Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Music Industry Drafts Code of Conduct for ISPs

Posted by Zonk on from the because-of-their-moral-high-ground dept.

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.'"

81 of 818 comments (clear)

  1. More information by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:More information by The+Real+Andrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And there I was thinking it was the porn industry that was the driving force on the internet

    2. Re:More information by frikazoyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, so I only skimmed the article, but it seems like John Kennedy is trying to guilt-trip ISPs into signing an agreement. He's saying "We spend nearly 66% of our income on research and development, so we're the reason that people have high bandwidth now. So, help us police the internet and we'll keep dumping money into R&D."

      Then he goes on to say (and has the audacity to title this argument "Music is Driving the Digital Revolution") "Selling digital music is a good market". Okay, how is the success of the iTunes Music store "Driving the Digital Revolution"? Really? I'm waiting... That's what I thought. It isn't. In fact, he doesn't even have an argument for this. All he can say is "Selling songs online is getting us money again." That's hardly revolutionizing. Revolutional would be "Musicians sell their own music online." No, this is just the old business model with new technology, the same technology they're trying to stagnate and police.

    3. Re:More information by gameboyhippo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flagging people for high bandwidth use is rediculous. I don't want my ISP to snoop at what I'm doing everytime I do an

      #apt-get update;apt-get dist-upgrade

      It's rediculous. I wouldn't be surprised if they use their snooping to sell my information so they can target ads to me. If only advertisers knew that I have no money and thus am not interested.

    4. Re:More information by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm with you on this. I wanted to try to learn more about Linux, so I decided to migrate my mail, web and FTP functions to a Debian based server. The first thing I did (which was actually stupid, but hey, I'm learning) was to download the entirety of the Debian Sarge disribution, all 4 CD's of it. Turns out I only needed the first one for what I was doing, but I had no clue up front. So, according to this agreement, I should have had my access cut off, twice actually.
      1. I downloaded several GB of data over as short of period as my bandwidth would allow.
      2. I'm running a server, which we all know must be used for some illicit purpose. And not for:
      • SPAM control, I have 50 or so aliases, any one starts getting too much SPAM, just axe the line out in the aliases file.
      • Hosting my own wedding web site
      • Transfering files between work and home as needed
      • Remote Desktop (on a windows XP box), so that I can test router configuration from outside my work network (Yes, I work in the ITS department).
      So, basically, I'm a horrible person, who doesn't deserve internet access because I want to learn a new OS, and have a web presence. The authors of this "code of conduct" need to have their computers taken away, and never be let near any insturment by which the insanity inside their skulls will be allowed to leak out into the rest of the world and bother us.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    5. Re:More information by Reziac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ISPs are like highway departments; they each maintain a stretch of highway (internet), which is used in common by a lot of drivers (users).

      And the fact that you happen to be driving home from robbing a bank (downloading naughtyware) IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT (ISP), nor of the Society For the Prevention of Road Noise (the **AA and their kin), nor of the bank that got robbed (the infringed artist).

      Crime is the business of the *police* (gee, it's STILL the business of the *police* in cyberspace, imagine that), not of any common carrier, business association, or individual.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. Sounds like a good deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    Customer satisfaction?

    1. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Deep down, ISPs know that widespread consumer adoption of high speed internet is ONLY fueled by three things: video, music, and games. Yes there's lots of legitimate uses for high speed, but tech-savy folks do not make up the lion's share of the consuming public.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Infinityis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, for Slashdotters, there's at least one more reason:

      (5) User's site was posted on Slashdot

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

    3. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing is, most ISPs already limit your max bandwidth. If I pay for 1.5Mb/1.5Mb, I want to get the bandwidth that I pay for; it'd be completely unfair otherwise. If the ISP is overselling their capacity, that's *their* problem, not mine.

      I would be out of luck, given the code that the music industry wants. I run four minor-use websites, and serve about a dozen services (mostly to myself), including a streaming music station so that I can listen to my music when I'm at work. Given this "code", I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

      Any ISP that agrees to such a code can forget my business in a heartbeat.

      --
      sed "s/SJW.*$/... never mind. I was about to say something stupid, and also, I'm a troglodyte./Ig"
    4. Re:Sounds like a good deal by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It appears that the ISP's get nothing from this. The music industry might give them amnesty from lawsuits because they facilitate infringement, but so far ISP's have been in the clear. It appears the ISP gain nothing, at all.

