Comments on: Copy of RIAA's new enforcement notice to ISPs

CNET News has acquired a copy of the form letter the RIAA will send to ISPs that informs them one of their customers is accused of file sharing.

[spiceybooger]

What if you down lad burn to a blank disc and then share?

Should have read:

What if you download and burn to a blank disc and then share?

[ssridjaj]

Oh come on, they are still trying to sue people because of losing CD's or song sales?

Since when people trying to protect something if it is not making ANY profit?
RIAA is just a greedy organization, they don't believe in "CHANGE" and like to get every penny in their pocket. Be Obama and follow the change! and PLEASE follow him!

If a product is not making a profit, you need to find an alternative product or way to market it.

If you are trying to force upon your principle that everyone MUST pay for every LITTLE SONG BYTE we obtain from internet or friend's CD's. Of course a lot of customers will turn away and look for "CHEAPER" alternative provided by the wonderful creation of Internet.

Why not make it simple RIAA? Why not turn it back to old days where internet is not available and Bands need to perform in lounge, bars, Las Vegas, any Performance place that's available.
Don't produce any songs online or CD's.
With that said any "INTELLECTUAL" property obtain during the show/performances from cellphone videos or camera videos is up to the fans to upload it to the internet. This will in turn promote the bands too and look forward for the upcoming performances.

I like listening to music, but stop harassing me with threats that I can not listen to this and that.

[hdgamer]

You know the RIAA is really just a complete and utter ******** mess. First of all some of us download music that we paid for and well there are some music like mine that is free. When I mean free I mean shared free like ocremix.org Or just some DJ like myself who creates free music for people to enjoy. This type of BS makes no sense. An abuse of the law and power. Let's say I download music from amazon or itunes that I bought then my ISP wants to give it to the RIAA and charge me for it. I mean that doesn't make any sense. I can see how this will end, more lawsuits and false accusations. Just like the little girl lawsuit and the dead people. They earned no money only lost it.

[manticore--2008]

Fact : regardless the RIAA stance, the products are HUGELY overpriced, and have EVER been so.
Therefore, half a century of being price-gouged has driven the public to download, and to hell with the legalities, since the public has for at least the last 50 years been vastly overcharged for recorded music, regardless of the medium it is recorded on.
In short, the public sees the issue NOT as theft, but as getting their own back after that 50 years of ruthless exploitation, thus: a form of rough justice.
As a New Zealander, living at the far end of a hugely long distribution chain, I can tell you that CD's here are $30$ dollars or more, often $40 to $60 for special edition albums, in a country where our dollar is usually about 65 US cents.
Again, a huge price.
And again downloading and not paying that price is totally justifiable as response to the 50 years of exploitation I refer to above.
I may not always condone downloading, but I do condone the public getting justifiable recompense for 50 years and more of Music Industry price gouging.

[jumpjetta]

Who's to say the ISP really has to do anything when receiving this letter from the RIAA? A simple form letter back to the RIAA saying, basically, "we found nothing of note"... and that's it, right? Sure, some ISPs will blindly comply - probably because the RIAA will pay them - but what about those who really have no interest in complying because they simply believe the rights and privacy of their customers comes first?

In this climate the list of ISPs who quietly don't comply with the RIAA by failing to check into the RIAA's allegations in the emails... I think that list will be the ISPs who actually do well and remain in business. They are the ones who will win customers by valuing the customer.

Of course, this immediately makes me suspicious of the larger cable-TV connected ISPs... like my Time Warner connection. They have units in the business of making and delivering content, so it makes sense they'd march lockstep with the RIAA.

Yes, I pirate an album or movie here and there. I am no serious infringer, but the rationale behind my piracy is that the labels and studios are not making a product I want to buy. I want high-quality digital delivery free of DRM restrictions or subscriptions. I want portability and ownership, not device-limited or rented content. To that end I will not buy plastic and paper-packaged entertainment, nor will I buy the tracks on iTunes that have DRM. No DRM and available on iTunes? Fine, I'll buy. Only available as CD or DVD or with DRM... or not available at all because of antiquated "release windows" or other agreements? I'm pirating it. Simple as that. This will stop when I can buy and own files of tracks/albums/movies at reasonable cost.

Hopefully the members of the RIAA get this soon. Somehow I am skeptical they will.

[williamkidd]

"I want high-quality digital delivery free of DRM restrictions or subscriptions. I want portability and ownership, not device-limited or rented content. To that end I will not buy plastic and paper-packaged entertainment, nor will I buy the tracks on iTunes that have DRM. No DRM and available on iTunes? Fine, I'll buy. Only available as CD or DVD or with DRM... or not available at all because of antiquated "release windows" or other agreements? I'm pirating it. Simple as that. This will stop when I can buy and own files of tracks/albums/movies at reasonable cost."

I agree on the DRM issue. It seems to cause more problems for the buying public than it helps in stopping piracy, causing much ill will in the people that were willing to pay in the first place. Many people that download illegally probably wouldn't consider that option if CD prices were lower and they didn't have to worry about their computers having issues due to DRM (e.g. Sony/BMG). Even less if they realized what P2P does (access-wise). I don't have a problem with CDs if they're reasonably priced and at this time that's about $10 - 12 (US) and without DRM. That's about the same price that you would pay if you download the same songs from Amazon or the iTunes Store. The difference being that with the CD you're stuck with the songs that the band/record company decides to put on the CD and with the other options you can pick and choose the songs that you want. I usually look for CDs the first week that they go on sale because they're cheaper. I think that's the "release window" that you were referring to, isn't it? On the plus side, albums are making a comeback so they won't only be available as CD or DVD. :-)

"Hopefully the members of the RIAA get this soon. Somehow I am skeptical they will."
Ditto.

[jumpjetta]

Yeah, CDs/DVDs are okay media, except that I consider them an undue environmental burden for something (entertainment) I consider discretionary.

"Release windows" refer more to movies and why the digital version may be available on DVD but not for rent on iTunes because first cable TV and then broadcast TV has segments of time (weeks, months) after exit from theaters where they get exclusive access to the content with no competition. So iTunes tends to be at the bottom of that food chain because the revenue is relatively minimal compared to cable and other broadcast.

Not sure if it or something similar applies to music, but it drives me nuts when something is available on CD but not digital file. I'm sure that's some asinine Big Label BS, too.

[GISJason420]

Man this is a total waste of their time...They're stuipd... So are the peeps defending what they're doing... We all know this is not going to work... Too much of a mess... ISPs know this as well themselves, they're just telling the RIAA what they want to hear...

File sharing is here to stay... And will stay for a long time... They're not going to be able to get the mass of them taken down let alone disable a hacked cable modem setup. There's no way they can get this accomplished...It'll do more damage to the ISP's business if they go around and disabling everyone's connections after they don't comply w/ the notices from the RIAA cuz that'll just get them pissed off enuf to where they go out and snag a cable modem and hack it and snap it back online and snap in the fastest available speed config which means they will have even more bandwidth to use up for sharing all these files so yeah the RIAA is shooting themselves in the foot again... When are they gonna learn...

[williamkidd]

I think the point may be missing the target here. Yes, it would be simple to find a work-around for many people but if everybody decided to download their music for free then there would be no incentive for the artists to continue producing music/movies/etc. Look at it this way, you go in to work and your boss says "You're going to work for us for the next year for free, no benefits, nothing." Are you going to keep working? This is the same principle that many companies are missing these days when it comes to layoffs. If you lay someone off do they have an incentive to go out and purchase things? Obviously not and then it becomes a domino effect when other companies start to do it because no one is buying their products. You'll notice if you read my other posts above that I don't agree with the RIAA side of things either. It's rather heavy-handed and obviously not consumer friendly. The only way that the music industry/movie industry/etc. are going to stay viable is by reaching some kind of compromise with the consumers. Otherwise the situation, at least here in the US, is going to continue the way it's going both in entertainment and in general.

[uvaldeslim]

I am nearly 50yrs. old I've purchased the song's I have on record, 8-track, cassett, and cd's how many times am I supposed to pay for tunes I've been listening to since my teen year's?..Give it a rest already! Not to mention the fact I payed a subscription fee to join the service I'm with...let them work a deal with the companies that provide the service not those who have paid to use it. I mean Jeez how much money is enough..I don't think Jimmy Hendrix or the surviving members of the beatles are hurting for cash do you??

[60sguy]

I guess for some people the whole issue of intellectual property rights when discussing music is hard to grasp. We can listen to a song online at the band's myspace page at any time day or night, hear the song on the radio, even hear it as part of a soundtrack for a tv show or movie. We just aren't allowed to listen to it when jogging and using our iPod. That doesn't make sense to me. If we're using another's intellectual property for financial gain, that's theft.

[kdavis022]

Seems like to me that if the ISP does slow down your service they would be opening themselves up a law suit before you will be. That would be changing your service and would be in direct voliation of your contact with them. Also RIAA is asking the ISP to do alot of tracking on there behalf (how much is that going to cost them)? I wish thwy would try that with me I am always looking for a reason to retire from a law suit.

