Recording Industry vs The People: AT&T Working for RIAA

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

AT&T Working for RIAA

According to a report in p2pnet.net, AT&T has become the first ISP to agree to act as enforcer for the RIAA.

[Ed. note. What can I say except (a) those of you who are using AT&T, please stop, and (b) those of you who are not using AT&T: good. And if you want to write them and let them know how you feel, all the better. -R.B.]

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player

8 comments:

Scott said...: I at present use both AT&T and Sprint network cards for my notebook PC. I was planning on canceling my AT&T account anyway because their backbone in the NYC area sucks -- high connect speeds but low, low data transfer rates, especially at lunchtime -- and they price gouge for over-limit above 5gb (like 10 times more than Sprint). By contrast Sprint's data network has never been balky when I've used it, and their over-limit fees are reasonable.

Now I have another reason to switch. Definitely avoid AT&T.; March 25, 2009 at 10:43:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: I somehow expect that AT&T will somehow justify applying this only to their Residential customers while exempting their Business customers.
I used to be involved with Internet access at Hotels. Many had multiple AT&T T1 circuits and were paying well over $ 1000 / month for them. If AT&T were to cut them off, they would not only lose that revenue, but any voice circuits would follow shortly thereafter. Since the Hotels in a chain frequently talk to each other, they could eventually lose everything they had with that chain.
T1 suppliers rarely have the monopoly advantage that ISPs may have in a residential area. Another ISP may cost a little more, but if you can get a T1 you have a larger lists of ISPs available to you than you do with DSL or Cable.; March 25, 2009 at 11:53:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...: As this man sees it, the problem is that AT&T does other good things.

Their U-verse fiber optic to the node/curb service - along with Verzon's FIOS all-fiber service - have proven to be the only check against, and competition for, the cable monopoly. It's a reason to cheer when U-verse arrives in your neighborhood because suddenly your cable Internet provider will magically become a whole lot more reasonable and accommodating since there's suddenly real competition and a viable alternative at the speeds most homes actually need.

These decisions are seldom black-and-white simple.

{The Common Man Speaking}; March 25, 2009 at 2:13:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: I have no problem with competition in the ISP market, and might be an AT&T customer if they serviced my area.
I see this cooperation with the RIAA as a precursor to a voluntary 3 strikes situation.
If my ISP showed such a willingness, I would be working on a contingency plan to replace them.

I can avoid downloading music. I can avoid uploading music. I can even remove anything that remotely resembles music from my system.
I cannot avoid a false identification by the RIAA or the ISP, nor can I prevent someone else from spoofing my IP address.
I will still be vulnerable to a malicious software attack, and I refuse to monitor my wife and kids 7x24 to ensure they comply.

Trying to find a new ISP with no Internet access or my VOIP phone does not sound like a good time.

just a biased observer; March 25, 2009 at 3:35:00 PM EDT
Justin Olbrantz (Quantam) said...: I currently use AT&T. AT&T and Time Warner Cable currently hold monopolies on DSL and cable, respectively, in my city, and those are the only two choices for broadband. AT&T is a bit more palatable than TWC at the moment, given TWC's ridiculous caps. One city over (less than 2 miles away) they have Verizon and FIOS, with 10x the speed and no caps (and thus far no intent to file RIAA notices).; March 25, 2009 at 5:28:00 PM EDT
Scott said...: If you haven't already done so, I would strongly encourage you to investigate what your city offers in HD over-the-air television. I'm currently running my antenna into a Panasonic DMR-EZ28K DVR, which has an ATSC-HD tuner and an HDMI output to the flat-screen TV. Digital image quality is fantastic, and in my area there are dozens of channels to choose from.

The thing I like the most is not getting a $100+ cable bill every month. I miss not getting Food Network a little, but as for the rest, eh.; March 25, 2009 at 9:34:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: AT&T was one of the first to accept government money to add equipment to spy on the people. AT&T working for the RIAA is no different except the lawyers greasing the wheels now have government positions. At least we have what our president promised, a government that does not try to conceal perceived corruption.

Oldphart in Kansas; March 26, 2009 at 2:12:00 AM EDT
Scott said...: "At least we have what our president promised, a government that does not try to conceal perceived corruption."

So corruption is okay as long as you don't hide it.

Wouldn't it be even better to have a government that doesn't engage in corruption in the first place? Is that too much to ask for?; March 26, 2009 at 1:07:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove