RIAA to stop lawsuits, will instead pressure ISPs

RIAA to stop lawsuits, will instead pressure ISPs
After suing over 35,000 people since 2002 over music piracy, the RIAA is changing its policy and will discontinue suing individuals over unauthorized music sharing through P2P networks.

With that good news however, comes possibly worse news.



The RIAA is now making agreements with ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that would have the companies send out emails to customers they believe are "making music available online for others to take."

The first three emails will be warnings asking the customer to stop, but a 4th may warrant having your Internet connection cut off entirely.

Although they will stop sending out mass lawsuits, the RIAA retains the right to sue "heavy users." All current lawsuits will be settled as well.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 20 Dec 2008 22:41
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 46 comments

  • iluvendo

    It is apparent to the riaa, that the lawsuits aren't working, and worse, the fallout it(the lawsuits) has caused (re Tanya Johnson case, the girl with the pacreatic cancer case).

    So the aim now is to pressure entities with much deeper pockets to do the policing and dirty work.


    Alas, business is business

    20.12.2008 23:04 #1

  • windsong

    They will need to identify IP addresses with individuals. Eventually.

    Gee, wonder how they will force everyone to authenticate their identity online?

    /sar

    20.12.2008 23:46 #2

  • pirkster

    Originally posted by iluvendo: It is apparent to the riaa, that the lawsuits aren't working, and worse, the fallout it(the lawsuits) has caused (re Tanya Johnson case, the girl with the pacreatic cancer case).

    So the aim now is to pressure entities with much deeper pockets to do the policing and dirty work.


    Alas, business is business    I'm suprised they didn't start with this angle to begin with. But the answer is... money (as it always is).

    You sue the deepest pockets. Always. Like it or not, that's the way it's been done in the US court system for some time.

    When someone is killed by a delivery driver, you don't sue the driver... you sue the company who's name is on the side of the truck.

    You're going to get more from the guy who owns the truck than who drives it. Nobody hates the little guy, they hate "big business." They have the cash, and juries are more sympathetic to the victim... making those payouts even larger.

    What they're doing here is putting finanical pressure on ISPs to traffic themselves or face penalties. It has nothing to do with other cases "not working." The cases against individuals have worked as evidenced by the ransoms they have been able to collect. While going after individuals has been a revenue generator (see speeding tickets, albeit very expensive ones) what they're seeking here is pressuring ISPs to do their dirty work for them, which results in a change in behavior above and beyond what the financial rewards of suing individuals offers. They've wised to the fact the ISPs are a portal to sharing, and can deny us service if we don't behave the way they want us to. What they haven't shared with us are the details of the "agreement" so we can see the money being exchanged, but I can assure you it's there. Either money up front, or a promise to levy steep fines and/or lawsuits if ISPs are found to allow individuals to share.

    20.12.2008 23:54 #3

  • xtago

    This is what will kill off P2P sharing sure it'll go on but not in the same way.

    ISPs will shrug off RIAA letters for so long then start sueing ISPs due to them pirating stuff, hoping that will force the ISPs or the court to force the ISPs to stop/block the ports at the ISP.

    IINET in Australi is currently getting sued in Australia for this right now, so see what happens.

    20.12.2008 23:56 #4

  • xtago

    Quote:
    When someone is killed by a delivery driver, you don't sue the driver... you sue the company who's name is on the side of the truck.

    You're going to get more from the guy who owns the truck than who drives it. Nobody hates the little guy, they hate "big business." They have the cash, and juries are more sympathetic to the victim... making those payouts even larger.
    No it doesn't work like that, that's saying the company ran over someone which isn't correct.

    You have to prove that the driver ran over someone... if that can't be proven then you prove that the company was in some way responseable for running over someone which is via the brakes not working etc.

    if you can't prove any of the above then you can't sue anyone.

    Also payouts are based on what happened and what the end result was.

    You'll learn this when you get into the real world.

    21.12.2008 00:04 #5

  • varnull

    I wasn't born with enough middle fingers !!!! Even Shiva would be lacking.



    Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work.
    I would rather you hate me for who I am than love me for what I am not.
    Welcome to the other side of the looking glass Alice

    21.12.2008 00:29 #6

  • jetyi83

    Quote: The cases against individuals have worked as evidenced by the ransoms they have been able to collect. While going after individuals has been a revenue generator (see speeding tickets, albeit very expensive ones) what they're seeking here is pressuring ISPs to do their dirty work for them.they are not making money, the costs of the lawsuits far exceed any fines they might have collect. They are constantly losing money. This will not work either, new isp's, or existing isp's that choose not to work with the mpaa will become much more successful.

    google needs to just start up an isp.

    21.12.2008 00:59 #7

  • ematrix

    I wonder how long would the ISPs be willing to cooperate with the RIAA (and the MPAA) before they realize that monitoring users and limiting or cutting off their internet connections, would result in a massive loss of costumers and income... most users do a lot more than just check emails and surf the net, which doesn't take much to do; if users can't upload/download files, even access streamed content or online gaming, just because they consume a lot of bandwith and are suspected of file sharing, then a large percentage of users won't see the benefit of having a high bandwith connection (and pay a higher price for it) and will begin to cancel their subscriptions, maybe even begin to file lawsuits against the ISPs for violating their consumer and privacy rights.

    21.12.2008 01:17 #8

  • cyprusrom





    Piss me off, and I Will ignore You!

    21.12.2008 01:18 #9

  • admodsuck

    Good luck...............NOT!

    Not gonna happen. ISPs will get screwed on this one and eventually fight back.

    21.12.2008 02:00 #10

  • joonbugg

    Yeah, ISP's arent going to want to cut off their customers and take money out of their own pocket. RIAA is fighting a losing battle. Sharing is here to stay. Just because I download something for free doesnt mean I would pay for it if I couldnt get it for free. Probably 95% of the time, I wouldnt pay for it. They just cant seem to understand that.

    21.12.2008 02:27 #11

  • varnull

    anybody want some tunes??.. #afterdawn and ask your friends.. use a name we know eh XD.. lolololol
    NOT piracy.. just friends sharing happiness. we have always shared stuff.. yet suddenly it wrong.. So.. I have to charge your friend double if you give him half your pint because he/she/they got it without paying??
    Where will this crap lead.. what kind of world are we allowing them to make?



    Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work.
    I would rather you hate me for who I am than love me for what I am not.
    Welcome to the other side of the looking glass Alice

    21.12.2008 02:57 #12

  • susieqbbb

    First off.

    This is illegal this violates the internet protection act.

    Which states unless a company has a warrent at any time they are not allowed to search a users computer.

    in order to obtain such information.

    they would have to search your machine via ip address.

    without a warrent any seized property would be unimissable in a court of law.

    21.12.2008 04:24 #13

  • 51area

    This is retarded!

    21.12.2008 04:28 #14

  • slickwill

    If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOL

    21.12.2008 04:45 #15

  • ematrix

    susieqbbb, as I understand it the ISPs aren't going to spy your PC, but rather monitor your bandwith usage and probally what are using it for, meaning that the higher your bandwith consumption, you'll be more a suspect of file sharing, even if its the case you're using it for online gaming or streaming content.

    21.12.2008 06:58 #16

  • HOGCALLER

    I hope they win!!!

    Once they win a legal challenge you and I will have legal precedent to sue ATT when our identity is been stolen using their equipment and services!

    Aren't lawyers wonderful!!!

    21.12.2008 08:29 #17

  • Mik3h

    Originally posted by slickwill: If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOLEven if that were to happen you could still record from any kind of output device using a line-in/out cable. To prevent replication of any existing audio is pretty much impossible in this day in age.

    21.12.2008 08:32 #18

  • asilay328

    What I do not understand is that if I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth from an ISP, they have no business monitoring how I use that. The internet privacy act protects me from that monitoring unless there is a government issued document for such a watching. The RIAA needs to face the fact that file sharing is here to stay and that if they want a piece of the action then they should have hopped onto the Itunes train during the nabster years.

    21.12.2008 13:12 #19

  • lawndog

    um well xtago you can sue anybody you want.........
    It's not a matter of reason, I can sue you right now for emotional distress, reason being I was emotionally distront at the way you assumed prikster wasn't in the real world.
    It's a matter of whether
    #1 find a lawyer to handle your case
    #2 The courts seeing your case
    #3 Actually winning your case.
    Comon now this is the country that people sue cause their coffee was hot, sue fast food chains cause they got fat, and sue people when the walk on ice in front of their house.

    The article, if you read it, actually said nothing about sueing the ISPs. IT said
    Quote:The RIAA is now making agreements with ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that would have the companies send out emails to customers they believe are "making music available online for others to take."
    an agreement not a suit
    now if they later decide to sue........here is where they could win a suit......
    lets say comcast (ISP) signs a letter of agreement (or contract) with RIAA stateing "it will send out letters and/or terminate service to customers that are believed to be partaking of the illegal action of file sharing"
    and they do not send out the letters or terminate services and the RIAA finds out...........
    breach of agreement or breach of contract.
    Then it is a justifiable case and would be a win for the RIAA

    Also, the ISP would not have to hack into somebodies computer, the information/data you send via the ISP cables becomes their property as well. We as consumers are mearly renting or leasing the cables used to transfer data.
    Also.....gotta remember the government, they ARE allowed to seach your computer via the internet if they deem worthy. No warrent, no nothing, it's up to their disgresion. ALA the patriat act.

    ok I'm done, and no I don't know how to spell, and no I don't own a dictionary, besides that wouldn't help because I gotta know how to spell it before I can look up the definaition.

    Edit starts here: I made a mistake, it is not legal for the government to hack into your computer unless it is deemed a terristic threat. BUT the RIAA has been known to hack in via freelance private investagators

    21.12.2008 15:40 #20

  • atomicxl

    Its about time.

    For a long time ISPs have been profiting off of people stealing music and movies. They never asked any questions they just said, "hey this guy is willing to pay more money for a pointlessly fast connection and higher bandwidth caps. I don't know he's doing, I don't wanna know what he's doing. I just wanna fill my pockets up with money and turn a blind eye to anything."

    Looks like that attitude is gonna go by the waste side now. Personally, I don't care. I don't think that musicians are Satan and that record labels are the anti-christ. I've been legally buying my music online for months now. If I wanna find a new artist i'll preview mp3s on Amazon or use Pandora.

    This new way of approaching piracy ONLY affects crooks and thieves.

    If you hate music, don't buy it!!! Don't download it. You'll show the labels that theres no money to be made from what they release and that their is no interest in it. Stealing it shows that they can't make money, but that there are people interested in it (why would you steal music that you hate?) and they'll keep making this crap trying to find new ways of marketing/selling it.

    21.12.2008 15:53 #21

  • ZippyDSM

    Originally posted by atomicxl: Its about time.

    For a long time ISPs have been profiting off of people stealing music and movies. They never asked any questions they just said, "hey this guy is willing to pay more money for a pointlessly fast connection and higher bandwidth caps. I don't know he's doing, I don't wanna know what he's doing. I just wanna fill my pockets up with money and turn a blind eye to anything."

    Looks like that attitude is gonna go by the waste side now. Personally, I don't care. I don't think that musicians are Satan and that record labels are the anti-christ. I've been legally buying my music online for months now. If I wanna find a new artist i'll preview mp3s on Amazon or use Pandora.

    This new way of approaching piracy ONLY affects crooks and thieves.

    If you hate music, don't buy it!!! Don't download it. You'll show the labels that theres no money to be made from what they release and that their is no interest in it. Stealing it shows that they can't make money, but that there are people interested in it (why would you steal music that you hate?) and they'll keep making this crap trying to find new ways of marketing/selling it.    Not really since IPs are mischievous lil things what you will have is random people having their net shut off, in order for proper tracking to work you need a authoritative tier upbaove the public one.

    So this really dose nothing as half the ISPs already are owned by big media and they force people into buying media or lose their services.


    Copy right gives rights holders absolute control over the content and as such must give absolute power to them so they can enforce their rights...this is flawed and allows right holders to harasses the public.

    Copy right has to be changed and it has to change from a distribution model to a profit based model where free distribution is ignored for its societal benefits outweigh any harm done not to mention that you can not truly enforce copy rights without fascist and draconian rules.


