Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

RIAA Wants 'Net Neutrality' To Include Filtering 212

Posted by timothy
from the we-make-the-rules dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Wants 'Net Neutrality' To Include Filtering

Comments Filter:
  • by scosco62 (864264) * on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:04AM (#33312168) Journal
    It's hard for me to tell if this is a different aspect of RIAA's disconnect with reality, or if there is really a fundamental disconnect of what the First Amendment is out.
  • by aurispector (530273) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:10AM (#33312188)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:11AM (#33312192)

    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!"

  • by Moryath (553296) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:14AM (#33312206)

    No, the RIAA is a classic case of where government SHOULD have stepped in and squished and illegal Mafia cartel long ago.

  • I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thanshin (1188877) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:16AM (#33312220)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:27AM (#33312282)

    Time to vote like a Pirate in the upcoming election in Sweden.

    And for you non Swedes, blog about this madness, and support your local Pirate party.

    Pirate Party tried to have this discussion in Sweden, but it failed miserably, you can not discuss that some people always jump on the 'And for gods sake, save the children!' to stop what ever they don't like.

    A comic book translator was convicted for Anime/Hentai pictures, cause as he said him self "The girls had to small boobs".

    Pirat Party even had to add a section in its political program "about the right to posses any kind of information", to include the statement: _ not including documented child abuse _
    I can think of a lot more additions that should have to be added, if every impossible miss interpretation should be covered.

    Madness!

  • by sqrt(2) (786011) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:28AM (#33312296) Journal

    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.

  • by sqrt(2) (786011) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:34AM (#33312334) Journal

    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.

  • by razwiss (1823216) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:37AM (#33312350)
    And why don't they just infiltrate the CP networks the same way someone addicted to children would do ? Internet is a gold mine of informations, and there is no way you would search a week without finding something. There is even some little boys lover web sites that their domain name is crystal clear. In Quebec, a radio station reported a website known as "La garconnière" which you can translate to as "The bachelor's pad". This website is an OPEN forum of mature guys talking about little boys they see in the park and their fantasies with them. Police dept. won't do anything as they haven't "infringed the law yet" And they say they need the ISPs to track them down ? yeah right.
  • Re:Classy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:40AM (#33312368)
    Because the brain shuts down as soon as child porn is talked about. Someone saying "don't use child porn for your benefits" could easilly be accused of being pro-child-porn and suffer the wrath of the hysterical masses.
  • by Pezbian (1641885) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:50AM (#33312420)

    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...

  • by HermMunster (972336) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:51AM (#33312426)

    It is not net neutral if you filter. That's the point of neutrality.

  • In short, bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:53AM (#33312434) Homepage

    "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.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:55AM (#33312460) Homepage

    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.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:56AM (#33312464) Homepage Journal

    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?"

  • by jonwil (467024) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:00AM (#33312498)

    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.

  • by hessian (467078) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:01AM (#33312520) Homepage Journal

    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:Classy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QCompson (675963) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:09AM (#33312612)
    The use of child pornography as justification to restrict other rights won't end anytime soon. Law enforcement and interested groups have successfully convinced most of the public that possession of child porn is equivalent to molesting a child. Literally, one and the same. This has inflamed any conversation about child pornography well past the point of any rationality.
  • by Batmunk2000 (1878016) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:16AM (#33312700)
    NN sounds great on paper but if the plan is to have the Feds to it fairly - dream on. I'll take my changes with corporations over the FCC any day. A corporation can't raid my house or put me in jail.
  • Shocking. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Freddybear (1805256) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:20AM (#33312760)

    I am shocked. Truly, deeply shocked.
    Not that the RIAA would try this, but that anybody here is surprised.

  • by B1oodAnge1 (1485419) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:50AM (#33313104)

    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 the market.

  • by Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) on Friday August 20, 2010 @10:04AM (#33313258)
    Then said bills have not been about Net Neutrality.
  • Re:Classy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QCompson (675963) on Friday August 20, 2010 @10:29AM (#33313582)
    Well, most would say no, that doesn't count, and this hypocrisy is exactly why most of the rage about child porn is actually directed at what should be considered a thought crime. A cop/judge/jury can look at a picture of child pornography and no harm is done. But if an ordinary citizen looks at the same picture, many will say (NCMEC for one) that the child is being molested all over again. This is how punishments for possession of child pornography have successfully been ratcheted up to levels equal to (and in many cases greater) than the punishment for sexual abusing a child.
  • by Aphoxema (1088507) on Friday August 20, 2010 @10:46AM (#33313828) Homepage Journal

    It's just like lobbyists to jump on legislation and corrupt it completely.

  • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Friday August 20, 2010 @11:31AM (#33314488) Journal

    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 fail" (to save a couple hundred thousand special interest jobs).

    Where's my bailout? I don't have debt, I don't live beyond my means and I don't do stupid stuff and get myself in trouble, and yet I'm supposed to bail out people who repeatedly do those things.

    Why are we rewarding failure and punishing success??? IS that "fair"

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday August 20, 2010 @12:05PM (#33314964)

    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?

  • Particularly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday August 20, 2010 @12:48PM (#33315498)

    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 punish one party, like they believe you willfully and knowingly downloaded the songs without permissions. So in that case you have 100 songs, you'd be on the hook for $300.

    Sounds fairly reasonable, kinda like a traffic ticket: Enough to sting and make you think twice, but a reasonable amount. Well that would work for the RIAA because it isn't scary, and because it wouldn't be worth their money to pursue the cases. Fortunately for them, there are unconstitutionally high statutory damages specified by law. Means you don't have to even prove any actual damage, and you can still get up to $250,000 per incident because congress passed a law saying you can.

In order to dial out, it is necessary to broaden one's dimension.

Working...