PDA

View Full Version : RIAA targets ISPs


jawathehutt
12-20-2008, 11:02 AM
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/19/riaa-finds-its-soul-will-stop-suing-individuals-for-music-pirac/
When you retard fair use with pointless DRM and then sue anonymous children for illegally downloading music while ignoring those of the execs at the top of the music industry, well, you're asking for a public relations nightmare. Now, with more than 35,000 lawsuits to its credit, the RIAA says it will finally end the legal assault against consumers that began back in 2003. The Recording Industry Association of America will instead, focus its anti-piracy efforts with ISPs. Under the new plan, the RIAA will contact ISPs when illegal uploading is detected. The ISP will then contact the customer with a notice that would ultimately be followed by a reduction or cessation of service. As you'd expect, the RIAA is not commenting on which ISPs they are in cahoots with. The RIAA also says that it won't require ISPs to reveal the identities of individuals but could, of course, go after individuals who are heavy uploaders or repeat offenders. For the moment though, it appears that single-mothers are in the clear.
I'm sort of glad the RIAA is stopping with the individual bullying tactics but honestly, I think this is worse. I stopped pirating music a while ago, but I still dont like that fact that one company can bully the ISPs into destroying net neutrality, no one group should have that much power, especially one that is prone to abusing its power like the RIAA

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-20-2008, 11:11 AM
Uhh... I don't think that means they're "in cahoots" with any ISP or destroying net neutrality since most copyright holders do they exact same thing. They find IPs downloading or uploading their property, then send a notice to the company that owns that IP, which in turn sends a notice to the customer who was or is using that IP. If it was the other way around and the ISP was notifying the RIAA of pirates, I'd have a problem, but since it's the RIAA sending notices to ISPs, whatever, they have a right to enforce their copyrights.

Jae Onasi
12-20-2008, 06:45 PM
Here's what the RIAA should do: make it easier to d/l stuff _legally_ and dump the DRM crap.

Yar-El
12-20-2008, 07:07 PM
My $5.00 on the issue -

We need stronger laws and technologies to prevent stealing. All of my music and movies are store bought. I hate when one person buys entertainment pieces, and then they release it to a indefinate number of peers. I hate it. 10,000 free downloads through peer networks equals no money. Making movies and music will be a no profit buisness. Its a set of dominos without a net. There will be no more tv-shows, music, and movies because there will be no profit. Its heading into a out of control fire sale.

jrrtoken
12-20-2008, 07:25 PM
We need stronger laws and technologies to prevent stealing. All of my music and movies are store bought. I hate when one person buys entertainment pieces, and then they release it to a indefinate number of peers. I hate it. 10,000 free downloads through peer networks equals no money. Making movies and music will be a no profit buisness. Its a set of dominos without a net. There will be no more tv-shows, music, and movies because there will be no profit. Its heading into a out of control fire sale.Not exactly. One of the reasons why people pirate things is often time due to the technology present to prevent and circumvent piracy. Take Spore, for example: It became the most pirated game in history, partly due to the massive amount of hype, but also because of its awfully restrictive version of SecuROM copy-protection software, which allows you only to install the game 3 times.

Besides, the thing that we most certainly do not need is more corporate control. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is one of the more authoritarian laws in the U.S., not to mention, it's awfully unclear in several places. For example, it's okay to copy musical CDs that are yours, but for some reason, it's illegal to do the same with DVDs. After all, they are the same relative media, so why can't we burn and rip copies?

Now, I agree, piracy hurts growth in physical media, especially PC gaming, but adding more ways to restrict the user, who honestly paid for their product, will only cause more piracy in hindsight.

Oh yes, here's a nice article summarizing the state of PC gaming and piracy that I found, if you wish to be more enlightened. (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png

Arcesious
12-20-2008, 07:50 PM
The ironic thing is that you don't have to download music to pirate it. There are programs out there that give you the ability to 'record' things. For example, a site may offer a 'free sample' and play an entire music track, but not give you the download option. You can use a program that can record the sounds outputted by your computer. Ironically, these programs aren't free, which serves as a good deterent to would-be pirates. Also, its not practical because the IP address of the person downloading the recording software can be traced, and the computer's interface sounds can come up in the backround and ruin the recording.

Q
12-20-2008, 08:56 PM
Ha. Sounds like recording off of the radio.

God, I'm old. :indif:

Web Rider
12-20-2008, 09:38 PM
Also, its not practical because the IP address of the person downloading the recording software can be traced, and the computer's interface sounds can come up in the backround and ruin the recording.

There's nothing illegal about owning a program that can record sounds. The RIAA can't come to your house and take your microphone because it could possibly be used to record their music. Sure, they can find out who bought the software based on download records, but any more information than that would require the RIAA to illegally hack your computer, or provide reasonable proof to get a warrant to have your PC searched.