      IANAL, but it looks like they might even pick up a ton of liability signing on to something like this. What if they accidently didn't shut down a file sharing server, or do any number of things in their lovely new contract? Does this give the music industry a new avenue for lawsuits?

      The only way I can see any ISP signing this is if there is some threat made by the music industry, be it lawsuits, publicity, something. Otherwise, it seems entirely farfetched.

      Its worth keeping an eye on though. I can't believe they'd put something this blatantly outlandish together unless they thought they could do something with it.

    5. Re:Sounds like a good deal by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.
    6. Re:Sounds like a good deal by stlhawkeye · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Deep down, ISPs know that widespread consumer adoption of high speed internet is ONLY fueled by three things: video, music, and games.

      I'd says porn and games are interchangeably #1 and #2. And the rest is clearly and unquestionable and overwhelmingly illegal downloading of copyrighted material.

      Remember - just because YOU and YOUR FRIENDS buy what you download, most people do not.

      Regardless, they're not going to win this way.

      Before refridgeration was a household technology, people who needed ice had it delivered. There were lots of companies that provided this service. There were also lots of dairy-delivery companies too. My grandfather used to deliver milk.

      Anyway, enough people had refridgeration in their homes at a certain point that the death of dairy and ice delivery was inevitable. Some companies tried to fight this. Some tried to point out the flaws in home-made ice. Some tried to point out the expense. Some even appealed to consumers on the grounds that good hard-working men were losing jobs because the evil consumer was making his own ice rather than buying it from a good ol' fashioned American company.

      It all fell on deaf ears. Only one ice company survived the collapse of their market. It was the company that opened a new type of store - a combination service station/grocery. You could buy ice there, sure. In blocks or bags. You still can. They became 7-11, and not only did they survive the death of the ice market, they went on to insane profits that were never possible in the ice industry.

      Now, making ice in your home isn't illegal. Downloading copyrighted music that you haven't purchased is. So the analogy falls apart there. However, the RIAA's approach to solving his is akin to the ice delivery services trying to get in-home freezers banned because it's screwing up their business model.

      Well, tough shit. Agile companies that spot trends and capitalize on them survive. Bloated bureaucracies of self-serving directors eventually die. That's capitalism, and that's how it ought to work. It's a shame that their business model is failing because of massive copyright infringement, and not because of a legitimate new business. It's even more of a shame that stuff like iTunes came along as a solution to the piracy problem, when it should have predated it.

      They missed the boat on the Internet. Napster was there before iTunes, and the idea of free music is now forever ingrained into the social consciousness of on-line culture. Sometimes companies can divorce a culture of this link, but usually not. All photocopiers are the "Xerox" machine, all tissue is "Kleenex", all flying discs are "Frisbies" all adhesive bandages are "Band-Aids". Even RollerBlade was only partially successful in protecting their brand from being synonymous with the product. These companies would be foolish to spend money on a campaign to break this association.

      And that's why the RIAA is foolish. It's too late to stop this. It can't be stopped through legislation, legeal threats, copy protection schemes, the DMCA, or anything else. The only thing that can stop it is for them to find a way to make it more convenient for people to get the music they want at a cost so marginal that paying for the added convenience is worthwhile.

      Until and unless you run a very significant risk of getting caught and prosecuted, it won't stop. And people will suffer the eroding of their rights only so much in an effort to protect the revenue streams of millionaires.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    7. Re:Sounds like a good deal by zaphod123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if they are not going to let us make a backup copy of the media, they should provide a lifetime warranty on the media. This includes cd's, dvd's that are out of print.

      --
      :q!
    8. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some tried to point out the flaws in home-made ice.

      An ice company executive, 70-ish years ago:

      "Those pitiful cubes are so puny you could fit a bunch of them in a glass!

      ....Oh, crap."

    9. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Dhaos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn .sig
    10. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, there's video, music and games on the internet? When did this start?

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    11. Re:Sounds like a good deal by stlhawkeye · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    12. Re:Sounds like a good deal by stlhawkeye · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I guess your right, the MPAA must own the rights to the videos I put up on my website for friends and family. You know, the family video clips I put up, they must own those because they are on the internet.

      That's not what I'm saying, the most cursory examination of my argument would demonstrate that. If the overwhelming majority of internet media sharing was personal home videos and legally-traded music, this wouldn't be an issue.

