Small ISPs, Facing Recession, Don't Want To Be RIAA CopsDespite new systems that promise to share copyright revenues with ISPs ( old news - 10:24AM Friday Jan 16 2009) tags: legal · Fileswapping · business · alternatives · content · Cox HSITipped by ERogerC  One of the many questions surrounding the RIAA's new plan to make ISPs piracy nannies is how smaller operators are supposed to afford not only implementing the system, but the lost revenue from booting heavy users. The RIAA's plan, which no ISP wants to admit participation in -- involves tracking P2P pirates, then terminating the connections of repeat offenders. Carriers like Cox have been quick to implement the system -- in part because it gives them the ability to crack down on congestion-causing P2P activity. Cox tells users the DMCA requires they do this (it doesn't). Smaller operators, like Louisiana broadband ISP Bayou Internet and Communications, aren't so excited. Bayou CEO Jerry Scroggin recently said that if the RIAA wanted him to play content cop, they'd better pay him for his troubles. A company called Nexicon, who we've previously discussed, is developing a tool they claim will do the work for those ISPs, by tracking ISP customers who trade pirated P2P files, then demanding payment to the copyright holder. It begins with Nexicon sending the downloader’s ISP a DMCA notice which is auto-generated by MARC. The ISP is then legally obligated to forward this notice to the infringer. The user clicks a link within the email taking them to the GetAmnesty website, and in less than three clicks, the user can settle with the copyright holder for a nominal fee. explores how Nexicon is marketing its services to smaller ISPs like Bayou as a way to generate money, but Scroggin still isn't impressed: "I would still wind up losing customers," Scroggin said. "I would also have to pay Nexicon for this...I have to survive in this economy but I don't have the big marketing dollars that bigger ISPs have. I have to fund 401(K)s and find ways not to lay off people. Giving free reign to the RIAA is not part of my business model." CNET fails to mention the company used to be an online cigarette seller named Cyco.net, that was sued for selling their product to minors, and for failing to report cigarette sales and taxes. That was before they changed their name in 2005 after realizing there might be money to be made in copyright enforcement. Nexicon has already struck one major deal with YouTube and a major recording label, and is supposedly in talks with at least one film studio.
Related:- Cox Responds to DMCA 'Three Strikes' Report
- TiVO Coming To Time Warner Cable
- Confirmed: Pirate Bay to Charge Users
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- Nobody's Complaining About Comcast's New Throttling
- Download The Pirate Bay Before It's Gone
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- Cable Industry: Shucks, Guess Nobody Wants CableCARDs
|
 
anony101
@comcast.net | Who can blame them The cost can be quite high to police the internet for piracy. It could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business. | |
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
2 edits | It wont stop piracy All it will do is anger the pirates, they will say f u to the RIAA and switch providers or leech wi-fi from neighbors.
When the free wi-fi people get a notice they will be shocked, angered, say fu to the RIAA, and switch providers.
I don't pirate and I say F U to the RIAA already.
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison | |
|  | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| Re: It wont stop piracy my guess is that the p2p networks will increase their usage in encryption. the only problem i can forsee is how to stop the MAFIAA (or other self proclaimed copyright cops) from downloading the torrent file and looking at the IPs to get an idea who has the file. blacklisting can only do so much. | |
| | | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: It wont stop piracy Dear RIAA,
As a small ISP, I pleased to announce that I have your program to filter illegal copyrights going. I've already written letters for every RIAA employee to have their service terminated by their ISP. I've also enclosed a bill for this service, which was run last month for about 6 hours. The total bill is only $99 million, so please pay up within the next few days or you won't qualify for another "scan" next month.
Thanks and GFY,
Your Local Small ISP
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: It wont stop piracy charge the RIAA/Media Sentry types, $25,000 processing fee per takedown notice that is not packaged certified mail with a court order from a local or in disctrict(if federal) court.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | |
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: It wont stop piracy said by Kearnstd :charge the RIAA/Media Sentry types, $25,000 processing fee per takedown notice that is not packaged certified mail with a court order from a local or in disctrict(if federal) court. Ah, I like that one. 
