ISPs Testing RIAA's 3 Strikes Program

from the no-surprise-there dept

Unfortunately, I missed yesterday’s panel here in Nashville about the “ISP/recording industry relationship,” but apparently Jim Cicconi from AT&T admitted what most people had already assumed: that it was a willing and eager participant in the RIAA’s self-destructive campaign to kick people off the internet for file sharing — and, in fact, has started a “test” whereby it’s sending out notices to those accused of file sharing. This isn’t much of a surprise, but it’s interesting to see how quiet AT&T is still being about all of this. It’s still not releasing many details, perhaps knowing that doing so would lead to a pretty massive backlash — while also recognizing that the severe lack of competition out there in most of its markets means that customers really don’t have much of a choice. Update: Apparently, Comcast and Cox have admitted the same thing as well. Disappointed to have missed that panel yesterday.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: at&t

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ISPs Testing RIAA's 3 Strikes Program”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
66 Comments
deadzone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You are completely wrong. They are doing the exact opposite by implementing this. They lose their safe-harbor protections by doing this.

We shall see how much it “limit’s their liabilities” when they start disconnecting people that haven’t done anything wrong – and make no mistake – it’s going to happen.

Jack says:

Shot in the foot.

I wonder how Cox, AT&T, Comcast are all going to explain up to 70% drop in subscribers to their shareholders. This will just aggravate people and probably send many to DSL providers with ISP service from local companies (Not MSN, Yahoo/SBC, SBC)

While you still have internet access, why not look up some un-bundled ISPs in your area?

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re: Shot in the foot.

You are so disconnected from reality that it gives me nosebleeds.

You really think it’s just children who download things illegally? You think parents are grounding their kids for downloading music?

Anyway. The problem with the 3-strikes plan is that it requires only the accusation of file sharing. No courts, no due process, just their word that you’ve done wrong.

Try and tell me this isn’t going to be abused. Just try.

Allen F says:

Re: Re:

But….why? What do the ISPs get out of it?

I don’t know. I thought several companies already put in place things like 200GB per month limits, and that was supposed to address the problem. They keep trying dumb things.

I think one of Mike’s earlier posts indicated that they get a percentage of anything collected when cases go to litigation. If you thought “Prince Sues Mom” or “RIAA sues Grandma” thing was bad, “Comcast Sues Mom” or “AT&T Sues Grandma” will have a quicker, and more direct effect to various companies balance-sheets.

Hmm. Maybe it’s time to consider going long in unbundled service providers such as DTV, DISH, Q, DT, and S, and short the others.

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

Re: Re:

But….why? What do the ISPs get out of it? Not saying they’re not willing to piss off their customers, but why go the extra effort to do so?

Good question. Is it more expensive to defend than to sue? I don’t understand why companies with enough lawyers to have an intra-mural March Madness are such pushovers when they’re on the barrel end of litigation. Google, e.g., does this routinely.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Quite a while ago, when DMCA was first put in place, there was some debate about ISPs and IP networks that they control. Specifically, the question was one of liablity to what is on your network. If you aren’t able to identify the end user on your network, could the user in fact be the ISP? This is one of the reasons why ISPs are usually willing to turn over user information, because they don’t want to get caught out as in any way responsible.

Anyway, my theory is this: Net neutrality is coming down the pipe, the ISPs have realized that at some point they are going to end up with a ton more traffic on their networks with no way to limit it. Expense with no return. But the RIAA and such have offered them the perfect solution: 3 strike.

Imagine: it is reported that only 20% of internet users are true downloaders (canada was 23% in that report issued a while back and discussed here). Now, that 20% or so uses a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. If you shut down the worst cases by 3 striking them off your network, then already things are “better” for the ISP. Kick a few off and make examples of them, and suddenly people will think twice before firing up uTorrent or whatever. Take the active downloaders from 23% to, I dunno, 5%, and the ISPs save a ton of bandwidth costs, don’t need to build their networks up so much, etc.

The RIAA gets a win because downloading, especially amongst the “soft middle” of non-dedicated downloaders, decreases, which could translate into a return to the shiny plastic disc market.

The capper? Don’t be shocked to see all those ISPs end up as prefered retailers of downloadable music, priced to compete with Itunes and brought to you by the RIAA.

