×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AT&T Has Begun Issuing RIAA Takedown Notices

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the reach-out-and-touch-someone dept.

The Internet 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

383 comments

At least this is better than the legal system (4, Insightful)

KyleTheDarkOne (1034046) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328219)

This, correct me if I'm wrong, is completely legal; so I would rather them pursue this vein of inquiry than through legal action.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1, Insightful)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328261)

Exactly. There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc) but considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.

"Hey, what you're doing is violating copyright and can bring a hefty fine! So why don't you stop it?"

Common sense is what we preach, but I have a feeling this won't be good enough for most here on /.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (5, Interesting)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328451)

considering what we've seen the RIAA due (sue people for ridiculous sums of money) this seems sensible.

The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.

So we start with ISPs monitoring your traffic and keeping a record of every mp3 you download. Then after takedown notices are no longer effective (or the RIAA takes the next step of their plan) you start getting a bill in the mail every month for each song you downloaded. Then you start getting targetted advertising as a third-party steps in and makes a deal with the ISP. So now they're going to try and sell you rock because the vast majority of music you download is rock. Pretty soon there's no longer any such thing as privacy between you and your ISP and the world can take a peek at your activity for a few pennies.

But each step seemed less harsh than the previous one, so it's okay.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1, Insightful)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328513)

That's a slippery slope. And it's a fallacy.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (5, Insightful)

fredklein (532096) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328801)

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done -- an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy."

In other words, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy if you assume (with no further evidence) that 'A' must inevitably lead to 'Z'. If you have evidence that supports each step of the way, it isn't a logical fallacy.

Besides, most people using the Slippery Slope argument are using a 'worst case' scenario to show what MIGHT happen, not what necessarily WILL happen. It makes sense to avoid scenarios where bad things can happen. (ie: wear your seatbelt, or if you get in an accident, you could get thrown out of the car and die. Using that argument doesn't mean you WILL get in an accident, or that you WILL die if you get in one, but rather that it is a possibility, and because of the severity of the results, it is good to avoid scenarios with such possibilities.)

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (5, Insightful)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329161)

I think when he says slippery slope he is not arguing the guarantee of abuse but the ramifications of the action on future actions. The ISP is acting as a legal body by serving its customers legal documents. Thusly breaking the Client-Service boundary. This can be likened to a person that felt harassed by you requesting that your telephone provider disconnect you because you "harassed" them over the phone. I for one dislike the corporate big brother that this alliance suggests.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328829)

yes it is. no it isn't.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (4, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328553)

The bully keeps hitting you in the face and you complain. When the bully starts to slap you, it doesn't hurt so much, so you're willing to take it. Problem is, both are wrong, and you shouldn't be allowing either in the first place.

The bully just so happens to play the flute, and makes a little money by selling recordings of him playing. He's punching you in the face because you might have bought a recording, might not, but you're giving it out copies of it for free.

We can all make dumb analogies. I'm just surprised you didn't include a car in there.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328643)

So, it's like a vehicle running you over, but instead of a truck, it is now a 3-wheeler... plastic car.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (5, Funny)

Antidamage (1506489) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328681)

Well, that seems OK. Everyone line up for their 3-wheeled plastic car accident. The RIAA does it because deep down, it loves you.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328715)

But even if you're not giving out copies of it for free, but the bully thinks you are (even without evidence), it's still OK? No, it's not.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (4, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328803)

Maybe it's time to move off these carriers completely and use a communications infrastructure that can't be metered or switched off at a central point because it's technologically impossible to do so?

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27329029)

Maybe it's time to move off these carriers completely and use a communications infrastructure that can't be metered or switched off at a central point because it's technologically impossible to do so?

Or you could pay for your music.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328781)

it seems they are trying this [wikipedia.org]

The door in the face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that the respondent will obviously turn down. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second, more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first, extreme request.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (4, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328457)

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 (4, Insightful)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328821)

It is common sense because the company providing you with internet access is free to terminate that access for any reason at all, or no reason. If they believe it benefits them to arrange some kind of 'graduated response' against copyright violation then they are free to do so.

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328949)

It is common sense because the company providing you with internet access is free to terminate that access for any reason at all, or no reason

That's what you get for living in the "free West". In Soviet Russia, you terminate your own services.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328957)

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

Except that it is not always feasible to do that. That is why, in the past at least, monopolies were limited in the actions that they could take,.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329151)

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

You sound pretty sure of yourself...

