Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Drafts Code of Conduct for ISPs
An anonymous reader writes "The Register is running a story about how the music industry is trying to get ISPs to sign 'code of conduct' agreements to cut people off for excessive bandwidth usage, to turn over details of users on demand, and to block certain 'illegal' websites." From the article: "According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.'"
In the interest of promoting more enlightened discussion, the full text of the "Music is Driving Growth in Digital Commerce" speech, presented by John Kennedy, CEO and Chairman of the IFPI to the ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) Conference in Brussles, on March 3rd, 2005, can be found here.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
And so what do the ISP's get in return?
Customer satisfaction?
From TFA:
The idea of blocking access where someone is using a lot of bandwidth just doesn't work. What if they're using a webcam? Or voice over internet? They all use similar ports as some of the file-sharing systems. There's no real way of determining whether just because someone's using a lot of bandwidth that they're contravening copyright.
They can have my bandwidth when they pry it out of my COLD DEAD HANDS. I only have 768k upstream right now, and there will be hell to pay if they want to remove accounts for actually using the allotted amount.
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
IFPI MPA ISPA ETNO and WITO
Ahhhhhhh! When reading an article like this, it can sometimes be hard to remember who is who and whose side you're on. By the time you get half way through it, you've forgotten what the acryonyms stand for. By the time you're done, you're just mad, but what who?
Who is drafting a 'code of conduct' for
the record companies that sign 15 year olds
to lifetime exclusive contracts?
It's suicide for broadband suppliers to try weeding out filesharers, unless the contracts become federally mandated I doubt anyone would sign them. I know I sure as hell would find another subscriber who hadn't signed the damn thing immediately, if my provider were to abide by it.
Why in the world would ISPs sign something like this? It seems to me that from their point of view the only thing it could result in is lower subscription numbers. Is the pressure from their 'peers' is enough?
ISP ads will feature "No RIAA CoC Restrictions!"
I'm actually speachless.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
How can they even do this? Why should the ISPs even comply? I don't see why we should even be worried; I don't think an ISP will pick this up and risk losing a good percentage of their users.
-SaNo
Not content with creating a continent-spanning lawsuit-sharing network using special P2P (person to perpetrator) technology, the record companies' consortium, the International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) now wants your ISP to sign up to a new "code of conduct" that it has helpfully drafted with the help of the Motion Picture Association (MPA). A warning, though: you probably won't like it.
Here's a sampler. Under the new code, ISPs would put in place filtering technology to block services and/or sites that "are substantially dedicated to illegal file sharing or download services". They would retain data beyond what law enforcement agencies require, with the aim of helping track down copyright infringement. They'd hand that data, plus your identity, over to the IFPI or MPA if there was even a complaint - not a court order - against you for, you guessed it, copyright infringement. (And you'd have signed or clicked something agreeing to allow that.)
Want more? According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to "enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities." A summary of the draft can be found at the Electronic Digital Rights site's latest EDRIgram.
We wondered if it might be some clever hoax, and called the IFPI. "Oh yes, the draft" they said breezily and knowledgeably. The draft is for real.
And to back up their modest proposal, the MPA and IFPI aren't afraid to wave their big stick at the ISPs and network operators. Speaking last month at the invitation of the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO) , the head of the IFPI, John Kennedy, said: "Quality digital content is a key driver that makes consumers embrace new services. You invest billions in your pipes and cables and satellites but without content you have empty pipes and boxes. At this stage I am not even asking for much if anything by way of a financial commitment. I am asking for your time your energy your commitment and some social responsibility."
Tony Soprano couldn't have put it better. "Nice content-carrying pipes you've got here. What a shame if anything were to happen to them... now, we've got this little agreement for you to look at..."
Expect an interesting discussion next Monday, when this issue, and the draft code of conduct, will be discussed at a meeting in Geneva of WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Which as you know has a stellar record defending the little guys against claims of copyright infringement.
If all that has you fizzing, then you're in good company, along with the UK's Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA). There will be an ISPA representative at next week's meeting, and if they're anything like as annoyed as the spokesman we talked about this with, they're so close to nuclear they already glow in the dark.
"This is obviously something they [IFPI and MPA] have worked on together," ISPA's spokesman almost spat. "They have made proposals like this in the past but that doesn't necessarily mean they have gone anywhere. They should really be going through the established takedown procedure. Some of these proposals contravene current laws and go beyond others. If you take the example of requiring subscribers to allow their identities to be given out - that's something that ISPs take very seriously, and only when required to by law enforcement. And they aren't a law enforcement authority."
But sometimes it seems like the MPA and IFPI feel this latter point is only a minor detail, which could be fixed in time.
France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already. A version of this code was signed last July by three French ministers, representatives of the music industry, major ISPs and telecoms operators there. It allows collection societies and the like to create files from telecoms traffic data of supposed copyright infringers to "mutual
I can understand the record companies from their perspective thinking that this is a good idea, but to what I hope to be the majority of outsiders, it seems a lot like asking ISPs to censor what their customers are trying to view.
Regardless of how you view file sharing, I think it's quite obvious that the record companies seriously need to update their business model before they are totally overtaken. Trying to censor the web, or suing people left, right and centre will just lead to negative publicity
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
Last I checked, we didn't invent the internet in order to get music. Music ranks pretty low on the level of importance of why people get internet access. These music industry people are crazy.
It really shortens the list.
Good luck with that one is all I'm going to say. Short of them getting a law passed requiring this no ISP in their right mind would turn over information.
We *require* a subpoena signed by a *judge* not a clerk, before we turn over any information.
See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i084.htm : " Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage" for more.
there go our linux iso mirrors...
I will instantly move to any ISP that doesn't sign this, assuming my current one does. I suspect that this won't be a very uncommon occurance, or at least, I suspect that a few ISPs in everyplace will always be holdouts.
But man, this is terrible. I hate how everyone wants to make the net into TV. I don't watch TV because it's passive. I hope we'd all put up a good fight for the net.
So if people are using the bandwidth they're paying for they get banned?
Who will draft the code of conduct for the music industry?
Sure my server might use lots of bandwidth, but that doesnt mean I'm doing something bad.
Where does it end with the music industry?
Why not have the music industry sign a code of conduct too?
ISPs are banding together to insist the record labels stop putting out shitty music. :)
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
formula crap music by musicians who can't sing or play a musical instrament right.....right.....
Thank you for your interest in the well-being of our customers. Or perhaps in the well-being of non-customers; specifically, you. Remind us again who pays us? Oh yes ... our subscribers. Thank you for your consideration. Now please go away.
Sincerely,
The ISP industry
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
What a cowinkedink!!!
I am currently trying to get the music industry to sign a code of conduct too! In a nutshell, it says that the music industry will supply us with quality music (down with Britney!) at a resonable price ($5 a cd anyone?) and fair use rights (cd mixes for my *cough* girlfriend!). I'm having trouble getting them to sign. Please advise...
Blarf.
So the music industry wants to have ISPs cut people off for "exesive bandwidth usage"? So, what, I pay for the bandwidth, but if I use it I get cut off?
My sig can beat up your sig.
It does no good complaining and protesting this stuff on Slashdot. Please find an official government channel to communicate with to have this kind of thing not enforced.
This is starting to get crazy.
Seriously, these folks need to be laughed out of court.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I think they should ask ISPs to stop people that use the Internet altogether. That way: No Internet piracy!
Wait a minute...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
OK, so if they do put something like this in place, what if I download movies continuously from it. Wouldn't that be "excessive" bandwidth usage? So then I'd get my internet disconnected for using a perfectly legal service because I'm using too much bandwidth.
The fact is, these people have no intention of providing a service like this (which so many would love). They want to keep movies on DVD and in the theatres, and they want to keep people glued to the television. They do, in fact, want to kill the internet, so we can no longer use bittorrent or any other mode of data transport.
These people need to be taken down. Hard.
From TFA
"The industry has decided this is the time to act," said IFPI Chairman and Chief Executive John Kennedy. "The Japanese are law-abiding citizens and it may be this delivers the short, sharp jolt that we need there."
Iran captures three CIA agents
I'm sure that the ISP's know that a lot of pople will do this so there's no way they'll stand for this.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
That's ballsy. Seriously, who do these people think they are?
Were I an ISP, on principle alone, I'd tell them where to shove their "code".
Hyopcrits.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"I believe the appropriate expression here is.... GO TO HELL!!!" ...and learn to produce better product that is worth paying for.
'Mmmmm On demand world... (drool)'
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
FTA:
"France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already."
Why does this not surprise me?
(Ok ok, now I'll turn off the bigotry.)
I was watching a movie about Metallica's history on VH1. (It was late and I couldn't sleep, that's why!)
As you probably remember the drummer for Metallica, Lars Ulrich, came out strong against Napster and P2P. He called it stealing, theft, and other bad words.
But the VH1 show had an early interview with him and he was asked about how the band initially succeeded. He claimed "We made a demo and I gave ten copies to ten friends. They each made ten copies for their friends. As did those friends."
In other words, sharing is great when it helps you. But it's criminal when it hurts you.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
From the article:
Honestly...is anyone surprised?
I'll expect providers who stop servers on their networks to kindly go bankrupt. The internet is by definition a network of peers. I have a TV and don't need another one.
I think phrases such as "And people in Hell want ice water" were invented for such responses to something like this.
This is kind of pathetic and makes downstrea/upstream rather meaningless (maybe the slower the better). Otherwise, you'll easily reach the limit pretty quick without even noticing it.
:(.
I personally do a lot of legitimate transfer between my home desktop and laptop when I am on the road. I hope I won't get flagged for this doing
Those people of drafted this law must be bored or something. Crazy bastards....
I keep thinking the music industry has done all it can do, but instead, it keeps outdoing itself. Their most recent action shows how disturbingly selfish the music industry has become. They are overstepping their domain to try to regulate the ISPs. If the music industry had their way, we would all be "guilty until proven innocent."
I got dsl just so I could download large things, particually linux isos which are large and numerous. In the last few weeks I've easily downloaded 5GB+ of linux stuff. Does this mean I would be punished for my *legal* enjoyment of open source?
If the music industry is serious about controlling how people use the internet then they should take over the ISP industry.
They should buy out all the major ISPs and offer the service for free in order to get millions to sign up for RIAA-ISP. Then they can make these absurd demands on their users.
The pomposity and ridiculousness of the Music Industry is becoming the most entertaining product that they offer. We're going to miss them when they're gone.
Typical... Just friggin' typical...
What part of bandwidth consumption automagically translates into illegal filesharing?
Aaaaggh! Will someone go and clue-by-four the people over there at the RIAA/MPAA offices- PLEASE?!
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
with help from slashdot.
How about it. Let's draft a code of conduct that ISPs can ask the record companies to sign.
What would you include?
all the best,
drew
( zotz )
More like they can have *their* bandwidth whenever they want. Read your TOS more closely, the liklihood of there *not* being a clause that allows them to change or ammend the TOS at will is extremely low.
ISPs resell bandwidth according to the 80/20 model - that only 20% of their users use 80% ore more of their capacity. As soon as users start skewing those numbers, they begin to lose money, and if they are skewed enough, they can start to be actually selling the bandwidth at a loss.
An ISP is a business. BUsinesses do not like to lose money. As soon as it is not profitable for you to be consuming the bandwidth anymore (say if, for example, projected costs of lawsuits against them outweigh the revenue from you as a customer), they will drop you. And don't pretend they will lose any sleep over it either - if losing a customer amounts to a net gain in profit margin, then they won.
WTF does the entertainment industry think it has the right to tell any other business how to run their operations? Who died and left them in charge?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.
This is a very bad way to determine if someone is sharing or downloading songs, movies, etc. I pull down patches for my Linux, AIX, OS X, and Windoze boxes on a regular basis. I easily exceed several gigs a month just doing this not to mention web surfing, viewing online videos, animations, NASA TV, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ISPs are only supposed to provide a way to access the internet. They aren't supposed to provide services for companies that want to snoop on the ISPs users; i.e. they provide bandwidth not Deputy Dawg services. I hope that the ISPs are brave enough to stand up to this and tell RIAA/MPAA where to stick their agreement.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
all along!
According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server...
They're trying to stop all uploading! I love that ruse, "Excessive" bandwidth usage is a good sign of infringement. They want the net to be "client-server". They're the server. You're the client. How sweet. They can feed us all the propa...er...information we should need. That they're trying this doesn't bother me at all. It's to be expected. I'm worried that some dummy is out there believing it. It looks like it's back to solitare for me. Heh, screw that! It's back to the beach!
What?
Hack the music exec's home computer and set it up as a super node on a p2p network.
Repeat as many times needed.
This is a horrible battle, I mean, you have on one hand the people who are saying that "honest" people are losing large sums of money, where the only person losing the money is the middle man, the RIAA, the artists are losing nothing.. Blah, I'm getting to hate the RIAA/Music industry. But my real question is who is going to win this battle, the RIAA or "the people" (people who download music) You have on one hand people with a lot of money, a huge corperation, they're starting to call it stealing, they're getting it into people's head's that when you copy data and share it, it's a form of theft.. That's the most assanine thing ever, and if the world was dedicated to that princible (which it seems we are) Then we will have to deal with a slow rate of groth with technology and learning about our univurse.. Feh, I'm angry
...how fucking egomaniacal the folks at the RIAA actually are. The very idea of proposing this kind of sham, much less thinking at any broadband ISP will sign it, tells you how much power they think they have and how so very out of touch with reality they are.