    I'm all for a 10% tax on the internet and storage devices if the media mafia would realize its place is not packing its own media and price gouging the costumer but let the licensees worry about that and distribution and rake in all that revenue from thousands of multiple sources rather than offering the public 2 or 4 antiquated sources to chose from.

    Am I the only one who thinks a tiered net is coming in 10-20 years not one based on subscription or speed but level of encryption, public sector is the lowest tier and have basic encryption, the merchant tier will have better encryption and simple data tracking, the banking tier will have more its like the highest version of the merchant tier, the authoritative tier will police hacking and other net crimes as well as illicit distribution have full tracking and snooping capabilities, governmental and military tiers will be in the highest levels.

    21.12.2008 16:08 #22

  • joebloe12

    The RIAA will push it, of that I am sure.

    But it WILL go into court!

    And the courts have not been a friend to the RIAA when it comes to violating privacy laws.

    So we will see if this works or not.

    Frankly, I think the RIAA has just thrown up a white flag.

    They know their suits are not working and it will not be long before this method of spying on people is thrown out of court too.

    They are a dying breed, have been for a long time. Let them die.

    21.12.2008 16:21 #23

  • ZippyDSM

    Originally posted by joebloe12: The RIAA will push it, of that I am sure.

    But it WILL go into court!

    And the courts have not been a friend to the RIAA when it comes to violating privacy laws.

    So we will see if this works or not.

    Frankly, I think the RIAA has just thrown up a white flag.

    They know their suits are not working and it will not be long before this method of spying on people is thrown out of court too.

    They are a dying breed, have been for a long time. Let them die.    I am sure they will get comcast and verison on their side not to mention any other big content owned ISP...

    21.12.2008 16:23 #24

  • NexGen76

    Originally posted by asilay328: What I do not understand is that if I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth from an ISP, they have no business monitoring how I use that. The internet privacy act protects me from that monitoring unless there is a government issued document for such a watching. The RIAA needs to face the fact that file sharing is here to stay and that if they want a piece of the action then they should have hopped onto the Itunes train during the nabster years.
    Great point.......

    22.12.2008 05:29 #25

  • Interestx

    I wonder how the rest of business feels about this?
    Wreck the internet just to try to help out the music & movie business?

    As always the root of this is a ratcheting up of corporate greed.
    We used to be able to record music from the radio, videos from the TV, then we got PVR/DVR but now we're supposed to believe that downloading a TV show or a movie you missed is 'pirating'!?

    BS

    'Pirates' are the guys at fleamarkets selling dodgy copies of a movie or TV series on DVD.

    Private individuals downloading for private non-commercial use is not 'pirating'.

    F*ck the MPAA & RIAA and any of the rest of those parasitic b@stards.

    22.12.2008 06:39 #26

  • emugamer

    Originally posted by NexGen76: Originally posted by asilay328: What I do not understand is that if I am paying for a certain amount of bandwidth from an ISP, they have no business monitoring how I use that. The internet privacy act protects me from that monitoring unless there is a government issued document for such a watching. The RIAA needs to face the fact that file sharing is here to stay and that if they want a piece of the action then they should have hopped onto the Itunes train during the nabster years.
    Great point.......    The Internet Privacy Act doesn't exist.

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

    22.12.2008 12:30 #27

  • LordLiono

    Basically with the new actions of the RIAA, a question came to my attention. The Question was "Can an American get in trouble from their ISP for downloading foreign music?"

    To me it really seems unlikely but what do you guys think?

    22.12.2008 14:32 #28

  • tin23uk

    to whoever it was above me that said they think this is just the RIAA throwing up the white flag, i totally agree with that, this is there method of realizing their lawsuits aint working and changing tact without looking like chicken sh*ts.

    there is no way this is going to work, for isp's to police their networks would be extremely expensive, then when they catch peoplebeing naughty 3 times they have to disconnect them and lose the cash that customer was paying them monthly.

    insight broadband (an affiliate of comcast i believe)used a method of calling and emailing the top 5% highest upload bandwidth users per month to harras them and constantly remind them that they were in breach of the TOS and could have your connection disconected, the email would also include a friendly reminder that if your uploading music you could be taken to court. but insight broadband had no knowledge of what you were uploading, for them to keep tabs on everything the top 5% was uploading would have been an expesive venture and one im sure they or any other ISP would want to adopt without a fight.

    given the fact that this will probably come to a battle in court with most ISP's i highly doubt the RIAA will win, they aint taking on old mary jane rotten crotch over 10 lil wayne songs this time.

    no doubt when they lose this battle they will find another equally annoying method

    22.12.2008 15:30 #29

  • ads

    Originally posted by atomicxl: Its about time.

