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!

Music Industry Drafts Code of Conduct for ISPs

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the because-of-their-moral-high-ground dept.

Privacy 818

An anonymous reader writes "The Register is running a story about how the music industry is trying to get ISPs to sign 'code of conduct' agreements to cut people off for excessive bandwidth usage, to turn over details of users on demand, and to block certain 'illegal' websites." From the article: "According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


More information (4, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 9 years ago | (#12212467)

In the interest of promoting more enlightened discussion, the full text of the "Music is Driving Growth in Digital Commerce" speech, presented by John Kennedy, CEO and Chairman of the IFPI to the ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association) Conference in Brussles, on March 3rd, 2005, can be found here [ifpi.org] .

Re:More information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212543)

I can't imagine that ISP's would be too eager to agree to that. "Infringing activities" are the only reason I pay the extra cash for broadband...

Better Option (5, Funny)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 9 years ago | (#12212565)

I think they should ask ISPs to stop people that use the Internet altogether. That way: No Internet piracy!

Wait a minute...

Sounds like a good deal (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212476)

And so what do the ISP's get in return?

Customer satisfaction?

Re:Sounds like a good deal (5, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | about 9 years ago | (#12212551)

Deep down, ISPs know that widespread consumer adoption of high speed internet is ONLY fueled by three things: video, music, and games. Yes there's lots of legitimate uses for high speed, but tech-savy folks do not make up the lion's share of the consuming public.

Re:Sounds like a good deal (0, Redundant)

tomhudson (43916) | about 9 years ago | (#12212679)

high speed internet is ONLY fueled by three things: video, music, and games
Other reasons (at least for slashdotters) ...
  1. Frost piss posts
  2. pr0n
  3. linux/bsd isos
  4. troll links to the goat, last measure, etc

Re:Sounds like a good deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212688)

you left out porn!

I don't think so (4, Insightful)

Jaguar777 (189036) | about 9 years ago | (#12212485)

From TFA:
The idea of blocking access where someone is using a lot of bandwidth just doesn't work. What if they're using a webcam? Or voice over internet? They all use similar ports as some of the file-sharing systems. There's no real way of determining whether just because someone's using a lot of bandwidth that they're contravening copyright.

They can have my bandwidth when they pry it out of my COLD DEAD HANDS. I only have 768k upstream right now, and there will be hell to pay if they want to remove accounts for actually using the allotted amount.

Re:I don't think so (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#12212512)

I only have 768k upstream right now, and there will be hell to pay if they want to remove accounts for actually using the allotted amount.

It's up to the ISP to enforce this. The thing I didn't understand is what benefit do ISPs get for actually signing this agreement?

They are going to look bad for handing over customer's information w/o question and they might even lose customers (if there are other options available).

Is the RIAA/MPAA going to pay them money to do this?

Re:I don't think so (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212591)

The thing I didn't understand is what benefit do ISPs get for actually signing this agreement?
Naked pictures of Britney Spears.

Re:I don't think so (1)

kizzbizz (870017) | about 9 years ago | (#12212664)

It'll sure be a scary world we live in if any group can just dump millions (Which they're already raking in from exploitation of customers/musicians) on any group they please to get their way.

Oh, wait- they've already done this with our GOVERNMENT, and this is the reason we even have to worry about this in the first place.

I guess it already is a pretty scary world.

They have a large stick.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212703)

They are probably saying "Well, if you do what we say, then we won't sue you. If you don't.. well... what do you think?"

Basically this is just a way of saying "I've got a big stick and if you don't do what I say, I'm going to thump you."

Re:I don't think so (1)

MikeDX (560598) | about 9 years ago | (#12212536)

They can have my bandwidth when they pry it out of my COLD DEAD HANDS

Well lucky for them then that you are just a user (read: criminal) and not the (your) ISP. So it seems they can just about do whatever they like.

Not that I'm advocating their actions, just making an observation....

Er, no. (2, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | about 9 years ago | (#12212631)

More like they can have *their* bandwidth whenever they want. Read your TOS more closely, the liklihood of there *not* being a clause that allows them to change or ammend the TOS at will is extremely low.

