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.
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!
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 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.
they are a monopoly and certainly do not help the Artists they say that are representing.
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.
> 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.
If it's worth the effort then it's worth the effort.
Clearly, Big Content would rather not be bothered.
Therefore, it can't really be that important.
The notion of "copyright violation" or "piracy" really isn't the point.
The industry needs to demonstrate what actual harm is being done when
some toddler dances to a song that is old enough that it should already
be in the public domain by now.
The law not working? So sad. Big Media paid for it after all.
As much as they have corrupted the system, they are really in no position to whine.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"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.
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?
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.
Hey, there always "America's Funniest Home Videos"!
"..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.
I understand the holder has to defend their copyright in order for the copyright to remain valid,
Uh... No. Not true at all. You're confusing Copyright Law with Trademark Law.
YouTube is actually a very poor example for your point -- they have all sorts of ways to filter out copyrighted content -- they have a content matching system, users can flag materials, and they respond to DMCA takedown notices.
If you want to go after somebody, go after the people who are posting copyright material on YouTube. Why make YouTube responsible for what users do?
The Big Picture
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
MD = Media Dump
CH = Copyright Holder
CH 0000001 has 30 pieces of work that they want MD to monitor for and prevent from being displayed.
CH 0000002 has 1700 pieces and wants the same thing.
MD gets about 2000 files uploaded everyday, so that means they have to check all 2000 against 1730 pieces of work. Not fun for them, and what liability do they have to face if they miss one?
Ah... we forgot something... There are THOUSANDS of CH with quantities of works ranging from 1 to many thousands. The amount of work (and liability) that MD would have to deal with goes up at an insane rate. MD has NO vested interest in those pieces of work, and can not be expected to take on the task of policing the activities of other people, even though they use the service provided by MD. Are you expected to check the criminal record and intentions of everyone that walks down the sidewalk in front of your house because the police don't want to? No. It's up the the CH to defend their own copyright, and not to force someone else to do it for them.
"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.
Because the paid damn good money to get their guys into office!
Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Yep...
"'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..."
He essentially believes New Media and the Digital Economy owes the RIAA a living, and wants to change legislation to make this happen. Hopefully legislators tell him he's off his rocker.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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)
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.
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