    For a long time ISPs have been profiting off of people stealing music and movies. They never asked any questions they just said, "hey this guy is willing to pay more money for a pointlessly fast connection and higher bandwidth caps. I don't know he's doing, I don't wanna know what he's doing. I just wanna fill my pockets up with money and turn a blind eye to anything."

    Looks like that attitude is gonna go by the waste side now. Personally, I don't care. I don't think that musicians are Satan and that record labels are the anti-christ. I've been legally buying my music online for months now. If I wanna find a new artist i'll preview mp3s on Amazon or use Pandora.

    This new way of approaching piracy ONLY affects crooks and thieves.

    If you hate music, don't buy it!!! Don't download it. You'll show the labels that theres no money to be made from what they release and that their is no interest in it. Stealing it shows that they can't make money, but that there are people interested in it (why would you steal music that you hate?) and they'll keep making this crap trying to find new ways of marketing/selling it.
    Isp are about makeing money period.. I ran a private game sever and I got phone calls saying I was useing to much bandwith and I replied so what I pay for it.. I wasnt shareing files or anything all I was doing was running 3 private severs off my sever computer and a ftp sever for my files so I could acess my own files from anywere.. In order for them to see what I'm doing they need a warrent as Im running everything behind a firewall they can capture the pacs on the way out but that would be invasion of privacy in order to do that I have been sent a letter from my isp saying I downloaded some torrent I phoned them up and complained... 1 it was some random movie I never heard off and 2 I dont use torrents at all... The only thing i download are patchs and updates and when some of them are 1gig or more i want speed

    Look at age of connan installed 32gigs when I played it for 1 month the file was already 42gigs and thats just updates so thats 10gigs in 1 month just to play a game add my game severs and also add me reinstalling windows updates everytime i redo my computer i use 90 gigs a month easy.. now thats a good amount of traffic but do I download music nope do I download games nope... do I download pirate software nope its easyer for me just to buy it then to download it why do I do it im lazy I will go buy a disk instead of downloading 50 to 100 files to get the same program thats priated..

    22.12.2008 16:54 #30

  • kingy1213

    the IPS arnt going to lose money Quote:The RIAA is now making agreements with ISPs they would have 2b compensated for there loses!!!

    Any way if thay disconect you just go some where else!!!


    35k ppl sued in 6 years is not many ppl :)

    22.12.2008 18:00 #31

  • PS260

    The only reason people want a high internet speed is for piracy.

    23.12.2008 09:56 #32

  • emugamer

    Originally posted by PS260: The only reason people want a high internet speed is for piracy.I will assume that you are joking.

    But if you are not and truly believe what you said, have you considered the numerous legit streaming video sites, including Netflix, Blockbuster, even Youtube. Then you have online gaming (PS3, XBOX 360), as well as the download and video services MS and Sony provide. Try downloading a PS3 demo or game from the Playstation Network Store on a dial-up connection. I would assuming you prefer dial-up, since that is really the only alternative to high-speed (yes, DSL is technically "high speed"). Maybe you are content with just checking your Juno email and waiting for each image on a website to slowly appear from the top down over the course of minutes. Or maybe you like the funny sound a dial-up modem makes trying to connect. I have to admit, it's a bit nostalgic for me (/wipes a teary eye).

    23.12.2008 10:24 #33

  • dabagboy

    Originally posted by susieqbbb: First off.

    This is illegal this violates the internet protection act.

    Which states unless a company has a warrent at any time they are not allowed to search a users computer.

    in order to obtain such information.

    they would have to search your machine via ip address.

    without a warrent any seized property would be unimissable in a court of law.
    ROFLMAO Wow, great advise from an attorney who cannot spell or understand basic grammar.

