Slashdot Log In
Do We Want ISPs Penalizing Music Fans?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon May 18, 2009 12:43 PM
from the rhetorical-questions dept.
from the rhetorical-questions dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Noted singer songwriter Billy Bragg has written an excellent column in The Guardian, coming out against the pro-RIAA '3-strikes' legislation the big 4 record labels are trying to push through. In the article, entitled 'Do we want ISPs penalizing our fans?', Bragg writes: 'Having failed miserably in previous attempts to stamp out illicit filesharing, the record industry has now joined forces with other entertainment lobby groups to demand that the government takes action to protect their business model.' He goes on: 'Fearful of the prospect of dragging their customers though the courts, with all the attendant costs and bad publicity, members of the record industry have come up with a simple, cost-free solution to their problem: get the ISPs to do their dirty work for them. They are asking the government to force the ISPs to cut off the broadband connection of customers who persistently download unauthorized material, without any recourse to appeal in the courts.'"
Related Stories
[+]
News: Canadian Songwriters' Collective Licensing Bid Goes Voluntary 93 comments
Last year, the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) proposed a plan to legalize the file sharing of copyrighted songs, which involved a small monthly fee to people using an internet connection. Critics of the plan complained that it amounted to another tax, and the Canadian recording industry said it violated copyright law. Now, as an anonymous reader writes,
"The SAC has renewed its bid to legalize peer-to-peer file sharing in return for a levy on Internet service. The SAC is now calling for the plan to be voluntary, with both consumers and creators having the right to opt-out. ACTRA, the leading performer group in Canada, now says it is also supportive of a legalized approach with the prospect of extending the plan to video sharing."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Court first then cut. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't cut the broadband for any crime until it's proven in court.
It's not the role of the ISP to act as a police for a third party.
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the ISPs won't play along, the content industry will have legislation passed to make them play along.
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced any more.
Granny is probably on the cheapest 0.5-2Mbps package, whereas the downloader is paying more for the premium, faster packages.
Add to that the whole new class of broadband media consumers using iTunes and YouTube and Hulu... well, I think the early part of this decade where the downloader was the biggest hog and only paid the minimum is over.
Obligatory car analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Obligatory car analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
No but if the auto dealer had good reason to believe his car was going to be used illegally he shouldn't be selling it, just like a shopkeeper selling solvents for example.
You mean like every sports car made?
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Informative)
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Interesting)
I depend TOTALLY on the internet for my employment and the maintenance of my way of life.
My house, family, food, and their healthcare are ALL genereated from the work I do on/through the net.
If my ISP, I do use a business connection, decided to drop my T1 for some not payment related failure, I would be VERY SCREWED, and would likely seek/need legal recourse.
Note : I don't download music I don't already own a physical copy of, but some of that material is on 8 or 4 track tape that I bought in 1974, I've format switched it via the internet. The music industry insists on a license to listen, not ownership model so be it. If you own ANY physical copy of the material the you are entitled to the material in different formats. If they want to change their policy to ownership of the single copy then I will change my behavior to reflect that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then it sounds like you have nothing to worry about.
Are you sure? The very nature of these proposals means that there is no judicial oversight. The standard of evidence required by the RIAA is much lower than that required by a court of law.
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Interesting)
Definitely. The 4 big labels and 6 big motion picture companies, who are supposed to be competitors, do everything in collusion. And when they are beaten in the marketplace they go running to their friends in government to strongarm their competition. Their monopolies are becoming more and more worthless, because of (a) the ability of musicians to market their music directly to their fans, and (b) the ability of filmmakers to find an audience online. And so they are running to their friends in government, because competition -- the "free market" -- is anathema to them.
Parent
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:4, Informative)
And when they are beaten in the marketplace they go running to their friends in government to strongarm their competition.
Wait. What competition? What strong-arming? As far as I can remember from reading slashdot, one of the most anti-**AA sites on the internet, the one and only drum they have been banging is the anti-piracy drum. I don't remember hearing of any government help to eliminate legitimate competition.
I guess you missed the /. pieces about the attempt to strangle/kill internet radio, where independent artists have a chance to be heard by a wide audience?
I guess you also missed the part where they passed a law to force the internet radio stations to pay royalties to SoundExchange for independent artists' work unless they could show a contract for each separate indy artist?
