Slashdot Log In
RIAA To Stop Prosecuting Individual File Sharers
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Dec 19, 2008 08:16 AM
from the declare-victory-and-withdraw dept.
from the declare-victory-and-withdraw dept.
debatem1 writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the RIAA has decided to abandon its current tactic of suing individuals for sharing copyrighted music. Ongoing lawsuits will be pursued to completion, but no new ones will be filed. The RIAA is going to try working with the ISPs to limit file-sharing services and cut off repeated users. This very surprising development apparently comes as a result of public distaste for the campaign." An RIAA spokesman is quoted as saying that the litigation campaign has been "successful in raising the public's awareness that file-sharing is illegal."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA Claim of Stopping Suits "Months" Ago Is False 141 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report on Wired.com, the RIAA spokesman claimed that the RIAA has not filed any new lawsuits 'for months,' and according to the Wall Street Journal report discussed here yesterday, the RIAA stopped filing mass lawsuits 'early this fall.' Knowing that the RIAA has a problem with telling the truth, I did a little investigating, and found out that the RIAA had, in fact, commenced a wave of lawsuits just last week. Why would anyone believe anything their spokesperson says? This is an organization that has a tendency to misspeak a lot, if you know what I mean, even when under oath."
CNet has a copy of the RIAA's new form letter that it will ask ISPs to pass on to alleged copyright-infringing users. It says, in part, "This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft."
[+]
The RIAA's Rocky Road Ahead 542 comments
The RIAA's new plan to enlist ISPs in its war on file sharing, once it announced it was calling a halt to new consumer lawsuits, is running into rough sledding. Wired reports on the continuing legal murkiness of the RIAA's interpretation of copyright law. And one small ISP in Louisiana asks the recording organization, "You want me to police your intellectual property? What's your billing address?"
[+]
Will the New RIAA Tactic Boost P2P File Sharing? 309 comments
newtley writes "The RIAA's claim that it'll stop suing people may have serious consequences... for the RIAA. When it dropped its attack on seven University of Michigan students, Recording Industry vs. The People wondered if the move was linked to three investigations, with MediaSentry as the target, before Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth. Now, 'LSA sophomore Erin Breisacher said she stopped downloading music illegally after hearing about the possibility of receiving a lawsuit, but now that the RIAA has stopped pursuing lawsuits she "might start downloading again,"' says the Michigan Daily, going on to quote LSA senior Chad Nihranz as saying, 'I figure, if there aren't as many lawsuits they will come out with more software to allow students to download more.'"
What about some of the other potential tactics we've discussed recently, such as the UK's proposed £20 per year film and music tax or the $5 monthly fee suggested in the US? Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
[+]
Technology: AT&T Has Begun Issuing RIAA Takedown Notices 383 comments
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNet:
"AT&T, one of the nation's largest Internet service providers, confirmed on Tuesday the company is working with the recording industry to combat illegal file sharing. At a digital music conference in Nashville, Jim Cicconi, a senior executive for AT&T told the audience that the ISP has begun issuing takedown notices to people accused of pirating music by the Recording Industry Association of America, according to one music industry insider who was present. In December, the RIAA, the lobbying group of the four largest recording companies, announced the group would no longer pursue an antipiracy strategy that focused on suing individuals, but rather would seek the help of broadband providers to stem the flow of pirated content. The RIAA said an undisclosed number of ISPs had agreed to cooperate but declined to name them. This is important because the RIAA has said that repeat offenders faced the possibility of losing service — at least temporarily — as part of the music industry's 'graduated response' plan."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Film and TV producers also call for action (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Sir,
We are a group of UK film and TV producers, directors and writers. We are concerned that the successes of the creative industries in the UK are being undermined by the illegal online file-sharing [today.com] of film and TV.
We are asking the Government to show its support by ensuring that internet service providers play their part in tackling this huge problem by giving us money. Lots of money. Just keep piling it in, we'll tell you when it's enough.
In 2007, up to (well, it could be) 25 per cent of all online TV piracy took place in the UK. Popular shows are downloaded illegally hundreds of thousands of times per episode, and some of them might even be ours rather than something American made with an actual budget.
