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!

RIAA Wants Limits On Net Neutrality So ISPs Can Police File Sharing

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the at-least-they're-consistent dept.

Government 173

Presto Vivace writes "Reporting for Computer World, Grant Gross writes that the RIAA is asking the FCC not to make the net neutrality rules so strict that they 'would limit broadband providers' [flexibility] to "address" illegal online file sharing.' It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment. 'The FCC should not only avoid rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking illegal file trading, but it should actively encourage ISPs to do so, the RIAA said. ... Other groups called on the FCC to stay out of the copyright enforcement business. If ISPs are required to check for copyright infringement, they could interfere with legal online activities, said six digital rights and business groups, including Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Association and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.'"

cancel ×

173 comments

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

So basically (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791266)

We're all for net neutrality, except that we hate the concept and it should be changed to reflect this.

Re:So basically (3, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791972)

Lets see more reasons for YOU to donate, join, contribute to the EFF and other organizations working for your rights online.

Meteor (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791344)

The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.

Re:Meteor (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791436)

The only thing that can made the RIAA dinosaurs die out is a meteor on their headquarters.

How about an asteroid [kontraband.com] instead?

Re:Meteor (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791620)

I was about to suggest something even smaller, but I doubt it would be PC and I kinda guess it would maybe make the DHS unhappy to hear such a suggestion. Then again, it's been almost 10 years and think of the publicity the terrorists could get! It's all about good PR these days, ya know...

Re:Meteor (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791682)

Yeah you know if Terrorists stop trying to kill us and started killing people we hate...we might actually give them what they want...which is to leave their "homeland"..I think? So it's a win-win!

But the war on 'x' is profitable, so why stop now? (1)

ImYourVirus (1443523) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792730)

But 'terrorists' only want to kill us, they like everyone else. Probably because they mind their own damn business. Of course if we would have just nuked them to begin with we wouldn't have this problem and the oil would be flowing like the proverbial milk and honey.

Re:But the war on 'x' is profitable, so why stop n (2, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792896)

That depends on the particular terrorist in question.

Some terrorists "hate us for our freedom"
Some terrorists hate us because we are assholes who invade their country, sometimes we had a very good reason, sometimes not so good of a reason.
Some terrorists hate us because their country invited us to be there to save their ass from a madman and they think the land is holy and we are infidels, Bin Laden is of this type.
Some terrorists want to install a global totalitarian theocracy where everyone submits to the absolute will of the state lead by a select group of clerics and convert or exterminate all non believers and reverse the last thousand years of social and technological advancement. Not all of these guys are in the Taliban, some of them are jingoistic American Christians.

There is no one solution.

Re:Meteor (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791572)

Anyone tried calling sephiroth? I'm sure he has just enough power left to drop a meteor on them.

Re:Meteor (0, Troll)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791746)

SRSLY? FFXII? SRSLY?!

4th amendment and the RIAA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791346)

I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government. There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (3, Informative)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791486)

Most people, even intelligent people, seem think that the US bill of rights is an invisible coat they wear everywhere they go in the real world or in cyberspace, and that it applies to them however they want it to apply to them.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1, Interesting)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791502)

I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government. There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.

So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP that they think you infringed on a copyright and that you should be booted off of the internet? The rights of others end where mine begin, and judging from the track record of the RIAA with their lawsuits against people who don't even own a computer I doubt that this will be used appropriately.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791536)

I wouldn't be particularly happy with my ISP if they booted me, but I don't see what problem there is with a private organization sharing evidence with another private organization.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791588)

I wouldn't be particularly happy with my ISP if they booted me, but I don't see what problem there is with a private organization sharing evidence with another private organization.

The problem is that they just need a suspicion that you've done something wrong, not , "We know that John Smith at 113 Main Street Somethingtown USA downloaded Party in the USA at 1:15pm on Saturday January 16th. Here are logs to prove it." The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims and not the ISPs. That and a notice that someone is accusing me of downloading some Miley Cyrus song.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791642)

You misunderstand. I don't think that the ISP should be legally required to act on the information. That's where the problem is, not with the information sharing (and then there are lots of situations where I would be unhappy an organization was sharing information about me, but I can't complain too much if they simply documented some information I sent out onto the internets).

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791548)

So you're ok with letting a private organization tell your ISP...

No, I don't believe he said that at all. What he said was that the 4th amendment doesn't apply in this circumstance, not that he's happy with or supportive of the actions of the RIAA. I doubt that there's any RIAA fans among the /. crowd at all, not counting the random loony here or there.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791798)

The 4th ammendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note that at no point does the ammendment state that the restriction applies only to governmental entities or actions of the government.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792124)

Yeah, so?

