Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Purported ACTA Wishlist Would Put DMCA To Shame

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the shame-is-such-a-strong-word dept.

The Internet 348

ulash writes "Ars Technica has an article about the (alleged) leaked 'wishlist' that RIAA submitted to the US government back in March of this year listing what they wish to see as a part of ACTA. The list includes such gems as forced filtering of materials by the ISPs, gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs, and even restricting supplies of 'optical grade polycarbonate' in countries 'with high rates of production of pirated optical discs.' While the effectiveness of such a 'wishlist' on the law is not by any means objectively measurable, if one takes into account how *AA was instrumentative in the passing of DMCA, I think it is more than likely that they will get at least some of their wishes."

cancel ×

348 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At what point (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24015939)

At what point are they satisfied?

Re:At what point (5, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016045)

It looks like they won't be satisfied until they can charge an "entertainment tax" that everyone on earth has to pay simply for being alive. And of course, dictate exactly how much that tax must be.

Re:At what point (4, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016509)

I can't conceive that RIAA members would ever submit to a fixed rate payment system unless they were backed into a corner. The main objective of all this lobbying is to defend the monopoly against newcomers to the content distribution game and lock in consumers to their existing business model.

How can you grow your business year on year without disproportionately raising the tax. Cut costs by lowering lower quality? Make less content? This levels the playing field with the YouTube generation and that's not where the *AAs want to go.

Right now, the monopolies are looking for ways to safeguard the business models which keep them at the top of the game. Since they're still holding all the financial cards, expect this very powerful lobby to continue to shape the rules of your country for the foreseeable future.

Re:At what point (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016647)

It looks like they won't be satisfied until they can charge an "entertainment tax" that everyone on earth has to pay simply for being alive. And of course, dictate exactly how much that tax must be.

Citizen! Did you see Love Guru, the hit new Mike Meyers comedy?

No.

Traitor! The cost of a ticket has already been debited from your account.

WTF!

Citizen! Have you seen the latest Halloween, the hit new Michael Meyers slasher?

No.

Eh, can't really fault you on that one, it sucked. We're still deducting the cost of a ticket but crediting it to a better movie.

WTF!

Re:At what point (5, Funny)

Mix+Master+Nixon (1018716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016663)

Let them just try it. Why keep shooting yourself in the foot when you can blow the whole leg off?

Re:At what point (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016757)

No, it has nothing to do with profitability of corporations. The underlying basis is power and lust. The RIAA/MPAA works for organisations that target most of their works at children. Their desire is for unlimited power and control. They want to be the only source of information, the only point of access for self 'sic' expression, they want to totally define public thought and they wish to force adoration for them from the general public.

This is clearly demonstrated by their willingness to punish children, to control their lives, sending them to jail for copying music whilst simultaneously promoting the self destructive practices within that age group via that same content, in affect priming them for intimate contact with publishing executives.

The only constraints that will limit the corruptive practises of these organisations are the ones forced upon by the general public, those that appreciate that the quality of an industry is not defined by the profit it makes but by the nature of the products it produces and whether that product supports a healthy society or as is clearly apparent the product in fact attacks society, tears down family values and, even promotes criminal behaviour.

Re:At what point (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016053)

When they are in control of the government.

I still don't see why we don't just shift to open source governance [metagovernment.org] and get rid of these politicians who pander to interests like the RIAA.

Re:At what point (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016569)

While I agree with the notion that we need to be able to have more involvement in the passing of individual laws (though things like the PATRIOT act would likely still go through when the proponent hit the sheeple's fear nerves when doing the marketing/propaganda when proposing the law..), how is open source a valid model? Are people just going to occasionally put forward patches for the law? Who decides what patches are commited and what are thrown away? etc etc. There will always have to be leadership, and that leadership will have its price.

Re:At what point (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016075)

When every citizen is forced to listen to RIAA music every minute of the day, and is paying for each minute. No, wait... then they would just plateau, and there wouldn't be any new ways left to gouge the "consumers" (I hate that word, by the way, but it is the perfect embodiment of how they view their customers).

Re:At what point (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016725)

I think the word actually embodies western culture quite well. We take something, consume it, and throw it away. That's even true when it comes to music in some cases, as in with trashy pop that gets to number one one week and then is gone the next. Despite the fact that digital files are not technically 'consumed' (unless they have some kind of DRM that deletes them after a few days), IMO the the word is fairly accurate even in its economic and political context. Consumers are the ones that make use of all the goods and services that the market provides (ie anyone who isn't self sufficient).

Personally I'd say the RIAA views its customers more as cattle to be slaughtered, and processed in such a way that no part is 'wasted'. Only they don't realise that in slaughtering every last cow they can right now, they are forgetting that they need to leave some behind to create future generations and further profits.

Re:At what point (5, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016111)

When they can charge us for thinking about music

Re:At what point (5, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016141)

Never. If your livelyhood was threatened by by changing global economic dynamics, at what point would you be satisfied by government intervention? Especially when that intervention will always be ineffective?

Really what they are going to succeed in doing is continuing the decline of the United States as a global power relative to other countries through restrictive trade practices and strong arm tactics to the point where the U.S. will not be the preferred trading partner because of all of the baggage that comes with it.

In essence, they are selling us down the river.

Re:At what point (5, Informative)

ShibaInu (694434) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016447)

Well, except for the fact that the RIAA is controlled by four large multi-national firms. EMI is British, Universal is owned by Vivendi, a French company, the head of Warner music is Canadian and Sony BMG is about as multi-national as you'll find anywhere. If anything, the RIAA and the companies that control it are trying to do this everywhere. US politicians are going along for the ride, but so are governments all over the world.

