Slashdot Mirror
Do We Want ISPs Penalizing Music Fans?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Noted singer songwriter Billy Bragg has written an excellent column in The Guardian, coming out against the pro-RIAA '3-strikes' legislation the big 4 record labels are trying to push through. In the article, entitled 'Do we want ISPs penalizing our fans?', Bragg writes: 'Having failed miserably in previous attempts to stamp out illicit filesharing, the record industry has now joined forces with other entertainment lobby groups to demand that the government takes action to protect their business model.' He goes on: 'Fearful of the prospect of dragging their customers though the courts, with all the attendant costs and bad publicity, members of the record industry have come up with a simple, cost-free solution to their problem: get the ISPs to do their dirty work for them. They are asking the government to force the ISPs to cut off the broadband connection of customers who persistently download unauthorized material, without any recourse to appeal in the courts.'"
Don't cut the broadband for any crime until it's proven in court.
It's not the role of the ISP to act as a police for a third party.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
... the faster you idiots make yourself irrelevant, the sooner I can load up Slashdot without seeing articles like this.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Do we want "justice" meted out without even the pretense of due process, with accusation equaling guilt, and control in the hands of an unaccountable mess of corporate pressure groups?
The chap from TFA seems nice enough, and it is good that he is thinking about the question; but, thing is, it isn't his call. Allowing penalties to be assessed for private gain, without any sort of judicial process, is a grotesque parody of justice. It should not be countenanced anywhere. I'm glad that there are some on the music side that are uncomfortable with the idea; but that isn't the point. The point is that "3 strikes" and its ilk are wholly unacceptable. If they agree, great, if they don't, tough.
More and more of the music I get into is independent. Much of it is self-released (The Turn-Ons are a good recent example). Side note: Radiohead "self-releasing" is a joke, as they were propped up by major labels for years beforehand and had a well-established fan base. Any kind of offensive in this climate by the RIAA is just silly. They are so irrelevant. If they shut down Another Greast Music Tracker, I'm going to law school.
If the ISPs are to be considered a 'common carrier', then this is not their duty.
Other points, if the ISPs are going to be doing this:
- How are they to decide when something is fair use, when even the big media companies get it wrong so often?
- Who is going to pay them to do the dirty work of the media industry?
- This is like getting Walmart to ban you because something you are doing is not kosher in HMV.
There are certainly other problems with this whole 'getting the ISPs' to do the dirty work, but I have a 'failure of imagination' when it comes to the other issues.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You emitted the exact same response last time. Anyway: This isn't a "pro piracy" issue. This is a due process of law issue.
If the RIAA can just call up my ISP and demand that they disconnect me, that makes a mockery of due process. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?
Disable YRO on your browsing options.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Clearly this is against an ISP's best interest, but here's a few reasons they might go along with it anyway.
(1) Some ISPs (like AOL) are owned by the media bullies.
(2) Larger ISPs have legal departments to handle the lawsuits sure to ensue. Smaller ISPs don't. Bye bye competition.
http://local.yodle.com/articles/the-riaa-is-evil-most-outrageous-recording-industry-lawsuits
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
I'm more curious to understand why Bragg's considered "noted". Didn't he have a one hit wonder sometime back in the early 80's? I assume than no-one in the UK over the age of 20, and no-one in any other country, has ever heard of him.
Unless of course you mean noted as a sock-puppet of the Labour Regime. That, he most certainly is.
Here we have two adjacent /. stories: one about ISPs being responsible for users' behavior, the other about ISPs not being responsible for users' behavior.
What is needed is a clarification, likely from SCOTUS, on whether ISPs are "common carriers" or not. If they are, then ISPs have to monitor postings and downloads (punishing people according to ... uh ... well they're not police or courts so it's really unclear how they're supposed to detect & respond re: users' behavior). If they are not, then ISPs can finally tell everyone else to take it up with the actual legally-identifiable offender.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
... and not only that, but there is no practical way for ISPs to know what traffic is passing under your name, without intrusively inspecting the packets. That is without precedent; it is akin to asking telephone companies to listen in on your calls to determine if you are a using the telephone "improperly".
The so called 'piracy' (aka copyright infringement) is about fair use, freedom, and taking a stance (though some choose an improper form) against the draconion rules and organizations that are trying to monetize and take away our legacy. Music has always been about enjoyment and sharing. Until recently, the most common way to listen to music was to get together with friends and sing. No performance fees, no songwriter royalties, just people belting out a ditty.
Under the current situation, and the future one if RIAA has it's way, the National Anthem of the USA, that's the "Star Spangled Banner" for those who don't know, wouldn't exist under their rules. It was a (somewhat) popular piece of poetry that people started singing to a very popular piece of music. That made a fantastic hit that inspired people so much, they made it the national anthem. These days, the insane copyright lengths combined with the dubious 'enforcement groups' would have prevented any such thing from ever happening.
Have you wondered why nobody ever sings "Happy Birthday" on shows and movies anymore? Someone decided to enforce their copyright... Another piece of classic americana and culture down the tubes because of this subject. What's the next thing we'll loose? Yes, some of these people are breaking laws.
