Six months later, no ISPs joining RIAA piracy fight
Last December, the music industry's message to song writers, publishers, and musicians was that antipiracy help was on the way. Hopes soared after the major labels announced that they had convinced a group of telecoms to work with them.
Filing lawsuits against individuals accused of illegal file sharing was, for the most part, a thing of the past, said the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group representing the top music companies. The new strategy was to enlist Internet service providers, the gatekeepers of the Web, to issue a series of warnings meant to increase pressure on alleged pirates in what the RIAA called a "graduated response." Under the plan, those subscribers who refused to heed warnings could eventually see their Web connection suspended.
Six months later, the music industry is still waiting to hear from the RIAA which ISPs have explicitly agreed to work with the association. When the RIAA first announced its new antipiracy project, it didn't name partners. Behind the scenes, industry insiders assured the media that the group would disclose the names of partner ISPs "within weeks." Six months later, however, not one ISP has publicly acknowledged working with the RIAA on a "graduated response."
RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol
(Credit: Declan McCullagh)That there are still no announced deals--and there's no guarantee the RIAA can sign any of the major broadband companies--indicates that at best the big recording companies may have spoken too soon when they said broadband providers would help, says one ISP executive. Ironically, at a time when many figured the RIAA had finally hit upon a compelling way to go after music piracy, the association's copyright protection efforts may be more toothless than ever.
"(The RIAA) has tried various ways to turn ISPs and other intermediaries into their own Internet cops," said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Internet users. "What the ISPs appear to be saying is that this isn't our job."
To be sure, the RIAA continues to pitch its plan to ISPs, numerous sources have told CNET News. AT&T has launched tests of a graduated response--everything, that is, but service interruption. The telecom said it would never shut off a customer's service without a court order. The recording companies may soon announce some kind of agreement with one of the ISP trade groups. But this won't bind the group's members and the RIAA will still need to strike deals with individual companies.
"We have been working slowly but surely, directly and through the offices of (New York Attorney General Andrew) Cuomo, with virtually every major ISP on common approaches," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman in an e-mail. "During the past six months, a number of different ISPs have forwarded nearly half a million RIAA notices to P2P infringers. They had not done that before last winter. A number of individual ISPs now argue that notices alone are proving to have a sufficient deterrent impact."
What the RIAA seems to be suggesting here is that it doesn't need a threat of service termination for a graduated response to be effective. This, however, conflicts with what music executives say in private. They want a carrot and stick approach. They know they have to offer the public inexpensive and easy-to-use alternatives to illegal peer-to-peer sites. They also believe chronic abusers won't stop without the threat of a serious punitive consequence.
So, why did the RIAA announce the ISP-based program without any ISPs on board so many months ago?
Some RIAA critics have speculated that the December announcement was a smokescreen to cover the music industry's retreat from the 5-year-old and highly controversial strategy of filing copyright lawsuits against individuals accused of copyright violations. The theory goes something like this: the RIAA needed a face-saving way to walk away from the litigation, which resulted in more than 30,000 people being sued, a fortune in legal fees, a huge public relations black eye, and didn't do all that much to stop piracy.
Ernesto, founder of the blog TorrentFreak, which focuses on file sharing, was always skeptical of the RIAA's announcement. He noted that some telecoms have voluntarily sent warning notices to subscribers accused of illegally downloading songs for years, while other companies refused. He says he sees nothing new.
"Yes, the RIAA, MPAA and other outfits do plan to send copyright infringement warnings to ISPs," Ernesto wrote in March, "but they've been doing so for at least half a decade. Every other month these Hollywood lobbyists pitch their antipiracy efforts to the public...this doesn't mean, however, that something is about to change."
According to the ISP executive who asked for anonymity because he's involved in negotiations with the music sector, the RIAA's tactics in dealing with the ISPs have been too heavy handed.
The executive complained that the RIAA has tried to use Andrew Cuomo to push the ISPs into helping. But Cuomo doesn't have the kind of political muscle to sway the major ISPs when they are acting well within the law, the executive said. There's nothing in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that requires ISPs to send their own warning letters to subscribers.
And some ISPs say the DMCA is unclear about when they must terminate service of repeat offenders. AT&T executives say they won't cut off someone's Web access based solely on evidence supplied by the recording industry and will only do so after receiving a court order.
"We keeping hearing about how (Cuomo) is supposed to make this happen," said the executive. "You don't see much changing, do you?
