RIAA Sues Backbone ISPs to Censor Website

prostoalex writes "Music labels filed a lawsuit against major Internet service providers for not blocking access to Listen4Ever.com, music site located in China. The defendants in the suit include AT&T Broadband, Cable & Wireless USA, Sprint Corp., Advanced Network Services and UUNET Technologies." Wow.

Comments

from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[Cliff]

Now if this doesn't convince you that the RIAA Amoeba is the lowest, most evil form of life on this planet, I don't know what will.

If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss your fair use rights good-bye.

I think I will end this before I start stringing together several run-on sentences comprised solely of Carlin's Seven Words you Don't Say...

Music industry indeed. Why not call it like it is and start calling them the Music Mafia? Oops. That's insulting the mafia...I shouldn't do that.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[ejdmoo]

"If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss your fair use rights good-bye."

If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss justice goodbye, as well as the common sense of that judge.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[cmowire]

Damn, a good first post for once. ;)

Seriously, if the RIAA goes through with this, you can kiss your ISP's fiscial stability good-bye.

Can you imagine how many sites for illegal content appear outside of the US? Can you imagine how many requests every large backbone provider would have to deal with? Can you imagine how quickly the blocking tables on the router would be stuffed to the gills?

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[spoonist]

"If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss justice goodbye, as well as the common sense of that judge."

If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss The Constitution goodbye.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss justice goodbye, as well as the common sense of that judge."

If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss Listen4Ever.com goodbye. The rest is only speculation.

Before you mod me as redundant, consider this: What are the real consequences of the RIAA winning this? Well, Listen4Ever.com will probably be blocked, fair enough. Does this give the RIAA too much power? Well, that depends. Let's say that the RIAA demands that ISP's sue another site like Listen4Ever that pops up. Will that mean the RIAA can demand ISP's to block it? That depends on the exact findings of the judge. The judge could say "ISP's must block this site..." or he/she could say "ISP's must block sites that break copyrights...".

In the first case, the RIAA would have to sue again in order to block another site. (Eventually that'll get a bit spendy...) In the second case, the ISP's could appeal. They could challenge any site that the RIAA attempts to block. It wouldn't take long for a freedom of speech case to come up. It is hard to imagine that the RIAA could develop any real policing powers.

In other words, nothing is absolute. The more ridiculous steps that the RIAA takes to control content (especially when they can't prove they've lost money on 'unauthorized copies'...), the harder it is for any legislation to be passed to lock up the content. "We shut down this site, but our income didn't suddenly grow." -- How well will that hold up? I think this type of crap makes it less likely that new versions of the SSSCA will get passed. I see a silver lining either way.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[alouts]

Please. Speculation, sure. But fairly well-founded speculation.

If the RIAA wins this, they have a legal precedent for blocking whatever the hell they want to under the guise of copyright infringement. Now, the second time around their case may not be as strong, and the backbone operators may stand a chance of winning if they challenge, but with precedent on the **AA's side, it is not in the financial interest of ISP to follow through on that challenge. Defending yourself against litigation is costly, and the lesser your chances of winning, the smaller your desire to pursue.

The problem with your scenario is that so far as I know, the ISPs aren't altruistic slashdot readers, they're businesses. And when backed into a corner by the legal system, businesses usually prefer to just pay the fee to the troll under the bridge rather than fight it for a chance to pass for free. It ends up costing them less in the long run.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[Dark Paladin]

The problem here isn't about fair use.

Should we sue the Post Office for anthrax sent through the mail? Sue the Dept of Highway Safety because a gangster robbed the bank then made his getaway on the highway? Sue the telephone service because a stalker keeps calling your house?

No company - no company - should be able to sue a communications company just because they don't like what somebody says. If the government of China doesn't want to shut it down, then the RIAA should be applying the powers that be there - not on the communications medium.

Personally, I hope that AT&T et all take them on and give them what for.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[Fat Casper]

If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss Listen4Ever.com goodbye. The rest is only speculation.

