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.
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".
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.
In other news: NAMBLA thinks age of consent laws are bad public policy.
Sure. The difference is that Paris Hilton would be insightful enough to see the irony.
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.
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.
'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?
That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.
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.
National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
> 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.