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!

RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the manufacturing-outrage dept.

The Courts 260

adeelarshad82 writes "The Recording Industry Association of America voiced its opposition to the recent decision in the YouTube-Viacom copyright infringement case, stating that 'the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.' Cary Sherman, RIAA president, also wrote in a blog post, 'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"

cancel ×

260 comments

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

Uhhh... (5, Insightful)

Daas (620469) | about 4 years ago | (#32767208)

'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

Since when is it their job?

Re:Uhhh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767638)

Liability, ie paying money or going to jail has pretty much been the way to make people do the right thing for quite a while.

If the principle is new to you...I don't know what to say honestly.

Re:Uhhh... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767792)

Some days I think that another event like the Black Plague would be the very best thing that could possibly happen to humankind. Ideally the highest fatality rate would be experienced among the fat and the stupid, especially the stupids who have zero situational awareness and are completely oblivious to the fact that other human beings exist and can be inconvenienced by their carelessness and inconsideration. I think that describes about 2/3 of the population. The people left would be so much better off in so many different ways.

Re:Uhhh... (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32767948)

Some days I think that another event like the Black Plague would be the very best thing that could possibly happen to humankind.

No, but it definitely be the best thing that could possibly happen to the RIAA.

Re:Uhhh... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767688)

Since they've pretty much bought their way into the Justice Department, and White House, and want to do the least amount of work policiing the internet, while maximizing their profits.

This response by the RIAA shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If anything, it paints their message very loud and clear. YOU the consumer, have no fair-use rights, and we believe you should pay for every instance of every copyrighted work transmitted, copied, or used, on or off the net.

Re:Uhhh... (4, Insightful)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | about 4 years ago | (#32767752)

"As the White House recently noted in its strategic plan to combat intellectual property theft it is essential for service providers and intermediaries generally to work collaboratively with content owners to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement," Sherman wrote. "We need businesses to be more proactive in addressing infringement, not less."

Can someone please inform Mr Sherman, that removing 10,000 videos in 24 hours is pretty much as proactive as you are going to get?

Re:Uhhh... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 years ago | (#32768198)

Can someone please inform Mr Sherman, that removing 10,000 videos in 24 hours is pretty much as proactive as you are going to get?

I'm fairly sure it was 100,000.

Re:Uhhh... (4, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 4 years ago | (#32767754)

'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

Since when is it their job?

Worse. They're saying it's an ILLEGAL exchange.

The DMCA makes it legal UNTIL a takedown notice is issued.

Re:Uhhh... (5, Interesting)

GoochOwnsYou (1343661) | about 4 years ago | (#32767764)

It gets worse, during the discovery process it was found that Viacom were uploading their works using sock accounts and then threatening YouTube with legal action saying they were put up there illegally. Is the balance he was talking about "balanced 100% in favor of media companies no matter what they do" view?

No, the Viacom vs YouTube ruling was fair, especially considering internal memos admitted that the "illegal uploading" was done by Viacom themselves.

I thought not even the RIAA could justify Viacom's side of this case.

Re:Uhhh... (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 4 years ago | (#32768220)

The RIAA is asking for exactly the same thing as all the parents who post their babies dancing to unlicensed songs. The RIAA wants google to spend unlimited funds on armies of workers to vet every submission. The parents wants google to spend unlimited funds on armies of lawyers to protect a perceived fair use right.

I think in this case the court did exactly what congress intended, and it is constitutional. Service providers like YouTube cannot be liable for posted content and stay solvent, so to allow the business to grow they made it so. No one is going to suffer irreparable damage by having a video pulled for a free posting service, so there is no reason not to have the service provider pulled. A user can also post it on their own dime or use another service, or fight the right to have it posted. Stakeholders are not going suffer irrevocable harm by having unlicensed content up for a short while, so there we go.

The only thing I would like to see are stiff penalties for parties who use the DMCA to harrass people, but this is no different from SLAPP laws, which have helped some, but there is still a huge problem with big corporation limited free speech of the average person.

Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (4, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32767212)

"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States

"eeep!" - RIAA runs away

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (5, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32767274)

But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies. If I upload an infringing video and Viacom complains, then youtube is expected to honor the request. BUT if I then file a motion to reinstate the video because it doesn't violate copyright (for example it's me singing my own song), Youtube is supposed to restore the video immediately.

