Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Media Music The Internet Your Rights Online

ISPs Not Cooperating With RIAA's Name-Grab 87

Posted by timothy from the they-know-the-slope-is-slippery dept.
rocketjam writes "The RIAA has a new plan to fight P2P file trading since an appeals court ruled that Internet service providers don't have to turn over the names of suspected music pirates to them. The RIAA has now proposed, in a letter to the 50 largest ISPs in the US, that they supply the identifying IP address of suspected music traders to their ISP after which the ISP would send a notice to the user informing them they are suspected of illegal trading but not yet targeted for a lawsuit by the music industry. Internetnews.com reports that according to industry sources they've contacted, not one ISP has agreed to cooperate with the music industry's new plan. ISPs have been cautious in their public responsed to the RIAA proposal, although they all agree they are under no legal obligation to comply with any RIAA request."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs Not Cooperating With RIAA's Name-Grab More

ISPs Not Cooperating With RIAA's Name-Grab

Comments Filter:

  • This isn't all that bad... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ezraekman ( 650090 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @01:50AM (#8040850) Homepage

    ...Assuming that you are willing to concede that violating someone else's copyright is inherently bad... which I do, but I also don't. (See my previous comments regarding this matter for details.)

    Of course... this sets precedence, and is unlikely to stop there...

  • Two hands (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @01:56AM (#8040886) Homepage Journal
    On the one hand, I really don't like how the record companies treat customers. I think that they go way beyond the limits of acceptable practice in their zeal to catch copyright violators, especially lately as it relates to P2P.

    On the other hand, I also see the value in having a record company which can front money to new and old bands to keep music fresh and flowing to the audience ears. By not paying for music, musicians will receive less money from the record companies to produce their albums and this will lead to mostly what we see today which is good, interesting bands get left behind for not so good, bland bands which appeal to a larger audience.

    The more P2P that goes on, the more Britneys and Outkasts we're going to get.

    • Re:Two hands (Score:3, Insightful)

      by IshanCaspian ( 625325 )
      This is all based on the erroneous assumption that we somehow NEED the RIAA to get good music. They'd love to have everyone believe that they're the only thing that keeps the good music coming, when in reality they're just an organization devoted to cashing in on people. They have this profit-centric approach to art so perfected that they don't even need artistic talent anymore...they can just suck the blood out of one fad after another.

      The RIAA wants to think of musicians like bacteria in a petri dish
    • I think it's more of a chicken-and-egg problem. I just checked BearShare for two bands:

      Pink Floyd: 1007 files, shared by 2214 people. Most popular: "Wish You Were Here" shared by 88 people.

      Outkast: 595 files, shared by 2535 people. Most popular: "Hey Ya" shared by 417 people.

      I can't stand "Hey Ya." It's one of very few things on the radio which actually annoy me enough to switch the station when they come on (that and the "Ba-da-ba-ba-ba" McDonald's jingle). Yet "Hey Ya" is all over P2P. "Hey Ya" is now
        • Does the RIAA really expect ISPs to willingly expand their abuse or DMCA departments, at their own expense, to send out notices to their customers on behalf of the RIAA?

        Yes, sir. Yes they do. But shh.... They might hear you.

        So let's all bow down to the allmighty RIAA, bringer of good music, protector of artists and sole survivor of the bloodline reaching back to Mozart.

      • giving out records of who was online when with which ip might just as well be a juridical problem.

        at least it would be around here... but I'm not in usa..
        • >giving out records of who was online when with
          >which ip might just as well be a juridical
          >problem.

          It is next to impossible to tell WHO was out. At the most one can tell which account and who signed up for the account, but that does not mean the same person is the only one using the account or that it was that person at that specific moment, which is what you have to get at if one want to proceed to, for example a court.

      • The chicken-and-egg problem is that it's "popular," because people want to hear it, because it's all they've been hearing, because the recording industry is shoving it down everyone's throat, which makes it "popular," which gets it all over P2P, and the cycle continues.

        that has nothing to do with p2p. that cycle has existed for many years now and was well-rooted long before even napster was popular with geeks.

        you're blaming p2p for people being sheep. nice try.