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: It wont stop piracy scary thing is i wasnt joking, ISPs really should charge a researching fee. it does take employee time to get the right info and send the takedown letter to the right email and tell the RIAA/MPAA that it was sent.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by gaforces :All it will do is anger the pirates It will do more than that; one thing that large companies do is support burdensome regulation on the industry because it hits the small guys much harder than the big guys. In this way it will reduce the competition.
It's not like the big guys like to waste their resources on foolish stuff like this, but they see a clear secondary gain.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site | |
| | |
Anon Y Mouse
@cox.net | What next? Why just music and movies? Why don't they police for illegal software, games, porn (which is still alegal business model) and these people probably lose a lot more of business dollars than the **AAs. | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by gaforces :... I don't pirate and I say F U to the RIAA already. second that: I don't pirate and F U to the RIAA | |
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Strongarm! "It begins with Nexicon sending the downloader’s ISP a DMCA notice which is auto-generated by MARC. The ISP is then legally obligated to forward this notice to the infringer. The user clicks a link within the email taking them to the GetAmnesty website, and in less than three clicks, the user can settle with the copyright holder for a nominal fee."
Automated Protection racket?
And people wonder why others call them the MAFIAA. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Strongarm! said by TKJunkMail :said by dadkins :Automated Protection racket? And people wonder why others call them the MAFIAA. Just like the ones cities use with their automated traffic light tickets, which is outsourced to 3rd party technology companies. At least around here, they were challenged in court and so far, the ruling has been upheld that they cannot be used. Most of them have been taken back down ... | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Strongarm! said by Matt :said by TKJunkMail :Just like the ones cities use with their automated traffic light tickets, which is outsourced to 3rd party technology companies. At least around here, they were challenged in court and so far, the ruling has been upheld that they cannot be used. Most of them have been taken back down ... Bingo. An officer must sign off on each and every red light camera ticket. | |
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| ....which is auto-generated by MARC and is, of another false positive.
I then send a boiler-plate email back up the chain, with a link in it to KMAyouIllegitimi.org, that features a pic of my big, white, flabby backside, where they're invited to "kiss and make up".
-NK | |
| | | Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
| RIAA cops If the RIAA, or the other turd bucket MPAA, wants other people to do their job, then they need to pay them from the results of their previous suits, but first the RI/MPAA needs to have the law say that the ISPs have to do their bidding.
Other than the RI/MPAA promising to pay at least $10 per month per subscriber at this time, tell them to take a long walk off of a short pier where the great white sharks swim. | |
| | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Re: RIAA's shakedown process is nothing new.
| |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  If the RIAA wants it ...
| |
| deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| It's weird... I am at a point now where I have accepted the idea that at some point I may just have to do without the majority of media entertainment I currently enjoy.
I would miss things like movies and music at first, but I think I could get to a point where I could live without. The benefits would be: more simplified living, saving lot's of money, and not having to deal with all of the crap that these clueless media companies make the consumer go through.
Honestly, doesn't it almost seem like too much of a hassle now? I mean, they have basically declared war on their own customers, with little or no regard for the rule of law and what might be best for the customer.
Maybe we should give them what they want. Total control, with absolutely no legitimate customer base who would willingly pay for their content. If they actually felt the consequences of what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you, maybe they would finally wake up! I doubt it though... history shows otherwise. | |
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Auctions? Did I read that graphic right, and they plan to monitor auction site traffic too?
I can see it now...for $5 extra a month they'll give your eBay traffic "priority" (which is another word for "not into the bit bucket").
