Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?; TechDirt, 10/30/09

Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?:

"With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." ...

But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/0328096729.shtml

MI5, an ISP lawsuit and an e-petition: More opposition to piracy cut-off plans; ZDNet, 10/30/09

Zack Whittaker, ZDNet; MI5, an ISP lawsuit and an e-petition: More opposition to piracy cut-off plans:

"There has been more controversy this week with a major Internet service provider, a petition set up to harness the power of democracy, but also the British Security Service, MI5, all opposing the cut-off laws which are being pushed through by a key figure in the British government’s cabinet."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=3187&tag=post-3168;col2

TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson's filesharing plan; Guardian, 10/29/09

Mark Sweney, Guardian; TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson's filesharing plan:

Carphone Warehouse-owned internet service provider attacks plans to cut off connections of persistent filesharers

"TalkTalk, the second largest internet service provider in the UK, has threatened to launch legal action if business secretary Peter Mandelson follows through with his plan to cut off persistent illegal filesharers' internet connections.

Carphone Warehouse-owned TalkTalk, which has more than 4 million ISP customers and owns the Tiscali and AOL brands, claimed the government's plan was based on filesharers being "guilty until proven innocent" and constituted an infringement of human rights.

"The approach is based on the principle of 'guilty until proven innocent' and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court," said Andrew Heaney, the executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. "We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations."

The government plans to look at increased action against illegal downloaders, including potentially suspending the accounts of persistent offenders, from July 2011 if a 70% reduction in online piracy is not achieved by sending warning letters. Customers will have the right to appeal if they are targeted and their connection subjected to technical measures.

"If the government moves to stage two, we would consider that extra-judicial technical measures, and would look to appeal the decision [to the courts] because it infringes human rights," Heaney said. "TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal."

BT, the largest ISP in the UK, said it "remains concerned" about some of the government's proposals and is "interested to hear whether or not customers will have some form of fair legal hearing before their broadband supplier is required to take any action against them"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/29/talktalk-threatens-legal-action-mandelson

Costs would exceed savings on Mandelson plan, ISPs say - and streaming companies not eager either; Guardian, 10/28/09

Charles Arthur, Guardian; Costs would exceed savings on Mandelson plan, ISPs say - and streaming companies not eager either:

Implementing "three strikes" rule would weigh down ISPs while bringing music industry no benefit - and streaming companies unhappy

"Lord Mandelson's proposals to cut off "persistent" file sharers do not make financial sense, according to estimates of its cost put forward by those who would have to implement it.

British Telecom and Carphone Warehouse estimate that running the enforcement system would cost about £2 per broadband line per month - a total of £24 per broadband line per year. With 17.6m broadband connections in the UK as of September, means it would cost £420m annually to run a system to defeat a problem the music industry complains costs it £200m per year.
Lord Mandelson said that "ISPs and rights-holders will share the costs, on the basis of a flat fee that will allow both sides to budget and plan."

If the costs of running the system are equally shared between rights-holders and ISPs, that means that ISPs will have to push up bills for the majority of law-abiding customers who do not download illegally, while the rights-holders spend as much as they claim they are losing.
Reactions from the music and music streaming industry to Lord Mandelson's reasserted determination to cut off "persistent" file-sharers has not been positive either."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/costs-piracy-filesharing-mandelson

Labour's plans to block filesharers take shape; Guardian, 10/28/09

Jack Schofield, Guardian; Labour's plans to block filesharers take shape:

"The government has proposed a complicated and expensive system of letters, independent bodies and First Tier Tribunals as a way to stop the sharing of copyright content, but it seems unlikely to work

"Lord Mandelson has "warned internet users today that the days of 'consequence-free' illegal filesharing are over," according to my colleague Mark Sweney. This will no doubt give most of the large copyright owners a warm glow, but whether it will make any practical difference is another matter. I suspect it won't.