Mark my words: when ISPs blow them raspberries for this nonsense their next step will be to try to buy enough Congressmen to turn it into law. That seems to be their only avenue of success so far.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
They won't be a public carrier which is what has shielded them from litigation. They arn't morons, and nobody will sign it. A website is NOT illegal, the content may be, but if they filter by content, they loose their protections. The RIAA just wants to be able to go after the big fish instead of the little fish with this move.
This makes me appreciate the fact I can get broadband access from a small local ISP (Internet Nebraska) rather than just a corporate ISP. People have said how they will not sign up with any ISP that goes along with this code of conduct agreement, but imagine how limited your choice will be if companies keep getting bought out or merge. Support your local ISPs and sign up with them.
"According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.'"
I guess that also includes the fake server / honeypots that the RIAA sets up or the nasty lawyer-letter SPAM that they send out. I'm guessing this is also qualifies as infringing activities...
I assume this also applies to SPAM in general. Operating an email server (esp from zombie pcs) seems like it is infringing on "legal" activities.
RIAA: "Your service has huge bandwidth and seems to be transmitting a lot of data. Since the only content in that quantity worth transmitting is our copyrighted music, you must be aiding and abetting copyright theft."
ISP: "What our customers send through our service is their business, not ours. And it can't be your stuff, because most of your music sucks. Pigs will not only have to fly before we sign up to this, they'll have to break the sound barrier."
RIAA: "Well, with enough baked beans, anything is possible. Load up the lawyers...er, pigs and let 'em fly!"
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
I recently set up my dad with a computer and a DSL connection. I set up TightVNC so I could take care of any software problems he might have.
But by the time I got home his IP address had already changed. It appears that his ISP (centurynet) changes his IP address every 2 hours. That would sure make it a lot harder to use P2P for sharing your own stuff, running a game server, a webcam, and all the other cool stuff you get broadband for.
I can't help but think that broadband companies are going to kill themselves with this type of behavior. They have to remember that their customers are paying their bills, not the RIAA.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
suppose a music or video service starts up that uses an interface like google's and has not so steep a price to pay, like $1 a gig/month, $10 month/min, $5 for months you do no activity.
if i could search for names of artists, or songs, or keywords in a title, in a high quality web interface like google's, and therefore have it be cheap, easy and legal to d/l, i'd probably go for it.
The RIAA-mafia wants ISPs to throttle our data access.
Think of the children!
How will little Bobby ever graduate if he can't access information on such vital subjects as: language, history, science, math, ...wait for it..., *gasp* pR0n!, warez, and MP3s!!
Seriously, asking the ISPs to throttle access for those of us who download more than 100 gigabytes per night of perfectly legal pornography need to think about whose needs come first. Bobby's or the perv on the corner with the pasty skin.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
What the hell is this kind of crap?
I don't know about anyone else, but I am always downloading lots of stuff that are FREE and LEGAL! Whether that constitutes Linux ISO images, Solaris patches, or whatever, there are a ton of things out there that are completely legal and take up gobs of bandwidth! Streaming media (radio or TV stations), game patches, game mods, on-line gaming, and so forth are completely legal and will consume bandwidth! If you leave a high-bitrate, streaming media download running all month, you bet that's going to look like a lot of bandwidth, but that does not infer illegal activities!
Even if many downloads are not legal (*cough*newsgroups*cough*), what makes them assume that the downloads are of MUSIC? A massive download of the latest National Geographic bazillion-CD set will completely spike monthly bandwidth; but it has absolutely nothing to do with music, regardless of it being an illegal download!
Who the f*ck are the RIAA to assume that (excessive_bandwith == piracy || excessive == MUSIC_piracy)?
The arrogance of even drafting such a "code of conduct" is beyond comprehension!
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Basically this is just a way of saying "I've got a big stick and if you don't do what I say, I'm going to thump you."
So I can get a new ISP.
Actually I would love it if the music industry would sign a code of conduct as well.
Lets see.
Any employee caught providing drugs or sexual partners to performers would be fired and turned over to the police for criminal charges. If not the Board of Directors are help criminally responsible. If football players have to take drug tests why not employees of music companies. I would love to see them declared a "drug free workplace". If you want you can let the artists off the hook. I want the A and R men, execs, and producers tested:)
The music industry would provide 401k, medical, and health insurance to performers.
If a record is not publishes and made available for sale for a period of one year all rights are returned to the artist.
Accounting standards and full disclosure of those standards.
If they want to write "codes of conduct" they can start at home.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Umm... ok. Let's all just start seeding every linux distro bittorrent known to man. Oh wait.. wasn't Disney doing that thing with Movies-on-Demand? And oh... wait, wouldn't that also use a lot of bandwidth, too?
:-)
I don't think the Music Industry has a right to know that I like to order Bambi and watch it on Demand everday... for my kid sister
I think ISPs know when to change their own diapers...
Right?
WTF!!!
So what's next? They put a telescreen on each house?
Ohh, wait!!!
Your rights are belong to us... get it?
Have a good one.
P.S. F@ck those assholes!!!!!
===== "Every head is a different world so don't invade mine you FREAK!" smartSAGA said
Is the music industry so inept it is incapable of reinventing itself? Wasn't the US of A once known for innovation and leadership? Ya know, bleeding edge ideas and new markets.
[sarcasm]
Oh where oh where has my inspiration gone!
[/sarcasm]
But seriously, why can't those knuckleheads get it through their tiny narrow focus heads that in order to survive in business you must evolve or die!
'nuf said
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
i think this is more of a desperation move on thier behalf, you can't stop P2P, you can't scare ISP's into rolling over on thier payroll, people in general don't give a shit, and nobody in the RIAA/MPAA thinks the gov't will do anything without massive bribes. So they do this, a feeble effort to stop something that dosen't matter. but the thing is, if it all stopped, who would they blame for the falling profits? Obviously they don't want to admit they make a shotty overpriced product, and they can't pay the artist's any less for thier efforts, so they are desperately trying to stop a valuable resource from being properly developed because they refuse to stand up for thier short commings. just my two cents
The one thing that will keep this from ever getting off the ground are the small ISP's. You know, the ones that have 3-5 tech's who are already swamped with ''Real work." These filters and logging and throttling that the Phonographic (Nice Name, really current) what to implement would cost a good chunk of cash, which these ISP would rather spend on increasing there coverage area.
And very politely started tiptoeing towards bitching me out, asking a bunch of questions about my net usage.
I'm really not a bandwidth hog, I don't run P2P 24-7, once in a blue moon I'll fire up bittorrent for some reason or another.
I do use OpenVPN, I get my email from work, my kid brother connects to my LAN via OpenVPN, mostly so we can play games (much easier than forwarding umpteen billion ports for whatever we feel like playing that day).
Well, the customer service guy calls because they noticed the VPN traffic. Or rather, SSL traffic on port 1194.
It says in the AUP that I can't run a VPN or servers of any sort (does that mean I can't host a two player game of quake?). He started dancing around the issue, and as soon as I saw where he was going we had this exchange:
"Is there a problem with my network usage?"
"Umm, well maybe"
"Am I abusing the network, hogging bandwidth"
"Well no, but we noticed a lot of traffic on a port known for VPNs"
"OK, well go ahead and cancel my account. I've been meaning to go with satellite and DSL for a while now, I just couldn't be arsed to climb up on the roof and install it."
He apologized and hung up. I couldn't believe that I threatened the cable co and they backed down.
Anywho, I'm fully prepared to follow through. SpeakEasy and Dish Network are but a phone call away.
Slashdot, since you're completely in cohoots, will speakeasy be signing this agreement?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...cut people off for excessive bandwidth usage, to turn over details of users on demand, and to block certain 'illegal' websites...
They expect ISPs to:
1. Terminate services for legitimate users. I work at an ISP and one of our customers requires a fair amount of bandwidth for his weather station.
2. Ignore the privacy of the customer. Are we simply to turn over customer information because they said so, and give us no reason as to why?
3. Censorship on sites they don't like. Are they going to determine that any music site, whether legitimate or not, that they don't control is 'illegal'?
What's to say that once ISPs sign up for this, that the music industry doesn't put in a clause that forces ISPs to agree to any changes made down the road, or something that's impossible to back out of?
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
F*CK YO*!!! (PS: I have retained copyright of the letter u)
And will the music industry write and sign a code of conduct that they will conform to? Such as not harassing people with ligitamate material on their sites? I think Professor Usher would like that.
I am not a person who has ever shared music files and the fact that I need to be concerned with the RIAA's heavy handed practices is stupid. And who is going to fund the monitoring? Saying the ISP should bear that cost alone is like saying if someone sells gas they should be responsible for where the car goes. Sheesh. Just because a new technology disturbs their business practice....
--- Tolerance is the axiomatic "virtue" of those without convictions ---
The "record" companies just need to go out of business. Believe me, music will survive. I just went to a great house show last friday. Worth every bit of the $5 I spent at the door. The record companies need to be overtaken. Something much better will sprout up.
He wanted me to sign a contract that allowed me to do everything I wanted, as long as it would not lessen the value of his property, nor interfere with his attempts to squeeze more outof it.
... :-)
When I asked him why I would sign such a contract, as there was no benifit in it for me, he muttered something foul and went away
Good Old USofA.
Guilty until proven innocent not working for you Big Business? Don't worry, we'll just get rid of it.
Criminalize copyright infringement to protect your ip? That's fine. We'll get that Constitution amended for you right away.
So, you were too slow to prepare yourself for the coming digital age + filesharing that Hillary Rosen (blugh) warned you about in 1996? That's fine, we'll just legislate it away.
I'd always wondered how societies ended up in a state where everyone seems to either be a criminal or an enforcer in Gibson etc future visions. Now I'm beginning to see how it happens.
They really only need to get one ISP to sign it. Imagine if AOL or somebody like that should sign it (and they will), then they can run ads that say "The only ISP approved by the RIAA/MPAA!" and the current subscribers who are not technically inclined won't know the difference. They'll get more subscribers who don't know what it means because an important group endorsed/approved it.
Once it starts drawing stupid customers, all the other major ISPs will jump on the bandwagon. Where or not the smaller ISPs will be able to resist remains to be seen.
I'm told all DSL services rent the lines from SBC. So once SBC has signed it, they can make all the ISPs who rent their lines sign it.
But nerds are brilliant, and determined not to be hindered by this sort of thing, so they'll find a workaround. The MPAA/RIAA will try to block that, but the nerds will get around it. That's the way of the internet, and I for one think it's a beautiful thing.
I want them to digitally watermark screener copies and demo CD's and then keep track of who in their organizations have access to these copies so when they hit the internet sites weeks before general release they can go to their own people first for answers/retribution. I think that should be their first step in fighting piracy.
'Same speed C but faster'
"Music is Driving Growth in Digital Commerce"
That's pretty hilarious just in its title. Music may be popular, but the restrictions on growth have come entirely from the music industry. Digital commerce tried to take off by itself as soon as MP3 appeared and bandwidth allowed, and it was very forcefully blocked.
The title is disingenuous in that it implies kudos to the wrong party altogether. It should have tacked "Despite Music Industry" on the end.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
will be writing my ISP ,Adelphia, about this asking them not to be bullied by the RI/MPAA. i have had the same ISP for over 5 years now and i am thrilled with their service but if they get sucked into this then i don't think i'll be with them much longer.
Point noted.
Now explain this to me.
In this day and age of books, the internet, and other sources of information. What are people's excuse for still being ignorant?
Is there some rules for those who willfully chose to not avail themselves of the resources handy, and get themselves into bad situations?
Should we get on Slashdot and complain about being taken advantage of, and it's the OTHER guys fault. (Blame Game) for what we didn't do?
{breathing} ssshhhhhh ooouuuuu ssshhhhhh ooouuuuu...you are part of the Rebel alliance...you are a file trader and a scum.
that's what'd be in the spam.
AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
When the content "Providers" actually get around to providing content, I'll get back to this issue. Seems to me the only thing they do these days for revinue is sue users for old content use/abuse...
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Which legislator should we go to, Orrin "Break Stuff" Hatch? Babs Boxer who is supported by Hollyhood?
Okay, my bad. I didn't RTFA and assumed that the RIAA was responsible for this action. My bad. Guilty as charged. (When it comes to punishing the hell out of consumers and music, one just about can always assume that the RIAA is to blame.)
But regardless of whether or not this is done my the RIAA or a similar organization, this is completely inexcusable.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
... because most shoplifters usually make their get-away by road ...
Isn't this the same group that somehow pulled off a "tax" on all magnetic media, under the assumption that if if you have magnetic media then you must be copying copyrighted music? If they were able to pull that off, look out!
In order for there to be an 'agreement', both parties must provide something to the other (cash for goods or services, work for food, etc.). What does the music industry provide, in this case?
France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already.
They aren't even done writing up the draft, and France has already surrendered!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Hello-
I believe what we are seeing is the kicking and screaming part of being dragged into the 21st century.
The market is clearly demanding new and more convenient ways to procure digital data, some companies are giving it to them legally and doing very well at it (iTunes Music Store). Sooner or later, the RIAA and the MPAA will break down and join us in this happy utopia, but not before the requisite amount of kicking and screaming has been sufficiently exhausted.
Sure, the food industry should allocate evreyones food consumption. If you eat too much for healthy consumption, The vendors will stop selling food. You will live longer! At least until the maximium age limit and then you will be cut off...
If I were an ISP considering signing this thing, I think I'd have to take into account the effect of a good-sized chunk of my subscribership running continuous downloads of random crap, just to increase bandwidth usage and screw with the music industry.
Remember, ISPs: Most of us have never gotten an RIAA subpoena, and are still under the impression that it might be a cool souvenir.
A 15 can sign a contract AFIAK, but he can get out of it pretty easy.
