AT&T Won't Terminate User Service For RIAA Without a Court Order

On Wednesday, we discussed news that AT&T had begun sending takedown notices to users whom the RIAA has accused of illegally downloading copyrighted works. Cox and Comcast are both cooperating with the RIAA in that regard as well. However, while Cox seems willing to shut off service in the case of repeat offenders, Comcast denied that it was considering a similar penalty, and AT&T said they'll flat out refuse to terminate service on the RIAA's word alone; it will take a court order. They seem satisfied with the effect letters have had on inhibiting such downloads: "'It's a standard part of everybody's terms of service,' [AT&T senior executive vice president Jim Cicconi] said. 'If somebody is engaging in illegal activity, it basically gives us the right to do it ... We're not a finder of fact and under no circumstances would we ever suspend or terminate service based on an allegation from a third party. We're just simply reminding people that they can't engage in illegal activity.' Cicconi said the company began testing this kind of 'forward noticing' late last year and even experimented with sending certified letters. Cicconi said the notices worked. The company saw very few repeat offenders."

Comments

Good for AT&T!

[javacowboy]

As much as I despise some of AT&T's business practises, kudos to them for doing the right thing in this case. I have absolutely no problems with sending warnings to people and disconnecting them only if they're found guilty after a fair trail.

The only thing I would change is giving them a dial-up speed (can check email and pay bills, but not pirate anything) internet connection if they're found guilty via a fair process. Internet access is indispensable for most people, and losing internet would be like losing phone service. The punishment should fit the transgression.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[specific]

I'm not sure they deserve kudos for this. Looks more like they simply don't want to axe a paying customer. After all, they aren't losing the money from all the downloading.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[telomerewhythere]

Hear, Hear!! The only possible downside is my mom getting this letter and coming down to my fortress of solitude (basement), and cutting my plugs while watchmen is seeding to the requisite 1.5 and, it being 12 noon, me being so passed out I can't hear her.

/run on sentence

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Maybe they don't want to deliberately dump profitable customers any more than they have to, even if they may be still be driving them away by having a frustrating customer service bureaucracy.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[je ne sais quoi]

I don't know about anybody else, but if I get one of those letters from AT&T, I'm going to to wait around for them to terminate my service, I'll be terminating my service as soon as it arrives. Jerks. I can live without internet or live with using a smaller wireless network.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[ledow]

No kudos required. This is the *only* sensible course of action. It's not up to AT&T to decide if people have done something or not, that's up to a court of law. Allegations are all well and good but if someone wrote to my telecoms company saying I'd been making harassing phone calls, the telecoms company can't cut me off unless they can PROVE those phone calls happened and were harassing (much easier than my ISP proving that I downloaded copyright-infringing material from a third-party without a valid copyright license to the right in question, or under fair-use laws) or a court order telling them to do so. Anything else is just bunkum from companies that have NOT checked their legal requirements and/or liabilities.

In time, all ISP's will subscribe to this way of thinking, becuase it's the only path they can follow without introducing legal problems for themselves. At the moment, it's a non-issue because your internet doesn't go off without a court order, or legal proof of breach of contract, or customers agreeing to it. There's not a single confirmed case of that ever happening. Ask yourself why.

And downgrading my speed is no different to cutting me off, if what you're alleging is breach of contract. You still have to prove that breach of contract in a court of law before you can change the terms of the contract.

Internet access is *not* a right. Neither is telephone access. If you breach the contract or misuse either, you can and will be cut off if it can be proven, not slowed down because "it's a necessity". And the day that it becomes *impossible* to do something without a telephone or internet access is the day that it will be *impossible* to legally cut someone off from either. That day won't happen any time soon.

I've just had a blazing row with a company demanding that they never contact me by telephone but only on paper. That row turned a two-month-long dispute with multiple, long, telephone calls, being passed through dozens of departments from both sides into two letters (one each) being exchanged and solving the problem within a week. Telephone and Internet communication isn't required and is in fact only a convenience that can reduce the administrative hassle of dealing with people. However, written communication is not only legally binding, easily recorded (you can't necessarily record a telephone conversation in some countries), accepted by courts - it is the one of the very few ways to provide official legal communication (serving notices, court orders, etc.). While written communication exists, your phone and Internet can be cut off without redress and continuing to allow you access to it after a breach of contract on the terms of your use opens up the phone/ISP companies to liability. The only thing to worry about is the MEANS of obtaining that cut-off.

There will be a case, somewhere soon, where an ISP cuts off a customer with no evidence who then chooses to fight. And then ALL companies will see why AT&T adopted this particular phrasing and standard. Because it's the only one that'll pass a court of law unhindered. My guess is that it won't be an AT&T customer.

Companies can spout a lot of rubbish at you, but breaching (or even modifying) a legal contract with you on the basis of a third-party's hear-say isn't something that is going to stand up in a court of law. However, don't be surprised if, in the following years, your ISP's terms & conditions include clauses that allow them to use the RIAA or similar as someone with the say-so to terminate your contract, or similar. And once you sign that (or agree to those changes, even if that's just by failing to cancel after you were notified of them), THEN you have a lot bigger problems.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[je ne sais quoi]

grr, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning... That should read, I'm NOT going to wait around for them to terminate my service.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Jurily]

only if they're found guilty

Repeat until it sinks in: copyright infringement is not a criminal matter.

after a fair trial

No, they don't give a shit about the quality of the decision. This is CYA, not a fight for democracy.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about anybody else, but if I get one of those letters from AT&T, I'm going to to wait around for them to terminate my service, I'll be terminating my service as soon as it arrives. Jerks. I can live without internet or live with using a smaller wireless network.

Maybe YOU can but most people have gotten used to it. In many areas, it's indispensable as there are many people that can't pay all their bills from an ATM and don't have the time to go all the way across town to find an office to pay them.

What about software developers? What would WE do without Internet?

Re:Good for AT&T!

[jackb_guppy]

Today a phone is required for many interactions with the government.

example: for a green card you must have land line to your home, period. The area code must match the land location. If not it is invalid.

example: to prove resistance, a phone bill is required many parts of the country. It shows that you are reachable at that location.

Now go to the next level with phone service via internet. Think of the fun!

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

What about software developers? What would WE do without Internet?

umm, i don't know, maybe develop software? moron.

The point was that, without the Internet, the large scale collaberation typical of open-source projects would be mostly impossible.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[nine-times]

It's not up to AT&T to decide if people have done something or not, that's up to a court of law.

Well yes, but it seems to me that there's another issue, too. What motivation should AT&T have to cut off access without a court order? As an ISP, there shouldn't be a business case for refusing customer money without being required to do so. I suspect that the reason other ISPs have given in is either they're frightened by the RIAA or they're in cahoots with the RIAA. Either way, that's not appropriate.

Internet access is *not* a right.

No, it's not, but it's getting to the point where loss of Internet access is a serious thing. Newspapers are getting shut down, and soon you may need Internet access to get your news. The government is putting more online (e.g. recovery.gov) and soon you may need Internet access to participate fully as a citizen. The Internet is infrastructure, and denying access is potentially as serious as denying access to roads, water, and electricity. Now it's true, we do take away people's driver's licenses, and it's possible to get your water and electrical services cut. But we usually don't take those actions lightly.

People are going to say I'm overblowing the situation. It's true that failing to have Internet access in today's world is still nowhere near as serious as not having heat in the winter. That's true. On the other hand, as a society we're becoming increasingly dependent on the Internet. I wish people would stop talking about the Internet like it's an entertainment service.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure its not your command center Mr. Wizard?

Re:Good for AT&T!

[mustafap]

lol. I don't think you would have to get rid of the Internet to get that to happen, just getting rid of Slashdot will do just fine :o)

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Kjella]

In other words, you don't want to hear anything unless you get slapped with a lawsuit? In general, if I was using some service which meant there was no direct way to contact me and my use of that service eas bothering someone I'd expect there to be a way to notify me. If I was renting a car and was driving on some private road without noticing but the land owner did, caught rental logo and the registration number and just wanted to tell me "Please don't use our road" I'd expect the rental company to forward that message.

Not threaten to never rent me a car again. Not acting like a goon squad investigating the rental car's GPS. Not turn over my identiiation to the land owner of some place I alledgedly drove. Just pass the message. If they have to file trespass charges because the rental company won't forward anything without a court order that's way overkill. The analogy is a ltitle flawed since in this case the land owner could put up better signs, but I'm sure you get the point.

