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."
Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote With Your Wallet (Score:4, Insightful)
Trade only in games / movies / music / books / etc that you can legally share with others.
When media that can't be shared can't be sold (because nobody will buy it), that will be the end of piracy and a great day for all of humanity.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements are unacceptable. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.
So... what gives them the right to punish the alleged infringers?
Maybe this will bring on monopoly break up, once people realize there is no alternative ISP one can turn to (in most areas). Wouldn't that be wonderful...
For an "independent review" or "appearances" (Score:5, Insightful)
I would actually sort of hope that the Center of Copyright Information (CCI) would have some sort of internal expertise in anti-piracy monitoring technology. Because if they don't then they are nothing but a front for someone else anyways.
If an organization does not have iternal experts then it can be nothing other than a front for someone else.
RIAA = world class liars and scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
for decades, the people that have been screwing musicians out of their ownership, royalties, and publicity have been... the owner/member labels comprising the RIAA. lawsuit after lawsuit from music giants have proved that "Hollywood accounting" has always been the hallmark of RIAA members. nobody should expect a straight answer from RIAA, except maybe for the phono equalization curve.
Re:Vote With Your Wallet (Score:1, Insightful)
I do this already. Like many I buy content that uses open and sharable policies. The stuff that isn't open I don't buy.
Unfortunately, most of the best content is locked behind DRM so rather than live a life devoid of entertainment and culture I pirate that content. The pirating still supports the companies because it is a form of advertising.
Re:Vote With Your Wallet (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it not ok to share something that the original creator wants you to share? Because it cuts into the market for crap that people don't want you to share?
Is it wrong for me to give away open source software like open office, mysql or linux? Just because it devalues ms office, oracle db, or mac os x?
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US may be a bully, but realistically your Government is a piece shit wimp if it felt "forced" to create such a law. Kind of like its citizens, apparently.
Re:Vote With Your Wallet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
And consider yourself fortunate. In my country, it's three strikes, and it's enshrined in law thanks to your fucking government.
No, it's enshrined in law thanks to your government. Presuming you live in anything like a democracy, it's your (and your compatriots) fault you elected a government that bows down to another government, if in fact that is what happened. Much more likely is that they bowed down to the corporations directly, of course, likely a local branch, possibly even, completely unconnected to "his" government, such as BREIN.
On a side note, why do you presume to know what government he lives under? Non-US citizens bitch about Slashdot assuming their readers live in the US, and yet it seems even the non-US readers do so. Interesting, that (or maybe you know the OP lives in the US from another source, in which case ignore this paragraph).
Re:Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
The only ones to believe the RIAA are the politicians they bought off.
Right on! You forgot to add the Internet Service Providers.
ISPs get the benefit of less bandwidth usage and grounds on which they can throttle your connection to a grade above dial-up and/or suspend services all the while you pay them your monthly contract/non-contract fee. It's a win-win for all scumbags, everyone gets thrown a bone.
Re:Vote With Your Wallet (Score:4, Insightful)
The fucking fuck explicitly said its not ok to legally share (open source) content because it takes money from the people who sell the same type of product. That is the fucking issue. And that is why I am morally required to say fuck you to the fucking fuck, and now to you as well.
Re:Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
The only ones to believe the RIAA are the politicians they bought off.
Well, that's not entirely true. Anyone not on the "free lunch" bandwagon understands that the creators of these works should be compensated. And copyright is what makes the GPL and its many related licenses possible. In fact, Linux as you know it wouldn't exist without copyright. The problem isn't copyright as an idea -- it's copyright as it is implimented today. These politicians were sold on the idea that the current implimentation is the best, quite literally. The argument is that protections are needed for the way business is done today, otherwise that business would evaporate, leading to a loss of jobs, income, etc. Most politicians are lawyers, not economists, and certainly not "technologists". They don't understand the finer nuances of the market, nor how technology interoperates with it. They are therefore incapable of conceptualizing any alternative to the status quo, and absent that, their default vote is to support it.
But people like us, the technologically-literate, are painfully aware of how limiting current copyright is, and how disadvantaging it is to newcomers to the market and consumers as a whole. We can see new ways of doing business that (and this has been proven multiple times!) satisfy multiple goals of personal use, fair use, time shifting, etc., while also providing a source of revenue to the creators of these works that, thanks to decreased distribution costs would earn them more money. The entertainment industry as an aggregate entity would make more money with a less restrictive public policy. You know this. I know this. The authors know this. But the politicians and the general public don't, because they're only hearing from one side: The side that has a lot of money to burn to make sure it's the only side they hear.
In the few cases where the public became aware of how the industry works, the response was swift and overwhelmingly against it. SOPA, ACTA, CISPA... many attempts have been made, and even when it's been behind closed doors, shrouded in "national security", eventually it gets leaked and everyone involved gets roasted for it. This is a system that depends on misdirection, deception at the highest levels, and heavy spending on marketing and public relations to maintain itself. It has co-opted our legal and judicial systems and is now trying to insinuate itself into the private sector as well via policies and procedures designed to further defray the costs of maintaining this expensive superstructure that makes everyone a criminal.