RIAA Sues Backbone ISPs to Censor Website 916
prostoalex writes "Music labels filed a lawsuit against major Internet service providers for not blocking access to Listen4Ever.com, music site located in China. The defendants in the suit include AT&T Broadband, Cable & Wireless USA, Sprint Corp., Advanced Network Services and UUNET Technologies." Wow.
from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:4, Insightful)
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss your fair use rights good-bye.
I think I will end this before I start stringing together several run-on sentences comprised solely of Carlin's Seven Words you Don't Say...
Music industry indeed. Why not call it like it is and start calling them the Music Mafia? Oops. That's insulting the mafia...I shouldn't do that.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss justice goodbye, as well as the common sense of that judge.
Eeep! (Score:2, Insightful)
The chinese government does, that is...
American companies want to censor the content coming in.
Who really runs our country?
O_o~ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, if the RIAA goes through with this, you can kiss your ISP's fiscial stability good-bye.
Can you imagine how many sites for illegal content appear outside of the US? Can you imagine how many requests every large backbone provider would have to deal with? Can you imagine how quickly the blocking tables on the router would be stuffed to the gills?
"us domain name" (Score:2, Insightful)
could be a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
It obviously doesn't matter (Score:1, Insightful)
Hard to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the safe harbor provisions were intended for the ISP at the end of the line. So I'm not sure what legal precedent would be in play here. Given that these carriers are common carriers, with no control over the content they carry, I should think the RIAA would lose the case. If they didn't, then it would become the responsibility of carriers to monitor traffic on their networks for illegal activity, etc. It would be akin to holding AT&T responsible for embezzling because two mafiosos talked to eachother over a long distance phone call.
Lowest Common Denominator (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss The Constitution goodbye.
We're Asking the Wrong Question (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems there are at least four or five stories about the RIAA every week on Slashdot. Most deal with circumventing their legal lobbying, technical approaches for dealing with proposed DRM techniques, and whatnot.
Meanwhile, it seems the RIAA sinks to a new depth every week. With this latest story, I think it's time the tech community started asking a different question. What can the tech community do to damage the RIAA or render them irrelevant? And what are the best legal methods for kicking the RIAA where it hurts?
Audacity indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, it's the T-Rex complex! (Score:5, Insightful)
Those RIAA nimwits may be meeting their match here. Not only do they have deep pockets, but think of it this way - when the folks in Washington see this battle, they may rethink what's more important: keeping the Information Superhighway (tm) alive and propelling the New Economy, or keeping the music industry alive in its current bloodsucking incarnation.
T-Rex, meet Godzilla. :-)
This is your reward for voting for Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait, I'm sorry, Bush is a *hero*, who's actions are helping us all. Lets just wave our flags while corporations wipe their collective asses on us.
The RIAA is out of control, we must do something about this before we end up losing all our freedom of speach. I think it might take drastic measures to fight this corporate monster.
Fuck RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
aimed at a US audience? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as of late, the RIAA has been pushing the theory of "contributory copyright infringement". In essence, it goes like this: You didn't infringe any copyrights. But you helped someone else infringe them. So you're just as guilty. As the
Not a good move by the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
You may think that the RIAA is good at influencing the legal and political process, but I think they've just picked a fight they can't hope to win. The big backbone providers got to where they are through skillful manipulation of the system. If any set of entities is capable of playing the litigation game, it has got to be the phone and cable companies.
First off, every other case the RIAA has attempted has been against shallow pockets. Not so here. While WorldCom is in trouble, they do have a large legal team sitting around doing nothing (can't work on the bankruptcy 'cause that's not their area). I don't think I need mention how deep the pockets of ATT, Sprint, et. al. are.
Also, in the past they've gone against entities without experience. At any one time any major phone company is involved in more litagation than you can imagine (minimum of 3 major legal actions per state--justifying their current rates, attacking the justification their competitors give for their rates, and fighting to keep their preferred status as incumbant carrier, besides various federal and local actions). They know how to take full advantage of the rules, which rules they have to follow, which they can bend, and which they can break. They'll make dragging any information out of them during discovery a total nightmare, while at the same time demanding the most minor scraps of records the RIAA has. They'll abuse the calander, run the clock, and overall be just not very nice.
