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

[_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

[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

[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

[Demonantis]

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

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[Shakrai]

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

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

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

Re:At least this is better than the legal system

[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

[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

[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.

Defense?

[oahazmatt]

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

In short, screenshot or it didn't happen.

Re:Defense?

[TechForensics]

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

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

Kicked off Internet by fiat

[Porchroof]

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

Re:Kicked off Internet by fiat

[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.

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?

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: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

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...

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:Fine

[theaceoffire]

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

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

Cyberpunk/Shadowrun

[whisper_jeff]

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

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

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.

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.