Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Lawyer Complains DMCA May Need Revamp

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the still-not-enough dept.

Businesses 303

the simurgh writes "The DMCA is just not providing the kind of protection against online piracy that Congress intended, RIAA lawyer Jennifer Pariser says. The judge in Universal Music Group's copyright suit against Veoh as well as the judge in EMI vs. MP3tunes.com issued similar findings. The courts have now determined the burden of policing the web for infringing materials is on the content owner and not the service provider. Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money. What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately. Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense."

cancel ×

303 comments

fp (0)

FRAKK2 (166082) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973116)

:)

Re:fp (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973322)

The quality of first posts on slashdot has dramatically decreased during the last year. What is causing this trend?

"responsible for policing their own content" (5, Insightful)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973118)

Working as intended, then.

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973308)

Are they offering to share the loot with the ISPs when they win a court case...?

How about a part of the increased profits? According to them they lose tens of billions per year due to piracy. Are they going to reward the ISPs with a fair share of that?

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973334)

How about they pay for the costs they bring the ISP's to try to filter content in the first place?

Again, I believe that challenge was backed down by the MAFIAA as well...wasn't it worded as "pay a day of our supposedly free costs of youtube"?

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (0)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973420)

I think the best solution would be if YouTube went to pay-per-view model. Users would get to see for example 1 minute of the video and if they like it, they can quickly pay for access from their wallet. Since the wallet can be filled for example at $5, $10 or $25, it also enables micro-transactions inside YouTube. Liked that baby video? Give it $0.01. Liked that funny cat video? Give it $0.01 too. And when the video uploader has asked for a price, you could pay few dollars to watch it. The profit would be split between YouTube, content owner and the uploader.

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973456)

I think slashdot should go to a pay per view model, and if they like it they kan read the rest of the comme...

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973480)

"I think the best solution would be if YouTube went to pay-per-view model."

Watch YouTube die overnight....

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973378)

According to them they lose tens of billions per year due to piracy. Are they going to reward the ISPs with a fair share of that?

Losing money (expenses exceed revenues) is vastly different than making less money than your bean counters projected.

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973558)

Their claims of Losing money is also vastly different than what happens in reality as well.

Matching their fairytale with another one is absolutely correct.

Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (3, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973312)

They are really upset because the courts interpreted the law as written instead of how they wanted it. Or maybe they are just mad because the money they spent on congressmen and judges is being over ruled by the actual law.

DMCA (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973122)

I think that DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act, so its supposed to last 1000 years before they need to change it.

Re:DMCA (5, Funny)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973132)

Wouldn't a digital millennium be 1024 years?

Re:DMCA (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973146)

That's be a dibigital mibillenium.

Re:DMCA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973260)

How did "digital" get applied to the electronics realm where data is most commonly dealt with in binary? Quite a few of a computer's problems are caused by the fact that it ISN'T digital.

Re:DMCA (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973486)

How did "digital" get applied to the electronics realm where data is most commonly dealt with in binary? Quite a few of a computer's problems are caused by the fact that it ISN'T digital.

Analog vs digital ~= continuous vs discrete. In this context it means countable or enumerable, like your fingers. If it was refering to base 10 it would be called decimal, just like octal is 8 and hexadecimal is 16.

Re:DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973584)

Digital = 10

There are 10 types of people that understand this sentence.

Re:DMCA (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973736)

Digital can also refer to the fact that you have 10 digits (fingers).

Re:DMCA (1)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973156)

bravo, sir, well played.

Re:DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973190)

Wouldn't a digital millennium be 1024 years?

Actually I think that would be a 'mibbennium'

Re:DMCA (1)

blivit42 (980582) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973632)

Wouldn't a digital millennium be 1024 years?

No, that would be a mellibinnium.

crony capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973128)

disproportionate resources to address the problems of a few, because their money and influence on our government is disproportionately loud.

Re:crony capitalism (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973166)

I knew that they're sales were low, but I had no idea they were that low. Bill Gates could just about buy out the entire industry and have money left over.

Re:crony capitalism (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973398)

Copyright and Patents are merely two systems of dozens that are broken in the exact same way.

This happens when people can buy power in the government and can write their own laws.

Crap (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973134)

What's surprising is that anyone even bothers to download the crap put out by the music and movie industries.

