Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Failed To Disclose Expert's Lobbying History To "Six-Strikes" Partners

Posted by samzenpus on from the home-team-experts dept.

concealment writes "A month before the controversial 'six strikes' anti-piracy plan goes live in the U.S., the responsible Center of Copyright Information (CCI) is dealing with a small crisis. As it turns out the RIAA failed to mention to its partners that the 'impartial and independent' technology expert they retained previously lobbied for the music industry group. In a response to the controversy, CCI is now considering whether it should hire another expert to evaluate the anti-piracy monitoring technology."

34 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. Scumbags by jasper160 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only ones to believe the RIAA are the politicians they bought off.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
    1. Re:Scumbags by elloGov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only ones to believe the RIAA are the politicians they bought off.

      Right on! You forgot to add the Internet Service Providers.

      ISPs get the benefit of less bandwidth usage and grounds on which they can throttle your connection to a grade above dial-up and/or suspend services all the while you pay them your monthly contract/non-contract fee. It's a win-win for all scumbags, everyone gets thrown a bone.

    2. Re:Scumbags by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only ones to believe the RIAA are the politicians they bought off.

      Well, that's not entirely true. Anyone not on the "free lunch" bandwagon understands that the creators of these works should be compensated. And copyright is what makes the GPL and its many related licenses possible. In fact, Linux as you know it wouldn't exist without copyright. The problem isn't copyright as an idea -- it's copyright as it is implimented today. These politicians were sold on the idea that the current implimentation is the best, quite literally. The argument is that protections are needed for the way business is done today, otherwise that business would evaporate, leading to a loss of jobs, income, etc. Most politicians are lawyers, not economists, and certainly not "technologists". They don't understand the finer nuances of the market, nor how technology interoperates with it. They are therefore incapable of conceptualizing any alternative to the status quo, and absent that, their default vote is to support it.

      But people like us, the technologically-literate, are painfully aware of how limiting current copyright is, and how disadvantaging it is to newcomers to the market and consumers as a whole. We can see new ways of doing business that (and this has been proven multiple times!) satisfy multiple goals of personal use, fair use, time shifting, etc., while also providing a source of revenue to the creators of these works that, thanks to decreased distribution costs would earn them more money. The entertainment industry as an aggregate entity would make more money with a less restrictive public policy. You know this. I know this. The authors know this. But the politicians and the general public don't, because they're only hearing from one side: The side that has a lot of money to burn to make sure it's the only side they hear.

      In the few cases where the public became aware of how the industry works, the response was swift and overwhelmingly against it. SOPA, ACTA, CISPA... many attempts have been made, and even when it's been behind closed doors, shrouded in "national security", eventually it gets leaked and everyone involved gets roasted for it. This is a system that depends on misdirection, deception at the highest levels, and heavy spending on marketing and public relations to maintain itself. It has co-opted our legal and judicial systems and is now trying to insinuate itself into the private sector as well via policies and procedures designed to further defray the costs of maintaining this expensive superstructure that makes everyone a criminal.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Scumbags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Well, that's not entirely true. Anyone not on the "free lunch" bandwagon understands that the creators of these works should be compensated.

      RIAA doesn't compensate creators.

      And copyright is what makes the GPL and its many related licenses possible.

      Without copyright it wouldn't be needed.

      In fact, Linux as you know it wouldn't exist without copyright.

      Not a fact.

    4. Re:Scumbags by pantaril · · Score: 2

      Anyone not on the "free lunch" bandwagon understands that the creators of these works should be compensated. And copyright is what makes the GPL and its many related licenses possible

      You are making mistake when you thing that compensation for authors and copyright must be the same think. There are certainly people (like me) who think that copyright is big obstacle (for sharing of information, culture and science, building upon it and extending it, archiving it for future generations, it's also dangerous to freedom on internet) but are not in any "free lunch" bandwagon. We just think that there are better ways to compensate authors without creating any artifical barriers (tax-payers funded foundations, where authors would sell their works to public using kickstarter-like systems for example). Without copyright, the big media associations would lose control over distribution channels, they woul lose their way to set new trends in entertainment. Public interest in their production would decrease and as a consequence, their profit. That is IMO the reason big media is fighting so hard for copyright. They want control over distribution.

      You mentionet GPL. Sure, GPL would not exist without copyright (it was created in response to unreasonable copyright), but would it be needed? BSD-licenced open source programs are doing quite fine even when copyright still exists. Motivation for comercial companies to keep their sources closed would certainly decrease without copyright. Some my still do it in an attempt for vendor lock-in but IMO it's questionable if it would be major problem.

  2. Vote With Your Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others.

    When media that can't be shared can't be sold (because nobody will buy it), that will be the end of piracy and a great day for all of humanity.

    1. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it not ok to share something that the original creator wants you to share? Because it cuts into the market for crap that people don't want you to share?

      Is it wrong for me to give away open source software like open office, mysql or linux? Just because it devalues ms office, oracle db, or mac os x?

      Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

    2. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by Quakeulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meanwhile the gangsters in the songs sing all about stealin' and lootin' and we are supposed to buy this music when it advocates the opposite?

    3. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

      Calm down. It's pretty obvious that the GP misconstrued what was being said, failing to make the GGP's distinction between "sharing" and "legally sharing."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't just the pirating itself. It is the word of mouth that follows when the games and movies are discussed with friends and co-workers.

      With music and games borrowing makes more sense because it is like sampling. But for consume once or consume rarely material like books and movies borrowing doesn't add anything so much as world of mouth. You could have 1000 people read your book and have every single one of them buy it, or you could have 100,000 people read your book and have 10,000 of them buy it. Which method do you think does a better job of boosting your next book's sales? Same with movies except all those people might be crediting a genre or a studio, or a couple actors, rather than the writer getting the credit.

      Do people still pirate music? Pandora is more than sufficient for that.

      I don't even think people listen to music anymore. They just shake their asses to bass thump patterns at clubs.

    5. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fucking fuck explicitly said its not ok to legally share (open source) content because it takes money from the people who sell the same type of product. That is the fucking issue. And that is why I am morally required to say fuck you to the fucking fuck, and now to you as well.

    6. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by robot256 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, half of you are mssing what the original Anonymous Coward said: "Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others." (emphasis mine). So the works he advocates sharing are, like open-source software, explicitly allowed by their creators for such purposes. Among other things, this includes the growing body of music released under the Creative Commons licenses.

      Nadaka went apeshit because he was responding to a comment that seemed to suggest that even sharing music whose creator wants it to be shared is somehow wrong, which is a primary FUD tactic used by the MAFIAA to shut down ALL file sharing, not just illegal file sharing. That's basically the whole discussion encapsulated into three posts.

    7. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      sorry, wrong.

      It's not even a question of legal or not. Just because RIAA and MPAA made it a glaring issue doesn't mean that I will stop intentionally downloading everything, illegally or legally, anything and everything. Whether I pay for something is *my* choice. That is not a question of access. I already have access, so there's no question of "am I going to pay or not?". That's a decision I make solely on the basis of whether or not the content creator respects that it's 2012 or not. Humblebundles? Bought every one. Series on TV? Never buying any. TV? Don't even watch it. Movies? Don't even go to theatres anymore.

      Just because the laws are behind the times doesn't mean the people using the technology are - and we're not going to wait for the laws to get updated, either.

      "piracy" is something involving pirates of the sea. Try using an actual word - software piracy not being an accurate one for associating things involving RIAA/MPAA either.

    8. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      "apparently I need to be a shit-ton clearer when posting on this site, because people here love to interpret things as negatively as possible so they can have a mental breakdown"

      It's a big problem: things like people being unclear, people expecting everyone to have the same reference points, and people interpreting to fit their perspective. For example:

      "Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others. When media that can't be shared can't be sold ... that will be the end of piracy and a great day for all of humanity."

      "When you talk about sharing, I know for a fact you're talking about copying and giving someone that copy so they don't have to pay for it"

    9. Re:Vote With Your Wallet by shiftless · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you want "entertainment and culture" go see live shows or otherwise patronize performers and artists who are using your preferred business model.

      No.

      Now what?

      Or, for that matter, develop appropriate talents

      I did. I'm a fucking fantastic singer....BECAUSE OF FILE SHARING.

  3. Why? by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements are unacceptable. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.

    So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?

    Maybe this will bring on monopoly break up, once people realize there is no alternative ISP one can turn to (in most areas). Wouldn't that be wonderful...

    1. Re:Why? by Mitreya · · Score: 2
      The more I read, the more fascinating it gets:

      While there are worse punishments one can think of, AT&T worryingly notes that the alerts may eventually result in a lawsuit.

      I was thinking AT&T foresees the lawsuits that they are certain to face for mistakenly identifying customers as infringers or for not having enough evidence to conclude that infringing took place. How wrong I was....

      âoeAfter the fifth alert, the content owner may pursue legal action against the customer, and may seek a court order requiring AT&T to turn over personal information to assist the litigation,â AT&T explains.

      I am sure many people at AT&T will lose a lot of sleep worrying about their customers being sued.

    2. Re:Why? by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?

      The Terms of Service of course. The problem you'll face here is that they're completely within their rights to run a regime like this provided it's in the contract. Just like they can terminate your account for all sorts of shit.

      And consider yourself fortunate. In my country, it's three strikes, and it's enshrined in law thanks to your fucking government.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:Why? by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the ISP was granted a local monopoly, received government money to build the infrastructure, was granted access to right-of-ways, or was licensed spectruem, it had better not be within its rights to punish citizens for alleged infringements.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    4. Re:Why? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US may be a bully, but realistically your Government is a piece shit wimp if it felt "forced" to create such a law. Kind of like its citizens, apparently.

    5. Re:Why? by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And consider yourself fortunate. In my country, it's three strikes, and it's enshrined in law thanks to your fucking government.

      No, it's enshrined in law thanks to your government. Presuming you live in anything like a democracy, it's your (and your compatriots) fault you elected a government that bows down to another government, if in fact that is what happened. Much more likely is that they bowed down to the corporations directly, of course, likely a local branch, possibly even, completely unconnected to "his" government, such as BREIN.

      On a side note, why do you presume to know what government he lives under? Non-US citizens bitch about Slashdot assuming their readers live in the US, and yet it seems even the non-US readers do so. Interesting, that (or maybe you know the OP lives in the US from another source, in which case ignore this paragraph).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Why? by socrplayr813 · · Score: 2

      While the RIAA and US government are far from innocent, it is in fact YOUR government that is to blame if you have a problem with the laws in your country. Get busy fixing it instead of blaming others for your problems.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    7. Re:Why? by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      It's assumed that they're in the US based on their mention of monopoly break up and no competition - it's unlikely anyone who doesn't live there would have that level of caring.

      And for what it's worth, no, we do have 3 strikes because of the US government, who literally paid for and wrote the drafts of the law.

      If you are a US citizen, you should be concerned about your government using taxpayer money to write laws for other countries to benefit large corporations.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    8. Re:Why? by shiftless · · Score: 2

      I don't think your really understand the way the world works.
      The US is in charge and if you don't do what they want, then the US can make life very difficult for you and your citizens.

      BECAUSE YOU ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD WHEN THEY BULLY YOU. Grow a pair of fucking balls and it won't happen. Yes our government is shit, but you have only yourself to blame if you're allowing it to affect you in Bumfuckistan or wherever you're from.

  4. For an "independent review" or "appearances" by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would actually sort of hope that the Center of Copyright Information (CCI) would have some sort of internal expertise in anti-piracy monitoring technology. Because if they don't then they are nothing but a front for someone else anyways.

    If an organization does not have iternal experts then it can be nothing other than a front for someone else.

  5. RIAA = world class liars and scumbags by swschrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for decades, the people that have been screwing musicians out of their ownership, royalties, and publicity have been... the owner/member labels comprising the RIAA. lawsuit after lawsuit from music giants have proved that "Hollywood accounting" has always been the hallmark of RIAA members. nobody should expect a straight answer from RIAA, except maybe for the phono equalization curve.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  6. I'm speechless by cvtan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED!

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  7. An Opportunity by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

    This is an opening to attack the credibility of the software.

    Let's say major flaws are found. What would that do to the credibility of the RIAA? If they hired an expert who would give flawed software a passing grade, does that expose them to any sort of liability?

    1. Re:An Opportunity by Volntyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's someone out there that sees the RIAA as credible?

      Of Course! The MPAA

  8. Shocking! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am shocked, indeed I am doubly shocked. Firstly by the revelation that the blessed RIAA would inadvertently indulge in such underhand behavior, and secondly that the always-pure politicians and incorruptible bureaucrats would accidentally succumb to those shenanigans (and the associated funds, junkets, hookers, and other tempting perquisites, with blackmail as the alternative).

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  9. Big surprise by Morpf · · Score: 2

    I would never have thought the RIAA could ever do this. It was the last bastion of integrity.

  10. Re:Lucrative Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is the startup costs required for the necessary resources (assuming US based):

    1. Five in-house lawyers (one general counsel, one copyright law, one criminal attorney, two contract law [ to avoid getting cut off by upstream providers ])
    2. Three firms for outside counsel (one copyright, one contract, one criminal)
    3. Five lobbyists - 2 local/state, 2 US House, 1 US Senate
    4. One public relations team to unspin the argument that you are harboring pedophiles and terrorists
    5. One government relations team
    6. One fully funded 527/PAC
    7. One marketing team to explain to "normal" users why they should pay more for privacy (to dilute the percentage of your customers who are pedophiles and terrorists)
    8. Six hookers on standby
    9. 10 kilos of cocaine

    Oh, and you might need some of those computery things too.

  11. Re:Lucrative Business by BorgDrone · · Score: 2

    We can't even stand up against election fraud.

    What election fraud ? As if there is a need for it.

  12. Welcome to days ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/10/22/6-strikes-copyright-trolling-without-courts/

    Coverage on Torrentfreak, Boingboing, even Techdirt.
    There is so much misunderstanding about what this system is, how they are doing it, and more... because they kept it all secret.

    The company that is capturing the IP addresses for them was used in AFACT vs iiNET in Oz. They got the IP's they collected by having their agent SEED THE FILES. Think about that. They created the situation they claim is destroying their business, so they could try to get the Government to give them the power to ban people from the net, while making the ISP foot the bill. And this is their agent who will be collecting IP addresses for this clusterfook.

    They claim loses of billions of dollars, and yet won't spend any money to stop it... if you could spend a million to get back a chunk of a billion would you?

    Welcome to corporate law. You have no rights, you have no recourse unless you pay for the chance and even then your limited to 1 of 6 responses that do not reflect reality, and then your claim is heard by an arbitrator hired by the corporation. Seems legit to me...