From that point forward youtube is now held blameless as a neutral party. They followed the rules. Why RIAA would want youtube to be punished makes no logical sense, except in the mind of a bunch of greedy tyrants. I guess RIAA doesn't want youtube restoring videos of Me singing my own song..... they want all music production to be in *their* hands, not in the People's hands.

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (5, Insightful)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | about 4 years ago | (#32767520)

I may be picking nits, but the DMCA makes NO specifications at all about what a company must or mustn't to when it receives a takedown notice. If I'm hosting a video which is clearly fair use, I don't have to take it down because I receive a takedown. It's just legally safer that way.

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (3, Informative)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | about 4 years ago | (#32767594)

Actually, putbacks are legally binding [wikipedia.org] (see last two items).

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32767634)

>>>I don't have to take it down because I receive a takedown. It's just legally safer that way.

You mean legally more dangerous. As an ISP or website, refusing to abide by a takedown notice makes you liable for the copyright infringement too, and you could be sued if the RIAA-related company decides to pursue it. You've just been lucky so far that they decided to let it slide.

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (1)

Inner_Child (946194) | about 4 years ago | (#32767728)

To reword the last part of his post: "I don't have to take it down, but it's legally safer to do so." What he meant was fairly clear, I thought.

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 years ago | (#32767364)

"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States

"You must not have gotten the memo on the latest version of ACTA... oh right, it's secret. Well, about that..." - RIAA

FTFY

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32767438)

"But we have treaties!" - Londo

"Words on a page. Ignore them." - Refa

POINT: I don't consider treaties to be higher than the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) or the People (ultimate authority). They can be signed today and nullified ten years from now, if we so wish. When the Russian Federation took-over for the collapsed Sovyet Union, they said they would honor the treaties but they didn't have to. The new government could have just as easily nullified them as being "illegitimate acts" by a defunct government. Another example is when Japan walked-out of the League of Nations, nullified their treaties, and started building tons of battleships.

 

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (3, Funny)

Jenming (37265) | about 4 years ago | (#32768012)

yes, that worked out real well for Japan

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#32768240)

You might not consider them to be so, but you'd be wrong about that. It's been a pretty consistent ruling that treaties do indeed get placed ahead of the constitution. Which is what is so troubling about things like the WTO and ACTA. Definitely not in the interests of the American people, but the politicians write and sign them anyways.

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | about 4 years ago | (#32767598)

"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States

"That is for the court to decide (against)." - RIAA

FTFY

Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768146)

wow... you are so unfunny.

Duh? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767220)

'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

YES, THAT'S THE POINT. If you (the RIAA) want to police that crap, do it on your dime. The Service providers don't know jack about who owns what, and is not their responsibility.

Oh noes (5, Funny)

Aboroth (1841308) | about 4 years ago | (#32767226)

'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

Boo hoo, you can't get other people to do your jobs for you, you lazy fuckers!

Too Fucking Bad (2, Informative)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 4 years ago | (#32767236)

Typical RIAA, whining about when the Law doesn't give them what they want...

Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...

Re:Too Fucking Bad (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 4 years ago | (#32767548)

Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...

Worse than that (from their perspective)... they got the law they lobbied for, but didn't realize that
a) It would be applied as written
b) That anyone could actually afford to comply
c) That a financial model would exist where it made sense for the service provider to defend the ability to post content against a hail of RIAA/MPAA member lawsuits.

Suck it, RIAA. (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 4 years ago | (#32767240)

'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"

In other words, minimizing the illegal exchange of copyrighted becomes the responsibility of the copyright holders, by forcing them to identify which works are their copyright, and which works they would like to not have floating around on the Internet. Go cry me a river. It's bad public policy only in the world where 'public" is defined as "corporations under the RIAA umbrella".

The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law. I haven't bought a new CD in years, my movie buying is exceedingly limited, and care less and less about ripping any movie/song that I like.

Before someone accuses me of not wanting to pay for content that I use - nonsense. I actually donate money to a completely silly online game because even FB game developers need to eat, and I donate to NPR because I listen to them. I pay if I think I'm getting something in return, or if I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause. I feel that I don't get anything from the media conglomerates.

Go suck it, RIAA.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32767354)

>>>I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause

Ditto. I recently subscribed to Asimov's Science Fiction because I heard they were in bad shape (dropped below 15,000 subscribers). I enjoy short stories so I decided it was worthwhile to give them ~$30 a year to keep this literary genre alive. I'm supporting art for the sake of art, because I don't want to see it disappear.