        -j

      • You complain that crappy music is killing the music industry. Whether said crap is fueled by p2p or not is debateable. That said, so what? a) let it die, and b) there are plenty of great bands out there, local or national or internet enabled and just thrilled as can be that you want to download their music for free. Do some leg work and find bands you like, and support them, instead of complaining about britney. I can't stand that crap, so I don't listen to it.
    • That is why all the music produced before copyright laws existed is all bland junk.....

    • On the one hand, I really don't like how the record companies treat customers

      I agree, but I also don't like how a lot of record companies treat their bands (see below).

      On the other hand, I also see the value in having a record company which can front money to new and old bands to keep music fresh and flowing to the audience ears

      You should read this article [salon.com] by Courtney Love. It's a bit dated, but still interesting nonetheless. She gives insight into how much money new bands really get with their co

    • Uh, no ... I think you have it somewhat backward. Peer-to-peer gained overnight popularity because of the Britneys and Outkasts. And your statement that the music studios don't have sufficient funds to pay for music because of file-sharing is fallacious.

      The labels (if you look at their financial histories and other statistics) still have more than sufficient capital to invest in good music. As a matter of fact, it is their growth rate that is down, not overall profitability, and that growth began to d
      • I agree that "Peer-to-peer gained overnight popularity because of the Britneys and Outkasts", but I'd suggest a few corrections:

        "As a matter of fact, it is their growth rate that is down, not overall profitability"

        Total recorded music sales (in dollars) dropped by 13.5% from its peak in 1999 until the end of 2002 (the last full year numbers on the RIAA site), and dropped 12% for the first half of 2003 vs. first half of 2002. So the total sales numbers are clearly down quite a bit. Given all of the layoffs
    • Really? All the evidence suggests just the opposite.

      Was there a golden era before P2P came along in which the recording industry explored lots of creative new emerging musical forms, or took chances on lots of little-known groups that deserved wider attention? Certainly the labels' A&R departments have uncovered the occasional jewel. But the Internet -- as authorities such as Clay Shirky have previously pointed out -- has blasted into history the need for professional middlemen to act as gatekeepers or
    • It's not just the record companies who are to blame. Back in the 80's, there was an incredible burst of creativity. Part of this was due to part-time musicians being paid to play in pubs/nightclubs and gaining experience as to what worked and didn't work for them.

      Now many of these places actually *charge* the same musicians to perform, as the owners argue that there's no guarantee that they will bring in more customers or revenue.

  • Not so sorry (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by turboalberta ( 215280 )
    Basically, i'm not feeling very sorry for most of the garbage groups that are going down the garbage can right now. Screw em. On the other hand, probably some real gems, which we'll never know about anyway because they don't get any publicity, are going down the garbage can also. That i'm feeling sorry about. But let's say they're just collateral damage. I haven't been hearing any real good music since years, probably because most music has to be immediately consumable or they won't even try to promote it.

    • On the other hand, probably some real gems, which we'll never know about anyway because they don't get any publicity

      I'm not entirely convinced this is the case. One genre of music I really like is fast, heavy thrashing death metal. A search on Google for words like that will get me to many pages devoted to smaller groups. A P2P search to get some of this music as a test drive will be all I need to decide to buy or not.

      Yes, I've bought CDs from many unheard of bands this way. Radio stations play a song o

  • Do they really think this is going to work? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by a.koepke ( 688359 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:10AM (#8040938)
    "Specifically, when we determine the IP address of an infringer, we would like to send you the IP address along with a Notice of Infringement that you would forward directly to the subscriber matching that address," the RIAA wrote. "You would not identify the subscriber to us. However, we believe if you forward the Notice to them it will dramatically increase awareness and effectively discourage continued infringement."

    I am pretty sure that most (all?) of the people who share files on a large scale know that the content is copyright and really don't give a flying farkle.

    What will they do with this letter when they get it? Laugh at it and use it as toilet paper sounds likely. :)
  • I imagine that the ISPs are not going along because they will have to pay people to forward these requests. If the RIAA were to say, offer $0.50 for each IP address that they want the ISP to look up and send the letter for, maybe they'd get a better response.

    Unless it's mandated by law, what reason do the ISPs have to do all of that work for free?

    LK
    • Fifty cents a pop - or even twenty bucks a pop - isn't going to make up for the customers lost once people start getting these letters. I'd be on another ISP in a heartbeat if I got a letter like this, and I don't think I'm the only one.
      • Let me get this straight, you'd dump your ISP because someone using YOUR IP address was caught sharing copyrighted material on the internet?

