Entertainment Industry Giving up on ISP Disconnections Now Appears Focused on Trying to Impose Piracy Fines For years the music and film industries have been pushing to have broadband users disconnected from the Internet as the final penalty after repeated warnings for copyright violations. Those efforts have run into repeated problems not only thanks to heavy resistance from ISPs unwilling to lose paying customers but in the courts, where the lifetime or year-long loss of broadband is seen as excessive punishment. Torrent Freak points out that the tide appears to have shifted in entertainment industry thinking, and the music industry has given up on pursuing disconnections as punishments. Instead, the focus will now be on imposing cash penalties on repeat offenders: Noises coming out of Midem suggest that the French music industry is now putting its weight behind the implementation of a fining system. UPFI, (Union of Independent Phonographic Producers), said that it agreed with the opinion of French music rights group SACEM that a disconnection regime should be replaced with warnings along with fines of 140 euros. PCInpact contacted Jerome Roger, Director General of UPFI, who confirmed the group is indeed in favor of such fines. This leaning towards cash penalties is also endorsed by Warner Music President Thierry Chassagne. In recent comments Chassange suggested that not enough punishments have been handed out under Hadopi and that a deterrent is necessary. As the six strikes regime gets underway here in the States, we've noted that after users are throttled to 256 kbps (Verizon), temporarily blocked from accessing the Internet (Time Warner Cable), and forced to read one-sided entertainment industry copyright "educational" material -- pretty much nothing happens. While the industry group behind six strikes (the Center for Copyright Information) has insisted nothing happens after that, there are fears that this is really just the entertainment industry getting their "foot in the door," after which lawsuits and fines using these oceans of collected data could very much become a reality.
|
 | | Oh well. I use Rhapsody for my music and I use Hulu or buy the TV shows I want. My wifi is locked down with a lengthy WPA2 key. Never gotten a copyright notice, highly doubt I ever will. My ISP is not participating in six strikes and is unlikely to ever. But even if they were, it wouldn't affect me. | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Oh well. It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?
So the unlocking your phone, million dollar fine and jail time are cool, eh? You could be a mid-level drug distributor and get off easier. Am I the only one who think the G is off their rocker?
Notice how laws keep popping up, not going away. I was talking to a guy at my kids hockey game who was distressed because the RIAA was suing his daughter (18 freshmen in college) for $100k for downloading 300 songs (full value maybe $400. Now of course this is ridiculousness that these fines are even possible, but he said attorney fees had gone north of $10k already and it was having a devastating effect on the family.
Did she do something "wrong", yes. But the resulting punishment is SO out of whack it doesn't make common sense.
It used to be treble damages were limited to 3x the ACTUAL damage, but since IP "value" is total bs, they can place some mysterious "value" on it--say $100k and shove it down everyone's throats. It's going to get worse, and in the meantime China blossoms and we wither to s**t under a patent and copyright system 40 years behind the times.
The government is creating laws that criminalize "normal" activities or civil matters, which is just the effect of a monster that has gotten out of control. | |
| | | | | Re: Oh well. I don't disagree with you. I hate the current laws and the RIAA. But if you follow the music industry blogs and comments, the point of 6 strikes isn't to sue people. It is to educate users. The fact remains that most people think they have the legal right to download as much music as they want as long as they don't upload or sell it. That is completely untrue and 6 strikes is meant to squash that. It costs the RIAA lots of money to sue people, and many of them don't pay. By agreeing to not suing for at least the first 6 strikes versus the first, we could actually see a substantial decrease in lawsuits. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Oh well. said by silbaco:The fact remains that most people think they have the legal right to download as much music as they want as long as they don't upload or sell it. Well, considering that most lawsuits I'm aware are suing users for sharing music rather than simply downloading it and keeping it for themselves, I can see how most people could rationally come to the conclusion quoted above.
