Iceland and USA Feel the Copyright Industry's Wrath 523
spellraiser writes "Iceland's Internet traffic saw a substantial decrease this week as police raided the homes of 12 individuals suspected of sharing massive amounts of copyrighted material over a private, local DC++ hub that was infiltrated by SMAIS, the Association of film right holders in Iceland. The people who were raided were questioned by the police, and had computer equipment confiscated. It is unclear at this point what their fate is, but there is a distinct possibility might face charges." And in the U.S., an anonymous reader writes "The Recording Industry Association of America strikes again with yet another round of lawsuits. Jon Newston over at P2Pnet.net doesn't hold back anything in his great commentary on it today. Best quote 'It's almost as if having lost its bitterly fought case against the p2p application owners and failed in its many obvious (and expensive) attempts to disrupt the p2p networks, the music industry is now determined to vent its wrath on helpless men, women and children who can't hope to stand up to it with its tremendous political and financial power.'"
infiltrating networks (Score:2, Interesting)
Make up your damn minds.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And Internet traffic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Article Title (Score:3, Interesting)
And as a supreme irony, although RIAA - the enforcement organ that's responsible for bringing so much misery to so many American people - is short for Recording Industry Association of America, only one of its owners - Warner Music - can be said to have an American base.
The majority owners are EMI Group (UK), Bertelsmann AG (Germany), Sony Corp (Japan). and Universal Music Group (Vivendi Universal, France).
Bandwith reduction.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Editorialization (Score:2, Interesting)
"Best quote 'It's almost as if having lost its bitterly fought case against the p2p application owners and failed in its many obvious (and expensive) attempts to disrupt the p2p networks, the music industry is now determined to vent its wrath on helpless men, women and children who can't hope to stand up to it with its tremendous political and financial power.'"
At the risk of being modded troll, what is wrong with cracking down on people who are:
Since when was it a right to do that with one's internet connection and movies? How does the headline submitter expect movie industries to make any money, if he endorses this behavior?
Exactly (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:you mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
I *hate* the RIAA as much as the next guy. But this *IS* the way that the RIAA *should* combat illegal file sharing. You don't go after the phone company to stop bomb threats. You *do* go after those calling in the bomb threat. How is this any different?
Don't want to get sued? DON'T BREAK THE LAW!!!
Re:Make up your damn minds.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither of the cases highlighted invalidated the charges brought against them. I havent seen one case highlighted where it was proven the person did nothing wrong, and was being sued falsly. Im sorry, but from where Im standing the RIAA are hitting the right people.
Now, Im with you with the automated DCMA takedown requests that have been highlighted (these arent cases of SUING), they shouldnt be doign that. But the cause here is that they are using an automated system, and it pains me to say it, but when the problem has reached such a point where the infringements are too many for a human to process, then it indicates to me that society as a whole is pretty much heading for the shitter.
Bottom line, dont leave yourself wide open, do not share copyrighted material. All p2p applications have ways to turn off sharing, use them. If you dont, and you get one of these cases brought against you, im sorry but you dont have my sympathy.
A number of people on here are commenting on the legal fees these cases mount up, and the maximum potential fines possible. Well, Im afraid thats the cost of not including copyright infringement under criminal law. Its a lesser 'crime' under civil law, but the complainants have more recourse over you.
net traffic in Iceland fell 40 per cent (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's not the politically correct point to make at
That's a heckuva lotta file sharing.
And within that 2.5TB of data, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some pirated software [MSDN Universal, Autocad, Acrobat/Photoshop] that might interest the BSA [or whatever they call it in Iceland].
Iceland becomes the world's Library? (Score:5, Interesting)
So why not just become the center of world trading in 'copyrighted' materials and take a microcharge of each trade? They'll get kicked out of the EU? Hardly likely. Brussells can be really boring on a small Eurocrat's salary and full-price media product can be mighty expensive (and will definitely be going up in price).
Better Iceland become the world's library than Vanuatuu, because that little island could just disappear in a typhoon and take all the servers and storage with it.
Maybe, you say, no one should be the world's center of 'illegal' trade in 'copyrighted' materials. Nonsense, that is a spin fantasy of the media giants who need inexpensive unofficial downloads as much as they need full-service 'all-fees-paid' fully-legit product sales.
When five companies control most of the world's media, it doesn't really matter if people buy the product at full copyright-paid Western prices or discounted 'pirate' prices. Either way they get all the money eventually because they are the only game in town. It's more important that people consume ever-increasing amounts of corporate media product. The money will get back to them. That isn't the case when there are thousands of small and medium-sized media companies globally. However that situation no longer exists and the media executives should revise their overall concept of how this new global framework works.
