AT&T Starts Six-Strikes Anti-Piracy Plan Next Month

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
In leaked AT&T training documents, a plan for dealing with illegal content repeat offenders was detailed. The plan, which is to be instituted on November 28th, includes warning emails followed by site blocking with an online‘re-education’ training class. Other Internet providers are expected to follow suit on the same day.

When repeated infringers try to access certain websites they will be redirected to an educational page. To lift the blockade, AT&T will require these customers to complete an “online education tutorial on copyright”.
Click to expand...
 
How come states don't enforce installing governors on our cars. Every car should not be able to go over the highest posted speed limit in said state.

Isn't that the same thing as what ATT is trying to do or should I say the RIAA is trying to do.....
 
I guess it was only a matter of time before they started cracking down on this stuff..surprised they didn't do it sooner, actually. Still depressing. :(
 
rudedog said:
How come states don't enforce installing governors on our cars. Every car should not be able to go over the highest posted speed limit in said state.
Click to expand...

For safety reason I would guess. There may be legitimate reasons to exceed the posted speed limit in order to avoid an accident.

And ow will ATT really enforce this anyway. Traffic will just be encrypted now.
 
Yea right , At&t is going to waste millions upon millions policing its own network and monitoring individual users in mass?

If you believe At&t is seriously going to enforce this then I have a bridge to sell you. Its called "pleasing" not "doing".
 
Let's repeat this little known clause in the Constitution shall we:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​
By definition, if applied to modern technology, no company, organizational body, or government institution has the right to monitor, search or seize the private activities of any individual without due cause or a warrant approved by a court of law.

As a result, without proper search and seizure, no company, organizational body, or government institution has the right to indemnify, convict, or punish an individual without due cause or a warrant.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

No company, organizational body, or government institution shall allow the self-incrimination of an individual based on their own private activities within their own home. Those same entities shall not deny the due process of the law of any individual unless in front of a court of law and jury of his or her own peers.
Privacy Act of 1974

No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains...​
This applies mainly to companies such as internet service providers as doing such an act that violates the privacy of an individual and revealing such information and activities to another agency or institution is a violation of this law.

====================================================

It disgusts me how the government allows companies to willingly violate the privacy and basic rights of an individual. If companies are against it, then they should take it to the Supreme Court or buy off some Senators and Congressmen to introduce a new Amendment to the Constitution that suits their taste, while at the same time violating the individual rights of a person. And, eventually, turning this country into a tyrannical state.
 
How come states don't enforce installing governors on our cars. Every car should not be able to go over the highest posted speed limit in said state.
Click to expand...
they won't for speed limits because some people use their cars on race tracks as well. In some circumstances though they have installed breathalizer devices into a repeat offenders car that won't let the car start unless they blow under the limit first. So it's not unheard of for repeat offenders to get punishments similar to this.

They aren't blocking you unless you download from certain sites. If you are smart enough you don't visit these places anyways. This will cut down on casual downloaders for sure.
 
Godmachine said:
Yea right , At&t is going to waste millions upon millions policing its own network and monitoring individual users in mass?

If you believe At&t is seriously going to enforce this then I have a bridge to sell you. Its called "pleasing" not "doing".
Click to expand...

What is not written in black and white, is that they will start, and likely stop, with the top bandwidth users. The top bandwidth users will be where they find the people doing the most infringing anyway. It gives them an excuse to cut their least desirable customers, and customer that, predominately, will fear a riaa/mpaa lawsuit too much to try to sue.

Oh and for the:
I use blah blah blah excessive gigs of data compared to most people, every month and it is all legit!!!
Click to expand...
people. You are the exception. You are not the norm. Most of the large bandwidth users on residential accounts, are either running a server counter to TOS, or usenetting/torrenting large quantities of warez. Which sucks for you legit people, because you are likely to get caught up in this.
 
gotta love ATT. They set the precedent.

first you have your 250gb data cap, despite bandwidth being dirt cheap, so you can only download your linux isos less than 100x.
now you have this.

they always find ways to squeeze the customer just a little more.
 
rudedog said:
How come states don't enforce installing governors on our cars. Every car should not be able to go over the highest posted speed limit in said state.

Isn't that the same thing as what ATT is trying to do or should I say the RIAA is trying to do.....
Click to expand...

You suck at analogies.

Piracy has nothing to do with how fast your car is capable of going.
 
techrat said:
You suck at analogies.

Piracy has nothing to do with how fast your car is capable of going.
Click to expand...

sure it does. your car is capable of breaking laws, just the same as your internet connection does. they limit the illegal activities you can do with your internet connection, whether or not they may actually be illegal, but they don't limit the illegal activities your car can do.

Car CAN break speed limits, which may be useful for people who do race their cars, but the majority of people don't race.

Internet CAN download large amounts of data, which some people may be using for downloading legitimate data (large linux ISOs, running home servers, etc), but that's not what the majority of large data users are doing.
 
mrtheshaggy said:
Rapidshare for example. I don't get why people willingly broadcast their IP to an entire torrent as opposed to just clicking "download now" from a server that won't tell on you.
Click to expand...

well, torrent provides fastest download from multiple location and beside considering thousand of people still use it provides proof that it's not outdated yet and still very much likely to stay here for while.
 
My question though is how are they gonna actually regulate this sort of thing once they fully realize how many people actually pirate. I know it'll be just matter of time before counter-measures will be put in place to bypass this sort of thing, but honestly; do they really expect to alienate their market further by doing such a thing? We're at the point where it's no longer possible to stop the distribution of information and software, but instead of embracing this sort of change they continue to fight it like the endangered species that they are...
 
mrtheshaggy said:
Rapidshare for example. I don't get why people willingly broadcast their IP to an entire torrent as opposed to just clicking "download now" from a server that won't tell on you.
Click to expand...

I imagine it has a lot to do with both content availability and bandwidth: Torrents tend to be very resilient until people stop seeding them, whereas filehosts regularly take down content due to DMCA takedown notices and uploaders who have let their accounts expire (depending on the particular filehost's terms). Well-seeded torrents also provide fantastic bandwidth. In contrast, dealing with filehosts can be a hassle in terms of CAPTCHA's and low bandwidth as well unless you pay for a premium account, and fragmented availability takes its toll here too: Having a premium Rapidshare account isn't going to help you if the file you want is hosted at Filesonic...or was, before Filesonic among others disallowed anyone but the original uploaders from downloading their files.

I totally agree with you about the problems with the Bittorrent protocol broadcasting your IP along with your uploads though. I'd be surprised that the filesharing world didn't make a significant shift to an anonymized version a long time ago (e.g. Bittorrent clients dealing with anonymized torrents by default on the inside of an anonymized network like TOR or I2P), but I suppose a lot of filesharers prioritize bandwidth over privacy. That, and regular torrents have a lot of inertia due to the huge number available. I suppose a transition will occur eventually, but it will be mainly up to developers to work for it.
 
If i complain that X IP was downloading stuff i own, with fake logs, tell me how they can prove they DIDN'T download it?
 
Mini-Me said:
I imagine it has a lot to do with both content availability and bandwidth: Torrents tend to be very resilient until people stop seeding them, whereas filehosts regularly take down content due to DMCA takedown notices and uploaders who have let their accounts expire (depending on the particular filehost's terms). Well-seeded torrents also provide fantastic bandwidth. In contrast, dealing with filehosts can be a hassle in terms of CAPTCHA's and low bandwidth as well unless you pay for a premium account, and fragmented availability takes its toll here too: Having a premium Rapidshare account isn't going to help you if the file you want is hosted at Filesonic...or was, before Filesonic among others disallowed anyone but the original uploaders from downloading their files.

I totally agree with you about the problems with the Bittorrent protocol broadcasting your IP along with your uploads though. I'd be surprised that the filesharing world didn't make a significant shift to an anonymized version a long time ago (e.g. Bittorrent clients dealing with anonymized torrents by default on the inside of an anonymized network like TOR or I2P), but I suppose a lot of filesharers prioritize bandwidth over privacy. That, and regular torrents have a lot of inertia due to the huge number available. I suppose a transition will occur eventually, but it will be mainly up to developers to work for it.
Click to expand...

I understand that they work really well. I stopped using them when I realized that you don't need to upload to get accused of uploading. At my school I received two infractions when my uploading was completely turned off within Azureus and also blocked by a third party app as a safety measure. As long as they get your IP from you receiving a download, they are more than happy to accuse you and schools/ISP's are more than happy to side with them. Using transparent proxies to avoid this is effective, but annoying to deal with.

Torrents having "superior bandwidth" is not correct. Every significant direct download site I know supports multiple downloads per file. Combine that with an app like downloadthem all and instantly max out your download. In that aspect it is much like a torrent, only every part of the file is being downloaded with a proper high bandwidth server instead of the occasional retarded user with a 56k modem. Though since I haven't used torrents in years, they may have fixed that issue of the downloads hanging at 99% because of those people.

