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."

Comments

What a coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[Captain Spam]

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?".

Re:What a coincidence

[meerling]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[EdIII]

how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?

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.....

Re:What a coincidence

[TheLink]

What if it was intentionally uploaded by the copyright holders themselves, or by those they authorized to do so?

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/32061

quote:
      For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Re:What a coincidence

[Pojut]

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.

Re:What a coincidence

[uniquename72]

As someone with a degree in Music History, I can assure you you're wrong. "Works for hire" are actually fairly rare in the history of music. More often (at least for the past 300 years or so) musicians had a patron who supported them financially so that they could create their art. In this model, the composer isn't selling their work; they are driven to create, and a rich patron who appreciates that work has made it easier by supporting them. There is no modern equivalent in pop music.

In Bach's case, he was just a craftsman who was hired to practice his craft by the church (among others). But he vastly surpassed what he was actually remunerated for. Chopin also often wrote music without expectation of remuneration.

So it's a vast simplification to call music throughout history a "commercial endeavor". Historically, it's been an artistic endeavor that is occasionally profitable, or a craft no different than glass-blowing or shoe-fixing. A job, yes. But one with very little in common with today's "job." Certainly the idea of becoming wealthy for an hour's worth of music that's basically aping what everyone else is doing would never have occurred to any composer you can name.

So...

[mark72005]

So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!

I agree with RIAA

[theaveng]

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

Holy protection racket ...

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Why stop there?

[TubeSteak]

Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

Youtube and rapidshare allow people to post content and the law doesn't require them to do anything until someone complains about it.
Despite that, both companies will block previously uploaded content by hash and Rapidshare relatively recently stopped their rapidshare
points program because they say it encouraged uploading of copyright infringement.

All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries"
Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.

The big Picture

[FudRucker]

The Big Picture