RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality So ISPs Can Police File Sharing 173
Presto Vivace writes "Reporting for Computer World, Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would limit broadband providers' [flexibility] to "address" illegal online file sharing.' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment. 'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading, but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so, the RIAA said. ... Other groups called on the FCC to stay out of the copyright enforcement business. If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement, they could interfere with legal online activities, said six digital rights and business groups, including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.'"
So basically (Score:4, Interesting)
We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.
Re:So basically (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets see more reasons for YOU to donate, join, contribute to the EFF and other organizations working for your rights online.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.
No kidding. They want limits on net neutrality, I want limits on their access to the Federal Government. These are the kind of people that drive the need for election reform.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this."
How about a little fix?
"We're all for net neutrality, so long as it can be modified to fit into the perfect police state."
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality... ... then it wouldn't be net neutrality, would it?
The RIAA is so technologically clueless that I am frequently entertained at the depth and breadth of the stupid things that they say. They never seem to really understand the concept of anything (as evidenced by Sony's rootkit gift to the world), but I've gotta say, this may be the first time I've seen them make a proposal that was an oxymoron right out of the box.
Meteor (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.
How about an asteroid [kontraband.com] instead?
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to suggest something even smaller, but I doubt it would be PC and I kinda guess it would maybe make the DHS unhappy to hear such a suggestion. Then again, it's been almost 10 years and think of the publicity the terrorists could get! It's all about good PR these days, ya know...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on the particular terrorist in question.
Some terrorists "hate us for our freedom"
Some terrorists hate us because we are assholes who invade their country, sometimes we had a very good reason, sometimes not so good of a reason.
Some terrorists hate us because their country invited us to be there to save their ass from a madman and they think the land is holy and we are infidels, Bin Laden is of this type.
Some terrorists want to install a global totalitarian theocracy where everyone submits to the
Re: (Score:2)
An asteroid and a meteor are not really mutually exclusive. Any foreign body that enter's the Earth's atmosphere is deemed a meteor. The majority of meteors happen to also be asteroids.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, that would not kill them. The RIAA are more akin to cockroaches then dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, Russia is planning to launch a mission to deflect Apophis.
Maybe for a little fee they'll take suggestions for the new course. :)
FFVII (Score:3, Informative)
It's FFVII, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, fucked up my roman numerals...
I V X... got it...
4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government. There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people, even intelligent people, seem think that the US bill of rights is an invisible coat they wear everywhere they go in the real world or in cyberspace, and that it applies to them however they want it to apply to them.
Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
The 14th amendment says otherwise. Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the 9th temporarily incorporated it in 2009. The failure of the supreme court to permanently incorporate the 2nd has historically been a huge mistake [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the 9th Circuit lacks authority to overturn Cruikshank.
--AC
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh absolutely a huge mistake, yes. I haven't looked recently, but I think the 2nd is the last major amendment from the BoR that hasn't been incorporated.
Even a cursory beginner's intro to the history of the United States would show that the 2nd amendment was never about hunting ducks or deer, and was always about protecting the people from tyrannical government using firearms as their last resort.
Why that should only extend to federal government, and not state or local government has always been a mystery t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
An individual has a right to self defense. Firearms give the physically weak a strong defense against an initiation of violence from others. Can you find a good reason why someone shouldn't be able to defend themselves and their families from people who threaten their lives with lethal force if necessary? That alone is a reason to defend the 2nd amendment even if all other reasons dissolve.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you find a good reason why someone shouldn't be able to defend themselves and their families from people who threaten their lives with lethal force if necessary?
In their own home? No, which is why I didn't say anything of the sort. In public places there are law enforcement and innocent bystanders, which are good reasons why private citizens should not be bringing guns there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you think that no one should be able to carry a gun in public because there's law enforcement? No. If someone tries to mug, kill or rape someone in public, the victim has every right to shoot the fraker. Period. Police get there after the fact, They aren't there during the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that was written before people envisioned companies outright owning entire governments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC is a part of the federal government, if they're actively encouraging private companies to rifle through private communications, or worse, forcing them to do so or penalizing them for NOT doing so, the situation is not so black and white that we can declare it to be outside the scope of bill of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of the 14th amendment? Made after the civil war...
