Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

ISP Bans RIAA to Protect Its Customers 607

Posted by michael
from the shot-heard-round-the-net dept.
fader writes "Information Wave Technologies, a northeastern (US) ISP has announced that "it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network". Apparently this is in response to the RIAA (and MPAA, but they don't seem to be blocking them yet) plan to actively attack P2P users. All I can say is, you go, guys! I hope more ISPs will follow their lead."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISP Bans RIAA to Protect Its Customers

Comments Filter:
  • Interesting... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by taliver (174409)
    RIAA banning sites... BAD.
    ISP banning RIAA... GOOD.

    Don't think I'm defending them, and I know that the two practices are different, but it's still interesting.
    • You're taking such a black and white view on the matter, it is terrible. Of course the ISP banning the RIAA, who has threatened to DoS their clients. If you block someone, it's bad, but if you block someone trying to attack you, it's good. See? There is a double standard, sure, because the ethics of what each side are doing is different.

      Personally, if I had any mod points left, your post would be flamebait. The observation you've made seems to ignore huge volumes of known facts, and flamebait is the only reason I can think of that anyone would try to say something like that.

  • A tiny tiny ISP is in need of publicity, probably run by a couple of "right thinking" individuals.

    Who is the worlds largest ISP... AOL/TimeWarner. Do they make records... oh yes. Are they active supporters of everything DMCA et al... oh yes.

    Small man stands up to the big guy, get ready for the big guy bitchslap.

    Sad but true :-(
  • by Treeluvinhippy (545814) <{treeluvinhippy} {at} {snet.net}> on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:07AM (#4104111)
    Looks like it's time to switch, and I don't mean to a macintosh.
  • Wow....fake files... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vengie (533896) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:08AM (#4104114)
    That takes guts. They are going to actively search&seek out the RIAA drones! Unfortunately, they will be placing "fake" files on gnutella....the question being, are those fake files worth the gain of having a major isp on "our" side?
    • by gerf (532474)

      They are going to actively search&seek out the RIAA drones!

      Yes, but even better, they blacklist the RIAA drones. Now, if they would distribute that list, and if others would be able to add to it, we could basically kill off their intrusion into our computers. I really don't like the idea of big brother/ big business snooping through my stuff. And i don't think you do either. Regulators!!! Mount up!

    • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:15AM (#4104192)
      the question being, are those fake files worth the gain of having a major isp on "our" side?


      That depends. If you just want to be able to leech away on any and all music, then it's not worth it.

      If you just want your fair use, the RIAA off our backs and just want to use the network to discover new music that was put there by the artists themselvs, then it certainly IS worth it.

      They're not putting up fake files of legal music, just fake files of illegal music. And that is quite fair in my humble oppinion.
      • I would also add
        Rebuilding corrupt/scratched or broke Vinal/CD's/DVD as fair use, especially old CD's that were sold as 'indestructible'.

        You may still be licensed for any CD's/DVD's that have been stolen because in the UK at least you still own the stolen goods unless they are recovered or you claim on an insurance policy, even if the thief sells them.

        at least that's what I use P2P networks for!
        • by Hektor_Troy (262592)
          That's the problem with the media conglamerates.

          Consumer: "I bought this CD/DVD, so I should be able to do with it as I want."

          MC: "No, you only paid to be allowed to listen/watch it under certain circumstances."

          Consumer: "Okay. Now my CD/DVD is scratched beyond use. I want a new one."

          MC: "Can't do that. You only get that one copy. You have to be carefull with your own stuff. It's not our responsibility."

          Personally I'd like to get a VERY thorough rewrite of the copyright laws that affect _me_ meaning Denmark and the EU, but I'd also like a global and FAIR set of copyright laws.

          Not just fair to me as a consumer, but also fair to the copyright holders. As it is now (at least in Denmark) it is seriously borked, giving consumers rights that are in no way fair, and removing rights that ARE fair.
    • My guess is that they will just return them as search results. No point in actually sending a dummy file. Unless the RIAA's drones require a download and not just search results. The smart thing would be to not actually download the song because of the massive increase in bandwidth needed, but then again this is the RIAA.
    • It's not like people haven't been spoofing files and renaming them for years now just to be annoying. Then again it does make one wonder if the RIAA folks are actually smart enough to see if the files they download actually are the songs they say they are. I think this whole thing is going to get horribly out of hand with tactics like this. As much as I really love the idea of an ISP taking a stand for their customers who have no means to really fight back or stand up against these loud mouth bullies, it makes me wonder what their next ridiculous plan will be?

