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!
'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
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.
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
Worse than that (from their perspective)... they got the law they lobbied for, but didn't realize that
a) It would be applied as written
b) That anyone could actually afford to comply
c) That a financial model would exist where it made sense for the service provider to defend the ability to post content against a hail of RIAA/MPAA member lawsuits.
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.
Where is the careful balance in DMCA?
They already own many senators. That's why they're upset - they bought the DCMA, and now they found out it's not entirely what they thought they were buying.
You know, sort of like buying a CD and finding out the only song you know is the only good song on it.
This space available.
That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.