Slashdot Mirror
Purported ACTA Wishlist Would Put DMCA To Shame
ulash writes "Ars Technica has an article about the (alleged) leaked 'wishlist' that RIAA submitted to the US government back in March of this year listing what they wish to see as a part of ACTA. The list includes such gems as forced filtering of materials by the ISPs, gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs, and even restricting supplies of 'optical grade polycarbonate' in countries 'with high rates of production of pirated optical discs.' While the effectiveness of such a 'wishlist' on the law is not by any means objectively measurable, if one takes into account how *AA was instrumentative in the passing of DMCA, I think it is more than likely that they will get at least some of their wishes."
At what point are they satisfied?
We know their business model is fatally flawed, but the legislation they've bought will still be hanging around for years to come.
"In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce"
the pubs allow FBI to use business to spy on ALL Americans. Now, will the dems allow the business to spy on all Americans as well?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, it's fairly common practice to submit a huge list of "wants" whether your list is business requirements, suggestions for law makers or what you want for Christmas.
Put a few obviously silly items on the list and the ones you really want probably look a bit more plausible. I in no way advocate what they are asking for, but the way they are asking could be considered pretty smart.
simon
Not that the US has some kind of monopoly on 'optical grade polycarbonate' but I'd love them to restrict access and see where it gets them.
Hint: All fiber used for telco/datacomms infrastructure is made from glass.
Bollywood already puts out more movies than Hollywood. It's only a matter of time that more people will speak Chinglish than people who speak what you call English. I guess the Arabs have a word to say about who gets to make polycarbonate. Quite frankly, with all the religious fundamentalists in your country and the authoritarian tendencies in your government, it's probably best for all of us to let someone else take the steering wheel for a while.
A sane government that truly represented the rights of the people should not even consider legislation like this. Congress has been for sale to the highest bidder for some time now, so any semblance of democracy is thoroughly broken. (Can the average citizen exert the same level of influence as the strongest corporation? If not, you don't have democracy)
I think that the time for radical change has come. Getting rid of congress and passing everything onto the people through referendum (some sort of yearly limit would be necessary for legislation) seems like a better choice to me at this point. ( What are corporations going to do? Bribe everyone?) In such a scenario, lobbying would become pointless because there would be too many people to convince.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
WTO may say no to the restricting part and slap the us like they did in the Online gambling case and this may end have even more withdrawing protection for U.S. trademarks or copyrights.
Clip 2
I believe those 2 clips are a perfect analogy of the RIAA. Especially Cartman's quote at the end of clip 2. "Just goes around imposing his will on people"
Defective Logic
had some unintended consequences
it made books cheap, leading to better educated commoners, leading to the creation of a middle class, leading to the idea of democracy and equality
i'm obviously broadly glossing over the historical details, but the lesson is that the printing press allowed for the realization of a number of previously impossible and unforseen societal changes
whatever the internet is going to do society in the realm of unintended consequences, one is sizing up pretty obvious:
the invalidation of the concept of intellectual property
intellectual property works when only a small number of players distribute data. it takes a lot to run a vinyl pressing plant, and easy to find and shut one down that doesn't play by the rules. but when every single person is a one man effortless data distribution factory, then getting everyone to play by the rules of the game becomes impossible to enforce
such that there is no more game. the idea of intellectual property simply ceases to be a valid concept. if it gets out on the web, it stays there. and anything not on the web is given a strong incentive to get on there. witness the imbroglio over guns n roses chinese democracy album recently. once its out there, you can't take it back, and it is extremely easy and anonymous to get out there
what can you enforce in such an environment? say the *AAssholes actually get their way and get all of their draconian laws passed. who cares?
do they honestly believe anything will change? the technology will simply treat their laws like damage, and route around them. this is what the internet was made to do
go for it *AAssholes, give the laws your best shot. why do you believe any legal structure will work to contain the internet? or, i guess the next step is: break the internet. destroy what makes the internet compelling and useful in order to preserve a dying business model
heh, had to open my big mouth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Doesn't the Bush administration and his Democratic eunuchs in Congress owe companies like AT&T big-time for all the illegal spying they've done on us in the last few years? Maybe they could call in a favor on this one.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Oh shit! They won't be sending any more blank CD's to my house in Ohio.
It's pretty simple. I'm not giving these people one fricking dime and its not like songs are something that people absolutely can't live without. There's plenty of free stuff on the radio, I have plenty of songs I've paid for already... why do I need to continue to subsidize a subpar industry giving me all of this crap to begin with.
You know, it never ceases to amaze me, that an industry that proclaims itself to be most on the side of the people, the most liberal, that rips any commercial interest of the right wing as morally wrong, has done more to subvert the rights of mankind in the digital age than any other industry.
Next time Michael Moore or Oliver Stone or Spike Lee makes a film telling me how evil George Bush is for illegal wiretaps, perhaps we might ask them, what about all the raids, wiretaps and assaults on PCs born about by their industry. You can't benefit from digital surveillance and iron fisted prosecution of teenagers while proclaiming to be innocent of it.
If I were President, I would pardon every single person that was ever arrested for the supposed crime of copyright violation, and i would reply to every law that congress passed at the industry's behest, with a signing statement declaring such law to be unconstitutional and a refusal to enforce.
