|
RIAA to stop lawsuits, will instead pressure ISPs
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 20 December, 2008
After suing over 35,000 people since 2002 over music piracy, the RIAA is changing its policy and will discontinue suing individuals over unauthorized music sharing through P2P networks.
With that good news however, comes possibly worse news.
The RIAA is now making agreements with ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that would have the companies send out emails to customers they believe ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
20. December 2008 @ 23:04 |
Link to this message
|
It is apparent to the riaa, that the lawsuits aren't working, and worse, the fallout it(the lawsuits) has caused (re Tanya Johnson case, the girl with the pacreatic cancer case).
So the aim now is to pressure entities with much deeper pockets to do the policing and dirty work.
Alas, business is business
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
windsong
Member
1 product review
|
20. December 2008 @ 23:46 |
Link to this message
|
They will need to identify IP addresses with individuals. Eventually.
Gee, wonder how they will force everyone to authenticate their identity online?
/sar
|
|
pirkster
Member
|
20. December 2008 @ 23:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by iluvendo:
It is apparent to the riaa, that the lawsuits aren't working, and worse, the fallout it(the lawsuits) has caused (re Tanya Johnson case, the girl with the pacreatic cancer case).
So the aim now is to pressure entities with much deeper pockets to do the policing and dirty work.
Alas, business is business
I'm suprised they didn't start with this angle to begin with. But the answer is... money (as it always is).
You sue the deepest pockets. Always. Like it or not, that's the way it's been done in the US court system for some time.
When someone is killed by a delivery driver, you don't sue the driver... you sue the company who's name is on the side of the truck.
You're going to get more from the guy who owns the truck than who drives it. Nobody hates the little guy, they hate "big business." They have the cash, and juries are more sympathetic to the victim... making those payouts even larger.
What they're doing here is putting finanical pressure on ISPs to traffic themselves or face penalties. It has nothing to do with other cases "not working." The cases against individuals have worked as evidenced by the ransoms they have been able to collect. While going after individuals has been a revenue generator (see speeding tickets, albeit very expensive ones) what they're seeking here is pressuring ISPs to do their dirty work for them, which results in a change in behavior above and beyond what the financial rewards of suing individuals offers. They've wised to the fact the ISPs are a portal to sharing, and can deny us service if we don't behave the way they want us to. What they haven't shared with us are the details of the "agreement" so we can see the money being exchanged, but I can assure you it's there. Either money up front, or a promise to levy steep fines and/or lawsuits if ISPs are found to allow individuals to share.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
20. December 2008 @ 23:56 |
Link to this message
|
This is what will kill off P2P sharing sure it'll go on but not in the same way.
ISPs will shrug off RIAA letters for so long then start sueing ISPs due to them pirating stuff, hoping that will force the ISPs or the court to force the ISPs to stop/block the ports at the ISP.
IINET in Australi is currently getting sued in Australia for this right now, so see what happens.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 00:04 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
When someone is killed by a delivery driver, you don't sue the driver... you sue the company who's name is on the side of the truck.
You're going to get more from the guy who owns the truck than who drives it. Nobody hates the little guy, they hate "big business." They have the cash, and juries are more sympathetic to the victim... making those payouts even larger.
No it doesn't work like that, that's saying the company ran over someone which isn't correct.
You have to prove that the driver ran over someone... if that can't be proven then you prove that the company was in some way responseable for running over someone which is via the brakes not working etc.
if you can't prove any of the above then you can't sue anyone.
Also payouts are based on what happened and what the end result was.
You'll learn this when you get into the real world.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
21. December 2008 @ 00:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers !!!! Even Shiva would be lacking.
|
|
jetyi83
Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 00:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The cases against individuals have worked as evidenced by the ransoms they have been able to collect. While going after individuals has been a revenue generator (see speeding tickets, albeit very expensive ones) what they're seeking here is pressuring ISPs to do their dirty work for them.
they are not making money, the costs of the lawsuits far exceed any fines they might have collect. They are constantly losing money. This will not work either, new isp's, or existing isp's that choose not to work with the mpaa will become much more successful.
google needs to just start up an isp.
