RIAA's Backdoor Plan For Using 'Six Strikes' Plan To Cut Off Internet Access For People
from the sneaky-sneaky dept
Following Torrentfreak's publication of a slide from a confidential RIAA presentation, they've now released another damning slide, showing (among other things) that the RIAA did not think that SOPA/PIPA would be effective in stopping music infringement:
To be honest, this "confession" is not a huge surprise. While many people often lump the MPAA and RIAA together, SOPA/PIPA was almost entirely driven by the MPAA. The RIAA basically did the least amount required to officially show its support for the bill -- but all of the pushing for the bill was done by the MPAA. I had wondered if it was just a sign that the RIAA is simply running out of steam as its main members are dwindling, but now it seems clear that even they realized SOPA/PIPA was not an effective plan. Of course, when we explained why SOPA/PIPA wouldn't have been effective, supporters claimed we were behind a misinformation campaign. I guess the RIAA was a part of that campaign as well, huh?
But, perhaps even more interesting was another tidbit later in the TorrentFreak post, concerning how the RIAA views the six strikes plan. For some background, while various "three strikes" plans around the globe are focused on taking away internet connections after accumulating three "strikes" (based on accusations, not convictions), when the "voluntary" (with a big shove from the government) plan was put in place, part of the messaging was that disconnection was not an option.
However, according to the presentation, it appears that the RIAA has a backdoor plan to put in place a disconnection regime. Basically, they're noting (accurately) that the DMCA already requires that service providers who wish to retain safe harbors have a "termination policy" in place. That's true. But here's the sneaky part: the RIAA is ready to insist that a reasonable termination plan under the DMCA would require an ISP to terminate a user once they get to those six strikes. In other words, the plan doesn't require termination -- which was necessary from a PR standpoint -- but the RIAA is going to claim that the law already requires it. Sneaky, sneaky:
Some ISPs do indeed threaten to disconnect users for infringement based on a TOS violation. However, Sheckler says that the responsibilities of Internet companies go further and as carriers they are governed by legislation.This is the RIAA I'm used to. Using misdirection and sneaky language to get what it wants while claiming otherwise publicly.
In order for ISPs to be eligible for safe harbor provision under the DMCA, she writes, they are required to have a “termination policy for repeat infringers” under “appropriate circumstances.”
So, although account disconnections aren’t specifically included in the list of “six strikes” mitigation measures agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, the RIAA is clearly aware that if they’ve issued infringement notices against an account holder six times, then that user has a good chance of being viewed as a “repeat infringer” by their ISP – at least if prompted to do so by the RIAA.
For what it's worth, we've heard that some of the reasons for the delays in launching the six strikes plan has to do with the ISPs pushing back on RIAA/MPAA desire for disconnections to occur. I don't know how accurate that is, but it would fit with what's stated above -- and certainly suggests we haven't seen the last of this. If anything, it sounds like a lawsuit may eventually have to be filed to see if the RIAA can effectively force an ISP to terminate accounts over the six strikes plan...
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: disconnection, dmca, pipa, six strikes, sopa
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So these people really can't grasp the real world can they? Rather than deal with their problems they just want to fight boogeymen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
activated by Google
You're not going to convince crazy people otherwise. They live in their own unique reality.
These people still think that it should be a crime to copy music from YOUR disk to YOUR mp3 device, and that for this crime they should be able to ruin your future, and claim decades worth of your future income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You say it like it's somehow surprising...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much like the US Govt when it comes to terrorism. Like Nation (Father), like Company (Son)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone who has been accused more than once?
or someone who has been found guilty in a court of law more than once?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under 'entertainment' industry logic, since no one would ever makes a false accusation, simply being accused is more than good enough.
Take a wild guess which one they'd be wanting to go for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a cute lawyeristic way to look at it and all but at what point does the six strikes plan involve criminal charges, fair trials, and convictions before the accused are actually determined to be "infringers?" Since infringement can't be determined merely by accusation, this supposed requirement for a termination policy wouldn't apply to the six strikes plan since no guilt is ever determined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not if, but when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Without supporting due process and necessity of actual convictions to determine guilt, your "it's the law!" argument completely falls apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and if that was what was happening before people were threatened, extorted and the rest, you'd have far less objections. But, that's "too hard" and you'd rather attack without evidence.
Oh, and you want the DMCA to be enforced? Fine. Let's start with the perjury penalties for the lying corporations who shut down legitimate content based on lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which won't stop piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're views are fucking pathetic and they're a insult. They attack the very foundation that this nation was based on.
Do you live in the USA? If so how can you call yourself an American? I guess you'd rather throw people in prison for murder without a trial as well..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't go bankrupt soon enough for me. I give them credit for assuring that I never buy music again from the major labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are serious like I am you never allow any of these guys a way into your Wallet.
Buy & Support Local Art and INDIE Art.
Do not Support Big Content Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is that when the "repeat infringer" has been found guilty in a court of law 6 times?
or just accused 6 times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait. what? Are the ISPs now required to hire assassins to kill off their own customers? That certainly seems like a sure fire way to go out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So instead of Apple or Google being SkyNet, the RIAA is. ... We're screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, they themselves would likely fall afoul of six strikes.
