Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Piracy Your Rights Online News

RIAA President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working" 473

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the you-mean-it-could-be-worse? dept.
Kilrah_il writes "Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have content providers such as YouTube and Rapidshare liable for illegal content found on their sites. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries ... We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship — not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers ... [But], if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working"

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:49PM (#33359244)

    Breaking and Entering Law & modern technology isnt working with my chosen profession of burglar.
    I could try going to individual houses asking them not to lock doors but ultimately I think the
    law needs changing so I get special treatment so I can continue to screw people.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by amicusNYCL (1538833)

      I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?

      • by Captain Spam (66120) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:56PM (#33359368) Homepage

        I've always been curious as to exactly how the copyright holders expect the content providers to determine if any given piece of content is copyrighted or authorized. Is there an algorithm that can distinguish between an original copyrighted work and a fair-use derivative for audio or video?

        To which these particular copyright holders would respond, "what fair-use?".

        • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:26PM (#33359896) Homepage

          It's such a shame that music has been ruined by money.

          Oh wait, no it's not. Money and advertising are no longer difficult hurdles to overcome for a talented independent musician. True, modern technology is a big reason why so many musicians are able to get their work out in the wild now, but think how many of those people have been driven to do it on their own due to record companies' douchbaggery.

          I'm extremely happy that most of the real talent comes from a random dude in a basement with a homemade vocal booth, or some chick jamming on a synth in a bedroom. Being able to get our own emotions and musical inspirations available to the public so easily (and cheaply!) is, in my opinion, one of the greatest side effects of the Internet.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by kurokame (1764228)

            Right, except that there are physical limits to what you can accomplish when recording in a bedroom. The homemade vocal booth might fare a bit better...if this hypothetical poor musician manages to scrape together the cash for this and for the necessary professional recording and mixing equipment, and has the construction and audio engineering skills. So basically what you're saying is - music for the people, but only where the people are financially well-off home owners with a loads of free time and the ab

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dswensen (252552)

          Agreed. If you read Youtube's position on fair use appeals on videos, they pretty much say as much flat-out. "We consider almost no fair use appeal to be valid, and if you make such an appeal, we're likely to sanction your account."

      • by gorzek (647352)

        The only way you could do it is to have some massive database that can quickly and easily identify a work as copyrighted or not based on a small sample of it. This kind of "fingerprinting" already exists for music. Not sure about video. Getting it all together into one big database would be a real pain, though--and so would legally forcing YouTube, et al to use it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by easterberry (1826250)
          how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?
          • by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:13PM (#33359660)

            how do you separate infringement from fair use? What if it's a clip from a song they have the right to use?

            You don't. The RIAA, and other such organizations, do not believe in fair use. They are in fact, very bitter about it.

            Their preferred world is one in which they can deny, or enjoy forced monetization, of all content and the burden of defense, both financially, and legally, is borne by those least capable to do so.

            Your question about rights is interesting too. I currently have a problem with this very situation with YouTube. I do have rights to use a song in videos and get flagged on a constant basis by the fingerprint system. Guess what their solution to the problem is? MMO DRM. In their solution I would need to embed my own personal code in the video when uploaded to authorize its use. Of course the next logical step is to create licensing rights that demand a per viewing fee.....

          • by TheLink (130905) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:15PM (#33359696) Journal

            What if it was intentionally uploaded by the copyright holders themselves, or by those they authorized to do so?

            http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html [blogspot.com]
            http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-viacom-wanted-to-buy-youtube-uploaded-its-own-clips/32061 [zdnet.com]

            quote:
                  For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

            Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Jedi Alec (258881)

              In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

              You know, when individuals start to exhibit this kind of behavior we stick them in a padded room somewhere with medication and therapy till the symptoms go away :)

              • by MachDelta (704883) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:58PM (#33360402)

                I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but if you've ever watched the documentary The Corporation [imdb.com], they do a very interesting comparison between incorporated business (as a legal "person") and the technical DSM-IV definition of psycopathy, with some disturbing results. I know it's not the most unbiased documentary ever, but it does at least raise some poignant questions about the mental health of these "people" we have created in the name of progress (and... ?? profit!!)