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Auctions? said by RadioDoc :Did I read that graphic right, and they plan to monitor auction site traffic too? I can see it now...for $5 extra a month they'll give your eBay traffic "priority" (which is another word for "not into the bit bucket"). Or worse yet, you'll receive a DMCA letter because the copyright holder sold you a "non-transferable license" to listen to their music so you have to pony up a fee to re-sell it.
The music industry has been trying to kill the used CD market for years ... and I doubt the MPAA and/or movie studios would care one iota if the used DVD market went bye-bye too. Hell, you might even see the game publishers get on board with this to help stifle online sales of used video games. | |
| axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| Fruitless effort The plan is doomed from the start. What have we learned about pirates more than anything else? THEY ADAPT!
Plug one hole, they drill a new one elsewhere.
All this will do is cause them to hide their tracks even better. It is useless to throw money at detecting them. All money should be spent towards pirates who resell, and how you litigate against them.
Joe Schmoe who is just downloading warez for his own personal use. Leave him alone as he can't really call for support for his hacked product so he has hamstrung himself already and he really was never going to buy the product in the first place. | |
|
Simply J
@comcast.net
| Another way big buiness is stillin your right Can we say invasion of privacy. That is a load, so you are telling me that a third party company can strong arm the ISP into giving out information about where I go and what I do. I think the constitution states that is unlawful, Oh and by the way RIAA what about the 10.5 billion you made last year well three of the biggest financial companies went under. The RIAA isn't hurting for money...they are just being corrupt like always.. Are you going to get Lars from metallica to whine for you again. The RIAA is a joke, stealing from the artist to fund there privately owned radio stations and control the billboards you listen to... to be frank some one should sue them for monopolizing the market and not allowing free trade of music. These are the same guys that made royalty rate for internet music 300%. Face it people as the world changes the same greedy bastards will come up with new tricks...The people of world of American need to stand up and shut these suckers down. | |
| CB
join:2008-05-02
Goshen, NY
1 edit | Hmmm... I think the RIAA has the right to protect the content to which it as rights to. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think P2P users (who obtain copyrighted content) get angry because they are so used to getting what they want without paying for it that when someone stumps on their parade all hell breaks lose! Piracy has been a problem for a long time...maybe even before I was born which was in 1988. People always tried (and still try) to get away with distributing content they don't have the rights to. It's been a long going problems, it's just the fact that since content can be shared so freely and really fast compared to hand to hand piracy it's harder to control. As for the part about them forcing ISPs to be cops...I think that's a bit over board. Yes, they are trying to protect the stuff they own but if they really want to stop people, they should do the dirty work themselves, not hire a ISP. RIAA = Music Corporation, meaning they sell music! ISP = Internet Service Provider, they provide Internet. Neither of these should do anything except just that. RIAA provides music and ISP provides Internet. My 2 cents.  | |
| 
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC |  Why should ISP's monitor any content at all?
--
I wish we all spoke like Christopher Walken. What a beautiful world it would be. | |
| |
AnonNutter
@verizon.net
| Re: Why should ISP's monitor any content at all? Actually, due to CALEA, the (W)ISPs are prohibited from verifying content. Because of CALEA, ISPs are required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA order in hand before they even capture the content of a customer's data stream.
The only exception to that rule is collection for maintenance purposes. It would be pretty hard to justify collecting content for maintenance purposes. | |
| | | nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| Re: Why should ISP's monitor any content at all? AnonNutter...
"Actually, due to CALEA, the (W)ISPs are prohibited from verifying content. Because of CALEA, ISPs are required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA order in hand before they even capture the content of a customer's data stream."
Where are you reading that in the CALEA rules??
The only thing I read in SEC. 105. SYSTEMS SECURITY AND INTEGRITY is that you have to insure that no one else can access CALEA data. I find nothing to prohibit a carrier from monitoring, eavesdropping or anything else within its own network. | |
| | | |
AnonNutter
@kaballero.com
| Re: Why should ISP's monitor any content at all? "CALEA places upon the ISP exactly the same requirements that are placed upon wire line carriers."
