Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISP Bans RIAA to Protect Its Customers

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the shot-heard-round-the-net dept.

fader writes "Information Wave Technologies, a northeastern (US) ISP has announced that "it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network". Apparently this is in response to the RIAA (and MPAA, but they don't seem to be blocking them yet) plan to actively attack P2P users. All I can say is, you go, guys! I hope more ISPs will follow their lead."

5 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Fugetabout it by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    They'll cave under legal pressure right away.

    I'm not so sure about that. Since their network is a private one, they certainly have the right to blacklist anybody they want. Should they share that list with other ISPs, there may be some problems. But setting up their own list is not illegal. Furthermore, should they see this thing out, they may eventually have more business than they can even handle.

    RIAA may be able to take them to court, but it would probably be worth the $$$ to fend them off.

    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  2. Re:Wow....fake files... by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    the question being, are those fake files worth the gain of having a major isp on "our" side?


    That depends. If you just want to be able to leech away on any and all music, then it's not worth it.

    If you just want your fair use, the RIAA off our backs and just want to use the network to discover new music that was put there by the artists themselvs, then it certainly IS worth it.

    They're not putting up fake files of legal music, just fake files of illegal music. And that is quite fair in my humble oppinion.
    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  3. Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Pretty difficult to argue otherwise.


    Actually pretty easy to argue otherwise. The ISP is proactively banning someone who has stated their intention to break into their customers' computers. By that same logic, there's no reason to ban me or anyone else who uses the network for its proper purposes.

  4. Re:common carrier? by pyramid+termite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but by doing this, are they risking their status as a common carrier?

    Perhaps, if they HAD such status. Although many ISPs would prefer common carrier status, I've yet to hear of a definable ruling that they have it. It's an issue that neither the courts or Congress has directly addressed yet. I'm sure in the next few years, it will be settled, one way or another.

    Disagree? Please point me to a court ruling that says I'm wrong.

  5. Re:This may not be the best idea... by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I want no one and no corp deciding what should be accessed across their backbones/routers/etc.

    The highlighting was mine but goes to show that the ISPs own the equipment. Their network is theirs to do as they see fit. Would you want the federal government telling you that you were not allowed to block IP addresses from accessing your network? If you don't like the ISP's policies, use a different ISP.

    Your argument reminds me of the spammers who accuse ISPs of censoring them and limiting their free speech.

    Censorship is when the government limits what you can see and read. It's not when a private ISP makes a business decision to block IP addresses.