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."
So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!
I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?
To which these particular copyright holders would respond, "what fair-use?".
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
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.
Music, and musicians, existed and even thrived for thousands of years before anyone thought up copyrights.
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.
You don't. The RIAA, and other such organizations, do not believe in fair use. They are in fact, very bitter about it.
Their preferred world is one in which they can deny, or enjoy forced monetization, of all content and the burden of defense, both financially, and legally, is borne by those least capable to do so.
Your question about rights is interesting too. I currently have a problem with this very situation with YouTube. I do have rights to use a song in videos and get flagged on a constant basis by the fingerprint system. Guess what their solution to the problem is? MMO DRM. In their solution I would need to embed my own personal code in the video when uploaded to authorize its use. Of course the next logical step is to create licensing rights that demand a per viewing fee.....
It's such a shame that music has been ruined by money.
Oh wait, no it's not. Money and advertising are no longer difficult hurdles to overcome for a talented independent musician. True, modern technology is a big reason why so many musicians are able to get their work out in the wild now, but think how many of those people have been driven to do it on their own due to record companies' douchbaggery.
I'm extremely happy that most of the real talent comes from a random dude in a basement with a homemade vocal booth, or some chick jamming on a synth in a bedroom. Being able to get our own emotions and musical inspirations available to the public so easily (and cheaply!) is, in my opinion, one of the greatest side effects of the Internet.
Living With a Nerd