It is true that in 2008, UK commercial TV broadcasters enjoyed the highest viewing figures in five years, that total TV viewing was up 10% year-on-year, and the valuable yet hard-to-reach 16 to 24-year-old demographic (the typical file-sharer) watched 4.9% more commercial TV and saw 12% more ads. But it's the principle of the thing: someone is getting money from something that touches something one of us once touched, therefore the money belongs to us. This is the style of corporate thinking that brought Britain its great economic gains from 1997 to 2007, after all.At a time when so many jobs are being lost in the wider economy, it is especially important that our gravy train be maintained.
Internet service providers have the ability to change the behaviour of those customers who illegally distribute content online. They have the power to make significant change and to prevent their infrastructure from being used on a wholesale scale for illegal activity. They have the power to stop people looking at the cover of Virgin Killer. They have a secret magic wand that will fix everything wrong with the media industry's income streams and they are refusing, with malice aforethought, to use it. If they are not prepared to give us all the free money we ask for and a bit more besides, they should be compelled to do so.
Re:Film and TV producers also call for action (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone is wondering this seems to be a variation on this Letter to the Times [timesonline.co.uk].
Parent
Re:Film and TV producers also call for action (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Film and TV producers also call for action (Score:5, Interesting)
I know four languages, and I found that every language has its own nuances of meanings that you simply can't express in other languages. Air in French does not mean the same as air in English. It has other associations to it. The nice thing about everybody in Luxemburg speaking at least four languages, is that you can use them all in conversation. This greatly enhances the depth and detail of it. Which is a very beautiful thing. You should try it.
So the only reason you expect it to be English, is that you are arrogant. Wanna know who else behaves like this? The french.
And the Germans would be too, if not for the fear of still being called a Nazi, when it was not them but their grandparents who did it.
Did you know that the USA nearly voted for German as their main language? And now Spanish becomes more and more dominant too. From your point (USA I guess) nearly everybody south of you speaks Spanish. In Africa tons of people speak French. In the middle east, Arabic is an international language too. And don't let me get started about China owning the USA and them being able to quickly assimilate other cultures. I already have to go to Chinese (eg. tudou.com) sites for some stuff.
If you come to my country, learn my fuckin' language! What would you think, if I came to the USA or UK, and *expected* you to speak German (or Luxemburgish, which happens to be my mother's tongue)?
Your arrogance disgusts me. It's always English, English, English!
P.S.: I just found out a nice way to turn a seemingly trollish post into a more nice post: Put the first invert the order of the paragraphs. That way those with the most anger come last. ;) Oh, and my reaction is the reaction you could expect from a large part of the Europeans. You not liking it does not make it a troll. You're supposed to not like it. ;)
Parent
Re:Film and TV producers also call for action (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a native German and English speaker myself. Sitting in both boats as I do, I can understand the sensitivities involved with favoring one language over another. But I find that English is really easily the best language for international communications.
English has several features that I think make it a better language. It's semantically open, unlike French. Adding new words to English is very simple. We can even create new verbs and nouns from the last names of people (ie. bork). It adapts existing foreign words easily. I'm often able to use "über" and "verboten" in English without getting at looks.
English doesn't require special accent marks in order define meanings. English has simplified definite and indefinite articles. Compared to German, "a", "an", and "the" are much simpler. English features no real gender. No worries about matching verbs, nouns, and articles; or even changing the meaning of a word. For possession, the Saxon genitive is efficient and simple. It accomplishes more in less space to say "John's car" rather than "the car of John". English also features simplified demonstratives, and very simplified declension of nouns. None of the der, den, dem, des conflicts that plague German and make it difficult for non-German speakers to learn. In English the placement of adjectives doesn't affect its meaning. In French you have scenarios like "un homme grand" (a great man) and "un grand homme" (a tall man). In English, you rely on the context of the adjective. Finally, English has a more direct simplified sentence structure.
of course, English has its downside, thinking contextually in English to find meaning vs thinking literally in French can create some confusions, I'm sure.
Sure, some people advocate English everywhere just because they're linguistically lazy and somewhat arrogant, but truly, there legitimate reasons for stressing English as an international language of commerce vs say, Irish where it can take an "aoi" to stress a "long i" sound, or Chinese were choosing a written form is as much a decision about your politics as it is about efficiency (simplified used in China vs traditional used in Taiwan).
