RIAA Abandons Song Sharing Lawsuits

[Bob Russell]

In a move that is long overdue,

The group representing the U.S. recording industry said Friday it has abandoned its policy of suing people for sharing songs protected by copyright and will work with Internet service providers to cut abusers' access if they ignore repeated warnings.

This ends a practice that may have only made the situation worse with respect to piracy, and most certainly brought undue hardships to families that were under the RIAA legal guns.

With a new policy of warnings and then loss of internet access, maybe we can all focus on reasonable consumer markets for electronic music sales which are actually a good deal for the consumer.

On the negative side, it is unlikely that anyone will have the money, endurance or desire to fight accusations made by the RIAA. In other words, if someone is unjustly accused of sharing copyrighted music, is there any hope? Probably not. Will this lead to heavy handed and unjust control by the RIAA? One can hope that level heads will prevail, and current file sharers will enticed to become legal purchasers, and innocent file sharers (non-copyrighted music, for example) will be left alone.

Does this matter for e-books? Of course... all content buyers win every time we see DRM usage limited, or we see the consumer enabled to make personal copies of content, or we see heavy handed law enforcement become more balanced. It would be impossible for e-book publishers and sellers to ignore the news of the day for a related industry. Maybe in the book world, some of the pain brought about in the music world will bring perspective that allows everyone to win with e-books - before we make pirates out of every good citizen willing to purchase e-book content fairly.

From Yahoo! Tech.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

With a new policy of warnings and then loss of internet access, maybe we can all focus on reasonable consumer markets for electronic music sales which are actually a good deal for the consumer.

I'm hoping that the ISP's will tell them to pound sand. it is not their job or their practice to police the traffic on their service. Just like it isn't right for AT&T to listen in on phone calls that go over their networks. Monitoring packets should be just as illegal as wire tapping!!! The 4th ammendment is still in force in the US, right?

In addition the ISP's can't really do this, because there is no way for them to know what is in a packet if it is encrypted. So, file sharers will just make sure they are using encrypted transport protocols like SSL or encrypted Bittorrent.

BOb

[sianon]

There is a case going before the courts in Australia at the moment where an internet provider (I can't remember which one) is being sued for refusing to sever internet connection for those who are alleged to be repeat offenders. I will do a bit more of a search when I get home from work and post a link. But essentially the provider is arguing that it is not their role to sever a connection when the user has not been found guilty of committing an offence.

Karen

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by sianon

There is a case going before the courts in Australia at the moment where an internet provider (I can't remember which one) is being sued for refusing to sever internet connection for those who are alleged to be repeat offenders. I will do a bit more of a search when I get home from work and post a link. But essentially the provider is arguing that it is not their role to sever a connection when the user has not been found guilty of committing an offence.

Karen

what a refreshing display of good sense.

[kacir]

Do not hold your breath.
They also said that they did not fill any new lawsuit for several months now, yet a simple check says something different
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/136255

Even if this is true, think about it ...
they ACCUSE you three times and you are out. It does not matter that you are innocent, there is no way to appeal the decision of the ISP to disconnect you. And there are no rules for what constitutes a "copyright infringement". You can NOT prove, by principle, that you did not do something. So you lose by default.
What if they do not like this discussion and send three accusations to my ISP tomorrow?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by sianon

But essentially the (Australian) provider is arguing that it is not their role to sever a connection when the user has not been found guilty of committing an offence.

That hasn't stopped American ISP's from severing those connections, even before reliable evidence of a wrongdoing has been presented. I'm just afraid the upshot of this decision is a predilection for ISPs to simply sever connections at the drop of a hat. I smell lawsuits cooking... and boy, are they aromatic...

[nekokami]

I think I'd rather be sued by the RIAA than have to sue them for getting my internet cut off (unjustly, I might add). I don't think it's the ISP's place to be regulating users.

[QueridaNegra]

Legally, the decision to sever an internet connection because of accusations of wrongdoing puts the ISP afoul of the law that makes them a neutral carrier and thus not responsible for what passes over their network. I can't wait for the first time someone sues them/brings them up on criminal charges for child pornography or something - once you censor based on content, you are no longer immune to prosecution.

[sabredog]

That would be iiNet, the ISP I am with.

They are the third biggest provider in Australia and offer a stack of content that is legal and free including streamed TV shows from the federal government owned TV station here.

Big news here as AFACT want ISP's to be the policeman and cut off users who are accused of piracy.

Not big on DRM at all really. Why cannot the Baen Books model be considered by other publishers?

cheers

SD

[sianon]

Originally Posted by sabredog

That would be iiNet, the ISP I am with.

They are the third biggest provider in Australia and offer a stack of content that is legal and free including streamed TV shows from the federal government owned TV station here.

Big news here as AFACT want ISP's to be the policeman and cut off users who are accused of piracy.

Not big on DRM at all really. Why cannot the Baen Books model be considered by other publishers?

cheers

SD

It is indeed iinet, I was stuck for remembering the name of the provider this morning. Hopefully the current legal action will not be successful. The fact that iinet are being targeted makes me wonder if the big two, Telstra and Optus are complying with these unreasonable demands.

Karen

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by sianon

It is indeed iinet, I was stuck for remembering the name of the provider this morning. Hopefully the current legal action will not be successful. The fact that iinet are being targeted makes me wonder if the big two, Telstra and Optus are complying with these unreasonable demands.

Karen

Apparently not. They are fully supportive of iinet as the ramifications to ISP's here would be severe indeed.

AFACT have chosen the third largest ISP to sue thinking their weak evidence is going to survive in a court. They may believe iiNet might capitulate but Michael Malone (CEO) is going to defend vigorously.

The initial court hearing has resulted in the judge instructing AFACT to provide more evidence and data to iiNet.

This broo haha is the tip of the iceberg though. The federal government still want to pursue their pie in the sky national internet filter. The upsurge against this is growing however.

Cheers

SD

[Halo]

Originally Posted by QueridaNegra

Legally, the decision to sever an internet connection because of accusations of wrongdoing puts the ISP afoul of the law that makes them a neutral carrier and thus not responsible for what passes over their network.

No ISP in the US has common carrier status. That's why the US has seen the discussion about network neutrality. The ISPs can do as they wish with their networks including cutting you off at a whim. Read your terms of service sometime. You might be surprised at what it says.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Halo

Read your terms of service sometime. You might be surprised at what it says.

I'm not. Like most US service agreements (TV/cable, phone, internet, satellite radio, etc, etc), all of them reserve the right to shut off your service at an instant's notice, or losing any information of yours that their servers may be storing, without accepting any liability for doing so. It's no wonder that US consumers feel such an adversarial relationship with businesses in general.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kacir

Even if this is true, think about it ...
they ACCUSE you three times and you are out. It does not matter that you are innocent, there is no way to appeal the decision of the ISP to disconnect you. And there are no rules for what constitutes a "copyright infringement". You can NOT prove, by principle, that you did not do something. So you lose by default.
What if they do not like this discussion and send three accusations to my ISP tomorrow?

Exactly. They have no proof of anything, and have been failing miserably in the courts because of this. So, the solution is to get around the whole "innocent until proven guilty" annoyance and target the ISPs directly. It's a lot easier to intimidate an ISP with baseless accusations than it is a judge.