Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Google Youtube Your Rights Online

RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy 260

Posted by timothy
from the manufacturing-outrage dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "The Recording Industry Association of America voiced its opposition to the recent decision in the YouTube-Viacom copyright infringement case, stating that 'the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.' Cary Sherman, RIAA president, also wrote in a blog post, 'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy

Comments Filter:
  • Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daas (620469) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:48PM (#32767208)

    'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

    Since when is it their job?

    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:40PM (#32767688)

      Since they've pretty much bought their way into the Justice Department, and White House, and want to do the least amount of work policiing the internet, while maximizing their profits.

      This response by the RIAA shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If anything, it paints their message very loud and clear. YOU the consumer, have no fair-use rights, and we believe you should pay for every instance of every copyrighted work transmitted, copied, or used, on or off the net.

      • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by silentcoder (1241496) on Friday July 02, 2010 @04:56AM (#32770168) Homepage

        It goes way beyond that though. This is corporatism at it's worst. The RIAA carefully hides here the fact that they are not the holders of the majority of the copyright out there. Under international law, every time I take a picture, write a /. comment or a blogpost or make a recording on my cellphone I own the copyright to it.
        That makes ME a rightsholder.

        The system as it stands, despite the problematic parts of the DMCA actually rather works okay here. The balance struck wasn't struck where the RIAA says it was, with damn good reason. Say I post a video of something silly to my blog, you like it and upload it to youtube. Technically you've committed copyright infringement -but chances are, if you credit me and link the blog I would be grateful rather than angry.
        But it's impossible for youtube to know how I would feel. What the current DMCA means is -if I don't like it, I can file a takedown notice and get it down if I want, or say thank you and leave it up if I want.
        What the RIAA wants here would remove that level of self-decision from the millions of rights-holders who are NOT the RIAA and turn ISP's into a police force. Youtube would have to somehow verify that you either created the video yourself or have an agreement with me about it everytime you do an upload !
        That's a massive legal overhead and in the very vast majority of the cases it would be a complete waste. That's not even considering that a video you don't own, nor know the creator of may have been published under a CC license - and now youtube has the duty to go find the original web-page and check that ?

        I agree with the judge here - the onus for identifying and reporting should belong to those rights-holders who desire to excercise control, not with the ISP's whose job ought to be to build reliable fast servers that are not so congested as to be unusable. The moment and IT company has more lawyers than developers things go to hell for customers. Just look at Microsoft. Let's not force that to be the case for every ISP and 1-man hosting company in the world as well !

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by silentcoder (1241496)

          Actually - here's an even better example. As any WoW player will tell you before engaging a raid it's common practise to watch videos on youtube showing screencasts of the fight. This is among the best way to study tactics for it.

          Those videos usually have three core parts:
          1) The actual gaming things captured. This is copyright blizzard (Actually it's a derivative work, the art in the game belongs to them but the screencast is not the art itself and has more to it) - but blizzard has already given explicit p

    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:47PM (#32767752) Homepage

      "As the White House recently noted in its strategic plan to combat intellectual property theft it is essential for service providers and intermediaries generally to work collaboratively with content owners to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement," Sherman wrote. "We need businesses to be more proactive in addressing infringement, not less."

      Can someone please inform Mr Sherman, that removing 10,000 videos in 24 hours is pretty much as proactive as you are going to get?

      • by sribe (304414)

        Can someone please inform Mr Sherman, that removing 10,000 videos in 24 hours is pretty much as proactive as you are going to get?

        I'm fairly sure it was 100,000.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Cylix (55374) *

        Let's not forget the detection algorithm's which are really damn good.

        It's not like I wouldn't expect them to use the DMCA frivolously and then complain when everyone uses it to the letter of the law.

        I suppose in the end the only way to appease the beast is with large sums of money. Feed it now to quell it's anger!

    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann,slashdot&gmail,com> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:47PM (#32767754) Homepage Journal

      'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

      Since when is it their job?

      Worse. They're saying it's an ILLEGAL exchange.

      The DMCA makes it legal UNTIL a takedown notice is issued.

      • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Informative)

        by BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @11:21PM (#32768430)

        The DMCA makes it legal UNTIL a takedown notice is issued.

        The DMCA does not make the exchange legal or illegal; rather, it provides a mechanism that allows ISPs to host user-uploaded content without liability for copyright infringement, provided the procedures are followed with respect to takedown notices. A person who makes infringing copies is still liable for making those copies, regardless of whether the copies are uploaded to an ISP, sold on the street, etc. Of course, not all copies are infringing (though the RIAA would probably disagree with this last statement).

    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GoochOwnsYou (1343661) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:48PM (#32767764)
      It gets worse, during the discovery process it was found that Viacom were uploading their works using sock accounts and then threatening YouTube with legal action saying they were put up there illegally. Is the balance he was talking about "balanced 100% in favor of media companies no matter what they do" view?

      No, the Viacom vs YouTube ruling was fair, especially considering internal memos admitted that the "illegal uploading" was done by Viacom themselves.

      I thought not even the RIAA could justify Viacom's side of this case.
    • Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @10:47PM (#32768220) Homepage Journal
      The RIAA is asking for exactly the same thing as all the parents who post their babies dancing to unlicensed songs. The RIAA wants google to spend unlimited funds on armies of workers to vet every submission. The parents wants google to spend unlimited funds on armies of lawyers to protect a perceived fair use right.

      I think in this case the court did exactly what congress intended, and it is constitutional. Service providers like YouTube cannot be liable for posted content and stay solvent, so to allow the business to grow they made it so. No one is going to suffer irreparable damage by having a video pulled for a free posting service, so there is no reason not to have the service provider pulled. A user can also post it on their own dime or use another service, or fight the right to have it posted. Stakeholders are not going suffer irrevocable harm by having unlicensed content up for a short while, so there we go.

      The only thing I would like to see are stiff penalties for parties who use the DMCA to harrass people, but this is no different from SLAPP laws, which have helped some, but there is still a huge problem with big corporation limited free speech of the average person.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SirGarlon (845873)

      'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

      And that is a Good Thing. I do not *want* service providers spending time and money policing their networks; both as a customer and a shareholder I see no benefit to me in a service provider cooperating with the {RI,MP}AA beyond the absolute minimum required by law. That minimum just got lower. :-) If the media companies want to crack down on copyright infringement, le

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:49PM (#32767212) Journal

    "Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States

    "eeep!" - RIAA runs away

    • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:55PM (#32767274) Journal

      But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies. If I upload an infringing video and Viacom complains, then youtube is expected to honor the request. BUT if I then file a motion to reinstate the video because it doesn't violate copyright (for example it's me singing my own song), Youtube is supposed to restore the video immediately.

      From that point forward youtube is now held blameless as a neutral party. They followed the rules. Why RIAA would want youtube to be punished makes no logical sense, except in the mind of a bunch of greedy tyrants. I guess RIAA doesn't want youtube restoring videos of Me singing my own song..... they want all music production to be in *their* hands, not in the People's hands.

      • by WiglyWorm (1139035) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:21PM (#32767520) Homepage
        I may be picking nits, but the DMCA makes NO specifications at all about what a company must or mustn't to when it receives a takedown notice. If I'm hosting a video which is clearly fair use, I don't have to take it down because I receive a takedown. It's just legally safer that way.
        • by Thinboy00 (1190815) <thinboy00NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:29PM (#32767594) Journal

          Actually, putbacks are legally binding [wikipedia.org] (see last two items).

        • by DRJlaw (946416) on Friday July 02, 2010 @12:41AM (#32768888)

          I may be picking nits, but the DMCA makes NO specifications at all about what a company must or mustn't to when it receives a takedown notice. If I'm hosting a video which is clearly fair use, I don't have to take it down because I receive a takedown. It's just legally safer that way.

          You're not picking nits -- you're so technically right that you're practically wrong.

          The safe harbor only exists if "[the service provider] upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." 17 USC 512(c)(1)(C).

          You don't have to take advantage of the safe harbor provision. But if you don't, the copyright owner can bleed you dry. And don't think that corporate IP attorneys don't recognize that fact.

          If you follow the DMCA, you can be sued. However, you can at worst wind up the trial stage with limited discovery and a summary judgment. The copyright owner faces a real challenge piercing the safe harbor -- as shown by the Viacom decision. You have no incentive to settle for any amount greater than the cost of defending yourself to this early conclusion, if you're inclined to settle at all.

          If you do not follow the DMCA, you can be sued. Worse yet, even if you've decided that the video is fair use, you cannot limit discovery, and you are virtually certain to be unable to use summary judgment to avoid a trial on the merits. Fair use is a fact-based balancing test. Summary judgment can only be used where there is no reasonable factual dispute. If there's any resonable question of infringement instead of dair use, you're on your way to a trial and bench ruling or jury verdict. Also, unless the judge permits you to bifurcate issues like damages and willfulness, you're defending the whole enchilada at the same time. Infringement, damages, and enhancement. Your rational settlement number just became the costs of a complete defense, and a risk-of-loss-adjusted-number under at least one theory of copyright liability. Even worse, there's something to be said for the Vlad-the-Impaler logic of running someone through with their own legal costs. Think of SCO (acknowledging that they were, at first, the copyright aggressor), or a pre-Google YouTube running on venture capital without the shield of the safe harbor.

          The first route is a cost you don't need. The second route is a cost you cannot afford.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:04PM (#32767364)

      "Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States

      "You must not have gotten the memo on the latest version of ACTA... oh right, it's secret. Well, about that..." - RIAA

      FTFY

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:12PM (#32767438) Journal

        "But we have treaties!" - Londo

        "Words on a page. Ignore them." - Refa

        POINT: I don't consider treaties to be higher than the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) or the People (ultimate authority). They can be signed today and nullified ten years from now, if we so wish. When the Russian Federation took-over for the collapsed Sovyet Union, they said they would honor the treaties but they didn't have to. The new government could have just as easily nullified them as being "illegitimate acts" by a defunct government. Another example is when Japan walked-out of the League of Nations, nullified their treaties, and started building tons of battleships.

         

        • by Jenming (37265) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @10:20PM (#32768012)

          yes, that worked out real well for Japan

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Actually nullifying the League treaties worked GREAT for Japan..... until they rather stupidly decided to attack a continent-sized nation. If they had not done that, they could have walked-out of the League with no further repercussions and existed independently.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851)
          You might not consider them to be so, but you'd be wrong about that. It's been a pretty consistent ruling that treaties do indeed get placed ahead of the constitution. Which is what is so troubling about things like the WTO and ACTA. Definitely not in the interests of the American people, but the politicians write and sign them anyways.
        • by Miseph (979059)

          The irony, of course, is that the Constitution states that treaties are the highest law of the land, equivalent to the Constitution itself.

          Knowing that detail makes your post quite comical.

    • "Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States

      "That is for the court to decide (against)." - RIAA

      FTFY

    • Uuuuuh

      Isn't this kind of thinking what copyright laws are supposed to prevent?

      • >>>Isn't this kind of thinking what copyright laws are supposed to prevent?

        Copyright laws are created to promote the sciences and useful arts. It says that in the Supreme Law of our nation. But a copyright that locks-up items for ~150 years does the exact opposite - it harms the sciences and arts. Imagine if you could not read Tom Sawyer or hear Rhapsody in Blue or see Van Gogh's starry night painting, because the corporation had them locked in a vault.

        That is not promoting but instead damaging

  • Duh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:49PM (#32767220)

    'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

    YES, THAT'S THE POINT. If you (the RIAA) want to police that crap, do it on your dime. The Service providers don't know jack about who owns what, and is not their responsibility.

    • If you (the RIAA) want to police that crap, do it on your dime

      If they want to police it, they should keep on wanting. If they want to argue their case to an enforcer based on representing ONE of the BIASED points of view, then that's fair enough.

  • Oh noes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aboroth (1841308) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:50PM (#32767226)
    'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

    Boo hoo, you can't get other people to do your jobs for you, you lazy fuckers!
  • Too Fucking Bad (Score:2, Informative)

    by UnknownSoldier (67820)

    Typical RIAA, whining about when the Law doesn't give them what they want...

    Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...

    • Re:Too Fucking Bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by russotto (537200) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:24PM (#32767548) Journal

      Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...

      Worse than that (from their perspective)... they got the law they lobbied for, but didn't realize that
      a) It would be applied as written
      b) That anyone could actually afford to comply
      c) That a financial model would exist where it made sense for the service provider to defend the ability to post content against a hail of RIAA/MPAA member lawsuits.

  • Suck it, RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:52PM (#32767240)

    'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"

    In other words, minimizing the illegal exchange of copyrighted becomes the responsibility of the copyright holders, by forcing them to identify which works are their copyright, and which works they would like to not have floating around on the Internet. Go cry me a river. It's bad public policy only in the world where 'public" is defined as "corporations under the RIAA umbrella".

    The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law. I haven't bought a new CD in years, my movie buying is exceedingly limited, and care less and less about ripping any movie/song that I like.

    Before someone accuses me of not wanting to pay for content that I use - nonsense. I actually donate money to a completely silly online game because even FB game developers need to eat, and I donate to NPR because I listen to them. I pay if I think I'm getting something in return, or if I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause. I feel that I don't get anything from the media conglomerates.

    Go suck it, RIAA.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      >>>I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause

      Ditto. I recently subscribed to Asimov's Science Fiction because I heard they were in bad shape (dropped below 15,000 subscribers). I enjoy short stories so I decided it was worthwhile to give them ~$30 a year to keep this literary genre alive. I'm supporting art for the sake of art, because I don't want to see it disappear.

      But I feel absolutely no compunction to buy a Britney, Lady Gaga, or Black Eyed Peas CD. Maybe I'll pick-up their greatest hi

    • The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law.

      This is my opinion as well. I'm at the point where I just don't care about certain laws anymore due to the way in which they are kept in place by a corrupt political system.

  • Arrrrr! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @08:53PM (#32767246)

    It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.

    Aren't you guys trying to force service providers to pick up the tab by changing the law -- you sit back and collect the profits while they pay the costs? I recently calculated that for about $33k worth of hard drives filled with infringing MP3s (average 4MB in size) I could be sued for statutory damages greater than what this country's entire economy made in 2009.

    Don't cry to me that you can't pass the buck to service providers here when you've got that kind of legal power at your disposal.

    • Re:Arrrrr! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:19PM (#32767500) Journal

      >>>RIAA sits back and collects the profit while ISPs pay the costs

      Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile..... just like I smiled when Saddam Hussein was terminated. For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing. Such as when Emperor Nero died.

      • Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile.....

        Why would you do that when you have a perfectly good Slashdot RSS feed somewhere on your computer?

        Or do you mean you'd want to hear about it as quickly as possible, instead of a couple of days after the fact? ...yeah, then why would you choose the newspaper of all things, instead of reading the live updates on the Internet?

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          If you skip reading the paper one day, you could miss any event that happened.

          With /., if you miss it once, you know there'll be a dupe in a day or so.

      • Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:46PM (#32767746)

        For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing.

        When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life. If the RIAA CEO died, he would simply be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate. Do you know what he looks like? Does he have a family? Do you know anything else about him, other than he's the CEO of RIAA? CEOs -- They talk, mostly. Sometimes they sign things. That's not a reason to kill.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sycraft-fu (314770)

          It is very rare that a single person is the cause of large problems. There are a few cases, but they are vanishingly few. Most of the time the individual doesn't make a whole lot of difference and the parent is correct that the RIAA is one of those. Getting rid of the management would cause nothing to change. The problem is endemic of the whole system. The media companies have a corporate belief in this, and the RIAA is their mouthpeice/enforcer. Getting rid of a few individuals would change nothing.

          The onl

        • Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Funny)

          by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @10:39PM (#32768162) Homepage Journal

          When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life. If the RIAA CEO died, he would simply be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate.