But I feel absolutely no compunction to buy a Britney, Lady Gaga, or Black Eyed Peas CD. Maybe I'll pick-up their greatest hits CDs circa 2020, but that's about it. It's bubblegum, not art. I don't care how much RIAA browbeats me and others to go buy every single CD/song they ever produced. I refuse. I have that right.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32767982)

I recently subscribed to Asimov's Science Fiction because I heard they were in bad shape (dropped below 15,000 subscribers).

Comm64, just when I've written you off, you say something that endears you to me.

I'm also one of the 15,000 by the way.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768388)

"Maybe I'll pick-up their greatest hits CDs circa 2020"
Please don't, it's shitty pop made to please the mass with no actual meaning to the artist. The purpose of music is to express oneself, they're expressing demographics. I can't fucking stand it, please don't support that shit. I hate it.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 4 years ago | (#32767536)

The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law.

This is my opinion as well. I'm at the point where I just don't care about certain laws anymore due to the way in which they are kept in place by a corrupt political system.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32768092)

Please tell me more about this "stealing from the public domain" bit

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767720)

The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law.

You can't steal from the public domain. It exists to be used for any purpose. Your perspective is as extreme as the RIAA's, just turned about. It's a familiar argument to this common gem: "Nefarious company X STOLE that BSD code!" Well, guess what... that was the intent behind the license.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (5, Insightful)

Drishmung (458368) | about 4 years ago | (#32767844)

You can't steal from the public domain. ...

But you can steal 'the public domain'.

The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
That steals the common from the goose.
http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Goose_commons.htm [wealthandwant.com]

Mod the parent up (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32768008)

Most insightful post of the day.

You can't steal from the public domain as long as the work remains in the public domain. They are trying to kill the very idea of a "public domain". It's hard to believe that the members of the RIAA and MPAA aren't dragged out of their homes and flogged for what they're trying to do to our culture.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#32768268)

You can indeed, you steal from it by taking that which belongs in the public domain and preventing it from becoming public domain. And worse having the politicians snatch things back from the public domain.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#32767864)

> You can't steal from the public domain.

Sure you can. You can refuse to pay forward. This makes it more difficult for new works to be created.

All works are derivative. The more stuff is owned, the more likely some new
artist will run afoul of some 50 year old piece of cruft and be sued accordinly.
Some corporations (like 20th Century Fox) even have the gall to claim ownership
of an entire genre or sub-genre (space western).

Every work under copyright is a legal landmine waiting to go off.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32768132)

Every work under copyright is a legal landmine waiting to go off.

But, as is clear from TFA, land mines don't pick and choose their targets.

There's still a little part of me that believes the entertainment industry itself will eventually realize that what they're currently trying to do will also kill their own industry. A very little part. And I'm not holding my breath.

I grew up during a period when local TV stations had film libraries covering the entire history of American movies and a big chunk of foreign films. After the 10pm news, they'd play these old movies, and another one after that and another after that until the "Sunrise Semester" public service programs ran at 6am. I was able to get a comprehensive education in American Film, including film noir, iconic westerns like those of John Ford, the great films of Fritz Lang, Otto Preminger, John Huston, Douglas Sirk, Billy Wilder, right down the list, from the Marx Brothers to Busby Berkeley musicals, Hitchcock to Don Siegel. And foreign films from Fellini to Michael Powell to De Sica (sometimes badly dubbed, but still...) When I got to college and majored in writing, I had a rich vein of great storytelling to draw from, thanks to these film libraries. Today, such things would be completely impossible. How much harder it is to develop both a love of cinema and the wealth of experience of seeing such a huge number of great films.

Most of these local stations pulled their own plugs by replacing the late movie with two episodes of some lame late '70s TV show, but that kind of exposure to a great art form is no longer possible to young people, without expensive cable television subscriptions.

I used to haunt the record stacks of the Chicago Public Library, listening to classical music from Early Music through contemporary, and jazz, and blues, and everything.

I used to think that the internet could recreate this experience for future young people, but it looks like these goons who represent the entertainment industry are trying to kill that off entirely.

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768144)

Wait a minute, didn't they just get some stuff removed from public domain, even after it was in use? I would call that stealing from the public domain...

Re:Suck it, RIAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768134)

Not until all the MPAA and RIAA shit is removed from the Internet will we have a free Internet.

I think we should help them eliminate all of their content from the Internet, then they can keep it safely under lock and key where no one will ever see it.

Arrrrr! (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 4 years ago | (#32767246)

It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.