That SoundExchange could legally keep a portion of said indy artists' royalties as "expenses" for performing the unasked-for and unwanted (by the indy artists/internet radio stations) task of grabbing royalties from internet radio stations in the name of independent artists?
Not sure what the MPAA has done to stifle competition, as there isn't a whole lot of that in the same way there is in music. However, the RIAA has been hard at work buying laws to stifle independent artists and their distribution channels.
Strat
Parent
I really don't care anymore... (Score:3, Funny)
... the faster you idiots make yourself irrelevant, the sooner I can load up Slashdot without seeing articles like this.
Re:I really don't care anymore... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, well I really *do* care about bogus laws being passed, but I've already written my lawmakers & all of them informed me that they already had the RIAA firmly implanted up their ass & really don't care about my thoughts, so I just don't buy their shit or listen to the radio anymore. Haven't in 9 years or so.
Thank $DEITY for RIAARadar
Parent
Re:I really don't care anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the RIAA interprets your "not buying their music" as being the same as "another Internet pirate illegally downloading/sharing their music." After all, they reason, their music is vital to everyone's life and anyone who doesn't buy the minimum that the RIAA deems necessary must be pirating the rest. (This comment would be going for the Funny tag if it weren't true.)
Parent
Re:I really don't care anymore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the RIAA interprets your "not buying their music" as being the same as "another Internet pirate illegally downloading/sharing their music." After all, they reason, their music is vital to everyone's life and anyone who doesn't buy the minimum that the RIAA deems necessary must be pirating the rest. (This comment would be going for the Funny tag if it weren't true.)
Yes it is true. But I think it's really just a handful of executives. The same ones who never figured out how to make money on the internet. So to make themselves look better, they are trying to scapegoat copyright infringement. The record companies' real enemy is obsolescence.
Parent
More importantly (Score:5, Insightful)
The chap from TFA seems nice enough, and it is good that he is thinking about the question; but, thing is, it isn't his call. Allowing penalties to be assessed for private gain, without any sort of judicial process, is a grotesque parody of justice. It should not be countenanced anywhere. I'm glad that there are some on the music side that are uncomfortable with the idea; but that isn't the point. The point is that "3 strikes" and its ilk are wholly unacceptable. If they agree, great, if they don't, tough.
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, if the DMCA-takedown notices and John Doe suits are to be taken into consideration, there is ZERO accountability for these corporate police.
If the ISP's are going to have to count off these 'strikes' merely on RIAA say-so, then a great many will be falsely impugned. If for no other reason, these sleaze balls have demonstrated that being lazy is far easier than putting forth any actual effort in an investigation.
"We couldn't tell who was doing the actual file sharing, so we instructed the ISP to mark a strike against the entire block of addresses..." This doesn't seem out of character for this group. Giving them more power HAS to be a bad idea.
Parent
Not for the ISP to do ... (Score:5, Informative)
If the ISPs are to be considered a 'common carrier', then this is not their duty.
Other points, if the ISPs are going to be doing this:
- How are they to decide when something is fair use, when even the big media companies get it wrong so often?
- Who is going to pay them to do the dirty work of the media industry?
- This is like getting Walmart to ban you because something you are doing is not kosher in HMV.
There are certainly other problems with this whole 'getting the ISPs' to do the dirty work, but I have a 'failure of imagination' when it comes to the other issues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ISPs do not have common carrier status.
Shocking I know, but the internet may have mislead you!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a very fair point and it's taken.
Godfrey v Demon, however, did have a chilling effect on Usenet provision in the UK because no ISP wants to have to police their Usenet service in such a fashion. Hosting a full Usenet service is (or at least was in those days) expensive just in hardware terms, adding people to police take-down notices is a burden too far.
why ISPs might agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly this is against an ISP's best interest, but here's a few reasons they might go along with it anyway.
(1) Some ISPs (like AOL) are owned by the media bullies.
(2) Larger ISPs have legal departments to handle the lawsuits sure to ensue. Smaller ISPs don't. Bye bye competition.
Interesting juxtaposition (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we have two [slashdot.org] adjacent [slashdot.org] /. stories: one about ISPs being responsible for users' behavior, the other about ISPs not being responsible for users' behavior.
What is needed is a clarification, likely from SCOTUS, on whether ISPs are "common carriers" or not. If they are, then ISPs have to monitor postings and downloads (punishing people according to ... uh ... well they're not police or courts so it's really unclear how they're supposed to detect & respond re: users' behavior). If they are not, then ISPs can finally tell everyone else to take it up with the actual legally-identifiable offender.
Re:Enough already (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA can just call up my ISP and demand that they disconnect me, that makes a mockery of due process. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Or are "pirates" (and the occasional misidentified laser printer) just too evil for due process?
Parent
Re:Enough already (Score:5, Informative)
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ [washington.edu]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No kidding. I just looked through the mod option list for the GP and I couldn't find "-1: Fucking Moron" in there to give to him. I'll just go with a comment in support of your comment instead.
Re:Enough already (Score:4, Insightful)
Disable YRO on your browsing options. [slashdot.org]
Parent
It isn't about 'piracy' for most of us. (IMO) (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the current situation, and the future one if RIAA has it's way, the National Anthem of the USA, that's the "Star Spangled Banner" for those who don't know, wouldn't exist under their rules. It was a (somewhat) popular piece of poetry that people started singing to a very popular piece of music. That made a fantastic hit that inspired people so much, they made it the national anthem. These days, the insane copyright lengths combined with the dubious 'enforcement groups' would have prevented any such thing from ever happening.
Have you wondered why nobody ever sings "Happy Birthday" on shows and movies anymore? Someone decided to enforce their copyright... Another piece of classic americana and culture down the tubes because of this subject. What's the next thing we'll loose? Yes, some of these people are breaking laws.
Yes, we talk about it a lot.
But you need to understand, if somebody doesn't raise a fuss and find a way to stop this, what will our children have left?
Unfortunately, the answer is not much...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are the type of person who would call Benjamin Franklin and Nikola Tesla, "Pirates"
They had "radical piracy-like agendas" Touting dangerous ideas that knowledge, invention, innovation, even energy should be given away for free for the advancement of human civilization.
The RIAA does not protect "poor artists and musicians", they protect themselves, and huge record corporations.
This is why Jamendo and Magnatune are popular with some artists.
Re:Enough already (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA's idiotic tactics are going to make people want to stop supporting musicians entirely.
I hate to say it, my friend, but you are right, and a little late. I, for one, have stopped purchasing music (and long ago deleted all my infringing copies). I have about a thousand CDs, all purchased before the Metallica / Napster debacle. I have bought half a dozen since, and downloaded a couple albums. From $10k per decade to something like $200 per decade. Entirely because I cannot stand the association which clai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
Re:Enough already (Score:4, Interesting)
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent labels like these that don't sue people for downloading their music?
The current copyright law, as it is being used and abused by the RIAA, is potentially hostile to me. Therefore I currently require that content distributors explicitly grant me reasonable rights, such as archival copies, media shifting, time shifting, etc. Independent labels may not currently be suing people for doing those things, and maybe I could win on those points in court (I believe they are covered by fair use), but the fact is I can't take the risk.
I can't afford a lawsuit, I can't afford to settle, I don't believe the courts would necessarily make what I believe is the right decision, and I don't trust that what the indie label says today will still be their position tomorrow (unless they put it in writing).
So - no raw copyright works for me, thanks. Get one of those labels to switch entirely to some form of CC license, or write a new one that is less than a thousand words and not written in bullshit lawyerese, and maybe I'd consider buying from them. Come to think of it, though, I'm so disgusted with the music industry that I'm probably going to want more to even consider coming back; collaborative filtering for content recommendations that actually works for people who like music other than Britney Spears, maybe a couple decent metal bands that don't turn into sissies on the second album to increase sales, OGG Vorbis ferfucksake (and an iPod that supports it natively). Frankly, I'm probably a lost cause.
Again - not your fault, it's the RIAA's fault. But they have almost completely destroyed raw copyright consumption for me. Their actions, and the broken legal system they abuse, make it perfectly clear that I cannot afford to trust anyone who uses raw copyright. Their reprehensible behavior has made me not interested in trying to meet anyone halfway.
Parent
Re:Enough already (Score:4, Interesting)
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
Oh - and on that. My first reaction was, "fuck'em, those people are assholes."