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329175)

Just like you are free to buy internet access from someone who hasn't made a similar arrangement.

For better or worse internet access is usually provided by someone with a governmentally granted monopoly. In exchange for that monopoly it is usually accepted that we can regulate how they can behave. I would agree with your underlying notion if we had anything remotely approaching a free market for internet service but we alas we don't.

So we can either change that and end the granted monopolies (my preference) or we can regulate what the ISPs are allowed to do. In the latter scenario I don't happen to think they should be allowed to terminate customers based solely on the word of an outside party.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (2, Insightful)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329171)

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.

This is assuming that the information that lead to the take down requests came from the interception of traffic between end-points. If the RIAA enforcers are keeping track of which end-point has willfully advertised content as available, and then provided that content upon request, it absolutely can not be argued that the cited laws apply.

We are making a rather large assumption here, that the ISP's are actively monitoring streams of data looking for copyrighted material despite the many legal proscriptions (it's not like we're looking for "terrorists", after all) and the formidable expense of such an operation. Someone show me that the ISP's are acting in such a fashion or STFU, already.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329207)

This is assuming that the information that lead to the take down requests came from the interception of traffic between end-points

You didn't bother to read the text I quoted did you? I was quoting that law in response to someone saying "There may be concerns of privacy (ISP snooping your data, etc)"

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (3, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328735)

The rest of the world seems to realize that baseless accusations that could end in something being done without anything being done in court, is kind of the problem.

This is RIAA skipping around the legal system because they can't afford to prove what they're accusing.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (3, Informative)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329079)

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:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328439)

Haha, so avoiding the 'legal' system and taking a curve around it, makes it more 'legal'?
If they use the same arguably 'illegal' methods on determining their victims, this is probably even more 'illegal' than before.
This just removes any 'legal' supervision and keeps all the 'illegal' parts (from what we know).

Underage Fag Murders Radio Newsman George Weber (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328641)

It's amazing how many tragedies can be averted by not trolling for underage buttsex.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328709)

It may be noncriminal but whether it is legally remediable is another issue. The Constitution guarantees us certain rights against being deprived of any "property interest". Lawyers, lick your chops. Whether cutting off someone's internet (akin to cutting off his electricity) based on mere allegations by (or questionable Media Sentry evidence from) RIAA is deprivation of a "property interest" without compensation, due process or equal protection, or will give rise to damages will be a ripe, litigable issue.

At base and in the simplest terms, you just can't screw people without legally sufficient justification. This will include elements of equal protection and due process every time, whether state action is involved or not. In a case of sufficient gravity (internet loss more widespread than the lawsuits ever were), Charlie Nesson is going to have another great project for his Harvard law students.

Re:At least this is better than the legal system (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328915)

This, correct me if I'm wrong, is completely legal; so I would rather them pursue this vein of inquiry than through legal action.

Well, sure. The RIAA abuses the courts, fabricates data, intimidates victims and shakes them down for settlement money. Recently the justice system has been fighting back, demanding proper behavior from those pitbulls.

They found a way to punish people on suspicion of wrongdoing and avoid embarrassing court documents and judgments from leaking to the public and circumventing niggling little problems like "preponderance of evidence" (civil) and "reasonable doubt" (criminal).

Defense? (4, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328235)

Is there anyway to defend yourself from these claims? Is there no burden of proof on the RIAA's side? Will AT&T simply punish those accused?

In short, screenshot or it didn't happen.

Re:Defense? (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328305)

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.

Re:Defense? (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328695)

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.

Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.

or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.

Re:Defense? (2, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328795)

or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.

You could, but if your options are like mine you have: Verizon DSL (crap-tastically slow)
Satellite (worse then DSL)
Comcast
AT&T (i don't know what they offer but I am sure they ahve something) And I live in downtown philadelphia. I need speed I can't go below Comcast. Once I get fios (maybe 2 years it will be available) then I will be switching. But still, I am sure verizon will help the riaa too.

Re:Defense? (4, Insightful)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328907)

It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.

This is probably not true since internet access has become akin to a public utility on which people's livelihoods depend. Is it OK to put Ted Telecommuter out of work because Ted Jr. can't be disciplined out of unauthorized downloading?

Re:Defense? (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329045)

So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent

And how exactly do you do that for "file-sharing"? While I can argue the point that file-sharing in itself is not illegal, the RIAA has previously sought legal action for this and has found themselves losing ground in a court of law. They are in effect seeking non-legal proceedings for what they have addressed as a legal issue.