        Is this to punish the ISP or to avoid getting caught?

        LK
        • I know where you're going and I'll go down that road a piece. :)

          Here's how I'd see it: Whether I was guilty of sharing copyrighted material or entirely innocent, I would consider the action in question a step towards turning my name over to the RIAA for a subsequent lawsuit. Whether that lawsuit had merit or not, it would cost money to fight - or even RESPOND to - and I don't need the aggravation in any case. Thus, I'd toss my ISP aside like a dirty Kleenex and go with a company with no reputation for c

    • Unless it's mandated by law, what reason do the ISPs have to do all of that work for free?

      Exactly. For a moment I wondered why ISPs would stick up for customers, and then I realized that of course most won't. As soon as it is "good business," to shit on consumers, I'm sure they will. Excuses and rationalizations will need to be made for that to happen of course, then again we've all seen such things before.
    • More to the point, that again places the ISP in the position of serving as an Internet cop (or at least an Internet snitch) as opposed to a common carrier. They really don't want to have that happen because if they lose that status, they will lose a lot of regulatory benefits and a lot of money. The average big ISP couldn't give a rat's ass about the privacy of it's users, but it does care about its' classification under telecommunications guidelines. Not to mention, as you pointed out, squealing on thou
      • ISPs are NOT common carriers. Ma Bell can't shut off your telephone if it doesn't like your point of view on a political issue. An ISP can refuse to sell you access if they don't like your politics. Just ask Neal Horsley about that.

        LK

  • Pretty obvious (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sklivvz ( 167003 ) * <.marco.cecconi. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @02:29AM (#8041013) Homepage Journal
    Why should they collaborate until they are all forced by law? By cooperating they are screwing their clients and getting a bad name, without getting anything back.

    And probably most of them read Slashdot anyways... :-)

  • RIAA always does a run around .... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leoaugust ( 665240 ) <leoaugust AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:02AM (#8041123) Journal
    Since a large of percentage of music downloading is done by teenagers, the RIAA hoped the notifications, which were to be sent to the account holders, might tip off parents as to their children's possible copyright infringements.

    How nice of RIAA to always involve a 3rd party in the dispute.

    • They don't want to fight a losing battle with the teenagers so they try to scare the pants off their parents.
    • They didn't want to fight a losing battle with the ISP's so they got the courts involved.
    • They didn't want to fight a losing battle with the technology companies so they got the lawmakers (via DMCA) involved.

    RIAA should understand the relationship is between the artists and the audience. They themselves are the 3rd party. So, RIAA GET OUT. OUT.

    • "Since a large of percentage of music downloading is done by teenagers"

      Presumably this is why the networks are clogged with Ms Spears the virgin queen?

      Damn teenagers, it's not like they're a burgeoning future market or something...oh...wait...

  • I am beginning to believe... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Undefined Parameter ( 726857 ) <fuel4freedom@ya h o o .com> on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:09AM (#8041153)
    ... that the ISPs will win this war. The RIAA and by extension, because it has been created and continually supported by a majority of them, the record companies seek, like nearly every other company or tightly-knit industry, to gain the maximum ammount of profit. To this end, they have thrown away their morals, the talents of many good, true artists, and a good deal of choice as to what kind of music is listened to, and heard.

    They control the artists, they control the market, and they now strive to control the "consumer," a nebulous term meant to "normify" and lump together everyone and anyone who has ever listened to music.

    They believe that they can make the maximum ammount of profit by demonstrating their capability to financially destroy anyone who listens to the music they shove into bins and shelves, but does so in a way they cannot control and without paying the greivously bloated Troll's Toll. In doing so, they hope to control the "consumer," so that he or she first chooses to deny using peer-to-peer to aquire the music chosen by the industry, and then he or she chooses to eschew "free" music, altogether.

    It's an ugly claim, but it's an ugly strategy they pursue. Some of us "consumers" choose to ignore them and to avoid them, to continue to listen to music we want to listen to, whether or not it is "theirs," without needing to pay exhorbant fees to RENT the legal ability to enjoy it!

