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 President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working"

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the you-mean-it-could-be-worse? dept.

Media 473

Kilrah_il writes "Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have content providers such as YouTube and Rapidshare liable for illegal content found on their sites. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries ... We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship — not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers ... [But], if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."

cancel ×

473 comments

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

What a coincidence (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359244)

Breaking and Entering Law & modern technology isnt working with my chosen profession of burglar.
I could try going to individual houses asking them not to lock doors but ultimately I think the
law needs changing so I get special treatment so I can continue to screw people.

Re:What a coincidence (2, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 years ago | (#33359336)

I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?

Re:What a coincidence (5, Insightful)

Captain Spam (66120) | about 4 years ago | (#33359368)

I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?

To which these particular copyright holders would respond, "what fair-use?".

Re:What a coincidence (1)

gorzek (647352) | about 4 years ago | (#33359402)

The only way you could do it is to have some massive database that can quickly and easily identify a work as copyrighted or not based on a small sample of it. This kind of "fingerprinting" already exists for music. Not sure about video. Getting it all together into one big database would be a real pain, though--and so would legally forcing YouTube, et al to use it.

Re:What a coincidence (2, Interesting)

easterberry (1826250) | about 4 years ago | (#33359440)

how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359610)

how do you separate infringement from fair use?

You don't. You simply refuse to allow fair use.

On a site like Youtube this isn't a problem as technically Youtube can remove any videos for any reason, even if the videos aren't breaking any law, so no need to distinguish.

In other arenas (or if I put a video up on my own website, where ultimately it's up to ME what stays up and what doesn't) distinguishing is legally required, but a) these sites are small fish, and b) they'll fold under a legal threat in 99% of cases even if they aren't breaking the law.

Re:What a coincidence (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 4 years ago | (#33359660)

how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?

You don't. The RIAA, and other such organizations, do not believe in fair use. They are in fact, very bitter about it.

Their preferred world is one in which they can deny, or enjoy forced monetization, of all content and the burden of defense, both financially, and legally, is borne by those least capable to do so.

Your question about rights is interesting too. I currently have a problem with this very situation with YouTube. I do have rights to use a song in videos and get flagged on a constant basis by the fingerprint system. Guess what their solution to the problem is? MMO DRM. In their solution I would need to embed my own personal code in the video when uploaded to authorize its use. Of course the next logical step is to create licensing rights that demand a per viewing fee.....

Re:What a coincidence (5, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 years ago | (#33359696)

What if it was intentionally uploaded by the copyright holders themselves, or by those they authorized to do so?

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/32061 [zdnet.com]

quote:
      For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

easterberry (1826250) | about 4 years ago | (#33359872)

that is fantastic.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33359730)

I think the point is that you don't. The RIAA is mostly upset about sales being down, they don't care whether it's because you're not buying or pirating, they aren't getting the cut from the sale that doesn't happen. Additionally, making copies of work you've already paid for is bad because it deprives them of the additional income from everybody buying several copies of the tracks.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33359614)

Google Goggles is scary at the things it can recognize. It could probably do video with a little more coding.

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359466)

Yes there is an algorithm...

if (might be copyrighted) {
        assume it is
    } else {
        assume it is // f**king freeloaders
    }

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359548)

What about adding a copyright flag inside files?

P.S.: Don't comment and mod me insightful please. Hopefully the RIAA will agree with this idea.

Re:What a coincidence (2, Informative)

Qzukk (229616) | about 4 years ago | (#33359590)

The "New World Order" that the *IAA seeks is one where everything is assumed to be copyrighted (by them). If you want to distribute something, it must have their approval (probably to the tune of $thousands + $hundreds per minute of media for "analysis" to ensure it's not infringing). Sounds farfetched? RIAA's Sound Exchange is already THE government-mandated recipient of all royalties for music played on "internet radio". Even if the song wasn't written, performed, or recorded by anyone associated with the RIAA.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 4 years ago | (#33359712)

I've read about this. Can you provide a citation? I play CC-licensed music over internet radio all the time, and fair-use-ly sampled stuff as well. I'd love to see the RIAA come after me, I've got nothing better to do than fight a lawsuit like that.