(I wear my tin foil shiny side out, it reflects the alien messages better)

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re:

it is reported that only 20% of internet users are true downloaders

Downloading is not illegal. To illegally share a file you have to give it to someone else. Even the MAFIAA isn’t on a crusade against “Illegal Borrowers”.

Yet.

Now, that 20% or so uses a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.

They use what they pay for. Just because some people only use a gig or so a month doesn’t mean that I’m doing something wrong for using what I pay for.

Kick a few off and make examples of them, and suddenly people will think twice before firing up uTorrent or whatever.

You know that uTorrent has many legal uses too right? If my ISP thinks to make me “think twice” for downloading linux, or the new NIN + Jane’s Addiction cd (NIN/JA) which is free, then I will rightfully look for an ISP that does what they are supposed to so, provide internet service. Side Note: Vuze (a bittorrent client) just added the ability to convert files downloaded directly to a portable format, aka for PSP or iPod)

Take the active downloaders from 23% to, I dunno, 5%, and the ISPs save a ton of bandwidth costs, don’t need to build their networks up so much, etc.

I think they have more to worry about from Joost, Netflix, Hulu, and Pandora. I can eat up a good deal of bandwidth without ever downloading a single thing illegally. They need to build up their networks because technology is increasing the amount of bandwidth people use with video streaming, etc. not because of Illegal Borrowers.

The RIAA gets a win because downloading, especially amongst the “soft middle” of non-dedicated downloaders, decreases, which could translate into a return to the shiny plastic disc market

*sigh* The CD is dying and will never come back. Nothing they do will make it come back. I don’t even own a portable CD player, why would I buy a CD at all?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Harold, do you really think limits on file sharing is going to drive CD sales? You are crazy. The market will find a way to get what it wants. There are lots of ways to share files that do not involve torrents, darknet ways, encrypted ways and offline ways. Good luck tracking offline file sharing. Two changes really solve the problem, no drm and reasonable prices. Get a clue.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:

No no, I am not saying that it will drive CD sales – I am suggesting what the RIAA might be thinking. I think they are fooling themselves massively if they think it, but you never know.

I know all sorts of “not p2p” ways to share files, but most of them are too technical for average joe users. I think that the RIAA knows this simple fact: If it gets too difficult and/or too risky to share music, most people won’t do it.

Offline sharing is as old as the hills, takes both time and effort, and mostly limits your offline shares to people you know. The reach of “infinite” is much slower offline.

Music has little value, thus little chance for a good price anymore. Severely impacting file sharing is a way to potentially re-create some value, and thus justify a price.

You know, when file sharing shrinks, there is less need for drm or other schemes. Interesting how that works out.

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You poor dumb bastard. It’s a sailboat.

I know all sorts of “not p2p” ways to share files, but most of them are too technical for average joe users.

Two years ago, people were saying the same thing about p2p.

If it gets too difficult and/or too risky to share music, most people won’t do it.

If it got too expensive to jaywalk people would stop that too. Unfortunately for people who think like you, punishments must fit the crime. 150,000 times the cost of a song isn’t reasonable, nor does it fit the crime. On a side note: Speeding is illegal, but I don’t know a single person who drives the speed limit consistently.

The reach of “infinite” is much slower offline.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Music has little value, thus little chance for a good price anymore.

Value != price. If it were truely valueless, no one would want it at all. The reason it’s difficult to sell it anymore is because there’s no reason for it to be so expensive anymore and people are starting to catch on to this fact. I can copy it for free, why would I pay itunes to copy it for me?

When you buy a Dr. Pepper, the actual Dr. Pepper costs *way* less than the plastic bottle. If I could buy a Dr. Pepper and keep making more of it in my own home for free, not only would I never buy Dr. Pepper again, at *any* price, but I also would not be at all sorry to see the Plastic Bottle business go out of business either. More so when they lobby to make it illegal copy the Dr. Pepper at home just so they can keep selling plastic bottles.

Severely impacting file sharing is a way to potentially re-create some value, and thus justify a price.

See above.

You know, when file sharing shrinks, there is less need for drm or other schemes. Interesting how that works out.

DRM doesn’t stop file sharing as it is, so saying it will go away if file sharing went away is false. DRM exists only to fleece the poor bastard who can’t get around it into paying for the same thing multiple times.

