Are ISP Warnings Alone Enough To Stop Piracy? → I don't like France's proposed policy

No we shouldn't. Its too draconian and prone to errors.

What happens when a person mistakenly ends up on the "No Surf List"?

Once - maybe a mistake; twice - less chance of an error; three times and you have been caught with very little chance of error.

So the riaa never makes mistakes? Do they ever apologize? So we condemn the whole system because of alleged pirates? the figure that we/I never hear is how many people use the internet/p2p and don't illegally share versus how many use it legally and don't share illegally? the point I am making is that a vast majority of the uses don't file share "illegally" and it would be affecting them equally.Kind of like making people jump through the hoops to own a gun, when that hasn't really reduced "illegal" gun usage one iota. Peace

What if YOU end up getting chastised for something because of an error?

You send a clip of son/daughter(hypothetically) and it flags you as a Pirate... are you going to be so gung-ho about it then?

That would be *YOUR* Strike One.

Say you blow that off and try it again... Flag #2 - Strike #2... yeah, real good idea, huh?

You inadvertantly forget and send another... BOOT!

Now, my friend, *YOU* are kicked offline and labeled a pirate. Sound tasty?

*NO* ISP should be a cop!
What's next?
Illegal to let you borrow a DVD?

Well then who should be the cop, in your opinion?

Because god knows one is needed, given all the criminals on the internet.

We need "cops" to patrol the Internet the same way we need law enforcement to patrol Times Square and strip search everyone they stumble across just to "make sure" nobody is carrying/doing anything "illegal."

Uhm... I can't answer that, can you?
Is Caltrans the cops that write you a ticket for speeding on the roads they build and maintain? No!

Should the ISP that builds and maintains the line you & I use be the cops? No!

NYC, Philadelphia, etc all have their own transit cops and railroads have their own railroad cops(paid by the railroads). Why shouldn't ISPs have their own internet cops?

I'm reaching here, but maybe.... the police?

It's their jobs to track down criminals (be they online or offline) and prosecute them.

When it comes to copyright offenses, however, these are civil offenses, not criminal ones. (At least until the MPAA/RIAA push through legislation making them criminal cases.) This means that the copyright holder has to file suit themselves against the copyright violator. Sometimes this takes the form of a John Doe lawsuit until the violator's identity can be determined (or until the copyright holder has proven to a judge that they have enough of a case to pierce the accused's privacy).

The problem is that the RIAA is lazy. They don't want to file their lawsuits separately in the correct jurisdiction. They just want to file a huge batch of them all at once (as if they were related). They don't want to *actually* sue the person, just strong-arm them into a highly one-sided settlement. And they don't want to keep an eye out for copyright violators themselves, they want the ISPs to do their job for them.

Ok, but they themselves are not the cops. See the difference here?

Seeing as it is not the ISPs bitching about the illegal transfers of material(s), then it should not be the ISPs (or you and I) footing the bill for police type services.

Are you willing to have more restrictions applied to your connection *AND* pay more each month so some private company/entity can dictate what the ISPs should do?

Fuck that!

I could definitely see this happening.

E-mail a photo to your family whose name raises copyright flags: Strike #1

Tech Support Response: "We're sorry about that. It must have been a false positive. Unfortunately, we're unable to remove strikes, but don't worry, they'll expire on their own soon enough."

Short while later, e-mail a clip of your child singing a nursery rhyme. Raises flags for being an MP3: Strike #2

Tech Support Response: "There definitely isn't a bug in our systems. Are you sure you didn't share anything off of a P2P network? We can't reverse this otherwise all pirates would claim innocence. Just be more careful what you do next time."

Not too long after that, browsing a website triggers an edge case in the filters and you get Strike #3. This time Tech Support immediately, upon seeing your account, sends you over to the ISP's new Copyright Education and Protection division which instructs you that you can have your connectivity back if you take some courses on why copyright protection is essential, sign documents confirming that you are a pirate, and pay a $100 fine.

railroads hire transit cops because (a) if they dont their customers are in danger and are less likely to ride -thus they would lose customers and (b) they are protecting the actual physical safety of their customers

with respect to (a) the ISPs stand to lose customers if they police content, and re (b) no one is going to get stabbed or raped in kazaa like they might on the subway.

here we have a situation where most of the ISPs and their customers have no desire to have themselves policed, so let them keep up their dumass lawsuits

Not to mention that filtering content opens ISPs up to liability. No filter is going to be 100% perfect. If they block some copyrighted material from being transferred without permission, but don't block others, then they might be sued by the owners of the non-filtered items. If they don't filter at all, they can claim Common Carrier and are shielded from being sued.