Let me try a geekier analogy. Imagine you wrote a script. A buggy script that got stuck in an infinite loop and kept doing http requests over and over maxing your bandwidth all day long. What would you like, a notice from your ISP that the site doesn't like the thousands of requests and 20Mbit/s bandwidth drain or a denial-of-service lawsuit? I understand that some people here watn to raise the bar for the RIAA do to anything at all, but in this case I think your position is rather absurd.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies can spout a lot of rubbish at you, but breaching (or even modifying) a legal contract with you on the basis of a third-party's hear-say isn't something that is going to stand up in a court of law. However, don't be surprised if, in the following years, your ISP's terms & conditions include clauses that allow them to use the RIAA or similar as someone with the say-so to terminate your contract, or similar. And once you sign that (or agree to those changes, even if that's just by failing to cancel after you were notified of them), THEN you have a lot bigger problems.

Sadly, this is exactly what happened to me. I was disconnected from CableOne last year solely because of the word of MediaSentry. They gave me a number to call to reach them, but it always just went to a machine. I tried fighting it for as long as possible, but I develop web sites for a living, and can't really afford to not have internet access.

I did drag their name through the mud viciously though, and told as many existing customers as I could what happened, and have convinced several people to switch to another service provider entirely.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure you want to f' with the larger companies and actually call them out on finding proof.

Most larger ISP companies would probably not have much problem assisting the RIAA/MPAA with handing over logs or doing some sort of snooping if they believe you're breaking their ToS. Just some food for thought. I for one wouldn't want to wake the "sleeping giant". ISPs have the ability to make most of our lives miserable if the government decided to turn a blind eye or worst yet encourage such behavior. And by that last statement I mean keeping logs forever monitoring what you do on the net "for the sake of saving the children"....

But honestly I wouldn't see how threatening your ISP would turn out good for anyone. Its not like we all have deep pockets to go up against a billion dollar industry.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

[quote]Anything else is just bunkum from companies that have NOT checked their legal requirements and/or liabilities.[/quote]

The companies probably don't want to tell you your legal rights any more than they have to. The less you know, the more it helps them.

[quote]companies can spout a lot of rubbish at you, but breaching (or even modifying) a legal contract with you on the basis of a third-party's hear-say isn't something that is going to stand up in a court of law. However, don't be surprised if, in the following years, your ISP's terms & conditions include clauses that allow them to use the RIAA or similar as someone with the say-so to terminate your contract, or similar. And once you sign that (or agree to those changes, even if that's just by failing to cancel after you were notified of them), THEN you have a lot bigger problems.[/quote]

Isn't that the very concern though? If changing the contracts is this easy, then all the fuss about breach of contract is very easily negated in several month's time. I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T already has some convenient out clauses in their contracts already.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Dhalka226]

What motivation should AT&T have to cut off access without a court order? As an ISP, there shouldn't be a business case for refusing customer money without being required to do so.

You're right to follow the money, but you stopped a little too soon. The business case is that pirates tend to use a disproportionate share of resources compared to people performing only legitimate activities. Slashdotters will tell you they're only using what they paid for and they would not be wrong, but that doesn't mean ISPs particularly like it.

Presumably, just for its own benefit, the RIAA is trying to find the biggest pirates they can at a given time. That also correlates well to the biggest usage. To the ISPs, they're essentially a free investigator while the ISP itself gets to be innocent of any wrongdoing ("those mp3s were from your own band? Talk to the RIAA!") and only spend money to process the RIAA information.

They don't want to disconnect you; indeed AT&T says they won't without a court order. So for essentially free, one of two things happen: 1) You get scared and stop the activity, in which case usage levels probably drop*, the ISP itself wins, and the RIAA wins as well, or 2) You don't give two hoots and continue the activity, in which case they're no worse off than they started and the RIAA either accepts that or goes to court.

Since the cost of these letters is fairly low, it wouldn't take a lot of people caving and stopping the activity to be good for them, and if the summary is any indication they feel it is working well. With high-speed Internet access competition being so low, and the top two players (AT&T and Comcast) both engaging in it, the risks of customer defection over the practice is low as well.

(* I've used phrases like "probably" and "tend to" a lot in this post. My intention is simply to indicate that there are many legitimate, completely legal/non-tortious ways to soak up metric asstons of bandwidth while at the same time acknowledging that pirating things is still a huge use case.)

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

NYS unemployment claims can only be made online or with a telephone. If something goes wrong, only a telephone is possible to fix it. No offices, no email addresses, no online forms.

This is hard when you can't get someone on the phone. Longest its taken to get money from them, personal record? 8 months of not being able to reach someone.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

example: to prove resistance, a phone bill is required many parts of the country.

I had no idea the requirements for becoming a US citizen have changed. Can't you just get a signed statement from the British embassy saying that you're recognized as resisting the rule of the Queen?

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

3) You discover your idiot offspring has been sharing massive amounts of pirated material and you put a stop to it.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[crispin_bollocks]

I know it's so 19th century, but there are things called checks, and an organization called the Post Office will deliver them all the way across town for 42 cents.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[fast turtle]

Actually this is a CYA (covering yon ass) response by ATT because by terminating/reducing a customers internet connection based on an outside claim makes them a part of a defamation/slander lawsuit due to discovery rules. Any emails/phone records in regards to such a case can be subpena'd from them at their expense, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for what gain? The letter is cheaper and covers their ass from any claims by the accuser, while reducing bandwidth usage sufficiently to no longer be a problem.

On the dialup speed issue, I downloaded plenty of stuff on a dialup connection simply by using a download manager (kget now). If I didn't have 3 others who share the connection along with the voip package, I could easily get by with a 128k U/D connection thanks to noscript/flashblock and the hosts file.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Cylix]

Kudos or not... at least it's sensible.

I had a friend whose "kids" were apparently downloading movies through live wire.

Adelphia shut his connection off and sent a letter. He had to call back in to have it turned on.

They shut off his connection first and afterward sent letter. He naturally assumed it was due to some issue with his provider and called support. They had no idea why his account was down so they turned it on. Later, after receiving the letter he completely flipped out because he thought it meant legal action. It worked and his "kids" never pirated again.

There were several stories like this before the barrage litigation and it was effective.

A good deal of the people I knew couldn't handle a settlement fee so I'm glad it came down to a warning. Sure, they shouldn't be doing the crime unless they accept the responsibilities, but in a few real cases I've really found the parents children were responsible.

Which brings me to comment an older friend of mine said after receiving a letter, "You mean you can really download movies online?"

Re:Good for AT&T!

[ptrace]

Puleeeese... A user then pays broadband charges to get dialup speed if he/she is found guilty? I'm sure AT&T will love that. For that you could just go to any of the $5/mo dialup providers... why continue to play with the company that dumped you?

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Ashriel]

for a green card you must have land line to your home, period. The area code must match the land location. If not it is invalid.

That's good, I suppose. But it ignores the idea that green cards aren't a necessity, either. If you can't maintain a landline in good faith, you probably shouldn't be here anyway. Not to sound hostile, but we have enough domestic poor leeching debtors without importing more.

to prove resistance, a phone bill is required many parts of the country. It shows that you are reachable at that location.

Actually, any utility bill will do. The power bill is a bit more ubiquitous; I haven't had a landline of my own, well, ever.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[mal3]

First off, not only did you not RTFA, but you couldn't even read the headline. The whole point of the article is that AT&T is *NOT* going to turn off your service without a court order.

As far as them being jerks for sending you a letter, I would think you'd like the heads up that whatever you're doing(legal or not) is drawing the attention of the RIAA. This is about the best policy one could hope for from an ISP.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[troll8901]

Although my senders claiming "the check is in the mail", I never seem to receive them.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehehe, so it's like AT&T is saying:

Fuck off, RIAA. We are THE AT&T. Who you think you're, AT&T or something?!

Re:Good for AT&T!

[RoFLKOPTr]

kudos to them for doing the right thing in this case

While I am happy that they are adopting this policy, and hope other ISPs do the same, I'm afraid that they're not doing it to spite the RIAA or do good by their customers. They're only doing it because they don't want to terminate a paying customer's service just because the RIAA tells them to. I'm not saying this policy has no benefit to the customer... because it most certainly does... but they don't deserve kudos for being right by the customer, because that's not what they're doing here.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[DJRumpy]

There are two that I believe deserve kudos:

http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2003/page.jsp?itemID=29713865

AT&T as well since they are following the rule of law and requiring a court order before suspending a user account. Not only is this good business but it makes sense. Something our laws rarely get right it seems.

If Comcast is ever complicit with the RIAA in any way that violates the DMCA I for one will be more than happy to jump ship to get FIOS.

"Comcast said in a statement. "This is the same process we've had in place for years--nothing has changed. While we have always supported copyright holders in their efforts to reduce piracy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and continue to do so, we have no plans to test a so-called 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' policy." "

and

"Comcast was careful to state that it isn't considering terminating customers' service."

