RIAA Concedes to the public

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The nice thing about this: The RIAA simply needs to give the ISP the IP address where the offending files can be found. No name is needed, no address is needed, all those places where the mistakes can be made are eliminated. And, if someone has an open wireless router, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be throttled - if their account is being used for piracy, it's their account that gets throttled, regardless of which computer those files are being downloaded to.

If someone breaks into my house, steals my gun, and kills someone in my house then should I be charged for breaking and entering, robbery, and murder because it is my house and my gun? I believe that the real people causing the crimes should get punished.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Cogman

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.

Ok, honestly what other service do we have that you could break the law with it? Gas, water, electric?

If I electrocute small children with my home electricity people aren't going to say "Oh, we better cut off his electricity supply for life" They will say "Send that man to the chair!" Other then that, if I was just to shock random things (not kill) and got caught, they wouldn't take away my electricity, only fine me for each damage done to another person. Potentially, they will give me some jail time as well.

Same for gas, water, ect. Using any of these utilities in an illegal manner doesn't get you a ban for life, only a fine. Heck, even if you deal drugs over the phone you don't get banned from all telecommunications (and people don't call for that) instead you get jailed for drug dealing.

How about mail. Do people bitch that the P.O. will help law enforcement if someone's sending drugs in the mail? The U.S. Mail does not allow its customers to use their service to break the law. As far as your example with the phone - the drugs weren't sent over the phone. However, when people are caught doing many illegal activities online, they often find their use of the internet restricted. Use of the internet isn't considered essential.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
What the hell? How did you conclude that?

I told you what I want. I want them to provide adequate proof and I want the punishments to be reasonable. How is that arguing that the RIAA should not have any power to enforce copyrights?

Geez...it is not wonder this argument is taking forever. You are not on the same page with me at all.

You havent defined adequate proof nor shown the RIAA or ISP's wont have that in hand when they ban a user after the third letter.

You are correct. I have not defined adequate proof because I am not an expert in that area, but what I do know is that there are tons of exceptions where mistakes can be made and many of them have been stated already in this thread. There needs to be a lot less room for mistakes. I also cannot prove that the RIAA or ISP's will not have that in hand when they ban someone simply because I cannot predict the future. Likewise, you cannot predict the future either so there is no point in me asking you to prove to me that they will have such evidence in hand. Therefore, all we can do is speculate based on the histories of the RIAA and ISPs. Those histories really don't leave me with a lot of confidence...

If you have more confidence than I do then that is fine, but why are you fighting me with the rest of this stuff? It is not like I am trying to convince you that piracy should be legalized.

Well the previous model appeared to be sue anybody they can prove was doing something. That means the dorm room leecher stealing 5K songs a month to granny who has a grandkid who stole 5 songs one night while bored at Christmas Eve dinner. That opens one up for more mistakes because the spectrum of potential abusers is so much larger.

The new model appears to target only the biggest abusers. I expect mistakes, there are always mistakes. But I dont think it will be as bad as people are expecting.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.

1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.

Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.

2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.

The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.

And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.

Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The nice thing about this: The RIAA simply needs to give the ISP the IP address where the offending files can be found. No name is needed, no address is needed, all those places where the mistakes can be made are eliminated. And, if someone has an open wireless router, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be throttled - if their account is being used for piracy, it's their account that gets throttled, regardless of which computer those files are being downloaded to.

If someone breaks into my house, steals my gun, and kills someone in my house then should I be charged for breaking and entering, robbery, and murder because it is my house and my gun? I believe that the real people causing the crimes should get punished.

That's a ridiculous argument. There are no legal charges involved in this arrangement with the RIAA, your ISP, and your internet connection. If your internet connection is being used for illegal purposes, then your internet connection is throttled. Period. That's the end.

If you think about it, they're not really targeting individual users - they're targeting individual connections. They don't care if it's mommy and daddy's computer or if it's their neighbor's computer who is stealing their broadband. You're allowing your connection to be used for illegal purposes. And, according to this model, you're given 3 warnings. Choose to ignore them & you lose your broadband.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well the previous model appeared to be sue anybody they can prove was doing something. That means the dorm room leecher stealing 5K songs a month to granny who has a grandkid who stole 5 songs one night while bored at Christmas Eve dinner. That opens one up for more mistakes because the spectrum of potential abusers is so much larger.

The new model appears to target only the biggest abusers. I expect mistakes, there are always mistakes. But I dont think it will be as bad as people are expecting.

I hope you are right, but I see no reason why we should have to hope. What I want is to know for sure. I want laws in place which ensure that 13 year old timmy isn't going to get his family's speed reduced from an ISP after a single offense of sharing a handful of songs. As it stands, that doesn't exist. It should.

