RIAA going after broadband...

Discussion in 'Computer Science & Culture' started by ndrs, Jan 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ndrs The Anti-Cthulhu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    397
    This is the best one so far...

    http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,57326,00.html

    I bet they will win this one in US though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lartox Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    51
    its official... the RIAA has gone insane... they will be sueing the worlds mothers soon, for giving birth to little file-stealing scum...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,277
    It's a smart move by them. Instead of making their demographic pissed at them, they will try to get compensation through large companies that have the money and aren't responsible for the music industry's existence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Clarentavious Person Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    934
    The broadband companies aren't responsible for piracy. Some people might use the internet to send e-mails to their relatives, and for no other purpose. Some people might use it strictly for online games . Some people might use it exclusively to download porn. Not all people use the internet for piracy.

    The ISP is simply providing internet connectivity, it is not the one making the decision to steal what respectable people pay for, that is the result of individual users

    Maybe the easiest thing to do would be for big ISPs to simply set up blocking filters. For example, some free dial up services block porn sites to "protect younger users" Blocking kazza sounds like a good start

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The broadband companies just want their monthly bill for providing their internet service, they have absolutely nothing to do with people demanding for free the things that they love.

    I don't know much about the RIAA, but this sounds ridiculous.
     
  8. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    a judge already ruled that verizon has to disclose identity if requested
     
  9. Zero Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,355
    RIAA is stupid if it thinks that it can stop file-sharing completely.
     
  10. ndrs The Anti-Cthulhu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    397
    I believe one can make a purely peer-to-peer network - no servers at all. That would screw RIAA up - the only thing they could go for is ISP's then...
    There would be central server, so there would be no one to sue..
     
  11. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    In a form, they are already doing that. One of my favorite sites was closed much the same way.

    A site that I went to get cover pic's has been closed by their actions. The method used was to make the provider of the "broadband" responcible. They had no luck with closing the site directly. The site still exists only it no longer carries music covers. It does still carry game covers. A letter was published showing the successful leverage attempt by the site.
     
  12. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    If they are truly that upset, perhaps they should run their own ISP's or BUY into other ISP's so they can get the TERMS and CONDITIONS re-written to how they think.

    Other than that, it's like Policemen saying "The roads are too big for people to drive down, and it encourages more traffic and speeding offenses".

    So where does the fault lye (Who's to blame) in this instance:

    1. You have the drivers that could speed
    2. You have a Car Manufacturer that doesn't "Stunt" the car's Maximum speed "output".
    3. You have the people that design roads and road layout's to be more "Efficient".
      [/list=1]

      There is also the other point if you buy a product thats second-hand the licensing of that product also changes hands.

      That would mean I could buy a record and Sell it to someone, who sells it again, and so on.

      That record at the time of owning I could take a "Copy" of for my own use, and keep that copy after selling the original on.

      I haven't infringed copyright laws in some countries, because I have purchased it "once". (This in turn is a way that could prove a loophole against the legislation that those companies are after)

      ======
      To Cut it short:
      I once had a "Bought" copy of Starcraft (meaning I was "Licensed"), during a Move I misplaced it (lost the Bought version). I should be able to replace the program from the internet, since I'm just replacing the lost copy and utilising the Same license., I don't intend to make copies of the program and distribute/sell them, is this legal? or legally wrong?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2003
  13. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,277
    I don't think companies would mind that (unless they like to keep track of market research and such), but for the number of people that lose their legal copy and need a new one, there'll always be 5 people that want to steal a copy. It's not worth it for the company.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page