The RIAA may act like an 800 lb. gorrilla, but they've just picked a fight with the 8000 lb. bunch. Not a good idea.
what a plan (Score:1, Insightful)
I wonder how much Listen4Ever's traffic will go up as a result of this lawsuit? And how many more millions of dollars of "lost revenues" will the RIAA be able to claim as a result?
Re:Eeep! (Score:3, Insightful)
He said, and forked out $17.99 for another CD.
The citizens do have the power -- if they didn't buy CDs, the RIAA wouldn't have the money for lawsuits like this. The problem is, this doesn't mean you have a right to bootleg music just because you don't want to pay for it, and like most citizens, you don't actually care about this issue enough to go through the inconvenience of not listening to new music.
Your mouth is saying `screw the RIAA', and your money is saying `thank you, may I have another?'.
Re:ok... (Score:2, Insightful)
given the size of the companies named as defendants, they're lawyers will argue first amendment and/or make use of scenarios like those previously mentioned.
Fair rights has nothing to do with it (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with fair rights usage.
It is not your fair usage right to violate copyright holders by downloading all of the warez and mp3s that you so desire. If you want that, stick with cable TV. This is the Internet, an information sharing network -- if the information is not your's to publish, then don't.
The issue at hand is the question of if the communication network which provides access by Americans to a Chinese based system which violates United States law.
For people who violate copyright law by publishing duplicate copies of commercial software and copyrighted music and movies, I have no sympathy. Shut this server down.
The Chinese website in question is clearly violating United States law. It may also be violating Chinese law, but to this I am not knowing.
This action seems very similar to the legal pursuits of the French government against eBay and Yahoo for posting content which is illegal in their country, but not in the U.S. Specifically, they were after WWII memorabilia, and anything deemed to be offensive by the French government.
Are ISPs which provide transit access to illegal material themselves responsible for the illegal material itself, even though it is under a different administrative domain outside of their control, and outside of the control of the U.S. government?
I do not think so. This is like holding the phone companies responsible for someone who did something illegal using their network. The ISPs in question do not condone or approve of the server in question which is violating U.S. law.
I hope you do not condone it either. There are enough mp3 downloading fools on this network already. I use the Internet to publish a daily journal, to share pictures that I take with my digital camera, and to communicate ORIGINAL WORKS by myself to others, and to obtain their own original works.
Fair rights ain't got nothing to do with it.
And I THANK the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
They will lose! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a good move by the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the RIAA does not actually expect to go to court. They probably just want the backbone providers to compare the cost of going to court versus simply blacklisting "just one web site". Once the Listen4ever.com precedent has been set, then the RIAA could keep pestering the backbone providers with more web sites to blacklist.
How are ISPs violating copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a serious problem with the digital world. The more digital things become, the more individual things can be blocked. Imagine if the power-grid was digital. Your computer would need a form of address to get the appropriate amount of power for your device. Then imagine the power company could specifically disallow power to that device. In a case like that, I could see the RIAA suing an electric company to not provide power to computers that go to an offending site. It's ridiculous that the RIAA could win, but if a case like this one goes the right way, it could establish a bizarre precedant.
I guess what I'm saying is: Just because somebody has the power to block this type of thing, doesn't mean they are obligated to. The RIAA has laws in their favor to go after somebody who does something like Listen4Ever has. The ISP's shouldn't have to pay because the RIAA isn't willing to do the necessary investigation to find out how to shut that server down. They're not the ones committing the crime, they are not even aiding them in copyright infractions. If the ISP's aren't treating them any differently than they are treating anybody else, I don't see how they can be held accountable if somebody breaks the law.
No organization should have that kind of power.
Re:We're Asking the Wrong Question (Score:2, Insightful)
... which they use as an argument in their defense. "Less people have been buying from us, so they must be pirating it all." Companies don't learn from the customers they don't have. They learn from the customers who complain.
Write a letter to your favorite record label. Tell them how much money you used to spend on their product in the past. Tell them how much you spend now (hopefully much less). Tell them why. Tell them what you would support (for example, $X/song or album for Internet downloads and fair use or $X/month for subscriptions to Internet radio statons or content servers).
I used to spend $50 per month on CDs. I haven't bought one in at least three years (and I don't pirate). Instead, I just listen to the radio. I still rent movies a couple times a month, though.
When I have some disposable income again, I'm going to donate an equal part to my local NPR station and an organization fighting the industry's over-reaching efforts. People have to fund the people speaking out for us.
Be creative. Make some effort. Don't just "not buy stuff". They won't get the message that way.