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Jaysyn (203771)

                You know, when individuals start to exhibit this kind of behavior we stick them in a padded room somewhere with medication and therapy till the symptoms go away :)

                Not if they have money. Then they are just eccentric until they actually hurt or kill someone else. Phil Spector, anyone?

                • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @05:49PM (#33362246) Journal

                  Actually poor old Phil is just in jail because he didn't have enough money. Just look at that heir to the DuPont fortune that was found with a guy's head in his closet and still managed to get off. I think he is up to three or four dead now (it is believed he killed his ex wives as well) and is still walking scott free. Once you get up to a certain dollar amount it pretty much doesn't matter what you do, thanks to superlawyers.

                  As for TFA, while I don't download their shit for anybody that wants it I say go right ahead. Why? Because they have robbed us of our public domain, that's why! The whole point of copyright was a contract between the holder and the People nothing more. In return for a limited copyright We, The People got a richer public domain. Now? Hell even Steamboat Willie is still under copyright and the man has been dead, what? 50 years now?

                  Frankly I believe this is one of the reason why the US will end up a backwater. You can't get shit done in the US anymore thanks to the giant minefields of patents and copyrights anymore, and we tech guys now nearly all new things are built upon ideas of old, but now our entire culture is locked up behind paywalls. Countries like India and China will end up being the next great leaders, since you can actually do things there without an army of lawyers, while here in the USA everybody just sues everybody. But it never ceases to amaze me how truly disgusting and greedy the *.A.As are. Really, 150 YEAR copyrights aren't enough for you people? Ripping off the artist AND the consumer and you STILL whine about lack of profits? Disgusting pigs, the whole damned lot.

          • by hedwards (940851)
            I think the point is that you don't. The RIAA is mostly upset about sales being down, they don't care whether it's because you're not buying or pirating, they aren't getting the cut from the sale that doesn't happen. Additionally, making copies of work you've already paid for is bad because it deprives them of the additional income from everybody buying several copies of the tracks.
        • by blair1q (305137)

          Google Goggles is scary at the things it can recognize. It could probably do video with a little more coding.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Qzukk (229616)

        The "New World Order" that the *IAA seeks is one where everything is assumed to be copyrighted (by them). If you want to distribute something, it must have their approval (probably to the tune of $thousands + $hundreds per minute of media for "analysis" to ensure it's not infringing). Sounds farfetched? RIAA's Sound Exchange is already THE government-mandated recipient of all royalties for music played on "internet radio". Even if the song wasn't written, performed, or recorded by anyone associated with

        • by Sparr0 (451780)

          I've read about this. Can you provide a citation? I play CC-licensed music over internet radio all the time, and fair-use-ly sampled stuff as well. I'd love to see the RIAA come after me, I've got nothing better to do than fight a lawsuit like that.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Qzukk (229616)

            Here's a slice of the mandatory and automatic internet radio royalty fight, from the point of view of a broadcaster:
            http://somafm.com/crb/ [somafm.com]

            More recent stuff from the same guy is
            http://somafm.com/blogs/rusty/labels/IREA.html [somafm.com]

            "The new agreement keeps the per-performance rate structure but reduces the rates set by the Copyright Royalty Board for 2009 and 2010 by about 16 percent and establishes rates for 2011-2015. This year's rate is $0.0015 per streamed recording, moving up to $0.0025 in 2015. The CRB rates w

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by harl (84412)

        They don't care. They just want the ISPs to do their work for them.

        Technology is making it so that business models that revolve around copyright protection need to come up with a new paradigm. They don't want to, for the obvious reasons. They happen to exist in a country with a corrupt political system so rather than change their business model they're just going to buy a law.

        What they don't realize it that it's impossible to stop copyright infringement if the cost of the 1+n copy is almost zero.

        I also i

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Vrallis (33290)

      RIAA won't stop until they gain the right, by law, to send their personal SWAT team to your home and execute you on the spot for humming more than two notes from a 200-year-old song that they have somehow kept under copyright.

      The only other way to stop the insanity is for the artists and publishers to stop participating in RIAA.

    • by HermMunster (972336) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @06:25PM (#33362676)

      Amid the furor of increasing crime rates the National Association of Police Chiefs declared that the home owners and citizens were not doing enough to deter crime on their own. The association members concurred that citizens should be wielding tools that allow police authorities to monitor their behavior and the behavior of those around them including voluntarily installing equipment in their homes and vehicles that would allow police authorities to monitor and deter crime in whatever way was possible. The Police Chief's association declared that they would not be able to deter crime at the current rates because they couldn't possibly know where all the crime was occurring and when, nor to the degree it would break the law. As a consequence the Police Chief's Association asked that new laws be passed that would require citizens to become participants in monitoring and reporting crimes. Otherwise crime would continue, other citizens would continue to loose money, their health, and risk their safety. /s

  • Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:51PM (#33359282)
    If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bsDaemon (87307)

      If the wall was labeled a "public art space" and people were encouraged to do graffiti on it, then maybe? Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

      • by enderjsv (1128541)
        Honestly, I don't see how youtube is any different than any other forum for communication. I could come here to Slashdot and post copyrighted material. I could go to any file upload site and upload copyrighted material. Seriously, if the RIAA gets its way, 90 percent of what makes the internet great would be in jeopardy. Any site that allows it's users any control over the material on the site what-so-ever would be liable. That's not the kind of internet I want.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by spyfrog (552673)

          And how should the 3rd party (the site like Youtube or Slashdot) know what material that a user owns the rights to and are allowed to upload? The only ones who possible can know that is the one who upload the content or the guy (RIAA or MPAA) that claims that they own copyright for it.

          A law like this would make it impossible to allow any site where a user can upload content. No more Flickr, no more Facebook, no more Slashdot...

        • Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Talderas (1212466) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:14PM (#33359684)

          How does this affect the porn industry?

      • Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Informative)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:05PM (#33359516) Journal

        Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

        Youtube and rapidshare allow people to post content and the law doesn't require them to do anything until someone complains about it.
        Despite that, both companies will block previously uploaded content by hash and Rapidshare relatively recently stopped their rapidshare
        points program because they say it encouraged uploading of copyright infringement.

        All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries"
        Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.

        • Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by OffaMyLawn (1885682) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:18PM (#33359768)

          All that said, I loathe the idea of "informal agreements inked with intermediaries" Copyright is a public policy issue and it should be decided by the public, not by a cartel of businesses.

          This. The RIAA is trying to back-door some deals instead of doing everything out in the open anymore where we can publicly mock them. This is the same problem I have with it.

      • by johnhp (1807490)
        The phrase "look the other way" implies that there's something they could do, but won't. It's not accurate to use that phrase in this case.
        • by Locke2005 (849178)
          They "could" hire literally thousands of people to review every upload before it is posted, attempt to determine a copyright holder, contact the copyright holder, and ask them if the upload was done with the permission of the copyright holder. (Many uploads come from the copyright holder themselves.) But that would pretty much put their business model into the toilet.

          Or, they could just wait for someone to complain and take it down.
      • by vux984 (928602)

        If the wall was labeled a "public art space" and people were encouraged to do graffiti on it, then maybe? Youtube and RapidShare encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

        You mean like the bulletin boards at the local grocery stores, community centres, churches, gyms, skating rinks, pools, and post offices? You know the ones... where anyone can post notices and whatnot? You are seriously arguing these companies/facilities should be liable for copyright infrin

      • by spikenerd (642677)

        ...encourage people to post content then basically look away until someone complains about it.

        Yeah, and the constitution should also be held responsible for encouraging Copyright violations with this ridiculous "freedom of speech" notion. Surely the right to distribute my works while still telling everyone what they are allowed to do with it is the most inherent and inalienable right of them all. /sarcasm

      • by blair1q (305137)

        The wall has a few other grafitti on it, and a sign saying "post no bills".

        Youtube et al encourage people to post content they own, and warn against posting material they don't.

        Which is enough.

        If the RIAA wants to protect its copyrights it has to enforce them itself, against the infringers. Putting Youtube out of business isn't that.

      • by tool462 (677306)

        Perhaps a slightly better analogy:

        An author writes a book, and plagiarizes most, if not all of it from another copyrighted work.
        Editor doesn't catch the plagiarism, and passes it on to the publisher for printing.
        Publisher prints the book and ships to bookstores.
        Original copyright holder finds this book and is now getting ready to sue.

        Who does the original author go after?

        The plagiarizing author?
        The editor?
        The publisher?

        I'm assuming the publisher would have to pull the books from shelves when the plagiarism

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by bsDaemon (87307)

          I thought the answer is 'go after the deepest pockets and just hope the settle out of court'?

    • If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?

      If the building owner somehow made a lot of money from the poem then yes.

  • Fuck you, RIAAssholes.
  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark72005 (1233572) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:52PM (#33359306)
    So he wants to transfer the cost of intimidating users to other companies instead of his own. Why, that's brilliant!
  • The man's a genius, toss him a coin.
    On second thoughts don't, the slimy git will claim copyright on the passage of the coin through the air..
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Maybe we're getting to a point where big business will no longer make oodles of money distorting our culture. They've had a good run for 150 years, but hopefully technology has destroyed this model. Woohoo!

  • I agree with RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theaveng (1243528) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:54PM (#33359342)

    It isn't working. Amendment __: Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years* to Authors and Inventors the temporary Privilege of monopoly to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

    "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.

    "Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...

    "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Jefferson

  • Say goodbye to youtube in its entirety. The risk of liability would be too great, it would turn into another hulu. What would happen to user generated video content?

    • If the RIAA got their way Youtube would become a whore to the big media corps basically. You would get to pay subscriptions to watch trailers and snippets from movies/music videos without getting the right to download it and use at your leisure. Then they would advertise before and between every snippet you watch, further lining their pockets with ad-revenue, while convincing you to watch the movie or buy the music to the video you are currently watching snippets of.
    • Hey, there always "America's Funniest Home Videos"!
    • by spyfrog (552673)

      Big media doesn't want user generated content because they don't own it and don't make any money from it.

  • by Dan667 (564390) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:55PM (#33359358)
    they are a monopoly and certainly do not help the Artists they say that are representing.
    • by PPH (736903)

      They don't represent the artists. They represent the copyright holders (the recording and distribution companies).

      Let the artists get together and release their work through different channels under different contract terms. They can shop around for other industry representatives to defend their IP. Or go it alone.

      Let the RIAA wither and die. If they interfere, then the DoJ can throw the Sherman Antitrust Act at them.

  • My turn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Voyager529 (1363959) <voyager529@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @02:56PM (#33359372)

    Let's deal, Cary...

    -Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc, make the punishment for downloading the disc the same as physical theft.

    -Hold Rapidshare responsible for their hosting of copyrighted content, but you pay double if the content is found to be uninfringing.

    -Allow me to write my own music to which I own the copyright and stream it over the internet without having to pay you royalties.

    -Show that monies collected from copyright infringement cases (less court fees) literally go to pad the pockets of the artists you claim to protect. For added sympathy, use some to fund school music programs to encourage the next generation of musicians.

    And, as a personal request:

    -Stop using Autotune as an effect. It's annoying.

    • by Picass0 (147474)

      "..Since every CD I buy today says that downloading music has the same effect as stealing a disc..."