There is also the old "educational use" argument that could be made for just downloading music and listening to it which does indeed muddy the waters a bit. Of course, that's only plausible if one downloads, listens, and then immediately deletes before going off to make a purchase. I don't know that I've ever heard of anyone doing that, as there are far easier methods of just previewing a song. | |
| | | | | | Well what about the old recording people use to do with cassette recorders from radio stations, illegal? I don't think so, they get paid for their music and actually pay radio stations to play it, so why not record it? The world has changed to a more modern developed society, if the artist or actors don't want their stuff recorded then take it off the radio or tv, I bet then they have no sales. | |
| | | | |  joetaxpayerI'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Oh well. said by laserman :Well what about the old recording people use to do with cassette recorders from radio stations, illegal?
The recording wasn't illegal. Selling mixtapes recorded from one's record collection was where the issue started. It's the ability to share perfect digital copies that is driving this.
When I was younger, a 300baud modem would take hours to download anything. A bit older, and the 170MB (yes, megabyte) drive cost $300, so the idea of downloading a song and storing it made no sense. Now, a song is a fraction of a second to download. And the storage cost is zero. (about 1/40 cent per song. that's zero to me.) | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I was talking to a guy at my kids hockey game who was distressed because the RIAA was suing his daughter (18 freshmen in college) for $100k for downloading 300 songs (full value maybe $400. Now of course this is ridiculousness that these fines are even possible, but he said attorney fees had gone north of $10k already and it was having a devastating effect on the family.
| |
| | | | | said by elefante72:It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring? How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
·voip.ms
| Re: Oh well. The fault of the $3 is the government calling it "illegal" and the transfer of cost from the copyright holders to the masses. Also these should be civil, not criminal manners however that genie has been let out of the bottle.
In a perfect market economy the cost of compliance "loss factor" should be built into the price of the good, not forcefully transferred to the end user if they are a user of that good or not. That is exactly what they are asking the ISP's to do. Grandma doesn't download itunes, but now gets an ISP compliance tax. Great...Problem not solved.
This functions reasonably well in a vast majority of instances. Take the mall (aka the ISP in this example)
You go to JCPenney. They have security, loss prevention, etc. They build into the price of the product a margin for "loss factor". When they catch the person, they make an economic decision as to whether to bring it to the authorities. They know what typical loss is, and they price that into the good.
You walk across to the Pretzel factory. Since the rate of loss at the Pretzel factory is much smaller than at JCP, the cost of the pretzel is lower than if say they were stolen at a much higher rate.
What I am suggesting, is that the ISP (aka mall) will now charge you $3 to step inside the mall, even if you don't buy anything, and this $3 goes to the mall, not even the stores inside because now they have to have some centralized, layered security that is arbitrarily administered. So JCP still has to maintain it's fraud department, and nothing has changed except now you have to pay $3 to step foot in the mall and the extra $2 to buy a shirt for the loss factor.
Remarkably with IP (music) there is NO DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS, as the good is virtual and the actual cost may be millicents or less (the cost to transfer the data). There is a mythical opportunity cost as it is known in economic standards. That is why JCP can MEASURE the loss of goods (they were physically stolen/damaged,etc), whereas the music industry says, I'm loosing (theoretically) $6 billion, when is fact they are talking about opportunity cost, not direct loss. One can download a song and never listen to it. No actual loss there. One would have never downloaded the song in the first place if the tools weren't there. One actually buys the song after they hear it, like it, and determine its worth buying, whereas before they don't take the risk. This is actually a GAIN, but even that can't be measured.
Why can I return my TV to the store if I don't like it? I certainly can't do that for a s**tty song.
Music industry:
1. You get a sample of the song, in low quality 30 second clip.
2. You take a risk a buy it.
3. You don't like it, too bad you paid me.
4. You like it. Great, actual value. But now my kid can't listen to it, or if I have 5 friends over an put it on, I have to send a check to ASCAP.
I have lots of family in the music bus, and I hear it every day. Most got out and got day jobs because it is so messed up.
There are lots of artists out there that want to share their work and people appreciate it, and yes get paid for it. Does that means the usher at the door (the music company) HAS to be there taking $6 to put you in the seat to see the show. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Oh well. Bravo! Well-written and very easy to understand.
Agree with you nearly 100%. One nitpick is that a mall is free and internet service is not. However, this is easily rectified by saying that the mall charges for parking. The parking is now $3 more for additional mall security services.
