AT&T to target pirated content

NWgamer666

CAGiversary!
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-piracy13jun13,0,3381432.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

AT&T to target pirated content

It joins Hollywood in trying to keep bootleg material off its network.
By James S. Granelli, Times Staff Writer
June 13, 2007

AT&T Inc. has joined Hollywood studios and recording companies in trying to keep pirated films, music and other content off its network — the first major carrier of Internet traffic to do so.

The San Antonio-based company started working last week with studios and record companies to develop anti-piracy technology that would target the most frequent offenders, said James W. Cicconi, an AT&T senior vice president.

The nation's largest telephone and Internet service provider also operates the biggest cross-country system for handling Internet traffic for its customers and those of other providers.

As AT&T has begun selling pay-television services, the company has realized that its interests are more closely aligned with Hollywood, Cicconi said in an interview Tuesday. The company's top leaders recently decided to help Hollywood protect the digital copyrights to that content.

"We do recognize that a lot of our future business depends on exciting and interesting content," he said.

But critics say the company is going to be fighting a losing battle and angering its own customers, and it should focus instead on developing incentives for users to pay for all the content they want.

Few doubt that piracy is a significant problem. The major U.S. studios lost $2.3 billion last year to online piracy and an additional $3.8 billion to bootleg DVDs, according to industry statistics. AT&T can help only with the online losses, which the industry said were growing faster than those from counterfeit DVDs.

Cicconi is in Los Angeles to talk at the Digital Hollywood Summit conference in Santa Monica this morning and hopes to discuss the initiative there.

Last week, about 20 technology executives from Viacom Inc., its Paramount movie studio and other Hollywood companies met at AT&T headquarters to start devising a technology that would stem piracy but not violate privacy laws or Internet freedoms espoused by the Federal Communications Commission.

Cicconi said that once a technology was chosen, the company would look at privacy and other legal issues.

"We are pleased that AT&T has decided to take such a strong, proactive position in protecting copyrights," Viacom said in a prepared statement. "AT&T's support of strong anti-piracy efforts will be instrumental in developing a growing and vibrant digital marketplace and will help ensure that they have a steady stream of great creative content to deliver to their consumers."

But public interest groups are wary.

"The risk AT&T faces is fighting the last war by spending money and energy plugging an old hole in the wall when new ones are breaking out," said Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation. The San Francisco digital-rights organization has sued AT&T, alleging it illegally released customers' phone data to the federal government.

Technology is putting unlimited copying power in the hands of consumers, Von Lohmann said, so the answer to piracy can't be trying to stop them from making copies.

"The answer should be to figure out how to turn them into paying customers," he said.

AT&T's decision surprised Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group.

"AT&T is going to act like the copyright police, and that is going to make customers angry," she said. "The good news for AT&T is that there's so little competition that where else are the customers going to go?"

Verizon Communications Inc., which has fiercely guarded the privacy of its customers, has refused so far to offer a network anti-piracy tool. It defeated in court the recording industry's demands to reveal names of those allegedly involved in downloading pirated songs.

In mid-March, executives at Viacom and the Motion Picture Assn. of America separately approached Cicconi with the idea of a partnership. Content providers have long looked for a network solution to piracy, but no operator had been willing to join with them.

Efforts to date have focused on filtering and other technologies at the end of uploads and downloads of pirated material, but those have largely failed.

The Recording Industry Assn. of America has engendered a barrage of criticism for its efforts at suing people who download copyrighted songs illegally and who trade in bootleg music CDs.

"They've tried the whack-a-mole approach, and I don't think they're winning," Cicconi said.
 
How about to the US government to complain about a monopoly?


[quote name='NWgamer666']
"AT&T is going to act like the copyright police, and that is going to make customers angry," she said. "The good news for AT&T is that there's so little competition that where else are the customers going to go?"
[/quote]
 
Isnt there some Common Carrier law that makes companies like AT&T immune from prosection because they don't look at traffic?
If they look for pirated material, then why can't they look for kiddie porn, etc etc etc - and if they don't catch it and lil Johnny gets raped, shouldn't they be held liable?


....or something like that
 
No, and for the simple reason that no one makes money whether lil Johnny is raped or not. The movie industry, however, loses "billions" to piracy. Although, it's debatable how much they actually lose.