Re:Good for AT&T!

[DJRumpy]

Oops..Forgot the relevant AT&T response from one of the links above:

"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."

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Presto Vivace]

I had the same reaction, and I think you are right about the necessity of Internet service in today's economy.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[cadrell0]

Most people that lose their driver's license are usually still allowed to drive to work and such. It takes a lot more than 3 strikes. Here in Ohio it's 12 points (a speed is 2 points) in under 2 years, a DUI, etc. And even then, it is only temporary.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[je ne sais quoi]

Who said anything about getting sued? AT&T is issuing take-down notices on behalf of the RIAA, not suing people. If they start working with the RIAA to sue people, you can be damn sure I'll cancel ASAP, of course I would, who wouldn't? Way to jump to conclusions there buddy....

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Quothz]

Heh, maybe someone at AT&T remembers how much trouble and backlash is caused when a service provider tries to play law enforcement. Remember when Ma Bell was practically a regulatory agency? It'd be nice to think someone learned something from that.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[ChiRaven]

Actually, in virtually all states there ARE strict legal limits on how and for what offenses an "incumbent local exchange carrier" (AT&T, in most of the areas in which it operates voice telephone service) can cut off your basic local telephone service. Such things are regulated by state commerce commissions or similar bodies, and usually enforced by them and by the public interest office of the state attorney general's office as well. That is NOT true of internet service, however, which is almost completely unregulated.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[nine-times]

I wasn't aware of that, but I think it agrees with my point: we don't take such actions lightly. Even when we take away someone's license, we do it because they have shown an inability to operate a car safely, and not because we don't like what they're using the roads for. The government doesn't say, "We think you're driving someplace in order to something that may be actionable in a court of law, so your driver's license is now suspended."

Also, even when we take away someone's license, we don't try to prohibit them from making use of roads. We still allow them to travel on those roads, so long as someone else is driving. Or they can still ride a bike or something.

So once you look at the Internet as communications infrastructure, suspending someone's account because of copyright infringement appears strange and worrisome. It's like suspending your electricity because you may be running an appliance that may infringe on someone's patent. Or suspending telephone service because you may be making slanderous claims over the phone.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[ushering05401]

Wells Fargo, for one, has introduced all sorts of new fees even for their high balance metered accounts.

My only conclusion after reading all of their new fees on my business accounts is that they want to obliterate all check transactions.

They literally charge twice for checks deposited at a teller window - once for the teller touching the check, and once for clearing the check.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[BikeHelmet]

I'm not sure they deserve kudos for this. Looks more like they simply don't want to axe a paying customer. After all, they aren't losing the money from all the downloading.

It's funny you should mention that. Apparently the going rate for bandwidth is somewhere around $0.16/GB.

I'm of the opinion that it's probably a bit less, since AT&T is a huge backbone, and thus own all their own equipment including the buildings the stuff is sitting in. But it does raise the interesting point that if someone were torrenting 500+ GB/mo, they might be losing money.

Torrents are notoriously hard on ISP networks. Verizon even introduced torrent acceleration because of it - it connects peers to closer peers/seeds rather than farther away peers, thus dropping overall network usage.

Protocols like FTP are much lighter, which is why many companies swear by Client-to-Server downloads. They have to pay for it, after all...

Re:Good for AT&T!

[shark72]

"Repeat until it sinks in: copyright infringement is not a criminal matter."

What do you mean by this? Copyright violation is one of many things that has both civil and criminal penalties, depending on how much you do of it. And for copyright infringement, the bar's set pretty low: share just $1,000 worth of software or music with your friends, and you're liable to face criminal charges. You could hit this threshold just by distributing a few copies of Adobe software, or just one copy of a high-end vertical market application, like specialized CAD/CAM software.

Criminal charges are typically reserved for the really big whales, and not your garden-variety file-sharing enthusiast who barely crosses the line, but it's dangerous to give the impression that copyright violation doesn't have criminal penalties. It's important for piracy enthusiasts to understand this -- if, at the very least, so they can go into law and try to get the law changed.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't? Arn't there some DC++ operators in a PMITA US prison right now? What about the guy in Pennsylvania caught camming and is in for 3 years. Definitely criminal charges right there.

I'm sure that any ISP can dump someone on suspicion of copyright violations and not have to worry about any consequences. Its similar to a private company closing access to a bridge to a getaway car from a robbery.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Tubal-Cain]

This is the *only* sensible course of action.

I disagree. We could always nuke the site from orbit.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't had a landline of my own, well, ever.

...

If you can't maintain a landline in good faith, you probably shouldn't be here anyway.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[ledow]

There's probably a substantial dollar value attached to that installation.

Either that, or a hell of a lot of paperwork.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Tubal-Cain]

...share just $1,000 worth of software or music with your friends, and you're liable to face criminal charges. You could hit this threshold just by distributing a few copies of Adobe software, or just one copy of a high-end vertical market application, like specialized CAD/CAM software.

Yes, if we go by value (as opposed to retail price), sharing a Vista ISO once will give you plenty of... credit, for lack of a better word.

More seriously, how is this $1000 counted? Torrenting CS4 to the world? Or seeding a $10 movie until you reach a share ratio of 100.0?

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Macrat]

I know it's so 19th century, but there are things called checks, and an organization called the Post Office will deliver them all the way across town for 42 cents.

Except that the Post Office is going under..

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Arancaytar]

What about software developers? What would WE do without Internet?

umm, i don't know, maybe develop software?

But I swear I'm not wasting all my time on Slashd--- oh fuck.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Arancaytar]

I get the green card part, but why would you need to prove resistance? Has the revolution started? :P

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Tuoqui]

I'm not 100% sure but I think it might be because AT&T isnt owned by a Cable Company and/or other Big Media conglomerate. Although I could be wrong. Never know which company owns which these days.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Kjella]

So how would you like the RIAA to contact you, magic? If AT&T won't forward notices to you, do you think you'll be untouchable and can leech freely without the RIAA being able to do a damn thing about it? Yeah, right. Then the RIAA will start filing lawsuits again to get your info, whether it's to scare or cash in. "If they start working with the RIAA to sue people" is you jumping to conclusions. But you seem to have some unrealistic expectation that you can do whatever you want on the Internet and it'll never come back to you.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Anonymous Coward]

the large scale collaberation typical of open-source projects would be mostly impossible.

Yeah, and then that damn spellchecker will *never* get finished.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[b93950]

The RIAA is acting like a selfish brat expecting ISPâ(TM)s to shoot themselves in the foot and lose subscribers in these weak economic times. Let the RIAA fight and pay for there own problems of piracy.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[jc42]

In time, all ISP's will subscribe to this way of thinking, becuase it's the only path they can follow without introducing legal problems for themselves. At the moment, it's a non-issue because your internet doesn't go off without a court order, or legal proof of breach of contract, or customers agreeing to it. There's not a single confirmed case of that ever happening. Ask yourself why. ...
Internet access is *not* a right. Neither is telephone access. If you breach the contract or misuse either, you can and will be cut off if it can be proven, not slowed down because "it's a necessity". And the day that it becomes *impossible* to do something without a telephone or internet access is the day that it will be *impossible* to legally cut someone off from either. That day won't happen any time soon.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "confirmed", but I can say that some years back, when I was an internet subscriber with the company now called Comcast, they did shut off our service for no stated reason. That is, they flatly refused to tell me why the service had been terminated. They wouldn't even say whether it was some (unspecified) violation, or perhaps something like just not wanting to be bothered to supply service to our address for some (perhaps cost) reason. To my knowledge, nobody had fingered us for any illegal activity; if this was the reason, they wouldn't tell us.

I'd also note that in this state (Massachusetts), and some others, telephone access is a legal right. The phone monopolies are required by law to provide "911" emergency service to phone lines even if nobody has paid for the service. One of the background scandals going on now is that the telcos that are providing FIOS often disable the copper phone wire as part of the installation. FIOS isn't (yet) legally required to provide 911 emergency phone service, so if you agree to a switch to FIOS (which the local telco, Verizon, is pushing strongly), you are no longer guaranteed the ability to make a phone call in case of an emergency. Many people do consider this a loss of a "right". In emergency situations, it could lead to the loss of a life. Communication can be vital in the original meaning of the term.

Furthermore, note that people are confusing an important point: What Comcast did to us, and ISPs are doing to others, is shutting people down merely on the unsupported word of someone else. There is no legal procedure being invoked; people are terminated without any charges being filed, much less any court decision. This is very different from, say, a suspension of a drivers license, which only happens with a court order. State motor-vehicle departments don't and can't legally suspend your driver's license on the mere word from someone claiming to have been wronged by you; it requires a trial that determines that you are guilty of a legal violation.

