Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan

from the good-for-them dept

While there was big news on Friday concerning the RIAA’s supposed plan to stop suing everyone in favor of having ISPs police networks for the RIAA, it seems that some ISPs are clearly not on board with the plan (and, in fact, the details of the plan seem rather lacking). has the story of one smaller ISP that has been responding to every RIAA notification by sending a request back for a billing address where he can send an invoice for the time it takes to respond to takedown requests. For the most part, the RIAA simply ignores these responses, though in some cases its representatives seem to feign ignorance, claiming “In regards to billing, we fail to understand what you mean with that!”

At the same time, it appears that Verizon is one large ISP refusing to cooperate. This is not really that surprising, given that Verizon was really the only major ISP to stand up to the RIAA’s original campaign of demanding the identity associated with IP addresses without first filing a lawsuit (the end result of which was the RIAA’s filing large lawsuits against multiple “john and jane does” in order to get the names). Verizon has also pushed back in the past when other big ISPs like AT&T seemed willing to act as copyright cops for the RIAA.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: riaa, verizon

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Monach says:

Re: Re: Re:

by hegemon13 on Dec 23rd, 2008 @ 11:14am

I sure wish Verizon was in my area. I will have to wait and see what Time Warner does.

(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)

Re: by Anonymous Coward on Dec 23rd, 2008 @ 11:45am

Warner, Warner… where have I heard that name before…?

Hmmm, maybe just maybe Time Warner will just send the info via internal IM or email to itself. OH NOES!!! Epiphany!!! Time Warner/Road Runner is a subdivion of one of the BIG MEDIA MAFIAA!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Hmmm, maybe just maybe Time Warner will just send the info via internal IM or email to itself. OH NOES!!! Epiphany!!! Time Warner/Road Runner is a subdivion of one of the BIG MEDIA MAFIAA!!!”
Yes and no, it used to be. But last year (I think) there was a big todo about them buying themselves out. So they are now two separate companies who most likely share a majority of the same board members.

Anonymous Coward says:

Well I for one disagree with his comments and procedure but not his concept.

If a firm files a lawsuit and request discovery from a third party not party to the lawsuit the third party is entitled to compensation for their cost of discovery which one would assume would be at least cost plus 20 to 30%.

What the ISP should do is go to a lawyer have the lawyer write a letter demanding compensation in that amount, file this with the local court in a law suit (this has the effect of transferring the case to a local court since a suit has not been filed yet.) for the cost of discovery and then have the attorney send the RIAA a contract for discovery with all the supporting references and opinions along with a bill for the attorney fees, penalties, and interest in preparing the discovery contract. The suit may not go anywhere but it does place the cost of being away from home on the RIAA when the RIAA has to respond to the discovery suit.

riggs (profile) says:

Re: Anonymous Coward

Ok, from reading the article, it says they are no longer filing lawsuits against people. Thus, this is not an act of discovery (nor was it even remotely connected to that). This is a request for an investigation. Not only that, but you cannot file a lawsuit in bad faith, i.e. purely for discovery purposes. This has been documented time and again on Mr. Beckerman’s blog. Now, I’m not legally trained. I might be wrong on something here, but I doubt it (I will admit I’m wrong if someone will show me where/how).

What we really need here is quick legislative action to make disconnecting someone or banning them from the internet for any length of time, been directly connected with actual criminal behavior, which file sharing is not. It is a CIVIL offense, not a CRIMINAL, when it is infringement with no commercial gain. Let ALONE the argument between whether making available a file for download truly constitutes infringement.

Ultimately my point is this. They can’t prove you are doing anything wrong without first violating your privacy, and to top that all off, they want to be able to determine who gets cut off from the internet and who doesn’t. That is very very f-ing dangerous. You give that the recording industry? Who’s next, what other IP industries get to protect themselves by severing an individual or entire family from the greatest communications tool? Are we going to let EA decide? How about Microsoft? Apple?

Are you willing to place your trust in their ability to do something that can’t be done and use that as the core of a decision on whether or not you get to keep internet access? I am not. Their IP is NOT more important that our freedom. Freedom comes first, it’s been bought in blood and paid for with the lives of our ancestors, friends, and families. Err on the side of freedom people, that’s the rule to rule by.

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

About time

I’ve always wondered why, e.g., google didn’t do the same thing. The whole trend of IP law seems to be outsourcing policing. “We can’t possibly be expected to look after our property, someone else should do it.” Well, fine, but those people should be paid for their time and effort.

When goods are infinite, so is the effort required to police them.

interval says:

Re: Not surprising

“This isn’t the first time Verizon has gone to bat for the consumer.”

You sure about that? I think it is. When ever they have done so, however, I applaud Verizon. I’d be highly skeptical of any altruistic reasons, however. More likely they will be doing it for the same reason as the little mom ‘n pop isp in Louisiana; the cost. I’m sure policing their customers for another private concern, not law encforcement, wasn’t part of the original business plan.

AHHH says:


I LOVE VERIZON…. when i first heard about isp’s putting 250GB caps on broadband connections i thought to my self “Verizon wont cap their customers!” and i am pretty sure they never have and never will… i have had FIOS and it is the greatest thing since sliced bread i tell u! FIOS TV picture quality is way up there next to DirecTV, and FIOS broadband is by far the fastest internet i have experienced. So when i moved to my new place and could not afford FIOS i went with Verizon basic DSL and it is god awful slow, but you know what, i am so happy to not be paying Comcast or Time War…? (shit i cannot remember that word that follows Time?) one CENT! (my computer is on all day downloading, and i am not even sure it is possible to download 250GB at 760KB/s for 31 days straight?)

R says:

Here Down Under

I live in Australia, and I’m proud to say that my ISP was probably the first to start fighting back against the RIAA (and equivalents).
Perhaps even more ironic is the fact that they also madethe article available as a torrent ( 🙂

teknosapien (profile) says:

So what if the figer print

of non DRM material- downloaded from is close to that of what the RIAA states is their property does that mean that the ISP would block that particular download? lets take it a step further they lets say they boot me for what they perceive to be an copy right infringement but still no RIAA sponsored Material. I have to applaud the ISP’s for Saying No.
after all what does the RIAA care if VeriZon or some other ISP pisses of their customers

RoyalWitCheese (profile) says:


Brilliant move by the RIAA. The RIAA is out of every legal battle.

A letter from RIAA can force the ISP to initiate an investigation against the user, or to send a warning based on no proof.

ISP’s will have either violate privacy or pay, to do a warranted search, for illegal files. If the ISP screws up, all fingers, and lawsuits(at the user’s expense), point to the ISP.

When the mad ISP’s come running to RIAA, they’ll just say that the User can be unbanned.

RIAA’s long time view of guilty until proven innocent stands, at a cost that’s cheaper for them.
ISP’s do all the leg and legal work. And cover all the costs to protect themselves. Which get passed on to the user.
User’s will have to pay to prove their innocence, Have higher cost for internet, and have no ability to go after the RIAA for wrongful suits.

Verizon can figgure this out, that’s why it opposed it. If other ISP’s aren’t run by someone that can understand this, let them burn.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...