- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
GWHH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 29, 2009 at 9:45 pm #81859
GWHH
ParticipantAT&T to start sending copyright warnings (AP)
Posted on Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:51AM EDTResearchers: Cyber spies break into govt computers (AP)
Consumers can be stuck when Web sites change terms (AP)
Experimental games highlighted at game conference (AP)
NEW YORK – AT&T Inc., the nation's largest Internet service provider, will start sending warnings to its subscribers when music labels and movie studios allege that they are trafficking in pirated material, according to an executive.The phone company thus joins other major ISPs that either go beyond legal requirements or interpret their duties under the law to mean that they have to forward such notices.
Jim Cicconi, AT&T's top executive in Washington, confirmed this week that the company is looking to expand a trial program it ran late last year with movie studios. It is currently testing a system with the Recording Industry Association of America and will expand the program with other rights organizations.
Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. already forward such notices, but the approaches differ, and the legal situation is muddled.
Copyright holders like movie studios can, in many cases, identify Internet users who download or provide pirated material by their numerical Internet address, but cannot match it up with a subscriber name without the cooperation of the Internet service provider.
ISPs have previously identified their customers to copyright holders who bring court orders. The copyright holders and their representatives, like the RIAA, have then been able to sue the customers.
But that strategy had been widely criticized, and the RIAA said late last year it was abandoning its policy of filing lawsuits, opting instead to work with ISPs to cut abusers' access if they ignore repeated warnings. At the time, the RIAA said it agreed with several leading ISPs, without naming which ones, to notify alleged illegal file-sharers and cut off service if they failed to stop.
Cicconi said AT&T's program was not the result of a deal with the RIAA, and the music industry organization was not part of the first trials the company conducted of the notification system last year.
Under the new system at AT&T, copyright holders would send a notice to the ISP that a certain numerical Internet address is associated with piracy. The ISP would then automatically forward the notice to the customer via e-mail, without telling the copyright holder who the customer is, Cicconi said.
AT&T and other participating ISPs are doing more for copyright owners than they are legally obliged to, according to Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. However, they do have an obligation to have a policy in place to kick off repeat offenders, he said.
AT&T will only forward the notice and won't threaten its customers with suspension of service or any other sanction, Cicconi said. If copyright holders want to go further, it's up to them to bring court orders, he said.
"It seems to engender a good response from customers, and we've seen a fairly dramatic drop-off in file-sharing activity once people receive a notice, so we feel this works," Cicconi said.
Cox, the fifth-largest ISP in the country with about 4 million Internet customers, forwards thousands of notices per month and has cut off a few repeat offenders, spokesman David Grabert said. It interprets the law as requiring it to forward the notices.
There's confusion about the legal obligations of ISPs, von Lohmann said, because "nobody on either side has had the nerve to go to court over it, probably because the stakes are so high, neither side wants to gamble on what the ultimate answer might be."
In Ireland, the association representing RIAA members sued a local ISP, forcing it to disconnect a subscriber after three recorded copyright violations.
Internet lawyers and consumer advocates have pointed out that many reports of violations from copyright holders are inaccurate. Cox and AT&T said that in many cases, the notices have gone out to parents who didn't know that their children were pirating copyrighted material. In other cases, AT&T's Cicconi said, customers hadn't secured their wireless routers, and someone else near had been using them for downloading, so AT&T has helped customers secure their routers.
___
AP Business Writer Deborah Yao contributed to this story from Philadelphia.
March 29, 2009 at 10:02 pm #81860Tonus
ParticipantWhile I find a lot of fault with both the movie and music industries and how they've handled the digital age, I think it's fair to point out that protecting copyrights isn't censorship.
That said, the issue of ISPs cooperating with these industries beyond what they are legally bound is a bad thing, possibly even for people who aren't engaged in software/media piracy. What happens when the RIAA or movie studios demand more detailed information on internet usage based on some flimsy excuse that it's critical to their efforts to protect their property? How hard will it be for an innocent person to get his internet service restored when it's suspended due to a mistake?
March 31, 2009 at 10:12 pm #81861David C. Matthews
ParticipantWhile I find a lot of fault with both the movie and music industries and how they've handled the digital age, I think it's fair to point out that protecting copyrights isn't censorship.
That's the point I was going to make as well… that this might well be invasion of privacy, but it is not censorship.
April 1, 2009 at 4:57 am #81862Lingster
KeymasterWhat's a 'cencer'? Is it like 'cancer'?
April 8, 2009 at 6:32 am #81863GWHH
ParticipantI argee. It starts small and get bigger eveyday. Next the software compaines will be checking ISP and IP address and seeing who using software not meet for them. I.E. people who take copies of software home from work and/or school.
While I find a lot of fault with both the movie and music industries and how they've handled the digital age, I think it's fair to point out that protecting copyrights isn't censorship.
That said, the issue of ISPs cooperating with these industries beyond what they are legally bound is a bad thing, possibly even for people who aren't engaged in software/media piracy. What happens when the RIAA or movie studios demand more detailed information on internet usage based on some flimsy excuse that it's critical to their efforts to protect their property? How hard will it be for an innocent person to get his internet service restored when it's suspended due to a mistake?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.