Slashdot Mirror
RIAA President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working"
Kilrah_il writes "Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have content providers such as YouTube and Rapidshare liable for illegal content found on their sites. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries ... We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship — not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers ... [But], if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
Breaking and Entering Law & modern technology isnt working with my chosen profession of burglar.
I could try going to individual houses asking them not to lock doors but ultimately I think the
law needs changing so I get special treatment so I can continue to screw people.
Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation.
In other words he wants large sums of money from YouTube & RapidShare unfortunately the courts decided they didn't have to pay. So hes trying to get them to voluntarily pay extortion money but... when that doesnt work he'll be forced to get copyright law changed again.
If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Fuck you, RIAAssholes.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!
The man's a genius, toss him a coin.
On second thoughts don't, the slimy git will claim copyright on the passage of the coin through the air..
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Maybe we're getting to a point where big business will no longer make oodles of money distorting our culture. They've had a good run for 150 years, but hopefully technology has destroyed this model. Woohoo!
It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can upload copyrighted content all day long on YouTube and it's up to the copyright holder to scour YouTube for all of the violations.
I understand the holder has to defend their copyright in order for the copyright to remain valid, but YouTube is completely abusing the system.
To me, because YouTube is such a blatant/careless repeat-offender of being a haven for copyrighted content, they should be fined or shut down.
It isn't working. Amendment __: Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years* to Authors and Inventors the temporary Privilege of monopoly to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Jefferson
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Say goodbye to youtube in its entirety. The risk of liability would be too great, it would turn into another hulu. What would happen to user generated video content?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
they are a monopoly and certainly do not help the Artists they say that are representing.
Apperantly somebody's spell checker isn't working.
.
Trolling is a art,
Let's deal, Cary...
-Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc, make the punishment for downloading the disc the same as physical theft.
-Hold Rapidshare responsible for their hosting of copyrighted content, but you pay double if the content is found to be uninfringing.
-Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright and stream it over the internet without having to pay you royalties.
-Show that monies collected from copyright infringement cases (less court fees) literally go to pad the pockets of the artists you claim to protect. For added sympathy, use some to fund school music programs to encourage the next generation of musicians.
And, as a personal request:
-Stop using Autotune as an effect. It's annoying.
Didn't they already try to get the safe haven provisions in the DMCA revoked? (and failed)
With all the RIAA crap removed from YouTube and so on, it will be easier to find stuff by the good artists. I find myself enjoying music more since I stopped buying the RIAA CDs, so this looks like more improvement along the same line.
As always, how can a third party (party C/ISP/service provider) ever be held legally responsible for accurately determining if party A has infringed on party B's IP/copyright? There is no way for them to determine definitively what is copyrighted and what is covered by fair use. Courts often have a hard time doing it, there is no way for a company to do it accurately. It's even more ridiculous when the third party has in (huge) excess of a GB of information uploaded every minute.
"The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries"
How is an agreement that is written down somewhere considered "informal?"
It's always confirmation bias!
Wow, that just sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie ... "we'd like to reach an informal arrangement wit youze, but if we can't, we'd be willing to force one on you".
What will be enough for these people? Everybody just simply tithes to them?
They want the entire world to be beholden to, and policing, their copyright. At some point, they're actually doing society more harm than good. These people aren't even the ones "creating" anything -- they're just the ones using funny math to prove they're losing money hand over fist so they can avoid paying the actual creators. A bunch of middlemen skimming off the top don't contribute anything.
Sadly, I'm mostly preaching to the converted, and I fear bitching about it won't help.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.
They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.
That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.
And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.
Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.
We're not making enough money suing old ladies who don't know what a computer is much less what to do with it (and don't listen to hip hop). We're having a hard time getting collages to police their network for us. We can't seem to make enough money threatening people who we think have downloaded music illegally. We have spent too much money paying lawyers to keep our good (yeah lmao)name out of the papers and we need more money so who else can we terrorize? Yeah go FUCK OFF. Shoehornjob
Dear RIAA,
Fuck off.
©2010, whisper_jeff
Now correct me if I'm being blindingly stupid here, but is Sherman suggesting that because there is a systemic problem with copyright law, that we make more of it?
How about not being able to get rights from waves of air? Would that be a bit more logical maybe?
when he says copyright law isn't working.
Since it isn't working, let's do away with it.
Apparently not satisfied with the current scope of the minimum age of concent laws, NAMBLA President ????? wants to broaden the scope of the law.
-Rick
(note, you'll have to excuse me for not digging up the name of the NAMBLA president from work.)
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The RIAA is allowed to rip off the very people the law should be protecting.
Copyright law should protect authors and artists not non value added resellers.
Its members have been nailed in payola scam after payola scam without any serious repercussions. Price fixing on a massive scale and "Record company accounting" is well known for forcing artists to pay for the privilege of earning money for them.
Any just law in the public interest would reduce their profits to a small percentage of the net.
"..Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc..."
I wonder if any attorney has tried using this in court? If there is actual RIAA literature out there saying the downloading of music is the same as theft of a CD, wouldn't that establish a monetary value of the content and hence limit the financial liability of the downloader/filesharer?
Here is the main content of TFA:
RIAA President Cary Sherman said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains loopholes that allow broadband providers and Web companies to turn a blind eye to customers' unlawful activities without suffering any legal consequences.
"The DMCA isn't working for content people at all," he said at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "You cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It's simply not possible. We don't have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears, such as cyberlockers like [file-hosting firm] RapidShare."
- you see, DMCA isn't working for RIAA.
In response to a question from CNET, Sherman said it may be necessary for the U.S. Congress to enact a new law formalizing agreements with intermediaries such as broadband providers, Web hosts, payment processors, and search engines.
The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries, Sherman said: "We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers."
- makes sense, make it increasingly difficult for US economy to survive.
Last week, the RIAA and a dozen other music industry groups called on Google and Verizon to crack down on piracy, saying in a letter that "the current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators."
- RIAA considers itself a 'creator' apparently.
Clearly the law is not working. The correct fix is to abolish patent and copyright law altogether. There should be nothing of the sort, all government intervention into economy must stop, and this does include creating any sort of barriers of entry into any industry. Copyrights and Patents are like any other regulations, are designed to make competition less likely, to make the monopolies of the existing powers more persistent and pervasive, this of-course helps the government to maintain its power in a number of ways: obviously government makes much more money from monopolies than from actual competing businesses, who wouldn't bother giving the government officials those nice fat bri.. contributions.
All government regulations do this: they tax, they subsidize, they regulate, all that it ends up doing is creating barriers to entry, creating moral hazards, helping big monopolies and destroying competition, all of this of-course helps government officials but totally works against sound economy and competition.
Copyrights and patents must be abolished, that is the correct way to help the economy and not by helping some specific people to maintain their monopoly while giving them ability to drag any competition through a bought court system with their ill gained money.
You can't handle the truth.
You can have everything you want....... for a price.
The price being that the date of copyright must be public information and the length of Copyright drops to 365 days at which point the work goes permanently into the public domain. No exceptions, no exclusions.
Failure to publish the date of copyright automatically voids the copyright and places the work into the public domain.
The RIAA will either be cowed by an informed public that passes intelligent copyright laws... or some day, some person, will escalate this to a violent level.
As is, the RIAA can, through it's government proxies, send armed men into your house to throw you on the floor, handcuff you and haul you away. Eventually someone will reverse this situation and do that to a leader of the RIAA.
The Big Picture
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Uhm ... er ... just why does the RIAA think it can write laws? Merely because they've had success in the past influencing legislation does not mean they have a right to such influence continuing.
People NOT the RIAA President saying 'trying to sell garbage at a premium' isn't working.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
"Nice file sharing site you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"When I had a bloody finger, I attempted a fix by cutting off my hand."
"That didn't work, so now I propose cutting off the whole arm."
So no more DSN as well?
as the RIAA can say it's the same as Google?
If the RIAA wants change, they could change their business model from milking an old back-catalog and do more to discover and develop new talent. When "British|American Idol" discovers more talent than the RIAA's combined A&R depts, they've slipped below Art Linkletter's "Tiny Talent Time".
Phail, and not worth any life-preserver.
