As a part of the national communication infrastructure I fail to see the reasoning of tasking AT&T, etc. with police functions. Let the police do police work, after determining probable cause, and let the communication providers do communication functions.
Besides, do owners of private toll roads search your car when you drive on their roads? I think not, but it’s the exact same thing. And road owners aren’t liable for the content of the vehicles that travel their roads. ISP’s should, in no way, shape, or form, be held liable for the content that traverses their channels.
Seriously, did no one else here read the source article? Because I’m getting the feeling that everyone just wants to vent about these alerts without actually discussing the specific issue AT&T’s notice brings up.
Listen, Torrentfreak stated (and Cory appears to have believed it, seemingly without having checked the DMCA himself) that “there is no law or regulation requiring [AT&T] to [terminate the accounts of repeat offenders.]”
That appears to be wholly unsupported by the DMCA Section 512.
And there’s nothing at all here about acting on accusations rather than evidence, or not giving users the opportunity to defend themselves from such charges. So please, hijack someone else’s discussion or wait for an opportunity when that’s what we’re actually talking about.
I’m getting the feeling that everyone just wants to vent about these alerts without actually discussing the specific issue AT&T’s notice brings up.
You’re getting closer. I think the main focus is that AT&T is saying that account termination is an option and the potential for abuse. That bothers people. Get over it.
I work for an ISP. We make all our customers sign paperwork stating that they have read, agree to and will obey our Terms of Service, Acceptable Use Policy, and other policies before we will give them service. We don’t actively monitor their internet connections, but if we receive a notice of copyright infringement against an IP address, we will issue the customer one warning. If we receive another on the same customer, we will terminate their service. I am sure AT&T makes customers sign this stuff as well.
They signed the contract agreeing to this. We do not need a court order, we do not need to take them to court. We own the network they are connecting through. If they got hacked, or their wireless is insecure, thats not our problem. It states in our Terms of Service and AUP that security is the CUSTOMER’S responsibility, and the CUSTOMER is responsible for all users of the Internet connection.
In addition, anyone with half a brain knows that any ISP worth a damn keeps track of what customers have what IP addresses at what time. Its not that hard to prove where it came from.
AT&T won’t be able to afford the massive flood of lawsuits coming their way for defamation and wrongful accusations, let alone the massive exodus that will begin to occur from their customers bailing by the thousands. What a dumb company they are all around, horrible cell company, horrible home ISP, horrible home TV, horrible phone, they don’t offer anything compelling, and I’m quite sure the only reason anyone uses them is because they have to. Get ready for AT&T to promptly do an about face. They simply won’t be ready for the backlash this is going to bring.
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this comment you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
Well… luckly our Terms of Service state the following:
This Agreement, in combination with the Acceptable Use Policy and other policies posted directly and publicly on the ISP website, constitute the entire Agreement between the parties and no other representations or statements will be binding upon the parties. If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining terms and conditions of this agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
Not to mention, any lawyer in the country will tell you that someone cannot enter into a contract simply by reading what you typed out. Which is the exact reason why we make our customers SIGN the dotted line. Which is also the reason why copyright holders can still sue someone who posts the type of text you posted (“Releasing you from any wrongdoing”) that you may put in the description of your torrents on sites like The Pirate Bay.
See, our contracts were typed out by actual lawyers. Your text you post on the internet is not going to ever trump them.
First, they only see the endpoint IP. There could be hundreds of computers behind that IP. Got Wifi? Your neighbors could use it to download a copyrighted work. Why are you to be punished for someone else hacking a badly put together wifeless device that AT&T provided you?
Without deep packet inspection, there is no way to determine which computer behind the public IP is making the illegal connection.
Second, simply because you are connected to and receiving data from an IP known to be hosting a copyrighted work, it does not necessarily follow that the file you are receiving is a copyrighted work. It could be a user created video shared from the same IP. Again, without deep packet inspection, there is no way to know which is which.
Finally, if you accuse a customer of committing a crime with no evidence to back up that claim, you may be committing an act of defamation.
Yes, legally your company may be in the clear, but morally speaking what the ISPs are doing are still a bucket of crap, and defending them doesn’t make you look much better.
That Network you ‘own’? Are beneficiaries of huge, ongoing, public subsidies and right of way accesses that let you lay wires in private property, and give you a permanent leg up against potential competitors (if I want to start my own cable company, there’s no way I’m going to be able to lay all the wires required!). In most places, you’re lucky if you have two options for Internet service: One phone company, one cable company. I personally think something is owed to the public in exchange for this enforced monopoly. Like, not colluding in a not-legally-required scheme that allows you to permanently cut off what is pretty much an essential service for participation in 21st century life, just because somebody accuses them of copyright infringement, twice, or somebody hacks their wireless, twice.
Actually the company I work for is 100% privately funded. We have never asked for, received or wanted government or public funds. We are not cable or DSL. We deliver wirelessly via point to multipoint line of sight from radio towers that we own. No wires running across private property to other subscribers. Yet we can deliver speeds and latency comparable to cable. Our network really is 100% ours to do with what we will. Dont like it? Don’t subscribe.
Good for you, but even if you’re not personally relying on wires that cross private property at some point, or wireless spectrum (which would be, essentially, a gov’t subsidy… yes, corporations may have paid for it, but far less than it was worth), you’re not just arguing for yourselves, you seemed to be arguing that it’s right of all ISPs to behave this way.
Maybe you’d like to identify which company you work for? That way I can more easily avoid you. That’s just me, though. You seem to be awfully proud of it, and of your policy of “we will terminate your service based on two unsubstantiated accusations of copyright infringement without caring whether it was true or not, or you or not”, though, so maybe I’m wrong and you’re right and customers will flock to you based on it.
