RIAA Replaces Mass Lawsuits With Potentially Dumber Ideas > 3 strikes enforcement voluntary but for common good

ISPs don't have to take this route; they're protected under safe harbor provisions within the DMCA.

ISPs legally may not have to take part in 3 strikes type policies, but may decide to do so in the interests of their law abiding customers and for the common good.

Like a shopping mall may have security forces take part in suppression of shoplifting activities even though the individual stores are the ones being victimized and have ultimate responsibility for theft prevention. The mall, like an ISP, is providing a safe environment for honest commerce.

said by Linklist:

ISPs legally may not have to take part in 3 strikes type policies, but may decide to do so in the interests of their law abiding customers and for the common good.

Like a shopping mall may have security forces take part in suppression of shoplifting activities even though the individual stores are the ones being victimized and have ultimate responsibility for theft prevention. The mall, like an ISP, is providing a safe environment for honest commerce.

said by hopeflicker:

How would **YOU** feel about having to pay a piracy tax if these clowns did pay off politicians to get this new form of extortion enacted?

Would you then become a Pirate?

said by Linklist:

What does a piracy tax have to do with a 3 strikes policy. I said nothing about a piracy tax in my post.

said by Linklist:

What does a piracy tax have to do with a 3 strikes policy. I said nothing about a piracy tax in my post.

said by hopeflicker:

How would **YOU** feel about having to pay a piracy tax if these clowns did pay off politicians to get this new form of extortion enacted?

The EFF suggests RIAA support a "voluntary collective licensing regime" -- basically, a legal peer-to-peer network that'd let music fans pay a small monthly fee for the right to freely trade music. A survey conducted this summer found an overwhelming 80 percent of current peer-to-peer users would be interested in paying for such a system. If organized, it'd put a stamp of approval on a process that's going on anyway -- and, for an inconsequential individual fee of something like $5 a month, the industry would be able to pay rights-holders based on how much their music is being downloaded.

"The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders," the EFF points out. "The more competition in P2P software, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom for fans to upload what they care about, the deeper the catalog."

said by Linklist:

It isn't the clowns pushing the piracy tax. It is those defenders of piracy - the EFF that is pushing for that solution:

»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···930.html

said by ISurfTooMuch:

The problem is accountability. What happens when someone is wrongly accused? You know it's going to happen, especially if automated filtering and reporting systems are involved. How exactly are you supposed to prove you didn't do anything wrong when there is no real standard of proof required? And why should you have to prove anything? In this country, we have always presumed someone innocent until they're proven guilty. And if you take time out of your life to prove your innocence, what do you get for your trouble besides not losing your Internet connection? What compensation will you receive for being wrongly accused? None, I'd wager.

said by russotto:

Ah, so the accuser gets the benefit of automatic process to redress his grievance, and the accused has to sue if he believes he's falsely accused. Way to turn the system of justice on its head, TK.

said by Linklist:

You mean like "Red light" cameras where you are automatically guilty unless you can prove you're innocent?

said by Linklist:

You mean like "Red light" cameras where you are automatically guilty unless you can prove you're innocent?

said by ISurfTooMuch:

No, if you are photographed by one of those cameras, you are mailed a citation, and, if you like, you can go to court to fight the ticket. How is this different that a cop handing you the ticket?

said by ISurfTooMuch:

No, if you are photographed by one of those cameras, you are mailed a citation, and, if you like, you can go to court to fight the ticket. How is this different that a cop handing you the ticket?

VIA EMAIL
*ISP*
*Date*

Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member music companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate music sold in the United States.

We believe a user on your network is offering an infringing sound recording for download through a peer to peer application. We have attached below the details of the infringing activity.

We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this illegal activity. Specifically, we respectfully request that you remove or disable access to the unauthorized music.

We believe it is in everyone's interest for music consumers to be better educated about the copyright law and ways to legally enjoy music online. The major record companies have actively licensed their music to dozens of innovative services where fans can go to listen to and/or purchase their favorite songs. A list of many of these services is available at www.musicunited.org.

It should be made clear by this letter that downloading and distributing copyrighted songs via peer to peer networks is not an anonymous activity. Not only is distributing copyrighted works on a peer to peer network a public activity visible by other users on that network, an historic 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirmed the unmistakable unlawfulness of uploading and downloading copyrighted works. The website www.musicunited.org contains valuable information about what is legal and what is not when it comes to copying music. In addition to taking steps to notify the network user at issue about the illegal nature of his/her activity, we strongly encourage you to refer him/her to this helpful site.

Please bear in mind that this letter serves as an official notice to you that this network user may be liable for the illegal activity occurring on your network. This letter does not constitute a waiver of our members' rights to recover or claim relief for damages incurred by this illegal activity, nor does it waive the right to bring legal action against the user at issue for engaging in music theft. We assert that the information in this notice is accurate, based upon the data available to us. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.

Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at antipiracy2@riaa.com, via telephone at *Phone Number*, or via mail at RIAA, 1025 F Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C., 20004. Please reference *Case ID* in any response or communication regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

RIAA

List of infringing content
------------------------------
*Infringing Content*
-------------------------
INFRINGEMENT DETAIL
-------------------
Infringing Work : XXXXXX
Filename : XXXXXX
First found (UTC): XXXXXX
Last found (UTC): XXXXXX
Filesize : XXXXXX
IP Address: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
IP Port: XXXXX
Network: XXXXXX
Protocol: XXXXXX