Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants To Scrap Anti-Piracy OPEN Act
silentbrad writes with these selections from an article at Ars Technica: "The Recording Industry Association of America found itself in an unusual position this week: opposing an anti-piracy bill that's gaining momentum in Congress ... the RIAA argues the bill won't be effective at shutting down rogue sites. The trade group warns of 'indefinite delays' as claims of infringement are investigated. And it complains that the process envisioned by OPEN would allow for 'endless submissions by parties such as Google,' further gumming up the process. All the while, the alleged rogue site would be able to continue operating. The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.' The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."
But, but, due process is so Hard!
You wouldn't be able to arbitrarily control the entire internet under the new model. How terrible.
The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'
What part of copyright law do you currently NOT have to hire a lawyer in order to get 'justice?'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Someone outside of the minority of educated humans may see the hypocrisy involved here.
Bah
Is anyone really surprised by this? (Well, any /. readers?)
Their "we don't your site around here" legislation got kicked to the curb, and because this doesn't give them the power to shut off whatever websites they feel like, "it's too weak".
BULL. SHIT.
Deal with it, RIAA. Deal with the fact that you might actually have to prove your case before hammering someone with punitive fines/jail time/freezing in carbonite. (Sorry, been playing a lot of SWTOR)
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I think it's obvious to all that these guys just want the power to kill any website they wish with little oversight...
Arguing ridiculous ideas like this demonstrates that they are pretty much the last people we should hand over the power to do so.
>> The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'
Funny how they're not concerned about those same legal costs that innocent individuals have to face to defend themselves, when the RIAA spam arbitrary blocks of John Does with threatening lawyers letters that amount to extortion.
The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'
as if they are representing ANY small business.
im a foreigner - but even i learned it ; whenever some politician/lobbyist uses the word 'small business' in american politics, small business has nothing to do with it and its for some fucking 4-5 megacorp monopolizing in any field related to that law/bill.
Read radical news here
Rough translation: "This bill doesn't go far enough and it's going to cost us money. Please kill this bill and surrender the internet NOW or kiss your campaign contributions goodbye. What we want is the US government to go anywhere any time we pull their chains and stomp all over those eeeeeeeeeeeevil pirates who are anti-American, anti-corporate profits and obviously terrorrorrorrorrists too. We'll have the new bill in your office so you can jam it through just before elections and don't forget to pick up your checks."
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.'
This is, again, the scariest part of their campaign. The ability of sites to not be liable (unless they ignore takedown requests) is the best part of the (otherwise pretty crappy) DMCA, and the XXAA want to undo it. They don't care in the least that it would end every social collaboration web site (like slashdot), because they think their old business models (pay the radio, tv, and newspaper to advertise, then reap profit via local stores and theaters) would spring back to life if we didn't waste all our time and money on the internet.
Seriously, the only way this will end is if someone puts a bullet in them. And by bullet, I mean hostile takeover. And by someone, I mean Google. And if Apple just so happens to take over another one of them a few days later, oh well. Maybe Microsoft would even like to own a music label? Hell, isn't EMI suffering and looking for a buyer?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
... I'm suddenly very much for it.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
It's not fair to them until they can have their system of guilty until proven innocent. Or rather guilty until guilty guilty guilty.
If this OPEN Act passes, RIAA won't be able to push for a more draconian version written by them because Congress will say "we already have an act for that". As it stands right now, they can whine that there is an immediate need to "do something" hasty and ream some of their own legislation through. Or perhaps they prever to do their legislation in secret via international trade agreements like ACTA and the recently uncovered TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement).
Between ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA only in the past year, it seems there is a relentless barrage of fire against fair use that can only end bad for us.
Hey, if the oil industry and bankers can have them, why not these guys? It's only fair
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
And it couldn't be the provision that allows the committee to fine groups who submit false claims. Cause that never, ever happens.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
No. It's still a step in the wrong direction. What we need to do is repeal the last couple of copyright acts
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires.
If it's too hard to prove that someone is guilty, then maybe - just maybe - they aren't.
They insist on chasing down the wrong people - innocent websites - and they complain that it's hard to prove guilt?
On the other hand, it would be trivial to prove that a user infringed willfully... but there's very little money to be made in that.
Due Process is so expensive. Can't let an irrelevant thing like 3,000 years of developing the Rule of Law get in the way of all the Benjamins, now.
put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'
When an industry lobby organisation suddenly finds its heart for those who are not amongst its members, you know something is up.
These guys aren't a non-profit. They are paid to do their job.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think I need to just continually post this, and send it (or more "respectable" transcripts, to all my congressional representatives. We don't need new laws for the internet! Our current ones work just fine, thank you. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2508#comic (Sorry for the double-post, I forgot to log in)
This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
Well, actually, no you're not. Especially if you can be labeled terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, or terrorist suspect in any way, shape or form.
Check your premises.
As I understand it, strict liability means one is found guilty and punished despite having taken due care to prevent something from happening. How many of these strict liability crimes under state law lead to imprisonment, not just a fine? I was under the impression that they were mostly traffic violations and the like.
Close--that is more about the difference between tort standards of negligence v. strict liability. In the criminal context, strict liability would mean more that someone didn't have to prove that you knew you were doing something wrong. For example, I believe that Congress adjusted the anti-money-laundering laws after Ratzlaf so that structuring transactions to avoid the AML reporting laws was a strict liability offense, because the Supreme Court had interpreted the statute so that someone had to be aware that avoiding the reporting requirements was illegal in order for it to be a crime. (The new law overturned the Supreme Court decision.)
It's mostly regulatory, but not always. But it's not something that has ever been held to implicate due process, to my knowledge.
Obviously, if any of this matters for a legal reason, consult an attorney.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
accusation alone ought to be enough. only communists and terrorists demand proof before guilt is established.
I would be prepared to forfeit the due process up front, allowing sites to be shut down immediately, on one condition. In the event of a false take down, the company making the claim must turn over their entire company/assets/stocks/everything to the wrongly accused.
Seems fair enough. If they are making a fair accusation, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But they can't just fling shit and see where it sticks, or make up stuff, or bully, or wrongfully accuse without penalty. Also, the company in question must make the claim, not some small shell company they own that has no assests/etc.
"THE INTERNETS ARE BEING MEAN!"
*bangs table*
*throws strained peas at the wall*
Surely that's between the songwriter and the recording artist, is it not?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.