Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Taxpayer-Funded IP Police
Sydney Weidman writes "RIAA has given testimony before the House Appropriations Committee asking for more federal money for Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property investigation teams. You can find RIAA's side of the story here and a Cnet story is available as well. Apparently, RIAA is not satisfied with the current deployment of CHIP teams since they have been more involved in anti-hacking activities than in anti-piracy. My favourite Hilary Rosen quote: "Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music." I guess Rosen won't be happy until each and every pirate is charged with crimes against humanity and convicted by the International Court of Justice"
Soon, all restaurants will be Taco Bell, and all corporations will be MPRIAA.
But we still won't have figured out the seashell thing.
i am a soviet space shuttle
RIAA is not satisfied with the current deployment of CHIP teams
Of course not. Erik Estrada retired years ago, and it just hasn't been the same since.
--saint
It just seems that there is an awful lot of momentum right now against this kind of "Big Brother" activity from RIAA. Why not keep it up?
It just seems absurd to me that in this day and age where terrorism is such a focal point, that we would divert funds to fight music piracy. I'm quite certian that Al Qaeda is going after the latest Dave song instead of looking for a way to hack financial companies.
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
RIAA, do you see this?
I am a taxpayer, I don't want this. Tough.
Hey, Mr. Taco, Sir, how about putting a permanent link on the main page that would allow anybody to quickly find their senator/congressman's contact information. Like maybe start being just a little proactive with some of these issues. If even 3% of /. readers actually DID something (call/write) I think it could make a *significant* difference. Weenies, kwhores, and goaters notwhithstanding, I have never seen a forum with a greater number of informed, intelligent, and articulate participants. Some of us probably just need a little kick in the ass to actually DO something other than bitch.
(yeah, I'm a hypocrite and karma whore. That doesn't mean I'm WRONG.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music.
When will she realize that there's more to creating music than money? Artists create because they enjoy doing so. It's one of the profession, IMHO that have a lot of job satisfaction.
Sometimes she'd further her cause by staying quiet.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
The sad thing is, as long as congress keeps passing ridiculous laws like the DMCA, the RIAA will have an argument for the formation of these ridiculous law enforcement groups. The problem here is not that the RIAA wants it's own secret police, but that the laws exist that give those police a job to do.
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.
Of course, this is wrong headed.
What is involved in Piracy is a lack of respect for the property rights of others, which is something that the Music industry has failed to provide the proper example for.
Far from arguing from the moral high ground, the only high ground they occupy is a pile of excrement at the bottom of the latrine they have fallen into, and in fact dug for themselves.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Wahhhh... can we have late night specials showing the Recording Executives starving in the streets and that fat chick asking "wont you please help?"
I'll adopt a Recording Industry Middle manager for 79 cents a day...
Please.... these people need to be attacked by angry mobs.
This Hillary Rosen is one reasone I believe we need to bring back burning at the stake or public impalement.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, the RIAA and the whole notion of intellectual property go against common sense, not to mention the Constitution (Article 2, IIRC).
And yes, the majority (note that word: majority) of IP is indefensible, and a waste of time to deal with (Britney Spears using Windows...wouldn't be surprised if she worked at Micro$oft!).
But we have built this great nation (and, to the extent that other countries have prospered, they have done so emulating the USA in this respect) on the rule of law, and the enforcement of said law by the appropriate Authorities.
Yes, they are funded by taxes, and we all find taxes a "necessary evil." But the right of taxation is firmly granted in the Constitution (Article 4) for the "protection of the Law of the Land."
To suggest that, given the current laws protecting intellectual property, we should then turn around and ignore them when it comes to enforcement, is going about it all wrong.
The result will be not only mass piracy (leading to more stringent laws!), but a complete collapse of all that we hold dear, the Order of Society.
No, until we reach that day when IP laws are stricken down from the books forever (I propose a new Amendment!), we must do our utmost to defend these laws, for they are the very things which make this country good.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Fighting so very hard, in fact, that musicians get around $1.37 per CD? Fighting so hard that one musician goes so far as to say that he would rather have his music be given out free than through his label?
The RIAA and MPAA aren't fighting to protect anyone except themselves.
There's a future in music, at least we hope so, and much of that future will be online. If we are able to construct a new global marketplace dominated by legitimate businesses rather than pirates, we will be able to reach niche markets with unprecedented efficacy.
Well, why doesn't the RIAA focus its' efforts and resources on bringing about this marketplace instead of trying to prosecute the pirates!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
This is utter hogwash. If the record companies had any idea beforehand which CDs would be profitable, they would only publish the profitable ones. But they don't know ahead of time. That's why they publish a broad catalog, so that they have a better chance of publishing a hit and making a profit. To insinuate that the record companies publish unprofitable albums out of the goodness of their hearts is the height of deception.