But, then, copyright is supposed to be a bargain struck between the public which grants a fiat monopoly and the individual who benefits from it. Copyright was a pretty darned fair balance at one time -- but is it still? If the RIAA and Disney have purchased changes in the law to circumvent the bargain that copyright was meant to be, is there no understanding when the other side retaliates?
I'm not saying where I stand -- as I noted in my post I deleted all my infringing content back in 1999. But I have spent many hours considering the balance of copyright, the endless extensions thereof, and what that implies for the person on the other side of the teeter-totter. And I think everyone has to do that part -- the deep consideration -- if they want to hold a well-reasoned opinion on the matter.
Which leads me back to thinking those people are assholes -- because I figure most of them haven't really gone through the deep consideration part.
But then, the effectiveness of tit-for-tat in game theory isn't just theory. It's what any organic system will naturally evolve. Thinking the gov't, courts, RIAA, and Orrin Hatch can stop it is to ignore the seismic power of organic systems. Which is why I don't worry about it too much. They'll all get ground to dust eventually, on this matter. It's only a question of how many innocents like you get caught in the crossfire while they attempt to defend their hopeless position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they shut down Another Great Music Tracker, I'm going to law school.
If they shut down Another Great Music Tracker, it will be replaced by Two Lesser Music Trackers. Stamping out the "problem" is the worst thing they could do. As long as there is a demand, the community will supply it.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless of course you mean noted as a sock-puppet of the Labour Regime. That, he most certainly is.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your post makes no sense. Nobody in the UK over the age of 20? So you think he makes music for teenagers and little kiddies?
The funny thing about Bragg is that whilst he's always willing to give uncritical support to the Labour regime of the day, his songs are actually quite critical of them and their policies. The track "O Freedom" from his latest album is about Labour's policy of locking up terrorist suspects without a proper trial or letting them know the evidence against them. That system has been taken apart (I think...) but it was actually worse than gitmo because these people were arrested in this country.
I'm not a fan of Bragg, mainly because I'm not a fan of folk-rock, but I know lots of people who are. Most of them are in their 20s but I'd expect that's because most of my friends are in their 20s. They're all active socialists and trade-unionists so it's to be expected that Bragg would speak to them.
If you venture outside of the mainstream, you're sure to find plenty of Bragg fans here in the UK.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm a big fan of his, and I live in the United States. I haven't seen him in a long time, but I did see him several times in the late 1980s and the 1990s and got the chance to speak with him for awhile. (I think you must have meant no one UNDER 20 has heard of him).
The only downside was having to see Michelle Shocked.
Re:No... (Score:4, Insightful)
But how do I get my money BACK? I'm more interested in getting my money back (Like at a real merchants) then I am at writing a letter to someone who will never read it. If I got my money back I could still boycott the company and have lost nothing from my bank account.
Why can they sell me buggy software with no return policy and I lose money, but if it happens to them it's a huge legislative issue?
Parent
Re:No... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's your opinion on downloading cracks for the games you own, just because DRM makes you want to cry and requiring the original DVD on the drive is JUST PLAIN STUPID?
How about people who want to acquire a work that there is no legal alternative for them to buy? (example: out of print books, tv shows from foreign countries, movies that never came out on DVD, LP's that never came out on CD)
Are those examples of "entitlement" plausible enough, or do you find them highly unlikely?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.
There is no moral right to control what others do with their property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's got the entitlement problem here? The people who wish to use their property as they see fit? Or those who wish to control what other people did with their creation after they sold it off?
I'd say anyone who expects to get paid for their work for 70 years has a pretty big entitlement problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.
Absolutely right. But completely offtopic - this discussion has nothing to do with property. It has everything to do with copyright. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a time-limited privilege ultimately granted by the citizens for the holder thereof to exclusive sales of the work that is to be duplicated and sold. Unfortunately, right now due to ridiculous changes in copyright law brought about by lobbyists working for greedy corporations, the 'time-limited' portion is currently way out of line of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think the RIAA will apply this policy of theirs evenly and fairly? Anyone with power will be an exception to the rule.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HOLD IT!
Assassin's Creed for the PC uses SafeDisc 4.85.
You need the physical disc to play the game (or sometimes just for the installation).
You claim your original disc "broke".
You claim you needed to reinstall the game.
Something doesn't add up with your testimony.
Would you care to explain how you reinstalled the game with the downloaded copy without cracking the protection?
</Phoenix Wright>