If I see you on the street and notice that you have black hair, you can't use the fourth amendment to prevent me from sharing that information, and similarly, if you are broadcasting requests onto the internet, you probably can't claim that it is unreasonable to record that broadcast.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792478)

There's hardly ever such a thing as a request 'broadcast' onto the internet. Requests are generally unicast, there is a difference.

When a unicast message is transmitted, only the peer whose IP address is the destination IP receives the packet.

Actually, the internet is not a broadcast medium or the transmission medium. There is no public space called "the internet" that a request passes through.

You buy a connection from an ISP.

That ISP sends your packet to the destination who also has a connection with the ISP.

OR: Your ISP forwards your packet to their transit provider (the ISP's ISP), who ultimately has a contractual relationship with your ISP and the recipient's ISP, to forward your packet to the destination ISP.

OR: Your ISP forwards your packet to a peer, who has a contractual relationship with them, and your destination has purchased an internet connection from the peer (or IS the peer).

The result is, that the internet is not owned by the government.

Anymore than the government would own the path, or be able to control what you were allowed to transport, if all your neighbors got together, and built underground tunnels between the basements of houses in your subdivision that did not cross public land, and were large enough for people to bring things through.

The government could not forbid you from using the private tunnels to share playboy magazines with your neighbors; as long as you all obeyed the contracts with each other, there would not be a legal issue.

The FCC demanding some participants filter what can be carried through the tunnels, would essentially be an abridgement of private property rights.

Because just about every part of the internet is private property, including the easements on which private fiber is laid (rights that have to be purchased, when any company or person needs to buy certain rights land that is otherwise public or belongs to someone else).

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792508)

Yeah, yeah, I didn't use networking lingo properly, but we both know that P2P software shares data with lots of people.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792622)

It shares some data with some people.

It doesn't share all data with all people. Only people who have joined the tracker can see it.

Just like only the people who have joined an IRC channel or private mailing list can see posts to the list.

It makes sense that a participant is capable of recording everything (if they want); however, a random person off the street cannot simply record, without joining or asking for permission to join the list.

It would be inappropriate for an ISP to record or specifically seek to intercept that traffic, unless someone from that ISP is actually a member.

Many peer to peer networks are closed, require a password, or invitation to gain access, and are used for legal file transfers, anyways.

Each peer can't really see what bytes are being exchanged between two other peers.

They can only assume since they are nodes in the same swarm, they are transferring similar blocks that correspond to the files they know about.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (3, Interesting)

jthill (303417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792672)

That is correct. And also the various assertions that the 4th doesn't restrict private entities.

But shutting off an entire household's internet access, let alone taking their computers, is seizure, not talk, and requires either consent or legal authority. So the 4th applies.

The police may not search your car without explicitly-stated consent. If they can see it through the windows that's fine, but that's looking, not searching. The police also may not revoke your license just because someone made accusations - the police themselves can't do it even if someone provides evidence.

The *AA's want to turn ISPs into police who _do_ have the authority to search, not merely to look, and to revoke not just your license but the licenses of everyone in your entire household just because somebody leveled an accusation.

Maybe you don't use the net much in your work. I don't much, now, but permanent team IRC or skype or AIM chats are widespread professional practice. Net access is very definitely as important to many people as a driver's license, and more so to quite a few.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792720)

Mostly, I am replying in the context of this comment:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1513332&cid=30791502 [slashdot.org]

(rather than in the context of the story as a whole; I certainly expect my ISP to respect my privacy, and in the case that no ISP does so, I would at least expect them to be very clear about what information they shared, and with whom. I don't find this particular story that worrisome, the only way the RIAA could possibly convince ISPs to monitor their customers is by having the FCC force them to do it, and the ISPs themselves are going to fight that at least until it is toothless (because they don't want to expend the technical resources on it, and because they don't want to disconnect people who give them money))

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792172)

Your post definitely shows that you have not received a decent education in the law nor in the Constitution. Barron v. Baltimore clearly said that the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. That was the entire reason the FFs passed them was so that they would limit the Federal Government. In addition, the only reason they apply to the states is because of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to Gitlow v. NY. They do not apply to private individuals unless they are acting in the capacity of the state, which is a very high hurdle to meet.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

andb52 (854780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792372)

Well, unlike other posters, I am a lawyer; The Bill of Rights begin "Congress shall make no law," and it has always been held that the Bill of Rights are a purely a restriction upon government action. A cursory reading of the history surrounding the BoR, or the manner in which they have always been applied, will show that you are really missing the point.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Informative)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792994)

No, The Bill of Rights begins "Amendment I.", and "Congress shall make no law" is in the First Amendment. Had the authors of the Constitution wanted the Constitution to be as you suggest, they could have written:

Congress shall make no law:

[list amendments]

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (4, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791970)

you should be booted off of the internet?