    Is it legal or moral to "steal" this music? No, not really; but how else can anyone tell them that we do not appreciate or condone what they are doing and how they are doing it? They have extended their presence off our shores, into our legal systems, and across our internet so far that it is now difficult, though not yet impossible, to find music that they do not "own." (How many independant artists, or artists contracted under a small lables sit in the bins or on the shelves of Wal-Mart, Sam Goody, Target, or any of the other music retailers who have more than one small store tucked into a corner in a city?)

    This small minority could write letters and emails, boycott and protest, and raise what hell it could in hopes of communicating its collective displeasure, but would it make a difference? It hasn't so far, and so long as the majority agrees, or worse, allows itself to be cowed into submission, it won't.

    But there are at least two ways to effectively communicate this particular displeasure. The first, as we all know, is to download "their" music, through peer-to-pear programs and networks, or any other means, for that matter, so that they cannot help but notice that more of "their" music is being freely traded; as I said earlier, it is neither legal nor exactly moral, but it is a method that seems to work. (And for clarity, I should mention that I've not downloaded music illegally in a very long time, that I do not even listen to the radio, and that I absolutely do not pay with my own money for that which is in this day and, in my opinion, illegitimately called music by those companies.)

    The second way is to tell those organizations which encompass more than just the minority just how distasteful the tactics and strategy employed by those major record lables and the RIAA is to us. For the most part, the ones who have listened, and who have recently and now take firm and just stand against the major record lables and RIAA, are the ISPs. They have heard, they have recognized the wisdom, financially and morally, in denying the RIAA what it needs to pursue its disgusting work. And I salute them for doing so, because the ISPs alone may stop the RIAA/major record lables by doing exactly what they have done.

    For me, this fight is not just about music, not just about artists, nor simply about evil corporations; for me, it's about freedom--real freedom, that which I hold nearest and dearest of all the rights and virtues of Men and Women.

    Godspeed, ye who stand as shield against the slings and arrows of the hated lawyers and greedy businesspeople of "big" music.

    ~UP
    • "Is it legal or moral to "steal" this music? No, not really;"

      The moral issues have become a vast aside for me, simply because They started it. Before the peer-to-peer networks even started up, they were operating cartels and using musicians in the most cynical ways possible. Nothing was too low for them; chart manipulation, price-fixing, breaking contracts, making up 'standard' clauses, charging for everything all the way down the line.

      So unfortunately most of these companies have as much standing as
    • I myself have believed for some time that it is not about profit as much as about power and control. They want to control the artists, what music is popular and who buys what.

      This power shit is scary. I believe with Dubya it, too, is about power. He (or is it everyone in government?) want to control us absolutely and to keep track of us 24x7. Aaargh!!!

  • UK ISP's take a different stance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by unixbob ( 523657 ) on Wednesday January 21, 2004 @03:12AM (#8041166)
    A friend of mine recently got an email from his broadband provider which was forwarded from Paramount's legal team. He was sharing one of their movies with eDonkey and they tracked him down with the help of his ISP and sent a cease and desist letter with a threat of legal action if he doesn't cooperate. Interestingly they cited the DMCA which as I understand it is a US law without international jurisdiction.

    I'm not sure what the "right" thing is here. Is it within his rights to have privacy on the Internet, or does he forfeit those rights when he breaks the law. Does the Corporation have right to take whatever means necessary to protect their product against theft.
    • "they tracked him down with the help of his ISP and sent a cease and desist letter with a threat of legal action if he doesn't cooperate."

      Okay, be careful with this one. If the ISP forwarded the cease and desist to him, then that's okay. He needs to be circumspect and keep an eye out, but the C&Ds don't mean much currently.

      If they didn't, then they just gave out personally identifiable information in contravention with the data protection act. He needs to clarify what actually happened with the I
      • It was the ISP who forwarded the message and sent him the Cease and Desist letter, not the lawyers. Although we have no way of knowing whether or not they have forwarded the information on to Paramount or not.

        Unlike you situation he was actually sharing the illegal file so he can't really complain. :)
        • "Although we have no way of knowing whether or not they have forwarded the information on to Paramount or not."

          That would be a 'bad thing(tm)' from a number of different avenues, not the least of which is the fairly strict procedures in place to counter the kind of information passing that some airlines did recently.

          The weird thing is that the ISPs _know_ that the killer app for broadband is the download speeds...