Re:What a coincidence (0, Troll)

odies (1869886) | about 4 years ago | (#33359370)

While RIAA/MPAA is probably too far on the other side of view, you aren't really honest with yourself if you think theres no hoopholes with the current copyright law or if you think piracy isn't rampant. People obviously like to get all of this for free, but the content creators need to be paid too so they can continue making us those things.

How do you think game companies would continue to make games if everyone pirated them? It wouldn't be possible. We would currently have a lot more indie developers and small studios working on awesome games if people would buy the games instead of pirating them. Yes, not everyone would buy it, but it's still a significant amount. Normally people just get tired of waiting for the warez version and buy the game, or they buy the game if they want to play it online.

Creating quality content takes money. The more people pirate, the less there are quality products, because there is no money to make them.

Re:What a coincidence (5, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 years ago | (#33359460)

Music, and musicians, existed and even thrived for thousands of years before anyone thought up copyrights.
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.

Re:What a coincidence (1, Redundant)

odies (1869886) | about 4 years ago | (#33359524)

Music, and musicians, existed and even thrived for thousands of years before anyone thought up copyrights.
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.

Do you really, really just want to listen to such music? Because you know, you can already. You can go listen to local bands and ask for their demo tapes, and stay away from all the artists that belong to some label working with RIAA. No one is making you to listen to or pirate those artists/movies/games. Oh, but you actually want to because you think they're good.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

wygit (696674) | about 4 years ago | (#33359652)

I think the meerling was saying that the artists "working with the RIAA" seem to be doing ok.

Re:What a coincidence (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | about 4 years ago | (#33359774)

If you're willing to put forth the effort, there's a lot of really good indie music out there, it's just a bit of a challenge to find. Personally, it's been years since I bought anything from the RIAA since I find there behavior to be beyond disgusting. I'm sure they've chalked that small drop in sales up to pirates and are using it as justification to further erode my rights as we speak.

I'm just waiting for them to demand the right to break into people's houses and force them to buy the latest album by whomever it is they say is good.

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359690)

Music, and musicians, existed and even thrived for thousands of years before anyone thought up copyrights.

Not that I'm an RIAA fan by any means, but you don't exactly need copyright law when the means of doing the copying hasn't been, you know, invented yet.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

wealthychef (584778) | about 4 years ago | (#33359762)

While you and I probably agree that there is a problem with odies' argument, your argument is also fallatious. Copyright is a recent invention, made necessary or at least greatly more useful by advances in industry and distribution that allow people to copy a work and make money off it much easier than in the past. If I write a novel, which might take a year or two, and someone else can just print it and distribute it without paying me, well, then I won't write said novel, probably.
I do agree though that the current system is hugely skewed in favor of making huge gobs of cash for copyright holders, which is not the same thing as huge gobs of cash for content creators, unfortunately. I think it's sorting itself out as we go. though

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359834)

Music, and musicians, existed and even thrived for thousands of years before anyone thought up copyrights.
I think your theory needs a little more work since it would imply that such a situation couldn't ever have existed.

At that time it was impossible to make and distribute audio recordings without signifigant capital investment. There is no direct historical analog of the effects file sharing has on the value of intelectual property.

Re:What a coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359574)

The solution is not to alter the laws to the point where they go against the original intention of copyright. Copyright LENGTHS have NOTHING to do with how much piracy there will be. The DMCA has nothing to do with how many people will pirate. The entire purpose of copyright, the only reason for its existence as explained explicitly in the Constitution, is to get works in to the public domain. The limited time monopoly granted to copyright holders is a means to that end. The *AA have made extreme efforts to turn that monopoly in to the end, eliminating the passing of works in to the public domain through use of the DMCA as an end run around the Constitution and even around the slow process of copyright extensions.

