RIAA anti-piracy plan comes with problems

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article RIAA anti-piracy plan comes with problems.

Even though the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) decided it’s going to abandon its efforts suing individual file sharers accused of copyright infringement, and will instead have file…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/15338-RIAA-anti-piracy-plan-comes-with-problems.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/15338-RIAA-anti-piracy-plan-comes-with-problems.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

OK. Scenario #1.
Piggyback off of someones Wi-fi connection. Very plausible if you happen to live in an apartment complex. How would that work?


#3

Here’s how it works. You use my unprotected wi-fi (becasue I’m an idiot and don’t protect it, or becasue it was protected but you figured out my password) to download and share songs. The RIAA tells the ISP that I’m violating copyrights and requests that I lose my connection. The ISP sends me warning letters, which I ignore because they are obviously high, I’m not into music, so they clearly have the wrong person. After a couple stern letters, I write my own letter telling them to pound sand because I’m not violating anything. They then shut off my connection. No amount of pleading on my part gets it reconnected, so I sue them. In the discovery process I learn that it’s the RIAA that claims I’m a copyright infringer, so I sue them for defamation and tortuous interference. In court it becomes apparent that I’m an idiot, use easy passwords, whatever, I’m not into music, and I am in fact not infringing on any copyright. The ISP loses because it had no legal standing to accept the word of the RIAA that I was infringing, nor do they have any legal standing to enforce copyright law, nor do the copyright laws list termination of free speech and access to the internet as remedies for infringement, and I was not in violation of any agreement with them and therefore their actions are capricious and malicious. Ka-CHING!! Big payout. The RIAA loses because they had no legal standing to claim I was infinging on copyright, as no court case has been heard and no due process followed, and my good name has been sullied. In addition, they clearly interfered with my contractual relationship with the ISP. Double Ka-CHING!!! Bigger payout. The lawyers get rich, I get rich, you get free internet, the ISP get’s screwed and the RIAA gets hammered.


#4

If any ISP’s decide not to volunteer for this, they’re going to get alot of customers. I’d imagine DSL would be in a better position, as the technology is slower but more robust. Cable providers turned a blind eye when they were trying to establish broadband, and piracy was the major push for broadband. Now that Cable has over saturated their networks, they want to use piracy control as a way to decrease usage.

If DSL just says no… I could see them having a major advantage.


#5

Banning people from an ISP sounds better than a lawsuit. I sure hope the ISP’s will allow an appeal for the customer so they can prove or admit their actions…if any.

If a person is banned from an ISP, does that mean no ISP will give them Internet access in the future? Is there some kind of ISP data base that they share on who not to allow? This could be devastating to a person who is addicted to the internet.


#6

RIAA sux and copyright sux


#7

And your spelling sux!


#8

Wow, chuckwagon, you’re pretty much wrong about everything. You have no intrinsic right to internet service, from your ISP or any other. Your ISP isn’t doing anything more than excercising its right to not do business with you.

And it doesn’t matter that you won’t be sharing the music. We’re not dealing with criminal or civil court, with their burdens of proof. Someone at your IP is sharing music; it just doen’t really matter who is doing it.

Of course, you would have some legal recourse. You could figure out who was using your unsecured network and go after them, as they obviously have caused you harm.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong. Let me know where you’re finding that inaliable right to internet service, and I’ll shut up.


#9

Well, gilby, you need to study contract law a bit. Once I’ve entered into a contract with an ISP, and paid them, they have certain obligations that they cannot simply ignore, even if someone claims I’m doing something they don’t like. The “they have the right to refuse service” is no longer true as they have accepted payment and would need to show a violation of the agreement in order to terminate it. I don’t need a “right” to internet service, because I already have a right to have my paid for services provided as contracted.

However, you are incorrect in thinking I do not have a right to it. The internet represents a significant free speech mechanism, and it is unlikely a court would find that a person can be denied access to such a forum without proven cause. Also, as a public service company, ISPs are not going to be allowed to partition the public into “acceptable” and “unacceptable” groups based on whim. They will be required to accept the business of anyone who meets the requirements for doing business with them, and those requirements will be subject to anti-discrimination oversight. Arbitrary termination of contractual agreements also opens up the ISPs to claims discrimination. And since I have a service contract, third party interference on the part of the RIAA opens them up to legal problems as well.

So, if the ISPs and RIAA want to avoid legal entanglements, they will need to prove who is doing the copyright infringement, they cannot simply say it happened at this address so ban that customer.