Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Not Cooperating With RIAA's Name-Grab
rocketjam writes "The RIAA has a new plan to fight P2P file trading since an appeals court ruled that Internet service providers don't have to turn over the names of suspected music pirates to them. The RIAA has now proposed, in a letter to the 50 largest ISPs in the US, that they supply the identifying IP address of suspected music traders to their ISP after which the ISP would send a notice to the user informing them they are suspected of illegal trading but not yet targeted for a lawsuit by the music industry. Internetnews.com reports that according to industry sources they've contacted, not one ISP has agreed to cooperate with the music industry's new plan. ISPs have been cautious in their public responsed to the RIAA proposal, although they all agree they are under no legal obligation to comply with any RIAA request."
...Assuming that you are willing to concede that violating someone else's copyright is inherently bad... which I do, but I also don't. (See my previous comments regarding this matter for details.)
Of course... this sets precedence, and is unlikely to stop there...
On the one hand, I really don't like how the record companies treat customers. I think that they go way beyond the limits of acceptable practice in their zeal to catch copyright violators, especially lately as it relates to P2P.
On the other hand, I also see the value in having a record company which can front money to new and old bands to keep music fresh and flowing to the audience ears. By not paying for music, musicians will receive less money from the record companies to produce their albums and this will lead to mostly what we see today which is good, interesting bands get left behind for not so good, bland bands which appeal to a larger audience.
The more P2P that goes on, the more Britneys and Outkasts we're going to get.
I have been pwned because my
Basically, i'm not feeling very sorry for most of the garbage groups that are going down the garbage can right now. Screw em. On the other hand, probably some real gems, which we'll never know about anyway because they don't get any publicity, are going down the garbage can also. That i'm feeling sorry about. But let's say they're just collateral damage. I haven't been hearing any real good music since years, probably because most music has to be immediately consumable or they won't even try to promote it. Basically they are getting what they asked for: no long time vision, no money either in the long term.
I sometimes think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. -- Oscar Wilde
"Specifically, when we determine the IP address of an infringer, we would like to send you the IP address along with a Notice of Infringement that you would forward directly to the subscriber matching that address," the RIAA wrote. "You would not identify the subscriber to us. However, we believe if you forward the Notice to them it will dramatically increase awareness and effectively discourage continued infringement."
:)
I am pretty sure that most (all?) of the people who share files on a large scale know that the content is copyright and really don't give a flying farkle.
What will they do with this letter when they get it? Laugh at it and use it as toilet paper sounds likely.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
I imagine that the ISPs are not going along because they will have to pay people to forward these requests. If the RIAA were to say, offer $0.50 for each IP address that they want the ISP to look up and send the letter for, maybe they'd get a better response.
Unless it's mandated by law, what reason do the ISPs have to do all of that work for free?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why should they collaborate until they are all forced by law? By cooperating they are screwing their clients and getting a bad name, without getting anything back.
:-)
And probably most of them read Slashdot anyways...
My Stack Overflow user
How nice of RIAA to always involve a 3rd party in the dispute.
RIAA should understand the relationship is between the artists and the audience. They themselves are the 3rd party. So, RIAA GET OUT. OUT.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
n/t
nt
... that the ISPs will win this war. The RIAA and by extension, because it has been created and continually supported by a majority of them, the record companies seek, like nearly every other company or tightly-knit industry, to gain the maximum ammount of profit. To this end, they have thrown away their morals, the talents of many good, true artists, and a good deal of choice as to what kind of music is listened to, and heard.
They control the artists, they control the market, and they now strive to control the "consumer," a nebulous term meant to "normify" and lump together everyone and anyone who has ever listened to music.
They believe that they can make the maximum ammount of profit by demonstrating their capability to financially destroy anyone who listens to the music they shove into bins and shelves, but does so in a way they cannot control and without paying the greivously bloated Troll's Toll. In doing so, they hope to control the "consumer," so that he or she first chooses to deny using peer-to-peer to aquire the music chosen by the industry, and then he or she chooses to eschew "free" music, altogether.
It's an ugly claim, but it's an ugly strategy they pursue. Some of us "consumers" choose to ignore them and to avoid them, to continue to listen to music we want to listen to, whether or not it is "theirs," without needing to pay exhorbant fees to RENT the legal ability to enjoy it!
Is it legal or moral to "steal" this music? No, not really; but how else can anyone tell them that we do not appreciate or condone what they are doing and how they are doing it? They have extended their presence off our shores, into our legal systems, and across our internet so far that it is now difficult, though not yet impossible, to find music that they do not "own." (How many independant artists, or artists contracted under a small lables sit in the bins or on the shelves of Wal-Mart, Sam Goody, Target, or any of the other music retailers who have more than one small store tucked into a corner in a city?)
This small minority could write letters and emails, boycott and protest, and raise what hell it could in hopes of communicating its collective displeasure, but would it make a difference? It hasn't so far, and so long as the majority agrees, or worse, allows itself to be cowed into submission, it won't.
