Music Industry Drafts Code of Conduct for ISPs 818
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.'"
I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:More information (Score:5, Insightful)
What about (Score:5, Insightful)
the record companies that sign 15 year olds
to lifetime exclusive contracts?
No way, unless.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
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
This is actually a good thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
It really shortens the list.
stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
It does no good .. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is starting to get crazy.
And how... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, these folks need to be laughed out of court.
Er, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
ISPs resell bandwidth according to the 80/20 model - that only 20% of their users use 80% ore more of their capacity. As soon as users start skewing those numbers, they begin to lose money, and if they are skewed enough, they can start to be actually selling the bandwidth at a loss.
An ISP is a business. BUsinesses do not like to lose money. As soon as it is not profitable for you to be consuming the bandwidth anymore (say if, for example, projected costs of lawsuits against them outweigh the revenue from you as a customer), they will drop you. And don't pretend they will lose any sleep over it either - if losing a customer amounts to a net gain in profit margin, then they won.
Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF does the entertainment industry think it has the right to tell any other business how to run their operations? Who died and left them in charge?
Re:I don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
And if they sign it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Many Small ISPs A Good Thing (Score:2, Insightful)
So in other words... (Score:2, Insightful)
They expect ISPs to:
1. Terminate services for legitimate users. I work at an ISP and one of our customers requires a fair amount of bandwidth for his weather station.
2. Ignore the privacy of the customer. Are we simply to turn over customer information because they said so, and give us no reason as to why?
3. Censorship on sites they don't like. Are they going to determine that any music site, whether legitimate or not, that they don't control is 'illegal'?
What's to say that once ISPs sign up for this, that the music industry doesn't put in a clause that forces ISPs to agree to any changes made down the road, or something that's impossible to back out of?
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
Scary part: It'll probably work.
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
I want the music/movie industry (Score:4, Insightful)
How about Code of Conduct for Music Industry? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:World Domination? (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet as it stands is not going away. They just need to accept it and stop trying to legislate/strong-arm/schmooze it out of existance.
What Agreement? (Score:2, Insightful)
In related news ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I work for an ISP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Theft requires loss. (Score:0, Insightful)
Nope, it's only theft if the item in question is now lost to you. And it isn't.
In fact, not even a potential sale is lost. The copy may actually increase your chances of a CD sale, and you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
MMORPGs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And in other news... (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, Ticketmaster doesn't need any more money.
Re:In related news ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is actually a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Funny Metallica quote (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:More information (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Code Of Conduct Illegal in Switzerland (Score:2, Insightful)
Exception is, of course, everything the law requires. But last time I checked the Music And Movies Mafia wasn't the law, at least over here. And we won't allow any such law to pass, thanks to direct democracy. A DMCA-style law will probably be discussed in parliament this summer, but you need only 50'000 signatures to trigger a referendum.
And then we're gonna kick their asses!
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Better Option (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:More information (Score:4, Insightful)
#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.
Restraint of trade? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, at this point they're only asking for a "voluntary" agreement. That's why I said "bordering" -- larger ISPs will blow them off since they know the real cost of accepting it. (Hint: it's not a few pissed off customers. It's dealing with the 1,002 other groups with their own "code of conduct" on everything from porn to evolution and "liberalism.")
But smaller ISPs run by chickenshits may worry about the legal costs defending themselves if RIAA plays hardball. Even when, not if, they win they'll still lose because of the expense.
The Hand That Feeds (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better Option (Score:3, Insightful)
Music Industry Code of Conduct (Score:2, Insightful)
2.) Remove monopolistics barriers in the markets (Allow independent labels to get their music to the market).
3.) Stop producing crap (Please, Stop prducing crap).
Important Point: They are NOT the music industry (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like saying MSFT is the Software Industry. They may want you to think they are - but they are not.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely there is some sort of exception to this rule? What defines an "ISP"? What defines an "ISP customer"?
I must be missing something. The proposal reads to me to say "companies providing internet service agree to stop providing internet service to anyone providing internet content". I'm sure that isn't the intent, but can someone explain to me how this doesn't amount to shutting the net down completely?
This isn't intended as humor; I really am missing something here. How do they propose to draw the line between bad running-a-server and okay running-a-server?
Re:Sounds like a good deal... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More information (Score:5, Insightful)
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.Great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Better Option (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (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.
Even apart from that, many news sites offer video clips of news that they offer, is any of this illegal downloading of copyrighted material?
Also while I don't produce music, what about the copyright owners wanting to distribute their songs?