So if Cuomo isn't enough, why don't the music labels appeal to Congress to legislate the ISPs into submission? That's easy. The ISPs have much more influence in Washington than the music sector. There's also little public sympathy for recording stars, who are often perceived to be rolling in money--even if this is a reality for a tiny fraction of working musicians.
In an interview with CNET last week, Paul McGuinness, manager of the rock band U2, says that ISPs have for a long time profited from selling broadband to file sharers and have little interest in taking action without seeing financial reward. But he sees some progress around the globe.
"Perhaps broadband subscription sales are saturated in many territories and the ISPs are belatedly but realistically now turning to building revenue collection businesses with the content owners," McGuinness said. "I just hope it's not too late."
Cohn, from EFF, sees it differently. To her, cutting off someone's Internet connection for file sharing is like refusing to sell shoes to someone accused of jaywalking.
"Every day that passes we realize how important Internet connectivity is to people's lives," Cohn said. "The RIAA looks so out of step with what most people think is a reasonable response to (copyright) infringing behavior. Even to the people that believe we're locked into this 19th century view of copyright law, the RIAA looks hysterical."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
"Dear RIAA. Are you frickin insane!? Why on Earth would I want to be the first to implement your program and watch at least half of my paying customers bolt for the competition the minute they get wind of us doing so? We appreciate your concerns over intellectual property, and we really do share your views, but there's a two-fold problem with your program: We have shareholders to keep happy, and we'd really like to keep our jobs. Sincerely, (insert ISP name here)."
As long as there has been a way to copy recorded music, you had people making copies and sharing them with friends.
Reel to reel, 8-track, cassette, etc ... all allowed one to make a copy of an album and listen to it or loan it to a friend.
As a kid, I remember making mix tapes, or borrowing a tape of an album from a friend to listen to the music. Then if I liked it, I'd buy the album. Even if you didn't buy the album, the rock groups benefited because people would know them and go to their concerts and watch them live.
The record industry has to change their business model and accept that there will be leakage or losses from people making and sharing copies of an artists music. Its when those copies are sold or done for a commercial purpose that they would then have to take action.
The other problem with buying it legally online, many of the retailers have restrictions on what you can do with the music once you own it. And that also leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I know friends that have lost their hard drive, to viruses or other failures, and in doing so, lost their library that they already paid for, cause making a back up, or moving the library to a new pc, can be very difficult.
I have no sympathy for the RIAA, and musicians that are smart, have embraced the internet, and sell their music directly to the public from their own website. That is a much better route anyway, screw the middle man, just sell it yourself, and enjoy all the profit.
Things have changed since I was young, and a tape cost 7 dollars, and a concert ticket cost 15. The artist now make their money by touring, and that is where they should make their money. Lets face it, with the modern technology, you can make anyone sound good in a studio, its the live show that proves their weight as artists.
I for one, will never embrace the RIAA, they love to bite the hand that feeds them, when you have a dog like that, you put him down. That is what should happen to the RIAA, just be put down, no tears, no funeral, just a shot behind the ear, and lights out, goodbye.
...obviously not enough to compensate for the loss in income once the users flee their service.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10127841-93.html
...but a promise to share in "potential" awards from piracy convictions in exchange for regular income streams, didn't inspire ISPs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10144105-93.html
When the RIAA started scanning IP addresses of peers on bittorrent networks, PeerGuardian and Bluetack started the effort to block known Anti-p2p IP addresses from even connecting to the clients. This isn't 100% foolproof, but it just goes to show that any time a 'major' breakthrough is thought up by the "Empire", the resistance will always have a means around the new technology within days.
I know any competent person would see this logic and realize the fight is futile. The RIAA is pissed soley on the fact that this hurts record sales, which is the portion of the artists they benefit most from. File-Sharing promotes more people to Live events which is where the actual artist makes most of their money. In sort, RIAA gets less money... while the artist gets more. And that really pisses them off, their 19th century brand of 'piracy' isn't working for them anymore. The RIAA and BigMedia has no talents, but yet, they have weasled their way into being a middle man, and skimming off the profits of the artists.
Disconnecting someone from the entire world (by cutting off their internet) is a harsh punishment indeed.
And the fact that it's STILL better than getting sued $150,000 per song should say something about the RIAA.
Lately the response to these idiots....the common consumer is downloading more than ever especially at this time in the recession...who has the money to go out a buy CD's...?
I wish people would stop with this stupid idea that theft == copyright infringement. Two totally different situations with different laws, protections and punishments. Copyright Infringement should be (stay) a civil manner unless money was involved (counterfeit sales, etc), not a criminal matter like grand theft auto where physical property was removed.
Well said!
