ISP= Internet Service Provider
RIAA: Recording Industry Association of America
Do you think this is an example that should be followed by all ISPs?
Do you think this does more harm than good? (ie: encourage piracy)
I, for one, support this course of action fully and have already wrote them a congratulatory email (even though they are not my ISP)
When will they ever learn that you CANNOT stop music piracy?
You just cannot, cannot do it.
You can’t stop violent crime altogether, either. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
I don’t know what I think about this issue. I do think that piracy is a type of stealing and that it’s wrong, but I can’t really support the actions of the music industry, either. Where do you stand when you think both sides are acting only in greedy self-interest?
That’s really cool. I hope more ISPs go this route. The fact that piracy is going on certainly does not give one a license to search computers for it, the same way that if my car was stolen, I wouldn’t be allowed to arbirtarily go garage-to-garage searching for it on my own.
As a related question, I thought the RIAA had to wait for this to be legalized in Congress. Did this happen, or is the RIAA still waiting, or have they decided to go ahead illegally?
My thoughts?
“Go, IWT!”, followed closely by “Die, RIAA, die!”
I acknowledge that piracy is a bad thing, but I think the RIAA is a worse thing yet.
Jeff
Piracy is a complicated issue that one simply can’t just label “bad.”
RIAA became an unnecessary appendage with the advent of the Web. So what they are doing is struggling to mention control what rightfully is not theirs.
I would love it if all ISPs went this route.
AFAIK, RIAA’s “right to search your HD” bill is still waiting to be approved, but as RIAA’s actions seem to border on blind zealotry - I mean do they really think they have the right to arbitrarily access everybody’s hard drive? - I wouldn’t be surprised if they were already “beta testing” their software.
This is stupid, on so many levels.
It smacks of a publicity stunt, by a Tier 2 (or 3) ISP that started their business at the height of the Internet bubble in an exceptionally competitive market, and now is struggling to get any sort of PR possible.
Why is it so stupid? First, because the RIAA does not have the authority to tamper with other people’s computers and data, even if they are trying to protect their client’s Intellectual Property. That is why they have found some idiot, I mean Congressman, to introduce a bill to eliminate any liability that might be incurred if/when they try such a stupid stunt. For many reasons, the bill will have no chance.
It is even more stupid of IWT, because it potentially exposes them to even MORE legal liabilities and obligations than they would likely have otherwise. (IANAL) To date, the courts have held that ISPs are merely transport providers, and are not responsible for content transmitted through their network. For example, an ISP cannot be held complicit for kiddie porn that passes through their routers. This is as opposed to content providers, whom do have a responsibility for the content on their sites.
IWT is now saying they are going complicate their situation unnessarily. First, by blocking the RIAA site, they open themselves up to not be discriminatory, and therefore block any other site they may offer similar risks (hacker sites, etc). Then they stop being an ISP, and start being a filtered content provider. Second, they are now saying they are going to put up Gnutella clients, squarely putting themselves in the content provider game. Since they are likely to piss off some groups that are already a bit fringe oriented, and technically savvy, they may be opening themselves and their customers up to Denial of Service attacks or other hacking ire. Not smart.
And then they make comments that leads one to believe that they don’t even understand IP networking. They suggest that they will “immediately blacklist” clients that connect to their Gnutella clients. Any one that has a clue about IP networking understands that the ONLY way they could do that is to block by IP address. But “clients” (users) don’t own, or even necessarily keep, their IP addresses. This will do nothing to prevent the freeloaders from getting their music, except for a bit of irritation. What it will do over time is to begin to block access from legitimate (and innocent) users to the content of IWT’s customers servers. Just plain stupid.
On the other hand, if they did nothing, but focus on providing high performance connectivity solutions and customer satisfaction, they would avoid all these legal issues and hacking risks.
If I were an IWT customer, I’d be looking for a new ISP ASAP, if not PDQ.
Many ISPs filter incoming traffic based on a variety of criteria: blocking email from known spammers, blocking Usenet posts from sites that have been given the Usenet Death Penalty, blocking packets from forged sources, and so on. But they’re not filtering based on the content, they’re filtering based on the source. No email gets through from a known spammer, whether it’s spam or not.
And this is no different. They’re filtering traffic from a group of organizations that have expressed a desire to hack file-sharers’ systems. No data flows to ISP users from the RIAA, or out from the ISP users to the RIAA, no matter what it is.
Point taken, Mr2001. At least with regards to email, I think my point still stands though.
I am only aware of two different “spam-blocking” strategies employed by ISPs. One strategy, such as Earthlink’s SPAMINATOR, allows users to subscribe to the service. It doesn’t filter the spam at the edge of the network, indeed, it uses application content filtering technology to simply sort the spam and hold it available for review. And it is entirely optional, at the users discretion.
The other strategy is using a spam black-hole list, such as the MAPS Realtime Blackhole List. This list IS network level filtering, and not application level filtering. That is, all traffic from servers acting as sources of spam are blocked. These servers are acting as open relays, which do not allow the verfication of the sender’s email address. The Internet community considers these “misconfigured” devices, and blackhole ALL traffic from them, including otherwise legitimate traffic. It is non-discriminatory, and once the server is properly configured, it can be removed from the blackhole list.
Really, the issue is the same with forged packet sources. As you point out yourself, it is not filtering based on content, it is network level filtering. And that is done by every clueful Internet operator (that’s part of running the network).
But it is VERY different from application level, or content, filtering.
Unfortunately, it is even less likely to be effective than these other approaches have been in stopping spam or cleaning up Usenet.
Finally, ISPs may block and/or disable any of their customers that violate their Acceptable Use Policy “AUP” (which typically include a prohibition on Unsolicited Bulk Commercial Email, as well as violation of standard Usenet posting guidelines, such as cross-posting).
But there is no claim that the RIAA site has violated any AUP or any laws. IWT has simply made a political statement, under the guise of being a “good network citizen”. It’s a crock. Personally, I don’t want my ISP censoring the (legal) content available to me. I also don’t want my ISP to become an activist in the digital rights controversy.
Don’t get me wrong, if the RIAA was using their site to tamper with users files (without legal authority), they should be blackholed by every responsible provider.
I think you may have misread the statement. They aren’t actually going to put real copyrighted content on their Gnutella client, they are going to put worthless files with the same file names as copyrighted songs (“popular song titles derived from the Billboard Top 100 maintained by VNU eMedia”), and an arbitrary file size around that of a 3-4 minute mp3 at 128kbps.
No, they’re going to blacklist anyone who connects to their Gnutella clients and then tries to enter the network illegally. The idea is that they’ll use the aforementioned fake mp3 files to lure the RIAA into connecting to their Gnutella client and then hacking their network. Any client who does that will be blacklisted. Any client that simply connects and downloads that file will just end up with a worthless file.
No, I didn’t misread it. The fact that it isn’t using copyrighted material doesn’t change the fact that they are now serving content instead of just packets (even if it is worthless content). And my concerns about irritating the P2P crowd would still stand.
Sidenote: Isn’t this equivalent to another method proposed by RIAA to stopping P2P piracy? That is, to flood the P2P networks with worthless files that appear to be popular music?
Ah, I did misread that, thanks. And I have no problem with them blacklisting ANY hackers.
I don’t see how this is content filtering. The ISP isn’t blocking only parts of the RIAA homepage that talk about piracy. They aren’t blocking only MP3s from being sent by their users to the RIAA. They’re using an application to attract potential hackers, then blocking all traffic to and from those hackers once they reveal themselves.
Putting a client on the Gnutella network doesn’t put the ISP into the content business any more than running a corporate web server.
I seem to recall the UDP (or UDP threats) having a positive effect on UUnet and AOL.
I’d go one step further: if the RIAA is using their site to tamper with users’ files, even if such tampering becomes legal, they should be blackholed by every responsible provider. ISPs don’t have an obligation to let the RIAA screw with their users.