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.'"
For some reason neither zdnet nor the submitter give a link to the site and article they are talking about:
an openrights.org blog entry.
The page has a cool link to WriteToThem where UK readers at least can quickly find out who their MEP is and how to contact them.
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.
I'm in the same boat as you in that I benefit from this kind of legislation.
However, it does not sound reasonable.
It sounds profitable.
There is a difference.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
...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
For Canadians who aren't sure if the new Wiretap legislation or Copyright Act amendment Bill C-60 are good bills, we'll end up with the same push from the CRIA to obtain ISP logs that are supposed to be only available to the police in criminal investigations where they've obtained a warrant.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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?
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
'nuff said.
Havoc Video
"...the Army's attorney general, Joseph Welch, rebuked McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
"McCarthyism took place during a period of intense suspicion in the United States primarily from 1950 to 1954, when the U.S. government was actively countering American Communist Party subversion, its leadership, and others suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers. During this period people from all walks of life became the subject of aggressive "witch-hunts," often based on inconclusive or questionable evidence. It grew out of the Second Red Scare that began in the late 1940s and is named after the U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican of Wisconsin."
It's ironic that, especially Hollywood, and, the recording industry, so much a target of Joe McCarthy should now be at the forefront of an hysterical witchhunt intent on making criminals of all and sundry.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
You call "reasonable" breaking customer's computers by stealthily installing crippling software?
You call "reasonable" (sic) levying a special tax on blank media, "just in case" the media is used to "pirate" music?
You call "reasonable" blackmailing people who MIGHT have shared music into paying multi-thousand dollars "settlements" without any proof of wrongdoing?
You call "reasonable" (I'm not making this up!) trying to force all society to use specially-designed hard-disks that will check whether the data they are writing is copyrighted?
You call "reasonable" treating your customers like criminals?
You call all the abovementionned **ARROGANCE** "reasonable"?
I'd hate to see what you call "unreasonable"...
You think it's reasonable to have police look through the records for them? At the expense of hours upon hours that should be going towards doing more important things, like... I dunno... ending crime? That would only make sense, and this IS am-- wait, no it's not! What the fuck?!
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
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).
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.
the industry bullies tech companies (who oddly enough make as much money in a day as the RIAA makes in a week) and keeps down and/or lockes any new tech innovations and somehoe gets to dictate exactly how they work.
The RIAA could litteraly stop all analog radio, CD sales, net streaming, napser, itunes and so on, and offer a propriatery DRM as the ONLY way to get music, and the consumers would just take it accept for the 2% that go rouge, one of which will get a 60 minutes interview from prison just to scare the rest.
We have NO power as long as consumers continue to suck the Industry conglomerates' collective tits, and as long as they are the only place to get the milk...
You say that as if Hollywood is the first group ever to suffer persecution, and then turn around and do it to someone else.
**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
Copying music is not always stealing. For instance, here in Canada it's perfectly legal. In many countries, it's perfectly legal to copy music for your own use, for the car, to a media server etc.
Copying music just to avoid paying for it, is illegal in many countries, however.
Whatever the rights and wrong of copying music, some of the "solutions" are worse crimes than the problem - ie, crippling people's computers and making them open to hackers, or taking away people's privacy.
Of course, piracy, is not schoolyard copying, but commercial copying of music, and of course, that is illegal everywhere, and could be stamped out as soon as enough effort is put into it. Commercial piracy needs pressing plants, needs sales outlets and you can track these places down and shut them down.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
If you disagree with this, e-mail the EU representatives (MEPs). Complaining at slashdot won't help. Here's a list of all the email addresses from http://www.europarl.eu.int/ .
List of emails
I have already e-mailed and called my countries. You should do the same.
Sounds odd but that's where I think they're headed.
The music industry needs new artists to keep making money but how to promote this new talent? Spitzer and other AGs are watching over their payola schemes making it harder to get radio airtime. Concerts are good, but getting to be very expensive undertakings. So how does the public get to hear the next great bands?
One way, even though they don't want to admit it, is by P2P networks. It is easy to listen to a song by some new artist you heard about. Very few people have enough money to just go out and buy CDs all the time and the risk of a lot of duds is too great, but downloading has much less adjusted risk, even with the much-publicized lawsuits.
There is a balance that must be achieved: all P2P downloading and no buying means no income for the publishers and artists, yet no downloading cuts off a very vital marketing channel.