    Would you be willing to represent me if I'm sued?

    "warrent any seized property would be unimissable"

    just like Wow...

    23.12.2008 10:32 #34

  • Mez

    dabagboy, susie is correct enough that is why RIAA is ramping down the litigation. They lost many case because their evedance was obtained illeagaly. The litigation engine was supposed to have been self sustaining. With the run of "bad luck". The engine has been a money pit.

    Susie, you deserve a cookie!

    ematrix, I know Cox and probably Virgin hack computers. I have seen 'a letter'. I asked the person that recieved it to send it to the EFF. The Virgin letter was not self incriminating but it is likely they were doing the same. Assume if you P2P your computer is being inventoried. I am not sure what they are going to do with that info.

    That is why the RIAA dropped out of the ring. To make a good case you need to break the law. A good lawyer can get you out of either a poor case or a good case with ileagal evivence.

    Anyone have a secure firewall for M$? You want the software made by a company that will not give the back door over to these guys.

    23.12.2008 11:33 #35

  • ChiefBrdy

    What's a matter RIAA? The little girl in the hospital you sued wasn't vulnerable enough for you? Did you run out of 80 year old blind women to sue?

    Folks (for those who don't know)

    Chane your eMule/Azureus/whatever folder name to something funky. Use PeerGuardian, use a firewall w/port blocks. Nobody is getting to you.

    My ISP can't get past the public IP they assigned to me. Even if they could and even if they managed to start a scan, my net sniffer would pop up a red flag the size of Texas while my Defense program would shut it down immediately.

    23.12.2008 13:50 #36

  • Mez

    ChiefBrdy, what sniffer do you use. The guy that was sent an inventory of video he downloaded to his hard drive had both a personal firewall and a router fire wall. He was using forced encryption for his flows. He was more secure than most of us. Not that getting a letter is a biggie. He had gotten the must haves long ago so he will probably retire.

    23.12.2008 14:34 #37

  • kingy1213

    @ ChiefBrdy...
    Quote:Nobody is getting to you.dude i work 4 an ISP dont underestmate what we can do, its OURservers and cable etc... ur useing...?

    i dont think u know much at all!!... :)

    but if u think ur safe... fell free u think that!!

    24.12.2008 01:19 #38

  • blivetNC

    Quote: If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOL
    40 years ago we swapped albums and used tape decks to share music.
    No one seemed to care either. Taping songs and albums from FM radio was commonplace. Every major radio station would have an album hour which basically allowed one to tape the whole album without commercial interruption. No one cared.

    This Space For Rent

    24.12.2008 01:46 #39

  • nalljr

    ISP's will not yield to RIAA request.

    Lets assume the ISP agreed with RIAA request.
    1: They will waste manpower and time; to monitor and to send email to users to stop using P2P that the majority will ignore (additional manpower meaning additional cost for ISP).
    2: Lets say they terminate the ISP service of their users, the user will just go to another ISP (loss of customer meaning loss of profit)

    ISP companies are not that dumb to agree to such ridiculous, time-wasting, expensive request.

    24.12.2008 04:58 #40

  • Mez

    slickwill, I guess they could sell sheet music but vinyl is being shared. If you can play the music you can capture the sound and digitize it. The RIAA needs to sell the music for a fair price if they want to compete with free. They are some that will never buy music if they can get it for free. I bet if they sold HiFi DRM free music for 10% of what they are selling music for now they would not be worring about pirates.

    Good one kingy1213! I would tend to believe you. A techie with a fair tool set may not stand much of a chance. ISPs have finally spent some money and hired some pros. They have funds so they have great tools.

    On the other hand, a hacker or any truly devious person who takes the time to cover their tracks will fool you every time. 99% of the P2P users lack the needed discipline to cover their tracks that well.

    I suspect the RIAA will have little influence on the ISPs. The ISPs are a business. Business is all about the bottom line. Unless the RIAA gives them money, they will not do them many favors. I suspect the ISPs have a better idea who is doing what on their network than the RIAA does. It stands to reason that they would hire qualified persons in a counter P2P effort as apposed to the RIAA who hired incompetents. How else would the RIAA be going after printers and dead persons? Their whole effort reeked of incompetance. It would be moronic to assume a technical outfit like an ISP would be so stupid as to hire the dregs like the RIAA did.