As an aside, I recall a bit from insurance law about how a minor can recieve a insurance payout, then claim he didn't get it after he turns 18. And the company has to pay out again.Which is why you never pay directly to a minor.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
ISPs already do this ... in China
Glad to see cyber McCarthyism is still continuing alive and well.
But what if I want to be watched by paying customers? (Ok, not me, but a friend of a friend, that kind of thing. :)
ISPs are beginning to sign codes of conduct that they'll never follow.
And here's Mike with the weather.
So you're a heavy broadband user, you pay for a service, naturally you want to get you're money's worth (maybe it's because I'm a Yorkshireman)
I cannot think of any other service industry that would even discuss doing this. Imagine the conversation with your energy supplier, a slightly more critical need but...
"You seem to be using lots of electricity sir, you aren't perhaps doing something illegal"
Well no, I'm not...
"Not making a bomb, planning a bank raid, growing drugs or the like??"
Certainly not!!
"Well we're cutting you off just to be safe, have a nice day"
Automatically provents you from playing infringing notes. Want to play Voodoo Chile (slight return)? please key in your credit card #.
Many posters above have noted the large size of GNU/Linux d/ls, likely MS would like to see bandwidth caps in place to keep more people from trying LiveCDs and other "alternate" OSes.
On the other hand the first ISP who signs this is going to have to explain to shareholders why 5% of the customers just dropped.
good lord, when is this all going to stop. Seriously, just make it stop! The world is such a goddamn mess and these assholes are going to make it so I can't run a server... yeah, good idea. There is absolutely no "legitimate" use for a "server". I bet even the major music industry website's servers are secretly being used to "steal music". Otherwise how would you explain the "excessive" bandwidth usage?
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
"It's suicide for broadband suppliers to try weeding out filesharers"
Why is it suicide for a business to ditch a customer who not only abuses their networks, but ends up costing them money?* Sounds to me like the suicide is hanging onto such a customer. And no, running to other businesses, just to carry on the same ways, only works for a little while.
*Plus most ISP's don't have to sign this. They already have TOS that give them the power to do the same.
Why why why is it so difficult to run a server out of my house. I'm not pirating software, music or movies; I just want to host a personal website, or a website on which to showcase current work done on a project to clients, or to host community projects, etc.
People have legitimate server needs, and ISPs make it terribly difficult to meet these needs.
Everytime I call an ISP to ask if they allow server access, I get in a fight with the operator at the other end because she accuses me of software piracy.
All I want is to be able to play with a server in my spare time, without having to fight with my ISP (or pay for a business line).
When other people give your stuff away, it is theft.
Nope, it's only theft if the item in question is now lost to you. And it isn't.
In fact, not even a potential sale is lost. The copy may actually increase your chances of a CD sale, and you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
I always watch bandwidth consumption. And if someone is using large amounts for a long period of time, I'll take a closer look. If they happen to be doing something that looks like it's possibly infrindging, I'll send them an email to advise them that what we see looks like copywrite infringement if they are caught we can NOT protect them.
But that's as far as I'll go. I don't like the RIAA, the MPAA, or even the BSA's tactics. That's not to say I agree with piracy as I don't, but at the same time, trying to get ME to do their dirty work for them? Bugger off, you're not paying me, the customer is. I could care less about their "intellectual property" legal problems. Until they pay me what I would lose from alienating a customer, AND the legal system threatens to shut me down because of it I would like to see those robbing "associations" take a long walk off the top of the Empire State Building.
Like I said, I don't condone piracy, but I do understand it. Who the hell wants to pay $20 for a CD that only has 1 or 2 good songs on it and the rest is just filler? Not to mention, as a musician who's almost been signed, I know the kind of deals musicians are offered and it's horrid. We were offered a whole $.25 per $20 CD sold. And most of that would be taken by the studio for the "advance" money they would give us to get the recording done. But they also would have required us to use THEIR studios. Obviously we didn't sign.
Then by your logic, shouldn't you be able to use it in your own message?
Dolt.....
to share their internet with us. After all, they worked so hard to create it. I'm just so fscking greatful these guys are watching out for "everyones" best interest and not just on a power grab for themselves like some businesses nowadays.
Sometimes members of the RIAA behave unethically when they sign artists so along their reasoning they would not object to signing a code of conduct for their practices...
Everyone knows the #1 use for the internet is porn. Preferably obscure things like scheise & bukkake films. No more odd looks from the old Korean guy running the video store for me!
I have never actually paid all that much attention to the exact amount of bandwidth that I use. I play EQ2 and leave my characters (until recently) logged in all of the time to sell items. This in mind, I hope that my ISP is not wasting resources in tracking my usage, they would find out that I am quite boring. If they did, however, and were to limit my access I would be very upset, there is the term unlimited used to describe my service. I have to wonder though, is the music industry (or anyone that wants monitoring done) going to pay the ISPs to keep track of what we are doing? It will not be cheap to watch all of those packets and much more importantly, there is no way that anyone, save for just stopping usage after "X" amount of bandwidth is used up, to stop the sharing.
...that isp's may respond by asking the entertainment industries to sign a "code of going and fucking yourself".
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
The problem comes when your list size is one, and you can only shorten it to zero.
Would you really rather be without an internet connection at all rather than sign onto one with onerous terms of service? Would you really be willing to move?
It is I think though something to strongly consider if you are already moving and are open as to where you can live.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.'
It's not an indicator. It's an assumption based upon circumstantial evidence. Thats like someone telling the Police. Ticket that driver. He is driving a Porsche. He has that big high performance engine for one purpose only. To Speed.
The first assume is to gamble with the outcome. Gamble to much and you *will* lose.
I work for a small school that's starting a pilot program on language learning. We use the internet for audio & video, and although we have some lag, it's working quite well. If ISP sign this document, it would mean no more language learning for kids. Nice move, guys.
For all I know that parent is as well, but its worth noting that this if a UK initiative, not a US one. Its still important, but you may want to wait the two weeks or so for it to cross the pond to start bombarding US ISP's not to sign...
First, the **AA know how to manipulate people, and the decisions of ISPs are made by people. They will probably keep pushing this or similar ideas and eventually, some ISPs will sign just to make the **AA go away.
In a more personal manner, I think many ISPs will quietly go along with this (key is quietly, they hope) because (1) they will want to keep the **AA on their side rather than antagonize them - it is very possible that the ISP industry may need the **AA's help in some future legal/legislative battle, who knows. Also, (2) remember we are in fascist times - by signing this, an ISP looks like it gives high value to upholding the law - I expect this sort of thing gets minor points for 'playing the game' with other corporations, congress, and possibly, even the judiciary.
The funny thing is, the music industry, despite its disgust at P2P file sharing, has in some instances, leveraged P2P to assist in the distribution of music. See Big Champagne. They monitor P2P networks to see who's hot. In fact, I remember a Slashdot story on them a while back (too lazy to search for it).
The record companies will try and force the ISPs to "sign this agreement and it will protect you from us suing you".
This type of of censorship would be in direct violation of the US constitution. How can any reputable entity even propose something illegal like that? Any court would turn it down.
The International Federation of Pornographic Industries launches a code of practice for makers of storage devices.
Said Mr Dick Fiddler, spokesman for the group: "Our members are constantly at work providing popular entertainment which paying customers come to again and again. However we're being screwed by people pulling it off over the network."
It's understood that a deal is being brokered whereby storage device drivers will monitor files for images containing fleshtones and report any substantial quantity as a potential infringement.
"These people are not just abusing us, they're abusing themselves", said Mr Fiddler. Asked what kind of devices were being targeted he replied "we don't care if they're hard or floppy, we just want our money".
How about the 'community' draft an 'ethical business practices' document for the media companies.
Some possible clauses
1) charge no more then 20% profit on your real cost of production of products.
2) stop ripping off new artists with loans for promotion disgused as recording contracts.
3) Discontinue painting customers as potential criminals
4) Discontinue ramming DRM down our throats.
5) stop producing crap.
6) stop being control freaks and demanding that people consume your drek as you see fit.
7) Tell us explicitly what our license is for. If its for the media then tell us, and have a reasonable replacement policy for bad media. If it for the contents of the media, then we demand our license be portable and persistent for private use.
and so on.
"Regardless of how you view file sharing, I think it's quite obvious that the record companies seriously need to update their business model before they are totally overtaken. Trying to censor the web, or suing people left, right and centre will just lead to negative publicity"
*sigh*
The "New business model" argument again. Do any of you even think these issues all the way through? Do you test your ideas with the same rigerous standards that you apply to your code? Do you know what Apple's iTunes is? How about the fact that "censor the web" or "suing people left and right" isn't what's happening, despite the tendency for exaggeration around her.*
*Exaggerate the threat, then appeal to people fears. You all have been taking lessons from MS haven't you?
This is why the nickname I use for metallica now is 'the hypocrites'.
Asstyrants.
The day the internet becomes regulated is the day it loses its biggest appeal.
hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha ....*inhale*.... hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha ....*inhale*.... hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahaha haha ha ha .... ha... *wheez* *cough* *wheez*.... ha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahah...*cough* *cough* ..Ha.. *cough* *sip pepsi* hahahahaha...*choke* *cough* *choke* *snort* *cough* *wheez* wheez* *spittle* *choke* *cough* *pepsi out nose* *cough *wheez* *spittle* *spittle* *spittle* *wheez* *wheez* *wheez* *snort* *sigh* *sigh* *sigh* *sigh* *cough* *sigh* *sigh* *sigh* *wheewww* .....hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha hahahaha haha... *choke* *can't breathe* *choke* *fall off chair* *choke* *dead* ..............
Hopefully, no ISPs will agree to this. If they do, it's just one more step towards ISPs preventing you from connecting unless you have Trusted Hardware (which is effectively unforgeable) and DRM-enforcement laden software.
I wonder how those mob-like behaviour by the IFPI and MPA sits with our law makers. They usually don't like things like extortion, racketeering, and monopolistic strongarming.
As far as the proposed censorship is concerned I think no ISP would want to conspire to unconstitutional censorship.
Here the privacy laws say that a company must not share customer data with any other organisation without consent of the customer. So following the code of conduct would be plain illegal for every ISP. And the Music And Movies Mafia would probably be even suspectible of solicitation.
Exception is, of course, everything the law requires. But last time I checked the Music And Movies Mafia wasn't the law, at least over here. And we won't allow any such law to pass, thanks to direct democracy. A DMCA-style law will probably be discussed in parliament this summer, but you need only 50'000 signatures to trigger a referendum.
And then we're gonna kick their asses!
So, people viewing my Webcam of the neighborhood will cause me to lose my DSL connection?
If -- a very big if, I know -- ISP's could accurately identify the music that is moving through their systems, then they could bill extra for that, keep something for themselves, and pass on the rest to the music industry as royalty payments.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Enron giving us lectures about corporate ethics and how to save money on our electric bill.
So because I run a game server, an IRC server, and a voice chat server on my home system and consume bandwidth that gives the RIAA the right to have my information disclosed to them, by an entity they have no fucking business regultating in the first place!
That's the last fucking straw. All the music files on my home computers I have a hardcopy store bought disk for, and I have made a backup to my network server my right under fair use.
They can come to my house, but I will absolutely not buy another fucking record from these insufferable bastards!
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Last I checked, the "pipes" that the recording industries are talking about cutting off, are important to say... the music industry. I mean, of course, if music is a driving force in digital commerce (which I believe is ironic, because if it wasn't for mp3 and p2p's like napster, music would not be necessarily important to the internet), then they have to have some way to deliver it, right? and the only way to do that is through these pipes they speak of. So, in essence, isn't this shooting themselves in the foot?? I mean, if they want to go ahead and stop plugging the internet with pure, unadulterated crap that's fine - but they need us a lot more than we need them, we don't have to have their content to live, they however, need us to buy it in order to live. This is only going to become more important as the internet grows. The music/movie industries need to be neutered. I'm in the process of writing my congressman - you guys should too.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities
One word: pr0n.
Yet again, France surrenders. This rule goes nicely alongside their anti-crypto laws, making France the most freedom-hostile country in europe.
France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already. A version of this code was signed last July by three French ministers, representatives of the music industry, major ISPs and telecoms operators there. It allows collection societies and the like to create files from telecoms traffic data of supposed copyright infringers to "mutualise the battle against the piracy of works". Some subscribers have been cut off; others have been sued for file-sharing.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
But I got a better one. You give me my bandwidth and I'll give you the finger.
Alles in ordnung!
Is the RIAA/MPAA going to pay them money to do this? No. In fact, I would bet my left nut that they want to collect royalties from ISPs. They'd like to think that a large part of the ISPs business depends on downloading music/movies and therefore they should get a cut of the revenue.
From the article: France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already.
Kind of reminds me of the old joke, "What's the first thing you learn in the French army?" "How to say, 'I surrender' in German."
- How will the IFPI "encourage" ISP's to sign up to this code of practice given that it does nothing to improve the ISP's relationship with the people that matter, that being the paying customers of their service?
- How on earth did they manage to get the French ISP's to sign up to this? Was that "encouragement" really so good for them?
- Who will decide which websites hold substantial infringing content? What metric will be used? Who will ratify this and how does it take into account the possibility that there could be other downloads available (possibly significantly more) that are legal?
- How will they define the threshold
of bandwidth consumed that seperates a legitimate consumer with that of someone who is supposidly engaging in illegal downloadings?
There are many more questions but I don't have time to write them all down. The mind boggles.Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
They have no right to do any such thing. Any ISP that follows it is just looking for party favours.
Off with their heads, the lot of 'em.
"ISPs are banding together to insist the record labels stop putting out shitty music. :)"
What a funny world we live in.
We have RMS and his band of GPL'ers telling us that if your writing proprietary code, then your "antisocial" and should go into some other line of work.
