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."

4 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Wrongo. by Murdock037 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Some odd points from the article: by thumbtack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Rollback Copyright Laws Instead by serutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Who funds the RIAA? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Informative
    "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.