      That's not the case, and you know it's not the case. Repeat: my behavior on-line is not representative of everybody else's. At all.

      Even apart from that, many news sites offer video clips of news that they offer, is any of this illegal downloading of copyrighted material?

      No, that's legal downloading of copyrighted material. You've been given permission.

      Also while I don't produce music, what about the copyright owners wanting to distribute their songs?

      The copyright owners are distributing the songs. The musicians typically don't own the copyrights; that's why you sign with a label. Normally, when any author creates an original work, they hold a statutory copyright as an incident of authorship. You can then register your copyright to give it more legal teeth. However, when you go to work for somebody and get paid to produce a creative work, contracts are drafted that transfer the copyright you'd normally hold as an incident of authorship to whomever is paying for the work.

      I'm sure you know this, and I can't figure out if you're just being argumentative or what.

      As much as they wish it were true, all media is not owned by RIAA/MPAA.

      I agree with you there, and thank God for it.

      And aside from that, I stream my music from home to my computer at work. If I own these songs, isn't that legal?

      You don't own those songs. And it's legal if the rights you've purchased to them permit it. The problem here is that under Fair Use, that should be completely legal, and this is where I firmly come down on your side of this. You've been a good boy, a good consumer, a good citizen, and paid for your music. The RIAA and their ilk are trying to enacting legislation and enforce rights restrictions to prevent you from exercising rights you should have as a good boy who paid for his music.

      Or did RIAA get their way and I have to buy a copy of each song I listen to for the office, home, car, etc...?

      There's no question that they'd love for it to be that way, but you needn't be obtuse here. If media can be played back, it can be duplicated. That's the nature of physics. The problem, again, is the DMCA has criminalized this process by making it illegal to bypass copyright.

      The real issue here is that we currently have a number of laws that directly conflict with each other. To enjoy the liberty that has been granted you by court decisions 20 years ago you have to violate other laws.

      I'm not defending the RIAA here, far from it. But for you and people like you to even try to pretend that there's no piracy issue and that it isn't costing the industry any money is utterly stupid and naive. They're going about fixing it the wrong way, there's no question, and they're clearly wrong to punish and limit the liberty of legitimate, honest people in an effort to catch the bad guys. I'm on your side in principle, but you have to pull your head out of this fantasy world you envision that peopled only with law-abiding citizens who only download legitimately and never download media illegally.

      Streaming music, offering home videos, home pictures from my 6MP camera (not small pictures) all take up a lot of bandwidth. It's shortsightedness like yours that lead to stupid laws and restrictions because whatever you don't need must be "clearly and unquestionable and overwhelmingly illegal downloading of copyrighted material."

      What short-sightedness? You misunderstood ONE sentence and have gotten entirely the wr

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    13. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    14. Re:Sounds like a good deal by naily · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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!

      --
      We all live in a state of ambitious poverty. -- Decimus Junius Juvenalis
    15. Re:Sounds like a good deal by hesiod · · Score: 3, Funny

      And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, FIVE. FIVE things...

    16. Re:Sounds like a good deal by BeBoxer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I pay for 1.5Mb/1.5Mb, I want to get the bandwidth that I pay for; it'd be completely unfair otherwise. If the ISP is overselling their capacity, that's *their* problem, not mine.

      Awww, that so cute. Terribly naive, but cute. Oversubscription is the name of the game. I would guess that somewhere around 100% of ISP's are oversubscribed in one sense or another. If all of your ISP's customers started trying to use a full 1.5Mbps 24/7 your ISP's network would melt down. But that's OK because that (almost) never happens. Far from being "unfair", this oversubscription is what allows your ISP to offer you a reasonable price for service. Your ISP is probably paying at least $75-$100/month to buy 1.5Mbps from a backbone carrier at bulk prices I would guess. I'm also guessing that you are paying less than that, and that your ISP actually has some overhead of their own. It isn't like 100% of your bill is paying for their bandwidth alone.

      I can usually download on my DSL at pretty much 100% of what I'm paying for. But usually for an hour or so in the evening, it slows down. Right when everybody gets home from work it seems like. Is this unfair? Maybe. Am I willing to pay significantly more for service so that my ISP can sustain that one hour burst and have tons of excess service the other 23 hours? Not really.

    17. Re:Sounds like a good deal by stdarg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    18. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      This is an interesting point. I wonder why all the Randians here aren't complaining about this government interference, and claiming we should all be able to pirate to our hearts' content, just like they all complain every time someone promotes laws restricting the rights and abilities of monopolies.

