Comments for Pirates Rejoice: RIAA Drops Lawsuits, Makes Deal with ISPs

Pirates Rejoice: RIAA Drops Lawsuits, Makes Deal with ISPs

2008-12-19T16:56:25Z

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal this morning, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has finally realized the folly of its anti-piracy strategy and decided to abandon its mass lawsuits against those who share files over P2P networks. This strategy will now be replaces by a three-strikes rule, where ISPs will be notified of infringements by the RIAA. A number of ISPs have agreed to "reduce the service" of these file sharers if they continue to distribute files after receiving a first warning. After a third or fourth warning, the Internet service might be cut off completely. It is not clear which specific ISPs have entered into this arrangement with the RIAA.

]]> One good aspect of this deal is that the ISPs will not have to report the identity of the alleged copyright infringers to the RIAA. This doesn't mean that the RIAA is planning to completely stop its lawsuits, however. According a report by CNET, the RIAA will still sue those who download "5,000 or 6,000 songs a month" (of course, it is important to point out that nobody has ever been sued for downloading files, only for sharing them).

This arrangement was brokered by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and, at its core, resembles the RIAA's deal with a number of colleges.

It's Not that Easy

We are happy to see the flood of lawsuits against file sharers come to an end, but we also think that there are some problems with this plan, which, of course, is mostly geared towards allowing the RIAA to save on legal fees while being able to reach far more people by simply sending an email to an ISP.

More importantly, however, we agree with Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argues that this will mean that people won't be able to access the Internet "based on allegations of breaking a law that have not been evaluated in a court of law."

It is still a bit hard to flully evaluate this deal without knowing the exact details and which ISPs actually agreed to this, but, as most people could have told them a long time ago, the RIAA has clearly decided that its current approach wasn't working, as overall music sales have continued to decline, while file sharing has only increased.

Comment from programs on 2008-12-22

2008-12-22T08:50:45Z

thanks

Comment from Jim Gaudet on 2008-12-20

2008-12-20T15:50:55Z

Copy That:

"More importantly, however, we agree with Cindy Cohn of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argues that this will mean that people won't be able to access the Internet "based on allegations of breaking a law that have not been evaluated in a court of law.""

I agree with this too. Also, I am sure ComCast is the first ISP on the list...

Comment from Phil Glockner on 2008-12-19

2008-12-20T01:13:18Z

I don't think pirates care about this policy change, to be completely honest. They were never really affected by the RIAA's actions.

The people that really should be rejoicing are the ones that don't know enough not to share a folder on the internet that has an MP3 in it. The teenagers who want to listen to an artist before spending their allowance on an overpriced CD or iTunes download. Maybe the people who had a subscription to Kazaa and thought that the RIAA's lawsuit against them protected the customers from being busted (it doesn't).

Finally, on a disappointing note, the RIAA is dropping this very legally questionable and highly unpopular tactic before the legal system was truly tested and judicial decisions made to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Now, as it stands, we won't know.

Some other industry bigwig may do the exact same thing, and get away with it. The MPAA perhaps?

Comment from Matthew Holloway on 2008-12-19

2008-12-19T22:25:22Z

The problem with these 3 strike rules is that it's not 3 strikes in a court of law, it's 3 accusations. The ISP typically has no way of verifying the accusations and of course there's no way to distinguish between genuine copyright infringement vs. hacked WiFi connections or compromised computer (and according to OECD reports 25% of computers are now infected with malware that distributes media without their owners knowledge).

Or as Bronwyn Holloway-Smith said: "The result of [3 strikes] could be that one rogue employee or even one virus infected computer could bring down a whole organisation's internet and it's highly likely that schools, businesses, hospitals, and phone services will be harmed by this."

Here in New Zealand we've just launched:
http://creativefreedom.org.nz/

and our first campaign is against 3 strike LAWS (yes, not friendly cordial agreements, but Guilt Upon Accusation laws that take down internet connections and websites without a trial or due process). I know this sounds absurd but it's unfortunately true, read about that here (lots of quotes from reputable organisations):

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/s92.html

For those not in New Zealand remember that you've got ACTA coming up with will compel ISPs to let companies snoop on your internet connection, again, based on accusations of copyright infringement by without a judicial oversight,

http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html

So please consider these "3 strike rules" as more like 3 Accusations... and with the knowledge that upcoming laws will deprive people of their right to trial.

Comment from KyNam Doan on 2008-12-19

2008-12-19T18:01:31Z

RIAA mixing it up - they can now go after ISPs if they fail to comply. Additionally, ISPs reserve the right to refuse service (I'm assuming so, I don't actually know). This makes it really easy for the RIAA to cut off egregious filesharers.

Smart move RIAA, smart move.