And AT&T won't check their logs to make sure you haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure the burden of innocence will be put on the customer.

Re:Defense? (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328383)

Screenshot? Trivial to fake.

Hmm. That gives me an idea. Who provides the RIAA with internet service, again?

Re:Defense? (1)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328873)

Is there anyway to defend yourself from these claims? Is there no burden of proof on the RIAA's side? Will AT&T simply punish those accused?

All of your questions have answers, which respectively, are: Yes, but it will involve an expensive lawsuit; No, not at first until enough people complain or someone sues; Yes, until enough outcry forces something like a due process standard. See the insightful post by bug (#27328451) above.

Just another way for ISPs to make money... (2, Insightful)

RagingFuryBlack (956453) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328251)

I still find it amazing that ISPs go along with thi....wait...we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic. I guess we can assume that if you're shut off for 3 months for downloading music, there will be a fee greater than the bill for 3 months of service you missed to reinstate your account.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (4, Funny)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328341)

we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here

No we are talking about AT&T. You didn't even have to RTFA to see that. Look at the title, or hell the first word in the snippit

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (1, Interesting)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328371)

Forgot to mention Comcast is one of the companies participating. It's in the article. They have been doing this for years (I get letters every 3-6 months)

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328429)

What do you do when you get a letter? Do you reply at all or just ignore it?

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (2, Interesting)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328835)

I called my friends, laughed and ignored it. But they were spot on their accusation. They had the IP, the time, the name of the file, the contents of the file. It was detailed. Unfortunately I do not have it anymore or I would scan it and post it for you guys to see.

If you are actually doing the stuff just stop for a while you will be fine.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27329201)

Or find a network of committed music sharers who have large external drives and become friends with them :) The RIAA can't do anything about that until they install rootkits on everyone's computers.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (1)

RagingFuryBlack (956453) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328387)

AT&T is in TFA, however, Verizon and Comcast are both participating companies in the scheme of things.

This is why we need pay-per-byte (3, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328403)

I still find it amazing that ISPs go along with thi....wait...we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic. I guess we can assume that if you're shut off for 3 months for downloading music, there will be a fee greater than the bill for 3 months of service you missed to reinstate your account.

It took me a while to figure out what was in it for them as well. After all, this is a lot of work just to piss off your customers. But you hit it with the comparison to P2P throttling - what they want to do is get rid of their most unprofitable customers - those using the most bandwidth. One subset of people using lots of bandwidth includes people downloading music illegally. As it happens, that's a group easy to go after - but they certainly won't stop there.

If you want to see this go away, we need to push for the demise of flat-rate pricing. If the carriers were *more* money by the people using more bandwidth (for whatever reason), they'd be telling the RIAA to go pound sand.

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328471)

we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here. Same people who used to throttle legitimate P2P traffic

When has Verizon throttled any traffic?

Re:Just another way for ISPs to make money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27329017)

Its just another attempt for ISPs to move towards charging for content delivered vs. the just the loop. You'll pay a royalty fee to bypass this nonsense.

In this economy, people will leave participating ISPs in droves to go with providers who will not subject their customers to the royalty fees. The big guys will shoot themselves in the foot and unintentionally create a new market they cant compete with.

AT&T & Verizon are crazy if they think this will work. They think with FiOS and iPhones they have the market by the tail. Little do they realize...

Fine (2, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328255)

As long as They don't screw with my traffic, I can accept this.

Re:Fine (4, Insightful)

theaceoffire (1053556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328463)

As long as They don't screw with my traffic, I can accept this.

As long as you can accept this, they will screw with your traffic.

Re:Fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328563)

How do you think theyll scan the packages for illegal content without screwing ur traphic? raising your bandwith? AHHAHA this was a good one.

Re:Fine (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328565)

As long as They don't screw with my traffic, I can accept this.

I would consider disconnection with no burden of proof "screwing with my traffic" but I am funny that way.

Re:Fine (2, Informative)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329085)

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")

Kicked off Internet by fiat (5, Insightful)

Porchroof (726270) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328289)

Note that the accused is just that: the accused. Being accused of piracy is enough to get you kicked off the Internet. No trial. No jury. No judge. To AT&T and others, to be accused is to be guilty. God help us all.

Will it matter? (5, Interesting)

Jerrei (1515395) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328331)

Will it ever get to the point where they're truly hurting the "pirating" community? And when they do, will they respond to what will undoubtedly be a negative impact on music sales? Yeah it sucks to have your internet shut down or having to switch providers, but will it really matter in the long run?