Re: (Score:2)
Civil war? When did that happen? I just never stay up with current events....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Civil war? When did that happen? I just never stay up with current events....
If you llive in certain parts if the south you might know it as the war of northern agression.
Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.
For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.
The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.
I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government, would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
It's a Hail Mary, but the argument could be made that, if the RIAA has their way, we'll all be involuntarily serving them by being forced to pay up ever
What a stretch (Score:3, Insightful)
Being forced to pay for content consumed is a far cry from involuntary servitude.
Being forced to expend resources policing your network so you can report crimes might qualify as involuntary servitude, though I think that is a stretch too.
There are much better arguments against what the RIAA is proposing than this 'its slavery' nonsense. Proposing something this far from rational just makes you, and everyone on your side of the fence, look irrational, and weakens your position overall.
You aren't helping. P
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery. Did I just pull a super-Godwin?
Nah. Musicians have been calling record execs "plantation owners" for a long time. For one thing, indentured servants generally earned their freedom after seven years, much like the terms of a recording contract.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government. There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.
Pretty sure there are a lot of people that don't think it applies to the federal government anymore, either. And they have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
A private entity has no power to create policy. Here, a private entity is advising a FEDERAL Government entity (the FCC) - which IS fully bound by the Bill of Rights.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Bill of Rights are also applicable to the states, by way of the 14th amendment. If you had actually "studied" constitutional law, then you would know this. There is a highly likely chance that a federal court will soon find that the second amendment is also applicable to the states, even though some try their hardest to believe otherwise. An internet education does not replace a real educatoin.
Also, D.C. vs Heller was already decided, for your information.
Re: (Score:2)
"people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities"
The Bill of Rights never was intended to apply to private and/or corporate entities. It was meant to apply to private, individual, CITIZENS. Entities aren't citizens, and no rights apply to them. You have that much right.
As for my own rights - I'm willing to defend my rights with force. If you don't appreciate your rights, and you don't care to defend them, why do you stay in the US? This is the land
Inalienable has an actual meaning! (Score:2)
Actually I believe the framers intended that inalienable rights meant that they were inalienable. I don't believe they meant that they are inalienable unless some local or State Government, or some corporation or special interest decides they want to rape us all.
So you see,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...
No, I don't believe he said that at all. What he said was that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this circumstance, not that he's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA. I doubt that there's any RIAA fans among the /. crowd at all, not counting the random loony here or there.
Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
The 4th ammendment says:
Note that at no point does the ammendment state that the restriction applies only to governmental entities or actions of the government.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your post definitely shows that you have not received a decent education in the law nor in the Constitution. Barron v. Baltimore clearly said that the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. That was the entire reason the FFs passed them was so that they would limit the Federal Government. In addition, the only reason they apply to the states is because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to Gitlow v. NY. They do not apply to private individuals unless they are
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but wouldn't implementing an explicit requirement to investigate under federal law be acting in the capacity of the States. If not, then any entity other than a government department could be ordered to investigate anything, including non-criminal activity (as fileshaing generally is), without any restraints from the Bill of Rights. That would effectively revoke the Bill of Rights, so any sane judge should realise that that is not at all what the intent of the FFs was.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's hardly ever such a thing as a request 'broadcast' onto the internet. Requests are generally unicast, there is a difference.
When a unicast message is transmitted, only the peer whose IP address is the destination IP receives the packet.
Actually, the internet is not a broadcast medium or the transmission medium. There is no public space called "the internet" that a request passes through.
You buy a connection from an ISP.
That ISP sends your packet to the destination who also has a connection
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It shares some data with some people.
It doesn't share all data with all people. Only people who have joined the tracker can see it.
Just like only the people who have joined an IRC channel or private mailing list can see posts to the list.
It makes sense that a participant is capable of recording everything (if they want); however, a random person off the street cannot simply record, without joining or asking for permission to join the list.
It would be inappropriate for an ISP to record or specifica
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is correct. And also the various assertions that the 4th doesn't restrict private entities.
But shutting off an entire household's internet access, let alone taking their computers, is seizure, not talk, and requires either consent or legal authority. So the 4th applies.
The police may not search your car without explicitly-stated consent. If they can see it through the windows that's fine, but that's looking, not searching. The police also may not revoke your license just because someone made accu
Re: (Score:2)
If RIAA or anyone else happens to see me on the street or on the net, and they record what they see, no big deal. But, RIAA wants to actively monitor your connection. They want the ISP to assist them with that active monitoring. Big difference.
The cops can't put me under surveillance, why should RIAA be able to do so?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, The Bill of Rights begins "Amendment I.", and "Congress shall make no law" is in the First Amendment. Had the authors of the Constitution wanted the Constitution to be as you suggest, they could have written:
Congress shall make no law:
[list amendments]
Re: (Score:2)
So you admit you're an idiot!
Unfortunately you don't seem to get exactly how you are an idiot. The Bill of Rights begins:
Preamble
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
You quoted the first part of the First Amendment. I realize that you think that the meaning can be changed as long as
Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
you should be booted off of the internet?
The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees. As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability [wikipedia.org], particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias. It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today. For those who are interested, I recommend the following book [amazon.com]. After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You misunderstand. I don't think that the ISP should be legally required to act on the information. That's where the problem is, not with the information sharing (and then there are lots of situations where I would be unhappy an organization was sharing information about me, but I can't complain too much if they simply documented some information I sent out onto the internets).
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. They need a reasonable belief. See, because the Bill of Rights does not apply to private actors. Instead, the store-customer relationship is governed by longstanding principles of common law. At common law, you have the right to freedom of movement, and can sue individuals who wrongfully and intentionally limit your freedom of movement by confining you to a bounded area. This is the tort of false imprisonment. However, a store keeper has a limited privilege to infringe your right where he
pfft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA just won't quit will they. Their idea would require ISP's to spend money, they don't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load.
Wow good point. Every cloud has a silver lining then.
Huhhnn? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what they're saying is their business model is so flawed that it can only be supported by making other businesses pay for their complete failure in the marketplace? Yeah, that makes sense... in bizarro world. The FCC is being maligned for being a "liberal" establishment, but this is about as conservative a viewpoint as it gets: They're asking for their business to get special treatment because it makes horseshoes in a automobile era. Or, put another way -- they want a bailout.
Yes, how very liberal of them. /snark
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually.. maybe it's even worse than that... the RIAA is using pointy sticks and honed rocks as weapons in the atomic age.
They discovered fire, which was a great source of revenue for a long time, charging admission for folks to come feel its warmth, cook food, and have some protection against the wolves... but then, unfortunately, someone invented the torch.
And ever since then, it's been a non-stop battle fighting illegal fire-traders, who offer their torch as a source to light others'.
Mostly b
Re: (Score:2)
And when the lawyers keep getting returned as balls of charcoal?
Re: (Score:2)
And when the lawyers keep getting returned as balls of charcoal?
Yes. I believe that they've selected Briquette Bardot as their new female spokesperson.
My original fantasy girl... (Score:2)
I think you just gave your age away, old-timer! :-)
In addition, you probably confused most of the kids hanging out on your lawn as a bonus.
For those of you that wondering:
Briquette Bardot==Brigitte Bardot [wikipedia.org]
Now, get off his lawn...and quit drooling! [google.com]
BTW, thanks for the trip down Memory Lane, and the excuse to look up B.B. again!
"Mind if I sit down?" Retief pulled out a chair, seated himself, and took out a cigar.
signed,
Another Keith Laumer [webscription.net] fan.
Re:Huhhnn? (Score:4, Insightful)
You really do need to learn what 'liberal' and 'conservatives' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label. The only statement you've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal' and 'conservative' when referring to your team or the other team. Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.
Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated, ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC is not the one asking for this, they're the ones being asked by our favorite artist charity (*snerk*), the RIAA.
I'm hoping they won't back down that easily.
Likely without precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.
Re:Likely without precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing in the law to make ISPs filter copyrighted content.
What the RIAA wants is to cleverly sneak in the back door and use the
FCC's regulatory powers to force ISP level filtering.
That's what separates this from a car analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy fix: The Department of Justice should use its regulatory powers granted by the Americans with Disabilities act to force gas stations to do license-plate checks on every person who buys gas.
Better analogy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but why should ISPs care? Because of the increased bandwidth use? They have simpler tools to counter this (like metering the use and having their user pay for it). Independent of what's sent through the cable.