Do you really expect people to start respecting their wishes when they don't respect the basic ideas those laws were created on?

Yes, we need solutions to the problem of disrespect for copyright law as it was originally envisioned. However, the violation of current bought-and-paid-for copyright law is not going to cause me to lose any sleep. Disclaimer: I plan to design games independently for a living, so this problem is relevant to my interests. I just happen to realize that all the current game, music, movie, and book publishers are doing it WRONG if they want to be respected and paid.

Re:What a coincidence (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | about 4 years ago | (#33359714)

I understand what you're saying, and I think it's unfair someone modded you -1 (the only reason I could imagine is because they disagree with you, which is not what mod points are for), but this is an argument less about copyright itself and more about who is responsible for enforcing it. So much of the internet is about user-generated content. Anytime you give the users the ability to influence the contents of your site, there's the risk that they might use your site to post copyrighted material. If we start holding companies liable for this, say goodbye to youtube, facebook, and perhaps even popular forums like Slashdot. I mean, nothing is stopping me from posting a copyrighted poem or news article here. Should Slashdot be coughing up money every time that happens?

Re:What a coincidence (2, Funny)

Vrallis (33290) | about 4 years ago | (#33359758)

RIAA won't stop until they gain the right, by law, to send their personal SWAT team to your home and execute you on the spot for humming more than two notes from a 200-year-old song that they have somehow kept under copyright.

The only other way to stop the insanity is for the artists and publishers to stop participating in RIAA.

hmmmm (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359268)

Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation.

In other words he wants large sums of money from YouTube & RapidShare unfortunately the courts decided they didn't have to pay. So hes trying to get them to voluntarily pay extortion money but... when that doesnt work he'll be forced to get copyright law changed again.

Why stop there? (4, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#33359282)

If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?

Re:Why stop there? (2, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33359322)

If the wall was labeled a "public art space" and people were encouraged to do graffiti on it, then maybe? Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

enderjsv (1128541) | about 4 years ago | (#33359464)

Honestly, I don't see how youtube is any different than any other forum for communication. I could come here to Slashdot and post copyrighted material. I could go to any file upload site and upload copyrighted material. Seriously, if the RIAA gets its way, 90 percent of what makes the internet great would be in jeopardy. Any site that allows it's users any control over the material on the site what-so-ever would be liable. That's not the kind of internet I want.

Re:Why stop there? (2, Insightful)

spyfrog (552673) | about 4 years ago | (#33359544)

And how should the 3rd party (the site like Youtube or Slashdot) know what material that a user owns the rights to and are allowed to upload? The only ones who possible can know that is the one who upload the content or the guy (RIAA or MPAA) that claims that they own copyright for it.

A law like this would make it impossible to allow any site where a user can upload content. No more Flickr, no more Facebook, no more Slashdot...

Re:Why stop there? (0)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33359596)

I'm sorry, but I genuinely believe that 90% of Web 2.0 has made the Internet a WORSE place. If YouTube went away, that'd be just fine with me. Frankly, we could use a cut down in the signal-to-noise ratio.

Re:Why stop there? (3, Interesting)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 years ago | (#33359684)

How does this affect the porn industry?

Re:Why stop there? (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 4 years ago | (#33359516)

Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

Youtube and rapidshare allow people to post content and the law doesn't require them to do anything until someone complains about it.
Despite that, both companies will block previously uploaded content by hash and Rapidshare relatively recently stopped their rapidshare
points program because they say it encouraged uploading of copyright infringement.

All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries"
Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.

Re:Why stop there? (4, Insightful)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | about 4 years ago | (#33359768)

All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries" Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.

