Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Has Begun Issuing RIAA Takedown Notices

Posted by Soulskill on from the reach-out-and-touch-someone dept.

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."

64 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. At least this is better than the legal system by KyleTheDarkOne · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by _bug_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Antidamage · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    5. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by fredklein · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.)

    7. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    8. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    9. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by blitzkrieg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Demonantis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Jawn98685 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by muntis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jo mean, something like, hmm. Internet?

    15. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by justaguylikeme · · Score: 3, Funny

      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?

    16. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!"

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    17. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by johannesg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    18. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    19. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    21. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by HartDev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
    22. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    23. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by johnsonav · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    24. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by digitig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    26. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    27. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    28. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by seandiggity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    29. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    30. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by phulegart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    31. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    32. Re:At least this is better than the legal system by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  2. Defense? by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Defense? by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:Defense? by furby076 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    3. Re:Defense? by TechForensics · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  3. Just another way for ISPs to make money... by RagingFuryBlack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
    1. Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... by furby076 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    2. Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... by furby076 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    3. Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sneakernet meets Limewire on a terabyte scale??

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Kicked off Internet by fiat by Porchroof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Fata viam invenient.
    1. Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat by pentalive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have one available.

    2. Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat by MadKeithV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is still no, though.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Will it matter? by Jerrei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  7. Guilty until proven innocent by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Guilty until proven innocent by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

  8. Solution by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    - 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...

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  9. That's nice, but... by LoganTeamX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    One of the 187.
    1. Re:That's nice, but... by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:That's nice, but... by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  10. This is why we need pay-per-byte by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. No word on delivery method, no legal force harassm by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  12. Re:Fine by theaceoffire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
  13. Re:Configure your clients for encryption only by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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? ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  14. Two words from common law:Tortious interference by NZheretic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tortious interference

  15. Cyberpunk/Shadowrun by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Cyberpunk/Shadowrun by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  16. The Devil's in the Details by javacowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
  17. Re:Fine by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2, Informative

    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")

  18. Here's my view of the long term results of this... by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.