-ez
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really a shame that so many people here are sheep[burn karma here] that can't think for themselves.
LOL, thanks for telling me about the site, RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I think I'll go and download some Christina Aguilera music. I don't particularly like her (more of a B. Spears person), but since its free, I'll take it.
Seriously, ISPs have no business blocking web sites, or otherwise censoring the net. They are there to connect people to the internet, not to block them off from parts of it that special interests think we shouldn't see.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this suit passes in the favor of the RIAA, then you can kiss Listen4Ever.com goodbye. The rest is only speculation.
Before you mod me as redundant, consider this: What are the real consequences of the RIAA winning this? Well, Listen4Ever.com will probably be blocked, fair enough. Does this give the RIAA too much power? Well, that depends. Let's say that the RIAA demands that ISP's sue another site like Listen4Ever that pops up. Will that mean the RIAA can demand ISP's to block it? That depends on the exact findings of the judge. The judge could say "ISP's must block this site..." or he/she could say "ISP's must block sites that break copyrights...".
In the first case, the RIAA would have to sue again in order to block another site. (Eventually that'll get a bit spendy...) In the second case, the ISP's could appeal. They could challenge any site that the RIAA attempts to block. It wouldn't take long for a freedom of speech case to come up. It is hard to imagine that the RIAA could develop any real policing powers.
In other words, nothing is absolute. The more ridiculous steps that the RIAA takes to control content (especially when they can't prove they've lost money on 'unauthorized copies'...), the harder it is for any legislation to be passed to lock up the content. "We shut down this site, but our income didn't suddenly grow." -- How well will that hold up? I think this type of crap makes it less likely that new versions of the SSSCA will get passed. I see a silver lining either way.
Re:Makes sense to me! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is wonderful! With this precidence set, I'll be able to sue the state for the highway I was on if I have an accident, and the power company for supplying the electricity that started a house fire.
Believe it or not, you can sue the city for negligence (e.g. if your car gets a flat tire from a pothole) or the power company for negligence (e.g. if a power line breaks and sets your house on fire).
You can hold a business accountable for negligence, even if you are not their customer. Banks can have their assets seized if they don't take steps to prevent money laundering. On a smaller scale, pawnbrokers are held responsible for selling stolen goods.
Generally, when an industry creates a technology that facilitates an illegal or dangerous act, that industry is held responsible for part of the cost of monitoring and preventing that action.
-a
Legal equivalent (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. - they may put their common carrier status at risk; and,
2. - other illegal content should be blocked as well.
So, if you live in a state where spam is illegal, a natural extension would be for the backbone carriers to block spam sites (of course, the problem with open relays means all of the far east may be blocked, but hey, spam is spam.) Of course, when jurisdictions start forcing the blockage of legitimate (read RIAA member) music sites because of language or other content, cutting them off from their customers, the RIAA may wish they never went down this road.
Not that I really think forcing the pipe owners to block content is a good idea, but the law, like landminds, can harm friend and foe alike. It's all in how a weapon is used.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA wins this, they have a legal precedent for blocking whatever the hell they want to under the guise of copyright infringement. Now, the second time around their case may not be as strong, and the backbone operators may stand a chance of winning if they challenge, but with precedent on the **AA's side, it is not in the financial interest of ISP to follow through on that challenge. Defending yourself against litigation is costly, and the lesser your chances of winning, the smaller your desire to pursue.
The problem with your scenario is that so far as I know, the ISPs aren't altruistic slashdot readers, they're businesses. And when backed into a corner by the legal system, businesses usually prefer to just pay the fee to the troll under the bridge rather than fight it for a chance to pass for free. It ends up costing them less in the long run.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean it's the airlines' responsibility to ensure that music pirates aren't using their routes to facilitate their misdeeds.
It's a good thing the RIAA hasn't heard of those Canadian pirates, coz then we'd have to shut down the highways, too.
Deep Pockets and Deeper Affiliations (Score:3, Insightful)
Notably missing are two leading ISPs owned by one of the plaintiffs: AOL and CompuServe. I'd be interested to know if those ISPs are blocking this site.
Well, at least they're suing, not blacklisting. My big fear has always been that freedom-loving ISPs would be made to restrict user access, or lose their backbone connections. And AOL/TW is a big backbone provider.
Crappy music jokes aside (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we sue the Post Office for anthrax sent through the mail? Sue the Dept of Highway Safety because a gangster robbed the bank then made his getaway on the highway? Sue the telephone service because a stalker keeps calling your house?