This is my sig.
People will purchase media when obtaining that media is less costly than "pirating" it. You've got three ways to make that happen:
The **AA is happy to keep pounding away at #2, suing en masse, requesting ridiculous measures like those suggested in TFA... but there must be somebody at the headquarters whose pondering #3.
Of course maybe it's just that anybody with a sense for business has better things to do than work for the **AA.
Here's a good one:
"3. Provide that the presumption of ownership may be rebutted only if the defendant is able to provide concrete evidence to the contrary."
Yeah, that's right. Claimants own whatever they claim unless the defendant proves otherwise. Oh, and don't put up a fight if they sue you for having copyrighted material because:
"4. As a deterrent to groundless defenses, award plaintiffs full costs and fees for overcoming frivolous challenges to titles."
I propose a modest fifth bullet point. Anyone with a copyright may punch those damned ordinaries not in the "creative class" in the stomach at any time, without fear of reprisal. Genius!
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
I wish I had a shilling for every senseless killing, I'd buy a government. America's for sale and we can get a good deal on it, and make a healthy profit! -- NOFX
Procrastinators, Unite Tomorrow!!
gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs
This would destroy the free web as we know it. No site would be willing to accept user generated content (at least, no site in the United States) because there is no foolproof way to tell whether the person is uploading home movies or part of a summer blockbuster.
That provision is absolutely necessary for the functioning of the web as-is. Any legislation that would try to remove it would be laughable.
Mandatory copyright filters- good luck with that. More stuff will come in password encrypted rars (including filename, of course), nullifying any benefits of these things. Consumers would have to pay for these moronic devices, which would be expensive if they didn't botttleneck ever-growing connections.}
And, as other posters have said, the United states is not the only country that makes optical disks.
This is a poorly attempted legal solution to an age old technical problem...
They want to decrease the amount of CD/DVD/BluRays to nations with a high percent of piracy? In other words, they want to increase a demand for piracy? They thought that was a good
I think it is time for some action... be vocal about it and boycott anything touched by the MAFIAA for the whole summer. No music on the radio, no movies on the TV, no downloading any of their crap either... just flat out refuse to consume anything they produced under any form for the next two months. It's time we collectively tell them I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!
If you are vocal enough about it and enough people join in, they will have a hard time blaming the money loss of those two months on "evil pirates".
MEMO TO RIAA: Get into the 21st century, you old fucks! The more you try to clamp down on the world, the more of what you're trying to screw us for will slip through your fat, greasy fingers! Nobody likes you, especially the artists you're claiming to "protect"!
The purpose of the RIAA is to maintain its usefulness to the member firms. There must always be progress, or at least the appearance that the association is making it worthwhile to be a member.
12:50 - press return.
How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've driven people into the ground, that some of them no longer have anything to lose and want to see you dead? The money must be nice, but what's your price for giving up the freedom to live among other people? Remember, your security detail has to have a perfect record, while the little guy you destroyed only has to get lucky one time.
I am not - NOT! - calling for violence, but I'm continually surprised that no one has resorted to it. I think it's inevitable that if we continue down this road, someone will decide to exercise their second amendment rights, if not against the people who passed the bills, then against the people who paid to have them written.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
ip laws never rewarded creators. it rewarded distributors. one hit musical wonders throughout the 70s and 80s signed away their rights for pennies, were given free rides on corporate jets for a few months, then utterly forgotten about. bands like the beatles and prince got to be powerful because they became popular enough over long enough of a time that they took on the rules of the distributors, and became part of the machinery. but the vast majority of musical creation was never rewarded in real sense that you mean
so the idea ip rewarding creators is a nice idealistic selling point, but it never actually works that way. the rules of power favors the distributors, so they merely shade and juggle the legalese that the ip laws serve them instead of the creators
this leads us to 2 conclusions:
1. destroying ip doesn't actually impoverish creators
2. creators can still tour- you can't distrubte a concert tour on the web. creators can still whore for advertising. creators can be sponsored by corporate masters to make corporate product. and creators can simply enjoy their fame. is money really the only thing that motivates people to create music?
so its a better world without ip. its not like music will suddenly disappear. cheap opo like britney spears and justin timberlake won't even disappear: they'll simply be hired by corporations to produce product that is used for advertising, brand building, etc.
the desire to create music is not dependent upon financial concerns. music predates ip law, duh. most kids pick up the guitar to impress chicks. now if you said making music means you could never seduce a woman ever again, then yeah, music is dead. otherwise, no ip law? no problem. full steam ahead
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Provide that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, an internet service provider shall be considered as knowing that the content it stores is infringing or illegal, and thus subject to liability for copyright infringement, after receiving notification from the right holder or its representative, normally in writing, including by email or by telephone in the case of pre-release materials or in other exigent circumstances."
Interesting excepts:
Section D.1 basically says that when you pirate something, they can confiscate anything they deem "related" to the infringement (all your PCs are belong to us).
Section I.1 says that all optical disks must be approved by MPAA/RIAA thought police prior to pressing.
Section J.6 requests that ISPs are guilty until proven innocent.
Section J.10 says that MPAA/RIAA should be able to directly spy on your Internet use.
Section K.1 implies that IP pirates are tied to terrorists and organized crime.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
If you haven't read TFA at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673 , kindly do so. It makes some pungent observations, frex this one, which pretty much says it all:
"Copyright is being turned from a limited-term incentive designed to encourage creative artists to a broadly scoped transfer of wealth from the public to the private realm. As the industries that generate copyrighted materials seek control over not only their works but also the devices on which we watch, listen to, and remix them, copyright law is turning into technology regulation."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually, you wouldn't because the President (as long as you're talking about the US) doesn't have that power.
The Constitution actually does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare a law unconstitutional. That power was actually asserted by a very early Supreme Court case (Madison vs Marbury) and for political reasons expedient to the time, the other branches of the government went along with it. In doing so, they established a precedent that works, partly because, the elected governments now have a way of punting knotty problems to the appointed courts.
Even to this day, despite arguments of judicial activism, even conservative judges are very careful, to paraphrase Antonin Scalia, to make only those rulings that they think they can get away with it. From an institutional perspective, just because they would not "excessively" use the power, does not mean that they want to give it up. Frodo's ring is worn by many in the US government and they work to assert their own particular branches over others.
Now, you will see from time to time the executive branch can and will assert for itself the right to interpret the constitutionality of the law itself. To some Presidents, notably Bush 2 and Clinton, the Constitutionally enshrined notion of a veto plus the role of a commander in chief plus the oath to defend the constitution implies a wider penumbra of interpreting the law within the Presidency. Clinton put the ideas on paper first and began signing statements, but it is true that Bush really began asserting the right. He, however, has not been able to really make that tradition stick.
Historically, though, there have been cases even before that where Presidents completely -ignored- or sought to subvert the courts. Democrats from the 1940s through the 1960s just used the FBI to do their dirty work... but never really sought to subvert the courts because the rulings tended to go their way. Prior to that, Roosevelt actually tried to jack up the number of supreme court judges as his own New Deal was, in part, declared unconstitutional by a then conservative court.
Even before that, you had the famous "Trail of Tears" case, where the Supreme Court flat out said that the USA had to honor a treaty with the indians, and the then President just asserted that the Supreme Court had to pound sand on that issue and ordered this Indian tribe to be forcibly removed from their lands anyway. The Supreme Court, at the time, could do nothing. The President has the Army, after all, and the President in question was previously a famous general.
This is my sig.
if one takes into account how *AA was instrumentative in the passing of DMCA
I thought they had a perfectly cromulent degree of instrumentativeness.
I started a mail delivery system that relied on a complicated hierarchy of mostly management, lawyers, and other high level executives, leaving only 10% of the money that the business earned actually going to pay people who delivered the mail.
I'm shocked and disgusted that this new "e-mail" system gives my service away for free, and I'm going to use all of my bloated hierarchy's power to get a mail tax levied on all devices with a MAC address produced from here until Kingdom come!
Uh, Sally, we also need to post a memo to the Zionists to slow down a bit. No, he's on our rolodex. Cheney... right... and the rest of the APAIC. Oh, it's Obama now? What's the difference?
A bit tongue in cheek, but really... the RIAA is bloated, inefficient, and that's why they're suffering. Helping them with their distribution problem is no different from a government fuel subsidy for Walmart. If the market says the way you distribute media has no value, guess what! You don't get paid.
The RIAA doesn't produce anything of value. They're an organization that used to be necessary for distribution and promotion, who are no longer useful to anyone but acts with funding already like Hannah Montana. They are the Pony Express, and it's time for them to die.
As you say -- we're being pwn3d by foreign interests -- legal, legislative, and business, and this is no different. Huge chunks of our infrastructure are now foreign-owned; foreign companies dictate new laws that affect American citizens; we all get to pay (in taxes and in shoddy goods) for the privilege of becoming the world's piggy bank. It needs to stop, before it's too late (if it's not already). NO country has ever survived either being in debt to or being primarily owned by foreign powers.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It is immoral to pay for any CD which is published by an RIAA member. They use the money to corrupt our legislators, abuse our courts and ruin peoples' lives. On the other hand, copyright infringement is illegal, but not immoral; no one is harmed by it except for sleazy lawyers and businessmen.
That's right: downloading music illegally is morally better than paying for it. Ten years ago, it was not so; for indie music, it is not so; but if you pay for major-label music now, then you are helping to ruin lives.
The RIAA is doing everything they can to portray their struggle as one of morals vs. cheapness. It isn't, because they lost the moral high ground. The only remaining excuse for paying for major-label music is ignorance.
ip law is only dead in spaces where what is created is easily and rapidly distributed, most obviously, as digital media
in other words, i can send 100 copies of a book, a song, or, soon enough, a movie, easily on my home pc to anyone else in the world. there's no more bottle neck of a printing press, a vinyl pressing plant, or a film spooler anymore. its all digital. the internet did that
meanwhile, you can't consume viagra digitally: you need a chemical plant. i can't put viagra in my shared folder and some guys in osaka and lagos and samarkhand gets a viagra. i'm being pedantic, but you see what i mean now
ip law still works well then when the distributors are a small, slow subset of players, usually and obviously having to do with the creation of real world goods
the lessons of ip law and music then are completely unrelated to ip law issues governing the creation fo anything in the real world, such as pills
so you're "canonical ip problem" isn't canonical at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Use of signing statements should be an impeachable offense.
