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.
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
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
They are talking about plastic for making CDs, not glass for making telco infrastructure.
Keep in mind these people still think the future is in selling discs to people.
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
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?
"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