISPs appealed the ruling?

3. ISPs are not throttling your traffic due to their concern for copyright issues, they're throttling your traffic because they haven't invested sufficiently in infrastructure suitable to meet the usage demands of some of their customers and/or have sold misleading "unlimited" plans that in reality they can't/won't stand behind.

How can you accept this? (Apart from "because I have to")

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[reashlin]

TBH just don't pirate music. If you don't agree with the price of music then don't buy it. That will teach RIAA (or whoever) a lesson long before piracy ever will. Then let the plebs who feel the need to pirate get caught for it.

The worst thing will be the people legally using torrents getting banned with no legal reason and likely no recourse for their lost service. Quilty before proven innocent. Stupid grounds to be allowed.

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.

Cost of entry

[pentalive]

Cost of entry into the market is kind of high, If the local government is not creating an outright monopoly, then you still have to lay wire/fiber/wifi out to the customer's door.

Re:Fine

[bilbravo]

But if they are screwing with his traffic, then he won't accept it! :-)

In other news, I don't use AT&T

[bigsexyjoe]

And I will not use AT&T as my service provider in the future.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What does it take to fight something like this?

[Dripdry]

IANAL.

Is it possible to fight something like this simply by showing up in court and saying,"Ok, prove it."

Shouldn't that be enough to get people off the hook? I'm fairly certain I'm over simplifying it, but I really feel like all this take-down BS is just smoke and mirrors to scare people

No

[Jane Q. Public]

It's not that they can't afford to prove it. It's that they can't prove it. Period. They have no legal means of doing so, as the courts are finally making clear.

Re:No

[poetmatt]

Well, I agree with you, but "can't afford to prove" is the bigger deal.

Mostly because trying to prove something and failing to do so, incurs a cost that they cannot afford.

I'm waiting for the first person in the US to get a notice and take them to court, but the question of who is liable etc will certainly come into question.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[fotbr]

The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

They don't even stop then. They sue dead people, remember?

WiFi

[future assassin]

So what happens to people to run open wifi routers? Oh sorry I have an open WiFi router didn't realize someone was pirating music through it.

Re:WiFi

[element-o.p.]

Your post here will show up as an argument in court that you were certainly aware that it was a possibility, and that you did nothing to prevent it. Therefore, while you may not have been the one distributing the content, you were negligent by not taking reasonable precautions to prevent it from happening. You should have posted as AC :)

IANAL, however, so in practice YMMV. But that's my guess, anyway.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[russotto]

The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

So how big a hydraulic press would it take to fit the entire RIAA in? Is anyone taking donations to construct one?

Ummm... excuse me...

[Jane Q. Public]

but "guilty until proven innocent" has been the whole point of this discussion. Did you miss something somewhere?

Re:Ummm... excuse me...

[element-o.p.]

Yeah, I mean in the eight or so years that I've had my DSL account and static IP address, I've had to field sooooooo many RIAA complaints, and I've never done any illegal file sharing.

Oh, wait...no, I haven't ever been accused of copyright infringement. Ever. My bad.

GPP is right -- if you want the music/movies/(closed-source) software, go buy it. Even if the **AA is evil -- and make no mistake, there are some good reasons to think so -- that doesn't give you the right to download their products for free in violation of copyright law.

However, GPP is slightly mistaken, too. The worst thing is not that people legally using torrents will get banned unfairly. I think that is pretty unlikely, based on my previous experience as an ISP sys admin. The worst thing is that ISPs will rate limit torrents -- legal or otherwise -- into oblivion, thus making the technology useless for legitimate uses (like distributing FOSS software).

Re:Ummm... excuse me...

[Jane Q. Public]

That is a good point. But in my opinion, both of those are unacceptable.

Downloading songs you already own

[AlterRNow]

Is downloading a copy of a song, that you already own a copy of, illegal?

Re:The problem is Theft!

[mcgrew]

If it wasn't digital and we did not have the internet you would have had to borrow the record from a friend or steal to hear it without buying it.

No, you could tape it from your LP and loan that LP to your friend. Or you could listen to it on the radio, or even tape the radio.