When I made that statement in a meeting with the FBI Agent in charge of implementing CALEA, she agreed.
I further stated that that meant we were not legally allowed to monitor our customers communications for content, just as the wireline carriers are not allowed to monitor their customers communications for content. She again agreed.
The derivation of that law, or those requirements, goes back through all the law pertaining to "reasonable expectation of privacy" laws associated with intercepting telephone, cellular and radio communications.
We are now required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA action in had *before* we are authorized to intercept for purposes other than maintenance.
The law does allow the owner of a business to monitor his employees E-Mail, and by extension, I suppose other communications, so long as those communications cross the corporate network. This is because they are also legally responsible for the actions of their employees on that network.
The ISP, just like Verizon, is not responsible for the actions of a customer on their network and therefore they have no need to monitor the content of their customer's communications. ISP only provide a service. The customer has a legal right to "reasonable expectation of privacy" in that context, just as he has with Verizon.
Recent irrationalities relating to San Francisco, AT&T, and NSA are not relevant in this context. | |
| | | | | nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| Re: Why should ISP's monitor any content at all? Do you have any citations referring to "We are now required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA action in had *before* we are authorized to intercept for purposes other than maintenance."?
As far as I can tell, any references to "reasonable expectation of privacy" applies to government agencies requiring warrant before obtaining information.
If it all boils down to a matter of "reasonable expectation of privacy", a simple fine print in the TOS removes any reasonable expectation. | |
| | | | | |
AnonNutter
@verizon.net
| Re: Why should ISP's monitor any content at all? said by nevtxjustin :Do you have any citations referring to "We are now required to have a subpoena, warrant, or CALEA action in had *before* we are authorized to intercept for purposes other than maintenance."? No, sir, I am sorry I do not. The issue may have to play out in the courts.
Here is something to think about though. If you know a crime has been committed, you are bound to report that crime, except in very special cases.
A few years ago, I ran "Driftnet" on my gateway router whenever I wanted to demonstrate for people how much porn there really is moving around the net. Then one day, I saw something that I really did not want to know was going on on our network. We don't run that application any more.
Another WISP told me today that when he gets a complaint about a slow connection, he explains that file sharing and some other similar applications can make a link feel slow. It never fails that the customer says he is not doing file sharing. That WISP then asks the customer for a written authorization to sniff the customer's traffic for content. He said that that generally fixes about 80 percent of complaints about slow connections, and about 4 out of five customers refuse to provide the permission.
You could, indeed, put in your TOS that you reserve that right to your network and you would then be covered. As for my "rightness" in this matter. I don't claim any special knowledge other than that which I have been told by agents of the FBI in a formal meeting about CALEA.
We, at this ISP, feel that there is never any need to do deep packet inspection of a customer's traffic. We ask permission to open customer's email folders and we feel that customers do have a right to reasonable expectation of privacy, especially now that VoIP is becoming so common.
But, no, sir, I can't cite case law. You could probably call the CALEA unit at Quantico and get a real good reading on that though.
Here is a link to the web page, if you want to give them a call.
»www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/calea/ | |
| 
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON | A load of Hot Air Once again the only people who will be penalized by this are the parents of a 13 year old that downloads something off of Limewire or K-Lite.
Large scale infringers and commerical pirates are already finding ways to continue unabated. | |
| | |
pongo
@comcast.net | More security on p2p networks... This will only drive p2p networks more underground. | |
|
AnonNutter
@verizon.net
| After the last couple of requests from RIAA We told them that they should submit a $50.00 payment in advance of each request. We will be sticking to that. If they want us to act as enforcers we will have to get paid for out time. It takes time to analyze the logs, and that is time that could be spent more profitably on our own work load. | |
| | 
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
 ·Cingular Wireless
| Re: After the last couple of requests from RIAA said by AnonNutter :
We told them that they should submit a $50.00 payment in advance of each request. .... It takes time to analyze the logs, and that is time that could be spent more profitably on our own work load.