Have you ever considered writing a piece like this for the average joe (dunno what venue)? You could really make even non-tech savvy people understand the issues that most people are overlooking today.
I know this sounds cheesy, but I am bookmarking this post for later reference any time I need to educate someone on this matter. | |
| | | | | | | said by elefante72:Remarkably with IP (music) there is NO DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS, as the good is virtual and the actual cost may be millicents or less (the cost to transfer the data). There is a mythical opportunity cost as it is known in economic standards. Actually the potential of a lost sale if of little consequence to me. Only the copyright holders and the pirates seem to push this issue though they are on different sides of it.
My issue is that if I am required to pay ( and I do so beause I know it's what you are supposed to do to) then YOU pay. PERIOD. The whole "I wasn't going to pay anyway" excuse is bull. Since when has the desire to NOT pay ever entitled anyone to something free? Once again it does not matter if the copyright holder is not losing a dime. As I said not my concern. MY point is I'm not cool with paying and then see you get away with not paying just because you feel like not paying. No way that flies with me. I pay, YOU pay. PERIOD | |
| | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Oh well. quote:
My issue is that if I am required to pay ( and I do so beause I know it's what you are supposed to do to) then YOU pay. PERIOD.
Childish foot stomping.
You are not required to pay... you choose to pay, by your own admission, because you think it is what you are suppose to do. This may be breaking news to you, but the world does not abide by what YOU think we are suppose to do. In other words, I have no problem pirating so YOU have no problem with me pirating. PERIOD. | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| said by anon anon :How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.
Except that there is a very big difference between police investigating/prosecuting crime and a corporate entity not wanting to pay for its own security measures. What you are saying is: since people keep walking on your lawn, the whole community should pay for your fence. Sorry but if you want a fence... go buy one. If the music/movie industries want ISPs to engage in policing, they should be footing the bill. If they want to pass that expense off to their customers through the price of their product then so be it. The indignation should be focused squarely on the RIAA/MPAA and should be amplified to disgust, IMO. | |
| | | | | | said by anon anon :said by elefante72:It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring? How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on. BF69 you're fooling no one. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Oh well. said by mtnarea :said by anon anon :said by elefante72:It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring? How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on. BF69 you're fooling no one. No, he sure doesn't, does he?! 
Sure am glad I don't live any where near his ridiculousness. It might could be contagious!!
The RIAA is just dumb. They've have now had years to get with the times and realize what century this is, yet they still use neanderthal tactics and intelligence!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | in the US an additional fee on all broadband monthly bills might take them down a path they do not want. Someone could pirate and then with the right lawyer and right jury win a piracy trial. Simply because they could turn around and state they thought that fee authorized them to download music and movies. "I am paying for it" would effectively become a valid excuse.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Oh well. said by Kearnstd:in the US an additional fee on all broadband monthly bills might take them down a path they do not want. Someone could pirate and then with the right lawyer and right jury win a piracy trial. If we're talking about a criminal trial and I'm on the jury, it doesn't even have to be the right lawyer or right other 11 jurors. I will guarantee a hung jury, at the least.
That is what disgust and disdain for the RIAA and MPAA get them from me. I don't pirate media, but sure as heck don't appreciate non governmental entities acting as though they have the right to enforce laws and impose fines. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Barriers to entry I think the big ISPs like the 6-strikes rules and monitoring as barriers to entry for competition. They make enough money that it's not breaking the bank, and it's one more thing a potential competitor would have to spend while starting up. | |
| |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | And more and more will become better at finding ways of hiding their downloading videos/games/music.
It really is that simple.
You would think these companies would spent the money that they spent on this garbage...on actual contents and improvements | |
| | | | Re: And more and more will become better Fact is most people won't do that. They will get a strike and be done. Most people don't know what VPNs are, much less how to use one. | |
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: And more and more will become better I can assure you, all of the people getting speeding tickets are still speeding. They are more discreet about it. | |
| | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: And more and more will become better said by axus:I can assure you, all of the people getting speeding tickets are still speeding. They are more discreet about it.