The government plan has two stages....In stage 1, a "rights holder" is going to identify the IP address of an illegal uploader by "phishing" on a file-sharing site, then get the ISP to send that user a warning letter. After sending more than one warning, the rights-holder takes legal action.
In stage 2, the ISP takes "technical measures" against the "serious infringer", who can then appeal to "an independent body established by Ofcom". (These "technical measures" may include the not-very-technical suspension of the user's account.) If that appeal is unsuccessful, the "serous infringer" can appeal to a "First Tier Tribunal", following which the "technical measures" are either re-implemented or dropped.

It sounds like an expensive and extremely bureaucratic plan where the cost of implementation will be far higher than the cost of the content. Mandy's thinking is presumably that making a public example of a small number of "serous infringers" will discourage others. It should certainly discourage peer-to-peer file-sharing, at least among those smart enough to realise that if they are downloading something, they are probably uploading it as well."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/oct/28/mandelson-blocking-filesharing

Vivendi head calls for 'three-strikes' rule to tackle UK filesharers; Guardian, 10/27/09

Mark Sweney, Guardian; Vivendi head calls for 'three-strikes' rule to tackle UK filesharers:

Jean-Bernard Levy tells the C&binet [sic] Forum that UK should follow France's lead by cutting off internet access for persistent illegal downloaders

"Jean-Bernard Levy, the chief executive of Vivendi, the French owner of the world's largest record company, Universal Music, said the UK government needs to bring in a "three-strikes" policy that would ultimately cut off persistent illegal filesharers.

Levy, speaking at the UK government's Creativity & Business International Network conference (C&binet) today on the issues facing the creative industries as they move to digital production and distribution, said that while it was too soon to gauge the results of the introduction of the "three-strikes" policy in France, it was a necessary step to protect content owners.

"Britain should be more in favour of developing the media industries and even if France is ahead in legislation it should be obvious [that the UK should] be doing something like three strikes," he added.

Levy said Vivendi, despite owning one of France's largest internet service providers (ISPs), telecoms operator SFR, was convinced the tough legislative strategy would not harm internet use. He added that he expected no real reduction in legal web traffic.

"ISPs should be in favour of legislation," he argued, because a lot of the massive investment to increase broadband capacity was going into supplying bandwidth used by illegal net users...

Gail Rebuck, the chief executive of publisher Random House, told the C&binet conference today that the fact that more than 70 illegal filesharing websites were online within 24 hours of the launch of bestselling author Dan Brown's new novel, The Lost Symbol, showed the urgency with which the government must crack down on digital piracy. This number has since jumped to more than 170 unauthorised websites capitalising on the novel, she added.

Rebuck said measures with strong legal backing needed to be introduced to curb digital copyright abuse. She said: "From where I sit, protecting our copyright is the single most important thing we can debate here. We must protect our authors' work."

"I'm very much for the carrot and stick approach," she added, referring to the need for a combination of promoting the benefits of legal content downloading alongside measures such as letters warning persistent filesharers they are breaking the law.

"As a content owner, I am all for the ultimate sanction," she said, indicating support for measures such as cutting off the worst infringers. "Surely the response is not to say goodbye to copyright.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/27/vivendi-file-sharing-levy

European Internet sinking fast under 3-strikes proposals; Boing Boing, 10/23/09

Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; European Internet sinking fast under 3-strikes proposals:

"Things look bad for the European Internet: "3 strikes" (the entertainment industry's proposal for a law that requires ISPs to disconnect whole households if one member is accused -- without evidence or trial -- of three copyright infringements) is gaining currency. Efforts to make 3-strikes illegal are being thwarted by the European bureaucracy in the EC.

The Pirate Party, which holds a seat in the European Parliament, proposed legislation that said, essentially, that no one could be disconnected from the Internet without a fair trial. When the proposal when to the European Commission (a group of powerful, unelected bureaucrats who have been heavily lobbied by the entertainment industry), they rewrote it so that disconnection can take place without trial or other due process.

On the national level, France's Constitutional Court have approved the latest version of the French 3-strikes rule, HADOPI, which has created a kind of grudging, joke oversight by the courts (before your family's Internet connection is taken away, a judge gives the order 1-2 minutes' worth of review, and you aren't entitled to counsel and the rules of evidence don't apply -- the NYT called it similar to "traffic court"). Under this rule, there is now a national list of French people who are not allowed to be connected to the Internet; providing them with connectivity is a crime.