What's going on with copyright law is very different from this. Suspensions and terminations are happening solely on the unsupported word of a random person, or more often, on the letterhead of a random company. There is no need to prove that I'm guilty of anything; my service can be terminated for no stated reason on the request of a person that I've had no dealings with. And, as others have stated, we are slowly reaching a situation where our communication options have all been converted to the internet, which is in turn controlled by companies that no longer have any legal requirement to supply the service that we've paid for if some unrelated stranger merely makes an accusation against us. And, as my experience with Comcast showed, the ISPs don't even need to present us with the charges or the evidence (if there is any) against us.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Achromatic1978]

example: for a green card you must have land line to your home, period. The area code must match the land location. If not it is invalid.

Huh? What? No, that's not true.

My wife and I have only cell phones. I got my conditional permanent residency a couple of years ago, and removed conditions a couple of months ago - I was asked if I had a landline. "No, just cell". "Alright, not a problem".

Bah.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[glitch23]

The government is putting more online (e.g. recovery.gov) and soon you may need Internet access to participate fully as a citizen.

lol, have you been to recovery.org/gov ? There is nothing useful there. Even when the states start spending money they are being told to spend it fast and probably won't have the ability to record where it all goes. Do you realize how hard it is to track every where $90 million is spent within the government and then to get it pushed to the recovery.org website for public dissemination? You need a better example. How about irs.gov so people can download their tax forms? Also, they won't institute Internet access as a required for particpating as a citizen because not everyone can get it nor should they have to in order to exercise their right as a citizen of this country. Old fashioned methods, no matter how old, should be the requirement to participate at all as a citizen otherwise you alienate thousands, if not millions, of people. It would probably be considered unconstitutional. The sad thing is that Obama believes watching TV is a right and therefore extended the OTA analog service shutoff to June at the expense of millions of dollars just so some people wouldn't lose their TV signals.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[jc42]

The point was that, without the Internet, the large scale collaberation typical of open-source projects would be mostly impossible.

And another point worth noting is that the Internet was mostly developed via a typical large-scale collaboration of open-source projects. Even in cases where the code wasn't legally open-source, it was fairly common for the code for the unix-based implementations being easily available to any developers who asked. And of course the Internet specs have always been online, downloadable instantly via FTP before we had browsers.

I remember working on several projects that used Sun machines. When we had questions about details of the inner workings, Sun's staff would often respond by simply emailing us the kernel code (once they'd determined that we were C programmers). They seemed happy to answer any questions we had about it, though usually we figured it out ourselves once we had the code. I also recall several cases where we had the kernel code from multiple manufacturers, so that we could compare the implementations and report on any incompatibilities we found.

The main practical difference with current systems is that we no longer need to ask for the code for linux or *BSD distros. It's all online, downloadable in a matter of seconds rather than the hours that asking via email could to take back then.

OTOH, one of my first unix systems was Amdahl's, which ran on VM on an IBM mainframe. We didn't need to ask for the source, because it "wasn't an option". All the source was included on the install tapes, whether we wanted it or not. We actually found a bug within a week or so, in its dealings with the clock in our version of VM. I fixed it in an hour or so, and emailed the patch back to Amdahl. I got a nice letter thanking me for the bug fix, and saying that several of their QA people had validated my code, and I was now on their list of contributors. This was in late 1981, before anyone but a few thousand geeks had ever heard of the Internet (or ARPAnet), and it was pretty much a textbook case of why a sensible vendor might want open source software. (It also contained the first IP/UDP/TCP implementation we could find that ran on an IBM mainframe, so it could talk easily to the little unix boxes in our development lab. ;-)

Re:Good for AT&T!

[nine-times]

Old fashioned methods, no matter how old, should be the requirement to participate at all as a citizen otherwise you alienate thousands, if not millions, of people. It would probably be considered unconstitutional.

Funny thing... the people who are alienated from normal channels of society are also often the sort that can't afford to hire a lawyer to get things rules unconstitutional. There are lots of ways already where it's difficult to participate in our democracy without a telephone or mailing address, so lots of people are already being excluded.

It seems like you're just looking for reasons to criticize Obama, which I think is a bit off-topic.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[jc42]

example: for a green card you must have land line to your home, period. ...

Huh? What? No, that's not true. My wife and I have only cell phones. I got my conditional permanent residency a couple of years ago, and ... I was asked if I had a landline. "No, just cell". "Alright, not a problem".

This might be one of those cases where it depends on which bureaucrat you happen to talk to. You lucked out and got a younger bureaucrat who thinks that cell phones are the norm. Someone else might get a fuddy-duddy who doesn't believe in all this modern wireless phone nonsense, and thinks that the regulations require a "real" phone, i.e., one that's wired into the phone system. An ongoing problem with many government agencies is that if the regulations don't explicitly say what constitutes acceptable phone equipment, the workers are free to interpret them as they wish, perhaps depending on whether they like you or are in a good mood that day.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Achromatic1978]

That I'll definitely grant you, especially with USCIS. :) Don't even start me on the fact that full biometrics are taken for the Conditional PR, and again two years later for PR (and, unsurprisingly, you're charged for each).

Re:Good for AT&T!

[glitch23]

It seems like you're just looking for reasons to criticize Obama, which I think is a bit off-topic.

No, just expanding on the parent's comment that a lot of gov't information is being posted online using his/hers specific example. I can't help that what I said is true. If what I said is off-topic it can't be any more than portions of the parent's post. Besides, it's hard to say whether the lack of useful information on recovery.org is really Obama's fault. It is a nice concept but in practice I think gov't bureaucracy will cause it to fail which doesn't necessarily mean it is Obama's fault.

However my statement regarding analog TV signals being extended to June really is related to Obama's personal opinions on the matter because he has stated his opinion on the matter. Again, that was just a response to something the parent said about Internet access not being a right. If saying something isn't a right is off-topic for this particular submission then the parent post should be rated as such. How many responses to portions of a post must there be before one is considered off-topic? Topics are going to gradually diverge from the submission eventually. Conversations tend to do that naturally. I may have been further from the central topic as compared to the submission but I believe I was on-topic with regard to the message I responded to directly.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[Trona Andy]

Who does the RIAA use for an ISP? Maybe if third parties make complaints, the ISP will take down THEIR service. It's only fair.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[je ne sais quoi]

How about instead of instructing me to read TFS, you try reading what I said in my comment? I don't care that AT&T won't cut off my service -- I care that AT&T is colluding with the RIAA to spy on me! As for them being jerks, nowhere did I ever say that was downloading illegal content, you just inferred that I must be guilty because I was said I would cancel service if I might get a letter. The RIAA already has you thinking I'm guilty of copyright infringement and they haven't even had to look at whether I actually do it or not!

Re:Good for AT&T!

[MBGMorden]

Sounds like you're discussing deposits - not writing checks. I use Wachovia (which is now owned by Wells Fargo), and they have a similar charge but t really pertains to the deposit process, not to checks in particular. You can make unlimited deposits via ATM. You get 2 interactions with a teller per month. Any more than 2 interactions and it's $1.50 or so per visit to the teller.

As stated though, since a visit to the bank is only needed for deposits (which I can do at the ATM anyways), and doesn't apply to writing checks, then I certainly have no issue, and haven't exceeded my monthly 2-visit allowance in about 7 years (indeed, in the last 7 years, which is the time when I noticed this charge appear, I have visited a live teller MAYBE 3 times total. Each time it was to make a withdrawal from my checking account during a time when I'd lost my debit card and so couldn't use the ATM).

Re:Good for AT&T!

[MBGMorden]

That was kinda the point . . .

AT&T is issuing take-down notices. That's it. It's a little notification from the copyright owner saying "Stop sharing our stuff.". They will do no more without a court order. Saying that you're cancel simply for receiving the take down notice is, as the GP stated, essentially saying that you don't want to be bothered at all until the RIAA slaps you with a lawsuit.

If it bothers you that much take a boilerplate line from the notice and add it to your spam filters. You won't get any notice until the lawyers come knocking. Is that preferable?

Re:Good for AT&T!

[jnetsurfer]

I agree 100%. They're still on my "On Notice" list. It will take a lot for them to recover from their wiretapping cooperation. That really says a lot more about how they feel about their customers...

Re:Good for AT&T!

[u-235-sentinel]

The only thing I would change is giving them a dial-up speed (can check email and pay bills, but not pirate anything) internet connection if they're found guilty via a fair process. Internet access is indispensable for most people, and losing internet would be like losing phone service. The punishment should fit the transgression.