Parent
Just look for the Chinese restaurants (Score:5, Interesting)
You say,
I say, "Just look for the Chinese restaurants." No, really, I'm being serious -- I've done some globetrotting, and everywhere I've gone, I've found Chinese restaurants. It's kinda funny, really, when even on remote tiny non-touristy islands in the Spanish-speaking part of the Caribbean, or on the tiny islands of the Pacific Northwest, you can find at least one Chinese restaurant somewhere.
This reminds me of a true story of a friend of mine. He's an interesting bloke -- his dad sounds like the punchline to a weird joke, as an Iraqi Jew living in Singapore and running a Cajun pork BBQ restaurant...
But anyway, let's call my friend Andy. He grew up partly in China, and speaks fluent Chinese and English. He was in Mexico City visiting some friends, and was walking across part of town to visit some other friends for a party. Only he'd gotten lost, and didn't speak a lick of Spanish. So what does he do? He finds the local Chinese restaurant. He walked up to the counter and asked, in flawless Chinese, how to get to XYZ address.
The Chinese proprietor and cash register girl just stood their with their mouths wide open for a moment, before finally getting out, "Why are you speaking Chinese to us?" To which Andy replied, "Because I don't speak Spanish." "Oh. Well, you take a right here and a left there..."
So seriously, knowing Chinese could also be extremely useful for international travelers. If you ever get lost, just find the local Chinese restaurant.
Cheers,
Parent
Did they finally get some legal advice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, their current methods have apparently atleast been in breach of investigative laws in several states and they may still end up in mess because of it, but ending the thing will atleast lessen the exposure..
Alternative explanation is that they have actually understood that extortion is bad.. nah.. not likely.
Re:Did they finally get some legal advice? (Score:5, Insightful)
The new tactic is lobby not litigate - far worse in the long run since they can keep trying to influence policy and legislation ad infinitem even if they get shot down the first time.
Parent
Re:Did they finally get some legal advice? (Score:5, Insightful)
It also shifts the costs of enforcement (and the negative PR) to the government. Why bother pursuing people you *think* might be infringing and deal with the situation via civil means when you can just have the FBI issue the appropriate paperwork, and have them bust the door down?
Parent
Agreed. This is terrible news (Score:5, Insightful)
When you actually had to break the law in order to get the RIAA all up in your jock, non-law-breakers such as myself were left in relative peace.
Since they've now explicitly and announcedly decided to adopt a strategy of technology control measures, they just became a thorn in every geek's side.
Parent
Re:Did they finally get some legal advice? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, their current methods have apparently atleast been in breach of investigative laws in several states and they may still end up in mess because of it, but ending the thing will atleast lessen the exposure..
Alternative explanation is that they have actually understood that extortion is bad.. nah.. not likely.
No -- look at the actual wording: "...working with the ISPs to limit file-sharing services and cut off repeated users"
Note that's not "repeated illegal downloaders", it's repeated users of file-sharing services, whether legal or not. It means that they've learned that they can't get their way via the courts, so now they want the right to get their way without having to go through the courts. This is a bad development.
Parent
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
Any plan that requires the participation of good lawyers needs a really good plan B.
Parent
File sharing isn't illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is absolutely nothing "illegal" about using bittorrent to download the latest linux distro or open office release.
But they want to tar every use with the same brush so they can stamp it out completely because it CAN be used in a naughty manner.
A bread knife CAN be used to kill someone but that's not what it was designed for.
Re:File sharing isn't illegal. (Score:5, Funny)
Should be interesting to see how they handle that whole FTP and HTTP stuff next. After all, it's not like anything illegal hasn't ever been transferred this way as well.
After that, maybe they can start suing carrier pigeons. You know you can't trust *those* little bastards... just look at New York!
Parent
Re:File sharing isn't illegal. (Score:5, Informative)
Downloading shows isn't 'naughty' either. If my comcast PVR (I'm on unit number 3, soon to be 4, and then just buying a tivoHD) would record things properly without killing the sound every 3 seconds, I wouldn't need to go through the effort of downloading content that I'M ALREADY PAYING A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT FOR AND *NOT* RECEIVING.
Parent
Re:File sharing isn't illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
A knife is a pretty poor weapon for hunting wild animals; you have to get awfully close to use it.
It's a bit more use for cutting them up after they're dead.
Parent
Re:File sharing isn't illegal. (Score:5, Funny)
What about if 99.9% of all butter knives are used to kill someone... does that slightly change things?
No, because you cannot download a butter knife.
Um, wait, what was your point again ?
