Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Headway Dwindling
JKnowledge writes "This article points to the fact that Yahoo! and various other ISPs are joining in Verizon's fight for the privacy of thier users. Perhaps this silly debacle in the rights of Anonymous Cowards will soon lose steam and sink into the rot that it rose from."
Is it strictly off of record sales?
I wouldn't think they'd be hard to put out of business, or at least dent them enough to hurt their lawyers.
I've found that artists listen to their fans. If we can come up with a better solution for the artist I bet it wouldn't be that difficult to get them to hop on.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Disclaimer: I haven't read the legal brief.
"The music industry pays the RIAA to investigate and prosecute copyright infractions. They don't pay us a penny to do that. They don't pay ISPs a penny to do that. Even if they did, it would be a violation of due process and subscriber privacy."
So what if they did pay? It seems that the anti-RIAA people (telcos, ISPs, civil liberties) are still partly in it for the money. After all, the payment issue shouldn't even arise when the problem at hand is the DMCA's "turbocharged" subpoena clause.
The groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Consumer Alert, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and National Consumers League, argued the RIAA is relying on a portion of the DMCA that violates Americans' right to be anonymous online
Everyone has certain rights (such as anonymity) until they commit a crime. Pirating music (whethey they're justified or not) is still a violation of copyrights. Why do ISPs have the right to refuse handing over the information when they can be considered criminals?
Is it because they don't provide the actual connections for the P2P network?
(Not a troll, just curious)
Quote by the RIAA:
"They (the ISP's) are trying to avoid the cost of identifying infringers as provided for in the DMCA by imposing unrealistic and burdensome obligations on copyright owners instead."
What?? You mean they are suggesting the RIAA use the law like everyone else has to? The nerve of those ISP's!
I'm pretty sure that it's the obligation of the copyright owner to preserve their copyright.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Yes, in theory it sounds really exciting. People coming together to take on one of the greediest corporate helldemons out there, for the good of the land. But the sad reality is that 99% of people complain and never do anything about it. You would think the average American/European consumer who essentially has the say whether a given product/service is a "keeper" would be a vocal voice when it comes to asinine legislature. But people assimilate.
It could be justifiably compared to the nerdy kid and the schoolyard bully. You let him pick on you without fighting back, and just open the floodgates of abuse. RIAA has tested the waters, and they came to the conclusion that people will put up with their shit.
This just goes to prove the notion that indifference of the users to take any swift action is not an OSS centric problem. People from all walks of life use "portable music", and when the time comes to take a stand and rage against the machine, everyone just thinks they cannot make a difference on a personal level. It multiplies into millions of ignoramuses, and in turn empowers **AA to swing their dick in any preferred direction while knocking civil liberties around.
How long will it take before people realize that just by talking about it, evil will not just vaporize into thin air?
Copy protected CDs --> Idiotic Windows XP Authentication methods --> DRM --> Crippled hardware --> Palladium --> Microchips under your skin... what's next?
Raise your hand. Make a Fist. Fight Back!