And if the company is wrong, what are the steps for remediation?

An apology as well perhaps?

The RIAA has been right out of how many times wrong?

We simply can't expect them to be able to handle this kind of power and not screw up frequently.

And in my case it seems Concast terminated our account shortly after replacing our cable modem. The question I have is who received the cable modem after Concast took it?

I'm guessing the MAC address was the old cable modem and we got terminated for someone else using it too much.

I only wish I knew that Concast doesn't always update their information. Then this would never have happened to my family.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[pnutjam]

Believe it or not, there are usually several banks to choose from in any Metro area. I quite using most banks when they started charging to cash checks written by their members. I use a local Credit Union, but all the credit unions in my area are starting to institute some of the crappy bank policies, charging for PIN transactions and daily withdrawl limits. Luckily I maintain an account with an out of state CU that doesn't do any of that crap.

Re:Good for AT&T!

[drinkypoo]

People are going to say I'm overblowing the situation. It's true that failing to have Internet access in today's world is still nowhere near as serious as not having heat in the winter. That's true. On the other hand, as a society we're becoming increasingly dependent on the Internet. I wish people would stop talking about the Internet like it's an entertainment service.

TV and radio are often defended as being useful for non-entertainment purposes, but clearly neither one is half as useful as internet access. I don't know if the argument can really be considered valid when applied to those forms of media distribution, but if it can then it clearly can be applied to internet access as well. I myself have made the argument that internet access should be considered a basic utility like power or water, where the utility at least needs some sort of excuse before they can turn you off because I believe as you do - that it cannot be considered a frivolity any longer. It is of course an excellent source of and distribution method for frivolity...

Cover your arse.

[Pig Hogger]

This is sensible. One of those days, the "collaborating"* ISPs are gonna cut the wrong guy by mistake and will be slapped with a breach of contract suit with the usual astronomical claims...

After all, we're all entitled to proper due process.

* In the same negative sense as those french who collaborated with the nazis during WW-II.

Re:Cover your arse.

[DamienNightbane]

You know, this may be the fastest that I've ever seen a thread go from 0 to Godwin.

Re:Cover your arse.

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

This is sensible. One of those days, the "collaborating"* ISPs are gonna cut the wrong guy by mistake and will be slapped with a breach of contract suit with the usual astronomical claims...

After all, we're all entitled to proper due process.

* In the same negative sense as those french who collaborated with the nazis during WW-II.

Breach of Contract? You mean that part of ISP contracts where they say that they can terminate your service for any reason?

Re:Cover your arse.

[BACPro]

Nope, here's one better... http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170422&cid=14202218

Re:Cover your arse.

[DamienNightbane]

I don't think it really counts if the initial article is about Nazis.

Re:Cover your arse.

[troll8901]

I think it's a special case ... if the probability starts at 1, then the total time taken is 0, and ...

Oh no, I can feel the brainfreeze coming ... Owwwwwwwwwww!! Owww owww oww oww ow ow ow ow ... *whimper*

Re:Cover your arse.

[Pig Hogger]

Breach of Contract? You mean that part of ISP contracts where they say that they can terminate your service for any reason?

"Any reason" must still be justified.

Re:Cover your arse.

[Achromatic1978]

"We do not want to have to deal with any paperwork or indeed any time that must be spent responding to requests from the RIAA, even opening a letter".

Said reason does not have to make sense, does not have to be agreed with, etc, et al.

Re:Cover your arse.

[mjwx]

This is sensible. One of those days, the "collaborating"* ISPs are gonna cut the wrong guy by mistake and will be slapped with a breach of contract suit with the usual astronomical claims...

After all, we're all entitled to proper due process.

So close.

What AT&T is doing here is limiting its legal liability on both sides. If they cut someone off without a court order that person could turn around and sue the pants off AT&T for any number of things (libel/deformation, breach of contract and others I haven't thought of). Civil courts have upheld stranger lawsuits. By declaring a court order as part of the terms at which they will terminate services they have effectively moved the onus and the responsibility for doing thing to another party, AT&T have near zero liability as the order came from the courts.

now if only the courts...

[Speare]

It's a start. Now, if only the courts would actually pay attention to the technical merits-- that an IP address is not an individual, that giving anonymous WiFi service is like any other conduit, that just using BitTorrent or Kazaa is not illegal in and of itself, etc.

Re:now if only the courts...

[Todd Knarr]

The courts do take notice. But the courts don't like trivial technicalities. An IP address doesn't identify an individual, for instance, but in the typical residential case it does identify a household. There may be 2 adults and 2 children in that household, but the account holder will be one of the adults, has legal responsibility for what the children do and is presumed to have a certain degree of knowledge of what all of them are doing. The attitude of the court will be "If the account holder doesn't know who's responsible, they reasonably should. If they choose to shield the responsible party, on their head be it.". The court distinguishes between family, or two roommates at a college, vs. two random people who don't know each other. Try treating the former types of relationship between the possible responsible parties as the latter and the court'll school you on the matter. As for open wireless access, the court's simply going to treat that as an attractive nuisance: you knew or reasonably should have known about the possibility, you failed to take any steps to mitigate or eliminate the problem, you accept responsibilty for what happens next.

Rules lawyers. Judges, like GMs, have many tools for dealing with them.

Re:now if only the courts...

[shark72]

Thanks for pointing this out. Lots of file sharing enthusiasts hope to find loopholes -- you can avoid trouble if you keep an unencryped wireless network, you can avoid trouble if the activity could be blamed on your kids, etc. The reality is that the courts generally don't like loopholes, as they don't want their time to be wasted. It's like tax loopholes: if you can think of one, somebody probably already thought of it years ago, and it's been closed.

ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[TinBromide]

We're getting ATT FiOS in our area soon, I might have to give them a call if this is true and not just marketing.

Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[shentino]

Actually, we can leave the finger pointed at the government for making it an issue of national security, threatening to brand any non-cooperators as terrorists, and make sure that anyone who didn't play ball would disappear.

AT&T probably didn't have any choice in the matter, in so far as the execs were probably damned if they did and damned if they didn't.

This is the reason we like our police to arrest people publicly. I would rather be shamed and embarrased as I walk away in cuffs, then taken quietly and then never heard from again.

Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[Anonymous Coward]

FiOS is verizon, not at&t. Verizon has said they will not cooperate with the RIAA.

Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[TinBromide]

The guy who was knocking had an AT&T shirt.

From ATT's site for stuff available for my area.

" Fiber

Learn how AT&T is taking the existing fiber that's going into your home today and turning it into the vehicle that's delivering all your entertainment to your television, computer and phone.

*

What It Is
*

Fiber is glass or plastic hair thin threads that deliver data over a network. The threads are bound tightly together and use waves of light to transmit the data.
"

Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[RCSInfo]

FiOS is a registered trademark of Verizon. AT&T's competing triple play service is called U-Verse. In areas spun off by Verizon to FairPoint they rename former FiOS service FAST.

Of course I wouldn't be surprised if the guys that AT&T hires to go door to door mistakenly used the term FiOS as a generic term for fiber services. Verizon's service has been out longer and has better name recognition.

Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[deraj123]

Fiber != FiOS. FiOS is a brand name service offered by Verizon. As far as I know (at least in my area), AT&T's "fiber" offering is uVerse. It differs slightly from FiOS in that it is (usually) fiber to the node, then VDSL to the home, rather than fiber to the home as FiOS does.

That being said, I recently switched to uVerse and I'd say it's worth at least looking into. Personally, I was delighted at having a non-satellite alternative to Comcast, which I've been dying to get rid of.

Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week

[adolf]

On the plus side, U-Verse works very well with torrents.

With Roadrunner, I had to do clever QoS traffic shaping stuff inside of a custom firmware on a WRT54G in order to keep torrents from swamping the connection with high latency.

With U-Verse, I don't. I can just leave Azureus run wide-open, and it'll occupy the entire 6mbps/1mbps connection with hundreds of connections, while latency always stays low. My wife no longer complains about me downloading torrents while she plays WOW.

It works so well that I've bypassed the fancy WRT54G altogether, since the supplied U-Verse 2-wire router seems to work quite well enough for everything I do without extra help. (It also includes a battery backup, so I can continue to use the laptop during a power outage.)

A company with Balls....for once

[Ozlanthos]

I like AT&Ts move here. While they could have been little wimps and acquiesced to the mafRIAA's demands they said,"Sorry, we here at AT&T care more about providing service to our customers than making sure Lars Ulrich and Madonna get every red cent they feel must be extorted from their fan-base". "Oh and by the way,(in the immortal words of Bender), "Bite my shiny metal ass"! Although... I am a bit discomfited with the idea that my traffic is being monitored so closely that the mafRIAA can tell that "I" downloaded "copyrighted works". That alone could be enough for some users to drop the service upon receiving such a notice. None the less, bravo AT&T. In a world of ever pussifying people, you've shown me that you still have a pair!