Combine that with the history of the RIAA and their lawsuits and I hope you have a better understanding of where I am coming from and why I lack confidence. Trust me. I really wish I could rely on them to do the reasonable thing. I really do, but I can't and it is 100% their own fault.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The nice thing about this: The RIAA simply needs to give the ISP the IP address where the offending files can be found. No name is needed, no address is needed, all those places where the mistakes can be made are eliminated. And, if someone has an open wireless router, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be throttled - if their account is being used for piracy, it's their account that gets throttled, regardless of which computer those files are being downloaded to.

If someone breaks into my house, steals my gun, and kills someone in my house then should I be charged for breaking and entering, robbery, and murder because it is my house and my gun? I believe that the real people causing the crimes should get punished.

That's a ridiculous argument. There are no legal charges involved in this arrangement with the RIAA, your ISP, and your internet connection. If your internet connection is being used for illegal purposes, then your internet connection is throttled. Period. That's the end.

If you think about it, they're not really targeting individual users - they're targeting individual connections. They don't care if it's mommy and daddy's computer or if it's their neighbor's computer who is stealing their broadband. You're allowing your connection to be used for illegal purposes. And, according to this model, you're given 3 warnings. Choose to ignore them & you lose your broadband.

According to this model, you get banned after 3 warnings but your speed can be throttled after a single warning. As for the rest, they should care about who is actually committing the offense. That is who they are punishing. Since when has it been ok to punish people that did nothing wrong?

It is really easy for you to make that argument when it is not your connection isn't it? I'll bet you would be singing a different tune if you got one of those letters in the mail and finding out that your speed is being throttled when you did nothing wrong. Of course, you will just quote me here and give me some excuse as to why that would never happen to you right?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.

1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.

Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.

2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.

The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.

And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.

Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

Absolutely brilliant! All that's left for you to realize is that to target the actual crimes, you simply cut off the connection to the individuals breaking the law, not the entire network.

What the heck kind of proof do you guys want? Someone from the RIAA or ISP breaking into the house and cloning the computer to prove that the contents of the computer are files being illegally shared? Or, shouldn't "oh look, another pirated file from this IP address, that's the 500th one" be enough?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

Absolutely brilliant! All that's left for you to realize is that to target the actual crimes, you simply cut off the connection to the individuals breaking the law, not the entire network.

What the heck kind of proof do you guys want? Someone from the RIAA or ISP breaking into the house and cloning the computer to prove that the contents of the computer are files being illegally shared? Or, shouldn't "oh look, another pirated file from this IP address, that's the 500th one" be enough?

Well, they are skipping the court system now so I guess they technically do not need to provide proof at all if they don't want to. The only thing to stop them is the ISPs. Why would they care if any proof was provided or not as long as it is a user that uses a lot of bandwidth? They would just rather assume that the user is a pirate and be done with it. That way, they only piss off one customer while freeing up bandwidth for a bunch of other customers. You obviously do not believe that will happen, but can you prove to me why it won't? Can you prove to me why they simply won't go with what they believe the odds are and what it results in more revenue?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.

1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.

Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.

2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.

The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.

And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.

Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

We ban entire subnets from China for this very reason. They are a source of infestation for our network. Net neutrality is like anarachy. Basically everything goes, damn the consequences.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

Absolutely brilliant! All that's left for you to realize is that to target the actual crimes, you simply cut off the connection to the individuals breaking the law, not the entire network.

What the heck kind of proof do you guys want? Someone from the RIAA or ISP breaking into the house and cloning the computer to prove that the contents of the computer are files being illegally shared? Or, shouldn't "oh look, another pirated file from this IP address, that's the 500th one" be enough?

Well, they are skipping the court system now so I guess they technically do not need to provide proof at all if they don't want to. The only thing to stop them is the ISPs. Why would they care if any proof was provided or not as long as it is a user that uses a lot of bandwidth? They would just rather assume that the user is a pirate and be done with it. That way, they only piss off one customer while freeing up bandwidth for a bunch of other customers. You obviously do not believe that will happen, but can you prove to me why it won't? Can you prove to me why they simply won't go with what they believe the odds are and what it results in more revenue?

That is because this is a civil matter between 3 parties. It is like the RIAA telling a club owner a band cant play certain songs they dont have rights to. The RIAA doesnt beyond doubt proof to tell the club to adhere to their request. The club will relay this information and if the band refuses tell them to look elsewhere to play.

If the ISP see's any kind of real bandwidth release from banning that user. That user was upto something. People act like these ISP's have no idea what is going on with their network. This isnt 1994 and dialup and nobody knew shit about shit.