Now we have the sheer arrogance of slashdotters dictating what music we should be listening to. Here! Here's the approved list of "non-shitty" music.
The internet does not connect you to somewhere that provides websites, files, etc. All it does is connect you to other computers. If people couldn't run servers on their own computers, the internet would die, plain and simple.
I am trolling
Honestly has the world set itself into stupid mode?
First I am hearing lawsuits from companies that build Adware(for websites and programs) against the ones that create software that targets adware programs and malware(Computer Associates).
Now, I am hearing the MPA, the MPAA and the IFPI wants to impose our Internet Service Providers to follow agreement drafted by the "persuaders" themselves.
...
What makes them come to this conclusion
Technology experts already know this is a terrible solution
Funny how so much effort and energy is spent by these associations
I nearly thought it was April fools day all over again when I saw the article. Why are companies so eager to gain control over Consumers' Privacy Rights?
MPAA: We want you to sign this agreement.
ISPs: Oh really?
(looks at agreement)
ISPs: This is a joke, right?
MPAA: We are quite serious in this matter. We were hopi...
ISPs: Hope? Say hello to my littl' hope
(flips the bird)
ISPs: The day we sign an agreement that hinders our operations as well as our Revenue is the day Bush gets a third term.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
What'll be funny is when heavy users (aka big spenders) of the legit music services (iTunes, Napster, etc) have their connection dropped because they're paying for/downloading too many songs from those services.
There ya go RIAA! Punish your biggest customers for being your biggest customers..morons.
RIAA is trying to get a bill passed to prevent companies from selling and shipping modems faster than 300 bauds. Anything faster is an indication that the consumer is engaging in piracy. When told that the consumers suffered long waits when accessing websites, the RIAA spokeperson retorted that Lynx was a very good and capable browser.
RIAA is als*#$%(@)(@)^(_!_)~&!@^ NO CARRIER
...the farming industry has mandated new rules for the automotive industry, who in turn have mandated new rules for the perfume industry...
I download music from etree and other free archive sites like nugs.net and I like to pull ISO images of fedora and knopix and other free ISO images. Then I am constantly dragging home a freind's computer to fix/update/patch/de-spyware. Plus there are those fun little movies.....
Anyway, unless the get into the content and where I got it from, which is definitely an invasion of privacy, what distinguishes me from a pirate?
Sorry ISP, I actually use the bandwith said I could and AFAIK I try to do so within the rules. Do not rat me out to Music Industry which I have supported for 25+ years. I actually have fond memories of records, 45 + 33 1/3, tapes, & CD's, but the new stuff fresh from the artist is way better.
TO ISP,
Please execrise your Bill of Rights [the fourth one]
Thanks,
ISP User
May
I'm an engineer and an artist. I build roads. Really excellent roads. I don't issue traffic tickets. My job is to build the fastest, most beautiful road. If you let me I will only make autobahn. Now you want me to add speed bumps? You want to break the road? The road assumes you know what you are doing. You are alert. Watch the road, move effortlessly and make beautiful music. A masterpiece!
I don't agree with ISP's doing anything more than providing the internet to me at high speed and for a nominal fee.
Wether or not I download copyrighted material is none of the ISP's buisness assuming it dosen't put them in jeapordy. That issue lies between me and the copyright holder.
Trying to make the ISP limit people based on traffic patterns is essentially the ISP shooting itself in the foot.
I download about 20 gigs a month of perfectly legal content. Most of it is for Half Life 2, such as maps, textures, constructs and any other cool development resources I can grub up. Should I be shut down because of someone else's paranioa? I think not.
What the RIAA proposes is akin to government regulation of any industry. The problem is, since when is an industry consortia given any credence when they try an apply their "standard" to another unrelated industry?
... government ... and we all know how much they want to do that (as most western goverments rush to deregulate everything.)
Its like my electric company telling my cable company what they can show, cause it takes electricity to power the TV.
The only organization that can impose any kind of regulation on an industry is
So...
na na na na RIAA fro
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Hmmm...Doesn't Apple and Napster and Musicmatch and Rhapsody and 1001 others have LEGIT places to BUY downloaded music? Aren't tghere LEGIT places to BUY movies as well? Seems to me that these places require bandwith too...which makes the RIAA's argurement meritless. Just because you CAN kill someone with a gun doesn't make guns illegal. Just because you CAN copy movies with a VCR doesn't make them illegal. Same thing with a copier or tape recorder. Yet, none of these things are illegal. Neither should the computer be..yet Congress seems perfectly willing to make ALL potential copying and downloading of music illegal - even the legal stuff...
...to dedicated links, corporate access, or something similar for that matter. Now, do they want to control every single bit of the Internet? Last time I checked, there is no restriction on servers or traffic for corporate links. Are they planning on restricting those too?
If so, I'm sure Netcraft will declare the Internet dead instantly.
Are technically possible, and we know it.
Could Blockbuster + Hollywood + DVD manufacturers create a format that can't be ripped ?. Yes
Could Microsoft + RIAA + ISPs absolutely block P2P? Yes.
Why they don't do it? Because they are companys that sell stuff. And they sell stuff because the market buys that stuff. If they stop providing the stuff that people wants, people will either: Crack their products so they can do the stuff they need.
Use comercial alternatives.
Use Free Alternatives.
They don't want to loose their customers, so they will just push it as much as they can, without loosing their marketshare, but leaving their investor happy. Do you really think the RIAA cares about p2p, or that the RIAA actually thinks that p2p decreases their sells?. Hell no, but if they don't do this shit, what the heck does the artists pay them for?.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I'd be surprised if my ISP (Speakeasy) signs on for this kind of corporate fascism. I'll make the statement up front that I don't pirate music or movies. But I have high bandwidth usage a lot because I tunnel multiple networks through my home in order to keep connected with family and friends. Many times, they are streaming content that I provide privately over SSL tunnels. So even though my usage is high, I'm not doing anything illegal. An ISP would have to be completely braindead to accept this kind of policy. But I'm sure there will be some major ones that WILL sign on to this criminal behavior. If only to make a statement for their owning corporate parents. What next? Are we going to need licenses to serve out content above a certain bendwidth level? Idiots. They are all complete idiots. I'd like to meet s few in person so I could very physically express my opinion of this garbage on them (err... I mean) too them.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Isn't this bordering (illegal) restraint of trade? Nobody has a right to impose on a legal contract between two other parties. If they think a crime has been committed, they should go to court and get an order dealing with that specific case.
I know, at this point they're only asking for a "voluntary" agreement. That's why I said "bordering" -- larger ISPs will blow them off since they know the real cost of accepting it. (Hint: it's not a few pissed off customers. It's dealing with the 1,002 other groups with their own "code of conduct" on everything from porn to evolution and "liberalism.")
But smaller ISPs run by chickenshits may worry about the legal costs defending themselves if RIAA plays hardball. Even when, not if, they win they'll still lose because of the expense.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Will they bite the hand that feeds them? We already know that the RIAA will. But will Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, etc.? I'm not willing to pay $45 a month just so CNN will load faster. I'm also only a couple of phone calls away from switching to Dish, so that would be $105 a month that Time Warner stands to lose from me. I'll be spending less than $100 a year on music CDs with or without the Internet.
Pot grow-ops use a lot of electricity.
Policy forces should draft code-of-conduct for electricity companies to report excessive use.
The moral of the story: don't leave on your air conditioner.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
...If the artists would just make shotty music, we could all go back to the good-ol-days of low-speed internet.
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
1.) Open up accounting record and pricing models to explain current CD costs (Prove to your customers you are not price fixing).
2.) Remove monopolistics barriers in the markets (Allow independent labels to get their music to the market).
3.) Stop producing crap (Please, Stop prducing crap).
I have secretly hidden some mispelled words in this post. Can you find them?
FOR PORN!
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Anyway, down with the French..
have a good day and flame away!
P.S. "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries"
This needs not be hypocritical. Coca cola can hand out free cans to promote their newest product, but you cannot steal it from stores.
PS: Notice that you yourself said it _hurts_ them. What did you expect in reaction?
"We are more French than the French!" says Monsieur DeLay, le Senator de Washington D.C.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
SpeakEasy is the Best DSL provider in my opinion.
Fuck The RIAA
Just another proposal from the mega corps that deserves nothing but a hearty "fuck you" from the rest of us. If they want to prevent piracy, they need to make content available cheaply and with better quality than the pirated product. And they don't want to.
"Scary part: It'll probably work."
Ignorance is scary. Enlighten yourself.
A lot of the broadband ISPs are big operations in themselves. Some are even owned by content providers (AOL/Time Warner). Plus as I already pointed out elsewere. ISPs DON"T NEED this agreement to do what they need to do. They already have a TOS that'll do just fine.
...why don't the ISPs just tell the IFPI (and the RIAA and the MPAA...) to just fuck off?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Sometimes people don't know what they don't know, and excuse me for sounding like a certain politician, but it happens all the time. When people know they are ignorant, and don't go looking for an answer, then they are stupid; but sometimes they don't realize there is more to a subject, and so are ignorant without knowing; they are ignorant about their own ignorance.
For instance, you didn't know that you were ignorant about how people can be ignorant about how ignorant they are. But now you do know, and you have no excuse for bringing the subject up again.
Infuriate left and right
Most musicians and most bands are NOT members of them, therefore they are only a powerful small segment that leeches off the rest of the music industry.
It's like saying MSFT is the Software Industry. They may want you to think they are - but they are not.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well, first of all I'd like to thank the music industry for making them even more satisfying to loathe. You couldn't create a better bad guy in a novel (Well, there's SCO, of course - again, a real life phenomenon, not some bad guy in a book)...
Seems to me like:
(1) There are those who are just opposed to piracy and consider it theft and leave pissed-off messages on forums such as this saying so from time to time. I think they're the minority, but they have an honest viewpoint, and if anyone is making a decent moral case for not ripping off music, it is them.
(2) The largest group of people are people who just really like music, and can easily get it for free. I don't think they spend a lot of time thinking about the music industry, intellectual property, copyrights, or what have you. They just like music. So they download it.
(3) There are people for whom pirating music, like smoking a joint, is a political act. I mean sure, guffaw all you want, but we live in a horriby insular, suburban, gated community world where this is as radical as it gets for most. I'm talking about people who enjoy the fact that pirating music is illegal, and enjoy screwing over very large companies, however much a drop in the bucket downloading a few mp3s is. It's not so much that they're really getting over on anyone, but it feels like it...just enough to make it a rush in and of itself.
(4) I just mention this group for completeness - these are people who are collectors, who like out of print or really obscure stuff that is difficult or impossible to find anyway, or simply is not commercially available.
And I have to wonder if the music industry is driving more of category 2 into category 3. I'm not sure about this though. I don't really buy the argument that "bad publicity" really affects the numbers. I think music piracy is largely an issue of convenience and R0CKING 4 FREE and not much more than that. Consumers are notoriously mushy when it comes to putting up any kind of united front against abusive companies, employers, or institutions, at least here in the States, and I suspect in much of the rest of the world as well. I doubt corporations would own and run as much as they do if consumers really had any moral conscience and really wanted to know what kind of atrocities their spending money was paying for.
Certainly, however, one thing the music industry is doing wonders for is assuaging whatever guilt the typical music trader still feels about piracy. I mean, if there is even the slightest hesitation, or opening for someone to make an argument about piracy, it's evaporating quickly due to the music and movie industry going out of their way to embarass themselves by pretending that they see this as a moral issue, as opposed to a dent in their ability to financially exploit people with actual talent. The moral "oh poor us" crap is pathetic in roughly the same way Jim Bakker's penitential sniveling was pathetic. It might mean something when an artist says so, but the industry just seems to be out to sabotage their own credibility at every turn. Like we don't really know the score. Like we don't all recoil in disgust from MTV, Clear Channel's radio stations, and the complete sewage of the pop music scene. It is this - the product they push the hardest, that lends incredible insight into the industry's supposed "moral" (LOL) conscience.
However one feels about piracy, the music and movie industries are deft black belts when it comes to outright DICKETRY. And one thing that makes the world go 'round is spite, and every time they do something as DELICIOUSLY EVIL as this, countless new "convenience traders" are introduced the sweet, sweet nectar of spite. Now, it's not just R0CKING 4 FREE - now it's R0CKING 4 FREE AGAINST THE MAN. Now there's an affirmative reason above and beyond just having, guiltily, THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MEATLOAF in 128 kbps MP3 format.
Idiots. This is ROCK AND ROLL they're poking with a stick. Of course its part of the same pa
Oh..shit. Can't host a server.
Thanks, music industry. Now I have time to cook up my diabolical schemes.
Never mind how stupid, arrogant or evil this. How come it's even possible? If nobody gets to run a server, where will the content come from?
Surely there is some sort of exception to this rule? What defines an "ISP"? What defines an "ISP customer"?
I must be missing something. The proposal reads to me to say "companies providing internet service agree to stop providing internet service to anyone providing internet content". I'm sure that isn't the intent, but can someone explain to me how this doesn't amount to shutting the net down completely?
This isn't intended as humor; I really am missing something here. How do they propose to draw the line between bad running-a-server and okay running-a-server?
mt
"Expect an interesting discussion next Monday, when this issue, and the draft code of conduct, will be discussed at a meeting in Geneva of WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Which as you know has a stellar record defending the little guys against claims of copyright infringement."
So it looks like the RIAA and MPAA are trying to by-pass Congress on this one, and take the easy route.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Why dont you bend over and kiss my butt...
I GIVE G00D B007 S3X!
All I know if my ISP complied to this arrogent little "Term of Agreement" I would be asking the question: "What kind of buisness do you run?" Because that is just purely uneconomical.