    19. Re:Sounds like a good deal by Asterisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      FYI, you were right in the original post. 7-11 was originally Southland Ice Co.

  3. I don't think so by Jaguar777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:I don't think so by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      It's up to the ISP to enforce this. The thing I didn't understand is what benefit do ISPs get for actually signing this agreement?

      They are going to look bad for handing over customer's information w/o question and they might even lose customers (if there are other options available).

      Is the RIAA/MPAA going to pay them money to do this?

    2. Re:I don't think so by Proney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I honestly don't think that the RIAA/MPAA expect one single ISP to sign something like this. What they're trying to do, in my estimation, is to create a portfolio of 'goodwill attempts' to combat online copyright infringement. Once they have enough of these attempts thrown back in their faces, they'll be able to go to court and say "See? We tried, we really really tried, but they just aren't willing to compromise. Please step in and help us!"

      Scary part: It'll probably work.

      --
      require "something.clever";
    3. Re:I don't think so by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They might be able to say that to the courts, but the courts are likely to give a raised eyebrow in return, and provide a cautious decision in their favor at best. Congress may give them more time, but even there, certain members with significant pro-technology and pro-consumer leanings are coming into seniority who are questioning the trade groups' representations of things.

      I'd like to see some outside group come in and audit the research done by the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA, among others, to see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:I don't think so by Gribflex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The benfit as I see it is this:
      ISPs pay for bandwidth. The more their customers use, the more they have to pay.
      They charge customers a blanket fee. Most people use very little bandwidth, and cost very little. Some people use lots, and cost them more money.
      By signing this agreement, they can upcharge the people who are using a lot for legitimate usage (by forcing them into a more expensive business account), and they can get rid of the customers that use it for illegal purposes (by saying that they are 'merely complying with the RIAA agreement' that they signed).

      Thus, they retain the customers that use little bandwidth, and don't cost them money.
      They get more money from the customers that need the bandwidth.
      And they lose the customers that are costing them more money.

      Standard business practice. Get rid of the costly customers, or charge them more.

    5. Re:I don't think so by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, in other words, France surrendered?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
  4. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is drafting a 'code of conduct' for
    the record companies that sign 15 year olds
    to lifetime exclusive contracts?

  5. No way, unless.... by Xavier+CMU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Why? by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Why? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's just another idiotic idea. No ISP is going to go for this. Unless there's some laws actually forcing them to do so, any ISP that signed such an agreement would find themselves damaged compared to the ISP who didn't sign.

      Beyond that, ISPs are simply carriers of data. If the music industry has evidence of a user committing a crime, then by all means drop off a court order and ISPs will be happy to comply.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. and pretty soon by hyperstation · · Score: 3, Funny

    ISP ads will feature "No RIAA CoC Restrictions!"

    1. Re:and pretty soon by mrscott · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ok... could ISPs that don't sign this be called CoC blockers?

  8. The article in full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  9. Censorship by Richie1984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. This is actually a good thing. by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It gives me one more criterion to use when filtering out ISPs I don't want to use. Signed this agreement? Then I won't be your customer.

    It really shortens the list.

    1. Re:This is actually a good thing. by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It really shortens the list.

      It'll really shorten the list when ISPs decide its better to get with the program than fend off the avalanche of legal papers about every little alleged copyright infringement case rather than the streamlined system for avoiding and handling offenses that the "code of conduct" provides.

      Before third party telecom providers/resellers are cited as a solution, consider that they have to purchase the bandwidth from the same large players that would be a party to this agreement. I'm sure they would hold them to the same standard as not cause competition in this area.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  11. I work for an ISP by jchawk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I work for an ISP by Big+Mark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who'd really be stupid enough to fake a judge's signature?

  12. Interference with a Contract by Zaxor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

  13. And in other news... by Samurai+Cat! · · Score: 5, Funny

    ISPs are banding together to insist the record labels stop putting out shitty music. :)

    --

    "People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
  14. Dear RIAA, by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  15. Drafting by dynoman7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  16. It does no good .. by macaulay805 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. And how... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful
    would they separate those using Video conferencing tools, or sharing their personal pictures, or playing online games, or downloading a BitTorrent of a Linux distribution or seeding it, for that matter, podcasting, or any other number of legal activities that "could appear to be infringing" by bandwidth only metrics?