But yeah, the recording can be pretty poor.

I think if the RIAA generally lowered prices on digital media, games, video, music, ect, and didn't treat everyone like criminals with DRM locked media, which can't always be unlocked with the codes provided, see: Storm of Zehir, then people would be less inclined to bootleg it.

The RIAA is kidding themselves if they think they can stop all illegal downloading, that's like trying to stop all crime, it just won't happen. But as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, so ya, put out a carrot as to why we should by your stuff instead of download it illegally.

Rev7
12-20-2008, 10:06 PM
I am not doing anything like this, but what if it is file sharing?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-20-2008, 10:24 PM
My $5.00 on the issue -

We need stronger laws and technologies to prevent stealing. All of my music and movies are store bought. I hate when one person buys entertainment pieces, and then they release it to a indefinate number of peers. I hate it. 10,000 free downloads through peer networks equals no money. Making movies and music will be a no profit buisness. Its a set of dominos without a net. There will be no more tv-shows, music, and movies because there will be no profit. Its heading into a out of control fire sale.Stronger DRM is a horrible idea. As it stands now, in a few years you'll be upgrading your computer to be able to play DRM music and movie formats instead of to play the latest games. It's the most wretched thing to come out of this whole mess along with the DMCA, and it serves only to inconvenience paying customers since pirated music will always be DRM-free and every DRM system will eventually be cracked.

Q
12-20-2008, 11:05 PM
Yeah, and it only seems to take ~2 weeks to crack even the toughest DRM. A more draconian DRM is only going to encourage more piracy for the very reasons that Pastrami and Jaymack have given.

Jae Onasi
12-20-2008, 11:58 PM
Just to remind everyone: We can't talk about ways to hack programs or illegally download software, music, etc. No one's done anything wrong here, I just wanted to put the reminder up about the rule on that. :)

JediAthos
12-21-2008, 01:27 AM
The RIAA's lawsuit campaign was a joke, and it's good they've finally admitted it if not in so many words. As Jae said I am in full belief that they along with other "artist interest groups" in other sectors of the entertainment industry should be working with technology instead of against it.

If they were really interested in their artists they would be spending money finding a way to make P2P and other forms of file sharing work for them instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money trying to stop it.

Personally I believe the RIAA has little interest in the artists themselves and is much more interested in the bottom line of the recording companies they represent. Unfortunately it is the record companies who benefit from CD sales and the artists actually see very little. They make most of their money in tour tickets, merchandise etc...

Tyrion
12-21-2008, 01:53 AM
Also, its not practical because the IP address of the person downloading the recording software can be traced, and the computer's interface sounds can come up in the backround and ruin the recording.

Oddly enough, it seems like the RIAA doesn't target downloaders. In all the articles I've seen, including the one in the OP, they've only ever sued or threatened to take action against uploaders.

My guess is that with uploaders the RIAA can give the bull**** reasoning that every song that's uploaded somehow costs them gazillions. They'd have a hard time saying that an album or two downloaded is going to be worth more in damages than just 20 or 30 dollars.

EnderWiggin
12-21-2008, 10:39 AM
Stronger DRM is a horrible idea. As it stands now, in a few years you'll be upgrading your computer to be able to play DRM music and movie formats instead of to play the latest games. It's the most wretched thing to come out of this whole mess along with the DMCA, and it serves only to inconvenience paying customers since pirated music will always be DRM-free and every DRM system will eventually be cracked.

My thoughts exactly.

_EW_

Yar-El
12-21-2008, 01:52 PM
My guess is that with uploaders the RIAA can give the bull**** reasoning that every song that's uploaded somehow costs them gazillions. They'd have a hard time saying that an album or two downloaded is going to be worth more in damages than just 20 or 30 dollars.
What do you do for a living?

My question is not only to you, but what do any of you do for a living?

EnderWiggin
12-21-2008, 02:10 PM
What do you do for a living?

My question is not only to you, but what do any of you do for a living?

I'm a top level RIAA exec.

_EW_

jrrtoken
12-21-2008, 04:38 PM
I helped write the BitTorrent protocol.

No, seriously, I can't see the point of your question. :confused:

True_Avery
12-21-2008, 04:48 PM
What do you do for a living?

My question is not only to you, but what do any of you do for a living?
Why is this relevant?


We need stronger laws and technologies to prevent stealing. All of my music and movies are store bought. I hate when one person buys entertainment pieces, and then they release it to a indefinate number of peers. I hate it. 10,000 free downloads through peer networks equals no money. Making movies and music will be a no profit buisness. Its a set of dominos without a net. There will be no more tv-shows, music, and movies because there will be no profit. Its heading into a out of control fire sale.
Outdated thought process.