Re:Crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973664)

It's not "everyone". It's niggers and nigger lovers (also known as fake-niggers, or simply niggers).

There's no way a lawyer wrote this. (1)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973148)

Think of all the billable hours they could charge for policing the internet!

Lawyers can't write cause they lack arms & leg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973330)

Going back to the fossil record, they do have arms and legs, but then they would be called Judges back then.

13th Amendment (aka TONA, "Titles of Nobility Act") took away their eminence and thus put them submit to the people, but look at at wretched they've done in deploying codes onto artificial persons in wardship to their court to trick the people into becoming the contract-breached trustee handling their own persons.

Re:Lawyers can't write cause they lack arms & (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973396)

Yeah there was a time I tried really hard to believe that UCC conspiracy theory.

Boo Frickin' Hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973152)

nuff said.

Excuse me, I have a call to place. (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973154)

Hopefully, the Waaaaaaahmbulance is available.

Seriously, they engage in all manner of illegal investigation and questionable lawsuit, and now they're whining about the fact that it's their responsibility to police their content? If this was a small company, I could totally understand, but this is an industry that takes in billions of dollars every year. If they can't afford to bring a few lawsuits, perhaps they need a new business model.

Re:Excuse me, I have a call to place. (1)

Huggs (864763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973240)

Definitely worthy of being tagged as such: 'waaaaaambulence'

Re:Excuse me, I have a call to place. (0)

planimal (2454610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973248)

how much money an entity makes is not relevant to what is right and wrong. l2 be not dumb

Re:Excuse me, I have a call to place. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973522)

Sure it does, there's plenty of times when I could have sued, but lacked the financial resources and time to do so.

It's fairly common for lawsuits to drag on for years during which time you'd have to be paying attorney's fees hoping to get the money back after winning the case.

LOL Power companies are profiting from infringment (5, Insightful)

KingBozo (137671) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973178)

It takes electricity to power those copying material. I guess the power companies should also police the web.

---------------
One idiot to bind them all.

Re:LOL Power companies are profiting from infringm (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973286)

You might be onto something here... expect a "piracy tax" in your next power bill, and loophole closing (solar panels) in the next few months. I mean, in europe they charge a tax on blank media, that, in theory, goes to "artists".

Re:LOL Power companies are profiting from infringm (5, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973564)

"in europe they charge a tax on blank media"

They do that in the US, too.

Because of this, you can borrow CDs from your friends or a library, and copy them for yourself, and it's all perfectly legal. 17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 [house.gov] specifically states:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:

any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device.

In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders (it also covers cassette tapes, FWIW). These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.25 each.

The law which allows this was enacted at the urging of the RIAA, so thanks go to them for all the CDs I got for a quarter instead of $15.

Re:LOL Power companies are profiting from infringm (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973604)

Why would they want to? They're getting paid when you download!

QQ for u ! (5, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973180)

Since the copyright owner is the one who profits from their exclusive legislatively-granted monopoly, they _should_ bear the costs of enforcement. Who else can decide that enforcement is worthwhile? Blanket enforcement is far too chilling on free speech and fair use. Not that the RIAA recognizes either, so why recognize them?

Re:QQ for u ! (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973250)

Since the copyright owner is the one who profits from their exclusive legislatively-granted monopoly, they _should_ bear the costs of enforcement.

Sadly, both the public and the government seems to have forgotten that copyright is a government fiat made with the hope of driving artistic production and not a natural right.

Bingo! (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973376)

Sadly, both the public and the government seems to have forgotten that copyright is a government fiat made with the hope of driving artistic production and not a natural right.

Most insightful comment.

A corporation does not have the "right" to exist, or to make a profit, or to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The best thing that could happen is if every member of the RIAA was boycotted to the point of going out of business, just to show them who's boss. I know I'm doing my part.

Re:QQ 4 u ! (5, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973608)

Precisely! Arguments from Mark Twain through to the 1995 Sonny Bono copyright extention are invalid and possibly unconstituional:

Since copyright is to encourage writers and artists to create, it must be prospective and not retroactive. Retroactive grants ("extentions") cannot influence creation already made!

