Do We Want ISPs Penalizing Music Fans? 263
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.'"
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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
Copy of game broke, yet they gave me a warning (Score:1, Interesting)
my ISP(charter communications) already sent me a warning telling me that I violated copyright infringement because I downloaded Assassins Creed for the PC. What they don't know is that my actual DVD copy that I purchased in store broke. Since my copy broke and I needed to re-install the game I downloaded the game.
By the way, there was no crack that came with the download or anything, I didn't need a crack as I already have a legit copy.
What would stop this from happening with my music or any other things covered under this?
Re:Court first then cut. (Score:1, Interesting)
That said, if any of the ISPs have common carrier status, they should lose it for these shenanigans.
Re:Enough already (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Unless of course you mean noted as a sock-puppet of the Labour Regime. That, he most certainly is."
I thought you said no one had heard of him? If you don't like the guy then fair enough but he's hardly a sock-puppet of Labour. I can't imagine Labour saying "Pssst, Billy, go and have a go at the RIAA."
He says what he thinks and points out what he sees as unfair. I, personally, respect him for that.
(also I think you meant under 20, not over)
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?
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.
Re:Enough already (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 claims to support you and other artists in your fine work.
Now I'm focusing on UGC (user generated content) posted under liberal licenses. There's a lot of good stuff out there. All-in-all, I haven't lost much. But boy have you artists (and the labels) lost a pile on me.
I'm sorry for the extent to which it has impacted you -- I love music, and would like to be a consumer again.
Physical exchange of media, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
One possibility which remains, if Big Media manages to shut down Internet liberty somehow, is merely the sharing of physical media (perhaps via some kind of social networking site which does an automatic "N steps to ...").
Considering that in the not so far off future people will probably be able to carry around enormous content libraries on tiny memory cards, it doesn't look all that rosy for trying to stop distribution.
Hell, maybe the laws will get so draconian (e.g., you're guilty of infringement if you can't prove you bought or were legally given all the works under copyright in your possession) that even Joe Sixpack will figure out what's going down, and Creative Commons licensed works will reign supreme.
I can dream, no?
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.
Re:Enough already (Score:1, Interesting)
Why buy no CDs at all, instead of buying from independent [subpop.com] labels [killrockstars.com] like [4ad.com] these [slumberlandrecords.com] that don't sue people for downloading their music? And if none of those record labels have music that suits your tastes (I'll admit I lean towards hipster garbage in music taste), check RIAA Radar [riaaradar.com] before you buy.
Because a non-essential, impulse purchase is stifled by a "mother may I?" check?
For most people on slashdot, the RIAA is just a justification to make themselves feel better about downloading instead of buying.
No, the reason we don't buy CDs is because of network effects. Once we stopped buying and looking at the big label CDs we had much incentive to go to a music store to look at the other 1% or whatever (by volume).
For example, since CompUSA and Circuit City both went down the drain, I go to BestBuy and GameStop LESS often to look at stuff. Taking a trip for just one store isn't worth it to browse. This is why malls and shopping centers are good for business.
Personally, I think I've bought 5 CDs since Napster was shut down - 2 of those for the DVD with the videos, 2 japanese sountracks and a musical for my gf. I don't illegally download it, or buy it online now, I just don't bother with music. If I listened to music even a tenth as much as I used to, I would buy a Zune and a Zune pass and get it there.
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.
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]