No company - no company - should be able to sue a communications company just because they don't like what somebody says. If the government of China doesn't want to shut it down, then the RIAA should be applying the powers that be there - not on the communications medium.
Personally, I hope that AT&T et all take them on and give them what for.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you just won't be able to reach Listen4Ever.com from anywhere that goes through these backbone carriers. Carriers. That's an important word here. The RIAA isn't suing a copyright infringing website, they're suing the phone company. These backbone folks are "common carriers," meaning that they are not responsible for what passes over their cables.
An FTP request is an FTP request is an FTP request. If it goes to Listen4Ever.com, goatce.cx or whitehouse.gov, it doesn't matter to them. They've got a really fat pipe that they're trying to keep up. They're not some public library that went and accepted federal money to get on the net and has to put mommyware on their boxen, they're common carriers. Once they start picking and choosing what traffic to allow, they're responsible for all the traffic they carry: terrorists' instructions, gay bashing emails, kiddie porn and auctions of Nazi memorabilia.
The telcos aren't going to let anything take their common carrier protections away from them. I think that the RIAA finally took on the wrong opponent.
if you work in a NOC block them now (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Haha suckas... yeah mess with the big boys (Score:2, Insightful)
"What do you guys control?"
"I control cell phones."
"I am the master of cable."
"I am the undisputed champion of the US Internet backbone."
"So... what do you control for world domination?"
"Ummm.... CD music. Not anything good though, just the really commercialized stuff."
*crowd contains guffaws and laughter starts leaking out*
"But I actualy turn a profit."
*crowd lets out collctive awe of amazement*
Did the RIAA actualy sue any profit generating companies here, or did they limit themselves to companies that
Re:This is your reward for voting for Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what! The Democrats entire campaign was also built on huge contributions. Furthermore, they Democrats are the partly closest to Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The biggest pusher of digital rights management (read: restrictuions on what you can do with media) are Democrat congressmen.
But wait... the truth...
That wouldn't stop you from a baseless troll against Bush!
Corporations do what corporations will do.
The real problem here is that congress passes bills extending ownership "rights." A copyright is *not* a natural right. It is granted as a result of the authority given in the US Constituiton. However, that grant also includes a phrase about public interest.
If you elect politicians who vote for judges who actually read the constitution (i.e. "original intent"), you might get judges who would find many of these copyright abuses to be unconstitutional - not supported by the copyrights and patens clause in the US Constitution.
But guess what? THOSE politicians are republican conservatives. Oops...
Oh well, that won't stop the Bush bashing...
Too many people have been brainwashed into believing that Republicans are the tools of corporations, while Democrats are somehow the saviors of the people. Wake up! Corporations give to whoever they think will support their business. And Hollywood gives to DEMOCRATS.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh-oh. Precedents aren't "owned" by the winner. So in our country, that means that anyone else can use it. Microsoft could use their lawyers pull a similar stunt against kernel.org, on the grounds of the historic writable NTFS issue [indiana.edu].
Or, we could see this used as a means for attack for patent infrigement. The ISPs will be running scared, afraid of being sued, and will start getting block-happy about things.
Loho will send out threatening letters, resulting in Davezilla being blocked.
Forgent Networks [slashdot.org] could do some serious blacklisting of any site that hosted jpeg-editing software
The possibilities are endless for such a vague precedent. This could be quite the witchhunt-inspiring precedent.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
People opposed to this insane measure taken by the Music Industry are not necessarily opposed to copyright. I don't beg for, borrow, or steal music but I'm COMPLETELY opposed to what the industry is requesting of the backbone service providers.
They are advocating CENSORSHIP, they are pushing and pulling with every muscle they have, and they are tying up our courts with frivilous lawsuits and innane complaints, and pursuing people who are not going out of their way to cause harm or break the law(backbone companies). Rather than pursuing these companies that provide American Citizens with much-valued connectivity (at already absurd prices which would only be driven up by the necessity of blocking certain sites) they should pursue the bootleggers who sell CDs at Times Square, those who sell their music without their permission, and the *actual offending parties*.
Censorship on a backbone level hasn't been done for even cases that most people would consider deserving, such as child pornography sites, terrorist sites, sites that advocate the hunting and killing of pro-choice doctors, and the list goes on. THE MUSIC INDUSTRY SHOULD NOT RECIEVE PRIORITY OVER THESE OTHER SITUATIONS, and I'd even be hard-pressed to say that censorship of these sites should rest on the backbone provider.