Re:Will it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328931)

It'll matter to the RIAA as record sales drop even farther as online music sales plummet because, no doubt, innocent people will end up being targeted for downloading stuff they legally own, leading to urban legend stories about being sued for just downloading iTunes songs.

To the point that people just refuse to by any music anymore and turn the radio back on... which of course will soon be stripped of it's ability to play music because that's being targeted too by record companies wanting all kinds of money from radio stations that promote their music for free.

Guilty until proven innocent (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328333)

And no recourse.

And I, for one, welcome our new telecommunications overlords. I'd like to remind them that, as a long-time member of /., I can be valuable in helping them round up violators to slave in their fiber-optic tunnels.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328625)

And no recourse.

Well... A libel suit against the RIAA for telling your ISP that you are a pirate. Expensive unless someone makes it a business model.

Great, we need better anonmity anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328353)

the more they oppress, the greater the resistance, afaic

sharing is good

Solution (5, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328355)

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.
- Step two: Tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.
- Step three: Rename the recordings. Britney Spears - Toxic, Metallica - Until it Sleeps, etc. The more popular and highly prosecuted the better.
- Step four: Copy files to a VM and install every virus-encrusted file sharing program you have on there. TRY to get caught.
- Step five: Await lawsuit. Counterclaim for piracy.
- Step six: Repeat three times. Three strikes, RIAA's out! ... wait. I forgot that laws only really apply to people, not massive media conglomerates. Oh well, time to come up with another cunning plan...

Re:Solution (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328559)

tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.

...

Britney Spears - Toxic.

aha that explains it!

Re:Solution (1)

agentc0re (1406685) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328567)

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.

Not to rain on your parade but they'd probably have an OC-12 line or greater :P :D

Did you pay ... (1)

DodgeRules (854165) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328903)

... the fees for recording whatever song you just performed? If not, make sure you sing a song that is in the public domain, otherwise you can be sued even though it is only your voice.

Re:Did you pay ... (1)

eht (8912) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328941)

He never indicated to sing copyrighted songs. Make up your own tuneless song, which you automatically get copyright over when you record it.

Them downloading your "Britney Spears" song is piracy since you as copyright holder did not give them permission to do so.

Re:Did you pay ... (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329047)

"Them downloading your "Britney Spears" song is piracy since you as copyright holder did not give them permission to do so."

Unfortunately, they don't bother to download the song at all, they just take a screenshot of the filename and your IP and contact your ISP.

Re:Solution (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328943)

I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself. I don't think a Judge in the world, regardless of whether they are in someones pocket or not, would agree with your stance that there is piracy, or copyright infringement occuring when the copyright holder themselves are wilfully doing the distribution.

The issue the RIAA have is you are distributing their content to other people, when you do not have a distribution license to do so.

I know I'm going to get murdered on here for sticking up for the RIAA, but the vast majority of comments professing ways to catch the RIAA out are sheer fantasy. Such as yours.

Re:Solution (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329107)

I don't get why people think this would work, for the simple reason that *you* are distributing the recording of yourself, and thus you cannot claim piracy on the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, for downloading from yourself.

They would need to prove I was the one to seed that file.

Re:Solution (1)

AVonGauss (1001486) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328979)

No, you're close. Wait until your ISP disconnects you based on the unsupported RIAA claim then file a lawsuit against your ISP and the RIAA members.

Re:Solution (1)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329137)

- Step one: Find the RIAA's ISP. They probably have a big T3 line or something.
- Step two: Tape yourself singing in the shower. The worse the better.
- Step three: Rename the recordings. Britney Spears - Toxic, Metallica - Until it Sleeps, etc. The more popular and highly prosecuted the better.
- Step four: Copy files to a VM and install every virus-encrusted file sharing program you have on there. TRY to get caught.
- Step five: Await lawsuit. Counterclaim for piracy.
- Step six: Repeat three times. Three strikes, RIAA's out! ... wait. I forgot that laws only really apply to people, not massive media conglomerates. Oh well, time to come up with another cunning plan...

- Step seven: You cut a hole in the box.
- Step eight: You put your junk in that box.

That's nice, but... (5, Insightful)

LoganTeamX (738778) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328365)

When are they doing to do something about the plethora of zombie computers on their home subscriber feeds? They'll police the "illegal sharing" of content but they don't care how much spam their users generate? Sounds a little fishy to me.