Aren't you guys trying to force service providers to pick up the tab by changing the law -- you sit back and collect the profits while they pay the costs? I recently calculated that for about $33k worth of hard drives filled with infringing MP3s (average 4MB in size) I could be sued for statutory damages greater than what this country's entire economy made in 2009.

Don't cry to me that you can't pass the buck to service providers here when you've got that kind of legal power at your disposal.

Re:Arrrrr! (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32767500)

>>>RIAA sits back and collects the profit while ISPs pay the costs

Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile..... just like I smiled when Saddam Hussein was terminated. For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing. Such as when Emperor Nero died.

Re:Arrrrr! (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | about 4 years ago | (#32767698)

Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile.....

Why would you do that when you have a perfectly good Slashdot RSS feed somewhere on your computer?

Or do you mean you'd want to hear about it as quickly as possible, instead of a couple of days after the fact? ...yeah, then why would you choose the newspaper of all things, instead of reading the live updates on the Internet?

Re:Arrrrr! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767954)

If you skip reading the paper one day, you could miss any event that happened.

With /., if you miss it once, you know there'll be a dupe in a day or so.

Re:Arrrrr! (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 4 years ago | (#32767746)

For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing.

When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life. If the RIAA CEO died, he would simply be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate. Do you know what he looks like? Does he have a family? Do you know anything else about him, other than he's the CEO of RIAA? CEOs -- They talk, mostly. Sometimes they sign things. That's not a reason to kill.

Re:Arrrrr! (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#32767932)

It is very rare that a single person is the cause of large problems. There are a few cases, but they are vanishingly few. Most of the time the individual doesn't make a whole lot of difference and the parent is correct that the RIAA is one of those. Getting rid of the management would cause nothing to change. The problem is endemic of the whole system. The media companies have a corporate belief in this, and the RIAA is their mouthpeice/enforcer. Getting rid of a few individuals would change nothing.

The only way to change it is to change the culture, and really the only way to do that is to hit them in the wallet. If people stop putting up with their shit and start buying from independent sources, which is becoming easier and easier in the Internet age and which Google's TV and WebM strategy stands to expand, it'll change. They'll either adapt to the new system to continue to make money or go out of business.

However killing someone in their organization would do nothing but validate their beliefs that their opposition are extremists.

Re:Arrrrr! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767966)

True about the family... I didn't think about that. Kill them as well.

Re:Arrrrr! (4, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 4 years ago | (#32768162)

When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life. If the RIAA CEO died, he would simply be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate.

Ok, that's funny. Devalue human life. Carbon-copy duplicate. Ha. Look what you did there.

Re:Arrrrr! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767858)

... just like I smiled when Saddam Hussein was terminated.

Yes. Let's congratulate ourselves for holding a mock trial and brutally murdering someone because we were emotionally outraged over the alleged crimes he committed. Nothing as enjoyable as succumbing to the same base desires as the perpetrator, aye?

Re:Arrrrr! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768010)

Correct. The only problem is that you act like it is a bad thing in this case.

Re:Arrrrr! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768212)

I recently calculated that for about $33k worth of hard drives filled with infringing MP3s (average 4MB in size) I could be sued for statutory damages greater than what this country's entire economy made in 2009.

Someone should actually do that. It'd help expose just how insane the laws are.

Hey RIAA (2)

p51d007 (656414) | about 4 years ago | (#32767302)

DROP DEAD! Your business model died years ago, it's just no one has pulled the plug on you & the MPAA.

The RIAA wants there cut of the deal! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#32767312)

The RIAA wants there cut of the deal!

Re:The RIAA wants there cut of the deal! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767350)

"their".

Let me get this straight. (1)

kurokame (1764228) | about 4 years ago | (#32767340)

The RIAA wants to give advice about what constitutes bad public policy? Really?
We're going to be getting advice on morals and comportment from Paris Hilton next, I take it.

Re:Let me get this straight. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767366)

"RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy"

Next headline needs to read as follows:

"Public Informs RIAA Nobody Gives A Fuck"

Re:Let me get this straight. (1)

observer7 (753034) | about 4 years ago | (#32767488)

i agree

Re:Let me get this straight. (5, Funny)

Pyrus.mg (1152215) | about 4 years ago | (#32767564)

In other news: NAMBLA thinks age of consent laws are bad public policy.

Re:Let me get this straight. (5, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 4 years ago | (#32767568)

We're going to be getting advice on morals and comportment from Paris Hilton next, I take it.

