RIAA Wants 'Net Neutrality' To Include Filtering 212
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The RIAA is now worried about the FCC's rulemaking concerning Net Neutrality. Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography, so they want to make sure that spying on and filtering internet traffic is okay, so long as it's being done for a good reason, even if it doesn't work correctly and blocks non-infringing content. Incidentally, the RIAA has some justification to lump child pornography and copyright infringement: after all, people might infringe upon the original cover art for the album 'Virgin Killer,' which featured a naked under-aged girl in a way that some consider pornographic. The copyright on it belongs to RCA Records."
"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Stay away from my water.
Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Equally rapacious and soulless - they make their own reality and expect everyone else to live it. The RIAA is a classic case study on the influence of the private sector on governance.
Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd just like to point out that without the government's help the RIAA couldn't exist.
If copyright regulation were not being grossly warped by the government then there would be no way that the RIAA could wield the power that it does.
This isn't an issue of a free market run amuck, rather it's a perfect example of a badly regulated market favoring the establishment and being unable to change with the rest of the world.
In an actual free market all it would take is consumers voting with their wallets to change
Particularly (Score:3, Insightful)
Because of statutory damages. Their lawsuits absolutely depend on those. That is how they get their monkey-fuck retarded large awards. In the event those didn't exist, well then their lawsuits would amount to fines, as they should. The max actual damages you can possibly argue is $1/song, since that's what they sell for. You can argue the damages are less, but you can't argue they are more (and courts have already found this). Now in civil court, tripling of damages is pretty common when they are trying to
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You are both correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You're both wrong.
RIAA and their proposed "net neutrality" that blocks sites I want to see, is precisely why we need to put power into the hands of the citizens to make their OWN choices. (i.e. Verizon sucks, I'm switching to Virgin Mobile or ATT or Cricket or Clear or Sprint or AppleISP or.....) We need to stop treating citizens as too stupid to make their own decisions, and stop giving politicians the role of surrogate parents. Neither they nor their corporate bosses can be trusted.
We can only trust
Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what would be funny? Suppose Google wanted the congress to finally enact laws to help protect Net Neutrality (NN, from now on). They knew the government isn't doing anything and after the Comcast case, NN was in jeopardy.
So what to do? They team up with one of the big wireless carriers (AKA Verizon) and make up a not-so-bad-but-also-not-so-great deal and that way they have a force major backing up NN. Now there are two options:
1) People will like the deal and it will be pushed forward -> A good option.
2) People will be enraged by the compromises and demand the congress enact stronger NN rules (ones that will include wireless traffic)! The congress, being voter-minded will jump on the bandwagon (and having a big company like Verizon supporting NN doesn't hurt also) and push to enact said laws -> A great option!
So now you have Google, which (for the sake of this post) really does want complete NN as it always said, making a move that is a win-win situation for the NN group. Brilliant!
I know, to convoluted, but a nice scenario neverthelss.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the last one:
3) People will be enraged by the compromises and demand the congress enact stronger NN rules (ones that will include wireless traffic)! The congress, being contributor-minded, will give the plan lip service but dawdle around until after the election, at which point they will gut it to the liking of their favorite lobbies and declare mission accomplished.
Google's idea was to hand Congress a ready-made compromise with industry support on a silver platter, and hope like hell they wi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if in the end we get option 3, we're no worse than where we started.
P.S.
And a small correction: In option 2 I should have said "vote-minded", not "voter-minded". Politicians worry about votes before anything else. They try to please contributers because they bring money that can help them get votes. They don't really care one way or the other about voters or contributers, only votes.
Vocabulary Nazi strikes again! (Score:4, Funny)
You probably meant "Force majeure". Sure, it's French for "force major", but if it's written in French, it has that certain Je ne sais quoi...
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read my post minus the stick up your ass, if at all possible.
::removes stick, rereads post::
Guess I have to spell it out: "Shock and horror" was located within parentheses to convey the comically effeminate "well I never!" attitude of both the RIAA and government toward the fact that people would decide against being pushed around.
Retcon. Your post clearly implied that government intervention would be a waste of time and that only the will of the people could do things to improve the situation.
The widespread piracy rates and lawsuits thrown around by the RIAA prove your point wrong.