seems too cheap, you should ask for $5K min to do do this. 1. the actual time may vary
2. the person could be doing other productive work
3. you should run each request past a legal team to make sure that there have not been any changes to the law or new court cases that have changed the 'prescient' and request certification that the 'proof' that they used to request it in the first place is legally obtained. | |
| | |
AnonNutter
@kaballero.com
| Re: After the last couple of requests from RIAA Actually, this is exactly what we told them:
Dear Sir or Madam;
Regarding the case identification number in the subject line of this message, we have identified the user and will council that user, per our acceptable use policy and your request.
Please be advised that these requests cause us to have one of our outrageously paid engineers spend time tracing and analyzing log data. This particular request took approximately twenty minutes to service. At $150.00 per hour you can see that time costs mount up quickly. Therefore if you feel it necessary to further tax our system to accomplish your goals kindly remit a fee of $50.00 per request, otherwise we will not be able to satisfy your need.
Mind you we, as an ISP are very sensitive to excessive bandwidth usage on our network, and are therefore proactive in protecting that asset. This usually results in our engineers identifying what file sharers there are on our network, even before your snoops, can. It may therefore be worth consideration upon your part that it would be less expensive for you to simply wait a few days and see if we have tracked down and executed the file sharer upon our own.
Again, in the future, if you wish to make a request, please remit $50.00 in advance for each request, for services rendered.
Thank you and have a great day;
AnonNutter
Systems Engineer
AnonNutHouse | |
| | | |
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
·Cingular Wireless
| Re: After the last couple of requests from RIAA said by AnonNutter :
Actually, this is exactly what we told them:
...cut...
Please be advised that these requests cause us to have one of our outrageously paid engineers spend time tracing and analyzing log data. This particular request took approximately twenty minutes to service. At $150.00 per hour you can see that time costs mount up quickly
.... cut...
again if you want to be fair, you need to charge at least double and more likely triple, and the cost of having the legal issues surrounding the obtaining of the ip address validated, not to mention that they actually represent the product that they claim as not all 'entertainment' have the same bookeepers for royalties, etc. | |
| wispalord
join:2007-09-20
House Springs, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| NO NO NO and NO no 3rd party company needs to know where i go or what i do online for ANY reason, this is a privacy concern more over than a filter... if the riaa wants to watch for p2p traffic they just need to put dummy servers on the net with the material on it and log ips that hit it and go from there, there is no need for this stuff its expensive, and to me a privacy issue, i would drop my isp instantly if i found out they was using 3rd party to filter, i was on century tel till i found out they had neuab and dropped them. | |
| | | |
|
|
The "Happy Birthday To You" song police were on the prowl long before there was an internet. When not looking for unpaid performances of the happy birthday to you song they look for other violations of the copyright law such as playing unlicensed background music in a business or playing unlicensed music for customers on hold. They employ lawyers that were previously experts on pursuing slip and fall lawsuits. All of these demand letters have one thing in common. They figure out how much it would cost for an accused business to fight a lawsuit and then send them a bill for something less then that amount. The business submits to the extortion, writes a check and writes the cost off as a business expense. Unfortunately wrongly accused individual citizens do not have that luxury. Copyright law must be changed to require the RIAA and other copyright control agencies require to give alleged violators an opportunity to cease and desist before demanding monetary damages. Furthermore an ISP must be prohibited from disconnecting a customer's broadband service without due process by an independent agency. If an alleged violator receives a notice they would be stupid not to cease and desist. That would also stop the RIAA from shaking down innocent subscribers. If one Googles ASCAP and the Girl Scouts thew will find that ASCAP tried to shake down the Girl Scouts in 1996 for fees to sing copyrighted songs around their campfires. That action resulted in ASCAP getting reams of bad press. ASCAP finally relented and agreed to accept a token amount from the Girl Scouts so that ASCAP could maintain their copy-right. 