Slashdot Mirror
White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts
Little Big Man writes "Public Knowledge, the CEA, and six other industry and public interest groups have issued a white paper critical of the attempts of the RIAA and other major copyright players to have statutory infringement levels raised. 'Noting that the courts can currently award massive statutory damages without rightsholders having to demonstrate that they have suffered any actual harm, the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties ... The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages, where innovation is stifled, and where artists are afraid to "Recut, Reframe, and Recycle" because of the financial risks involved.'"
A hundred whitepapers wont do much good unless you can afford to lobby a few politicians and they only deal in cash.
Unless whoever wrote this white paper is prepared to bribe congresmen, presidents, and government officials at the rate at which the RIAA is doing it nothing will ever change.
Put simply, corruption and bribary are the language of American politics.
We are in your politics killin' your business models
Let them raise the statuatory infringement cap...
But only if they cut copyright back to 14 years instead of life + 70 yrs.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I'm misunderstanding how the assignment of statutory damages without a demonstration, much less proof of harm can be considered in the interest of both parties.
* Spoken in Dr. Evilese
My humor is probably your flamebait
Copyright lawsuits to censor, intimidate, or extract cash are already fairly common. Also, the financial and legal burden to remixing content and culture is already so high that no independent artist can endure it, and most big-name outfits avoid it wherever possible.
Welcome to the future.
A late amendment to the PRO-IP would give the RIAA permission to "hold you upside down and shake out every last penny" on suspicion of copywrite infringement. Not satisfied with this development, RIAA is now pushing for a further amendment permitting cavity searches as well.
The RIAA makes perfect sense here. In response to dwindling (or flat) profits from lawsuits, they want to raise the guaranteed ROI on fewer lawsuits. Models the recording industry business practices perfectly... Rape, don't innovate.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Why is it that the RIAA (and I guess the MPAA too?) are able to basically have the best of both worlds with current copyright laws. They have the reduced burden of proof that a civil court gives them, but are also allowed to basically get criminal levels of punishment. If they really want to be able to financially ruin someones life for a single infringement, shouldn't they at least have to do it in criminal court with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
...the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties
I don't. I think copyright is WAY out of hand. Terms should be brought back to the eighteenth century's tewnty years, and no noncommercial use should be called infringing except in the case of plagairism.
P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity.
If copyright were reasonable, you wouldn't have folks on slashdot calling for its abolition like you do now.
-mcgrew
PS- I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old. How are you going to convince Jimi hendrix to record any more songs? That is what the US Constitution says the purpose of copyright is!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Go re-read the Constitution
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
White papers aren't going to et it done, Green papers are the only way to make a change in laws.
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
It's not widespread yet as a means for profit, but copyright protection laws are being already being (mis-)used to silence critics and competitors. There was the Lexmark DMCA case where they argued that a competitor's ink replacement system was a violation of the DMCA. There are the widespread Scientology claims of copyright on items they don't own, but want offline. In general, anyone who wants a site offline quickly can just file a DMCA claim on it You can sort out those messy perjury issues later (if they come up at all). Attach a financial reward for filing DMCA claims and suddenly copyright trolls will appear everywhere.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
A corporation took a photo from my website (cgstock.com) and used it in an entire ad campaign (phone book, brochures, newspaper). I saw it, they refused to pay, then sued me for defamation when I wrote about it on my website ( http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana ).
The case went to trial in federal court November 5th, 2007 (case 06-01164, District of MN -- my copyright infringement claim and multiple counterclaims over me "disparaging" them...it was a bench trial and I'm still waiting for the judge's ruling).
I explicitly permit non-commercial use of my photos -- personal web pages, schools, etc. (I require a photo credit, but I would not sue over it). But I greatly object if you are making money from my work, you HAVE A BUDGET to pay me, but are cutting me out of the loop to inflate your profits while I'm earning nothing.
There are excessive penalties for copyright infringement where the infringer does not seek to profit, but (speaking subjectively) I would like the corporation that stole my photos (two photos, actually), lied about it, forged evidence, and tied up in court since 2005, to pay "a billion dollars"...not just a token amount, or a few hundred. The risk of getting caught has to be a deterrent, which (for this company) it was not.
(licensing photos largely relies on professionalism and the honor system; if a local bank tells me they are going to use my photo in 1,000 brochures, I assume they are not using it in a TV campaign, billboards, and 100,000 brochures -- if so, the damages should outweigh the benefit of lying).
I guess this relates to the change in copyright law (to address P2P) that equated infringement without a profit motive = infringement with a profit motive.
www.cgstock.com