Comments on: AT&T first to test RIAA antipiracy plan

CNET News has learned that the ISP is sending letters to accused file sharers, but the company says it is not threatening to cut off service.

[umbrae]

Glad I don't use AT&T nor Comcast.

[George Riddick]

Hello Greg,

It will, indeed, be interesting to see how all of this plays out, here in "RIAA : Round Three". We here at Imageline have only worked through "middlemen" to try and cease large scale infringement activity over the past 10-12 years. We have never filed a complaint aganst an actual "end user," as we have found that most of them have been conned. We have only had mixed success, however, at best.

I do find it to be curious that the Google's, Microsoft's, Baidu's, Rediff's, and Yahoo's of this world are never mentioned in these new RIAA Internet Service Provider (ISP) plans. Could it be that they only claim to be "ISPs" when they, themsleves, are commiting copyright infringement and benefiting even more that the smaller "middlemen", or certainly the unknowing "end users"?

One of these days, copyright owners, civil courts, and the justice deartment, will learn to do this right. It's called "follow the flow of money". That is the way we solve organized crime cases, the fight against terrorism, and all other kinds of harmful, large scale, illegalities we see as flagrant these days.

Don't the creative communites and legitimate copyight owners in this country deserve the same kinds of protection? Let's see if the new PRO-IP Act might help.

George Riddick
Imageline, Inc.

[Noneyabeeswax]

I see law suits on the horizon, because temporarily suspending an account is a punitive action and done when AT&T decides someone is guilty. And they're deciding all on their own that someone is guilty of a crime. They're committing vigilantism, and taking the decision of guilt and punishment away from the justice system and into their own hands. They'll be playing cop, judge and jury.

As far as I'm concerned I pay them for the use of an internet service. And it stops right there. It's none of their business if I watch porn or look up recipes. They are there to provide a service. They can't tell me who to talk to in my phone line. What makes them think they have a right to tell me what to do with my bandwidth? The bandwidth I've paid for.

I don't use P2P much except to share big photo files and such with my friends, that my email or IM won't handle.

But if these ISPs get away with this, what or who is next? Websites of unpopular political activists, and etc? People who say things against the ISPs, or protest whatever?

This would certainly set a dangerous precedent, allowing an ISP service to dictate what can and can't be done over the internet. And yeah, you may mot like P2P or you may not use it, but there are other sites that you do like, and if P2P falls, guess who's next?

They never stop once they get their foot in the door, if they think they can control something. Next they'll decide what sites are good for you to see and which aren't. And hello 1984!

So yeah, keep quiet about this, don't get involved, and when you're weeping and wailing because you get a letter saying they're gonna cut off your service because you went to so and so site, I'll be LMAO off.

[screamapillar]

I couldn't agree more Noneyabeeswax. It is a scarey situation when we have advocated invasion of privacy as if it is not an infringement to stop another supposed and not proven (and entirely debatable even if it is proven) infringement.

Orwell and Huxley would not be impressed, they'd be terriffied of the accuracy of their visions.

[Dalkorian]

by Noneyabeeswax March 25, 2009 1:07 PM PDT
I see law suits on the horizon, because temporarily suspending an account is a punitive action and done when AT&T decides someone is guilty. And they're deciding all on their own that someone is guilty of a crime.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction: AT&T isn't accusing anyone of anything. They're just forwarding the complaint to you. It's the RIAA who has deemed you guilty, it's the RIAA who's become cop, judge, jury and executioner. And you should be imprisoned for questioning the power of the RIAA! Extend your hand and arm smartly when you salute your RIAA masters, lest you be deemed even more guilty!

[DontSupportSpies]

Boycott AT&T.

[tekwiz4u]

Look people....AT&T will be MONITORING your traffic. It's like peeking into your bedroom/bathroom, knowing where you shop, and knowing what time you leave and return from the house. Its no different then the FBI tailing/documenting your every move. Its not a situation where they clock out and leave you alone. It's 24/7 MONITORING. You might as well give them keys to your house. And all this will be reported back....i.e. RIAA.

It's not when you do something wrong once, because all of us as humans make mistakes. And even if they send a letter letting you know you did wrong, and stopped doing that one thing, they will STILL MONITOR you. Your kids or family, thru AT&T and RIAA, will be viewed as violaters of the law if they innocently think its 'cool' to download a song.

It's just wrong.

[Dalkorian]

AT&T has been monitoring your traffic for years now, ever heard of "illegal wiretaps"? What's appalling is the fact that now the RIAA is monitoring it too. Next will be the MPAA and who knows after that. M$ (oops, they're already watching what you do)? EA?

