They can't find who owns a pirate music site in China, so they're gunning for American ISPs for allowing access to the site. I guess they want to break the internet since they can't control it.

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954176.html?tag=fd_top

Maybe they should also sue the state highway commissions for allowing thieves access to stores for them to rob.

bahahahahaha.... you know it.

I hope they get penalized with a frivolous lawsuit fine. Preferable a very, very big one.

-Zeke

I just hate it when I buy a CD I like to contribute to the artist only to know that about a nickel is ending up in their pocket... they should all setup paypal accounts and mail the CDs themselves

The problem is that most people (myself included, really) want to go to a store and buy a CD and take it home right then.

What it all comes down to is that record companies do serve a purpose (even beyond just distribution channels); it's just that what they get paid greatly overshadows what they really provide.

I can't understand these guys (the RIAA).

They go after the messengers all the time.

Why didn't they just tackle the root of the problem?
and just get the Domain Name yanked from the .COM TLD nameservers?

These sorts of things have happened before and the powers that be have simply told Verisign or whomever controls the root domain servers for the .com TLD to stop providing access to that webserver.

[Don't think that can happen? - well recall September 11 and the shutting down of many .com websites/domains that various governments didn't like (whether the shutdown happened directly or via the domain servers at Verisign or whomever controls the .com TLD I don't know].

Having cut the link between the domain and the servers that host it, then let the owners of the said domain and/or website step forward to complain in the US courts if they think their civil or other rights have been violated.

Then the RIAA will see who the real owners are and can go after them rather than this "shoot everyone who moves" approach.

If no-one complains, then problem solved. When the next domain appears, repeat -
[ad infinitum no doubt]

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the RIAA or their tactics, but they seem to be taking a wrong headed approach - unless they are trying to set a legal precedent which will allow the RIAA to make the ISPs their stool pigeons and the RIAA can then censor any website anywhere on the planet on their 'say-so'.

And that situation would be even scarier than having the FBI or CIA be able to do the same thing as at least the organisations like the FBI and CIA etc are accountable to a government somewhere.

The RIAA appears to be accountable to no-one - and thats what really scares me.

Greetings!

I must admit that it is nice to see the company I work for get some good press for once.

So now AT&T needs to be responsible for the content they give people access to? Lets take some companies that excel in communications and data transfer and make them responsible for morally policing the Internet. Aside from the absurdly of ISPs being our moral security, the issue of having such companies spend all of their time checking web page content so they won't get sued as opposed to making their internet services better for the consumer seems to be a pretty unproductive goal.

It is true that the record companies provide value and they should be compensated, but they have long since worn through any goodwill they might receive for the services they render. To expect people now to 'do the right thing' by a company that treats its customers like children is becoming more and more of a stretch. I still don't download mp3's off of the internet or illegally copy music, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince others other to take this position when they only ones who benefit are so irresponsible and greedy.