Why would you assume I'm _not_ on your side?
The government is a babbling retard playing with its own feces
I believe that's called "answering your own question".
You just got gored by Occam's Razor.
Don't you mean sliced? Or maybe cut?
This reminds me of "The Office" (Score:2, Interesting)
This reminds me of the episode of "The Office" where Michael Scott becomes butthurt about something and dresses up as Jesus, interrupting people and telling them they're going to hell. The only non-moron in the group tells him he can't push religion and he responds that he either has to push religion or push drugs.
The RIAA is "The world according to Michael Scott" in a nutshell and taken to an extreme.
Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not net neutral if you filter. That's the point of neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should do some googling, before claiming that RIAA can't raid your house, or put you in jail.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070117/163531.shtml [techdirt.com]
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4385453-1.html [allbusiness.com]
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/11/albumbase-down/ [wired.com]
http://features.rr.com/article/0bAa6maaGCexM?q=North+Carolina [rr.com]
http://www.riaa.net/newsitem.php?news_month_filter=5&news_year_filter=2004&resultpage=&id=482BFD6A-C0C6-71B2-F544-6E181B92A80A [riaa.net]
Pe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, RIAA - try to take me down. I can't lose.
Too bad that's only true from a certain point of view. It only works like that because if they strike you down, you will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.
Re:"Cause I'm the only judge of what is proper"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Excerpt from the minutes of the meeting between the Internet and the RIAA:
"We'll let you have your silly "net neutrality" as long as you agree to all of our demands, the first of which is there will be no net neutrality. Now that we've got that taken care of, the next item on the agenda is "Money: You Must Give Us All of Yours". Thoughts? Or shall we just take it directly to a vote of the board, which is us?"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
RIAA and the industry behind it are bound to vanish soon, so they have nothing to lose anymore and they can use any means they wish to gain small wins before the destruction. The problem is that the stupid laws they push will bug people for decades after the nowadays media industry has been buried and forgotten.
Almost every dying meme or institution works in a same aggressive and self-destructing way. Look at the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until all of Nirvana's songs are filtered out as well... they had naked babies on their album covers, after all. Pirating pedophiles, the lot of you!
RIAA said it first! (Score:5, Funny)
Specifically, they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
The RIAA wants to protect their copyrighted child porn?
Re: (Score:2)
What precisely did you think that Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, the Jonas Brothers, etc... really were?
Perhaps this will help [southparkstudios.com].
Re:RIAA said it first! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps this will help. [southparkstudios.com]
"Due to copyright and other legal reasons, South Park video content cannot be viewed outside the United States."
No, but it gives me a pretty good idea why they're in such a shithole and digging themselves deeper.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's an interesting point - in the UK, laws against possession of adult (not child) material have been used against pirates ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16/extreme_pr0n_convictions/ [theregister.co.uk] ). But wait a moment, if it's true that piracy harms the producer, and production of said material is bad, surely it's doing good to pirate it...
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't want people watching the movie "Babel" without paying, now would we?
Ah, they're trying a Glenn Beck. (Score:2, Insightful)
They're trying a Glenn Beck. Now they can make the implied accusation that by supporting net neutrality, you support child pornography.
I can hear the arguments now, "We need to prevent net neutrality, FOR THE CHILDREN!"
They forgot to include terrorism (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like the IRA videos of kids throwing petrol bombs at RUC cops with soundtrack provided by RATM? Something tells me RATM isn't opposed, but their label might have a thing or two to say about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't those that oppose their position like children?
Think of the children! Isn't that the root cause of child pornography?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No children, no child pornography.
It's clear that we need to ban children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeshua Cottontail vs. La Cucaracha (Score:3, Insightful)
I really can't believe that even government officials wouldn't notice how shallow this attempt is.
That's their job. A roach can fit through even the smallest of gaps.
The difference is the roach's only agendae are spreading feces and breeding... oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness to roaches, that's pretty much my entire agenda also.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? The government does the exact same thing all the time.