This is so funny. I work for an ISP, we already have those things in place, called an AUP. Anyone caught abusing their connection for illegal activity is dealt with. Of course, the RIAA just doesn't like the burden of proof being on them.
/dev/urandom let's say, call it "newest_crappy_song_from_jenifer_lopez.mp3", have it just the right size, and send it from myself to myself on several of my colo boxes on my domain(s). Then for the fun of it, null route all of the RIAAs ips from my personal web/mail servers for when they try and contact me. Then when they snailmail me (or call my isp on the phone, again me because I am my isp), I can show them the bogus file and waste plenty of their time and prove to them just how big of asses they really are.
This has always made me want to fill a file with random bytes from
Ya know, kinda like honeynet for the *AAs. Well, maybe not.
FLR
I doubt it. One of their selling points is you are allowed to host your own servers. I have to say, they've made good on that. I have their 6.0/768 DSL (which for me is more like 4.5/768 :/) and on it I host two web servers. They do a fair bit of traffic, probably a minimum of 20GB/month each and usually much more. When one of them really gets going they can have the upstream nearly slammed for days on end.
To this day I haven't heard a peep out of them, and I've been doing it for like 2 years now. So long as they get their money, they seem to be happy to let me use as much bandwidth as I like. Likewise I heard nothing from them when I hosed a drive and downloaded 50GB of backups from work over the course of a couple days.
So I can't see them signing something like this, as it would go against their whole spiel. I'm sure they also know they'd lose a lot of customers. The whole reason I chose Speakeasy is I was told that they wouldn't whine about bandwidth usage due to servers.
...by this logic, every time I do a net install of Linux my ISP is going to send my name to the music and movie associations because I'm using too much bandwidth.
Guess I'd better not make too many phone calls with Vonage either, or they'll report me for that.
Welcome to the 2000's folks - where it's guilty until the RIAA/MPAA/whatever decides that after a careful anal probe, you're not guilty of a crime at the moment but damn it they're watching you and they know you're stealing something and they're just waiting to get the proof so that they can nail you, your grandmother, and anyone you were ever related to because they're just not rich enough. (How's that for a run on sentence?!)
Calgon take me away...
There are two seasons in my world - Hockey and Construction
Though I suppose it might fall under video at times. You forgot porn, which has for a long time been a dominant aspect of internet growth.
Response from ISPs: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Come on, did Bob send you? That joker is always pulling shit like this!"
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=humor
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Maybe some kind of regulation that makes it impossible to serve or download anything by Ashley Simpson?
Also a regulation that she stops "singing".
Turk: Let's play Steak. J.D.: What? Turk: Steak. The 1st person to finish their steak is the winner of Steak. -Scrubs
I have read plenty of online stories, including ones on slashdot, talking about how Comcast and other cable ISPs cut off users who download or upload more than some undisclosed minimum. Also it is impossible to find out just what that minimum is, but it might be based on something like "X times the median usage in your area".
This is one reason I am still on dial-up: being too far from any DSL hub (or whatever it's called) I don't want to switch to Comcast. I just know my lack of willpower will have me downloading hundreds of gigs of anime a month.
Nothing...
What are they going to do? They can chuck more lawsuits at the industry as a whole, but to keep doing this is just going to turn their entire agenda into a farce. No one will take them seriously, and they'll kinda end up in the same bucket of credibility as SCO find themselves in.
You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop believing you. To put that in perspective, you can only sue so many people before both your credibility, and your bank book runs dry.
And the music industry's making a lotta money still. Depending on who does the research, online music downloads may actually be helping the industry as a whole. Perhaps not so much the RIAA, but definately artists and labels who were previously shut off from the mainstream due to the RIAA's stranglehold on the entire industry.
So I hope that ISPs collectively thumb their noses at this offer. If nothing else, it's a huge privacy lawsuit just waiting to explode as people find out that their online actions were sent to a non-legal entity without their authorization.
You'd need a pretty dumb judge to count that though. If they told CD-R/DVD-R manufacturers to note down or restrict those that bought large volume of media, would it count as goodwill. The internet companies have a business model, and the RIAA is telling them to change it with zero benefit to themselves.
I'm lucky though, as a Canadian I find we're still doing rather well in the fight again RIAA/MPAA/DMCA abuse... and our court system seems to quite often have some good heads behind it when dealing with that type of crap. There are some stupid lobbies going through again right now but I've got reasonable confidence they'll be shot down.
A compromise is a mutually beneficial situation. The RIAA don't want compromise, they want to have their pie and eat it too... I hope they end up with a pie-in-the-face for their BS "efforts"
Who'd be stupid enough to fake a judge's signature?
The ATF (BATFE), if the apocryphal stories are true...
I know it's a litte off topic, but I have a question about how RIAA tracks Bit Torrent users. I know they have gone after the trackers before, and I know that with Kazaa, they seeded fake files. I'm wondering if they have ever gotten a .torrent file, and downloaded the full thing to see if it was, in fact, a pirated copy of something they hold the copyright to. If so, wouldn't they have then uploaded some or all of the copyrighted work? If they did, wouldn't that mean they chose to freely distribute something which they held copyright to and therefore make it legal for everyone to distribute?
ISP's should sign this agreement, just as soon as the recording industry signs a code of conduct drafted by musicians. :-)
[Insert pithy quote here]
The best response to this would be for some prominent organization (EFF?) to create an alternative code of conduct, specifying rules for handing over personal information, banning accounts, silently limiting bandwidth or blocking ports, etc. It's not just a p2p download thing -- most of us have a strong interest in supporting ISPs who foster new protocols and applications, stand up for their customers, and (on the hosting side) resist third party attempts to shut down hosted content.
:)
Just complaining about the RIAA's code, or even switching ISPs that enforce it, has only a passive effect on the situation. If we have a good positive alternative to get behind instead, it will send a much stronger, clearer message to ISPs -- and incidentally maybe improve the general quality of service from them as well.
Unfortunately, I'm kinda busy for the next couple years. Anyone else want to run with this one?
The interesting thing to me is that wireless services I've seen don't have as much of a cap on upstream bandwidth, so in some ways they are superior. Where I am DSL is not an option because of a residential splitter, so I am considering moving to a wireless internet provider rather than use Comcast (currenty my only choice).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Much as it puts a bad taste in my mouth to defend a sell-out band like Metallica:
We made a demo and I gave ten copies to ten friends
If I give out free copies of my own material with the intent that they be spread out, that's different than when somebody else copies my paid-for product and then gives the copies to all their friends.
Personally, I do think that P2P both helps and hinders music. A lot of this is because the RIAA definately missed the boat, but for everyone who buys a CD based on a song from the internet there is somebody who just downloads 100 songs without buying anything.
From personal experience, the best distribution model has been companies that offer demo tracks and then sell CD's. CDbaby has a nice model where you could stream the song, you could even rip the steam if you know what you're doing, but it would be incomplete because they just give you enough to get to like/dislike the song. So I can listen to 5-6 songs on a CD... hear enough of them so I know if they sound worth my coin, and then buy the album as a please.
So yes, the music industry has a flawed business model. General P2P is also a semi-useless/flawed model for them. But there are lots of other models that would benefit both the RIAA and the consumer, should they have enough brains to use them.
I refuse TOS that do not let me run a server, I I do wish to sink my own email, as well as have the ability to remotely administer my machines at home via SSH. I'll happily agree to not run an open relay as well as reasonable, well-defined, upstream bandwidth caps, though I make heavy use of CoIP for non-commercial reasons. And, no, I do not download copyright material without permission. I have an extensive CD collection, as well as a modest movie collection, all duely licensed. I will not agree to downstream bandwidth caps, unless they are generous. I currently pay around US$45 a month for a dedicated Verizon 1.5Mx384k ATM circuit to my ISP, and a further US$40 to that ISP, i.e. around US90 a month, inclusive of taxes, for this level of service. I find that the long distance savings justify the expense, since I save around US$60 a month in long distance charges. So, the US$90 or so strikes me as a fair deal for that level of service. The main point is that I'm willing to pay around the triple the going rate for what internet service is supposed to be. If you don't deliver it to me, I'll go to your competition. I will fight most vigorously attempts to prohibit any ISP from offering it to me.
You could've hired me.
That's my immediate reaction from seeing the headline, I haven't read comments nor TFA. It makes about as much sense, actually more. If I were "The ISP Industry" I'd hire Don Passman to write the "Music Industry Code of Conduct."
Tag lost or not installed.
The top three items on my RIAA Code of Conduct:
1. Bend over backwards to embrace new technologies. Don't buy congressmen and/or laws to try to snuff out said technologies to protect an antiquated business model.
2. Stop putting out crap. By "crap" I mean albums with 1 or 2 "radio friendly," good tracks that sucker me into buying the whole album, only to find out that the other 10-12 tracks on the CD are pure shit. I have nearly 300 CDs in my collection, but only about 20 of them have good songs outnumbering the filler songs. That is why I feel no guilt for the ~1300 good songs I "stole" via illegal downloading over the years before the iTMS appeared.
3. Lower the prices on your products delivered on physical media to about $10-12 for a single-disc, normal album. The cost of a new CD is absurd compared to what it costs to manufacture. What happened to all those promises when CDs came out about how cheap they were going to get once you ramped up manufacturing capabilities???
Is there like one person that we can call "the music industry"? If there is I totally think we should find them and kill them... to make a statment.
One does not take the name of the Kernel Lord in vain. Thou shalt be whipped for ever more. make all.
I think the entertainment industry is more worried about the loss of control than copyright infringment. We can't have independant musicians or film makers posting torrents of their creations on the web, now can we? Too many of their peers may decide that they don't need the middlemen anymore either.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I should really install some tools to monitor what ports pull traffic through my NAT machine, but a basic model would be
Pr0n: 1-3GB/month
Music/downloads: 0-500MB+/month (legit downloads)
Music/streaming; Unknown, under 1GB... and again legit
CD images, apt-updates, etc: 4GB+/month
Seriously, doing my general upgrades of debian/unstable hit me for a bit of bandwidth on my various machines, downloading ISO's to test are about 500-700MB a pop. Games suck banwidth, and lots of other very legitimate activity. Music falls into the low end of the spectrum, and even that is generally legit downloads or a song somebody has told me to "check out" (which I will probably look at snagging from iTunes if it is good).
Let me just give the RIAA the keys to my car and house and have all my pay checks directly deposited to them. They certainly are in a better position to decide what I should do with them.....
Rick B.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A code of conduct like this would only propel music pirates to develop new technologies which require less bandwidth. Better compressed mp3s, lightweight streaming technologies, undetectable sharing networks... Ironically, this bill is just going to make music more impossible to capitalize on. They still don't get it.
I don't think reducing bandwidth will do anything, they still will be able to upload even if it is 1kb/s. I personally believe that they should try to reason out with these groups or teams of rippers because this is leading no where.
And thus goes the great meat grinder of the US (in)justice system. Innocent or guilty, everyone is turned into hamburger.
the cops can search your house if you use too much electricity (might be running a grow operation), so i guess it makes sense if they can search your house if you use too much bandwidth
In other news, consumers have drafted a 'code of conduct' agreement for the music industry, requiring them to refrain from shoveling 12 crap and one half-crap songs onto a CD and charging $20 for it.
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
seriously, i get modded down as a troll for posting the real truth that it's the US that's surrendering our rights, yet other posts that claim that France is surrendering get modded up.
FACT: Yet More Rights Are Being Given Away - in the USA.
FICTION: All Your Music Are Belong To CEOs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
ISPs decide its better to get with the program than fend off the avalanche of legal papers about every little alleged copyright infringement case
"Avalance"? For "alleged" infringement cases? Yeah, right. At worst it will be just like it is now.
they have to purchase the bandwidth from the same large players that would be a party to this agreement
Which would violate some serious anti-trust laws. Currently big pipe players are telcos and the like, and hide behind "common carrier" laws. What are the odds that they would willingly give up this status? (Remember, in order to be common carrier, you don't filter content.)
Not to mention if big players buy into this, I can see it violating RICO statutes.
Put your tinfoil hat away, I think it's shut off the oxygen supply to your brain.
According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.
GO FUCK YOURSELVES
Who do they think they are? I'm sorry but if they want to try and stop me from "stealing" shared data which they claim they intellectually own, then I should just start giving away their physical products (I work at a record store, but I don't steal from my work). They may intellectually own the data, but once they sell the physical property, the owner can physically do whatever he wants with it, which includes physically giving it to me. Tough shit... if they don't like it, they should find new jobs.
The RIAA seems to think that if piracy did not exist we would all be buying all the music we listen to.
Thats not how it works in the real world.
I'm 21 and I remember my music purchasing habits from my high school days, I didn't have much cash to spare so an album a month was all I'd buy, if I wanted to hear more music I'd borrow a friends album or turn on the darn radio!
The RIAA used to make LESS money selling albums before the internet. They seem to have completely forgotten that.
They also assume that all we want to do on the internet or in the real world is listen to THEIR music! PLEASE, music is one of the many forms of entertaintment available today, I also read books, tinker with distros, watch tons of movies, play pc games, date, drag race etc etc
If the RIAA decides we HAVE to buy all our music if we want to listen to it then I'm pretty sure things aren't going to go the way they expect.
I'm pretty sure most of us can spend the rest of our lives with our current music collections and a satellite radio subscription.
Time is an illusion, lunch doubly so.
- Implement filtering technology?
- Limit Bandwidth?
- Retain Records?
and yet "quality digital content is a key driver that makes consumers embrace new services"
The RIAA and MPAA don't seem to want to provide viable alternatives to P2P's infringing uses, but they want a CARRIERS to police it for them? And invade their customer's privacy?
