ISP Bans RIAA to Protect Its Customers

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."

Comments

Whoa whoa whoa

[theRhinoceros]

Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.

How about this part of the article? Honeynetting your ISP with fake mp3s to confound RIAA meddling is way more proactively defiant, IMO, than simply blocking traffic from riaa.org.

This is great but...

[ldopa1]

I am sure this is the start of a huge slew of lawsuits. UserFriendly had a strip about this on Sunday. You can view it here. It raises an interesting point. The comic implies that anyone with a big enough footprint can ignore/swat the RIAA if they want.

That said, I think that the banning of the RIAA from networks is a start. Now they need to ban the spoofers and companies like MediaDefender who spend all of their bandwidth downloading files from YOUR computer to keep other people off.

Re:Fugetabout it

[fishnuts]

An ISP is not obligated to provide full, unhindered access for, to, or by anyone elses network. The RIAA has no legal grounds to force Informationwave to open up access to their network, for the same reasons private retail outlets and restaurant establishments can choose not to serve anyone they feel might cause harm to their establishment or other customers. RIAA is big, but not big enough to reverse precident.

Re:Fugetabout it

[Peyna]

I'm curious what illegal things they have done? They maintain a private network and can give access to it to whomever they please, and most certainly do not have to allow another private entity access to it. Exceptions are in the case of a warrant for one of their customers where the FBI needs the equiv of a wiretap or something, but those are limited cases. I can't demand that AOL give me access to their mail server if I am not one of their customers, and this ISP can deny any incoming traffic they wish as long as doing so does not violate their contract with their customers.

They're treating it like spam.

[Fat Casper]

One of the ways ISPs deal with spam is by blacklisting sources of it and cutting them off as much as they can. IWT is starting a blacklist that is just as legitimate and perfectly targeted:

The RIAA has announced its intention to crack any boxes that it wants to and has even bought a bill that would legalize it for them. That makes the RIAA a big security threat, even bigger when you consider that they have no oversight and a long record of not caring about little things like rights. Any contact with their network makes you vulnerable.

Any security type would want their network protected from snooping of any kind. Especially from a company that wants to shut down anyone it doesn't like and is protected against liability for any damage it does. An ISP blacklisting a company that does this, or even just announces that it plans to, is protecting its customers and being a good citizen.

I think the idea is going to catch on.

Re:They're treating it like spam.

[T3kno]

If they do, the big boys will soon cease to offer broadband. No one will want it, as soon as I can get off it I will. Hopefully consumers (especially US consumers) will pull their heads out and realize that it is they who have the final say in what happens to a company. If you stop buying CD's as I have the RIAA will eventually listen. If you stop using ATTBI and switch all of the phone accounts you can off of their service they will listen. The beauty of capatilism is that we as consumers have the power to change things, the only reason companies are so big and powerful (which is a REALLY REALLY bad thing IMHO) is that we have allowed them to become that way. Homo Depot is the size it is because people stopped supporting the little independant hardware store. I for one prefer small independant hardware stores, a) because you get help, can ususally talk to a nice helpfull person, b) no hour long lines, and c) you are directly supporting your community instead of supporting a huge multi-national. The same goes for ISP's the little ISPs are worried about their customers, not about a corporate image and shareholders, so they will go out of their way to protect you as their customer.

ATTBI blocked my account for having a set up my BSD box with a static IP (it took them over a year to notice, and COX never cared), I got the service reinstated, told them that I was switching off of their service, we are in the process of changing my wifes cell phone service from ATT and I had the choice here at work about a long distance carrier recently and I specifically chose not to go with ATT. If we all did this companies like ATT and conglomerates like the RIAA and the MPAA will have to listen, after all they are only companies and the only power that they have is the power that we as consumers give them. Capatalism works, but we have to be the police, not the government.

Re:They're treating it like spam.

[tshak]

Actually this is where capitalism doesn't work, and why we need government regulation. You're assuming an educated consumer. You're assuming a consumer that isn't apathetic about said issues. This consumer is the exception but not the rule in the USA, which is why the general quality of products has severly decreased over the last few decades while the costs of said products have increased (inflation accounted for). Finally, you have this new concept of an Ogopoly(sp?). This concept is almost proven within large industries where although there is no monopoly, you have duopolies or more. For example, who cares if ATT limits your usage to essentially web surfing and email? So you switch! Switch to who? Qwest DSL who does the same thing (for example)? Competition is great, but it doesn't always work when you have a few megacorporations following each others suit. Finally, the entire captilistic model puts the maximization of corporate profits above all other priorities. Long are the days where you have a business passionate about making a quality product while making a humble profit. Profiting isn't bad, but business in America is summed up as the following: Maximize profit at the expense of your employee's (compensation, etc.), customers, and product quality. It's true that competition keeps this in check, but only to an extent.

Re:Fugetabout it

[GreyPoopon]

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.

Re:Wow....fake files...

[Hektor_Troy]

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.

Re:Excuse me????

[GreyPoopon]

The only legal pressure could come from their customers if they want to access the RIAA website for some reason.

And to satisfy those customers, they could just summarize the RIAA website:

We, the Recording Industry Association of America, would like to offer you substandard products at high prices. Please be aware that those contributing to the development of our products are underpaid, and the funds collected from sales will be used to establish laws further limiting your freedom. We thank you for your patronage.

RIAA IP Space

[buck09]

Enjoy...

