Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry 'trying to hijack EU data laws'
sebFlyte writes "The recording industry is trying to hijack the EU's data retention directive, which is being brought in to fight terrorism, to try and get their copyright battles fought for them. As previously reported, the EU may be making copyright infringement a criminal offence, and the Creative Media Business Alliance is lobbying hard to stop the European laws on data retention being restricted to cover terrorism and organized crime (as is currently proposed). In essence, they want to be able to get police to search through newly extended records from ISPs to look for evidence of illegal filesharing. In the words of the executive director of the Open Rights group, 'the music industry's attempt to hijack this legislation is a travesty and a gross affront to civil liberties and human rights.'"
They think they can force everybody to use technology that will only benefit them (remember the hard-drives that were supposed to check if the data they copy is copyrighted?).
This arrogance only warrants one thing: that "industry" shall be pirated to the croporate death penalty. The slow one: diminishing into irrelevence and oblivion through gradually diminishing sales.
...insofar as corporations don't *always* manage to bully or bribe their way to getting legislation passed in their interest and against those of consumers, or citizens in general.
:)
Here in Europe, the success rate for such capers is only about 50%
So let's see what happens this time. Remember, if the EU Parliament doesn't immediately give in, it's still a feasible tactic to target individual countries, bring about some division and then see if the Überparliament has meanwhile changed their tune.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
So what you're saying is that you're for anything that will benefit you regardless of who it fucks over, and utterly unconcerned with anything that doesn't directly affect you regardless of who it fucks over?
So, in the spirit of the story topic, I'm gonna hijack this first post to make my point. Governments are concerned with politics and their constituents. The MP/RIAA are natural enemies to a lot of tax paying voters, plus they've made some major screw ups. For example, the recent Sony screw-up of course, and those false-positives in sending out mass subpoenas. I see governments, particularly on the local level (where there's less lobbying), siding with the people (IE the pirates) and legislating appropriately.
**AA is trying to change the laws in Sweden so they can go after Bittorrent users and thepiratebay admins. Something to be aware of.
Copyright infringement should be an offense punishable by law. Even Creative Commons relies on the basic idea of Copyright. Read this from the Collective Commons Legal Text:
"License THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. "
So even Creative Commons is bound by the idea of Copyright Law.
This is not a bad thing
What is the bad is abuse of Copyright law on both sides.
Either record labels are going to have to get a clue about the digital universe that is expanding and growing around us, or continue to persue Draconian methods of enforcement, and strict Copyright legalities on thier IP.
If they do so, i imagine that the online world will continue its move in another direction, that being more Creative Commons artists, and contributers across a wide spectrum.Releasing works under lisences with terms that we can sleep with at night.
So undermining Copyright law is not a good idea. What is is releasing works that don't punish the consumer/listener for wanting to share.
Thats the labels problem. Not ours.
IANAL,
D
nope, I resolved that there is no way to be an honest citizen so therefore I went the other direction. I steal it all. All software all music and other information. I use the tools of the trade that make it very difficult for them to catch me. I now encrypt everything and make it easy to destroy the evidence in case they try to attack me.
Personally, after the past 6 months I have said fuck it. It is far easier to simply go completely to the illegal side and keep it hidden then to try to stay legal. They do not want me to be legal so I oblige.
I STEAL every thing I can get my hands on now. All my software anf games are now illigit, hell I even downloaded the ISO of mandriva 2006 power pack, so my linux is pirated!
to hell with them, I'm no longer going to play their game, I am simply going to use their rules to keep ahead of them.
and I strongly suggest that everyone else does likewise. steal your software music and movies. vow to never EVER buy their crap again and show/help others in doing the same by giving away CD's with cracks and keygens as well as software and music. spread their stuff far and wide.
They do not want me to be legal... so I will now oblige.
There you go RIAA... I am now going to go out of my way to pirate everything you have and give away as many copies as I can, when I hear someone is going to buy a CD I wil produce the mp3's for them and say, "dont buy it! here it is for free!"
Time for me to actively attack them by intentionally stopping sales of their product.
Ive said it before, but I sometimes think if "marxism" is ever going to make sense to anyone, it'll be the musicians.
We've long since cottoned on to the fact that the industry is definately not acting in musicians interests, because while the Music industry are busy criminalising and raping the musicans best friend, the kids, we still aint seeing a cent for our endevours.
Hows about the "bosses", get out the way and let us muso's do what we always did best; SELF promote. We have the net these days, our "means of production", as those whacky old russians used to call it. We can do it ourselves.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
If they want to stop looking like a bunch of greedy fools once in a while they might try donating some of their excess cash to a "good cause" in the last month cnn.com has had: " EBay founder gives $100 million to university" and " Gates loses 'top philanthropist' title" On the list of the top 50 people who have donated the most, not one is connected to the MPAA or RIAA, either they don't have that much donatable cash laying around or they really are that greedy. Now they're even lazier, first they wanted the government to pick up the tab for their "people(RIAA) v possibly suspected music pirate" lawsuits, now they want governments to spend the money, time and effort investigating, prosecuting and imprisoning/executing people who they don't like. That's hundreds to thousands in legal fees a day for the trial and a few hundred for the prison, the governments probably prefer fines so they can get some money out of it, but the industry likes the sound of up to 5 years in federal prison. Even when they were forced to "donate" CDs to public libraries they sent dozens to hundreds of copies of the same unpopular disk.
Here's another one against "Intelligent Design" if the word was intellegently designed the RIAA wouldn't exist or wouldn't be as greedy.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Here's my attempt, sent to all the MEPs for my area...
I am concerned at attempts to widen the uses for Data Retention beyond the initial aims of combatting serious crime such as terrorism.
I strongly believe that acceptance of the proposed amendment by MEP Bill Newton Dunn, which has been the subject of lobbying by the CMBA, would make the law an invasive and overbearing infringement of our rights to both free association and privacy.
I am disturbed that this attempt to change the scope of the legislation has come despite prior justification that it was necessary for fighting terrorism and would be limited to fighting serious crime.
One of the strongest arguments against this type of legislation is that its use is inevitably broadened in an undemocratic and authoritarian manner. This inevitably weakens public support for what might otherwise be seen as acceptable to society.
Abuse of process and betrayal of public trust in this way, supported by misleading lobbying by special interest parties is profoundly undemocratic.
What is more, it is inevitable that the public's response to such an egregious abuse of power to diminish privacy would include the widespread use of technological countermeasures that would undermine the intended purpose of the legislation.
For these reasons I would ask you to ensure that the legislation is not hijacked when it comes before the Parliament in the coming weeks.
Roman, I think he's referring to infringement notices filed against people who had downloaded or possessed files with names identical or similar to popular movie and music titles for which the RIAA/MPAA are on the lookout for. This has already happened, though I don't have a link handy to the slashdot article where this was discussed. - that much was clear to me and my answer doesn't change: I don't download anything from any networks that are used to illegally distributed copyrighted materials, so it doesn't matter to me.
If you wish to continue being able to watch DVDs on your computer, let's hope others that have an interest in preventing you watching DVDs on your computer aren't able to influence lawmakers who share your blind self-interest. - as far as I understand I am not prevented from watching DVDs that I buy.
If you think the music industries' actions are reasonable, let me make you a reasonable proposal: I'm a musician, and I have a CD of my work. I'll give it to you for free. Unlike Sony, I will tell you I'll be installing a rootkit on your computer. - free cheese is found in a mousetrap. I am not interested in anything like that, the same way I am not interested in getting a free computer with ads running on the screen, so the rest of the argument is pointless.
You can't handle the truth.
If "piracy" should be a criminal offence, then infecting hundreds of thousands of computers with rootkits/trojans should be worth a death sentence. SONY/BMG and 1st 4Internet CEOs report to the nearest wall & bring your own blindfold. Virus writers, ditto. How about life sentences for spammers and those who contract for their services? Too expensive, send them to the wall, too. Corporate assholes are quick to demand their customers be jailed, but how they lie and whine when they get caught.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Either english is your second language, or you are purposely misunderstanding to prevent being refuted..you wouldn't have to download anything, have any protected material in your possesion, or have any P2P/filesharing app installed or running. - English is my fourth language, which does not prevent me from understanding you perfectly. The original sentence was: "Just remember how reasonable you think they are when they come knocking on your door for downloading a study of Mars called "The Red Planet" or a treatise on metamorphisis called "The Butterfly Effect"." - he said for downloading, not just for 'having' this material on my computer. And you are accusing me of using straw-man? Ha!
Again, you've failed to read the phrase above: "continue being able to" and throw up a strawman argument by attempting to redefine what was said. - oh, how interesting. I thought I mentioned it previously that I BOUGHT DVDs that I watch. In fact I did mention it. So what does your phrase 'continue being able to' means in this case? In case where I paid for my copy of a DVD? To me it means exactly this: I buy a DVD, I can watch it on my DVD player. You on the other hand are insisting that my right to watch material that I pay for will be taken away from me. What are you even talking about?
OK...I'll charge the same price you can find the CD on sale for at your favorite source for CDs. Does paying for the privilege of having a rootkit installed change the facts of the discussion? A reasonable person would say it doesn't. - it is up to me whether to buy or not to buy a CD from anyone. If the copyright owner decides to only sell CDs with such 'root-kits' on them, I simply won't buy. But it doesn't give me a moral/legal or any other right to download copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, does it?
It's apparent and obvious you cannot logically argue my points. You resort to strawman arguments to the point of one reading your statements having to assume you either have no reading and comprehension skills, or are deliberately avoiding and/or altering the argument until you can knock it down. - really? I can't argue your points on logic alone? If you think so, don't argue with me. In terms of honesty - I am honest with myself, what about you? I respect copyrights because I want my copyrights to be upheld. Period.
You can't handle the truth.
WriteToThem really does work work! I've sent my MP many emails through the WriteToThem form, and now receive official typed replies to my questions and ongoing issues. My MP seems interested to help resolve problems such as this, copyright and patents, chipping an xbox etc - and has replied with enthusiasm and good intent.
Its a lot more than i expected! It does work, you can get through to the people who matter.
If you think that is reasonable, then I am against copyright beause it doesn't let me control how I distribute work that I can.
GP Just said "I like it because I profit". Bank robbers profit from robbing banks...
It's already happening, but you don't hear anything about it because the industry already controls the major advertising channels.