They tried that concept on games like Bioshock, Assassins Creed, and Spore.

Guess what happened?

They were released, and became the top torrented games of 2008. Spore is almost -trying- to be the most torrented game of all time.

Why? Because of stricter DRM. The fact that the DRM installs uninstallable spyware on your computer, limits the amount of times you can install a game that you -own-, shows the company does not trust any of you.

Spore got 1/5 stars even before it was released due to the announcement of DRM. It has been pirated nearly 2,000,000 times. The game was boycotted when EA decided not to budge.

DRM does not help the company get money. It increases piracy, loses fanbase, and hurts the people trying to make the game.

People will always steal. But, we stole less when there were fewer things holding our heads in the water.

It is a trust issue, and the only developer to have a respectable and reasonable DRM is Valve. As you can see by looking around, Valve is one of the most respected game developers in game entertainment, while EA and its DRM is one of the most hated developers/distributors around.

TriggerGod
12-21-2008, 06:16 PM
As you can see by looking around, Valve is one of the most respected game developers in game entertainment, while EA and its DRM is one of the most hated developers/distributos around.

Well, it also has to do with Valve develops good games while EA develops [quite a bit of] bad games. (not saying all of EAs games suck. I rather enjoyed Crysis)

But you do have a point about the DRM, Avery. To summarize, its reverse psychology. A powerful game industry holds a game in its hands, yelling at everybody "THIS GAME HAS TOP-NOTCH SECURITY, DON'T EVEN TRY TO PIRATE IT", instead of heeding it's warning, the hackers and pirates of the world will take the challenge and pirate it. Spore is a prime example. Now, when the DRM was less of the bitch it is today, there were less pirated copies of the game. But sadly, the days of CD Codes and very little DRM are gone, and people are going to just keep upping the security. Problem is there will be a hacker better then the security system, and pirate it for everyone else. Unless they make a security miracle and make a system hard for a super computer to crack. But unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely. We're just going to have to deal with it until the big bosses at these corporations get it through their thick skulls that better DRM isn't necessarily better for them.

jawathehutt
12-21-2008, 06:23 PM
I really like What GoG did, absolutely no DRM. When my dad buys a game on his computer from them, I can put it on my computer also, just like most retail games, and should our computers spontaneously combust, we will be able to reinstall it again, instead of "pirating"(if that's what they call reinstalling now) because I for one do not ever intend on buying a product that doesn't need to be bought more than once, more than once.

Yar-El
12-22-2008, 09:57 AM
Refering to my question - Its all about eyes. How people view themselves in various roles. Mailmen see their jobs differently than caprpenters. Musicians and inventors protect their work through legal documents; however, the average Joe may call that being greedy. We should protect the works of everyone.

EnderWiggin
12-22-2008, 06:54 PM
Refering to my question - Its all about eyes. How people view themselves in various roles. Mailmen see their jobs differently than caprpenters.
Huh?

Of course mailmen see their jobs differently - they're different jobs.

_EW_

Darth Avlectus
12-23-2008, 06:20 AM
The RIAA's lawsuit campaign was a joke, and it's good they've finally admitted it if not in so many words. As Jae said I am in full belief that they along with other "artist interest groups" in other sectors of the entertainment industry should be working with technology instead of against it.
It is time someone got the clue and used technology to their advantage.


If they were really interested in their artists they would be spending money finding a way to make P2P and other forms of file sharing work for them instead of spending ridiculous amounts of money trying to stop it.

Personally I believe the RIAA has little interest in the artists themselves and is much more interested in the bottom line of the recording companies they represent. Unfortunately it is the record companies who benefit from CD sales and the artists actually see very little. They make most of their money in tour tickets, merchandise etc...

I agree: I do personally know some people who have done the hollywood scene. Where the money is at, so's the power. Aw the artists? They're the cattle. Taking just good enough care to keep 'em going, but taking care not to pamper them too much.

Oddly enough, it seems like the RIAA doesn't target downloaders. In all the articles I've seen, including the one in the OP, they've only ever sued or threatened to take action against uploaders.

My guess is that with uploaders the RIAA can give the bull**** reasoning that every song that's uploaded somehow costs them gazillions. They'd have a hard time saying that an album or two downloaded is going to be worth more in damages than just 20 or 30 dollars.

The DOWNLOADERS shall be taken care of by the government. How? Well, I hear the buzz right now in the mainstream press (mostly idiot-lantern conglomos) all about taxing individual items and downloads. They reference iTunes and sodas. However it might extend everywhere else as well. It got me thinking. How far could this go?

