RIAA Concedes to the public

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ja1484

I'll be damned...so they realized that the world has changed, left them behind, and that if it's information, it's free now.

It's always tough when one industry explodes (IT) and demolishes another (LOLphysical mediaLOL), but instead of fighting it like the dumbasses at the RIAA, you need to figure out a way to make yourself relevant in the new market.

You don't sue filesharers, you become the best filesharing option at a reasonable price in order to provide a benefit to your members and remain involved in this changed industry.

Too bad Apple beat 'em to it.

Apple didn't beat them to it. iTunes would be nothing without the consent of the record labels. Apple isn't a competitor of the record labels. If Apple beat anyone to anything, it's FYE/Sam Goody/etc. And even the availability of reasonably priced legal downloads hasn't slowed down piracy.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: mugs
And even the availability of reasonably priced legal downloads hasn't slowed down piracy.

Mainly because people who wouldn't have bought music before aren't buying it now either.

I still contend that revenue slumps are due to content quality, not the availability of p2p.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy
to a point they can. but again why should the ISP be doing the RIAA's job?

why should the RIAA have the ability (again with no proof) say that someone is uploading music and get the isp to shut down the service?

do you really think that once this is OK'd that teh riaa won't go after the isp if they refuse to shut someone down? not to mention as others said the conflict of interest for the isp.

What do you mean no proof? The RIAA downloads the files and gets the IP address it came from. That's their proof. The ISP can check their own logs for confirmation if they want.

IP addresses are not individual persons.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy
to a point they can. but again why should the ISP be doing the RIAA's job?

why should the RIAA have the ability (again with no proof) say that someone is uploading music and get the isp to shut down the service?

do you really think that once this is OK'd that teh riaa won't go after the isp if they refuse to shut someone down? not to mention as others said the conflict of interest for the isp.

What do you mean no proof? The RIAA downloads the files and gets the IP address it came from. That's their proof. The ISP can check their own logs for confirmation if they want.

IP addresses are not individual persons.

Yeah....people don't seem to understand that if you borrow your buddy's car and run over someone's kid, your buddy isn't at fault...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
IP addresses are not individual persons.

But they do represent the line of demarcation between the service and the customer. The customer is still responsible for how the service is used.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy
to a point they can. but again why should the ISP be doing the RIAA's job?

why should the RIAA have the ability (again with no proof) say that someone is uploading music and get the isp to shut down the service?

do you really think that once this is OK'd that teh riaa won't go after the isp if they refuse to shut someone down? not to mention as others said the conflict of interest for the isp.

What do you mean no proof? The RIAA downloads the files and gets the IP address it came from. That's their proof. The ISP can check their own logs for confirmation if they want.

IP addresses are not individual persons.

So? They're working with ISPs to throttle the accounts, and the IP address + date/time can identify the account. The article says that action will only be taken after repeated warnings, so the owner of the account can't plead ignorance.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: mugs
And even the availability of reasonably priced legal downloads hasn't slowed down piracy.

Mainly because people who wouldn't have bought music before aren't buying it now either.

I still contend that revenue slumps are due to content quality, not the availability of p2p.

If the music is so bad, why are people pirating it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy
to a point they can. but again why should the ISP be doing the RIAA's job?

why should the RIAA have the ability (again with no proof) say that someone is uploading music and get the isp to shut down the service?

do you really think that once this is OK'd that teh riaa won't go after the isp if they refuse to shut someone down? not to mention as others said the conflict of interest for the isp.

What do you mean no proof? The RIAA downloads the files and gets the IP address it came from. That's their proof. The ISP can check their own logs for confirmation if they want.

IP addresses are not individual persons.

So? They're working with ISPs to throttle the accounts, and the IP address + date/time can identify the account. The article says that action will only be taken after repeated warnings, so the owner of the account can't plead ignorance.

I don't deny that. I'm really just pointing out that they can't connect IP's used for copyright infringement to a the actual infringer. Just because they have a report that my IP was used to infringe their copyright doesn't mean that I actually did it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
IP addresses are not individual persons.

