Two Years After The RIAA Suggested ISPs Were Ready To Implement 3 Strikes, Most ISPs Have No Such Plans
from the lies-the-riaa-tells dept
It's been a little over two years since the RIAA dropped its strategy of suing music fans for sharing files online -- a strategy that was an unequivocal disaster for the record labels. Of course, when the news came out, the RIAA suggested that the reason they had done so was because of a backroom deal with various ISPs to implement three strikes plans. And yet, here we are, two years later with no major ISP having put in place such a policy. Greg Sandoval has been following this story closely, and his contacts at most of the major ISPs indicate no interest in putting in place such policies, and a widespread recognition that the ISPs have enough lobbying clout to push back on the RIAA if necessary.There have been some smaller ISPs who do seem to be using a modified three strikes policy, but without the major players, it's really not that widespread. Of course, it's notable that Sandoval says his sources expect Comcast to put in place a three strikes plan once its merger with NBC Universal is done, and suddenly it decides that protecting obsolete business practices is more important than kicking off your own customers. Either way, this is notable in seeing one place where the RIAA may have actually met its match. Two years ago, the group acted as if three strikes was inevitable. Even in Sandoval's latest article, he notes:
Executives from entertainment companies brush all the bad news aside. They say the same thing they've said for two years: Just wait. They say there's a big announcement from some of the major ISPs coming around the corner.But they've been suggesting that for two years now, and at some point you have to question if there's anything to back that up. Perhaps the RIAA is just so used to getting its way that it doesn't know how to react when it runs into an even stronger lobbying organization.
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: isps, three strikes
Companies: comcast, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ISP's v. 3-strike
The first lawsuits based on "internet as a common necessity in modern life" will be filed immediately, claiming that the so-called contractual agreement does not trump legal due process for a basic need.
It will be fun to watch the fireworks -- and now's the time for a legal startup specializing in suing the RIAA for legal costs, as a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISP's v. 3-strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ISP's v. 3-strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISP's v. 3-strike
I don't think there will be many lawsuits over disconnection and I'm really hoping that Comcast does implement a 3 strikes policy. For some reason I can just hear all of the execs at Verizon and ATT salivating at the thought.
The telcos have been trying to regain their lost customers for years and Comcast/NBC could give them a better weapon. Now that the telcos have a TV offering and fiber just waiting for all those disconnected customers this would be the best thing that could happen for the telcos.
Comcast merging with NBC is a great score when it comes to content, but disastrous when you look at how a content company will want to work with a broadband provider. I'd start looking to buy Verizon and ATT stock once the 3 strikes announcement is made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahahahaha
yes, in Masnick's dream world, copyright and intellectual property are obsolete.
If there was an invisibility cloak in real life, as there can be online, I wonder if Masnick would tell all grocery stores to drop their "obsolete business practices" because of their losses from shoplifting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And as for grocery stores...now you're equating me downloading a file with me going into a store and nicking a cabbage?
Imagine you run a supermarket. There is a high theft rate in your store. You could strip search all of your customers on their way out the door; only at first, you have so many customers, that there are many false identifications of guilt. Real customers who are playing by the rules are affected: they can't get out the door and half the time, your overzealousness identifies them as having stolen the goods they bought. Not only that, once you've accused them three times (ACCUSED, not found guilty in a court of law) suddenly, they find they're no longer allowed in ANY grocery store. Now how long do you think it is before you lose all your customers, all because you were worried about theft?
See what I mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is tangible and real. "Losses" from "piracy" are not.
Are you going to answer my questions yet, you disingenuous moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, but believe it or not, I have a life. Making music, no less.
Just so all you little parasites can sit in your parent's house and rip it off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know I've asked you this before, and you've always ignored it, but I feel compelled to ask this again. You come here and repeatedly attack me (with factually false claims, of course), and you complain that the musicians you work with are losing money due to your recommended strategy.
Yet, the musicians following the strategy I've suggested seem to be making more money than they ever did in the past, and seem pretty damn happy about it all. They're making more music and making more money.
And yet, you feel the need to attack me and call me a pirate defender. But I have to ask, given that your strategy clearly is not working, and mine is, at what point do you actually start trying to adapt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know you're under the narcissistic delusion that you somehow invented the idea of personalized promo, but you didn't, and I'm very familiar with its uses, thanks very much.
You constantly refuse to admit that artists are hurt monetarily by piracy, and you constantly defend the sites that rip them off, even when you know they're guilty. You're a piracy apologist of the worst kind.
You are going to lose the bet you made with me, and you know it.
But I will offer you a settlement, if you like. If you want to donate $2000 to MusiCares right now, I'll promise never to bring up the subject of the seizures again.
If you don't want to settle? When you lose the bet, I assure you that you will never hear the end of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good for you. I'm not sure what the point of bringing that up is.
