Who are you more scared of - the RIAA or your ISP?

Internet service providers AT&T and Comcast have confirmed their participation in an RIAA program designed to send subscribers suspected of uploading music to unauthorized P2P networks warning notices that their accounts may be deactivated. The RIAA, in turn, has agreed to cut back their prosecutions of individuals, provided they're kicked off the Web by their ISPs if they're naughty. The plan is that if enough ISPs sign up, people can be totally blacklisted from getting residential connections.

If you were sharing music (movies are in the pipeline but software won't be) then would a threat from your ISP be more dissuasive than the possibility of being served directly by the RIAA?

Hard to say who I'd be scared of, but I don't trade or download music or movies or whatever. I imagine I'm somewhat high bandwidth, but nothing I'm doing is clandestine. I guess getting cut off would be a drag, but honestly I think AT&T/Comcast would have to manifest some sort of conviction in order to appear reasonable refusing service, just as RIAA would have to win any claims they made. But, I'm no expert in this area. It may be the old west style lawless frontier that the future of standard music distribution may emerge from, but it's not the territory I want to have my gunfights in these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I think AT&T/Comcast would have to manifest some sort of conviction in order to appear reasonable refusing service

---

Therein lies the Cunning Plan - ISPs have existing terms in their EULAs allowing them to terminate if the user somehow 'abuses' the service, based solely on what the ISP deems as appropriate use, and so there's no need for a criminal level of proof (and no appeal, either). One of the big hurdles for the RIAA was in getting server logs from the ISP to prove illegal activity in a way a court would accept, but by handing control to the people who make the logs in the first place, it's all neat and tidy. Innocent until proven guilty goes out the window, but hey...

As you may have noticed, I prefer the old way. We may have had a hard time winning cases, but at least there was a judge up front.

While I don't agree that people should share copyrighted material as if it's in the public domain, I still maintain that the RIAA is fucking evil.

There's a program that can plant evidence upon any IP number that we used here in Sweden to fight prosecution. That way it's impossible to know who's real and who's fake. Other than that they can not see who has used computer at that time so they don't know who in the household was criminal.

What are they going to do when Ipredator starts up?

Meh, there's ways to download most stuff without your ISP being able to spot it or identify you, so the point is moot.

IP is dead; it just won't lie still yet.

Hmm I'm more afraid of my ISP than the RIAA

the common misconception a lot of people have about networking is that user identification stops at the IP address. IP addresses are easy to spoof and change and generally aren't that much of a threat to your overall privacy. A lot of people forget that your mac address is taken down. A mac address can pretty much track you down to the machine you're using especially if you are on a college network. However is also easy to spoof but most people don't know to do so.

and Ipredator sounds pretty hot and seems like a neat use for VPN.

well the RIAA and thier ilk can't do a whole lot, for instance when a popular file hosting site is located in china and they take cease and desist orders as a polite suggestion rather than a commandment.

but your ISP on the other hand can cut past the red tape of international law and just boot you because you went to a site that was on the blacklist whether it was your legal right to do so or not.

the only stuff I'll download anyway is mettalica, so I don't really worry too much about all that stuff

So my question is, when are these assholes going to start going after the people who buy a cd, then let their friends borrow the actual cd. It's the same fucking concept, just on a much larger scale. If a band can't make enough money off of concerts and merchandise, then they need to get out of the studio. They don't need millions and millions of dollars.

I think I read somewhere once that the bands actually aren't getting any of the profits from the cds they sell at all.

They get a cash advance and then end up using that to have to pay for their own studio time and touring costs and its only once they pay all that money back that they get to see a dime of the royalties. (don't quote me on that though)

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/ Actually I believe that's the site where I read it. The info is pretty old but I'm pretty sure a lot of the shadier stuff is still in practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

IP is dead; it just won't lie still yet.

---

I'm sorry I forgot, what do you do for a living?

I'd rather live than have a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

I'd rather live than have a living.

---

does that mean trust fund, still live with parents, or welfare?

Nice pic on that site RnR.http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/ima...wnswho_big.gif

yar tis an apropo scrimshaw for piracy it be! yar!

Yeah, Olix I thought that entire section of the site was pretty cool. Really gave me a new perspective on the music industry.

I am more concerned about my ISP because I need internet access and, for karmic reasons, I don't do the illegal download thing, so the RIAA is not an issue for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karyn

does that mean trust fund, still live with parents, or welfare?

---

It means I begrudge that particular question, and that I ran out of more creative ways to avoid the tedium of answering it the last time I got cheated into a family christmas dinner. :)

welfare it is:D