ISPs resell bandwidth according to the 80/20 model - that only 20% of their users use 80% ore more of their capacity. As soon as users start skewing those numbers, they begin to lose money, and if they are skewed enough, they can start to be actually selling the bandwidth at a loss.

An ISP is a business. BUsinesses do not like to lose money. As soon as it is not profitable for you to be consuming the bandwidth anymore (say if, for example, projected costs of lawsuits against them outweigh the revenue from you as a customer), they will drop you. And don't pretend they will lose any sleep over it either - if losing a customer amounts to a net gain in profit margin, then they won.

Re:I don't think so (2, Insightful)

simcop2387 (703011) | about 9 years ago | (#12212637)

this almost makes me tempted to make a P2P app that just sends packets containing random data along the network. Get a couple thousand people passing random data around, nothing infringing, everyone using their maximum bandwidth for 96 hours or so, take them to court if they shut our accounts down.

Re:I don't think so (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 years ago | (#12212689)

You better read your TOS agreement. More than likely when your account is terminated, you won't have a leg to stand on in court, as what you suggest above is a pretty clear cut case of trying to bring down a network.

Acronyms (0, Redundant)

suso (153703) | about 9 years ago | (#12212497)


Ahhhhhhh! When reading an article like this, it can sometimes be hard to remember who is who and whose side you're on. By the time you get half way through it, you've forgotten what the acryonyms stand for. By the time you're done, you're just mad, but what who?

What about (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212506)

Who is drafting a 'code of conduct' for
the record companies that sign 15 year olds
to lifetime exclusive contracts?

Re:What about (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 9 years ago | (#12212685)

Good thinking.

How about also demanding that the record industry stop threatening to sue people for disproportionate amounts of money, and stops seeking extensions to copyright length.

No way, unless.... (4, Insightful)

Xavier CMU (829477) | about 9 years ago | (#12212508)

It's suicide for broadband suppliers to try weeding out filesharers, unless the contracts become federally mandated I doubt anyone would sign them. I know I sure as hell would find another subscriber who hadn't signed the damn thing immediately, if my provider were to abide by it.

Why? (3, Insightful)

th1ckasabr1ck (752151) | about 9 years ago | (#12212514)

Why in the world would ISPs sign something like this? It seems to me that from their point of view the only thing it could result in is lower subscription numbers. Is the pressure from their 'peers' is enough?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 years ago | (#12212659)

It's just another idiotic idea. No ISP is going to go for this. Unless there's some laws actually forcing them to do so, any ISP that signed such an agreement would find themselves damaged compared to the ISP who didn't sign.

Beyond that, ISPs are simply carriers of data. If the music industry has evidence of a user committing a crime, then by all means drop off a court order and ISPs will be happy to comply.

ISPs can think make their own decisions? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 9 years ago | (#12212522)

How can they even do this? Why should the ISPs even comply? I don't see why we should even be worried; I don't think an ISP will pick this up and risk losing a good percentage of their users.

Re:ISPs can think make their own decisions? (1, Funny)

rovingeyes (575063) | about 9 years ago | (#12212574)

Because Tony Soprano said so:

From the article: Tony Soprano couldn't have put it better. "Nice content-carrying pipes you've got here. What a shame if anything were to happen to them... now, we've got this little agreement for you to look at..."

The article in full (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212523)

Not content with creating a continent-spanning lawsuit-sharing network using special P2P (person to perpetrator) technology, the record companies' consortium, the International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) now wants your ISP to sign up to a new "code of conduct" that it has helpfully drafted with the help of the Motion Picture Association (MPA). A warning, though: you probably won't like it.

Here's a sampler. Under the new code, ISPs would put in place filtering technology to block services and/or sites that "are substantially dedicated to illegal file sharing or download services". They would retain data beyond what law enforcement agencies require, with the aim of helping track down copyright infringement. They'd hand that data, plus your identity, over to the IFPI or MPA if there was even a complaint - not a court order - against you for, you guessed it, copyright infringement. (And you'd have signed or clicked something agreeing to allow that.)

Want more? According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to "enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities." A summary of the draft can be found at the Electronic Digital Rights site's latest EDRIgram.

We wondered if it might be some clever hoax, and called the IFPI. "Oh yes, the draft" they said breezily and knowledgeably. The draft is for real.

And to back up their modest proposal, the MPA and IFPI aren't afraid to wave their big stick at the ISPs and network operators. Speaking last month at the invitation of the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO) , the head of the IFPI, John Kennedy, said: "Quality digital content is a key driver that makes consumers embrace new services. You invest billions in your pipes and cables and satellites but without content you have empty pipes and boxes. At this stage I am not even asking for much if anything by way of a financial commitment. I am asking for your time your energy your commitment and some social responsibility."

Tony Soprano couldn't have put it better. "Nice content-carrying pipes you've got here. What a shame if anything were to happen to them... now, we've got this little agreement for you to look at..."

Expect an interesting discussion next Monday, when this issue, and the draft code of conduct, will be discussed at a meeting in Geneva of WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Which as you know has a stellar record defending the little guys against claims of copyright infringement.

If all that has you fizzing, then you're in good company, along with the UK's Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA). There will be an ISPA representative at next week's meeting, and if they're anything like as annoyed as the spokesman we talked about this with, they're so close to nuclear they already glow in the dark.

"This is obviously something they [IFPI and MPA] have worked on together," ISPA's spokesman almost spat. "They have made proposals like this in the past but that doesn't necessarily mean they have gone anywhere. They should really be going through the established takedown procedure. Some of these proposals contravene current laws and go beyond others. If you take the example of requiring subscribers to allow their identities to be given out - that's something that ISPs take very seriously, and only when required to by law enforcement. And they aren't a law enforcement authority."

But sometimes it seems like the MPA and IFPI feel this latter point is only a minor detail, which could be fixed in time.

France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already. A version of this code was signed last July by three French ministers, representatives of the music industry, major ISPs and telecoms operators there. It allows collection societies and the like to create files from telecoms traffic data of supposed copyright infringers to "mutualise the battle against the piracy of works". Some subscribers have been cut off; others have been sued for file-sharing.

In the UK, ISPA's not happy about the growing pressure. "ISPs have obligations to protect the privacy of their subscribers," said ISPA's man. "This could be seen as the thin end of the wedge to get access to everyone's organisation. But these suggestions are impossible and impractical." The idea of blocking access where someone is using a lot of bandwidth just doesn't work. What if they're using a webcam? Or voice over internet? They all use similar ports as some of the file-sharing systems. There's no real way of determining whether just because someone's using a lot of bandwidth that they're contravening copyright."

As for banning access to P2P services, ISPA's position - and remember, they'll make this next Monday - is that "it's important not to criminalise the technology. There are people who misuse the internet; that doesn't mean that you shut down the Net."

More interesting though is the question of why the ETNO invited Mr Kennedy to address its conference. Why would it want to hear from a content person, when its members have stolidly insisted, as do ISPs, that they just carry content, they don't censor or control it?

"We felt it was important," said an ETNO spokesman. "It's the beginning of a long process." Does it mean that ETNO, previously agnostic about content, is moving towards the MPA/IFPI position, where members will police content on behalf of third parties? The spokesman repeated that this was the beginning of a long process.

However, ETNO's members have reacted by telling the European Union's working party on data protection that they don't like the "constant pressure to ... create a situation where intermediaries [ETNO members] are liable for illegal content transmitted across their networks." The EU's E-Commerce Directive of 2000 is clear: there should be no "systematic obligation of surveillance or monitoring .. imposed on ISPs."

And then ETNO's man wondered where we'd heard about it, in particular Mr Kennedy's speech. "This was a closed conference, it was only the business people," he said, puzzled.

Well, perhaps those irrepressible types at the IFPI should be told. We had wanted to talk to them about it further. But regrettably they couldn't talk to us, being tied up having meetings about how they would announce the latest round of file-sharing lawsuits. ®

Re:The article in full (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212620)

I've never seen the Register meltdown...

Censorship (5, Insightful)

Richie1984 (841487) | about 9 years ago | (#12212526)

I can understand the record companies from their perspective thinking that this is a good idea, but to what I hope to be the majority of outsiders, it seems a lot like asking ISPs to censor what their customers are trying to view.

Regardless of how you view file sharing, I think it's quite obvious that the record companies seriously need to update their business model before they are totally overtaken. Trying to censor the web, or suing people left, right and centre will just lead to negative publicity

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212661)

Question is why they won't.. Is it because the same people own the whole supply chain, i.e. manufacturing, distribution and shops in addition to studios/labels?

Otherwise, ditching all those unneccesary layers should raise profits quite a bit..

The Internet isn't for music (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212530)

Last I checked, we didn't invent the internet in order to get music. Music ranks pretty low on the level of importance of why people get internet access. These music industry people are crazy.

This is actually a good thing. (5, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about 9 years ago | (#12212531)

It gives me one more criterion to use when filtering out ISPs I don't want to use. Signed this agreement? Then I won't be your customer.

It really shortens the list.

I work for an ISP (4, Interesting)

jchawk (127686) | about 9 years ago | (#12212532)

Good luck with that one is all I'm going to say. Short of them getting a law passed requiring this no ISP in their right mind would turn over information.

We *require* a subpoena signed by a *judge* not a clerk, before we turn over any information.

Interference with a Contract (3, Interesting)

Zaxor (603485) | about 9 years ago | (#12212533)

IANAL, but many if not all states have a tort of interference with a contractual obligation. Sounds like this sort of thing might be actionable under that.

See http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i084.htm : " Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage" for more.

stupid (2, Insightful)

crakrjak (218567) | about 9 years ago | (#12212535)

there go our linux iso mirrors...

Re:stupid (1)

guitaristx (791223) | about 9 years ago | (#12212717)

there go our linux iso mirrors...
As well as our:
  • Personal web servers for baby photos, grandma's recipes, etc.
  • VPNs for gaming buddies who live on opposite sides of a continent
  • Non-commercial game servers in general
  • Remote logins for consultants with home offices and networks
  • ....

Funny... I thought internet traffic was supposed to be 2-way.

Yea, good luck with that... (2, Interesting)

cfalcon (779563) | about 9 years ago | (#12212540)

I will instantly move to any ISP that doesn't sign this, assuming my current one does. I suspect that this won't be a very uncommon occurance, or at least, I suspect that a few ISPs in everyplace will always be holdouts.

But man, this is terrible. I hate how everyone wants to make the net into TV. I don't watch TV because it's passive. I hope we'd all put up a good fight for the net.

Good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212542)

So if people are using the bandwidth they're paying for they get banned?

Who will draft the code of conduct for the music industry?

Sure I use lots of bandwidth, so it must be bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212545)

Sure my server might use lots of bandwidth, but that doesnt mean I'm doing something bad.

Music Industry Code of Conduct anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212547)

Why not have the music industry sign a code of conduct too?

So in return you agree to stop selling.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212549)

formula crap music by musicians who can't sing or play a musical instrament right.....right.....

Dear RIAA, (5, Funny)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 9 years ago | (#12212550)

Thank you for your interest in the well-being of our customers. Or perhaps in the well-being of non-customers; specifically, you. Remind us again who pays us? Oh yes ... our subscribers. Thank you for your consideration. Now please go away.

The ISP industry

Drafting (5, Funny)

dynoman7 (188589) | about 9 years ago | (#12212553)

What a cowinkedink!!!

I am currently trying to get the music industry to sign a code of conduct too! In a nutshell, it says that the music industry will supply us with quality music (down with Britney!) at a resonable price ($5 a cd anyone?) and fair use rights (cd mixes for my *cough* girlfriend!). I'm having trouble getting them to sign. Please advise...

Re:Drafting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212648)

You forgot "don't sue your customers".

You can pay for it... (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | about 9 years ago | (#12212555)

So the music industry wants to have ISPs cut people off for "exesive bandwidth usage"? So, what, I pay for the bandwidth, but if I use it I get cut off?

It does no good .. (3, Insightful)

macaulay805 (823467) | about 9 years ago | (#12212560)

It does no good complaining and protesting this stuff on Slashdot. Please find an official government channel to communicate with to have this kind of thing not enforced.

This is starting to get crazy.

don't they get it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212561)

We should be able to do as we fucking please without having to put up with their bullshit...