Re:That's nice, but... (2, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328573)

They don't care.
Most ISPs' outsourced their email because it was cheaper to outsource than block or nag clients with infected PCs.

Re:That's nice, but... (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328719)

Practically every major ISP blocks port 25 now. Comcast seems to have taken to blocking port 25 AND listing their customer IP ranges with Spamhaus.

moD up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328369)

declined in market PART OF GNAA IF obsessed - give Wash off hands taken over by BSDI spot when done For they wanZt you to

No word on delivery method, no legal force harassm (2, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328437)

If the "letter" is delivered via email, it's merely an empty gesture.

If it's delivered by snail mail, I'd consider it a form of harassment, as i've heard it mentioned here by lawyers that "notice and takedown" only applies to intermediaries such as webhosts/isp's. If it's against the terms of service cancel the service, otherwise don't worry people or get kids in trouble based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.

SENT.. damn typos.. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329041)

based on unproven accusations sent to you by a company who cent C&D letters by the hundreds to a copying machine.

don't know if this is a typo or freudian slip, but "sent" is the proper spelling.

Configure your clients for encryption only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328459)

Hi everyone.
Please take a step and configure your torrent clients (or others) to use the encryption only.

I see that many of you have got this feature off.

If you have it off, then you are just helping ISP to filter what you are sharing. If you turn it on, then players in the middle (like ISP) cannot see what you are actually transferring.

So, please don't be ignorant and configure your clients to use only encrypted connection! You will help also others like me, to have better download rate on encrypted connections only.

How easy...

Thank you.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328511)

As much as I love encryption and would like to see more bittorrent clients using it I hope you realize that it means absolutely nothing with regards to keeping RIAA from knowing you are sharing.

The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers. In the end all RIAA is going to accomplish is to drive file sharing underground.

Take heart though, it will take us geeks popular again. When that cute girl down the street is too stupid/scared to figure out how to pirate music on her own who do you think she is going to come to? ;)

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328703)

Of course, this will just lead to legions of under-cover RIAA hot chicks with an unusual knack for seeking out the fat and pasty...geeks will start to think that any time a girl talks to them, it's part of an RIAA entrapment scheme and will just give up on girls all together. Soon, the chance of us reproducing in self-sustaining numbers will approach closer to zero until, one day, we're an extinct breed.

And then, the RIAA will have won.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328831)

And then, the RIAA will have won.

The RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (1)

Zsub (1365549) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328919)

I see what you did with that cute-girl-music scenario, but face it. No one on /. will have the guts to actually talk back to her, so the conversation will go something like:
"Hi"
-"Uhhh... hi..."
"can you download $album for me?"
-"uuussure..."
"Ok, I'll come pick it up tomorrow, thanks!" *walks off*

That is, if she even knows a geek lives there. I mean, he doesn't get out of the basement...

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329001)

The typical method that they use is to connect to the tracker and get a list of the clients who are sharing the file(s) in question. It doesn't matter if your client is running encryption or not -- they are going to find out that your IP address is sharing this file. The only solution for this is private trackers.

Or proxy connections. I see a new type of BT program. In addition to connecting to a 'file tracker', it also connects to a 'proxy tracker' (both probably the same machine). Your BT program offers one or more proxy connections, and takes advantage of an equal number of proxy connections offered by other users. Yes, this will use more bandwidth, but who really uses all their bandwidth anyway? If the RIAA/MPAA comes calling, simply point out that you offer proxy connections to others, and that you'd be ever-so-happy to pass on their notice to the real infringers, but golly-gee, you don't keep logs.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328583)

How easy...

Doesn't solve the problem of direct logging though. Yeah, your data transfer once the swarm is established will be hidden but everything until then (accessing the torrent portal, downloading a torrent file, transferring tracker data) is all unencrypted (on most sites). People that don't use BitTorrent and rely on other means of sharing don't have any feasible alternative other than using proxy servers which are either slow or expensive.

Fullstream Encryption for BitTorrent should be a no-brainer but there are many unsolved problems with this in any case.

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328731)

Obviously it is not bulletproof solution, however it will help.
It is legal to download torrent file.
It is legal to download movie (in some countries).

Illegal upload has to be proved and I think that ISP plays major role. At least in Czech the ISP were eavesdropping on the transmissions, etc.

I think that any form of encryption will help in fighting of these bastards.

