Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Do We Want ISPs Penalizing Music Fans?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the rhetorical-questions dept.

The Courts 263

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Noted singer songwriter Billy Bragg has written an excellent column in The Guardian, coming out against the pro-RIAA '3-strikes' legislation the big 4 record labels are trying to push through. In the article, entitled 'Do we want ISPs penalizing our fans?', Bragg writes: 'Having failed miserably in previous attempts to stamp out illicit filesharing, the record industry has now joined forces with other entertainment lobby groups to demand that the government takes action to protect their business model.' He goes on: 'Fearful of the prospect of dragging their customers though the courts, with all the attendant costs and bad publicity, members of the record industry have come up with a simple, cost-free solution to their problem: get the ISPs to do their dirty work for them. They are asking the government to force the ISPs to cut off the broadband connection of customers who persistently download unauthorized material, without any recourse to appeal in the courts.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Court first then cut. (5, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999887)

Don't cut the broadband for any crime until it's proven in court.

It's not the role of the ISP to act as a police for a third party.

Re:Court first then cut. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000009)

And watch as the ISP's pass the cost of enforcement on to the customer. Huzzah, we're screwed all around!

Re:Court first then cut. (5, Interesting)

seanpark (690789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000043)

At least one ISP has responded to these sort of requests with a "so where's your billing address, RIAA?" I think they were in New Orleans, and they certainly have a point. Why should ISPs police their networks and eliminate revenue without compensation?

Re:Court first then cut. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000365)

If the ISPs won't play along, the content industry will have legislation passed to make them play along.

Re:Court first then cut. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000809)

Why should ISPs police their networks and eliminate revenue without compensation?

I know this is Slashdot and all, but isn't the answer "because that revenue is generated by helping people to break the law" reasonable?

I don't think it's necessarily the best answer, but making cute comments about the recording industry's tactics when substantial numbers of people are currently ripping them off in violation of the law isn't exactly strengthening the case against these sorts of tactics.

Obligatory car analogy (4, Insightful)

2names (531755) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000867)

So are we going to start prosecuting auto makers for providing get-away vehicles to criminals?

Re:Court first then cut. (4, Informative)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000153)

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Re:Court first then cut. (2, Interesting)

GreatAntibob (1549139) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000383)

Um....that's by the government. Ain't nothin' in the Constitution about a private enterprise having to do anything, save barring it from discriminating on the basis of color, sex, religion, etc. A church doesn't have to allow you access to speak. Your employer can deny you the right to bear arms.

That said, if any of the ISPs have common carrier status, they should lose it for these shenanigans.

Re:Court first then cut. (4, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000665)

When they want to make it a law that you lose your internet connection in this fashion then it is very relevant.

Re:Court first then cut. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001133)

Uh, yes it is by the government... and a government law dictation what ISPs must do goes against that. If the ISP played along with the RIAA without government intervention, you'd have a point.

Re:Court first then cut. (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000927)

Is the Internet life, liberty or property? While clearly lacking due process, I don't think this is depriving you of any of those three.

Re:Court first then cut. (4, Insightful)

deraj123 (1225722) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000999)

I would say that my right to enter into and maintain a voluntary, contractual agreement with an ISP falls under "liberty". Proposed law (as it has been presented in the summary) would remove that right from both me and the ISP, without due process.

Liberty? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001081)

You're obviously being deprived of the liberty to use the Internet. And the use of the Internet gives people a lot more liberties than they had before, i.e., the soapbox can be really big (but is usually tiny).

Re:Court first then cut. (4, Interesting)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001097)

I depend TOTALLY on the internet for my employment and the maintenance of my way of life.
My house, family, food, and their healthcare are ALL genereated from the work I do on/through the net.
If my ISP, I do use a business connection, decided to drop my T1 for some not payment related failure, I would be VERY SCREWED, and would likely seek/need legal recourse.

    Note : I don't download music I don't already own a physical copy of, but some of that material is on 8 or 4 track tape that I bought in 1974, I've format switched it via the internet. The music industry insists on a license to listen, not ownership model so be it. If you own ANY physical copy of the material the you are entitled to the material in different formats. If they want to change their policy to ownership of the single copy then I will change my behavior to reflect that.

Re:Court first then cut. (1)

timlyg (266415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000585)

When are these bloodsuckers gonna get that they are not getting a penny? Well, back to the good old days of reading books and borrowing VHS/DVD from the library.

Re:Court first then cut. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000935)

Cutting off the broadband, before it is proven in the court that the material was illegal means that we are working around juridical system. I am waiting for people being cut off from the Internet for using P2P for sharing free open source software, just because 'sharing' is evil.

Secondly, attempts to monitor users network traffic in search for P2P files mean that the state assumes that everyone is a potential offender. This kind of assumption is something normal in communist countries. In other words, RIAA and MPAA are bringing us communism. Also, I think that RIAA and MPAA are anti-freemarket organizations, because they are against competition between labels.

Re:Court first then cut. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000959)

1- make website with download links
2- monitor riaa downloading links
3- file formal complaints (1 per link) against riaa
4- riaa loses all internet access, permanently, with no opportunity to defend themselves
5- proffit!

Wait a second... (1, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999949)

Billy Bragg has fans?



(I keed! I keed!)

Re:Wait a second... (2)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000193)

I'm more curious to understand why Bragg's considered "noted". Didn't he have a one hit wonder sometime back in the early 80's? I assume than no-one in the UK over the age of 20, and no-one in any other country, has ever heard of him.

Unless of course you mean noted as a sock-puppet of the Labour Regime. That, he most certainly is.

Re:Wait a second... (4, Interesting)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000469)

Your post makes no sense. Nobody in the UK over the age of 20? So you think he makes music for teenagers and little kiddies?

The funny thing about Bragg is that whilst he's always willing to give uncritical support to the Labour regime of the day, his songs are actually quite critical of them and their policies. The track "O Freedom" from his latest album is about Labour's policy of locking up terrorist suspects without a proper trial or letting them know the evidence against them. That system has been taken apart (I think...) but it was actually worse than gitmo because these people were arrested in this country.

I'm not a fan of Bragg, mainly because I'm not a fan of folk-rock, but I know lots of people who are. Most of them are in their 20s but I'd expect that's because most of my friends are in their 20s. They're all active socialists and trade-unionists so it's to be expected that Bragg would speak to them.

If you venture outside of the mainstream, you're sure to find plenty of Bragg fans here in the UK.

Re:Wait a second... (2, Interesting)

palindrome (34830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000535)

"Unless of course you mean noted as a sock-puppet of the Labour Regime. That, he most certainly is."

I thought you said no one had heard of him? If you don't like the guy then fair enough but he's hardly a sock-puppet of Labour. I can't imagine Labour saying "Pssst, Billy, go and have a go at the RIAA."

He says what he thinks and points out what he sees as unfair. I, personally, respect him for that.

(also I think you meant under 20, not over)

Re:Wait a second... (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000555)

Billy Bragg and the neo-Thatcherites who usurped the Labour name have very little in common.

Re:Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000743)

Who is Billy Bragg? Seriously, I've never heard of him. I'm a DJ by the way.

I really don't care anymore... (2, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999969)

... the faster you idiots make yourself irrelevant, the sooner I can load up Slashdot without seeing articles like this.

Re:I really don't care anymore... (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999993)

... the faster you idiots make yourself irrelevant, the sooner I can load up Slashdot without seeing articles like this.

Translation: Get off my lawn!

Re:I really don't care anymore... (3, Interesting)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000155)

Yeah, well I really *do* care about bogus laws being passed, but I've already written my lawmakers & all of them informed me that they already had the RIAA firmly implanted up their ass & really don't care about my thoughts, so I just don't buy their shit or listen to the radio anymore. Haven't in 9 years or so.

Thank $DEITY for RIAARadar

Re:I really don't care anymore... (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000245)

Yeah, well I really *do* care about bogus laws being passed, but I've already written my lawmakers & all of them informed me that they already had the RIAA firmly implanted up their ass & really don't care about my thoughts, so I just don't buy their shit or listen to the radio anymore. Haven't in 9 years or so.

Thank $DEITY for RIAARadar

It's a shame you got modded flamebait, I was making a wisecrack but I do see where you're coming from. I'd just disable YRO on your main page so you don't see any of these articles. If you know how to code, you can always make a greasemonkey script to cut out certain keywords.

Re:I really don't care anymore... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000553)

Let them waste their mod points. Karma is for pussies :D

Really, I like most of the YRO articles. I'm really just sick of whiny artists & media execs abusing the legal system, but can't really do anything about it except for not buying their crap.

So I don't. And really, I don't feel like I've missed a thing.

More importantly (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999973)

Do we want "justice" meted out without even the pretense of due process, with accusation equaling guilt, and control in the hands of an unaccountable mess of corporate pressure groups?

The chap from TFA seems nice enough, and it is good that he is thinking about the question; but, thing is, it isn't his call. Allowing penalties to be assessed for private gain, without any sort of judicial process, is a grotesque parody of justice. It should not be countenanced anywhere. I'm glad that there are some on the music side that are uncomfortable with the idea; but that isn't the point. The point is that "3 strikes" and its ilk are wholly unacceptable. If they agree, great, if they don't, tough.

Exactly (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000277)

... and not only that, but there is no practical way for ISPs to know what traffic is passing under your name, without intrusively inspecting the packets. That is without precedent; it is akin to asking telephone companies to listen in on your calls to determine if you are a using the telephone "improperly".

Re:Exactly (4, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000899)

Furthermore, if the DMCA-takedown notices and John Doe suits are to be taken into consideration, there is ZERO accountability for these corporate police.

If the ISP's are going to have to count off these 'strikes' merely on RIAA say-so, then a great many will be falsely impugned. If for no other reason, these sleaze balls have demonstrated that being lazy is far easier than putting forth any actual effort in an investigation.

"We couldn't tell who was doing the actual file sharing, so we instructed the ISP to mark a strike against the entire block of addresses..." This doesn't seem out of character for this group. Giving them more power HAS to be a bad idea.

A plan (1)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999975)

I wonder how secure the home wireless routers are for those running the RIAA and MPAA. I bet they aren't secure enough.

Re:A plan (2, Insightful)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000489)

I wonder how secure the home wireless routers are for those running the RIAA and MPAA. I bet they aren't secure enough.

You think the RIAA will apply this policy of theirs evenly and fairly? Anyone with power will be an exception to the rule.

Re:A plan (1)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000911)

Hell, create some content(fart into a mike for all I care). Then you can file the complaint yourself. The point is that if this passes, anyone with a wireless connection can be screwed.

Enough already (-1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999977)

Fucking hell, enough with the piracy articles on Slashdot. It's what, two or three a day now? I know Slashdot is a pro-piracy haven where the existence of the RIAA somehow justifies you pirating somebody's work, but don't you get tired of discussing the same thing over and over?

Re:Enough already (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000039)

You emitted the exact same response last time. Anyway: This isn't a "pro piracy" issue. This is a due process of law issue.

If the RIAA can just call up my ISP and demand that they disconnect me, that makes a mockery of due process. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?

Re:Enough already (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000099)

Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?

This sounds hilarious, can you link a source article?

Re:Enough already (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000167)

Printer Pirate [washington.edu] (PDF warning).

Re:Enough already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000507)

Yeah, didn't think so. Damn pirate making stuff up. The RIAA has never in any way gone after the wrong person*.

BTW, I am in no way the original poster.

Nothing follows below this. Don't look for the footnote as it is not the footnote you are looking for.

*I hereby declare any legal action taken by the RIAA in the state of Oregon to be stricken from the record. They paid that woman because they wanted to!

Re:Enough already (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000105)

Actually, Due Process issues require state action. Comcast can do whatever it pleases with your Internet connection, including shutting you down on mere suspicion of misuse.

Re:Enough already (1)

techiemikey (1126169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000387)

yes, but the law would REQUIRE them to do it. If it was their personal policy, that would be different.

Re:Enough already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000705)

Umm... This article is about state action, specifically the state enacting laws to force your isp to disconnect you.

Re:Enough already (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000381)

?
Seems to me due process deals with law enforcement, not your precious internet connection.

Re:Enough already (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000597)

Which the law would REQUIRE them to disconnect without due process.

