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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:03PM (#38917781) Journal
    But, but, due process is so Hard!
    • by mjr167 (2477430) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:07PM (#38917871)
      But don't you know, all suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.
    • 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
      • by netwarerip (2221204) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:16PM (#38918085)

        ... 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

        And in other breaking news, day follows night, man evolved from Apes, and my wife has another headache.

      • by no-body (127863)

        So - their wish is to have a sharper gun - best that their requests to become law upon writing/emailing anything and some SEa, Air and Land unit raiding any place graspable on this planet?

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

        by Joce640k (829181) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:01PM (#38918881) Homepage

        it was never about protecting artists, it was never about doing the right thing, it was always about control

        Strangely enough, Megaupload was shut down just when it was about to launch a music service that would have paid 90% of earnings to artists [jacehallshow.com].

      • 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 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:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Informative)

      by headkase (533448) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:11PM (#38917987)
      You totally stole my comment! I'm getting you shut down!

      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.

      Here's coverage on the TPP from a Canadian perspective: here [michaelgeist.ca], here [michaelgeist.ca], and here [michaelgeist.ca].

      The point is that Hollywood and content holders in general have all the strings in their hands right now [wikipedia.org] and for the foreseeable future. Like ACTA the TPP is being negotiated in secrecy. Which, when you think about it makes it undemocratic just by it's procedure.
      • 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:*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:*Stomps foot* (Score:5, Insightful)

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

      Justice is difficult
      Persecution is easy.

    • 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, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:56PM (#38919669) Homepage Journal

      I didn't read TFA, TFS was bad enough. Damned MAFIAA.

      The trade group warns of 'indefinite delays' as claims of infringement are investigated

      What the parent poster said. The RIAA would rather shut you down without any pesky investigations.

      allow for 'endless submissions by parties such as Google,' further gumming up the process.

      But heaven forbid that sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. "Rules can't apply to US, only Google."

      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.

      That's as far as I could go before blowing up. These lying asshats REALLY piss me off. First, if I'm going to defend my copyright I'm going to need a lawyer. Period. Doesn't matter if I'm one middle class guy or the RIAA.

      Then there's "IP theft". The only theft of IP is the RIAA and MPAA stealing the public domain by bribing Congress. A copyright does NOT confer ownership, it confers a limited time monopoly on publication; the public is the one who owns it. All of us own it. It isn't the RIAA's property, it's ours. They're a bunch of God damned thieves who call their paying customers thieves.

    • 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 willaien (2494962) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:03PM (#38917783)

    You wouldn't be able to arbitrarily control the entire internet under the new model. How terrible.

    • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:11PM (#38917983) Homepage Journal

      You wouldn't be able to arbitrarily control the entire internet under the new model. How terrible.

      Philosophy: The law and how it should apply to other people.

      We need to bypass law enforcement and courts and go straight to Instant Fine and Imprisonment.

      • you are not thinking enough ahead.

        soon, there will be government issued displays and keyboards and only those are 'secure' enough to connect to your computer, which is then 'secure' enough to connect to the gov-approved internet.

        once that is all in place, anytime a violation occurs (copyright, etc) you instantly get peppersprayed in the face or shocked via the keyboard. if the crime is bad enough (ie, you were copying both audio AND video) then they can apply both methods to you, concurrently.

        I really need

  • 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?'

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.
          • 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.

            • Destroying Hollywood for the sake of the internet is a myopic thing to do. The problem here clearly lies with the political system where money is proportional to political power. Even if you destroy Hollywood, it's only a matter of time before some other issue arises, where some other company wants some law that many of us don't, and lobbies both sides until it's passed. What we need is a radical upheaval of the campaign contribution system. Do this, and Hollywood, and every other threat in the future is ne

          • 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.
            • by houghi (78078)

              An axample of what else is out there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw [youtube.com]

            • Let me guess. You also think that music will cease to exist when the RIAA's members are bankrupt too, right?

              No, but I do think you are a retard, who will move on to the next group of content producers to hate, once you realize those people don't like having their movies pirated either.

          • Uh, I'm kind of opposed to destroying Hollywood. I like movies

            Other people can make movies. Especially after Lobbyist Dodd's temper tantrum earlier about SOPA and PIPA, Hollywood can go fuck themselves in the face with a rake. Forever.

            • Re:hiring lawyers (Score:4, Informative)

              by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:19PM (#38919147)

              please also stop buying blueray, as well. that goes into sony's pocket and that's a bad thing (as we all know).

              but also it sends a message to hollywood. it says we aren't willing to play their games and use their method of 'content licensing'.

              I have boycotted bd and refuse to support this model with my money.

              please join me.

          • by g0bshiTe (596213)
            I can count on one hand movies that have come out of Hollywood in the last decade that were worth me paying to see.
          • I am perfectly fine with, and believe it to be an inevitability, that Hollywood as it currently is will be collateral damage in the continuing defense of personal liberties.

          • 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.

      • 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."

    • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

      As opposed to sending individual people with little or no access to legal defense letters demanding money or they will face expensive lawsuits with public defenders? That puts justice out of reach of everyone but the MAFIAA. which is the way they'd like it to be.

    • The part that the RIAA wanted with SOPA. The ability to just say "Hey, you, website! We hereby accuse you of piracy." and have the site shut down. See simple? No way that could possibly go wrong by, oh say, companies abusing it to shut down competitors or businesses they simply didn't like.

      • Or any indie artist that has an MP3 on their website.

        • fight back! lets start using mp2, to confuse them.

        • Indie artists that use their websites to connect with the public instead of going through "RIAA Approved Channels" would be considered by the RIAA to be a competitor... and thus causing lost sales... and thus a site to have shut down.

  • Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by putzin (99318) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:04PM (#38917811) Homepage
    Someone outside of the minority of educated humans may see the hypocrisy involved here.
    • 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?

      • I'll have to read the particulars before I decide which way I'm going on this but, one way or the other they're going to cram something down our throats. If this bill at least allows for due process and keeps the RIAA, etc. from firing off blanket robo take downs or punishing ISPs for user activities among other things generally frowned upon as detrimental to a free and open Internet then it might be worth compromising on. If copyright holders want money for their stuff then fine let them collect it. It'

        • It doesn't matter where you go, the stuff just isn't being made available or if it is, it's often by way of a ridiculously expensive $50+ import for a CD.

          Not being able to legally acquire such things at all is a legitimate complaint. Not being legally available at a price you personally want to pay is whiny toddler stuff. Nobody owes you the ability to buy exactly what you want.

  • Never thought I'd see a headline like that.

    Any second now I'm gonna start seeing frogs raining from the sky... *rushes to the window to watch*
  • by Kierthos (225954)

    Is anyone really surprised by this? (Well, any /. readers?)

    Their "we don't your site around here" legislation got kicked to the curb, and because this doesn't give them the power to shut off whatever websites they feel like, "it's too weak".

    BULL. SHIT.

    Deal with it, RIAA. Deal with the fact that you might actually have to prove your case before hammering someone with punitive fines/jail time/freezing in carbonite. (Sorry, been playing a lot of SWTOR)

    • They also complained that it was too hard to file separate John Doe suits instead of bundling a thousand unrelated cases into one motion. They want to combat piracy, but they don't want exert any effort doing it. The RIAA is the angry but lazy couch potato of Big Content.

  • 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]

  • Next they'll be advocating their own personal drones.

  • 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."
  • by SydShamino (547793) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:12PM (#38918003)

    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.'

    This is, again, the scariest part of their campaign. The ability of sites to not be liable (unless they ignore takedown requests) is the best part of the (otherwise pretty crappy) DMCA, and the XXAA want to undo it. They don't care in the least that it would end every social collaboration web site (like slashdot), because they think their old business models (pay the radio, tv, and newspaper to advertise, then reap profit via local stores and theaters) would spring back to life if we didn't waste all our time and money on the internet.

    Seriously, the only way this will end is if someone puts a bullet in them. And by bullet, I mean hostile takeover. And by someone, I mean Google. And if Apple just so happens to take over another one of them a few days later, oh well. Maybe Microsoft would even like to own a music label? Hell, isn't EMI suffering and looking for a buyer?

    • It probably wouldn't even require all big labels to be taken over. If one big label was taken over by a consortium of tech companies (to avoid Label X's music from only being available on iTunes, or Amazon MP3, or some other music service), it would put market pressure on the other labels. Use that label to drag the others into the 21st century. As a bonus, the price would be split among the companies so Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc wouldn't have to pony up the full amount.

  • by sootman (158191) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:17PM (#38918109) Homepage Journal

    ... I'm suddenly very much for it.

  • 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.
    • Guilty until you can prove your innocence in a court of law, you know with the lawyers that an average Joe can afford vs their lawyers. A fair fight, just like rehabilitation in the movie idiocracy!
  • 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.

  • And it couldn't be the provision that allows the committee to fine groups who submit false claims. Cause that never, ever happens.
  • At least they are being honest about their desire to extract a pound of flesh from Google. That's what this has always been about. They want Google's profits.

  • 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.'

    ... those statements on DVDs, TV shows to the effect of "the comments and opinions expressed are not those of X Corp, its parent, subsidiary or affiliate companies" or even /. "Comments owned by the poster" are okay because they release the media company from any liability. And the questionable practi

  • The bill is sponsored in the Senate by Rob Wyden (D-OR) and in the House by Darrel Issa (R-CA).
  • by _0xd0ad (1974778) on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:35PM (#38918445) Journal

    RIAA also says it's 'virtually impossible' to prove that a site infringed willfully, as OPEN requires.

    If it's too hard to prove that someone is guilty, then maybe - just maybe - they aren't.

    They insist on chasing down the wrong people - innocent websites - and they complain that it's hard to prove guilt?

    On the other hand, it would be trivial to prove that a user infringed willfully... but there's very little money to be made in that.

  • If we're going to have to have something, and I think that we might, just so the politicians can point to it and declare victory, at least in this case the MAFIAA doesn't think it's enough.

  • 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.

  • by ParadoxDruid (602583) * on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:49PM (#38919573) Homepage
    I think I need to just continually post this, and send it (or more "respectable" transcripts, to all my congressional representatives. We don't need new laws for the internet! Our current ones work just fine, thank you. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2508#comic [smbc-comics.com] (Sorry for the double-post, I forgot to log in)
  • by cas2000 (148703) on Friday February 03, 2012 @07:24PM (#38922031)

    accusation alone ought to be enough. only communists and terrorists demand proof before guilt is established.

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...