-Oz

Re:A company with Balls....for once

[mikechant]

Although... I am a bit discomfited with the idea that my traffic is being monitored so closely that the mafRIAA can tell that "I" downloaded "copyrighted works".

Most of what they do involves things like participating is popular torrents, using clients which log the IP addresses of any source which supplies them with any file chunks. Anyone can do this sort of thing; the RIAA don't have any special powers.

Re:A company with Balls....for once

[Ozlanthos]

I didn't think they had "special powers" or anything like that. I was just saying that I'm annoyed that I am being monitored (or anyone else for that matter...at least without a court order and a judges signature) closely enough to discern such details. Aren't you? I think there are far more useful ways to spend one's time than trying to bust 14 year olds for Dling media or warez. then again I don't really publish any kind of profitable IP so....

-Oz

Re:A company with Balls....for once

[Ozlanthos]

ty for the info none the less...I ain't so skill'd so it is all newz to me... -Oz

Re:A company with Balls....for once

[Tuoqui]

Just remember they're also the same company who bent over and let the NSA wiretap their networks en masse. They got this call right but there are much more serious calls they've gotten wrong

Just Shamwow and poof, they're gone!

[Anonymous Coward]

The company saw very few repeat offenders.

Emphasis mine. You're damn skippy you won't see them again. They'll be more careful after asking their friends about alternate replacements.

Correlation, please?

[c]

> Cicconi said the notices worked. The company saw very few repeat offenders.

If the RIAA is randomly selecting from IP addresses on P2P networks, the probability of any particular user being hit twice... I'm thinking that the notices might not have much to do with the lack of repeat offenders.

c.

Re:Correlation, please?

[langelgjm]

Cicconi said the notices worked. The company saw very few repeat offenders.

And by "worked", he means "got subscribers to download PeerGuardian."

Re:Correlation, please?

[Richard_at_work]

How does PeerGuardian actually protect you? Its pretty easy for the RIAA to cycle adsl lines, oe heck even dialup accounts, on a monthly basis, even to the extent of renting an apartment with 5 phone lines and rotating the ISPs every other month - are PeerGuardian fast enough to catch those IP addresses before they are actively used by the RIAA? Is there any real way to actually accurately identify those IP addresses at all?

Re:Correlation, please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its pretty easy for the RIAA to cycle adsl lines, oe heck even dialup accounts, on a monthly basis, even to the extent of renting an apartment with 5 phone lines and rotating the ISPs every other month...

whois 66.250.46.0
whois 66.250.47.0
whois 209.133.121.0
whois 209.133.122.0

Fortunately they're a lot lazier than you think.

Re:Correlation, please?

[Richard_at_work]

Fortunately they're a lot lazier than you think.

Or so you hope...

Re:Correlation, please?

[Petrushka]

Its pretty easy for the RIAA to cycle adsl lines, oe heck even dialup accounts, on a monthly basis, even to the extent of renting an apartment with 5 phone lines and rotating the ISPs every other month - are PeerGuardian fast enough to catch those IP addresses before they are actively used by the RIAA?

Sure it's possible for the RIAA to catch people who are using PeerGuardian, but if your aim is to make it impossible for them to catch you, the only sane tactic is not to play. The point of PeerGuardian is more like the case of the story about the two wildlife cameramen filming a lion, of whom one is wearing running shoes -- not to outrun the lion, as he explains, but to outrun the other cameraman.

Not pretty, I know, but there just isn't any such thing as perfect security. An illegal downloader trying to evade the RIAA is like someone trying to come up with DRM so effective that no one can get round it. It's never going to happen. The aim is instead to make sure that you're not one of the easier targets.

Re:Correlation, please?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's no real way to accurately identify those IPs at all.

However, it's a major cost time-wise and money-wise to maintain that vicious cycle. And for what? So they can *possibly* get the people that use PeerGuardian? PeerGuardian has a fairly impressive user count, but there are plenty of other people that don't use it that they can get without the extra cost.

So rare

[iYk6]

I'm not sure they deserve kudos for this. Looks more like they simply don't want to axe a paying customer.

In these days, common business sense, choosing not to mess with your own customers, is so rare that kudos may be called for.

Re:So rare

[Hurricane78]

No. Let me make an analog sentence:

In these days, common sense, choosing not to rape and kill every child you see, is so rare that kudos may be called for.

This shows, how unacceptable giving kudos for such things is.

I think Chris Rock also had a critique about this in his program. Went something along the lines of:
Guy 1 (proud): I care for my children. And I don't steal no shit.
Chris Rock: Do you think you deserve credit for this?? NO! You are SUPPOSED to do these things!!
(Sorry, can't recite it properly. But you get the drift.)

Re:So rare

[artor3]

Except your sentence is completely, and obviously false, whereas the statement that "choosing not to mess with your own customers is rare" is at least arguably true.

Re:So rare

[Hurricane78]

You have never been to a real cruel war, have you? Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and the Nazis instantly come to mind.
I would give you the phone number of that old Yugoslavian grandma that lived above me, who cried about exactly such situations. Amongst horrible things like roasting children on a spit, like pigs, or leading a whole village up to a hill, and letting them lie in the sun until they died from drying out. Women, children, even the dogs.
But unfortunately she died last year. :(

If you think something like that can't happen, you haven't seen shit.

Re:So rare

[Anonymous Coward]

While sad, WTF does this have to do with the existing discussion?

Re:So rare

[Anonymous Coward]

*WHOOSH*

No one said it can't happen. It's just not commonplace. That was the whole point of the comment.

Re:So rare

[iYk6]

These people are like 2 year olds who have just learned to poop in the toilet. Perhaps they don't deserve kudos for something so simple, but if you want them to continue their newly discovered behavior, kudos may be in order. Keep in mind that what comes naturally to you and me does not come naturally to them, and pooping in the toilet is a big deal for them.

Re:So rare

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Chris Rock also had a critique about this in his program.

It was on a stand up special of his about the difference between black people and "niggas".

The quote:
"A nigga wants some credit for some shit you're supposed to do, a nigga brags about shit a normal man just does. A nigga would say:
"I take care of my kids"
You're supposed to you dumb mother fucker, what are you talking about? What are you bragging about?
"I ain't never been to jail"
What do you want a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail you low-expectation-ever mother fucker!

Re:So rare

[Sark666]

I can't quote him exactly either but it went something like:

"You're supposed to take care of your kids you low-expectation-having mother fucker!!!"

Re:So rare

[code4fun]

I'm not sure they deserve kudos for this. Looks more like they simply don't want to axe a paying customer.

In these days, common business sense, choosing not to mess with your own customers, is so rare that kudos may be called for.

Nah. Specific was right. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Re:So rare

[witherstaff]

Don't forget that they're sending everything through the NSA. After that breach of privacy to clients AT&T doesn't deserve any kudos.

Re:So rare

[PMBjornerud]

(Sorry, can't recite it properly. But you get the drift.)

I can't quote him exactly either but it went something like ...

I hereby revoke your geek cards.
Now google this 100 times:
"Chris Rock quote You're supposed to take care of your kids"

You know the worst thing about niggas? Niggas always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A nigga will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A nigga will say some shit like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!

Re:So rare

[houghi]

No results found for "Chris Rock quote You're supposed to take care of your kids".

http://tinyurl.com/cxj84j

Re:So rare

[drinkypoo]

Now google this 100 times:

Try providing a link like this next time. It has more impact.

Bizarre result

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as the vast majority of bittorrent use is for legitimate purposes, such as Linux distros, why would it be possible to detect a reduction in bittorrent use for those who received such letters?

Comcast is happy to shut off your service

[SuperBanana]

Comcast denied that it was considering a similar penalty,

Maybe not for RIAA stuff, but for the first time in a DECADE (I'm including Mediaone, Roadrunner, AT&T, and Comcast- ie all the various incarnations of the same cable company here) they're suddenly strictly enforcing their policies regarding hosting services. If you have any incoming SMTP or WWW traffic, expect to be canned if you haven't been already...even if it is for personal use.

It astounds me that people get bent out of shape about bittorrent throttling, but not terms of service that force you to be a "consumer" of the internet; the ToS specifically ban "web discussion forums" and internet email lists (I was running neither.)