Yes, we talk about it a lot.
But you need to understand, if somebody doesn't raise a fuss and find a way to stop this, what will our children have left?
Unfortunately, the answer is not much...
But how do I get my money BACK? I'm more interested in getting my money back (Like at a real merchants) then I am at writing a letter to someone who will never read it. If I got my money back I could still boycott the company and have lost nothing from my bank account.
Why can they sell me buggy software with no return policy and I lose money, but if it happens to them it's a huge legislative issue?
You are the type of person who would call Benjamin Franklin and Nikola Tesla, "Pirates"
They had "radical piracy-like agendas" Touting dangerous ideas that knowledge, invention, innovation, even energy should be given away for free for the advancement of human civilization.
The RIAA does not protect "poor artists and musicians", they protect themselves, and huge record corporations.
This is why Jamendo and Magnatune are popular with some artists.
... but don't you get tired of discussing the same thing over and over?
You must be new here.
Actually, I happen to be a musician and I disagree. I don't support piracy and I don't want people stealing my stuff. However, I also despise the RIAA, what it's doing, and how it's doing it. I also hate to see due process get thrown under the bus for the sake of an aging business model. Touring has always made musicians truckloads more money than CDs ever have. CD sales are just used by huge record companies as a revenue stream for themselves and as an indicator telling them who to send on huge tours. Regardless of how you feel about piracy, RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Your post makes no sense. Nobody in the UK over the age of 20? So you think he makes music for teenagers and little kiddies?
The funny thing about Bragg is that whilst he's always willing to give uncritical support to the Labour regime of the day, his songs are actually quite critical of them and their policies. The track "O Freedom" from his latest album is about Labour's policy of locking up terrorist suspects without a proper trial or letting them know the evidence against them. That system has been taken apart (I think...) but it was actually worse than gitmo because these people were arrested in this country.
I'm not a fan of Bragg, mainly because I'm not a fan of folk-rock, but I know lots of people who are. Most of them are in their 20s but I'd expect that's because most of my friends are in their 20s. They're all active socialists and trade-unionists so it's to be expected that Bragg would speak to them.
If you venture outside of the mainstream, you're sure to find plenty of Bragg fans here in the UK.
Nick
You think the RIAA will apply this policy of theirs evenly and fairly? Anyone with power will be an exception to the rule.
"Unless of course you mean noted as a sock-puppet of the Labour Regime. That, he most certainly is."
I thought you said no one had heard of him? If you don't like the guy then fair enough but he's hardly a sock-puppet of Labour. I can't imagine Labour saying "Pssst, Billy, go and have a go at the RIAA."
He says what he thinks and points out what he sees as unfair. I, personally, respect him for that.
(also I think you meant under 20, not over)
HOLD IT!
Assassin's Creed for the PC uses SafeDisc 4.85.
You need the physical disc to play the game (or sometimes just for the installation).
You claim your original disc "broke".
You claim you needed to reinstall the game.
Something doesn't add up with your testimony.
Would you care to explain how you reinstalled the game with the downloaded copy without cracking the protection?
</Phoenix Wright>
What's your opinion on downloading ripped movies you already own, because ripping a DVD is (arguably) illegal and in some cases more time consuming than actually downloading? (assuming you live in a country with real bandwidth, not the US) Or downloading a pirate version of a book you already own, just because you want to read it "on the fly"
What's your opinion on downloading cracks for the games you own, just because DRM makes you want to cry and requiring the original DVD on the drive is JUST PLAIN STUPID?
How about people who want to acquire a work that there is no legal alternative for them to buy? (example: out of print books, tv shows from foreign countries, movies that never came out on DVD, LP's that never came out on CD)
Are those examples of "entitlement" plausible enough, or do you find them highly unlikely?
Christ, pay attention, will you? TFA is about the RIAA pushing a LAW that would require ISPs to terminate service, without due process.
There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.
There is no moral right to control what others do with their property.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So are we going to start prosecuting auto makers for providing get-away vehicles to criminals?
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
No kidding. I just looked through the mod option list for the GP and I couldn't find "-1: Fucking Moron" in there to give to him. I'll just go with a comment in support of your comment instead.
RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.
I hate to say it, my friend, but you are right, and a little late. I, for one, have stopped purchasing music (and long ago deleted all my infringing copies). I have about a thousand CDs, all purchased before the Metallica / Napster debacle. I have bought half a dozen since, and downloaded a couple albums. From $10k per decade to something like $200 per decade. Entirely because I cannot stand the association which claims to support you and other artists in your fine work.
Now I'm focusing on UGC (user generated content) posted under liberal licenses. There's a lot of good stuff out there. All-in-all, I haven't lost much. But boy have you artists (and the labels) lost a pile on me.
I'm sorry for the extent to which it has impacted you -- I love music, and would like to be a consumer again.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Who's got the entitlement problem here? The people who wish to use their property as they see fit? Or those who wish to control what other people did with their creation after they sold it off?
I'd say anyone who expects to get paid for their work for 70 years has a pretty big entitlement problem.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
One possibility which remains, if Big Media manages to shut down Internet liberty somehow, is merely the sharing of physical media (perhaps via some kind of social networking site which does an automatic "N steps to ...").
Considering that in the not so far off future people will probably be able to carry around enormous content libraries on tiny memory cards, it doesn't look all that rosy for trying to stop distribution.
Hell, maybe the laws will get so draconian (e.g., you're guilty of infringement if you can't prove you bought or were legally given all the works under copyright in your possession) that even Joe Sixpack will figure out what's going down, and Creative Commons licensed works will reign supreme.
I can dream, no?
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent labels like these that don't sue people for downloading their music? And if none of those record labels have music that suits your tastes (I'll admit I lean towards hipster garbage in music taste), check RIAA Radar before you buy.
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
I'm a big fan of his, and I live in the United States. I haven't seen him in a long time, but I did see him several times in the late 1980s and the 1990s and got the chance to speak with him for awhile. (I think you must have meant no one UNDER 20 has heard of him).
The only downside was having to see Michelle Shocked.
.. don't want people submitting articles with spelling mistakes. This 's is really getting on my nerves.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.
Absolutely right. But completely offtopic - this discussion has nothing to do with property. It has everything to do with copyright. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a time-limited privilege ultimately granted by the citizens for the holder thereof to exclusive sales of the work that is to be duplicated and sold. Unfortunately, right now due to ridiculous changes in copyright law brought about by lobbyists working for greedy corporations, the 'time-limited' portion is currently way out of line of the intent of copyright. This is why so many people now simply disregard copyright entirely. As a general guideline, if copyright duration on average lasts beyond the work's relevance, then copyright is not serving its purpose.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent labels like these that don't sue people for downloading their music?
The current copyright law, as it is being used and abused by the RIAA, is potentially hostile to me. Therefore I currently require that content distributors explicitly grant me reasonable rights, such as archival copies, media shifting, time shifting, etc. Independent labels may not currently be suing people for doing those things, and maybe I could win on those points in court (I believe they are covered by fair use), but the fact is I can't take the risk.
I can't afford a lawsuit, I can't afford to settle, I don't believe the courts would necessarily make what I believe is the right decision, and I don't trust that what the indie label says today will still be their position tomorrow (unless they put it in writing).
So - no raw copyright works for me, thanks. Get one of those labels to switch entirely to some form of CC license, or write a new one that is less than a thousand words and not written in bullshit lawyerese, and maybe I'd consider buying from them. Come to think of it, though, I'm so disgusted with the music industry that I'm probably going to want more to even consider coming back; collaborative filtering for content recommendations that actually works for people who like music other than Britney Spears, maybe a couple decent metal bands that don't turn into sissies on the second album to increase sales, OGG Vorbis ferfucksake (and an iPod that supports it natively). Frankly, I'm probably a lost cause.
Again - not your fault, it's the RIAA's fault. But they have almost completely destroyed raw copyright consumption for me. Their actions, and the broken legal system they abuse, make it perfectly clear that I cannot afford to trust anyone who uses raw copyright. Their reprehensible behavior has made me not interested in trying to meet anyone halfway.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
Oh - and on that. My first reaction was, "fuck'em, those people are assholes."
But, then, copyright is supposed to be a bargain struck between the public which grants a fiat monopoly and the individual who benefits from it. Copyright was a pretty darned fair balance at one time -- but is it still? If the RIAA and Disney have purchased changes in the law to circumvent the bargain that copyright was meant to be, is there no understanding when the other side retaliates?
I'm not saying where I stand -- as I noted in my post I deleted all my infringing content back in 1999. But I have spent many hours considering the balance of copyright, the endless extensions thereof, and what that implies for the person on the other side of the teeter-totter. And I think everyone has to do that part -- the deep consideration -- if they want to hold a well-reasoned opinion on the matter.
Which leads me back to thinking those people are assholes -- because I figure most of them haven't really gone through the deep consideration part.
But then, the effectiveness of tit-for-tat in game theory isn't just theory. It's what any organic system will naturally evolve. Thinking the gov't, courts, RIAA, and Orrin Hatch can stop it is to ignore the seismic power of organic systems. Which is why I don't worry about it too much. They'll all get ground to dust eventually, on this matter. It's only a question of how many innocents like you get caught in the crossfire while they attempt to defend their hopeless position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Your "appeal" is to sue your ISP.
This is effectively a law that defines a punishment, enforced by a private business. First off, private businesses are not police. Second, this law sentences you (disconnection from ISP service, DICTATED BY LAW) without fair hearing; that is unconstitutional.
Come on, aren't any of you lawyers?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
We need to automate the generation and production of music, and crush the music industry like a bug.
Listen to this sample. That was created with Yamaha Vocaloid. The product sells for $179.95. It's better than many singers. We're getting close.
This technology is like MIDI players, a generation later. You need the composition and instrument models. Then the player puts it all together. You can mix and match; choose a different singer or instruments. (Question: is there enough compute power in an iPhone to run this?)
If this catches on, the music industry will be crushed.
There's still a need for composers. Easy Music Composer isn't quite good enough. Yet.
Should never have any control over a citizens freedom.
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!