And how... (5, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 9 years ago | (#12212564)

would they separate those using Video conferencing tools, or sharing their personal pictures, or playing online games, or downloading a BitTorrent of a Linux distribution or seeding it, for that matter, podcasting, or any other number of legal activities that "could appear to be infringing" by bandwidth only metrics?

Seriously, these folks need to be laughed out of court.

Hey...WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212568)

Does the MPAA have something to replace P2P with for movies/TV shows? Like an online site you can subscribe to and get all the latest tv shows and movies (say, for $19 a month)... Well? Do they?

OK, so if they do put something like this in place, what if I download movies continuously from it. Wouldn't that be "excessive" bandwidth usage? So then I'd get my internet disconnected for using a perfectly legal service because I'm using too much bandwidth.

The fact is, these people have no intention of providing a service like this (which so many would love). They want to keep movies on DVD and in the theatres, and they want to keep people glued to the television. They do, in fact, want to kill the internet, so we can no longer use bittorrent or any other mode of data transport.

These people need to be taken down. Hard.

IFPI Going at it (1)

Flywheels of Fire (836557) | about 9 years ago | (#12212572)

Not content with going at US and European ISPs, IFPI is also targetting Asian ISPs according to these two reports. Report 1 [reuters.co.uk] , Report 2 [pressesc.com] .

From TFA

"The industry has decided this is the time to act," said IFPI Chairman and Chief Executive John Kennedy. "The Japanese are law-abiding citizens and it may be this delivers the short, sharp jolt that we need there."

Not a problem (0, Redundant)

hairykrishna (740240) | about 9 years ago | (#12212573)

If my ISP were to sign up to this I would switch to a different one. It's that simple.

I'm sure that the ISP's know that a lot of pople will do this so there's no way they'll stand for this.

I..um..wow (1, Redundant)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 9 years ago | (#12212576)

That's ballsy. Seriously, who do these people think they are?

Were I an ISP, on principle alone, I'd tell them where to shove their "code".


Appropriate expression (1)

gillrock (517577) | about 9 years ago | (#12212580)

"I believe the appropriate expression here is.... GO TO HELL!!!" ...and learn to produce better product that is worth paying for.

'Mmmmm On demand world... (drool)'

France submit....again.... (1, Funny)

NickHydroxide (870424) | about 9 years ago | (#12212583)


"France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already."

Why does this not surprise me?

(Ok ok, now I'll turn off the bigotry.)

Re:France submit....again.... (1)

hostyle (773991) | about 9 years ago | (#12212723)

Again? Please remind me about the last time that France submitted to American monopolistic interests. Seems to have slipped my mind ...

Funny Metallica quote (5, Interesting)

Anita Coney (648748) | about 9 years ago | (#12212585)

I was watching a movie about Metallica's history on VH1. (It was late and I couldn't sleep, that's why!)

As you probably remember the drummer for Metallica, Lars Ulrich, came out strong against Napster and P2P. He called it stealing, theft, and other bad words.

But the VH1 show had an early interview with him and he was asked about how the band initially succeeded. He claimed "We made a demo and I gave ten copies to ten friends. They each made ten copies for their friends. As did those friends."

In other words, sharing is great when it helps you. But it's criminal when it hurts you.

Re:Funny Metallica quote (1)

squatex (765966) | about 9 years ago | (#12212716)

I watched that. What I thought was interesting is that you almost heard a hint of regret in voice over his involvment in the Napster affair.
It was something to the effect of "What you mean being considered the most hated man in rock and roll", while responding to a question about his actions.

Figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212586)

From the article:

France's ISPs seemed to have rolled over already.

Honestly...is anyone surprised?

If this continues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212597)

I'll expect providers who stop servers on their networks to kindly go bankrupt. The internet is by definition a network of peers. I have a TV and don't need another one.

Pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212611)

This is kind of pathetic and makes downstrea/upstream rather meaningless (maybe the slower the better). Otherwise, you'll easily reach the limit pretty quick without even noticing it.

I personally do a lot of legitimate transfer between my home desktop and laptop when I am on the road. I hope I won't get flagged for this doing :(.

