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.'"
More information (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More information (Score:5, Insightful)
Better Option (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute...
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:Better Option (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Better Option (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better Option (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better Option (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Better Option (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Better Option (Score:5, Interesting)
If the music industry tries to say I can't run a server [eu.org], 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.
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: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.
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.
The "pipes" won't go empty. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA is als*#$%(@)(@)^(_!_)~&!@^ NO CARRIER
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.
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.Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Customer satisfaction?
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, 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:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Funny)
An ice company executive, 70-ish years ago:
"Those pitiful cubes are so puny you could fit a bunch of them in a glass!
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 copyrig
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:4, Interesting)
The main idea behind a capitalistic economy is that, consumers will shop around and get the best product for the lowest price possible. With music this has not really been possible. If I want to buy the AC/DC "Back in Black" CD set I can technically shop around a bit, but in the end, I'm going to pay somewhere between US$10 and US$20 (bn.com has it at US$15). I can also go to iTunes and get just the 10 songs from it for roughly US$10 (Not been to iTunes, so I might be off a bit). the point is, the price is pretty fixed. I also cannot get a similar product at a lower price. Music is like that, it's either the band singing its songs, or it isn't.
This is where piracy comes in. The cost to duplicate the work, is very low. All I need is a computer with a CD drive, and an Internet connection. Each of those items does have a cost, but when that is broken over the various uses and number of CD's which can be copied, the price per unit drops to a pitance.
Now, what we have is a monopolized market (the legal kind, we're dealing with a copyright here), and the technology to undercut the monopoly significantly. the problem is, that there is no legal way to undercut the monopoly and make money, so an alternative needs to be found. That alternative, which is what Sharman, et al. are capitalizing on, is to make available the method for accessing this cheap alternative to the monopoly and collecting ad revenue from marketers who want access to their large user base.
This is really capitalism at its dirtiest. A need was identified (cheaper access to music), filled (via piracy), and capitalized upon (via ad-supported P2P apps). The music industry is now having to compete. Yes, the competition is illegal, but only because of government interference in the market. Copyright laws are not capitalistic in nature.
I'm not trying to argue that piracy should be legal, moral, etc. Just that it is a capitalistic force. Because of the monopolized nature of music, and the overpricing which follows, a corrective force exists. Becasue there is no legal outlet for that force, it has been expressed as rampant piracy. If the current method is stamped out, that force will show up in a different fashion. Basically, as long as there is a legislated monoploy, which is pricing it products higher than people are willing to accept as reasonable, there will be a drive to circumvent that monopoly. The more unreasonable the price, the more willing people will be to break the law to circumvent it.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (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:5, Interesting)
You misunderstood. No matter what kind of disc I buy, I call it a Frisbee, and so do most people. No matter what brand of tissue I buy, I call it Kleenex, no matter what kind of bandage I buy, I call it a Band-Aid, even if our photocopier is a Canon, I tell people to go "Xerox this document." The sales figures are irrelevent. These brands are irrecovably associated with the product type rather than a specific brand of it. The point was to provide an illustration of unbreakable social consciousness. In classic Slashdot form, you've missed the point and instead attacked ancillary data.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Funny)
(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...
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, how about a code of conduct for the music industry?
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Interesting)
That was one of the main drivers behind rip-n-burn. Who wants to carry around 20 cds with one good song each?
Of course, now that the horse has left the barn, the RIAA wants to punish people for finding ways of rebelling against their mediocracy/mediocrity.
Too little. Too late.
There's no way that ISPs are going to be able to support the extra costs of checking all the crap that flows through their networks.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Funny)
FUCK! Now you've given them a new idea ...
Yeah, I know Michael Jackson ain't dead, but he might as well be ...
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Interesting)
As has been mentioned before, ISPs currently enjoy the status of "common carrier", the same status afforded to telecommunication companies, and even, i believe, postal services.