      If you really want to piss off the RIAA, stop listening to the crap they shove down your throat every week on the radio and various music channels. Do yourself a favor, go to a show [webtunes.com] at a club and run into a band you've never seen before but might actually really dig. Not to mention buying their small run CD after the show helps them out a lot more than buying from Amazon or Sam Goody.

      The simple fact is the only way you'll get the RIAA to listen is to keep your money in your pockets and out of their hands. Buy albums online at small friendly [cdbaby.com] places that carry bands you may have never heard but would possibly like. I've never met anyone who's said they've started going to live shows [google.com] and regretted it. Musicians make their money on tour more often than these crappy record contracts.

      So the best way to keep those RIAA bastards off of your computer is to first make a backup of your stuff. Yeah, we all have the CD's to all our mp3s :-p Then really stick it to the bastards and stop giving them your money.
  • Whoa whoa whoa (Score:5, Informative)

    by theRhinoceros (201323) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:09AM (#4104131)
    Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.

    How about this part of the article? Honeynetting your ISP with fake mp3s to confound RIAA meddling is way more proactively defiant, IMO, than simply blocking traffic from riaa.org.
  • Network Information (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Beatbyte (163694)
    I work for an ISP also and would like their network information so I could pass it along to the boss to block.

    Does anyone have their IP blocks?

    Just because they gave the DOJ a handjob doesn't mean we can't get around that.

    • by suso (153703)
      While this sounds nice and all. Blindly blocking network blocks can be a bad idea. I'm sure if the information on what IP blocks the RIAA uses to scan networks got out. Several people would just add those blocks to their firewalls and forget about it. Then later when the RIAA retaliates by changing their provider or getting new IP blocks and giving back their old ones, everyone would end up blocking someone having nothing to do with the RIAA. We have to fight them on the legal front, not the technological one.
  • Im planning on sending my isp an email asking them to follow suit. We should also look at the next logical step in this fight against RIAA, which is targeting one or two senators who have/are supporting the actions of RIAA and the DMCA. Maybe then we can be taken seriously.

    epicstruggle
  • This is great but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ldopa1 (465624) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:11AM (#4104148) Homepage Journal
    I am sure this is the start of a huge slew of lawsuits. UserFriendly [userfriendly.org] had a strip about this on Sunday. You can view it here [userfriendly.org]. It raises an interesting point. The comic implies that anyone with a big enough footprint can ignore/swat the RIAA if they want.

    That said, I think that the banning of the RIAA from networks is a start. Now they need to ban the spoofers [siliconvalley.com] and companies like MediaDefender [mediadefender.com] who spend all of their bandwidth downloading files from YOUR computer to keep other people off.

  • by jht (5006) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:12AM (#4104156) Homepage Journal
    The idea of using a Gnutella honeypot and then using access logs to "spot the fed" is terrific - it'd be nice to see more ISP's stand up to the RIAA this way.

    I used to think the balkanization of the Internet would be a Bad Thing, but I'm not so sure now given the kind of tactics we're seeing the record and movie giants use.
  • I like this. Actively monitor for any hostile action and block it.

    People should not be punished or harrassed for doing things that may appear to be illegal, at least if the accuser doesn't perform a reasonable inspection before making accusations.

    Conversely why can't people just not steal the mp3's?
    • Conversely why can't people just not steal the mp3's?

      Because the RIAA refuses to sell them in a way that encourages people to pay for them: High quality files in a DRM-free format, at a price so cheap per song that people would rather pay it to get a file of guaranteed high quality than waste the time trying to find a perfectly-ripped, glitch-free copy somewhere for free. Do you know how many times I've had to keep re-downloading songs from Gnutella because they're cut off at the end or have glitches in the middle from the CD skipping when the song was ripped? It's not a fun thing to do with a speedy broadband connection, much less the dialup connection that the majority of people still use.

      If the RIAA charged, say, 5 to 25 cents per song, or a more expensive x dollars-per-month all-you-can-download plan, with NO DRM CRAP, they would make a killing. Why don't they?

      They're greedy.
      They like the profit margins they maintain with their extortionate CD pricing.

      They're cheap.
      The startup costs for their own MP3 server farm would be pretty hefty, and that's money that (in their eyes) would be better put to use stuffing Hilary's couch cushions and mattress, and buying laws that prop up their existing business model.