Never mind the fact that it's supposed to be illegal for private corporations to spy on people for racketeering purposes and consider what our country will degrade to when "guilty until proven innocent" is replaced with "guilty because a company says so".

[screamapillar]

It is a frightening situation. But I think it is worse that the FBI tailing/documenting your every move. At least the FBI is a publically sanctioned body with a set of legislated regulations as to their behaviour towards you and what is/isn't admissible in a prosecution case against you. This is some company going, oh and that dude there is guilty. Guilty of what? Err... does it matter? Not really.

And I agree with both posts here, it is their capacity to monitor you in the first place to gain the ability to make the accusation that is the problem here. And then the accusation itself becomes an indictment against you because even if it isn't proven or even followed up; it will count as a 'strike' against you. Note that AT&T mentioned 'repeat offenders' - what is the definition of an offender? I dare say, someone accused (regardless of if they were charged, followed up or otherwise). There is no place in a democratic society for a corporation with clearly something to gain out of your prosecution (even if you are innocent) to be able to make these decisions.

AT&T should not be cooperating with them unless ordered to by a court. And I mean, zerio cooperation. This is personal freedoms being violated 'just in case'. If this was ANY other form of criminal activity it would require a court order first. The fact that piracy isn't even a crime makes this level of monitoring and, as Dalkorian rightly pointed out, sactioned racketeering, even more inappropriate. Piracy is NOT theft according to the law. It is a mere infringement people. Equal to parking a car with your tyre over the line. It is not a crime. I can't monitor everywhere you drive you car with the justification it is just in case you take up two spots when you park. So there is no justification for this.

[clynx]

This is censorship, period. A new type of monopoly industry.

[Dalkorian]

No, it's racketeering. Pay us protection money, or else.

[screamapillar]

Just a note of commentary as one no longer in the US: One would hope in a nation that prides freedom of the people, that the violation of privacy to find even those 'suspected' of piracy (let alone proving it after) would be a greater infringement than the initial deed the person is accused of. They (the ISP/company) would have to do this on mass to all clients as if assuming all guilty without access to due process, as if all are already accused and charged and this was merely them gathering evidence after the fact. That is some god awful EULA. I hope you are all wise and find another provider that doesn't pride itself on invading your privacy for the sake of corporate greed.

[zero1221]

Wow this sounds like a bad idea if I'm using a lot of my sweet bandwidth it just means I'm playing a lot online games not that I'm sharing the new blockbuster in theaters on a torrent.

[Dalkorian]

Prove it. "They" say you are a disgusting scumbag pirate thief and they have "proof". Never mind the fact that they had to break the law in order to acquire said "proof" and ignore the fact that their "proof" proves nothing. They accuse you, so you are guilty. Pay them protection money or deal with their league of attorneys while you're cut off from the internet. You're lucky that's all they'll do, in the old days pirates were executed by a short drop with a sudden stop! Would you prefer that?

[boredoutofmymind]

This may have been asked and answered or I may be incredibly ignorant, but how much bandwidth do I use watching an episode of 30 Rock on Hulu vs downloading a leaked album?

It seems to me the whole point of high speed bandwidth is to be able to use services that need that bandwidth. For one organization to assume that people only use the Internet to "illegally" obtain their material is the height of egotism. And any ISP that goes along with it clearly do not want to be offering their customers high speed internet to begin with.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

This comes down to one thing: download limits. I already was accused of downloading 100 GB and was shut-down. It'll keep happening.

Also, the media companies don't care if you can or can't download the product. As long as your credit card transaction went through.

[tech_junky48]

I have the right to face my accusers. If I'm accused of pirating music, I have the right to face the singer in a court of law with an impartial jury of my peers, silently, if I choose. If they attempt to waive any of my rights, I will sue them. In the mean time, I will stop giving AT&T my money and start giving it to someone who doesn't care what I do with my bandwidth.

[Stargatesgun]

This is just to tell all those whiners, crying because we're sharing their music, that instead of focusing on how much money they could have made, they should focus on being more creative..
In a not so far away past, it was VERY ok to copy audio and video tapes. The medium changed, so now it's a problem? Older bands didn't care if their tapes were copied because they knew how to make quality music.
I'm all for trying before you buy. This is what people do, they try and most of them buy if they like.
In Europe they fixed that problem a long time ago by adding a "copyright tax" to all CDs, DVDs, blank or not. That tax goes directly to the artists and majors (let's not forget the majors are the one complaining about downloading, not the artists, since they only get like 5% of the money.
Selling an album for $20, with maybe 2 songs that are worth it, THAT'S STEALING!!!

[maelick]

for the land of the free.....

copyright infringement is not stealing....despite what re-writing the constitution makes the constitution say. Its been said before, lets say it again. Look the words up.