I know you're under the narcissistic delusion that you somehow invented the idea of personalized promo, but you didn't, and I'm very familiar with its uses, thanks very much.
I have never suggested, implied, claimed or otherwise stated that I came up with any of this. Why would you lie? In fact, I've often noted that if you look back at history, this has worked throughout history.
You constantly refuse to admit that artists are hurt monetarily by piracy, and you constantly defend the sites that rip them off, even when you know they're guilty. You're a piracy apologist of the worst kind.
We have discussed this before, and I'm not sure why you continue to lie. I do not defend piracy. I have never "pirated" anything. I buy an awful lot of music.
As for "refusing to admit that artists are hurt monetarily by piracy," that's because we've seen that it's not true. What is true is that artists WHO DO NOTHING to change their business model in the face of piracy are hurt. I'll gladly concede that point (and have in the past). You've admitted that this is your strategy, and it's why the bands you work with have failed.
At the same time, what we have seen is that the bands who have embraced these new models and used "piracy" to its advantage have done much better than they did before. And that proves the point: it's not "piracy" that's the problem. It's how you react to it.
So, yes, if you sit there and do nothing, "piracy" will hurt you monetarily. But only if you sit there and don't adapt. Which you've admitted is your strategy.
What I'm asking -- and what you still haven't answered -- is why you refuse to adapt and why you then falsely attack me?
If I'm such a defender of ripping off artists -- as you claim -- why am I helping artists make more money than they have in the past? It makes no sense. And, if your solution is so great, why are you complaining about how the bands you work with are all failing?
Why can't you answer a simple question?
You are going to lose the bet you made with me, and you know it.
This is a totally unrelated subject. I find it funny that you keep bringing it up for no reason. And I most certainly do not "know" that I will lose the bet. I find it highly unlikely that I will lose it, because, as we've shown, the evidence that DHS used for the seizures was faulty, and they failed to meet the necessary standard for such a seizure. I find it quite unlikely that I will lose the bet.
In the meantime, I'm sort of surprised that you still have never agreed to the flipside of the bet: which is that if I'm right, you'll donate $500 to the EFF.
But I will offer you a settlement, if you like. If you want to donate $2000 to MusiCares right now, I'll promise never to bring up the subject of the seizures again.
Why would I care if you bring up the seizures again? It's amusing watching you flail about in those discussions (though, thankfully, you seem to have finally realized that Arcara has nothing to do with this case, after you repeated it like a mantra, despite multiple *lawyers* telling you why it didn't apply).
If you don't want to settle? When you lose the bet, I assure you that you will never hear the end of it.
Unlike some people, I am not afraid of speech. You are free to say whatever you would like.
In the meantime, would you finally answer my questions? Let me simplify it for you:
If the strategy I suggest is making artists more money, and the strategy you have embraced is making you less money, why are you attacking me for harming and ripping off musicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's the one not listening or understanding? YOU.
2. Of course I will make the donation to EFF if the seizures are overturned, I've already said that.
But they won't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's more to it than personalized promo. If that's all you think there is, you're doing it wrong. The fact that you consistently use the term "freetards," and falsely claim I support "piracy" and "ripping off musicians" makes it pretty clear that you're doing it wrong. It makes it pretty clear that you're attacking many of your best fans, rather than giving them what they want and offering them additional scarcities. The fact that you diminish offering them valuable scarcities by calling it "personalized promo" highlights the root of the problem.
What have you done to connect with your fans? What kinds of scarce reasons to buy have you offered them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "Freetards" comment is very telling:
This is for the "freetards" in Europe - Something we can't get in the US because of copyright law. Spotify is a valid service that wants to work in the US, but sadly copyright law prevents it. MORE artists are being discovered through tools, not less.
While our friend here is constantly attacking the tools, I sincerely hope that we can show that innovation will eventually win out rather than the name calling that is currently going on with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, prove that you work in the music industry. You keep saying that the sky is falling, but so far, Atlas seems to still be moving. So do the four elephants on the back of the giant turtle, the Great A'Tuin. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just sayin....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You made it, you are not going to anymore.
Because me and others just don't like you that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First: since I met your challenge to prove that I am a paying customer who buys music, movies, games and books legally, are you going to address me in a civil manner and accept that I am not a "pirate"? If so, are you willing to partake in a civil discussion about how I, as a paying customer, have a great many problems with the way copyright is enforced and entertainment is distributed, and have many ideas that would allow me to spend more money on legal product. Or, are you going to continue to pretend that only "pirates" have real problems with the current system?
Secondly: you claim to be a musician and represent musicians, but as far as I am aware you've never named yourself nor those you claim to represent. Is this because you are lying, or because you're embarrassed to have your comments here associated with those recordings? If not, why not name the recording artists in question and allow those present here to either discover (and buy) their music or boycott them. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that any person that wishes to remain anonymous here is somehow vilified is BS. You can either agree with the concepts I espouse or disagree. My personal information is irrelevant; especially as long as there are others that share my view. There are others, I happen to know there are, and that's all I care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not willing to partake in a civil discussion with anyone. You rest on your own faulty assumption that everybody who disagrees with you is a "pirate" and refuse to have a civil discussion with those who prove they're not, because that undermines your faulty worldview. It is so much more easy to rest on easy assumptions and insult strangers than to face reality, isn't it?
Meanwhile, you expect everybody to simply take your word that you are involved in the music industry, and accept your faulty assumptions because you are somehow an "expert", despite not being willing to offer any proof of that fact.
One of us is a fraud, a liar and a fool, and it's not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Add that to the list of things you're wrong about then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of the people here are freetards. They download music illegally and come to this board every day to defend the status quo of the current piracy environment. I'll argue with them all I want.
I couldn't care less if you believe I'm a music professional or not. It doesn't change the reality that I am indeed one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And get rightfully plastered everytime since you can offer no single shred of evidence that most people here are freetards.
I couldn't care less if you believe I'm a music professional or not. It doesn't change the reality that I am indeed one.
Nor does it change the fact that your so called pirates don't give a rat's ass about you whinings nor bought for laws and will continue to copy stuff be it over internet or sneakernet. Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Less than 2 hours ago, you attacked me for being a "freetard" despite the fact that I've talked for years about the issues I have whenever buying legal content, and provided proof when challenged that I am a paying customer. Since you were so completely and utterly wrong about me, why should it not follow that you're also wrong about many of the other people you attack on regular basis?
"I couldn't care less if you believe I'm a music professional or not. It doesn't change the reality that I am indeed one."
It wouldn't matter whether you were really a musician or not, but you seem to expect everyone to treat your arguments as gospel because you're a musician. So far, we only have your word that you are what you claim you are, and you're not even willing to create a login so people can keep track of your arguments (I still have no idea what this supposed bet with Mike was about). Why should we take anything you say seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's silly to even debate it.
The bet I have with Masnick is that the recent ICE seizures will stand; he believes they will not.
If I am correct, he donates $500 to MusiCares.
If he is correct, I donate $500 to the EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm... I've re-read the thread and I don't see anybody claiming to download illegally - maybe you can point them out? I see a few people discussing how piracy is an inevitable reality and noting that those who fail to adapt will die. But, that's not the same as either defending or participating in it.
"The bet I have with Masnick is that the recent ICE seizures will stand; he believes they will not.
If I am correct, he donates $500 to MusiCares.
If he is correct, I donate $500 to the EFF."
Thank you. Although, once again, I have to note that you could quite easily create a login that would allow people to follow things like this without having to ask, at no risk to your anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, so just because I simlpy stated the (rather obvious) FACT that pirates are not a least impressed by
- your whinings
- your threats
- your bought for laws
I am the freetard? Talk about shooting the messenger, dumbtard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is like denying global climate change, you know it is going to happen, you know there is nothing you can do about it and still you deny it and somehow hope it will survive the change.
You see your shelter is not good enough and you don't do nothing about to make it better instead you use more of the same technology that is obsolete and will not shelter you at all.
Another analogy is flooding.
You see it coming and instead of diverting it or getting out of the way somehow you believe you will survive the flood standing still.
You don't try to contain the flood waters, you work to build something that will divert it.
Filesharing is just a flood of data you are never going to contained it but you can divert that flood so it is useful to you.
Did anyone ever saw a happy ending to someone that refused to adapt to his environment?
There is a reason people call labels dinosaurs, they all know it instinctively what it is going to happen that is why copytards get so angry they now the gravy is over for them and they don't know what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am pretty sure the EFF is going to get involved on the hip hop blog side, and the guy from torrent-finder.??? has hired a lawyer. So not much hope if the seizures are challenged on first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment basis they will fail to stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But don't worry your destiny is EMI style.
When nobody want to listen to you anymore you will need to come to the freetard camp anyways.
You think people will pay you crazy people to abuse them for how long exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
libel
Right, so just because I simlpy stated the (rather obvious) FACT that pirates are not a least impressed by
- your whinings
- your threats
- your bought for laws
I am the freetard? Talk about shooting the messenger, dumbtard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: libel
Paul- look above and below your response. See them there? Freetards.