Re:At what point (4, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016817)

Really what they are going to succeed in doing is continuing the decline of the United States as a global power relative to other countries

The sellout continues.

Well, except for the fact that the RIAA is controlled by four large multi-national firms. EMI is British, Universal is owned by Vivendi, a French company, the head of Warner music is Canadian and Sony BMG is about as multi-national as you'll find anywhere

Yet these foreigners have more access to "your" representatives than you do. WTF is the point of even going to the polls when our legislators are OWNED lock stock and barrel by foreigners?

No lobbyist from any corporation whose shares are available to ANY foreigner should have any access whatever to "my" representatives. "My" representative doesn't represent me, he represents foreign rich people.

And I'm supposed to respect the laws these bozos write? Sorry, bud, fuck your laws, I'll follow my conscience. The RIAA and its government stooges can go to hell. I'm no longer playing. Since I have no representataion, the only reason I see for respecting the law is their guns. The traitorous Democrats and Republicans have gotten the last vote they'll get from me until they swear off accepting contributions from my enemies. When we get respectable lawmakers writing respectable laws, I'll respect the law. Until then I shall not only ignore it, but I will encourage everyone else to as well.

We fought for independance from foreign overlords (ironically we celebrate it this Friday), only to let them sneak in and steal our country.

It's a sad day for America.

What do all men with power want? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016187)

The more you tighten your grip, RIAA, the more file sharers will slip through your fingers.

Re:At what point (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016245)

When we're quite literally slaves again, and owned by them.

Re:At what point (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016443)

Welcome The Money Grubbing Corporate Overlords. Resistance Is Futile.

nevarrrr (1)

kalpol (714519) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016457)

The purpose of the RIAA is to maintain its usefulness to the member firms. There must always be progress, or at least the appearance that the association is making it worthwhile to be a member.

Re:At what point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016851)

They will not be satisfied, just like any other greedy entity out there. They will be working on gaining all ground they can, even if it means the world turns into a police state with IP thought police on every block.

Re:At what point (2, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016983)

At what point is enough heroin to satisfy a heroin junkie? At what point is enough crack to satisfy a crackhead? At what point is enough money to satisfy a billionaire?

There is no such thing as "enough" with any such addict.

Re:At what point (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016997)

I think it is time to fight back and to get nasty about it. Maybe we need to start deliberately doing every thing we can to crash these creeps into the junk pile. Perhaps we need to violate the heck out of the most sensitive and valuable software to a point where the entire industry is rocked to its core. Sometimes people can get really reasonable after they are mashed to a pulp.

What about when the **AA's are out of business? (4, Insightful)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#24015941)

We know their business model is fatally flawed, but the legislation they've bought will still be hanging around for years to come.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016017)

they music and sell it to people who want to buy it. Whats a better business model that WORKS genius?

If its so shit, why do 99% of artists still sign to a record company?

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

woot account (886113) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016073)

Being signed to a record company doesn't necessarily mean being signed to an RIAA-member record company. I'd be very willing to bet than more than 1% of bands are signed to a non-RIAA record label.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (2, Funny)

norminator (784674) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016155)

they music and sell it to people who want to buy it.

Wow, I didn't know music could be a verb. But I think that's a great idea. I'm going to music my cubicle as I work this morning. Then when I go home tonight, I'll music with my guitar for a while. I remember that party I went to last weekend... They really musiced up the place!

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (2, Funny)

gooseupfront (1120847) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016317)

how do you pronounce musiced? is it musicked, museeced or muse-iced?

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016587)

how do you pronounce musiced? is it musicked, museeced or muse-iced?

Musikekekeke

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016179)

they music and sell it to people who want to buy it. Whats a better business model that WORKS genius?

If its so shit, why do 99% of artists still sign to a record company?


Why is it that anytime a large organization abuses its power/influence and Slashdot calls them on it, there are always those like you who rush in to defend said organization? I realize you're probably not really an employee and are probably not a paid shill; however, the reason why such accusations come up from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't make sense.

I'll sum it up for you this way. If your business model requires expanding the power and authority of the federal government and dictating to another industry how many units they may sell (the summary mentioned restricting supplies of "optical grade polycarbonate"), then your business model is broken and deserves to fail. This is true no matter how many artists sign up with you. If "people want to buy it" then these measures are unnecessary. If people don't want to buy it then the industry needs to either fail or find something that people do want. I've read the Constitution, I couldn't find "guarantee the success of an entertainment industry" anywhere in it. People who really think this is a good idea have no clue how dangerous it is to allow government to be so blatantly controlled by a trade industry.

When you asked "What's a better business model that WORKS", that's the question the *AA's should be asking. Instead, they are asking "how can we use government to guarantee the success of our current business model" which is the problem.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (3, Insightful)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016643)

The industry's business model (make music, sell it) is fine. Except that the people it wants to sell its product to are breaking the law to get their product by other means.

The industry has two options. It can try to get law enforcement to go after a huge number of its customers until the enforcement is a deterrent to the law breaking. Or it can try to make it harder for people to break the law.

Trying the first method is very problematic, as I'm sure you all know, because you can't figure out exactly who was doing the law breaking. The second is incredibly inefficient and causes a huge amount of collateral damage.

I'm not a shill. I dislike the industry enough that I only buy music directly from musicians. But come on, the only problem with their business model is that it is easy to break the law and people are willing to do it.

You may not like that they are doing terrible things to try to stop people from breaking the law, but their business model is not the problem.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016775)

The industry's business model (make music, sell it) is fine. Except that the people it wants to sell its product to are breaking the law to get their product by other means.

Wrong. The industry's business model is to get music which follows certain guidelines (duration, volume, beat, things which are "popular"), distorting it to make it "louder", and then resell it at a stratospheric price and pay the musicians a tiny percentage of all that money. And that's *NOT* fine!

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016917)

Why is it that anytime a large organization abuses its power/influence and Slashdot calls them on it, there are always those like you who rush in to defend said organization?

Because he's vested in it, of course; why do you think he's defending them? He either works for them, or owns shares.

If its so shit, why do 99% of artists still sign to a record company?

They don't. The fact is, the A/C granparent is a bald faced liar. 99% of artists are playing in bars and clubs, not signed to a record contract.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#24017007)

While I think the guy is over-reacting, personally I also think that people who say the RIAA is going to "die" may be going a bit far too. It will keep limping (well, it's hardly limping, I'm sure they still make metric assloads of money) on until it either gets the point or is left as a niche market.

I generally agree with what you're saying, but when you say

This is true no matter how many artists sign up with you. If "people want to buy it" then these measures are unnecessary. If people don't want to buy it then the industry needs to either fail or find something that people do want.

It's difficult applying that logic to something that can be freely copied and distributed with minimal effort. You're right that if people don't buy the product, then the business has failed - but people don't really 'want' to buy anything. If you could get exact replicas of any physical products for free with a widely available magical duplication machine, a lot of people would do it it.

However, I think if the prices were sensible on the original product, most people's sense of decency and self interest would cause them to pay sensible prices. Hopefully they would reason that if current gen tech is copied for free then the producers of the tech have no reason to keep researching and create more. Some people are just selfish pricks though.

If we were living in a utopian society where everyone has everything they need and people do research on open source software and hardware for fun (and 3D printing machines can build anything very cheaply), then that's fine - but until we develop a new form of society then that's not going to work.

Perhaps this kind of society will be possible in a roundabout way once we invent proper neural interfaces, and people can create their own realities in computers - then they really will be able to copy any existing virtual objects freely. They'd still need to keep their physical body alive though, so unless it was combined with some form of communism or something then you'd still need money..

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016465)

The business model only works because it's backed up by the barrel of a gun. Copyright is nothing more than government protectionism.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

Shajenko42 (627901) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016991)

Technically, ALL business models only work because they are backed by the barrel of a gun.

/dons crazy libertarian hat
After all, why is it the GOVERNMENT'S place to enforce contracts? If your business model requires a MAN WITH A GUN to force me to do what I said I'd do, then your business model is FASCISM!

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24017003)

Sure it is. Just like murder laws, theft laws, rape laws, etc... These things all serve the same purpose: preventing members of society from harming each other.

Current copyright law in the US is absolutely insane, but copyright itself is a good and necessary concept.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (5, Insightful)

ivantheshifty (1245510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016059)

That's exactly right, and why everything the **AA's do is so dangerous. The RIAA is an example of an industry group that knows its business model doesn't cut it, and rather than adapting to face advancing technology, it's instead desperately flailing to stymie progress and preserve itself for just a couple more years. But the rest of America will be grappling with the DMCA for decades. God help us all if ACTA gets enforced.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (5, Insightful)

uxbn_kuribo (1146975) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016205)

Not only that, but with every industry on the decline due to recession, the RIAA seeks to blame piracy for its downturn. Gee, guys, ever think that maybe poor people buy less albums? The way they talk, people have an obligation to support their industry. I swear, they're just as bad as the travel companies.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (5, Insightful)

uxbn_kuribo (1146975) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016267)

And for that matter, the bit about security officials searching mp3 players for illegal music? Let's not worry about the guys sneaking bombs into the terminal, let's worry about the guy with some Coldplay (ugh) mp3s! Furthermore, how can an airport offical determine what mp3s are legal or not? I mean, they could be freely distributed (like Jonathan Coulton's work) or legally downloaded. Hell, Youtube regularly removes "copyrighted" videos at the request of people, despite no copyright being violated, despite fair use, and even despite the claimant not owning the copyright at all. The *IAA will soon reach a point where everyone (not just us internet folk) knows that if they could form their own police force like the Gestapo, they would.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (4, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016345)

if they could form their own police force like the Gestapo, they would.

Why bother, when other police forces already do their dirty work for them.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016353)

The RIAA Schutzstaffle, that's all we need

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016677)

And for that matter, the bit about security officials searching mp3 players for illegal music? Let's not worry about the guys sneaking bombs into the terminal, let's worry about the guy with some Coldplay (ugh) mp3s!

Nah. You have to give them credit for that. The number of people with bombs is miniscule. The number of people with pirated music has got to be many orders of magnitude larger than that. The Thousands Standing Around need something to do to justify their existence, strip searching people for bootleg mp3s will yield many, many more busts than just searching for terrahists.

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (5, Funny)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016995)

Strip searching people for any reason will often yield busts...

Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (3, Insightful)

z80kid (711852) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016673)

Everybody mentions that their business model is flawed, and that they need to change.


But who is the "they" who are pushing this crap? They == the executives who control the current racket. And their "business model" basically boils down to "riding on the backs of the relatively few who actually produce something."

"They" have to fight the future, because the future does not include most of them.

As a frequently-seen signature says: (2, Insightful)

Boetsj (1247700) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016037)

"In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce"

Re:As a frequently-seen signature says: (4, Insightful)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016433)

"In Federal USA, the commerce controls the government"

hmmmm (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016091)

the pubs allow FBI to use business to spy on ALL Americans. Now, will the dems allow the business to spy on all Americans as well?