          Ok, that's funny. Devalue human life. Carbon-copy duplicate. Ha. Look what you did there.

          • by sconeu (64226)

            But then the ECAA (Evil CEO Association of America) would insist on a takedown due to copyright infringement.

        • Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by commodore64_love (1445365) on Friday July 02, 2010 @12:00AM (#32768692) Journal

          >>>When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life.

          Yes but if we allow murderers (saddam) or thieves or tyrants (RIAA CEO) to continue abusing other humans, that THAT is a devaluation of life. It is because we are sick of seeing our these crimes that we hope the Idiot will die, and the suffering stop.
          .

          >>>be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate

          Yeah but maybe his fear of being shot in the head would make him tread more carefully, and not piss off the voters. He might even reverse policy and form a gentler, kinder RIAA. (As Obama did when he replaced Bush as president.)

      • by LoRdTAW (99712)

        Sad part is some other scum fuck would take his/her place. It would have to be known that anyone who dares take that position puts their life in immediate danger. Fight tyranny with tyranny. But good luck hoping that will ever happen.

        And yea there are many of us who would smile of that happened. But that day will most likely never come.

      • by walshy007 (906710)

        Because iraq's conditions improved immensely with saddam's removal... right? none of this all out war between two religious factions business that he held at bay through fear of force.

        Saddam was a nasty man, but at least he kept order.

    • Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Looce (1062620) * on Thursday July 01, 2010 @11:29PM (#32768492) Journal

      Just for future reference,

      33,000 USD of hard drives, currently at about 1.5 TiB for 80 USD [newegg.com], is 633,600 GiB.

      633,600 GiB can store 158,400,000 songs, at 4 MiB apiece.

      The second trial of Jammie Thomas awarded the RIAA 1,920,000 USD for 24 songs, which comes out to 80,000 USD apiece.

      For 158,400,000 songs, the RIAA would be awarded 12,672,000,000,000 USD (12 trillion short scale). That's only a bit less than the national US debt [brillig.com], which is 13,208,593,598,669 USD (13 trillion short scale) as of this comment!

  • DROP DEAD! Your business model died years ago, it's just no one has pulled the plug on you & the MPAA.
  • The RIAA wants there cut of the deal!

  • The RIAA wants to give advice about what constitutes bad public policy? Really?
    We're going to be getting advice on morals and comportment from Paris Hilton next, I take it.
  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:01PM (#32767344) Homepage

    Sure, on the surface it sounds good for the RIAA being able to hold a gun to YouTube's head every time an infringing video is posted. But what would that in practice mean? It would mean that any video that hasn't been reviewed and approved by YouTube would be a liability - and knowing the RIAA, a big one. It'd basically be a license for the RIAA to print money off YouTube, since it's highly unlikely they could keep everything away. They could just continue to make increasingly more impossible standards of screening and cooperation for YouTube to fail.

    I think if this ever gets to the Supreme court, Viacom will be handed a slapdown so big their head will be spinning for years so I almost hope they do. Imagine if every comment here had to pass through an editor in case it contained copyright text of Scientologists or whatnot, it'd be the death of all discussion forums. There's no way the Supreme Court would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over every site operator like that, they're more than smart enough to figure out their guideline would be the guideline for all copyrighted content.

    Any bets on what serial killer YouTube will be likened to?

  • Dear RIAA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cl1mh4224rd (265427) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:06PM (#32767386)

    Dear RIAA,

    Shut the fuck up.

    Sincerely,
    Everyone

  • "We (The RIAA) were hoping to sue the service providers in addition to suing the end-user for making the illegal downloads. Waaah! Its not fair that you won't let us sue".

  • Dear Cary Sherman,

    Fuck off you sociopathic parasite.

    Sincerly,

    Everyone Else

  • Pity...
  • The key word (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:21PM (#32767518)

    The key word in public policy is 'Public'. I think the RIAA doesn't seem to get that. The Public is what grants them copyright in the first place. The Public's interests should come first with respect to anything which the Public granted them in the first place.

  • Careful Balance (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I never knew there was a "careful balance" with the DMCA.
    • It's the balance between fistfuls of money and not having to work to acquire them.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Sure, the people wanted free stuff and the RIAA wanted the death penalty. They settled upon huge awards and prison time. If that's not the definition of a "careful balance" then I don't know what is.
    • by v1 (525388)

      When I read "Careful Balance" I immediately pictured a large scale, with an elephant on the left tray and a mouse on the right. This is the "careful balance" the RIAA wants so badly to preserve.

      "We're giving you a $0.35 refund on that. Oh, and you, we're suing for the same thing as that guy but for $2.8 billion"

  • by Late Adopter (1492849) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:28PM (#32767586)

    the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.

    The courts' job isn't to make policy, it's to interpret and apply it! I'm tired of people criticizing court decisions because the outcome doesn't favor the party you're most sympathetic to. A decision is a good decision if it's consistent with the law, precedence, and is fairly and evenly applied.

    RIAA, you want the law to say something other than what it does? Buy a senator, God knows you have enough money.

  • Are you judges? No. Are you legislators? No.

    Well then, it's a good thing it's not your job to form or interpret the law then, isn't it?

    Go pound sand.

  • by DMiax (915735) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:35PM (#32767648)
    Where is the careful balance in DMCA?
  • by crhylove (205956) <rhy@leperkhanz.com> on Thursday July 01, 2010 @09:39PM (#32767680) Homepage Journal

    Seriously. Nobody is buying their shit because it SUCKS. I never want to hear Taylor Swift and Avril Lavigne in my life. They are awful. "Fast and Furious" FOUR?!?! Like the first one didn't suck enough?

    How about making a decent CD or DVD WORTH $9.99?!?!?

    Idiots. I would sucker punch a movie or record exec in the face if I had half a chance.

  • Their sites? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JThundley (631154) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @10:00PM (#32767876) Homepage

    'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'

    Do they really think that ISPs exchange copyrighted works on their own sites? Or do they think that because an ISP serves a site that makes the site belong to the ISP?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Simple logic :
      The RIAA owns all multimedia.
      Therefore, ISPs own all the web.

  • by Daimaou (97573) on Thursday July 01, 2010 @10:55PM (#32768274)

    That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.

  • RIAA's ploy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    RIAA's next big idea is to get the government or the FCC to enforce their hopeless business model. Expect to see more of this "it's everyone's job to protect our intellectual property" mentality. The ACTA is their next big hope to get laws passed that protects their music online. Personally I think it delays the inevitable, but as long as there are lobbyists and crooked politicians there's going to be a recording industry that is locking down the internet in a very self serving manner. Anyone who reads S
  • What about the smoking gun emails from YouTube's founders? Hopefully they will be considered on appeal, as the DMCA safe harbor never was intended to allow content providers to leave stuff up that they found infringing copyright to make money from the resulting page-views or things like that and the fact that they were finally taken down when Viacom sent it's takedown notice is no excuse. But they are correct that it never required active monitoring or filtering or anything like that.
    • > What about the smoking gun emails from YouTube's founders?

      What about the OTHER smoking gun where Viacom uploaded videos altered to appear to be leaks?

      Copyright is a matter of *permission* Nobody but Viacom knows who they gave permission to upload the videos to. And they not only could, but did give people permission to load certain videos (that would appear infringing to anyone who didn't know that). Worse, Viacom's expensive lawyers couldn't figure that out, even after performing a detailed investi

  • its the sound of inevitability

    you are defending a legal status quo that cannot be enforced in a world with the internet. that's pretty much the beginning and the ending of this entire story

    pass all the laws you want, buy all the legislators you want. it will all be routed around

    welcome to dustbin of history, you're irrelevant

  • Cary Sherman, RIAA president, also wrote in a blog post

    For fuck's sake. Some one let him on the Internet?

  • Maybe they should've thought of the consequences before Viacom actively sent people out to internet cafés and the like to upload infringing material in order to further their cause in the lawsuit which started this.

I've got a bad feeling about this.

Working...