The ISP is in the business of serving subscribers who pay monthly fees. As long as your billing identity affords you plausible deniability [wikipedia.org] , particularly for mobile broadband accounts, the ISP would be happy to continue selling you service under a new alias. It is an unfortunate truth that ordinary citizens, due to corrupt bargains between special interests and the government, are increasingly compelled by necessity to master the techniques of intelligence operatives simply to maintain privacy and duck silly restrictions, but that is the world that we live in today. For those who are interested, I recommend the following book [amazon.com] . After all, the lobbyists, corporations and politicians don't play be the rules; so why should we?

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792554)

The problem with your reasoning has been noted, but it deserves repeating, because this is a common problem. When somebody points out a fact, that does not ipso facto indicate support for that fact. I've seen versions of the following exchange on many occasions:

Person A: Stalin ate babies.
Person B: Actually, there's no evidence that Stalin was a cannibal.
Person A: So you're a fan of Stalin?

I can never tell if Person A is being intentionally obtuse or simply can't understand that he is being so.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (5, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791516)

There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.

The 14th amendment says otherwise. Not only is the federal government barred from infringing on the first and second amendments, so are the states.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791684)

No, actually, he's right. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) [wikipedia.org] . The 2nd amendment has not yet been incorporated to include the states, and even then that does not mean it includes private enterprise (which is what the discussion over the 4th amendment here is about).

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791890)

Technically the 9th temporarily incorporated it in 2009. The failure of the supreme court to permanently incorporate the 2nd has historically been a huge mistake [wikipedia.org] .

The Cruikshank case held that states could violate the 1st Amendment right to freedom of assembly, the 2nd Amendment right to arms and the 15th Amendment right to vote without the possibility of Federal oversight[25]. The Cruikshank case arose from events now known as the Colfax Massacre, in which blacks trying to vote in Louisiana in 1873 were systematically disarmed and then subjected to three days of arson, riot, rape and murder with over 100 dead before Federal troops moved in to restore order

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792110)

Technically, the 9th Circuit lacks authority to overturn Cruikshank.

--AC

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792466)

Oh absolutely a huge mistake, yes. I haven't looked recently, but I think the 2nd is the last major amendment from the BoR that hasn't been incorporated.

Even a cursory beginner's intro to the history of the United States would show that the 2nd amendment was never about hunting ducks or deer, and was always about protecting the people from tyrannical government using firearms as their last resort.

Why that should only extend to federal government, and not state or local government has always been a mystery to me.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

andb52 (854780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792420)

Well, technically this is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch. And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated. The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago. Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated. Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791542)

I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government.

Though that doesn't give private businesses the right to do ANYTHNG willy-nilly (and I am not, for the record, saying you are implying this), for example, a store can not detain you just because you refuse to show a receipt on the way out, they need probable cause - proof you actually shoplifted, lest they face all sorts of legal hell. :D

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792102)

Not exactly. They need a reasonable belief. See, because the Bill of Rights does not apply to private actors. Instead, the store-customer relationship is governed by longstanding principles of common law. At common law, you have the right to freedom of movement, and can sue individuals who wrongfully and intentionally limit your freedom of movement by confining you to a bounded area. This is the tort of false imprisonment. However, a store keeper has a limited privilege to infringe your right where he reasonably believes that doing so is necessary to protect his property. So the while the mere failure to show a receipt upon leaving a store may not be sufficient to justify a store owner's decision to detain you, if there are other facts that the store owner is aware of, such a detention may be legally authorized.

--AC

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792690)

All of which I - albiet very vaguely - acknowledged.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791632)

I think that was written before people envisioned companies outright owning entire governments.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791654)

The FCC is a part of the federal government, if they're actively encouraging private companies to rifle through private communications, or worse, forcing them to do so or penalizing them for NOT doing so, the situation is not so black and white that we can declare it to be outside the scope of bill of rights.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791686)

Constitutional rights hold for the individuals against the state (and newer founded federal) governments. Maybe you should relearn your constitutional law, or was it just a self-study? If so, go back and read the 14th (fourteenth) amendment. Also, you should be re-read the preamble. In all honesty, all these points are more pertinent today than ever, which is very sad.
 