It would not only cost the ISPs money, that's actually a minor concern. The liability is. From "they should have the authority" it's a tiny step to "they have to". And then they'd be liable for any filesharing going on through their networks.
I could not see anything any ISP would fight h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.
Actually it's a bit worse than that, because "permission of the copyright holder" is code for "our permission". Independent publishers crop up occasionally with stories of being banned from publishing their own songs because they lack "permission from the copyright holder". The RIAA doesn't check it owns the actual rights in the first place, and it will blanket ban with no appeal if it gets the chance.
But who says who the copyright owner is? The riaa (Score:2)
But who says who the copyright owner is? The riaa wants to own all music and make un singed band be locked out of putting there own music on line for free without paying the riaa for the right.
Re: (Score:2)
The riaa wants to own all music and make un singed band be
About the only bands that escape the music industry unsinged are the indies. Most of the rest get their fingers burnt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your highway analogy is flawed in that it involves actual stolen goods, as in things removed from some location and transferred elsewhere, unlike the RIAA's case. This only makes your example even stronger; even where actual stolen goods are being transferred, there isn't precedent for this.
The RIAA guys need to get a real business model, because their artificial scarcity one requires way too many things to prop it up, and apparently quite expensive as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods
The RIAA (meaning: the large copyright holders they represent) want a high-tech, private police force beholden to no-one but big media, ideally one funded by US (either by having the ISP pay for it, or via government funding.) Private police forces are scary stuff, and our lawmakers should be leery of ever empowering such organizations. Heck, Congress can't be trusted to behave responsibly with the ridiculous amount of power they already have ... can we really expect the private sector (in this case, corpor
analogy with mail (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail. This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..." Everyone understands that position to be completely ridiculous so why is it that the concept is so difficult to apply to internet packets etc? Just as your mail is legally protected from being ripped open by others, so should your internet packets. It isn't the job of ISPs to do the RIAA's work nor is it their right to riffle through your online activities at their whim.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail. This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..."
I'm not saying it's right, but are carriers such as FedEx and UPS bound by those same restrictions. I understand that it's illegal to snoop through USPS mail, but what about private, commercial carriers?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content? (Score:4, Insightful)
I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).
Absolutely - there's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been estimated to cost £500m [digitalwrong.org] ($800m), or approximately £25 ($40) per user, a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer. I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...
The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar; among other provisions, they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of
Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content (Score:4, Insightful)
They can do that now, but if net neutrality law prevented them from throttling P2P traffic then a "copyright infringement" loophole might enable them to block all instances of suspected copyright infringement (e.g. anything sent over P2P) rather than actual copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, why would they want to target P2P specifically? They don't care what uses massive amounts of bandwidth, what they care is that their networks are clogged. It's far more profitable and far easier to implement for them to simply say you may use, say, 20Gig a month and if you're over that, we throttle you down to 64kbit so you can't do more "damage". And, behold, that's how it's done by a few providers here. That's very easy (and cheap!) to implement for them and it does not open the proverbial cans of
"Could do" absolutely, "should"...I think not! (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA is correct that the ISPs are in a unique position in that they easily (relatively speaking, of course) could implement safeguards to stop the trafficking of any files they want. There are some hiccups in a potential implementation, and it wouldn't come cheap, but the RIAA is at least correct that the easiest--nay, only--way to stop file trading is to cut it off at the source.
What they don't get, however, is that the ISPs have no obligation to them to do this. It doesn't sound like the RIAA is willing to pony up the cost for this (at least, they aren't volunteering), or otherwise contribute to making it work. It sounds more like they've decided that the FCC and the ISPs should help them, since they've proven to the world at large that they're not capable of helping themselves. I don't see what makes them feel they've earned the right to be "saved." It's ludicrous.
How about newspapers? Those are fundamentally far more important to society than entertainment music. Yet, advertisers have increased their dollars spent online, leaving less to be spent in papers; further, the wider reach of the internet is more attractive than a page in a newspaper that reaches, in major markets, a few million (and that's only a handful of places). Further, of those million, only a fraction will actually see the ad, since few people read every section of the paper. So, newpapers are going under all over the country, yet no one seems to be crying to save them. How about we help them out first?