This. The RIAA is trying to back-door some deals instead of doing everything out in the open anymore where we can publicly mock them. This is the same problem I have with it.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

mini me (132455) | about 4 years ago | (#33359780)

Except a hash is a derivative work, and therefore is subject to the same copyright laws as the original. Without permission from the copyright holder, one cannot, without permission, use that method to protect future uploads.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

johnhp (1807490) | about 4 years ago | (#33359522)

The phrase "look the other way" implies that there's something they could do, but won't. It's not accurate to use that phrase in this case.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#33359608)

They "could" hire literally thousands of people to review every upload before it is posted, attempt to determine a copyright holder, contact the copyright holder, and ask them if the upload was done with the permission of the copyright holder. (Many uploads come from the copyright holder themselves.) But that would pretty much put their business model into the toilet.

Or, they could just wait for someone to complain and take it down.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 years ago | (#33359560)

If the wall was labeled a "public art space" and people were encouraged to do graffiti on it, then maybe? Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

You mean like the bulletin boards at the local grocery stores, community centres, churches, gyms, skating rinks, pools, and post offices? You know the ones... where anyone can post notices and whatnot? You are seriously arguing these companies/facilities should be liable for copyright infringement?

Re:Why stop there? (1)

spikenerd (642677) | about 4 years ago | (#33359584)

...encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

Yeah, and the constitution should also be held responsible for encouraging Copyright violations with this ridiculous "freedom of speech" notion. Surely the right to distribute my works while still telling everyone what they are allowed to do with it is the most inherent and inalienable right of them all. /sarcasm

Re:Why stop there? (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33359592)

The wall has a few other grafitti on it, and a sign saying "post no bills".

Youtube et al encourage people to post content they own, and warn against posting material they don't.

Which is enough.

If the RIAA wants to protect its copyrights it has to enforce them itself, against the infringers. Putting Youtube out of business isn't that.

Re:Why stop there? (1)

tool462 (677306) | about 4 years ago | (#33359604)

Perhaps a slightly better analogy:

An author writes a book, and plagiarizes most, if not all of it from another copyrighted work.
Editor doesn't catch the plagiarism, and passes it on to the publisher for printing.
Publisher prints the book and ships to bookstores.
Original copyright holder finds this book and is now getting ready to sue.

Who does the original author go after?

The plagiarizing author?
The editor?
The publisher?

I'm assuming the publisher would have to pull the books from shelves when the plagiarism was shown, but are they legally liable beyond that?
I'd expect the suit would have to be directed at the plagiarizing author since they're the one that actually stole the content, and perhaps some liability for the editor since you could reasonable expect them to be familiar with similar works in the field.
This seems reasonable to me, but I honestly don't know if that's how it works.

In the Youtube version, Youtube is the publisher and the poster is the author/editor.

Re:Why stop there? (2, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | about 4 years ago | (#33359702)

I thought the answer is 'go after the deepest pockets and just hope the settle out of court'?

Re:Why stop there? (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | about 4 years ago | (#33359594)

If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?

If the building owner somehow made a lot of money from the poem then yes.

Re:Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359710)

mod up ! the is a perfect analogy

Let me be the first to say it... (2, Insightful)

Bemopolis (698691) | about 4 years ago | (#33359302)

Fuck you, RIAAssholes.

Re:Let me be the first to say it... (1)

locallyunscene (1000523) | about 4 years ago | (#33359740)

I find this comment both on topic and informative.

So... (5, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33359306)

So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!

No shit, Sherlock! (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | about 4 years ago | (#33359310)

The man's a genius, toss him a coin.
On second thoughts don't, the slimy git will claim copyright on the passage of the coin through the air..

The best outcome is it can't be fixed. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359312)

Maybe we're getting to a point where big business will no longer make oodles of money distorting our culture. They've had a good run for 150 years, but hopefully technology has destroyed this model. Woohoo!

I agree (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359316)

It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can upload copyrighted content all day long on YouTube and it's up to the copyright holder to scour YouTube for all of the violations.

I understand the holder has to defend their copyright in order for the copyright to remain valid, but YouTube is completely abusing the system.

