RIAA Failed To Disclose Expert's Lobbying History To "Six-Strikes" Partners 90
concealment writes "A month before the controversial 'six strikes' anti-piracy plan goes live in the U.S., the responsible Center of Copyright Information (CCI) is dealing with a small crisis. As it turns out the RIAA failed to mention to its partners that the 'impartial and independent' technology expert they retained previously lobbied for the music industry group. In a response to the controversy, CCI is now considering whether it should hire another expert to evaluate the anti-piracy monitoring technology."
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?
The Terms of Service of course. The problem you'll face here is that they're completely within their rights to run a regime like this provided it's in the contract. Just like they can terminate your account for all sorts of shit.
And consider yourself fortunate. In my country, it's three strikes, and it's enshrined in law thanks to your fucking government.
Re:Vote With Your Wallet (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, half of you are mssing what the original Anonymous Coward said: "Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others." (emphasis mine). So the works he advocates sharing are, like open-source software, explicitly allowed by their creators for such purposes. Among other things, this includes the growing body of music released under the Creative Commons licenses.
Nadaka went apeshit because he was responding to a comment that seemed to suggest that even sharing music whose creator wants it to be shared is somehow wrong, which is a primary FUD tactic used by the MAFIAA to shut down ALL file sharing, not just illegal file sharing. That's basically the whole discussion encapsulated into three posts.
Welcome to days ago... (Score:2, Informative)
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/10/22/6-strikes-copyright-trolling-without-courts/
Coverage on Torrentfreak, Boingboing, even Techdirt.
There is so much misunderstanding about what this system is, how they are doing it, and more... because they kept it all secret.
The company that is capturing the IP addresses for them was used in AFACT vs iiNET in Oz. They got the IP's they collected by having their agent SEED THE FILES. Think about that. They created the situation they claim is destroying their business, so they could try to get the Government to give them the power to ban people from the net, while making the ISP foot the bill. And this is their agent who will be collecting IP addresses for this clusterfook.
They claim loses of billions of dollars, and yet won't spend any money to stop it... if you could spend a million to get back a chunk of a billion would you?
Welcome to corporate law. You have no rights, you have no recourse unless you pay for the chance and even then your limited to 1 of 6 responses that do not reflect reality, and then your claim is heard by an arbitrator hired by the corporation. Seems legit to me...