Eu tu, AT&T?
January 29, 2009 3:22 PM Subscribe
There is talk about how ISP's are going to be cooperating with the RIAA to curtail piracy (warning letters, shutting off service, etc.), in lieu of the RIAA taking people to court. If ISP's refused to be involved without a court order previously, why are they getting so involved now?
It's a crazy amount of extra work, it gets into the privacy of its users, and it creates the potential for false positives and a LOT of negative press that used to go to the RIAA. I can't figure out the upside.
Are they getting a money cut somewhere? Are they being strong-armed into it? Or do they see it as a lesser evil to agree to these terms than to be forced to hand over customer information on a regular basis, due to court orders?
It's a crazy amount of extra work, it gets into the privacy of its users, and it creates the potential for false positives and a LOT of negative press that used to go to the RIAA. I can't figure out the upside.
Are they getting a money cut somewhere? Are they being strong-armed into it? Or do they see it as a lesser evil to agree to these terms than to be forced to hand over customer information on a regular basis, due to court orders?
Have you seen that any ISPs have agreed, or just that the RIAA wants them to?
posted by Pants! at 3:51 PM on January 29, 2009
posted by Pants! at 3:51 PM on January 29, 2009
Response by poster: Have you seen that any ISPs have agreed, or just that the RIAA wants them to?
I've seen that some are weighing the options seriously.
I can see that this is a pretty chatty question, though.
Perhaps a more direct and less chatty question is this: is there anything published that lets us into the rationale for ISP's to cooperate with the RIAA?
I think wfrgm's analysis is probably right on.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:55 PM on January 29, 2009
I've seen that some are weighing the options seriously.
I can see that this is a pretty chatty question, though.
Perhaps a more direct and less chatty question is this: is there anything published that lets us into the rationale for ISP's to cooperate with the RIAA?
I think wfrgm's analysis is probably right on.
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:55 PM on January 29, 2009
Cost of dealing with a subpoena = $250 an hour. Cost of losing customer = $80 a month.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:29 PM on January 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 4:29 PM on January 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
Bandwidth use by pirates (often high use) vs (total bandwidth available < total bandwidth sold)
posted by inigo2 at 4:48 PM on January 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by inigo2 at 4:48 PM on January 29, 2009 [1 favorite]
is there anything published that lets us into the rationale for ISP's to cooperate with the RIAA?
Since this is all just rumored, and no ISPs have actually signed on, the answer to your question is "no." Plenty of speculation, as you touch on here, and there is a story today about an Irish ISP that is going to be getting in on this game, but if you want to read about this stuff your best source is to follow the news.
posted by rhizome at 4:51 PM on January 29, 2009
Since this is all just rumored, and no ISPs have actually signed on, the answer to your question is "no." Plenty of speculation, as you touch on here, and there is a story today about an Irish ISP that is going to be getting in on this game, but if you want to read about this stuff your best source is to follow the news.
posted by rhizome at 4:51 PM on January 29, 2009
Many big ISPs are moving into the realm of providing content (AT&T uverse, etc). This means that they have a vested interest in protecting the copyrights of say, TV shows. They want you to pay them to provide you with television, rather than downloading the shows.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:32 PM on January 29, 2009
posted by chrisamiller at 8:32 PM on January 29, 2009
This: Bandwidth use by pirates (often high use) vs (total bandwidth available < total bandwidth sold)
Plus this: Many big ISPs are moving into the realm of providing content
Equals a commonality of purpose. This alliance would be scary if not for two factors:
1)Don't fight the hackers, you'll always lose. The network will view efforts to restrict data flow as damage, and route around. Even if it gets downright draconian, I see a new, better, version of 'sneakernet' picking up the slack. Also, we're moving into a new economic climate. One of the first things to be cut from people's budgets will be luxuries, and high-speed internet, when viewed against such staples as Home and Food, is definitely a luxury. They'll be trying to keep customers, not piss them off.
2)Very, very soon analog band previously occupied by terrestrial television and radio will be freed up, to be auctioned off. Bandwidth will no longer be such a problem, and new ISP players that are not beholden to the current wired monopolies will step in to fill the demands of the p2p crowd. The RIAA will have to deal with this new medium of transmission, while maintaining it's relationship with current ISP's (the new medium's competition), and doing so on a rapidly dwindling budget. Not an enviable position.
Of course, this could all go wrong in a billion ways, but I'm essentially an optimist, and this is what I think will happen.
God I hope so.
posted by eclectist at 11:05 PM on January 29, 2009
Plus this: Many big ISPs are moving into the realm of providing content
Equals a commonality of purpose. This alliance would be scary if not for two factors:
1)Don't fight the hackers, you'll always lose. The network will view efforts to restrict data flow as damage, and route around. Even if it gets downright draconian, I see a new, better, version of 'sneakernet' picking up the slack. Also, we're moving into a new economic climate. One of the first things to be cut from people's budgets will be luxuries, and high-speed internet, when viewed against such staples as Home and Food, is definitely a luxury. They'll be trying to keep customers, not piss them off.
2)Very, very soon analog band previously occupied by terrestrial television and radio will be freed up, to be auctioned off. Bandwidth will no longer be such a problem, and new ISP players that are not beholden to the current wired monopolies will step in to fill the demands of the p2p crowd. The RIAA will have to deal with this new medium of transmission, while maintaining it's relationship with current ISP's (the new medium's competition), and doing so on a rapidly dwindling budget. Not an enviable position.
Of course, this could all go wrong in a billion ways, but I'm essentially an optimist, and this is what I think will happen.
God I hope so.
posted by eclectist at 11:05 PM on January 29, 2009
Response by poster: Thanks for the feedback everyone. Those answers help clear up a bit of my thinking about this.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:27 AM on January 30, 2009
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:27 AM on January 30, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Second of all, good luck finding a traditional ISP that just provides internet.
Everything is moving toward digital content distribution. As such providers like AT&T have a stake in tamping down piracy because they themselves want to sell media in the form of television service, on-demand movies, and the like.
The business format is moving away from physical objects you can buy (and thus feel like you own) and moving toward selling you the rights to use media (that you feel like you rent.) As such RIAA, or whatever replace it in the future, will be more relevant and far reaching than ever.
posted by wfrgms at 3:30 PM on January 29, 2009