RIAA strikes again - ISPs to start policing on their own

[BasketCase]

Get that Ayn Rand nonsense out of my face.

If I'm not downloading CP or plans for suitcase bombs they can back off.

Heheh. Nope. I be all up in yo' grille, homes. Word.

When you're in a public place such as the Internet, there's no reason to expect privacy. Always assume everything you send over it can be read by everybody. Mostly because a very few people out there are crooks who don't care about privacy rights.

...er...is postal privacy/communication privacy not protected by the american constitution (I know it's by the german constitution, but don't know about the american)?

Protected by the American Constitution? I don't think so. Protected by law? Sometimes. It depends on the communications medium. Far as I know, it's a criminal offense in the U.S. to open somebody else's paper mail or interfere with paper mail delivery. For phone and Internet connections, it's different. The apparent fact that the U.S. government doesn't require a warrant to tap an Internet line came to me only yesterday--and as a complete surprise, at that.

So how come Bell isn't allowed to listen into my phone conversations?

Because it's over a phone line.

Isn't that kinda what they did with megaupload? I mean for all it's piracy that site did have legit downloads too, like a lot of the mods made on this forum were put up there I think.

Here's a bit of irony: SOPA would have prevented MegaUpload from getting shut down; one of SOPA's clauses was this: if you get caught hosting copyrighted material, the copyright holder MUST FIRST inform you that you've been caught and give you an opportunity to remove the offending material. If you do, you are immune from further prosecution over that piece of material.

Oh, and it can't assume that every pirated product is a lost sale, either. Every pirate I know (which is a LOT) wouldn't buy the product if they couldn't pirate it. So no lost sales.

Uh, no. True, I should not (and did not) assume that every pirated product is a lost sale, but at the same time, you shouldn't assume that every pirated product is NOT a lost sale.

You really dont seem to get the major difference here. The ISP would have to first off see a customer downloading a file then <etc etc etc>

And I'm telling you I've seen them do it. Doesn't matter if you think it's expensive or prohibitively difficult. They have already done it many times.

Mise mentioned encryption? Seen that. Seen it fail. The weak point for pirates is in a place encryption can't be used: pirates have to communicate what they've got to those who want it. That's the way Iran cracked into the Tor system: by creating fake certification keys (including Google....) and breaking into the endpoints before the encryption was in. You can't encrypt your FaceBook page, and guess what? That's part of where the Iranian regime focused its attacks.

There is no billions in profit at stake for the ISP

True. For them, it's billions in legal costs. Either way, the ISP's are still smack in the middle of it.

 

[Takhisis]

But the ISPs make their money off the users, not the RIAA. After all, they even charge you for email and other 'free' services.

 

[emzie]

The idea that pirating doesn't equal lost sales fails to explain why music, video and software sales have crashed.

BasketCase, if I skype can the government listen in with out a warrant?

 

[Takhisis]

There's a lot of people who can't afford to buy software and only get it when it comes for free.

 

[emzie]

There's a lot of people who can't afford to buy software and only get it when it comes for free.

Yes but they weren't buying it before pirating became so widespread, so they don't really account for the drop in sales.

I really dislike the whole, "I only pirate what I don't buy" excuse. I pirate the music I do because there are no consequences in doing so. If that ever changed I would resubscribe to subscription-based services in a heart beat.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes but they weren't buying it before pirating became so widespread, so they don't really account for the drop in sales.

My point exactly.

I really dislike the whole, "I only pirate what I don't buy" excuse. I pirate the music I do because there are no consequences in doing so. If that ever changed I would resubscribe to subscription-based services in a heart beat.

Whereas I, who don't pirate that much stuff since I go for free software and I simply wouldn't get a lot of stuff anyway.

 

[The_J]

Protected by the American Constitution? I don't think so. Protected by law? Sometimes. It depends on the communications medium. Far as I know, it's a criminal offense in the U.S. to open somebody else's paper mail or interfere with paper mail delivery. For phone and Internet connections, it's different. The apparent fact that the U.S. government doesn't require a warrant to tap an Internet line came to me only yesterday--and as a complete surprise, at that.

Don't see why a connection via phone or the net should be treated different from any mail conversation. It's a private peer to peer connection, and nobody should have the right to take a peek into that.
If I send a love letter via mail or via email doesn't change the content, just the medium, and there's no good reason why the government should be allowed to read the latter but not the former.