There are few disadvantages with direct downloads. One is the dead links you mentioned. However that is ultimately solved with experience using them. Once you have a proper set of bookmarks for where to get what you want that problem ultimately goes away. Second is the $10/month fee that is pretty standardized. If you can afford decent internet and a computer, you can afford $10/month. Third is multiple direct download sites existing. However, as the first disadvantage, this is also solved with experience of knowing where to get what you want.

So at first it may be annoying, but after you get the hang of it you will dread the idea of using torrents again.
 
at&t is going to half hearty do this, At&t's history is that if it cost them more money to do something they don't give a shit if it's piracy. They are probably just trying to cover their asses out of liability by having a program in place.
 
devil22 said:
I guess it was only a matter of time before they started cracking down on this stuff..surprised they didn't do it sooner, actually. Still depressing. :(
Click to expand...

Why should they?

who is your ISP to dictate what you do on the internet?

You pay them for access, what you do with that access is your business.
 
Meh, so what. It won't take long before someone Sues the snot out of AT&T for flagrant abuse of constitutional rights and this will go away.

That and I would dare say any serious downloader at this point is working through encrypted VPN's and such so it is really mostly just smoke up the ass.
 
Think it's going to start becoming standard for people to get offshore servers or VPS accounts and use an encrypted tunnel to it for all web surfing. It's ridiculous how far they are going now.

What's funny is that the whole point of a connection faster than dialup is to download stuff. The RIAA needs to accept this and change their model.
 
How does AT&T have a legal right to monitor and log what websites I am and am not going to?

I could perhaps understand anonymous usage statistics (with an opt out option) being collected, but to actually say "well Ducman69 went to 4chan three times this week, that is known for showing images of copyrighted material, lets send him to reeducation camp before cutting off his internet".
 
How long until the RIAA and MPAA send six notices to every user to get everyone knocked offline?
 
This only affect avg user Some may work out get an vps, it not affect tech savy users

I all ready use an vps my self as they traffic shape the un-spoken word (they say they do torrent as well but I found it does not traffic shape much)
 
Sounds like it is time to send AT&T a bill for the infrastructure they run through MY property.

Refusal to pay would be...unwise.
 
damicatz said:
Sounds like it is time to send AT&T a bill for the infrastructure they run through MY property.

Refusal to pay would be...unwise.
Click to expand...

It would be more unwise to cause damage to any communication circuits as well. If they happen to carry 911 traffic or anything CALEA, be prepared to see a jail cell. You going to cut the power companies lines or city sewer lines in the same protest if in that situation? Thinking not.
 
That_Sound_Guy said:
It would be more unwise to cause damage to any communication circuits as well. If they happen to carry 911 traffic or anything CALEA, be prepared to see a jail cell. You going to cut the power companies lines or city sewer lines in the same protest if in that situation? Thinking not.
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth; I said nothing about damaging equipment. I do, however, have enough influence to cost them a lot of business and I am good at disseminating information.

I would point out, however, that there is no such thing as the right to violate someone else's property rights by forcing them to allow running your cables and equipment through it and that doing such constitutes a trespass.

State-granted monopolies are exactly how corporations like AT&T are able to get away with doing what they do. AT&T has a long and sordid history of collusion with the state.

If AT&T wishes to run their infrastructure through private property, they can pay for the privilege of doing such. When telephones and electrification and all of those other things you see on utility poles first came around, this is, in fact, how things worked and it worked just fine. People actually had the ability to buy power from multiple power companies (and none of that phony baloney stuff they have now where you magically switch providers without changing the power lines coming to your home).

This anti-copying nonsense (which calling "piracy" is strange because why would an ISP be concerned with those who attack ships on the high seas?) would not be happening if we had a true free market for internet providers because people would not tolerate that crap and simply switch to a provider that does not treat their customers like criminals. Wireless technology, for example, would provide a great opportunity for enabling vast swathes of ISPs to provide broadband to you but the FCC claims ownership over airwaves (which one cannot own anymore than one can own the sky or the color blue) preventing anyone that doesn't have billions of dollars to bribe the government from "acquiring" spectrum.
 
Methinks the legalities of all this haven't even begun to be explored (from any side), and a real shit-storm is on the horizon.

For one, to have a plan like this, you have to be monitoring peoples internet connections. That alone is phase one of said shit-storm.

Then you have the seemingly all powerful XXAA's somehow managing to get every entity on the planet to do their bidding as they demand. How the hell that keeps happening I'll never understand, but it would not surprise me if shitloads of money aren't involved somehow, somewhere.
 