[bl4ckw0lf]

Alrighty then, here we go again, the all mighty RIAA is now going to tell our ISP's what they can or can't do with "their" servers. Hitlers at work again lol. All this crap is getting so old. I am thinking about producing my own brand of CAR and then when people buy that car they of course pay for it so they "OWN" it, but then when they come home with their nice bright shiny new vehicle and they let a family member drive it I wonder if I can sue them because I didn't sell my car to that family member, so maybe that is called stealing too then ??? I buy a brand new FORD F-350 Diesel, pay $50.000 for it and if the car manufacturers would be anything like the RIAA I would have to pay $50.000 every time I let someone use my vehicle. Look, once you buy something, it is yours to do with what you want, I don't care what the RIAA says. I download songs yes, but I still buy albums (although they are all too expensive and most of it goes to the RIAA anyways) but I buy them because I love collecting the original deal.

Here is an idea for like Walmart or something: In Europe they have what they call "Kiosks" where you have a computer screen where you can pick out the songs you would like on a CD. Once you have chosen your songs it gets sent to the desk and in a few minutes you can pick up "your" own made CD all written on a crisp new CD for a fraction of the cost of a full album and you don't have to settle for an original CD with 2 or 3 good songs on it and the rest crap. And YES, all royalties are in the price.

One last word here: "RIAA, get a life" !!!!!

[lordmorgul]

"In Europe they have what they call "Kiosks" where you have a computer screen where you can pick out the songs you would like on a CD."

The online music download sites are working toward this very effectively in my opinion... with amazon or itunes you can download individual songs and pay for only the good music. Unfortunately, DRM and low-quality file formats are holding back the online music sales industry bigtime. I hate buying anything through iTunes right now because 128k (or 256k) digital encoding is terrible quality... but I also hate paying ridiculous prices for a real CD full of bad music I remove from my library anyway.

If online music was DRM free, and had better quality, and was priced more reasonably, this whole piracy problem would drastically reduce. But the RIAA is too greedy to adapt, to change, and work with a new business model that stops punishing the paying customer.

[daddio6939]

Although it may be illegal, people are always going to do it as they have always done illegal things. What needs to happen; and I can't believe that none of the way overpaid execs and and others bloodsuckers of the industry have figured it out; is that a deal must be brokered with artists and websites and consumers to where music is actually affordable. Even if i go to itunes or Amazon and pay for an album; that album is unfortunately still the same price as Wal-mart. Which brings us back to the same reason why most people share music, music is not really affordable, especially in todays economy. Why not have a sharing site with a reasonable monthly fee of say 5.95 sorta like Netflix. Maybe with a limit of say 50 songs a month for that price. Then let the artists and the bloodsuckers fight over the millions that will generate each month. The website can then generate its income from advertising. Most artists will tell you that they have always and will always make all their money from concerts anyway, just ask the Eagles and the Rolling Stones and any other artist that charges 150 F*&%ing dollars for a ticket.



Another good point being missed here is GREED. Once a band like the Eagles has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars. More than they and their families can spend in the rest of time. I don't feel to sorry for them as I make 30,000 a year working my ass off. Yes, I could've learned to play an instrument but I didn't; people have to do different things in order for the world to go around. Most true "ARTISTS" that I have encountered say they do what they do because they love it not for money. Once you have enough money to buy small countries should it it really matter if you get my hard earned money?

[boogie_]

There seems to be a misinterpretation of the nature of sharing. If I put a coin into a newspaper rack, remove a newspaper, read it, and pass it along to someone else to read - that is sharing. If I put a coin into the newspaper rack, remove all of the newspapers, take one for myself and pass out the remaining copies - that is stealing. If you want your own copy of the newspaper, put in a coin and buy one.

[SJ2571]

They can't accuse of infringement based on filename alone. Just because a file is named "Beatles - Yesterday.mp3" doesn't mean it's actually a music file. They need to download it and see first, and I bet they're not.

[crayolacontraband]

Aside from all these moral and ethical debates, let us approach this from a realistic standpoint. File sharing will never go away unless we are all prepared to deal with the consequences of a eventual but total reversal of net neutrality.

I believe it may be time to rethink some fundamental concepts.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html

[sgrmba]

This is much worse than anyone has articulated. Bit torrent hosts a variety of files, many of which are public domain or intentionally offered for free like Open Office. In order for the ISP's to actually check on 'illegal' activity requires they open and examine the file you are downloading. Akin to reading someone else's mail. As stated by legal counsel, they are also trying to turn them into agents for the RIAA. The cops aren't even allowed to turn a 3rd party into an agent in order to obtain property that by law requires a search warrant. Why would the RIAA have a right even the police don't? They are still using the same tactics - now they are trying to frighten the ISP's with threats of lawsuits and so forth. Man, my ISP doesn't have time to take care of regular issues, much less act on every letter the RIAA may send out. Especially when you consider that the RIAA has previously contended a dog or a goat has been downloading music.