    The RIAA aside, the ISPs need to control P2P. Uncontrolled P2P could clog the internet. They need to realize a large portion of their customers have broadband with P2P in mind. The ISPs should give those users band width when it does not interfere with business. Then they will not be waging war with their customers. The RIAA is a shining example of what not to do. Those sick bastards aren’t interested in profits only in raping the public. It is obvious they prefer to go out of business instead of providing the public with a fair deal.

    The RIAA will continue to work on changing the laws taking P2P out of the grey area and make it illegal. I do not count them out of the picture. They are far more dangerous now that they will be shifting their efforts.

    24.12.2008 08:30 #41

  • Interestx

    F*ck the RIAA and all their BS.

    Here's the real problem

    Quote:According to a new study, of the 13m songs available for sale on the internet last year, more than 10m failed to find a single buyer.

    The research, conducted by the MCPS-PRS's Will Page and Andrew Bud, brings us that much closer to proving Sturgeon's Law – that 90% of everything is crap. It also provides evidence for the famous old rock critic adage – your favourite band sucks.


    More importantly, these findings challenge the "long tail" theory that diverse, specialised items – though individually less popular - will together outsell mainstream "hits".


    Page is the chief economist at the MCPS-PRS Alliance, a not-for-profit royalty collection agency. According to his and Bud's research, 80% of all revenue came from about 52,000 tracks – the "hits" that powered the music industry. Broken down by album, only 173,000 of the 1.23m available albums were ever purchased – leaving 85% without a single copy sold.    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/dec/23/music-sell-sales

    The shovel sh!t and wonder why people are not interested.

    24.12.2008 11:27 #42

  • emugamer

    Quote:Quote: If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOL
    40 years ago we swapped albums and used tape decks to share music.
    No one seemed to care either. Taping songs and albums from FM radio was commonplace. Every major radio station would have an album hour which basically allowed one to tape the whole album without commercial interruption. No one cared.    Heck, I was doing that until the early-mid 90's.

    26.12.2008 10:04 #43

  • ZippyDSM

    Quote:Quote:Quote: If the RIAA really wants to stop piracy, then they should distribute there media in a non-digital format......LOL
    40 years ago we swapped albums and used tape decks to share music.
    No one seemed to care either. Taping songs and albums from FM radio was commonplace. Every major radio station would have an album hour which basically allowed one to tape the whole album without commercial interruption. No one cared.    Heck, I was doing that until the early-mid 90's.    8track came out in the what 60s?
    The recorder version of it was hell from what I have been told, so cassettes are more late 70s than anything else.

    We as a media going society have only really had self recording devices for the last 30 years, or mid 70s.

    With the age of digital protection we are losing are common sense rights, akin to how when planes came into use farmers claimed they owned the sky above them this of cores was silly, today we need a reformation of end user rights and copy right needs to be overhauled to focus solely on profits made from the right'd work and not the mere distribution of it.

    26.12.2008 10:53 #44

  • dude845

    So, a University has kids downloading on there internet. The Uni can't find who downloads, the RIAA tells the ISP that they need to do something, for example cap or shut down.. The Uni loses net or slower speed, then the ISP most likely gets sued, because if they don't listen to the RIAA they get sued? So a lose, lose situation.. The RIAA are a joke.

    2.1.2009 02:23 #45

  • Mez

    I wouldn't lose sleep over that. Often universities own there own trunk built before there was a web. The RIAA ran into their very first snaffoo when they ordered them to give up the names of the students whose IP addresses were on lists. Most called their bluff and said No. That was the end of that. The RIAA had no legal right to force the issue. Now with lap tops and wifi universities have tried to not know who is doing what making any process to uncover students abusing the system very slow and painful. With the RIAA losing clout, I think your worry is a non issue at least for the next year or two. The RIAA will need more power to do much. With the loss of their funding, CD sales dropped 20% last year and 15% the year before, they are starting to feel the strain.

    7.1.2009 09:27 #46

© 2024 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud