Recording Industry Looking At Bribing ISPs To Side With It Against File Sharing

from the incentives dept

Mon, Jan 19th 2009 1:34pm — Mike Masnick

At the MidemNet event this past weekend, there were multiple discussions concerning the role of ISPs in solving the recording industry's problems. Some believed that ISPs were obligated to be involved, some felt that ISPs should be totally separate, and then there were some viewpoints in between. However, one theme that popped up a few times was the idea that having ISPs acting as enforcers could "open up new business opportunities and revenue streams for the ISPs." That seemed a bit odd, because the ISPs would be spending time trying to crack down on file sharers and would be losing customers. However, now it's becoming clear what may be meant: bribes.

Well, more technically, they're calling it "revenue sharing." Thus, there are reports of ISPs being offered a deal, whereby they have to crack down on file sharing, kicking off file sharers -- but then get a split of any money obtained from music fans who pay up when challenged by an antipiracy company. I'm sure there are some ISPs that would be open to such a thing, but it won't stop a lot of angry users from looking for a more customer friendly ISP. Also, when your whole business model is based on squeezing people who don't have very much money in the first place, it's difficult to see this surviving very long.

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: bribes, isps, riaa

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2009 @ 1:43pm

I fully support any ISP wishing to 'cash in' on this new revenue sharing model on the provision they give up their safe-harbor protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- discojohnson, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re:
  wouldn't they have to since they now police what's on the wire? you can't say "google" "google" "youtube" "kiddie porn" "google" "MP3...gotcha now sucker"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:20pm

In that case
If that is the case I also want a cut of that money for compensation of not having the full bandwidth possible due to the people that are file sharing. But somehow I don't think I am going to get compensated for having to put up with the ISPs inability to upgrade their networks to keep up with demand. I am starting to think that ISPs might really like this idea, Getting paid to kick off the high usage people. It makes the networks look more reasonably sized rather then inadequate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:23pm

Cool idea, only the ISP's and RIAA should have to pay quadruple to the consumer for any false accusation or spurious DMCA take down notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:31pm

Corporate extortion
Yay, now we have a corporate conspiracy/collusion for the purpose of extortion. Too bad they own too many of our politicians to end up in prison where they belong.

Now, not only do you get sued, but your ISP has a vested interest to falsify information to make you look guilty. Since very few of these cases ever go to court, there would be no incentive for them to be honest. The more settlements the RIAA gets, the more money the ISP gets.

And, this fits in with the RIAA's claim to stop filing lawsuits how? If the "revenue stream" for ISPs comes from those lawsuits, what incentive is there for the ISP if the RIAA actually stops the lawsuits.

Last, how did we get to the point where private corporations have the authority to police, sentence, and discipline private citizens with no court oversight? Given the necessity for an internet connection in today's society, shouldn't this be illegal as hell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chuck, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Corporate extortion
  I'm completely agree!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chuck, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:34pm

uh huh...
Just shows that america is just a cash cow that corporations take advantage of milk the american public for all their worth. whats going to stop all those users from making their own "net" with wireless routers and connecting them all across the nation? Are they going to ban wireless networks then? lol. RIAA and MPAA are jokes and if they can't make good products that people want to pay for.. it's their fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason, 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:41pm

Is that even legal?
This sounds like something that should fall under the RICO statute. And I think we can all agree, the RIAA is definitely a corrupt organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
m3mnoch (profile), 19 Jan 2009 @ 2:44pm

bargaining, eh?
this is great news! we're finally to stage 3!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubler-Ross_model

all we've got to deal with now is depression and then finally acceptance.

whew...

m3mnoch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 19 Jan 2009 @ 3:23pm
  
  Re: bargaining, eh?
  Gawd I hope you're right. All this talk is putting a serious harsh on the good vibe I feel after P2P'ing my copies of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2009 @ 4:42pm

let them squeeze. I stopped buying music from the major labels about 8 years ago, and from RIAA member labels about 2 years ago. Worse (for them) I've convinced about a dozen people to either follow suit or seriously curtail major label purchases by turning them on to independent artist and labels. All they are doing is slowly driving their actual paying customer base away. And getting Congress to corrupt copyright to the point they have isn't really going to help much. This country has a long history of totally ignoring bad laws, so much we even went to war with England over it. If they want to know how the War on Copyright is going to turn out, I refer them to the War on Drugs, and how well that worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yasser, 19 Jan 2009 @ 5:49pm

Here we go again!
I don't get how the RIAA doesn't accept that the music industry is evolving. It seems everyone is getting it except them!

BestJobsOnline(NO RIAA JOBS!)
http://tinyurl.com/7uj5ay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Monarch, 20 Jan 2009 @ 5:22am
  
  Re: Here we go again!
  I'm sure they get it. They probably just don't see themselves as a very big factor in the future, unless they hold onto what they have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 19 Jan 2009 @ 6:08pm

RIAA
Seems to me the RIAA is simply appealing to the greed gene found in all businesses. Screw the users we can make some $. After all, where are the users gonna go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 19 Jan 2009 @ 6:47pm

Uh huh
"Thus, there are reports of ISPs being offered a deal, whereby they have to crack down on file sharing, kicking off file sharers -- but then get a split of any money obtained from music fans who pay up when challenged by an antipiracy company."

Yeeeesss.......because that has worked SO WELL so far for music ARTISTS.....wait, whats that? NOT ONE PENNY of litigation income has gone to ANY artist? But....but....the RIAA is suing on BEHALF of the artists! Surely they would share when they win a case! Surely they would do so for ISP's too, right? Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet used to not suck, 19 Jan 2009 @ 6:53pm

Innocent until proven guilty == just a dream
Don't you just love being guilty until payment is received?

Some people still do not understand how the consumer driven market affects their business. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 19 Jan 2009 @ 7:16pm

Pay for squeel?
Note to readers: Please report any ISPs accepting such payments, so their customers may properly punish them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chuck, 19 Jan 2009 @ 11:20pm
  
  Re: Pay for squeel?
  to bad this isn't prison... only 2 reasons someone would squeel and I wish we could implement those measures... lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 20 Jan 2009 @ 2:19am

I wonder which will generate more money... "revenue sharing" from customers who allow themselves to be extorted, or revenue from customers who will desert the ISP once it becomes clear that they are supporting these tactics.

I know I'd cancel my account with any ISP that does this. Not because I'm file sharing, but because I do not wish to be punished for an unsupportable false allegation, which neither the ISPs nor the RIAA seem to have any interest in making sure they're correct before suing/cutting people off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twinrova, 20 Jan 2009 @ 4:14am

I'm very confused!
RIAA: If ISPs are our police force, we won't sue.

ISP: Go to hell, RIAA.

RIAA: But we'll pay you!

If the entire intent for RIAA is to stop suing people, how in the hell can it share monies when they're not going after anyone?

People, it's simple: Tell everyone you know to STOP. BUYING. MUSIC.

This will be the ONLY way to stop the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tristan, 20 Jan 2009 @ 8:54am

ISP + Music Industry = bigger bully
Yeah, so ISP + MUSIC INDUSTRY = BIGGER BULLY

And it won't affect me at all - I see no reason to pirate music, nor purchase it. I don't really need to own licenses to sub-par music, nor do I want to waste storage space on it.

I avoid buying music. Yeah, CD sales dwindle, so what. As far as I'm concerned, the music industry, and the artists that support them don't have what it takes to bring music into the 21st century. Some of today's artists are so unimaginative, they've resorted to writing cheap knock-offs, like Kid Rock's version of "Sweet Home Alabama". Music Industry 1.0 is dead, ladies and gentlemen. Elvis has left the building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brett Glass, 20 Jan 2009 @ 5:18pm

Not a "bribe"
Such payments wouldn't be "bribes;" they'd be compensation for the ISPs' hard work and potential loss of customers and revenues. Stealing intellectual property is wrong, and it's good if artists' rights are enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2009 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re: Not a "bribe"
  Except this will not protect any rights of artists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]