      I wonder if any attorney has tried using this in court? If there is actual RIAA literature out there saying the downloading of music is the same as theft of a CD, wouldn't that establish a monetary value of the content and hence limit the financial liability of the downloader/filesharer?

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        If there is actual RIAA literature out there saying the downloading of music is the same as theft of a CD, wouldn't that establish a monetary value of the content and hence limit the financial liability of the downloader/filesharer?

        No, because they already bought the law that places the statutory damages at something like $250K for each infringed work.

        If they accepted a 1:1 value for downloaded music, those lucrative court settlements wouldn't be nearly as fun or profitable.

  • Didn't they already try to get the safe haven provisions in the DMCA revoked? (and failed)
  • Informal... what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) <`afacini' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:00PM (#33359444)
    "The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries"

    How is an agreement that is written down somewhere considered "informal?"
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:01PM (#33359458) Homepage

    Wow, that just sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie ... "we'd like to reach an informal arrangement wit youze, but if we can't, we'd be willing to force one on you".

    What will be enough for these people? Everybody just simply tithes to them?

    They want the entire world to be beholden to, and policing, their copyright. At some point, they're actually doing society more harm than good. These people aren't even the ones "creating" anything -- they're just the ones using funny math to prove they're losing money hand over fist so they can avoid paying the actual creators. A bunch of middlemen skimming off the top don't contribute anything.

    Sadly, I'm mostly preaching to the converted, and I fear bitching about it won't help.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Securityemo (1407943)
      They're neutral evil. They do what's necessary to get ahead, including pretending to be victims, pretending to be lawful neutral, lying about working for the artists when they're ripping them off...
      I'm not saying that everyone inside the RIAA is a psychopath but, the organisation as a whole is. And whomever is in charge probably is. They cannot possibly shelter themselves from reality to the degree that they could not notice the evil and misery they are causing. And if they are psychopaths, they're laughi
  • Tough shit, Cary (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blair1q (305137) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:02PM (#33359468) Journal

    Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.

    They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.

    That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.

    And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.

    Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.

    I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.

  • by Draque (1367509) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:02PM (#33359482)
    Now correct me if I'm being blindingly stupid here, but is Sherman suggesting that because there is a systemic problem with copyright law, that we make more of it?
  • How about not being able to get rights from waves of air? Would that be a bit more logical maybe?
  • Apparently not satisfied with the current scope of the minimum age of concent laws, NAMBLA President ????? wants to broaden the scope of the law.

    -Rick

    (note, you'll have to excuse me for not digging up the name of the NAMBLA president from work.)

  • by Atrox666 (957601) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:07PM (#33359542)

    The RIAA is allowed to rip off the very people the law should be protecting.
    Copyright law should protect authors and artists not non value added resellers.
    Its members have been nailed in payola scam after payola scam without any serious repercussions. Price fixing on a massive scale and "Record company accounting" is well known for forcing artists to pay for the privilege of earning money for them.
    Any just law in the public interest would reduce their profits to a small percentage of the net.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:08PM (#33359558) Homepage Journal

    Here is the main content of TFA:

    RIAA President Cary Sherman said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains loopholes that allow broadband providers and Web companies to turn a blind eye to customers' unlawful activities without suffering any legal consequences.

    "The DMCA isn't working for content people at all," he said at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "You cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It's simply not possible. We don't have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears, such as cyberlockers like [file-hosting firm] RapidShare."

    - you see, DMCA isn't working for RIAA.

    In response to a question from CNET, Sherman said it may be necessary for the U.S. Congress to enact a new law formalizing agreements with intermediaries such as broadband providers, Web hosts, payment processors, and search engines.

    The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries, Sherman said: "We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers."

    - makes sense, make it increasingly difficult for US economy to survive.

    Last week, the RIAA and a dozen other music industry groups called on Google and Verizon to crack down on piracy, saying in a letter that "the current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators."