I think we should stop buying music completely to show them the power! :-)
Our way or highway! :-)

Re:Configure your clients for encryption only (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329051)

Fullstream encryption will never solve the issue of you and the other peer having to communicate at some point - and the moment you offer the other peer blocks, there is a good legal basis for them having a case from you.

What should happen (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328503)

First the RIAA should not be able to retrieve the addresses directly from the provider. Privacy and such.
Second the provider does not know what is legal and what is not. IANAL defence and such.
So the RIAA can only directly ask for removal after a court order. And I mean first an official request and only later if the person repeats it, an official lawsuit.

What the RIAA can do is send a letter to the provider. That provider can then be so nice as to say that they have received this letter and if the person does something that is not legal to please stop doing this as it is against their AUP.

That is where it stops. All the rest should be going through the courts where the courts must make a serious difference between people who just share and people who make money of it.

But then that would require the RIAA to think and comprehend.

Two words from common law:Tortious interference (2, Interesting)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328525)

Tortious interference [wikipedia.org]

Interesting, but ISP TOS is ISP dictated. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328645)

Tortious interference [wikipedia.org]

It's rather unfortunate that ISP contracts can be changed at will by the ISP but not the customer.

The ISP can merely add a clause including the MAFIAA as a party to the contract and suddenly this possible angle for lawsuits disappears.

Why have broadband? (1)

JohnnyKrisma (593145) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328551)

Ok, so if they kill all illegal means of obtaining content, and they severely restrict legal means of getting TV and movies (i.e. removing hulu access from Boxee), explain why I need broadband?

Cyberpunk/Shadowrun (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328631)

I remember, as a younger lad, playing games like Cyberpunk and Shadowrun and thinking that these future-fantasy worlds where megacorps ruled the world, competing and colluding with each other in a massive game, with governments relegated to the role of their legislative pawns was a lot of fun but far out there and obviously fictional.

Oh, how I miss my youthful days... Getting older and watching fiction become reality is not pleasant...

This is important (0)

koan (80826) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328663)

How will they decide what is piracy and what isn't? Using a 256 bit encryption to newsgroups should be enough protection but is it?

Re:This is important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27328833)

shhh. you'll spoil the misdirection.

The Devil's in the Details (4, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328691)

I'm opposed to downloading copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright holder.

Having said that, I'm extremely suspicious that AT&T's process is fair. I have questions:

1) Is this truly targeted towards copyright violators, or is this just a bandwidth management strategy? That is to say, if I download 100 Gb of Linux ISO's, will I get nailed?
2) Is this is 3 strikes (accusations) and you're out policy?
3) Is there any dispute resolution process or recourse for those who believe they're falsely accused? After all, identifying users by their IP addresses does yield false positives?
4) If I actually did download or upload something illegally several times, will I lose my internet access? What if I still need to pay bills, etc? Losing internet access is almost like losing phone service nowadays.

I think the process would be much fairer if there was a dispute resolution process and that the ultimate punishment would be getting your connection relegated to dial-up speeds.

However, I suspect that AT&T's motives aren't entirely towards being fair to their customers.

Who needs the legal system (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328767)

... when you can have the ISPs act as your own personal police and be above the law? Guilty upon accusation shall be the law of the land, and there shall be neither trials nor appeals. The music industry has become its own level of authority sitting on the side of the judicial, and shall not be accountable for any of the many, many abuses of power that are sure to follow.

Ambiguous title (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#27328869)

I was all prepared to cheer for AT&T and watch to see whether the RIAA refused to take down whatever it was that was at issue. I am now bitterly disappointed.

The problem is Theft! (0, Flamebait)

soundguy4film (1471283) | more than 4 years ago | (#27329103)

The root of this issue is that people steal music. If it wasn't digital and we did not have the internet you would have had to borrow the record from a friend or steal to hear it without buying it. Somehow in our culture it became ok to steal music and now video, how did this happen? DRM and file sharing and all this stuff could exist without any legal complications if people just would not steal... In fact we would not need DRM. If you like some music go buy it, you can still listen to it first on radio or from a friend but you should buy it. Name another business where it is OK if someone steals your product?!

Re:The problem is Theft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27329181)

Copying is not theft.

But I'm sure you know that.

RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27329177)

If everyone who uses p2p file sharing would simply write to the companies who use the RIAA and say if they continue the current path you will stop purchasing from their company and then put that into practice , the RIAA would no long be in existence. A few thousand letters followed by a drop in sales speak louder than any forum.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...