Second, as a prospective inducement, copyright is subject to the power of compound interest -- 15 years is close to 25 and 95 is not much more when discounted at commercial rates of interest. A short term would be sufficient inducement/reward, and longer terms are wasteful and hobble society. Patents only run 17 years! Why should copyrights be longer? The value of series like Sherlock Holmes, StarTrek/Wars was initially in the creation, but now is mostly in the preceptions (mindshare) of society at large. The claim has lapsed.

I hope they somehow get jailtime for the thieves. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973184)

A week in the cell for every stolen work. This includes anyone who downloads it from them too. This was it will be a week for the seeder and a week for the leech.

Re:I hope they somehow get jailtime for the thieve (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973268)

Wow, the RIAA has shills on /. now?

Re:I hope they somehow get jailtime for the thieve (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973466)

I'm leeching AND seeding - right now! Do I get 2 weeks, or overlapping sentences?

Because a $50 piece of software is the same as a week in jail.

eh? (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973186)

Because *OBVIOUSLY* it doesn't cost the service providers ANYTHING to go through all those DMCA notices, check the legal validity, ensure the content is on their systems, isolate it and remove, reply to the DMCA, handle appeals etc.

They make it sound like 100% of the burden is on the record companies, etc. when actually there's just as much hassle for everyone involved (courts included). What they've noticed is that there are JUST TOO MANY files out there that could be the valid subject of a legal DMCA notice but that neither they, the courts, or the service providers can really handle the sheer volume. So their complaint is to make someone else pay for it, in time, effort, money and liability when they get it wrong.

I don't think that stands up, really, as an argument. And it makes you wonder why they ever bothered at all. There are international users who will, just for mischief, repost anything that you don't like. And you'll struggle to take it down and will *never* legally stop them posting it somewhere else - or even the same place (it might not even be illegal in their country to "infringe" that copyright, for instance).

I don't think it's a valid response to the problems. Now, if you'd pushed for harsher sentences, greater fines, etc. to try to put people off repeat offending, then your argument would at least be consistent. PR suicide, but consistent. Their next step can really only be pushing for more punishment and harsher law (how they carries to international or anonymous users is left as an exercise to the user), or to realise that it was always a bit pointless to play Whack-a-mole over an MP3 that you're already making MILLIONS from.

The option "It's not working, so we want someone else to do our job and provide repercussions to people who pirate for us" isn't really sensible or logical.

Re:eh? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973274)

Also the service providers know EXACTLY which content is copyrighted and by whom. The enforcement by the copyright holders is exactly how it has been since the beginning. In fact I think it's written in the copyright code.

what they really want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973200)

They really want to add egress filters to every Cisco to block traffic at the packet level looking for mp3 fingerprints. They're not going to be satisfied until every router is patched.

Yes, so? (1)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973212)

Yes, so?

I'm going to go with... (4, Insightful)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973218)

FUCK THEM. They are raking in fat stacks of cash every year off of their supposedly well-honed machine, they should be responsible for policing their own content. It is not the responsibility of the government of the United States or any other country to police the Internet looking for content violations. Most governments have put in place laws and regulations that allow the "owner" of the content to be able to work within that system and get rid of infringing copies - AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. Not at the expense of the taxpayers.

Fuck you if you expect me and 250+ million other taxpayers help you sue for damages when we don't see a dime of that unless we are a luxury car dealer or real estate agent (or a lawyer). Not to mention that the net effect on the United States of corporatism laws like the DMCA and extended copyright periods is that we, as a nation, are less and less LEADING the way into new science and technology frontiers and more and more about holding the status quo or LOSING ground to other nations who don't exactly give a shit about the laws of the United States.

Re:I'm going to go with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973346)

Not to mention that the net effect on the United States of corporatism laws like the DMCA and extended copyright periods is that we, as a nation, are less and less LEADING the way into new science and technology frontiers and more and more about holding the status quo or LOSING ground to other nations who don't exactly give a shit about the laws of the United States.

This. The US didn't get a leading position by enforcing copyright, it got it by specifically ignoring it.

correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973226)

"The DMCA is just not providing the tools we need to sue children and the elderly into the ground."

democratic law (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973228)

Is their any sort of law anywhere that states if x % of a population does something it therefor is now legal?

Could be useful against government agencies/agents turning oppressive.
e.g.: Some bureaucrat sets the max speed of a highway at 10kph. Obviously everyone brakes that speed limit, should police and courts still be allowed to convict them?