When Ted Nugent came out with the album with Stranglehold, KSHE played it in its entirety a week before its release, and I taped it. People were amazed that I had the new Nugent album before it went on sale! But it was completely legal, and hearing my tape cause other people to buy the album. It and still should be legal.

The fight against "piracy" is the fight for mediocrity. Good stuff will sell, period.

In fact we would not need DRM

They don't need DRM now, especially since there's no possible way to make it work, and because it makes illegal content better than legal content. Only an idiot would use DRM.

Name another business where it is OK if someone steals your product?

Copyright infringement is not stealing. If I steal a CD, the shop owner is out the cost he paid for the CD. If I download it illegally nobody is out anything. You record company types think the only reason anyone "pirates" music is because it's free, you might want to read Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture that gives the four reasons for downloading, only one of which is legal, but only one of which is harmful.

You can buy the book at a bookstore, or download it for free from Lessig's web site.

Another good read on the subject is the forward to Cory Doctorow's Little Brother; it was on the New York Times best seller list. Again, you can buy it from a bookstore, check it out from your local library, or download it for free from his web site.

The fact that you can read it for free puts the lie to the "piracy is killing the industry" meme.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[grumbel]

Somehow in our culture it became ok to steal music and now video, how did this happen?

It didn't became 'ok', it already *was* ok for thousands of years. Thats how culture spreads. Even the "lend music from your friend and copy it" was perfectly legal in a lot of countries before the Internet hit mainstream. Its only recently that common practices have become illegal. Lending a digital book to your friend is now illegal, because it requires working around copy protection and stuff. How did that ever happen against the will of the people? The whole crux is simply that RIAA and friends have become obsolete by new technologies and now try all they can to somehow stay alive, instead of trying to figure out how to do business in a digital world.

Warning to AT&T

[jkeelsnc]

AT&T will have increased costs on their part as a result of this agreement. As a result it will likely result in increased internet rates for me as an AT&T customer. If I find out that my rates go up as a result of this agreement with the RIAA I wil cancel my subscription to AT&T DSL. AT&T should not be in the business of playing Nanny for the RIAA. If the RIAA wants this they should be the ones to foot the bill and pay the costs. AT&T needs to stop wasting time and money on initiatives like this and focus on getting broadband into rural areas. All the money thats being wasted to support the RIAA could be used for rural broadband initiatives. I understand that its not good to pirate stuff. However, like hell I am paying more to my ISP to support pursuit of people who download "illegal" content. The RIAA does a good enough job of that on their own. They are a sneaky, smug, hand wringing bunch of litigious thugs who want to waste the court's and taxpayer's time clogging the dockets with frivolous lawsuits and other wastes of government resources and time.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[soundguy4film]

If I download it illegally nobody is out anything.

As an engineer who works in both Music and Film I resent the fact that people say that stealing music does not matter.

I will be the first to agree that the big publishers and distributors get too much money for the small role they play.

No matter how you look at it though stealing or copying music or video is wrong. Why don't all of you people who think it is ok to pirate, go and produce a record or movie and see how much it costs. You need engineers musicians a studio a marketing team camera people all the gear and personnel and the distribution company these things are expensive.

Good audio engineers are looking for work right now and if the the studio's weren't losing money then they would be hiring them.

Again why should the audio and entertainment industry be different than any other industry. If you got caught stealing car parts you'd get thrown in jail for shop lifting.

Furthermore taping songs off the radio is also illegal, and the radio is not free you pay for the song by listening to advertisements or paying your subscription. See ASCAP.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[element-o.p.]

Nack.

Just because it is priced above the point that you are willing to pay does not mean that you therefore have the right to get it some other way in violation of copyright law. That's just a rationalization that pirates use to ease their consciences.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[element-o.p.]

Exactly. It costs money to produce and record music. In return, each of the people involved in that process ask that you compensate them for the money they spent to bring that music to you. Why is that evil???

If the music sucks, don't listen to it. If it's good, reward those who made the music by spending the money to buy it.