      They're lazy.
      They don't want to have to strive to create more high-quality content. By only selling album-length CDs (the purchasable single as we know it is being killed off), they can effectively force you to pay $20 for that one song you like, because the other eleven on the CD make you bleed from the ears because they're so terrible. In all my years of CD buying (pre-Napster, of course), I can still have enough fingers to count the number of CDs I have where I love every single track on them. I could have a nasty accident with a bandsaw and that would still be true.

      They're stupid.
      They just can't see that if they sell something cheaply enough and without onerous restrictions, people won't be motivated to steal it. Every time they come close to this idea, the services they launch are too expensive and/or use some proprietary file format locked down six ways from Sunday, or have other consumer-hostile aspects.

      ~Philly
  • ISP Karma (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SeanTobin (138474) <<byrdhuntr> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:12AM (#4104168)
    If ISP's had karma, Information Wave Technologies would have just hit the cap. I just sent an e-mail to them at thier riaa@informationwave.net address expressing my thoughts... you should too. Imagine what thier management would do if they got 25,000 e-mails stating how much people liked thier service?

    (Yes, I know what would happen... thier mail server would go on strike, and be burned because it was too close to the exploding webserver)
  • by Darkninja666 (198306) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:13AM (#4104172)
    While I think giving one to the RIAA is great. But I think this is wrong too. I want no one and no corp deciding what should be accessed across their backbones/routers/etc. This is as bad as the RIAA trying to sue ISPs for NOT blocking offending websites. Now all a judge has to ask is "Is it possible to block access to a single website?", and the RIAA will give this ISP up as an example.

    Everyone should be against any censorship!! May the RIAA burn in hell , but this ISP is no better....

    Hell, this will proubly be modded down to hell, but think about what this could do to all our freedoms....

    • Hell, this will proubly be modded down to hell, but think about what this could do to all our freedoms....

      I am not seeing the threat, despite gratitous use of bold and italics.

      The RIAA is attacking/planning on attacking machines behind its firewall. They brazenly admit it. Okay.

      This impedes the ISPs client base from using any application, let alone P2P. It also costs the ISPs money.

      All outgoing (ie requested) traffic to the RIAA would presumably be legal. However, people acting illegally trying to break into the network are shutout at the border.

      If I am walking down the street, and some goon is spouting off about Satan and friends, and I choose not to listen, is that censorship?
    • by fmaxwell (249001) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @10:45AM (#4105137) Homepage Journal
      I want no one and no corp deciding what should be accessed across their backbones/routers/etc.

      The highlighting was mine but goes to show that the ISPs own the equipment. Their network is theirs to do as they see fit. Would you want the federal government telling you that you were not allowed to block IP addresses from accessing your network? If you don't like the ISP's policies, use a different ISP.

      Your argument reminds me of the spammers who accuse ISPs of censoring them and limiting their free speech.

      Censorship is when the government limits what you can see and read. It's not when a private ISP makes a business decision to block IP addresses.

  • by Fat Casper (260409) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:13AM (#4104173) Homepage
    One of the ways ISPs deal with spam is by blacklisting sources of it and cutting them off as much as they can. IWT is starting a blacklist that is just as legitimate and perfectly targeted:

    The RIAA has announced its intention to crack any boxes that it wants to and has even bought a bill that would legalize it for them. That makes the RIAA a big security threat, even bigger when you consider that they have no oversight and a long record of not caring about little things like rights. Any contact with their network makes you vulnerable.

    Any security type would want their network protected from snooping of any kind. Especially from a company that wants to shut down anyone it doesn't like and is protected against liability for any damage it does. An ISP blacklisting a company that does this, or even just announces that it plans to, is protecting its customers and being a good citizen.

    I think the idea is going to catch on.

    • but then we have ISPs like ATTBI which decide to bow to MPAA pressures (and probably RIAA) and suspend user accounts until they contact the legal demands deptartment for TOS violations.

      Are the "Big Boys" going to allow this to go on while the "smaller" ISPs block it?
      • by T3kno (51315) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @10:10AM (#4104759) Homepage
        If they do, the big boys will soon cease to offer broadband. No one will want it, as soon as I can get off it I will. Hopefully consumers (especially US consumers) will pull their heads out and realize that it is they who have the final say in what happens to a company. If you stop buying CD's as I have the RIAA will eventually listen. If you stop using ATTBI and switch all of the phone accounts you can off of their service they will listen. The beauty of capatilism is that we as consumers have the power to change things, the only reason companies are so big and powerful (which is a REALLY REALLY bad thing IMHO) is that we have allowed them to become that way. Homo Depot is the size it is because people stopped supporting the little independant hardware store. I for one prefer small independant hardware stores, a) because you get help, can ususally talk to a nice helpfull person, b) no hour long lines, and c) you are directly supporting your community instead of supporting a huge multi-national. The same goes for ISP's the little ISPs are worried about their customers, not about a corporate image and shareholders, so they will go out of their way to protect you as their customer.

        ATTBI blocked my account for having a set up my BSD box with a static IP (it took them over a year to notice, and COX never cared), I got the service reinstated, told them that I was switching off of their service, we are in the process of changing my wifes cell phone service from ATT and I had the choice here at work about a long distance carrier recently and I specifically chose not to go with ATT. If we all did this companies like ATT and conglomerates like the RIAA and the MPAA will have to listen, after all they are only companies and the only power that they have is the power that we as consumers give them. Capatalism works, but we have to be the police, not the government.
        • by tshak (173364) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @11:08AM (#4105318) Homepage
          Actually this is where capitalism doesn't work, and why we need government regulation. You're assuming an educated consumer. You're assuming a consumer that isn't apathetic about said issues. This consumer is the exception but not the rule in the USA, which is why the general quality of products has severly decreased over the last few decades while the costs of said products have increased (inflation accounted for). Finally, you have this new concept of an Ogopoly(sp?). This concept is almost proven within large industries where although there is no monopoly, you have duopolies or more. For example, who cares if ATT limits your usage to essentially web surfing and email? So you switch! Switch to who? Qwest DSL who does the same thing (for example)? Competition is great, but it doesn't always work when you have a few megacorporations following each others suit. Finally, the entire captilistic model puts the maximization of corporate profits above all other priorities. Long are the days where you have a business passionate about making a quality product while making a humble profit. Profiting isn't bad, but business in America is summed up as the following: Maximize profit at the expense of your employee's (compensation, etc.), customers, and product quality. It's true that competition keeps this in check, but only to an extent.
        • If you stop buying CD's as I have the RIAA will eventually listen

          what???
          yes, not buying cd's will certainly get them to stop complaining about people not buying cd's.
          it's genius!

          rather, maybe you should be buying cd's of _all these great bands your finding online_ to prove to the riaa that technology can actually HELP them instead of only hurt them...

    • Same old story (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mizhi (186984) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:56AM (#4104604) Homepage
      Which is that the RIAA simply does not understand the tech industry or technology.

      It's like allowing an 18 year old with a basic knowledge of physics to decide regulations for bridge building.

      For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.
      • Re:Same old story (Score:4, Insightful)

        by revery (456516) <charles.cac2@net> on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @10:55AM (#4105201) Homepage
        For a less abstract analogy, I know that my television has been stolen from me. I don't know who, but I know it had to be someone in my neighborhood. Using the RIAA as a model, I should be able to go into each of my neighbor's houses to look for this television, without their permission. And if I have a strong suspicion that I have found the violator, I am allowed to destroy the house. That's basically what the RIAA wants.

        Actually it's even better. You still have your television, they just built one identical to yours,
        no wait, they built one that looks and sounds almost exactly like your TV, only smaller.
  • by Jerf (17166) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:13AM (#4104176) Journal
    This is probably jumping the gun. Since the bill hasn't been passed yet, this gives the RIAA the opportunity to write into the bill a provision that doesn't allow anyone to block them... along with the provision that ensures that only the RIAA can take these actions, not just "anybody with a copyright." (Of course it's then anybody's guess whether any version of this bill can pass now anyhow, especially one strengthened in that manner; ISTM that the RIAA is losing this small part of the propoganda war, since they've now been labelled as wanting to "hack", one of the biggest irrational knee-jerk labels there is, especially when attached to "terrorism", which I think this is.)

    On the other hand, in the absense of the bill, I think this is a reasonable move by the ISP, for two reasons. One, the normal state of things is that the network's value is increased by adding more nodes. If there are nodes that subtract value, then they should be excised from the network. (We have strange definitions of "value", by the way... to be anti-censorship yet pro-RIAA blocking is perfectly possible and sensible, but does require some careful defining of your objectives... a definition of value that focuses on not affecting other people adversely, without evaluating the speech content.)

    Two, if anybody else stood up on a national stage and said "WE WANT TO HACK PEOPLE'S COMPUTERS", don't you think they'd get blackholed fast? The RIAA is just getting exactly what they asked for, the logical conclusion of standing up and yelling "WE WANT TO DESTROY THINGS!"
  • by kefoo (254567)
    Check out Sunday's User Friendly [userfriendly.org] for a good take on this.
  • by Bonker (243350) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:14AM (#4104180)
    So the rest of us can firewall them as well.
  • Someone bullying the bully, at last.

    It is also interesting how they mention that they will fake Gnotella clients sharing popular songs, in an attempt to trick RIAA to try and hack them.

    It is encouraging to see that the grassroots are being helped by the ISPs, which means that the ISPs have realized who their customers are. Everyone should call their ISP, demanding to be protected from RIAA!

    Unfortunately, seeing how the broadband ISP market is consolidating into a few players with local monopolies, it is unlikely that this will spread to the major ISPs. Like someone mentioned in an earlier comment, I doubt that AOL/Time-Warner have the guts or even interest to pull something like this off.

  • RIAA IP Space (Score:4, Informative)

    by buck09 (212016) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:23AM (#4104257) Homepage
    Enjoy...
    RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA (NETBLK-RECORDIN50-191) 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 US Netname: RECORDIN50-191 Netblock: 12.150.191.0 - 12.150.191.255 Coordinator: EGAS, JACK (JE332-ARIN) jegas@riaa.com (2027750101) - Record last updated on 11-Aug-2001. Database last updated on 19-Aug-2002 21:20:16 EDT.
    • Re:RIAA IP Space (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jeffy124 (453342) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:41AM (#4104399) Homepage Journal
      not so fast.

      You must also deal with the RIAA's member companies, not just RIAA itself. It is technically the labels who own the copyrights and would be the ones to "enforce" those copyrights by hacking. Also, not all of the member companies are in favor of hacking consumer systems -- for example, AOL/TW & child company Warner Music are opposed to it.
      • Re:RIAA IP Space (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jeffy124 (453342)
        thinking this out some more...
        just because AOL/TW is opposed to it, doesnt mean Warner Music is gonna not make use of the law. For example, HP is opposed to the DMCA when it comes to OS security, but that didnt stop one of their lawyers from trying.
  • by reallocate (142797) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:24AM (#4104265)
    So..restricting Internet use is OK if you're restricting people you don't like?

    If you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Pretty difficult to argue otherwise.

    An ISP that blocks or restricts RIAA use of the net is legitimizing the practice they purport to oppose. This is not the way to fight this particular battle.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:36AM (#4104351)
      If you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Pretty difficult to argue otherwise.


      Actually pretty easy to argue otherwise. The ISP is proactively banning someone who has stated their intention to break into their customers' computers. By that same logic, there's no reason to ban me or anyone else who uses the network for its proper purposes.

      • by reallocate (142797) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:57AM (#4104620)
        If an ISP takes action against someone who has stated an intention to commit an illegal act using the ISP's facilities, I agree -- the ISP should report it to the authorities and act to protect its other customers.

        As a political instrument, intended to thwart the RIAA's efforts to change the law, however, this kind of "good guys restricting the bad guys" activity will fail. The 'bad guys" will simply point to anyone's restriction of Internet use and call them hypocrites. Restrictions on freedom restrict freedom, regardless of their souce.

    • Um, depends on your perspective of things. One entity is going to DoS annother entity. Forget who the entities are, just think of them as just entities.

      What can you do about it?
      - the user can drop packets
      - the isp can block traffic
      - the isp can take the offender to court for disruption of service

      So now what do you propose to do on the threat of an attack? Simple: prepare for it. The RIAA upstream obviously won't cut them off, so the ISP's themselves will have to protect themselves.

      In a land of no laws (or few), especially the internet, it is best to protect your assets since no one else will step in. Especially if the RIAA is going to flood not only one member of your isp off, but the entire isp!
    • So..restricting Internet use is OK if you're restricting people you don't like?

      Well yes - of course!

      It's common practice to restrict crackers, hackers, DDOS attackers and even anyone who looks at you funny.

      If it's your network, you can limit what routes you will route to and from.

      This is how peering and even transit operations work (some trasit agreements and many peering arrangements between carriers limit what netblocks may be access via them and peers do the same too).

      If you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Pretty difficult to argue otherwise.

