×

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 Wants To Scrap Anti-Piracy OPEN Act

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-far-enough-by-half dept.

Piracy 268

silentbrad writes with these selections from an article at Ars Technica: "The Recording Industry Association of America found itself in an unusual position this week: opposing an anti-piracy bill that's gaining momentum in Congress ... the RIAA argues the bill won't be effective at shutting down rogue sites. The trade group warns of 'indefinite delays' as claims of infringement are investigated. And it complains that the process envisioned by OPEN would allow for 'endless submissions by parties such as Google,' further gumming up the process. All the while, the alleged rogue site would be able to continue operating. The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.' The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

268 comments

*Stomps foot* (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917781)

But, but, due process is so Hard!

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Funny)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917871)

But don't you know, all suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918127)

But don't you know, all suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

And when you no longer hear screaming from the scorpion pit you know everyone is completely cool with it, as they have stopped complaining.

Re:*Stomps foot* (3, Insightful)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918743)

But don't you know, all suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

"Of course. Bringing the innocent to trial would be unfair." ~Q

Re:*Stomps foot* (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918747)

Well, sure, if you're stationed out at the ass-end of the universe, where you know everybody.

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917895)

They played their hand right here. It isnt about actual harm its about control
'.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."
what this tells me (we already know this here) is that it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Funny)

netwarerip (2221204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918085)

... what this tells me (we already know this here) is that it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control

And in other breaking news, day follows night, man evolved from Apes, and my wife has another headache.

Re:*Stomps foot* (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918581)

I was always under the impression that man didn't evolve from apes but that we shared a common ancestor fairly recently on the evolutionary scale.

Re:*Stomps foot* (3, Insightful)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918625)

We didn't evolve from modern apes, but at some point going back, one of those common ancestor populations would have been things you could call apes.

Re:*Stomps foot* (2)

k2p (2512666) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918831)

Actually, no. The common ancestor is neither hominid nor ape. Darwin never said we came from apes. I think what you meant to say is that the common ancestor is primitive and that apes are primitive, therefore it must be more ape-like than human-like. Apes are not primitive. They have very complex bodies and brains, just as we do. They use tools and can be taught sign language.

Re:*Stomps foot* (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918651)

Your wife didn't have a headache last night.

Re:*Stomps foot* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918685)

(3 rd point) Yes, I know

Re:*Stomps foot* (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918869)

So - their wish is to have a sharper gun - best that their requests to become law upon writing/emailing anything and some SEa, Air and Land unit raiding any place graspable on this planet?

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918881)

it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control

Strangely enough, Megaupload was shut down just when it was about to launch a music service that would have paid 90% of earnings to artists [jacehallshow.com] .

Who ever bought the 'protecting artists' lie? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919251)

it was never about protecting artists

The MAFIAA (which has for decades been rumored to have an actual large MAFIA component) has a century-long reputation of screwing the royal living fuck out of 'their' slaves, er, artists. The only thing they give a flying fuck about is sucking every last penny out of an artist and if they destroy the artist in the process, it's just part of doing business. Given the dominant cultural heritage of most of their low-life so-called 'executives', this comes as no suprise at all.

Correction: 'surprise'. n/t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919317)

n/t

Re:*Stomps foot* (3, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917929)

Due process is not necessarily implicated merely because the mens rea standard for infringement is lowered, the safe harbor clause of the DMCA is overridden, or web sites are shut down quickly. Lots of states have strict liability crimes, especially regulatory ones. They're not due process violations.

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Informative)

headkase (533448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917987)

You totally stole my comment! I'm getting you shut down!

ACTA [wikipedia.org] is coming into force, SOPA [wikipedia.org] /PIPA [wikipedia.org] will be coming back, and the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership [wikipedia.org] means that if you even think of dressing up like a copyrighted character then you'll be censored off the 'net.

Here's coverage on the TPP from a Canadian perspective: here [michaelgeist.ca] , here [michaelgeist.ca] , and here [michaelgeist.ca] .

The point is that Hollywood and content holders in general have all the strings in their hands right now [wikipedia.org] and for the foreseeable future. Like ACTA the TPP is being negotiated in secrecy. Which, when you think about it makes it undemocratic just by it's procedure.

Re:*Stomps foot* (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919137)

ACTA [wikipedia.org] is coming into force, SOPA [wikipedia.org]/PIPA [wikipedia.org] will be coming back, and the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership [wikipedia.org] means that if you even think of dressing up like a copyrighted character then you'll be censored off the 'net.

And what have you done about it today? Did you send a week's worth of money that you would normally spend on vending machines to the EFF? Did you make coffee at home and carry it to work in a thermos instead of going to Starbucks and then sending that money to the EFF or one of the other fine groups that is opposing those laws? Did you and a bunch of your friends go get in the face of your congress person? Did you boycott any record label or artist who supports the RIAA and let them know about it?

The only way to stop these laws is going to be by us getting in the way of the corporate machinery that is controlling the legislative process. By letting the human beings that are doing the corporations' work for them know that there will be a price to pay. By scaring the shit out of them. As long as politicians and corporate leaders think they can get away with it, they will get away with it.

Look what happened over the past 36 hours. A very wealthy foundation that ostensibly is fighting breast cancer was hijacked by a bunch of right-wing turds and they decided they would no longer use a little bit of their donated money to support the #1 provider of breast cancer screenings and primary health care to women because that organization also provides birth control and abortions to women who choose them. They announced triumphantly how they were going to "change direction". Enough people started enough shit over the course of 24 hours that the foundation not only reversed their decision, but apologized for even considering pulling their financial support for Planned Parenthood.

See, when you run an outfit that is very very wealthy and very very powerful, you start to think you can do whatever you want. It's really not that hard for a committed group of people without money and without power to convince them otherwise, simply by getting in the way.

Re:*Stomps foot* (3, Insightful)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919355)

As long as the US takes in big money from other countries (as we do today) because of absurd copyright laws, the other countries have strong incentive to be lax on enforcement. India, for example, may want to import copyrighted material from the US but they aren't going to kill their own movie industry in favor of Hollywood. They may need to sign treaties and talk tough about enforcement, but that doesn't mean they have to follow through.

Hacker: Are you saying that winking at corruption is government policy?
Sir Humphrey: No, no, Minister! It could never be government policy. That is unthinkable! Only government practice.

Close, but not quite (5, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918763)

due process is so Hard!

Due Process is so expensive. Can't let an irrelevant thing like 3,000 years of developing the Rule of Law get in the way of all the Benjamins, now.

Oh, boo hoo. (2)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917783)

You wouldn't be able to arbitrarily control the entire internet under the new model. How terrible.

Re:Oh, boo hoo. (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917983)

You wouldn't be able to arbitrarily control the entire internet under the new model. How terrible.

Philosophy: The law and how it should apply to other people.

We need to bypass law enforcement and courts and go straight to Instant Fine and Imprisonment.

Re:Oh, boo hoo. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919097)

you are not thinking enough ahead.

soon, there will be government issued displays and keyboards and only those are 'secure' enough to connect to your computer, which is then 'secure' enough to connect to the gov-approved internet.

once that is all in place, anytime a violation occurs (copyright, etc) you instantly get peppersprayed in the face or shocked via the keyboard. if the crime is bad enough (ie, you were copying both audio AND video) then they can apply both methods to you, concurrently.

I really need to buy stock in pepper spray. even though its still just a vegetable, essentially (...)

we all know that enforcement, these days, often means getting physical. how much longer do you think it will be until some horror like this actually comes to pass? well, we didn't think we'd be living in orwellian times, but go look around NYC or london and tell me its not orwell come to life.

hiring lawyers (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917809)

The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

What part of copyright law do you currently NOT have to hire a lawyer in order to get 'justice?'

Re:hiring lawyers (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917949)

What part of copyright law do you currently NOT have to hire a lawyer in order to get 'justice?'

The DMCA. You just use robo-takedown.

I really hope the RIAA stops this bill. While it may not be all they want, it increases the reach of copyright law, which is the wrong way to go. Those on the other side who support this side seem to think that such a compromise will either appease the RIAA or otherwise stop their relentless drive towards destroying the Internet, but that simply is not going to work.

Re:hiring lawyers (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918103)

internet will not be saved without destroying riaa and its backing industries. namely, hollywood and the media.

Re:hiring lawyers (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918187)

Uh, I'm kind of opposed to destroying Hollywood. I like movies, even expensive, fun flashy ones with no artistic value.

Re:hiring lawyers (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918299)

If you like them more than the internet, then you're part of the problem.

Re:hiring lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918327)

You don't need Hollywood to have movies.

Re:hiring lawyers (5, Insightful)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918337)

Let me guess. You also think that music will cease to exist when the RIAA's members are bankrupt too, right? Hollywood isn't the only source of movies, and they sure as shit aren't a source of creativity anymore.

