Verizon Also Sending Letters On Behalf Of MPAA
Still won't disclose a user's identity, though...
Last week we noted how
Verizon had started working with the RIAA to send letters to Verizon users who traded copyrighted files, though the company still doesn't plan to divulge user identities to the entertainment industry. Verizon also doesn't appear willing to engage in the industry's dream scenario of booting repeat offenders off of their network. In a follow up piece, CNET
notes that Verizon has also struck a new letter notification agreement with the major film studios and the MPAA. Contrary to what CNET seems to believe, Verizon has
sent DMCA infringement notifications to their users on behalf of Fox and other companies in the past, so it's not clear just how expanded this new effort will be (Verizon isn't commenting).
When do companies start to understand.... ...that the only thing you will reach by whipping down on users like this is, that a few open source developers are really going to get the encryption side of torrents working the way it should, and then the MPAA/RIAA is faced with a huge technological hurdle it probably can't overcome.
This is like World War 1. Each side keeps on digging in deeper, but essentially it's a stale-mate. Only difference in the digital world is that it costs the MPAA/RIAA millions to engage in these kinds of activities, and it costs a few smart developers to get the encryption of torrents to the masses virtually nothing.
But hey.... the big shot CEO's of the car companies didn't have a clue when they FLEW in PRIVATE JETS to go beg for govt. money, I don't expect the board of RIAA/MPAA and major studios to suddenly realize that the methods they have been trying so far..... aren't really working and are just a big money pit.
Is there a solution then to the illegal downloading? I'm not sure.... well for starters the prices should come down, and any media you purchase should not be riddled with DRM and anti-copy protection, so you can't make a copy of the movie to be stored in the family car and used with the built in DVD player, or so you can't make a copy of a movie for the long, long business flights and boring hotel nights you have to do for work....
If you buy a movie, you should be allowed to do with it as you please, as long as it is within your own household. DRM really, really is the "car industry's vision they had before they were rudely awakened last year". It's a strategy that audio/visual production companies are grasping a hold of, and you'll have to pry DRM out of their cold dead hands.....
And each year they are losing more money, and their solution is to make their version of DRM "better." (As in, harder to copy)
They just don't see that DRM may sell them NO movies at all (and an illegal download so they can put that movie on the laptop and in the car for the kids), while non-DRM riddled movies may actually get you 1 sale for that household.
They are slowly digging their own grave..... but just not realizing it yet.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Re: When do companies start to understand.... RIAA doesn't sniff traffic in the first place (some say they do, by just DMCAing all the IPs they get from the tracker). With P2P, you can't avoid making a connection. Anonymous IP connections don't really exist on the internet (unless its wifi, or something, even then, the owner of the broadband link behind the wifi is responsible). If you go to download you will always run the risk of contacting an RIAA peer or seeder.
Re: Two issues here: Snooping and Format Conversion!
said by Mr Matt:You have no rights. You licensed it, not bought it.
2. How about DRM preventing format conversion? As new media formats are created, how will consumers that have legally purchased copyrighted material convert that material on an older media format to a newer media format? Once players for the older format are discontinued and the material on the media is encrypted consumers will not be able to.
| |Mr Matt
Re: Two issues here: Snooping and Format Conversion! First of all cable cards are not media and not programming but a security device to control access to the programming, that the customer subscribes to. On the other hand in order to give the cable companies an incentive to provide a transparent security system the FCC should require cable companies to provide Cable cards to consumers at no charge. True2Way technology should be adopted ASAP. I remember when the FCC was about to take action against selected cable companies for intentionally delaying the availability of cable cards.
Right now I am paying $549.60 a year for two HD DVR's and $420.60 a year for all Premium Movie Channels. I think the annual fee for two HD DVR's is gouging. In 1999 I purchased an 80GB Panasonic DVR with DVD Recorder for about $250.00.
I would strongly recommend reading SEC. 17. CONSUMER ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT COMPATIBILITY of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
See Wikipedia article at this link:
Section 17 of the act clearly states that cable companies should make their systems compatible with consumer TV Receivers and Video Recorders. Cable ready televisions and vcr's should be able to operate without external boxes. The current system of charging for Digital Outlets, Digital Subscriber Terminals and or Cable Cards is an end run around the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 in order to gouge customers by charging them for every digital outlet. Furthermore many cable companies are moving desirable basic programming from analog channels to the first Digital Tier thereby forcing customers to pay for Digital Subscriber Terminals in order to view that programming.
After the act was passed in 1992 most cable systems eliminated scrambling on Basic and Extended Basic Tiers of service making those services available on Cable Ready Televisions and VCR's without additional equipment.
I have a modest proposal: Lawmakers should pass the Cable Anti-Gouging Act of 2010. It would require all cable companies to provide customers, Digital Subscriber Terminals for a single pay right to use fee of no more than 80% of the wholesale price of the equipment. The cable companies would retain ownership of the equipment and be required to maintain the equipment at no cost to the customer. If the customer discontinued service the customer would be required to return the equipment to the cable company. In order to give the customer an incentive to keep the equipment in good condition the customer would receive 20% of the value of the equipment if returned in good condition less normal wear and tear. Once the cable companies loose the incentive to gouge customers for terminal equipment they will go back to receiving their profits from programming and not equipment rental.
I have not contradicted myself Digital Subscriber Terminals and Cable Cards are not media and do not contain programming they just provide access to programming.
Edit: I thought about this post. To avoid discrimination against the cable Television industry lawmakers should make the rules apply to the DBS Industry as well. The DBS carrier could provide a master receiver/translator that would translate the signal to a format that could be received by any compatible Cable/DBS TV Receiver and/or DVR with a QAM Tuner. Actually the last time I looked Dish Network had very reasonable or no fees for additional Satellite Receivers depending the model selected.
meaningless these mean next to nothing without the will to take next and further steps.. and given how much Verizon ante'd up on FIOS FTTP, that's a big gamble. verizon also did not evolve their cable-tv business model to become the next Apple for video-- missed opportunity. when you have probably the most robust broadband in the country.. you need to give consumers applications.. things to use it with (legally, at AFFORDABLE/CHEAP PRICING, and better than anybody else) and if not, guess what happens? all the shady and allegedly illegal stuff. verizon seems more content to focus on wireless in 2010 than fios, although they will still construct (most) of their current commitments for deployment, with the exception of Boston, MA... so RCN, have at it (docsis 3.0).
the entertainment industry missed plenty of opportunities to embrace online distribution models and directly prey on consumers with lawsuits, and shady politics in addition to having their blue-ray DRM cake and eating apple's revenue sharing too. consumers are pissed off and they won't take it any longer. either jump in with two feet or go screw yourselves. you have no say in what goes on with the internet, otherwise if you don't genuinely evolve your business model to account for internet distribution.
100/100 megabits will not wait any longer for the mpaa & riaa.