We don't need cops on the internet. When music industry start releasing music that is worth to buy, people will start buying. Till then pirating will continue and regardless of what you try it will not stop it.

You talking about government, isp is not government. RIAA soon will be out of existence, as they refuse to adapt to new reality. Make all songs cheap to download, say 50c and it will not worth for people to pirate. Till then people will pirate and their is nothing RIAA can do about it

Brilliant again TK....
Let the Govt handle it!

The F.B.I.? Or your state police? We already have cops, and they have rules, regulations, and procedures to follow to act on complaints. Let them do it. And pass the costs on to the taxpayers as they do it. Yeah; levy an Internet tax to pay for Internet cops. That should do it.

That's the lamest excuse, I've never understood it. If it's not worth buying or having, why steal it? It's good enough to obtain freely in whatever means, but not if you have to spend money on it? If it's 'shitty' music, why have it in your music library at all?

Furthermore, regardless of the quality or how much people like it, people are going to steal it anyway.

edited for screwing up the quote.

Let me clarify my statement. Most cd's that are released contain one good song out of all of them. People are not willing to pay $20 or $30 just to listen to that one good song. RIAA seems not to understand that and soon they will be out of business as their lawsuit will stop nothing.

I won't have it in my library. If it isn't worth paying for, I don't download it. I have downloaded exactly 46 .mp3 tracks; all of them using HTTP. None of them were available in retail shops (I looked; I was willing to buy them at the inflated prices charged for imports from Japan). Other than that, and some AMVs (Anime Music Videos), which I got for the animation as much as the music, I have not grabbed any RIAA stuff from the Internet.

I don't know how to measure what percentage of "lost" sales the RIAA claims is actually due to piracy, and what percentage is due to consumer resistance to a trashy product. I am not buying nearly as much as I used to buy; but I am not "stealing" it (downloading .mp3s), either. As you said, if it isn't worth paying for, it isn't worth stealing.

I hate to make an "I Agree" post, but... well, I Agree.

I've never understood the rationale of the file sharers who claimed that the music was garbage, but somehow it was worth pirating.

Then there's the constantly moving goal post of what the music is worth. Back in the Napster days, I heard that $1 per song would be worth it. Then, when iTunes came about, some folks suddenly decided that $1 was too much money and it should be $0.50 - $0.75.

I don't buy those arguments. Especially now that the $0.99 songs are coming DRM-free (via Amazon.com, for example). Even if the price was reduced to a dime per song for CD quality, non-DRM-ed MP3 files, there would be a group of people claiming that it was too pricey.

It seems that I forgot the tunes I grabbed on a free trial product. 99 tunes? Anyway, I give the company a credit card number, and had 30 days to grab the tunes. The problem I had with that scheme was that it was a kind of book club deal; you authorized a monthly charge. Whether you found anything worth grabbing from one month to the next, or not, you had to pay. I think it was $5 a month, or so. So after I grabbed the authorized tunes, I quit the service.

Actually, I do think $1 per tune is a fair price for many that I have collected over the years; on vinyl and CD.

Toward the end of the 90's I fell in with a weird crowd; fans of Japanese animation and comics. They have wonderful music with their animated shows. I wound up preferring to spend $32 a pop for CD anime soundtracks instead of $17 a pop for what passes for music in the U.S. So the RIAA has missed out on a thousand dollars, or so, not because I have pirated their stuff, but because I found a competing (if more expensive) product I liked better.

They whine so hard about not making sales; but, in my case, the money was theirs for the taking, if only they offered a product I wanted.

So I have no sympathy for them.

All i can say is amazing, when people complain about something, like isps blocking stuff and ask for some kind of regular from the government to stop it these guys come out o the wood work and argue that the free market should decided , let the free market handle it, if you dont like it dont subscribe to that isp, these are citizens asking for help from the government to fix something they feel will become a problem. So now we have a private entity that wants another private entity to impose restrictions and to violate there customers privacy for this private entities gain. So why dont i see anyone saying that the free market should decide this, but guess what the free market has decided this. According to the RIAA/MPAA they are loosing sales, which if this is true then the free market has chosen not to support your outdated model, so stop trying to force 3rd parties to bend to your will. ( dont get started on this whole piracy thing). If you feel someone is stealing from you then go through the due process and charge them a reasonable fee for the violation and actually prove your case. The market has spoken now evolve or die.

OMG i love listening to OST from Japanese anime , it either makes me happy, sad , or just energetic especially when i am driving. Its not often you find music that just grabs you and affects you on such a level. yes it can be expensive but i find that its worth it.

OST and Image. If the RIAA wants my money, they need to give me comparable tunes. Else let them whine their way into bankruptcy. As they are, now, they don't even produce anything worth stealing.