And for the record, if ISPs are required to inspect traffic and regulate what is sent as implied, then if something does get through, the ISP is held liable and not the individual who sent it. You just can not have your cake and eat it too.
 
Oh, and who would mod up an anonymous coward claiming to be the holy grail of constituional law when it is obviously the rantings of an RIAA plant?

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791730)

Ever heard of the 14th amendment? Made after the civil war...

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791906)

Civil war? When did that happen? I just never stay up with current events....

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791732)

Yes, but the constitutional ammendments also apply to the government using private entities.

For example, the government can't require all janitors to search for certain violations and report them directly to the government.

The government can't legally make an end-run around the first ammendment by hiring private companies to silence a person, jam their signal, or hack into their web host and delete their blog.

I'm suggesting the FCC requiring or encouraging ISPs to 'monitor' users activities (to determine if they were doing anything illegal) and report to the government, would be equivalent to the government itself participating in that activity...

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

ChiRaven (800537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791816)

We're TALKING about the federal government here ... rules being set by the FCC. "F" as in "Federal". They should be required to adhere to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (2, Informative)

sexybomber (740588) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791956)

Quite right, but there is one amendment that applies to everyone, governments, corporations, and private citizens alike: the thirteenth.

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

It's a Hail Mary, but the argument could be made that, if the RIAA has their way, we'll all be involuntarily serving them by being forced to pay up every time we hear, see, or think of a copyrighted work. Actually, it could be argued that many corporations, the record companies included, treat the American people like a resource to be exploited, not like their gorram customers.

Yes, I just drew a comparison between a repressive copyright regime and slavery. Did I just pull a super-Godwin?

What a stretch (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792312)

Being forced to pay for content consumed is a far cry from involuntary servitude.

Being forced to expend resources policing your network so you can report crimes might qualify as involuntary servitude, though I think that is a stretch too.

There are much better arguments against what the RIAA is proposing than this 'its slavery' nonsense. Proposing something this far from rational just makes you, and everyone on your side of the fence, look irrational, and weakens your position overall.

You aren't helping. Please, stop.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792100)

I'm not a lawyer, but I did study constitutional law. I don't mean to be critical, but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities. They are applicable to the FEDERAL government. There is still debate on which amendments should apply to the states - e.g. the recent 2nd amendment lawsuits against state governments and D.C.

Pretty sure there are a lot of people that don't think it applies to the federal government anymore, either. And they have a point.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792294)

"but people should drop the concept that the Bill of Rights applies to private and/or corporate entities"

Corporations are considered citizens of the US of A and are therefore required to follow the Constitution. If the constitution guaruntees them Freedom of speech... Your suggestion would allow them to have it both ways.

Re:4th amendment and the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792916)

As a person from Europe, the concept of Federal government confuses me. How could 'THE' law (ie. the constitution, which at least in my country is the 'highest' possible law) only apply to the government, or in this case, only to a part of the government?
Reasoning from what I just read (4th amendment), assuming it only applies to the government, does that mean I can spy on my neighbour? Or is privacy from private persons simply arranged elsewhere in US law?

pfft (4, Interesting)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791348)

RIAA just won't quit will they. Their idea would require ISP's to spend money, they don't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load.

Re:pfft (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791778)

RIAA just won't quit will they. Their idea would require ISP's to spend money, they don't even want to spend money to upgrade their networks to deal with increased load.

Wow good point. Every cloud has a silver lining then.

Huhhnn? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791354)

So what they're saying is their business model is so flawed that it can only be supported by making other businesses pay for their complete failure in the marketplace? Yeah, that makes sense... in bizarro world. The FCC is being maligned for being a "liberal" establishment, but this is about as conservative a viewpoint as it gets: They're asking for their business to get special treatment because it makes horseshoes in a automobile era. Or, put another way -- they want a bailout.

Yes, how very liberal of them. /snark

Re:Huhhnn? (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791886)

Actually.. maybe it's even worse than that... the RIAA is using pointy sticks and honed rocks as weapons in the atomic age.

They discovered fire, which was a great source of revenue for a long time, charging admission for folks to come feel its warmth, cook food, and have some protection against the wolves... but then, unfortunately, someone invented the torch.

And ever since then, it's been a non-stop battle fighting illegal fire-traders, who offer their torch as a source to light others'.