No, you just won't be able to reach Listen4Ever.com from anywhere that goes through these backbone carriers. Carriers. That's an important word here. The RIAA isn't suing a copyright infringing website, they're suing the phone company. These backbone folks are "common carriers," meaning that they are not responsible for what passes over their cables.

An FTP request is an FTP request is an FTP request. If it goes to Listen4Ever.com, goatce.cx or whitehouse.gov, it doesn't matter to them. They've got a really fat pipe that they're trying to keep up. They're not some public library that went and accepted federal money to get on the net and has to put mommyware on their boxen, they're common carriers. Once they start picking and choosing what traffic to allow, they're responsible for all the traffic they carry: terrorists' instructions, gay bashing emails, kiddie porn and auctions of Nazi memorabilia.

The telcos aren't going to let anything take their common carrier protections away from them. I think that the RIAA finally took on the wrong opponent.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[neuroticia]

Err.

People opposed to this insane measure taken by the Music Industry are not necessarily opposed to copyright. I don't beg for, borrow, or steal music but I'm COMPLETELY opposed to what the industry is requesting of the backbone service providers.

They are advocating CENSORSHIP, they are pushing and pulling with every muscle they have, and they are tying up our courts with frivilous lawsuits and innane complaints, and pursuing people who are not going out of their way to cause harm or break the law(backbone companies). Rather than pursuing these companies that provide American Citizens with much-valued connectivity (at already absurd prices which would only be driven up by the necessity of blocking certain sites) they should pursue the bootleggers who sell CDs at Times Square, those who sell their music without their permission, and the *actual offending parties*.

Censorship on a backbone level hasn't been done for even cases that most people would consider deserving, such as child pornography sites, terrorist sites, sites that advocate the hunting and killing of pro-choice doctors, and the list goes on. THE MUSIC INDUSTRY SHOULD NOT RECIEVE PRIORITY OVER THESE OTHER SITUATIONS, and I'd even be hard-pressed to say that censorship of these sites should rest on the backbone provider.

The recording industry has just proven that if anything, it is OVER-FUNDED and has too much money to spare to tie up the courts with airheaded legislation (DMCA) and lawsuits that should never see the light of day.

How long before they say that speaking up against the DMCA is a violation of the DMCA since it advocates the abolition of a copyright protection measure (the DMCA)? Oh, wait. It's already happened on a much more subtle level. I belong to this mailing list, and posted an innocuous question about how to copy a CD at a raw data level without having to mount it because some backup software I used (To create a backup of my own hard drive with my own personally-created information on it) creates backup CDs that are non-mountable. I could use the backup software to dupe the CD, but the read-write process it uses would take 3 hours with a 32x burner, and I had over 200 CDs that I wished to create a second backup set of to keep off site. (Being located in NYC, this would be a good idea, no?) Apparently this question was in too "murky" an area, and the list owner did not want to deal with the possiblity of the question being misconstrued by anyone who might be listening in.

Tell me that the "entertainment industry" isn't sounding a bit hitlerish, and having way too much control over way too many things?

But.... Shhh.. I didn't say that. I don't want anyone "listening in" to misconstrue things.

-Sara

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[RylandDotNet]

This suit has nothing to do with copyrights. It isn't the job of AT&T et al. to protect the copyrights of RIAA member companies, especially not by censoring sites on the internet. If they have to block Listen4Ever, then the RIAA have carte blanche to sue any ISP to block any website they want. What's next, blocking sites that are critical of the RIAA? Say goodbye to Slashdot.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[berzerke]

I'm not so sure. First, the ISP's being sued do have the money to fight. At least they have a chance (the old justice to the highest bidder game). And they have incentive to fight.

If they win, they now have a legal precident which would help deter future lawsuits, not just from the **AA, but from anyone with a gripe about a website. Think abortion friend/foe, various religious groups, companies (MS suing to block Linux sites for instance), etc. Face it. If every web site that contained something someone didn't like was blocked, there would be very few websites. If they fail to fight, they are just inviting many more lawsuits, again, not just from the **AA (see list above).

Now the big question is are the execs at the ISPs bright enough to see this.

Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept.

[Planar]

If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss The Constitution goodbye."

