Slashdot Mirror
MPAA, RIAA Seek Permanent Antitrust Exemption
Devistater writes "Webcasters sued RIAA two months ago in an antitrust case for anti-competitive behavior. The response? An exemption from antitrust laws. Today's Register tells about RIAA/MPAA's efforts to get just such an exemption written into law. They could become permanently exempt from such a suit, if the bill passes. They snuck it into a bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch called EnFORCE Act (Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003). Orrin Hatch says this bill contains "First... an antitrust exemption in the Copyright Act [for] record companies and music publishers" Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"
I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative. I have never voted for him and after several news stories like this will never vote for him in the future. When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written? I suggest everyone write a letter to Senator Hatch and tell him what you think of this law. Utahans especially but it helps if anyone sends a letter in.
*Ok rant's over, flame on!
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
Great. This is what we need. More power to those who hold the purse strings. Give more power to big business and less to consumers.
The thing that concerns me is that the RIAA is trying to circumvent a diplomatic process. I always thought that, while not completely effective, challenging an organizations actions (even in court) kept what organizations do in check - that the could not overstep their boundries. Now, the RIAA is trying to be immune from it's actions, while suing consumers for their actions.
This could start a dangerous precident - allowing corporations immunity from their own actions. Hope SCO isn't watching.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Hatch is trying to pull this off at the same time Congress is debating whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. The NCAA doesn't have an antitrust exemption, and neither does the NFL. To my knowledge, Major League Baseball is the only group of that sort to have an antitrust exemption, and even that's come up for debate during all those strikes.
A simple public awareness campaign should put an end to the madness. In the context of other "market realities," it simply doesn't make sense. In fact, Congress has taken an active interest in limiting those other "market realities." Seriously, what's the difference between one group controlling all access to recorded music and one group controlling all access to pro football?
----------
Something cleverNext logical step is to make any music's copyright automatically go to RIAA so they can protect the artists rights against evil pirates.
And this eventually leads to you not being allowed to play your own music without paying RIAA, since they own the copyright...
Oh, and whistling is also music, so any whistler is liable for up to 5 years of prison and $25000000 fine if caught in the act without proper RIAA license...
No, it's because there are no actual feelings of guilt.
Why should I feel guilty for double-clicking on an icon, and then listening to a song? The idea that I have to pay someone to listen to music is a relatively new concept. I don't feel guilty in the least. The music industry, in addition to suing its customers is now trying to enact legislation that will exempt it from laws put in place to protect consumers.
It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.
The music industry is evil, pure and simple, and I don't feel bad when I "steal" (not even the correct term) from evil. Getting my money is not some sort of god-given right. It has to be earned, and the music industry is not earning it. Humanity got along fine for thousands of years without them, and will do so again.
"Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?"
If they expect to collect money from them, and not create another PR disaster, yes. I can garauntee they will this time.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I mean, they're not a government body. They only have power because they say they have power. If everyone ignored them, there is nothing they can do about it.
It's time to forget them. They are the past. The genie is out of the bottle, and they can't ever put it back in. It's time to look for a new business model I'm afraid. They want to only hold on to what they had and not pursue what is the future.
Remember, they only have power because everyone believes they have power. They were not voted on, we didn't elect them. The President didn't appoint them.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Campaigns take money these days. Lots of it. If you don't have name recognition, it takes even more. I live in a county with a population of 17,000 and we just had a well constested Sheriff's race. The winner (and - thank goodness - the best man for the job) spent over $8,000, and he was pretty cash strapped. I would guess he did about 1/2 the advertising as the other two top candiates, and I know he painted some of his own signs to save money. He probably talked to more than half the residents in the county face to face, door to door. There are no radio or television stations which cater to this county, and there is single weekly newspaper, so there was no big $$$ media.
Why are candidates so dependent on cash? VOTER APATHY! Yes, it's still our fault. We don't do research, we vote by name recognition and the "message" which has been tested and massaged by the political machine. Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe that I'll get a chance to talk one-on-one with the next presidential candidates, but I'll be doing a little legwork prior to the democratic primary elections.
I already know that Dubya is not a man I can trust to protect my values. IMHO, his eye's are bigger than his stomach, and his mouth is faster than his brain - I probably wouldn't vote for him if we mostly agreed on how the country should be run.
I don't know much about Dean, yet, but I will. He doesn't carry the baggage a congresman usually carries, but he's got a record to follow. I find looking at the "other" sides literature is a good starting point. Find out why they think he shouldn't be in office. Once you know how he handles his missteps, then look at his purported successes. Look at how he's handles problems, then judge his actions based on intent and available data. When you invest money in mutual funds, do you take a look at the historical data or do you look at the methods and values of the manager? Most folks who choose based on the former are sorely disappointed in their investments over time - you're constantly moving money into last year's great performer.
Now, I'm nearly as lazy as the next guy, so I won't even look at the candiates until a moth or so before the primary, when I'm stuck with four or five lousy choices from the original field of fifteen or so. But hey, at least that's manageable.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It comes to this, without legislative exemption from anti-competitive laws, the **AA can't compete. And they know it.
The RIAA has been a bit hysterical and made some cruicial blunders. They first went to court instead of to Washington, and their scorched earth campagin isn't working out too well. The various challenges to their subpoenas may invalidate the "shoot first and ask questions later" provisions of the DMCA. I think the MPAA is not amused or appreciative. What they are is scared. This weekend one of the pre-movie commercials at my local Cineplex was an MPAA thingy showing a real working stiff in the movie business to make the point that movie trading hurts real people. Unlike their music buddies, the MPAA has used the courts sparingly and put most of their effort into Washington lobbying. But even that's not gone well. Fritz Holling's bill was a PR disaster. Orrin Hatch's remarks earlier this year that copyright holders should be able to invade people's computers was worse. Even the senate big-wigs felt compelled to issue statements disagreeing.
And now this. They need the Government's protection to survive. They need exemption from anti-trust laws, no matter what the political consequences, or they're toast. Even if you believe all politicians are dishonest bastards, its hard to see how Hatch's little trick will work. One thing politicians really don't like is political headaches. And most are quite willing to toast contributors if there is a need for expediency. Can you imagine the furor if this got passed? Every representative would be flooded with requests by other industries for a similar exemption. All would demand that if it could be done for the movie and music businesses, it could damn well be done for them. And that's a headache no senator or congressman wants to get. Look for a lot of senators suddenly being too busy to answer Hatch's phone calls.