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 01:17 |
Link to this message
|
I wonder how long would the ISPs be willing to cooperate with the RIAA (and the MPAA) before they realize that monitoring users and limiting or cutting off their internet connections, would result in a massive loss of costumers and income... most users do a lot more than just check emails and surf the net, which doesn't take much to do; if users can't upload/download files, even access streamed content or online gaming, just because they consume a lot of bandwith and are suspected of file sharing, then a large percentage of users won't see the benefit of having a high bandwith connection (and pay a higher price for it) and will begin to cancel their subscriptions, maybe even begin to file lawsuits against the ISPs for violating their consumer and privacy rights.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
21. December 2008 @ 01:18 |
Link to this message
|
 Piss me off, and I Will ignore You! |
|
admodsuck
Suspended permanently
|
21. December 2008 @ 02:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good luck...............NOT!
Not gonna happen. ISPs will get screwed on this one and eventually fight back.
|
|
joonbugg
Junior Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 02:27 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, ISP's arent going to want to cut off their customers and take money out of their own pocket. RIAA is fighting a losing battle. Sharing is here to stay. Just because I download something for free doesnt mean I would pay for it if I couldnt get it for free. Probably 95% of the time, I wouldnt pay for it. They just cant seem to understand that.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
21. December 2008 @ 02:57 |
Link to this message
|
anybody want some tunes??.. #afterdawn and ask your friends.. use a name we know eh XD.. lolololol
NOT piracy.. just friends sharing happiness. we have always shared stuff.. yet suddenly it wrong.. So.. I have to charge your friend double if you give him half your pint because he/she/they got it without paying??
Where will this crap lead.. what kind of world are we allowing them to make?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2008 @ 03:02
|
|
susieqbbb
Suspended permanently
|
21. December 2008 @ 04:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
First off.
This is illegal this violates the internet protection act.
Which states unless a company has a warrent at any time they are not allowed to search a users computer.
in order to obtain such information.
they would have to search your machine via ip address.
without a warrent any seized property would be unimissable in a court of law.
|
|
51area
Newbie
|
21. December 2008 @ 04:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is retarded!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2008 @ 04:29
|
|
slickwill
Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 04:45 |
Link to this message
|
If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOL
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 06:58 |
Link to this message
|
susieqbbb, as I understand it the ISPs aren't going to spy your PC, but rather monitor your bandwith usage and probally what are using it for, meaning that the higher your bandwith consumption, you'll be more a suspect of file sharing, even if its the case you're using it for online gaming or streaming content.
|
|
HOGCALLER
Newbie
|
21. December 2008 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
I hope they win!!!
Once they win a legal challenge you and I will have legal precedent to sue ATT when our identity is been stolen using their equipment and services!
Aren't lawyers wonderful!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
21. December 2008 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by slickwill:
If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOL
Even if that were to happen you could still record from any kind of output device using a line-in/out cable. To prevent replication of any existing audio is pretty much impossible in this day in age.
|
Junior Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
What I do not understand is that if I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth from an ISP, they have no business monitoring how I use that. The internet privacy act protects me from that monitoring unless there is a government issued document for such a watching. The RIAA needs to face the fact that file sharing is here to stay and that if they want a piece of the action then they should have hopped onto the Itunes train during the nabster years.
|
Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 15:40 |
Link to this message
|
um well xtago you can sue anybody you want.........
It's not a matter of reason, I can sue you right now for emotional distress, reason being I was emotionally distront at the way you assumed prikster wasn't in the real world.
It's a matter of whether
#1 find a lawyer to handle your case
#2 The courts seeing your case
#3 Actually winning your case.
Comon now this is the country that people sue cause their coffee was hot, sue fast food chains cause they got fat, and sue people when the walk on ice in front of their house.
The article, if you read it, actually said nothing about sueing the ISPs. IT said
Quote:
The RIAA is now making agreements with ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that would have the companies send out emails to customers they believe are "making music available online for others to take."
an agreement not a suit
now if they later decide to sue........here is where they could win a suit......
lets say comcast (ISP) signs a letter of agreement (or contract) with RIAA stateing "it will send out letters and/or terminate service to customers that are believed to be partaking of the illegal action of file sharing"
and they do not send out the letters or terminate services and the RIAA finds out...........
breach of agreement or breach of contract.
Then it is a justifiable case and would be a win for the RIAA
Also, the ISP would not have to hack into somebodies computer, the information/data you send via the ISP cables becomes their property as well. We as consumers are mearly renting or leasing the cables used to transfer data.
Also.....gotta remember the government, they ARE allowed to seach your computer via the internet if they deem worthy. No warrent, no nothing, it's up to their disgresion. ALA the patriat act.
ok I'm done, and no I don't know how to spell, and no I don't own a dictionary, besides that wouldn't help because I gotta know how to spell it before I can look up the definaition.
Edit starts here: I made a mistake, it is not legal for the government to hack into your computer unless it is deemed a terristic threat. BUT the RIAA has been known to hack in via freelance private investagators
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2008 @ 15:58
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
21. December 2008 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
Its about time.
