Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lawyer Complains DMCA May Need Revamp
the simurgh writes "The DMCA is just not providing the kind of protection against online piracy that Congress intended, RIAA lawyer Jennifer Pariser says. The judge in Universal Music Group's copyright suit against Veoh as well as the judge in EMI vs. MP3tunes.com issued similar findings. The courts have now determined the burden of policing the web for infringing materials is on the content owner and not the service provider. Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money. What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately. Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense."
Working as intended, then.
Hopefully, the Waaaaaaahmbulance is available.
Seriously, they engage in all manner of illegal investigation and questionable lawsuit, and now they're whining about the fact that it's their responsibility to police their content? If this was a small company, I could totally understand, but this is an industry that takes in billions of dollars every year. If they can't afford to bring a few lawsuits, perhaps they need a new business model.
It takes electricity to power those copying material. I guess the power companies should also police the web.
---------------
One idiot to bind them all.
Since the copyright owner is the one who profits from their exclusive legislatively-granted monopoly, they _should_ bear the costs of enforcement. Who else can decide that enforcement is worthwhile? Blanket enforcement is far too chilling on free speech and fair use. Not that the RIAA recognizes either, so why recognize them?
Because *OBVIOUSLY* it doesn't cost the service providers ANYTHING to go through all those DMCA notices, check the legal validity, ensure the content is on their systems, isolate it and remove, reply to the DMCA, handle appeals etc.
They make it sound like 100% of the burden is on the record companies, etc. when actually there's just as much hassle for everyone involved (courts included). What they've noticed is that there are JUST TOO MANY files out there that could be the valid subject of a legal DMCA notice but that neither they, the courts, or the service providers can really handle the sheer volume. So their complaint is to make someone else pay for it, in time, effort, money and liability when they get it wrong.
I don't think that stands up, really, as an argument. And it makes you wonder why they ever bothered at all. There are international users who will, just for mischief, repost anything that you don't like. And you'll struggle to take it down and will *never* legally stop them posting it somewhere else - or even the same place (it might not even be illegal in their country to "infringe" that copyright, for instance).
I don't think it's a valid response to the problems. Now, if you'd pushed for harsher sentences, greater fines, etc. to try to put people off repeat offending, then your argument would at least be consistent. PR suicide, but consistent. Their next step can really only be pushing for more punishment and harsher law (how they carries to international or anonymous users is left as an exercise to the user), or to realise that it was always a bit pointless to play Whack-a-mole over an MP3 that you're already making MILLIONS from.
The option "It's not working, so we want someone else to do our job and provide repercussions to people who pirate for us" isn't really sensible or logical.
FUCK THEM. They are raking in fat stacks of cash every year off of their supposedly well-honed machine, they should be responsible for policing their own content. It is not the responsibility of the government of the United States or any other country to police the Internet looking for content violations. Most governments have put in place laws and regulations that allow the "owner" of the content to be able to work within that system and get rid of infringing copies - AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. Not at the expense of the taxpayers.
Fuck you if you expect me and 250+ million other taxpayers help you sue for damages when we don't see a dime of that unless we are a luxury car dealer or real estate agent (or a lawyer). Not to mention that the net effect on the United States of corporatism laws like the DMCA and extended copyright periods is that we, as a nation, are less and less LEADING the way into new science and technology frontiers and more and more about holding the status quo or LOSING ground to other nations who don't exactly give a shit about the laws of the United States.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Guess what. The patent system and the copyright system require that holders of such must protect and defend their own material. The patent and copyright laws give them the legal means to do so (but they must provide the lawyers). If they demand that the ISP's do their dirty work, they should be required to pay the ISP's for the service. They have to pay their lawyers.
Let the content owners police their content or go out of business. It's not like we have a shortage of musicians, artists, and filmmakers in our society. I'm not paying to fund a third party to protect their business model.
Blar.
If someone hurts your rights, you have to take legal action yourself. Why would the content industry be an exception? And in fact, the DMCA already requires service providers to police their users, as they are bound to remove content upon mere accusations without any proof that it actually infringes the IP of the rightsholder. The content industry should not be treated differently from any other one: if they think someone is hurting their rights they should stand up for themselves and take legal action against the person in question, not run to the government/service provider to help.
Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money.
And car manufacturers should pay for smuggling, because most smuggling happens by cars so clearly that drives the sales of cars. Or transporting stolen goods. Or for speeding, because clearly they make money on letting you speed.
What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately
And how exactly would putting the burden on the service provider help that? It wouldn't but it makes their impossible problem the ISP or hosting company's impossible problem. If you can't solve it, pass it. You can then wail forever that they're never doing enough.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most insightful comment.
A corporation does not have the "right" to exist, or to make a profit, or to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The best thing that could happen is if every member of the RIAA was boycotted to the point of going out of business, just to show them who's boss. I know I'm doing my part.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Copyright and Patents are merely two systems of dozens that are broken in the exact same way.
This happens when people can buy power in the government and can write their own laws.
The thing is, while I quite happily and shamelessly download stuff from the internet, I'm not quite sure it should be legal. I consider it a little anti-social to acquire too much media this way. As far as moral reprehensibility goes, I consider it to be equivalent to parking illegally. I'm quite happy to forgive someone who stops for 5 minutes and doesn't cause an obstruction, but don't think that this means we should abolish all parking restrictions.
Since copyright is to encourage writers and artists to create, it must be prospective and not retroactive. Retroactive grants ("extentions") cannot influence creation already made!
Second, as a prospective inducement, copyright is subject to the power of compound interest -- 15 years is close to 25 and 95 is not much more when discounted at commercial rates of interest. A short term would be sufficient inducement/reward, and longer terms are wasteful and hobble society. Patents only run 17 years! Why should copyrights be longer? The value of series like Sherlock Holmes, StarTrek/Wars was initially in the creation, but now is mostly in the preceptions (mindshare) of society at large. The claim has lapsed.
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
Perhaps it is copyright law that should be changed instead. For starters, we could limit the inconvenience of policing their own content at their own expense to 15 years.
Then why is marijuana still illegal? Why does everyone on the highway pass me when I'm doing the speed limit?
Free Martian Whores!
The problem began when some person, probably in PR, came up with the term "Intellectual property". It caught on as the RIAA and others realized the power of the term in making it seem that that information can be "owned" like a house or a car. Now the meme has taken hold, people ARE thinking of information in the same class and, instead of fostering innovation, it is strangling it.
And don't forget to let your congress critter know what you think of the "Protect IP" act which will largely codify that information is "owned" and take it further by allowing them to control what is said on the Internet. (Not that it will help unless you have the sort of money that can compete with the entertainment lobby.) "Protect IP" will be the end of the Internet as we know it.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired