it's not a 3 strike policy... i'm relativaly ok with this particular thing...
Just a notice and notice system, sometimes users dont know if they are doing something illegal. Furthermore, can they proof without anny doubt that there's a copyright infrigement?
Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
Summary
Verizon is expected to begin issuing 'copyright notices' on behalf of the RIAA to those accused of illegally downloading songs from the web.
Topics
Verizon Communications, the second-largest phone company in the US, is expected to begin issuing 'copyright notices' on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America to those accused of illegally downloading songs from the web, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement.
The sources, who asked for anonymity, said Verizon's letter campaign is part of a test, expected to begin on Thursday. Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman, confirmed the existence of the test but declined further comment.
The move is significant for the music industry because among ISPs, Verizon has typically been among the most reluctant to intervene in copyright cases on behalf of entertainment companies.
For more, read "Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices" on CNET News.
Talkback Most Recent of 15 Talkback(s)
-
Ceridan13th Nov 2009 -
I am sure they can
I am sure they can with DHCP records and deep packet inspection, but this opens up a whole new can of worms. Why do they feel like they have a right to look at the specifics of my traffic to determine if the download is a) music, b) what music it is, c) if that music is a protected work. Sounds to me like they will have to invade our privacy to achieve this. What I do on the net is not their business. And let's not forget, we areinnocent before proven guilty, so proactively monitoring in this fashion HAS to violate some laws. No?
The alternative is to not look at the comntent of each packet and just sending warning to ALL that download MP3s, or use certain protocols like Bit Torrent. Both of which cannot definitively tell them that the download is copyright protected.
I call BS here.
djmik13th Nov 2009 -
no they cannot
With such a large criminal records, the RIAA cannot be thrusted. Any serious court of law will not even hear a case. The so called proof can be easly spoofed and the proof is legit, was obtained illegally.
Mectron13th Nov 2009 -
I agree but...
as long as it's just harmless text saying that you *might* have either downloaded copyright infringing material or your network might be used for this I have no problem with the notice.
As long as it does NOT lead to banishement from the internet without being proven guilty in justice, i'm ok with their attempt to stop copyright infrigement.
PS: I still think the *AA needs to grow up and try to adapt to the modern times... and not try to revert back to the 1920's.Ceridan13th Nov 2009 -
I am not a Verizon customer but
if I were, I would seriously consider switching, as a matter of principle. The thin edge of the wedge.....
Economister13th Nov 2009 -
RE: Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
The RIAA and the movie industry needs to move into the 21st century with their sales practices. The present ones are totally obsolete, and they just don't get it. More and more artists are going independent, and making more money by selling directly.
1djk113th Nov 2009 -
RE: Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
Let?s face the reality that the entertainment industry is at least in part looking for someone to blame for falling revenue that is probably more due to the lack of quality in so many movies and music today and less to piracy. Nobody made them add leg humping RC cars or blond sex-formers to Transformers 2, we couldn?t? make them stop after the first Saw movie, or ask every entertainer in California to auto-tune themselves into obscurity. Taste is subjective, but there is stuff I hear on the radio that I think Britney Spears should pay me to listen to.
It is not even that I am not unsympathetic to the RIAA, or their plight, especially with new releases. But if the movie is really good would anyone be satisfied as a customer with a camcorder copy filmed from an old bowling bag that had any intention of paying for the movie otherwise. Would the people downloading movies or music that can be obtained for free in any public library really buy the movie if they couldn?t download it, unless they planned to buy it? While piracy is obviously wrong, the entertainment industry has just gone over the edge with invading people?s privacy and there has to be some limit to how deep these people can probe into the lives of private citizens to protect their intellectual property.
Socratesfoot13th Nov 2009 -
RE: Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
Sometimes I'm "forced" to download a copy of a movie or album, even when I purchase it legitimately. The problem is in the copy protections they are using. I completely understand companies trying to protect their works from being distributed illegally; I DO NOT accept when that copy protection mechanism restricts the legitimate use of a product obtained legally.
Some audio CDs are sold that are unreadable in computer optical drives (not talking about the Sony rootkit issue) because the lead-out is intentionally corrupted. CD-Audio players don't care; computers do. The issue is that a lot of car head units (especially MP3-capable ones) read the discs more like computers, and will not read those discs (there is a marker trick to cover the lead-out, but that should not be required). And some people still like to listen to audio CDs on their computer, or have their computer connected to a killer sound system.
So, I have to download a copy of the album, just so I can listen to it.
New copy protection mechanisms with DVD will not allow the disc to be played unless the system verifies it is connected to an HDCP-compliant monitor. I have a computer connected to an older rear-projection TV via S-Video cable. It will not play any copy-protected movies, complaining it cannot enable the copy protection for the video output. So what am I supposed to do? Buy a new TV when I already have one that works perfectly? Rip the DVD to the computer and play it from there (also illegal, according to the DMCA; circumventing copy protection mechanism). Also, new netbooks and ultra-portable laptops don't even have optical drives; what then?
So, I can download the movie, just so I can actually watch it on my TV.
The price of a DVD movie includes, among other things, the production of the movie, labor and materials of the disc and packaging, marketing, administrative costs, etc. etc. Some are related to the movie itself, others are variable costs relating to the production of discs on a per-unit basis (raw materials, for example). So, if I already purchased the DVD, paying my share of the initial production costs, and I want to purchase a Blu-Ray version, why should I have to re-pay my portion of the movie creation cost? I have no problem paying the replication and distribution costs associated with that specific unit of the new medium, though.
Instead, I can download a Blu-Ray rip of that movie.
I purchase (for example) a limited-platium-extended-edition of The Lion King, which obviously cost quite it bit. My little nephew wants to watch the movie when he comes over (not give a copy to him). I would prefer to make a duplicate that he can get his fingerprints on, scratch, and ultimately, destroy. Legally, I can't. So, what am I supposed to do? Will the publisher give me a replacement copy of the disc should the original get destroyed? I highly doubt it (haven't actually tried, though; if someone has, let us know your experiences).
Instead, I can download a copy, burn it to DVD (or make it available on the HTPC), so I don't get my original destroyed.
Eventually, I may get tired of paying the full retail price for a product that I CANNOT USE, and supporting an industry that causes so many problems for their legitimate customers.
Although everything above isn't directly related to this article, it's related to the way that the RIAA, MPAA, CRIA, etc. don't give a **** about people who don't want to break the law, but have no choice given the fact that the product they purchased IS COMPLETELY UNUSABLE.
anarchy_102413th Nov 2009 -
I hope they do better than Comcast did when they reported me to the RIAA
A few years ago, Comcast sent me a message stating
that they had reported me to the RIAA for downloading
a movie. The details they sent were for a movie I'd
never seen downloaded at an IP address located 1500
miles away. My suspicion was that they had some
corruption in their customer database that had crossed
me with another customer.
I sent off a letter to their legal department, making
it clear in no uncertain terms that I'd be holding
them responsible for any legal action that took place
as a result of their erroneously divulging my personal
information to a 3rd party. Not surprisingly, I never
heard back from anybody. Too bad, it would have been
nice to become a major Comcast shareholder.
JohnMcGrew@...17th Nov 2009 -
RE: Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
This is not news - they have been doing it for months with Movie Studios. I have know people who have gotten two already. The difference between Verizon and Optimum Online, which I switched from, is that Verizon says they will not voluntarily give up our identity - unless they are presented with a court order. Optimum Online, in contrast, responds to a simple letter and gives up the information - big, big difference.
Where, oh where, is iPredator?!?!?
ICU Doc NY17th Nov 2009 -
RE: Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
hmm,
well if youre routed via a us or uk based link point then anything you down/up load is automatically dpi'd as part of the anti terrorism laws (made and passed largley in secret on the back of some other equally sh** laws like the dmca) i sympathise with everyone who wishes to own a legal copy and give a backup to there family members (for use in the same property) but according to the mpaa and the riaa you want a replacement for the broken copy then buy one (they lost 25% sales revenue overnight in the uk with that announcement although it did bounce back up with a killer release a few months later)
i found a legal way to copy any disc to a local data storage device for use within the property of the owner of the original disc so long as single user access is maintained (for pc users at least) and that is get the codec's for windows media player (yes i know it crap and you have to pay for them) and use it to rip the content to a local shared drive, this does not come under the removal of copy protection so long as you dont tick the save without protection icon, furthermore it allows you to share the file (via nas/san device) across a home network and output to any device so long as you use media player to play the files.
i dont understand all the technicalitys of yhow or why it works but as i understand it media player just ignors the copy protection on the file but it does require it to be present for playback to occure, confused so am i but hey ho its legal so long as you dont share run or otherwise access the file(s) via the internet, unfortunatly you are required to maintain an original content disk in your property (attic box is my preferance) and if you have older files that you didnt bother to keep the copy protection (drm crap) on then you wont be able to keep them or you will be breaching the dmca (i know its backwards)
however since i live in the uk i am lucky enough to not have to comply with the DMCA since the law was overturned and its new form is unenforceable against individuals unless they upload files.
nanotm17th Nov 2009 -
RE:Verizon >> Invasion of privacy??
I am not illegally downloading or selling anything. However; I do feel that a carrier that monitors my communications is an invasion of privacy in violation of the Constitution. The FBI or CIA can't tap my phone without an order, but Verizon can monitor my Internet communications? The threat letter as referneced in the original article implies the monitoting. What do you think?
Meunage
rickwiggins@...17th Nov 2009 -
Good way to lose customers!
This may cause the pendulum to swing to the AT&T side. Certainly sounds like an invasion of privacy, to me. Our purchase of media has sharply dropped, but not due to piracy, due to annoyances like the RIAA. We have turned more to using free services on the internet and re-listening to the 700-800 audio CDs we own as well as the DVDs and, yes, even video and audio tapes!
If this becomes prevalent, it may be time to have a special governmental organization that
scrupulously monitors companies like Verizon for any illegal activities...
FiOS-Dave17th Nov 2009 -
RE: Verizon to test sending RIAA copyright warnings
Wow...this is gross misconduct and abuse of authority. They have no right and no case has ever held the isp libel for the conduct of its users. This basically means if you are with Verizon none of your data will escape being looked at. A disgusting invasion of privacy. To those who say if you don't do anything wrong you should have nothing to hide I will cite this example. If you file your income tax on time every year would you show your return to the postman just because he delivered it. Obviously, the answer is no because it is none of his business.
striker33317th Nov 2009 -
pay for your music period. DJjamminjimmy@myspace.com
I have been a mobile dj for twentyone years, I pay fir all of my music, free down loaders do not know how much money it takes to get A hit record on the charts let alone the songwriter who wrote the song, the musician who plays on the song you have illegally downloadid.
when you cheat the song as we say in the business, you cheat allot of artist who sing,play,write,produce distribute, and pirate the song to others.think about it, stop stealing the music, if you buy it, it is yours.
you steal the song from ilegal download. then you are a thief pure and simple.
DJ jammin jimmy
zdnetkindaguy26th Nov 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