Mostly by sending cease and extinguish letters, but those kept getting returned as a ball of charcoal, so the next step was to send lawyers...

Re:Huhhnn? (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792788)

You really do need to learn what 'liberal' and 'conservatives' think before you start making such retarded statements about such a generic political label. The only statement you've made is that you are just some douche bag who listens to the news and parrots 'liberal' and 'conservative' when referring to your team or the other team. Every time I hear someone use these words my mind instantly knows you're version of politics is about the same as my version of NFL Football.

Please get a fucking clue and stop being such a uneducated, ignorant moron that you use those words like they actually have any sort of meaning beyond which team your rooting for.

Likely without precedent (5, Insightful)

jarocho (1617799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791386)

Quoting: "Internet service providers should have authority to block subscribers from sharing music and other files without permission of the copyright owner, the RIAA said."

I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.

Re:Likely without precedent (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791616)

There's nothing in the law to make ISPs filter copyrighted content.
What the RIAA wants is to cleverly sneak in the back door and use the
FCC's regulatory powers to force ISP level filtering.
That's what separates this from a car analogy.

Re:Likely without precedent (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791670)

Not only that, but why should ISPs care? Because of the increased bandwidth use? They have simpler tools to counter this (like metering the use and having their user pay for it). Independent of what's sent through the cable.

It would not only cost the ISPs money, that's actually a minor concern. The liability is. From "they should have the authority" it's a tiny step to "they have to". And then they'd be liable for any filesharing going on through their networks.

I could not see anything any ISP would fight harder against than that. Because it is nearly impossible to policy that without pretty much banning all traffic except traffic relying on public, well used protocols. And ponder how many of their users this would piss off and make them quit. All online gamers (because games, especially MMOs, pretty much have to use nonstandard data packets to avoid cheating and use of unauthorized clients) and all VPN users (and those are usually the ones with the fat contracts, think companies and the like) first of all.

If the RIAA wants a fight with the major ISPs, this is the way to do it.

Re:Likely without precedent (2, Informative)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791990)

I don't think highway operators in this country have ever been compelled or encouraged to stop grand theft auto, or interstate smuggling of stolen goods... Or that phone companies have been expected to prevent con artists from swindling people out of their money to buy "beach-side" Florida swamp land. Et cetera. This would appear to be unprecedented.

Actually it's a bit worse than that, because "permission of the copyright holder" is code for "our permission". Independent publishers crop up occasionally with stories of being banned from publishing their own songs because they lack "permission from the copyright holder". The RIAA doesn't check it owns the actual rights in the first place, and it will blanket ban with no appeal if it gets the chance.

But who says who the copyright owner is? The riaa (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792052)

But who says who the copyright owner is? The riaa wants to own all music and make un singed band be locked out of putting there own music on line for free without paying the riaa for the right.

Re:Likely without precedent (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792250)

Your highway analogy is flawed in that it involves actual stolen goods, as in things removed from some location and transferred elsewhere, unlike the RIAA's case. This only makes your example even stronger; even where actual stolen goods are being transferred, there isn't precedent for this.

The RIAA guys need to get a real business model, because their artificial scarcity one requires way too many things to prop it up, and apparently quite expensive as well.

analogy with mail (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791406)

It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail. This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..." Everyone understands that position to be completely ridiculous so why is it that the concept is so difficult to apply to internet packets etc? Just as your mail is legally protected from being ripped open by others, so should your internet packets. It isn't the job of ISPs to do the RIAA's work nor is it their right to riffle through your online activities at their whim.

Re:analogy with mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791458)

But that would cut off their only revenue stream. You see, since they have been winning lawsuits against those who shared one (1) music MP3 file for $500,000, they are making more money than they ever did with CD sales. They have a new addiction, and like the local crack-head will do anything to fuel said addiction. They just don't realize they are attempting to mess with a constitutional right this time, known as the 4th ammendment. But the way the current Obama administration is stepping all over our constitution, maybe they think they can get in on the action and burn it completely. Just my two cents, but America is losing its mind completely lately.

Re:analogy with mail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791480)

The problem, is that "opened mail" is difficult to conceal without failing to deliver it.

"Inspected Packets" on the other hand, look just the same upon delivery; they just take inordinately longer to be delivered.

As a result, the "Out of sight, out of mind" principle kicks in with Joe Sixpack; and he really isn't concerned. (however, Most slashdot readers are already aware of the average level of intellect attributed to Joe Sixpack.)