Re:hiring lawyers (2)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918461)

Uh, I'm kind of opposed to destroying Hollywood. I like movies

Other people can make movies. Especially after Lobbyist Dodd's temper tantrum earlier about SOPA and PIPA, Hollywood can go fuck themselves in the face with a rake. Forever.

Re:hiring lawyers (3, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919147)

please also stop buying blueray, as well. that goes into sony's pocket and that's a bad thing (as we all know).

but also it sends a message to hollywood. it says we aren't willing to play their games and use their method of 'content licensing'.

I have boycotted bd and refuse to support this model with my money.

please join me.

Re:hiring lawyers (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919091)

I am perfectly fine with, and believe it to be an inevitability, that Hollywood as it currently is will be collateral damage in the continuing defense of personal liberties.

Re:hiring lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918363)

That is impossible, undesirable, and wouldn't have the result you want anyway. The real world is far more complex than the simplistic us-vs-them fantasies you comfort yourself with.

actually it is. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919065)

it is people like you introducing a lot of exceptions, conditionals to life, complicating it like the u.s. tax code - just like how it came from simple beginnings to this current convoluted piece of shit.

real life is actually very simple. you can be sure that a lot of people spoke like you at the turn of the century in the carriage industry vs automobile industry debates, and yet look what happened.

Re:hiring lawyers (5, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918325)

I really hope the RIAA stops this bill. While it may not be all they want, it increases the reach of copyright law, which is the wrong way to go.

That's why I have the feeling they don't want to stop the bill. I think they're trying to use reverse psychology. "I wonder if everyone will rally up to support this bill similarly to how they rallied up to oppose ACTA if we point out that we don't like it. Maybe people won't realize that we're getting a lot of what we want if we keep the discussion focused on what we're NOT getting."

Re:hiring lawyers (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918037)

As opposed to sending individual people with little or no access to legal defense letters demanding money or they will face expensive lawsuits with public defenders? That puts justice out of reach of everyone but the MAFIAA. which is the way they'd like it to be.

Re:hiring lawyers (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918153)

they will face expensive lawsuits with public defenders?

You don't get public defenders in civil suits, mate. That's why it's so expensive.

Re:hiring lawyers (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918203)

The part that the RIAA wanted with SOPA. The ability to just say "Hey, you, website! We hereby accuse you of piracy." and have the site shut down. See simple? No way that could possibly go wrong by, oh say, companies abusing it to shut down competitors or businesses they simply didn't like.

Finally! (3, Interesting)

putzin (99318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917811)

Someone outside of the minority of educated humans may see the hypocrisy involved here.

Re:Finally! (3, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918609)

Just a thought before you rejoice.. This OPEN thingy isn't necessarily a good thing just because RIAA is whining about it. It might be not quite as evil as SOPA/PIPA, but would you have welcomed it before this whole charade got started?

Re:Finally! (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919011)

I'll have to read the particulars before I decide which way I'm going on this but, one way or the other they're going to cram something down our throats. If this bill at least allows for due process and keeps the RIAA, etc. from firing off blanket robo take downs or punishing ISPs for user activities among other things generally frowned upon as detrimental to a free and open Internet then it might be worth compromising on. If copyright holders want money for their stuff then fine let them collect it. It's the evil practices they employ to maintain their stranglehold on the industry, their overreaching into people's private lives, the extortion, etc. that they should not be permitted to carry out.

On a side note: how they hell do they expect to prevent piracy if the content people want is not made available for purchase? Try legally obtaining Korean and especially Japanese music for some of the more popular artists sometime. It doesn't matter where you go, the stuff just isn't being made available or if it is, it's often by way of a ridiculously expensive $50+ import for a CD.

Re:Finally! (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919263)

It doesn't matter where you go, the stuff just isn't being made available or if it is, it's often by way of a ridiculously expensive $50+ import for a CD.

Not being able to legally acquire such things at all is a legitimate complaint. Not being legally available at a price you personally want to pay is whiny toddler stuff. Nobody owes you the ability to buy exactly what you want.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919159)

Just a thought before you rejoice.. This OPEN thingy isn't necessarily a good thing just because RIAA is whining about it. It might be not quite as evil as SOPA/PIPA, but would you have welcomed it before this whole charade got started?

No! No! Don't mention this. You'll blow this brand new reverse psychology approach that our brilliant legal team has been suggesting for a couple of weeks now.

Sincerely,
-The RIAA

Awwwwwwwww.... Muffin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917827)

Looks like congress won't give you the big red button to nuke all the sites from orbit and force you to, oh I dunno, ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT A SITE!

Apocalypse... now? (1)

Deathnerd (1734374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917839)

Never thought I'd see a headline like that.

