Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend 298
Dr. Eggman writes "If you don't recall, then Broadband/DSL Reports is here to remind us that ISPs around the U.S. will begin adhering to the RIAA/MPAA-fueled 'Six Strikes' agreement on July 1st. Or is it July 12th? Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Cablevision are all counted among the participants. They will each introduce 'mitigation measures' against suspected pirates, including: throttling down connection speeds and suspending Web access."
a minority opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
This graduated system actually sounds like a big improvement over their old policy where some college kid would be downloading and sharing 1000's of songs, and then get hit by a subpoena by the RIAA's lawyers.
Now, they send out warnings and follow them up before taking further action. So the infringer gets feedback in time to change their behavior before they get served with a big lawsuit.
Where's the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that MPAA/RIAA somehow think they're going to get more money from what they think are "consumers". The overwhelming majority people they're going after have no plans on giving their money to media distributors because they either don't have any or know better. Yet, they continue to waste their resources going after these "pirates" - who aren't really pirates because they're not profiting from their activities in any way.
The distributors are always complaining about how they're barely making ends meet.... perhaps if they didn't pay themselves millions of dollars they wouldn't have any problems? As I see it, they're just greedy assholes. They should do us all a favor and roll over and die. In a world where cost of distribution is very close to $0, there is no need for a digital media distribution company.
Fuck Off RIAA/MPAA (Score:3, Insightful)
To: RIAA/MPAA assholes
I've been less and less likely to go to movies, thanks dudes.
Being specific: the idea that y'all think movies are a good way to strip cash from consumers to your pockets is annoying. The idea that you deserve to do so no matter what is plain offensive.
Only other places need freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hacktivism at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)
Activisim is one thing, setting someone up for legal issues is another, in my book.
Re:a minority opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
The old system of lawsuits is better for victims of the RIAA, as their rights are respected. The only reason this is being promoted as "positive" is because the vultures need to move onto a new strategy to keep ahead of the judges, as the courts are growing wise to the years of abuse of the law.
Re:Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly.
It's the beginning of mass amounts of hosted VPS/torrent solutions and SFTP traffic.
Laws have never once curbed popular behavior without huge losses of life and civil war. So until there is the decapitation, or drawn-and-quartered rule, I sincerely doubt behavior modification will be the outcome.
Trying to ban SFTP traffic is not going to work, and trying to play whack-a-mole with VPS/seedbox providers will be fruitless.
Re:Only other places need freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:a minority opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freenet is still here (Score:4, Insightful)
without the possibility of monitoring
Hm...that's an interesting assertion...perhaps you meant "hard to monitor" or "I cannot see how this will be monitored," but unless you would like to point to a proof of hardness i.e. that either in an information theoretic sense or under some common cryptographic assumption it is hard to track Freenode transfers, I would not stake much on Freenode. It would not be beyond the RIAA or MPAA to hire some cryptanalysts to develop methods of attacking the security of Freenet, nor would it be beyond them to set up malicious Freenet nodes for that purpose.
Re:a minority opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
The legal system is stacked against the common person in these situations.
This is the same justification proponents of "binding arbitration" use. Surprise! arbitration is also stacked against the common person, and so will this gentlemen's agreement between huge corporations. At least, in theory, you have a fighting chance in the legal system. In this system (and in arbitration), you're punished, period.
Rule of Thumb: Any agreement or contract that you were not part of writing is designed to screw you.
The creative industry is being creative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:a minority opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps once telecoms begin to lose customers as a result of being MAFIAA enforcers, they'll decide to side with their customers and more modern copyright laws.
Re:That's what they want (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's put it this way: how many people will give up on Facebook in the Internet-as-cable-TV scenario?
Re:Bittorrent (Score:4, Insightful)
How much will this pointless crack down impact my legal and legitimate use of this service?
You will receive a letter, and then you will call your ISP, demand that they reduce your strike count because you were just downloading those Debian disks. The ISP will insist that their system is perfect, until you speak to a manager who will reduce your strike count, but only in one of many databases that only synchronize increases in the count. Eventually you'll be in court, suing your ISP, only to be told that your service agreement says that you have no legal recourse.
Re:Where's the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually you still need people with money to finance new artists and bands
People in any business need financing to get started with their business, if the costs are significant. The costs of starting a band are much lower today than they were in the past. But still, this is a service provided by banks; there isn't a market for dedicated companies just to finance bands.
and make them known to the public.