Mike, we could really need an edit button for the first 5 mins after a post or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've reported this comment because it uses an obsolete word for people with learning difficulties as an insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've reported this comment because it uses an obsolete word for people with learning difficulties as an insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it's not an invisibility cloak - it's a replicator that enables you to make copies of the stuff in the shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if grocery stores sold a product that it was effortless to steal and the risk of getting caught was so low that it was considered risk free, then yes i would strongly encourage a grocery to stop selling that product.
recorded media is a product that is effortless to obtain illegally, the illegal product is vastly superior in quality, features, and convenience when compared to the legal variety, and it gets distributed on a global scale by people with practically zero chance of being punished.
why on earth is anyone still selling recorded media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you think that instead of buying infrared goggles for their security guards, grocery stores (and banks, and jewelry stores, and so on) should lobby to make optical camouflage illegal, and hope that that will stop people from using it to rob them?
Personally, in a world with real "invisibility cloaks" available, I'd consider running a store without any way to detect invisible people to be an obsolete business practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now the best part, the RIAA don't even have the public to rally for them, they absolutely are powerless to do anything and people will just wait for all of them to die, which is happening faster then I expected, labels are failing from the sky like flies, while free alternatives are popping up fast.
If you didn't, go to Jamendo now!
So you can forget about the a-holes that populate the other side of the fence.
The face of the new artists that will survive "file sharing":
http://www.bradsucks.net/live/
He got:
- An online store.
- He has an interactive map saying where he is going to be.
- He distributes his music through free channels, that attract people to the online store and live gigs.
- Yes he sells t-shirts LoL (what is the world if we can't laugh at things?)
More importantly he is grateful for having fans at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The risks of greater abuses under that sort of scenerio made it easier for the ISPs to not get dragged into a 3 strikes policy. They instead really want the government to rule, and then follow those rules. Net Neutrality (FCC version) doesn't do anyone any good.
Now with the Republican'ts running at least part of the show, with their generally pro-business stand points, I think that there may be more pushing from the ISPs to get something done to strengthen their positions, and perhaps give them leeway to take on the issue of P2P traffic, as it is very burdensome for their bottom line to support.
Political climate really does have a whole lot to do with what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get...
What is more at issue is a mentality. There is a whole generation (and I suspect you are part of it) that is in the 13 to 25 year old bracket right now, that has grown up without the concept of paying for music, except as something "stupid people do". Social pressure, peer pressure, and peer exposure has changed this group's view of how to obtain and listen to music. They have huge Ipods and MP3 players with tens of thousands of songs on them, few if any of them paid for. They all rush to go online to their favorite secret P2P places to try to be the first to download the latest auto-tune masterpiece. None of them considers to rush to a record store or to Itunes to buy it. They all rush to download it for free. Only suckers pay for music.
When you look at how many years it has taken to convince the majority of people that drinking and driving is bad, and look at how many people are still hurt and killed by drunk drivers, you will understand that technical means are not enough. There was profound social change when Napster came around, and there will be profound social change when the internet is no longer quite as free as it has been (and that change is already coming... consider the implications of the Sandy Bridge series of graphics processors (release noted here http://mashable.com/2011/01/05/intel-unveils-its-next-generation-core-processors-live/ ). These are high end graphics that everyone will want, and they are also DRM enabled. Change is coming down the road, where people will trade off "free content" for "incredible performance"), and will leave the piracy to a significantly smaller group of people.
The times they are a-changing, but TD hasn't noticed yet. The golden age of get it all for free is soon to be over. Someone else referred to them as "freetards", and I think their day in the sun is all be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
Encryption will fix that. Steganography can lend a hand to make P2P traffic seem more innocent too.
"What is more at issue is a mentality. There is a whole generation (and I suspect you are part of it) that is in the 13 to 25 year old bracket right now, that has grown up without the concept of paying for music, except as something "stupid people do""
I resent that. I pay for music. But I also understand that, those that choose not to adapt will die. Natural selection works, and I have no sympathy toward those who (stupidly) try to row against the tide.
"consider the implications of the Sandy Bridge series of graphics processors (release noted here http://mashable.com/2011/01/05/intel-unveils-its-next-generation-core-processors-live/ ). These are high end graphics that everyone will want, and they are also DRM enabled"
Two things:
1- HDCP was developed by Intel. It was cracked. Nuff said.
2- Good Luck pushing that hardware to every user. My humble dual core 3GHZ can handle everything I throw at it. I won't be changing any time soon and I suspect neither will people in general. There are other chip manufacturers that aren't quite as stupid (and can do long division properly, wink wink, nudge nudge).
"Change is coming down the road, where people will trade off "free content" for "incredible performance"), and will leave the piracy to a significantly smaller group of people."
Moore's law is dying slowly. Current hardware performance is acceptable and, unlike 10 years ago, you don't need to upgrade your computer every 3 month just to "try" to keep up with technology. People WILL NOT trade a tiny performance upgrade for their freedom.
Also, in this day and age, "incredible performance" is slowly being traded for cloud-like applications. Everything is moving away from local computers and more into the Internet. Therefore, soon, you won't need a super computer at home anymore. And, unfortunately for you, it will be even easier to *gasp* share stuff.