This is soo crazy stupid that is is scary. What kind of out-of-tune whackos would think that this is a good idea?
The bottom line is that Broadband access is a tool. Customers rent the pipe. Just like telephones, electricity, gas. How in the world would it possibly make sense that your local telephone, electric, or gas company would have to make sure you weren't using their product in an illegal fashion?
Orwellian.
I am sooo glad that I don't buy CD's or Movies anymore. And no, I don't download either. These industries are just plain selfish and evil. They don't DESERVE my money.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Why not just combine this technology new way of detecting speech and this one citywide wireless access service and just deduct money directly out of our bank accounts every time we hum a copyrighted song?
Chic-ken - Good!
By rought analogy: It's hard to access a poorly indexed 6 petabyte database over a 128 kilobit per second pipe using a 6 megahertz CPU with only a one kilobit cache and an 8 bit bus.
In other words: the vast amount in information, the inaccessible meta information, and individual human limits on percieving the available input forms, processing them, and storing information from them.
(Yes, humans are amazingly good at image processing. This however is mostly just support for a basic recognition routine that goes something like:
While beyond most computers these days, and running really fast on the human brain, this is not quite what we call "higher thought".)//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Though I know this was a joke post, your premises behind it are exactly the problem, and you're not helping at all. Do you want Fair Use Rights, as determined under the copyright act of 1976? Then learn what they actually are, and don't just say "I can redistribute copyrighted material to anyone I wish to, 'cause I paid for my use, and after that it's all Fair Use".
Bullshit. You idiots keep using "Fair Use" as your justification, and you know what Congress will do? They'll take away Fair Use. Thing is, that wouldn't stop your copyright violations, and it will stop those of us who actually use our Fair Use rights: format shift to move CDs to our computers or MP3 players; time shift to watch movies or television shows later in our TiVos; and archive copy our CDs so that when we scratch them or leave them on the dashboards of our cars, we can go back to the original and make a new copy to destroy. That's Fair Use. What's not Fair Use is "I wanna make mixtapes for my *cough* girlfriend". Even if you actually were making mixes for your girlfriend, that wouldn't be Fair Use! Is it a) archive, format or time shifting, b) excerpt use in a satire, parody or review, or c) use by a non-profit for non-public distribution? And no, you don't count under C, since you're giving someone a copy. C means that a church can use a copywritten song in their church play, but they can't videotape it and give out or sell tapes.
So anyways, talk all you want about quality of music or price, but don't ruin Fair Use for those of us who actually use it appropriately.
-T
Speak for yourself. I seldom miss anything, and when I do, I know to aim more carefully and keep firing.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
but does that not sound strangely like Censorship hard at work. While your at it, go on ahead and block all of the hacker websites -- every vulnerability site, every virus code site, every serial and key site. Also, grab every porn site there is too. Cant have underage children looking at porn excessively, thats illegal too, isnt it.
Actually for that matter , go on ahead and kill all the filesharing networks all together. I mean there is NO WAY THEY HAVE ANY VALIDITY WHATSOEVER. Sharing photos, freely open developed code, freeware, and so forth, that has to be illegal too, right?
Heck, just block every site there is accept for what AOL allows.....we want the internet to be a safe family envoirnment for everyone to enjoy.
after reading the article this "code of conduct" only appears to be in europe.. no offence to the european users but does this mean that it will only be in europe or is the RIAA also proposing a bill in the US....?
This is a European initiative.
A great summation of the issues.
This sort of heavy-handed stupidity is why I am currently refusing to buy music except from indies. If they're at all in bed with these morons, I just won't buy.
Yeah, it stinks. There are at least 20 CDs I would *love* to have bought since this crap started. And a dozen or so DVDs. Ah, well.
Boycott. Tell them what you're doing and why. Hit them in their pocketbook again.
For the record, I don't download music or vidoes illegally. I occasionally download free indie songs or other free music, but that's it.
I don't traffic with thugs any more than with spammers.
Anyone who has ever studied the record business knows that it is being ran by, or ran by people with the same ethics of the mob. Every action they take is straight from that mindset. No one can state that the record companies are being ran in a legal manner and expect anyone to believe them. I ask all of you to write a letter to your representatives demanding an investigation into the accounting and business practices of the RIAA members. They have an effective monopoly and claim to be losing billions, this is a clear sign that something is wrong.
Perhaps we should approach the music industry in the same way we approach drugs. Since many people are apparently willing to do just about anything for drugs, including break laws to get them, we've made them illegal to distribute/purchase. Clearly people are willing to break laws to obtain this "music" that the RIAA distributes, without this "music", people would be able to get on about their lives. We should ban all forms of music.
Yes yes, I'm trying to be witty, sarcastic, and a bunch of other stuff, I'm just not very good at it. Perhaps someone else can take this idea and turn it into a Monty Python "witches float therefor they are made of wood" type of argument.
Casca
The day I allow any ISP I work for sign a "code of conduct" agreement with the RIAA or their ilk is the same day the RIAA signs a "code of conduct" stating that they will not act like asshats and sue anything with a filename resembeling one of their precious artists.
If you're not a lawyer, don't spew out legal opinions.
Oh, by the way, you're wrong.
And it's "lose", not "loose". What you wrote implies that if they sign, they will be protected.
You know, it might be best if you just give your computer away to somebody a little smarter than you.
Has it ever occured to this ignorant cartel that perhaps people download things besides music? I'm so pissed off at the music industry anymore that I only listen to public radio stations like NPR and my local University's station.
You wouldn't believe how much better music actually sounds when it comes from an artist instead of a billfold.
"consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities." Dude! My neighbor sure drives his car a lot! He's probably using it to transport illegal drugs! In fact, he drives a Hummer, and it guzzles a hell of a lot of gas... Lock him up!
who's going to draft a code-of-conduct for the Music industry?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The RIAA has announced that it has just passed new legislation that governs the use of the Internet. By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions.
The legislation states that ISPs must advertise their broadband services as providing unlimited Internet access, but that all access above 128 kilobytes of bandwidth used within a year should result in extra charges of $1.00 per byte. A separate clause in the new legislation states that by 2007, all ISPs must have technology in place to track certain bandwidth-eating downloads, such as Internet advertisements, popups, and downloaded spam, over which users have no control, so that the RIAA can charge an additional $5.00 for each byte of these downloads.
"We are excited to bring new freedoms to users around the world," stated RIAA house speaker Darl McBride. "Consumers will be glad to know that they are paying more and receiving less."
A third clause in the legislation outlaws the use of Linux, punishing its users with complete lack of Internet access, enforced by technologies that fingerprint the operating system and deny access if it is not the latest version of Microsoft Windows or SCO UNIX. Also, 14% of Internet fees that will accrue under this legislation will be paid to SCO to compensate for the theft of its valuable intellectual property.
Finally, a spokesperson for the RIAA stated that the RIAA will soon phase out Congress, as it provides parallel services to the people, and is therefore an unnecessary duplication of effort.
Those who say "unlimited" but oversubscribe to a large enough degree will either have to ask for more money, cut back on who they take on or be honest that they contection ratio is x.
Ironically, if the corporations would *withhold* content, they'd do us all a favor. It'd be a welcome respite. Plus, it's pretty good copy protection for the recording industry.
It'd also fuel (what I'd guess would be) moderate to explosive growth in the non-corporate controlled media industry. We'd swing back to the idea of computers as a "hobbyist" medium (back in the days of Heathkit, for example) and would give the cycle time to re-start.
Withhold content, please! The "pipes" won't go empty. Just leave us alone. It'd also give the artists some time to really give us what *they* want -- and not a bunch of A&R posers pretending to work on behalf of the artists.
The ISP can already do as you suggest without signing an agreement with **AA. The question is what benefit do they get from signing with the **AA? I think the ISPs presently benefit by charging more to high bandwidth downloaders. Cutting them off would be a net loss unless **AA have something to offer to the ISP.
While I certainly don't like the MPAA/RIAA, their tactics or the heavy-handed approach, the fact of the matter is that they are doing what they need to do defend their property.
Honestly: If the MPAA/RIAA politely asked everyone to stop downloading movies and music, offered amnesty and all that stuff, would people stop? Hell no. Instead, they would say smirk and call them suckers. So the natural response is to take it the next level. And then the one after that.
I don't like what they do, but I can't say that I blame them.
And for those who say that we should get the music industry to stop pumping out crap: The sad truth is that creating junk is not illegal (but it outta be!).
FTA: And to back up their modest proposal, the MPA and IFPI aren't afraid to wave their big stick at the ISPs and network operators. Speaking last month at the invitation of the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO) , the head of the IFPI, John Kennedy, said: "Quality digital content is a key driver that makes consumers embrace new services. You invest billions in your pipes and cables and satellites but without content you have empty pipes and boxes. At this stage I am not even asking for much if anything by way of a financial commitment. I am asking for your time your energy your commitment and some social responsibility."
Tony Soprano couldn't have put it better. "Nice content-carrying pipes you've got here. What a shame if anything were to happen to them... now, we've got this little agreement for you to look at..."
Their point here is that ISPs have a vested interest in the future market of digital content. If an ISP doesn't sign their agreement, they don't get to participate in the legitimate transfer of content.
You want to get that new movie streamed to you computer? You'd have to be on a MPA-approved ISP that's signed the agreement, or no movie for you.
Whether that will work or not, who knows. But RIAA and the MPAA hold the keys to the future of content delivery. It sounds like they're looking to use that leverage.
The next step will be ISP's drafting a code of conduct for the music industry.
well, if this RIAA crap passes, so much for downloaded OSS and linux distros.
not to mention pornography that i PAID for.
Just look at the name of the name of the consortium...
"The International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI)"
Phonographic? The definition of "Phonograph" is...
A machine that reproduces sound by means of a stylus in contact with a grooved rotating disk.
The music industry needs to drag itself into the 21st century. It's their fault for not keeping up with technology.
Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.
In other news is was announced that RIAA is going to also draft codes of conduct for radio stations, as people have the radio on too much and they are losing billions... They also plan to draft a code of conduct for the auto manufacturing industry...
0 4/10/04 45225&tid=155&tid=141
Seriously who works for these people are the that stupid? The only point I can see that this may be usefull is to generate news and keep the RIAA on the forefront of peoples minds. In which case they were successful as it is posted here (probabbly among others).
If I were an ISP I would tell the RIAA to F#@&k off, regardless of my views on music priacy. This is NOT you industry stay the F^%@ out. Stick to your only monopoly thank you very much.
To think that this will work is laughable. It just illistrates how must these people lie, even to just stay in the headlines as everyone is getting sick of hearing them bitch about profits.
Yesterdays article is very relevent in this case:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Basically just make shit up so you get headlines and are featured in the news. Not a new ploy and it seem to still work.
Bah thats all from me, these creeps make me sick.
The RIAA litmus test for "infinging activities" sounds a lot like the Bedevere witch test to me.
BEDEVERE: Wait. Wait ... tell me, what also floats on water?
ALL: Bread? No, no, no. Apples .... gravy ... very small rocks ...
ARTHUR: A duck.
They all turn and look at ARTHUR. BEDEVERE looks up very impressed.
BEDEVERE: Exactly. So... logically ...
FIRST VILLAGER: (beginning to pick up the thread) If she ... weighs the same as a duck ... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore?
ALL: A witch!
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
The problem is the way the music industry is run. The result is a prisoner's dilemma[wikipedia] where the consumers and the artists are on the losing end of the equation.
I would assert that most people who download music are not against the artists making money off of their works. I would put forth that the problem is disdain for the system by which the recording industry makes most of the profit.
If the music (and for that matter movie industry) were structured so that everyone involved made a fair share of money and fair prices were offered everyone would benefit. No more prisoner's dilemma. Consumers get variety of music at a reasonable price, the recording industry makes money and so do the artists. But alas capitalism at work...
Just an aside, I criticize capitalism but only in its practiced form. I am not a communist, fascist or anything the like. I simply believe that capitalism can be run in a way where everyone gets a good deal.
I thought that the Internet was suposed to be uncontrolled by any one group...wasn't it?
I mean it sounds like they want to put a harness on the web, that isn't right.
If I want to do what I want to do on the Internet, I should be able to, nobody owns it.
Pat
If there is one overriding factor in all these disputes its the function of the Internet in removing middlemen from transactions.
The high number of layers of marketmakers and their proprietary good-old-boy networks are being surfacted like soap does to grease globs.
One of the most profitable of the old-boy networks are the consortiums of (mostly lawyers) that invest and purchase rights to various forms of media copyrights and then live off the residuals.
These consortiums relied on the difficulty of reproducing multimedia privately and the resultant scarcity of the music to make their large profits. Just as musicians once relied on the relative scarcity of musical talent to be able to make a living. Now only the absolute cream-of-the-crop musicians can hope for something other than a weekend job doing weddings.
In the same way, the lawyers are finding that the Internet is making their reproduction consortiums redundant. When it was just the musicians losing their livelihood it was, sorry, too bad, move on with the times. When its the lawyer consortiums loosing their big piles of cash its another thing entirely.
That doesn't mean its "moral" to rip off music, but the reality is that the musicians rarely profit heavily off of the music that gets published.
Fact: If your are a 4 man band and your disc goes gold, that means that you and your buddies can afford the life of a $40K/year junior engineer for one year. That's after promotion fees etc are paid.
This is just the come uppance for the lawyers.
If you want to play the moral high ground you have to start thinking about alternate technologies in the reality of the Internet. Yes, we need to find better ways to reward the excellent creative work of (hopefully) a wider range of musicians. The best way to do that is not to continue to funnel more cash into the RIAA etc.