It'd be funny if the RIAA's sites all got taken down for repeat infrigement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their apologists can try to deny it all they want, but it's a secret to no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please take your bullshit somewhere else. It's not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
EXTERMINATE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I saw articles on CNet and such too and these are definitely not Google properties.
Of course we all know that everybody here but you is a pirate, or at least you keep accusing us of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who the hell do you think pays for Mike Masnick to fly around and spread anti-IP propaganda? lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll bet you also believe the moon landing was faked, we have aliens in area 51 and bush planned 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't worry little trolls I'll feed you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But all you have is derp to back up your statment. SO unless you have real proof why I should love google GTFO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just boggles the mind that they are actively supporting a system where you are punished upon accusation. Why is it they can't see that this will blow up in their faces?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And of course, since they're not doing it - or so the maximalists believe - ISPs are also profiting from piracy.
I understand that the DMCA (sorry, don't know which part) requires that service providers have a repeat infringer policy, but is there something in the law that says that infringers MUST be disconnected? I mean its just a policy, right?
Also, could the RIAA take the ISP to court for not terminating somebody? Is this why so many ISPs agreed to this "voluntary" plan (Yes, Mr RIAA, don't sue us and we'll disconnect whoever you want. Sure, we'll lose them as a customer but we'll sure save on those legal bills!)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit!
2/3rds of the way there, RIAA, keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wish "Big Search" boB would explain it, even though every time I hear one of his posts it's in Daffy Duck's voice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a. make something the public wants
b. don't treat your customers like shit.
I cry for them in their poverty...hows that Avengers money doing for ya, MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
b. people that steal things aren't "customers". They're thieving douchebags. Duh again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On what planet does that make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only halfway. People want the shows/music/whatever, sure, but the companies do their damndest to avoid providing it in the form that people want.
They can be, of course. People who pirate tend to actually buy more of this stuff than people who don't.
But the commenter isn't talking about them, specifically. The MPAA/RIAA is treating all of their customers like shit, even those who never pirate a single thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for your choice of words here is a patch to your text:
a. they do make something people want. That's why so many people try to find it by whatever means necessary. Duh.
b. people that steal things aren't "customers". They're thieving douchebags, but people who share that crap of yours are your best customers. Duh again.
When did you see somebody who didn't care buy anything from any artist ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
b. even assuming that copying is stealing thieves are still potential customers. Duh again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering that roughly 2/5ths of all DMCA takedown requests are bad ...
Considering that there is a whole cottage industry now of people profiting from inappropriate takedown requests, doubly so.
I don't know that the ISPs or any judge will buy this argument. However, the fact that the RIAA would like to make it reflects very poorly on them. They KNOW their bots get a lot of false positives. They just don't care who they hurt.
How does any of this sell more music? Who, caught in this scheme, will turn around and buy mp3s? Will their friends and family?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False positives
And our noob troll agrees too: "the fact is that the 'repeat infringer' language is right there in the DMCA and it's the law. At some point this is going to make it's way through the courts ..."
The DMCA does not address taking property. 'Repeat infringement' is a distinct violation (of whatever nature) from any kind of stealing, and laws against stealing "made their way through the courts" hundreds of years ago.
Then, like Gollum, he starts to yammer at himself.
There is some question as to whether the repeat infringer language of the DMCA can be applied in this case because it would effectively deny due process. Your ISP can choose to terminate your account at any time, but can the government COMPEL them to do so? Remember, this system is going to generate a lot of false positives and you have to pay the ISP to even review them. Is this sufficient for a government-enforced sanction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False positives
A user will sue the shit out of their former ISP, the PR firm, and their secret monitoring service.
The monitoring service will have to admit they can not prove any copyright infringement took place, and that the technology they use has been shown to be unreliable.
Then the court will address a deal between the cartels and ISPs to allow the cartels to have say over the users rights.
The ISPs are taking action outside of the legal system, based on pressure from a lobbying firm dressed up to be a real company.
I'm sure the monopoly status they enjoy in many areas of the country will not bite them in the ass at all.
I'm sure people won't demand we stop subsiding a system that wants to be the enforcement arm of allegations of questionable merit.
I'm sure the cartels are more than willing to give the ISPs money so they can purchase right of ways and easement rights as the rates for those should climb in response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've noticed that copyright maximalists seem to hate due process. Justice is too "inefficient".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well thought out...
The younger generation is doing the bulk of all this infringing. Soooooo. Child infringes then household loses its service. This would, in effect, target the people in the household who are MOST likely to actually be paying for movies and music. Young adults are savvy enough to infringe on wifi/mifi (other people's connections,) so the target becomes hotspot owners, yet again people likely to pay.
The likely reaction to all those terminations will be another Google plot to force sensible legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hosting vs connectivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, when the two of them are lumped together they form MAFIAA (Music and Film Industry Association of America). They try to extort money from poor people and ruin their lives. Pretty much the same way the Italian Mafia used to operate back in the old days. They are the 21st centery MAFIAA v2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]