AT&T - First ISP to step up and say they will filter content at ISP level - GoFuckYourself.com

seeric · 09-20-2007, 04:31 PM

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...with-isps.html
SOURCE: ARS TECHNICA
www.arstechnica.com

FULL STORY ON LINK ABOVE, CLIFFED BELOW FOR PEOPLE IN A HURRY

"It's no secret that US content owners want the "middlemen" of the Internet economy to better police their networks and services for material that infringes copyright. The problem, from a legal perspective, is that ISPs like AT&T and Comcast and content hosts like YouTube have the explicit legal go-ahead not to do this; they operate in a tranquil Caribbean "safe harbor" that exempts them from the crushing responsibility to filter and analyze every bit of content passing through their control."

"Rather amazingly, given the money and time that will be required to implement such a system, AT&T has agreed to start filtering content at some mysterious point in the future. Other ISPs could well follow suit, as most of the major networks are owned by or affiliated with companies that also have a voracious need for content (just think of how both cable companies and telcos like AT&T and Verizon need access to channels for their various TV offerings, if you need an example). The companies want to keep on good terms with content owners, but there may also be some legitimate concern about the impact illicit traffic has on their networks. Cracking down on illegal file-sharing?should that prove to be technically possible?could help with both of these issues."

FROM

pocketkangaroo · 09-20-2007, 04:34 PM

Good and bad. Good because it gives a way to block these sites, bad because it gives them leeway to ban our sites.

seeric · 09-20-2007, 04:35 PM

oooops

FROM = www.arstechnica.com in case you missed it.

from digg swarm originally http://labs.digg.com/swarm/ if you care the true source where it was discovered.

seeric · 09-20-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Good and bad. Good because it gives a way to block these sites, bad because it gives them leeway to ban our sites.

true.

big brother too.

has many bad connotations and some very good ones. we were also talking about if the isps just blocked all the thieving bastards seeking harbor oversees and block those urls to u.s. traffic, we essentially turn into china and censorship.

dual edged sword, that one is.

StarkReality · 09-20-2007, 04:44 PM

Yep, censorship would be bad, but it's about excessive traffic caused by filesharing and filehosts, the traffic the whole LEGAL adult internet causes is really small compared to what illegal downloads cause, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. It's a little scary anyway.

09-20-2007, 04:31 PM	#1
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	AT&T - First ISP to step up and say they will filter content at ISP level http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...with-isps.html SOURCE: ARS TECHNICA www.arstechnica.com FULL STORY ON LINK ABOVE, CLIFFED BELOW FOR PEOPLE IN A HURRY "It's no secret that US content owners want the "middlemen" of the Internet economy to better police their networks and services for material that infringes copyright. The problem, from a legal perspective, is that ISPs like AT&T and Comcast and content hosts like YouTube have the explicit legal go-ahead not to do this; they operate in a tranquil Caribbean "safe harbor" that exempts them from the crushing responsibility to filter and analyze every bit of content passing through their control." "Rather amazingly, given the money and time that will be required to implement such a system, AT&T has agreed to start filtering content at some mysterious point in the future. Other ISPs could well follow suit, as most of the major networks are owned by or affiliated with companies that also have a voracious need for content (just think of how both cable companies and telcos like AT&T and Verizon need access to channels for their various TV offerings, if you need an example). The companies want to keep on good terms with content owners, but there may also be some legitimate concern about the impact illicit traffic has on their networks. Cracking down on illegal file-sharing?should that prove to be technically possible?could help with both of these issues." FROM

09-20-2007, 04:34 PM	#2
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Good and bad. Good because it gives a way to block these sites, bad because it gives them leeway to ban our sites.

09-20-2007, 04:35 PM	#3
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	oooops FROM = www.arstechnica.com in case you missed it. from digg swarm originally http://labs.digg.com/swarm/ if you care the true source where it was discovered.

09-20-2007, 04:44 PM	#5
StarkReality Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42 Posts: 4,444	Yep, censorship would be bad, but it's about excessive traffic caused by filesharing and filehosts, the traffic the whole LEGAL adult internet causes is really small compared to what illegal downloads cause, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. It's a little scary anyway.