I've personally seen situations where the copyright watch dogs have issued takedown notices on an artist's own YouTube channel. It was only a temporary thing, but if they can't be trusted to even know when it's obviously a legit posting, how can they be trusted for anything?
what they really seem to be saying is "He, I represent the modern day share-croppers. We steal shit tons of money from those who rightfully earned it while we did nothing but con them, we would like everyone in the world to pay us every time they think about anything we own, and we would then like to control the world and have so much wealth that nobody else on earth can live, they all die, and they we will be even more richer, and we want to blow up the universe, all while doing as little work as is humanly possible and spending virtually no money, while making a lot. Also, we refuse to make new and good things, we will just blame others when our businesses shit the bed, and new technology is the devil, only old technology can be used or else there is a chance people will find ways to think about our content without it. Mandatory brain implants for everyone, that charge them 50 bucks every time they remember something we stole from an artist via. legaleze bullshit." Or something incredibly similar.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
These people have a distorted, skewed view of how the world should operate. If you take that along with the fact that they are somewhat successful in managing to push their ideas into laws, it feels like they are dangerous for society at large.
There has to be some middle ground / compromise in this battle.
Producers need to acknowledge that making digital copies is not the same as physical theft.
Consumers need to acknowledge that massive wholesale copyright infringement isn't good.
How about limiting the copyright period for a work to when the producers has recovered their legitimate production costs * X (X to be debated)? Producers won't be driven out of business, consumers will get a chance to get their hands on the work for free in a reasonable time frame.
The problem is the internet grew beyond the original core 10% of people. the ones who had interesting stuff to say.
Even if we revert to Archie and Veronica (those were the days) I guarantee that the signal to noise ration won't go down.
Just look at usenet for chrissakes.
*cracks knuckles*
It would be a shame if something were to happen to it...
"Give us all the world's money!" clamors the RIAA. The world's population has yet to reply as they failed to give a damn.
Cary Sherman is another corporate spin-master trying to “whoa is me” approach to garner public support for his cause. The reality is that the DCMA already does absolutely extend to content provider such as YouTube and RapidShare. To illustrate, any IP holder may report any video found on YouTube as a violation of IP and submit a simple form to report the copyright violation:
http://www.youtube.com/copyright_complaint_form
Once received, YouTube takes down the content and sends a notification to the poster with details on how to counter the claim if so desired. RapidShare has a similar reporting process, albeit not quite so streamlined.
I know firsthand that this process works as my wife spends 50% of her day “policing” the Internet sites such as YouTube to protect the IP of her employer. My wife's company has never once had to fight with YouTube, a major ISP, or content provider in the US, EU, or Australia to get copyright violations enforced. Thus, I would invite Mr Cary to cite even a single case where YouTube has ignored a DCMA infringement request. With that said, I believe Mr. Sherman's real purpose in this statement is to pave the way for legislation that will impose stricter fines and penalties, either on the infringer, or in a world of unicorn and fairies, on the content host directly.
I think the words "in our favor" were omitted.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Millions of dollars & thousands of lives later, they figure it out.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
You mixed up trademark law with copyrights.
Youtube is working 100% within the existing laws. Big Media bought the DMCA, now they have to live with it.
Maybe they should innovate, drop their prices and become competitive again.
They want too much for what they're offering. A CD, dvd or blueray is worth MAYBE about $15.
I stopped buying cds when the price went above $15. I stopped buying dvds when the price went above about $15.
I now only buy the used versions from Amazon and Redbox and generally won't spend more than $7 for anything.
Media is just that. Media. It doesn't advance society in any significant way other than providing a distraction from hard time and other productive work.
Someone should leave a copy on Atlas Shrugged on this guy's front doorstep. I swear, an RIAA meeting must play out exactly like the directive meetings in the book:
Point one: everyone will buy the same amount on cd's this month as last
Point two: no new music will be produced
Point three: all copyright belongs to the RIAA
Developing a new business model and adapting to changing technology.....
Copyright is not working for the people it is supposed to serve, namely, the public at large.
You do know he was talking about ideas, not recordings, right?
You're contending that Jefferson advocated for ideas spreading across the globe, but only via word-of-mouth, never by written transmittal?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The RIAA isn't happy that they are bludgeoning people with lawsuits and their intent to " scare " people into not sharing anything that their clients have a vested intrest in isn't working, and even though they have got the politicians all wrapped in protection legislattion I guess they just don't have enough work for their team of ambulance chasing lawyers and of course the average joe can barely afford their judgements, so lets go after the people that have money...hey Youtube has cash...I bet the RIAA and their lawyers were salavating all over this.. but wait I thought they already had an agreement to take any copyrighted material off of the site....Hmmm... guess the RIAA see's gold in them there Youtube uploads....So get ready kids...The RIAA is on the greedy pursit of cash disguised as copyright infringment...