Re:Enough already (3, Funny)

Wicked Zen (1006745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000763)

Christ, pay attention, will you? TFA is about the RIAA pushing a LAW that would require ISPs to terminate service, without due process.

Re:Enough already (2, Funny)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000991)

No kidding. I just looked through the mod option list for the GP and I couldn't find "-1: Fucking Moron" in there to give to him. I'll just go with a comment in support of your comment instead.

It isn't about 'piracy' for most of us. (IMO) (5, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000375)

The so called 'piracy' (aka copyright infringement) is about fair use, freedom, and taking a stance (though some choose an improper form) against the draconion rules and organizations that are trying to monetize and take away our legacy. Music has always been about enjoyment and sharing. Until recently, the most common way to listen to music was to get together with friends and sing. No performance fees, no songwriter royalties, just people belting out a ditty.

Under the current situation, and the future one if RIAA has it's way, the National Anthem of the USA, that's the "Star Spangled Banner" for those who don't know, wouldn't exist under their rules. It was a (somewhat) popular piece of poetry that people started singing to a very popular piece of music. That made a fantastic hit that inspired people so much, they made it the national anthem. These days, the insane copyright lengths combined with the dubious 'enforcement groups' would have prevented any such thing from ever happening.

Have you wondered why nobody ever sings "Happy Birthday" on shows and movies anymore? Someone decided to enforce their copyright... Another piece of classic americana and culture down the tubes because of this subject. What's the next thing we'll loose? Yes, some of these people are breaking laws.
Yes, we talk about it a lot.
But you need to understand, if somebody doesn't raise a fuss and find a way to stop this, what will our children have left?
Unfortunately, the answer is not much...

Re:Enough already (3, Informative)

supernatendo (1523947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000449)

You are the type of person who would call Benjamin Franklin and Nikola Tesla, "Pirates"

They had "radical piracy-like agendas" Touting dangerous ideas that knowledge, invention, innovation, even energy should be given away for free for the advancement of human civilization.

The RIAA does not protect "poor artists and musicians", they protect themselves, and huge record corporations.

This is why Jamendo and Magnatune are popular with some artists.

Re:Enough already (2, Funny)

jamesmcm (1354379) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000451)

... but don't you get tired of discussing the same thing over and over?

You must be new here.

Re:Enough already (5, Interesting)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000453)

Actually, I happen to be a musician and I disagree. I don't support piracy and I don't want people stealing my stuff. However, I also despise the RIAA, what it's doing, and how it's doing it. I also hate to see due process get thrown under the bus for the sake of an aging business model. Touring has always made musicians truckloads more money than CDs ever have. CD sales are just used by huge record companies as a revenue stream for themselves and as an indicator telling them who to send on huge tours. Regardless of how you feel about piracy, RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.

How about a weekly digest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000785)

I agree with the general Slashdot sentiment about modern copyright enforcement, but I also tire of the constant deluge of copyright stories on Slashdot. Why not have a weekly digest with all the recent copyright news packaged into one giant flame war?

Less relevant every day (2, Informative)

seanpark (690789) | more than 5 years ago | (#27999989)

More and more of the music I get into is independent. Much of it is self-released (The Turn-Ons are a good recent example). Side note: Radiohead "self-releasing" is a joke, as they were propped up by major labels for years beforehand and had a well-established fan base. Any kind of offensive in this climate by the RIAA is just silly. They are so irrelevant. If they shut down Another Greast Music Tracker, I'm going to law school.

Re:Less relevant every day (2, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000049)

If they shut down Another Great Music Tracker, I'm going to law school.

If they shut down Another Great Music Tracker, it will be replaced by Two Lesser Music Trackers. Stamping out the "problem" is the worst thing they could do. As long as there is a demand, the community will supply it.

Re:Less relevant every day (1)

PitViper401 (619163) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000647)

Why Are we Capitalizing random Words? Or are We trying to Emphasize unnecessarily?

Re:Less relevant every day (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000749)

Are you a troll, or are you genuinely that stupid to not recognize the reasoning behind it?

Who does this really penalize? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000019)

Does it penalize those who are stupid enough to get caught (the general public)? say... people who use limewire to download their music or.. what are the other ways to download music? What do you use?

