Comcast, Cox cooperating with RIAA in antipiracy campaign
Update: 11:37 a.m. PDT To include quotes from a Cox spokesman.
Update: 4:05 p.m. PDT To include Comcast's statement that the 2 million notices sent out was not part of any new policy.
The Internet service providers that have agreed to work with the recording industry to battle illegal file sharing are starting to come forward.
Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, the nation's second largest ISP, told a gathering of music industry executives that the company has issued 2 million notices on behalf of copyright owners, according to multiple people who were in attendance.
Comcast said Wednesday afternoon that the 2 million notices Waz referred to were part of the company's standard practice and not a new policy.
"Comcast, like other major ISPs, forwards notices of alleged infringement that we receive from music, movie, videogame, and other content owners to our customers," 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."
Comcast's Joe Waz, in a photo from March 2008.
(Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET)Waz made the comments Tuesday while part of a panel at the Leadership Music Digital Summit in Nashville. This was the same event where an AT&T executive told the gathering that the nation's largest ISP was cooperating with the Recording Industry Association of America by sending notices to customers accused of illegal filing sharing. The letters are part of a trial program, the executive told the audience.
In addition, sources confirmed that Cox Communications is also assisting the RIAA in the group's new campaign to use ISPs to help discourage consumers from pirating songs.
In December, the RIAA shocked music fans by announcing the termination of a years-long strategy of filing copyright lawsuits against individuals. Instead, the lobbying group for the major recording companies would seek the help of Internet providers. The RIAA said it had lined up a group of large ISPs to help, but declined to disclose which ones or how many.
To copyright owners, the shift in strategy is a victory. For a long time, people in the music and film industries have complained that broadband providers were profiting from piracy. Many in the entertainment industry have called on ISPs to lend a hand in plugging up the flow of illegal content.
To those who advocate for Internet users, however, any plan that threatens to shut off someone's Internet access without hard evidence is unfair. RIAA leaders have said that the group's graduated response program would include punitive action for repeat offenders, which could include suspension or even termination of service. RIAA managers say they support due process to protect people from being falsely accused. But what the due process looks like has yet to be determined.
Comcast was careful to state that it isn't considering terminating customers' service.
An AT&T spokeswoman said that the ISP has not threatened anyone with the disabling of service but acknowledged that warning letters sent to customers, the company says it reserves the right to terminate service.
She said the company sends a letter from the RIAA and adds its own cover letter. The company informs the customer that the problem could be that a teenager in the home has downloaded unauthorized material or that someone else is doing so via an unsecured Wi-Fi connection.
As far as Cox is concerned, the practices that the RIAA is asking ISPs to adopt have been standard since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed in 1998. The company acknowledges that it will, in the case of chronic offenders, shut off service. A Cox spokesman said this about the company's policy:
When we receive notifications from RIAA or other copyright holders stating that their copyrighted material is being infringed by a customer, we pass that information along to the customer so they can correct the problem, or dispute the notice directly with the copyright holder if they feel the notice was sent in error. This notification is the most helpful thing we can do for the customer and is expected of us, as an ISP, under the DMCA. We attach a copy of the notice from the copyright holder with our message to the customer.
The spokesman said that the company has issued "hundreds of thousands" of warnings to customers but has terminated service on less than one tenth of 1 percent.
There's data to support the claim that warning notices work. In the United Kingdom, research done by Wiggin and Entertainment Media Research found that seven out of 10 people surveyed said they would stop downloading unauthorized content if they received a notice from their ISP.
Note to readers: Have you received a warning letter from AT&T or another ISP? If so, e-mail me by clicking on the link in my bio below. Please include your contact information. I won't reveal your name in any story if that's what you prefer.
Research in the United Kingdom shows that 70 percent of those surveyed would stop pirating music if they received a notice from their ISP.
(Credit: Wiggin)
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
you must be a thief and a criminal.
Why don't you retards get it over with and move to China?
Tor FTW!
Then again, I wouldn't trust Comcast on any front... I would imagine they would do it because it's cheaper than actually upgrading their infrastructure to provide adequate bandwidth. Slay the hogs and the problem is solved!
Personally, if I got a letter like this..... IGNORED! One, they would have a hell of a time proving that it was actually ME that downloaded the copyrighted thing in question since I have a wireless network that, while passworded out the wazoo, is not foolproof.
As usual, there are two sides to an issue, but the issue of piracy and the RIAA seems to be clearcut black and white. There are not many people in the middle of the issue.
