The RIAA’s new scheme to fight music piracy doesn’t sit well with small ISPs. Under the plan, rather than file lawsuit after lawsuit against John and Jane Doe, who may not even exist, the RIAA wants ISPs to cooperate with it by, ultimately, cutting people off from the Internet. That’s not going to happen easily.
Take Bayou Internet and Communications, a small, Louisiana-based ISP. Let’s say one of its users download/upload an RIAA-protected song from Gnutella or BitTorrent. The RIAA will send it a letter, with scant evidence—do you know how easy it is to spoof an IP address?—demanding that the user be warned. There’s a few problems with this scenario. One, again, what actual proof does the RIAA (and those it contracts to find alleged offenders) that this guy downloaded anything? Maybe he downloaded a plain text file called “Beyonce – Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It).mp3” just to be a nuisance. Now you want the small ISP to track this guy down, for free? Matching an IP address to a person takes time, which, if cartoons have taught us anything, equals money.
It’s like, why should the (small) ISP be the RIAA’s secret police force? Let the RIAA do its own dirty work (if it must). And the RIAA wants, as an ultimate punishment, for the ISP to kick the offending customers off the Internet? Ha! That’s money out of the ISP’s pocket, money it cannot afford to lose. Since the ISP is merely a road—what travels down its path is none of its business—why should it be penalized for the alleged misdeeds of its customers?
And then we’re back to square one: how do you effectively combat music piracy?
Not only will the ISP not want to do that because they’ll lose money, if they start doing that they gain legal scrutiny. The only reason they can’t be sued now is because they don’t take a look at traffic and actively profile people’s habits online. You think they are going to open themselves up to legal limbo to facilitate the people that were previously suing them to get records?
Yeah – right.
The RIAA and Directv, each time they sue an innocent person had to lie to the court. Where the person was innocent, it can be nothing but a lie. While the Justice system knows they are lying in in many cases, The justice system does nothing to protect the public. Next time you are a juror or a witness, do what Justice has done and ignore Justice. Jury Nullification is a good start. Let’s see what Justice thinks when they are ignored just like innocent victims are.
A better question would be WHY effectively combat music piracy?
The RIAA would have you believe that music piracy costs it millions every year, but that’s a lie. They haven’t made the case that illegal downloading costs them any more than recording tapes from the radio ever did.
Legal music downloads have drastically reduced record companies’ costs by minimizing inventory, which could be reduced even more if the RIAA and MPAA would embrace burn-on-demand.
Just because someone downloads Britney’s latest single or album does NOT mean that’s $20 lost by the music industry. If we accept that the record company MIGHT have lost $5 on the deal (figure 10 goes to the record store, and production and promotion and inventory costs say another 5) then we can start looking there.
But if we assume a 10% chance that the album would have ever been purchased by the person that downloaded it, then the record company lost 50 cents.
When the record companies figure out that the RIAA is simply ticking off the fans and making a fortune for lawyers, then they’ll shift entirely from lawsuits to, well, things like this with even less chance of succeeding.
Theft is a cost of doing business. If the only way we ever heard your music was to pay for it, you would sell NOTHING.A majority of internet downloading, like internet, broadcast, and satellite radio, should be figured as advertising.
Every time the RIAA sues a person, an angel gets its wings. Merry Xmas to all corporate leeches.