RIAA Concedes to the public

[Pegun]

The music industry's highly controversial strategy of suing customers for file sharing has ended--for the most part.
The Recording Industry Association of America said Friday that it no longer plans to wage a legal assault against people who it suspects of pirating digital music files. What the RIAA should have said, though, is that it won't go after most people who illegally file share. My music industry sources say that the RIAA will continue to file lawsuits against the most egregious offenders--the person who "downloads 5,000 or 6,000 songs a month is still going to get sued," a source at a major record company told me.
The strategy of suing music fans has long been criticized by artists, consumers, and even some record-label executives. Critics have said it alienates music buyers and more importantly has been ineffectual. Now, the music industry has a new form of protection: Internet service providers.
According to a story in The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), which broke the news about the RIAA's new strategy, unidentified Internet service providers have agreed to "reduce the service," to chronic file-sharers. Exactly what a reduction of service may include isn't specified, but likely means ISPs will limit a user's bandwidth, a practice known as throttling.
The way the new enforcement system will work is that the RIAA will alert an ISP that a customer appears to be file sharing. The ISP will then notify the person that he or she appears to be file sharing. If the behavior by the customer doesn't change, then more e-mails will be sent. If the customer ignores these e-mails, then the ISP may choose to reduce service.
Under the plan, which was brokered by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the music industry will not know the customer's identity. I doubt this will be enough to prevent some Internet rights groups from complaining. The fact of the matter is that ISPs have now gone into the enforcement business, and this has always been one of the greatest fears of those who have wanted ISPs to remain neutral.
Was litigating against file sharers an effective deterrent? That depends on who you ask. To many music fans, the practice was a loathsome and heavy-handed approach that only served to inspire people to resist efforts to keep them from obtaining music. To those in the music industry, it helped alert the public following the Napster era--when many consumers believed there was nothing wrong with sharing music files--that pirating music harmed artists and record stores, and was also against the law.
But according to most of the data, the lawsuits didn't prevent illegal file sharing from growing. At the same time, the strategy also alienated scores of potential music buyers.
The truth is that the music industry no longer needs the RIAA to chase after large numbers of file sharers. Sure, music piracy still thrives but is less and less about the mainstream. The industry has learned that the answer to piracy isn't to intimidate people into obtaining music legally. The recording companies have made music available in ways that actually appeal to consumers.
If people don't want to pay for music, they can go to MySpace Music, YouTube or iMeem and listen to all the ad-supported streaming songs they want. And a huge number of digital music fans are willing to pay for songs at iTunes.
You can bet the ISP deal is going to be controversial one, but before going on to the next fight, I think music fans should celebrate the end of a dark period in the industry's history.

Original Link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10126914-93.html

Hurray! No more lawsuits against old ladies who never owned a computer!

 

[CptCrunch]

At first I thought this was going to be from The Onion

 

[Turin39789]

off to download 4999 songs before the end of the month!

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: CptCrunch
At first I thought this was going to be from The Onion

Thought the same thing. :laugh:

KT

 

[darkxshade]

If it's too good to be true...

 

[0roo0roo]

isps were just looking for a reason to throttle people.

 

[tk149]

/Checks date. Taps watch.

Nope, not April 1st. Very confused.

 

[Xavier434]

Another article on the subject.

RIAA

After years of suing thousands of people for allegedly stealing music via the Internet, the recording industry is set to drop its legal assault as it searches for more effective ways to combat online music piracy.

The decision represents an abrupt shift of strategy for the industry, which has opened legal proceedings against about 35,000 people since 2003. Critics say the legal offensive ultimately did little to stem the tide of illegally downloaded music. And it created a public-relations disaster for the industry, whose lawsuits targeted, among others, several single mothers, a dead person and a 13-year-old girl.
[us album sales]

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers. The trade group said it has hashed out preliminary agreements with major ISPs under which it will send an email to the provider when it finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.

Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

The RIAA said it has agreements in principle with some ISPs, but declined to say which ones. But ISPs, which are increasingly cutting content deals of their own with entertainment companies, may have more incentive to work with the music labels now than in previous years.

