Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the somewhat-less-lame dept.

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."

39 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Good for AT&T! by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Good for AT&T! by specific · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
    2. Re:Good for AT&T! by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    3. Re:Good for AT&T! by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Good for AT&T! by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Good for AT&T! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    6. Re:Good for AT&T! by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Good for AT&T! by nine-times · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Good for AT&T! by mustafap · · Score: 2, Funny

      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)

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    9. Re:Good for AT&T! by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Good for AT&T! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Good for AT&T! by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Good for AT&T! by mal3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Non gratis rodentus anus
    13. Re:Good for AT&T! by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2, Informative

      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....

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    14. Re:Good for AT&T! by ChiRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    15. Re:Good for AT&T! by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    16. Re:Good for AT&T! by shark72 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "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.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    17. Re:Good for AT&T! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is the *only* sensible course of action.

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

    18. Re:Good for AT&T! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...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?

    19. Re:Good for AT&T! by jc42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. Cover your arse. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Cover your arse. by DamienNightbane · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Cover your arse. by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

  3. A company with Balls....for once by Ozlanthos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  4. Correlation, please? by c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
    1. Re:Correlation, please? by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Correlation, please? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

  5. So rare by iYk6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:So rare by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:So rare by iYk6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So rare by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:So rare by PMBjornerud · · Score: 3, Informative

      (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!

      --
      I lost my sig.
  6. Comcast is happy to shut off your service by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
    1. Re:Comcast is happy to shut off your service by deraj123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  7. how do they know? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  8. Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  9. They Aren't Seeing Repeat Offenders by TechWrite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. An MPAA warning worked for me by Fookin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 ...

  11. Re:ATT FiOS came knocking last week by adolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

    --
    Kid-proof tablet..