Re:Comcast is happy to shut off your service

[deraj123]

Maybe not for RIAA stuff, but for the first time in a DECADE (I'm including Mediaone, Roadrunner, AT&T, and Comcast- ie all the various incarnations of the same cable company here) they're suddenly strictly enforcing their policies regarding hosting services. If you have any incoming SMTP or WWW traffic, expect to be canned if you haven't been already...even if it is for personal use.

While I have definitely seen restrictions on running "servers" in Comcast's TOS, I am consistently unable to find them in AT&T's. This is one of the major reasons that I am currently an AT&T customer, and not a Comcast customer (my two choices at the moment).

I don't have the DSL service anymore, but at the time I read through the TOS and was unable to find "no server" clauses. I currently have uVerse, and am likewise unable to find any "no server" clauses in that TOS.

how do they know?

[perryizgr8]

one thing i do not understand. how can riaa know if my friend sent me a song by email, or i searched on google and downloaded an mp3? or that i downloaded a film using piratebay? how can they trace online activity to real world people?

Re:how do they know?

[novakyu]

Maybe you are just trolling (but then, given your UID, maybe you are just new to the whole "Internet thing"), but it's very easy.

They either run trackers (or some trackers publish list of connected IPs somewhere, although I'd hope not many do these days), or they simply connect to a torrent, the way anybody connects to it, and collect the list of IPs connected to that torrent.

For other P2P networks, like Kazaa (i.e. the Napster style networks), it's even easier—to find out, and to prove in court, at least as far as "making available" goes.

Once they have a record of a particular IP sharing a particular file at a particular time, it's usually not that difficult to find out (at least with proper court orders) who was using, or at least paying for the Internet connection.

Re:how do they know?

[perryizgr8]

thanks, but i was not trolling. i actually knew about the whole "bittorrent broadcasts your ip" thing, but i forgot. my main question remains: how does someone know if i downloaded an mp3 without using bittorrent?

Re:how do they know?

[Midnight Thunder]

thanks, but i was not trolling. i actually knew about the whole "bittorrent broadcasts your ip" thing, but i forgot. my main question remains: how does someone know if i downloaded an mp3 without using bittorrent?

Different protocol.

Re:how do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP collaboration, or infiltrated websites.

Re:how do they know?

[novakyu]

how does someone know if i downloaded an mp3 without using bittorrent?

If you just downloaded it from some website, barring some very intrusive methods such as deep packet inspection by ISPs (so far, I don't know any who does this in U.S.)—or website hosts who betray you, or maybe the website itself was set up by cronies of MPAA and RIAA)—no, there's no way.

I mean, theoretically, there is a way, because most HTTP connections are clear-text, and any one router between you and the website could potentially inspect every single packet and put the picture together that you downloaded some file from somewhere, but given the effort required, how few people actually download copyright files from websites rather than P2P, or given how much easier it is to take the website itself down, if it's not run by MPAA or RIAA, they don't bother with downloaders in these normal web traffic.

The same goes for FTP, and that one network that we are not supposed to talk about.

As for any other P2P, well, if you connect to one of MPAA or RIAA baits and download, then that's how they will know you downloaded (although in that case you could argue that it was an "authorized distribution", since you got the file from the agents of the copyright owner). But most of the times, they will try to get you by downloading from you (and if anyone connects to you via P2P, they *have to* know your IP; that's how Internet works, there's no way to spoof the IP completely—i.e. no proxy, just spoof to a completely unrelated IP address—if there is any actual data transfer, as opposed to SYN floods and such) ... but in this case, people have made arguments that such downloads (upload from your point of view) is also "authorized distribution", since people downloading are acting agents of the copyright owner.

Re:how do they know?

[petermgreen]

Well in the case of downloading from a conventional server (http, ftp, etc) the server operator and their hosting provider probablly know from thier logs. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the ??AA or thier cronies could either be running the website or get the logs through some means (e.g. discovery in a court case against the website).

Still you are far less likely to get in trouble for downloading illegal content from conventional servers than for getting it over P2P. P2P relies on connecting to unknown peers which have a far greater chance of being controlled by the ??AA. Bittorrent is particularlly dangerous because downloading practically requires uploading and anyone can get a list of IPs that are participating in the sharing of a particular file.

Re:how do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

how does someone know if i downloaded an mp3 without using bittorrent?

They aren't going after downloaders. These are take down notices, so it means people are uploading. Some programs like BitTorrent upload automatically.

They Aren't Seeing Repeat Offenders

[TechWrite]

Of course, there could be many reasons that ATT and others aren't seeing many repeat offenders after forwarding takedown notices. Personally, after a "friend" received one such notice, they very quickly learned about using IP tables and exclusively connecting to encrypted peers when using bit torrent. A year later, and my "friend" still hasn't received another notice so it seems to be working very well. Of course, it isn't for the reason the RIAA and the ISP would like.

Re:They Aren't Seeing Repeat Offenders

[lazy_nihilist]

I'm not sure about using IP tables, but connecting to encrypted peers only would prevent from your ISP snooping. I'm not sure it would be of much help if the RIAA is seeding them, because they would get to know your IP address. A better "solution" would be to use a VPN service like http://ipredator.se/ where they say that they don't keep any logs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Who in there right mind..

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in their right mind would deny service to paying customers based on the legal issues of another company? Don't know why some ISPs want to be so charitable to the RIAA.

Please tell...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cicconi said the company began testing this kind of 'forward noticing' late last year and even experimented with sending certified letters. Cicconi said the notices worked. The company saw very few repeat offenders."

How would they see if their customer was a repeat offender?

This is how compaines use the TOS as a weapon ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the average TOS agreement, say from Comcast, you'll notice that it's almost impossible to be in agreement based on the standard that Comcast service customers must meet.

This basically allows Comcast to have indiscriminate powers that can terminate customers at will with any "infraction" they deem violating the TOS with no recourse.

High bandwidth customer? Like online Netflix and Hulu? Looks like Comcast needs to look at little closer at you traffic to so if there are any "violations".

Didn't anyone learn anything from George Orwell's 1984?

Today

[nurb432]

When it becomes financially more efficient to cut people off, you can be sure they will do it.

Re:Today

[MBGMorden]

How will it ever be financially more efficient to stop their customers from paying them their monthly subscription? This is simply an ISP finally realizing that all that cash their raking in per month is coming from subscribers. AT&T (like virtually every ISP) dislikes P2P for the bandwidth it uses, but not in principal. Their criteria for wanting to terminate a user (high bandwidth user) is not the same as the RIAA (got caught sharing any material, regardless of volume).

Until RIAA bribes could make up for the lost revenue (which is not likely), then don't expect a whole lot of ISP's to just go around booting off their customers.

An MPAA warning worked for me

[Fookin]

I'm a TWC customer and came home one night to find my computers not able to get online. It was really weird, the cable modem got a DHCP address, gateway, DNS info, etc but I just couldn't get to any online locations. I called tech support and they said I had been "quarantined" for a Copyright violation notice they received from the MPAA / Viacom. Apparently they didn't like my sharing of a couple episodes of The Mentalist.

That really pissed me off because at the time, I couldn't view episodes at the CBS website, they weren't on Hulu and I couldn't get them through iTunes. Also, there were no Season boxsets available for purchase. So if I couldn't watch it live or if the DVR didn't pick it up, I was out of luck.

Tech support basically told me to stop doing what I was doing and there would be no problems going forward. So I did. Maybe I'm a coward, I dunno - but I just don't want to tempt a lawsuit.

In all fairness, I think I got popped because I was using TPB. Maybe I should just stick with private trackers that use encryption or maybe that doesn't really matter and I'll get popped anyways. Still haven't decided what I'll do going forward ...

Re:An MPAA warning worked for me

[Inda]

About $0.15 for each episode from Usenet on a pay-for-the-bandwidth-you-use package. SSL connections all round.

If you play with fire (BitTorrent) expect to get burnt.

Re:An MPAA warning worked for me

[MBGMorden]

If you play with fire (BitTorrent) expect to get burnt.

Done right, Bittorrent isn't much of a risk. Use PeerGuardian (or an equivalent - Transmission supports blocking of IP's natively for example), use encryption, route tracker communications through an anonymous proxy. Is it still POSSIBLE to be tracked down? Sure. But as mentioned earlier in this discussion somewhere - organizations go after the low hanging fruit. They don't spend tons of resources digging through the layers of obfuscation in order to catch the exception to the rule.

Essentially Usenet is the same thing. Though there's a server in the middle, from a content perspective it's the same model as Peer2Peer - users provide the content that other users download. There's nothing stopping them from colluding with the Usenet server owners in order to analyze download/upload logs there too, except that it's just not worth their effort.

Re:An MPAA warning worked for me

[houghi]

The reason you shared copyrighted material is irrelevant. You are not allowed to do that.