If this suit passes in favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss The Internet goodbye. I mean, if any jerk can sue the ISPs for transmitting packets they don't like, the Internet just cannot work.

O_o~

[Twintop]

*Quickly bookmarks and downloads everything not on newsgroups.* Seriously though, this is the direction that things are going, and the RIAA is just trying in a futile attempt to stop it. There isn't ever going to be a way to police anything on the internet: it's to large and too spread out. Eventually the RIAA is going to have to realize that album sales aren't going to be bringing in the big bucks anymore, and instead there are going to have to focus on promoting concerts, t-shirts, and other things that can't be ripped from the web.

could be a good thing

[kid zeus]

Hey, at least now some of the defendants have equally deep pockets. We're talking AT&T here, not some little indie ISP. Seems to me that the RIAA might have been better off not pissing off some of these companies who can field as good or better a legal team and who can throw as much money at Congress.

Hard to say...

[sterno]

The thing is that the DMCA provides safe harbor provisions for an ISP if they remove an offending website. The offender can then get the content returned if they affirm that they are not violating copyright.

Of course the safe harbor provisions were intended for the ISP at the end of the line. So I'm not sure what legal precedent would be in play here. Given that these carriers are common carriers, with no control over the content they carry, I should think the RIAA would lose the case. If they didn't, then it would become the responsibility of carriers to monitor traffic on their networks for illegal activity, etc. It would be akin to holding AT&T responsible for embezzling because two mafiosos talked to eachother over a long distance phone call.

Lowest Common Denominator

[FFFish]

Perhaps one of the potential outcomes of globalization is that we all sink to the lowest common denominator. America blocking access to foreign sites? That's so... Chinaesque!

We're Asking the Wrong Question

[Schlemphfer]

It seems there are at least four or five stories about the RIAA every week on Slashdot. Most deal with circumventing their legal lobbying, technical approaches for dealing with proposed DRM techniques, and whatnot.

Meanwhile, it seems the RIAA sinks to a new depth every week. With this latest story, I think it's time the tech community started asking a different question. What can the tech community do to damage the RIAA or render them irrelevant? And what are the best legal methods for kicking the RIAA where it hurts?

Audacity indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says that the plantiff's claim that Listen4Ever.com is registered under a "U.S. domain name". What the heck is that all about? So websites in any other country must use their nation's domain, but only "U.S." websites can use a .com ? The RIAA truly astounds me with what they'll say/pull.....

Yep, it's the T-Rex complex!

[Infonaut]

Great post, kid zeus.

Those RIAA nimwits may be meeting their match here. Not only do they have deep pockets, but think of it this way - when the folks in Washington see this battle, they may rethink what's more important: keeping the Information Superhighway (tm) alive and propelling the New Economy, or keeping the music industry alive in its current bloodsucking incarnation.

T-Rex, meet Godzilla. :-)

aimed at a US audience?

[matthew_eeph]

The news media says "The suit states... the site... appears to target an American audience" If that's so, why does the top of the site itself say "Add listen4ever.com to your Favourites"?

Re:ok...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

what legal requirement do all those ISPs have to block those sites to begin with? If there's none, RIAA has no case whatsoever.

Well, as of late, the RIAA has been pushing the theory of "contributory copyright infringement". In essence, it goes like this: You didn't infringe any copyrights. But you helped someone else infringe them. So you're just as guilty. As the .sig says, it's sort of a dumb logic that undermines any concept of personal responsibility. But the courts have been remarkably well-disposed toward this insanity, so the RIAA might win.

Not a good move by the RIAA

[Sangui5]

You may think that the RIAA is good at influencing the legal and political process, but I think they've just picked a fight they can't hope to win. The big backbone providers got to where they are through skillful manipulation of the system. If any set of entities is capable of playing the litigation game, it has got to be the phone and cable companies.

First off, every other case the RIAA has attempted has been against shallow pockets. Not so here. While WorldCom is in trouble, they do have a large legal team sitting around doing nothing (can't work on the bankruptcy 'cause that's not their area). I don't think I need mention how deep the pockets of ATT, Sprint, et. al. are.