Re:Who does this really penalize? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000113)

Does it penalize those who are stupid enough to get caught (the general public)? say... people who use limewire to download their music or.. what are the other ways to download music? What do you use?

Mod parent down, keep the good ways secrets, the way they should be. Napster was a secret, then it sank. Limewire was, as well. Keep it quiet.

Re:Who does this really penalize? (0, Troll)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000459)

Here's a secret

Pay compensation for enjoying something and that artist will continue to produce more work. Otherwise the music companies will punish you by constantly selling crappy music/movies.

Doing the opposite of that is why my music collection now consists of few songs newer than 4 years old.

Here's another thing, if you have money, spend the damn stuff. Don't be a cheapskate who can't fork out 99 cents for a song they like when you get less long-term enjoyment out of that McDonald's ice cream cone you impulsively bought yesterday.

Re:Who does this really penalize? (1)

PitViper401 (619163) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000707)

If they find out about Kazaa we're sunk!

Not for the ISP to do ... (4, Informative)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000023)

If the ISPs are to be considered a 'common carrier', then this is not their duty.

Other points, if the ISPs are going to be doing this:
  - How are they to decide when something is fair use, when even the big media companies get it wrong so often?
  - Who is going to pay them to do the dirty work of the media industry?
  - This is like getting Walmart to ban you because something you are doing is not kosher in HMV.

There are certainly other problems with this whole 'getting the ISPs' to do the dirty work, but I have a 'failure of imagination' when it comes to the other issues.

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000097)

How about this: the only one who can make a judgement about a civil case is a court of law?

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000197)

How about this: the only one who can make a judgement about a civil case is a court of law?

That won't work. As long as there is a mob mentality with the media and the groups going after individuals it won't change. Don Imus [wikipedia.org] had his livelihood threatened when he made an offhand comment because of the mob mentality, yet he didn't violate any laws.

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000631)

Imus is violating the laws of nature just by the very fact that he's still walking around. He looks like he's about 120 years old.

and now he has ass cancer. Ahh, the heavy and righteous hand of karma

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (2, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000411)

ISPs do not have common carrier status.
Shocking I know, but the internet may have mislead you!

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000955)

ISPs do not have common carrier status.

Fair enough, but what is their status with regards to the data that passes through their networks?

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (1)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000599)

Your post is yet another instance of someone thinking US law extends around the world...

We don't have common carriers here in the UK. If we did then we wouldn't have had Godfrey v Demon Internet Service.

To save you from a Google: Mr Godfrey sued Demon Internet because someone posted something libellous about him in a Usenet group. The court found that, by hosting Usenet servers, Demon Internet had republished the libel and were therefore liable. This is why, AFAIK, no ISPs in the UK host their own Usenet service anymore. The ISPs that do offer Usenet as part of their package use third-party providers hosted outside the UK.

There is no common carrier defence in UK law.

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000895)

For the (sadly not the) last time: ISPs ARE NOT COMMON CARRIERS! In the US or elsewhere, they are not, this misinformation should die.

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001003)

The court found that, by hosting Usenet servers, Demon Internet had republished the libel and were therefore liable.

I wasn't aware of that case, but at the same time it is yet another example of the legal system being far behind on how the internet works. What the legal system doesn't grasp is that the internet is copy by default and where the distinction should be made is in what form that copy is and for what period. In many ways usenet could be considered a global caching system of news content.

Re:Not for the ISP to do ... (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001057)

The parent completely glosses over the fact that in Godfrey vs. Demon, the ISP had been told about the offending content and declined to act. It also completely fails to mention the provisions under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, relating to the defence of innocent dissemination. These were pretty important factors in the case in question, particularly in that one was used to negate the other in the reasoning. The legal position reached was somewhat analogous to the "safe harbor" provisions under the DMCA and the effect on them of submitting a takedown notice.

No... (1, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000139)

But there should be penalties for acquiring copyrighted goods without any intent to buy them. Many slashdotters complain about entitlement mentalities, and then defend copyright infringement on the part of people who either can pay for what they are getting or who have no need for it (like people who pirate a lot of software).

So what if the quality is crap? Don't buy it or find a way to sample it legally. If it doesn't work once you buy it, boycott the company that makes it, and let them know that you are doing that. When they get a lot of angry letters, and see their sales actually dropping, they'll either address the quality concerns or go out of business.