CABLE to the PEOPLE!

[MarkvW]

It's all about the cable. Help support publicly owned cabling systems! If the public owns the cables, the public can provide for a variety of ISPs. If the ISP also owns the cables--then that guy has content-controlling-power and the power to dictate terms of service.

You don't want the people who own the cables to start dictating content! Keep the tubes publicly owned!

Support public-provided internet!

BUT the free market?

[SmallFurryCreature]

What happened to the free market dear american? The free market that is supposed to offer the customer choice? What are you saying dear american, your free market does not work? Would you kindly then stop pressing the rest of the world to adopt this silly system. Thank you.

Re:BUT the free market?

[Rakarra]

What happened to the free market dear american? The free market that is supposed to offer the customer choice? What are you saying dear american, your free market does not work? Would you kindly then stop pressing the rest of the world to adopt this silly system. Thank you.

The problem is that the governments collude with the ISPs to ensure there is no free market. You have very little choice when it comes to high-speed Internet. You used to have a lot of choice with dial-up.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[PhxBlue]

Furthermore taping songs off the radio is also illegal ...

You, sir, are full of shit. Time shifting applies equally to radio as to television or any other medium.

Re:Here's my view of the long term results of this

[NeutronCowboy]

All that needs to happen is that small-business owners realize how much trouble this could cause them, and start talking to their congress critters. But this is a ways out, and most of them don't realize the impact that actions like these can have on their business.

One problem with that

[Kabuthunk]

Except of course for the fact that the band sees virtually zero (~ $0) of that cd-sale money. The band is making their money playing live and charging $50 or whatever per ticket.

And how do I know if it sucks if I'm incapable of listening to it before buying what will quickly become a $20 coaster?

Here's what actually happens (highly simplified obviously, but it gets the point across):
1. Band creates song
2. Song put on CD by RIAA
3. Song becomes mp3 format, and is listened to by many
4. Assuming it's not shit, song and thus band become popular
5. Band comes to town - makes killing by selling out tickets

The whole mess is happening at #3. Previously, #3 was only radio and word of mouth. If neither of those were there, there would be no sales because people (generally) don't spend money on 100% unknown music. When the internet happened along, suddenly word of mouth and radio combined to become mp3. The popularity of good bands skyrocketted. After all... prior to the internet, personal experience has shown me that very, VERY few bands from other countries came here. Thus... bands that may have had a poor following in their specific area may be popular elsewhere. Instead of rolling over and dying in obscurity, said band keeps going and stays alive.

So now we have the RIAA saying "no more mp3". We will be stuck with radio, and word of mouth again. Radio of course is basically owned by people who want to push specific bands/music, regardless of their quality, regardless of what people want (and honestly, every single radio station here sucks in my opinion, since none of it is of the genres I prefer to listen to... damn bible-belt). Goodbye wide variety of music, and experiencing any music from any other culture.

I can honestly say I've bought a decent number of CD's for bands I previously had no clue existed due to mp3 downloads. That's something the RIAA actually, physically sees money for (not so much the band... but if they come to town, count me in). Without the random downloading, they would not have seen one thin dime of my money.

Making Available

[twmcneil]

IANAL and I'm jumping to the conclusion that you think Bob is guilty of infringement. What Bod did is called "Making Available" and I think we've almost driven a stake through the heart of that argument. Alice may be guilty of infringement but to prove that one would have to have provable records of her download activity which I don't see that you could get without wiretapping.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[mcgrew]

As an engineer who works in both Music and Film I resent the fact that people say that stealing music does not matter.

First, copyright infringement ("piracy" if you wish) isn't stealing. You do not own the copyrighted material, you have a limited time monopoly, according to the US Constitution. You cannot steal from me that which I do not own. When your copyright expires it becomes public domain; the public owns it, you only have a monopoly on distribution.

To steal from me, you must deprive me of it. If you make an illegal copy of work I created, I still have the original.

