RIAA Threatens ICANN Over Music-Themed gTLD Standards

think_nix writes "A letter to ICANN (PDF) from Victoria Sheckler, Deputy General Counsel for the RIAA, demands modifications to the future implementation of the .music gTLD, threatening to 'escalate the issue' if certain concerns about 'wide scale copyright and trademark infringement' are not addressed by ICANN in compliance with the RIAA. 'Under the current proposed standard, we fear that we will have no realistic ability to object if a pirate chooses to hijack a music themed gTLD to enable wide scale copyright infringement of our works,' Sheckler said."

Space in a Parking Lot

[NReitzel]

Isn't this akin to the DEA informing a grocery store that they can't have a parking lot, because a lot of drug deals are taking place there at night?

Stupid?

[Nemyst]

You'd be pretty stupid to paint yourself in a corner like that, as a pirate. That's akin to the .xxx TLD that'd make porn sites way too easy to filter.

I don't think .music would be used for much pirating. Plus, even if it does, it would've happened WITHOUT it anyways... The RIAA is apparently trying to piss off everyone they can. I don't get it.

Why this one?

[amicusNYCL]

How exactly is any one TLD more or less capable of being used by pirates than any other?

Re:Essentially

[McTickles]

effects = affects... know the difference people...

Re:Stupid?

[MartinSchou]

Well, if ICANN had a sense of humour, they'd just refuse to register any music related domain names. Period. Nothing that could even remotely be associated with any of the RIAA companies, their subsidiaries, their artists or employees.

I mean - to avoid lawsuits.

Re:Space in a Parking Lot

[spun]

Not really. I don't think the RIAA is concerned about piracy on .music gTLDs. They appear to be more concerned that they will not have as much control over domain names as they would like. They object to three specific things: "Ultra high standards for community objection," which means it will be more difficult for them to stop things they consider to be cybersquatting; "Lack of transparency" means they will not be able to easily figure out who owns what domain name, and who to sue; and "Malicious Conduct" which means that they suspect people might do things on the .music gTLD that they do on other parts of the Internet, like pirate music. They seem to want to force ICANN to be their unpaid police force, or to do their thinking for them and come up with a technical solution that protects their interests.

Basically, I believe RIAA wants to control anything remotely related to music. The idea of a huge new marketplace of independent music scares the crap out of them. I think they want ICANN to basically say, "The RIAA owns .music. If you want to put music of any sort on the Internet, talk to the RIAA." And I want to date supermodels, plural. Come on, RIAA, you are thinking too small. Take getting paid for doing nothing to the next step and force everyone with ears to pay a music tax directly to you. After all, if they have ears, they might hear some music without paying you for it, and we can't have that.

Re:RIAA is still going?

[mcgrew]

Lies is right. From TFA:

1. String Confusion. The sought after gTLD is "confusingly similar to an existing one, or one making its way through the application stage.
2. Legal Rights. The applied-gTLD somehow "infringes" on the rights of the protesting group.
3. Morality and Public Order. The proposed gTLD is "contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality." One guesses that the gTLDs '.extortion' or '.kickstraydogs' would fall under this rubric.
4. Community Objection. "There is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted." See '.lawyerssuck' or '.justinbieberfansmustdie.'

1. .music is close to .info? Who do these lying assholes think they're fooling?
2. TFA pegged it. How in the world could it infringe on their rights? What rights, in fact? They act as if nobody but the RIAA is allowed to write, perform, or record music.
3. "Legal norms of morality?" legal != moral, moral !=legal, immoral != illegal, illegal != immoral. There's nothing immoral about smoking marijuana, but its posession is against the law. There is little that is more immoral than adultery, yet it is legal in most jurisdictions.
4. What community? Most musicians are not RIAA members, and in fact almost every musician I know personally hates the RIAA's guts.

And Jesus H. Christ, who is the RIAA to preach to anybody about morality? Satan himself has better morals.

Re:RIAA is still going?

[Jason Levine]

My theory regarding their "losses from piracy" has always been that they decide they should earn X billion dollars a year. Then they earn Y billion dollars during the year, where Y is less than X. Obviously, by RIAA-reasoning, piracy costs then (X - Y) billion dollars. Of course, they set X so high that there is no way they can attain it and they dismiss all other factors such as a bad economy, poor music selection, rise of indie titles, competition from other entertainment sources (e.g. video games, DVDs), etc. The one and ONLY reason for not reaching their randomly chosen, too-high-to-ever-reach X billion dollars a year goal is piracy!