To me, because YouTube is such a blatant/careless repeat-offender of being a haven for copyrighted content, they should be fined or shut down.

Re:I agree (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33359390)

<quote><p>It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can upload copyrighted content all day long on YouTube and it's up to the copyright holder to scour YouTube for all of the violations.</p></quote>

No, that's precisely how it SHOULD work.

Re:I agree (1)

easterberry (1826250) | about 4 years ago | (#33359400)

The problem with that theory is that with the volume that goes through youtube there's no practical way for them to find everyone elses copyright material.

Re:I agree (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33359428)

> It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can upload copyrighted content all day long on
> YouTube and it's up to the copyright holder to scour YouTube for all of the violations.

If it's worth the effort then it's worth the effort.

Clearly, Big Content would rather not be bothered.

Therefore, it can't really be that important.

The notion of "copyright violation" or "piracy" really isn't the point.

The industry needs to demonstrate what actual harm is being done when
some toddler dances to a song that is old enough that it should already
be in the public domain by now.

The law not working? So sad. Big Media paid for it after all.

As much as they have corrupted the system, they are really in no position to whine.

Re:I agree (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#33359532)

It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can walk into a library and make photocopies of books all day long and it's up to the copyright holder to scour the libraries for all of the violations.

It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can record pop songs off of the radio all day long and it's up to the copyright holder to scour the homes of anyone owning a recording device for all of the violations.

It's pretty ridiculous that thousands of people can carry cell phones into concerts and use them to create videos of concerts day long and it's up to the copyright holder to catch them in the act of making a recording for all of the violations.

Do you see a trend here? Yes, protecting your copyrights is hard. But don't expect others to spend their time and money to do it for you.

Re:I agree (2, Insightful)

cfulmer (3166) | about 4 years ago | (#33359566)

I understand the holder has to defend their copyright in order for the copyright to remain valid,

Uh... No. Not true at all. You're confusing Copyright Law with Trademark Law.

YouTube is actually a very poor example for your point -- they have all sorts of ways to filter out copyrighted content -- they have a content matching system, users can flag materials, and they respond to DMCA takedown notices.

If you want to go after somebody, go after the people who are posting copyright material on YouTube. Why make YouTube responsible for what users do?

Re:I agree (0)

Qzukk (229616) | about 4 years ago | (#33359642)

To me, because YouTube is such a blatant/careless repeat-offender of being a haven for copyrighted content, they should be fined or shut down

I just slipped a rip of Avatar under your doormat and reported you. Enjoy your $200000 fine.

Re:I agree (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | about 4 years ago | (#33359670)

Cary Sherman, is that you? Don't you have work to do? You know, homeless people and printers to send DMCA notices to?

Re:I agree (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 years ago | (#33359722)

MD = Media Dump
CH = Copyright Holder

CH 0000001 has 30 pieces of work that they want MD to monitor for and prevent from being displayed.
CH 0000002 has 1700 pieces and wants the same thing.

MD gets about 2000 files uploaded everyday, so that means they have to check all 2000 against 1730 pieces of work. Not fun for them, and what liability do they have to face if they miss one?
Ah... we forgot something... There are THOUSANDS of CH with quantities of works ranging from 1 to many thousands. The amount of work (and liability) that MD would have to deal with goes up at an insane rate. MD has NO vested interest in those pieces of work, and can not be expected to take on the task of policing the activities of other people, even though they use the service provided by MD. Are you expected to check the criminal record and intentions of everyone that walks down the sidewalk in front of your house because the police don't want to? No. It's up the the CH to defend their own copyright, and not to force someone else to do it for them.

I agree with RIAA (5, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#33359342)

It isn't working. Amendment __: Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years* to Authors and Inventors the temporary Privilege of monopoly to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Jefferson

Re:I agree with RIAA (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33359510)

You do know he was talking about ideas, not recordings, right?