But there are at least two ways to effectively communicate this particular displeasure. The first, as we all know, is to download "their" music, through peer-to-pear programs and networks, or any other means, for that matter, so that they cannot help but notice that more of "their" music is being freely traded; as I said earlier, it is neither legal nor exactly moral, but it is a method that seems to work. (And for clarity, I should mention that I've not downloaded music illegally in a very long time, that I do not even listen to the radio, and that I absolutely do not pay with my own money for that which is in this day and, in my opinion, illegitimately called music by those companies.)
The second way is to tell those organizations which encompass more than just the minority just how distasteful the tactics and strategy employed by those major record lables and the RIAA is to us. For the most part, the ones who have listened, and who have recently and now take firm and just stand against the major record lables and RIAA, are the ISPs. They have heard, they have recognized the wisdom, financially and morally, in denying the RIAA what it needs to pursue its disgusting work. And I salute them for doing so, because the ISPs alone may stop the RIAA/major record lables by doing exactly what they have done.
For me, this fight is not just about music, not just about artists, nor simply about evil corporations; for me, it's about freedom--real freedom, that which I hold nearest and dearest of all the rights and virtues of Men and Women.
Godspeed, ye who stand as shield against the slings and arrows of the hated lawyers and greedy businesspeople of "big" music.
~UP
Eat the Path.
A friend of mine recently got an email from his broadband provider which was forwarded from Paramount's legal team. He was sharing one of their movies with eDonkey and they tracked him down with the help of his ISP and sent a cease and desist letter with a threat of legal action if he doesn't cooperate. Interestingly they cited the DMCA which as I understand it is a US law without international jurisdiction.
I'm not sure what the "right" thing is here. Is it within his rights to have privacy on the Internet, or does he forfeit those rights when he breaks the law. Does the Corporation have right to take whatever means necessary to protect their product against theft.
The Romans didn't find algebra very challenging, because X was always 10
Dear (insert ISP here):
I am (insert Editor ID here), a much maligned editor at the (insert "news" site here), and I would like to make a proposal to you that would benefit the both of our organizations and increase the public's awareness of the great threat that libel holds to the economy and the struggling editorial staff of many great companies.
When comments appear on (insert "news" site here) that would appear libelous to (insert Editor ID here), we will forward the originating IP addresses of the attacks and This handy legal guide so that your users can be informed of their and our rights under the applicable laws.
Thank you for your time,
(Insert Editor ID here)
Not even if it comes from my ISP :/
You don't know what you don't know.
Yes, sir. Yes they do. But shh.... They might hear you.
So let's all bow down to the allmighty RIAA, bringer of good music, protector of artists and sole survivor of the bloodline reaching back to Mozart.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Yeah. I just cant stand Bach, Mozart, Handel, Wagner and all those other classical geeks.
They had like no talent whatsoever. They couldn't even use a synthesizer.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
OK, what am I missing here? I have always thought that if one get aware of, or suspect, illegal activities, that one should contact and report it to the police (or other authorities). Then they will handle it.
So, if I over hear some discussion on phone, should I then contact the phone company so that they can contact the appropriate persons and warn them about the illegal activities? Perhaps I should contact the car manufacturer if I see or suspect illegal activities conducted using a car. They can then contact the car owner (and I would probably have to push for a law so that they actually *keep* records on who buy their cars, how else can they or me get in contact with them.
Somehow, there is something that seems wrong with all this.
So, let's look at this for a moment. The RIAA is trying to standardize something with official meaning for mass electronic distribution. The RIAA is one of the few generally-disliked groups by geeks (even if you disapprove of filesharing, the RIAA hasn't taken the nicest steps in the past to deal with things). They're up there with the Church of Scientology.
I'm going to give even odds that as soon as the first one of these goes out, it'll get posted on the 'Net, and used as propagation fodder for the next Internet email worm (in place of, say, "I Love You") -- so instead of everyone deleting emails containing "I Love You" in the subject, they'll start deleting emails that look like copyright infringement warnings.
May we never see th
If they handed out my info. or sold it to non law enforcement personnel, I'd have to sue the ISP and the RIAA. The ISP for handing over personnal information without consent to nonauthorized personnel. If I'm breaking the law, the cops be it the FBI or the local police should come knocking at the door. Private entities don't have law enforcement privleges in this country unless the entity is something like campus cops though they are also fully trained police officers. I would not trust oh Green Peace with their own private police force. If the RIAA can do it, way couldn't some one else?
"Only in a brutal, difficult music industry, devoid of fat cats with big wallets, will the truly great artists end up on top."
You mean like how only the BEST consumer products become successful, and not the best advertised or marketed? Riiiiigghhttt...
I myself have believed for some time that it is not about profit as much as about power and control. They want to control the artists, what music is popular and who buys what.
This power shit is scary. I believe with Dubya it, too, is about power. He (or is it everyone in government?) want to control us absolutely and to keep track of us 24x7. Aaargh!!!
Sorry, but he's got the EUCD, which is like the DMCA but without any exceptions. Hopefully this law is so bad that it will be laughed out by judges, but I've been waiting for that to happen to the DMCA for about 5 years now, and I keep waiting...