Parent
Single song downloads (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, so now that people are given the option of buying only the track they like instead of the whole album... album sales are dropping. Imagine that! I guess blaming it on piracy is easier than making all 12 songs on an album worth buying.
Re:Single song downloads (Score:5, Interesting)
500 million albums
844 million singles
==================
1344 million sales in 2007 >>> 656 million in 2003. Someone at RIAA needs help with math. Yes more singles sold mean less money, but it also means more happy customers which builds long-term income over the next decade.
Parent
Re:Single song downloads (Score:5, Insightful)
They also neglected to mention a few other facts: there has been an ongoing boycott of RIAA fare since Napster; CDs cost as much as DVDs to purchase, yet movies are incredibly expensive to produce while the cost of producing a CD has dropped to the point where bar bands now record without the RIAA; that RIAA fare's quality has dropped far more than their sales have (with one or two exceptions, such as Kid Rock and Buckcherry); that last century an independantly produced CD was practically impossible, yet today there are more indie titles than RIAA titles and the indies are eating the RIAA's lunch. Most indies encourage their songs to be shared.
Oh yeah, fuel costs skyrocketed during that period, and fuel is cheap again but we're in a worldwide recession.
Either they're stupid or they think we are.
Parent
Re:Single song downloads (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't think they're stupid, just calculating. They can't do anything about a recession or competition from other forms of entertainment without lowering their prices (something which might cut into their profits). They refuse to blame themselves and their own poor music quality. (That's just crazy talk.) So what's left are "evil Internet pirates." They pin as much blame as possible onto pirates and then try to get rules passed to stop the evil pirates. The rules have the side effect of giving the RIAA labels more money/power. (e.g. a mandatory $5/monthly "pirating" fee on your ISP bill, shotgun lawsuits, claiming that ripping CDs is illegal, claiming that all file sharing is illegal etc.) The end result, if they get their way, is a record industry that stays in power even when the market is trying to push them to the sidelines and that keeps profits artificially high.
Parent
Re:Mod parent UP (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an example of the ineffectiveness of "Hanlon's Razor" (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity), but I think my more cynical "mcgrew's razor" applies here: Never attribute to stupidity or incompetence that which can be adequately explained by greedy self interest.
Parent
Re:Single song downloads (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Working with the ISPs is an arms race at best. The ISPs block stuff, P2P devs come up with more and more devious ways to work around the blocks. Plus, in markets where competition is good, consumers will just vote with their feet.
Give it up, RIAA. Come up with better ways of making money. No one is willing to spend $20 to buy an album with 1 or 2 good songs on it. And few are willing to pay for what they will always be able to get for free.
Even worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Focusing on the ISPs is potentially much more sinister. ISP user agreements, for anything other than expensive business accounts, typically have pretty broad service agreements, so they almost definitely won't even need to involve the courts to cut you off. If the RIAA and friends are successful, they could easily obtain de facto veto power over almost anybody's internet access, without any actually illegal conduct(unlike their present tactics). There is no reason to suspect that they would be any more discriminating or accurate in using such power than they currently are in filing lawsuits(probably less, in fact, since it will be cheaper than lawsuits), so the circle of the affected will be even wider. Not good.
Don't panic. (Score:5, Interesting)
So the RIAA is offering to "work with ISPs." From the sound of it, what they want is for the ISPs to do a lot of work monitoring users, and take a serious public-relations risk for banning them. If I ran an ISP, I would not exactly be falling over myself to embrace those new headaches.
What's in it for the ISPs? If the RIAA is offering a carrot, then the size of the carrot is limited by the ever-diminishing money the RIAA has to offer. If they're trying to threaten with a stick, they're relying on either regulation, lobbying, or lawsuits -- in all three arenas, ISPs are more than a match for them in terms of money and influence.
The more I think about it, the more I realize this is just a face-saving tactic, and the "cooperative relationship" can't last because it's contrary to the ISPs best interests.
Parent
Re:Don't panic. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's in it for the ISPs? If the RIAA is offering a carrot, then the size of the carrot is limited by the ever-diminishing money the RIAA has to offer.
Not necessarily.
The carrot could be the ISP's right to manipulate their user's traffic in other ways that make them money. If the RIAA can help them legitimize selective traffic management, then ISPs can start signing agreements with content providers.
Given the reputation that the RIAA has built themselves with the lawsuits, I'm a little skeptical of their ability to help the ISPs legitimize anything, but if it succeeded it could be a big moneymaker for the ISPs.
There may be other, less obvious, benefits to ISPs as well.
We need net neutrality legislation to ensure that the ISPs can't do any of this.
Parent
Re:Don't panic. (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like the RIAA could be lobbying governments to force ISPs to forward infringement notices.
I am worried about this because if some jack-ass at MediaSentry goes and mistakenly identifies my IP because I'm sharing some linux distros or whatever, then I get a note from my ISP saying they're slowing my service down because I'm a pirate. Now, I'm forced to sue the ISP in order to get the service I paid for. All the onus is on me to take action against the ISP to clear my name, this is much, much worse than what was happening before because rather than the RIAA having to prove that their copyrights have been infringed upon, it will be up to the accused to prove that he or she isn't guilty.
Parent
They have lowered the burden of proof. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they were starting to lose.
They were starting to get in trouble with the courts, because they were filing lawsuits, and they in many cases had insufficient evidence to prove wrongdoing.
There were many cases where they were prosecuting innocent people, and this would ultimately be seen as harassment/abuse of the courts, resulting in sanctions for the RIAA.
The new approach will be more expedient, and less costly, since their victims don't get any due process rights.
They just send a letter to your ISP, and your ISP assumes you guilty.
You no longer have a chance to prove your innocence. If the RIAA doesn't like you and wants your connection turned off, they'll now have the means to make it happen, if your ISP joins their program.
See the article:
Depending on the agreement, the ISP will either forward the note to customers, or alert customers that they appear to be uploading music illegally, and ask them to stop. If the customers continue the file-sharing, they will get one or two more emails, perhaps accompanied by slower service from the provider. Finally, the ISP may cut off their access altogether.
The RIAA said it has agreements in principle with some ISPs, but declined to say which ones. But ISPs, which are increasingly cutting content deals of their own with entertainment companies, may have more incentive to work with the music labels now than in previous years.
Outside (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outside (Score:5, Interesting)
So, they're going to try running their extortions entirely outside the courts now? This'll be a good test of the ISPs.
Test Case: Subscriber gets cut off and sues the RIAA for tortious interference with contract.
The RIAA is now forced to prove, in front of a Judge, that they are not making "false claims and accusations" in order to induce your ISP to breach your contract. Now the RIAA is right back where they've started: in a civil trial with the same quality of evidence that isn't worth jack diddly in court.
Parent
Why the lawsuits then? (Score:5, Insightful)
An RIAA spokesman is quoted as saying that the litigation campaign has been "successful in raising the public's awareness that file-sharing is illegal."
If it's so illegal, then why did they sue for damages (that is, compensation) rather than prosecute file-sharers for a crime? You don't sue people because they robbed banks or stabbed someone, you sue because they owe you money for some reason.
So the real message they were sending to the public is, "File sharing takes money out of our pockets." Well, duh.
More misinformation. (Score:4, Insightful)
An RIAA spokesman is quoted as saying that the litigation campaign has been "successful in raising the public's awareness that file-sharing is illegal."
That says it all really. They have managed a disinformation campaign to make people think that file sharing is illegal. No mention of the fact that it is perfectly legal if you have rights to the work, it is public domain, or you are using it under "fair use" terms, or a number of other more obscure legal circumstances.
Think of it this way, nobody bats an eyelid when you say "filesharing is illegal", but you would get some surprised looks if you said "video recording is illegal" or "photocopying is illegal" - they have managed to taint the technology with a possible illegal use.
Re:More misinformation. (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't really care if you share that AC-DC file, you can sample it from the radio (they've been pushing the hell out of AC-DCs latest album). It's their competetion's tunes, the indies, who don't have access to the radio that they don't want you to share.
It's not about piracy, it's about crushing the competetion.
Parent
Still targetting individuals? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not so much public opinion, but a matter of justic (Score:4, Funny)
The RIAA has taken to suing a lot of people who turned out to be innocent, on very flimsy evidence. If there is one thing that Americans generally dislike, it's programs, no matter how well-intentioned, that end up often getting the wrong people.