Sure. The difference is that Paris Hilton would be insightful enough to see the irony.

Re:Let me get this straight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768250)

No doubt. The RIAA is bad public policy. I have an idea why don't each member of the RIAA get up off of their bum and go record and sing their own music. Too much to ask that you all earn your own keep rather than sponging off of the skills of others? Pitty pitty.

RIAA are really fighting a stupid match here (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#32767344)

Sure, on the surface it sounds good for the RIAA being able to hold a gun to YouTube's head every time an infringing video is posted. But what would that in practice mean? It would mean that any video that hasn't been reviewed and approved by YouTube would be a liability - and knowing the RIAA, a big one. It'd basically be a license for the RIAA to print money off YouTube, since it's highly unlikely they could keep everything away. They could just continue to make increasingly more impossible standards of screening and cooperation for YouTube to fail.

I think if this ever gets to the Supreme court, Viacom will be handed a slapdown so big their head will be spinning for years so I almost hope they do. Imagine if every comment here had to pass through an editor in case it contained copyright text of Scientologists or whatnot, it'd be the death of all discussion forums. There's no way the Supreme Court would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over every site operator like that, they're more than smart enough to figure out their guideline would be the guideline for all copyrighted content.

Any bets on what serial killer YouTube will be likened to?

Re:RIAA are really fighting a stupid match here (1)

djconrad (1413667) | about 4 years ago | (#32768158)

From Wikipedia: "The Sword of Damocles appears frequently in popular culture including novels, feature films, television series, videogames and music." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles#In_culture.2C_art.2C_and_literature [wikipedia.org] If SCOTUS wanted to leave it, the RIAA would sue.

Re:RIAA are really fighting a stupid match here (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 4 years ago | (#32768348)

With this coming supreme court without Stevens? what have you been smoking

Dear RIAA (5, Funny)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about 4 years ago | (#32767386)

Dear RIAA,

Shut the fuck up.

Sincerely,
Everyone

Re:Dear RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767412)

PS : Shut the fuck up (in case you missed i the first time).

Re:Dear RIAA (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 4 years ago | (#32767442)

Damn, beat me by 6 minutes.

Re:Dear RIAA (1)

hhedeshian (1343143) | about 4 years ago | (#32767616)

I call the RIAA bad public policy.

Re:Dear RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767962)

Dear Everyone,

As we recently acquired the copyright on the word 'fuck,' we will be suing you all for damages we deem fair and reasonable: 1.5 gajillion dollars.

Sincerely,
The RIAA

translation: (2, Informative)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 4 years ago | (#32767434)

"We (The RIAA) were hoping to sue the service providers in addition to suing the end-user for making the illegal downloads. Waaah! Its not fair that you won't let us sue".

An open letter (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 4 years ago | (#32767436)

Dear Cary Sherman,

Fuck off you sociopathic parasite.

Sincerly,

Everyone Else

awwww (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | about 4 years ago | (#32767474)

Pity...

It would be terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767478)

if that RIAA dude got his head stuck inside Mr. G. Oatse's rear end.

Bad public policy? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 years ago | (#32767494)

What? Since when do courts set public policy?

They do not. Their job is only to make judgements based on the text and context of the law.

It's bad public policy to let the RIAA engage in massive volumes of lawsuits targetting file sharers.

Re:Bad public policy? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#32768304)

You need to go back and do some study. The SCOTUS is all about public policy. Taking the laws provided and interpreting them within a framework of precedence and the constitution to make them actually work. And in certain areas of law, particularly anti-trust law, the courts write more or less the entirety of the law. Ever notice how extremely vague some of those laws are? Additionally the courts don't have a lot of leeway in what they can take and turn down, at least not until the first trial has been finished.

The key word (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about 4 years ago | (#32767518)

The key word in public policy is 'Public'. I think the RIAA doesn't seem to get that. The Public is what grants them copyright in the first place. The Public's interests should come first with respect to anything which the Public granted them in the first place.

Careful Balance (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767528)

I never knew there was a "careful balance" with the DMCA.

Re:Careful Balance (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | about 4 years ago | (#32768204)

It's the balance between fistfuls of money and not having to work to acquire them.

Re:Careful Balance (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#32768312)

Sure, the people wanted free stuff and the RIAA wanted the death penalty. They settled upon huge awards and prison time. If that's not the definition of a "careful balance" then I don't know what is.

The courts don't make policy! (3, Interesting)

Late Adopter (1492849) | about 4 years ago | (#32767586)

the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.