Need extra homeland-spying powers? Just invoke "terrorists" and "pedophiles" and you can pass any law.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the movie "Babel"? RIAA is actually a distributor of child porn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, we have FBI officials telling the news stations that children are "re-victimized" every single time someone looks at child pornography. The executive branch is chastising judges who oppose harsher sentences for possession of child pornography, even in cases where the punishment for possession exceeds the punishment for child abuse. The government wants everyone to be afrai
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
RIAA does not care about child pornography. They're hiding behind the issue. They want to be able to claim that those who oppose their position hate children.
considering the RIAA acts like a bunch of spoiled children, this is starting to make a lot of sense!
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, the RIAA is trying to group together those who distribute copyrighted works without the owner's explicit authorization (i.e, file sharers) with paedophiles and all sorts of depraved individuals. They are trying to pull yet another set of false correlations, such as the one they managed to pull by associating the unauthorized commercial distribution of a copyrighted work with all the raping, pillaging, murder and violence perpetrated by pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:5, Informative)
correction: The music industry LOVES child pornography.
"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html [boingboing.net]
Classy (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA knows that they won't find much sympathy anywhere if they ask for a carte-blanche on traffic spying just to catch a few illegal MP3's, so they just throw in child pornography, for good measure.
Seriously, child pornography is the new Godwin for justifying invading privacy and getting constitutional exemptions.
Re:Classy (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, child pornography is the new Godwin for justifying invading privacy and getting constitutional exemptions.
The real question is: Why are people still unable to reply "don't use child porn for your benefits", and stop the argument right there?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Classy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Classy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is: Why are people still unable to reply "don't use child porn for your benefits", and stop the argument right there?
People are, legislators are not. After all, if they did, the insanely deep pockets would suddenly get a lot smaller.
Re:Classy (Score:5, Funny)
Hitler was against child pornography.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
so block all jpegs? why not just kill the net whie (Score:2)
so block all jpegs? why not just kill the net while your at it?
Re: (Score:2)
I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't even funny anymore.
In a letter sent today to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, the RIAA and other music trade groups expressed their concern[...]
The only sane answer is: "To say what you just said you have to be either a lying bastard or deeply retarded. I have no interest on educating either profile on the reasons why your statement is manipulative, false and idiotic."
Each day that passes I value education more. If this keeps going I'll end up firmly believing that educating the population is the solution to all of humanity matters.
Re:I give up. (Score:5, Funny)
If this keeps going I'll end up firmly believing that educating the population is the solution to all of humanity matters.
Not quite. There is always the nuclear option- you know just nuke the planet until cockroaches are the highest form of life. Then it because the cockroaches' problems on what to do with the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
To say what you just said you have to be either a lying bastard or deeply retarded.
Either/or? Um, how about both?
Some people hate freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's all say things that are offensive but true (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is more harmful to society than child pornography. Yeah, I said it.
Also, I have a feeling the RIAA doesn't give two shits if some kids get molested and photographed, as long as a song they have the copyright to isn't in the background of the video. Lumping together CP with copyright infringement is just a way to get support and alienate anyone who opposes copyright - since if you're against filtering of copyrighted files you must also be for child porn.
Re:Let's all say things that are offensive but tru (Score:5, Insightful)
I rarely reply to my own posts, but In case my first statement requires clarification, I am serious about copyright being worse. Very few people in society will be affected by child pornography, fewer still negatively affected. Those that were victims of abuse have suffered a terrible crime at the hands of their abusers, but nearly EVERYONE in society is impacted in a negative way by copyright law. The difference is in sensationalism. It's a lot easier to get people angry about something to do with children, or sex, or both than it is to get people angry about the every day violation of their right to their own culture and freedom of expression.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad way to argue. Better say: "Copyright protects child porn!" It's of course a bull shit argument, but it links copyright to child porn, instead of contrasting it to child porn, as your argument does. And most people will not think any further anyway if they hear "child porn".
see all this time (Score:5, Funny)
i have tried in my life to be lucid, coherent, and persuasive in what i say
little did i know all you have to do is say "kiddie porn", and whatever you are trying to argue for, people instantly flock to you sympathetically
so, in that spirit, instead of making a rational argument here, i will simply say
there!
now i may rest assured that whatever your opinion before reading my comment, i have now inexorably swayed you to believe as i do, simply by reciting the magic words that trumps all debate, argument and rhetoric
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mrs. Lovejoy, actually! Maude Flanders is a different character who died several seasons ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i have tried in my life to be lucid, coherent, and persuasive in what i say
little did i know all you have to do is say "kiddie porn", and whatever you are trying to argue for, people instantly flock to you sympathetically
so, in that spirit, instead of making a rational argument here, i will simply say
there!