Awareness that is wrong (Score:4, Informative)
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.1/iso/openSUSE-11.1-DVD-i586.iso.torrent [opensuse.org]
http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.1/iso/openSUSE-11.1-DVD-x86_64.iso.torrent [opensuse.org]
I am sharing these, now come and try to sue my ISP. He will be having a laugh. Try go after the originating provider and they will tear you a new one.
It is nice to see that what they wanted was to misinform people about their rights.
Victory (Score:5, Funny)
Did the spokesman make this statement in front of a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Contrary to their statements in the press.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which leads me to ask - what would entice an ISP to follow the RIAA's 'suggestions'? Very few of them have anything to do with the entertainment industry directly. And I believe the DMCA renders immunity to anyone acting as an ISP/gateway IIRC. On the other hand, you have a paying customer.
It would help to know what weapon an opponent such as this is going to use.
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Banning repeat offenders will reduce your congestion issues and your costs." - RIAA
"That sounds good to us! We already impose limits on high-bandwidth users; if you back us up we can ban them completely!" - Comcast
"Excellent." - RIAA
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:4, Interesting)
And as more and more users become interested in mass streaming media, a less restrictive ISP will suddenly show up and steal all their customers away.
It's bandwidth. Bandwidth is relatively cheap - what Comcast users are allocated in a month, most servers push out in a single day, yet my cable bill costs more than any one of my servers.
The infrastructure is already there, and much of it was built with government funds anyway. With deregulation and all that fun stuff, there is a lot of room for a new player to join the game, with a slightly less greedy image and a whole lotta more intertube goodness. In reality, these cheap alternatives already exist in many areas, they just don't advertise because, well, I don't expect the cable company to give good ad rates to its competitors... but they exist, and while some of them suck, a lot of them are far more generous than their colossal adversaries.
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:5, Funny)
You are applying logic to RIAA's fanaticism? How amusing. ;-)
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but music files are relatively extremely small these day compared to video.
But I would be willing to bet that a majority of movie pirates also pirate music. It doesn't matter to the ISP why they kick them off; it reduces bandwidth consumed either way.
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:5, Funny)
You fool, people are downloading movies, music, unlicensed compilers, and EVEN ENTIRE BOOKS! All this content is slowing it down for the rest of us. The internet isn't a big truck you can just keep dumping things on, it's a series of tubes.
How else can we make way for legitimate, low-bandwidth services like Comcast OnDemand if we keep allowing this onslaught of unapproved content?
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which leads me to ask - what would entice an ISP to follow the RIAA's 'suggestions'? Very few of them have anything to do with the entertainment industry directly.
Most, if not all, major ISPs in the US have television offerings with pay-per-view and premium channels. Verizon, Comcast, Cox - just off the top of my head. Piracy is competition for those services.
Parent
Re:3-Strike Law coming soon... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't want my viewing habits tracked, they have no guaranteed right to track my viewing habits anyway, and they'll be receiving the same amount of ad revenue regardless of whether I watch their ads or not.
Parent
Unfair! Unfair! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, wait a minute! French fries allegedly come from Belgium [wikipedia.org]. Both the French and the Belgians consider the term "French fries" to be grossly unfair: the Belgians feel they deserve the credit, and the French feel they don't deserve the blame.
Of course, there is the possibility that the first prototype fries were planted in Belgium by French agents provocateurs.
Parent
Re:Unfair! Unfair! (Score:5, Funny)
It isn't like the rest of French cuisine is Richard-Simmons-Approved when eaten in the kind of quantities Americans typically eat things, so I don't see why they'd care about fries in particular.
I liked that period of time where we were supposed to call them "Freedom Fries". It made it easier to spot imbeciles.
Parent
Re:NewYorkCountyLawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm wondering how our friend NewYorkCountyLawyer feels, waking up to discover the legal war is over? Or is it? We're all suspicious of the RIAA but my mind harkens back to the pictures of the liberation of Paris in World War II. Wonder if NYCL feels that way?
Well my initial reaction is this:
If it's true... it's about time. Meanwhile, what about the unfortunates who are presently entangled already in these unjust lawsuits? Why won't the RIAA drop those cases too? If it was bad business to start them, why isn't it bad business to keep on throwing good money after bad? I hope consumers will remember this 5 1/2-year reign of terror, and will shun RIAA products, and I hope the legal profession will place a black mark next to the names of those "lawyers" who participated in this foul calumny.
If I have any additional thoughts I'll be appending them here [blogspot.com] in my "Editor's note".
Parent