Movie Industry Also Working With ISPs On 'Three Strikes' Policy

Mgamer20o0

Mgamer20o0

BobsTropicalPlants.com
Staff member
Jun 4, 2003
31,221
19
89
www.bobstropicalplants.com
The RIAA made waves last week by revealing they were working behind closed doors to have ISPs employ a controversial "three strikes" policy, where users who repeatedly transfer pirated materials could see their broadband connection terminated. Ars Technica notes that the movie industry is working with ISPs separately on a similar plan, with trials already underway. To ease ISP worries that they'd be booting users left and right, the industry has dubbed this concept "graduated response," previously releasing studies claiming that 72% of pirates would stop with just a warning from their ISP. The MPAA claims they don't want to take the extreme step of having a user's line terminated, but it's certainly clear that they'd like to have that option in order to scare pirates into compliance. ISPs are also being pitched the idea as a way to manage network congestion:Malcolm goes so far as to call the idea a "win/win/win" situation. Rightsholders win by gaining more control over illegal distribution of their content without lengthy court cases, a confrontational public stance, and the bad PR that comes from suing dead grandmothers and kids in housing projects. ISPs win by clamping down on the heaviest P2P users on their networks. And movie lovers win by... well, by not getting sued. (One can certainly see how a "Hey, knock it off" warning note might compare favorably with a "Hey, pay us $3,000 and we won't sue you" letter.)
Just like the RIAA's plan, the MPAA plan raises questions nobody seems to be able to answer, including who pays, whether the identification system is reliable, who tracks offenders across ISPs, and who will monitor the process objectively while addressing grievances from incorrectly targeted consumers. Meanwhile, the RIAA is potentially exploring the idea of applying a $5-$10 collective licensing "piracy tax" on consumer broadband bills to pay for pirated music, something the MPAA will surely be interested in as well.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...rking-With-ISPs-On-Three-Strikes-Policy-99878
 
But on the other hand, a lot of ISPs are charging the RIAA back for playing the middleman and nothings happening to those supposed pirates. I dont ISPs are gonna go ahead with the MPAA or RIAA's schemes, since most people have a couple if not more options when it comes to broadband acess and losing customers right now is not the way to survive atm.

But ISPs are worried about running outta bandwidth with new customers and thinking of new ways to price service or start tiered pricing plans, so if the MPAA or RIAA pay up, I could see them getting in to bed with the MPAA or RIAA.
 
they should buy more capacity. if i am paying for 5/10/20/50 or what ever i should be able to use that 24/7..... heck ill download stupid stuff just to use the bandwidth or just to test the speed. though i think that has more to do with cable dealing with bandwidth problems they toss so many people on one line. more so i dont think mine someone like verizon who is spending billions on their new fiber net work.... plus the install fees for the new houses are so high i dont htink they are going to risk anything...... around here again id ont think cable companies are going to throw anyone off the net work when so many people are leaving already.

like you said they know you have options...... i could just switch..... and is that a life time ban? what happens you get kicked off one then sign up for another kicked off could you then sign up again.....
 
Hmmmmm. Im like the millions of people on this earth who use P2P software for my music, movie and other needs. I dont download full albums but I do download songs I like. If I like a few from a CD I will buy it. But whats the point of paying $14 for one good song? Same with a movie. I will download it and see if I like it. If I do I always buy it because its alot better in nice crisp HD on the 62" tv instead of a 15" laptop.
 
Lets stop the discussion of movie downloads. Its illegal..Thanks.

**Edit...To clarify, lets keep the discussion about the OP, not talking about personaly downloading content which is illegal.. :)
 
Last edited:
The RIAA is a form of racketeering in my opinion due to the strong-arm tactics they employ. The MPAA is trying to take a different path. A $5-$10 fee for what period of time? A one-time charge? I would pay that but monthly? Not a chance. A tiered approach? We have that already for cell phone usage that ends up costing the consumer more than the value of the service.

The ISP's are not a law enforcement entity anymore than the RIAA is. I am certainly not going to pay extra to download the Linux distros freeware/shareware/betaware software I test. Why should I have to pay either one of those or a usage fee for something I am not doing or using? Some of the software files I download are as large as an entertainment file might be and some are likely larger. I am already paying the ISP for access and tacking on another charge is inherently unfair to the many users that don't go after movies/music.



My message to all three is quit your crying and modify your prices to realistic levels.Maybe, just maybe you won't lose the money that you seem to think you are losing. Just a case of corporate greed, plain and simple.
 
excuzzzeme said:
The RIAA is a form of racketeering in my opinion due to the strong-arm tactics they employ. The MPAA is trying to take a different path. A $5-$10 fee for what period of time? A one-time charge? I would pay that but monthly? Not a chance. A tiered approach? We have that already for cell phone usage that ends up costing the consumer more than the value of the service.

The ISP's are not a law enforcement entity anymore than the RIAA is. I am certainly not going to pay extra to download the Linux distros freeware/shareware/betaware software I test. Why should I have to pay either one of those or a usage fee for something I am not doing or using? Some of the software files I download are as large as an entertainment file might be and some are likely larger. I am already paying the ISP for access and tacking on another charge is inherently unfair to the many users that don't go after movies/music.



My message to all three is quit your crying and modify your prices to realistic levels.Maybe, just maybe you won't lose the money that you seem to think you are losing. Just a case of corporate greed, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

No kidding! This is outrageous. How can they think that they can squeeze $60-120 per year out of every subscriber to pay for the actions of a few? I for one never download illegally... especially with movies, it really wouldn't be worth my time. I don't even have any desire to watch most movies that come out, it's mostly just the same worn-out Hollywood blockbuster formula-- yawn. Surely they won't be able to go through with this. BTW check out the posts below the article on that site, some are pretty entertaining. ;)
 
Artists should just be proactive and cut the MPAA/RIAA out of the picture. Radiohead released in rainbows on the web, and allowed fans to download the album for a donation of any amount. they aended up making almost 4 million dollars, which is probably quite comparable to the cut ther record company would ahve given them anway. Maybe if the consumers were allowed to pay what we thought the media was worth, they would be a bit more careful about jamming thes ame uninspired, formulaic grabage down our throats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom