ISP Bans RIAA to Protect Its Customers 607
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."
Interesting... (Score:2, Flamebait)
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.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3)
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.
In perspective... (Score:2)
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
I live in CT (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I live in CT (Score:2)
Wow....fake files... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow....fake files... (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:Wow....fake files... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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!
Re:I would also add (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow....fake files... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I've seen the RIAA member list [riaa.org] linked quite often by people interested in completely boycotting the RIAA...
You average music listener doesn't give a shit about the RIAA. It's an industry group. Most people going to the site already have a firm stance on the issue of the RIAA one way or another. Blocking the site is just a silly token gesture that hurts the actual activists.
Re:Wow....fake files... (Score:2)
Re:Wow....fake files... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Wow....fake files... (Score:2)
Whoa whoa whoa (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Surely they'll check before attacking (Score:3, Informative)
It all comes down to how smart the RIAA's find and kill stuff is. If it just goes by filenames, then this will work. If someone finds out that some song being billed as Linkin Park's latest is indeed someones static, then it won't work.
Re:Surely they'll check before attacking (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know, but if you figure it out please tell the rest of us so we can forget her too!
Network Information (Score:2, Interesting)
Does anyone have their IP blocks?
Just because they gave the DOJ a handjob doesn't mean we can't get around that.
Re:Network Information (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Network Information (Score:2)
Support your local ISP(those that ban RIAA) (Score:2, Insightful)
epicstruggle
This is great but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's still stealing. (Score:3, Interesting)
The supreme court has ruled time and time again that you cannot patent a sound. Nor can you copyright it. You can copyright it's composition (the sheet music), but you can't own a sound.
Never mind that argument. Think on this: I have several
However, the act of copying music from CD's without approval IS a violation of the law, provided I do it for profit. The profit doesn't have to be monetary. I can exact profit from the loss of sales the artist would normally enjoy. That said, seeing as I am not SELLING the mp3's, and study after study has proven that the sharing of mp3's BOOSTS sales, they have to PROVE that they suffered a loss from my activities.
It gets even more complicated than that - they only have Offensive Rights for protected works. They means THEY have to sue ME, and if they don't do it within 5 years of the infringement, they lose offensive rights to that work in TOTAL.
So go ahead and argue that people who share mp3'
s are stealing (and privately, I agree), but the RIAA and the artists themselves have the onus places on them to do something about it in court.
Some people are arguing that Napster, Morpheus, LimeWire et al are facilitating this, and are thereby guilty through association (in an "aiding and abetting sort of way). IF that's true, and I AM willing to scede that argument, then the RIAA and the artists need to take action against the manufacturers of CD-RW, DVD-RW, Casette tapes, mini-disc, VHS, Super-H, BetaMax etc etc etc, ad inifinitum. Anything less implies that they don't actually care about protecting their rights.
I particularly like how they'll enforce this (Score:3)
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.
Honeypot protection (Score:2)
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?
Re:Honeypot protection (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
(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)
This may not be the best idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This may not be the best idea... (Score:3)
Yes, yes it is.
AOW/TW has nothing even close to resembling a monopoly on internet access, so government oversight isn't going to kick in.
Freedom of speech also means that you can choose what NOT to say. If you owned a newspaper (or maybe a web site), would you like it if you were forced to include items you don't want?
Passing and understanding a course on civics should be a requirement before using the phrases "free speech" or "constitutional" in a post.
-jon
They're treating it like spam. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:They're treating it like spam. (Score:2)
Are the "Big Boys" going to allow this to go on while the "smaller" ISPs block it?
Re:They're treating it like spam. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:They're treating it like spam. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They're treating it like spam. (Score:3)
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)
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)
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.
Probably jumping the gun... (Score:4, Interesting)
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!"
User Friendly (Score:2, Funny)
Publish your blacklist, Information Wave (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Publish your blacklist, Information Wave (Score:2)
Very interesting (Score:2)
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)
Re:RIAA IP Space (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then? (Score:2)
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!
Re:This Kind of Restriction is Good, Then? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
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.
Keep in mind these two words: media conglomerates (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Distributed Honeypots (Score:4, Insightful)
I have sent them an email, do the same (Score:4, Insightful)
riaa@informationwave.net
Content of statement (in case it gets /.ed) (Score:2)
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.
Gated Communities as a legal precedent? (Score:2)
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.
Compromise neutral carrier status? (Score:2)
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.
Anyone have the IP addresses of RIAA, MPAA? (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Way to Go! (Score:2)
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)
blocking 208.225.90.0/24 is a weak protest. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
This reminds me of the old days (Score:3, Informative)
How to determine RIAA crackers vs REAL crackers ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 !
Re:Excellent news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Excellent news (Score:2)
Hey, if they can't survive the Slashdotting then there is no way they are going to be able to cope with all the customers they are going to get now. But if they can survive today I'm going to see if I can buy a *boatload* of their stock...
About time someone told the *AA's where to go!
Re:Excellent news (Score:2)
Re:Excellent news (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:5, Informative)
common carrier? (Score:4, Insightful)
When the RIAA comes and demands they cut off access to warez.org, they'll be in less of a position to say they can't/don't do content-based filtering. In for a penny, in for a pound; this may be shooting themselves in the foot.
Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:common carrier? (Score:4, Insightful)
How so? The RIAA has cleary stated that THEY WILL actively attack P2P users on any computer that is distributing music. They are protecting users here, not filtering.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, if they HAD such status. Although many ISPs would prefer common carrier status, I've yet to hear of a definable ruling that they have it. It's an issue that neither the courts or Congress has directly addressed yet. I'm sure in the next few years, it will be settled, one way or another.
Disagree? Please point me to a court ruling that says I'm wrong.
Re:common carrier? (Score:5, Informative)
By my reading of section 202 they can make reasonable descrimination against people, and if cutting off people who are bent on harming your customers isn't reasonable I don't know what is.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
Common carrier doesn't apply (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Common carrier doesn't apply (Score:3, Informative)
Here's some links:
the pdf file explaining why [potaroo.net], and the
html-ization [216.239.33.100]of the pdf from google
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:2)
This is still far better than letting the RIAA actively attack unsecured home PC's. I'm glad someone has the balls to do this. Unfortunately for me, Verizon is the only broadband provider in the area. I highly doubt they will take this stand. I'm hoping SpeakEasy and other friendly providers will follow the bandwagon.
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. Since their network is a private one, they certainly have the right to blacklist anybody they want. Should they share that list with other ISPs, there may be some problems. But setting up their own list is not illegal. Furthermore, should they see this thing out, they may eventually have more business than they can even handle.
RIAA may be able to take them to court, but it would probably be worth the $$$ to fend them off.
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:3)
Tell that to the folks who ran the SPAM mail-relay blacklists. If I recall correctly, one of 'em got sued and forced to remove someone from the blacklist. That was a private list, maintained by private individuals, utilized on privatly-owned systems, and they still got sued (and lost). (Someone help me out on the details here, please.)
So, just because they have a *right* to block the RIAA, doesn't mean that a judge will agree. And, in the end, that's all that matters -- whether you can convince a judge (or jury, or cop). If you can't convince them, or can't afford to try, then you've lost, no matter what the law says.
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:2)
Blockquoth the poster:
I'm not sure that you do recall correctly. Yes, several blacklists have been sued, but none of those suits have succeeded as far as I know.
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:2)
Okay, here's a
An update a couple months later says:
I couldn't find any further details, but assuming nothing changed, I'd say that several "large ISPs are caving in to a massive lawsuit" says that the suit was successful. Maybe not legally decisive, but at least successful (for the plaintiff).
(I'm sure there are more instances and other details out there, and possibly later reversals-of-caving, but I wanted to at least show one instance where private-ownership of the resources didn't help.)
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:3)
Re:Fugetabout it (Score:3)
Furthermore, the suits have all been against maintainers (and publishers) of blacklists, not the ISPs that used them. The owner of a private network has just as much right to block traffic they deem undesirable (unsafe, whatever) as I have to eject a burglar, or other trespasser, from my home.
Excuse me???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me???? (Score:5, Funny)
And to satisfy those customers, they could just summarize the RIAA website:
Dangerous Precedent (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it - I can't think of any "real-world" situation where this would be allowed to occur. Let's say I own an apartment building, and I value my tenants' security, so I installed a gate. Now, the RIAA decides they think one of my tenants is bootlegging CD's. So they try to bash the gate down, but they can't. Now they sue me. Or, to avoid the suit, I install cameras in every apartment so I can see what all of my tenants are doing, all the time. And, when I catch someone, I write his name attached to a list on the front gate. Yeah, it's nice to have the gate, but now my landlord is no better than the RIAA.
That's exactly what's happening here. This is barely better than unfettered RIAA access. But this is still no acceptable solution. If the RIAA proposal were to be proposed in language people understand, they would be enraged. But it isn't, so they don't care. Great.
Re:Entrapment? (Score:2)
If you go on a peer to peer copyright infringing mp3 sharing network, there is an implied assumption that you are also offering content as your "payment" for access.
It isn't entrapment if you just stand around waiting for someone to attack you.
Re:Entrapment? (Score:2)
Tell that to Bernard Goetz.
#@*&$% juries.
Re:Entrapment? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Entrapment? (Score:2)
The results may not be admissible in court but I don't think that's their goal.
Entrapment? Come on... Don't you watch Law & Order? It's only entrapment when performed by a police officer or by someone who could be considered an agent of the police. If it's not entrapment then there's no reason why it shouldn't be admissible in court.
-a
uhm...NO (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Entrapment? (Score:4, Informative)
That said, assuming the ISP isn't acting in concert with law enforcement, they're allowed to do whatever they want to keep out RIAA. RIAA would only have rights to pursue recourse if they had a contract with the ISP in some vendor-customer relationship. The ISP's actions don't constitute an attack against RIAA, although I'm sure RIAA would love to spin it that way.
Re:Previous History? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, [slashdot.org] there [slashdot.org] is. [slashdot.org]
Don't read much, eh?
Re:RIAA wins! (Score:2)
Isn't that also a public service? "Did you really want that Backstreet Boys song? Tough. You'll have to try again."
Re:Bad Idea (Score:2)
Now there's a news flash. Tell that to the RIAA. If they believe you, maybe they'll drop their lawsuit trying to force the ISPs to block consumer access to an IP or range of IPs that the RIAA doesn't like.
The internet is giving the RIAA a taste of its own medicine. I just wish the ISPs being sued were smart enough to come up with this first.
Re:Hold up one second... (Score:2)
Don't like to read, do you?
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.
See? IWT isn't being evil, they are simply keeping their network secure.
Re:Questions (Score:2)
Then they bloody well better not set foot in
Re:Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)