Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
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.
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.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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?
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.
And to satisfy those customers, they could just summarize the RIAA website:
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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.
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.
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.
Humorless sig goes here.
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.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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!
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.