AT&T Has Begun Issuing RIAA Takedown Notices 383
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNet:
"AT&T, one of the nation's largest Internet service providers, confirmed on Tuesday the company is working with the recording industry to combat illegal file sharing. At a digital music conference in Nashville, Jim Cicconi, a senior executive for AT&T told the audience that the ISP has begun issuing takedown notices to people accused of pirating music by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to one music industry insider who was present. In December, the RIAA, the lobbying group of the four largest recording companies, announced the group would no longer pursue an antipiracy strategy that focused on suing individuals, but rather would seek the help of broadband providers to stem the flow of pirated content. The RIAA said an undisclosed number of ISPs had agreed to cooperate but declined to name them. This is important because the RIAA has said that repeat offenders faced the possibility of losing service — at least temporarily — as part of the music industry's 'graduated response' plan."
Re:At least this is better than the legal system (Score:5, Informative)
There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)
In New York State that would be a felony:
250.05 Eavesdropping.
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.
Common sense is what we preach
It's not common sense. RIAA can get my internet access revoked on their word alone with zero proof to back up the claim? How the hell is that common sense?
Re:At least this is better than the legal system (Score:4, Informative)
There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)
I don't believe they are snooping data. In fact they don't have to in order to detect pirated media. The nature of p2p is such that the files need to be advertised!
To use typical nomenclature, evesdropping is when:
1) Alice calls Bob (or makes a connection to Bob's server)
2) Bob answers the phone and discloses the secret meet up location (or sends it digitally over the wire)
3) Eve intercepts the information and shows up.
What's happening in this case is:
1) Bob tells the entire world that he's got the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and is going to let anyone download it.
2) Alice connects and downloads the pirated movie.
3) "Eve" connects and downloads the movie.
4) "Eve" issues a takedown notice.
Of course they might be doing waveform analysis or whatever it is they do on the wire, but I don't believe they are there yet. Illegal warrantless wiretapping is much more serious issue than just connecting to someone's p2p, which is why it's important that we don't get these confused.
Re:Fine (Score:3, Informative)
1. Who pays your ISP for service, you or the RIAA? Is the RIAA a law enforcement agency? Who is the burden of proof on? Is there a reasonable and established standard of evidence? Is there any real way to dispute a false allegation? What happens when someones life is ruined because of this (can't work from home any longer, can't order goods online, can't communicate with friends)?
2. The RIAA has stopped suing individuals because they realize that's too many people to scare. Now they're waving a big legal stick at the ISPs and the ISPs are caving in based on nothing but a threat. Fantastic. Maybe I'm wrong, but have there been many/any cases where the courts have actually ruled against an ISP for an end-user P2P'ing? Have damages been established for such a case which could threaten the business of the ISP? Have the ISPs appealed the ruling?
3. ISPs are not throttling your traffic due to their concern for copyright issues, they're throttling your traffic because they haven't invested sufficiently in infrastructure suitable to meet the usage demands of some of their customers and/or have sold misleading "unlimited" plans that in reality they can't/won't stand behind.
How can you accept this? (Apart from "because I have to")
Re:At least this is better than the legal system (Score:3, Informative)
>>>This, correct me if I'm wrong, is completely legal
No it isn't. It violates the Constitutional right to a trial by your peers. It presumes guilt before innocence, and is therefore contrary to existing law. AT&T / RIAA should be required to maintain internet connectivity until *after* they have proved their case in court, and then and only then should ISP access be canceled.
Re:At least this is better than the legal system (Score:3, Informative)
I know, it's alerady been talked about. But it bears repeating ad nauseam. Let's follow this line of thought, shall we? In my particular area, it's Comcast, ATT, or ISPs that lease their lines from ATT. Since Comcast is also in on the deal, I have no options that do not involve a deal with the RIAA. And why is that? Because almost all municipalities granted a local monopoly to a DSL and cable company, in exchange for the companies bearing some of the cost of the installation.
Let me make that crystal clear to you: there is no free market in ISPs. There are natural and government granted monopolies (if we're lucky, oligopolies). The only way we can control what happens to us (beyond just bending over) is by regulating those monopolies and oligopolies.