Let's look at this from the point of view of a fictional touring music act that we'll call "Zit Remedy". If "Megadisc Records", member of the RIAA decides to publish a CD of Zit Remedy's music, it has only a slim chance of being profitable. If Zit Remedy's CD isn't profitable, then Zit Remedy receives no royalty payments. However, the CD still stands as a tool for publicity, possibly increasing concert revenues and sales of merchandise. Except Zit Remedy's self-titled debut release is priced at $20 a copy, so it reaches a very small audience... unless college students start ripping and file sharing. Then the profit potential for Zit Remedy climbs. More buzz = more concert attendees = more revenues. The only loser here is Megadisc.
It's pretty clear that the record companies represented by the RIAA have a flawed business model. I don't think it's up to taxpayers to subsidize bad business models. If it were, I could start a buggy whip factory and retire wealthy. Let Megadisc figure it out for itself.
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs). If anyone is losing money, it's the RIAA and ONLY the RIAA consortium. You do not hurt the artists. In fact, you can *really* help the artists out with online donation. Every time you download an MP3, give the arist 100% of the profits instead of the 0.01% that the RIAA gives them.
What the RIAA is pissed off about is that this technique which you call "stealing" gives power back to the artists. Several artists have attempted to distribute music via MP3, but the RIAA has smacked them down for doing so. The RIAA is pissed because they hate these so-called "theives", they're pissed because their business model is becoming outdated. To combat that, they want to make the government freeze-frame innovation.
Wake up. This greedy group of companies are the real theives. They seize ownership of the work of artists, and then pay them shit for it. Let's fight those bastards by downloading MP3's like crazy, and then giving the artists the money directly. Simple! It's cheaper for you, and more profitable for the musicians! What more do you want?
Why bother.
Just so all you people who don't bother to read the articles know (and before you start losing your minds over the anti-linux stuff) the original article doesn't mention linux at all. So mod the previous post up as funny or troll or something, not informative, you crazy mods.
J
Since she brought it up, lets discuss crimes "against each of us":
Just my $0.02
>I am also a taxpayer and do not want this.
|Sarcasm on>>
But you are not a PAC, cannot bribe congressmen,
so what you want doesn't mean shit..
|Sarcasm off>>
That is what is wrong with the USA..
Maybe it is time for the 1 million geek march on
capital hill...
Go ahead Uncle Sam, enact this.
I will then simply cease filing a tax return. I might even write a letter explaining my reason for doing so. Go ahead, try and collect, and watch it turn into a media circus as I scream about it on Slashdot (thereby transmitting it across the globe). Come on, I DARE you.
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
...stop buying music, robbing the RIAA of the capital they need to buy politicians? I buy only used CDs and music I can get online from people that are in no way associated with the RIAA. It's all legit, I get what I want, and the labels don't get a penny. Win-win.
First of all: Most of the money from sales of music goes to marketing of music. This is because the music listening public are too stupid and sheepish to be immune from being convinced to buy whatever crap BMG wants to sell. This marketing machine payed for by record companies does more to stifle the creation of music than CD pirates ever could. Since local bands could never spend so much to convince the public to buy their stuff, it takes a back seat to the stuff on MTV. Most of the value of the music IP that the RIIA is worried about is not in the music itself but in the marketing investment that the record company has made in pushing the music. For example: Britanny Spears mad diddly off her first album, but could command huge $$ for another one since the record company had already invested mega $$ in marketing her.
Is this maketing a service? Should we thank the record companies for bringing us music we might not otherwise know about? I think not. I think that especially with the internet, bands can show the world what they've got easily, and people can find it on their own. In this wired age record companies who once were the only way to distribute music find that they no longer serve a useful purpose and are nothing more than leaches on society. They control what is on the radio, so that's what I hear, and that's all I know to buy. Without them the radio would play other stuff by artists who have placed their stuff on the internet for free, and who would be happy if I listened so I would want to go to one of their concerts. Music would continue to be created even if there were no such thing as record companies. Maybe artists would not get rich by leveraging the record company's marketing investment, but maybe lesser known artists would make a better living if they could get a little airplay.
Second of all: Do we want an IP police to tell us what we are allowed to think without paying a fee?
Do you think the cops can shut down p2p file trading of copyrighted material without snooping on everything that is traded on p2p? If the FBI can't stop illegal IP traffic on it's budget and using it's existing powers, then it still has use in stopping kidnappers and terrorists, in fact that 'failure' doesn't tarnish the public's image of the FBI because most people who want music and would rather wait for it to download than pay the money for it at the store download it guiltlessly, and don't want the FBI to stop them.
But if there is a special agency who's only purpose is to stop illegal IP trading, they will called before congress if their agency is innefectual, and they will explain that the task is impossible, and that to enforce the law they need an SSSCA type law, and that Freenet should be banned, and that so should most p2p, and gpl software too.
I would be willing to give up the notion of copyright and the patent systems altogether. What moral right does someone who creates an artifact that represents an idea to the very eternal notion itself? They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright? I don't think the value of what is created in that way warrants the subsidy since the material created is mostly created with the express purpose of making $$ and not with enriching my life. Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind? If patents are granted to compete with other countries then maybe we should stop the war and sign a peace treaty outlawing patents.