The only bright light is that this will play very badly in the national elections coming up in many European jurisdictions; the Swedes, in particular, are likely to kick the hell out of the MPs who voted for criminal sanctions for downloading and replace them with Pirate Party candidates, Greens, and members of other parties with a liberal stance on copyright."

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/23/european-internet-si.html

Corporate bullying on the net must be resisted; Guardian, 10/20/09

Cory Doctorow, Guardian; Corporate bullying on the net must be resisted:

The entertainment industry's plans to attack copyright violators is plain embarrassing – and ignorant of real-world implications

"Back in September, my Boing Boing co-editor Xeni Jardin blogged a photo of a Japanese Ralph Lauren store display featuring model Filippa Hamilton with her proportions digitally altered so that "her pelvis was bigger than her head." Xeni posted the image as a brief and pithy comment on the unrealistic body image conveyed by couture advertising – in other words, she posted it as commentary, and thus fell into one of the copyright exemptions that Americans call "fair use" and others call "fair dealing".

Ralph Lauren – as with many corporate giants – would prefer not to be criticised in public, so his lawyers sent our internet service provider (the Canadian company Priority CoLo) a legal threat, averring that our use was a violation of copyright law and demanding that Priority CoLo remove our post forthwith.

The story has a happy ending: Priority CoLo is a wonderful ISP and don't take these legal notices at face value. Instead, they talk them over with us, and since we all agreed that Lauren's legal analysis didn't pass the giggle test, we decided to respond by posting the notice and making fun of Lauren's insecurity and legal bullying. The story resonated with the public – who are tired of legal bullying from the corporate world – and was picked up by major news outlets around the world. Lauren apologised for his photoshoppery (but not for the spurious legal threat – and the model was fired for not being skeletal enough to appear in Lauren's campaigns). Lauren learned a thing or two about the Streisand Effect, wherein an attempt to suppress information makes the information spread more widely...

So, the notice-and-takedown system – a feature of copyright law the world round, thanks to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties that require it – has become an easily abused, cheap, and virtually risk-free way of effecting mass censorship on the flimsiest pretence. Everyone from the Church of Scientology to major fashion companies avail themselves of this convenient system for making critics vanish.

Of course, we predicted this outcome in 1995, when the treaties were being negotiated. A system that removes checks and balances, that requires no proof before action, that replaces judges and laws with a deepest-pockets-always-wins "begs" to be abused. As Anton Chekhov wrote: "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off." Leaving naked power without consequence lying around where anyone can find it and use it is an invitation to an abuse of that power.

It's been 13 years since the WIPO treaties passed in 1996, and we have an abundance of evidence to support Chekhov, and yet we continue to repeat the notice-and-takedown mistake. Today, the entertainment industry is bent on establishing a "three strikes" system, with the enthusiastic support of Peter Mandelson, whereby someone who is accused of three copyright violations would lose his internet connection (as would all the household members who shared that connection). Even if we accept the entertainment industry's assurances that "they" would never abuse this power (admittedly, you'd have to be a fool to believe this), what about "everyone else"? What about the Ralph Laurens of this world, or the mad-dog racists who'd love to have their critics vanish from the debate, or the school bullies who want to add new torments to their victims' lives?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/20/corporate-bullying-internet-users-resist

France Mulls 'Three Strikes' Internet Piracy Bill; NPR, 9/15/09

NPR; France Mulls 'Three Strikes' Internet Piracy Bill:

"Trying to crack down on piracy, French lawmakers have spent the summer arguing over legislation dubbed "three strikes and you're out of Internet service." Under the bill, authorities will be able to cut off service to suspected Internet pirates — after two warnings. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and entertainers like it, but privacy advocates see is as a threat to civil liberties."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112839261

Net pirates face three-strikes rule; Sydney Morning Herald, 7/16/09

Ashe Moses via Sydney Morning Herald; Net pirates face three-strikes rule:

"People who are caught repeatedly downloading movies, music and TV shows illegally would have their internet disconnected under legislative changes being considered by the [Australian]Federal Government.

The movie and music industries have been pushing ISPs to implement this "three-strikes" scheme voluntarily for years but talks have stalled...

The three-strikes scheme has been proposed in both France and New Zealand, but both countries dropped the proposal after a public backlash.

This week both France and New Zealand reintroduced new, modified three-strikes proposals with enhanced judicial oversight.

Britain is also reportedly considering three-strikes legislation, and the British Government outlined a goal of reducing unlawful file sharing by 70-80 per cent by 2011 in its Digital Britain report, released last month."

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/net-pirates-face-threestrikes-rule-20090716-dm9s.html?page=1

Music-Pirate Mom Shown No Love By Jury To Tune Of $1.9 M; NPR's Two Way Blog, 6/19/09

Frank James via NPR's Two Way Blog; Music-Pirate Mom Shown No Love By Jury To Tune Of $1.9 M:

""The only thing worse than losing a copyright-infringement lawsuit that ends with a $122,000 [sic; $222,000] judgment against you is getting a retrial only to end up with a eye-popping $1.9 million judgment against you...

The Associated Press gives us this paragraph explaining why we should care:

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/musicpirate_mom_shown_no_love.html

Senator Orrin Hatch... And The Lies The Copyright Industry Tells; TechDirt, 6/12/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; Senator Orrin Hatch... And The Lies The Copyright Industry Tells:

"Furthermore, and more importantly, if Senator Hatch believes that "commercially-viable products created out of one's own mental processes deserve the same protection under the law as any other tangible product or piece of real estate," then clearly the Senator believes in the right to resell such property once you bought it, at a reasonable price. So if I buy a copy of a song by Senator Hatch, clearly, by his own words, I should have the right to resell it to others or to make a copy of it -- just as I have the right to make a copy of a physical chair that I buy, or to resell the chair that I have bought.

Or did Senator Hatch not mean what he said? Did he really mean that only some property rights should be granted? That is, should we only grant property rights that favor big industries at the expense of both consumer and social welfare?

[Sen. Hatch]: Appallingly, many believe that if they find it on the Internet then it must be free. I have heard some estimates cite no less than 80 percent of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.

Ah, a misleading demonization. Senator Hatch has "heard some estimates." Why not cite them so that they can be responded to accurately? Perhaps because Senator Hatch knows they do not hold up under scrutiny.

[Sen. Hatch]: That is why the Pirate Bay case is so important. While the decision does not solve the problem of piracy and unauthorized file sharing, it certainly is a legal victory and one that sends a strong message that such behavior will not be tolerated.

I'm sure the Senator is quite busy, so perhaps he missed the "strong message" that was actually sent: a biased judge sided against a search engine claiming it was responsible for the actions of its users. From that, thousands of people recognized that this was a patently ridiculous scenario, and signed up as members of a political party designed to protect consumer civil rights -- allowing them to win a surprise seat in the European Parliament. Quite a strong message. It seems to be the opposite of the one Senator Hatch thinks was given.

[Sen. Hatch]: I strongly believe that if we're going to be successful in this fast-paced digital age, a solid partnership between the copyright community and the Internet Service Providers is crucial. I am confident that such a partnership can break up the current viral spread of copyrighted works on the Net.

[Sen. Hatch]: Many countries have begun to take action by working closely with ISPs to curb online piracy. For example, France has adopted a three strikes law, which calls for ISPs to suspend a subscriber's service if they are accused three times of pirating copyrighted material. Across the globe, from Japan to the UK, from Australia to Brazil, there have been engaging discussions within the industry on how best to proceed on this front.

[Sen. Hatch]: In the United States, I am encouraged with the developments that have transpired between content owners and some ISPs. Obviously, we still have a ways to go, but we are seeing a promising level of participation within the industry. I believe a flexible and free-market solution is essential if we are to be successful in this endeavor. As more of these discussions turn into actions, it is vital that these principles remain front and center.

To be fair, Hatch's speech was given the day before France tossed out the three strikes law as unconstitutional -- but that should still be instructive. The EU Parliament has made clear that cutting users off from the internet connections, especially based solely on industry accusations of infringement, represents a serious breach of civil rights. That a US Senator would support such a "guilty without proof" setup is quite troubling, and raises serious questions about his understanding of our constitutional rights."

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1235555213.shtml

AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing, The New York Times, 3/26/09

Via The New York Times: AT&T Learns From Mom in Fighting File Sharing:

"For customers who continue to share files, the e-mail messages became tougher. Eventually, repeat offenders received certified letters. This repeated nagging did get most of the people who continued to share files after the first notice to stop.

“Then you are down to a handful of people who don’t care, who are 24/7 engaged in copyright theft,” he said. “At that point it is up to the copyright owner to determine the next steps.”

AT&T, however, did not and does not plan to take any action on its own against those customers, like canceling their service, even though they ignored repeated warnings.

“We are not under any circumstances going to suspend or terminate any customer’s service as a result of a third-party allegation unless they have a court order,” Mr. Cicconi said. “The copyright owner has legal rights, and we are not going to be the agent to enforce their rights.”"

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/att-learns-from-mom-in-fighting-file-sharing/

[New Zealand] Government delays copyright laws, TVNZ, 2/23/09

Via TVNZ, [New Zealand] Government delays copyright laws:

"WATCH the video (1:31)"

"After weeks of protest the government has delayed introducing controversial copyright laws.
It has told the industry to find a way to make the legislation work or it will be dumped altogether.

The government has announced it is delaying the controversial section 92a that critics say will force internet providers to cut people's connections without proving first they have breached copyright.

The Prime Minister has told the laws backers they have a month to figure out how they will make it work, or it goes...

The decision comes after weeks of opposition to the law."

http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/internet-industry-told-find-own-solution-2500023

RIAA appeal in Jammie Thomas case refused, Ars Technica, 12/29/08

Via Ars Technica: RIAA appeal in Jammie Thomas case refused:

"Saying that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was quite clear on the matter, [federal judge Michael] Davis refused to allow the appeal in a December 23rd order. "While Plaintiffs can point to a number of courts from other jurisdictions that have disagreed with this Court's conclusion," he wrote, "the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly held that actual distribution is required."

With the "interlocutory" appeal denied, the RIAA will have to wait until a final judgment has been issued before filing an appeal. That means a complete retrial first; given the RIAA's new moves toward "graduated response" deals with ISPs and the cessation of its widespread legal campaign, it's not clear that the industry will be willing to gear up for yet another high-profile trial against Thomas."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081229-riaa-appeal-in-jammie-thomas-case-refused.html

RIAA Qualifies Statement on No New Copyright Lawsuits, Wired.com, 12/23/08

Via Wired.com: RIAA Qualifies Statement on No New Copyright Lawsuits:

"Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman, e-mailed Threat Level in a bid to clear the air. She wrote that any suits recently filed were already in the "pipeline" for months.

"We are not initiating any new lawsuits and have not since August. Any lawsuit that has been filed since then is a named lawsuit or those for which we've received identifying information about the ISP (or issued the subpoena for). Simply put, we are continuing those that have already been in the pipeline but nothing new has been initiated since August," Duckworth said."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/riaa-qualifies.html

Music Industry Drops Effort to Sue Song Swappers, Via New York Times, 12/19/08

Via New York Times: Music Industry Drops Effort to Sue Song Swappers:

"''We're at a point where there's a sense of comfort that we can replace one form of deterrent with another form of deterrent,'' said RIAA Chairman and Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol...

The group says it will still continue to litigate outstanding cases, most of which are in the pre-lawsuit warning stage, but some of which are before the courts.

The decision to press on with existing cases drew the ire of Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, who is defending a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits.

''If it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea,'' said Nesson. He is challenging the constitutionality of the suits, which, based on the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, can impose damages of $150,000 per infringement, far in excess of the actual damage caused...

Brian Toder, a lawyer with Chestnut & Cambronne in Minneapolis, who defended single mother Jammie Thomas in a copyright suit filed by the RIAA, said he is also set to retry the case March 9 after a judge threw out a $222,000 decision against her.

''I think it's a good thing that they've ended this campaign of going after people,'' Toder said.

''But they need to change how people spend money on records,'' he said. ''People like to share music. The Internet makes it so easy. They have to do something to change this business model of theirs.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2008/12/19/technology/AP-Music-Downloading-Lawsuits.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

RIAA's New Piracy Plan Poses a New Set of Problems, Via Washington Post, 12/20/08

Via Washington Post: RIAA's New Piracy Plan Poses a New Set of Problems, The RIAA is backing down from consumer copyright infringement lawsuits, but consumers should still be concerned:

"Effectively, RIAA has turned itself into the sheriff, and your ISP into its deputy. Based on the same data gathering and user identification methods that have come under fire from the start, RIAA will now be able to get your Internet access limited or discontinued on its own if it for some reason flags you as an illegal filesharer...

"This means more music fans are going to be harassed by the music industry," saysFred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"The problem is the lack of due process for those accused," von Lohmann continues. "In a world where hundreds of thousands, or millions, of copyright infringement allegations are automatically generated and delivered to ISPs, mistakes are going to be made. ... Anyone who has ever had to fight to correct an error on their credit reports will be able to imagine the trouble we're in for."

In essence, the music industry is trading one questionable practice for another. Striking a deal to deem itself the judge and your ISP the regulator is not the answer -- and it's not going to win the war, either.

What is the solution, then? The EFF suggests RIAA support a "voluntary collective licensing regime" -- basically, a legal peer-to-peer network that'd let music fans pay a small monthly fee for the right to freely trade music. A survey conducted this summer found an overwhelming 80 percent of current peer-to-peer users would be interested in paying for such a system."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902930.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

RIAA Strikes a 'Three Strikes' Deal, Everybody Loses, Via Public Knowledge, 12/19/08

Via Public Knowledge: RIAA Strikes a 'Three Strikes' Deal, Everybody Loses:

"According to the Wall Street Journal, these deals between the RIAA and the ISPs were brokered by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who reportedly "wanted to end the litigation." While it's hard not to agree with that sentiment, you've got to wonder whether there might not have been another solution to the problem that didn't involve content companies and ISPs deciding who should and shouldn't have access to the Internet.

After all, if Cuomo had bothered to look across the pond, he would have noticed that the European Union saw fit to strike down "three strikes" policies with an amendment that referred to such agreements as "…measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access." Access to the Internet is increasingly becoming a necessity for ensuring full participation in our society, democracy and economy. Should we allow an industry trade group with a notoriously bad track record to serve as the gatekeeper to the Internet?

To be fair, not everything in the RIAA's outlined strategy is nefarious. Under the new regime, the RIAA will not ask ISPs to reveal the identities of their users. Rather, the association will identify users anonymously, using only their IP address...

There are other proposals currently on the table--EFF's voluntary collective licensing proposal being the most prominent one--that would address the issue of piracy without criminalizing users or stripping them of their right to access the Internet."

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1918

No ISP Filtering Under New RIAA Copyright Strategy, Via Wired.com, 12/19/08

Via Wired.com: No ISP Filtering Under New RIAA Copyright Strategy:

"The Recording Industry Association of America on Friday announced a new strategy in its quest to curtail online copyright infringement — a plan that for now requires no filtering from internet service providers...

Under the new proposal, instead of filing lawsuits against individuals its investigators detect sharing music online, the RIAA will send notices to ISPs pointing out the offending parties' IP addresses. The ISPs, in turn, will notify (.pdf) the alleged offender in the United States by snail-mail or e-mail of the alleged violations. Violators could lose internet access after three or more alleged violations, said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman. (The details are still being hashed out, but Duckworth said a procedure would be put in place to administratively challenge violations.)"

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/no-isp-filterin.html