Print 82 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Dec 26 at 10:30 PM

RIAA says that any pending litigation will continue

The RIAA has been suing people willy-nilly for years with slim proof that the defendants actually shared music illegally. The lawsuits often seemed to be nothing more than a marketing attempt by the RIAA to get people to realize they could and would sue if you illegally shared music or they suspected you did.

Despite all of the suits that the RIAA filed, against people living and dead, the tide of music piracy never turned in its favor. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) cites numbers from the NPD Group that show illegal music sharing stayed about the same throughout the RIAA's inquisition.

This week, The WSJ reported that the RIAA has announced it will stop its slash and burn suit policy and focus on other methods of preventing piracy that is thinks will be more effective. Since the RIAA started is massive campaign of litigation, it has brought legal proceedings against 35,000 people.

The RIAA says that it will now focus on working with individual ISPs to help stop piracy. When a person on an ISP is suspected of pirating music the RIAA will send an email to the ISP, who can then get with the individual customer to try to stop piracy. As is par for the RIAA's course, it makes no mention of how exactly it will gather evidence of piracy against ISP customers. Many wonder if the RIAA will simply resort to massive spamming of hundreds of thousands of suspected file sharers to ISPs.

If an ISP determines that a user is sharing music illegally, it will send an email warning the customer to begin with. That warning, if unheeded, could be followed by more warning letters from the ISP. If the user fails to stop file sharing, their internet connection could be slowed or terminated altogether.

The bad news for alleged file shares that already have RIAA litigation pending against them is that The WSJ says the RIAA will proceed with pending suits. That means that the retrial date set for the tossed verdict in the Jammie Thomas case will continue.

New York State Attorney General Andre Cuomo is also working to broker a deal between the RIAA and ISPs to help address both parties' privacy concerns. One key point in the RIAAs new tact on piracy is that it will not ask for the names of alleged music traders.

Cuomo's chief of staff Steven Cohen told The WSJ, "We wanted to end the litigation. It's not helpful." For its part, the RIAA thinks that the new policy will reach more people to make them aware that the man has an eye on them. RIAA group chairman Mitch Bainwol said, "Part of the issue with infringement is for people to be aware that their actions are not anonymous."

Brian Toder, the attorney representing a woman from Minnesota in a file sharing case said, "I'd give them credit for stopping what they've already been doing because it's been so destructive." Unfortunately, for his client, her litigation will continue despite the new policy.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This makes more sense
By Chaser on 12/19/2008 3:42:02 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think you understand how IP addressing works. Just because your ISP provides dynamic addressing doesn't mean you're invisible or something from them tracking everything you do. Sorry bud you can change your IP address every 3 seconds and it makes zero difference. They track everything you do and can identify you and your activities.

RE: This makes more sense
By erikejw on 12/19/2008 6:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
"If an ISP determines that a user is sharing music illegally, it will send an email warning the customer to begin with. That warning, if unheeded, could be followed by more warning letters from the ISP. If the user fails to stop file sharing, their internet connection could be slowed or terminated altogether."

Did I miss something or does it sound like RIAA owns all ISPs and will decide how they will treat their customers. It would be like I try to run someone elses business.

Where I live I can easily switch between 8 100Mbit provders, if one of them will cooperate with RIAA the word will be out in hours and everyone will leave that operator immediately.

RE: This makes more sense
By StevoLincolnite on 12/20/2008 5:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
This is what the Music Industry is trying to push at the moment, an Australian ISP that goes by the name of "iiNet" has just entered a battle with these companies, the Music and Movie industry believes it can send the I.P addresses to the ISP which is mere "Allegations" and force the ISP to disconnect users, however iiNet has been passing the notices onto the police and not to the users, believing they are "not" the police and they merely provide the pipes for the data to travel much like a Post Office.

However because iiNet refused to send the notices onto users and disconnect there internet connections they are now being sued by several Music/Movie/Television companies.

However I personally think it's wrong they are "merely" allegations, what happens if they got a single digit in the I.P wrong? - that would then make a customer who never did anything illegal to loose there internet connection, plus the ISP looses customers and thus profits.

Quite interesting how the industry choose iiNet, I guess they didn't like the idea of taking on Optus or Telstra which have much bigger and deeper pockets then they and iiNet do.

However if iiNet gets sued then I gather the Music and Movie industry will initiate mass legal action against all ISP's on the planet, which will be bad for everyone...

RE: This makes more sense
By croc on 12/20/2008 3:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here in AUS, in ISP needs a warrant issued from a police agency to track an IP for suspected illegal activity. Then they can track all activity from that IP via their legal interception gateway. This gateway is a condition of their carrier license. Personally, I think that Iinet is within their legal rights, indeed their legal responsibilities, for turning the information over to the police. I have never heard of an ISP tracking an IP on their own, and would imagine that the ACA would be a bit upset if an ISP did that without a warrant

RE: This makes more sense
By 9nails on 12/19/2008 10:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that's pretty clever. He's changing the MAC Address, not just the IP Address. So this would appear that a different modem connected to the ISP. Hopefully, the hostname changes as well. I don't know how detailed the ISP's reports are or if they track connections to any given port. It might look odd that 722 different modems connected from their address each month. But if this isn't tracked by the ISP, then it's a good way to blame some other guy.

RE: This makes more sense
By Lifted on 12/20/2008 3:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
So then if he doesn't pay his bill, do you think the ISP can't terminate his connection because he has changed his MAC address? The ISP knows all. The kiddies can keep thinking they are fooling someone, but it will just get them caught quicker.

Surfing using a SIM card purchased at 7-11 here in Thailand is truly anonymous. ;)

RE: This makes more sense
By mindless1 on 12/20/2008 4:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
It won't make a difference. If the ISP isn't tying access to the MAC/IP, it's tying it to the account. Either way it's logged, either way it's just as easy to look up who had what IP address at any point in time until beyond the period of the log retention.

RE: This makes more sense
By Schrag4 on 12/22/2008 9:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, his ISP shouldn't let him do this, unless they have all the MAC addresses that he's using on file. If I get a new modem (or change my MAC address) then my ISP simply won't give me service. I would have to call them up and tell them the new MAC address.

If they allowed me to change my MAC address at will then I would consider them a poorly managed ISP.

RE: This makes more sense
By snikt on 12/20/2008 11:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you're using an unsecured wireless router with DHCP. Then you could argue you have know idea what they're talking about.

RE: This makes more sense
By omnicronx on 12/20/2008 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
They track everything you do and can identify you and your activities.
As far as I know, in the US ISPS are only required to keep these kinds of records for 90 days. Of the few 'warning letters' I have received over the years, they were for infractions that happened up to a year beforehand, and never within that 90 day period. So ISPS are not required to keep this info, so unless they do voluntarily, there is a good possibility that changing IP's will reduce the chance of getting one of these takedown letters.

An IP address is in no way or form 100% proof either. Its not that hard to spoof an IP address, and this fact has been used in court time and time again.

RE: This makes more sense
By MrPoletski on 12/22/2008 7:15:20 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that renewing your IP address every 3 seconds consistantly might raise the eyebrow of suspiscion anyway;)

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki