Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Google The Internet Your Rights Online

RIAA Wants To Scrap Anti-Piracy OPEN Act 268

Posted by timothy
from the not-far-enough-by-half dept.
silentbrad writes with these selections from an article at Ars Technica: "The Recording Industry Association of America found itself in an unusual position this week: opposing an anti-piracy bill that's gaining momentum in Congress ... the RIAA argues the bill won't be effective at shutting down rogue sites. The trade group warns of 'indefinite delays' as claims of infringement are investigated. And it complains that the process envisioned by OPEN would allow for 'endless submissions by parties such as Google,' further gumming up the process. All the while, the alleged rogue site would be able to continue operating. The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.' The trade group complains that sites aren't held responsible for the infringing activities of their users, a rule the trade group says 'excuses willful blindness and outright complicity in illegal activity.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Wants To Scrap Anti-Piracy OPEN Act

Comments Filter:
  • hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:04PM (#38917809) Journal

    The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

    What part of copyright law do you currently NOT have to hire a lawyer in order to get 'justice?'

  • How surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:06PM (#38917855)

    I think it's obvious to all that these guys just want the power to kill any website they wish with little oversight...

    Arguing ridiculous ideas like this demonstrates that they are pretty much the last people we should hand over the power to do so. [pcworld.com]

  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ganjadude (952775) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:08PM (#38917895) Homepage
    They played their hand right here. It isnt about actual harm its about control
    '.' RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires."
    what this tells me (we already know this here) is that it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control
  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:09PM (#38917929)

    Due process is not necessarily implicated merely because the mens rea standard for infringement is lowered, the safe harbor clause of the DMCA is overridden, or web sites are shut down quickly. Lots of states have strict liability crimes, especially regulatory ones. They're not due process violations.

  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by russotto (537200) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:10PM (#38917949) Journal

    What part of copyright law do you currently NOT have to hire a lawyer in order to get 'justice?'

    The DMCA. You just use robo-takedown.

    I really hope the RIAA stops this bill. While it may not be all they want, it increases the reach of copyright law, which is the wrong way to go. Those on the other side who support this side seem to think that such a compromise will either appease the RIAA or otherwise stop their relentless drive towards destroying the Internet, but that simply is not going to work.

  • Those bastards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:11PM (#38917961)

    >> The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

    Funny how they're not concerned about those same legal costs that innocent individuals have to face to defend themselves, when the RIAA spam arbitrary blocks of John Does with threatening lawyers letters that amount to extortion.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:12PM (#38917995) Homepage Journal

    The RIAA also warns that the need to hire an attorney to navigate the ITC's arcane legal process will 'put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

    as if they are representing ANY small business.

    im a foreigner - but even i learned it ; whenever some politician/lobbyist uses the word 'small business' in american politics, small business has nothing to do with it and its for some fucking 4-5 megacorp monopolizing in any field related to that law/bill.

  • by jamstar7 (694492) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:12PM (#38917997)
    Rough translation: "This bill doesn't go far enough and it's going to cost us money. Please kill this bill and surrender the internet NOW or kiss your campaign contributions goodbye. What we want is the US government to go anywhere any time we pull their chains and stomp all over those eeeeeeeeeeeevil pirates who are anti-American, anti-corporate profits and obviously terrorrorrorrorrists too. We'll have the new bill in your office so you can jam it through just before elections and don't forget to pick up your checks."
  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:17PM (#38918103) Homepage Journal

    internet will not be saved without destroying riaa and its backing industries. namely, hollywood and the media.

  • Weep for them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dega704 (1454673) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:19PM (#38918141)
    It's not fair to them until they can have their system of guilty until proven innocent. Or rather guilty until guilty guilty guilty.
  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:21PM (#38918187) Journal
    Uh, I'm kind of opposed to destroying Hollywood. I like movies, even expensive, fun flashy ones with no artistic value.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:23PM (#38918251)

    If this OPEN Act passes, RIAA won't be able to push for a more draconian version written by them because Congress will say "we already have an act for that". As it stands right now, they can whine that there is an immediate need to "do something" hasty and ream some of their own legislation through. Or perhaps they prever to do their legislation in secret via international trade agreements like ACTA and the recently uncovered TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [eff.org]).

    Between ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, TPPA only in the past year, it seems there is a relentless barrage of fire against fair use that can only end bad for us.

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:26PM (#38918293)

    They represent small business in the same way they represent the artists. They'll put their arms around both and smile for the cameras, but when either goes into the back room with the RIAA... Well, you'd better hope they're in a mood to use lubricant this time.

  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:26PM (#38918299)

    If you like them more than the internet, then you're part of the problem.

  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:28PM (#38918325)

    I really hope the RIAA stops this bill. While it may not be all they want, it increases the reach of copyright law, which is the wrong way to go.

    That's why I have the feeling they don't want to stop the bill. I think they're trying to use reverse psychology. "I wonder if everyone will rally up to support this bill similarly to how they rallied up to oppose ACTA if we point out that we don't like it. Maybe people won't realize that we're getting a lot of what we want if we keep the discussion focused on what we're NOT getting."