    - RIAA considers itself a 'creator' apparently.

    Clearly the law is not working. The correct fix is to abolish patent and copyright law altogether. There should be nothing of the sort, all government intervention into economy must stop, and this does include creating any sort of barriers of entry into any industry. Copyrights and Patents are like any other regulations, are designed to make competition less likely, to make the monopolies of the existing powers more persistent and pervasive, this of-course helps the government to maintain its power in a number of ways: obviously government makes much more money from monopolies than from actual competing businesses, who wouldn't bother giving the government officials those nice fat bri.. contributions.

    All government regulations do this: they tax, they subsidize, they regulate, all that it ends up doing is creating barriers to entry, creating moral hazards, helping big monopolies and destroying competition, all of this of-course helps government officials but totally works against sound economy and competition.

    Copyrights and patents must be abolished, that is the correct way to help the economy and not by helping some specific people to maintain their monopoly while giving them ability to drag any competition through a bought court system with their ill gained money.

  • The RIAA will either be cowed by an informed public that passes intelligent copyright laws... or some day, some person, will escalate this to a violent level.

    As is, the RIAA can, through it's government proxies, send armed men into your house to throw you on the floor, handcuff you and haul you away. Eventually someone will reverse this situation and do that to a leader of the RIAA.
  • The big Picture (Score:5, Informative)

    by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:11PM (#33359628)
    The Big Picture [imgur.com]
  • Uhm ... er ... just why does the RIAA think it can write laws? Merely because they've had success in the past influencing legislation does not mean they have a right to such influence continuing.

    • by thestudio_bob (894258) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:29PM (#33359924)

      Uhm ... er ... just why does the RIAA think it can write laws? Merely because they've had success in the past influencing legislation does not mean they have a right to such influence continuing.

      Because the paid damn good money to get their guys into office!

      • Gershengorn, left, a partner with RIAA-firm Jenner & Block, represented the labels against Grokster (.pdf) and will be in charge of the DOJ Federal Programs Branch. That’s the unit that just told a federal judge the Obama administration supports monetary damages as high as $150,000 per purloined music track on a peer-to-peer file sharing program.
      • Donald Verrilli, associate deputy attorney general — the No. 3 in the DOJ, who unsuccessfully urged a federal judge to uphold the $222,000 file sharing verdict against Jammie Thomas.
      • Tom Perrilli, as Verrilli’s former boss, the Justice Department’s No. 2 argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.
      • Brian Hauck, counsel to associate attorney general, worked on the Grokster case on behalf of the record labels.
      • Ginger Anders, assistant to the solicitor general, litigated on the Cablevision case.

      Source Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept. [wired.com]

  • People NOT the RIAA President saying 'trying to sell garbage at a premium' isn't working.

  • Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:17PM (#33359760)
    "Nice file sharing site you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"
  • by dwiget001 (1073738) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @03:49PM (#33360214)
    Copyright is not working for the people it is supposed to serve, namely, the public at large.
  • by BlueCoder (223005) on Tuesday August 24, 2010 @09:16PM (#33364318)

    But legislation that establishes a group with the authority to establish mandatory and fair licensing rates. Some sort of clearing house that is solely charged with collecting fees and distributing the proceeds fairly. Something like what exists in England but way more progressive. Everything can be licensed, you can't withhold, and you must accept the established rate. Furthermore they can be petitioned/lobbied to create varied fair packaged licenses or even custom licenses. Of course whomever owns the copyright is free to accept less money... So all those books out of print and abandonware will still be purchasable.

    Truth be told the government should be involved in the issue. Consumer licenses should be tracked and maintained by the government, it's in everyone best interest. It makes what you purchase more physical and non revocable. You should be able to lend your licenses as well as be able to sell and transfer them. So you really do own every book you purchase forever as well as all that music, you won't need to repurchase it over and over again.

Money doesn't talk, it swears. -- Bob Dylan

Working...