"The golden age of get it all for free is soon to be over. Someone else referred to them as "freetards", and I think their day in the sun is all be done."
The Internet was born to exchange information. The moment it stops being able to do that, it dies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
HDCP is already broken so extra security at any other stage of the process is moot.
You need to re4ad the Argonne Security Maxims
esp. The Arrogance Maxim and the Ignorance is Bliss maxim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
"On technical terms, they can (and have in the past) made P2P hard."
Then why is it constantly increasing? Why is it still so easy?
"What is more at issue is a mentality."
I love this paragraph. Groaning about the damn kids, making unfounded assumptions about who you're talking to, and seeing everything in black & white only. Nobody pays for some music and downloads other music, no sir, it's all or nothing!
"There was profound social change when Napster came around"
...and here's the crux of your misunderstanding. The point is this: there was NO social change. People have been sharing music for all of history, and copying it as soon as that was possible. Everybody who grew up in the 70s and 80s witnessed tape trading, which changed to CDs in the 90s. When I couldn't afford to buy music when I was a young kid, I just taped it from the radio. That didn't stop me paying for it when I started earning money.
The only thing that Napster did was to remove the barriers that stopped people from accessing everything they wished. Only one of those barriers was cost and, 12 years later, the morons running the show still haven't worked out that they need to remove the other barriers. Fighting "piracy" won't work while the "pirates" still offer a superior product to most people. They need to try the carrot along with the stick for a change...
"These are high end graphics that everyone will want, and they are also DRM enabled."
1. There is no such thing, and never will be any such thing as unbreakable DRM.
2. For this to be even remotely effective, everybody has to have one. While non-DRMed processors exist, people will just use them to "pirate". In the meantime, the DRM will only inconvenience legal users, and increase the demand for a crack. It will be broken long before it has the chance to be effective.
3. I don't want them. I suspect many others don't care either, just as many don't care about 3D, Blu-ray and other new technologies.
"The times they are a-changing, but TD hasn't noticed yet."
Funny, I see TD report on it every single day. The tides just aren't going in the direction that you and your ilk seem to wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Then why is it constantly increasing? Why is it still so easy?
Actually, P2P traffic isn't increasing as it was, that is first off. The reasons why it isn't "working" is because there have been objections based on issues of Net Neutrality. Otherwise, companies such as comcast would have long since turned the power up on full time deep packet inspection and detection methods, and would have slowed P2P to a crawl. They did it before, and they did it again.
As for someone else's suggestion that encryption would fix it, you need to understand that these things aren't just based on what is in the packet, but things like packet velocity, direction, connections, and the like. You can try to hide the stuff as encrypted port 80 traffic, but in the end, the patterns are wrong and easily detectable. It isn't just one sort of thing that makes the traffic detectable.
The point is this: there was NO social change. People have been sharing music for all of history, and copying it as soon as that was possible. Everybody who grew up in the 70s and 80s witnessed tape trading, which changed to CDs in the 90s. When I couldn't afford to buy music when I was a young kid, I just taped it from the radio. That didn't stop me paying for it when I started earning money.
There is still significant social change. When you taped it from the radio (and many of us did, including me) you traded off quality and completeness for having something to listen to. You usually had to chop it off to avoid station promos and overruns to the next song. There was plenty of motivation to buy the real thing, because what you had was an inferior copy, with poorer, compressed sound quality.
Now, the copies are perfect, FLAC, lossless, sometimes better than what is sold online and on the CD. It is endless, it is fast, and it is free. Once you have the perfect copy, there is no reason to buy one. A whole generation has learned this well. Now they don't buy.
In the meantime, the DRM will only inconvenience legal users, and increase the demand for a crack.
Actually, it is the lead in for a new service that Intel will be pushing for content delivery. It is something that is coming, like it or not. As more and more of it goes "to the cloud", the content will be controlled as such.
Funny, I see TD report on it every single day. The tides just aren't going in the direction that you and your ilk seem to wish.
This is the funniest comment of all, it is a self-contradictory statement. If TD isn't talking about it (and they are not, except to make derogatory comments about the ideas), then you will never know about it. TD doesn't address issues that go against the grain, unless they have some way to run it down and point out some glaring error that is often meaningless. So if you are using this place as an indication of the tide, you aren't getting the whole story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
You're yet to offer a response to me that doesn't consist of unsubstantiated opinion. Please, prove me "wrong" with facts whenever you wish to present them.
"Actually, P2P traffic isn't increasing as it was, that is first off."
Which probably has nothing to do with the measures taken against it, but rather that everybody who wants to use it already is.
"The reasons why it isn't "working" is because there have been objections based on issues of Net Neutrality."
Which is a very, very good thing.
"When you taped it from the radio (and many of us did, including me) you traded off quality and completeness for having something to listen to."