If I were the snarky bastard in charge, here's what I'd do:
1) All those hackers and writers of malware, spyware and stuff like that who have been arrested: hire them to make the Gov't. versions of this stuff and

2) have the infections go hog wild on pirates all over as well as target a few modest things for subtlety sake--and to top it off I'd put that lovely technolgy in it to make it un-removable.

Now, it's okay if you pirate, because when I feel like it, I'll just mail to you my arbitrary taxes. You have to pay if you downloaded them. I know, it's only a what if. But I'm just putting possibilities on the table for better, more effective, government controls. But this could never realistically happen right?

I'm a top level RIAA exec.

_EW_

:lol:

What do you do for a living?

My question is not only to you, but what do any of you do for a living?

Handyman, housekeeping, maintenance, and odd-job. I once worked barricade security.
Does repairing microwaves count? I have fixed a few and I did make a little money on the side and even worked out a deal with my local C.C. to get lunch for a week one time.


Why is this relevant?


I was wondering the same thing.

<snip>

Why? Because of stricter DRM. The fact that the DRM installs uninstallable spyware on your computer, limits the amount of times you can install a game that you -own-, shows the company does not trust any of you.

<snip>

DRM does not help the company get money. It increases piracy, loses fanbase, and hurts the people trying to make the game.

People will always steal. But, we stole less when there were fewer things holding our heads in the water.

Why?

I'd think if it were easier to get away with, more would do it, no?
Care to clarify?


My $5.00 on the issue -

We need stronger laws and technologies to prevent stealing. All of my music and movies are store bought. I hate when one person buys entertainment pieces, and then they release it to a indefinate number of peers. I hate it. 10,000 free downloads through peer networks equals no money. Making movies and music will be a no profit buisness. Its a set of dominos without a net. There will be no more tv-shows, music, and movies because there will be no profit. Its heading into a out of control fire sale.
---------------
Refering to my question - Its all about eyes. How people view themselves in various roles. Mailmen see their jobs differently than caprpenters. Musicians and inventors protect their work through legal documents; however, the average Joe may call that being greedy. We should protect the works of everyone.

I absolutely agree the works of everyone should be protected. (BUT)
How do you figure this in on an effective, practical scale? I've been stumped on this for some time. As is, it is ineffective.

We could do a better job punishing people caught, admittedly. But that's only part of it. Implimentation could go very wrong.

Sure we'd all like to protect our stuff. However, such protections also cost money on top of everything else that costs money. And then there is collateral damage.

Which is probably why videos on open sites like youtube are getting crappier or something on the order of less viable in some sense that is actually useful or marketable. Maybe I am opening a can of worms BUT: Look into Viacom vs Youtube.

Here's something on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pntwjRBXDt4&feature=related

What a mess. Careful what you watch or do, you might get sued.
So while Viacom's artists are saved, our privacy in general is now in jeopardy since our history on a site for recreation is now is possibly usable as incriminating evidence--I mean if everyone there is now part of a crime ring. Today, disclosing information of your actions. What next? Naysay is now felony hate speech? OK, fine that's a bit of an extreme domino effect. Still, this leaves me wondering "What next?"
Is something like this even solveable???

Huh?

Of course mailmen see their jobs differently - they're different jobs.

_EW_

Thank you captain obvious. :xp:

EnderWiggin
12-23-2008, 07:26 PM
Thank you captain obvious. :xp:
Yet, some people here fail to understand this seemingly obvious point.

_EW_

Darth Avlectus
12-23-2008, 08:35 PM
Yet, some people here fail to understand this seemingly obvious point.

_EW_
Some but not all. :)
--Don't pull out your hair begging the question... Professor House.
--------
Yar-El, for the record I am pretty sure I understand you, and so does "House" (I think). However I ask you to elaborate because the differing job/persons/perspectives is probably drawing a blank with others.

That apples are not oranges and vice versa, hence different people+different jobs=different perspectives: You were saying how protection to some is greed to others. So your point here (Can I guess?) is that protections are necessary to prevent our market from becoming stealing-wheels where the market flatlines. Or have I missed something?

I completely agree that works ought to be protected. I want you to ponder, though, the fiasco I pointed out above. This is an example of both protection (albeit a slightly differing "protection" than from the subject at hand), AND a proverbial double edged sword because it has spilled out and in order to protect one group, another group has potentially been harmed (though at this point nothing has happened YET). Frivolous lawsuits of a company vs people whose video content may have had nothing whatsoever to do with any of their materials.

I know I am beating a dead horse here: if protections are going to work they must be effective. That means not only enforce the laws, but make sure you aren't using a hatchet to kill a fly.