That is just marketing. You don't have to have a distributor or label to do that. Labels may be able to do that more cost effectively at scale; for example, they might have agreements in place with retailers, so the cost may be less for the band to get their content on store shelves and marketed.
This is not debatable.
Sure it's debatable. You have essentially downgraded the record labels' status to bank and marketing agency.
I think that's not the reason any band goes to a label. Those services are easy to obtain through numerous competitors who would not demand such a high cut of the proceeds.
I think they go to the labels as a one-stop shop, to totally run the business for them, because the Labels have experience at taking content and turning it to dollars, so they can concentrate on making music, and avoid doing any of that "business stuff" themselves, which if done wrong, could cause them to fail.
The labels don't "finance them", the labels reduce their business risk.
No More "Pirate" (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you know, but still: Pirates are people that get what they want on the high seas, normally using violence or threats of violence. Let us not play into RIAA/MPAA/FACT/...'s hands by using their propaganda language.
And you are right, "The Copyright Infringement Bay" has not got the same sound to it as "The Pirate Bay".
Re:No More "Pirate" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and "computer" should only be used to describe people who manually do mathematical calculations as a profession. <rolls eyes> It's 2012, sperglord; wake up and smell the coffee. Software piracy has even made it into major dictionaries [merriam-webster.com].
Re:That's what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck Off RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a musician/song writer in addition to being a programmer. In the early days of Napster I was, to a large extent, on the side of copyright holders, but that's all changed radically over the years. It's sad in a way that things have pretty much reached the point where it's all but impossible to make money with music other than by touring or otherwise playing live...perhaps in a way that's a good thing. If the record industry didn't get hung up on bullshit like DRM and got out in front of this whole thing with DRM-free songs available much like on Amazon in, oh...I don't know...like 1999, it would be a very different world for the music industry right now.
As many here have pointed out, it's clear that the RIAA will continue to lobby, or do whatever it takes to turn the Internet as we know it into the likes of pay television, where we're just spectators. The ONLY thing that will stop this is if the whole industry just plains goes belly up, and is replaced by one that actually lives in the 21st century. While I don't download music illegally myself, at this point if the public chooses to "pirate" them into the fucking stone age I couldn't be happier, and I couldn't be happier at the reality that, from a technical standpoint, they'll never be able to stop it. Assholes...all of them...
Re:That's what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
it's okay for them to enforce laws
No, not always. Laws are far from perfect. In doubtful cases, yes, enforce the law. But this case is not in doubt. These anti-piracy laws are far too extreme. Too easy to twist such power to spy on innocent citizens, silence dissent, push unrelated agendas such as a crusade against porn or drugs or terrorism, and leverage the even more extreme privileges the content cartels think they would like. These laws are bad. I don't think it's possible to have any anti-piracy law that doesn't trample upon other vital freedoms.
And now, try to wrap your head around this idea: piracy is good. It is good in the sense that the public would benefit more if there was no such thing as a monopoly on copying. The public does not benefit as much from the current custom of trying to lock everything down, and the waste of millions on monopolistic gouging, clinging to outdated, grossly inefficient distribution systems such as CDs, and enforcement and court cases, DRM, lobbying, and even public campaigning. Capt. Copyright was ludicrous, and if anything, only served to undermine the message they were trying to push. All these anti-piracy efforts are predicated on the notion that piracy is bad, and that copyright is the only way or the only fair way artists can make a living. No. Not only are the anti-piracy bills too extreme, the very foundational ideas behind them all are wrong. Some think they are pushing bad means to achieve a good end, but the end they seek is not good. Does the end justify the means? If you have to go all fascist and use force to achieve some good end, you ought to reexamine that end and ask, is it really good? Odds are, it is not.
serving the complaint to your ISP instead of suing you, they're saving you money
Saving me money? Not at the price of due process and freedom! They should have no right to kick anyone off the Internet. That's like taking away the driver's license of someone accused-- accused, mind, not convicted-- of burglary, because logically they must have used a car to reach the target and haul away the goods. They don't need to convict anyone of anything, all they need do is make an accusation. So much for due process.
Re:That's what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Blank media tax is not brilliant. It presumes a crime/civil infringement will absolutely occur. Should I have to pay copyright tax for taping my kids birthday?
Well, the song "Happy Birthday to You" is copyrighted [wikipedia.org], so yes.