The RIAA has made a boatload of money over the years. The only thing that has changed is the format of the distributed music. First vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD and now DVD/HD-CD. They contend that you cannot transfer (legally) any of these formats. You are purchasing the hard product, not the rights record the music as you see fit to meet your needs. This is why many oppose the RIAA and prefer to pirate music instead of paying for it. A sense of justice. Yes, you still have those with no morals and do it because they are cheap. Quite frankly, I am tired of spending my money on the same songs because I want different formats.
RIAA - WAKE THE F UP!! Your run is over and if you want to survive, try a different business plan. Oh, by the way, we don't want you to tell us what we should listen to and buy anymore. We are smart consumers, which is why we download the music via other outlets.
I don't think they realize just how easy it is for somebody to bounce data off of a connection. Oh and let's not forget that there is no burden of proof anywhere before you start getting "warned" and penalized. All they have to do is say that they think they might have maybe seen something. I can't wait until they get hammered for trying to penalize somebody for downloading the latest WoW patch...
They honestly need a network engineer to sit in on these meetings and laugh in the face of the RIAA/MPAA. I wonder what part of the Comcast terms of use states that they reserve the right to do deep packet inspection to comply with these ridiculous requests.
And let's not even get started on the invasion of privacy by an ISP...
I'd love to see this entire process be completely transparent so the public can call the RIAA on it's bull.
If you "privacy proponents" make a habit of paying for content in the proper fashion, cease illegally sharing copyrighted content, the need for draconian measures ceases.
Mark my words: any ISP that markets itself as not working with the RIAA (by offering customers "privacy") will make a metric ton of money.
After all with copyright infringement being one of the most important issues we face as a country today what's the difference if a few more rights and freedoms that are really just "licenses to steal", are taken away to ensure that this very dangerous activity ceases.
Pot, kettle, black. I don't buy CDs or DVS, but I do buy individual MP3s and albums from *independent* artists who are not RIAA members. I don't download music, either; there's nothing being published by the RIAA members that's worth listening to. Not only is it not worth buying, it's not worth stealing, and if you gave it to me, I'd trash it.
Unfortunately, when businesses like to charge way to much for craptacular content, whether it be music, games, movies, etc........ they are killing themselves.
The selfish greed of the thieves means everyone is less well off.
Oh really? No right to privacy huh? So your RIAA data is more important than my data? So then please give us your email account info, passwords, bank account login ID's, etc. if there is no right to privacy.
I personally find it easier to go to blockbuster and rip rental DVD's to H264 (which I do every time I rent - after all, what happens if my 20 month old son damages the rental copy?). Just take that a few steps further. Is $0.99-3.99 worth it for a movie .vs download something from somewhere that you "might" get all of? Do you really need to watch some POS hand held in-theater (you are paying $60+ a month for broadband, I think you can afford to go to a movie) movie?
it doesn't matter if piracy is wrong or that it's illegal. it's effortless, widespread, and it's unstoppable. resources spent fighting piracy are wasted. you might as well try to stop the sun from rising tomorrow morning, the odds of pulling that off are about the same as stopping piracy.
so they will sniff traffic and bust a handful of people. then the torrent community will go to encrypted connections and it's back to the drawing board. what then? make encrypted connections illegal and destroy e-commerce? better make VPN illegal as well.
it's impossible to push piracy off of the internet, and even if you could, it would just mean a change in tactics (hard drive parties, wireless mesh, you name it) and the files keep getting shared. in fact, it would probably increase at that point since bandwidth wouldn't be a limiting factor.
if you think it's hard to police file sharing now imagine having to police the sneakernet when people are swapping terabyte hard drives.
"here steve, have a copy of my entire DVD collection."
"thanks bob, here's a copy of mine... and a copy of bill's."
Draconian measures don't stop the behavior, sure they might force some people to change their behavior but in the end they are just going to alienate more of their customer base, and in some cases just gives another excuse for some people out of principle or protest to enter into the very behaviors the measures are trying to stop.
You are a moron. It is more than possible to make a bit for bit copy of a DVD or CD that doesn't circumvent any copy protection.
Doing that to make backups is a legal right. The DMCA is unconstitutional any way. Stupid RIAA shills.
I can see the ISPs changing their tune when the EFF and ACLU get hold of a few juicy screwups to take to court.
Yes, they are criminals. They rob consumers as well as artists and they act exactly like the mafia does.
Hey, MPAA - I'm playing a scene from a movie in my head!
And I'm not gonna stop!
Hopefully anyone falsely accused and disconnected will go after the RIAA for their mistake.
