Slashdot Mirror


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."

5 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: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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.