Re:hmmmm (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016197)

the pubs allow FBI to use business to spy on ALL Americans

The FBI cannot do ANYTHING without the money that the congress specifically budgets for them, often at the program level. They operate under oversight by congressional committees. All of their funds, and the makeup of all of the committee chairs, as well as the entire legislative agenda in both houses, is under the direction of Democrats. Don't like it? Ask them why they DO like it, review it and don't complain, and write checks to continue it.

Re:hmmmm (1)

Thought1 (1132989) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016273)

Of course. They're politicians too. Didn't they just pass the telecom immunity bill?

Hardly surprising (5, Insightful)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016101)

Well, it's fairly common practice to submit a huge list of "wants" whether your list is business requirements, suggestions for law makers or what you want for Christmas.

Put a few obviously silly items on the list and the ones you really want probably look a bit more plausible. I in no way advocate what they are asking for, but the way they are asking could be considered pretty smart.

Re:Hardly surprising (4, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016163)

And if Congress weren't bought and sold by the MAFIAA, they'd get lumps of coals thrown at them.

I never have advocated out-and-out piracy... you want an album to keep in your collection you should buy it instead of downloading or borrowing. But this is pretty much it for me. I fully support any effort to 100% undermine the funding for RIAA member companies. That way the sheer volume of cash they can throw around to bribe, er, "donate" to politicians is reduced so much that the fatcats won't budge for them any longer.

Re:Hardly surprising (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016741)

I never have advocated out-and-out piracy... you want an album to keep in your collection you should buy it instead of downloading or borrowing.

Ummm, why? So that the only party who profits off the transaction can use the money to pass laws against you? I'd maybe feel a bit different if anyone other than the labels and maybe 20 big music acts was making money from selling albums. However, seeing as how most of the music's creators are being ripped off by the people who are supposedly representing them, why should I care? Seriously?

If you don't like piracy, buy used. Support your local music store and keep money away from the labels at the same time. It's nice being able to say that you haven't infringed any copyrights and are legally and morally clear, but still get to hear what you want.

Re:Hardly surprising (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016933)

I only buy music from non-RIAA labels & artists, since the used CD store near me basically got ran out of town. There was a stretch of about 8 years that I never bought a CD.

Thanks to www.riaaradar.com I've been finding some really great stuff that isn't supporting those bastards.

Re:Hardly surprising (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016841)

Put a few obviously silly items on the list and the ones you really want probably look a bit more plausible.

The dangerous thing is, the uninformed have a different standard for "obviously silly". Do you really want to know how many congresscritters fall into that category, for any given subject?

That's not to say they're uninformed on every subject. But they've got a lot of subjects to cover. And there's enough congresscritters out there to ensure that every subject will have at least a few who understand it just well enough to propose silly laws about it.

Go ahead (2, Insightful)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016103)

Not that the US has some kind of monopoly on 'optical grade polycarbonate' but I'd love them to restrict access and see where it gets them.

Hint: All fiber used for telco/datacomms infrastructure is made from glass.

Re:Go ahead (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016201)

They are talking about plastic for making CDs, not glass for making telco infrastructure.

Keep in mind these people still think the future is in selling discs to people.

Re:Go ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016295)

woooooooooosh!

Re:Go ahead (1)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016385)

They are talking about plastic for making CDs, not glass for making telco infrastructure.

Keep in mind these people still think the future is in selling discs to people.

That's crazy, for the simple fact that polycarbonate is normally opaque anyway, you dont need special "optical grade" for CD's thats why I thought they where talking of POF but I'm wrong there anyway because POF uses acrylic.

Either way I'm sure you could find another substitute plastic, plus besides only a fool would think restricting the ability to make CD's would curtail piracy, the future is data sales thats why I thought "hmm, restricting infrastructure, how sly". It seems I under estimated how much these guys dont get it.

Re:Go ahead (2, Informative)

jcknox (456591) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016239)

Not that the US has some kind of monopoly on 'optical grade polycarbonate' but I'd love them to restrict access and see where it gets them.

Hint: All fiber used for telco/datacomms infrastructure is made from glass.

The concern is not for optical fiber, but for CD / DVD / BlueRay discs, which are optical grade polycarbonate.

Re:Go ahead (2, Insightful)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016367)

As are the lenses in my eyeglasses (or should I say eyeopticalgradepolycarbonates)

Re:Go ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016989)

Seriously do you not understand this person's somewhat cryptic argument. He is saying, yes let the US government sanction companies who sell polycarb to nations of high piracy, let them try to restrict trade somehow, all it will do is force people onto the internet to download more music!!!

Re:Go ahead (1)

rwjyoung (674310) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016271)

Maybe it refers to CD's and DVD's. That would get them about the same distance !

Working hard on losing that cultural dominance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016115)

Bollywood already puts out more movies than Hollywood. It's only a matter of time that more people will speak Chinglish than people who speak what you call English. I guess the Arabs have a word to say about who gets to make polycarbonate. Quite frankly, with all the religious fundamentalists in your country and the authoritarian tendencies in your government, it's probably best for all of us to let someone else take the steering wheel for a while.

Congress has become a liability (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016153)

A sane government that truly represented the rights of the people should not even consider legislation like this. Congress has been for sale to the highest bidder for some time now, so any semblance of democracy is thoroughly broken. (Can the average citizen exert the same level of influence as the strongest corporation? If not, you don't have democracy)

I think that the time for radical change has come. Getting rid of congress and passing everything onto the people through referendum (some sort of yearly limit would be necessary for legislation) seems like a better choice to me at this point. ( What are corporations going to do? Bribe everyone?) In such a scenario, lobbying would become pointless because there would be too many people to convince.