So? It was still an infringing activity. Nice of you to admit that you used to pirate for the same basic reasons that today's kids do, though.
"Now, the copies are perfect, FLAC, lossless, sometimes better than what is sold online and on the CD."
Hmmm... a total misconception and an identification of one of the things wrong with the industry!
First off, while FLAC is available, most people don't care that much. They'd rather have the small file size of a 128/192k MP3 than the higher sound quality. Most people listen to music via computer/TV speakers or earbuds, so they wouldn't notice the difference anyway.
But, still, don't you see the problem here? The labels are the ones with the original masters, the "pirates" aren't. So, why the hell are the "pirates" offering higher quality merchandise? If people "pirate" to get the FLAC, that's a failing of the labels for not offering it for sale.
"A whole generation has learned this well. Now they don't buy."
So, nobody who came of age post-Napster ever buys music? The only people who buy music are those who grew up pre-Napster? Do you have a cite, or is that just pulled from your arse again?
"Actually, it is the lead in for a new service that Intel will be pushing for content delivery. It is something that is coming, like it or not. As more and more of it goes "to the cloud", the content will be controlled as such."
...and if people don't want their product? Besides, I notice that you didn't address the rest of my point (that it will be cracked within the time that it takes to reach a point where it is effective).
"TD doesn't address issues that go against the grain, unless they have some way to run it down and point out some glaring error that is often meaningless. So if you are using this place as an indication of the tide, you aren't getting the whole story."
Please give an example of an issue that was ignored by TD, but indicates that the tide is turning in the way you think it is. Preferably with provable facts, not opinions or estimates of what some industry shill thinks should be happening, rather than what is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
"Actually, P2P traffic isn't increasing as it was, that is first off."
Which probably has nothing to do with the measures taken against it, but rather that everybody who wants to use it already is.
You make this too easy. You said it was going up, now you admit it's going down. Waffle much?
So, nobody who came of age post-Napster ever buys music? The only people who buy music are those who grew up pre-Napster? Do you have a cite, or is that just pulled from your arse again?
You are attempting to create an absolute where none is implied. Some of them buy music. Some of them watch 30 year old episodes of MASH. That doesn't make it mainstream. The vast majority of the younger age just don't see music as something to buy. TD is on about it all the time, that the music industry is being propped up by older people who still buy music, not the younger generation.
Please give an example of an issue that was ignored by TD, but indicates that the tide is turning in the way you think it is.
The best example is that concert ticket sales dropped in 2010, 12% or more, and concert ticket prices in 2011 are forecast to drop dramatically. That doesn't even touch issues like cancelled tours due to lack of sales, and so on.
Another great example was the increase in recorded music sales as reported by BMI for the year. That was brushed off as an aberation. It may be an indication that things have changed.
There is plenty of stuff out there that is contrary to the goals of TD. They never make it onto TD, or if they do, they are immediately dismissed as shill information. It's not surprising to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
You are making a statement about the beliefs of 'the vast majority of the younger age'?
There is absolutely no evidence to back this statement up. There couldn't be.
How can an adult (I assume you are an adult?) make such an obviously vacuous claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
I learned how to do it on TD. Many of the posts here are based on it.
My comments are based on experiences I have in dealing with people in that group (many of them) and realizing they all feel the same way. They actually get mad at me if I want to buy music. They tell me I am stupid, "nobody pays for that stuff".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Hmmm... I don't see where I said it was going down. I agreed that it "wasn't increasing as it was", which in my mind is consistant with the fact that the increase has slowed. Where did I say it was going down?
"You are attempting to create an absolute where none is implied."
But, you did imply it, whether you intended to or not.
"TD is on about it all the time, that the music industry is being propped up by older people who still buy music, not the younger generation."
IF that is true (citation please), it may not be due to downloads. You claim that young people simply download instead of buying. That's a positive claim you're yet to back up, while there's many explanations other than "they're downloading instead of paying".
"The best example is that concert ticket sales dropped in 2010"
Strange. I thought we were discussing your claims about P2P, and you present an argument about concert sales? Vaguely related, I suppose, but I don't see how that's related to your claim that "The golden age of get it all for free is soon to be over". But, to address your point anyway...
"12% or more"
I'd heard a much lower figure. Once again, I'd be interested in a cite for your figures if you have one.
"That doesn't even touch issues like cancelled tours due to lack of sales, and so on."
Wait a second. How? How can figures for a drop in sales not include drops due to cancelled events?
"Another great example was the increase in recorded music sales as reported by BMI for the year."
Amusingly, I've answered this point in an earlier thread. P2P, as far as I'm aware, did not drop significantly in the UK in 2009 (the period that the figures reported covered). What did happen, however, was that toward the end of 2008, 7digital was finally allowed to sell from all major labels, Amazon was finally allowed to offer MP3s to UK customers and Spotify was launched.