      They _already_ do it to us, as do all large large corporations an private companies and anyone with a private IP range!

      People can restrict access into and out of their network, it's not a new thing.

      An ISP that blocks or restricts RIAA use of the net is legitimizing the practice they purport to oppose.

      Erm How? Do RIAA want to block all the traffic into their network coming from joe user?

      We *wish*!

    • Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FreeUser (11483)
      An ISP that blocks or restricts RIAA use of the net is legitimizing the practice they purport to oppose. This is not the way to fight this particular battle.

      Nonsense. They are restricting system crackers from attacking their networks, and their customers. This is a longstanding policy for most ISPs, who blacklist SPAMmers and other neferious crackers who are looking to steal information (e.g. credit cards) or damage people's systems out of pure maliciousness.

      The RIAA has chosen to become one of the above, and announced their intention to do so publicly. The ISP is responding in a responsible manner, both in terms of immediate security and in terms of long-term economic viability.

      Think about it. If the RIAA and the MPAA are allowed to crack, and possibly destroy machines on the internet, or succeed in their more modest objective of turning the internet from an interactive publishing medium everyone can be hard on into a more-or-less one way, glorified interactive shopping network channel, how many people are going to be willing to spend $40/month or more for access?

      Virtually no one, which means all of the ISPs in question essentially go out of business, or become a niche market. Either way, they lose.

      AOL, Sprint, AT&T, and other large broadband players had better stand up to this as well ... if they do not, they are likely to see the underlying reason for why people are willing to pay for internet access go away, and with it their entire market dry up to virtually nothing.

      That would serve the purposes of the MPAA, the RIAA, and other copyright cartels, but it would be devistating to the tech industry, the internet, and very directly to the ISPs in question.

      It looks like one ISP has actually thought the consiquences through, and chosen the best alternative for dealing with it. I suspect any ISPs capable of reading the writing on the wall, and interested in projected earnings beyond the next couple of quarters, will likely reach similar conclusions.

      Perhaps not AOL, which has come to be dominated by their media-cartel half, Time-Warner, but certainly AT&T and others should seriously be considering similiar measures to protect their networks, their customers, and ultimately their business.
  • I truly applaud this ISP's efforts. Right on, y'all.

    There've been a slew of comments about how maybe AOL will adopt this policy given enough consumer pressure or maybe RoadRunner will or any other major ISP. Think for a second about that.

    There is a reason these groups are called media conglomerates. They have faces across many different media. Those who provide the Internet connectivity medium also provide the musical content medium. AOL and Time Warner are all owned by a conglomerate that makes records.

    But again, right on to those smaller ones who take a stand like this. Maybe if we reward them with our business, we'll put the conglomerates in their place.
  • by Mr.Sharpy (472377) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:30AM (#4104313)
    It seems like it would be a good idea to implement this as distributed honeypots instead of one on ISP's network. Otherwise, what would stop the RIAA attack drones/bots from just blacklisting the blacklist and ignoring the honeypot.
  • by gosand (234100) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @09:30AM (#4104314)
    I have just sent them an email of thanks and encouragement. I think everyone else who agrees with their actions should do the same. It is nice to see someone taking a public stand, and they should be encouraged.

    riaa@informationwave.net

  • IWT Bans RIAA From Accessing Its Network

    August 19, 2002

    Information Wave Technologies has announced it will actively deny the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) from accessing the contents of its network. Earlier this year, the RIAA announced its new plan to access computers without owner's consent for the sake of protecting its assets. Information Wave believes this policy puts its customers at risk of unintentional damage, corporate espionage, and invasion of privacy to say the least.

    Due to the nature of this matter and RIAA's previous history, we feel the RIAA will abuse software vulerabilities in a client's browser after the browser accesses its site, potentially allowing the RIAA to access and/or tamper with your data. Starting at midnight on August 19, 2002, Information Wave customers will no longer be able to reach the RIAA's web site. Information Wave will also actively seek out attempts by the RIAA to thwart this policy and apply additional filters to protect our customers' data.

    Information Wave will also deploy peer-to-peer clients on the Gnutella network from its security research and development network (honeynet) which will offer files with popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia. No copyright violations will take place, these files will merely have arbitrary sizes similar to the length of a 3 to 4 minute MP3 audio file encoded at 128kbps. Clients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network will be immediately blacklisted from Information Wave's network. The data collected will be actively maintained and distributed from our network operations site.

