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."

Comments

Wrongo.

[Murdock037]

Don't think that these companies are fighting for the privacy of their users. The companies are fighting so that they don't have to take responsibility for what their users do.

It's in their own best interests to help out the little guy on this one, but don't assume everybody's motivations align so well.

Who funds the RIAA?

[Mustang Matt]

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.

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[Billly Gates]

"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."

Unfortunately the retailers have exclusive contracts forbidding them to sell any cd's from non RIAA approved companies. If a major label likes an artist with an indie background, they will usually just license the music and redistribute it to the retailers so all the artists have to come through them. Unfortunately all the smaller cd stores have all but closed thanks to megastores with exclusive contracts who can sell the cd's cheaper due to rates thanks to the RIAA.

I bet this was probably the RIAA's plan all along. THey own a monopoly through all the distribution channels so they can raise the prices. I also believe consumers have been boycotting them and the RIAA blames this on piracy and continues to fund new laws. It seems like the more they boycott the more they pribe the politicians and the more they can use these figures to make it look like piracy. Either way were screwed.

Good Guys? You really think that...

[1qaz2wsx]

Good Guys? Do you really think that Verizon et. al. are doing this because it is the right thing to do? No way. They are **really** mad because the RIAA is trying to force the cost of enforcing their copyrights onto everyone but themselves. The point taken by Verizon et. al. is right on the mark, the RIAA is not allowing due process; but they are protecting their shareholders, not intentionally "fighting the good fight". The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

Some odd points from the article:

[CBNobi]

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)

Re:Some odd points from the article:

[thumbtack]

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?

Ah, but therein lies the problem, there is no due process under the DMCA. Just the mere accusation is enough.

Dselexic RIAA employee writes down an ip address wrong, switching the last two digits. Next thing you know is that someone is kicked off their connection, hauled into court under the No Electronic Theft Act, and they have to prove their innocence, rather than the accusser having to prove their guilt.

What's wrong with this picture?

The scenario changed when it became a criminal act and not a civil matter.

The Beauty of Enlightened Self-Interest

[hillct]

It's great to see this coalition fighting the RIAA and MPAA, but make no mistake about it. Most of these coalition members are acting entirely out of enlightened self-interest rather than fighting the good fight on behalf of internet users. The article is vary clear about this but it bears repeating:

"What the RIAA is really seeking, at the end of the day, is to shift the burden of copyright enforcement from its own members--who apparently would prefer not to alienate potential customers by suing them outright--to an ISP that does nothing more than provide an Internet connection to the customer," the brief says.

[...]

In July, the RIAA invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force Verizon to turn over the identity of a Kazaa subscriber. Verizon opposed the request, telling a federal district court in Washington that the DMCA's turbocharged subpoena process does not cover people who are participating in a peer-to-peer network like Kazaa. The fact that these companies are acting together to protect their own interests is actually a good thing in that their interests actually do coincide with those of the consumer. This type of synergy is quite rare and should be supported by consumers while they continue to recognize the corporate motives behind it.

--CTH

Same old crap from the RIAA

[ColaMan]

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.

Rollback Copyright Laws Instead

[serutan]

Come on, this legal bickering is for weasels. The problem isn't whether or not the DMCA's subpoena rules apply to P2P users, or any other legal technicality. The problem is that the copyright ownership industry is so lucrative, and it's that way because Congress has made it so, by obligingly making copyrights last longer and longer at the whim of the entertainment industry.

The recording industry wouldn't have anywhere near the power they have if their rights only lasted a few years, which was the original intent of copyright. It was meant to encourage creativity and inventiveness, not as a tool to keep anything valuable from ever dropping into public domain. But by extending copyrights again and again, people like Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) have given the copyright-ownership industry a golden goose, which they naturally want to keep alive forever.

If you want to help fix the problem, find out who your congressional reps are and write to them, on clean paper in an actual envelope, asking them to rollback copyright law to a sane level. I'd really like to see people actually exercise their freedom of speech in this matter, instead of lawyers merely using it as body armor.

Re:An excellent quote

[cioxx]

As far as I can see, people won't stand for this shift of burden the RIAA is seeking.

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!

That missing the key point

[tkrotchko]

Yes, people are pirating music, but so what?

People shoplift.

People speed.

People do all sorts of horrible nasty things. But we've managed to stick with due process

What's so different and important about alleged copyright violations that we need to jettison the the Bill of Rights?

Can someone please explain why the RIAA and MPAA members are deserving of a new special status under the law?

Re:What does it matter?

[TheConfusedOne]

The problem is the methods that the RIAA is using and powers that they are asking for.

Currently there is a perfectly good system for finding and trying copyright infringers. Courts allow John Doe defendants and there is a whole process for requesting subpoenas to get information about ISP users. Additionally, there are already penalties for copyright infringement.

There is no need for additional laws.

The RIAA wants to completely destroy due process (the DMCA's take down provisions are "guilty until proven innocent"). They want to use poorly written laws to gain maximum advantage. Finally, they try to sneak new abilities into laws designed to fight terrorism.

Meanwhile, they're whining and crying poor and "file sharing is evil" when there's no evidence to back up their claims. In fact, to the contrary, file sharing seems to promote sales.

Finally, the member companies have been found guilty numerous times of price fixing and continue to rip off the artists who "work" for them (though with the ol' "work for hire" clause it's anything but).

So, no it's not bad for them to try to protect what is, unfortunately, legally theirs. The problem is why they should need a whole new set of laws to protect their stuff when everyone else has to deal with the legal system as it currently stands.