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."
intellectual property tax (Score:2, Interesting)
If the RIAA wants their property protected without paying for it directly, then I suggest they start paying property taxes like everybody else who relies on the military or police to protect their property.
The best systems are ones that intrinsically converge to fairness -- e.g. the best way for two people who want cake to cut cake? One person cuts, the other chooses; the system enforces fairness. The best way for intellectual property to be protected? The content owners can pick whatever value they think their content is worth, then pay 4% property tax per year like everybody else. If a million people infringe on their property, each person is only liable for one-millionth of this taxable amount. The competing forces (A. company wants lower taxes so wants to claim their property is worthless, and B. company wants maximum awarded damages and so wants to claim their property is worth trillions) will force the company to self-assess a fair price. If their property is REALLY worth trillions, the company won't hesitate to pay 4% ($40 billion) per year in taxes. If the company isn't willing to pay more than $2 million per year in taxes to protect their property, then it's only worth $50 million, and so if they sue 50,000 people, each person is only liable for a maximum of $1,000. If the company isn't willing to pay more than $0 per year in taxes to protect their property, then their property is worthless and there's no penalty to infringe.
Re:LOL Power companies are profiting from infringm (Score:5, Interesting)
They do that in the US, too.
Because of this, you can borrow CDs from your friends or a library, and copy them for yourself, and it's all perfectly legal. 17 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 [house.gov] specifically states:
Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording medium" to be:
In more common language, this refers to audio/music CD-R discs, which are made to work in digital audio recorders (it also covers cassette tapes, FWIW). These discs are different from the more common data CD-Rs, in that they contain special digital markings (standard data CD-Rs won't work in digital audio recorders). In addition, by law a royalty has been paid on this blank media. These royalty payments are in turn distributed to copyright holders (see Section 1006 of the law cited above). They usually cost slightly more than data CD-R discs, but they can be found for less than $0.25 each.
The law which allows this was enacted at the urging of the RIAA, so thanks go to them for all the CDs I got for a quarter instead of $15.
Re:intellectual property tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed.
They can have the changes to the DMCA they want as long as all Intellectual Property is taxed at the claimed price they have put up in the courts... at property tax rates. If at any time they claim a value in court, it will go on record that that is the value for each and every piece of IP of that type industry wide.
Suddenly the RIAA and MPAA, and BSA will shut up.
Re:intellectual property tax (Score:4, Interesting)
That's almost sensible, and it might even lead to some works being let out of copyright. However, that also means that if I write a short story and never publish it, then it essentially has no value - if someone finds it, there's no copyright to enforce if they steal it and sell it as their own.
Re:crony capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they're both broken, but in completely different ways. Anyone can get a copyright, registring one is only about $30. Patents cost thousands and are hard to get. In that respect patents are broken, copyright not.
But patents only last 17 years, while copyright lasts effectively forever. In that respect patents are ok, copyright is broken.
Can you imagine the technological stagnation if patents lasted as long as copyrights? That's how art and music are suffering. And if copyrights were as costly as patents, only corporations and very rich individuals could obtain a copyright.
They've been used to buying enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
A few million in lobbying money thrown around over the years has bought a LOT of US government enforcement of their copyrights for them.
They would like to continue this trend, as recently they've found out they don't like the expense and public backlash of enforcing themselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Music industry is too tiny to justify legislation (Score:4, Interesting)
The music industry is tiny. North American total music recorded music sales are about $12 billion a year. In comparison, Apple revenue is about $63 billion a year, and Google revenue is about $23 billion.
We can't have some two-bit dying industry mess up one of the major engines of economic growth in America.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The trouble is that shoplifting is still primarily enforced by the shop owner. The state does not pay a police officer to stand in every shop and watch for shoplifters, because it isn't cost-effective. And so it is with copyright infringement -- the cost to detect and prosecute an infringement far exceeds the harm it causes.
That is really why copyright for entertainment is failing. People blame the internet, but it isn't the internet. It's the availability of storage devices that cost $0.20/GB. You can pay $100 for a portable hard drive that will hold every song released by all the major labels in the last decade and be left with a fair chunk of free space.
Right now infringement is detected because people share with strangers, so the industry becomes one of the strangers and gets the IP address of the other side of the connection. Never mind that though. Remember six degrees of separation? Even if they somehow stop all infringement on the internet -- which is obviously impossible, but let's make the assumption -- in person sharing is still just as bad. Soon enough you'll be able to get a hard drive that can hold every song ever recorded. Then someone will buy one and put every song ever recorded on it. That person's friends will want a copy, and six degrees of separation later everybody has got it. New releases follow the same path and as time goes on the process becomes more efficient as the people involved improve it. Nobody will care about "filling up their hard drive" and someone will create a piece of software that allows you to mark files as "send to friends" and people you designate as friends will automatically get them the next time your any of your devices is in wireless range of theirs. Then their friends will get them, etc.
Notice that it doesn't matter whatsoever that the copies are made over the internet rather than in person. It doesn't matter whether the number of copies made by each person is small or large, because making each recipient a distributor results in exponential growth that makes the number of generations before everyone has it small regardless of the number of distributions made by each person. And there is no good opportunity for detection because no one is distributing to anyone who they don't trust.
That is the future we have to design copyright around. A future in which zero-cost redistribution is widespread and undetectable. That doesn't mean we should give up the idea of creating a government incentive for authorship, but it does mean that we probably have to give up trying to prohibit the thing we can't effectively prohibit.
Re:"responsible for policing their own content" (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I see it, they just want to have another place to file a lawsuit (the ISPs). Why file against just the 'infringers' when you can file against everyone who has anything to do with the internet.
Next up, log visitors and file against anyone who saw that there was infringing content but didn't report it.
Re:LOL Power companies are profiting from infringm (Score:4, Interesting)