Being a common carrier works as follows: You are not liable for damage done due to communications over your network. If Osama uses Pacific Bell (or whatever phone service) to plan his next attack, Pacific Bell is not liable.
But the rationale for common carrier status is that you -do not know- what traffic is being carried over your network. The second you begin filtering out sites and noting suspicious people as a business, (the government could probably do these things to your network, but thats another story) you're putting youtr common carrier status in jeopardy.
So yes, they likely would pick up a ton of liability. Which is why they will likely politely decline to acquiesce to this request.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Re:Sounds like a good deal (Score:3, Funny)
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: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?
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
Scary part: It'll probably work.
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.
Doesn't count for anything (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm lucky though, as a Canadian I find we're still doing rather well in the fight again RIAA/MPAA/DMCA abuse... and our court system seems to quite often have some good heads behind it when dealing with th
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
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. B
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
What about (Score:5, Insightful)
the record companies that sign 15 year olds
to lifetime exclusive contracts?
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:3, Informative)
But true, recording contracts aren't 'for life'.
No way, unless.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? (Score:4, 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.
and pretty soon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:and pretty soon (Score:5, Funny)
The article in full (Score:3, Informative)
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
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.
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.
I work for an ISP (Score:5, Interesting)
We *require* a subpoena signed by a *judge* not a clerk, before we turn over any information.
Re:I work for an ISP (Score:5, Insightful)
Interference with a Contract (Score:3, Interesting)
See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i084.htm : " Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage" for more.
Yea, good luck with that... (Score:3, Interesting)
But man, this is terrible. I hate how everyone wants to make the net into TV. I don't watch TV because it's passive. I hope we'd all put up a good fight for the net.
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear RIAA, (Score:5, Funny)
Sincerely,
The ISP industry
Drafting (Score:5, Funny)
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...
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 copyr
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.
Funny Metallica quote (Score:5, Interesting)
As you probably remember the drummer for Metallica, Lars Ulrich, came out strong against Napster and P2P. He called it stealing, theft, and other bad words.
But the VH1 show had an early interview with him and he was asked about how the band initially succeeded. He claimed "We made a demo and I gave ten copies to ten friends. They each made ten copies for their friends. As did those friends."
In other words, sharing is great when it helps you. But it's criminal when it hurts you.
Re:Funny Metallica quote (Score:4, Funny)
If IBM made toilet paper, it would be called "BW/2" DoctorPepper
Re:Funny Metallica quote (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't they call it "Anal Explorer"?
Re:Funny Metallica quote (Score:4, Funny)
Oops?
Re:Funny Metallica quote (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The Music Industry should just take over the ISPs (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Bandwidth consumption (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a very bad way to determine if someone is sharing or downloading songs, movies, etc. I pull down patches for my Linux, AIX, OS X, and Windoze boxes on a regular basis. I easily exceed several gigs a month just doing this not to mention web surfing, viewing online videos, animations, NASA TV, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ISPs are only supposed to provide a way to access the internet. They aren't supposed to provide services for companies that want to snoop on the ISPs users; i.e. they provide bandwidth not Deputy Dawg services. I hope that the ISPs are brave enough to stand up to this and tell RIAA/MPAA where to stick their agreement.
I' ve been telling you (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
And if they sign it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Roughly Translated... (Score:3, Funny)
ISP: "What our customers send through our service is their business, not ours. And it can't be your stuff, because most of your music sucks. Pigs will not only have to fly before we sign up to this, they'll have to break the sound barrier."
RIAA: "Well, with enough baked beans, anything is possible. Load up the lawyers...er, pigs and let 'em fly!"
My dad's ISP is already trying to kill P2P (Score:3, Interesting)
But by the time I got home his IP address had already changed. It appears that his ISP (centurynet) changes his IP address every 2 hours. That would sure make it a lot harder to use P2P for sharing your own stuff, running a game server, a webcam, and all the other cool stuff you get broadband for.