Eat at Joe's.
You're not stealing anything. When you download an MP3, you're transfering electrons from one source to another (and they are eventually recycled). Electrons. Bits. A CD is a thing that you can hold, touch, whatever. It costs money to produce copies of a work on CD, but nothing to send it over the Net (except bandwidth costs).
<SARCASM>I currently have a job opening at my company for a programmer. I would love to hire you since you obviously will be the cheapest employee in the company. Following your logic would give me the ability to pay you exactly $0 since anything you produce would either exist in your brain (pseudo-bits) or on my hard drive (bits again). I can then just make a copy of your work and *poof* its mine. I'm mean they're just bits after all.</SARCASM>
The erosion of people's ethics to limit the concept of theft to apply only to physical items is absurd. Its only a way for people to justify the theft of music, movies, software, satellite TV, etc. to themselves. The further concept that just because the RIAA of a bunch of greedy corporate bastards is just another way to salve people's souls into believing they aren't criminals.
Neither of these arguments changes the fact that it's theft. If you believe that it's anything else you're just deluding yourself. The answer to the greed of the RIAA is simple. Stop buying their product until they smarten up. Within 3 months things will change. Its called a free market system and its works pretty good if you let it. Moving your morals down the evolutionary chain isn't the answer.
-- If it isn't broken, you haven't let my users have a crack at it yet --
First of all, you are absolutely correct about the RIAA only looking out for their OWN protection. They don't give a dåm about the artists. But it's sickening that you think that their greed is a justifiable cause to steal profits from them.
I Like your idea about paying the artists directly - but you don't realize that most record labels OWN the rights to the profit on that music, and (even if people did pay the artists directly) they would have complete legal rights to the money you send them. In fact, the artist could be sued for everything they own if it was ever found out. Most record labels are pure evil, and have already (through the use of lawyers) though out every way that an artist can beat the system.
Independent artists are the way to go such as found at: http://www.audiokingdom.com The only reason they are not popular is because they don't have a billion-dollar marketing machine behind them to brain-wash everyone into wanting their music. If you REALLY want to help the music industry, turn off your radios and your tv's and start supporting your local artists instead of the ones that record labels brainwash you into supporting!
ALSO: you are completely full of shït if you actually believe that downloading an MP3 (one that isn't 'released' by the artist) is not stealing. It certainly IS stealing - there is no way to get over that fact.
Your pathetic rhetoric about 'electrons and such' is revolting! How can you justify your actions when you already know how little artists make from labels, and how they are trapped into contracts? I can understand downloading songs that are not available on the shelves, or live recordings, and stuff that you can't order from a catalog, but we all know that the majority of the piracy that occurs is music that is available on the shelves!
C'mon people: get a job a buy the friggin CD! Do you think that artists actually spend hours upon hours working hard to make an album just so that some little punk can download their music on the web? If they didn't think they could make a living producing music, most of them would be flipping burgers at Denny's or driving busses for a living. When you download an MP3 (or copy a friends CD) rather than buy the CD, you are completely undermining the careers of these musicians.
If an artist wants to support the MP3 movement by releasing their songs that's fine. Download to your hearts content. Many respectable artists such as Chuck-D have a fantastic vision for music - but it's not a reality yet. Just because one artist says it's ok, it does not mean that they are giving you permission to download everyone elses music.
If you even had an ounce of creativity in your blood, you'd soon realize that copying ANYTHING that is copyrited is determental to the dream that people can make a living doing what they love.
PS: This exact same concept applies to programmers and 'big-bad software companies'
Just an observation, notice they wanna stamp out fair use, but definatly want free speech to reign? check the "Freedom of speach" link on their site:
Of course. The RIAA knows that one of its biggest enemies is the FCC. If the FCC says "No minors shall be sold music containing any more than X number of vulgarities"; the RIAA immediately suffers as a result of losing a potential direct sale.
If the FCC says "Everybody can purchase and listen to whomever they want", the RIAA benefits, as now that 8 year old kid will be able to buy the RIAA-sanctioned Rap album about killing police officers.
"Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music."
:-)
That cracked me up! I guess everyone feels there is a humanitarian need for paying for music in this world. That's like coal miners saying oil and natural gas are bad for everone because there isn't enough coal mines opening up anymore. The afflicted parties and everyone are usually quite at odds with each other.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Piracy does hurt everyone. When someone forcibly boards a ship on the high seas, rapes all women on baord, murders the crew, steals their cargo and burns their ship into the sea (possibly with people still alive on board), its a horrible thing.
On the other hand, I thought Rosen was trying to promote some sort of copyright violation police. I have no idea why she's talking about piracy though, which has nothing to do with copyright violation.
http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/sue_5 6k.html
Rumor has that they have even suggested a Logo And have offered to fund TV commercials...with Ponch and Jon..