For a long time ISPs have been profiting off of people stealing music and movies. They never asked any questions they just said, "hey this guy is willing to pay more money for a pointlessly fast connection and higher bandwidth caps. I don't know he's doing, I don't wanna know what he's doing. I just wanna fill my pockets up with money and turn a blind eye to anything."
Looks like that attitude is gonna go by the waste side now. Personally, I don't care. I don't think that musicians are Satan and that record labels are the anti-christ. I've been legally buying my music online for months now. If I wanna find a new artist i'll preview mp3s on Amazon or use Pandora.
This new way of approaching piracy ONLY affects crooks and thieves.
If you hate music, don't buy it!!! Don't download it. You'll show the labels that theres no money to be made from what they release and that their is no interest in it. Stealing it shows that they can't make money, but that there are people interested in it (why would you steal music that you hate?) and they'll keep making this crap trying to find new ways of marketing/selling it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. December 2008 @ 16:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by atomicxl:
Its about time.
For a long time ISPs have been profiting off of people stealing music and movies. They never asked any questions they just said, "hey this guy is willing to pay more money for a pointlessly fast connection and higher bandwidth caps. I don't know he's doing, I don't wanna know what he's doing. I just wanna fill my pockets up with money and turn a blind eye to anything."
Looks like that attitude is gonna go by the waste side now. Personally, I don't care. I don't think that musicians are Satan and that record labels are the anti-christ. I've been legally buying my music online for months now. If I wanna find a new artist i'll preview mp3s on Amazon or use Pandora.
This new way of approaching piracy ONLY affects crooks and thieves.
If you hate music, don't buy it!!! Don't download it. You'll show the labels that theres no money to be made from what they release and that their is no interest in it. Stealing it shows that they can't make money, but that there are people interested in it (why would you steal music that you hate?) and they'll keep making this crap trying to find new ways of marketing/selling it.
Not really since IPs are mischievous lil things what you will have is random people having their net shut off, in order for proper tracking to work you need a authoritative tier upbaove the public one.
So this really dose nothing as half the ISPs already are owned by big media and they force people into buying media or lose their services.
Copy right gives rights holders absolute control over the content and as such must give absolute power to them so they can enforce their rights...this is flawed and allows right holders to harasses the public.
Copy right has to be changed and it has to change from a distribution model to a profit based model where free distribution is ignored for its societal benefits outweigh any harm done not to mention that you can not truly enforce copy rights without fascist and draconian rules.
I'm all for a 10% tax on the internet and storage devices if the media mafia would realize its place is not packing its own media and price gouging the costumer but let the licensees worry about that and distribution and rake in all that revenue from thousands of multiple sources rather than offering the public 2 or 4 antiquated sources to chose from.
Am I the only one who thinks a tiered net is coming in 10-20 years not one based on subscription or speed but level of encryption, public sector is the lowest tier and have basic encryption, the merchant tier will have better encryption and simple data tracking, the banking tier will have more its like the highest version of the merchant tier, the authoritative tier will police hacking and other net crimes as well as illicit distribution have full tracking and snooping capabilities, governmental and military tiers will be in the highest levels.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2008 @ 16:22
|
|
joebloe12
Junior Member
|
21. December 2008 @ 16:21 |
Link to this message
|
The RIAA will push it, of that I am sure.
But it WILL go into court!
And the courts have not been a friend to the RIAA when it comes to violating privacy laws.
So we will see if this works or not.
Frankly, I think the RIAA has just thrown up a white flag.
They know their suits are not working and it will not be long before this method of spying on people is thrown out of court too.
They are a dying breed, have been for a long time. Let them die.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. December 2008 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by joebloe12:
The RIAA will push it, of that I am sure.
But it WILL go into court!
And the courts have not been a friend to the RIAA when it comes to violating privacy laws.
So we will see if this works or not.
Frankly, I think the RIAA has just thrown up a white flag.
They know their suits are not working and it will not be long before this method of spying on people is thrown out of court too.
They are a dying breed, have been for a long time. Let them die.
I am sure they will get comcast and verison on their side not to mention any other big content owned ISP...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
22. December 2008 @ 05:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by asilay328:
What I do not understand is that if I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth from an ISP, they have no business monitoring how I use that. The internet privacy act protects me from that monitoring unless there is a government issued document for such a watching. The RIAA needs to face the fact that file sharing is here to stay and that if they want a piece of the action then they should have hopped onto the Itunes train during the nabster years.
Great point.......
|
