how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: Good Jodokast96
Again, NO. They contract the third parties to provide a legal service. IF that third party does something illegal, then you have to go after them, not the ISP. This is not a good idea for the ISPs becuase it sets precedent that they are responsible for what is being transmitted over their bandwidth. That opens a huge can of worms. | |
|   Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Good said by Lazlow:Jodokast96 Again, NO. They contract the third parties to provide a legal service. IF that third party does something illegal, then you have to go after them, not the ISP. Tell that to WalMart. And this wasn't about them being responsible for traffic through the network. This was about them not removing illegal content (or access to it, whichever applies) after being notified of it. They unfortunately opened themselves up to it in their own TOS for the newsgroups by stating it was not allowed and that they would block such content. They screwed themselves, and Cuomo took advantage of it. At best, it was a thin line, and there was no real benefit for them to fight it. | |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Good Jodokast96
Could you post a link to the TOS you are looking at. I could not see where it would be applicable to Usenet in the version I was looking at. | |
| | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Good Section 2k under the AUP, which went back at least as far as March. | |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: Good Again, please post a LINK. There is no section 2k in the version I am looking at.
Here is the one I am looking at:
»www.corp.att.com/aup/ | |
| | | | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Good Ok, sorry there. I was specifically referring to Verizon, as they were one of first to start doing this. So for other ISP's, there may be differences. | |
| | | | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | However, this may be, though thin, enough for Cuomo to twist their arms in light of what other ISP's have already done,
quote:
Offensive or Threatening Material or Content
AT&T IP related Services shall not be used to host, post, transmit, or re-transmit any content or material that is threatening, harassing, obscene, indecent, pornographic, hateful, malicious, racist, defamatory, libelous, treasonous, excessively violent or promotes the use of violence, or provides instruction, information or assistance in causing or carrying out violence against any government, organization, group or individual, or provides guidance, information or assistance with respect to causing damage or security breaches to AT&T's network or to the network of any other IP related Service provider.
| |
| | | | | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Good Like I've said all along, it may be thin, but there is no real gain to them to fight it, either. It was not, and never was, an essential part of their service. | |
| | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | "transmit, or re-transmit "
That would be to post, not to download. | |
| | | | | | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Good "AT&T IP related Services shall not be used to host..." Again, thin, but enough to avoid the hassle. If they did fight it, and lost, then everyone would be complaining about whatever new fee would be tacked onto their bill to pay for it. When you look at what it costs them to provide it and what it would cost them to defend it, plus what it may have cost them if they lost vs. what they lose by dropping it (very little to nothing since they aren't the first), why wouldn't they? AT&T was certainly on more solid ground than Verzion aparently was, but once Verizon, Sprint, and TWC caved, the gates were open. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, or that it is even totally right, just that there was some responsibility on their part. In matters like this, it's never the criminals that really lose (just look at gun laws). | |
| | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Good "just that there was some responsibility on their part. "
The rest I might give you, but not the above quote. This is the part that WILL get them into trouble. IF they start down this road it will set the precedent that they are responsible, which they have always maintained their common carrier status (dumb pipe). It could be argued that they are doing this in an effort to say that they were forced out of the common carrier status, in order for them to justify tampering with video sources not coming from them (competition). With NetFlix download offerings doing so well, and the huge number of other video sources available know (and on the horizon), this is a far more likely scenario. | |
| | | | | | | | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Good I won't argue at all about precedent setting. But by stating they would take some sort of action against such uses (more so Verizon than AT&T), they did open themselves up to some responsibility. By not taking action where they said they would, they have in essence violated the TOS themselves. Technically, the AG is just ensuring they follow their own TOS. There is still no actual law making them responsible for the content, just their own contract with their customers. Hell, in a few years, they could probably just turn around and change it back, but you know that will never happen. One thing this has really shown is that TOS's really do suck for everybody. | |
|
| |
|
