RIAA Abandons Mass Lawsuits in Favor of ISP Deals
The RIAA has attempted to sue approximately 35,000 people since 2003 – some of those suits being downright heartless: suing single mothers, children, and and a dead person. They are now abandoning this backwards policy and striking deals with ISPs – but the devil is in the details, and the fine print that cannot be ignored.
These deals include the RIAA no longer requiring the identities of those found to be sharing files; instead, the RIAA will now send their emails to the ISP and no longer demand identity information. They will effectively be expecting the ISP to be the enforcers. This new system really is just a different way to do the same old thing. Only this time, the ISP will be doing the dirty work. The new policy that the RIAA has brokered with major ISPs is that of “three strikes and your out” – your ISP may now be able deny Internet access you if you are found guilty by the RIAA.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) suggested that the RIAA support a legal Peer-to-Peer Network in their “Let the Music Play” whitepaper. Users pay a small, monthly fee to legally share music files in whatever method suits them. The EFF states that the fee should be less than $10 per month, based on the fees charged by services like Rhapsody and Napster. “The money collected would be distributed among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music.” As long as users pay for the service, they are free to continue to do what they are doing, legally. This type of system has been done before; radio stations pay a fee for a license to broadcast music with whatever equipment works best. ASCAP was created based on these same premises.
I’m a Rhapsody subscriber for a reason, folks.
Do you support this idea? In what ways do you think the fee for this service could be collected, and would you pay it?
Private Domain Registration from GoDaddy is a smart thing to do. When you register a domain, your contact information is immediately made available to anyone who wants to see it. Plus, as a listener of The Chris Pirillo Show, enter code CHRIS1 when you check out, and save an additional 10% on any order. Get your piece of the internet at GoDaddy!
8 Comments
Angsuman Chakraborty
December 20th, 2008
at 4:31pm
Someone in RIAA has finally come to their senses. I think this idea is much better than suing individuals, it simply wasn’t cost effective.
Jonathan Wilson
December 20th, 2008
at 4:38pm
I love the idea of Rhapsody. The only reason I don’t use it is because I think the last time I checked into there service, it was US only. But if they came to Canada, I would most likely pay anywhere between $5 and $20 a month.
To me, subscription deals like Netflix and Rhapsody are cheaper then buying them in stores, and do not have the after effects of getting found doing it illegally with Bit-Torrent or similar options.
But for this kinda service, isn’t practical for people like me that only have 60GB’s a month transfer (combined upload and down). :’(
Rob Russell
December 20th, 2008
at 4:44pm
There’s a story with some clarification on this over at slashdot. From that post:
James Savage
December 20th, 2008
at 5:23pm
I would fully support legal bit torrents for $10 a month. That is easy to pay for. But three strikes? How do they know exactly what you are downloading. I would hate my net to get canceled for Linux ISOs. This seems like it would require heavy analysis of network traffic that would be costly for ISPs. Would it lead to extra fees or is all monitoring done by the RIAA. I guess I don’t know enough about all their methods to fully comment. But I can say the $10 policy sounds good, but will probably never come to pass (its too good to).
Stefan Nuxoll
December 22nd, 2008
at 4:18am
So, instead of filing suits against poor people, they’ll just tell your ISP you’re doing bad things and your ISP will comply, awesome! Now the RIAA is ditching the current legal system (that they were manipulating anyways) and becoming the police themselves, if they say you’re doing something wrong then by gummit you are!
I can’t believe this is happening, and it’s complete crap, the ISP’s that support this don’t deserve my money or yours.
So, overall, no, I don’t think this is a good idea. This will open the floodgates of the RIAA hurting more innocent people, and I’m sure the MPAA and ESA will be soon to follow.
D Lowrey
December 23rd, 2008
at 6:10am
Never understood what the deal with illegally downloading music is. If you have satellite TV…satellite radio or You Tube…why does anyone need to incur the wrath of those “in charge”? With the first two…you can use Open Source software to stream & edit the signal. With You Tube…you can “rip” anything on there with a URL. Can even do this with an Eee netbook & either an external drive or a monster sized jump drive.
Rick
December 23rd, 2008
at 7:31am
What is so freaking hard about understanding that if someone receives property, they needed to pay for it? Otherwise, it’s theft, plain and simple.
Was there some world-wide repeal of the concept of ethics? Should people simply walk up to unattended cars in parking lots, climb in and drive them away simply because they want the cars but can afford to (or simply don’t want to) pay for them?
Do artists, publishers and retailers not deserve to earn the money they have been working hard for, rather than having it stolen out from under them? Do you not deserve to receive the money that you earned by working whatever hours you worked at your job?
I really don’t understand the disconnect between peoples’ desire to possess things and their moral obligation to pay for what they want to possess. It seems really simple to me, something that should be learned by the time you’re 6 years old: you don’t steal; if it isn’t yours, you leave it alone; if something’s for sale, you pay for it; if you don’t you’re a thief.
Cliffystones
December 23rd, 2008
at 1:04pm
Rick,
If it were only that simple. When I own a CD, LP, or even 8-Track of an older tune, do I or do I not own the “rights” to that music? This needs to be cleared up, but I believe the US Supreme Court did have a ruling that stated pretty much that you can copy your own music for your own personal use.
So if I own the LP, but don’t want to go through the hassle of digitizing it myself, am I stealing if I partake of someone else’s labor of digitizing the same LP? I don’t know that answer myself, just being rhetorical for discussion’s sake here.
“Do artists, publishers and retailers not deserve to earn the money they have been working hard for, rather than having it stolen out from under them?”
Well, good point, and I agree to a point. But Michael Jackson owns the right to the Beatles catalog (or did) and Elvis is dead and buried! So when is the “work” finally compensated for fairly?
Drug companies who develop miracle drugs have a set window of time before by law their product becomes “generic” (aka “public domain”), so why should some fat-cat in the year 2056 make one damned red cent off of a tune that was written and recorded a century before?
For me the RIAA has to do some real good explaining to justify the current “creative rights” protection racket.