I realize that "obviously opened mail" vs "Not obviously inspected packets" is a purely cosmetic one, and that the total disregard and avoidance of the privacy issue is sick and twisted, but it would seem to be the current state of affairs.

Re:analogy with mail (2)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792208)

You can easily inspect mail by using vapor to open the letters.

Re:analogy with mail (2, Funny)

u4ya (1248548) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791524)

You're right. What don't these RIAA jerks get? It's almost like they are operating with their own agenda or something.

Re:analogy with mail (0)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791576)

I'm all for ISP inspection of packets, as long as the ISP becomes criminaly liable for EVERYTHING that goes over their network.

Re:analogy with mail (0)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791782)

I know that's the standard line and I would probably agree that, if they were to inspect every packet, then they probably should become liable for the traffic they choose to allow. However, I would not be OK with that setup. You'd quickly see the Internet turn into a for-pay broadcast network.

People need to be able to communicate privately and even anonymously. If it's possible for a society to be arranged to function without privacy and anonymity, then we don't yet have a precedent to look to.

Re:analogy with mail (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791928)

It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail.

Bad analogy. The postal inspectors are free to open (and re-seal) any mail or message they deem suspicious.

And when packages are sent via media mail or other restricted mail service, that is only supposed to be used for books and certain other specifically allowed items, they commonly do open items, inspect, and re-seal.

Re:analogy with mail (1, Interesting)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792366)

It is a federal offense to riffle through someone else's mail. This nonsense by the RIAA and friends is like saying "yeah we agree that FEDEX etc. shouldn't be going through other peoples' mail... except to make sure that people aren't pirating things..."

I'm not saying it's right, but are carriers such as FedEx and UPS bound by those same restrictions. I understand that it's illegal to snoop through USPS mail, but what about private, commercial carriers?

Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content? (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791448)

I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).

Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content (0)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791570)

Since most ppl use encryption on their illegal downloads now days, ISPs can't tell if its legal or illegal cause far as they know it could be say a Linux distro or even a game from a company that uses bitorrent like system (aka blizzard does)

Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content (2, Interesting)

Kijori (897770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791648)

I serously doubt that ISPs would want to take on the role of online copyright police, though some might welcome it as an excuse to block or throttle bandwidth-heavy, potentially infringing traffic (anything P2P, for instance, or perhaps -- even more nefariously -- anything not explicitly added to an ISPs whitelist of official content). Otherwise, it seems to me the added burden of filtering illegal downloads specifically is something ISPs would rather avoid (but which the RIAA would love to impose).

Absolutely - there's a similar bill over here in Britain that has been estimated to cost £500m [digitalwrong.org] ($800m), or approximately £25 ($40) per user, a cost that the ISP would pass straight on to the customer. I would assume that the cost per subscriber would be about the same in the US - I wonder if the RIAA is offering to pay...

The British provisions are being debated over here at the moment - the ideas sound pretty similar; among other provisions, they would force ISPs to disconnect people accused of copyright infringement, which over here has lead to the brilliant question in the House of Lords: If someone's child downloads a film while waiting around in Parliament, does Parliament get its internet access shut off? [digitalwrong.org]

Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791692)

ISPs have far easier tools to cut down P2P traffic if they so choose, without that damocletian sword called liability dangling over their heads.

Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791758)

ISPs have far easier tools to cut down P2P traffic if they so choose, without that damocletian sword called liability dangling over their heads.

They can do that now, but if net neutrality law prevented them from throttling P2P traffic then a "copyright infringement" loophole might enable them to block all instances of suspected copyright infringement (e.g. anything sent over P2P) rather than actual copyright infringement.

Re:Do ISPs really wish to block infringing content (0)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792122)

Well i'm betting some of them do have a want to filter. Think of a cable company that gets told it wants to filter or it doesn't want to have access to new movies on Pay per view. See how that would work, "we're not sure of your ability to ensure that this PPV content doesn't get out, but if you manage to filter the internet connections you provide, we'll take that as a sign you are trustworthy"

"Could do" absolutely, "should"...I think not! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791462)

The RIAA is correct that the ISPs are in a unique position in that they easily (relatively speaking, of course) could implement safeguards to stop the trafficking of any files they want. There are some hiccups in a potential implementation, and it wouldn't come cheap, but the RIAA is at least correct that the easiest--nay, only--way to stop file trading is to cut it off at the source.