Any second now I'm gonna start seeing frogs raining from the sky... *rushes to the window to watch*

And? (2)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917851)

Is anyone really surprised by this? (Well, any /. readers?)

Their "we don't your site around here" legislation got kicked to the curb, and because this doesn't give them the power to shut off whatever websites they feel like, "it's too weak".

BULL. SHIT.

Deal with it, RIAA. Deal with the fact that you might actually have to prove your case before hammering someone with punitive fines/jail time/freezing in carbonite. (Sorry, been playing a lot of SWTOR)

Re:And? (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918253)

They also complained that it was too hard to file separate John Doe suits instead of bundling a thousand unrelated cases into one motion. They want to combat piracy, but they don't want exert any effort doing it. The RIAA is the angry but lazy couch potato of Big Content.

How surprising... (5, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917855)

I think it's obvious to all that these guys just want the power to kill any website they wish with little oversight...

Arguing ridiculous ideas like this demonstrates that they are pretty much the last people we should hand over the power to do so. [pcworld.com]

Re:How surprising... (1)

masteva (996554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918007)

Call phrase of the RIAA: "Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Re:How surprising... (3, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918173)

Call phrase of the RIAA:

"Nuke the internet from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Fixed it for you...

Re:How surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918207)

little oversight? No, no recourse.

OMG! That's so hard... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917867)

Ugh! Proving guilt before conviction and sentencing? It's like the government just doesn't care about media industry.

RIAA just wants faster, harsher "pirate" treatment (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917903)

Next they'll be advocating their own personal drones.

Re:RIAA just wants faster, harsher "pirate" treatm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918137)

A kinder, gentler machine gun hand?

Those bastards (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917961)

>> The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

Funny how they're not concerned about those same legal costs that innocent individuals have to face to defend themselves, when the RIAA spam arbitrary blocks of John Does with threatening lawyers letters that amount to extortion.

Re:Those bastards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918431)

Out of court settlements are not extortion. Sorry that you don't see the difference.

Re:Those bastards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919007)

Who let the RIAA rep in here?

Re:Those bastards (4, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919115)

Out of court settlements are not extortion. Sorry that you don't see the difference.

While not technically extortion, they do have the same effect on innocent people without the means to defend themselves.

Re:Those bastards (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919125)

He didn't say out-of-court settlements are extortion. He said that threats of "give us an unreasonably large sum of money or we'll ruin your life" is extortion.

But it's cool, I'm sure that strawman had it coming.

Re:Those bastards (5, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919217)

Pay us $3k and we'll go away or pay $3k to defend yourself in court where the best case scenario is you're out $3k and time and the worst case scenario is you're up for $100k in damages...

You're right. It's not extortion. It has to be against the law to be extortion.

HAHAHAAHAHAAA 'small business' ... (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917995)

The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

as if they are representing ANY small business.

im a foreigner - but even i learned it ; whenever some politician/lobbyist uses the word 'small business' in american politics, small business has nothing to do with it and its for some fucking 4-5 megacorp monopolizing in any field related to that law/bill.

Re:HAHAHAAHAHAAA 'small business' ... (3, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918293)

They represent small business in the same way they represent the artists. They'll put their arms around both and smile for the cameras, but when either goes into the back room with the RIAA... Well, you'd better hope they're in a mood to use lubricant this time.

So the gloves came off... (5, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917997)

Rough translation: "This bill doesn't go far enough and it's going to cost us money. Please kill this bill and surrender the internet NOW or kiss your campaign contributions goodbye. What we want is the US government to go anywhere any time we pull their chains and stomp all over those eeeeeeeeeeeevil pirates who are anti-American, anti-corporate profits and obviously terrorrorrorrorrists too. We'll have the new bill in your office so you can jam it through just before elections and don't forget to pick up your checks."

Still want to kill the internet (5, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918003)

The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.'

This is, again, the scariest part of their campaign. The ability of sites to not be liable (unless they ignore takedown requests) is the best part of the (otherwise pretty crappy) DMCA, and the XXAA want to undo it. They don't care in the least that it would end every social collaboration web site (like slashdot), because they think their old business models (pay the radio, tv, and newspaper to advertise, then reap profit via local stores and theaters) would spring back to life if we didn't waste all our time and money on the internet.

Seriously, the only way this will end is if someone puts a bullet in them. And by bullet, I mean hostile takeover. And by someone, I mean Google. And if Apple just so happens to take over another one of them a few days later, oh well. Maybe Microsoft would even like to own a music label? Hell, isn't EMI suffering and looking for a buyer?