Re:Congress has become a liability (2, Interesting)

Shark (78448) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016753)

Getting rid of congress and passing everything onto the people through referendum (some sort of yearly limit would be necessary for legislation) seems like a better choice to me at this point.

I agree, let's hire Diebold to make sure that the process is fair. And Fox News to make sure the opinion of the masses is completely impartial.

Though that was satire, I honestly can't say your idea would be worse than what's currently in place. Regardless, a purely democratic government would likely leave 'large minority' of its people quite oppressed. The US is(was?) a constitutional republic for that reason.

WTO may say no to the restricting part and slap (1, Troll)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016169)

WTO may say no to the restricting part and slap the us like they did in the Online gambling case and this may end have even more withdrawing protection for U.S. trademarks or copyrights.

A friendly analogy (1)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016189)

Clip 1 [southparkstudios.com]

Clip 2 [southparkstudios.com]

I believe those 2 clips are a perfect analogy of the RIAA. Especially Cartman's quote at the end of clip 2. "Just goes around imposing his will on people"

the printing press (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016193)

had some unintended consequences

it made books cheap, leading to better educated commoners, leading to the creation of a middle class, leading to the idea of democracy and equality

i'm obviously broadly glossing over the historical details, but the lesson is that the printing press allowed for the realization of a number of previously impossible and unforseen societal changes

whatever the internet is going to do society in the realm of unintended consequences, one is sizing up pretty obvious:

the invalidation of the concept of intellectual property

intellectual property works when only a small number of players distribute data. it takes a lot to run a vinyl pressing plant, and easy to find and shut one down that doesn't play by the rules. but when every single person is a one man effortless data distribution factory, then getting everyone to play by the rules of the game becomes impossible to enforce

such that there is no more game. the idea of intellectual property simply ceases to be a valid concept. if it gets out on the web, it stays there. and anything not on the web is given a strong incentive to get on there. witness the imbroglio over guns n roses chinese democracy album recently. once its out there, you can't take it back, and it is extremely easy and anonymous to get out there

what can you enforce in such an environment? say the *AAssholes actually get their way and get all of their draconian laws passed. who cares?

do they honestly believe anything will change? the technology will simply treat their laws like damage, and route around them. this is what the internet was made to do

go for it *AAssholes, give the laws your best shot. why do you believe any legal structure will work to contain the internet? or, i guess the next step is: break the internet. destroy what makes the internet compelling and useful in order to preserve a dying business model

heh, had to open my big mouth

Re:the printing press (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016417)

I'm afraid you might be right. I'm afraid because in our society, intellectual property is the only thing of true value. Not labor. Not Capital. Intellect.

IP has worked, more or less, until now to give society a way to reward the judicious and novel application of intellect to move the world forward, even if it is in uneven bursts.

A society who derives the majority of its benefits and progress from mere ideas would do well to see that the idea developers are fairly rewarded and can afford to comfortably develop ideas.

In the IP-free world you describe, how might this happen?

Re:the printing press (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016575)

A society who derives the majority of its benefits and progress from mere ideas would do well to see that the idea developers are fairly rewarded and can afford to comfortably develop ideas.

You can't copyright, trademark or patent an idea.

In the IP-free world you describe, how might this happen?

In exactly the same way it did before the fiction of "intellectual property" was foisted on the world!

Re:the printing press (2, Interesting)

bmajik (96670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016733)

In exactly the same way it did before the fiction of "intellectual property" was foisted on the world!

You mean in the dark ages? When there were no books available to the common person? No recordings of music for them to enjoy? No engineered medicines to improve quality of life?

The idea that content matters over physical goods came about when it was first possible to produce a physical copy tremendously faster than the original content. And this radically transformed society forever, generally for the better.

I'm merely asking how one reconciles too seemingly opposing points:

1) copying things is easier than ever before. Information apparently wants to be free
2) information is the only instrument of value or progress in Western society. It, more than anything else (besides perhaps the British Rule of Law) is the difference between man of today and man of 1400 AD.

I'm not willing to throw intellectual property under the bus until you can explain to me how people with ideas can distribute their life work and be fairly compensated.

Re:the printing press (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016595)

Exactly. Take patents for example. Software patents are not reasonable or logical but many other types of patents are.
Copyrights are another example. I admit that I am in the minority on slashdot because I do feel pirating is wrong, I feel it is immoral and should be illegal. I also feel that the RIAA is trying to take away people rights to protect their IP which I also find intolerable.
IP IS valid as a concept and is important. The key is protecting IP without abusing everybody's rights.

Re:the printing press (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016943)

Please don't say IP. There is *NO SUCH THING* as intellectual "property". Musicians and content "producers" have the right to get a return of their investment. But after that return, they're no longer being "stolen" by pirates because they already got their money back.

