AT&T Wants Government Website Blacklists, Hadopi-Style Tribunal
from the ma-bell-daydream dept
Companies like Verizon and Qwest recently took their cooperation with the entertainment industry to an entirely new level -- by not only forwarding DMCA warning letters to users (which has been going on for years) -- but by also now threatening broadband users with account termination (which, at least in Verizon's case, appears to be a bluff). Both companies are using the flimsy and unreliable DMCA letter process as a foundation, and layering a completely non-transparent termination process (where grandmothers wind up falsely accused) on top -- obviously a winning formula for success. So far AT&T hasn't been willing to play along with this new voluntary program, and in filings with the White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, make it clear it's primarily just worried about covering its legal posterior:
"Private entities are not created or meant to conduct the law enforcement and judicial balancing act that would be required; they are not charged with sitting in judgment of facts; and they are not empowered to punish alleged criminals without a court order or other government sanction. Indeed, the liability implications of ISPs acting as a quasi-law-enforcement/judicial branch could be enormous."
It's interesting, because AT&T not only argues that ISPs shouldn't be acting as content nannies, but it also acknowledges that the entire DMCA process is built on a platform where such letters can impact non-infringing members of a household, people with "valid defenses," or people with unsecured wireless networks. At first, AT&T's argument reads much like an EFF complaint -- the company even going so far as to insist that (as we've long said) disconnection from the Internet isn't a suitable punishment for downloading that first season of the Golden Girls.
However, AT&T isn't necessarily against some kind of graduated response system -- they would just prefer it if Uncle Sam was the one screwing up. AT&T's filing argues that it doesn't want this handled by the courts, rather, it wants an expedited faux-legal system set up much like the Hadopi-run process we've critized in France, where a Judge is given all of five minutes to determine a user's guilt or innocence. Though AT&T consistently complains about government regulation (at least when applied to them), it takes things even further by arguing the government should "create and maintain a list of international websites known to host and to traffic in infringed copyrighted works."
So while Qwest and Verizon engage in non-transparent threats against their users based on flimsy evidence, AT&T wants taxpayers to fund an entirely new government organization tasked with non-transparent threats against users based on flimsy evidence. For good measure, AT&T wants a website blacklist whac-a-mole program that -- like most filtering programs -- won't accomplish a damn thing aside from pushing pirates further underground and blocking access to legitimate content. Perhaps AT&T should stick with struggling to run a wireless network?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blacklists, copyright, hadopi
Companies: at&t
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Three strikes is plenty.
Oh please. They took the PR hit to get the money, that's brave business, not struggle. ANY network, Sprint, Verizon, TMobile, you name it would have tanked under the kind of data streams the iPhone demands.
In a civilization where cars are virtual necessities (except perhaps in Manhattan) we pull licenses everyday for repeated misbehavior. And the drivers learn to suck it up. Have to drive Grandma to dialysis three times a week? Stop breaking driving laws.
So explain again why repeated unlawful behavior online should get a free pass and not lose legal access for awhile? Get over yourself. Three strikes is plenty fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three strikes is plenty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three strikes is plenty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three strikes is plenty.
And would the other networks have just shrugged it off and taken a bonus instead of improving the network?? Well, maybe, but that still doesn't mean AT&T is right...
And seriously, taking a person's drivers license is very different than taking their internet. Taking the internet away is more like taking the family car away because the youngest kid in the family was speeding one night. You're basically saying "If you're a responsible adult and need the internet for anything, either don't have children or don't let them on your internet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three strikes is plenty.
Of course, those things don't exist, because they would make justice too difficult for you and your kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three strikes is plenty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three strikes is plenty.
(1) There is no internet license, so the comparison is meaningless.
(2) Drivers licenses get pulled for actions that put others at risk. Copyright infringement is a business model issue, and just because you have shown that you don't want to adapt your business model, it doesn't mean you should punish those more innovative than you.
(3) When someone's driver's license is pulled, they can still ride in cars.