The best way is to push for better Internet transaction protocols for the creators and investors, such as Street Performer Protocol.
I'm sorry, when was the Constitution updated to read that I had a right to privacy unless it appears that I might be steeling music? Come on! This is just rediculous. And I can totally see them trying to use the DMCA to attack ISP's if they fail to agree to the terms. Can we please take back the control of this country?
My lame blog.
My code of conduct for hot chicks and supermodels is out this morning as well. Chief on the list? 1) Stop by 2) Strip to a bathing suit 3) Bring me cocktails. More details on this exciting, innovative new series of guidelines as they develop! (Okay, exciting for me...)
Tough day? How about a free Mac mini?
What, like a merger between TimeWarner and AOL? ...oh wait.
From the article: In the UK, ISPA's not happy about the growing pressure. "ISPs have obligations to protect the privacy of their subscribers," said ISPA's man. "This could be seen as the thin end of the wedge to get access to everyone's organisation. But these suggestions are impossible and impractical." The idea of blocking access where someone is using a lot of bandwidth just doesn't work. What if they're using a webcam? Or voice over internet? They all use similar ports as some of the file-sharing systems. There's no real way of determining whether just because someone's using a lot of bandwidth that they're contravening copyright."
As for banning access to P2P services, ISPA's position - and remember, they'll make this next Monday - is that "it's important not to criminalise the technology. There are people who misuse the internet; that doesn't mean that you shut down the Net."
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Well, they have just guarenteed I will never buy another album in my lifetime and will do everything I can to distribute their copyrighted garbage illegally to everyone I meet, even if I have to do so via CD...
I would like to track any of their private usage, and see how many of them download music etc.... I can pretty well gaurentee that a lot of them aren't practicing what they preach. That's the problem with all of these rich ppl. None of them are accountable to the laws, (... or codes of conduct), that they thrust on us.
Duane: Suck my thermos! I hate being the Prince of Dorkness!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Red_Dwarf/
When all else fails, then wave this agreement in front of the very ISP's noses and hope their memory is short enough that they don't remember the xxAA's sleazy tactics of circumventing the legal system.
Brilliant! What ISP would sign this agreement?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
If they sign into this sort of thing, even the big players, they lose their common carrier status and leave themselves open for all kinds of litigation that they really, really don't want to face.
Common carrier status allows them to afford being in business in the first place.
RIAA is so flippin' stupid... I doubt anyone will sign into this "conduct code" because of this.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'll get flamed no doubt and the industry certainly won't like it but here it is:
1. Lossless or high bitrate
2. Something closer to 25 cents a track rather than a dollar per track.
3. Extensive catalog that includes among other things old back releases.
4. Easy way to find and purchase correctly tagged files that meet the previous three criteria. This should be possible on a fully ala carte basis. No bullshit bundling.
5. No or easily losslessly fixable DRM. No burning out to a CD and reripping doesn't get anywhere near it. That is a pain in the ass even if you know how trick the process into making ISOs and ripping those. I understand Hymn is subject to breakage at any time.
The P2P networks are only consistently good at #2 and #5. Because of the time it takes to find and download correct reasonable quality files, I'd cheerfully pay a nominal cost for easy to download correctly tagged music without a load of bullshit grafted onto it. As it is, neither P2P networks or the industry offer anything really worth bothering with. iTunes gets sorta close but it really isn't it either. Given the hassles involved, I'd still rather buy CDs and rip those but that happens rarely.
... because I want one. If ISPs are going to be forced to throttle my BW when I'm DLing the latest FC distro, I'll go back to dial up and wait 3 and a half days for it to DL and save the extra money. If I pay for 6Mbps, i should get 6Mbps.
Re: The Anti-DMCA FAQ
So, in otherwords, the RIAA looks like it has gotten fed up with ISPs, and is redoing their last successful approach to dealing with Copyright Infringement.
The point here is that ISPs may not have a choice about whether or not to adopt this, IF the RIAA/MPAA is as successful with this as they were with the DMCA.
Considering that the majority of Congress is still under the impression that the DMCA is a good law, it would seem that the legalizing this Code of Conduct is a fair bet within the U.S..
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
...to 54666 bps. And I don't even try to download music!
Hmmm, 56K modem, 54666 max connect. Er, nevermind.
No, they see you as a threat because you are their competition. If they can't maintain their near-monopolistic control over the production of music, then they can't make money selling the same crapy year after year. Not that they're going to say this in so many words when they can simply brainwash Joe Public into thinking that any music you didn't buy on a shrinkwrapped CD at BestCircuitMartUSA is illegal.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
I don't even know where to begin
there are just so many things wrong with this and the RIAA I could be typing till my death.
but I will just quit now and say fuck you Riaa.
the Porn industry needs to stand up for their rights and tell the RIAA, MPAA, and every other madman claiming to drive the internet that it is infact the pr0n industry which has led every innovation in the net. Hell, they've led every innovation in history as we all know that nothing would be done by man if it didn't somehow involve him getting some sex.
... I bet there have been more searches for Brittany Spears naked, than for any Brittany Spears .mp3.
... pervert ... in peace!!!
Hell, the pr0n industry accounts for 90% of the traffic on the net, sex, is the most searched word on the net,
In short, the pr0n industry needs to get in the fray, and tell these other pretenders to the crown to go "%$ck" themselves, and let us perverts
Right off the fucking front of the boat and into the water. You have got to be kidding me. These poor bastards know that April Fools Day was two weeks ago, right?
i use 20 gigs a month downloading linux iso's (via bittorrent) and playing online games. now if my isp cut my connection becuase of this i would be pretty pissed. And if they want to block my access to bittorent server i'll use a proxy like tor.
I'm sure someone has brought up some of this if not all of it but...
I do not pay my ISP to be the RIAA's bitch. I won't be happy to find that my money to Verizon is going to a witch hunt.
I have a ton of legal uses of big bandwidth. So, suppose I end up on the warning list. OK. So Verizon checks me out. What legal right do they have to tell the RIAA if my bandwidth is being used for illegal music downloads or if I'm simply playing streaming audio (legally) or running a mechant on Everquest or downloading pr0n?
And who are they to attempt to enforce this agreement? Frankly I'd not want to deal with a provider of data who lets themselves be beaten around by the likes of the RIAA. The RIAA needs their wings clipped in a real bad sense. They're doubtlessly pushing the limits of legal action into the realms of harassment and misrepresentation.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Then they tried to stop the sale of blank tapes...(some music history: when pink floyd released "the wall" the -original- tape casing was actually 4 tapes, not 2, the extra 2 were blank tapes and had a little scribble at the bottom saying, that they support tape re-recordings, or something to that extent) anyway the (whoever back in those days) stepped in, stopped the distributation and now you can only buy the 2 tape set of the album, and not the 4 tape set as it was originally released.
This move however didnt stop the sale of blank tapes (obviously) and nothing could be done because it was too little to late.
So the point here, as I said, its too little too late. At this very moment the RIAA are spewing so many ideas to companies/the masses such as what this article suggests, limiting bandwidth usage (which i beleive is just against the constitution, on so many levels) but they also tried to make a law to tax the net. They tried to go against all the kids/grown up's that even had there ip on that Napster list that napster released a few months ago...that led nowhere.
Basically, whatever they are doing, its for one reason only. Money, if the rest of the gov. see's the RIAA are doing something, or trying then the income that RIAA employee's gets increased, this is the only reason they do this. No other reason, do you actually think they just sat home one day and said "wow we should get all these guys that are download music, i mean im not a musician, but hell we should just get them anyway"
no...they just in it for the money, and they are as bad as the people that download copyrighted materials.
They're trying to clamp down on much more then just 'illegal' music distribution. They're trying to get total control over the internet.
/more/ power, /more/ control, /more/ money and /more/ freedoms for themselves.
This is wrong ppl... very, very wrong.
I'm starting to get scared. Scared 1984 might become reality next year. Scared I will be detained and/or fined because I have an internet connection. Scared I will be reduced to a slave, because my government wasn't alert.
Where will this stop? When will the world governments recognise they're being reduced to tools of large coorporations? When will the people of the world say 'no' loud enough that they will be heard?
I fear that voice will come when it's too late. I fear the world we live in will dissolve into poverty, slavery and polution, with riches and power going to the few.
The few who will only abuse that power. The few who don't care about the masses. The few who only want
If I was an ISP, and I'm not far off one as it turns out, and such a letter was handed to me, the first thing I would do is pen a rather impolite (but non libelous) return message. Next, I would institute an investigation into the racketeering practises of not just the RIAA but their paymasters. And finally, I would employ a private detective to get me as much information as he could legally get on each and every one of the marketing execs, middlemen, and indeed artists responsible for the RIAA.
Hookers and coke on Friday night? Oh, jolly!
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The DMCA offers a safe harbor clause for ISPs. In order to qualify for safe harbor:
Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 512a:
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
and Section 512a(d)(1):
(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
Now, if an ISP monitored what user's were doing, and attempted to block access to certain sites, they would violate both of these; voiding their safe harbor offered by the DMCA. Feel free to read the whole text:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html
This proposal effectivly voids an ISP's safe harbor on _every_ _single_ _point_ of the safe harbor clause. Data retention, caching and storage, monitoring and censorship, the whole nine yards. Sort of back handed for the IFPI and MPA to propose that ISP's give up their safe harbor. Perhaps so they can sue the ISPs?
Seems fair. If the RIAA thinks it can tell ISPs how to behave regarding music, the ISPs should be able to tell the RIAA how to behave regarding privacy or perhaps a few other things.
in the spirit of Korn's "Y'all want a single?" music video, tear down and destroy any retail outlet of music and video. put a complete end to the retail market. stop distributing music, movies, and other content in any form whatsoever.
then, bring a stop to all music and movie production. including pr0n movies. put a stop to all new content.
now, make all such content illegal under international treaties.
there. now there's nothing to pirate. p2p networks will find more legitimate uses. ISPs can't be sued for allowing customers to "infringe." end-users won't be sued for "infringing." the undue load on the court systems worldwide will fall off sharply.
why not? we might as well. they don't seem to want us watching their ever-worsening movies, listneing to their over-played and re-hashed music, or watching overly-repetitive and uninteresting pr0n.
oh? they want us to buy their stuff? that's why they're suing us? fuck them.
don't like my idea? how about this:
how about the IFPA and MPA members start producing content worth the imposed cost? how about some more original, enjoyable music? how about original, enjoyable movies? how about no more bad sequels? how about Berman and Braga are castrated and hung upside down and some *DECENT* writers brought on to handle TV shows?
HOW ABOUT SOME DECENT FUCKING CONTENT?
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
I Agree,
This "Code of Bandwidth" that is being proposed is akin to an environmental organization trying to strike a deal with Texaco/Exxon/Chevron/Mobil etc.
so they would agree to discriminate within their customer base and only allow gas to be sold to drivers of low emission/low fuel use cars.
Earth to Music Industry -- FUCK YOU. In the ass. Sideways. So it hurts. Screw you for even THINKING you can DICTATE what I can do with the bandwidth I PAY FOR. SCREW YOU IN A BIG DOG WAY. Fucking assholes.
Sure, being that I own a small ISP, I'll sign their agreement when they sign an agreement that they will quit releasing sucky music. Of course, in that contract, I'll be the one who decides what music sucks, and how much they can charge for their overpriced CDs. I have no business telling them how to run their business, they have no business telling me how to run mine.
Create a website containing a list of all Senators and Congressmen who accept or take donations from these organizations and tell people NOT to vote for these people.
Finally, publicize the hell out of the website. This can be done by cross referencing in blogs, etc. This way Google searches for said Senators and Congressmen will show this site at the top of the list.
Watch how many Senators and Congressmen go anywhere near these organizations or want anything to do with them, especially around election time.
Or at least that is what they are shooting for, and if the ISP's agree to this garbage ( 'we wont sue you' threats are forthcoming im sure ) then its all over.
"excessive bandwidth usage" my ass.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They get a promise that they wont be sued into bankruptcy at the *AA's whim.
Few local ISPs could hold up under the financial pressure of a 'lawsuit attack'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? They want a law to associate bandwidth use to criminal activity?! I'm instantly suspicious of the ethics of the person who actually tries to do such a thing.
Yes, yes, because this will work brilliantly!
Or, wait...I forget. Tell me again, is it that the Internet is controllable by a single entity, or uncontrollable? I keep forgetting...
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Of course, the Slashdot attitude towards this is predictable from three fronts. On the one hand, the geeks on Slashdot are more likely to be running a legitimate home server. On another, we wouldn't BE reading news on Slashdot it we didn't think the unwashed masses of monkeys at typewriters couldn't choke up the occasional sonnet.
Of course, the third is that there also are a lot of folk on Slashdot who hate the RIAA, care nothing for copyright, and worry about this principally as the RIAA addressing those who threaten their wallet. However, that doesn't justify the RIAA irritating the rest of who don't want nothing to do with their model, methods, OR music.
I wonder if "conspiracy in restraint of trade" is relevant, here....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
What you're describing is contention, an ISP overselling capacity is something else entirely.
Why do they whine so loudly? I mean, really, almost all of the music i download is not even available within 200 miles of my town. How am i supposed to get it? I can't order it, because I'm not willing to spend 20 bucks (international) to buy a 15 $ cd
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
iTunes is a great application, I like the idea of the iTunes music store, and I love the convenience of it, so I tried my first song download from the music store last week. I was extremely disappointed with the audio quality. A 128kbps mp4 just does not have sufficient audio fidelity - not even for the silly pop tune I bought. Considering that I'm paying about the same per track as I would if I'd bought a whole CD, one would think I would be given the option of downloading a track at full CD quality (lossless, or at least a 320kbps mp3 equivalent). Until the audio quality of their music files increases, I will not be buying another track from iTunes again. I'd rather rip my own CDs - at least then I know I'll be getting the full audio quality my ears demand.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Online song store rep to record company:
Sorry your royalty checks are not as big as they were. It seems that some idiots had the ISP's sign some stupid agreement about capping downloads, so now people can only buy and download a few songs before their ISP is locking down their internet access.