What they don't get, however, is that the ISPs have no obligation to them to do this. It doesn't sound like the RIAA is willing to pony up the cost for this (at least, they aren't volunteering), or otherwise contribute to making it work. It sounds more like they've decided that the FCC and the ISPs should help them, since they've proven to the world at large that they're not capable of helping themselves. I don't see what makes them feel they've earned the right to be "saved." It's ludicrous.

How about newspapers? Those are fundamentally far more important to society than entertainment music. Yet, advertisers have increased their dollars spent online, leaving less to be spent in papers; further, the wider reach of the internet is more attractive than a page in a newspaper that reaches, in major markets, a few million (and that's only a handful of places). Further, of those million, only a fraction will actually see the ad, since few people read every section of the paper. So, newpapers are going under all over the country, yet no one seems to be crying to save them. How about we help them out first?

Re:"Could do" absolutely, "should"...I think not! (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791860)

The point your missing is the FCC has NO BUSINESS tinkering with the web!

Go find the FCC's failed (and now missing) original mission statement, get back to us when you see the big picture.

They are supposed to manage power and frequency in the public interest.

An FCC solution will be a disaster

I support filtering copyrighted material (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791586)

I support filtering copyrighted material... as soon as copyright law is so clearly defined that no copyrights need never be decided in a courthouse again and even computerized systems could determine what is and is not copyright infringement with absolute 100% certainty.
Anything else will undeniably limit freedom of speech.

Re:I support filtering copyrighted material (2, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791622)

And who controls the system? How would you 'filter' everything anyway? It's a lovely idea from an idealistic standpoint, in reality, it'd just be abused and easy to work around.

Re:I support filtering copyrighted material (0, Troll)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792134)

*WOOSH* I'm thinking that was the the point of the statement.

Why is it... (2, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791610)

That vigilanteism is fine online?

Re:Why is it... (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791716)

It is?

Why didn't anyone tell me? Frank, fire up the DDoS, we're gonna toast a few spammers tonight!

Seriously now. It isn't. It's just the usual RIAA stunt, trying to shift the burden of their work onto someone else's shoulders.

Re:Why is it... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792828)

Because much like pirating software or other content, IT REALLY DOESN'T FUCKING HURT ANYONE, regardless of how much you whine and bitch about it.

And no, the girl that killed herself over a myspace or facebook page didn't do it because of online activities, she did it because she was mentally unstable and unable to survive in the real world. Should would have done it based on something else the next day if it hadn't been for the website being there.

Get some perspective.

Already patented. (5, Funny)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791694)

The RIAA can't legally do this because I already have a patent on: 'A technique for alienating your consumers by persecuting them.' US Patent 3,141,592 So I will charge a licensing fee of a modest 1 million dollars for every potential user of every ISP that uses this. Or approximately the population of the earth^3 million dollars. Now I'm worried they may use it anyway, so I've already applied to have a tax instituted in Europe to make up for the losses of every potential infringement on my patent.

Too funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791760)

I dont see the RIAA helping the copyright holders defrauded by the CRIA in getting their money... In a previous article published by Zeropiad (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87340/canadian-music-industry-faces-6-billion-copyright-infringement-trial/) it is estimated the CRIA has defrauded artists and copyright holders out of more then 30 million dollars. It's funny how quick they are to try and chase the home consumer for piracy but I dont see them working that hard to ensure money gets to the copyright holders. There is also the matter of the burden of proof and reasonable doubt... At the end of the day without a complete forensics analysis of each suspects computers they have no way of telling if their suspect (based on an IP and MAC address) is even the actual offender. Thus they shouldn't have any right to request the ISP perform any policing of filesharing. When a friend or client sends me a take down notice they receive form their ISP in Canada I have advised them to respond to them by telling them to get stuffed ; that they have no idea what they are talking about

Team RIAA, World Police (1)

Tisha_AH (600987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791770)

This is another attempt by the RIAA to dilute their highly unpopular (and unconstitutional) warfare on anyone who exchanges music. If they can "get" the ISP's to do the filtering for them then the next step would be for the RIAA to "require" the ISP's to be the bad guys.

Net Neutrality is something worth fighting for. This RIAA attempt is a sideways attempt to undermine the free access to most information.

Me think (5, Insightful)

Hymer (856453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791788)

That RIAA, MPAA BSA etc. are dangerous terrorist organizations conspiring against the constitution of the United States of America and several other western countries.
They are more dangerous than armed terrorist because they are trying to minimize the rights/freedom of people. If we need laws like they want we also need a non-transferable copyright which is held only by the artist/writer/inventor and expires when the holder dies.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like or support piracy but the ideas of those people reminds me of Stasi, KGB or NKVD.

Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP (1, Interesting)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791796)

The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.

IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!

They have no business on the web, and the only thing that will happen is they will fuck it up. just like they have with their own original mission statement.

You only hear about the FCC and the web, each time this propaganda tries to give the FCC the power to regulate more shit, in this case TCPIP.

They will gain control of the WEB if the public allows the fascist corporations to control the engineers. THINK DAMN IT! It's only been the last couple years the FCC has been associated with the web.

KEEP THE GOD DAMNED FCC OUT OF THE FUCKIN WEB!

Do not give them the authority to regulate the fucking web!

Unless you desire NO PUBLIC outlet for information at all. Is that what you want?

Keep getting side-tracked with stupid ass stories and don't protest.

This is predictable as clockwork!

Re:Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP (2, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792138)

Have you paid any attention to the net neutrality debate at all? Because your rant is so completely ignorant, so completely the opposite of what's actually happening, that I find it hard to believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

Re:Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP (1)

woody.jesus (1665793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792316)

of course you're right ... and if I might add some bile to your rage ... IF ANYONE AT THE SO-CALLED DEPARTMENT OF 'JUSTICE' had any balls they'd be trust-busting the RIAA instead of Intel!

Re:Corrupt FCC has no jurisdiction over TCPIP (4, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792602)

The FCC wasn't created to do TCPIP.

IT WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND FREQUENCY!

Err, yeah. And the British Army was created to deal with swords and pikes, not assault rifles.

I agree that these kinds of legislations should be kept out of the internet at large, not just the web, but your argument just plain sucks.

RIAA go make your own country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791814)

Sounds like RIAA just wants to have its own way. Why doesn't it go and found some new country where they can make these crazy rules?

Block copyright material? block malware/spam too! (1)

yalap (1443551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791818)

If SPs can sniff the data to detect and block copyright material then they will also be able to detect malware, spam and all the other attacks going in and out of their networks. Maybe it is just easier to blame end users (including grandma) for not installing fixes to crazy security bugs and to charge them for the bandwidth when they're attacked than cleaning up their networks

It's not their job (4, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791910)

It's not Blockbuster's job to make sure I don't make copies of the movies I rent either.

It's not my power company's job to make sure I'm not using electricity to run my DVD-duplicator.

national cyber security coordinator threat to net (4, Informative)

emaname (1014225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791940)

From a recent PBS Newshour analysis AIR DATE: Dec. 22, 2009
Subject: How Dangerous is the Cyber Crime Threat?

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, in fact, President Obama had talked about doing this as early as May. And then there were reports that it was taking a while to fill the position or to figure out who that person would report to.

JAMES LEWIS: There's a dispute in the White House and in the administration. And I think that slowed things down. Some people think it's best to leave the Internet alone, let it be the Wild West, let it continue to have a limited role for government, and the Internet community will find its way out of this problem. I don't happen to agree. I'm not sure where Howard comes out on this, but...

JEFFREY BROWN: Don't you agree why?

JAMES LEWIS: I don't, because we have tried letting the Internet community solve this. We have tried seeing if it was a self-organizing global commons. It hasn't worked. It's just like the Wild West. Time to move in the marshals.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec09/cyber_12-22.html [pbs.org]

RIAA wants to repeal the constitution (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792500)

again. film at 11.

Ignorance (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792840)

I'm completely opposed to the RIAA and think copyright should be outright abolished, but... "It seems the RIAA is unclear on the concept of the Fourth Amendment"? The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all to what a private party can do to monitor another private party using their service. Provided it's in your contract with your ISP, which it most certainly is, they can monitor you for illegal activities (or any other activities they consider violations of said contract) and shut you down if they want.

Go look up "private property" and stop thinking it's the government's damn job to protect you against anything you don't like. (Same goes for "network neutrality," but that's beyond the scope of this post.)

People rule (1)

Peter Nikolic (1093513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792978)

The big thing here is that it is the people of the country that rule and if enough of you get together and tell the RIAA and their Co Horts to go jump in a pool of liquid pig shit then they got to go do as they have been told likewise the people of the Country vote for the Lawmakers ie the politicians so the people have the Ultimate Control over said individuals , It is within the ability of the people of the nation to say that is a step too far sunny back off! and groups like the RIAA only exist by the overall grace of the population forget the big corps like EMi , Sony ect they have no choice in the matter if the people pull together they have to play the game according to the rules OF the People ..

I spose i the simple way of putting it is get off ya asses and sort them out simples***

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>