ISPs make agrement with RIAA/MPAA

[StarsMine]

yea total bullshit

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ps_riaa_and_co

Industry trade groups like the RIAA and the MPAA have been beating on Congressional doors for years now in a fruitless attempt to restrict Internet access for rampant file-sharers. Thanks to a tangled web of possible political and legal ramifications, the government's been hesitant to drop the banhammer on everyday pirates. Sick of the foot-dragging, the content associations just went Dirty Harry. No, they didn't take the law into their own hands – they bypassed it completely by forging a deal with the largest ISPs, who will now take a "graduated response" against file-sharers at the copyright owners' command.

Industry trade groups like the RIAA and the MPAA have been beating on Congressional doors for years now in a fruitless attempt to restrict Internet access for rampant file-sharers. Thanks to a tangled web of possible political and legal ramifications, the government's been hesitant to drop the banhammer on everyday pirates. Sick of the foot-dragging, the content associations just went Dirty Harry. No, they didn't take the law into their own hands – they bypassed it completely by forging a deal with the largest ISPs, who will now take a "graduated response" against file-sharers at the copyright owners' command.

(http://www.dslreports.com/r0/downloa...SixStrikes.pdf) The new agreement isn't a three-strikes-and-you're-out arrangement, as was previously rumored (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...nment_industry). Instead, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable will send users an alert "in response to a notice from a copyright holder" like the RIAA. If someone continues to download or upload copyrighted content, a "graduated response" takes effect: ISPs will redirect users to a splash page containing the warning or start sending pop-ups insinuating that their customers are dirty criminals. After five "alerts," the ISPs turn to "Mitigation measures," which are oh-so-nebulous "measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter."

The agreement cites a couple of examples of possible mitigation measures, such as reduced Internet speeds and users being stuck on a landing page until they call the ISP to talk about "educational information about copyright" and apparently pass some sort of quiz or something. Theoretically, "measures that the ISP may deem necessary" could involve the complete termination of services, although the agreement doesn't include that as a specific requirement.

Don't like the idea of having your Internet access subject to the whims of the RIAA? Feel you were wrongly accused to infringement? Tell it to the judge! Oh, wait, this agreement bypasses judges and courts because it "creates no new laws or formal legal procedures, nor does this system require account suspension or termination," so you can't tell it to the judge. If you think you were incorrectly accused of infringement, you can pay $35 to get an "independent review," whatever that means.

In addition to the RIAA and MPAA, PC World reports the "American Association of Independent Music, and the Independent Film and Television Alliance will participate in the agreement." We don't condone copyright infringement, but this doesn't seem like the right answer to the pirating problem.[/ isn't a three-strikes-and-you're-out arrangement, as was previously rumored. Instead, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable will send users an alert "in response to a notice from a copyright holder" like the RIAA. If someone continues to download or upload copyrighted content, a "graduated response" takes effect: ISPs will redirect users to a splash page containing the warning or start sending pop-ups insinuating that their customers are dirty criminals. After five "alerts," the ISPs turn to "Mitigation measures," which are oh-so-nebulous "measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter."

The agreement cites a couple of examples of possible mitigation measures, such as reduced Internet speeds and users being stuck on a landing page until they call the ISP to talk about "educational information about copyright" and apparently pass some sort of quiz or something. Theoretically, "measures that the ISP may deem necessary" could involve the complete termination of services, although the agreement doesn't include that as a specific requirement.

Don't like the idea of having your Internet access subject to the whims of the RIAA? Feel you were wrongly accused to infringement? Tell it to the judge! Oh, wait, this agreement bypasses judges and courts because it "creates no new laws or formal legal procedures, nor does this system require account suspension or termination," so you can't tell it to the judge. If you think you were incorrectly accused of infringement, you can pay $35 to get an "independent review," whatever that means.

In addition to the RIAA and MPAA, PC World reports (http://www.pcworld.com/article/23520...ng_alerts.html) the "American Association of Independent Music, and the Independent Film and Television Alliance will participate in the agreement." We don't condone copyright infringement, but this doesn't seem like the right answer to the pirating problem.

This makes no sense, ISP have actually defending pirates as they give them alot of business. They avoid as much as possible terminating your internet because they lose a customer, they constantly tell the RIAA and MPAA to shove off when they ask for details of suspected content downloaders. How the hell did they get this deal? How much money did they shove in the ISPs face

clicked on the PDF for the new agreement , first thing I see total absolute bull****.
CONTENT THEFT >.<
Online content theft acounts for 373000 jobs my ass.

oh and then the last page
What the fuck

In addition to exposure from violating copyright law and published policies,
viruses, malware and spyware described above, the use of P2P applications can
expose a consumer’s bank account numbers, tax returns, and sensitive health
information to other P2P users.

[elpolloloco]

This is bullshit, but sometimes bullshit happens. Napster, in theory, never should have been shut down originally, but it did.

Even if it does go through, the RIAA is retarded. People are just going to find as new way around it. So instead of sharing MP3',s people will start zipping or pgp'ing their files. There's no way to prove that a PGP file is actually the mp3 file unless you have someone's key. All it's going to do is just drive up the cost of internet access because people are going to start suing ISP's.

[acolyte_to_jippity]

This is bullshit, but sometimes bullshit happens. Napster, in theory, never should have been shut down originally, but it did.

Even if it does go through, the RIAA is retarded. People are just going to find as new way around it. So instead of sharing MP3',s people will start zipping or pgp'ing their files. There's no way to prove that a PGP file is actually the mp3 file unless you have someone's key. All it's going to do is just drive up the cost of internet access because people are going to start suing ISP's.

i predict that the old usenet newsgroups will start to see more and more popularity. that and irc xdcc bots. personally, i get all my music from xdcc bots anymore, but the binary files from usenet things are just that, .txt files made up of 1's and 0's, that your computer re compiles into usable ####. thus, hey are pretty much untraceable.

[ZERO]

No what they are going to do is just shut off anyone that is using a lot of bandwidth regardless of what they are doing. Then tell them to give them more money or take away their service.

It will be interesting to see what the FCC has to say about this. We know that in the past ISPs got in trouble for throttling bandwidth and now they will be doing the same thing just under a different hat. You can not accuse your customers of doing something and then charge them more money for it without evidence.

[StarsMine]

Uhg, hate using xdcc, can only download one thing at a time, and then their are very few people who keep an organized list of whats on the damn bot.

@pollo, it would be stupid to just look for file extension in the first place. people can rename whatever they want, and for all they know it could be a demo they passed around themselves.

How do they designate illegal files? Torrent won't work because there are a majority of legal torrents. File name doesn't work because it could signify a demo or licensed digital download. Extension won't work because there are plenty of legal and free mp3s, avi, etc. on the web. Sounds like they will be targeting those with high transfer volumes and just making up the rest.

[ZERO]

Simple, they will just declare all torrent traffic is a violation.

[StarsMine]

Simple, they will just declare all torrent traffic is a violation.

Which is bullshit as that is the best way for indie distrobution out there

Make a 1+ gig file ment to be given to alot of people but dont have the money to put it on a server, torrent it.