Those people of drafted this law must be bored or something. Crazy bastards....

wow (1)

jtbauki (838979) | about 9 years ago | (#12212612)

I keep thinking the music industry has done all it can do, but instead, it keeps outdoing itself. Their most recent action shows how disturbingly selfish the music industry has become. They are overstepping their domain to try to regulate the ISPs. If the music industry had their way, we would all be "guilty until proven innocent."

Re:wow (0)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 9 years ago | (#12212684)

SHUT your mouth and OPEN your wallet, douchbag!

I don't mean you specifically, I'm just paraphrasing the record companies here. That sentence just about sums up the situation here.

How is high bandwidth bad? (1)

CyberZCat (821635) | about 9 years ago | (#12212615)

I got dsl just so I could download large things, particually linux isos which are large and numerous. In the last few weeks I've easily downloaded 5GB+ of linux stuff. Does this mean I would be punished for my *legal* enjoyment of open source?

The Music Industry should just take over the ISPs (4, Funny)

Simonetta (207550) | about 9 years ago | (#12212626)

If the music industry is serious about controlling how people use the internet then they should take over the ISP industry.

They should buy out all the major ISPs and offer the service for free in order to get millions to sign up for RIAA-ISP. Then they can make these absurd demands on their users.

The pomposity and ridiculousness of the Music Industry is becoming the most entertaining product that they offer. We're going to miss them when they're gone.

Stupid assumptions... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about 9 years ago | (#12212627)

Typical... Just friggin' typical...

What part of bandwidth consumption automagically translates into illegal filesharing?

Aaaaggh! Will someone go and clue-by-four the people over there at the RIAA/MPAA offices- PLEASE?!

ISPs draft code of conduct for record companies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212629)

with help from slashdot.

How about it. Let's draft a code of conduct that ISPs can ask the record companies to sign.

What would you include?

all the best,


( zotz )

Hopefully... (2, Insightful)

ksheff (2406) | about 9 years ago | (#12212633)

The ISPs will see how much extra work this will be, not to mention how it will piss off their customers, and tell them to shove it.

WTF does the entertainment industry think it has the right to tell any other business how to run their operations? Who died and left them in charge?

Bandwidth consumption (5, Interesting)

thewiz (24994) | about 9 years ago | (#12212634)

consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.

This is a very bad way to determine if someone is sharing or downloading songs, movies, etc. I pull down patches for my Linux, AIX, OS X, and Windoze boxes on a regular basis. I easily exceed several gigs a month just doing this not to mention web surfing, viewing online videos, animations, NASA TV, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ISPs are only supposed to provide a way to access the internet. They aren't supposed to provide services for companies that want to snoop on the ISPs users; i.e. they provide bandwidth not Deputy Dawg services. I hope that the ISPs are brave enough to stand up to this and tell RIAA/MPAA where to stick their agreement.

I' ve been telling you (3, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | about 9 years ago | (#12212640)

all along!
According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server...

They're trying to stop all uploading! I love that ruse, "Excessive" bandwidth usage is a good sign of infringement. They want the net to be "client-server". They're the server. You're the client. How sweet. They can feed us all the propa...er...information we should need. That they're trying this doesn't bother me at all. It's to be expected. I'm worried that some dummy is out there believing it. It looks like it's back to solitare for me. Heh, screw that! It's back to the beach!

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212641)

Hack the music exec's home computer and set it up as a super node on a p2p network.
Repeat as many times needed.

FIOS Haiku (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212646)

Fifteen down, two up
in Megabits per second
A bigger boat we need

Whos going to win (1)

Miketsmith (836404) | about 9 years ago | (#12212655)

This is a horrible battle, I mean, you have on one hand the people who are saying that "honest" people are losing large sums of money, where the only person losing the money is the middle man, the RIAA, the artists are losing nothing.. Blah, I'm getting to hate the RIAA/Music industry. But my real question is who is going to win this battle, the RIAA or "the people" (people who download music) You have on one hand people with a lot of money, a huge corperation, they're starting to call it stealing, they're getting it into people's head's that when you copy data and share it, it's a form of theft.. That's the most assanine thing ever, and if the world was dedicated to that princible (which it seems we are) Then we will have to deal with a slow rate of groth with technology and learning about our univurse.. Feh, I'm angry

this just goes to show ya... (1)

maxpublic (450413) | about 9 years ago | (#12212656)

...how fucking egomaniacal the folks at the RIAA actually are. The very idea of proposing this kind of sham, much less thinking at any broadband ISP will sign it, tells you how much power they think they have and how so very out of touch with reality they are.