Back on topic:
It's called file SHARING. Sharing is caring.
Just like when you had friends visiting and you shared your toys with them to play. Just at a larger scale!

Re:democratic law (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973434)

The thing is, while I quite happily and shamelessly download stuff from the internet, I'm not quite sure it should be legal. I consider it a little anti-social to acquire too much media this way. As far as moral reprehensibility goes, I consider it to be equivalent to parking illegally. I'm quite happy to forgive someone who stops for 5 minutes and doesn't cause an obstruction, but don't think that this means we should abolish all parking restrictions.

Re:democratic law (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973594)

In a democracy, if the majority of the population disagrees with a law to the extent of breaking it, the law should be changed and will eventually be changed. It is a measure of how much our democracy has degraded that this is even a matter for discussion.

It is a pain (-1, Troll)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973232)

I think they are right. Something like Wikipedia's solution might be the right one, where putting up images, songs, videos requires a statement of where you got them from. Essentially that's answering the big question in a DMCA takedown in advance: I got this from X and believe I have a license to use it because of Y (including I created it).

If we had semi-reasonable rules regarding degree of infringement and looked at things like "intent" then I could see a system like that working. Right now content producers can't enforce copyright effectively. The cost of policing is simply too high. At the same time, the penalties for minor violations or inadvertent violations are too high.

Lower the penalties, create a neutral 3rd party to regulate copyright content and I think everyone could be better off. Of course the obscene length of time for copyright content and the expansive view of derived works doesn't help either. It undermines the legitimacy of copyright.

nae tru neutral third party (3, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973302)

Let the content owners police their content or go out of business. It's not like we have a shortage of musicians, artists, and filmmakers in our society. I'm not paying to fund a third party to protect their business model.

Tragedy (2)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973236)

"Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense."

                My God, how can this be America?

Re:Tragedy (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973478)

Bailout time for costs!

How would an ISP know if a work is copyrighted? (1)

Xian97 (714198) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973246)

How is an ISP expected to be able to determine whether a work is copyrighted or not? A review of an RIAA album might have the same file name as the actual copyrighted work. I remember that has already happened where a takedown was issued for a book report on a Harry Potter novel due to it having a similar title.

Re:How would an ISP know if a work is copyrighted? (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973436)

In the mean time, let's introduce a new feature to our friends over at the RIAA and MPAA that will allow them to shift the burden of checking data they store for users to see if it's some pirated content. MD5! That should keep them busy for a few more years before the whining resumes. Just don't tell them, yet, that it's their business model that's broken.

Re:How would an ISP know if a work is copyrighted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973468)

Copyright is obtained when a work is published.. so it's very simple really.

For example, each time a video is posted on youtube, youtube simply searches all registered copyrighted works, all websites, ftp servers, the library of congress, all published books, songs, artwork, stuff you mailed to your grandmother, and everything you wrote at any point in your or anyone elses life. Then they'll know if the video is already copyrighted, and they can refuse to post it.

As you can see, this is much simpler, cheaper, and easier for everyone involved.

Pay to protect your own shit (5, Insightful)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973252)

Guess what. The patent system and the copyright system require that holders of such must protect and defend their own material. The patent and copyright laws give them the legal means to do so (but they must provide the lawyers). If they demand that the ISP's do their dirty work, they should be required to pay the ISP's for the service. They have to pay their lawyers.

Basically, but not accurately (0)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973258)

Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense."

No, they're complaining that the DMCA's safe harbor provisions have a loophole that allows content providers to be free of liability, even when the same infringing content is posted over, and over, and over again. And yeah, that is a legitimate complaint. It doesn't mean the safe harbor needs to go away, but rather than there should be some encouragement for ISPs implementing filtering or matching systems, so that copyright owners don't have to send dozens of takedown notices for the same content that is posted and reposted with slightly different titles.

Since when is any opposing argument a troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973570)

Must not go against the Slashdot Group-Think.

Queue sound of the world's smallest violins (2)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973262)

"Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense."

All together now, "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Too bad."

On the other side of the looking glass... (1)

Magee_MC (960495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973272)

Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money.

Service providers think that it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when a content company's pirated works helps content companies make money from the free advertising.

Can't have it both ways (1)

2phar (137027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973280)

The deal is we enforce their copyright protection in return for the rights being given to the public domain after a reasonable time. However, they seek to keep extending the term of the copyright. If the people have to wait longer and longer for public domain, you'd expect them to care less and less about protecting the copyright.