As much as they wish it were true, all media is not owned by RIAA/MPAA.
And aside from that, I stream my music from home to my computer at work. If I own these songs, isn't that legal? 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...?
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."
Fair Use!=mixtapes (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I know this was a joke post, your premises behind it are exactly the problem, and you're not helping at all. Do you want Fair Use Rights, as determined under the copyright act of 1976? Then learn what they actually are, and don't just say "I can redistribute copyrighted material to anyone I wish to, 'cause I paid for my use, and after that it's all Fair Use".
Bullshit. You idiots keep using "Fair Use" as your justification, and you know what Congress will do? They'll take away Fair Use. Thing is, that wouldn't stop your copyright violations, and it will stop those of us who actually use our Fair Use rights: format shift to move CDs to our computers or MP3 players; time shift to watch movies or television shows later in our TiVos; and archive copy our CDs so that when we scratch them or leave them on the dashboards of our cars, we can go back to the original and make a new copy to destroy. That's Fair Use. What's not Fair Use is "I wanna make mixtapes for my *cough* girlfriend". Even if you actually were making mixes for your girlfriend, that wouldn't be Fair Use! Is it a) archive, format or time shifting, b) excerpt use in a satire, parody or review, or c) use by a non-profit for non-public distribution? And no, you don't count under C, since you're giving someone a copy. C means that a church can use a copywritten song in their church play, but they can't videotape it and give out or sell tapes.
So anyways, talk all you want about quality of music or price, but don't ruin Fair Use for those of us who actually use it appropriately.
-T
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure , Ok (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually for that matter , go on ahead and kill all the filesharing networks all together. I mean there is NO WAY THEY HAVE ANY VALIDITY WHATSOEVER. Sharing photos, freely open developed code, freeware, and so forth, that has to be illegal too, right?
Heck, just block every site there is accept for what AOL allows.....we want the internet to be a safe family envoirnment for everyone to enjoy.
quick question (Score:3, Insightful)
BOYCOTT!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Talk about an out of touch consortium... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
This is just PR and Congress prep (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:More information (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of us are lucky to have even one good idea. He probably thinks this idea is his one good one and wants to make sure it gets heard. With almost a million registered users, he can probably post it 100 times and each time 99% of the readers will read it for the first time.
It really ain't that bad of a point.
Re:The Music Industry should just take over the IS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Better Option (Score:5, Insightful)
One reason why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Common carrier status allows them to afford being in business in the first place.
RIAA is so flippin' stupid... I doubt anyone will sign into this "conduct code" because of this.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:2, Insightful)
I did not compare the music industry to ice manufacturers. I compared the RIAA, essentially a distribution business, to the Southland Ice Co, another distribution business, whose distribution model was about to become outdate, and who managed to survive, not by using RIAA-like tactics to bully people into supporting their business model, but by innovating.
It's not my problem if lexical devices like examples escape you.
We're not talking about how RIAA is going to adapt (which is the moral if the ice story) but rather this whole topic is the power that the RIAA has to take away the rights we currently have on the internet.
So? You responded to me to complain that I'm not talking about what you want to talk about? Stupid.
What data do you have to show this? I would venture to say the opposite is true.
What data do you have to show this?
However my point is that it Doesn't really matter. The RIAA doesn't have the right to take away my rights to do the things I mentioned above.
I agree. If you read my response to you, you should know that and not need to quibble over this point.
Maybe the majority of your friends share illegal files but that's certainly not the majority of the internet.
Most of my friends don't use filesharing at all.
The internet is a big place and I would be willing to bet most of them are law abiding.
Do you have any data to show this?
You're picking nits just to be argumentative, buddy. The fact that you ignore the point of everything I say and pick on ancillary information and subtext kinda supports that. We're on the same side of the RIAA thing, and you're being belligerant for its own sake. Grow up.
Won't happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they tried to stop the sale of blank tapes...(some music history: when pink floyd released "the wall" the -original- tape casing was actually 4 tapes, not 2, the extra 2 were blank tapes and had a little scribble at the bottom saying, that they support tape re-recordings, or something to that extent) anyway the (whoever back in those days) stepped in, stopped the distributation and now you can only buy the 2 tape set of the album, and not the 4 tape set as it was originally released.
This move however didnt stop the sale of blank tapes (obviously) and nothing could be done because it was too little to late.