Re:Still want to kill the internet (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918355)

It probably wouldn't even require all big labels to be taken over. If one big label was taken over by a consortium of tech companies (to avoid Label X's music from only being available on iTunes, or Amazon MP3, or some other music service), it would put market pressure on the other labels. Use that label to drag the others into the 21st century. As a bonus, the price would be split among the companies so Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc wouldn't have to pony up the full amount.

Weep for them (5, Insightful)

Dega704 (1454673) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918141)

It's not fair to them until they can have their system of guilty until proven innocent. Or rather guilty until guilty guilty guilty.

Re:Weep for them (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918533)

Guilty until you can prove your innocence in a court of law, you know with the lawyers that an average Joe can afford vs their lawyers. A fair fight, just like rehabilitation in the movie idiocracy!

RIAA also says it's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918201)

RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

They just want *their version* or perhaps TPPA (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918251)

If this OPEN Act passes, RIAA won't be able to push for a more draconian version written by them because Congress will say "we already have an act for that". As it stands right now, they can whine that there is an immediate need to "do something" hasty and ream some of their own legislation through. Or perhaps they prever to do their legislation in secret via international trade agreements like ACTA and the recently uncovered TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [eff.org] ).

Between ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA only in the past year, it seems there is a relentless barrage of fire against fair use that can only end bad for us.

Re:They just want *their version* or perhaps TPPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918477)

We already have the DMCA, that didn't stop them from demanding that their paid-for legislators pass SOPA/PIPA.

Re:They just want *their version* or perhaps TPPA (2)

softwareGuy1024 (2564569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918673)

SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN are designed to stop piracy oversees, where DMCA has no jurisdiction. So it is arguably serving a different purpose. Though, I agree that the *AA's will always push for more legislation. Passing bills and waging legal battles is their business model(though they are funded by companies that also sell music/movies). If they stop doing that, they stop getting funding.

DMCA is ten years old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919019)

DMCA is ten years old. They had to shut up for about a decade after they got that. These new restrictions, they want them *now*.

Yeah, that's why they don't like it... (2)

wbav (223901) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918361)

And it couldn't be the provision that allows the committee to fine groups who submit false claims. Cause that never, ever happens.

Google (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918373)

At least they are being honest about their desire to extract a pound of flesh from Google. That's what this has always been about. They want Google's profits.

But, but, but... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918385)

The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.'

... those statements on DVDs, TV shows to the effect of "the comments and opinions expressed are not those of X Corp, its parent, subsidiary or affiliate companies" or even /. "Comments owned by the poster" are okay because they release the media company from any liability. And the questionable practices of the *IAA (robo-suing hundreds for thousands of dollars - and the like) and companies like Righthaven should be also okay because, you know, they're Big Media - and they've paid a LOT of money for Congress critters and should get some sort of ROI... It's THEIR country damn it! (ya, that's sarcasm)

Know who the good guys are (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918395)

The bill is sponsored in the Senate by Rob Wyden (D-OR) and in the House by Darrel Issa (R-CA).

Re:Know who the good guys are (1)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918825)

The bill is sponsored in the Senate by Rob Wyden (D-OR) and in the House by Darrel Issa (R-CA).

Sorry, I used to live in California and I can tell you that Issa is no good guy.

Re:Know who the good guys are (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919215)

Sorry, I used to live in California and I can tell you that Issa is no good guy.

Of course you think that. You're a crazy liberal who's defending Fast and the Furious on another thread today. I'm normally not a Rob Wyden fan. But Issa and Wyden are supporting something good, and should be praised for it. Who knows? Maybe they'll keep it up.

Can't prove it was willful? Don't shut it down. (4, Interesting)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918445)

RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires.

If it's too hard to prove that someone is guilty, then maybe - just maybe - they aren't.

They insist on chasing down the wrong people - innocent websites - and they complain that it's hard to prove guilt?

On the other hand, it would be trivial to prove that a user infringed willfully... but there's very little money to be made in that.

Re:Can't prove it was willful? Don't shut it down. (3, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918863)

Similarly, it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a DMCA complaint was issued in bad faith.

This is almost enough to make me support this. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918945)

If we're going to have to have something, and I think that we might, just so the politicians can point to it and declare victory, at least in this case the MAFIAA doesn't think it's enough.

Telling (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919005)

You can see just how much BS they are trying to get passed through when they have to take the other side of the argument,
"RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."
well that concept didn't stop them from taking down Megaupload, but when it's in their best interest then they argue that point.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...