Just because copyright infringement doesn't deprive people of their original property, doesn't mean it is rendered ethically neutral or even good. There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.

Re:No... (4, Insightful)

anglico (1232406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000421)

If it doesn't work once you buy it, boycott the company that makes it

But how do I get my money BACK? I'm more interested in getting my money back (Like at a real merchants) then I am at writing a letter to someone who will never read it. If I got my money back I could still boycott the company and have lost nothing from my bank account.

Why can they sell me buggy software with no return policy and I lose money, but if it happens to them it's a huge legislative issue?

Re:No... (1, Flamebait)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000549)

Wow, very good point, and you should be modded...

I for one think that the RIAA should be able to do what they do. Not because I like the RIAA, but because I believe in Open Source...

Remember Open Source relies on copyright. And if people believe in infringing in copyright then what stops a company from infringing the rights of Open Source?

So when the RIAA wants three strikes you are out, I would actually like to apply this to companies that infringe on Open Source copyright!

Think about it, a side benefit of this is that a company like DieBold that infringed could be cut off the Internet! They could not get back onto the Internet! Imagine how fast they might even comply!

So folks think of this as a blessing in disguise...

Re:No... (4, Interesting)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000557)

What's your opinion on downloading ripped movies you already own, because ripping a DVD is (arguably) illegal and in some cases more time consuming than actually downloading? (assuming you live in a country with real bandwidth, not the US) Or downloading a pirate version of a book you already own, just because you want to read it "on the fly"
What's your opinion on downloading cracks for the games you own, just because DRM makes you want to cry and requiring the original DVD on the drive is JUST PLAIN STUPID?
How about people who want to acquire a work that there is no legal alternative for them to buy? (example: out of print books, tv shows from foreign countries, movies that never came out on DVD, LP's that never came out on CD)
Are those examples of "entitlement" plausible enough, or do you find them highly unlikely?

Re:No... (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000793)

There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.

(emphasis mine) If you want to convince infoanarchists to support copyright, then you need to convince them that information can be property in the first place.

Re:No... (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000825)

There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.

There is no moral right to control what others do with their property.

Re:No... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28001127)

Which is precisely why the "entitlement" attitude here is wrong.

IT IS NOT YOUR WORK. It is not your creation to control. If you don't like what the creator is doing with it, don't use it. They had the option of keeping it private, but they chose to share it on a limited basis. Like any other property or any other transaction, you are not free to ignore those limits. If you offer the use of some undeveloped land to some campers for three nights in exchange for $50, and then you come back on the fourth day and see them building a house, you'd be upset, and rightfully so.

Complaining and then taking that to which you are entitled is not a defensible position.

why ISPs might agree (4, Interesting)

bugi (8479) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000141)

Clearly this is against an ISP's best interest, but here's a few reasons they might go along with it anyway.

(1) Some ISPs (like AOL) are owned by the media bullies.

(2) Larger ISPs have legal departments to handle the lawsuits sure to ensue. Smaller ISPs don't. Bye bye competition.

Re:why ISPs might agree (1)

Datasage (214357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000439)

With the exception of number 1, I can't imagine any ISP's going along with this. A large number of people download music and movies, many of them unlicensed. The file distribution networks gave users what the RI/MPAA wouldn't and has cemented itself into internet culture. People don't think twice about downloading a movie or song off of pirate bay anymore.

A company may be ok shutting down a small handful of customers, but the practice of file sharing is pretty ingrained into an entire generation. Would an ISP willingly start disconnecting a large number of its customers?

Re:why ISPs might agree (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000945)

RI/MPAA

I think the clearest way to abbreviate this combination would be [RI|MP]AA, although one could argue for ??AA or **AA as well.

It's already happening (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000183)

Cable One here is Biloxi Mississippi has started cutting off bittorrent users. They always send a nasty "you been stealing" letter to the victim. It is happening all over. Of course many of the "guilty" are just idiots that didn't secure their networks and forgot that teenagers lived next door.