          Of course, it's quite unusual that the C&D was identified back to Paramount. I have
          • To be specific, the date / time, file sharing protocol, filename and C&D request originated from a third party company that specified it had been contracted by Paramount to track down and stop illegal file sharing of Paramount property. Which we (and presumably the ISP) read as being Paramounts legal team. Don't know the ins and outs of it, just the emails I saw

    • Re:UK ISP's take a different stance (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I received the same sort of notice about a year ago, though it was in the form of a letter from my ISP notifying me that they had received a letter from a movie studio's legal department regarding my sharing of a movie. (Which I had shared for about a day, and it was the only thing shared at the time.) I then installed a firewall (Sygate Personal) and downloaded lists of IP's to block to keep out the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc. Since then, still downloading like mad, I haven't had any troubles.

      Posting anonym
    • Sorry, but he's got the EUCD [ipjustice.org], which is like the DMCA but without any exceptions. Hopefully this law is so bad that it will be laughed out by judges [ipjustice.org], but I've been waiting for that to happen to the DMCA for about 5 years now, and I keep waiting...
  • Dear (insert ISP here):

    I am (insert Editor ID here), a much maligned editor at the (insert "news" site here), and I would like to make a proposal to you that would benefit the both of our organizations and increase the public's awareness of the great threat that libel holds to the economy and the struggling editorial staff of many great companies.

    When comments appear on (insert "news" site here) that would appear libelous to (insert Editor ID here), we will forward the originating IP addresses of the at
  • Not even if it comes from my ISP :/
  • OK, what am I missing here? I have always thought that if one get aware of, or suspect, illegal activities, that one should contact and report it to the police (or other authorities). Then they will handle it.

    So, if I over hear some discussion on phone, should I then contact the phone company so that they can contact the appropriate persons and warn them about the illegal activities? Perhaps I should contact the car manufacturer if I see or suspect illegal activities conducted using a car. They can then co
    • "Somehow, there is something that seems wrong with all this."

      Not at all. It's a much maligned marketing technique, but suing your customers often works at creating short term gains.

      "I have always thought that if one get aware of, or suspect, illegal activities, that one should contact and report it to the police (or other authorities)."

      That's criminal law, and the crown prosecution service (District Attorney?) has to make the decision on whether to prosecute. The RIAA is undertaking a civil action,
  • So, let's look at this for a moment. The RIAA is trying to standardize something with official meaning for mass electronic distribution. The RIAA is one of the few generally-disliked groups by geeks (even if you disapprove of filesharing, the RIAA hasn't taken the nicest steps in the past to deal with things). They're up there with the Church of Scientology.

    I'm going to give even odds that as soon as the first one of these goes out, it'll get posted on the 'Net, and used as propagation fodder for the ne
  • If they handed out my info. or sold it to non law enforcement personnel, I'd have to sue the ISP and the RIAA. The ISP for handing over personnal information without consent to nonauthorized personnel. If I'm breaking the law, the cops be it the FBI or the local police should come knocking at the door. Private entities don't have law enforcement privleges in this country unless the entity is something like campus cops though they are also fully trained police officers. I would not trust oh Green Peace wi
    • From what I understand, ANYONE can do it according to the new law. If I feel that you have infringed on something that I copyrighted, I could sue you without any real proof.
      • I'm not really talking about them sueing. Think of it this way if you were doing something illegeal with a bank account. Companies that you may have ripped of wouldn't have the right to go to the bank and ask for all the information of such and such account number. I don't know maybe they do. Well, they should go to the police, and the police would obtain the information from the bank and then ask the companies if they wanted to file charges. Of course my example is criminal not civial in nature. I'm talkin
  • Lets see, the RIAA buys a law (the DMCA) that allows them to sidestep the normal judicial process to force ISPs to hand over customer information on the flimsiest evidence. ISPs are required, at great cost to them, to hand over hundreds of names a day to the recording industry. Customers get sued and probably drop their broadband connections in order to pay for the lawsuit settlements. Finally, this blatantly unconstitutional provision of the law gets overturned and the RIAA has to go back to playing fair a
  • So what would happen if the RIAA discovered an IP address offering copyrighted files that they had already warned? How could they be certain it was the same person if the ISP never had to give the RIAA their name?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close