And that patent law and copyright law are very, very different beasts for just this reason, right?

Re:I agree with RIAA (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | about 4 years ago | (#33359766)

How does a concept or invention, wrought in the mind of the originator through hard work, differ from a piece of music? In that the first is "more serious" than the other, and thus deserves special treatment?

Re:I agree with RIAA (1)

canajin56 (660655) | about 4 years ago | (#33359838)

They aren't anymore. Copyright cannot protect an idea, only the expression of that idea. However, that has changed. Copyright now protects the very idea itself, with "derivative work" covering even 100% new expressions of the same idea. Copyright was categorically intended not to limit ideas, and now that is its main purpose. For example, it is a copyright violation to make an entirely new story about an existing character from popular literature. This is considered a derivative work. This is absurd and goes against the very idea of copyright, but that's the law as it stands now.

If this goes through (1)

nebaz (453974) | about 4 years ago | (#33359348)

Say goodbye to youtube in its entirety. The risk of liability would be too great, it would turn into another hulu. What would happen to user generated video content?

Re:If this goes through (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | about 4 years ago | (#33359446)

If the RIAA got their way Youtube would become a whore to the big media corps basically. You would get to pay subscriptions to watch trailers and snippets from movies/music videos without getting the right to download it and use at your leisure. Then they would advertise before and between every snippet you watch, further lining their pockets with ad-revenue, while convincing you to watch the movie or buy the music to the video you are currently watching snippets of.

Re:If this goes through (2)

design1066 (1081505) | about 4 years ago | (#33359552)

Hey, there always "America's Funniest Home Videos"!

Re:If this goes through (1)

spyfrog (552673) | about 4 years ago | (#33359606)

Big media doesn't want user generated content because they don't own it and don't make any money from it.

a better law would disband the RIAA (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 years ago | (#33359358)

they are a monopoly and certainly do not help the Artists they say that are representing.

Re:a better law would disband the RIAA (1)

PPH (736903) | about 4 years ago | (#33359700)

They don't represent the artists. They represent the copyright holders (the recording and distribution companies).

Let the artists get together and release their work through different channels under different contract terms. They can shop around for other industry representatives to defend their IP. Or go it alone.

Let the RIAA wither and die. If they interfere, then the DoJ can throw the Sherman Antitrust Act at them.

Apperantly ? (0)

grub (11606) | about 4 years ago | (#33359364)


Apperantly somebody's spell checker isn't working.

.

My turn (4, Insightful)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 4 years ago | (#33359372)

Let's deal, Cary...

-Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc, make the punishment for downloading the disc the same as physical theft.

-Hold Rapidshare responsible for their hosting of copyrighted content, but you pay double if the content is found to be uninfringing.

-Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright and stream it over the internet without having to pay you royalties.

-Show that monies collected from copyright infringement cases (less court fees) literally go to pad the pockets of the artists you claim to protect. For added sympathy, use some to fund school music programs to encourage the next generation of musicians.

And, as a personal request:

-Stop using Autotune as an effect. It's annoying.

Re:My turn (0, Redundant)

odies (1869886) | about 4 years ago | (#33359442)

-Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright and stream it over the internet without having to pay you royalties.

Why, exactly, you cannot do this currently? Because every single artist on the planet can.

Posible Court Defense? (2, Interesting)

Picass0 (147474) | about 4 years ago | (#33359554)

"..Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc..."

I wonder if any attorney has tried using this in court? If there is actual RIAA literature out there saying the downloading of music is the same as theft of a CD, wouldn't that establish a monetary value of the content and hence limit the financial liability of the downloader/filesharer?

Re:Posible Court Defense? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33359664)

If there is actual RIAA literature out there saying the downloading of music is the same as theft of a CD, wouldn't that establish a monetary value of the content and hence limit the financial liability of the downloader/filesharer?

No, because they already bought the law that places the statutory damages at something like $250K for each infringed work.