I'd recommend you to read The Pirate's Dilemma [thepiratesdilemma.com] , and see how piracy is beneficial to EVERYONE. It's more about economics than morals. In fact, the U.S. progressed so fast because they "pirated" european patents and paid absolutely no royalties (don't believe me, read the book).

the world you describe never existed (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016691)

ip laws never rewarded creators. it rewarded distributors. one hit musical wonders throughout the 70s and 80s signed away their rights for pennies, were given free rides on corporate jets for a few months, then utterly forgotten about. bands like the beatles and prince got to be powerful because they became popular enough over long enough of a time that they took on the rules of the distributors, and became part of the machinery. but the vast majority of musical creation was never rewarded in real sense that you mean

so the idea ip rewarding creators is a nice idealistic selling point, but it never actually works that way. the rules of power favors the distributors, so they merely shade and juggle the legalese that the ip laws serve them instead of the creators

this leads us to 2 conclusions:

1. destroying ip doesn't actually impoverish creators
2. creators can still tour- you can't distrubte a concert tour on the web. creators can still whore for advertising. creators can be sponsored by corporate masters to make corporate product. and creators can simply enjoy their fame. is money really the only thing that motivates people to create music?

so its a better world without ip. its not like music will suddenly disappear. cheap opo like britney spears and justin timberlake won't even disappear: they'll simply be hired by corporations to produce product that is used for advertising, brand building, etc.

the desire to create music is not dependent upon financial concerns. music predates ip law, duh. most kids pick up the guitar to impress chicks. now if you said making music means you could never seduce a woman ever again, then yeah, music is dead. otherwise, no ip law? no problem. full steam ahead

Re:the world you describe never existed (1)

bmajik (96670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016957)

IP laws pre-date the modern music industry, and IP is conceptually a much larger problem space than record sales and 1-hit wonders.

The canonical IP problem is medicine. If a company spends 5 years and 10B USD developing a drug, each pill can be produced for 5c or so, but the medicine must sell for a much higher cost in order for its developer to be reasonably compensated.

How do you solve this problem?

1) Nationalize all medicine development [i.e. move the cost from per-pill to per-taxpayer]
2) Provide distribution monopoly protection to drug developer under certain rules and for a certain time (the current approach)
3) Depend on charitable giving to fund medicine development
4) Rely on a staff of drug researchers who work part-time in their parents basement, collaborating over the internet.

Any others?

Note that these are of course the strategic choices -- there are tactical things that could be done to reduce the costs involved -- relaxing FDA regulations could go a long way in reducing TTM (and thus overall cost and investment recouperation requirements) -- but the fundamental issue of how to compensate the IP creators must be addresed.

Re:the printing press (1)

H+FTW (1264808) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016855)

I think there is a difference between rewarding the originators of the IP and rewarding a hulking behemoth that happens to employ them.

*AA has failed to see that physical media (CD DVDs etc) are dead maybe not completly but its only a matter of years. As a group they have failed to adapt, iTunes (now) makes money, Radiohead's "in rainbows" made money NIN's various online escades have made money.

*AA has failed to see this.

Smaller production groups are doing well online (see warprecords)

Its just a little sad that *AA haven't spotted this yet

Re:the printing press (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016881)

I'm afraid because in our society, intellectual property is the only thing of true value.

But it's value is entirely fictional, it's only what we ascribe to it. An idea has NO intrinsic worth, it's only what you do with that idea that makes it valuable or worthless.

Our copyright/TM/patent system is just as broken as the RIAA business model. I personally feel ideas belong in the cloud, available to anyone with the means to exploit it. The originators deserve credit, possibly even compensation, but trying to control an idea once it's been hatched is counterproductive and stifling to further innovation. It's regressionist tactics.

People don't do things for the good of mankind anymore, there's no money in it.

Re:the printing press (1)

KingDord (1218774) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016931)

In the IP-free world you describe, how might this happen?

That person is paid for thinking as well as he/she does, similarly to how the artists are paid for playing their music when they do (little money per album sale goes to them). However, there simply will not be this towering middle man gatekeeper limiting the uses of what was produced. There's no need for that middle man in this Internet information age.

Sure, they won't be paid millions of dollars as their work is easily replicated, but if people want them to create more, they simply pay them to create. It may not be comfortable for the artist, but all of what the *AAs protect is entertainment. Since when was it necessary for an actor or musician to be rich? We can live without Brad Pitt, and Metallica entertaining us.

As for the IP not directly related to entertainment, I do not have such a clear cut answer as there isn't much media attention to the inefficiencies of their business model, and as such I've not given it much thought. But I'm very certain there is a way, if people are looking for it.

Maybe ISP's like AT&T could push back (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016231)

Doesn't the Bush administration and his Democratic eunuchs in Congress owe companies like AT&T big-time for all the illegal spying they've done on us in the last few years? Maybe they could call in a favor on this one.

'with high rates of pirated discs' (2, Funny)

scourfish (573542) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016237)

Oh shit! They won't be sending any more blank CD's to my house in Ohio.

I refuse to buy music. (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016265)

It's pretty simple. I'm not giving these people one fricking dime and its not like songs are something that people absolutely can't live without. There's plenty of free stuff on the radio, I have plenty of songs I've paid for already... why do I need to continue to subsidize a subpar industry giving me all of this crap to begin with.

You know, it never ceases to amaze me, that an industry that proclaims itself to be most on the side of the people, the most liberal, that rips any commercial interest of the right wing as morally wrong, has done more to subvert the rights of mankind in the digital age than any other industry.

Next time Michael Moore or Oliver Stone or Spike Lee makes a film telling me how evil George Bush is for illegal wiretaps, perhaps we might ask them, what about all the raids, wiretaps and assaults on PCs born about by their industry. You can't benefit from digital surveillance and iron fisted prosecution of teenagers while proclaiming to be innocent of it.

If I were President, I would pardon every single person that was ever arrested for the supposed crime of copyright violation, and i would reply to every law that congress passed at the industry's behest, with a signing statement declaring such law to be unconstitutional and a refusal to enforce.

Re:I refuse to buy music. (1)

rajafarian (49150) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016419)

It's pretty simple.

It actually isn't that simple. When their sales go down more because everyone wants to not buy from them they are going to claim even more infringement and... Aaaargh, those fuckers!!!