    The placement of this policy is not intended to hamper the RIAA's piracy elimination agenda or advocate Internet piracy, but to ensure the safety of our customers' data attached to our network from hackers or corporate espionage hidden by the veil of RIAA copyright enforcement.

    If you have questions, comments, or concerns regarding this policy, please e-mail riaa@informationwave.net.

  • First IANAL, don't even play one on TV...

    The legal system runs on precedents, and the more you have on your side, the better.

    Is the gated community a precedent for an ISP? A gated community can restrict access of outsiders to the interior of the community, but does not restrict members' access to the outside. Sounds kind of like what an ISP is doing in this case. I presume gated communities have provisions for police and firemen to obtain access, as well as desired visitors.

    Are there precedents for salesmen or bill collectors (without an accompying policeman) gaining access to a gated community? I can see a better case for religious types, claiming Constitutional protection. But last I knew, the RIAA didn't qualify as a religion.
  • Help, lawyers!

    Now, filtering out SPAM shouldn't compromise your neutral carrier status - after all, it's a needed step to maintain the health of the network. Likewise, filtering out potentially damaging hackers, like the RIAA.

    However, if they're smart, the RIAA is going to use this as ammunition in their struggle to get ISP's neutral carrier status revoked! Or, they are if they have any sense. If the ISP can block access to OUR site (for security reasons) they should block access to that site in china (b/c we tell them too.)

    Scary.
  • Would love to get their IP addresses, and any company working for them to add to my blocked list on my firewall, and my customers firewalls.

    ttyl
    Farrell
  • Awesome news. An ISP that actually has a backbone (really, pun not intended!)

    Now if only the PC manufacturers would show similar courage, maybe we could convince the RIAA/MPAA that they are just companies and that even money can only go so far.

    I think Rosen and Valenti just have an inferiority complex and are trying to be like Bill Gates. :)

  • Block RIAA members! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by supabeast! (84658) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @10:34AM (#4105019)
    Instead of just blocking the RIAA itself, how about blocking RIAA members? Imagine if Sony, RCA, AOL/TW, etc.. had all of their internet traffic blocked by ISPs? It really wouldn't be that hard to get the consumers on the side of the ISPs, as the ISPs could argue that the RIAA and its members are promoting and financially supporting electronic terrorism!
  • by neitzert (184856) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @11:30AM (#4105507) Homepage
    The RIAA is not going to use their corporate network for this; They are going to use disposeable connectivity such as DSL, cable, and dialup to launch these attacks.

    The two questions I have for you armchair systems admins and network engineers are;

    1. What good will blocking 208.225.90.0/24 and 12.150.191.0/24 do for your network?

    2. What good will transit providers derive from blocking 208.225.90.0/24 and 12.150.191.0/24 from traversing their network?

    This is a purile waste of time and energy, do the right thing; Call your congress critter, hack them back, or protest in some other more effective way -- a router or iptables entry is a weak protest.

    ...and on a another note, how long do you think it will be before the RIAA has trained dogs to search out illegal copyright infringing media sniffing every bag and person at the bus temrinal, trainstation, or airports? How long before they request the DoJ to randomly pull over and search automobiles for CD-R, Dubbed Audio Cassettes, or *gasp* portable mp3 players and arrest the driver/owners for interstate transport of stolen property and seize the cars for sherrifs auction? IMO this whole IP thing has gone so sideways that all bets are off, infact I'm suprised we havent seen a shotgun weilding hillary rosen on the covers of Time and Newsweek.

  • by night_flyer (453866) on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @12:18PM (#4105869) Homepage
    when we as BBS operators would ban Law Enforcement officials from entering our service, not that we had anything to hide (most of us anyway) but to keep them from harrassing our users.
  • by Dave21212 (256924) <dav@spamcop.net> on Tuesday August 20, 2002 @12:24PM (#4105910) Homepage Journal
    If there is any chance that anyone could identify RIAA crackers from REAL crackers, the RIAA must be registering or keeping records of it's actions. Would any unrecorded or unapproved action then be classified as a REAL attack - along with REAL liability ? Would every report of cracking need to be cross-referenced or would they all be ignored ?

    If ISPs report every instance of cracking by the RIAA, wouldn't the limited resources of the FBI be required to investigate so many 'approved' federal crimes that the real criminals would be getting away with more ?

    These guys have the right idea, document, blacklist, AND report - treat the RIAA attempts like any other illicit action on their network !

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva

Working...