I know, I know– A schooner is a sailboat.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If it gets too difficult and/or risky to share music in the ways music is currently shared then people will find another way. Changing which software you use (or how it is configured) is not too technical for the same average Joe that can use itunes and make his ipod work.

I could swap a 1TB hard disk full of music with someone very quickly. I could attach that drive to my computer via a bus that is faster than my internet connection. I could purchase that 1TB drive for about $100.00 and it would plug right into my computer, say via usb. I would not need any special skills or knowledge to do this. Contrary to what you believe, offline file sharing is much faster than p2p/downloading.

Funny, when the terms that come with digital downloads are untenable then people start finding other ways to what they want.

CantThinkOfACleverName says:

Re: true downloaders

What is a “true downloader” ? Is there a false downloader?
If true = 1 and false = 0 then your file would be all ones?
hmmmmm

Everyone that uses a modern browser to surf the intarwebs is a downloader, even if you are text only.

I’m guessing that what you meant to say was something like “infringing upon copyright by downloading”

Dayne K says:

Response from AT&T

“If somebody is engaging in illegal activity, it basically gives us the right to do it…We’re not a finder of fact and under no circumstances would we ever suspend or terminate service based on an allegation from a third party. We’re just simply reminding people that they can’t engage in illegal activity.”

-Jim Cicconi, Senior Executive VP at AT&T

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Response from AT&T

“If somebody is engaging in illegal activity, it basically gives us the right to do it…We’re not a finder of fact and under no circumstances would we ever suspend or terminate service based on an allegation from a third party. We’re just simply reminding people that they can’t engage in illegal activity.”

-Jim Cicconi, Senior Executive VP at AT&T

It’s also illegal for AT&T to open my mail. The AT&T vs. United States of America EFF Wiretap lawsuit should be revisited.

anymouse says:

Pot... Kettle... Black

“We’re just simply reminding people that they can’t engage in illegal activity.”

Where was this guy when AT&T was performing it’s illegal wiretapping on their customers? (it may have been forgiven by Presidential decree NOW, but it was illegal at the time they were doing it, and they knew it was illegal)

Oh, that’s right, it’s only BAD when the “illegal activity” is on the customers part, when it’s done by corporations it’s all fine and dandy, since they only have their customers best interest at heart, right?

CantThinkOfACleverName says:

All Customers are Screwed

So – an ISP boots a large percentage of their customers on the allegation of copyright infringement recieved from a third party with questionable intent, and they do this because they are over subscribed (this is debatable). Now, what happens to the remainder of their customers? Well, they get the priveledge of a rate increase. See how that works? The customer gets screwed no matter what.
Nice.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: All Customers are Screwed

Active file sharers are a very small percentage of actual users. More importantly, they would only have to boot a few VERY PUBLICLY to get a bunch of others to give it up.

The Comcast numbers, if I remember correctly (they were in a businesweek article) was that 5% of the users accounted for a vast majority of all bandwidth used. So very few customers removed would likely change things entirely.

hegemon13 says:

Re: Re: All Customers are Screwed

I don’t think any business would call a 5% drop in subscriber base “small.” Most would call that time for major panic. And that doesn’t count all the damage caused by bad publicity and an anti-consumer image. There may not be much competition now, but they are sure opening the door up for it. Hopefully this will, in the end, lead to a loosening of the stranglehold that these companies have on the market and an increase in competing alternatives.

Mike S. says:

A Form Letter To Send To Your ISP working with the RIAA

Dear [Insert name of ISP working with RIAA],

I have received your notice accusing me, or someone in my household, of infringement by entertainment companies.

My first question to you is, “How do you know that I am infringing?” Are you or the entertainment companies monitoring my data traffic? If you ARE monitoring what I am doing online, I will have to stop using you as my ISP, since I can’t have you monitoring when I go online to do my banking, to learn more about my family’s health, or to do my shopping; that’s a complete invasion of my privacy and I can’t have you watching my every move and make it available to businesses for scrutiny. If you ARE monitoring what I am doing online, then you have gone from a communications’ company to a watchdog for the entertainment industry, or any other industry that wants to watch what I do online, and I do not wish to purchase Internet services from a company that is willing to collaborate with specific industries to try and find out information on my Internet activities.

If you AREN’T monitoring my Internet activities, then my question to you is, “How did someone from the entertainment industry get information from YOU, my ISP, that would lead them to believe I may be infringing on THEIR product?” Is what I do online that open to scrutiny by anyone on your networks? What about my e-mails? What about my credit cards I use to purchase products? Is THAT information open for anyone to see? Either tighten up your network security, or at least let me know how exposed I am as I surf the internet through the services that you provide me.

My last question to you is this: “Are you willing to lose me, and hundreds or thousands of other customers over the fact that you are willing to share my information, openly or secretly, with big businesses so that they can persecute people?” If you’re open about your collusion with this industry, please be prepared for a long fight. If you’re secretly working with them, be careful; we (the public)found out about AT&T and Verizon working with the NSA on our voice and data communications and we didn’t like that.

Please continue to be a communications company to me, and continue to provide excellent Internet service to me. Keep your Safe Harbors and just give me my internet where ever I need it to me. Please don’t be nosing around in my private business.

Sincerely,

[Insert your name here]

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: A Form Letter To Send To Your ISP working with the RIAA

@MikeS: Someone from the RIAA started up a torrent downloader. They started to download Metallica songs. In looking at the connected peers, they saw an IP from your ISP. By limiting their connections to only your ISP, they download the entire file from your IP. The contacted your ISP to report this, and your ISP ratted you out.

It’s the one of the downsides of torrent programs, your IP is in the open.

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re: A Form Letter To Send To Your ISP working with the RIAA

One of the downsides to how the internet works is that an IP address does not prove an identity.

I don’t know about you, but my Wireless Router is open, and until that becomes illegal, it will remain so. If it’s open, then anyone could have violated their right to copy.

In recap: IP address != proof of identity.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: A Form Letter To Send To Your ISP working with the RIAA

So, you still blindly believe that a) the ISP keeps records of all IPs, b) that these records are complete and uncompromised and c) the IP recorded was the one the file was actually downloaded from. Not to mention that a single IP can be shared among many machines through routers, etc. and there are many ways to use it without the renter’s knowledge if you can get it.

IP evidence alone is flimsy. MAC addresses can also be spoofed. This has been conclusively proven both through experiments (the infamous “infringing” laser printer) and case history (the many lawsuits that have been thrown out due to lack of evidence or simply accusing someone who could not have committed the offence).

You’re expecting all information to be honest and straightforward on the side of the accusers, competence and clarity from the ISP and no nefarious activity. How stupid. There is no reason to trust this information and this information alone, and you’re a fool if you’re happy to let your ISP kick you off at the whim based on such flawed data.

KD says:

Re: A Form Letter To Send To Your ISP working with the RIAA

I doubt polite letters like that one, after the fact, will do squat.

What would be effective, though I doubt we could organize it, is a mass boycott of *all* of the big ISPs who have reported cooperating with RIAA in this. By boycott, I mean get people to cancel their internet service until the ISPs make a credible pledge to abandon all cooperation with the RIAA and any similar group that may get set up.

A large number of people doing this would be the equivalent of smacking the ISPs between the eyes with a 2×4 — it would get their attention and show them that they better be on their customers’ side in this fight.

Unfortunately, I doubt we could motivate enough people to take the action of cancelling their internet service temporarily until the boycott were declared over. Did you see the report a couple of weeks ago that people surveyed claimed they would give up their car rather than give up their internet service? There probably were some flaws in that survey, but it does point out that many people consider internet service pretty important. Unfortunately, most of those people are short-sighted enough that they probably aren’t willing to give it up temporarily to wield that 2×4 to insure that they are getting the service they really want to have.

It’s sad. Our society is getting too soft. The sheeple will let the gov and bigcorps walk all over them. Chaevez probably couldn’t even organize an effective grape boycott these days.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

@PaulT: Paul, you are thinking like a grand techie wizard, not an average user.

a) ISPs keep records of assignments of IP addressed (they are logged) at minimum by mac address, if not specifically by user. Your MAC address is easy enough to figure out (and if you are using a company supplied DSL modem / router, it might even be already in their hands.

b) the records are actually usually quite complete. My ISP as an example knows exactly how many minutes my dsl modem is on for (24 hours a day) and exactly how much traffic I use, and they can also list all IP addresses used in a billing period if you ask them.

c) Shared IPs are not an issue, because your personal IP address is never actually shared while you are connected. You may be going through a shared gateway, but P2P really does require your actual machine IP or DSL / Cablemodem gateway address to work.