But they do represent the line of demarcation between the service and the customer. The customer is still responsible for how the service is used.

Only if you can determine negligence. IP address owners do not necessarily owe a duty to anyone to police the traffic on their network.

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the user was negligent. Simply having an IP address isn't enough to do that, which is evident in the cases the RIAA have dropped against users with open wireless networks.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
IP addresses are not individual persons.

But they do represent the line of demarcation between the service and the customer. The customer is still responsible for how the service is used.

is it legal for me to leave my router wide open?
is it legal for me to let 10 year olds watch tv shows rated for 12 year olds?
If I have an electrical outlet out the outside of my house and a criminal hooks up an air pump to repair his car tire during a getaway am I guilty of aiding and abetting?! What if he puts water from my hose in his radiator?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy
to a point they can. but again why should the ISP be doing the RIAA's job?

why should the RIAA have the ability (again with no proof) say that someone is uploading music and get the isp to shut down the service?

do you really think that once this is OK'd that teh riaa won't go after the isp if they refuse to shut someone down? not to mention as others said the conflict of interest for the isp.

What do you mean no proof? The RIAA downloads the files and gets the IP address it came from. That's their proof. The ISP can check their own logs for confirmation if they want.

IP addresses are not individual persons.

So? They're working with ISPs to throttle the accounts, and the IP address + date/time can identify the account. The article says that action will only be taken after repeated warnings, so the owner of the account can't plead ignorance.

I don't deny that. I'm really just pointing out that they can't connect IP's used for copyright infringement to a the actual infringer. Just because they have a report that my IP was used to infringe their copyright doesn't mean that I actually did it.

This isn't a case of "My neighbor claimed that I had sex with my daughter and I'm now in jail with no evidence"

This is the internet, there is a trail for everything you do, IP connections, server access logs, everything. When they get a report, they see you connecting to a offending server, and downloading a copyrighted file. So when they get a report, they have a pretty good idea what you did.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

So? They're working with ISPs to throttle the accounts, and the IP address + date/time can identify the account. The article says that action will only be taken after repeated warnings, so the owner of the account can't plead ignorance.

I don't deny that. I'm really just pointing out that they can't connect IP's used for copyright infringement to a the actual infringer. Just because they have a report that my IP was used to infringe their copyright doesn't mean that I actually did it.

And, that's what makes the lawsuits more difficult. However, if it's your account that's being used to download or upload illegally, then it's your account that gets throttled.

Originally posted by: Turin39789
is it legal for me to leave my router wide open?
is it legal for me to let 10 year olds watch tv shows rated for 12 year olds?
If I have an electrical outlet out the outside of my house and a criminal hooks up an air pump to repair his car tire during a getaway am I guilty of aiding and abetting?! What if he puts water from my hose in his radiator?

If you let your friend borrow your car, and he gets a parking ticket & doesn't tell you about it, are YOU responsible for paying the ticket when you get a notice? Absolutely. Does the court have to have video surveillance showing you were the one to actually park the car? Of course not. The ticket is attached to whoever's name the car is registered to. That person has the responsibility to make sure it's not parked illegally. You trusted your friend, and that was your mistake. You can ask your friend to pay the ticket, but if he doesn't, you're the one stuck with the ticket.

Likewise, they're going to throttle your account if your neighbor uses your wireless router to illegally download music. Your ISP makes the service available at your house. From that point on, it's YOUR responsibility. The nice thing is that they're going to give you a little warning first. You have the opportunity to correct the problem. If you don't, or you're too stupid to figure out that it's the wireless router, then buh-bye!

I can only hope that the RIAA and ISPs are wildly successful with this. Because, if they are, then maybe the next step will be to go after all the computers that are zombie slaves sending out spam. "Hi, your computer has been sending out tons of spam. We believe it's infected with a virus that has turned it into a zombie slave to some spam-lord. You have 7 days to fix the problem and have up-to-date anti-virus software installed on your computer, else we're terminating your account. Have a nice day, love ISP." (And, fwiw, my ISP absolutely demands that there be up to date anti-virus software running on your computer when you get your account. The installation technician verifies this.)