You're not supposed to chant it as if you're cheering kiddie porn on in a football game.
Typical Corporate & Government Propaganda! (Score:3, Informative)
There's always a reason to curtail people's rights:
Communist witch hunt
The Cold war
Terrorism
Child Pornography
Let's suppose they do start "filtering" content there will always be a way to circumvent it.
It comes to a point where if you stand against it you are then branded a "sympathizer" and thus becomes politically incorrect to oppose it.
(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)
Unfortunately not nearly enough people question the motives of the Government & their commercial "bed fellows".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
God help us when we encounter the Communist Terrorist Paedophile who was part of the Cold War!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We tend to call them Father, Pastor, Priest, Bishop or Pope - depending on denomination other names might be used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
God help us when we encounter the Communist Terrorist Paedophile who was part of the Cold War!
Especially if he's infringing on someone's copyright at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
(In the UK when anyone questioned immigration policy they were publically branded "racist" by the Labour party and prevented it from being debated. It was a legitimate concern)
That's funny. In the US, all you have to do is question anything our President does and you'll get labeled a racist by the Democrats. We always have to do everyone else one better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-464355/It-extremist-fascist-illiberal-demand-stringent-immigration-controls.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3642549/Door-opens-for-migration-debate.html [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280705/Labour-tried-stifle-debate-immigration.html [dailymail.co.uk]
h [cadaad.org]
They're not worried about child pornography (Score:2)
And why don't they just... (Score:2, Insightful)
For We Are Many (Score:2, Funny)
*blows 4chan whistle* Anonymous! Get 'em!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Police dept. won't do anything as they haven't "infringed the law yet"
I don't know about you, but I'm quite fond of the idea of the police not doing anything to people who haven't "infringed the law yet" unless there is clear evidence that they are going to do so.
To clarify, me talking about hating work and having fantasies of blowing it up *is not* clear evidence that I'm going to do so. Once I start buying explosives and sending the boss death threats then it's probably a good idea to do something about me.
In short, bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
"An Internet predicated on order, rather than chaos, facilitates achievement of this goal."
The Internet has always been chaotic, you never needed to lease lines to any particular point. Everybody can go everywhere at any time over any protocol, that chaos has been the core of its success. That all the users can access mylittlestartup.com just as easily and quickly as they can access megacompany.com has been a massive boom to competition and innovation for corporations and social media for individuals. That is the essence of net neutrality.
The kind of order and regulation they want is to kill Internet as we know it, a system where ISPs get to siphon off the profits acting as the middle men that direct online sales was supposed to avoid. It's to stifle competition leaving only approved, incumbent content providers who pay their way to access the market. What they aim at, despite not saying so, is that to filter anything you must force everything into a few, known formats and protocols you know how to filter.
Child pornography is a red herring, those that deal in that will never let themselves be forced into the confines of such filtering as there are ways like password protected files that prevent any automated filters. What they seek to prevent is to kill off the open marketplace, all those that do not go through a "legitimate" label like themselves but instead offer it up independently. They want every site of user-generated content like YouTube to drown in the cost of being their copyright enforcers. They want to return to the 80s when radio and TV ads determined what people would buy. Do not let them try to turn the clock back.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You just made the case for "FREE MARKETS". And no, free markets isn't the current version of socialistic corporate capitalism that we currently have. Freedom isn't easy, but it is right. It is much easier to have a few elitists making rules for everyone, down to whether or not you can take your kids to McDonalds for a Happy Meal.
We don't have free markets any more, and it is reflected in the current state of the economy where MILLIONS can be out of work while we try to save the BIG CORPS who are "too big to
This is nothing new (Score:2, Informative)
ISPs should NEVER be copyright police (Score:3, Insightful)
We dont see the RIAA wanting AT&T to get involved because someone makes a phone call and plays a copyrighted piece of music through the phone. Why should AT&T need to involved when someone sends a copyrighted piece of music through the phone lines using a different protocol? (HTTP over TCP/IP over ADSL vs raw voice audio)
Copyright law has had clear steps in it for how to go after someone who is infringing your copyright ever since it was first passed all those years ago. And the law also clearly spells out what you can do if you believe your copyright has been violated and you have some kind of link back to the person but you dont know their name.
Of course, the real problem is that the "evidence" the RIAA (and their hired lackeys) collect is good enough to be able to send vaguely worded threatening letters but not good enough to actually stand up in court.
Child porn, racism, communism (Score:3, Insightful)
People love "reasons" that are really justifications, like calling someone a pedophile or a racist. It doesn't matter if it's true. The herd's so afraid of being associated with child porn or racism that they freak out and ostracize the person. That way, you don't have to censor them or jail them. You can just socially isolate them, which in turn bankrupts them as their business or job prospects collapse. It's 100% effective.
You think Virgin Killers is bad? Try that Blind Faith album they don't stock in stores anymore even though it has Eric Clapton on it:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F4qeGnsXL._SS500_.jpg [images-amazon.com] [NSFW!]
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to be a gun rather than a model plane to really offend the maximum number of people. Also, I don't think that's Eric Clapton.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the movie "Babel"? A little boy masturbating? A teenage girl showing her "hairy monster"? A full frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and depictions of her having sex with an adult?
Their excuse being that the girl was of age. But how does that jive with people being arrested for cartoon depictions of child sex?
Shocking. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am shocked. Truly, deeply shocked.
Not that the RIAA would try this, but that anybody here is surprised.
What else is there to expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just like lobbyists to jump on legislation and corrupt it completely.
They can't tell the difference (Score:2)
they're worried that the rules might make it difficult for ISPs to filter out copyright infringement and child pornography
Why are they emphasizing the child porn? After the scenes of incestuous child masturbation, full-frontal nudity of a teenage girl, and the close-up of a girl's "hairy monster" that came from the movie "Babel", they could have just left out the "and" statement.
Well why not? It's what regulation enables (Score:4, Insightful)
Regulation enables groups with lots of money impose whatever controls they like over a market through lobbying.
That's why the whole concept of "Net Neutrality" is such a farce. The only neutral net is the one without external controls. Introducing a control overlay and then thinking no powers with vested interests are going to take over the controls, is just madness.
"Net Neutrality" is all about imposing a definition of neutral crafted by a small panel of people in Washington. Is that really neutral?
Re:As if that has not been known. (Score:5, Informative)
Except everything you just said is a lie. Network neutrality has always allowed reasonable network management, including spam blocking, firewalls, etc. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the issues involved in network neutrality? And who on /. modded you up for it?
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality has not been about preventing the ISP from making a special deal with company A where they slow down the Company B site for a long time.
Re:As if that has not been known. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Is that true?
To me, no. Not at all. My ISP should not be blocking spam or providing a firewall. Perhaps if I select and pay for those services, yes; but it is my email provider who should be blocking spam, and it should be my router which runs a firewall. I expect my ISP to deliver 100% of the packets addressed to my IP, even if they carry hack attempts or spam. I can, of course, pay for the additional services of filtering out certain content if I want, but that isn't Net Neutrality that's just buy
Re: (Score:2)
This has been one of the problem with net neutrality since the various groups started pushing for a law. It would prevent network operators,ISPs, from blocking spam, setting up firewalls to prevents outside attacks, or even from having an e-mail virus scanner.
I have no problem with any of the above being done to my connection, so long as I can switch all of them off depending on my needs. If I can't switch it off, it's not a service to me, it's a restriction.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, what is spam to my ISP isn't necessarily spam to me. Oh, we see this other company is soliciting you for an alternative internet service that just rolled out in your area and you may or may not have signed up for said notice.
Marked as: SPAM
Status: DELETED
I'm not saying ISPs do this on a regular basis, but if it even happened once, it would be too many. We're not even scratching the surface of the potential for abuse in other areas that your ISP would rather consider spam.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually like my mail provider to mark what he considers spam. However I wouldn't want him to delete the message without my consent.
They do it all the time. End users think Google is great because they never see any SPAM. They're bound to be missing some HAM or HAMMY-SPAM, but what they don't know apparently doesn't hurt.