 

[BasketCase]

But the ISPs make their money off the users, not the RIAA. After all, they even charge you for email and other 'free' services.

I know. Now, where do the ISP's get lawsuits and fines? They get those from allowing crooks on their lines. It's not only about what people stand to make, but also what they stand to lose.

The idea that pirating doesn't equal lost sales fails to explain why music, video and software sales have crashed.

Scuse me if I bat for the other team for a second.

There are a few reasons why sales crash right now. The crappy economy being one. Pirating = lost sales is still a valid possibility though.

BasketCase, if I skype can the government listen in with out a warrant?

Doesn't seem so, but that's currently an up-in-the-air deal.

Don't see why a connection via phone or the net should be treated different from any mail conversation.

:shrug: The law apparently doesn't. Different media get different rules.

 

[illram]

I welcome stricter content regulation if it means we also shift to more online streaming television and media. All the movie companies are still scared of streaming online movies too much; if they opened up a little more and trusted online distribution more we'd move more towards truly on-demand instant content, everywhere, all the time. Music companies did not trust iTunes at first, and now cheap, legal and instantly downloadable music is everywhere.

Of course for streaming TV and movies, it's sort of here now, with Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, free TV on network websites, the recent streaming of the Superbowl, etc. But it's still a little clunky and not as user friendly for the vast majority of people that are used to just turning on their TV and flipping through the channels. If you are tech-savvy, you can watch whatever you want, almost anywhere, and you can do it legally for a nominal fee. Innovative products like Google TV or analogous things that try to bring this sort of freedom to the masses are crippled by media conglomerates, however, that are afraid of what the internet will do to their content. If stricter controls on pirating will make them come into the fold more and offer a truly "on demand", easy streamng media experience where you can truly watch whatever you want, anywhere, instantly, either for free or for a very low price, then I for one I welcome our new ISP overlords.

 

[Kozmos]

Reasonable pricing is a good deal of it. They are never going to get the majority of BRIC piracy if their software/music equal to the cost of half an average wage in those nations.

 

[Mise]

Yes but they weren't buying it before pirating became so widespread, so they don't really account for the drop in sales.

I really dislike the whole, "I only pirate what I don't buy" excuse. I pirate the music I do because there are no consequences in doing so. If that ever changed I would resubscribe to subscription-based services in a heart beat.

I'm not sure I'd resubscribe as long as (a) there are technologies that make it impossible to detect or enforce copyright laws, and (b) media companies continue to use tactics that are egregious and morally dispicable on every level.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not sure I'd resubscribe as long as (a) there are technologies that make it impossible to detect or enforce copyright laws, and (b) media companies continue to use tactics that are egregious and morally dispicable on every level.

On (b) I've seen copyrights being enforced so&#8230; idiotically, it makes them undeserving of holding their copyright.

For example, last year I sent Atticus (in Helsinki) the link to a song on YouTube by an Argentine band (Soda Stereo) which sounded similar to a Finnish song (by Eppu Normaali), because I wanted to see if anyone else thought the two songs sounded alike. What happened?? The song was unplayable in Finland because WMG, or EMI, or whoever, has decided that they won't market Soda Stereo outside of Latin America. Eventually, after a few attempts, I got tired of sending him links to different versions of the song and I sent him the full name & artist and waited until he could find one on his own.
All my friends here were astonished when I told them about something so silly. How would the copyright holders be able to increase sales if they don't let people listen to their music? Why can't I just send a sample to someone? Why allow the song to be playable for free in the countries where it's on sale but not in the countries where it's not?

 

[NetGear]

Sounds like isps just giving lip service. Just a hunch.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm. Free market principles vs. privacy principles. Quite a dilemma.

On one hand I think ISPs should have the right to monitor what is effectively their property. On the other, the idea of an ISP invading privacy in such a manner is worrying.

I suppose one could say you consent to such invasions by using the ISP. I imagine many ISPs will probably add this to contracts and whatnot; the fine print is always a great way to get someone to sign away the ability to complain.

One solution would be for those who protest to come together to try to form their own ISPs. But how viable would that be?

But I think more than likely, Anonymous or some such will come up with some sort of way to hurt them until they end this practice.