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.
The felony part will change stuff from civil to criminal courts where the standard of standard of evidence is a lot higher
the constitution will make it hard to block an site as that is an 1st issue
Music industry (i.e. record labels) is obsolete and haven't mattered since artists went digital. Why are they still being listened to?
It's becoming clear that protection of intellectual property (IP) is costly. In the physical world, people pay a property tax for fire & police protection. Maybe it's time for IP property holders to pay a tax on their property as well. Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain, and the pool of IP taxes collected can be used to defray the costs of protecting paid-up intellectual property. Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!
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 does seem like prior restraint to me. The last time that was a big issue was when the government was trying to hide bad actions form us, but that was before many of you were concerned with anything beyond your next meal. Without looking it up first, I bet a quick look into 'prior restraint' will help you consider of this is a good thing or not.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
The Music Industry has ZERO usefulness to society vs. the internet... tell them to kick rocks.
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.
It will *also* open up the door to abuses using the already overworked public defender system, in which everyone who cannot afford a personal law-firm of their own will be told
"uh yeah the evidence is overwhelming so uh your best bet is to plead guilty, anything else your life is basically over lol"
as has been rampant across the US.
It also *further* shifts the burden and costs away from the music industry by having the government - and therefore taxpayers - cover everything; prosecution, defense (in many cases), and the costs of the carceral punishments afterwards. This makes it likely that the music industry is pushing this in conjunction with GEO and/or CoreCivic, backed by quite a few employees/investors of the latter two in the senate.
Those involved should be dismantled and sold for parts.
"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.
Positive impact without unintended consequences FOR THEM I'm sure. Otherwise that statement is the steamiest of wet bullshit.
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
I don't know about the US specifically but moving minor crimes to a higher court increases the chances of having it dismissed.
A judge accustomed to murder cases probably doesn't want to be bothered with kids running torrent sites and will probably do their best to get them dismissed ASAP in order to deal with serious affairs.
In fact, in France, the strategy is the opposite. Instead of pushing for severe punishment, the music industry wants enforcement to work more like parking tickets: a small fine that is usually payed without even an audience.
Here's one.
Ditch the double standard regarding websites.
If a website exercises editorial control over what its users posts, then it is liable for what they post.
If a website doesn't exercise editorial control over what its users post, then it is not liable.
As it stands now, a website can exercise editorial control over what's posted, but when called out on copyrighted material, shrug their shoulders and whine that they can't control what's posted.
Pick one, then enforce the laws.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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)
There are to many ways to work around a site block that the only people being blocked will be those that wouldn't go there anyway. Piracy was happening long before the internet was even a thing
Really? You've found a solution to the free rider problem as it applies to creative works?
Careful there, friend. There are lots of people here who will be happy to inform you that the free rider problem is not a problem at all, but a birthright.
Net neutrality got squashed which would have led to them doing this exact think so now they want to act like this is somehow in the constitution to protect their "content".
We should have PSAs run showing Nazi, pedophiles, etc. saying to the camera "I'm voting!."
If you are a nation of bad people, then the government should reflect their choice. The government represents it's people... Yes, Trump is America. The darker side of it you don't want to admit exists but that is just hiding from the truth. Dictators are also; just not by direct consent.
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-Frederick Douglas
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
There are lots of people here who will be happy to inform you that the free rider problem is not a problem at all, but a birthright.
A lot of people think a lot of very stupid things. Having an opinion doesn't mean it is objectively correct. A lot of people think crystals have magical healing powers. Doesn't mean I should take them seriously without evidence.