Slashdot Mirror
ARIA Threatens To Sue Internet Service Providers
tymbow writes "It seems that ARIA (The Australian Record Industry Association, like the RIAA) is threatening to sue ISPs who allow the illegal download of copyrighted music. Could this lead to a situation where Australian ISPs are forced to actively censor websites and P2P protocols? What happens to legitimate P2P content like Linux distributions? It will be interesting to see where this goes."
I'm currently programming forum software. If this succeeds somehow, it's basically saying that as a provider of a service, even indirectly, I am responsible for all use of that service.
Users should be responsible for THEIR OWN use of the service. If you're going to punish something (and sorry about agreeing with the RIAA here, if only in theory), punish the act of breaking the law, not the catalyst that allows it.
My code doesn't tell between good and evil, sorry.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
NExt they can sue the phone companies, then the post office, and hell, lets sue the highway department, theyre all used to carry illegal music.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I have a question. I'm no network engineer, so I don't really know... how would ISPs enforce something like this? Isn't the whole notion of a P2P network that you can't really control it? How would ISPs monitor when users are sharing files and put a stop to it?
Or are we talking about something that's essentially unenforceable, but ARIA wants it enforced anyway?
But the main point is that ISPs have common carrier status and can be no more liable for copyright infringement than the phone company can for the playing of music over the telephone.
I have been pwned because my
Right, so insurance companies should sue oil companies who profit because burglars carry stolen goods away in cars which burn gas?
And does this "Mr Speck urged ISPs to halt the practice by blocking access to illegal music download sites and programs or "by other arrangements"." mean that all illegal music should have the TCP/IP "evil" bit set? How the fsck are the ISPs going to know if the bloody mp3s contain illegal music or not?
Hopefully the Aus legislators have more sense than those in some other parts of the world.
It seems that they're trying to get the ISPs to accept responsiblity for their users' actions. You can sue another large company without nearly as much negative press as suing individual users, but the tricky part is that the ISPs actually have money and the need to fight.
So, the ARIA is trying to get them to accept it, and if they don't there'll probably be a PR campaign aimed at the politicians and lawmakers to pressure them to hold the ISPs responsible. If it goes over well for the ARIA, you can be damn sure the RIAA will try the same.
"But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
Im not entirely sure how they will manage to enforce this in the end.
Sure, you can block ports, but ports can be changed.
Sure, you can scan for certain protocols in use, but protocols can be masked by ssh and the like.
I think the main issue being missed here is that P2P is not inherantly illegal. A car could be deemed illegal, because you *can* run over and kill a person. But trying to illegalise all four-wheeled automotive transport is clearly madness. Well, for the moment anyway...
If you ask me this is just the first step towards some ARIA levy on the ISP's.
First the RIAA started suing Americans who were downloading music. Now its Australian counterpart is doing something similar, except it's going after the ISPs instead of the end users. I bet RIAA's European counterpart will be next on the bandwagon... I won't comment on whether or not RIAA and ARIA are right to be doing this since I don't want a flame war to get started.
I do most of my downloading (of legal content) hehe from SSL-encrypted FTP servers.. so how would they know exactly what I'm downloading? It's kinda a given when I'm downloading around 50gb per week, but hey, they can't really prove that it's copyrighted content. That's gonna be the future of filesharing.. everything being encrypted.
Oh no! The ISPs will block my favorite ports! I might have to change the settings of my P2P programs! Oh the inconvenience!
Seriously though. They are only doing this because when they go out of business they wont have any money with which to pay for frivolous lawsuits. Better now than never I guess.
And this lawsuit and ten million more like it, and a thousand clever laws and all the DRM in the world wont change the fact that their business model is fundamentally screwed and nothing is going to bring back the scarcity upon which their profits are based.
You can outlaw camcorders in video theaters in New York, but what if today's pirate is in Hong Kong? I saved 10 bucks by seeing Matrix Revolutions with chinese subtitles. It was barely worth watching for free (as I suspected), so I will definitely not be catching it in the theatere or on DVD.
Fuck you and your shitty sequels hollywood. I only pay for high quality product now. I intend to see return of king in the theaters and also get the trilogy DVD when the boxed set is released. I am an informed customer, only one of a growing group.
In other news the NAAFP (National Association for the Advancement of Fat People) is suing cows for "aiding and abetting" the exploitation of obese Americans.
In an unrelated case, a New York City woman is suing a concrete manufacturer for providing a pavement in which a Manhattan man had grounded himself whil illegally blowing a puff of cigerette smoke in her face.
To Riaa/Aria, it will be hitting two birds with one stone. By getting ISP to censor the internet it would take down sharing of their songs and at the same time take down those that aren't enslaved to them.
It's a win-win situation for them if they get their way.
What a stupid fuckstick. That goes double for the moderator.
It's the Australian Record Industry Association.
Artists are only part of that. Other parts of it is distributors, record companies, etc.
That includes Australian companies selling music by foreign artists.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The court would most likely ask why you didn't send a cease and desist letter to the people resposible for the website.
Anyways, we had several years with the world's greatest luddite Richard Alston in charge of Australian goverment policy on the internet. His take was that is was a threat to the very fabric of our wonderful society, and needed to be regulated out of existence. It will be interesting to see what his successor does.
:wq
While there may be some caveats limiting P2P, it is a good thing to do.
Sharing music and movies is illegal, ethically wrong etc etc. Please, accept the fact.
Why people on slashdot whine about limiting illegal act, while they certanly want to reveil every valid legal point, which makes SCO case seem unvalid?
And, don't get me wrong: I use Linux and GNU tools on most of my work, and I really hate what SCO is trying to do.
Free software should not be destroyed / harmed by P2P illegalities. Music makers and record industry has copyrights on their stuff. Let them share their stuff the way they want, that's their freedom. As we know, not all freedom means free as in money. Music costs, and we should pay if we want it. If we want free music, then we better do it by ourself, not steel from the others.
Worrying about problems P2P limiting would do to open source is FUD. Linux is not shared by KaZaa and others. Do not spread FUD anymore, accept that music costs and pay if you need it.
Eleknader
What happens to legitimate P2P content like Linux distributions?
Excuse me, but you actualy beleave that theres any legal software out on the P2P networks??
Why should it be? Its always slower to download from P2P then from a university mirror anyhow, that almost always connect directly to thee backbone in your country/state/city.
... the whole shebang we're witnessing here is another FUD bomb by the monopolists.
The goal is to hinder independent publishers to distribute their works and convince the public that P2P is always illegal. John/Jane Doe don't care about choice (yet).
What scares the *AAs of this world is the fact that said couple could find out that there are actually non-ex-lawyers in the music business who care about quality. Target #1 independent labels who care about quality and not DRM (Digital Restrictions Management).
my 2 cents
Michael Speck said ISPs relied on illegal music downloads for 20 per cent of their revenue
Oh, and I suppose they've got verifiable statistics from the ISPs they're about to sue to back this up? (more on this later)
Well it's not their job to be police here, they provide a service which is mostly legitimately used.
"We understand from employees of Internet companies that up to 20 per cent of their revenue in many cases comes from traffic created by downloading illegal sound recordings.
Oh here it is, the old unnamed source trick. Dubya likes that one too! And how many people really told them this, out of how many ISPs? Somehow, I doubt that's going to be a high ratio.
"There aren't many business that could survive if 20 per cent of their revenue disappeared
Reality check time. I should think quite a lot of companies have seen at least this much reduction in revenue in the last couple of years. They may have laid off a heckuvalot of people, but I think they survived! And, ISPs will all go bust if MP3s are no longer downloaded? Come on! Even assuming this wild 20% number, maybe they'll just adjust their business models, adapt to the changing environment, you know, like they do all the time anyway. The internet has such a fast rate of change that this is perfectly normal for any company based around it.
Mr Speck urged ISPs to halt the practice by blocking access to illegal music download sites and programs or "by other arrangements".
This brings us back all the usual censorship arguments, like who gets to decide which sites are blocked, on what grounds, with what oversigth, what appeals process etc. etc. Like I said before, ISPs are not police, and are certainly not judge/jury/executioner.
music piracy was "a growing market"
And your proof of this is? Your sales have also declined, in the middle of a global depression? Right!
What a load of bull! I know the writer of the article does present both sides, but she could have tried to find some real figures herself, instead of just presenting a series of quotes and counterquotes. Don't these people know what research is? Why should people get away with spouting whatever wild claims they like with no backup?
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
Without guns, however, people would not be shooting each other. They would have to find another, more difficult way, to kill each other. Pulling a trigger is easy, having to use a knife makes a person think twice.
Without ISPs providing the gateway and the means, copyright violators will have to find other ways to steal.
Clamping down on ISPs won't make the problem go away, but one only needs to compare the homicide rates in Canada and the US to see that gun control works.