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.'"

Comments

More information

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

Sounds like a good deal

[Anonymous Coward]

And so what do the ISP's get in return?

Customer satisfaction?

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[tomhudson]

Of course, the high speed connection isn't used for too long--just until the server melts down...

That's the reason to have an ISP in between - this way, your net connection acts like a fuse, and IT melts down before your server does ...

Now, how about a code of conduct for the music industry?

1. No more "pop tarts" (that means you, Britney)
2. No more re-re-re-re-releasing material with slight changes in format/mix, etc
3. End payola/free drugs once and for all
4. Guarantee a fixed percentage of every dollar earned goes to artists
5. Tickets for everyone to the "cattle prod vs RIAA masters" event.

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[Dhaos]

Not only are you right, you are -so right- it hurts.

As has been mentioned before, ISPs currently enjoy the status of "common carrier", the same status afforded to telecommunication companies, and even, i believe, postal services.

Being a common carrier works as follows: You are not liable for damage done due to communications over your network. If Osama uses Pacific Bell (or whatever phone service) to plan his next attack, Pacific Bell is not liable.

But the rationale for common carrier status is that you -do not know- what traffic is being carried over your network. The second you begin filtering out sites and noting suspicious people as a business, (the government could probably do these things to your network, but thats another story) you're putting youtr common carrier status in jeopardy.

So yes, they likely would pick up a ton of liability. Which is why they will likely politely decline to acquiesce to this request.

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[stlhawkeye]

Probably not. Nearly 100% of competitive [wfdf.org] discs are discs [discraft.com] and I'm willing to bet that competitive disc sales outweight recreational Frisbee [wham-o.com] sales.

You misunderstood. No matter what kind of disc I buy, I call it a Frisbee, and so do most people. No matter what brand of tissue I buy, I call it Kleenex, no matter what kind of bandage I buy, I call it a Band-Aid, even if our photocopier is a Canon, I tell people to go "Xerox this document." The sales figures are irrelevent. These brands are irrecovably associated with the product type rather than a specific brand of it. The point was to provide an illustration of unbreakable social consciousness. In classic Slashdot form, you've missed the point and instead attacked ancillary data.

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[Sylver Dragon]

Just a random thought, which hit me while reading your post. Piracy is a capitalistic force.
The main idea behind a capitalistic economy is that, consumers will shop around and get the best product for the lowest price possible. With music this has not really been possible. If I want to buy the AC/DC "Back in Black" CD set I can technically shop around a bit, but in the end, I'm going to pay somewhere between US$10 and US$20 (bn.com has it at US$15). I can also go to iTunes and get just the 10 songs from it for roughly US$10 (Not been to iTunes, so I might be off a bit). the point is, the price is pretty fixed. I also cannot get a similar product at a lower price. Music is like that, it's either the band singing its songs, or it isn't.
This is where piracy comes in. The cost to duplicate the work, is very low. All I need is a computer with a CD drive, and an Internet connection. Each of those items does have a cost, but when that is broken over the various uses and number of CD's which can be copied, the price per unit drops to a pitance.
Now, what we have is a monopolized market (the legal kind, we're dealing with a copyright here), and the technology to undercut the monopoly significantly. the problem is, that there is no legal way to undercut the monopoly and make money, so an alternative needs to be found. That alternative, which is what Sharman, et al. are capitalizing on, is to make available the method for accessing this cheap alternative to the monopoly and collecting ad revenue from marketers who want access to their large user base.
This is really capitalism at its dirtiest. A need was identified (cheaper access to music), filled (via piracy), and capitalized upon (via ad-supported P2P apps). The music industry is now having to compete. Yes, the competition is illegal, but only because of government interference in the market. Copyright laws are not capitalistic in nature.
I'm not trying to argue that piracy should be legal, moral, etc. Just that it is a capitalistic force. Because of the monopolized nature of music, and the overpricing which follows, a corrective force exists. Becasue there is no legal outlet for that force, it has been expressed as rampant piracy. If the current method is stamped out, that force will show up in a different fashion. Basically, as long as there is a legislated monoploy, which is pricing it products higher than people are willing to accept as reasonable, there will be a drive to circumvent that monopoly. The more unreasonable the price, the more willing people will be to break the law to circumvent it.