I agree with him (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973288)

RIAA Lawyer Complains DMCA May Need Revamp

I agree. The best revamp would be a repeal.

The DMCA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973298)

The DMCA needs to be repealed! RIAA/MPAA/PUBLISHERS need to EAT SHIT AND DIE! Then EAT MORE SHIT AND DIE AGAIN!!

Like everyone else (5, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973310)

If someone hurts your rights, you have to take legal action yourself. Why would the content industry be an exception? And in fact, the DMCA already requires service providers to police their users, as they are bound to remove content upon mere accusations without any proof that it actually infringes the IP of the rightsholder. The content industry should not be treated differently from any other one: if they think someone is hurting their rights they should stand up for themselves and take legal action against the person in question, not run to the government/service provider to help.

Meh (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973316)

Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money.

And car manufacturers should pay for smuggling, because most smuggling happens by cars so clearly that drives the sales of cars. Or transporting stolen goods. Or for speeding, because clearly they make money on letting you speed.

What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately

And how exactly would putting the burden on the service provider help that? It wouldn't but it makes their impossible problem the ISP or hosting company's impossible problem. If you can't solve it, pass it. You can then wail forever that they're never doing enough.

Re:Meh (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973836)

Or for speeding, because clearly they make money on letting you speed.

This is a very good point, and a similarity I often draw when talking about the MAFIAA. Why are car manufacturers not held partially responsible for speeders? After all, they are the ones that make sports cars, that are capable of going twice the maximum speed limit! The police should be funded by GM to help stop speeding! (not really, but that is the point)

intellectual property tax (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973318)

If the RIAA wants their property protected without paying for it directly, then I suggest they start paying property taxes like everybody else who relies on the military or police to protect their property.

The best systems are ones that intrinsically converge to fairness -- e.g. the best way for two people who want cake to cut cake? One person cuts, the other chooses; the system enforces fairness. The best way for intellectual property to be protected? The content owners can pick whatever value they think their content is worth, then pay 4% property tax per year like everybody else. If a million people infringe on their property, each person is only liable for one-millionth of this taxable amount. The competing forces (A. company wants lower taxes so wants to claim their property is worthless, and B. company wants maximum awarded damages and so wants to claim their property is worth trillions) will force the company to self-assess a fair price. If their property is REALLY worth trillions, the company won't hesitate to pay 4% ($40 billion) per year in taxes. If the company isn't willing to pay more than $2 million per year in taxes to protect their property, then it's only worth $50 million, and so if they sue 50,000 people, each person is only liable for a maximum of $1,000. If the company isn't willing to pay more than $0 per year in taxes to protect their property, then their property is worthless and there's no penalty to infringe.

Re:intellectual property tax (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973690)

Agreed.

They can have the changes to the DMCA they want as long as all Intellectual Property is taxed at the claimed price they have put up in the courts... at property tax rates. If at any time they claim a value in court, it will go on record that that is the value for each and every piece of IP of that type industry wide.

Suddenly the RIAA and MPAA, and BSA will shut up.

Cost Shifting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973328)

DMCA civil awards are designed to compensate the claimant (in this case, the RIAA) for costs spent on defending their rights (or abusing others' rights, fix it for me). Now 10+ years later, they are hoping to shift those costs elsewhere and hope noone notices.

Re:Cost Shifting? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973362)

Sounds familiar. Corporate success in the new age isn't about making good products and succeeding on the merits, it's about shifting all the costs onto the backs of others. Meritocracy indeed...

Seriously? (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973332)

Maybe these shit-for-brains RIAA execs could have thought that through before they wrote the law?

I mean it's bad enough that we have these dumb-as-a-kumquat soulless automatons deciding what music the rest of us should hear. It's bad enough that they essentially rape their "not really employees" with ridiculous contracts that require them to suck out their own bone marrow in order to have a career at all (one reason I enjoy my music a a private hobby and make far more than most rock musicians as an IT guy), no they have to also insist that the entire world bend itself around their antiquated business model.

Only a complete numb-nuts moron would think of a song as a physical item, and that's been the downfall of the entire RIAA's asshole-to-the-face business model. Once they started suing their customers the game was up. People FUCKING HATE big companies. They FUCKING HATE record companies. The artists FUCKING HATE record companies.