 

[videogames101]

The dark cloud has finally lifted.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

Absolutely brilliant! All that's left for you to realize is that to target the actual crimes, you simply cut off the connection to the individuals breaking the law, not the entire network.

What the heck kind of proof do you guys want? Someone from the RIAA or ISP breaking into the house and cloning the computer to prove that the contents of the computer are files being illegally shared? Or, shouldn't "oh look, another pirated file from this IP address, that's the 500th one" be enough?

Well, they are skipping the court system now so I guess they technically do not need to provide proof at all if they don't want to. The only thing to stop them is the ISPs. Why would they care if any proof was provided or not as long as it is a user that uses a lot of bandwidth? They would just rather assume that the user is a pirate and be done with it. That way, they only piss off one customer while freeing up bandwidth for a bunch of other customers. You obviously do not believe that will happen, but can you prove to me why it won't? Can you prove to me why they simply won't go with what they believe the odds are and what it results in more revenue?

That is because this is a civil matter between 3 parties. It is like the RIAA telling a club owner a band cant play certain songs they dont have rights to. The RIAA doesnt beyond doubt proof to tell the club to adhere to their request. The club will relay this information and if the band refuses tell them to look elsewhere to play.

If the ISP see's any kind of real bandwidth release from banning that user. That user was upto something. People act like these ISP's have no idea what is going on with their network. This isnt 1994 and dialup and nobody knew shit about shit.

Unfortunately, most of the human population doesn't know shit about shit.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.

1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.

Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.

2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.

The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.

And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.

Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

We ban entire subnets from China for this very reason. They are a source of infestation for our network. Net neutrality is like anarachy. Basically everything goes, damn the consequences.

The internet isn't owned by anyone, and CERTAINLY not the government, it is a network which should neutral because no one can claim ownership.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
We ban entire subnets from China for this very reason. They are a source of infestation for our network. Net neutrality is like anarachy. Basically everything goes, damn the consequences.

How can you conclude that net neutrality laws are anarchy when they have yet to be defined? Like most things, I believe that moderation is the key. I don't want the everything goes version, but I don't want the businesses to be able to have too much control either. All data should be treated equally unless it can be proved that it is being used illegally and that's that. This country relies far too much on the internet now to allow ISPs and orgs like the RIAA to have that kind of power.



Anyways, I am done here. I might read your response, but I will not be writing one of my own. I understand what you want and I really don't have a problem with you getting it, but I am not willing to relinquish my rights just so $10 is knocked off your monthly bill and you can download at speeds that save you hardly any time at all compared to what you get now. That is assuming your bill will even be reduced and your download speeds will truly be increased if you get what you want. That isn't guaranteed you know. I really am not asking for much. I don't want to be punished for something I didn't do and I am tired of people being handed strict punishments for minor infractions. It just isn't right.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.

1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.

Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.

2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.

The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.

And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.

Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

We ban entire subnets from China for this very reason. They are a source of infestation for our network. Net neutrality is like anarachy. Basically everything goes, damn the consequences.

The internet isn't owned by anyone, and CERTAINLY not the government, it is a network which should neutral because no one can claim ownership.

Oh yeah? Try getting on that ownerless internet without an ISP

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
According to this model, you get banned after 3 warnings but your speed can be throttled after a single warning. As for the rest, they should care about who is actually committing the offense. That is who they are punishing. Since when has it been ok to punish people that did nothing wrong?

It is really easy for you to make that argument when it is not your connection isn't it? I'll bet you would be singing a different tune if you got one of those letters in the mail and finding out that your speed is being throttled when you did nothing wrong. Of course, you will just quote me here and give me some excuse as to why that would never happen to you right?

No, it's never going to happen to me; I don't have a wide open wireless router. In fact, I see no reason in my house to even have a wireless router; the wires are simply too easy to run. And, my kids can step away from their laptops long enough to go to the bathroom; they don't have to drag the laptops into the bathroom so they can stay on myspace or facebook. However something similar did happen many years ago. Adelphia locked us out of our email accounts. Turns out that our kids' computer got nailed by a virus & was being used to send out all sorts of spam. I fixed the problem. The ISP returned my email accounts to me.

According to your model, I should be able to pay my ISP, then allow my neighbor to "steal" my bandwidth all he wants. Then, my ISP shouldn't be able to do anything until after they come to my neighborhood and prove unconditionally that it's my neighbor, and they should go after them. That's as retarded of an argument as trying to argue your way out of a parking violation by "it wasn't me who parked there. You can't issue the ticket until you can prove unconditionally that I was driving the car when it was parked at that location. I, ummm, lent the car to a neighbor. I forgot which one. Yeah, that's it, my neighbor did it."