Mark my words: when ISPs blow them raspberries for this nonsense their next step will be to try to buy enough Congressmen to turn it into law. That seems to be their only avenue of success so far.


And if they sign it... (4, Insightful)

ebrandsberg (75344) | about 9 years ago | (#12212657)

They won't be a public carrier which is what has shielded them from litigation. They arn't morons, and nobody will sign it. A website is NOT illegal, the content may be, but if they filter by content, they loose their protections. The RIAA just wants to be able to go after the big fish instead of the little fish with this move.

Re:And if they sign it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212693)

Big fish being who? All the teenagers who don't use iTunes?

Wounded Lion (1)

redelm (54142) | about 9 years ago | (#12212671)

The RIAA tactics remind me entirely of a wounded lion, lashing out at anthing it can. Their business model is failing, mostly because they slashed A&R budgets and aren't bringing new talent to disk. They're milking the back catalog, and this makes the companies look rather stale. Which they exacerbate by harassing their customers.

Many Small ISPs A Good Thing (2, Insightful)

ArchAngel21x (678202) | about 9 years ago | (#12212672)

This makes me appreciate the fact I can get broadband access from a small local ISP (Internet Nebraska) rather than just a corporate ISP. People have said how they will not sign up with any ISP that goes along with this code of conduct agreement, but imagine how limited your choice will be if companies keep getting bought out or merge. Support your local ISPs and sign up with them.

I assume this also applies to them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212673)

"According to the draft, the duo want ISPs and network operators to 'enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities.'"

I guess that also includes the fake server / honeypots that the RIAA sets up or the nasty lawyer-letter SPAM that they send out. I'm guessing this is also qualifies as infringing activities...

I assume this also applies to SPAM in general. Operating an email server (esp from zombie pcs) seems like it is infringing on "legal" activities.

Roughly Translated... (2, Funny)

Gallenod (84385) | about 9 years ago | (#12212675)

RIAA: "Your service has huge bandwidth and seems to be transmitting a lot of data. Since the only content in that quantity worth transmitting is our copyrighted music, you must be aiding and abetting copyright theft."

ISP: "What our customers send through our service is their business, not ours. And it can't be your stuff, because most of your music sucks. Pigs will not only have to fly before we sign up to this, they'll have to break the sound barrier."

RIAA: "Well, with enough baked beans, anything is possible. Load up the lawyers...er, pigs and let 'em fly!"

My dad's ISP is already trying to kill P2P (2, Interesting)

Anita Coney (648748) | about 9 years ago | (#12212683)

I recently set up my dad with a computer and a DSL connection. I set up TightVNC so I could take care of any software problems he might have.

But by the time I got home his IP address had already changed. It appears that his ISP (centurynet) changes his IP address every 2 hours. That would sure make it a lot harder to use P2P for sharing your own stuff, running a game server, a webcam, and all the other cool stuff you get broadband for.

I can't help but think that broadband companies are going to kill themselves with this type of behavior. They have to remember that their customers are paying their bills, not the RIAA.

all this nonsense could end soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12212691)

suppose a music or video service starts up that uses an interface like google's and has not so steep a price to pay, like $1 a gig/month, $10 month/min, $5 for months you do no activity.

if i could search for names of artists, or songs, or keywords in a title, in a high quality web interface like google's, and therefore have it be cheap, easy and legal to d/l, i'd probably go for it.

Wait... (0, Flamebait)

tilleyrw (56427) | about 9 years ago | (#12212696)

The RIAA-mafia wants ISPs to throttle our data access.

Think of the children!

How will little Bobby ever graduate if he can't access information on such vital subjects as: language, history, science, math, ...wait for it..., *gasp* pR0n!, warez, and MP3s!!