    Seriously, these folks need to be laughed out of court.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  18. Better Option by Pieroxy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
    1. Re:Better Option by milkman_matt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've had 9-10 half hour outages in the last two days.

      Because of excessive usage or something? This is totally unacceptable. If my connection starts going down that often for any reason I'm going ISP shopping.

      On that note, I think we should also draft up a "Music Quality Standards" sheet and push them to sign and elminate all of the bad music they're pushing through. If they want to try and police a medium that doesn't belong to them, let's police their medium back!

    2. Re:Better Option by issachar · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    3. Re:Better Option by glesga_kiss · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think they should ask ISPs to stop people that use the Internet altogether. That way: No Internet piracy!

      You meant it as a joke, but I think we all know that they would if they could. Like some other industries that have already been decimated*, and some others that are yet to come (e.g. broadcast TV)...

      These are the same folk that tried to ban the VCR; the problem with the internet was that it was too rooted by the time it started to cause them problems.

      * travel agents, postal services and so on

    4. Re:Better Option by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      I recieved a letter simular to that form my isp. It basicaly said i was above the "average usage" and it tended to indecate i was doing somethign ilegal.

      I told them that i was evaluating opensource programs and operating systems and this had nothign to do with anythign ilegal. Further i was paying extra money for a public static ip adress so i could run a server and they new about that. Then after explaining that the average was what it is because people like me use more bandwidth and if i quit it would lower the average i was still met with an attitude.

      I then refered to the advertisement that was running on the television at the time wich was very simular to the same one when i purchased my broad band package. I added the advertised speed up and multiplied it to the number of days in a billing cycle. I then suggested that this is the amount of bandwidth i am entitled to and what i was actualy using was just a fraction of that. Of course i had to explain were i came up with that number but after wards i asked them to place my actual badwidth allowed in writing so i could refer it to my legal department(meaning lawer).

      They never sent me anythign, i havn't changed anything except maybe the release cycles of the programs i am using and i havn't been bothered since. You might want to think about an approach simular to this. I don't know if it would help shut them up or not. I don't know if all the fuss i was doing just made them look at the trafic i generated and determin it was all legal wich stoped the letters. All i do know is that someone took notice and excluded me from the harrasment list.

    5. Re:Better Option by orangesquid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    6. Re:Better Option by MikeFM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally would drop any ISP that signed this agreement (or that even followed these ideas). I'm already pretty pissed off at most ISPs and have dropped several for misbehavior. I think what we need is a user union that can teach companies who screw with us who is the paying their bills. Something akin to a large religious group or parent group but with a non-religious freedom-oriented set of goals.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    7. Re:Better Option by starrsoft · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  19. Funny Metallica quote by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Funny Metallica quote by DoctorPepper · · Score: 3, Funny

      "If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Butt Wiper." Brian Briggs "

      If IBM made toilet paper, it would be called "BW/2" DoctorPepper

      --

      No matter where you go... there you are.
    2. Re:Funny Metallica quote by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Funny Metallica quote by drxenos · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If Microsoft made toilet paper it would be called Butt Wiper." Brian Briggs

      Shouldn't they call it "Anal Explorer"?

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    4. Re:Funny Metallica quote by c0ldfusi0n · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean VH1.When.Metallica.Ruled.The.World.DSRip.XviD-aAF?


      Oops?

      --
      A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
  20. Re:Oh.....my....god by danheskett · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, actually not. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting anything. Speechless would be a thread like "Linus found dead on Microsoft campus", with zero comments attached for days on end.

  21. The Music Industry should just take over the ISPs by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  22. Bandwidth consumption by thewiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"?
  23. I' ve been telling you by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  24. And if they sign it... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  25. As long as the publish the list. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  26. A comcast rep once called me by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!!!!
  27. I want the music/movie industry by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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'
  28. How about Code of Conduct for Music Industry? by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
  29. The new RIAA Fender Stratocaster by johnny+cashed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Automatically provents you from playing infringing notes. Want to play Voodoo Chile (slight return)? please key in your credit card #.

  30. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. quick question by chronusdark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....?

  33. BOYCOTT!!! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  34. The "pipes" won't go empty. by Didion+Sprague · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  35. So? by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Standard business practice. Get rid of the costly customers, or charge them more."

    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.

  36. Talk about an out of touch consortium... by maxs65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  37. this voids an isp's safe harbor by Akatosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?