  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lostmongoose (1094523) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:29PM (#38918337)
    Let me guess. You also think that music will cease to exist when the RIAA's members are bankrupt too, right? Hollywood isn't the only source of movies, and they sure as shit aren't a source of creativity anymore.
  • Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erikkemperman (252014) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:45PM (#38918609)

    Just a thought before you rejoice.. This OPEN thingy isn't necessarily a good thing just because RIAA is whining about it. It might be not quite as evil as SOPA/PIPA, but would you have welcomed it before this whole charade got started?

  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geckipede (1261408) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:46PM (#38918625)
    We didn't evolve from modern apes, but at some point going back, one of those common ancestor populations would have been things you could call apes.
  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gilmoure (18428) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:53PM (#38918735) Journal

    Justice is difficult
    Persecution is easy.

  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kehren77 (814078) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:53PM (#38918743)

    But don't you know, all suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

    "Of course. Bringing the innocent to trial would be unfair." ~Q

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:54PM (#38918763)

    due process is so Hard!

    Due Process is so expensive. Can't let an irrelevant thing like 3,000 years of developing the Rule of Law get in the way of all the Benjamins, now.

  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HermDog (24570) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:04PM (#38918929)
    Apes contend that they evolved from humans.
  • Re:Those bastards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rary (566291) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:17PM (#38919115)

    Out of court settlements are not extortion. Sorry that you don't see the difference.

    While not technically extortion, they do have the same effect on innocent people without the means to defend themselves.

  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:19PM (#38919137) Homepage Journal

    ACTA [wikipedia.org] is coming into force, SOPA [wikipedia.org]/PIPA [wikipedia.org] will be coming back, and the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership [wikipedia.org] means that if you even think of dressing up like a copyrighted character then you'll be censored off the 'net.

    And what have you done about it today? Did you send a week's worth of money that you would normally spend on vending machines to the EFF? Did you make coffee at home and carry it to work in a thermos instead of going to Starbucks and then sending that money to the EFF or one of the other fine groups that is opposing those laws? Did you and a bunch of your friends go get in the face of your congress person? Did you boycott any record label or artist who supports the RIAA and let them know about it?

    The only way to stop these laws is going to be by us getting in the way of the corporate machinery that is controlling the legislative process. By letting the human beings that are doing the corporations' work for them know that there will be a price to pay. By scaring the shit out of them. As long as politicians and corporate leaders think they can get away with it, they will get away with it.

    Look what happened over the past 36 hours. A very wealthy foundation that ostensibly is fighting breast cancer was hijacked by a bunch of right-wing turds and they decided they would no longer use a little bit of their donated money to support the #1 provider of breast cancer screenings and primary health care to women because that organization also provides birth control and abortions to women who choose them. They announced triumphantly how they were going to "change direction". Enough people started enough shit over the course of 24 hours that the foundation not only reversed their decision, but apologized for even considering pulling their financial support for Planned Parenthood.

    See, when you run an outfit that is very very wealthy and very very powerful, you start to think you can do whatever you want. It's really not that hard for a committed group of people without money and without power to convince them otherwise, simply by getting in the way.

  • Re:Those bastards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:24PM (#38919217)
    Pay us $3k and we'll go away or pay $3k to defend yourself in court where the best case scenario is you're out $3k and time and the worst case scenario is you're up for $100k in damages...

    You're right. It's not extortion. It has to be against the law to be extortion.
  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mounthood (993037) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:34PM (#38919355)

    As long as the US takes in big money from other countries (as we do today) because of absurd copyright laws, the other countries have strong incentive to be lax on enforcement. India, for example, may want to import copyrighted material from the US but they aren't going to kill their own movie industry in favor of Hollywood. They may need to sign treaties and talk tough about enforcement, but that doesn't mean they have to follow through.

    Hacker: Are you saying that winking at corruption is government policy?
    Sir Humphrey: No, no, Minister! It could never be government policy. That is unthinkable! Only government practice.

  • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:40PM (#38919429)

    Uh, I'm kind of opposed to destroying Hollywood. I like movies, even expensive, fun flashy ones with no artistic value.

    Actually creativity would flourish if the MPAA and RIAA were smashed into a thousand tiny pieces. That would spur competition and allow grass roots organic film and music to have a chance of succeeding. As long as those two cartels remain in place, they act as a blockade between artists and audience.

  • liars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:40PM (#38919431) Homepage Journal

    put justice out of reach for small business American victims of IP theft.'

    When an industry lobby organisation suddenly finds its heart for those who are not amongst its members, you know something is up.

    These guys aren't a non-profit. They are paid to do their job.

  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by letherial (1302031) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:53PM (#38919629)
    "RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires" I would say, if you cant prove it...it didn't happen. But you know, that's me believing in the constitution...
  • Re:*Stomps foot* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BoberFett (127537) on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:28PM (#38920085)

    And it's funny how concerned they are about small business all of a sudden. They didn't seem to worried about the affects that their preferred legislation would have on small business.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03, 2012 @09:56PM (#38923413)

    I would be prepared to forfeit the due process up front, allowing sites to be shut down immediately, on one condition. In the event of a false take down, the company making the claim must turn over their entire company/assets/stocks/everything to the wrongly accused.

    Seems fair enough. If they are making a fair accusation, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But they can't just fling shit and see where it sticks, or make up stuff, or bully, or wrongfully accuse without penalty. Also, the company in question must make the claim, not some small shell company they own that has no assests/etc.

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...