The courts' job isn't to make policy, it's to interpret and apply it! I'm tired of people criticizing court decisions because the outcome doesn't favor the party you're most sympathetic to. A decision is a good decision if it's consistent with the law, precedence, and is fairly and evenly applied.

RIAA, you want the law to say something other than what it does? Buy a senator, God knows you have enough money.

Re:The courts don't make policy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767790)

Perhaps you missed the recent orgasmic screaming from certain elements of the right when they got the Supreme Court to make a decision that shaped public policy quite extensively.

They can cloak it all they want in their mask of Constitutionalism and following precedent, but they made a choice.

Re:The courts don't make policy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767956)

lol. Liberals are so funny. Supreme Court decisions have always shaped public policy, ever since Marbury v Madison. But then, I'm already talking over your head. I wouldn't want to confuse you.

Re:The courts don't make policy! (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 4 years ago | (#32768186)

They already own many senators. That's why they're upset - they bought the DCMA, and now they found out it's not entirely what they thought they were buying.

You know, sort of like buying a CD and finding out the only song you know is the only good song on it.

Oh, sorry RIAA (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 years ago | (#32767608)

Are you judges? No. Are you legislators? No.

Well then, it's a good thing it's not your job to form or interpret the law then, isn't it?

Go pound sand.

They have sued people for millions (4, Insightful)

DMiax (915735) | about 4 years ago | (#32767648)

Where is the careful balance in DMCA?

Re:They have sued people for millions (4, Insightful)

tinkerghost (944862) | about 4 years ago | (#32767798)

Where is the careful balance in DMCA?

That would be where they carefully balanced your right to make backups with the prohibition on selling or distributing software that would allow you to actually do it.

Fuck the MPAA RIAA. (2)

crhylove (205956) | about 4 years ago | (#32767680)

Seriously. Nobody is buying their shit because it SUCKS. I never want to hear Taylor Swift and Avril Lavigne in my life. They are awful. "Fast and Furious" FOUR?!?! Like the first one didn't suck enough?

How about making a decent CD or DVD WORTH $9.99?!?!?

Idiots. I would sucker punch a movie or record exec in the face if I had half a chance.

Re:Fuck the MPAA RIAA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767950)

I would sucker punch a movie or record exec in the face if I had half a chance.

That actually sounds like a good fund raiser for charity. I can see the headlines now: "$1,000,000 donated to the United Way after hundreds line up around the block to punch an exec for a $5 donation."

Re:Fuck the MPAA RIAA. (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 4 years ago | (#32768374)

Sounds like an idea to start "www.harras-a-ceo.com"

Clint Eastwood??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767744)

Bill Paxton????

Re:Clint Eastwood??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767778)

Rob Schneider?????

Their sites? (2, Insightful)

JThundley (631154) | about 4 years ago | (#32767876)

'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

Do they really think that ISPs exchange copyrighted works on their own sites? Or do they think that because an ISP serves a site that makes the site belong to the ISP?

Re:Their sites? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768038)

Simple logic :
The RIAA owns all multimedia.
Therefore, ISPs own all the web.

What do we have to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32767916)

What do we have to do to get rid of this plague of locusts? (read that 'plague of lawyers')

To the RIAA (1)

JxcelDolghmQ (1827432) | about 4 years ago | (#32767960)

Cry some more, you fucking dirtbags. I hope this is the beginning of the end for you. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Personal Attack for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768252)

Cary Sherman is a fishmonger. A damn dirty fishmonger.

The RIAA is upset? (4, Funny)

Daimaou (97573) | about 4 years ago | (#32768274)

That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.

Fuck? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768352)

keep, and I won't could save it moronic, dilettante isn't a lemonade tAKEN OVER BY BSDI

As the Duke famously said (1)

_0rm_ (1638559) | about 4 years ago | (#32768356)

Blow it out your ass.

RIAA's ploy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32768372)

RIAA's next big idea is to get the government or the FCC to enforce their hopeless business model. Expect to see more of this "it's everyone's job to protect our intellectual property" mentality. The ACTA is their next big hope to get laws passed that protects their music online. Personally I think it delays the inevitable, but as long as there are lobbyists and crooked politicians there's going to be a recording industry that is locking down the internet in a very self serving manner. Anyone who reads Slashdot should have the dignity to write their statesmen and tell them that further copyright regulations only takes money from hard working artists and puts it in the hands of an obsolete middleman.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>