That said, they should have given you a proper warning that they received a claim and then wait for the court order IF you would not take it down.

AT&T is lying

[acoustix]

First off, AT&T has been providing data on P2P users to Mediacom for well over a year now. Mediacom uses AT&T as their provider and apparently Mediacom does not have the staff to monitor their network so AT&T does it for them.

Mediacom has also been disconnecting customers for excessive P2P usage as well as alleged copyright infringement. 2 coworkers that I know of had their service cutoff by Mediacom due to alleged copyright violations.

This behavior starts a slippery slope. Where does it end? If ISP are going to start monitoring traffic for specific content then are they liable for traffic that they don't catch?

Re:AT&T is lying

[telek83]

There has been a way around this for years now, all one has to do is use a few free shell accounts that have a proxy between one or two boxes, now just make sure you sign up for shell accounts that are in country's that downloading via P2P is not a problem, using SSH with a 4096bit RSA + SHA-256 GnuPGP key between each box should take care of prying eyes. By the time they decrypt the packets the universe would have been through at least 18-23 life times.

Re:AT&T is lying

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, AT&T has been providing data on P2P users to Mediacom for well over a year now. Mediacom uses AT&T as their provider and apparently Mediacom does not have the staff to monitor their network so AT&T does it for them.

Mediacom has also been disconnecting customers for excessive P2P usage as well as alleged copyright infringement. 2 coworkers that I know of had their service cutoff by Mediacom due to alleged copyright violations.

This behavior starts a slippery slope. Where does it end? If ISP are going to start monitoring traffic for specific content then are they liable for traffic that they don't catch?

exactly or what if a guys drives by parks acroos the street and leec hes ur wireless signal and yes if u have a wep key that is easily broken downloads a pireted movie and then drives offf all done from his wireless laptop or your neighbor upstairs then ur is turns off ur internet and u have done nothing then u get sued and once again not ur fault see this is why these things have to go to court

Re:AT&T is lying

[fishbowl]

You make it sound easy to find that kind of service.

Besides that, I don't really understand why hard crypto hasn't already put a wall of privacy between user and service provider, period. What needs to change? This is a bigger issue than just "file sharing."

Re:AT&T is lying

[KahabutDieDrake]

The humor in all this will be a few years down the road. After P2P monitoring and enforcement of third party ownership is standard fair. That is when someone will point out that if they can monitor and stop movie and music trading, they can go after child pornography... or hold the ISP's responsible when they don't.

I can't wait. Just deserts and all.

Re:AT&T is lying

[John Hasler]

> Besides that, I don't really understand why hard crypto hasn't already put a wall of
> privacy between user and service provider, period. What needs to change?

A significant number of users need to care enough to act.

Re:AT&T is lying

[fishbowl]

In other words, it's vanishingly rare for internet service providers to take action against bittorrent users... Is this an argument in favor of increased enforcement as an ironic step towards privacy and freedom?

well of course they didnt see repeat offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

most of the people who received letters started using ip filters

As long as AT&T responded with anything short.

[John Hasler]

...of a punch in the face the RIAA would have claimed they were "cooperating". Looks to me as if they are doing the minimum that their lawyers told them they were legally obligated to do.

Against the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is how it is going to go down. Someone will be cut off for supposedly downloading or uploading illegal content. They will sue stating that the legality of the content they download or upload is not Constitutionally allowed to be decided by a private corporation. Allowing them to do this is the equivalent of allowing a private police force to both monitor and punish citizens with no judicial or legislative oversight. I do not see how they will succeed. The first time a mistake is made so that someone can sue without fear of reprisal, they will be fined an amazing amount of money for violating that user's basic civil rights. This is a no win game for them, they simply do not realize how vulnerable they are to this type of suit. The temporary public relations effect they are getting now will be reversed when a Grand Ma or a rich CEO loses their connection. Before someone says it; you cannot sign away your civil rights, they are inalienable so any EULA is not going to hold up. Why this has gone so far without these obvious legal issues being brought up amazes me. Imagine if the local mall started putting tire locks on cars because some third party with its own political agenda said I think they took something from my store. That is why we have a legal system, to assure the interest of justice and not private interest are served.

Re:Against the law

[Anonymous Coward]

"Imagine if the local mall started putting tire locks on cars because some third party with its own political agenda said I think they took something from my store."

Something like this happened in the town I used to live in. There were two strip malls right next to each other, separated by about a 4 inch gap. There was no indication that the parking lot in front of them was not usable for either strip mall. In fact, the parking lot was on the property of one strip mall, and not the other. The other mall was owned by someone else. So the owner of the mall with the lot hired an "enforcement agency" to boot the cars of people suspected at shopping at the other strip mall, claiming they were trespassing on private property. The kicker? It was $150 to get them to unboot your car.

Now for my story. There was a Walgreens in the strip mall with the lot. I went in to have a prescription filled and waited for it, so I was there for a while. After it was filled I went out to find my car booted. I pointed out to the large, intimidating goon who would patrol the lots that he needed to unboot my car, and I showed him my Walgreens receipt. He demanded the money. I pointed out that there were law enforcement plates on the car (I worked for state law enforcement at that time) and he was committing a crime. He demanded the money. I showed him my badge. He demanded the money. I called a couple of my coworkers who showed up in plainclothes carrying their pistols. He unbooted my car.

The letters work

[rennerik]

I think this is a good call by AT&T, and to be honest with you, I doubt most, if any of these situations, would have to go to lawsuits.

I was a lucky recipient of said letter, and they do work. I rarely, if ever, download anything. The occasional TV show that I can't find on Hulu, but never any software or music or movies (I know, I actually pay for Windows and Photoshop; amazing). My roommate, however, tends to download with impunity. New game out? He'll be the first to torrent it. New movie in theaters? No doubt our 5 megabit cable line will be saturated with his P2P traffic for the better part of the day.

I've confronted him about this several times, and he's always just shrugged it off and called it fine. He obviously doesn't care about the legal or moral arguments of software piracy, music piracy, etc.

So I received this letter several months ago, telling me I downloaded Mirror's Edge and that I should be ashamed of myself. I don't remember downloading Mirror's Edge, so I gave the letter to him, and he got fairly nervous. He hasn't downloaded anything since.

While he's still fine with software piracy, he realized that he can get caught, have his internet terminated, and possibly even slapped with a lawsuit. I think it finally hit home; people like him assume they'll never get caught. They hear stories of people getting caught, but they never assume it will be them.

So, these letters do work, and they're a great idea.

No more Tor

[BountyX]

Looks like I cannot operate my internet connection as a ToR exit node anymore in fear of my connection being terminated.

Did the Bush Administration Get a Court Order?

[BBCWatcher]

So AT&T now respects the need for court orders before they cut off service. Good to hear. It sure would have been nice if the company stood up for the rule of law when the Bush Administration decided it didn't need a court order to wiretap.

Re:Did the Bush Administration Get a Court Order?

[Dusty00]

While that would have been nice there may have been more coercion there that we heard about. Qwest was the one company that told the NSA to come back with a court order. Qwest the lost several government contracts and their CEO went to jail for insider trading. Maybe those events are unrelated, but considering how Bush ran the Justice Department I doubt it.

When will that happen?

[bigsexyjoe]

If you pay AT&T like $40-$120 a month, then they don't want to cut your service.

Re:Fro5t pist!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice job carving that pumpkin. Bet it made a delicious pie.

Uhm wait

[Anonymous Coward]

"We're just simply reminding people that they can't engage in illegal activity."

But that's wrong. That whole mindset is part of the problem. People CAN and WILL engage in illegal activity. We can only remind them of the consequences. Now if only society hadn't put all the eggs in the "deterrent" basket and focused more on a good system of appropriate consequences for actual wrong-doers, we wouldn't be assfucked. Alas.

Kudos to AT&T - Mediacom blows

[Anonymous Coward]

Mediacom just terminated my internet service. They sent me one warning in the mail.. after shutting my service down temporarily. They required me to sign this, stating I wouldn't download illegal material. After my service was restored a week later, everything was good until.. I downloaded Adobe Reader. Yes.. a free dl anywhere else! They terminated my service. I called.. they transferred me to Tier 2 and I was told that any bittorrent activity is now a TOS violation.

Whatever.. 3 days later, I'm on AT&T DSL now.. much faster and life is good again. I'm more than happy to give them my money every month, if Mediacom doesn't want it. I'm also cancelling Mediacom cable. If they don't want to be my service provider for the one, I won't let them for the other. My brother decided to cancel them too.. as he too received a first warning.

Why the hell would you want to be the one service provider enforcing this and pushing your customers to all the other service providers that don't? Just doesn't seem like very smart business to me!