So the point here, as I said, its too little too late. At this very moment the RIAA are spewing so many ideas to companies/the masses such as what this article suggests, limiting bandwidth usage (which i beleive is just against the constitution, on so many levels) but they also tried to make a law to tax the net. They tried to go against all the kids/grown up's that even had there ip on that Napster list that napster released a few months ago...that led nowhere.
Basically, whatever they are doing, its for one reason only. Money, if the rest of the gov. see's the RIAA are doing something, or trying then the income that RIAA employee's gets increased, this is the only reason they do this. No other reason, do you actually think they just sat home one day and said "wow we should get all these guys that are download music, i mean im not a musician, but hell we should just get them anyway"
no...they just in it for the money, and they are as bad as the people that download copyrighted materials.
this voids an isp's safe harbor (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:How about Code of Conduct for Music Industry? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it's ten bucks a month. For radio. That you need your computer to listen to. I'd get XM or Sirius first.
Second, the deal-killer for me :
Seriously, they can't do it without IE5 ?
You know what I find amusing? The "burn to CD" feature. Why do record companies have no problem with a "burn to CD" feature, but don't want you to "burn to HD" ? What's the difference between one unencumbered AIFF file and another ? Putting it on a CD makes it less likely to be copied ? What's the thinking there? And hey, how many of those can you really 'burn to CD' ?
I don't use any online music service, but it seems like the music industry needs to face facts- the vast majority of consumers have said they don't want to 'rent' music. The industry needs to deal with that. We don't mind our music being files, but we want to own those files, and take them with us when we leave our computers.
Re:Corporate Proposed Discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)
One can foresee an agreement to the effect of "you, the cable-and-ISP company, will be allowed access to this here prime content for television, if and only if you throttle all your cable-modem users down to a point where downloading TV shows takes Way Too Long To Be Practical". So the cable company that also provides cable-ISP access has to choose between video content for their cable-TV business, or happy cable-modem users.
Given the system of protected monopolies that cable and telephone systems are under, this could happen, despite laws regarding illegal leverage of a monopoly and restraint of trade.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Insightful)
This also assumes that property rights, of any kind, are actually valid. Though this is pretty much a given in Western culture. Even places, such as the now defunct USSR, where socialism was the norm, there was still some respect for property rights. In all, Marx was probably dreaming to assume that anyone, even the most downtrodden proletariat, would willingly give up all property rights.
Want to get even with **AA's ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Create a website containing a list of all Senators and Congressmen who accept or take donations from these organizations and tell people NOT to vote for these people.
Finally, publicize the hell out of the website. This can be done by cross referencing in blogs, etc. This way Google searches for said Senators and Congressmen will show this site at the top of the list.
Watch how many Senators and Congressmen go anywhere near these organizations or want anything to do with them, especially around election time.
Re:The "pipes" won't go empty. (Score:1, Insightful)
Shit Music (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Better Option (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You didn't explain that right. The correct explanation is: By definition half your customers have above average usage. By their reasoning, half their customers are doing something illegal.
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to play devil's advocate here. There will always be a "most costly" group. Anyone in this kind of business that does not realize this is simply ignorant, and will likely be out of business soon. Without seeing a single real stat I would estimate that either 10% or 20% of the users use 90% or 80% of the bandwidth, respectively. Why? Just about everything else is that way.
Also, the big hitters are likely to be more educated in net use, and happy ones will be able to articulate that to others. Your average joe with broadband to look at ESPN and CNN and check his incoming spam likes his broadband because its "always on", does not tie up the phone line, and it loads those web pages quickly. Odds are you could halve or quarter their bandwidth at any time and they would never notice. Also, ISPs advertise with specific upload and download bandwidth measurements. They know who is listening to those numbers.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the point has been made many times that in fact piracy ISN'T costing the industry money when you look at the big picture.
Like I downloaded a britney spears song but would I have ever paid for it? if the answer is no then the music company didn't lose any money. (the answer is no
I downloaded some Bare Naked Ladies songs to sample some of their other music after seeing a documentary online, I liked their music so much I went and bought a CD of their greatest hits, then I went to see them in concert... if I hadn't been able to download those songs would I have bought a CD? Probably not, so they actually made money off of my downloading.
These are just 2 examples and I may not represent the norm, but you have to realisticly ask would the people downloading actually buy this music if they couldn't download it? I think for the majority of people the answer is no, thus there are no lost profits.
IF you want to argue the morality or legality of downloading that is different, but from a financial standpoint I don't believe it is downloading that is hurting the music biz, it is the music biz that is hurting themselves.
(gun meet foot)