With draconian copyright laws it is becomming a more serious offense to make a digital copy than to steal the CD from a store. Worse yet, governments seem all too willing to abdicate enforcement and police powers to these corporations. When the government and RIAA/MPAA have control of our computers and own all our data, it will be too late, the battle will have been lost, and we will enter a new historical period of information slavery.
All attempts to equate P2P with international terrorism must be soundly rebuffed. A threat to failing business models is *NOT* the same as the threat of killing innocent people. How bad to these proposals have to get before the RIAA/MPAA are kicked the hell out of these legal processes?
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.
50% of the population can't support the other 50% in prison.
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general. But I do care about things like biological/technical/scientific advances. But for those advances I am against patents, not copyrights. In fact I am pro-copyrights because they let me control how my work is distributed. So for me what music industry is doing sounds reasonable.
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".
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The totalitarian UK Government already has unlimited access to ISP records, courtesy of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
RIPA also can force ISPs to install mass surveillance equipment.
I mentioned some of the Govt's other totalitarian laws earlier today.
This is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Factually, piracy is not stealing, but either infringement of copyrights or the sea related kind, which I am too arsed to pull up right now. Piracy = copyright infringement = COPYING and DUPLICATING against the wishes of the copyright holder copyrighted works. Unless you can prove otherwise through coherent reasoning and logical arguments, you are only a RIAA parroting troll.
Hmmm... talk about black and white reasoning... so by your logic, if I pirate something and then buy it later (Don't give me the "buy why would you buy it if you have it for free already..." Fuck you I bought it anyways, sorry it bursts your narrow RIAA logic... ^_^), I am not a consumer by definition just because of the pirating? I consumed the product, so how am I not a sconsumer given the example of what I do?P>
You are only saying this and haven't backed it up with reasoning... you are starting to sound like a troll, and I think you should go to back up your opinion with reasoning right about now.
I don't even know how to properly rebute this one it is quite lame (granted my attempted rebute would be even lamer). Take VS copy arguments anybody? Especially since you apply physically limitative statements to "objects: (1's and 0's, DATA) that can be copied infinitely without property loss to that person.
Not only do you make parritive statements that are unbacked up by fact or otherwise wrong, but you also make sweeping statements that don't accurately portray a good proportion of those posting in this topic. I do not think that most people (except for the DIE-HARDS) think that all copyrights should be abolished.. As for your reasoning about it happening to those who don't live in your fantacy world... How does copying something illegally strip somebody of their rights when they have the powers ("rights") to stop it or try to control it? If you ask me, it is those who are sitting on their asses whining that are loosing their rights because they are not using them.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
As usual (like all the other steps RIAA/MPAA has taken in the US and abroad) most people won't give a crap, it'll be under-publicized, and politicians will keep worrying about their job as opposed to the will of the people.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
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
"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"."
"I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't download any movies or music from P2P or any other networks. When I want to watch something (on my computer, since I have no TV,) I'll buy it on DVD."
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.
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.
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.
Do you trust I'll not take advantage of anything I might learn from all your data and communications, or not turn your computer to perform unethical or illegal tasks? Are you ok with having an open door for any script-kiddie or other more evil-intentioned person to do the same?
If not, why should we be ok with the same deal? Minus of course, the notice I gave, and oh yeah..Sony would have you pay for the priveledge of being "0wn3d".
Failure to grasp larger, longer-term implications of short-sighted self-interest is self-defeating to an individual or buisiness, and harmful to society as a whole.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you have the means to produce and self-promote, then what is holding you back? As far as I know, the RIAA and other music cartels around the world have not yet made it illegal for independent artists to do it themselves. Go for it, and make it happen. I, for one would love to see more indie artists take the initiative, make use of the tools at their disposal, and make a name for themselves, thereby giving the RIAA the finger.
This space unintentionally left blank.
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.
At least, that's what I thought..
What's more, the european commission and the council of the EU are considering to make patent infringement a criminal offense, too.
Since the european patents office granted 173000 applications last year, it means we basically get 474 new laws each day. This does not take into account the national patent offices.
I'll make this simple for you:
Piracy is not stealing. Period.
Piracy is copyright infringement. Period.
Learn this simple fact, and you won't have to look like a fool in public.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
"But ... a group of media companies .. has lobbied the EU to allow this data to be used to investigate all crimes, not just serious offences such as terrorism."