Seriously, asking the ISPs to throttle access for those of us who download more than 100 gigabytes per night of perfectly legal pornography need to think about whose needs come first. Bobby's or the perv on the corner with the pasty skin.

Since when does high bandwidth == RIAA piracy?? (2, Informative)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | about 9 years ago | (#12212699)

What the hell is this kind of crap?

I don't know about anyone else, but I am always downloading lots of stuff that are FREE and LEGAL! Whether that constitutes Linux ISO images, Solaris patches, or whatever, there are a ton of things out there that are completely legal and take up gobs of bandwidth! Streaming media (radio or TV stations), game patches, game mods, on-line gaming, and so forth are completely legal and will consume bandwidth! If you leave a high-bitrate, streaming media download running all month, you bet that's going to look like a lot of bandwidth, but that does not infer illegal activities!

Even if many downloads are not legal (*cough*newsgroups*cough*), what makes them assume that the downloads are of MUSIC? A massive download of the latest National Geographic bazillion-CD set will completely spike monthly bandwidth; but it has absolutely nothing to do with music, regardless of it being an illegal download!

Who the f*ck are the RIAA to assume that (excessive_bandwith == piracy || excessive == MUSIC_piracy)?

The arrogance of even drafting such a "code of conduct" is beyond comprehension!

As long as the publish the list. (5, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 9 years ago | (#12212711)

So I can get a new ISP.
Actually I would love it if the music industry would sign a code of conduct as well.
Lets see.
Any employee caught providing drugs or sexual partners to performers would be fired and turned over to the police for criminal charges. If not the Board of Directors are help criminally responsible. If football players have to take drug tests why not employees of music companies. I would love to see them declared a "drug free workplace". If you want you can let the artists off the hook. I want the A and R men, execs, and producers tested:)
The music industry would provide 401k, medical, and health insurance to performers.
If a record is not publishes and made available for sale for a period of one year all rights are returned to the artist.
Accounting standards and full disclosure of those standards.
If they want to write "codes of conduct" they can start at home.

Bandwidth consumption? (1)

kyoko21 (198413) | about 9 years ago | (#12212713)

Umm... ok. Let's all just start seeding every linux distro bittorrent known to man. Oh wait.. wasn't Disney doing that thing with Movies-on-Demand? And oh... wait, wouldn't that also use a lot of bandwidth, too?

I don't think the Music Industry has a right to know that I like to order Bambi and watch it on Demand everday... for my kid sister :-)

HA!! (1)

smartsaga (804661) | about 9 years ago | (#12212715)

I think ISPs know when to change their own diapers...



So what's next? They put a telescreen on each house?

Ohh, wait!!!

Your rights are belong to us... get it?

Have a good one.

P.S. F@ck those assholes!!!!!

business model? (1)

ebbyfish (759832) | about 9 years ago | (#12212718)

Is the music industry so inept it is incapable of reinventing itself? Wasn't the US of A once known for innovation and leadership? Ya know, bleeding edge ideas and new markets.
Oh where oh where has my inspiration gone!

But seriously, why can't those knuckleheads get it through their tiny narrow focus heads that in order to survive in business you must evolve or die!

'nuf said

poor them.. (1)

patrick.whitlock (708318) | about 9 years ago | (#12212720)

i think this is more of a desperation move on thier behalf, you can't stop P2P, you can't scare ISP's into rolling over on thier payroll, people in general don't give a shit, and nobody in the RIAA/MPAA thinks the gov't will do anything without massive bribes. So they do this, a feeble effort to stop something that dosen't matter. but the thing is, if it all stopped, who would they blame for the falling profits? Obviously they don't want to admit they make a shotty overpriced product, and they can't pay the artist's any less for thier efforts, so they are desperately trying to stop a valuable resource from being properly developed because they refuse to stand up for thier short commings. just my two cents

Never gonna happen! (1)

downlo (529531) | about 9 years ago | (#12212722)

The one thing that will keep this from ever getting off the ground are the small ISP's. You know, the ones that have 3-5 tech's who are already swamped with ''Real work." These filters and logging and throttling that the Phonographic (Nice Name, really current) what to implement would cost a good chunk of cash, which these ISP would rather spend on increasing there coverage area.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account