Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan
from the good-for-them dept
While there was big news on Friday concerning the RIAA's supposed plan to stop suing everyone in favor of having ISPs police networks for the RIAA, it seems that some ISPs are clearly not on board with the plan (and, in fact, the details of the plan seem rather lacking). News.com has the story of one smaller ISP that has been responding to every RIAA notification by sending a request back for a billing address where he can send an invoice for the time it takes to respond to takedown requests. For the most part, the RIAA simply ignores these responses, though in some cases its representatives seem to feign ignorance, claiming "In regards to billing, we fail to understand what you mean with that!"At the same time, it appears that Verizon is one large ISP refusing to cooperate. This is not really that surprising, given that Verizon was really the only major ISP to stand up to the RIAA's original campaign of demanding the identity associated with IP addresses without first filing a lawsuit (the end result of which was the RIAA's filing large lawsuits against multiple "john and jane does" in order to get the names). Verizon has also pushed back in the past when other big ISPs like AT&T seemed willing to act as copyright cops for the RIAA.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright cops, filtering, isps
Companies: riaa, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THANK YOU VERIZON!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
by hegemon13 on Dec 23rd, 2008 @ 11:14am
I sure wish Verizon was in my area. I will have to wait and see what Time Warner does.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
*
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Dec 23rd, 2008 @ 11:45am
Warner, Warner... where have I heard that name before...?
Hmmm, maybe just maybe Time Warner will just send the info via internal IM or email to itself. OH NOES!!! Epiphany!!! Time Warner/Road Runner is a subdivion of one of the BIG MEDIA MAFIAA!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes and no, it used to be. But last year (I think) there was a big todo about them buying themselves out. So they are now two separate companies who most likely share a majority of the same board members.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/21/time_warner_cable_spin_off/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a firm files a lawsuit and request discovery from a third party not party to the lawsuit the third party is entitled to compensation for their cost of discovery which one would assume would be at least cost plus 20 to 30%.
What the ISP should do is go to a lawyer have the lawyer write a letter demanding compensation in that amount, file this with the local court in a law suit (this has the effect of transferring the case to a local court since a suit has not been filed yet.) for the cost of discovery and then have the attorney send the RIAA a contract for discovery with all the supporting references and opinions along with a bill for the attorney fees, penalties, and interest in preparing the discovery contract. The suit may not go anywhere but it does place the cost of being away from home on the RIAA when the RIAA has to respond to the discovery suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
What we really need here is quick legislative action to make disconnecting someone or banning them from the internet for any length of time, been directly connected with actual criminal behavior, which file sharing is not. It is a CIVIL offense, not a CRIMINAL, when it is infringement with no commercial gain. Let ALONE the argument between whether making available a file for download truly constitutes infringement.
Ultimately my point is this. They can't prove you are doing anything wrong without first violating your privacy, and to top that all off, they want to be able to determine who gets cut off from the internet and who doesn't. That is very very f-ing dangerous. You give that the recording industry? Who's next, what other IP industries get to protect themselves by severing an individual or entire family from the greatest communications tool? Are we going to let EA decide? How about Microsoft? Apple?
Are you willing to place your trust in their ability to do something that can't be done and use that as the core of a decision on whether or not you get to keep internet access? I am not. Their IP is NOT more important that our freedom. Freedom comes first, it's been bought in blood and paid for with the lives of our ancestors, friends, and families. Err on the side of freedom people, that's the rule to rule by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T makes me sad, but Verizon confuses me...
I thought Verizon terminated the common man's service for asking too many questions.
Verizon, this is quite the conundrum, should people trust you or are you up to inevitable misdeeds against your customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About time
When goods are infinite, so is the effort required to police them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising
You sure about that? I think it is. When ever they have done so, however, I applaud Verizon. I'd be highly skeptical of any altruistic reasons, however. More likely they will be doing it for the same reason as the little mom 'n pop isp in Louisiana; the cost. I'm sure policing their customers for another private concern, not law encforcement, wasn't part of the original business plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope an Attorney didn't say that.
Sounds to me like the RIAA might want to check their invoices. Since their lawyers cannot comprehend it, they sure as heck shouldn't be billing them for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I heart Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bi-Partisan, Politically Correct, Internationally Accepted and from the Heart, Happy Holidays!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here Down Under
Perhaps even more ironic is the fact that they also madethe article available as a torrent (http://iinet.net.au/press/media-releases.html) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what if the figer print
after all what does the RIAA care if VeriZon or some other ISP pisses of their customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterpoint
A letter from RIAA can force the ISP to initiate an investigation against the user, or to send a warning based on no proof.
ISP's will have either violate privacy or pay, to do a warranted search, for illegal files. If the ISP screws up, all fingers, and lawsuits(at the user's expense), point to the ISP.
When the mad ISP's come running to RIAA, they'll just say that the User can be unbanned.
RIAA's long time view of guilty until proven innocent stands, at a cost that's cheaper for them.
ISP's do all the leg and legal work. And cover all the costs to protect themselves. Which get passed on to the user.
User's will have to pay to prove their innocence, Have higher cost for internet, and have no ability to go after the RIAA for wrongful suits.
Verizon can figgure this out, that's why it opposed it. If other ISP's aren't run by someone that can understand this, let them burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama Justice department
[ link to this | view in chronology ]