I could agree that the notion of signing statements by a President is a bit outside of our present legal tradition, and, I have thought as much as you have.. the thing is, though, is that, the power of judicial review as presently asserted by the courts is not enumerated by the Constitution, and as such, there is technically no right for the Supreme Court to do what it does today. They asserted themselves the right in Marbury vs Madison and because of an alignment of political stars, they managed to make it stick.
Now, given that the President does have the enumerated powers of commander in chief, and is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and, has an explicit power to veto, one could, make the expansive argument that the Constitution does in fact allow the President a degree of interpretation in the law and thus signing statements are actually constitutional.
After all, if the Congress is allowed to assert a right to legislate the environment as part of a commerce clause.. which is really a fanciful stretch, then why shouldn't the President extend the veto into a larger right to interpret the law?
This is my sig.
I used to think like that, it's a theoretical principle that I admire. But then I got thinking, how much of the money I pay will go to the lawyers? How much of it will go to bribe the politicians that vote for those laws?
Today, when I find artists I like, I try to support them by going to their live presentations whenever possible. And I feel no shame at all in downloading an album or film that I wouldn't pay to get if I didn't have the option of an unauthorized copy. I'm paying null instead of zero, what's the difference? Oh, sure, I'm getting something for nothing, but it's not harming anyone. It's like standing on the sidewalk to listen to music that comes from an open window.
6. The author of the RIAA's wishlist dies. I don't care how, so long as the death certificate reads "autoerotic asphyxiation."
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
"I'm not willing to throw intellectual property under the bus until you can explain to me how people with ideas can distribute their life work and be fairly compensated."
ok, its 2058 and ip law is dead. you just wrote "harry potter and the toilet gnomes". a gazillion kids around the world read it electronically. you get $0
are you unfairly compensated?
well, now you are a world famous author idolized by most kids in the world. thats a lot of power and fame. how does that power and fame get turned into $? lots of ways: autographed copies, private readings, personalized content for rich fans, etc. you could make a tidy little enjoyable living doing that
furthermore, how much $ did albert einstein get for general relativity? how much money did shakespeare get for hamlet?
what do they get?
they get immortality. respect from their peers. renown, love, admiration past their lifetimes
how do those qualities figure into your calculation of "fair compensation"?
in other words, there are more motivations in this world than just $. that if no money were ever guranteed again for any work of art, guess what: art would go right on being made. because anyone who is really producing art, is tapping into something that isn't motivated by money in the first place, and is rewarded with something more valuable than money in the end
and you STILL get related revenue streams to make you quite comfortably rich
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Copyright remains with the author or creator. In the event that there is more than one author or creator acting as a group, each shall have a share of copyright but cannot enter into exclusive agreements without the approval of the other holders.
2. Ownership of copyright cannot be transferred to a non-creator.
3. Fair Use and format shifting are consumer rights, and unreasonable restrictions on these rights shall be prohibited./P
My Sysadmin Blog
but i disagree with you that dwelling on the definitions of the terms involved sidesteps the argument
if every single person agreed with what you just wrote, there would still be a fight against irrelevancy by dead economic model distributors
so your point is ultimately pointless and pedantic. we understand what you mean, but "intellectual property" is still a valid concept, because most people understand that is limited in the ways you describe already. you're just playing with word definitions, not illuminating the real power conficts here, and so you don't actually address the conflict going on here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The real problems here are Sony etc who fund the *AA and set the agenda.
*AA gets all the headlines and the hate, but the companies hiding behind them seem to get a free pass for some reason.
How about always listing the *AA backers in any *AA story?
DIGITAL versus REAL WORLD content creation is a very significant difference
the creation of real world items requires raw materials and machinery and manpower and distribution. even if the machinery were cheap and the raw materials were cheap and the manpower were cheap and the distribution were cheap, you are still talking the economics of supply and demand. there is cost involved. always. forever. when you are dealing with REAL WORLD goods
meanwhile, the digital world utterly flattens the economic rules of supply and demand. it is literally infinity and zero. if i have a car, and you steal my car, i don't have a car. if i give you copy of metallica, you have metallica, and i have metallica. the costs are ZERO to distribute, and nothing is destroyed, just effortlessly and infinitely reproduced with zero effort and zero distribution costs
real world goods, consumed in the real world, are always limited by economic realities. digital goods, consumed digitally, play by entirely different rules
understand the difference, rearrange your thinking. right now you simply don't get it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why should I be on the hook for the content that the ISP brings me and then rats me out to the xxAA about while they get off scott-free? Look, when the motion picture and movie industries go after AT&T, Time Warner, etc then we'll see the fur fly. Sure let the recording companies sue their fans and let Vinnie the poor stuntman insert a trailer in the movie that lectures you about piracy. But fuck with the phone company? Just try.
3. Provide that the presumption of ownership may be rebutted only if the defendant is able to provide concrete evidence to the contrary.
the printing press led to profound, **profound** changes in the realities of our societies. you are wishing to preserve ip law, but there is nothing that says ip law needs to continue to exist. so that what will happen is that ip law will simply cease to exist. doesn't matter if its on the books, its impossible to enforce, technology will always route around the laws
the internet will reap just as many profound changes on society as the printing press did. the death of ip law is just one of them, the first of them, being made apparent. the next big change i think is virtual democracy
but the only accomodation that ip law can make with the internet is to fall upon its sword. the laws simply don't matter anymore: they can't be enforced
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...only outlaws will have optical grade polycarbonate!