... Oh look, we can use it to enforce parking tickets too, let's make it. standard operating procedure".
Yes, that seems about right: "We need this extreme measure to fight terrorism. OK, you agreed to that out of fear.
Can you say "erosion of liberty"?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Piracy is stealing if you sell illegal copies for money that would otherwise have gone to the record companies and artists.
But I wouldn't call sharing music with friends "piracy".
As far as I know, the RIAA and other music cartels around the world have not yet made it illegal for independent artists to do it themselves.
It might as well be illegal. So many indie artists would use filesharing ("legally") to spread their stuff to the world. The RIAA wants to bring all file-sharing down because it is "illegal" or "unethical". It's a load of cold, hard crap. Consider this: indie artists get very little (if any at all) air-time on radio. Even the artists who do get air-time are made to pay for it (the studios subtract the fees against the artists' profits). Now let's say someone wants to create an indie radio station. Too bad, gotta go through the FCC, pay fees, and yada yada. And what about playing indie music on regular radio stations? Not gonna happen. The radio stations are put under the fingers of each studio. The (RI/MP)AA have this sick, twisted, and tyrannical view of art, science, and media. They infest the masses with this idea that an abstract idea or representation can be copyrighted. They have this idea that "to benefit artists" the exclusive right to copy, play, or use the song/art/media is given to the "artists" ::cough cough::ahem, studios::cough cough::. Anyone with good experience with the Constitution should cringe at this. For those blessed souls who do not have a baboon as president, the US Constitution provides that copyright exists a) for limited periods of time and b) exists only to be used for the progress of art or science. NOT for the benefit of just the "artists"...er...studios. Since the Constitution supercedes all US Law, much (if not all) of the US Copyright Law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
These facts haven't stopped the (MP/RI)AA from spreading their propaganda and their lies. The Media is allied with these cartels, and the sad state of American media has a) led to indoctrination and b) led to crackpot journalism. "News" with little analysis, incorrect analysis, or the complete lack thereof is rampant in American mass media. The news networks present these stories about "illegal file-swapping" or "filesharing bandits" which are completely one-sided. When I was younger and had no idea about the truth, I believed what they said about Napster. It sounded like some sort of evil plot. Until I learned the truth. I learned that the truth truly does set one free. I learned that the Media (as any group with power) only wants more power. They think the world would be a better place if everyone just did everything the way the media wanted. Most likely, this would only benefit the media. That is the state of things now. The Media is on this self-appointed crusade. Yet now they have experienced the bulk of their power. The news relics of the cold-war are no longer adequate. People are actually becoming disgusted with the media. Movie viewership is far below projected estimates this year. The MP/RIAA claims that this is the underhanded dealing of filesharing "pirates". Since these cartels have so much influence, they dance about unchecked, weilding lawsuits, subpoenas, and red tape. I hold the opinion that the MP/RIAA hold much less wealth than we are led to believe, and that is why they have begun these attacks. They are desperate, and they know that copyright provides enough leverage for the MP/RIAA to become some state-sponsored thing. They'll get their money (somehow they'd get it; energy research is willingly cut out of the budget, but the MP/RIAA must get their new subsidy) and they'll be happy...at individuals' expense. Their rights end where ours begin.
To those filthy corporate bastards: Sorry, we left our eyepatches at home. Cartels are much more piratical than we. We the consumers are being alienated. Why not make something that we like? Capitalism is founded on the principle that competition forces innovation. Capitalism does not induce bitching about consumers. F^** you!
ASSOCIATION = Appropriate recording industry association, such as RIAA, BPI, IFPI, SDMI, ARIA, ETC.
Indies need to label their albums specifically stating that they are not $ASSOCIATION members.
This sort of labeling was done in the US in the early 20th century to indicate non-membership in the various Trusts and cartels of the era.
I was disgusted when I watched a movie in the cinema and before it started they showed that copyright notice that said 'copyright theft helps terrorism'. I was so, so disgusted. Can we have enough of this bullshit?! It's becoming the norm that anyone with an unreasonable case to make only has to come up with a bullshit statement like "helps terrorism" or "hates America" for them to think that they've made the point without needing a proof. I can't have much respect for a rich organisation which propaganda resembles that of a stupid usenet troll. I'm also starting to feel a wish to shoot everyone who makes this "helps terrorism" bullshit to push their case.