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This discussion has been archived.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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Defenestrar (1773808)
      No - this is perfectly in line with the logic behind dehydrated water.
    • 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 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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by B1oodAnge1 (1485419)

          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)

            by Sycraft-fu (314770)

            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

        • by JM78 (1042206)
          No...

          Yes. You are both correct.
        • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?"

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by isopossu (681431)

      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.

    • by morari (1080535)

      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!

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:08AM (#33312182)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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!"

  • People might share videos explaining how to build bombs with an RIAA copyrighted music in the backgroup :O
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bsDaemon (87307)

      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.

    • I am beginning to think that child pornography is overtaking terrorism as the go-to scary issue. Perhaps people have become desensitized to warnings about terrorists, especially since the racial undertones make it difficult to push the "terrorists are around every corner" angle. Child pornography, on the other hand, is a great way to get people of all skin colors, religions, and professions. If you live in the suburbs, there could be someone interested in child pornography living right next door to you.
  • Jesus Christ (Score:5, Informative)

    by yt8znu35 (1202731) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:12AM (#33312198)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:23AM (#33312250)

      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)

        by Reziac (43301) *

        No children, no child pornography.

        It's clear that we need to ban children.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      I really can't believe that even government officials wouldn't notice how shallow this attempt is.
      • by rotide (1015173)
        Sadly, officials can be persuaded to not notice.
      • 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 Joce640k (829181)

        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:3, Informative)

        Considering that it was government officials who pushed the whole "you should be terrified of child pornography" issue...

        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!

    • 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.

      • by delinear (991444)
        Definitely - the whole "pirate" angle kind of backfired on them, since Hollywood has glamourised pirates to the degree that people are more than happy to be associated with them. You can just imagine the suits at RIAA sitting around the conference table discussing how their piratcy propaganda has failed and asking who can they associate downloaders with that could possibly be worse than pirates.
    • Re:Jesus Christ (Score:5, Informative)

      by wygit (696674) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:44AM (#33313020)

      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)

    by John Betonschaar (178617) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:16AM (#33312216)

    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)

      by Thanshin (1188877) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:27AM (#33312284)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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.
      • 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 garcia (6573)

        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)

      by denebeim (674459) on Friday August 20, 2010 @09:10AM (#33312616)

      Hitler was against child pornography.

    • so block all jpegs? why not just kill the net while your at it?

  • 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 Midnight's Shadow (1517137) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:25AM (#33312266)

      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.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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.

    • Education the THE long term solution to EVERY problem we face. But it doesn't pay off right now, so it's not a real hot seller.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by maxwell demon (590494)

      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".

  • 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

    kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

    kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

    kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

    kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

    kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

    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

    • Yup, that's the entire rationale behind Maude Flanders logic. "Think of the CHILDREN! Won't someone PLEAAAAAAASE think of the CHILDREN!!!" Then again, perhaps the problem there is that some people think TOO MUCH about the children...
      • Mrs. Lovejoy, actually! Maude Flanders is a different character who died several seasons ago.

        • Ooops, you got me there. Yup, Helen Lovejoy! Maude Flanders isn't into hysterical screaming, she's more of a judgemental passive-aggressive type.
    • by phiwum (319633)

      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

      kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

      kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn

      ...

      there!

      You're not supposed to chant it as if you're cheering kiddie porn on in a football game.

  • by mrpacmanjel (38218) on Friday August 20, 2010 @08:31AM (#33312316)

    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".

  • They're not making any money off it, why the hell does the RIAA care? Are they pretending to be the DA now? Is the DA pretending he's riding on the wing of justice for copyright infringement?
  • 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 s
    • *blows 4chan whistle* Anonymous! Get 'em!

    • by Spad (470073)

      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)

    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.

    • 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)

    by airfoobar (1853132)
    The lobbyists have made it pretty clear before that they are very much willing to exploit child porn to push through their own crap. Here's Christian Engstrom's (Pirate Party MEP) blog entry: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/ [wordpress.com]
  • 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!]

    • by russotto (537200)

      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:

      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.

  • Shocking. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Freddybear (1805256)

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

It's later than you think, the joint Russian-American space mission has already begun.

Working...