Lame, but somebody had to say it.
If riaa can submit wishlists, why can't we?
Possible items in the list could be:
- IP addresses can't be used to identify people
- online profiles shouldnt be used to identify people
Anti-RIAA rules:
- global organisations shouldnt be allowed to target individuals (one person with limited resources cannot do that much damage to a global organisation -- let them sue the internet as a whole though for copying their content. Big organisations should fight other big entities, not the small people)
- automatic massive infrigement prevention actions against selected group of people would become illegal
- riaa shouldnt be allowed to work in a role of police force or enforcement officer or investigator.
- Evidence for infrigement cannot be allowed to be output of some computer program whose behaviour is unknown (and doesnt follow the rules)
Err. Difficult to figure out any good rules -- anyone else have ideas?
ip law will still exist for real world objects
say, pharmaceutical formulations, or car engine design
this is because the production of real world goods is governed by manufacturing equipment, raw goods, manpower, distribution, etc. such that the creators and distributors of real world goods will always be slow moving and small in number, and therefore easy to control and keep in the realm of the law
meanwhile, anything that is created and distributed and consumed DIGITALLY is now free of economic rules of supply and demand: supply is infinite, distribution costs are zero. so book writers, musicians, and movie makers will have to rely on the fat, comfortable secondary revenue streams of autographed paper copies, moviehouses, advertising plugs, etc, and have nothing but massive fame and power otherwise. oh shucks, poor them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Please; you, yes you down south! Take a hold of these out of control corporations and cut-off their bloody heads. I'm all for supporting arts and artists but this is going way overboard and is made solely to support a small group of lechers.
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
s.
up until now everything regarding internet ranging from major routers to domain name registration regulatory agency have been in united states, run by united states agencies and firms. everyone was content with it, with a few moaning voices on minor stuff.
however if these faggots' sponsored bill passes, it will no longer be the case. no country will want to leave their connectivity to the world in a country which has a senate that is so easily made a bitch by some private interest profit groups, regardless of the excuses that are made and regardless of the pressure from their internal equivalents of riaa. national security interests and economic prospects of every country surpasses copyright shill rights.
i can cite you a number of recent big profile cases in which such private interest pressure groups , and even international ones, have found their cases thrown out by local and national governments or courts. im sure there are more among you who can remember these, and other examples.
result would be separate internets, one that is run by other sources, like u.n. or european union, or whichever local gathering of nations would create, and one that is run with corporate shills in america.
i dont need to tell you how badly this would affect everything american on the web, economically. and change how things work.
Read radical news here
real world items are still expensive
until we invent star trek fabricators ("earl gray, hot!"). but that's awhile off
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i went to www.eff.org but wasnt able to find anything related to this case. are they not aware yet ?
Read radical news here
You see, if nobody wanted the product that the RIAA and MPAA are producing, then they would just go away.
The problem is that there is demand for the product, and plenty of it. However, people have figured out that they no longer have to pay to obtain this product. It can be "shared" for free and purchased at greatly discounted prices from various semi-criminal enterprises. So why pay full price? Why would anyone pay full price when either paying a vastly discounted price or just grabbing for free is a possibility?
Sure, what we would all like is for everything to be free. It isn't going to happen anytime soon. What is far more likely is that we will see music distribution taken over by low-rent folks like allofmp3.com - get anything you want for a discounted price. Sort of like the pawn shop that sells stuff a really low, low prices and never seems to run out. The difference is that through the magic of the Internet the police can't seem to check out the sources for allofmp3.com like they can the pawn shop.
In the longer term I see it all being free. Why would anyone work to keep low-rent distribution in business when it doesn't benefit them? Altruism? Maybe, but that only goes so far in buying groceries.
Patronage worked fine for Beethoven and Mozart. Only problem was, there were many, many others creating and playing music at the same time. Nobody ever heard about them, nor did they prosper doing it. Sure, we are going to have our fair share of garage bands and part-time street musicians. But nobody is ever going to earn a living at that every again. And why should they?
How do you sleep at night,
what kind of question is this ? do you think those people care for ANYthing you mention there ? are they of the kind to suffer sleepless nights because they did something bad ? do you think do they care for ANYone ?
i get appalled at the goodwilled people's attitude towards people with evil intent. they think the one with evil intent should have something in common with them. they dont. its the way of self centeredness, selfishness. they do not care about you, your country, your economy, your progress, earth, human civilization, its future. thats what self centeredness is.
im sure that some of you reading this comment have thought 'well, word evil is a bit extreme', or thought that it is a common usage of the word as it goes, like a metaphor.
i am not. im purposefully and intendedly calling these people 'evil' like the evil in the bible, torah, bhagavad gita, whatever holy text, or in lord of the rings.
evil is not something that is comic book style, or filmesque, sinister looking people with overly violent or disturbed personalities. evil is something that comes out from simple plain extreme selfishness, like the people who are involved in riaa ranks and their bosses.
and evil is not an extremely vile and sinister plot to take over the world with slaves and whatnot, these are so outdated, if ever existed.
evil is simple selfishness that always puts itself in a socially acceptable context to reach its goals. in middle ages it was for religion, and anybody who were challenging self interests of any powerful party was a heretic, and burned, in late 18th century it was 'traitors' of the nation.
now the socially acceptable context private interests put their selfish practice in happens to be 'but its for the children' and digital 'rights'.
evil is not enslaving 1000s of people and torturing them for some contrived ritual to gain more power. evil is simply obliterating one of the greatest inventions mankind has ever made, just out of pure, unbridled greed, heedless of the costs to humanity in the long run.
evil is practically what we are talking about here.
Read radical news here
If draconian bullshit like this makes it into law, I predict the following:
People increasingly refusing and resisting their methods and circumventing the recording industry (as is already happening, but much more so - on a massive scale eventually) - they will fall under their own bloated weight eventually.
Challenges in court, most of which should succeed unless it is a purchased or kangaroo court.
Increased piracy; piracy becoming sexier and a form of resistance against tyranny.
Sure it is. Let's imagine that the entertainment industry did not exist and that we dreamed it up in its current form. We would go to venture capitalists with a proposal that outlined our business model, right? And, being sensible people, they would say, "Garsh! Your plan sounds really good right up until we get to the distribution model. You see, silly dreamers, your model is based on the economics of scarcity. As you well know, information is easily digitized and copied without inherent limit. How would you keep people from just taking your product without paying you for it? The honor system?" At this point all of the venture capitalists in the meeting would laugh uproariously and we would skulk out of the room feeling extra stupid.
Now, what's the difference between our thought experiment and the real world? You're quite right that there is nothing wrong in principle with the old *AA business model. In theory it is a grand thing. It simply no longer works in practice. Buggy whip makers could lobby their little hearts out but that won't stop the historically inevitable rise of the automobile, will it?
History has passed the *AA by. Adapt or perish. Amen.
so money, power, fame, sex... these are not your motivations for creating music
what is?
i'm not teasing you, i'm genuinely interested
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'd solve it by socializing health care worldwide and retaining patents for this single tightly controlled industry. I'd also make sure patents were licensed to generics manufacturers and if Big Pharma dared get too busy overdosing on Nexium, I'd revoke all rights.
Elsewhere in this thread, you repeat that "IP" is a form of property but it isn't. If I take an item of your property, I deprive you of that physical object. If I make a digital copy of one of your files, you still have the original. It's not theft, I haven't taken your property, I couldn't have because it's not possible to own such abstract things. Time limited, government granted monopoly rights aren't property.
To preempt the replies; the next stage of this argument usually goes along the lines of "depriving commercial content distributors of a potential sale". Well gee, that teacher in fifth grade put me down in front of class. It's because of her that I'm not rich, famous and banging supermodels every night. Oh noes, she stole my eye-pee!
I'm also interested to see who makes the moral argument for allowing ill people to die (re: my socialized health care comment).
Citizen! Did you see Love Guru, the hit new Mike Meyers comedy?
No.
Traitor!
When does "Coupon the Movie" come out again?
5. Provide for the availability of civil and injunctive relief against landlords that fail to reasonably exercise their ability to control the infringing conduct of their tenants.
This is clearly targeting those pesky universities.
its easy. first, self centeredness is, as it goes by definition, being more concerned and concentrated on the self than anything else. as it goes to extremes, the self concentration proportionally follows.
this, in turn provides that less attention paid to anything outside of the self, thereby reflecting eventually on the behaviour of the individual in regard to external circumstances.
its like a tunnel vision, they increasingly contain their consciousness to their self, and what they see as the extension of their selves. therefore, little time is spent on what other people think, do etc, unless they are a real, looming, in-the-face threat. you can see the examples of this on prominent self centered celebrities, or dictators in history.
apparently 'the people' is not being taken as much a threat by those people in question.
Read radical news here
1. ip law, yes, will continue to exist for things that involve the production of real world items: pills, car engine design, handbags, etc. this is because the production and distribution is slow, small scale, and therefore easy to enforce
2. however, anything digitally related is impossible to enforce
"Tech-savvy users will be able to manipulate things to stay ahead of the game, but the average person can be prevented from engaging in most piracy through present enforcement methods"
no. tech-savvy users write software that encapsulate their knowledge. tech idiots just have to download the software. so its just an arms race: napster was beheaded, napster died. kazaa was floodable, kazaa spewed posion content. emule is attached to port, the port is blocked, etc. ip obfuscation, encryption, automatic proxy serving... it all gets incorporated after each battle. all that is happening is hardier and hardier weeds are being bred. all of the riaa's legal and technical efforts are doing is merely breeding the ultimate anonymous filesharing apps. its an arms race, one that is never won by the riaa. the only way the riaa can win the war is pervert the very nature of the internet itself, in such a way that also destroys anything compelling and useful about the internet. they simply can't win. the legal battles are meaningless, the technological battles merely breed stronger filesharing apps. game over
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This issue is resolved as are most. Via money. The consumers command the market with dollars. If we cease to fund the RIAA they will cease to exist.
We need to educate consumers on the dangers of organizations like the RIAA who would clearly rather legislate, and chisel away the rights of people, than engage in legitimate business.
The RIAA is bleeding badly and they know it. They're simply trying to stay alive long enough to do what is inevitable, and that is adapt their business model.
al of the politcal donations, army of lawyers, technologically savvy programmers working for a bounty: this costs money. and one of the effects of piracy is to drain the coffers of the *AAsholes. such that, over time, there is less of a warchest to wage the mounting expensive technical, legal, and enforcement battles you envision
meanwhile, on the other side you have what? poor, technologically astute, media craving teenagers, motivated by nothing but a love for music, completely uncoordinated, and growing in number and sophistication
go ahead, place your bet. i think the teenagers have it. the machine poised against them will starve and simply breakdown. meanwhile, the teen's motivations are undeterred by the ineffective and spotty enforcement. the uncoordinated efforts of millions of poor teenagers will simply starve the machine of its cashflow, and break its will, as more and more recognize the futility of what they are trying to control. they simply can't do this forever: and as more and more technologically advanced filesharing apps come online, they must redouble their efforts at the same time their cash flow gets further depleted. its a losing, uphill battle
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All your plans are belong to US, neocons.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
will be funded by the *aasholes, one way or the other. or the feds won't do any enforcement. do you understand why that is? the financial equation is not changed by federal enforcement rather than hired guns
as for the movie industry, the same movie industry that fought the vhs tooth and nail because it was going to destroy them, and now considers the dvd afternarket a major cashcow? the same movie industry tv was going to destroy? in other words, that fucking clueless movie industry?
the movie industry does gangbuster business in theatres. even with the cellphones and babies. they will continue to do just fine, as your 17 inch monitor in your mother's basement by your lonesome doesn't compare to the experience at the movieplex nex tto your girlfriend. they'll just completely lose their dvd aftermarket
boofuckinghoo
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
music for simple sheer joy of it. i guess the reason my mind couldn't grok that so easily is because of all the joyless goings on in the rest of the subject matter here ;-p
i mustn't forget the basics in life
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i understand why you think i am being inconsistent: that i claim the media industry is winding down. well yes, it IS winding down, because anything that can be packaged for free online IS going away. but eveything meatspace about the media industry meanwhile will continue: the movieplex, the concert arena, etc. that can even continue to grow, albeit with a big chunk bit out of it
the fact is, the movie industry does gangbuster business at the movieplex, and will continue to do so, all conventional wisdom aside (the same conventional wisdom that saw the television destroying them, the vhs, etc.). since the music industry consists mainly of this digital marketplace, with concerts but a tiny fraction, they are indeed going to die a miserable death, shriveling up to a phantom of their former selves
meanwhile, the movie industry still gets at least half of its income from the theatre business. so they can still finance and profit from $100 million dollar productions, even if the dvd aftermarket evaporated. the movie industry is cushioned from the financial oblivion of digital media
you are correct to say that the movie industry may take all of their profits from meatspace venues and fight a rearguard battle against evaporating digital revenues, you are correct to point that out indeed one owuld hope though that someone in the industry will see the futility in this someday, but obviously today, no one in leadership roles in media industries understand that
but you haven't established an inconsistency in my points, merely qualified and refined them down to the core of what i am saying: if it can't be sold in digital form, it's financially healthy. but if it can be traded for free on the web, its a dead business. that's the core of my message, still viable meatspace profits don't nullify that point
and that also qualifies my points about ip law (which i don't know if i said in this particular thread, but i've said 3x elsewhere under my grandparent post): anything involving real world items: pharmaceuticals, car engine designs, handbag patterns, etc., these types of ip law will remain unchallenged, as producers and distributors of real world goods are small in number, slow moving, and easy to track and shut down. meanwhile, anything disitributed and consumed digitally will simply fade from existence as a business model. infinite effortless free supply tends to make for a poor basis for a business model
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My rejection of the term "intellectual property" is that it's too ambiguous, and it covers patents, copyrights and trade secrets. It's one of the things used by Microsoft to attack Linux and also not to release the source code of various products ("It contains intellectual property". DUH), AND it's used by patent trolls.
Call things by their name. "Code licensed from other companies", "code copyrighted by us", "patent-encumbered code", "patented algorithm", "patented hardware", "patented business method", "trade secret" and "media copyrighted by a third party". But please, do NOT use "Intellectual property". It only creates confusion, as shown by the replies to my post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
B.Investigatory Provisions
Parties shall:
1. Provide law enforcement authorities ex officio powers to investigate criminal infringements of intellectual property rights and initiate criminal actions on their own initiative.
The latter part of this agreement seems to give law enforcement agents power to "initiate criminal actions". On top of that, the reason they are granted this power is by "right of office", or ex officio. Surely this can't be correct?
All presses need to be approved by Sabam thought police prior to pressing.
Unless you tell them virtually to bugger off; in neat words: I'm sorry, I'm working together with another hitman euh protection guy .. or something.
I've done this for my CC+ creations which will be also put on CD very soon. The CC releases will be available in lower quality and the higher quality & WAV files will be available at a cost; this to recover my investments into my studio.
Not a lot of people know this loophole and pay up their extertion fees automatically; which makes their system great for statistics.
When working together with SABAM you are obliged to add their "Copyright by Sabam"/Copyright Control line, need to pay a membership fee and you will always (by law) need to demand all presses through SABAM (for any pressing, even if it is your own content!) to get a paper back which will clear you to press.
One of the difficulties SABAM created is that no CDR or Audio CD's can be imported in Belgium; try to shop in any European store for CD's and you will notice no-one will export their goods to Belgium; unless it is a shop with Belgian outlet(s). We pay by default the mafia tax; even if these CDR's (in my case) are being used for 90% for data/backup transferring for easy archiving; no sound involved.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
email to snail mail is like
torrents to cd's.
>The market doesn't say that. CDs still sell. But, guess what, counterfit goods always have a market. That doesn't mean there is no market for Gucci bags.
Yes, it does. With such low cost of HD/flash and such good compression methods, i don't use CDs anymore. Even if i bought a CD, i would rip & compress it to HD to play it, instead of letting it scratch (i also don't like swapping cds).
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Shoot no. These guys are (wannabee) artists.
Correction. Take the parenthesis off. They are _wannabee_ artists.
Make no mistake about this. They want control, not money.
yes, people will always buy cds
yes, people will always buy books
there always people who want a pristine copy right now, and they will put money on that
and good for them
but the existence of such people doesn't mean it is moral or wise to go after those getting it for free
there's this strange convolution in your logic, where just because someone will pay for something, that copyright is still a valid concept
if copyright disappears off the face of the earth today, or never existed, there will still be people willing to buy what can be had for free, because it takes more effort
there are people who buy $1,000 handbags rather than $10 handbags. does that give handbag manufacturers the right to force the $10 guys to buy the $1,000 ones or force people who would rather just use plastic bags for free to upgrade to $1,000 handbags?
wtf?
the existence of people who would spend money on what is free and should be free does not in any way support the validity of copyright
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" he was telling the truth - under a very narrow definition of "sex".
You left out the part where the definition was given to him by the accusers, when he asked for clarification of the question. The way you say it, it makes him out to be some sort of weasel.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Why I read k5 (as if theres anything to read these days).
-- arstchnca
--
These people are sick. There are more important things to worry about than piracy, such as the environment and the economy. On another note, they have to realize that they will never be able to stop it. So why bother?
"We can argue around and around on what constitutes fair compensation and on what we should be able to do with a product afterward, but it doesn't change the fact that the producer gets to set the price."
pre-internet, yes. in the current era, no, his pronouncements of value have no enforceability. simply because the aavenues of distribution went form a few entrenched players to every teenager on the planet, all with the same reach and production capacity: infinite
"Whether or not a given person chooses to purchase at that price is their choice, but remember that we're talking about music and movies here, not food or shelter."
exactly. we're talking about digital media, an unlimited resource, not food or shelter, which are limited. therefore, digital media is woth $0, because the supply is infinite. unlike copyright law, based on an era where vinyl presses and tape recorders ruled, there is no need to burn diesel to ship plastic media to store shelves anymore. such that, the economics have changed to fall in line with the real production value of media. which happens to be: point, click, voila, 100 copies in 100 hard drives around the world with zero effort. the price point merely falls into line with the production and distribution costs. there's no choke point for a union of producers to set a price point at. as such, their pronouncements on price point have ceased to have real world effect, regardless of what the law is
"Every producer of copyrighted material gets to choose how and where it will be published."
it isn't about choice, it is about what the market will bear. you can choose to buy eggs at $5 an egg if you want, but it just makes you a statistical outlying anomaly. you can't "choose" to say that eggs are worth $5 each. the market chooses, no human being has the power to artificially set an arbitrary price point that then everyone falls into line behind. study basic economics and history to see the effects of a government articificially setting a price point for a good and what actually happens in reality, rathe rthan simply yeilding to what the market will bear
"Musicians are free to use a creative commons license or to choose not to burden their product with a copyright at all. They are also free to sell it in a traditional packaged form and retain a reasonable expectation that some legal avenue exists to enforce against those who would infringe."
musicians are free to create music. once the music is created, there is no model that exists anymore under which they retain control of how it is consumed. sure, they can talk about how things should work, but that doesn't mean anything about what actually does work. technology has changed. the internet did that
"You are not the arbiter of morality."
and neither are you. who is? no one one. what is? the marketplace. supply, and demand. infinite supply=zero value. i'm not deciding morality, i'm informing you of simple economic reality
"The democratic system (and our US Constitution) has established that copyright is legal, and it is not infringing any of your personal rights."
the ussr said prices were decided by central committee. the iranian constitution says some grumpy old men speak on god's behalf on the earth. the chinese communist party says a bunch of technocrats sets policy. the usa has a bunch of guys arguing in a room and voting. but who cares what laws are written by men. let them issue all the decrees they want. the decrees are unenforceable. the laws of economics decides. the issue is simply what actually works, not what somebody thinks should work. the usa can pass any law it wants. and the laws on copyright it did pass, are pre-internet, when the distribution players were a small easily controlled group. that reality is now history. and so the laws concerning that reality simply don't work anymore. the legal framework lags behind, and is invalid. not because i say so, but because of simple economics and technological change
"You may argue that it is unwise for copyright holders
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
let the dice roll
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wonder if the RIAA even knows how hated they are right now.
I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.