Say you want to watch X movie, but can't afford the $20 tag, so you download it. Now you've seen the movie and didn't have to pay. Now, where it gets debatable is - Is Hollywood really out money because you downloaded a movie you couldn't afford anyways and subsequently would not have purchased? The best solution to piracy is for them to stop being a bunch of greedy whores and charging $20-40 for a movie. That'd also require not paying people 10s of millions to be in said movie.

[quote name='Pookymeister']Isnt there some Common Carrier law that makes companies like AT&T immune from prosection because they don't look at traffic?
If they look for pirated material, then why can't they look for kiddie porn, etc etc etc - and if they don't catch it and lil Johnny gets raped, shouldn't they be held liable?


....or something like that[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']No, and for the simple reason that no one makes money whether lil Johnny is raped or not. The movie industry, however, loses "billions" to piracy. Although, it's debatable how much they actually lose.

Say you want to watch X movie, but can't afford the $20 tag, so you download it. Now you've seen the movie and didn't have to pay. Now, where it gets debatable is - Is Hollywood really out money because you downloaded a movie you couldn't afford anyways and subsequently would not have purchased? The best solution to piracy is for them to stop being a bunch of greedy whores and charging $20-40 for a movie. That'd also require not paying people 10s of millions to be in said movie.[/quote]

That isn't true, though. Most people who download movies can certainly afford to buy some movies, just not all the many movies that they want. Calling movie studios 'greedy whores' may be a nice way for you to justify stealing their property, but it's still wrong. If you walk into a store and don't like their prices, you don't get to just grab whatever you want for free now do you?
 
Net neutrality NOW.

Go vote in your primaries. For Obama. He's the only one with a history of net neutrality support.
 
I didn't say no one could buy any, but its more than likely that they couldn't afford the number they pirate, which still makes the loses "imaginary". I also didn't say that it wasn't illegal or justified because they were too expensive, what I did say is as many people wouldn't do it if they didn't charge as much and they wouldn't have to charge as much if execs and actors didn't get serveral millions per year/film.



[quote name='dragonreborn23']That isn't true, though. Most people who download movies can certainly afford to buy some movies, just not all the many movies that they want. Calling movie studios 'greedy whores' may be a nice way for you to justify stealing their property, but it's still wrong. If you walk into a store and don't like their prices, you don't get to just grab whatever you want for free now do you?[/quote]
 
them buying cingular was far to strange its funny because they are getting rid of cingulars symbols yet keeping there slogans and there statistics.

I hope that when people start hearing on the news that at&t helped sue college kids that everyone boycotts.
 
I know I would actually spend more money if they had legal, cheap downloads (not rentals). I wouldn't even burn 'em, just store them on a HTPC and have great quality.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Say you want to watch X movie, but can't afford the $20 tag, so you download it. Now you've seen the movie and didn't have to pay. Now, where it gets debatable is - Is Hollywood really out money because you downloaded a movie you couldn't afford anyways and subsequently would not have purchased? The best solution to piracy is for them to stop being a bunch of greedy whores and charging $20-40 for a movie. That'd also require not paying people 10s of millions to be in said movie.[/QUOTE]I don't buy DVDs. I don't download movies off the internet.

I rent them. Either for free from the library, or for a small monthly fee off of Netflix.



Now, music is an entirely different beast. I would not buy NEARLY as much music as I do if I didn't pirate most of it. I also wouldn't know what music to buy and what music not to buy.



Being an AT&T customer, this greatly concerns me. Why the fuck did these assholes go and buy SBC.
 
Same difference... goes for videogames too.

[quote name='PyroGamer']

Now, music is an entirely different beast. I would not buy NEARLY as much music as I do if I didn't pirate most of it. I also wouldn't know what music to buy and what music not to buy.[/quote]
 
I can remember back when AT&T had everything, then they were shut down. Then they started buying everything up again. Nobody had a problem with it but me. Now this... Hmm... I hate to say it but I told you so.

Time to drop my provider... unfortunately, they ARE the cheapest and the LEAST retarded around here.

It's also a good thing I got FM2 and that it killed all my "bad habits".
 
You guys have it backwards. SBC who also owns Cingular, bought AT&T and then used AT&T's name instead because its more widely known.

If this affects me, i'll be glad to get rid of my DSL connection, its been shit lately.
 
[quote name='Skelah']I hope that when people start hearing on the news that at&t helped sue college kids that everyone boycotts.[/quote]

...like everyone boycotted the RIAA label music?

Don't get your hopes up.
 
bread's done
Back
Top