Re:I refuse to buy music. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016531)

If I were President, ... i would reply to every law that congress passed at the industry's behest, with a signing statement declaring such law to be unconstitutional and a refusal to enforce.

Actually, you wouldn't because the President (as long as you're talking about the US) doesn't have that power. A President can veto a bill once. It goes back to Congress to be voted on again. If it passes by a 2/3rds majority, then it becomes law whether the President wants it to or not. Only the Judicial Branch (ie, the Supreme Court) can invalidate a law by declaring it unconstitutional.

Know when to hold 'em... (4, Insightful)

intx13 (808988) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016281)

...and know when to fold 'em. Surely somebody at the **AA must realize that the jig is up, the game is over, it was a nice (profitable) thing while it lasted, but simply pushing for more and more draconian laws is not going to bring back the age of the vinyl record - "piracy" is just too fast and easy. You just aren't going to make as much as you used to through media distribution anymore. Either find a different way to make money or settle for reduced profits.

People will purchase media when obtaining that media is less costly than "pirating" it. You've got three ways to make that happen:
  1. Monetarily: make the music cost less in dollars than the pirated version. Obviously not posible.
  2. Punishment: make it more costly to be caught with pirated media. Tried this one, it doesn't work.
  3. Ease of use: make it easier/more pleasant to get and use purchased media than pirated media.

The **AA is happy to keep pounding away at #2, suing en masse, requesting ridiculous measures like those suggested in TFA... but there must be somebody at the headquarters whose pondering #3.

Of course maybe it's just that anybody with a sense for business has better things to do than work for the **AA.

Re:Know when to hold 'em... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016665)

Of course maybe it's just that anybody with a sense for business has better things to do than work for the **AA.

Either that, or all those MBAs realized it's cheaper to hire lobbyists than it is to revamp an entire business model.

Re:Know when to hold 'em... (1)

dauwhe (562291) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016969)

Steve Jobs pondered #3, and the result is the iTunes Music Store.

California to Legalize Weed for Everyone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016307)

"There is an initiative in the works that could end up on the November ballot that allows for marijuana to be sold to anyone, and anywhere that already sells alcohol. Its being called The Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative. [ca.gov] From the full text of the measure:
This initiative will amend the Constitution of California to defend and safeguard the inalienable rights of the People against infringement by governments and corporations, providing for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana. Marijuana will be taxed through a system of stamps and licenses--a $5 stamp will be required for the sale of an eighth ounce of marijuana and a $50 annual license will be required for the growth of one marijuana plant. To protect participants and encourage participation in the system, such licenses and stamps will be available anonymously in stores where marijuana is sold.

So instead of getting some quack doctor to give you a prescription for $100 because of your supposed "anxiety" or alleged "insomnia", you will just pay an extra tax each time you buy yourself another 8th.

Aside from allowing all willing adults to be able to buy weed easily, this initiative will start to generate revenue for California, and stimulate our struggling economy. More weed stores means more jobs for Californians, more taxes to be collected, and more people enjoying better weed [laist.com] . And finally marijuana will be put into the same file as Alcohol and Cigarettes where it belongs, instead of it being equated with crack-cocaine and heroine.

The initiative goes on to say why they believe this to be a necessary measure:
We also hold these truths to be self-evident-That, as an intoxicant, marijuana is far less harmful to the health and safety of the People than alcohol--That, as a smoking substance, marijuana is far less addictive or harmful to the health of the People than tobacco--That, even though alcohol is harmful to the health and safety of the People, the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933 only increased the harms associated with alcohol use: criminals seized control of the alcohol market, crime and violence increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourished, while otherwise lawful alcohol drinkers were treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they had not harmed the rights of anyone--That, as with alcohol prohibition, the prohibition of marijuana has only increased the harms associated with the use of marijuana: criminals control a multi-billion dollar market, crime and violence have increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourish, while otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers are treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they have not harmed the rights of anyone-That the history of marijuana prohibition is a history of repeated injuries and infringements upon the inalienable rights, powers, and best interests of the People.

Fuck Yes! Preach on, brothers! They go on to point out that alcohol, tobacco, and big-pharma lobbyists have the politicians that are supposed to represent the People in their back-pockets and serving the interests of the alcohol, tobacco, and big-pharma industries.
Despite the harms of marijuana prohibition, politicians persist in imposing and upholding marijuana prohibition, because these politicians are not working for the People--they are working for the corporate executives who financed their campaigns, such as corporate executives in the alcohol industry who want to protect their monopoly on intoxication, corporate executives in the tobacco industry who want to protect their monopoly on smoking, corporate executives in the pharmaceutical industry who want to protect their monopoly on expensive medicines, and corporate executives in the many industries threatened by competition with hemp. These corporate executives pull the strings of the government to perpetuate marijuana prohibition despite its harms, because they do not care about the inalienable rights and best interests of the People--they care about taking as much money from the People as possible. These corporate executives also use their control of the mainstream media to make it seem like marijuana prohibition is a failed attempt to serve the interests of the People, censoring the idea that marijuana prohibition is a successful attempt to serve corporate interests at the expense of the People. For these corporate interests, politicians sacrifice the inalienable rights and best interests of the People. This corruption and corporate influence is worse at the national level, where the People can least afford political influence and the media is most effective at manipulating public debate. Because of this corruption, it is futile for the People to turn to the federal government for protection--because the federal government is the source of the harm. The repeated attempts by the People to reduce the harms of marijuana prohibition have been answered only by repeated injury. The harm from marijuana prohibition is ongoing and the need for relief is urgent. Such is the suffering of the People, and such is the necessity that constrains us to alter our former systems of government. A government with a character marked by every act that defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Therefore, appealing to humankind for the rightness of our intentions

They need 694,354 signatures by September, 5, 2008. I think it's totally do-able. Its been over a decade since Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was passed with over 5 million votes in favor.