[3rdalbum]

A friend of mine downloaded a computer game off Bittorrent and the local association for video games sent his ISP a letter. It looked very very similar to this form letter described, even down to the "Infringement detail" section at the bottom which was strangely given as an XML file.

The ISP just sent a copy to my friend and told him that downloading copyrighted material was against the terms of service, and to cease this activity. Nothing from the detail of the letter indicated that the ISP had cross-checked with its own records.

His parents received the letter and he got into trouble, big-time. He doesn't download video games anymore. It also makes me a bit more careful about not downloading popular copyrighted material peer-to-peer.

[Bulbie]

This is getting ridiculous. Even people in the UK now are getting these sorts of letters - and sent directly to them, not just to their ISPs. And most of these letters are being sent to people that have never downloaded a single illegal file in their lives. On ANY computer. I DO agree, CDs, dvds and the like are all way overpriced. I do agree that this is why people are attracted to illegal downloading. But I can see the point of protecting the artists. But only if that artist is literally depending on any money made from their song to literally just live, i.e buy food, the cheapest food, have a tiny studio flat instead of a mansion just so they can have a roof over their head. Then I'd want to see the artist protected. We all have a right to food and shelter. Most of the people they're claiming they're protecting are already so loaded they'll never spend it all in their lifetime, as someone has already stated in a previous post, they don't even know it's happening to their music a lot of the time. And let us not forget - most artists who are sensible will have EVERYTHING they produce copywrited as soon as it's made, that should be enough protection for them full stop. If it is not, it HAS just become about greed.

And when it is about greed, then I say good on ya to the people out there who are downloading illegally. Because we cannot afford that kind of lifestyle despite working our butts off every day God sends. But they can just for writing something. Or at least claiming they wrote something. Let's not forget most of the big artists out there don't write their own songs. It's the poor sap who tears his hair out writing a top ten hit then pases it on to the big star to sing who should be being protected. He works his ass off so the SINGER can have a champagne lifestyle for his work. He doesn't get a mention. He only gets paid just enough to get by in life. Just like the rest of us.

Just drop this BS argument RIAA. You will never stop downloading. If you actually worked out a half decent compromise with the customer you would then reduce the illegal downloading. But you certainly will not do it by threatening folks and ISPs with lawsuits. Especially with no firm evidence.

[lordmorgul]

"And let us not forget - most artists who are sensible will have EVERYTHING they produce copywrited as soon as it's made, that should be enough protection for them full stop. If it is not, it HAS just become about greed."

You seem not to understand copyright very well. Any artist, author, programmer, content producer (anything that can be copyrighted) must enforce their own copyright. That means, if the songs are being illegally copied (which infringes copyright) then the owner of that content must enforce their copyright to protect the content... in other words they must sue the infringer to get awarded damages based on how the copyright was infringed.

What you said (and I quoted) above is never enough to protect your interests... having a copyright does nothing if you do not monitor licensed/legal use of your copyrighted material.

I agree the RIAA must abandon their current approach of suing people who have not infringed any copyrights... must stop going after college students, who even if they do download music probably would never have paid exorbitant prices for it because they are broke. It is obvious that the RIAA is attempting to boost their profits while they can by fraudulently suing their customers (mostly the ones who already pay), and doing nothing effective about the piracy problem (like adopting a new business model that doesn't penalize paying customers with high CD prices...).

[qu33qu3g]

@ISTYAC - Thank you, Dr. Science... Remember, he's not a *real* Dr.

Hopefully you're using your Masters Degree mousepad while you so eloquently espouse the merits of your own intellect.

[SystemsJunky]

The RIAA is nothing but a Rackett...They've been barking about this forever. How about they just die and allow the artists to set the rules..Look at Trent Resner of NIN, he gives his music away for free, along with the raw tracks to manipulate those tracks. This is good, but he is the only one who seems to get it. Music for free, concerts for 80. Let the people decide who succeeds in the industry. Hell, half the music out there isnt even download worthy, let alone purchase worthy...

I say, everyone go download as many music tracks and movies as possible..The RIAA is nothing but a rackett..I'd put them in the same catagorie as the IRS or the SEC, but actually worst...

[waytoougly]

Regardless of who's right/wrong/bright/dumb, there's one point being overlooked: whether or not any ISPs care to be the police.

I read today of one small ISP that replies by asking for invoicing information so they can send a bill.

Has anybody actually had their "plug" pulled over this?