Secondly, as Lawrence Lessig says in Free Culture (you can buy the book, check it out from your local public library, or download it free from his website), there are three reasons people use P2P (I'm paraphrasing from memory, haven't read the book in a while):

1. To get copyrighted content you would otherwise pay for without paying
2. To get copyrighted content in order to see if it is worth paying for
3. To get copyrighted material that is out of print
4. To get public domain content, or content the creators wish to give away for free

As he states, only the first is harmful, and only the last is legal. The second actually helps the artist and distributor, as the downloader goes ahead and pays for the content once he sees it's worth paying for.

The fact studies show that most people who pirate music spend more money than those who don't tells me that the first group is a decided tiny minority, that the second group predominates.

I will be the first to agree that the big publishers and distributors get too much money for the small role they play.

IMO though true, it is not a valid reason for infringing copyright

Good audio engineers are looking for work right now and if the the studio's [sic] weren't losing money then they would be hiring them.

A lot of people are looking for work right now and a lot of industries are losing money -- we're in a deep recession and everyone is getting laid off, not getting hired. But if you work for a major record label, I'm part of your problem, not because I download copyright material (I don't) but because 1. there is an organized boycott of the RIAA labels, and I refuse to buy until they go out of business or they reform, and 2. I support independant artists.

You talk of stealing, well stealing is supporting you. Most of my DVDs and VCR tapes were stolen from my bookshelf, and I'm in the process of replacing them.

Furthermore taping songs off the radio is also illegal

No, it isn't. As another commenter pointed out, the supreme court has stated that "time shifting" is legal, AND so does the Audio Home Recording Act of 1978 (not sure of the year).

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[meist3r]

That's what I meant by "transferring tracker data". The security is broken in any case since there is an unencrypted portion of the transaction no matter what.

How is for-profit justice even justice any more?

[Xenographic]

> So at what point in the post above is proof offered that the ISP serving take down notices will ultimately lead said ISP snooping any and all data for any third party that asks for it?

Well, they HAVE to snoop on you to find out what MP3s you download. So does it really matter at that point who all they're willing to sell it to?

It's the mass spying we're against. It doesn't matter whether they do it for only the RIAA's sake or whether other media companies join the bandwagon. (Though it's hard to see how other companies would NOT try to join the bandwagon now that the RIAA has cut a deal like this.)

I really don't like for-profit "justice"...

[Xenographic]

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

You DO realize that all the little ISPs are dependent on a few big ISPs, right?

And that there aren't very many damn ISPs around here at all. I'm in one of the five largest cities in America, and there aren't many options or I wouldn't be stuck with $120/month IDSL. Yes, I know that's absurdly unreasonable...

Also, even if businesses can terminate you for "any" reason, they can't do it for an illegal reason. And if you knew anything about law, you'd know that there are many such reasons. "Common sense" has never applied to law, but I question whether your notion of what businesses can do qualifies as sense, common or otherwise, in the first place.

Just because someone wrote it into a ToS that no one reads and which the public is required to accept as a matter of course, doesn't mean they can get away with it.

No, the electric company isn't that nice...

[Xenographic]

> That is why for people who use electric heat in the winter, the electric companies WON'T turn off the electricity. Why? They could kill that former customer. No heat + winter = illness or death.

I wish that were still true these days...

A New Zealand utility company that cut off power to the home of a woman connected to an electric oxygen pump, leading to her death, has insisted it was not aware she was dependent on the machine.

While internet may not be at quite the same level of necessity, it's coming closer day by day. Are phones necessary? I'd say they are (911). The internet is gradually taking over for them. If the bandwidth for VoIP were there for everyone, the internet would probably have replaced phones already, except for cell phones (many of which come with internet access these days...).

Re:No, the electric company isn't that nice...

[phulegart]

Well, your example, while tragic, is really specific... and if the electric company had known about her being dependent on the electricity to live, they probably would not have shut it off.

This is just a little indication. It is not pretty.
http://www.nliec.org/Compendium/N-188.pdf
while New England gas company did turn off service to almost 600 people in the winter of 2005/2006, only one other utility in the state followed suit.. and that was the Pascoag Electric... and 3 households. RI law states that no utility company can shut off service in the winter to "protected" people... elderly, ill, those on unemployment and those getting section 8 housing. WInter is from November 1st, to April 15.