The new approach dispenses with one of the most contentious parts of the lawsuit strategy, which involved filing lawsuits requiring ISPs to disclose the identities of file sharers. Under the new strategy, the RIAA would forward its emails to the ISPs without demanding to know the customers' identity.

Though the industry group is reserving the right to sue people who are particularly heavy file sharers, or who ignore repeated warnings, it expects its lawsuits to decline to a trickle. The group stopped filing mass lawsuits early this fall.

It isn't clear that the new strategy will work or how effective the collaboration with the ISPs will be. "There isn't any silver-bullet anti-piracy solution," said Eric Garland, president of BigChampagne LLC, a piracy consulting company.

Mr. Garland said he likes the idea of a solution that works more with consumers. In the years since the RIAA began its mass legal action, "It has become abundantly clear that the carrot is far more important than the stick." Indeed, many in the music industry felt the lawsuits had outlived their usefulness.

"I'd give them credit for stopping what they've already been doing because it's been so destructive," said Brian Toder, who represents a Minnesota mother involved in a high-profile file-sharing case. But his client isn't off the hook. The RIAA said it plans to continue with outstanding lawsuits.

Over the summer, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began brokering an agreement between the recording industry and the ISPs that would address both sides' piracy concerns. "We wanted to end the litigation," said Steven Cohen, Mr. Cuomo's chief of staff. "It's not helpful."

As the RIAA worked to cut deals with individual ISPs, Mr. Cuomo's office started working on a broader plan under which major ISPs would agree to work to prevent illegal file-sharing.

The RIAA believes the new strategy will reach more people, which itself is a deterrent. "Part of the issue with infringement is for people to be aware that their actions are not anonymous," said Mitch Bainwol, the group's chairman.

Mr. Bainwol said that while he thought the litigation had been effective in some regards, new methods were now available to the industry. "Over the course of five years, the marketplace has changed," he said in an interview. Litigation, he said, was successful in raising the public's awareness that file-sharing is illegal, but now he wants to try a strategy he thinks could prove more successful.

The RIAA says piracy would have been even worse without the lawsuits. Citing data from consulting firm NPD Group Inc., the industry says the percentage of Internet users who download music over the Internet has remained fairly constant, hovering around 19% over the past few years. However, the volume of music files shared over the Internet has grown steadily.

Meanwhile, music sales continue to fall. In 2003, the industry sold 656 million albums. In 2007, the number fell to 500 million CDs and digital albums, plus 844 million paid individual song downloads -- hardly enough to make up the decline in album sales.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Great news, except for the bit about our ISPs becoming morality police....

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

What? The RIAA does something semi-rational?

Impossible....

 

[SMOGZINN]

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

That is the kind of thing I am afraid of too. That is too much power and control.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

That is the kind of thing I am afraid of too. That is too much power and control.

I may be wrong, but what's bad about the company providing internet service, cut their service to you because they are informed that you are doing something illegal on their network?

 

[SunnyD]

So basically, once or twice a year go out and download ALL new releases since the last time. I doubt an ISP is going to keep dogging you if you download 30,000 songs a couple times a year.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

That is the kind of thing I am afraid of too. That is too much power and control.

I may be wrong, but what's bad about the company providing internet service, cut their service to you because they are informed that you are doing something illegal on their network?

Because they have not proven anything. All they have done is "inform" the ISP. That is too much power imo. How will you feel if you get a letter in the mail from your ISP accusing you of piracy when you have no idea how or why you got that letter? The RIAA is trying to monitor millions and millions of people. Mistakes will most certainly be made and we should be able to defend ourselves without losing our account access through our ISPs.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

Wow, dmccowen has 4 accounts now? :Q

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I may be wrong, but what's bad about the company providing internet service, cut their service to you because they are informed that you are doing something illegal on their network?

Agreed. If it were any other service provided to people, people would be wondering why the service was allowing their customers to use it to break the law.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

Thats one way of looking at it. RIAA is moving to an arena with a lower burden of proof.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I may be wrong, but what's bad about the company providing internet service, cut their service to you because they are informed that you are doing something illegal on their network?