It's nice to see someone else has their eyes open. Down with the MAFIAA and long live TPB! Argh!
If the RIAA wants to seriously cut into piracy (not eliminate it - that will never happen), they have to sell high-quality digital tracks in single quantities for about a dollar a track, and offer a discount if the customer is willing to buy the entire album. Eighteen dollars for a CD that has one or at most two tracks with listening to is unacceptable.
And summary execution of the Jonas Brothers would help the RIAA's rep tremendously.
I took pictures of the Mona Lisa while in the Louve, since I now have my own copies, does this make it illegal for me to share those photos with friends on the internet? I just took money from the airlines, the hotels, transit authority, and many others by posting my pictures on the internet. Or do you think I should go to the grave of Da VInci and pay him a royalty for the use of his painting?
RIAA has to sign deals that allow unlimited music downloads for $5, and it gets billed with your ISP bill if you want to. This may seem like little money for unlimited, but the sign up rate will be so dramatic that they will make more money then ever before. If the cost is so little, its not worth pirating it. People want easy, cheap access to music, give it or die!
Personally I really want the music and the film industry to under go a radical change other wise we the people will always be subjected to the vile marketing tactics.
Mac and Linux users have never been named in any lawsuits from the RIAA/MPAA.
Does the RIAA really represent anybody in the music industry with DRM-free music being sold for the last two years? In fact, on iTunes alone, it seems that most music I've bought in the last two years have been DRM-free.
When faced with a counter-suit, the RIAA/MPAA trembles and tries to do it's best to convince an ignorant judge about the technology used. However, if that judge is 60, say, and was 50 during the Dot-Com Boom, meaning he bought a Windows 95 computer at 45 years of age, and was 30 when the Apple II, C-64, TRS-80 and such were being introduced into the workplace...no, I don't buy it that judges are **THIS** ignorant!
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23090754-5014239,00.html
EMI threatens to withdraw funding if watchdogs don't change
1. Many people who don't like the MPAA/RIAA have a great deal of computer skills.
2. It would be quite sad if every member of the RIAA/MPAA were to have their internet cut off on July 15 due to an accounting error that added 65 million dollars to their cable bill.
2. It would be quite sad if every member of the RIAA/MPAA were to have their internet cut off on July 15 ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No it wouldn't, they are the scum of the earth and deserve to be punished for all eternity.
Oh wait, you were being sarcastic weren't you. My meter doesn't seem to be working this morning.
There is a good video called Don't Steal This Film which covers alot more about this. It's also free, yes legally, via most Bittorrent sites.
The hypocritical part is that those devices were made by some of the most influential companies involved in the MPAA / RIAA (like SONY, who make billions selling media copying devices). SO now that our experience is "upgraded" they are doing their best to unplug the rights that we acquired in the Sony vs. Betamax case? And where are the government entities that are supposed to say "they already have the right, they have the precedent, so BACK OFF, copyright creeps..."???
It would help if journalists would include the fact that those same companies sitting on the boards of the RIAA and MPAA manufactured devices created to do the exact same thing they are trying to stop, so people can get a clearer picture of how things really are.
And a Pirate is supposed to be someone who SELLS things anyway, so the loosely abused term is wrong in the first place. I guess it's harder to justify criminalizing "sharers" than it is "pirates". Another place the average journalist is right there lock-step with the RIAA - calling sharers, or sharezerz and warezerz pirates - don't think the mass media is not trying to help the RIAA - if they weren't they wouldn't do stuff like help them develop a specific catch-phrase and build a certain veiwpoint. I'm sure that journalist know the difference between a Pirate and a Sharer - but they continue to call everyone Pirates - just like the RIAA / MPAA pays them to do. - So take the news with a grain of salt, and read between the columns.
Look at the ads and who placed them to get a clearer view of who is running the media your reading...
They have been successful in lobbying politicians too.
They have convinced Microsoft to load down their Windows software with draconian DRM and chips to be added to computers, limitations to electronics appliances functionality to control us. Who could have predicted that companies such as Microsoft and Apple would become so anti-consumer with their DRM help to the RIAA?MPAA.
There are hundreds of musicians selling their CDs, doujin style.
They do it for the love of the music. Wish that would translate to the American scene, but they seem to be making CDs about how much money they have and how great they are. Lost track of how many rap albums I've heard about how the artist makes so much money. Guess they can't come up with decent lyrics anymore. :S
- by Michichael June 4, 2009 10:11 AM PDT
- I find it amusing that the RIAA/MPAA don't go after anyone that's tech savvy.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (58 Comments)