RIAA Lawyer Complains DMCA May Need Revamp 303
the simurgh writes "The DMCA is just not providing the kind of protection against online piracy that Congress intended, RIAA lawyer Jennifer Pariser says. The judge in Universal Music Group's copyright suit against Veoh as well as the judge in EMI vs. MP3tunes.com issued similar findings. The courts have now determined the burden of policing the web for infringing materials is on the content owner and not the service provider. Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money. What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately. Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense."
"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:5, Insightful)
Working as intended, then.
Excuse me, I have a call to place. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, the Waaaaaaahmbulance is available.
Seriously, they engage in all manner of illegal investigation and questionable lawsuit, and now they're whining about the fact that it's their responsibility to police their content? If this was a small company, I could totally understand, but this is an industry that takes in billions of dollars every year. If they can't afford to bring a few lawsuits, perhaps they need a new business model.
LOL Power companies are profiting from infringment (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes electricity to power those copying material. I guess the power companies should also police the web.
---------------
One idiot to bind them all.
QQ for u ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the copyright owner is the one who profits from their exclusive legislatively-granted monopoly, they _should_ bear the costs of enforcement. Who else can decide that enforcement is worthwhile? Blanket enforcement is far too chilling on free speech and fair use. Not that the RIAA recognizes either, so why recognize them?
eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because *OBVIOUSLY* it doesn't cost the service providers ANYTHING to go through all those DMCA notices, check the legal validity, ensure the content is on their systems, isolate it and remove, reply to the DMCA, handle appeals etc.
They make it sound like 100% of the burden is on the record companies, etc. when actually there's just as much hassle for everyone involved (courts included). What they've noticed is that there are JUST TOO MANY files out there that could be the valid subject of a legal DMCA notice but that neither they, the courts, or the service providers can really handle the sheer volume. So their complaint is to make someone else pay for it, in time, effort, money and liability when they get it wrong.
I don't think that stands up, really, as an argument. And it makes you wonder why they ever bothered at all. There are international users who will, just for mischief, repost anything that you don't like. And you'll struggle to take it down and will *never* legally stop them posting it somewhere else - or even the same place (it might not even be illegal in their country to "infringe" that copyright, for instance).
I don't think it's a valid response to the problems. Now, if you'd pushed for harsher sentences, greater fines, etc. to try to put people off repeat offending, then your argument would at least be consistent. PR suicide, but consistent. Their next step can really only be pushing for more punishment and harsher law (how they carries to international or anonymous users is left as an exercise to the user), or to realise that it was always a bit pointless to play Whack-a-mole over an MP3 that you're already making MILLIONS from.
The option "It's not working, so we want someone else to do our job and provide repercussions to people who pirate for us" isn't really sensible or logical.
I'm going to go with... (Score:5, Insightful)
FUCK THEM. They are raking in fat stacks of cash every year off of their supposedly well-honed machine, they should be responsible for policing their own content. It is not the responsibility of the government of the United States or any other country to police the Internet looking for content violations. Most governments have put in place laws and regulations that allow the "owner" of the content to be able to work within that system and get rid of infringing copies - AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE. Not at the expense of the taxpayers.
Fuck you if you expect me and 250+ million other taxpayers help you sue for damages when we don't see a dime of that unless we are a luxury car dealer or real estate agent (or a lawyer). Not to mention that the net effect on the United States of corporatism laws like the DMCA and extended copyright periods is that we, as a nation, are less and less LEADING the way into new science and technology frontiers and more and more about holding the status quo or LOSING ground to other nations who don't exactly give a shit about the laws of the United States.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay to protect your own shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what. The patent system and the copyright system require that holders of such must protect and defend their own material. The patent and copyright laws give them the legal means to do so (but they must provide the lawyers). If they demand that the ISP's do their dirty work, they should be required to pay the ISP's for the service. They have to pay their lawyers.
nae tru neutral third party (Score:4, Insightful)
Let the content owners police their content or go out of business. It's not like we have a shortage of musicians, artists, and filmmakers in our society. I'm not paying to fund a third party to protect their business model.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they offering to share the loot with the ISPs when they win a court case...?
How about a part of the increased profits? According to them they lose tens of billions per year due to piracy. Are they going to reward the ISPs with a fair share of that?
Like everyone else (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone hurts your rights, you have to take legal action yourself. Why would the content industry be an exception? And in fact, the DMCA already requires service providers to police their users, as they are bound to remove content upon mere accusations without any proof that it actually infringes the IP of the rightsholder. The content industry should not be treated differently from any other one: if they think someone is hurting their rights they should stand up for themselves and take legal action against the person in question, not run to the government/service provider to help.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Content companies think it is unfair for them to be required to spend resources on scouring the Web when their pirated work helps service providers make money.