Agreed. If it were any other service provided to people, people would be wondering why the service was allowing their customers to use it to break the law.

But do you believe that they should be required to provide a much more adequate amount of proof before the consumer is negatively effected? They are basically moving away from the courts so that they do not have to do that as much. They are moving away from what is designed to protect our rights. It just doesn't seem like a good thing for anyone whether you pirate or not.

We really need to get this whole net neutrality thing kicking in high gear so that the limits are clearly defined. As it stands right now, it feels like a chaotic feeding frenzy on both sides of the fence. That is one of the thing I am hoping the Big O does while he is in office. We need more order and clarity in this area.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
I may be wrong, but what's bad about the company providing internet service, cut their service to you because they are informed that you are doing something illegal on their network?

Because they have not proven anything. All they have done is "inform" the ISP. That is too much power imo. How will you feel if you get a letter in the mail from your ISP accusing you of piracy when you have no idea how or why you got that letter? The RIAA is trying to monitor millions and millions of people. Mistakes will most certainly be made and we should be able to defend ourselves without losing our account access through our ISPs.

So, you think every case should be tried in a court of law instead? Isn't that what's already happening & people are complaining that it takes up too much of the court's time? And, isn't that what's already happening and people are complaining that innocent people have to pay exorbitant costs to defend themselves in court? Or, do you think the record companies should just say "screw it. We're not going to protect our property. Pirate all you want."

It's not as if the moment the ISP gets a letter from the RIAA that they're going to knock you offline. You have time to respond. Probably 999 times out of 1000, the person is going to actually be sharing songs online. And, that 1 time out of 1000, the person gets plenty of time to dispute it.

Oh, and in the case of grandma who doesn't even own a computer, well, I guess it solves that problem too. They can shut off her internet connection.

So, why are you really opposed to this? Would you be in favor of ISP's blocking people who are uploading and downloading child pornography? Yeah? Is it because you would support rules to stop child pornography, but don't support any rules to stop piracy?

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: CptCrunch
At first I thought this was going to be from The Onion

+1

 

[pontifex]

Meanwhile, music sales continue to fall. In 2003, the industry sold 656 million albums. In 2007, the number fell to 500 million CDs and digital albums, plus 844 million paid individual song downloads -- hardly enough to make up the decline in album sales.

so wait, could it have anything to do with shitty music?

are those individual song numbers higher than last year? maybe people only want that 1 good/popular song off an album and not the rest of the crap thats on it? what about these places that offer unlimited downloads for a set price, like the thing with the Zune?

i can see several different reasons for low sales besides piracy...

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Instead, the Recording Industry Association of America said it plans to try an approach that relies on the cooperation of Internet-service providers.
...
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.

In other words RIAA now controls who can and can not access the internet. Should an ISP fail to kick off anyone that RIAA accuses of fileshareing (with out actually needing proof) then RIAA will sue the ISP. I?m sure this will be followed by an ISP blacklist of people that they are not allowed to give access to. This will be much easier the suing every individual.

That is the kind of thing I am afraid of too. That is too much power and control.

add conflict of interest of isp companies also being media companies now and wanting to cheap out on bandwidth obligations and its a dirty mess

 

[bearxor]

I would consider giving the ISP the right to disconnect your service is the ideal solution to this problem. They're still only going to go after major offenders and the fact is, the ISP has the right to discontinue your service whenever they feel like it, regardless of the reason.

Internet Access is not a constitutional or human right. It's not the government or the courts responsibility to govern in this area. If someone gets disconnected from one ISP for file sharing and then goes to another ISP and gets booted for the same thing again, it's the definition of insanity.

I'm sure the RIAA isn't just going to be able to inform the ISP and the ISP says 'ok, we'll take your word for it' and throttle the bandwidth. There will have to be some burden of proof from the RIAA that X.X.X.X was doing X at this time and then leave it to the ISP to handle. I'm happy that this situation, at least for now, is out of the government's hands.

 

[ballmode]

finally, now we can fight the next war