In a sense the reference in the parent to secret underground terrorist religious organizations is apt because these groups are the primary competition to the global media companies, especially in the developing world where 2/3rds of the population is under the age of 25. Hollywood and religious fanaticism don't mix all that well in the long term. Both compete for the leisure time attention span (and the loyalities) of the billions of new young people. In America, corporate Hollywood won because in the current political alliance between the major corporations and the religious right the religious community has always been the weaker partner.
Problem? People still having kids (Score:3, Interesting)
Teenagers are the expendible infantry of the P2P wars.
Re:does _anyone_ understand what the RIAA is doing (Score:3, Interesting)
-
Even if some of the sheep wise up and stop buying, there are more people growing up to take their place, which is probably as good an explanation as any for why the music industry targets youth.
Except those youth are growing up in an environment where they've probably downloaded the music they listen to more than bought it. They're not likely to suddenly change and go to buying only. In fact they're more likely to stop buying music at all. Lawsuits aren't likely to faze the younger generation, especially teenagers who already think they're invincible physically.So now that's not going to work, the number of people willing to share/download music, even in the face of lawsuits, is only likely to increase, not decrease. Surely someone at the RIAA has enough brain cells to realize this.
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:you mean... (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunetly, in the real world, that's not exactly the way it works. People who are totally innocent and people who are working within a grey area (such as excersiging their fair use rights) are getting sued. In all but the most obvious of cases (obvious that there is no infringement), these people can only defend themselves by shelling out huge amounts of money. By this I mean thousands and thouasands of dollars. It often comes out as a cheaper and easier alternative to just hand over $10,000 and have it done with. This essnetially allows them to just bully the money right out of people. Our legal system is screwed up, and the RIAA and MPAA take advantage of it. It's also good to keep in mind that probably a good number of people being sued don't even really know what they're doing is illegal. I would be first to point out that ignorance is no excuse, but come on, thousands of dollars in penalties? This just creates activists to rally against them. The penalties are far too harsh. We need to distinguish between people who are just sharing material in a casual manner and those who are out there with full knowledge of what they're doing and making money off of it.
The fines imposed when we are actually talking about criminal copyright infringement are staggering as well. (I'm thinking up to $150000 - $250000 per infringement). Consider this quote from Lawrence Lessig's excellent book, Free Culture [free-culture.org].
In all fairness, he is refering to a law that was being considered to cap medical malpractice lawsuits, and I don't know if that ever passed. But still, the point remains, the penalties are absolutely absurd. The system is broken. It wasn't made for a digital society. As we reshape it (think DMCA), we're loosing our rights.
At any rate, a policy where this is the best way to go after "pirates" is a policy where you're guilty until proven innocent. The ironic thing is that with anti-terrorism laws, the guy who makes that bomb threat you mentioned might get the same treatment...
Simply put, you can not break the law and still get sued. The issue simply isn't black and white. There's a lot of grey in there that the lawyers fight over.
Re:Industry? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's that lack of specificity that makes the term "Copyright Industry" such a poor coinage.
That, as the grandparent stated, it makes industry subsets of motion pictures, trial lawyers, publishing, television, software, advertising, and even manufacturing (box copy), makes the term "copyright industry" way too ambiguous to be useful.
If the term is meant to apply to industry organizations that have been working very hard to enforce and extend copyright law (please notice no value is assigned to that statement regarding how well intentioned or misguided that work is) certainly some other term might better describe the *AA organizations for headline usage.
Re:Iceland becomes the world's Library? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, Iceland has active vulcanoes, some which had recent, powerful eruptions. Perhaps not the best place after all ?
Re:Better Deal. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I'm comparing the masses freeloading off the hard work of others (musicians, artists, software engineers, writers) by stealing their work and then trying to legitimize it by saying that information should be free with that of minorities who were treated as slaves.
It's the same thing. Just because a huge group of people think something should be that way - namely that artists are not people who deserve compensation, or that slaves are not people at all - doesn't mean it's right.
That's why we have judges. Because the majority viewpoint is not necessarily fair, right or good. In fact, most humans will take whatever's not nailed down if you let them.
Re:you mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do try to remember that IP is artificial, not real, property. IP only has the rights that we, the people, feel like granting it, within the defining clause of the U.S. Constitution that deals with patents and copyrights.
If we decide that music can no longer be copyrighted, then that's the law - period. With one stroke of a pen IP can be unmade just as it was made. You can't do the same thing with real property.
While you're pondering this, try laying off the crack and pulling that RIAA cock out of your ass; you're embarrassing yourself with your lunatic ranting.
Max