I do not think it would go against the fourth and fifth amendment as was previously posted as they are a private company and can serve or not serve you at their discretion. That being said the issue that may arise for them is violations of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA...if they are actively monitoring your connection for content then they are no longer a dumb pipe and are ow responsible for the content that is being accessed. Or they may not be monitoring your connection and anytime some group says I think that person is pirating...bam another strike against you...so lets just hope that the monitoring agencies are 100 percent accurate about the IP addresses they are getting as they relate to people or you may just get screwed over even if you don't pirate stuff (sorta like residential take down requests)...
 
Cbshahji said:
well, torrent provides fastest download from multiple location and beside considering thousand of people still use it provides proof that it's not outdated yet and still very much likely to stay here for while.
Click to expand...

Thousands? You might want to correct that to millions of people still use torrents today.

Proof of concept. There were direct downloads of Black Mesa Source available, but when 10 of thousands of people are seeding one thing, I can download it faster via a torrent than a direct link to a single server being hammered by everyone else.
 
At this point I would prefer being given the option of not having access to the black-listed websites, I just don't care, the web is not 'free' anymore, its been monetized to death, and now its going to be fully shaped in the interest of the 1%, and against your freedom (if its makes them money, some freedoms do fall between the cracks, but only if it makes no difference to the billionaires and their pet politicians)
 
octoberasian said:
Let's repeat this little known clause in the Constitution shall we:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.​
By definition, if applied to modern technology, no company, organizational body, or government institution has the right to monitor, search or seize the private activities of any individual without due cause or a warrant approved by a court of law.

As a result, without proper search and seizure, no company, organizational body, or government institution has the right to indemnify, convict, or punish an individual without due cause or a warrant.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

No company, organizational body, or government institution shall allow the self-incrimination of an individual based on their own private activities within their own home. Those same entities shall not deny the due process of the law of any individual unless in front of a court of law and jury of his or her own peers.
Privacy Act of 1974

No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains...​
This applies mainly to companies such as internet service providers as doing such an act that violates the privacy of an individual and revealing such information and activities to another agency or institution is a violation of this law.

====================================================

It disgusts me how the government allows companies to willingly violate the privacy and basic rights of an individual. If companies are against it, then they should take it to the Supreme Court or buy off some Senators and Congressmen to introduce a new Amendment to the Constitution that suits their taste, while at the same time violating the individual rights of a person. And, eventually, turning this country into a tyrannical state.
Click to expand...

That's awesome and all, but how does that apply to a private company offering you a service with terms and conditions and choosing to deny service if those conditions are breached?

Who says there is privacy on the internet? You connect to this site and the owners can identify your IP and your ISP can identify where you've been. There's no implied privacy on where you go on the internet. People assume there is because they're in the privacy of their homes, but the data is out there for people to see. Even the bloody ads imbedded in websites know who you are unless you make a special effort to hide yourself :p

It's less like someone peering through your window to see where you are and more like your ISP is a taxi driver who can see which illegal shops you're going as you make requests to go there, and some of the shop keepers are actually undercover as well (things like torrents which are being tracked) and after you've been warned several times, the taxi driver decides he's not going to serve you any more :p
 
octoberasian said:
Let's repeat this little known clause in the Constitution shall we:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
​
Click to expand...

HAHHAHHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAAAAAAA

PMSLMAO

ROFL

You don't follow THAT do you? Sorry let me rephrase that. You "do" follow that.........it's just the American govt no longer does :(

You gotta stand up for those rights........the constitution is a piece of paper......try holding it up to the RIAA and see how much protection it affords you.

People being indefinitely detained without trial or evidence is allowed........but don't trample my right to illegally download copyrighted files :p

No wonder the USA is fucked! :(
 
mrtheshaggy said:
Torrents having "superior bandwidth" is not correct. Every significant direct download site I know supports multiple downloads per file. Combine that with an app like downloadthem all and instantly max out your download. In that aspect it is much like a torrent, only every part of the file is being downloaded with a proper high bandwidth server instead of the occasional retarded user with a 56k modem. Though since I haven't used torrents in years, they may have fixed that issue of the downloads hanging at 99% because of those people.
Click to expand...

Those things aren't an issue any more. Combined multiple-Gigabit seedboxes could easily max out your home connection regardless of what you have. Teamwork is what makes torrents strong.
 
bigbadgreen said:
they won't for speed limits because some people use their cars on race tracks as well. In some circumstances though they have installed breathalizer devices into a repeat offenders car that won't let the car start unless they blow under the limit first. So it's not unheard of for repeat offenders to get punishments similar to this.

They aren't blocking you unless you download from certain sites. If you are smart enough you don't visit these places anyways. This will cut down on casual downloaders for sure.
Click to expand...

NIssan GT-R uses it's GPS to figure out if your at a race track or not, if you are, then it unlocks the extra horse power for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top