So I guess it depends on where and who you are.

Sure, the internet might become more vital. It is still a luxury at the moment. Just like at one time, Electricity was a luxury.

next comes...

[WeeBit]

Users suing the RIAA and ISPs for not allowing the user to argue their case. Plus not allowing the user to see the evidence against them.

What this is about is the RIAA is losing lawsuits. So they have changed their strategy to the next cheapest thing they have on their list. After all this is all about money. Doesn't matter if the user is guilty or not. Just follow the money.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only

[riggah]

Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to? ;)

Right, and then she promptly uses the music you downloaded for her to impress the new "bad boy" who she's *so* totally in love with.

That anyone would utilize AT&T anyway...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Given their well-known blatant and outrageous disregard for individual rights, anyone who would buy any service from AT&T deserves what they get.

Re:The problem is Theft!

[Choozy]

Your logic is flawed. Lets have a look at the following scenarios and see where I become an evil person.

Scenario 1: I buy a second hand book from an op shop (I do not compensate anyone who produced that item). There is no theft involved, all perfectly legal.

Scenario 2: I borrow a book from the library (again I do not compensate anyone that produced that item). Again all legal.

Scenario 3: I give/loan a book to someone else to read. (Yep, nothing wrong there)

Scenario 4: I give a copy of a digital book I have to someone else. Oh no I'm a thief, someone didn't pay for a copy call the FBI! The costs of the digital download are $0.01 per copy. There are no printing/paper costs and very little distribution costs yet I'm expected to still pay roughly the same price as I would if I bought a hard copy. Due to DRM, if I wanted to loan my digital copy to another person, I would need to hand over my ebook reader. It is expected that if a second person wants to read that same book, they need to buy a copy for themselves. Don't you think (considering what I can do with a hard copy that obviously costs something to create) this is could be evil or greedy?

The reality is digital distribution is impacting on the market monopoly publishers/middle men had on media. They want to keep their profits up but digital copies affect that. The one digital copy I make of a book can be easily passed to 10 friends in a matter of seconds, they don't have to wait to read the book. Is this a bad thing? For the author, not really. If I really like a book, I'm going to tell my friends. If I have a hard cover and am still reading it, they will have to wait until I finish and might loose interest in bothering to read it. If I can give them a copy then and there, they are more likely to pick it up and read it themselves. Marketing in this form is very powerful. With the digital age, an author can bypass a publishing house completely and sell their next book directly to their fans.

Misleading subject

[blast3r]

They are not "ISSUING" takedown notices. The RIAA is doing the 'ISSUING'. AT&T is 'FORWARDING' them. Where is the news story here?

Three Words:

[brundlfly]

[Darknet, http tunneling] Widespread sharing may someday be throttled, but piracy won't stop. The law of diminishing returns & stuff; it's just too expensive to stop the clever ones. (See: crime) I'm just curious how some data suggests public sharing hurts some artists, but seems to help others, like free advertising. Sounds like market forces choosing what's good instead of the marketers. :)

Re:Fine

[ivan256]

When they came for the child-pornographers,
I remained silent;
'cause otherwise it would be taken as proof that I was a child-pornographer.

Then they locked up the drug dealers,
I remained silent;
'cause otherwise it would be taken as proof that I was a drug dealer.

Then they came for the file-sharers,
I did not speak out;
'cause otherwise it would be taken as proof that I was a file-sharer.

When they came for me,
there was no one to speak out for me

Fixed that for you.

There are no winners in a witch-hunt, but one thing is for certain. The people who are quickest to stand up for the witches will themselves be called a witch.

These issues are a symptom. We need to fix them one rung farther up the chain.

Really No other Choices.

[pentalive]

I have AT&T DSL for $15.00 a month, not real fast but it gets the job done.
The only other choice I have is Comcast - $50.00 a month. Comcast is not a choice because I can't afford it.

I am in Sacramento, CA.

Any other DSL available would still get to me via AT&T's wires..