RIAA strikes again - ISPs to start policing on their own

[LucyDuke]

The difference is unimportant and irrelevant here. Hackers, pirates, doesn't matter: if one guy in the group gets careless and gives away what the group is doing (and where that group is!) guess what? Jail time. And I do know the ISP's have done this; I've seen it myself. I've been on pirate message boards, watching the ISP's post at them and watching them get busted. And then seeing the boards go completely silent afterwards.......

Oh please go into more detail.

Where's that face Ziggy posted?

 

[BasketCase]

Are you sure that's going to hold up in court when ACLU gets a crack at this?

Has in the past.

 

[Elta]

Has in the past.

Warrantless wiretaps?

Oh yeah that's right, those did hold in court. I forgot we live in a police state for a minute. I am so silly.

 

[BasketCase]

I Googled it before I ever got into this thread. At least a few suits on Internet monitoring have already been filed before. They failed. ISP's don't require warrants to webtap. And, apparently, neither does the government. Phone tap, yes. Internet tap, apparently not.

 

[Elta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

 

[AlpsStranger]

"From their end". That's the thing. It's on their end, not yours. They can do with their end whatever they like, because it's theirs.

Get that Ayn Rand nonsense out of my face.

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

 

[The_J]

"From their end". That's the thing. It's on their end, not yours. They can do with their end whatever they like, because it's theirs.

...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)?

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

They will get some pretty horrific blow back if they start cutting people off for legal downloads. That at the end of the day would almost be worse than the proposed legislation.

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.

 

[kramerfan86]

And those random people find those random files in precisely what way?? Any method used, can be snooped on.

You really dont seem to get the major difference here. The ISP would have to first off see a customer downloading a file then do an investigation like you are suggesting to find the file's source. If the ISP goes to a website and sees people talking about an illegal file that does them no good, they have no ISPs in the situation, they dont know who is their customer and who isnt.

They'll probably do both. Yes, it will take millions in resources, but you need to remember that BILLIONS in profits are at stake. So no, I don't think your molehill is worth the cost of a mountain.

Billions in profit for someone else (and that is only true if you believe their laughable claims about how much money they are losing). There is no billions in profit at stake for the ISP, you are basically suggesting they are going to be willing to invest millions to insure someone else's profitability. Most corporations arent so altruistic.

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.

They targeted the website though not the users and the website was indeed profiting off piracy. This would be going about it from the opposite angle where people legally using megaupload and using it illegally would both be punished equally unless the ISP actually puts real effort into it.

 

[warpus]

Just as much as you're entitled to install security cameras and monitor everybody who walks into your house.

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

 

[Murky]

It's because it uses up a lot of bandwidth. A lot of the cost of providing internet service is bandwidth. That at a many cable companies are part of larger corporations that own copyrights.

 

[kramerfan86]

In the era of HD streaming and netflix and such I think you are overestimating how much bandwith they stand to gain. Plus, in theory if people stop pirating they will buy more legal downloads, so at the end of the day the bandwith still gets used.

 

[Murky]

In the era of HD streaming and netflix and such I think you are overestimating how much bandwith they stand to gain. Plus, in theory if people stop pirating they will buy more legal downloads, so at the end of the day the bandwith still gets used.

Across all areas of the global internet,
23.76% of traffic was estimated to be
infringing. This excludes all pornography,
the infringing status of which can be
difficult to discern.
http://documents.envisional.com/docs/Envisional-Internet_Usage-Jan2011.pdf

That's enough to make them notice it and want to do something about it.

 

[Mise]

If ISPs enforce this by inspecting unencrypted torrent traffic, then users will switch to using encryption when torrenting files, which screws up the caching that ISPs do, and makes it harder for ISPs to deliver content cheaply and quickly.

kramerfan's right that enforcing this will cost the ISPs a lot of money. Two ISPs in the UK have unsuccessfully tried to fight similar legislation in UK courts, but in part of that ruling the judge made it clear that the cost was a factor that legislators needed to be wary of when deciding how ISPs should comply with the law. And An ISP in Belgium has, IIRC, successfully challenged certain enforcement regimes in EU courts, claiming that they fell foul of privacy laws.

So, at least in the EU, there are a couple of ways that more draconian ways of determining who is file-sharing and who isn't can be challenged.

 

[kramerfan86]

And if the RIAA has its way all of that would turn into legal purchased internet use, bandwith would not be saved in the "ideal" scenario.

Oh and:

Given the enormous, ever-growing, and constantly-changing size, shape, and consistency of the internet and the use that is made of it means that methodological issues abound when attempting to produce measurements of traffic and content

Even the people gathering the information admit its of questionable accuracy, IMO that's never a particularly good sign.

 

[Evie]

There was a thread a while back about whether or not you could search someone before letting them board your car, since you were responsible for what passengers in your car carried.

This seems rather the same philosophy. The ISP let you use their service, but they retain the right to make sure you use it legally/in accordance to their rules.

Honestly, depending on application and how they gauge what is/is not illegal download, I find this a far superior alternative to SOPA/PIPA. Of course if they just target any download from specific sites, even those that have legitimate files, that would be bad. Then again, it's not in their interest to lose their customers.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

They'll probably do both. Yes, it will take millions in resources, but you need to remember that BILLIONS in profits are at stake. So no, I don't think your molehill is worth the cost of a mountain.

I'm going to have to see a source for that "billions of profits" thing. An unbiased one. As in, not getting paid for by the MAFIAA. 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.

 

[kramerfan86]

and nevermind the cases of piracy that eventually lead to a sale, I know I have done hundreds of dollars of that variety in the past. Between downloads to test things out (in the pre spotify era) and download of music leaks that I intended on and did buy eventually anyways the music business has only GAINED profit from my downloading. So every 10 dollar loss they would claim by looking at statistics in my case is actually a 10 dollar gain, that's a 20 dollar turn around and quite the difference and I know I cant be the only person who bought after testing.

 

[warpus]

If somebody claims that piracy "costs" billions of dollars a year they have no idea what they're talking about.

People who pirate are usually not lost sales. They're a potential customer. Go ahead, price your product a bit lower, make it more accessible.. maybe a bit better.. maybe then you'll get that sale.

It's a potential sale, not "lost profit"

 

[Kozmos]

Arent biggest piraters BRIC nations? IE people you wont be able to touch with law in a loooong time. Plus with pirates now moving their servers in Low Orbit well...it is not over yet by any margin.