Basically, if you are going to worry about hacking, well, then there is a bigger issue at hand. If you are willing to hack and risk imprisonment to download some tunes, you have issues.

Also, it isn’t hard for your ISP to scan IPs looking for file sharers or to use very basic tool to detect P2P traffic. It is then not very hard for them to find out what files you are actively sharing. Within your own ISP network, hiding won’t be easy.

I am expecting nothing. Again, you don’t see me saying it’s a great plan (you guys are putting that on me), I say I see what they are doing, and they are very likely to go out there and trade absolute network neutrality for agressive actions against illegal downloaders and mass file sharers. I think that the fear of having your connection terminated (and possibly no chance to get it back from any other ISP in the area) would be enough to scare most casual users away from P2P. That is what the RIAA really wants, and ISPs know they can then turn around and sell movies and music through their portal sites with fast download in conjunction with the RIAA and make more money.

You have to think past the end of your nose, there are political reasons behind many moves. “I’ll trade you network neutrality for no illegal P2P activity.”. It’s a win-win for both sides, and the vast majority of online customers won’t give a crap and will be happy to get good connections all the time.

The infamous Joe says:

Re: Re:

im done tearing down every sentence you say, my furry friend. However, I do have this question:

What gives a private business that sells plastic discs the power to have “political reasons” for anything? What makes you think that they have the power to “give” net neutrality?

And lastly, why doesn’t that scare you as much as it scares me?

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Can’t you read?

The ISPs are being pressured to agree to outright net neutrality. They don’t want to do it with massive amounts of P2P traffic that they would have to support if it happened (literally, it would become a free for all). So they are making what to me looks like an interesting political move. Quietly work with the RIAA, test out 3 strikes. If it works, make it a big policy, and at the exactly same time you roll it out, also roll out an agreement on net neutrality signed by all the ISPs in question.

the RIAA only wants P2P to stop. They have no political interests – but the ISP’s political interests are likely what has got them so interested in 3 strikes.

If it happens, the ISPs win by appearing to give net neutrality it’s full blessing, while shutting down most of the traffic they don’t want to support, the RIAA gets a win because there would be less P2P, and the vast majority of customers would actually win by getting unclogged internet connections. The only losers would be the file traders, and they would be sort of in a weird space because many of them as also net neutrality supporters, who would look foolish to oppose the very thing they have been pushing for.

It isn’t about shiny plastic discs. I would even go as far to say as this could lead to more direct music sales in download formats. The less you can easily share a file, the more likely music companies will be willing to sell without drm online. It would be another great business connection between the ISPs (and their portal sites) and the music companies.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Right now, there are still plenty of people on the fence about things like P2P. Obviously, P2P still has to live somewhat in the shadows, there can’t be advertising for “get your free torrent downloads here” sort of thing.

If net neutrality was to come along by itself, ISPs would not be able to do anything against P2P traffic, and it is likely that P2P would be pushed into the light, encouraging more people to use it, and encouraging existing users to leave their torrent program running and to make more files available.

ISPs don’t generally want to get caught holding the bag on this one. They know they are going to get forced into some sort of net neutrality agreement at some point, or the government (or FCC) will specifically mandate it in a way they cannot avoid. So what better way to fix the problem then to agree to net neutrality and all that it brings, at the same time that you take steps to stop “illegal acts” on your network? The good press about net neutrality would likely cover over any bad press that comes from 3 strikes, as it is likely nobody would 3 strike out on the same day.

As for 5% being significant for these businesses, I agree it’s a significant number. But if 5% of the people are using 50% of the resources, it is significantly cheaper just to get rid of that 5% than it is to serve them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Having a neutral network does not mean that suddenly everyone will use p2p. Even if p2p gets more bandwidth on a neutral network that does not change the law related to copyrighted works. I think it is a real strech to say that net neutrality will open the p2p flood gates and everyone and their mother will suddenly start wholesale downloading of every copyrighted thing under the sun.

This is the same as saying that if we legalize drugs today that everyone would be stoned tomorrow. It just does not work that way. This kind of thinking comes from fear of the unknown, not from reality.