The recording industry has just proven that if anything, it is OVER-FUNDED and has too much money to spare to tie up the courts with airheaded legislation (DMCA) and lawsuits that should never see the light of day.
How long before they say that speaking up against the DMCA is a violation of the DMCA since it advocates the abolition of a copyright protection measure (the DMCA)? Oh, wait. It's already happened on a much more subtle level. I belong to this mailing list, and posted an innocuous question about how to copy a CD at a raw data level without having to mount it because some backup software I used (To create a backup of my own hard drive with my own personally-created information on it) creates backup CDs that are non-mountable. I could use the backup software to dupe the CD, but the read-write process it uses would take 3 hours with a 32x burner, and I had over 200 CDs that I wished to create a second backup set of to keep off site. (Being located in NYC, this would be a good idea, no?) Apparently this question was in too "murky" an area, and the list owner did not want to deal with the possiblity of the question being misconstrued by anyone who might be listening in.
Tell me that the "entertainment industry" isn't sounding a bit hitlerish, and having way too much control over way too many things?
But.... Shhh.. I didn't say that. I don't want anyone "listening in" to misconstrue things.
-Sara
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
This Cause Trouble for /. (Score:1, Insightful)
If the RIAA wins you will be...that is so sad that this case wouldn't be thrown out immediately.
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. First, the ISP's being sued do have the money to fight. At least they have a chance (the old justice to the highest bidder game). And they have incentive to fight.
If they win, they now have a legal precident which would help deter future lawsuits, not just from the **AA, but from anyone with a gripe about a website. Think abortion friend/foe, various religious groups, companies (MS suing to block Linux sites for instance), etc. Face it. If every web site that contained something someone didn't like was blocked, there would be very few websites. If they fail to fight, they are just inviting many more lawsuits, again, not just from the **AA (see list above).
Now the big question is are the execs at the ISPs bright enough to see this.
Question... (Score:3, Insightful)
If its all legal battles, why cant we fight back? Why are we so powerless? Why cant we win?
-
I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce. - J. Edgar Hoover
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is exactly the defense that must be used! - Add reviews, editorials and so on to the site, written by users of the site, and then blocking the site will block free speech. Force the judge to weigh the first amendment directly against DMCA and similar commercial legislation.
What is important here is to efficiently stop RIAA (and MPAA) from playing their stupid little greedy power games on the net.
Make the choice this simple: If you continue to fight 'unauthorized copies' on the net, we will make more of those copies and do what we can to spread them in an act of civil disobedience. Work with us, wise up and change your prices and distribution policies so it is possible to acquire legal versions of a given title anywhere in the world about the same time as we normally see the first pirated versions pop up.
I mean, the main reason why pirating occur is availability, closely followed by price. As long as a DVD costs as much as it does (most of that price is profits) and is released months after theatrical release, and often several more months later in different territories, there will be a need for people to jump the queue. And that's a fair need because the MPAA clearly abuses its distribution powers to discriminate people based solely on their geographical location. Same thing with the RIAA, although their power isn't as great because the CD-format is global without any regional restrictions.
Re:Crappy music jokes aside (Score:3, Insightful)
No. They're not equal to compare. Child pornography is totally illegal. Music downloads are not.
Re:AT&T already caved? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:from the rabid-knee-jerk-reactions dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop Buying Music and Listening to the Radio (Score:3, Insightful)
Look,
We don't like this. So let's put our money where our mouths are. Stop buying from them, and stop buying from their sponsors. Stop listening to the radio stations that broadcast their crap, and encourage others to do the same. This kind of shit has to stop.
Yes, what I'm saying is boycott the music industry.
I don't listen to the radio anymore (pop music sucks anyway). I go and watch local bands in bars, and buy their CDs from them. It's good stuff too. You can always find someone in your area doing good stuff.
Also, there are tons of independent record labels. They also have good music. Buy from them.
Anyway,
That's my two cents.
Later.
-Craig
ISP's Already Blocking the Site? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have isp's already blocked it...are they deciding for me what sites I can or cannot see?
It isn't about piracy or whether or not I am downloading music. I can't see the website period,and if following a link in a website or through an isp is illegal then why did yahoo news link to the site through thier newstory yesterday?