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Lets see, the RIAA buys a law (the DMCA) that allows them to sidestep the normal judicial process to force ISPs to hand over customer information on the flimsiest evidence. ISPs are required, at great cost to them, to hand over hundreds of names a day to the recording industry. Customers get sued and probably drop their broadband connections in order to pay for the lawsuit settlements. Finally, this blatantly unconstitutional provision of the law gets overturned and the RIAA has to go back to playing fair and getting a warrant like everybody else. Now that its a lot harder for them to file suit, they are asking the ISPs to voluntarily cooperate with them in identifying copyright violators. Gee what a surprise, the ISPs are not willing to cooperate after several months of being legally strong-armed. This is the kind of thing that happens when you make enemies with just about everyone. You have nobody left who will help you willingly.
Just how many ISPs who dole out dynamic IP addrs actually keep *long-term* logs of who was assigned what address, when and for how long??? All the small ISPs I know only keep this data around for a month.
Many here post about how the Music industry as a whole is sucking the variety out of music. And I agree fully. But I do not agree with stealing the music anyway. The artists under the RIAA chose to be there. They chose to sell there copyright. And the owner of that copyright has a right to be paid. If you don't want to pay in the format they want to charge. Then you don't get to listen.
Those who do not want to sign with the RIAA. Can make their own choice about how to distribute the music. If they want to allow you to share it for free that is their choice and they are the ones who should make it.
But I choose not to download copyright music. But not being an expert in the music field how do I find music that is not copyrighted.
The big argument is that P2P software can be used to trade non copyrighted or permission given music and other media. Great go for it let the artists choose to have their music distributed that way.
But unless we who are not experts in the music field can tell what we are downloading we have to make a choice. A) Download what sounds good and hope its not breaking the law/our moral ideals. B) Avoid P2P software unless we already know what we are looking for.
The reason the RIAA picks on P2P is the simple fact that P2P users do steal their music. If you want to stop the RIAA stop stealing their music.
So what we need to do is find a way of allowing P2P to be used by independent labels or artists to distribute their music/media in a manner they wish.
Here is a suggestion. MP3 and most of the other popular download formats have the ability to include comments in the file.
Maybe the P2P software should allow you to view that comment field before download.
Then encourage the artists who do want to share there music to include copyright/copyleft notices in the file they can even include a shareware style notice download if you like it please pay me 1 dollar at (web address) within 5 days
Well OK so some smart arse kid will take all the latest hot RIAA music and change the copyright notice. Let the RIAA get the kid not the guy who thought he was downloading legally.
Then if the independents still can't compete with the RIAA they have at least been given a reasonable chance. A new outlet.
Y'know, things aren't as bad as they could be.
The ISPs could have rolled over and gotten into bed with the RIAA on their proposed notification plan -- but instead, the ISPs decided to stand their ground.
It's nice to know that if you pay someone $40 a month, they'll sometimes look out for your interests. It almost gives me faith in the system.
Thank goodness for the few things that turn out right sometimes.
Hey, Outkast rocks!
How dare you lump him in with Britney
you Christina Aguilera (fyi: i'm calling you a dirty slut)!
Really? All the evidence suggests just the opposite.
Was there a golden era before P2P came along in which the recording industry explored lots of creative new emerging musical forms, or took chances on lots of little-known groups that deserved wider attention? Certainly the labels' A&R departments have uncovered the occasional jewel. But the Internet -- as authorities such as Clay Shirky have previously pointed out -- has blasted into history the need for professional middlemen to act as gatekeepers or intermediaries to tell us what kinds of media we would supposedly enjoy. The music industry just happens to be the first domino to fall.
P2P won't kill the recording industry, but if it makes it smaller and more humble, that's a positive result. Of the 99 cents you pay for a song at iTunes, 70 cents goes to the label, 10 cents to the artist. Does that make sense?
We're in a time of disruptive transition. Music recording acts won't go away, they'll just use new business models that grow up around the Internet to get their sounds out to the public, and to get a larger share of the pie.
Let's remember: This is about the *artists,* not the record labels.
You totally missed the point. The reason our music sucks is because nobody competes with the RIAA. I basically said that if there were no RIAA it would stimulate competition resulting in better music.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
So what would happen if the RIAA discovered an IP address offering copyrighted files that they had already warned? How could they be certain it was the same person if the ISP never had to give the RIAA their name?
Reprise the theme song and roll the credits!
Is it legal or moral to "steal" this music? No, not really; but how else can anyone tell them that we do not appreciate or condone what they are doing and how they are doing it?
You know, I'm not a master of anything but I think you might be able to tell them that they suck and still maintain that moral high ground. Perhaps you should just stop listening to their music? What beter way to tell them you don't appreciate their garbage? Take a little extra initiative and start finding bands that don't suck and are not distributed through the RIAA. Yes, it is much more work than just downloading the stuff you allready know you like off the internet. But you were really woried about telling them they suck in a moral and legal fashion, right?