Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Censorship EU Government The Courts Technology

European Court of Justice To Outlaw Net Filtering 171

Posted by timothy
from the soon-only-outlaws-will-have-filters dept.
jrepin writes "Today, the European Court of Justice gave a preliminary opinion that will have far-reaching implications in the fight against overaggressive copyright monopoly abusers. It is not a final verdict, but the advocate general's position; the Court generally follows this. The Advocate Generals says that no ISP can be required to filter the Internet, and particularly not to enforce the copyright monopoly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European Court of Justice To Outlaw Net Filtering

Comments Filter:
  • by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @12:45PM (#35819888)

    I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

    It will have a continuing negative effect on revenue - not that I care how much EMI makes, but I do care when by extension there is less money available to sign artists, promote music that is not currently mainstream, when lower quality music receives all the promotion dollars available from the now smaller pool, etc.

    I'm an amateur musician, but among the semi-professionals I know no one has any delusions about breaking into the music industry anymore. It's really changed the landscape because the industry itself has shrunk dramatically.

    Maybe people will see it as good in the future that most music will be local and self-released by the artist and the only acts with real national exposure will be the Britneys and Taylors who sell football stadiums. I just don't think some of the greatest records would have ever been recorded in the current and future system. We've lost something.

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @12:58PM (#35820040)

    I hate the RIAA and their methods as much as anyone, but I don't think it is spurious to look at what's happened to the music industry in the last 15 years or so and say that the internet has not had a negative effect.

    I suspect it's had far less of a negative effect than replacing musicians with manufactured bands designed by marketers.

  • by mikael_j (106439) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @12:59PM (#35820046)

    I'm an amateur musician, but among the semi-professionals I know no one has any delusions about breaking into the music industry anymore. It's really changed the landscape because the industry itself has shrunk dramatically.

    Got any numbers to back up your claims that the music industry has "shrunk dramatically"?

    From what I've seen with people I know it definitely seems that if anything for amateur/semi-pro musicians the possibilities have grown. At least this is true for those who have ambitions beyond "playing covers in local bars".

    Fifteen years ago if you produced and pressed your own album in a small run you were considered a nobody (didn't matter if it was 5,000 copies, you still weren't as "pro" as the guy with a minor record deal who's first album fizzled and who's second album release only involved 500 copies so the label would fulfill it's contractual obligations). These days there's no shame in it, if anything "I don't want to be screwed over by the labels" is a perfectly valid reason rather than a lame excuse (as it used to be).

    Fifteen years ago if you gave your music away for free (be it online or as actual CDs) that meant nothing, it probably would've gotten people talking about how you were trying to game the charts by claiming the albums as sales. These days it's ok to put up a website to share your music (perhaps with a link to iTunes for those who want to pay for it).

    Fifteen years ago the only real chance you had of making a video that ended up getting seen by 100,000 viewers was a record deal and letting the studio bring in their pros to create your video (taking the cost of this out of the money they were going to pay you). These days you can get that many viewers if you have a good band, a friend with a HD cam or a DSLR and another friend who's kind of good with FCP or Premiere (just film a few shows, get a little more material to match the mood of the song, edit and upload to youtube).

  • by a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @01:30PM (#35820432) Homepage Journal

    It basically is - just listen to Friday by Rebecca Black:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0 [youtube.com]

    The cost of making music that the masses listen too are not very expensiv.

    With 101 miljon viewers on youtube its a huge viral success that many 'commercial' artist can only dream about.

  • by ron_ivi (607351) <sdotno@chPARISea ... s.com minus city> on Thursday April 14, 2011 @01:32PM (#35820456)

    Those who charge for bandwidth love piracy - since if the cost of the content goes to zero, all the profit in home-viewing of movies will go to the telcom companies & ISPs.

    Also, telcom companies are known to be at least as skilled and powerful at lobbying than the copyright groups.

    And the last thing ISPs want is to start having to filter content and therefore potentially become legally responsible for every wikileak and drug deal done through their network.

    It'll be an interesting fight.

  • by Rary (566291) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @01:32PM (#35820460)

    If only producing things at the production quality people expect in music they pay money for were just as "you + computer, viola" as Slashdot believes...

    Who said anything about needing a viola? ;)

    But seriously, you obviously need talent, and it definitely helps to surround yourself with other people who have talent (other musicians, audio engineers, etc). The thing is, there are lots of amateurs with talent in those areas. The Internet provides a means to connect with them, modern technology provides the ability for those without too much money to create content, and the WWW provides the ability to distribute. It's not a perfect system, but honestly, a decently talented amateur musician nowadays has a much better chance of becoming known online, at least enough to subsidize their efforts, maybe even make an honest living out of it, than they ever had before when their only hope was to get "discovered" by some elusive record company exec who'll promise them zillions of dollars and all the girls they can screw, only to turn around and screw them from the get-go.

    I'm an amateur musician as well, and I used to be a professional musician (independent, mind you), and I'm quite enjoying watching the music industry crumble. I do think that society has shifted to a mindset that really doesn't value content highly (monetarily speaking), but I'm not convinced that's entirely a bad thing. On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that that in any way prevents artists from being able to make a living. It might spell the end of the mega-rich superstar, but that's not something I'll mourn the loss of.

  • by Kongming (448396) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @01:43PM (#35820568)
    I must strongly disagree with the idea that "real music" will suffer without highly profitable major record labels to promote it. The major record labels have long been more interested in spending promotional dollars on pop acts than on anyone doing anything innovative. With the self-promotion opportunities that the Internet provides, I have been able to find (and purchase music from) dozens of truly excellent artists that I would never have been able to find under the old model. Even aside from the concentration of advertising dollars on artists that pump out popular singles, most traditional radio stations are now owned by a few megacorps who are closely tied in with the major labels. When you call most stations these days and ask them to play anything that isn't already on their rotation list, even if in-genre and not too obscure, they aren't even allowed to do it. (Although the DJs are often frustrated and wish that they could.)
  • by AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) on Thursday April 14, 2011 @02:28PM (#35821082)
    As for labels, if the big ancient ones fall and die, they will be replaced by newer companies that are actually aware of the times we're living in. It would actually be a boon for the artists, the best bands these days are independent or with smaller companies whom specialize in a genre or style, and who will actively seek out new talent.

Dennis Ritchie is twice as bright as Steve Jobs, and only half wrong. -- Jim Gettys

Working...