I can't help but think that broadband companies are going to kill themselves with this type of behavior. They have to remember that their customers are paying their bills, not the RIAA.
Re:My dad's ISP is already trying to kill P2P (Score:3, Informative)
It won't kill most apps like BitTorrent (i'm sure) or Kazaa (i think). As for Sharing stuff, use no-ip.com for that and a webcam. For a game server, that I don't know about as I know nothing about setting them
Since when does high bandwidth == RIAA piracy?? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about anyone else, but I am always downloading lots of stuff that are FREE and LEGAL! Whether that constitutes Linux ISO images, Solaris patches, or whatever, there are a ton of things out there that are completely legal and take up gobs of bandwidth! Streaming media (radio or TV stations), game patches, game mods, on-line gaming, and so forth are completely legal and will consume bandwidth! If you leave a high-bitrate, streaming media download running all month, you bet that's going to look like a lot of bandwidth, but that does not infer illegal activities!
Even if many downloads are not legal (*cough*newsgroups*cough*), what makes them assume that the downloads are of MUSIC? A massive download of the latest National Geographic bazillion-CD set will completely spike monthly bandwidth; but it has absolutely nothing to do with music, regardless of it being an illegal download!
Who the f*ck are the RIAA to assume that (excessive_bandwith == piracy || excessive == MUSIC_piracy)?
The arrogance of even drafting such a "code of conduct" is beyond comprehension!
As long as the publish the list. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually I would love it if the music industry would sign a code of conduct as well.
Lets see.
Any employee caught providing drugs or sexual partners to performers would be fired and turned over to the police for criminal charges. If not the Board of Directors are help criminally responsible. If football players have to take drug tests why not employees of music companies. I would love to see them declared a "drug free workplace". If you want you can let the artists off the hook. I want the A and R men, execs, and producers tested:)
The music industry would provide 401k, medical, and health insurance to performers.
If a record is not publishes and made available for sale for a period of one year all rights are returned to the artist.
Accounting standards and full disclosure of those standards.
If they want to write "codes of conduct" they can start at home.
A comcast rep once called me (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Will Speakeasy sign? (Score:3, Informative)
To this day I haven't heard a peep out of them, and I've been doing it for like 2 years now. So long
I want the music/movie industry (Score:4, Insightful)
I can hear the pipes bursting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, ISPs: Most of us have never gotten an RIAA subpoena, and are still under the impression that it might be a cool souvenir.
The new RIAA Fender Stratocaster (Score:3, Funny)
Why is it so hard to run a server... (Score:3, Interesting)
People have legitimate server needs, and ISPs make it terribly difficult to meet these needs.
Everytime I call an ISP to ask if they allow server access, I get in a fight with the operator at the other end because she accuses me of software piracy.
All I want is to be able to play with a server in my spare time, without having to fight with my ISP (or pay for a business line).
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.
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?
Red Herring (Score:3, Interesting)
This has always made me want to fill a file with random bytes from
Ya know, kinda like honeynet for the *AAs. Well, maybe not.
Great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Utterly Absurd Desperation (Score:3, Interesting)
- Limit Bandwidth?
- Retain Records?
and yet "quality digital content is a key driver that makes consumers embrace new services"
The RIAA and MPAA don't seem to want to provide viable alternatives to P2P's infringing uses, but they want a CARRIERS to police it for them? And invade their customer's privacy?
This is soo crazy stupid that is is scary. What kind of out-of-tune whackos would think that this is a good idea?
The bottom line is that Broadband access is a tool. Customers rent the pipe. Just like telephones, electricity, gas. How in the world would it possibly make sense that your local telephone, electric, or gas company would have to make sure you weren't using their product in an illegal fashion?
Orwellian.
I am sooo glad that I don't buy CD's or Movies anymore. And no, I don't download either. These industries are just plain selfish and evil. They don't DESERVE my money.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)