Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy
adeelarshad82 writes "The Recording Industry Association of America voiced its opposition to the recent decision in the YouTube-Viacom copyright infringement case, stating that 'the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.' Cary Sherman, RIAA president, also wrote in a blog post, 'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Since when is it their job?
"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States
"eeep!" - RIAA runs away
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
YES, THAT'S THE POINT. If you (the RIAA) want to police that crap, do it on your dime. The Service providers don't know jack about who owns what, and is not their responsibility.
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Boo hoo, you can't get other people to do your jobs for you, you lazy fuckers!
Typical RIAA, whining about when the Law doesn't give them what they want...
Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
In other words, minimizing the illegal exchange of copyrighted becomes the responsibility of the copyright holders, by forcing them to identify which works are their copyright, and which works they would like to not have floating around on the Internet. Go cry me a river. It's bad public policy only in the world where 'public" is defined as "corporations under the RIAA umbrella".
The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law. I haven't bought a new CD in years, my movie buying is exceedingly limited, and care less and less about ripping any movie/song that I like.
Before someone accuses me of not wanting to pay for content that I use - nonsense. I actually donate money to a completely silly online game because even FB game developers need to eat, and I donate to NPR because I listen to them. I pay if I think I'm getting something in return, or if I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause. I feel that I don't get anything from the media conglomerates.
Go suck it, RIAA.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.
Aren't you guys trying to force service providers to pick up the tab by changing the law -- you sit back and collect the profits while they pay the costs? I recently calculated that for about $33k worth of hard drives filled with infringing MP3s (average 4MB in size) I could be sued for statutory damages greater than what this country's entire economy made in 2009.
Don't cry to me that you can't pass the buck to service providers here when you've got that kind of legal power at your disposal.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
DROP DEAD! Your business model died years ago, it's just no one has pulled the plug on you & the MPAA.
The RIAA wants there cut of the deal!
The RIAA wants to give advice about what constitutes bad public policy? Really?
We're going to be getting advice on morals and comportment from Paris Hilton next, I take it.
Sure, on the surface it sounds good for the RIAA being able to hold a gun to YouTube's head every time an infringing video is posted. But what would that in practice mean? It would mean that any video that hasn't been reviewed and approved by YouTube would be a liability - and knowing the RIAA, a big one. It'd basically be a license for the RIAA to print money off YouTube, since it's highly unlikely they could keep everything away. They could just continue to make increasingly more impossible standards of screening and cooperation for YouTube to fail.
I think if this ever gets to the Supreme court, Viacom will be handed a slapdown so big their head will be spinning for years so I almost hope they do. Imagine if every comment here had to pass through an editor in case it contained copyright text of Scientologists or whatnot, it'd be the death of all discussion forums. There's no way the Supreme Court would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over every site operator like that, they're more than smart enough to figure out their guideline would be the guideline for all copyrighted content.
Any bets on what serial killer YouTube will be likened to?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Dear RIAA,
Shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Everyone
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
"We (The RIAA) were hoping to sue the service providers in addition to suing the end-user for making the illegal downloads. Waaah! Its not fair that you won't let us sue".
Dear Cary Sherman,
Fuck off you sociopathic parasite.
Sincerly,
Everyone Else
There is a war going on for your mind.
Pity...
if that RIAA dude got his head stuck inside Mr. G. Oatse's rear end.
What? Since when do courts set public policy?
They do not. Their job is only to make judgements based on the text and context of the law.
It's bad public policy to let the RIAA engage in massive volumes of lawsuits targetting file sharers.
The key word in public policy is 'Public'. I think the RIAA doesn't seem to get that. The Public is what grants them copyright in the first place. The Public's interests should come first with respect to anything which the Public granted them in the first place.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I never knew there was a "careful balance" with the DMCA.
the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.
The courts' job isn't to make policy, it's to interpret and apply it! I'm tired of people criticizing court decisions because the outcome doesn't favor the party you're most sympathetic to. A decision is a good decision if it's consistent with the law, precedence, and is fairly and evenly applied.
RIAA, you want the law to say something other than what it does? Buy a senator, God knows you have enough money.
Are you judges? No. Are you legislators? No.
Well then, it's a good thing it's not your job to form or interpret the law then, isn't it?
Go pound sand.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Where is the careful balance in DMCA?
Seriously. Nobody is buying their shit because it SUCKS. I never want to hear Taylor Swift and Avril Lavigne in my life. They are awful. "Fast and Furious" FOUR?!?! Like the first one didn't suck enough?
How about making a decent CD or DVD WORTH $9.99?!?!?
Idiots. I would sucker punch a movie or record exec in the face if I had half a chance.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Bill Paxton????
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Do they really think that ISPs exchange copyrighted works on their own sites? Or do they think that because an ISP serves a site that makes the site belong to the ISP?
What do we have to do to get rid of this plague of locusts? (read that 'plague of lawyers')
Cry some more, you fucking dirtbags. I hope this is the beginning of the end for you. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Most insightful post of the day.
You can't steal from the public domain as long as the work remains in the public domain. They are trying to kill the very idea of a "public domain". It's hard to believe that the members of the RIAA and MPAA aren't dragged out of their homes and flogged for what they're trying to do to our culture.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Cary Sherman is a fishmonger. A damn dirty fishmonger.
That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.
Blow it out your ass.
Boredom is bliss.
RIAA's next big idea is to get the government or the FCC to enforce their hopeless business model. Expect to see more of this "it's everyone's job to protect our intellectual property" mentality. The ACTA is their next big hope to get laws passed that protects their music online. Personally I think it delays the inevitable, but as long as there are lobbyists and crooked politicians there's going to be a recording industry that is locking down the internet in a very self serving manner. Anyone who reads Slashdot should have the dignity to write their statesmen and tell them that further copyright regulations only takes money from hard working artists and puts it in the hands of an obsolete middleman.
What about the smoking gun emails from YouTube's founders? Hopefully they will be considered on appeal, as the DMCA safe harbor never was intended to allow content providers to leave stuff up that they found infringing copyright to make money from the resulting page-views or things like that and the fact that they were finally taken down when Viacom sent it's takedown notice is no excuse. But they are correct that it never required active monitoring or filtering or anything like that.
set us free now? This calls into question the entire creative commons. What is fair artist use and what is corporate greed? Where is the line? The RIAA? They are the zombies, already fully subsumed. What is the next step? What comes after the nightmare of the RIAA? What's next because these guys are seriously what was. Where does the next fair use doctrine arise and who does it protect, the artists? the record companies? The consumer? How about all three?
its the sound of inevitability
you are defending a legal status quo that cannot be enforced in a world with the internet. that's pretty much the beginning and the ending of this entire story
pass all the laws you want, buy all the legislators you want. it will all be routed around
welcome to dustbin of history, you're irrelevant
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For fuck's sake. Some one let him on the Internet?
Has Viacom surrendered certain rights?
If Viacom authorised agents of theirs (the sock puppets) to upload media to a place frequented by the public (youtube) where people expect to consume legal media according to the law, then hasn't Viacom surrendered those copies to the public domain for public consumption?.
Maybe they should've thought of the consequences before Viacom actively sent people out to internet cafés and the like to upload infringing material in order to further their cause in the lawsuit which started this.
I'm pretty sure YouTube (and any other site) doesn't HAVE to do shit about infringing materials unless a takedown is issued. That's the way it works.
The RIAA and MPAA are not in the business of producing content, they're in the business of copyright ownership. Everytime I read stories like this, I simply want to pirate more and more content, in the hopes that they'll just die. And so what? Someone else will come along and do it the right way.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
HI There Mr. RIAA Public Opinion Manipulation Consultant
The point of the liability immunity provisions is that ISPs have a lot of customers who may or may not be uploading infringing work, and can't be expected to check each and every one of them for infringement. In many cases they won't even know if it's infringing.
i.e. exactly what youTube does.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.
That was honestly the first thing that made me chuckle all day.
It could certainly be a factor. While the probability of actually being a target of such a suit has been small, the penalty is large enough that I'd guess there is at least some deterrent effect.
If I had to guess I'd probably say it's about a fourth-order effect, really, but it's impossible to know for sure. There's just too much going on in the market to properly isolate the influences.
Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" is the most well known occasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Wonderful_Life
Initially a flop and allowed to go out of copyright, it was then used (because it was copyright free) as a christmas special on TV where it became a hit, then Frank lobbied for it to be taken back from the public domain.
Without it becoming PUBLIC DOMAIN, it would NEVER have seen the light of day again.
"dangerously expansive" is soooo 2009. The meme for this year is "extremists". Didn't you get the memo? Anyone who doesn't go further than you asked is as bad as The Terrorists.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
mpaa/riaa can get bent
> What about the smoking gun emails from YouTube's founders?
What about the OTHER smoking gun where Viacom uploaded videos altered to appear to be leaks?
Copyright is a matter of *permission* Nobody but Viacom knows who they gave permission to upload the videos to. And they not only could, but did give people permission to load certain videos (that would appear infringing to anyone who didn't know that). Worse, Viacom's expensive lawyers couldn't figure that out, even after performing a detailed investigation.
The problem was so bad that Viacom had to withdraw certain clips from its case after the fact. Twice.
If Viacom's own highly paid legal team can't figure it out who Viacom gave permission to upload what after spending many billable hours (at rates on the order of $300/hour), how the hell is YouTube supposed to do this millions of times a day? And if humans can't figure it out, how is Google supposed to find people who can program a computer to do it? Yes, they now do automatic matching of MAFIAA content based on the assumption that *nobody* has the right to upload it, but they're just making the best guesses they can. They don't actually know.
They can't actually know. This is a social problem, not a technical one.
the most known PRIVATE INTEREST group is advising the nation about 'public' policy. public is supposed to take advice from them. like adam getting advice from snake on heaven policies.
Read radical news here
If it bothers the RIAA... ... then its *fine* with me.
Anything that they're against must be good for everybody else.
If you run a massive user generated content site with a couple hunderd MB or more upload every minute, you'd be an absolute fool to not realize that someone, somewhere on your site will be uploading an infringing piece of content. You'd also be a fool to think that there is not a possibility for a significant portion of it to contain infringing content (since everything "artistic" ever made is copyrighted by someone).
They have no way of definitively telling what is or is not infringing. Say I upload some Taylor Swift concert video, the site has zero way of knowing whether that is authorized or not. They can imply, but they don't KNOW if I'm her agent, or I work for her record label, or am a promoter for her next show in DC and I have permission to do it.
Wouldn't the cost of such enforcement already discourage them from reducing copyright infringement? And the loss of users and ad revenue?
The only people who care about copyright enforcement is the RIAA. They are welcome to launch their own censored search engine and watch as no one uses it.
How do we finally get these people to stop buying off everyone under the sun with their blackmail profits?
I mean really, even Metallica should be saying ' OK RIAA i think that's enough.'
Everyone know the Label industry maxed out it life without having to evolve... that's long long since past... they cought on, they are changing...
so what are the RIAA 'protecting' now?
I'd also bet that he would never do anything, for anyone, except himself.
People like him are like that.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
It goes way beyond that though. This is corporatism at it's worst. The RIAA carefully hides here the fact that they are not the holders of the majority of the copyright out there. Under international law, every time I take a picture, write a /. comment or a blogpost or make a recording on my cellphone I own the copyright to it.
That makes ME a rightsholder.
their boss told them to, how is that illegal? the copyright holder told a staff member "upload this to YouTube" - sounds authorized to me..
Ask Me About... The 80's!
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_become_a_member
Ask Me About... The 80's!
They probably balance with the Viacom smoking gun emails where they uploaded those "infringing" videos themselves and then whined about them being uploaded.
> I saw the allegations by Google, but not sure if there are any evidence to back it.
It was proven when Verizon's lawyers were forced to withdraw the clips. They wouldn't have done that for such an embarrassing reason if they didn't have to.
I believe that Ars Technica had good coverage of it.