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[naily]

Another analogy: artists were originally paid to perform. Mozart toured the royal palaces of Europe with his dad, to earn money. They would also get commissioned (= paid up front) to do specific pieces of work. This is how performance and art worked for centuries before the technology to record and replay performances came out.

After this point, up until the internet, the distributors ran the market because no one artist could afford to create the media and distribute it. The distributors increased the barriers to entry by adding dollops of promotion and reducing artists' rights to their work.

Now there is no need for expensive distribution. The powerbrokers have no leverage other than relentless, expensive promotion. Much cost to recoup, little revenue to be had. No wonder they're p!ssed off, but it serves them right for keeping up prices when costs were dropping fast (as cost of production dropped - think LPs to CDs).

For performers, the old model is back - you have the opportunity to have control. You might earn some money for no additional effort (ie. recording sales, broadcast royalties), but you'll earn the most through the tried & tested method: getting out there and performing. After all, that's what athletes have to do.

My future prediction: concert tickets sold by auction only. TicketMaster, I'll have those royalties up front, please - commission only!

Re:Sounds like a good deal

[stdarg]

It's too bad ISP's aren't doing more to foster things like bittorrent. It's like a giant squid proxy on their network except even better. They should sponsor some coding to add preferential treatment of "close" ip addresses to who your client connects to, they'd end up cutting quite a chunk of their inter-isp bandwidth usage.

I work for an ISP

[jchawk]

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.

Interference with a Contract

[Zaxor]

IANAL, but many if not all states have a tort of interference with a contractual obligation. Sounds like this sort of thing might be actionable under that.

See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i084.htm : " Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage" for more.

Funny Metallica quote

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:Funny Metallica quote

[stratjakt]

He was way wrong, because he forgot who his fans are (well, were) and where he came from.

Metallica couldn't get a record contract to save their lives. In those days Van Halen was risky. Noone wanted to touch them.

It was people like me, passing around bootleg tapes, saying "Dude!! listen to this shit! These mofo's are HARDCORE!"

I traded a bunch of Metallica on Napster and others. None of the studio stuff. Every fan already has a copy of Master of Puppets, Ride, or Kill 'em All. Most of the Metallica trading was live shows (especially stuff with Cliff, or even the way old stuff with Dave), rarer stuff like Green Hell. The same bootlegs and live shows that made the band.

I'm not justifying the legality of any of it, but that's what pissed off the fans. It was a big "fuck you, we don't need you anymore now that we're rich!". I *made* them rich, by going to the concerts, buying the T-shirts, picking fights with Megadeth fans, and hyping them to everyone I knew.

While I still like the older music, I'm no longer a Metallica fan. They should have let someone else be the industry bitch. They blew it, big.

Bandwidth consumption

[thewiz]

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.

I' ve been telling you

[iminplaya]

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!

As long as the publish the list.

[LWATCDR]

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.

A comcast rep once called me

[stratjakt]

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?

Re:Better Option

[issachar]

Shaw's probably just sucking. They send you a notice when you go over your undefined "limit". I got a fairly friendly warning that I had to bring my usage down. They were quite friendly and offered a couple of helpful suggestions on how to do that. Their service can be extremely crappy though. They do take advantage of the fact that for high speed in BC you're limited to either Telus or Shaw.

The fact that they claim to have limits is really irritating though. These limits aren't defined anywhere, they're just called "excessive usage". I'd rather pay by the GB. When I them what the cost for extra transfer once I'd gone into their illdefined "excessive" range, he said they didn't have a cost scale and they'd just have to cut me off or turn it into a business line.

So I don't have a lot of sympathy for shaw. I was willing to pay to download & upload more, but they wouldn't do it. Incidentally a telus tech support guy claimed that Telus doesn't even track transfer volumes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The "pipes" won't go empty.

[Didion Sprague]

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.

Re:Better Option

[orangesquid]

Seriously.

If the music industry tries to say I can't run a server, I'm gonna say that they better distribute my music projects FOR me since they won't let me distribute my independent music on my own.

Not like they'll care.

Re:Better Option

[starrsoft]

I work for a travel agency. We haven't been decimated by the internet. We have adjusted. We have gone from mainly domestic (20/80 international/domestic ratio) to mainly international (90/10). International is not offered as well on the internet because it is so complicated. We also have numerous special contracts with the airlines, as well as consolidators and wholesalers. We have found our niche and adapted as a result of changing technology. **AA should too.