Beginning immediately, it will no longer sue individual file sharers or do dumb things like harass universities.
Instead, the RIAA will report suspected infringers to ISPs, who will then investigate their customers and issue warnings or implement restrictions as needed. The benefit to ISPs who play along (participation is voluntary) is they'll be able to better control congestion by applying this policy—something they've been trying to do for a while now as their customers keep using more and more bandwidth.
Ars Technica notes:
Suddenly, ISPs gain a tremendous new tool. One study in the UK showed that most people sharing music would stop when made aware that their activity was being tracked and that they were not, in fact, anonymous. Should that hold true in the US, ISPs would presumably see massive decreases in P2P traffic. The customer notifications can be blasted out by e-mail, making the whole process quick and easy for ISPs. As is usual for these sorts of schemes, questions still remain about what sorts of judicial processes will be in place to contest notifications and penalties, and what happens to a household Internet connection when Dad finds his access canceled even though he's never shared a file in his life?
"No more lawsuits: ISPs to work with RIAA, cut off P2P users" [Ars Technica]
(Photo: Getty)
Problem is, there are plenty of other things that are legal to share on P2P... and if you encrypt how will your ISP know the difference? There are other things people do that utilize tons of bandwidth like gaming... so how will they know if you're a gamer or a music pirate? There's no good way to police this without completely invading privacy. The RIAA is assuming everyone is a criminal. Music sucks today anyway. Just don't buy or steal music, works for me.
However, you ever notice the people who get caught and sued only pirated like a dozen songs and they have no real idea what they're doing. It makes me wonder if they ever catch real big music pirates. You know, the people with massive file servers full of music they stream to the world.
]]>I found out recently that I can get CD's (new ones, even) from my local library for free. Borrow, rip to hard drive, voila!
Not that I'd ever commit a crime as heinous as that, of course.
]]>i am too far from the CO to have DSL according to AT&T. they don't offer it.
all the third-party vendors sell bandwidth on the nonexistent DSL. there are no other cable companies here. hence, i have no option should i ever need it.
]]>I actually illegally download copies of CD's I own because I'm too damn lazy to rip them to my MP3 player. I mean... walk all the way out to the car??? Not in this weather! We have hundreds of CD's that we've rip/downloaded so that they can be used in electronic devices. And then there's some CD's that I can't seem keep a copy of. I've bought October Rust FOUR times. I've lost it, had it stolen, broke it, and the kiddo has scratched it up. You bet I feel entitled to download that CD!!! I've more than paid for my right to listen to those cheesy lyrics and monotonous back beat.@TCTH:
]]>I just borrow CD's from friends that still purchase them, and rip/synch.
]]>My dad has a cousin that that has been involved with the music industry since 1973 as a song writer. One of the things that he told me is that an artist or anyone involved in the industry does it the RIAA's way or they don't work. PERIOD! That is why the RIAA hates file sharing and the internet in general. Now, I do download music but being 46 years old it tends to be stuff that would make a 20 something want to jump off of a cliff. Many of the artists that I listen to have found new life in file sharing and some are becoming more than just question marks. I still doubt that Narvel Felts will ever become a household name however.
]]>@parad0x360: I'm glad someone brought this up. What if the ISP doesn't care about the notice from the RIAA and just drops every single one into the trash. Will the RIAA start suing ISP's for allowing the violations to happen? although that would be a major change for once...2 major companies with lots of money going at it in court rather tahn the RIAA against a single mom with 3 kids.
]]>@TCTH: The problem is that even people who pay for music are limited in how they can use music they've purchased. For example, my brother buys cds (TONS of them, or used to before iTunes) then would rip them to his hard drive, and save the cd. This way, if the CD was damaged, he would have a back-up copy without having to re-purchase the songs. What he's been doing is technically illegal as he's making an unauthorised copy of the CD. That and with the stupid DRM shit they put on CDs, you often can't rip a copy of it to your hard drive. What if you want a spare CD for your car? Too bad, Jacko, you gotta buy another one.
Secondly, people WANT a quick and easy way to buy music and until iTunes, this did not really exist on any official scale. The RIAA isn't behind moving music access online where it's affordable and convenient ($0.99 per song, and something like $10.00 per cd), APPLE is behind it because it helps them SELL iPods.
The RIAA's business model is shite, and on top of all that, when you do purchase music legally, something like 3% of the profit actually goes to the artist. The RIAA is foolish and they're stiffing the actual talent.
That is all!
]]>And for those of us who actually understand TCP/IP and how the internet works, this will not stop any of us from still doing whatever we want on the internet.
]]>I think someone up there asked a question that was totally ignored... why don't y'all just PAY for the music and the movies? Why should anyone be expected to provide your entertainment for nothing?
]]>I have no knowledge of the laws regulating companies providing DSL service, but the cable privacy laws make it very difficult (and often very expensive) for a cable provider to turn over any personal information without a court order. If Comcast turned your info over to the RIAA - you might want to mention that to an attorney who is familiar with these laws. All of a sudden, you may find yourself with a new best friend.