I support filtering copyrighted material (Score:2, Insightful)
I support filtering copyrighted material... as soon as copyright law is so clearly defined that no copyrights need never be decided in a courthouse again and even computerized systems could determine what is and is not copyright infringement with absolute 100% certainty.
Anything else will undeniably limit freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you're probably being ironic in that you know such filtering would never be possible, but it's not just because copyright isn't well defined enough or because computers can't detect copyrighted material with 100% certainty, but because human judgement is also necessary. Even in cases where the law *is* clear, life is not clear. The law is meant to approximate justice, but we have lawyers and judges and juries so that there's a "man in the loop" to address the times when the law strays too far fr
Why is it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is?
Why didn't anyone tell me? Frank, fire up the DDoS, we're gonna toast a few spammers tonight!
Seriously now. It isn't. It's just the usual RIAA stunt, trying to shift the burden of their work onto someone else's shoulders.
Re: (Score:2)
Because much like pirating software or other content, IT REALLY DOESN'T FUCKING HURT ANYONE, regardless of how much you whine and bitch about it.
And no, the girl that killed herself over a myspace or facebook page didn't do it because of online activities, she did it because she was mentally unstable and unable to survive in the real world. Should would have done it based on something else the next day if it hadn't been for the website being there.
Get some perspective.
Already patented. (Score:5, Funny)
Team RIAA, World Police (Score:2)
This is another attempt by the RIAA to dilute their highly unpopular (and unconstitutional) warfare on anyone who exchanges music. If they can "get" the ISP's to do the filtering for them then the next step would be for the RIAA to "require" the ISP's to be the bad guys.
Net Neutrality is something worth fighting for. This RIAA attempt is a sideways attempt to undermine the free access to most information.
Me think (Score:5, Insightful)
They are more dangerous than armed terrorist because they are trying to minimize the rights/freedom of people. If we need laws like they want we also need a non-transferable copyright which is held only by the artist/writer/inventor and expires when the holder dies.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like or support piracy but the ideas of those people reminds me of Stasi, KGB or NKVD.
It's not their job (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not Blockbuster's job to make sure I don't make copies of the movies I rent either.
It's not my power company's job to make sure I'm not using electricity to run my DVD-duplicator.
national cyber security coordinator threat to net (Score:4, Informative)
Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May. And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.
JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration. And I think that slowed things down. Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem. I don't happen to agree. I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but...
JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?
JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this. We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons. It hasn't worked. It's just like the Wild West. Time to move in the marshals.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber_12-22.html [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this. We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons. It hasn't worked. It's just like the Wild West. Time to move in the marshals.
One of the more frightening things I've read in awhile. It's something you would have expected to hear from an official in a totalitarian government. Matter of fact, Mr. Dipstick (not you, I mean this Lewis character), it has worked, and has worked better than anyone could possibly have dreamed when the Internet first went public. The man is either completely ignorant of the ongoing multi-trillion-dollar global economic benefits resulting from advanced communications, or he's dissembling. Either way, holdin
RIAA wants to repeal the constitution (Score:2)
again. film at 11.
Ignorance (Score:2)
I'm completely opposed to the RIAA and think copyright should be outright abolished, but... "It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment"? The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all to what a private party can do to monitor another private party using their service. Provided it's in your contract with your ISP, which it most certainly is, they can monitor you for illegal activities (or any other activities they consider violations of said contract) and shut you down if they want.
Go
This makes a lot of sense... (Score:2)
Once it is allowed for ISPs to do this, the RIAA can start going after the companies that aren't, or (and this is important) aren't doing a good enough job, in addition to end users. They already have all the information to do this, it's just that the current attitude is that the ISPs don't do packet policing.
So, if the RIAA and
Well I guess what the RIAA wants the RIAA gets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you paid any attention to the net neutrality debate at all? Because your rant is so completely ignorant, so completely the opposite of what's actually happening, that I find it hard to believe you have any idea what you're talking about.
Re:Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.
IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!
Err, yeah. And the British Army was created to deal with swords and pikes, not assault rifles.
I agree that these kinds of legislations should be kept out of the internet at large, not just the web, but your argument just plain sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of at least one ISP that does that, and it is wonderful. My roommate got a virus on his laptop and our switchport was shut down, forcing him to immediately clean it up instead of letting it turn into a zombie node.