So 12 years later... are we more or less tolerant of recreational use of marijuana? For now, we'll have to wait and see."

- text scraped from: http://laist.com/2008/06/30/california_to_legalize_weed_for_eve_1.php [laist.com]

There are lots of gems in that wishlist (4, Interesting)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016335)

Here's a good one:
"3. Provide that the presumption of ownership may be rebutted only if the defendant is able to provide concrete evidence to the contrary."

Yeah, that's right. Claimants own whatever they claim unless the defendant proves otherwise. Oh, and don't put up a fight if they sue you for having copyrighted material because:

"4. As a deterrent to groundless defenses, award plaintiffs full costs and fees for overcoming frivolous challenges to titles."

I propose a modest fifth bullet point. Anyone with a copyright may punch those damned ordinaries not in the "creative class" in the stomach at any time, without fear of reprisal. Genius!

GVMNT 4 SALE (1)

steeljaw (65872) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016363)

I wish I had a shilling for every senseless killing, I'd buy a government. America's for sale and we can get a good deal on it, and make a healthy profit! -- NOFX

Gutting safe harbor would destroy the web (4, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016403)

gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs

This would destroy the free web as we know it. No site would be willing to accept user generated content (at least, no site in the United States) because there is no foolproof way to tell whether the person is uploading home movies or part of a summer blockbuster.
That provision is absolutely necessary for the functioning of the web as-is. Any legislation that would try to remove it would be laughable.

Mandatory copyright filters- good luck with that. More stuff will come in password encrypted rars (including filename, of course), nullifying any benefits of these things. Consumers would have to pay for these moronic devices, which would be expensive if they didn't botttleneck ever-growing connections.}

And, as other posters have said, the United states is not the only country that makes optical disks.

This is a poorly attempted legal solution to an age old technical problem...

Wait, wait. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016407)

They want to decrease the amount of CD/DVD/BluRays to nations with a high percent of piracy? In other words, they want to increase a demand for piracy? They thought that was a good

Time for some consumer action? (1)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016445)

I think it is time for some action... be vocal about it and boycott anything touched by the MAFIAA for the whole summer. No music on the radio, no movies on the TV, no downloading any of their crap either... just flat out refuse to consume anything they produced under any form for the next two months. It's time we collectively tell them I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore! [youtube.com]

If you are vocal enough about it and enough people join in, they will have a hard time blaming the money loss of those two months on "evil pirates".

Them, them, fuck them! (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016451)

The RIAA more and more resembles a senile old dictator who has fallen irrevocably into despotism. I'm sure that if they had the technology, they'd monitor people's THOUGHTS and charge a fee for everyone who so much as remembers what a song sounds like, and jail anyone who so much as hums a song under their breath; they'd have executed any orchestra that dared to perform the works of Mozzart, Bach, Beethoven, and so on.


MEMO TO RIAA: Get into the 21st century, you old fucks! The more you try to clamp down on the world, the more of what you're trying to screw us for will slip through your fat, greasy fingers! Nobody likes you, especially the artists you're claiming to "protect"!

Pushing too far (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016653)

How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've driven people into the ground, that some of them no longer have anything to lose and want to see you dead? The money must be nice, but what's your price for giving up the freedom to live among other people? Remember, your security detail has to have a perfect record, while the little guy you destroyed only has to get lucky one time.

I am not - NOT! - calling for violence, but I'm continually surprised that no one has resorted to it. I think it's inevitable that if we continue down this road, someone will decide to exercise their second amendment rights, if not against the people who passed the bills, then against the people who paid to have them written.

ipods (1)

matto14 (593826) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016667)

this one is funny, im putting all my money in apple since the demand for ipods will skyrocket
Border searches

Newspaper reports indicate that the proposed agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travelers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.[2][5]

Guilty until proven innocent? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24016715)

"Provide that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, an internet service provider shall be considered as knowing that the content it stores is infringing or illegal, and thus subject to liability for copyright infringement, after receiving notification from the right holder or its representative, normally in writing, including by email or by telephone in the case of pre-release materials or in other exigent circumstances."

Presumption of guilt (5, Informative)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016767)

Interesting excepts:

Section D.1 basically says that when you pirate something, they can confiscate anything they deem "related" to the infringement (all your PCs are belong to us).
Section I.1 says that all optical disks must be approved by MPAA/RIAA thought police prior to pressing.
Section J.6 requests that ISPs are guilty until proven innocent.
Section J.10 says that MPAA/RIAA should be able to directly spy on your Internet use.
Section K.1 implies that IP pirates are tied to terrorists and organized crime.

Re:Presumption of guilt (4, Interesting)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016885)

I guess this will come down to who has the stronger lobbyists: The *AA or the telecoms.

That is really goddamn scary.
=Smidge=

Important article (4, Interesting)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#24016945)

If you haven't read TFA at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673 [ieee.org] , kindly do so. It makes some pungent observations, frex this one, which pretty much says it all:

"Copyright is being turned from a limited-term incentive designed to encourage creative artists to a broadly scoped transfer of wealth from the public to the private realm. As the industries that generate copyrighted materials seek control over not only their works but also the devices on which we watch, listen to, and remix them, copyright law is turning into technology regulation."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>