View Full Version : ISPs to RIAA: GO AWAY!

19th Jan 2004, 01:48 PM
This article brings to light a very important subject to many of us: Filesharers being sued. Come on. You know you've done it, and want to do it again. :)


After an appeals court ruled that Internet service providers (ISPs) do not have to hand over names of suspected music pirates to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), ISPs are showing no interest in the RIAA's latest effort to enlist them in its fight against music piracy.

The RIAA now wants ISPs to notify its customers that are suspected of illegal downloading but not yet targeted for a lawsuit by the music industry.

"We would like to work with you to supplement our efforts by arranging for ISPs to notify their subscribers who are engaged in infringing activity that this conduct is illegal," the RIAA wrote to most of the nation's 50 largest ISPs in a Dec. 16 letter. "We are asking you to do this without providing us any identifying information about the subscriber."

Under the proposal, the RIAA would supply an identifying IP address of a suspected infringer to its ISP, which would then send a notice of infringement to the subscriber.

According to industry officials contacted by internetnews.com, not one ISP has agreed to cooperate with the music industry, which was dealt a major legal setback on Dec. 19 when an appeals court ruled the RIAA could not force ISPs to turn over the identities of alleged music pirates. The RIAA claimed it had subpoena power under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The decision reversed a January 2003 lower court decision upholding the DMCA subpoena power. Armed with that decision, the RIAA issued more than 3,000 subpoena requests to ISPs and filed nearly 400 copyright infringement actions in a highly publicized and controversial attack against individual downloaders. No subpoenas have been issued since the Dec. 19 decision.

The Dec. 16 letter, signed by RIAA CEO and Chairman Mitch Bainwol and president Cary Sherman, shows that the group wants to go a step further in order to stop illegal downloads of copyrighted material.

"Specifically, when we determine the IP address of an infringer, we would like to send you the IP address along with a Notice of Infringement that you would forward directly to the subscriber matching that address," the RIAA wrote. "You would not identify the subscriber to us. However, we believe if you forward the Notice to them it will dramatically increase awareness and effectively discourage continued infringement."

A music industry official, who asked not to be identified, said the proposed ISP infringement notice is intended to send an early warning to downloaders. Since a large of percentage of music downloading is done by teenagers, the RIAA hoped the notifications, which were to be sent to the account holders, might tip off parents as to their children's possible copyright infringements.

"Our hope is that the voluntary Notice program we are proposing will allow us to work cooperatively to educate the public and to reduce online copyright infringement," the letter states. "Not only will your participation help ensure that a vibrant and legitimate market for online music can succeed, but forwarding a Notice to your subscribers may also save them from becoming defendants in future copyright infringement lawsuits."

The RIAA declined to elaborate on the letter. "We feel the language of the letter speaks for itself," RIAA spokeswoman Amanda Collins said.

ISPs are cautious in their public responses, although all agreed they are under no legal obligation to comply with the RIAA request. The RIAA aknowledged that there is no law requiring the ISPs to send the notification letters.

"We are more than happy to talk with them (RIAA), but it has to as a part of a broader issue," said Verizon (Quote, Chart) vice president and general counsel Sarah Deutsch.

She noted that the RIAA has not said whether it will appeal the Dec. 19 decision to the Supreme Court and that the music trade group is still litigating the authority of the DMCA subpoena in other jurisdictions.

Earthlink (Quote, Chart) spokesperson David Blumenthal said his company would "evaluate the request, talk with the RIAA and decide what we think is best."

Nicholas Graham, a spokesman for AOL, said the company does not discuss "day-to-day letters from the RIAA."

MSN, the online network operated by Microsoft, did not respond to calls from internetnews.com.

ISPs are a communication service, nothing else. What the RIAA is trying to ask the ISPs to do is like MADD forcing the police to stop everyone who drives a tiny bit swervy on the road. The legalities of filesharing aside, I think this is a good move for everyone. If this had not been upheld, it could have set a precedent for some very bad things to come. Imagine the aforementioned MADD group giving out subpoenas to police and security firms, so they could get drunk driver information. Probably the most important ruling from this case is that the DMCA does not give autonomous authority to corporations to become policemen! Maybe now the RIAA will start focusing on making music worth buying instead of suing their customers. :rolleyes:

19th Jan 2004, 01:56 PM
...Maybe now the RIAA will start focusing on making music worth buying instead of suing their customers.

And that is exactly the best way to put an end to filesharing.


19th Jan 2004, 02:27 PM
BA HAHAHAHA. Yeah right. Music industry focusing on making good music...haha...good one...

19th Jan 2004, 03:40 PM
The only music that will continue to get pirated is commercial music.
Search any overhyped rock band on kazaa. millions of hits.
Search any incommercial techno, wich simply owns, no hits(or under 5 hits)
Compare red hot chilli peppers with Stanny Frannssen, compare colplay with deetron, compare muse with Marco Bailey and try to think positive about commercial stuff. ;)

I proudly say that I bought all techno I know (or paid for it due to entrance for events)
I would never pay for any bull**** thats supposed to be rated "simply good" by some moron from my class who has a 15CM high blond afro. :rolleyes:

(though I think I picked the wrong styles to compare in this forum ;) )

edit: As my post seems to look pointless to even me when I re-read it,
morale: I'll pay for the music that deserves it. Real pioneers in music, that actually did something for the music and not solely for the money.
They've got my respect, money if they're any good while at it :p, because they work to earn it through thinking about the music, being creative, being original.
I mean, can you still count how much time the song "under the bridge" has been dubbed by various groups?
Exact same melody, exact same text, the only thing they'll get from me is a rotten tomatoe thrown at their low-life heads.

19th Jan 2004, 04:09 PM

Sorry... I don't understand.

If you're listening to music that someone has made, how is it you think you don't have to pay them for it?

Not you personally, but people in general.

Why are Muse less deserving of earning a living than anyone else?

19th Jan 2004, 04:12 PM
This sort of reminds me of the imperials in Star Wars, trying to take over the galaxy and rule it themselves, and ordering everyone to report a crime to them or they will be arrested. Just, theres no music. Or filesharing. Or lasers, or x-wings, or death stars or...

19th Jan 2004, 04:18 PM
Sorry... I don't understand.
... but I somehow think he means a band of some kind.