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"
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.
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
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!
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...
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
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.
I agree, let's hire Diebold to make sure that the process is fair. And Fox News to make sure the opinion of the masses is completely impartial.
Though that was satire, I honestly can't say your idea would be worse than what's currently in place. Regardless, a purely democratic government would likely leave 'large minority' of its people quite oppressed. The US is(was?) a constitutional republic for that reason.
Mind the frickin' laser...
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?
...with all the religious fundamentalists in your country
Actually, those "religious fundamentalists" worship money, although they pretend to be Christians worshiping God. Their prayer:
Our money, who art in the bank, hallowed be thy name
My kingdom come, my will be done on Earth and in outer space
Give me this day my daily income, and forgive nobody
Lead us not into temptation of charity, but deliver us from taxes
For gold is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Let's eat.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
"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
Why is that relevant? Either their business model for selling things is good or it is bad. When you bring up arguments like this, you are implicitly saying (and I doubt you mean based on the rest of your comments): Enforcement of copyright laws would allow the RIAA and its member companies to continue to exist, so the copyright laws should be ignored for the greater good of destroying an industry that treats its workers like shit.
That's a poor analogy. E-mail is a competing product. Note that the RIAA, as much as it wants to, isn't advocating shutting down independent artists (the equivalent of e-mail in your analogy). They advocate people not making copies of their songs. More like the mail provider who is upset people are duplicating his stamps on photocopiers. It's a loss of revenue that he would otherwise get, from people using his product. You may claim that the lack of a marginal cost is a distinction, but I fail to understand why. The fixed costs still need to be amortized over many sales to be worthwhile.
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.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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?
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
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.
Our market research shows that's the most popular coupon in the country!