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA (NETBLK-RECORDIN50-191) 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 US Netname: RECORDIN50-191 Netblock: 12.150.191.0 - 12.150.191.255 Coordinator: EGAS, JACK (JE332-ARIN) jegas@riaa.com (2027750101) - Record last updated on 11-Aug-2001. Database last updated on 19-Aug-2002 21:20:16 EDT.

Re:RIAA IP Space

[jeffy124]

not so fast.

You must also deal with the RIAA's member companies, not just RIAA itself. It is technically the labels who own the copyrights and would be the ones to "enforce" those copyrights by hacking. Also, not all of the member companies are in favor of hacking consumer systems -- for example, AOL/TW & child company Warner Music are opposed to it.

This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then?

[reallocate]

So..restricting Internet use is OK if you're restricting people you don't like?

If you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Pretty difficult to argue otherwise.

An ISP that blocks or restricts RIAA use of the net is legitimizing the practice they purport to oppose. This is not the way to fight this particular battle.

Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then?

[reallocate]

If an ISP takes action against someone who has stated an intention to commit an illegal act using the ISP's facilities, I agree -- the ISP should report it to the authorities and act to protect its other customers.

As a political instrument, intended to thwart the RIAA's efforts to change the law, however, this kind of "good guys restricting the bad guys" activity will fail. The 'bad guys" will simply point to anyone's restriction of Internet use and call them hypocrites. Restrictions on freedom restrict freedom, regardless of their souce.

Distributed Honeypots

[Mr.Sharpy]

It seems like it would be a good idea to implement this as distributed honeypots instead of one on ISP's network. Otherwise, what would stop the RIAA attack drones/bots from just blacklisting the blacklist and ignoring the honeypot.

I have sent them an email, do the same

[gosand]

I have just sent them an email of thanks and encouragement. I think everyone else who agrees with their actions should do the same. It is nice to see someone taking a public stand, and they should be encouraged.

riaa@informationwave.net

Re:Previous History?

[Fat Casper]

...has the RIAA actively attacked end users before? I know it has used legal means to shut down sites, but is there really any precedence to base this decision on...

Yes, there is.

Don't read much, eh?

common carrier?

[mikeee]

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

When the RIAA comes and demands they cut off access to warez.org, they'll be in less of a position to say they can't/don't do content-based filtering. In for a penny, in for a pound; this may be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:common carrier?

[adam613]

No. They are refusing to carry inbound traffic which is known to cause harm to their network. Content-based filtering is refusal to carry outbound traffic. Big difference.

Re:common carrier?

[edgrale]

When the RIAA comes and demands they cut off access to warez.org, they'll be in less of a position to say they can't/don't do content-based filtering. In for a penny, in for a pound; this may be shooting themselves in the foot.

How so? The RIAA has cleary stated that THEY WILL actively attack P2P users on any computer that is distributing music. They are protecting users here, not filtering.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:common carrier?

[pyramid termite]

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.

Re:common carrier?

[afidel]

For definitions and actual law related to common carrier status see Here
By my reading of section 202 they can make reasonable descrimination against people, and if cutting off people who are bent on harming your customers isn't reasonable I don't know what is.

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

uhm...NO

[bsDaemon]

First of all, 'entrapment' only applys to law enforcement agencies. That said, only in specifc circumstances. If you are coherced into doing something by an undercover police officer you would not normaly do, that is entrapment. If they step out from an ally and start offering you free samples of cocaine, then you take it and they bust you for posetion, that is entrapment. If you come up to the same cop and start asking for it, that's not entrapment. That's you soliciting illegal drugs. He was just standing there. Looking like a drug dealer isn't illegal, is it now? Nope. You just assumed. the RIAA is just assuming that they are volating copy right laws. The ISP isn't pushing it. Even if it was teh FBI sitting their hosting the files, it wouldn't be entrapment. It's not like they went into IRC and started telling people about their "cool" new archive. Dumb ass.

Same old story

[mizhi]

Which is that the RIAA simply does not understand the tech industry or technology.

It's like allowing an 18 year old with a basic knowledge of physics to decide regulations for bridge building.

For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.

Re:Same old story

[revery]

For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.

Actually it's even better. You still have your television, they just built one identical to yours,
no wait, they built one that looks and sounds almost exactly like your TV, only smaller.

Block RIAA members!

[supabeast!]

Instead of just blocking the RIAA itself, how about blocking RIAA members? Imagine if Sony, RCA, AOL/TW, etc.. had all of their internet traffic blocked by ISPs? It really wouldn't be that hard to get the consumers on the side of the ISPs, as the ISPs could argue that the RIAA and its members are promoting and financially supporting electronic terrorism!

Re:This may not be the best idea...

[fmaxwell]

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.

Re:Entrapment?

[Mercaptan]

Since there seems to be some confusion, I'll throw up a more formal definition of entrapment.

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty

That said, assuming the ISP isn't acting in concert with law enforcement, they're allowed to do whatever they want to keep out RIAA. RIAA would only have rights to pursue recourse if they had a contract with the ISP in some vendor-customer relationship. The ISP's actions don't constitute an attack against RIAA, although I'm sure RIAA would love to spin it that way.

Re:Surely they'll check before attacking

[ShavenYak]

oh wait - just thought of Britney Spears - how did I forget her.

I don't know, but if you figure it out please tell the rest of us so we can forget her too!