Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants 'Net Neutrality' To Include Filtering
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The RIAA is now worried about the FCC's rulemaking concerning Net Neutrality. Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography, so they want to make sure that spying on and filtering internet traffic is okay, so long as it's being done for a good reason, even if it doesn't work correctly and blocks non-infringing content. Incidentally, the RIAA has some justification to lump child pornography and copyright infringement: after all, people might infringe upon the original cover art for the album 'Virgin Killer,' which featured a naked under-aged girl in a way that some consider pornographic. The copyright on it belongs to RCA Records."
It's hard for me to tell if this is a different aspect of RIAA's disconnect with reality, or if there is really a fundamental disconnect of what the First Amendment is out.
No - this is perfectly in line with the logic behind dehydrated water.
Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
The RIAA wants to protect their copyrighted child porn?
Equally rapacious and soulless - they make their own reality and expect everyone else to live it. The RIAA is a classic case study on the influence of the private sector on governance.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
They're trying a Glenn Beck. Now they can make the implied accusation that by supporting net neutrality, you support child pornography.
I can hear the arguments now, "We need to prevent net neutrality, FOR THE CHILDREN!"
People might share videos explaining how to build bombs with an RIAA copyrighted music in the backgroup :O
RIAA does not care about child pornography. They're hiding behind the issue. They want to be able to claim that those who oppose their position hate children.
No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.
The RIAA knows that they won't find much sympathy anywhere if they ask for a carte-blanche on traffic spying just to catch a few illegal MP3's, so they just throw in child pornography, for good measure.
Seriously, child pornography is the new Godwin for justifying invading privacy and getting constitutional exemptions.
This isn't even funny anymore.
In a letter sent today to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the RIAA and other music trade groups expressed their concern[...]
The only sane answer is: "To say what you just said you have to be either a lying bastard or deeply retarded. I have no interest on educating either profile on the reasons why your statement is manipulative, false and idiotic."
Each day that passes I value education more. If this keeps going I'll end up firmly believing that educating the population is the solution to all of humanity matters.
Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.
Also, I have a feeling the RIAA doesn't give two shits if some kids get molested and photographed, as long as a song they have the copyright to isn't in the background of the video. Lumping together CP with copyright infringement is just a way to get support and alienate anyone who opposes copyright - since if you're against filtering of copyrighted files you must also be for child porn.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
i have tried in my life to be lucid, coherent, and persuasive in what i say
little did i know all you have to do is say "kiddie porn", and whatever you are trying to argue for, people instantly flock to you sympathetically
so, in that spirit, instead of making a rational argument here, i will simply say
there!
now i may rest assured that whatever your opinion before reading my comment, i have now inexorably swayed you to believe as i do, simply by reciting the magic words that trumps all debate, argument and rhetoric
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:
Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography
Let's suppose they do start "filtering" content there will always be a way to circumvent it.
It comes to a point where if you stand against it you are then branded a "sympathizer" and thus becomes politically incorrect to oppose it.
(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)
Unfortunately not nearly enough people question the motives of the Government & their commercial "bed fellows".
I rarely reply to my own posts, but In case my first statement requires clarification, I am serious about copyright being worse. Very few people in society will be affected by child pornography, fewer still negatively affected. Those that were victims of abuse have suffered a terrible crime at the hands of their abusers, but nearly EVERYONE in society is impacted in a negative way by copyright law. The difference is in sensationalism. It's a lot easier to get people angry about something to do with children, or sex, or both than it is to get people angry about the every day violation of their right to their own culture and freedom of expression.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
And why don't they just infiltrate the CP networks the same way someone addicted to children would do ? Internet is a gold mine of informations, and there is no way you would search a week without finding something. There is even some little boys lover web sites that their domain name is crystal clear. In Quebec, a radio station reported a website known as "La garconnière" which you can translate to as "The bachelor's pad". This website is an OPEN forum of mature guys talking about little boys they see in the park and their fantasies with them. Police dept. won't do anything as they haven't "infringed the law yet" And they say they need the ISPs to track them down ? yeah right.
Except everything you just said is a lie. Network neutrality has always allowed reasonable network management, including spam blocking, firewalls, etc. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the issues involved in network neutrality? And who on /. modded you up for it?
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
This reminds me of the episode of "The Office" where Michael Scott becomes butthurt about something and dresses up as Jesus, interrupting people and telling them they're going to hell. The only non-moron in the group tells him he can't push religion and he responds that he either has to push religion or push drugs.
The RIAA is "The world according to Michael Scott" in a nutshell and taken to an extreme.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
I really can't believe that even government officials wouldn't notice how shallow this attempt is.
That's their job. A roach can fit through even the smallest of gaps.
The difference is the roach's only agendae are spreading feces and breeding... oh wait...
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
It is not net neutral if you filter. That's the point of neutrality.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
"An Internet predicated on order, rather than chaos, facilitates achievement of this goal."
The Internet has always been chaotic, you never needed to lease lines to any particular point. Everybody can go everywhere at any time over any protocol, that chaos has been the core of its success. That all the users can access mylittlestartup.com just as easily and quickly as they can access megacompany.com has been a massive boom to competition and innovation for corporations and social media for individuals. That is the essence of net neutrality.
The kind of order and regulation they want is to kill Internet as we know it, a system where ISPs get to siphon off the profits acting as the middle men that direct online sales was supposed to avoid. It's to stifle competition leaving only approved, incumbent content providers who pay their way to access the market. What they aim at, despite not saying so, is that to filter anything you must force everything into a few, known formats and protocols you know how to filter.
Child pornography is a red herring, those that deal in that will never let themselves be forced into the confines of such filtering as there are ways like password protected files that prevent any automated filters. What they seek to prevent is to kill off the open marketplace, all those that do not go through a "legitimate" label like themselves but instead offer it up independently. They want every site of user-generated content like YouTube to drown in the cost of being their copyright enforcers. They want to return to the 80s when radio and TV ads determined what people would buy. Do not let them try to turn the clock back.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The lobbyists have made it pretty clear before that they are very much willing to exploit child porn to push through their own crap. Here's Christian Engstrom's (Pirate Party MEP) blog entry: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/
Excerpt from the minutes of the meeting between the Internet and the RIAA:
"We'll let you have your silly "net neutrality" as long as you agree to all of our demands, the first of which is there will be no net neutrality. Now that we've got that taken care of, the next item on the agenda is "Money: You Must Give Us All of Yours". Thoughts? Or shall we just take it directly to a vote of the board, which is us?"
You are welcome on my lawn.
*blows 4chan whistle* Anonymous! Get 'em!
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
We dont see the RIAA wanting AT&T to get involved because someone makes a phone call and plays a copyrighted piece of music through the phone. Why should AT&T need to involved when someone sends a copyrighted piece of music through the phone lines using a different protocol? (HTTP over TCP/IP over ADSL vs raw voice audio)
Copyright law has had clear steps in it for how to go after someone who is infringing your copyright ever since it was first passed all those years ago. And the law also clearly spells out what you can do if you believe your copyright has been violated and you have some kind of link back to the person but you dont know their name.
Of course, the real problem is that the "evidence" the RIAA (and their hired lackeys) collect is good enough to be able to send vaguely worded threatening letters but not good enough to actually stand up in court.
RIAA and the industry behind it are bound to vanish soon, so they have nothing to lose anymore and they can use any means they wish to gain small wins before the destruction. The problem is that the stupid laws they push will bug people for decades after the nowadays media industry has been buried and forgotten.
Almost every dying meme or institution works in a same aggressive and self-destructing way. Look at the news.
People love "reasons" that are really justifications, like calling someone a pedophile or a racist. It doesn't matter if it's true. The herd's so afraid of being associated with child porn or racism that they freak out and ostracize the person. That way, you don't have to censor them or jail them. You can just socially isolate them, which in turn bankrupts them as their business or job prospects collapse. It's 100% effective.
You think Virgin Killers is bad? Try that Blind Faith album they don't stock in stores anymore even though it has Eric Clapton on it:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F4qeGnsXL._SS500_.jpg [NSFW!]
Futurist Traditionalism
I am shocked. Truly, deeply shocked.
Not that the RIAA would try this, but that anybody here is surprised.
You know what would be funny? Suppose Google wanted the congress to finally enact laws to help protect Net Neutrality (NN, from now on). They knew the government isn't doing anything and after the Comcast case, NN was in jeopardy.
So what to do? They team up with one of the big wireless carriers (AKA Verizon) and make up a not-so-bad-but-also-not-so-great deal and that way they have a force major backing up NN. Now there are two options:
1) People will like the deal and it will be pushed forward -> A good option.
2) People will be enraged by the compromises and demand the congress enact stronger NN rules (ones that will include wireless traffic)! The congress, being voter-minded will jump on the bandwagon (and having a big company like Verizon supporting NN doesn't hurt also) and push to enact said laws -> A great option!
So now you have Google, which (for the sake of this post) really does want complete NN as it always said, making a move that is a win-win situation for the NN group. Brilliant!
I know, to convoluted, but a nice scenario neverthelss.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Bad way to argue. Better say: "Copyright protects child porn!" It's of course a bull shit argument, but it links copyright to child porn, instead of contrasting it to child porn, as your argument does. And most people will not think any further anyway if they hear "child porn".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I'd just like to point out that without the government's help the RIAA couldn't exist.
If copyright regulation were not being grossly warped by the government then there would be no way that the RIAA could wield the power that it does.
This isn't an issue of a free market run amuck, rather it's a perfect example of a badly regulated market favoring the establishment and being unable to change with the rest of the world.
In an actual free market all it would take is consumers voting with their wallets to change the market.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Then said bills have not been about Net Neutrality.
I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
It's just like lobbyists to jump on legislation and corrupt it completely.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Regulation enables groups with lots of money impose whatever controls they like over a market through lobbying.
That's why the whole concept of "Net Neutrality" is such a farce. The only neutral net is the one without external controls. Introducing a control overlay and then thinking no powers with vested interests are going to take over the controls, is just madness.
"Net Neutrality" is all about imposing a definition of neutral crafted by a small panel of people in Washington. Is that really neutral?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Come on, RIAA - try to take me down. I can't lose.
Too bad that's only true from a certain point of view. It only works like that because if they strike you down, you will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Because of statutory damages. Their lawsuits absolutely depend on those. That is how they get their monkey-fuck retarded large awards. In the event those didn't exist, well then their lawsuits would amount to fines, as they should. The max actual damages you can possibly argue is $1/song, since that's what they sell for. You can argue the damages are less, but you can't argue they are more (and courts have already found this). Now in civil court, tripling of damages is pretty common when they are trying to punish one party, like they believe you willfully and knowingly downloaded the songs without permissions. So in that case you have 100 songs, you'd be on the hook for $300.
Sounds fairly reasonable, kinda like a traffic ticket: Enough to sting and make you think twice, but a reasonable amount. Well that would work for the RIAA because it isn't scary, and because it wouldn't be worth their money to pursue the cases. Fortunately for them, there are unconstitutionally high statutory damages specified by law. Means you don't have to even prove any actual damage, and you can still get up to $250,000 per incident because congress passed a law saying you can.
You probably meant "Force majeure". Sure, it's French for "force major", but if it's written in French, it has that certain Je ne sais quoi...