So it won't be people going after the RIAA. It will be people going after the ISP's. And they will pay for it.
My thinking on this is twofold:
a) like the lawsuit strategy, the RIAA knows this can't possibly work permanently. It's a temporary bandaid to buy time. That's their goal. Meanwhile, they will use the time they're buying to come up with a strategy to replace this one once it fails.
b) as soon as somebody sues an ISP and the case makes its way through the court system, the entire house of cards crumbles just as it did with the lawsuit strategy. Because somebody is going to beat an ISP, and the legal tide will then be turned against them. With the safe harbor provision no longer protecting them, they will be in for a flood of lawsuits.
Everybody on that side must know this - I don't believe they are that stupid. They all have lawyers who know the DMCA as well as I do (or should, I guess you never know). All I can think is that the RIAA is paying the ISP's more than the ISP's have calculated they will lose in the oncoming lawsuits. And that all parties concerned realize this is at most a five year program, after which the legal morass will make it impossible to continue.
The ISP's are still going to be the big losers here, though, because losing that safe harbor status is like popping a cherry - you don't get it back. They have opened themselves up to liability forever.
A little too late I think. Besides, the services that ignore the RIAA (and without bandwidth caps) will get some subscription boost.
@contentcreator--2008:
you're either a very very bored troll or a paid employee of an illegal cartel. either way, you have no legal power to do anything.
> Comcast, the nation's second largest ISP, told a gathering of music industry executives that
> the company has issued 2 million notices on behalf of copyright owners
Okay Comcast, the bluff is called. Let's see you disconnect those 2 million accounts. If you do, let's see what happens, shall we?
People need to ditch Comcast. Why pay for a shared connection?
If the latter is the case, then torrents need to be outlawed, because a blatant blocking of one protocol is wrong. If they're going to do it, then they need a legal precedent for it.
If the former is the case then we have a SERIOUS violation of customer privacy. I do not want every single one of my packets inspected just so the ISP can find illegal sharing. This is equal to the police listening to every single phone call that is placed in the US just so they can be on the lookout for criminal activity. The potential privacy violations here are horrendous at best and criminal at worst.
The methods that the ISPs use to determine who they send takedown notices to MUST be made public and held up to scrutiny.
We have had enough enduring of bullying by the MAFIAA and other like-minded corporations.
Out with them!
This is a point that people must understand:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE MARKET WHEN IT COMES TO ISPs.
I don't get to choose, I don't get to vote with my feet, I don't get to vote with my wallet. I have the ISP that is here or I have no internet access at all.
I live in an area with lots of choices and there are barely 200k people here. About 10 DSL companies, most local, satellite, lots of dial up, and of course Comcast, the worst choice except for dialup.
If you have the means, a dedicated 1 (or even 10) Gbps connection to Internet 2 is possible, although I doubt any private residence does that!
your PC they wont find MP3s on it nor tracess of one onwyour PC hard drive if u use a NAS. Whenever u want to play your music use file sharing to stream it from your NAS.
Going thru alot of trouble to hide a NAS box full of MP3 might only show an active attempt at subversion. They can argue that you obviously know what you were doing was wrong if you go to that much trouble to hide a NAS box full of MP3's in the attic.
- by LoboStrolls March 25, 2009 3:01 PM PDT
- They were fighting P2P even though we were downloading legal linux distributions. Internet broadcasters are fighting to stay online. We are sliding down down the technology scale in relation to other countries. Anyone else feel like we are going the wrong way?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by tetsuyo March 25, 2009 4:40 PM PDT
- Does any of this really matter? People will continue to trade media files online no matter what. Certain laws are made to be broken if they are made by lawmakers who dont understand technology or the culture of it. Just like with the alcohol prohibition there comes a point where it is just not worth it and the law gives in to the popular culture. What i am saying is that the general public need not be afraid of threats like this because the popular culture is on their side. Entertainment industries need to adapt to the desires and needs of the public not the other way around and what we have seen with internet file sharing is that it is driving the technology and culture of the internet. So as the internet gets more and more ubiquitous in peoples lives, so will the sophistication of file sharing. The music industry will have to offer a different model to adapt. If there is a "sneakernet" in the future it will be the next big thing that kids want to be a part of and the RIAA with its draconian methods will have created it.
- Like this
-
- by Farthing Haypenny March 26, 2009 11:31 AM PDT
- I agree completely, we have monopoly service providers and that is a large part of our problem. Crappy service, low levels of innovation and high prices are inevitable.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (65 Comments)