And car manufacturers should pay for smuggling, because most smuggling happens by cars so clearly that drives the sales of cars. Or transporting stolen goods. Or for speeding, because clearly they make money on letting you speed.
What they complain about almost as much is that after they notify a service provider of an infringing song or movie clip and they're removed, new copies appear almost immediately
And how exactly would putting the burden on the service provider help that? It wouldn't but it makes their impossible problem the ISP or hosting company's impossible problem. If you can't solve it, pass it. You can then wail forever that they're never doing enough.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:5, Insightful)
How about they pay for the costs they bring the ISP's to try to filter content in the first place?
Again, I believe that challenge was backed down by the MAFIAA as well...wasn't it worded as "pay a day of our supposedly free costs of youtube"?
Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most insightful comment.
A corporation does not have the "right" to exist, or to make a profit, or to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The best thing that could happen is if every member of the RIAA was boycotted to the point of going out of business, just to show them who's boss. I know I'm doing my part.
Re:crony capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright and Patents are merely two systems of dozens that are broken in the exact same way.
This happens when people can buy power in the government and can write their own laws.
Re:democratic law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:QQ 4 u ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since copyright is to encourage writers and artists to create, it must be prospective and not retroactive. Retroactive grants ("extentions") cannot influence creation already made!
Second, as a prospective inducement, copyright is subject to the power of compound interest -- 15 years is close to 25 and 95 is not much more when discounted at commercial rates of interest. A short term would be sufficient inducement/reward, and longer terms are wasteful and hobble society. Patents only run 17 years! Why should copyrights be longer? The value of series like Sherlock Holmes, StarTrek/Wars was initially in the creation, but now is mostly in the preceptions (mindshare) of society at large. The claim has lapsed.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
It's not the government or the ISP's job to monitor and/or determine the usage of the content available on the internet. Were I to publish a game, for example, it would then be up to me as an individual to research, inspect, and determine if anyone is infringing on the copyright of my game. Just because they're a large entity doesn't mean they should be exempted from the same issues facing the individual content owners.
Why should the ISP's be forced to swallow the costs of such a manhunt, when they receive zero benefit from the search, it costs them money, and it displays them negatively in the public light such that their brand is devalued, however slightly.
Essentially, content owners should be, and are, responsible for making sure that everyone who uses their content is abiding by their specified licenses, etc. If you're complaining about the costs that you incur whilst enforcing your licensing model, and want the government to help out, perhaps you should re-evaluate your licensing model. Of course, that particular dead horse has been beaten so severely, at this point, to be unrecognizable.
Another solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
Perhaps it is copyright law that should be changed instead. For starters, we could limit the inconvenience of policing their own content at their own expense to 15 years.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:4, Insightful)
Shoplifting is a misdemeanor because public order is not achieved through civil torts alone. Infringement via filesharing has become the petty offense of the 21st century. Sooner or later it will need the same treatment.
Before that can happen, the notion of infringement must be revised to something that isn't so expansive as to criminalize ordinary and reasonable behavior. We need a more comprehensive view of the unwaivable rights of the owner of one copy of a work before we can clearly understand when those rights have been exceeded to the copyright owner's detriment. Right now it's getting the Prohibition treatment and that's not sustainable either.
Re:democratic law (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why is marijuana still illegal? Why does everyone on the highway pass me when I'm doing the speed limit?
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, precisely. How exactly are companies who don't own the rights supposed to be able to identify who owns what, and whether they are an authorised provider of that material or not? Some copyright owners, especially smaller or indies, do in fact self-publish their work on youtube or other places. Hell, even comedy central and Channel 4 in the UK post their stuff on youtube. The only people who CAN police this stuff are the copyright owners themselves.
If the MAFIAA gets the changes they want, only 'authorised' channels posting material from known large corporate accounts -viewable for a fee, no doubt - would be able to to put up anything on the internet at all - individiuals and small publishers wouldn't be able to set their own distribution network, and no ISP could host anything as they'd never be able to work out who could give permission. You'd be turning the internet into a broadcast-only medium for the biggest content cartel companies only!
Oh. Right.
Re:QQ 4 u ! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem began when some person, probably in PR, came up with the term "Intellectual property". It caught on as the RIAA and others realized the power of the term in making it seem that that information can be "owned" like a house or a car. Now the meme has taken hold, people ARE thinking of information in the same class and, instead of fostering innovation, it is strangling it.
And don't forget to let your congress critter know what you think of the "Protect IP" act which will largely codify that information is "owned" and take it further by allowing them to control what is said on the Internet. (Not that it will help unless you have the sort of money that can compete with the entertainment lobby.) "Protect IP" will be the end of the Internet as we know it.