Also, in the past they've gone against entities without experience. At any one time any major phone company is involved in more litagation than you can imagine (minimum of 3 major legal actions per state--justifying their current rates, attacking the justification their competitors give for their rates, and fighting to keep their preferred status as incumbant carrier, besides various federal and local actions). They know how to take full advantage of the rules, which rules they have to follow, which they can bend, and which they can break. They'll make dragging any information out of them during discovery a total nightmare, while at the same time demanding the most minor scraps of records the RIAA has. They'll abuse the calander, run the clock, and overall be just not very nice.

The RIAA may act like an 800 lb. gorrilla, but they've just picked a fight with the 8000 lb. bunch. Not a good idea.

Re:Not a good move by the RIAA

[cpeterso]

I think the RIAA does not actually expect to go to court. They probably just want the backbone providers to compare the cost of going to court versus simply blacklisting "just one web site". Once the Listen4ever.com precedent has been set, then the RIAA could keep pestering the backbone providers with more web sites to blacklist.

How are ISPs violating copyright?

[NanoGator]

I dont understand how the RIAA could make a case. How is the ISP violating copyright? The ISP is a non-descriminant transport vehicle. They shouldn't have to know what's in the packets and then police them. The RIAA shouldn't get special powers to get sites blocked for such a silly offense.

This is a serious problem with the digital world. The more digital things become, the more individual things can be blocked. Imagine if the power-grid was digital. Your computer would need a form of address to get the appropriate amount of power for your device. Then imagine the power company could specifically disallow power to that device. In a case like that, I could see the RIAA suing an electric company to not provide power to computers that go to an offending site. It's ridiculous that the RIAA could win, but if a case like this one goes the right way, it could establish a bizarre precedant.

I guess what I'm saying is: Just because somebody has the power to block this type of thing, doesn't mean they are obligated to. The RIAA has laws in their favor to go after somebody who does something like Listen4Ever has. The ISP's shouldn't have to pay because the RIAA isn't willing to do the necessary investigation to find out how to shut that server down. They're not the ones committing the crime, they are not even aiding them in copyright infractions. If the ISP's aren't treating them any differently than they are treating anybody else, I don't see how they can be held accountable if somebody breaks the law.

No organization should have that kind of power.

LOL, thanks for telling me about the site, RIAA

[dh003i]

Thank you, dear RIAA, for informing me of that site which I had no idea even existed.

Now, I think I'll go and download some Christina Aguilera music. I don't particularly like her (more of a B. Spears person), but since its free, I'll take it.

Seriously, ISPs have no business blocking web sites, or otherwise censoring the net. They are there to connect people to the internet, not to block them off from parts of it that special interests think we shouldn't see.

Legal equivalent

[Reziac]

This is the legal equivalent of suing the contractor who maintains your local streets, because some people used said streets as a getaway route after a bank robbery -- a robbery that happened over the border *in another country*.

Re:This is your reward for voting for Bush

[mesocyclone]

Sigh. The predictible Bush bashing comes along, regardless of whether it is right or not.

Guess what! The Democrats entire campaign was also built on huge contributions. Furthermore, they Democrats are the partly closest to Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The biggest pusher of digital rights management (read: restrictuions on what you can do with media) are Democrat congressmen.

But wait... the truth...

That wouldn't stop you from a baseless troll against Bush!

Corporations do what corporations will do.

The real problem here is that congress passes bills extending ownership "rights." A copyright is *not* a natural right. It is granted as a result of the authority given in the US Constituiton. However, that grant also includes a phrase about public interest.

If you elect politicians who vote for judges who actually read the constitution (i.e. "original intent"), you might get judges who would find many of these copyright abuses to be unconstitutional - not supported by the copyrights and patens clause in the US Constitution.

But guess what? THOSE politicians are republican conservatives. Oops...

Oh well, that won't stop the Bush bashing...

Too many people have been brainwashed into believing that Republicans are the tools of corporations, while Democrats are somehow the saviors of the people. Wake up! Corporations give to whoever they think will support their business. And Hollywood gives to DEMOCRATS.