An interesting correlation, and one that depended on the labels actually servicing their customers instead of "cracking down" on "piracy". The point I've been trying to make all along, while you morons accused me of "piracy".
"There is plenty of stuff out there that is contrary to the goals of TD. They never make it onto TD, or if they do, they are immediately dismissed as shill information. It's not surprising to see."
Then cite something that's actually relevant to the P2P discussion you started, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
I'd heard a much lower figure. Once again, I'd be interested in a cite for your figures if you have one.
I had the story, submitting it to TD, and it got ignored. I didn't bookmark it.
However, poking around can find you stories like:
http://www.chartattack.com/news/2010/nov/04/concert-attendance-among-youth-down-by-more-tha n-half
or
http://eveningbox.com/2010/12/north-america-concert-attendance-down-244/
or
ht tp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/concert-promoters-cut-ticket-prices-65795
"In fact, concert attendance fell 12 percent in the first half of 2010 compared to the same period a year ago, according to trade magazine Pollstar."
I hope this helps you out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
"fell 12 percent in the first half"
Hmmm... yes... in the FIRST HALF. What about the second half? Only one of your links even considers the entirety of 2010. Not only that, but the very next paragraph in the quoted article offers an explanation that has nothing to do with your preferred assumption of piracy causing all the problems:
"North American concert ticket prices rose from an average $26 in 1996 to a peak of $67 in 2008, an increase four times faster than inflation"
Hmmm... wonder why prices might be dropping during a major depression?
The other 2 links you post are pretty much opinion pieces, It's telling that you link to blog posts as cites, rather than the primary sources. Even accepting that, the figures claimed between the three of them vary wildly. A poor citation, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
But you knew that, right?
The other 2 links you post are pretty much opinion pieces, It's telling that you link to blog posts as cites, rather than the primary sources. Even accepting that, the figures claimed between the three of them vary wildly. A poor citation, really.
So good enough for TD posts, but not good enough in the comments? Wow, nice double standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
If you're talking about the eveningbox.com link, that's pretty light on information. They don't link their sources, but refer to Billboard, suggesting that they're only looking at major label tours rather than the industry as a whole. They only talk about North American tours rather than worldwide (some major artists did tours that didn't visit North America), and there's no indication of methodology. I also have no idea who Eveningbox are, so I'm not prepared to take their claims at face value.
Do you have any actual figures, or just blog posts you found in a half-assed Google search?
I also can't help but notice that - yet again - you refuse to answer the main points I raise. In this case, you still have not presented me with any information regarding P2P, which was what the discussion was originally about.
"So good enough for TD posts, but not good enough in the comments? Wow, nice double standard."
Mike usually links to pieces that at least link back to their sources. Besides, when did TD tell me I was "wrong"? You made this claim, and I'm asking you to prove it. Blog posts commenting on other blog posts that contain no links back to where data came from are not good enough to do that.
In response to my challenge for you to prove me "wrong" about P2P, you presented me with 3 blog posts about concert tickets, pretending they prove something about 2010 revenue (irrelevant to our original discussion). Not only that, but you claimed that they proved something about the 2010 market, while only one of those posts even considers the full 2010 market vs. the 2009 market. No, that's not good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
I will try to be civil since you clearly don't understand the tech behind it.
Deep packet inspection is a fingerprinting system based on statistics that don't reach 70% in the best case scenario against encrypted traffic, so it is not easily detectable and that claim is just hilarious to people in the field.
The faster way to cripple statistic analysis one just need to do multiple things at the same time and bye bye your deep packet inspection capabilities to detect anything, the easy way to do it is just to start playing some online radio and voila, deep packet inspections that cost millions is now worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Deep packet inspection in and of itself isn't the be all and end all, but part of the process.
Basically, you can run, but you can't hide. The people pushing P2P protocols know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Only those people are trying to seel that snake oil product to others.
Because if you had any understanding of network traffic you would know that patterns in traffic can be changed rendering your precious deep packet inspection useless.
Not only people can hide it, they can make it so that you don't know who is sending what to whom.
Ever heard of TOR? Retroshare, Share, Winny, StealthNet, GNUNet, I2P, Freenet, Netsukuku, Osiris, Omemo, Herbivore(that was created to counter-act the government Carnivore) and others?
Care to explain how deep packet inspection helps in those cases, please make me laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Deep packet inspection in and of itself isn't the be all and end all, but part of the process.
I think you have all of the answer there. Each of these "products" would have their own unique finger print of activity, packet size, velocity, connection points, etc. It isn't simple, it isn't just "oh look, there goes a p2p packet", but it is pretty much as plain as the nose on your face when you see it.
... and no, I don't sell deep packet equipment. But I have seen it in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Not what security researches found out recently.
Source:Wired: Flaws Spotlighted in Tor Anonymity Network
If DPI can magically identify encrypted traffic tell us all how it will identify traffic that is obfuscated?
Source:Wikipedia
Traffic Analysis will ultimately lead to people using filler packets to make the stream uniform defeating your precious DPI.
It will be bad for ISP's to keep pushing this, because they will need to invest more to keep pace with the demand.
Bet you didn't thought of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
If the army can hide what makes you think the people can't?
I don't believe you understand what you are trying to discuss, or you would know the limitations of the technology you are talking about.
Basically people can hide, will hide and get away with it and there is nothing you can do about it.
Other countries(i.e. China, Iran and Russia) tried harder than the U.S. and failed is just naive to think it can be stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Currently you can't break the encryption so you have no way of telling the difference between an infringing movie download and an innocent Linux distro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
Today you trade also, the most download formats are MP3, the most download videos are compressed and look like VHS, besides some people just download for the heck of it because they don't really are buying 1 or 2 Terabyte HDD's a year to store everything they download from the internet there is no space in there.
Well not true, I can just use legal alternatives that don't have DRM and they keep poping up everyday, what will you do when nobody follow? cry?
So I should get it from you right?
The guy that would sue me, call me names and finance extortionists schemes?
Right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't get...
I want some of you weed, that's the only way you can state this and actually believe it.
p2p is so fast now that with the proper bandwidth (24Mb) and client I get 2.7MB/sec.
Guess thats slow to you but to some of us that's rather respectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
"what are we going to do tonight Brain?"
"What we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
And are you joining the call-them-"freetards" bandwagon? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get...
You got dupped dude LoL
hahahahaha, oh Jesus LoL
It is just for streaming media that they own the stream, it ain't gonna stop any piracy that it is outside their control LoL
Besides AMD is just around the corner waiting for Intel to drop the ball not to mention that Chinese manufacturers would love it too, remember when Intel tried to put a serial number in every microchip? They had to back off.
Just read the future release about how quietly DRM was dropped because of bad sales performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Warner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time Warner
The ISPs with a phone company background tend *not* to care what you download, the ISPs with a content provider or cable company history tend to care a lot more. This is true in my city (Denver) where Comcast puts blocks on TCP ports like 25, 22, 80, etc so people can't run a server on conventional TCP ports. Qwest, a phone company, does not do this. They don't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tit for tat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 strikes piracy
What exactly are people railing against when they rail against piracy? Do people honestly believe that a song is actually worth $1? That's a made up number for value if I ever saw one.
It's funny how people continue to say that piracy is killing the industry. But what industry(s) exactly, and how?
How does downloading a song or listening to it through a streaming service hurt an industry?
If anything, the copyright law is hurting far more people than someone's personal downloads ever could. It gets even more complicated when people create something new out of the old songs.
So I guess the question is two fold...
What is the "piracy" people want to stop and if possible is it more harm than good?
(I have my own opinions but I love to hear others as well.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What good would it do anyway. Are they going to blacklist you from all ISP's or only the one you are using? I have 3 in my area.
I have never had an ISP ask me for ID to open an internet account and they don't run credit checks except for the stupid cell phone companies.
So make up a name and order it from someone else. Blacklisting doesn't work in a competitive, capitalist society anyway. The ISP wants the money from that over inflated rate for internet.
What happens (it's inevitable) when one of the RIAA executives land on the list and is banned from the internet?
Cool. Restrictive Fascist methods only create warfare. Got your gun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know if that necessarily means comcast is going to that system but it is being implemented here where I live. I have a letter sent out by the ISP here.
That talks about the three strikes and you are off the internet. If the bigger companies got on board with this it would be a problem.
A example where I live you pretty much use that ISP or nothing at all so any one who does get kicked off of it is screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DON'T PAY THEM EVER!
If you go with legal alternatives that is the best route, but if you must just don't pay them ever, it is time to show them who is in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A process that depends on knowing what it is happening and since DPI is no longer useful to reach that goal the rest is useless what part of that you don't understand?
Since people can make those fingerprints disapear how would you track anything?
People can't magically inspect encrypted traffic, you can't look inside so you are left with analyzing the traffic patterns that can be masked like the army does, so basically all your talk is just BS, you know nothing about networks and security and is trying to talk the talk and failing, you can't even find a research proving your point because there is none, but there is lots of research to show you how wrong you are.
Not only can people hide they can become anonymous, now show everybody here with technical terms how will you identify traffic from encrypted, masked, anonymous networks?
Can you come up with the proof that you can?
You can watch the network but you can't inspect it, the only thing you will see is data going up and down without knowing what it is and were it is originating from and you keep insinuating you got some miracle solution that will make that possible, that is BS, you know it, I know it and everybody knows it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]