(4) Driving badly -- to the point of losing your license -- involves doing the ONE THING that driving entails badly. Losing your entire internet access because of a minor civil infringement, without due process, is ridiculous.
You must know that.
Of course, I find this funny, because in the past you have insisted that you are against these types of laws. Why the change of heart?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blinded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Snap!
AT&T just got f'ed in the a!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it's not like that at all. If you have any factual information which shows an open wireless causing bodily harm similar to that of a firearm, then by all means, lets see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lynching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 strikes and off to rapidshare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And thanks a lot for screwing up our US Radio.Every musical act I have played in since 1972 always thanked radio for the times we were played or interviewed live.We have a great respect for radio that is to say free radio.
Performers do not need to get money because they were played on the radio assholes.This is not Europe this is the USA.
Go To Hell RIAA And all you corporate big content companies.I hate you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
The attempts to get telecoms to enforce these regulations are a way of getting the record and movie companies "out of the line of fire". The bad press that arises when grandmothers get sued would apply to the telecoms - they'd be the ones taking the action. AT&T is simply applying the same self-defense mechanism to push the blame off on someone else - specifically, the Feds. Realistically - AT&T has nothing to gain from enforcement of such provisions: Someone under a 3-strikes ruling won't be paying AT&T for service, and if it scares other people ... the might not buy all the services AT&T wants to sell them either. And they know that the last thing any politician wants is Grandma showing up in the papers complaining about how Federal legislation got her into trouble.
Dumping this on the Feds is a great idea ... because it pretty much kills it.
-- Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is their intent, to block access to free legitimate content (like content released under a CC license), which is pretty much what they have accomplished outside the Internet. They want to restrict competitors from competing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocritic Oath?
Now that it's something critical to the survival of our country like Rap Music or Toilet Humor Movies, the courts should fill the countryside with new prisons to cope with all the dangerous criminals listening to Louie, Louie on their notebook computers between classes.
I do not steal software, music, or movies, but each year I get more and more hassle heaped on me so a bunch of fools can pretend to have a useful life by chasing down people singing Madonna songs in the shower.
The record and movie industries are the prime movers in digitizing their content. They made it easy to copy. Sounds like they screwed the pooch. Should have left it analog. Oh? Then it would be harder to copy to sell? Wow.
Let's see some real action taken about software theft before we edit the Constitution to keep ghetto-mouthed record producers and their lawyers rich by their parasitic existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attractive Nuisance?
I wonder if you could counter-sue the RIAA in one of the on-going cases of copyright infringement by arguing the RIAA deliberately and knowingly created a scenario whereas it would be far easier to get their products illegally than than legally.
It was difficult to copy LP records, and the pirate content was poor quality in general. Ditto for VCR movies. It was only after the RIAA members deliberately moved their property to easy-to-steal digital formats that these cases started appearing in volume.
So the RIAA made no effort at protecting their property, and actually made it so simple to commit a felony that a 5 year old could do it in 3 minutes. It is easier than recording a song on the radio with a tape recorder.
How many millions of dollars of the taxpayer's money have they wasted to try and get assistance fixing a problem they started deliberately? They ought to be sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use the copyright law to your advantage
This is a good argument.
Also, there is a process - it is called the DMCA. While some may use and abuse this, the process should be the decisive factor in taking down service. Terms of agreement have often been used to terminate service. However, this is tantamount to guilty before proven innocent, which is a direct violation or our judicial system.
In the same way the DMCA is being abused against users, this can be used for those accused and terminated.
For example, the DMCA does state that the process must be followed for ISPs to maintain their limitations on liability.
Well, if the ISP terminates and a counter notification is sent, if the ISP does not reinstate the materials within the time frame (if a court order is not issued by that time frame by the accuser) Then LIABILITY and action should be able to be placed against that ISP.
Just my 2 cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commerical accounts
The solution, everyone get a business plan instead and enjoy the benefits of being a business!
"I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man!" ~ Jay-Z
[ link to this | view in chronology ]