Really, this probably has more to do with frustration on the RIAA's part that many ISP's are not cooperating. Most cable companies are far more worried about the FCC and loosing their charter than they are about the RIAA. The "notification" approach does have a key difference - the communication is only going one way.
]]>Keep up the good work Chris!
]]>So, I'm thinking that with the economic downturn, they can't afford to keep the lawyers running lawsuits AND pay their execs obscene amounts of money to be completely out of touch with reality, and they picked the execs over the lawyers. And they're trying to pass the bill to the ISPs.
]]>Like AFACT Suing IINet in Australia,
http://whirlpool.net.au/go.cfm?article=6567
A friend of mine got caught and his ISP (Mediacom) temporarily banned him. He called them up and said he wouldn't do it anymore and they let him back on. Now he recently changed his internet tier to a slower speed because he doesn't need it as much and now the ISP gets a little less money, whether or not the bandwidth savings is worth it to them or not we'll probably never know.
]]>Also, it's great to see Chris posting again, and with an important piece of information no less.
]]>On a second thought while my usage is completly legal and I pay for everything I view or listen to mostly just to avoid viruses. Can these ISP really track and log my acticity legally?
]]>As a normal web user I frequent Netflix, abc.com and fox.com and stream a large amount of info completly legal. I also use rhapsody and save every file to my hard drive so I can share with my media extenders. What program can be used to monitor bandwith and does anyone know if Verizon currently has a cap?
]]>It's really not. Now instead of appealing to the courts, you have no recourse.
For many people who work from home (either VPN every so often) or work from home full time, their ISP cutting off access could mean essentially loss of livelyhood. Not every place has multiple broadband offerings either.
I'm waiting for the first person to be wrongly accused (it's happened before) and need to move so they could work. I'm hoping for a super lawsuit.
]]>You'll never catch me
]]>It also has a lot of other cool features, but it isn't particularly easy to install since you have to flash your router's firmware.
]]>time for some socialism, eh RIAA?
]]>What good program(s) are there that reliably show a user how much bandwidth they are using?
]]>It's cheaper to just pay for your movies :)
]]>Wasn't it recently made a felony to download copyrighted material without the express consent of the owner (in the U.S.)?
I get the feeling the lawsuits and criminal charges will still be coming. It just won't be only from the RIAA.
]]>/er, speaking for myself and not my employer, of course.
]]>so, if the isps treat this the same way, then theres a warning before the $2000 settlement out of court
]]>I dont know about you but I dont want some ISP Bot blocking something because it thinks it may be copyrighted, nor do i want my account killed for the same reason.
How about we abolish the RIAA and move on instead?
]]>@rpm773: FWIW, I'm paying a lot to have top-tier internet speeds at home and that's specificly so my [completely legitimate] p2p activities don't gum up other things like Tivo synchronization, online gaming, etc.
If they're going to go all narc on the p2p stuff then all of a sudden I don't need such high bandwidth. Hell, I'd probably be able to go back to dialup when the party being over.
]]>When i was at college, i got a letter for distributing anti-virus software via kazaa from the school on behalf of symantec.
It doesnt make it right, but the ISPs acted as a buffer. So time warner only gave me a warning and my school only made me write a 1000 word essay. I found these both a lot better than being sued.
]]>In fact the 1000's of cases they have currently going are still in effect. Give them time to wrap those up and they'll start again. Add to that if they partner with ISP's it will be even easier for them to target individuals.
]]>We've been looking at DSL as well since FIOS isn't in our area yet. I won't make the switch until I feel I have no other option. For now, I stick with Comcrap.
]]>For instance Left4Dead requires a 5gb download if you buy it off Steam (add another 4 if you want to try the demo first), if I were using say AT&T that's my entire months 'quota' in a matter of hours. Fortunately my ISP isn't trying to force any limits on my use, in fact they upped my speed from 6mb to 10.
]]>@rpm773: It's to deter usage. See, ISP's sold a service for many years that they couldn't really provide, calling their internet plans "Unlimited". When customers suddenly started using their serice unlimitedly, it caused problems. The companies spent their money on marketing instead of upgrading their infastructure, and now it's starting to show.
Notice hw they don't advertize "Unlimited" internet anymore?
]]>I actually think it is an interesting Idea, the RIAA has much fewer entities to hassle and a market will likely develop for an ISP that is very 'laissez faire' with its network traffic (for a premium of course) and just pays off the RIAA.
Not sure if this strategy will work, but its a decent stop-gap until the industry can get itself into the 21st century.
]]>I know years ago, when I had mindspring dialup, they gave me the business for downloading several Linux distros over dialup.... I thought unlimited meant unlimited!
But, as ISPs go, the less bandwidth you use, the better it is for them. This is the whole problem behind ISPs using traffic shaping to hinder torrents and such.
]]>