If they accepted a 1:1 value for downloaded music, those lucrative court settlements wouldn't be nearly as fun or profitable.

Sounds average for them (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 years ago | (#33359378)

Didn't they already try to get the safe haven provisions in the DMCA revoked? (and failed)

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359388)

With all the RIAA crap removed from YouTube and so on, it will be easier to find stuff by the good artists. I find myself enjoying music more since I stopped buying the RIAA CDs, so this looks like more improvement along the same line.

Totally Illogical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359416)

As always, how can a third party (party C/ISP/service provider) ever be held legally responsible for accurately determining if party A has infringed on party B's IP/copyright? There is no way for them to determine definitively what is copyrighted and what is covered by fair use. Courts often have a hard time doing it, there is no way for a company to do it accurately. It's even more ridiculous when the third party has in (huge) excess of a GB of information uploaded every minute.

Informal... what? (3, Insightful)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | about 4 years ago | (#33359444)

"The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries"

How is an agreement that is written down somewhere considered "informal?"

Holy protection racket ... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33359458)

Wow, that just sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie ... "we'd like to reach an informal arrangement wit youze, but if we can't, we'd be willing to force one on you".

What will be enough for these people? Everybody just simply tithes to them?

They want the entire world to be beholden to, and policing, their copyright. At some point, they're actually doing society more harm than good. These people aren't even the ones "creating" anything -- they're just the ones using funny math to prove they're losing money hand over fist so they can avoid paying the actual creators. A bunch of middlemen skimming off the top don't contribute anything.

Sadly, I'm mostly preaching to the converted, and I fear bitching about it won't help.

Tough shit, Cary (3, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | about 4 years ago | (#33359468)

Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.

They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.

That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.

And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.

Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359474)

We're not making enough money suing old ladies who don't know what a computer is much less what to do with it (and don't listen to hip hop). We're having a hard time getting collages to police their network for us. We can't seem to make enough money threatening people who we think have downloaded music illegally. We have spent too much money paying lawyers to keep our good (yeah lmao)name out of the papers and we need more money so who else can we terrorize? Yeah go FUCK OFF. Shoehornjob

Dear RIAA (0)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 4 years ago | (#33359478)

Dear RIAA,

Fuck off.

©2010, whisper_jeff

The food was awful, and the portions small! (3, Insightful)

Draque (1367509) | about 4 years ago | (#33359482)

Now correct me if I'm being blindingly stupid here, but is Sherman suggesting that because there is a systemic problem with copyright law, that we make more of it?

Logic. (1)

santax (1541065) | about 4 years ago | (#33359484)

How about not being able to get rights from waves of air? Would that be a bit more logical maybe?

Hey, I agree with him... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359486)

when he says copyright law isn't working.

Since it isn't working, let's do away with it.

douchetastic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359494)

everyone who does or ever has worked for the RIAA, including their counsel, should be publicly flogged - then shot between the eyes.

and broadcast on YouTube, royalty free.

In related news... (1)

RingDev (879105) | about 4 years ago | (#33359518)

Apparently not satisfied with the current scope of the minimum age of concent laws, NAMBLA President ????? wants to broaden the scope of the law.

-Rick

(note, you'll have to excuse me for not digging up the name of the NAMBLA president from work.)

Yes the law isn't working (2, Insightful)

Atrox666 (957601) | about 4 years ago | (#33359542)

The RIAA is allowed to rip off the very people the law should be protecting.
Copyright law should protect authors and artists not non value added resellers.
Its members have been nailed in payola scam after payola scam without any serious repercussions. Price fixing on a massive scale and "Record company accounting" is well known for forcing artists to pay for the privilege of earning money for them.
Any just law in the public interest would reduce their profits to a small percentage of the net.

definitely something isn't working (2, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#33359558)

Here is the main content of TFA:

RIAA President Cary Sherman said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains loopholes that allow broadband providers and Web companies to turn a blind eye to customers' unlawful activities without suffering any legal consequences.