Copy of game broke, yet they gave me a warning (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000189)

my ISP(charter communications) already sent me a warning telling me that I violated copyright infringement because I downloaded Assassins Creed for the PC. What they don't know is that my actual DVD copy that I purchased in store broke. Since my copy broke and I needed to re-install the game I downloaded the game.

By the way, there was no crack that came with the download or anything, I didn't need a crack as I already have a legit copy.

What would stop this from happening with my music or any other things covered under this?

Re:Copy of game broke, yet they gave me a warning (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000543)

HOLD IT!

Assassin's Creed for the PC uses SafeDisc 4.85.
You need the physical disc to play the game (or sometimes just for the installation).

You claim your original disc "broke".
You claim you needed to reinstall the game.

Something doesn't add up with your testimony.

Would you care to explain how you reinstalled the game with the downloaded copy without cracking the protection?

</Phoenix Wright>

Interesting juxtaposition (4, Insightful)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000205)

Here we have two [slashdot.org] adjacent [slashdot.org] /. stories: one about ISPs being responsible for users' behavior, the other about ISPs not being responsible for users' behavior.

What is needed is a clarification, likely from SCOTUS, on whether ISPs are "common carriers" or not. If they are, then ISPs have to monitor postings and downloads (punishing people according to ... uh ... well they're not police or courts so it's really unclear how they're supposed to detect & respond re: users' behavior). If they are not, then ISPs can finally tell everyone else to take it up with the actual legally-identifiable offender.

Re:Interesting juxtaposition (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000983)

I think you have it backwards, don't you? Common carriers, IIRC, need not and in fact can not monitor communications. If they were to, they'd lose their CC status.

I almost got worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000251)

at least this won't come to anything because congress represents the common man.

Do we want sensationalistic headlines? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000291)

Do We Want ISP's Penalizing Music Fans?

... (/me coldly stares at the person asking the question)

SURE! Why not? After all, they're just working for the innocent record companies who just want to make an honest buck but can't due to those gosh-darn music fans and geeks!

I am ever-so-grateful that this question has been asked! And in such a nice, balanced headline! I'm certain that we should only have pleasant, rational discussions resulting from a headline that isn't a fucking sensationalistic piece of shit and is in no way shape or form a stupid, devoid-of-content attention-whoring "question"! What a wonderful testament to hard-hitting journalism coming back!

Apostrophes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000313)

Most importantly, do we need these excessive apostrophes?

Re:Apostrophes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000581)

Thank you. I was hoping this comment would be made higher up, but at least it was made.

All I Want (-1, Offtopic)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000319)

Is an ISP that connects me to the internet.
Make it reliable. Make it fast. Make it competitively priced.

(Don't give me that "choose 2" bullshit - we're lucky to be able to choose 1!)

Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000321)

Who the fuck is Billy Bragg and why should I care?

dep!"? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000413)

Sin3e we made the goal here? How can Would like to

I guess the idea was (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28000649)

that since there were losing the war on customers they should recruit allies and open another front. I really don't see that it matters what they do, the will never win the war against their customers.

Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28000783)

Just how much trouble do they think I will go through to listen to music? Feh! They get none of my dollars in any way, shape or form anymore! And I don't intend to pirate either. I simply do not need to be entertained sooo badly that I need the RIAA.

I'll entertain myself; throw a party, read a book, - God forbid - actually talk to someone and, if I really want music, I have enough friends that play instruments to come over and jam. Isn't that how all this got started long before the RIAA?

And this from Billy Bragg an AVOWED COMMUNIST (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28001031)

Really... like Billy Bragg would support big business even if this had nothing to do with the RIAA. The guys been a commie well before there was a RIAA.

Unpopular opinion (0, Redundant)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001035)

Some might argue that not only is it in the rights of your ISP to deny you service for copyright infringement, since it is stated in your terms of service agreement, it is their responsibility. I doubt that the ISPs are going to hire a "police force", but I can see them responding to multiple complaints from MPAA and RIAA. Let's be honest, if you continue to violate copyrights after three warnings, getting exiled from your ISP is pretty soft punishment... and don't try to play the "unprotected wireless network" game, because after your first warning, you should be able to figure out how to secure your LAN...

Penalizing Music Fans Is Redundant (0)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28001115)

At least half of music fans already have penises.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?