Aspen, Colorado. From her weekend ranch home here, and apparently not satisfied with the current scope of her salary, RIAA President Cary Sherman declared she hopes to further criminalize copyright violations to include stoning of users of illegal content found on sites such as YouTube and RapidShare.
"The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries such as YouTube, allowing their site admins the privilege of throwing the first stone. We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend this kind of relationship--not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers...[If] legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine. But we intend to sell video of each stoning on a pay-for view basis. We'd prefer voluntary agreements with these partners and not need to enact broader stoning laws without their cooperation, which would save them from being stoned themselves, of course," she declared.
Fuck the mafRIAA and their extorting goons.
RIAA cannot enact laws. They can only seek enforcement of existing laws. Only Congress can enact laws.
Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years
That turns out not to work to that end either.
See here or here.
Consider a book, a piece of paper, a pen and some ink. You copy that book. But that's an abstraction - what are you really doing? You're arranging your property in some fashion. You own the ink, you own the paper. You're putting your ink in certain places on your paper.
So, Copyright, when deconstructed, is a promise to exact retributive violence again people who arrange their property in certain ways. The beneficiary is approximately one person, the threatened are, in this case, about 300,000,000 people.
There may be a narrow utilitarian benefit in certain cases, but it's not clear at all that there's a net benefit, and the method of achieving that possible benefit is reprehensible. Unfortunately some business models depend on the system. Oh, well.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We need to link data privacy with financial privacy. And make these things law, either allowed for all, or for none. I don't see why is it that a company can gather your browsing data and sell it, but the banks can't gather the financial data of politicians or executives and sell it. So if a government branch or company can buy my info, we can buy info on an executive, or representative, too.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
"Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have people liable for illegal content found in their brain's memory cells. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer mandatory cerebral implants ... We're working on [discussions with medical researchers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to adults, but [also to] small children, family pets, invertibrates...[But], if a corporate takeover of the government and the installation of a totalitarian regime is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said parents and to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Hell how about maybe making downloading a felony and give uploaders a mandatory jail sentence. The more extreme the more likely the lazy ass stupid sheep that still put up with this garbage will stop buying the crap the RIAA is peddling and learn that music is a personal experience not just accepting what some dude in a suit with lots of money thinks you should listen to. I stopped buying CD's and stopped listening to the radio years ago, if more stood up and did the same you would find that the RIAA would be rendered powerless pretty quickly. Just like politics, lots of people want to bitch and complain but very few have the balls to actually do their part...then they use the excuse that no one else is so why bother.
I personally think it would be hilariously ironic if the RIAA (whose President happens to be named Sherman) were the target of the Sherman Anti-trust Act.
Copyright law and the RIAA can both take a flying leap. Who ever suggested that media that is broadcast or put on the net should support businesses of any type in the first place. The net and the air ways are for the people and not for making a living. It is these scabs that are the real thieves!
It will have to start swinging the other direction, but when? The absurdity has gone beyond my rational imagination LONG ago. And they still want more?!
It's not their call. Read the DMCA. All you have to do is say that it is valid and then your stuff HAS to go back up, else you can take them to court for libel and damages. What it means is that when YOU make the counter-notice, that is then given to the complainant and then THEY can get the courts onto YOU, as opposed to Youtube.
Of course copyright law isn't working.
Traveling to other galaxies will never work either even if we enact laws to make it so.
These guys just don't get it. There will always be people who steal intellectual property and there will always be people who pay.
Why waste so much time and effort fighting a losing battle?
[This actually happened in real life. I am not making this up. The scene: government wanted to crack down on art, and some musicians journeyed to Washington DC to testify in a Senate hearing.]
Senator Gorton: Mr. Zappa, I am astounded at the courtesy and soft-voiced nature of the comments of my friend, the Senator from Tennessee. I can only say that I found your statement to be boorish, incredibly and insensitively insulting to the people that were here previously; that you could manage to give the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States a bad name, if I felt that you had the slightest understanding of it, which I do not.
You do not have the slightest understanding of the difference between Government action and private action, and you have certainly destroyed any case you might otherwise have had with this Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Frank Zappa: Is this private action?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Look, all it would take to make the RIAA copyrights to work is a police state where all communications were monitored for illegal entertainment viewing, all book checkouts and purchases tracked, and all "illegal glancing" at commercial broadcasts fined. We'll just start to have to dedicate a large part of every nations resources to this in order to save profits for media companies, preferably out of tax dollars.
Don't think so.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I'd sooner efforts were spent cracking down on the crimes that really mess up people's lives. Murder, rape, drugs, burglary, people trafficing, robbery and so on.
Media people not having as much money and musicians having to tour more is hardly the same level of devastation. They would all be bankrupt and there would be no music otherwise.
The worst that can happen is the smaller bands have to work as well as be professional musicians.
I have a counter argument. How about we revoke all copyright law, and then I'll start buying your music again. Until that time, blow.
It's the industry that's broken. They cling to their old ways of doing business and only delay what is inevitable... their demise. It's way easier today for a musician to record his/her own stuff and that is what actually scares the industry but they don't say that ;)
You can if you own congress.
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
Isn't it funny how they want additional laws when it favors them and are against them otherwise.
Yeah he checked his bank book and thought "the copyright law is broken"
"The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined. "
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/dmr2009.html
How would I squeeze every last cent out of a clients art/music? Oh I wouldn't I'm a human.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
How much validation does a site to do when a DMCA/infringement claim comes in? Do they just take the word of the notice?
What would happen if someone( or many someones) were to DMCA every commercial video on YouTube?
So, at what point do we scan through every page of the RIAA's website, find out that they have "borrowed" copyrighted javascript functions, and then we ask their ISP to shut them down? Sue them, sue their ISP, sue their website developer. I mean, if they want to "extend" copyright law, then they need to find out it works both ways.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Why do they think that they can order congress around, They shouldn't be able to just say that "we don't like this, change it" and have the law changed, laws are are _supposed_ to be made for all Americans not just monopolies.
GENERATION 9882463: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig & add a random number to the generation.
We don't have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears
But for some reason we fell that youtube, rapidshare, etc should be able to identify every place any copyrighted material, from anyone, appears on their site.
next they'll ban sales of music instruments, pens and ink, and thoughts. somebody just shut these weasels down once and for all, and let's be done with this.
the problem is with schmucks who want something for nothing. deal with them.
copyright law works fine for everybody else.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
a bunch of bands have gone and ditched the record labels [...] No developer is forced to work with EA or Activision or Ubisoft or any of the large Publishers out there
There is a difference between these two markets. Unlike CD-DA and Ogg formats for recorded music, the popular formats for video games have gatekeepers that approve or reject developers and approve or reject individual works. For example, a self-publishing video game developer has to be at least a certain size (big enough to have an office), or Nintendo and Sony will just ignore it. Notice that the Humble Indie Bundle was a PC exclusive. This has had the effect of restricting indie developers to only those genres popular among PC gamers, as opposed to genres more popular among console gamers.
I think they (RIAA) should have their draconian utopia. However the range / length of copyright should only hold for 5-10 years maximum retroactively. Why should the song "happy birthday" still be raking in money when patents only range about 20 years and cost a fortune to maintain. Public domain exists for a reason, otherwise you have lock-in on all ideas.
They can take a long walk of a short pier.
This sounds like a threat more than anything else.
PLEASE give this man a cookie.
Did they figure that all out by themselves or did they spend millions coming to that conclusion.
I vote for the latter... and I rest my case.
Basically what he's saying is that a webcaster needs to pay the Copyright Royalty Board royalties on music, period, even if the CRB doesn't represent the copyright owner.
Who has grounds to sue me if I operate an Internet stream that plays music that I created, music under the appropriate Creative Commons license, and other recorded music that I have secured the right to perform publicly, and don't pay the CRB?
The webcaster doesn't "have" to agree to these terms, but if they don't they can only play music with written permission of both the copyright owner and the label representing the copyright owner.
As I understand it, a "record label" is defined as the copyright owner of a sound recording. Did you mean both the label and the "music publisher", which owns copyright in the underlying musical work?
When have they ever used auto-tune as an effect?
Blame it on this, blame it on that, blame it on everything but your own self, blame it on the person who drinks the alcohol.
Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright
How do you know that you own the copyright? You could have subconsciously copied the song from something you had heard a decade ago on the radio. George Harrison got burned for this (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, the "My Sweet Lord" case).
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Hey well look at that, we finally we agree on something. Although we probably disagree on the direction we should be taking to fix it.
... Still alive?
Seriously, why is he still breathing? Why hasn't he been taken, tortured and killed? Why hasn't his body been dismembered, his disfigured head sent to his family with crude drawings carved in his dead flesh? Why the pieces of his body are not in display all around the country? Why is his torso not gibbeted, and left to the crows?
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Make the period for copyright protection 0 days, 0 months, 0 years. Then nobody will be hosting infringing material. It will cost less than Sherman's plan and be more effective. Everyone's happy. Making the law more expansive only means that more people will be breaking the law.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This is the information age. In the next age, information won't be property and our more enlightened descendants will laugh at us for considering it so. We can't truly advance as a species until we start treating the universe as an information entropy increasing machine and accept our roles within it as DNA-based information processing machines.
In his autobiography, Franklin wrote about why he never applied for a patent on the Franklin stove:
"This Pamphlet had good Effect, Govr. Thomas was so pleas'd with the Construction of this Stove, as describ'd in it that he offer'd to give me a Patent for the sole Vending of them for a Term of Years; but I declin'd it from a Principle which has ever weigh'd with me on such Occasions, viz. That as we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others, we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
Here is my take on the situation :
The People, through their representatives, gave to certain people and companies monopoly power over certain ideas, for a limited time. Now, the people have taken some of this power back. Although their representatives have not yet caught up with them, this is what's happened in the last few years, and we will spend the next decade or two arguing about it and adjusting to this change.
"Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
In other words, we prefer an encounter wherein we're armed to the teeth with lawyers, and can kneecap you at our leisure.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Is it possible to arrest this moron for treason?
It leads to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
Slashdot's bracketed-domain-name thing helps, but I like the "TinyURL Decoder" Greasemonkey script for such purposes: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/40582
(already modded in here, hence anonymous)
Copyright works better as a weapon for when someone takes your work, publishes it as his own, and then sues YOU. That's the real strength of copyright law. Obviously there are many who would prefer copyright be a weapon to use to stop your work from being distributed other than exactly according to your wishes, and obviously there are people who wish that copyright "law" were on the same level of "law" as the laws against rape and murder. They can wish, but it really doesn't work that way.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I agree its not working, but not for the same reasons they think. Nor are the solution what they propose.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Right conclusion, wrong answer.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
every 3 days, another story about total exploitation, travesty of justice through these two. yet there are still who fall in the err of defending these, saying 'they are just misused ... a better patent system blah blah blah ..'.
there are NO better systems. these two are little different from feudal ownership of means of production. the medieval feudal ownership system is being copied into the thought sphere of human civilization through these. you have to pay bridge toll, every thought bridge you pass, to the bridge lord. if he doesnt let you, you cant pass.
these systems cannot be corrected. they WILL be exploited, nomatter what you do. and the eventual extent of exploitation, will be like this, as you see in front of you by the 'organization' you name as RIAA and those behind it.
in feudal-like systems, whomever gets to the top of the pile, rules all others in a hierarchy. there is no other eventual result of such systems. the only way to get rid of these, is to abolish them.
Read radical news here
But legislation that establishes a group with the authority to establish mandatory and fair licensing rates. Some sort of clearing house that is solely charged with collecting fees and distributing the proceeds fairly. Something like what exists in England but way more progressive. Everything can be licensed, you can't withhold, and you must accept the established rate. Furthermore they can be petitioned/lobbied to create varied fair packaged licenses or even custom licenses. Of course whomever owns the copyright is free to accept less money... So all those books out of print and abandonware will still be purchasable.
Truth be told the government should be involved in the issue. Consumer licenses should be tracked and maintained by the government, it's in everyone best interest. It makes what you purchase more physical and non revocable. You should be able to lend your licenses as well as be able to sell and transfer them. So you really do own every book you purchase forever as well as all that music, you won't need to repurchase it over and over again.
But what, praytell, is a genre popular amongst consoles that isn't amongst the PC?
Genres underrepresented on PC include anything designed for play with multiple controllers per system, such as fighting games, kart racing games, and party minigame collections. Prior to 2006 when HDTV sales took off, it was difficult to connect a PC to a large monitor. But even since then, PC game publishers still haven't caught up with the rise of HDTVs and home theater PCs. Also, cartoonish platformer franchises, such as Mario/Crash/Jak/Ratchet/Sly/Spyro, show up on Nintendo or Sony consoles far more often than on PCs for some reason.
Anything for the 360 or PS3 has just as strong a PC counterpart for it.
Bomberman: no PC versions since the Windows 95 era.
And should you wish to develop for consoles, all you need to pay for is the licensing fee
Nintendo specifically requires a dedicated, non-bedroom office and "relevant industry experience", which I take to mean a published commercial title on another platform. Not all startups can afford this, which is why small developers stick to Windows, with a possible port to Mac OS X to take advantage of the Mac market's less crowded supply of games.
Claims that the Pirate Bay has stolen more money than exists on Earth.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/07/87a2852446ae55d1f15656d49f913e94/original.jpg
Why should anyone take these ludicrous moron seriously.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
.. so in other words you need help to enforce your lame and counter-productive rules?
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
what investor is going to give me money to ramp up production or promote a product if anyone else can freely copy it? How will this create jobs?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
By definition if its a systemic problem, you can't fix it by doing more of it.
Copyright laws cannot be fixed by increasing the number of people and organizations responsible for enforcement, not without our civil liberties being seriously affected.
http://benjamindean.com/blog/make-money-by-giving-it-away/
Music should tell you something about the health of your social environment. Recorded music is a lie, and propagation should not be supported. Of course like with any addictive racket, the law takes a piece of the action..
new laws that permit the RIAA to torture those who brake the DMCA. Simple water-boarding and asset seizures are not enough. Clearly, it must be televised live and involve the tearing of flesh. As we heat up the rhetoric about the Iranians, clearly the country is ready for this.
They do it on http://www.magnatune.com/ but then rock stars would rather be rock stars than be good artists.
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
Copyright law isn't working. DUH!! I knew that before they even started. They might catch a few smalltime downloaders, but the real pirates are passing under their noses.
For whom is copyright law "not working"?
C|N>K
Hiya.
Added to my processing list. I'll drop you a reply note sometime.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
in the not-too-distant-future, musicians will no longer be robbed blind by record execs, but will be robbed blind by Standard Oil-like non-neutral ISPs, demanding a huge cut to ensure uptime and QOS.
Don't forget people whistling copyrighted songs in public. Those people should be paying royalties too!
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1764066&cid=33378014
(Where proof exists that clone53421 doesn't know how to program properly to save his life, and, that he is a "batch boy" at best/most, and not a coder in languages like C/C++, Delphi, VB, or any other truly widely used language in industry/professionally for decades now since he cited what a batchfile tech might in %ProgramFiles% and not the API calls necessary to use environment variables in say, C or C++)
In the url above, clone53421 additionally tried the old troll's "partial quote only" trick where the ac opponent he had had noted C and C++ also, where clone53421 omitted his opponent's mention of C/C++, and his ac opponent also showed that Delphi was proven faster than MSVC++ and VB by far in math and strings also in a publication that's about VB no less, and in math and strings work, which every program does by the way, where clone53421 tried to put that language down.
(Hilarious, and clone53421 also tried to fool everyone, by replying as an ac no less on his part rather than under his registered luser account here, like that fooled anybody as well (not))
+
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33378404 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
(On HOSTS files vs. Adblock, where clone53421 had to go so far off topic it was amazing, and he would do anything to avoid disproving the points posted in favor of HOSTS files vs. adblock (where once again, he cannot, and it is also where clone53421 also tried to fool everyone, by replying as an ac yet again as he did in the url above also, no less, once more on his part rather than under his registered luser account here... once more, like that fooled anybody (not)))
Clone53421 was "pwned" soundly on technical matters, and he also laughingly later had resorted to trying to "hide" his errors first by posting off topic to each in reply as anonymous coward also, doubtless in some PUNY attempt to defend himself and FAILING hugely in both links above!
(LMAO: Clone53421 also later yesterday did tons of posts so others would not see his huge mistakes in those urls above via his post history in some attempt on his part to "bury his blunders" in BOTH urls above, & under the tide of the rest of his bullshit and mistakes yesterday (utterly hilarious)).
Poor performance clone (no small wonder you GOT OWNED, lol, and 2 times in a row yesterday by the same ac no less). You did the same here, If anyone is full of bullshit on this website, as you used that term yourself here? Based on the above, it is you, clearly. Don't try to play smart or expert here clone53421, as it only exposes you as the utterly unqualified and inept blunderer you clearly are.