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."
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
"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
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
... 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