Copyright enforcement is the domain of copyright holders, not ISPs. Please keep your enforcement problem out of my internet connection. As I keep saying, it is limits on use and high prices that drive the sharing of copyrighted works. If I could buy tracks for the pennies (

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Start with getting stoned: Apparently you haven’t been to amsterdam. By legalizing the stuff, they have turned an entire region into a bunch of stoners. it’s almost too fun to go there sometimes, sort of like a really bad version of Bill and Ted.

P2P right now has reached a balancing point where not many more people are downloading, and significant numbers of people still don’t do it for various reasons. But if you apply net neutrality and say “we no longer check any traffic on our network ever”, you suddenly open the flood gates. If people think P2P “infringing” is okay, they will do more of it. Why pay money when you don’t have to, especially with the economy in the crapper?

I am still trying to figure out the limits of use thing. If I have a CD of music, and I rip it onto my system, I have it. I then load it up into my mp3 player and enjoy it there. I might dupe the CD to have it in the car. So far I have done nothing wrong, I haven’t been stopped from enjoying the product, and there are no issues.

Now, if your problem is that you can’t give copies out to other people, or that your DVD won’t play in another regoing, well, whatever. What use of music are you trying to do that is blocked?

Stoopid Name says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“But if you apply net neutrality and say “we no longer check any traffic on our network ever”, you suddenly open the flood gates”

That is BS and you know it.
… all of a sudden Gramma will start d/l Tupac?

Those that will d/l are doing it. Those that dont d/l will not be inticed by some silly declaration.

At least WH acknowledges that one should be able to copy purchased stuff for personal use elsewhere. I shouldn’t have to pay for each and every PLACE that I want to use said copyright protected stuff.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

At least WH acknowledges that one should be able to copy purchased stuff for personal use elsewhere. I shouldn’t have to pay for each and every PLACE that I want to use said copyright protected stuff.

You should never have to pay for it in more than one place – unless you are “lending” copies to your friends, whatever. Basically you have the right to listen to a single copy of a song at any one time. So if you are listening to it on your mp3 player and mom is listening to it in the car and you sister is listening to it on your computer, you are technically in violation. But nobody is going to come get your for it.

all of a sudden Gramma will start d/l Tupac?

No, gramma still can’t even get her mail. But if it was “legal” or no longer checked, your mom might ask you to get her some engleburt humberdink for her to listen to when she does her pilates classes. Heck, she might even ask you to show her how to do it so she could go look for herself.

I think it would be amazing how much P2P traffic would increase if it was declared either “legal” or “no longer checked”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Golly Gee Whiz Harold, so you mean that if connect to a router to my DSL modem, they can still read the IP address off my computer? Even the dynamic ip that gets assigned whenever I turn my computer on? That may or may not be the same as the last time? they can get that IP address? Or did you perhaps mean the dynamically set address assigned to my DSL router every time it reconnects to the service? Just FYI, I track that address myself as best I can, and I haven’t seen the same address yet in the 4 months I have my current provider.

Weird Harold (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Gosh golly yes, they know who is connected to what IP. if you are using your local router to do dhcp, then it would be the IP of your cable modem / DSL modem at that point that they can track. Plus most people leave their DSL on full time and rarely get an new IP address. But hey, not important. You can work on believing they don’t know who is who, and enjoy the strikes.

Shucks, sorry to confuse you with technical stuff.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

again that conveniently ignores the fact that once a packet gets to your modem it could be going to any computer, including one that is not owned by you. yes they know that packet went to your house, but not whose computer. a house could be shared by many people, the packet in question could have been intended for someone who was just borrowing the internet for a moment. Home users don’t keep detailed logs so while the industries and you ISP know it when to your home, the don’t know anything else and can’t really prove anything. hell, I could goto the local library or coffee shop that has free open wifi to do all the illicit stuff online that I want and with your current argument the owner of the coffee shop is guilty and should have his internet cut-off

luckybleu says:

legal alternatives to file sharing

The riaa has been waiting until legal licensed alternatives to p2p have launched, (see qtrax) once this and similar services are launched ,the riaa will aggressively go after illegal file sharers and the sites themselves , by licensing these approved services it will give the riaa more credibility in legal proccedings against copyright infringement,since there will be legal licensed alternatives.It will no longer be considered acceptable to steal.My mother taught me not to steal at a young age, my isp dosen’t and shouldn’t have too

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »