Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Asks US Government To Reconsider Website Blocking (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: At the start of this decade, U.S. lawmakers drafted several controversial bills to make it easier for copyright holders to enforce their rights online. These proposals, including SOPA and PIPA, were met with fierce resistance from the public as well as major technology companies. They feared that the plans, which included pirate site-blocking measures, went too far. In the many years that followed, the "site blocking" issue was avoided like the plague. The aversion was mostly limited to the U.S., as website blocking became more and more common abroad, where it's one of the entertainment industries' preferred anti-piracy tools.
Emboldened by these foreign successes, it appears that rightsholders in the U.S. are now confident enough to bring the subject up again, albeit very gently. Most recently the site-blocking option was mentioned in a joint letter (PDF) from the RIAA and the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), which contained recommendations to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) Vishal Amin. The IPEC requested input from the public on the new version of its Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement. According to the music industry groups, website blocking should be reconsidered an anti-piracy tool. "There are several changes that should be made legislatively to help legal authorities and third parties better protect intellectual property rights," the music groups write. "These include fixing the DMCA, making it a felony to knowingly engage in unauthorized streaming of copyrighted works, and investigating the positive impact that website blocking of foreign sites has in other jurisdictions and whether U.S. law should be revised accordingly."
"As website blocking has had a positive impact in other countries without significant unintended consequences, the U.S. should reconsider adding this to its anti-piracy tool box," the RIAA and NMPA write.
Emboldened by these foreign successes, it appears that rightsholders in the U.S. are now confident enough to bring the subject up again, albeit very gently. Most recently the site-blocking option was mentioned in a joint letter (PDF) from the RIAA and the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), which contained recommendations to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) Vishal Amin. The IPEC requested input from the public on the new version of its Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement. According to the music industry groups, website blocking should be reconsidered an anti-piracy tool. "There are several changes that should be made legislatively to help legal authorities and third parties better protect intellectual property rights," the music groups write. "These include fixing the DMCA, making it a felony to knowingly engage in unauthorized streaming of copyrighted works, and investigating the positive impact that website blocking of foreign sites has in other jurisdictions and whether U.S. law should be revised accordingly."
"As website blocking has had a positive impact in other countries without significant unintended consequences, the U.S. should reconsider adding this to its anti-piracy tool box," the RIAA and NMPA write.
Taking away people's right to vote and own firearms because of streaming? Wow, talk about overreach. This should get laughed right out of Washington. Problem is, there's enough money behind it that it probably won't.
It's the legal streaming sites that are killing the music industry. Local artists were able to make a living and even thrive 10 years ago during the period of rampant piracy. Streaming seems to do well for the top 100 artists, but is killing the local music scene. One local artist laments "This song has been in the TOP 20 charts (CBC Radio 2 & 3) for 10 weeks, climbed to #3. In 2018 that equals $44.99 in sales."
This is an artist that was previously able to make a living through digital downloads. The ecosystem was much healthier in the rampant piracy years of the 2000s.
I'd disagree. With copyright, I can publish a book and be assured that someone else (say, a large publisher) won't just grab the text of my book and sell it without giving me any money. I can also be assured that a potential movie produced from my work would earn me money instead of a studio simply taking the work and making a movie without paying me anything.
The real problem is that the length of copyright protection has been abused horribly. Copyright serves a valuable purpose as a LIMITED monopoly, but large corporations have essentially removed the "limited" portion. (Yes, it's still technically limited in that you can wait for about 95-120 years to use the work, but that's literally a lifetime so it might as well be forever.)
Copyright should be reverted to the 14 year span plus an additional 14 years if you renew the work. I'd even be willing to compromise with the large companies who would suddenly see a huge amount of their work entering the public domain. Everything produced up to the start of the "Original Copyright Term Length Act" would be assumed to be automatically renewed. Furthermore, we would phase it in for old works. Start with everything produced in the 1920's and 1930's that is still under copyright protection. Then, after 3 years, everything from the 1940's. And so on until everything is either Public Domain or covered under the new law. Yes, it would take 27 years to completely catch up, but it would give businesses time to shift their strategies to accommodate the new (old?) laws of the land.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
the automatic and complete forfeiture of copyrights to the public domain IF a even a single false infringement take down notice is filed on behalf of a copyright holder.
;)
Just my 2 cents
Copyright is rent-seeking and harms society as a whole. It should not exist at all.
Really? You've found a solution to the free rider problem as it applies to creative works? Please publish it and collect your Nobel Prize in Economics immediately because nobody else has found a better solution.
Copyright needs some serious reform and much shorter protection periods but to claim that it is harmful in general is a claim not supported by the evidence.
Taking away people's right to vote and own firearms because of streaming? Wow, talk about overreach. This should get laughed right out of Washington. Problem is, there's enough money behind it that it probably won't.
Taking away people's rights after they have served their time for a felony conviction is the overreach. That's some bullshit, right there.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
When the authors of the copyright/patent designed the IP system, the only role they assigned to the state is judicial recognition of valid copyright. In exchange for a temporary monopoly granted by the state, the role of enforcing IP was assigned squarely to the domain of the holder(s). In other words, the copyright holder doesn't get a free ride. Nowhere in copyright law is the state obligated to provide corporate welfare through subsidizing IP enforcement via taxation or any subsidy, and to suggest otherwise would conflict with the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution and the 5th/14th Amendment that government cannot deprive an person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10