Yes, the AC post was mine...
d =12212629
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145816&ci
How about:
Give a discount when purchasing replacements for damaged media?
Use a POD service (like lulu.com ?) and keep a complete catalogue available for purchase at all times. Any work not available in POD catalogue is free to copy.
Pledge never to use the criminal part of the law for private individuals.
Let the artists own their copyrights. (C) & (P)
More?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
France was the scene of the crowning of the German King, German Armies in WW1 and WW2...
America left, um, Vietnam...
You can't truely say France and America are radically different, they both have their taboos.
What matters here is not what percentage of traffic is used to infringe copyright, but that the principal of substantial non-infringing use still applies and that it's a good thing that copyright holders have to pursue due diligence when investigating alleged copyright infringement. We don't need more people making mistakes between what's infringing use and what merely occupies a lot of bandwidth. We need to preserve our rights and make sure we get our day in court.
It would be a shame if a lack of public pressure on ISPs to observe our legal rights did not prevent a vocal minority of copyright holders from further pursuing a leakproof pipe from their publishers to your eyes and ears. Your rights should matter more than their profits.
Digital Citizen
Breakfast served all day!
George Orwell, meet American business. American business, meet Mr. Orwell.
What makes this scary is that content companies are increasingly pushing "all-in-one" ISP/cable type deals. When your internet service comes from AOL/Time/Warner or Comcast, it's only a matter of time before the content end of their conglomerate dictates policy for the "services" end.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
if someone has already made this point, I apologise and humbly pipe down, but I wonder if the various music industry associations have realized that should they continue to anger the consumer, then the consumer will continue to turn to cheaper (read: illegal) alternatives. Why don't they work on adding quality and content to their releases so that people actually *want* to own the original work. (I think the marketing buzzword would be "value add")
I just wish they'd shut the hell up and fix the business model that's causing the problem instead of constantly whining about the symptoms.
MOD parent up.
How in the world could this have been modded a troll?
Honestly, if they want to go around having other industries sign a code of conduct, they should be willing to sign one themselves.
all the best,
drew
As a matter of fact, should we collect a link to all the similar posts on this topic that are not in the same thread?
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
No I wasn't. You may have _had_ a (different) point you were trying to make, but imho I drew a logical conclusion from your post. Anyway, I am not in the least a supporter of mucis indusry nazis, but I can still understand the guy.
Napster could indeed help beginning musicians, but honestly I think most people just saw it as an easy and cheap way to get music which already was very popular.
And it was that hard-line approach that was hypocritical. That P2P could help bands in the same way that tape sharing helped his
Who is being a hypocrite here? I can hardly imagine that he wants to deprive beginning musicians from spreading their work. What he wants to avoid is people distributing HIS work without paying for it.
What frustrates me somewhat (no direct reply to your post, but an observation in general): for some reason on /. the issue seems to be wether this sould be called theft or 'copyright infringement'. IMHO this discussion is rather academic. Try to devise some stuff of your own which you intend to sell. See if you like it when people can reap the fruit of your work without paying for it, and see if you like this, whether called theft, copyright infringement or whatever.
Must be running late this year...
As someone that records music for a number of indie labels, I'm solidly against stealing music from the internet. I am pretty much the RIAA's dream consumer - I spend a huge chunk of money on records each month.
But like you, I have pretty much had it with their stupid war and have been boycotting the majors.
If I can't make backups of my CDs for playing on my boombox on the beach, I don't care to pay the absurd prices they charge and I will gladly do without. If I can't used my PC to copy them to an iPod, well once again they've devalued their product and created one more inconvenience.
And it's only an inconvenience: I own a small recording studio and have pro gear that can still make digital copies - but it's extra work and I shouldn't have to screw around to use the content I have purchased where I want. I should be able to fell secure that a little sand won't mean I have to go to the store to buy another copy - only to learn they aren't keeping their catalog in print (and with my faves they rarely do).
This makes me unhappy as a consumer who has played things by the law. They aren't defeating music thieves, but they have royally pissed off their best customers.
reads:
ISP's must now tack a Y at the end of ISP.
_________
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
There are plenty of us who post free music on the web - we want you to download our stuff.
This frankly is also a threat to their model. While it hasn't come soon, in the next few years my hunch is that there will be a good number of hit songs that are recorded in home project studios and distributed on the internet - this cuts the majors out.
Record labels do the following things well:
1) Fund a music act for recording and development.
2) Promote them.
3) Distribute their product.
Already 1 is often a non-issue. Home produced records like Beck's "Loser" have done well, and home recording has caused dozens of well known studios to close in the last few years.
Issues 2&3 are handled better and better by the internet.
So except for big budget ad campaigns and expensive music videos (and most bands don't get either of these), there isn't a lot the majors can do that couldn't be done well by the artists themselves, or by small labels / artist management organizations.
This does scare the majors and it also scares other large content providers (TV, Movies). While broadband is a huge opportunity, it is also a huge threat. But they won't stop this one, and I don't mind the idea that a few giants will fall trying to turn back time...
Some companies tried to fight this. Some tried to point out the flaws in home-made ice.
Funny- I can just see it...
"But it's not as cold!"
"...and ours is bigger!"
Someone else who sees the light...I haven't bought anything for about 4 years or so. I find that I can easily recycle what I already legally own.
I've worked for three different ISPs in two different countries. All of them tier 1 ISPs too no less and in areas that dealt specifically with complaints logged by these same assclowns. Trust me when I say that no ISP will be signing this code of conduct. It's a legal quagmire that no ISP wants to be entangled in.
"Thank you for your interest in the well-being of our customers. Or perhaps in the well-being of non-customers; specifically, you. Remind us again who pays us? Oh yes ... our subscribers. Thank you for your consideration. Now please go away."
Cute, but the above conflicts with other slashdot statements about what broadband is good for. So in a way the content providers could argue that it's their product that keeps the broadband industry going.*
*Unless you all are naive enough to believe that it's Linux iso's that are keeping the whole thing afloat.
I would suggest that the music industry would obey the consumer's code of conduct first...
It's short: go fuck yourself, mind your own business.
I would suggest that customers would stage a month of buying any CDs...
As for the ISPs, I would suggest them to say something similar: or charge the recording industry for this as a service - prohibitive amount, of course.
"I will fully agree that bandwith consumption has no correlation with illegal activity."
4 59211&tid=123&tid=97&tid=141
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/1
""Iceland's Internet traffic saw a substantial decrease this week as police raided the homes of 12 individuals suspected of sharing massive amounts of copyrighted material over a private, local DC++ hub that was infiltrated by SMAIS, the Association of film right holders in Iceland."
FCUK the RIAA !!!
I work for one of the largest ISPs in the US. I think that if the RIAA/MPAA wants to be able to dictate what my customers do with the connection they pay for, then they ought to pick up part of the tab. Not only for the customers connection, but for the hardware we deployed to build the network. Restricting what our customers do with the connection they pay for will have a impact on business. Sounds nuts but it's true. And really, since we own the network, I think we should be able to let whatever traffic pass that we feel like...which is all traffic. If they want to control that, I think they should have to pay for it.
What is next? Jerry Falwell and Co will petition Congress to pass a law making online first person shooters illegal? Then we are going to have to filter that as well? Why is it that the MPAA and RIAA think they should be able to pass off the responsibility of loss prevention on Network Providers? IT IS THEIR PROBLEM...not ours!
The recording industry has a lot more skeletons in the closet than an ISP could ever hope to have.
Why should we be taking lessons in conduct, behaving like a good citizen and abiding by the law from these hypocrites?
* Suing customers,
* Writing legislation to justify greater copyright protections to increase their power.
* Paying off legislators.
* Screwing artists on contracts.
* Cartel-like behaviour.
There is a lot more where that comes from.
I usually use around 50-60GB a month with my upload exceeding my download at least 2:1.
Sounds like BitTorrent, doesn't it?
Actually, I just host a couple dozen websites (nothing illegal on them, unless you count the one guy's porn collection...). The majority of the content is just gameplay videos.
I suppose I don't really know what my point is. I suppose that things are not always as they appear.
I don't know. I took my pills to help me sleep three hours ago and although they've kicked in and I'm basically out of it (I'm having trouble stringing words together, my fingers are responding relatively sluggishly. Brain is not working.), but I still can't sleep.
That would also be why I posted this anonymously.
btw hi
"Uh, so when are they going to start offering this reasonable price you speak of?"
Dude, do you have any idea what it costs for the sort of connection you think you deserve? You're talking about a dedicated circuit. Your typical cost for a megabit of PVC is gonna be at least $400 or $500 a month, even in a nice urban area with lots of coverage. In rural areas, try $1000 or $1500 a month. For a true dedicated leased line, they charge you per foot from the CO.
Now, granted, the telcos price structure is hugely unfair, but even so, providing dedicated, carrier-class service is freaking expensive. Outside plant, CO infrastructure, power, backup power, cooling, network equipment, monitoring, field service staff and equipment, all the pieces needed to provide an SLA -- they cost real money.
Getting a megabit of "consumer grade" Internet feed for $50 a month or whatever is a freaking bargin. I for one am glad to have it.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I've had RoadRunner cable modem service since 1998. Their AUP has prohibited servers since 1998, probably before that. I've been running all kinds of servers (web, ftp, telnetd [egad!], sshd, quake3d, distributed.net perproxy, etc) since 1998. I've heard nary a peep from RoadRunner about it. More bluntly, they simply don't care, because my "servers" are way under the radar of anything they consider abusive.
You don't flag down a policeman and ask him if it's OK to speed on a particular road. You just do it (along with a lot of other people). Every now and then, somebody gets caught, but most drivers blend in and never have a problem. The people going 70mph in a 60mph zone aren't nearly as likely to get a ticket as the guy doing 100mph.
The "no servers allowed" clause in the AUP is similar to the "no speeding" laws - very few people who violate it will get caught, and of those who do, many will get no more than a warning. The clause is there so that if the ISP catches you being a nuisance, they have legal ground to cancel your service. If you've got a little home webserver pushing a couple hundred megs of pipe a month, nobody's going to care. If you're pushing 50 gigs a month, that's when they'll take notice and "write you a ticket."
To summarize: the rule isn't there for people like you and me, and sometimes it's okay to break the rules.
Good luck!
That, and I use online radio stations.
Mens et Manus
"According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.'"
Good thing my ISP expressly *permits* me to run any server I choose to. And I can think of 3 things immediately off the top of my head that consume "excessive" bandwidth: perfectly legal p2p filesharing (my own IP; certain linux distros, etc.), transferring large data files to a physically separate backup server, and downloading large data files from a central FTP repository shared by a group of people who own the IP (i.e., several people in different locations who are working on a project and need a central FTP site to share their work with the rest of the team). I do all of these things and run servers on my home connection. I'd be more than happy to tell these fucktards to shove it if my ISP didn't.
Do these guys have balls or what? I wish they would just go away. They seem to think that the only reason a person gets online is to download their precious music - illegally. And the demands they want the ISP's to do is ludicrous for example "no servers" does that mean I can't run Linux or Solaris. What defines a server according to the RIAA. It seems that the RIAA lawyers like to through terms around without having much of a clue what it means. And the Impact it will have on the opensource community like limiting bandwidth. I download Linux distros all the time and I checkout CVS content all the time. And listen to Winamp radio. I would be screwed if the RIAA passes what they want and I am sure that I am not alone. The RIAA is still thinking about cash flow without regards to our Internet rights. This guys are evil and when will the federal government step in and tell these assholes to step off and work with the Internet and stop trying to make it disappear.
If funny mods could at least cancel OT mods, I'm have MMed neutrally.
This is absolute bullshit. When they didn't get their way and all the numerous commie bills that have come and gone that would try to hold isps responsible for various traffic on their networks, they try and now they are what? trying to use their size to bully isps themselves. the article at the register (OMG i RTFA before posting! pat on the back for me) couldnt have put it better:
congress has already granted isps common carrier status, dammit, leave them alone. and from thein which case
"In".
no broadband
"No".
except satilite
"Except."
i use my bandwidth
"I".
I know that your Shift key isn't broken, because you capitalized DSL, etc., so what is your problem?
i mod grammer/spelling nazis as "troll"
Ah, I see, you are opposed to literacy.
Moderators: MOD PARENT DOWN! for assaulting the English language.
"First, let's get out in the open what you think I'm asking for and then what I'm actually asking for. "
Well, that's fair. I ass-umed you were yet another person whining about how your consumer Internet feed is just oh-so-much-money, when compared to the alternatives, it's one-tenth the price or better. I get a lot of those, and as somebody who has worked in network operations in the past, most end-users don't appreciate just how expensive some of this stuff is. I jumped to a false conclusion there. My apologies.
"I want the always-on-ness of cable or DSL internet instead of dialup, but don't care about the huge bandwidth increase. "
Well, that's a far more reasonable desire, and one I can understand (even if I don't fall into the category myself). Unfortunately, Internet connection bandwidth is not a truely was a fungible commodity. The big cost (as I ranted about) is in all the physical infrastructure. Once you've got all *that* in place, the difference between a 500 kilobit circuit and a 1000 kilobit circuit tends to be one of software configuration. In other words, both cost almost exactly the same to provide. Unfortunate for people such as yourself.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.