Dear RIAA, we FUCKING HATE YOU. Signed, EVERYONE ELSE.

Wow (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973344)

They are actually complaining that the law doesn't let them win any case they want, with impunity.
Jesus.

Settlements? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973348)

How about all the money they get from copyright lawsuits and settlements?
Doesn't that money cover legal expenses?
Or do they want to make profit off of copyright infringement?

Pay no attention. (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973370)

RIAA has shown itself to be incompetent in the making of public policy. That is clear. The hard part will be convincing Congress of that.

Sooner or later (1)

grilled-cheese (889107) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973386)

Sooner or later they're going to realize that the internet is not conducive to their monopolistic, pricing model. I expect at some point they're just going to try and blanket take down all media on the internet, then come up with their own Internet3 crippled with DRM. Of course they'll sell signing keys and leases to indy publishers after enough red tape and time...

Isn't the DMCA to protect physical media? (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973402)

Of course it doesn't do much to protect online content -- the DMCA was to stop use of "circumvention measures" such as decoding and ripping DVDs and Blu-Ray disks. All it does is make it illegal to decrypt stuff.

Re:Isn't the DMCA to protect physical media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973668)

Don't forget that a Ninth Circuit federal judge - a jurisdiction that includes Hollywood, mind you - ruled that it was perfectly legal to rip a DVD you legitimately own. This kills the DMCA crab. What's left of the DMCA without those provisions? Safe harbor?

If by that reasoning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973422)

Say I use a search provider to help me find a shop to buy their "goods", doesn't that mean that the search provider should get a percentage?

Welcome to Earth (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973430)

What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately.

That tends to be how things work with humans. You tell them no, and instantly people do everything in their power to do it anyway, even if they had no interest before.

I agree... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973476)

I agree with this guy 100%!!! But to make it easier for the ISP's to censor these infringing works, then we need to have complete and total access to all of the movie and record industries contracts, licensing agreements and accounting books. That way they can easily check an infringement claim to make sure that they really do have "rights" to said works.

Update suggested by RIAA. (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973494)

This whole business of filing law suits and waiting for the courts to act etc is taking too much of time. RIAA just wants to let loose a few people with some stout leather belts to punish anyone caught downloading illegal songs. They seem to have acquired some training materials from the YouTube. Not sure if they downloaded that video legally.

I say make it fair (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973498)

The copyright owner has always born the cost of enforcement, or at least detection of infringement and that is fair because they are the ones deriving the benefit from the protection copyright offers them.

Its not like service providers and site operators are not burdened by compliance with all those take down requests. It cuts both ways. The content industry as usual wants a free ride.

So I say we as a society offer them this: Service providers,site operators, and individuals will be responsible for being able to show they rights to publish or reproduce anything they do. The content industry will lose implicit copyright. In other words if you don't explicitly file for copyright its public domain; and you PAY in taxes to hold a copyright every year, at the end of the year. Lets set that one at about 25% of net income derived from the work; to put it inline with capital gains.

I bet the quit asking.

Retailers too? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973504)

I heard that there's a similar move afoot by retailers across the nation. They are tired of having to police their own stores for shoplifting, and their research shows that most thieves make their getaway in an automobile, so they are going to force automakers to include merchandise antitheft scanners in all cars. They are tired of automakers making all of that profit from stolen goods. If someone enters a car with a product that hadn't had the antitheft tag deactivated, the car will immediately explode.

They think its unlikely that any innocent people will be caught but even if they are, it's for the sake of profits so it needs to be done.

Irresponsible content producers (1)

bitbucketeer (892710) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973516)

Responsible content producers don't produce content they can't afford to protect.

A perfectly reasonable point of view! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973544)

The RIAA's view is perfectly reasonable. Why should they pay to protect their stuff when they already paid a LOT of money and continue to pay a lot of money buying politicians and laws like the DMCA.

Their complaint is that they have ALREADY paid and shouldn't have to pay more. But you know, that's not how bribery works... you don't just bribe one or a few. You bribe them ALL.

Who will help me with my hunting land? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973546)

I own some nice, wooded land, good for hunting.