"The DMCA isn't working for content people at all," he said at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "You cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It's simply not possible. We don't have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears, such as cyberlockers like [file-hosting firm] RapidShare."

- you see, DMCA isn't working for RIAA.

In response to a question from CNET, Sherman said it may be necessary for the U.S. Congress to enact a new law formalizing agreements with intermediaries such as broadband providers, Web hosts, payment processors, and search engines.

The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries, Sherman said: "We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers."

- makes sense, make it increasingly difficult for US economy to survive.

Last week, the RIAA and a dozen other music industry groups called on Google and Verizon to crack down on piracy, saying in a letter that "the current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators."

- RIAA considers itself a 'creator' apparently.

Clearly the law is not working. The correct fix is to abolish patent and copyright law altogether. There should be nothing of the sort, all government intervention into economy must stop, and this does include creating any sort of barriers of entry into any industry. Copyrights and Patents are like any other regulations, are designed to make competition less likely, to make the monopolies of the existing powers more persistent and pervasive, this of-course helps the government to maintain its power in a number of ways: obviously government makes much more money from monopolies than from actual competing businesses, who wouldn't bother giving the government officials those nice fat bri.. contributions.

All government regulations do this: they tax, they subsidize, they regulate, all that it ends up doing is creating barriers to entry, creating moral hazards, helping big monopolies and destroying competition, all of this of-course helps government officials but totally works against sound economy and competition.

Copyrights and patents must be abolished, that is the correct way to help the economy and not by helping some specific people to maintain their monopoly while giving them ability to drag any competition through a bought court system with their ill gained money.

Here is the Deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359572)

You can have everything you want....... for a price.

The price being that the date of copyright must be public information and the length of Copyright drops to 365 days at which point the work goes permanently into the public domain. No exceptions, no exclusions.

Failure to publish the date of copyright automatically voids the copyright and places the work into the public domain.

RIAA Wants Mob Style Control Over All Creativity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359598)

Film at 11.

eventual outcome... (1)

johnhp (1807490) | about 4 years ago | (#33359602)

The RIAA will either be cowed by an informed public that passes intelligent copyright laws... or some day, some person, will escalate this to a violent level.

As is, the RIAA can, through it's government proxies, send armed men into your house to throw you on the floor, handcuff you and haul you away. Eventually someone will reverse this situation and do that to a leader of the RIAA.

The big Picture (5, Informative)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 years ago | (#33359628)

The Big Picture [imgur.com]

... what about the people ? (1)

redelm (54142) | about 4 years ago | (#33359666)

Uhm ... er ... just why does the RIAA think it can write laws? Merely because they've had success in the past influencing legislation does not mean they have a right to such influence continuing.

Reality Check (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 4 years ago | (#33359726)

People NOT the RIAA President saying 'trying to sell garbage at a premium' isn't working.

Translation: (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#33359760)

"Nice file sharing site you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"

Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33359784)

"When I had a bloody finger, I attempted a fix by cutting off my hand."

"That didn't work, so now I propose cutting off the whole arm."

So no more DSN as well? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33359808)

So no more DSN as well?

as the RIAA can say it's the same as Google?

moan...moan QQ 4u! (1)

redelm (54142) | about 4 years ago | (#33359810)

Losers blame others or "the System". Winners improve themselves.

If the RIAA wants change, they could change their business model from milking an old back-catalog and do more to discover and develop new talent. When "British|American Idol" discovers more talent than the RIAA's combined A&R depts, they've slipped below Art Linkletter's "Tiny Talent Time".

Phail, and not worth any life-preserver.

Absurd (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | about 4 years ago | (#33359818)

I've personally seen situations where the copyright watch dogs have issued takedown notices on an artist's own YouTube channel. It was only a temporary thing, but if they can't be trusted to even know when it's obviously a legit posting, how can they be trusted for anything?

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>