Bullshit. It's right in your TOS. You're responsible for what's being downloaded and uploaded on your connection. Pleading ignorance and idiocy (leaving a wide open wireless connection) should not prevent the ISP from throttling your connection. How about taking some responsibility.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.

1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.

Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.

2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.

The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.

And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.

Banning entire networks for that reason is stupid. Just because piracy takes place on those networks doesn't mean that a lot of good legal things take place on them too like many forms of business for example. This goes back to my desire for net neutrality laws. I want to those laws to prohibit performing mass banning and punishment for those reasons. If I want to buy something in another country or do some form of data transfer whose source resides in another country (surf web pages, transfer files legally, etc) then I should be able to do it. I shouldn't be prohibited because there are people in other countries on that network which happen to share music and movies to others connected to that network. No, the real answer is to keep that network open and only target the actual crimes taking place. That is the right thing and the fair thing to do.

We ban entire subnets from China for this very reason. They are a source of infestation for our network. Net neutrality is like anarachy. Basically everything goes, damn the consequences.

The internet isn't owned by anyone, and CERTAINLY not the government, it is a network which should neutral because no one can claim ownership.

Oh yeah? Try getting on that ownerless internet without an ISP

Well, in truth, this is correct, but there are so many ISPs that one can hardly change anything because the other ISPs won't let them. (Not to mention the ISP system sucks)

 

[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.

How could the RIAA go after the ISPs? The Telecommunications Act of 1996 protects ISPs from liability for the copyright infringements of their users.

 

[SirStev0]

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

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh yeah? Try getting on that ownerless internet without an ISP

It doesn't mean they own it, they own access to it. To say that they own it would mean they own all subsidiaries - something that is clearly and profoundly not true.

To make this statement even stupider, you would have to assume that the "internet" is like a house - that they own it. It's not - it's just an interconnected network of computers. It is by definition owner-less or at least at some level owned by everyone connected, and not by the ISPs. If you take the example of two networks connected together by an ISP, it would be correct to assume that they (ISP) equally own the link between the two networks as the owners of the routers/switches on the other side. But that's just it - they only own the link between the networks, not the services or data that goes over the line. The ISP maybe owns a few routers or switches, but that isn't "the internet".

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Oh yeah? Try getting on that ownerless internet without an ISP

It doesn't mean they own it, they own access to it. To say that they own it would mean they own all subsidiaries - something that is clearly and profoundly not true.

To make this statement even stupider, you would have to assume that the "internet" is like a house - that they own it. It's not - it's just an interconnected network of computers. It is by definition owner-less or at least at some level owned by everyone connected, and not by the ISPs. If you take the example of two networks connected together by an ISP, it would be correct to assume that they (ISP) equally own the link between the two networks as the owners of the routers/switches on the other side. But that's just it - they only own the link between the networks, not the services or data that goes over the line. The ISP maybe owns a few routers or switches, but that isn't "the internet".

This.

 

[Red Squirrel]

This is almost hard to believe. It could also be a trick by the RIAA to encourage people to start sharing all their songs, having no fear, so they can then nab a bunch of people at once to make some cash in a failing economy. We'll see. In fact, the timing of this is rather suspicious.

Though I think it should be at the discretion of the ISP to decide what to do, they should not be forced to follow suit, in fact the RIAA should not even have the right to contact ISPs about other customers. That's the problem with the RIAA they have way too much power. As an individual I can't call up a random ISP and ask them to slow down some other random person's internet. They'll tell me where to go, and it's a good thing. so why should the RIAA have the power to tell ISPs what to do?

Though if it's not some kind of trick and it's true then it's good to hear - better then retarded lawsuits and innocents losing their life to live on the streets. When downloading music or other pirated stuff I don't care how fast it's going, I leave it overnight and go to bed, so my isp can throttle me to 1kbps if they want (ironic I say this since I work for my isp and I have access to that ). Lot of ISPs do throttle anyway though, so their speeds may get hit before the RIAA even gets the ISP to do it.

 

[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.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
This is almost hard to believe. It could also be a trick by the RIAA to encourage people to start sharing all their songs, having no fear, so they can then nab a bunch of people at once to make some cash in a failing economy. We'll see. In fact, the timing of this is rather suspicious.

:laugh: What? RIAA lawsuits have never been about generating revenue. I would guess that they lose money on them, considering that the settlements are usually a couple thousand dollars. They've always been intended as a deterrent - the RIAA hopes that the possibility of a lawsuit will scare people straight. They don't need to encourage people to start sharing so they can nab a bunch of people at once. They could catch millions of people any day of the week.