However, if I want to keep others from hunting there, I have to post my own "no hunting" signs! And if I see a strange pickup truck parked on the side of the road, I have to take a stroll MYSELF around my land to make sure no one is inadvertently hunting on land that doesn't belong to them!

When will the gov't. provide me with free signage and investigate every pickup I see parked alongside the road? It's crazy and unfair that I have to do all this myself!

Seriously, no (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973548)

I'm not an American but that doesn't prevent me from feeling deeply disturbed by the thing going on out there. I'm affected by the DMCA insanity in a very absurd way: for quite a few times I was searching some physics-related topics on Google, only to be greeted by an almost empty list of non-useful results and a notice that basically said "Sorry, we have the search results, but because of the DMCA, we can't show you."

I mean, the heck. If there's some evil commie zombie terrorist ripping the good guys off by pushing physics-related web pages online, then why does a mindless search bot have to be silenced? Impressive. You guys can even make Google shut up. This would be the wet dream of the Chinese government.

And now they want *more*? As if it's not been crazy enough.

This is insane. Seriously, you guys of the USA have been great. It makes me sad seeing you on the verge of falling into a Kafkaesque fiasco. And I fully understand what's happening to you may as well strike us someday.

new postings (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973552)

What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately.

What they (content providers) need to do is consider WHY so many people will re-post the content that was removed. Trouble is, in their little ivory towers, where they lack real knowledge of the real world, they will be totally unable to see reality. And this is why they are still using their failed business model.

Re:new postings (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973744)

They're not ivory-tower hermits out of touch with reality. Greed has clouded their eyes.

Hopefully, greed leads to foolishness, and a fool and his money are soon parted. Which may in turn explain why they're so desperately whining.

Economics fail (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973578)

The RIAA is learning that there is no free lunch, which is just as fundamental to understanding business as supply and demand.

They should probably figure out how much they're really losing before they force ISPs to scare their customers away.

Burden of the holder (2)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973666)

The burden of preserving the "sanctity" of copyrights and patents has always fallen on the holder. This ensures that the holder is earnest in keeping their government-sanctioned property to themselves. It's simply a problem of our court system that enforcing these rights has become very expensive.

Cost of Piracy Overstated (2)

DERoss (1919496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37973698)

The cost of piracy in Canada was grossly overstated in an attempt to impose draconian controls on the transport of music. The Canadian Intellectual Property Council (an agency of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce) actually proposed that travelers entering the country have their luggage searched for counterfeit recordings.

On investigation,it was discovered that the Council based its estimated cost of piracy on data circulating in the U.S. The U.S. costs were contained in various reports from the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). However, neither agency could substantiate the data. Their estimates of the costs of piracy turned out to be "brain farts" with no real substance.

See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5841/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] and the follow-up http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5850/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] .

Externalizing Costs (i.e. Subsidies) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37973722)

Their proposal doesn't reduce costs a cent; it changes who pays for it. They're asking for a classical Corporate Welfare subsidy.

What's funny is that xxAA are typically thought of as typical "left coasters," exactly the kind of people who (theoretically) see the big picture about externalities being subsidies, thereby causing their leftiness to "wrap around" and end up being more conservative than the conservatives who want to continue using government force to grant subsidies at the expense of freedom. By asking for this subsidy, they're kind of publicly renouncing all that, so declaring themselves are more Republican than Democrat. (Note I'm not saying subsidies themselves are a Republican thing, just this type of approach to them.)

Bad timing, considering their new best-friend party doesn't even have a serious presidential contender for next year's election. They're going to have to count on the small-government Tea Party hype continuing, in order to elect more Republicans so that they can get their bigger-government plan passed.

There's a darker side to this, BTW. The obvious change DMCA needs is elimination of the anti-circumvention stuff. That alone could impact piracy quite a bit, thus reducing the overall costs of piracy policing (regardless of who pays for it), since there would be less of it happening. This is where RIAA vs MPAA distinction comes in, though: it's the RIAA who is asking for this. That implies people are still pirating music, which unlike video, typically doesn't have DRM. Is RIAA just being MPAA's mouthpiece here (their members do have a lot of overlap and the two organizations' goals are similar)? Or are there really still a lot of assholes out there who are pirating stuff that they could buy and have it Just Work anyway, without the need for pirates (or illegal software/equipment "traffickers") to remove the DRM? If you're pirating music, you are helping to keep shit like DMCA around.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...