How the hell does one discreetly speed? It's not exactly easy to hide a 3000lb hunk of plastic and metal traveling at 70+ MPH. | |
| | | | | | | Re: And how do you hide speeding? You speed by knowing where the photo cameras are. Know where the red light cameras are. Where no enforcement due to non-safe stopping places to write tickets. You find a less-observant speeder and follow him and let him be the bait for enforcement.
If you know how radar beams from the microwave radar gun works, you can easily get a ticket thrown out by arguing that it wasn't you speeding, as it was the other vehicle next to you.
Laser radar guns that are not on a tripod, the unit moves when the officer pushes the button, resulting in a flawed reading that is +4mph above the speed you were doing.
Flaws in the system are easy to use, whether by the innocents or by the authorities. And if you don;'t know the flaws, you will be extorted out of your lifes savings so that some billionaire(politician or private citizen) can continue his filthy habit of thinking he is immune from real life. | |
| | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: And how do you hide speeding? said by Iamthelawwww :If you know how radar beams from the microwave radar gun works, you can easily get a ticket thrown out by arguing that it wasn't you speeding, as it was the other vehicle next to you.
Laser radar guns that are not on a tripod, the unit moves when the officer pushes the button, resulting in a flawed reading that is +4mph above the speed you were doing.
Unfortunately that doesn't work in NY. The primary evidence against you here is the officer's expert testimony that you were traveling the cited speed. The reading from the device is secondary to confirm the officer was right. You can successfully argue against his/her 'expertise' or against the accuracy/use of the speed measuring device but trying to argue against both almost never works. | |
|
| | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | said by silbaco:Fact is most people won't do that. They will get a strike and be done. Most people don't know what VPNs are, much less how to use one.
People said that 15-20 years ago about downloading music, videos, etc.... | |
|
| | I have a better idea. Since they've abused it so badly, I say that we--the people--should abolish 'copyright' entirely. After all, it's not like these people really "created" anything--every author of something was raised, educated, trained, and inspired by others; everything they've ever done is attributable to someone else. | |
| | | | Re: I have a better idea. said by Joey1973 :Since they've abused it so badly, I say that we--the people--should abolish 'copyright' entirely. After all, it's not like these people really "created" anything--every author of something was raised, educated, trained, and inspired by others; everything they've ever done is attributable to someone else.
YOu are absolutely correct. Let me know when you tell your employer that you no longer need your pay, since you are not doing anything that wasn't attributable to the people that helped educate you or inspired you. | |
| | | | | Re: I have a better idea. do a search on Disney and Micky mouse,
and how copyright is being extended to protect the copyright mouse.
Europe is in the process of allowing copyright to expire in a good time(50 years - 70 years maximum) and not allowing it to continue on for centuries to keep some Rich MoFo rich on the backs of people who get sued for downloading 'its a wonderful life'(interesting copyright fight to do with original story copyrights), or works like marty luther kings 'i have a dream' videos/speech. | |
| | | | | Excellent idea... when I leave my current job, everything that my employer continues to pay me I'll contribute to the "Starving Copyright Owner Fund". Yay me! | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by Joey1973 :Since they've abused it so badly, I say that we--the people--should abolish 'copyright' entirely. After all, it's not like these people really "created" anything--every author of something was raised, educated, trained, and inspired by others; everything they've ever done is attributable to someone else. Oh good God... Really? Isn't this the same crap that Obama spouted about business owners? "You didn't do it on your own, and shouldn't be able to take credit for it."
How about we just take a reasonable approach instead? Copyright on music, movies, and software lasts for 20 years from the date of creation. After that the owners of the works may still control distribution and reverse engineering, but there are no financial penalties associated with ignoring their wishes. And there are never any criminal penalties associated with copyright infringement, unless it is associated with other criminal enterprises (counterfeiting, etc.).
Reverse engineering of works would be allowed for educational and personal use purposes, but not for business (aka "for profit") purposes.
Penalties are determined by circumstances, including believed intent, and also actual damages. A person downloading a song would be forced to buy that song at a maximum of three times current market value. (Example: $0.99 per song x 3 = $2.97 per song.) A business who violates copyright in the same manner would face similar, but more substantial, fines that factor in any profit they made from their infringement in damages. (Example: A business is found to have distributed 1,000 copies of Batman without permission, violating copyright, for a profit of $15,000. The copyright holder would have the right to ask for treble damages for the original purchase price of the movie plus treble damages using the profit made from the violation as a base. In this event it would be $45,060, if the movie sold in the stores for $20.) | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post |
| | boo RIAA If a song was 10 cents and a cd was 3-7 bucks with no DRM I would pay, 12-24 dollars for crap music or 2-4 songs that are good go to hell. Sadly today's artist are just a face behind a voice synthesizer.
Mark my words: They wont stop until they have a system when you pay an annual tax, more like EU for tv. I bet then they will be happy | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·CenturyLink
| Deja Vue The Music CD-R Tax Yes the RIAA tax on evil Audio CD-R's that are only used by pirates and their idea to convince everybody that only "Audio" CD-R's would work for music recording. Har-de-har-har and this direct tax to make up for lost revenue pile of crap sure worked didn't it.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: boo RIAA said by NO2RIAA :Mark my words: They wont stop until they have a system when you pay an annual tax, more like EU for tv. You do realize that almost all of those license fees are funding public radio and television services, similar to PBS and NPR in the US? And that, presuming you pay taxes in the US, you already essentially pay a similar tax even if you don't have a TV or radio, or watch/listen to such programming. | |
|
| | Please explain... ...how a private, non-governmental body feels it has the power to impose fines. I thought that imposition of fines was solely the responsibility of governments and their myriad of agencies. | |
| | | Cat & Mouse They will keep on looking for more ways to go after people. The smart will always adapt. Who in their right mind would pay for a new blue-ray release which cost $20 - $25 when you could pay $7.99 a month and stream it for half the price? Once the entertainment industries reduce their prices to a reasonable amount then the piracy will be reduced. | |
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Cat & Mouse said by brianiscool:Who in their right mind would pay for a new blue-ray release which cost $20 - $25 when you could pay $7.99 a month and stream it for half the price? Or have it delivered via Netflix and use your BD-R to make a copy of it or just rip it to a hard drive. It took me all of 10 seconds to think of that, so I'm sure I'm not the first person to assume that there are some folks out there who use their Netflix memberships to pirate movies. | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Cat & Mouse it has been done since the age of VHS. people would run two VCRs together via RCA cables and record a rental from Blockbuster.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | Re: so we'll all budget for a vpn? Ah. Yes. Buying a VPN so pirates can buy more music than those who don't pirate. If pirates truly buy more, why spend money on the VPN instead of just buying the crap? Sounds to me like some people want to buy VPNs because they know it is cheaper than buying the content they steal. | |
| | | Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: so we'll all budget for a vpn? said by silbaco:Ah. Yes. Buying a VPN so pirates can buy more music than those who don't pirate. If pirates truly buy more, why spend money on the VPN instead of just buying the crap? Sounds to me like some people want to buy VPNs because they know it is cheaper than buying the content they steal.
Back when Napster could have been converted to a $$ PAYING $$ service for unlimited downloads the RIAA blasted them into millions of pissed off consumers some of which were being sued unnecessarily-- that created their own demon of a consumer group-- many generations of which will now be pirates and not consumers.. way to go RIAA.. totally misread that one.
we're probably only 10 years or so away from having nationwide bandwidth putting similar capability into the hands of consumers who will pirate video this way as well.. and lots of parallel industries could fail in similar fashion: cable-tv, video rental, movie theaters, sports subscriptions, etc. | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| back to courts as 6 strikes disintegrates into the history books.. we all knew that it would fail (to disconnect customers) as these outside stake holders do not have legal authority to make companies to anything they do not want to do (or is not in their best financial interest).
the Achilles heel is and will probably always be about whether these copyright scum would compensate the ISPs (in essence bribe) them to disconnect consumers and stop taking their money. | |
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| The morality cops It slays me when people pat themselves on the back for allegedly never pirating songs, movies, TV shows, software, games, etc. And even better, when people assume this sort of moral high-ground about it. Just stop. Most of these smug anti-piracy trolls either pirate currently or have done it in the past. Even if you've only pirated one song, does that make you any better than someone who has pirated a thousand? It's the principle of the thing! Now where's my check from the RIAA? | |
|
| |
|
|
