RIAA Calls YouTube-Viacom Decision Bad Public Policy 260
adeelarshad82 writes "The Recording Industry Association of America voiced its opposition to the recent decision in the YouTube-Viacom copyright infringement case, stating that 'the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.' Cary Sherman, RIAA president, also wrote in a blog post, 'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Since when is it their job?
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since they've pretty much bought their way into the Justice Department, and White House, and want to do the least amount of work policiing the internet, while maximizing their profits.
This response by the RIAA shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If anything, it paints their message very loud and clear. YOU the consumer, have no fair-use rights, and we believe you should pay for every instance of every copyrighted work transmitted, copied, or used, on or off the net.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes way beyond that though. This is corporatism at it's worst. The RIAA carefully hides here the fact that they are not the holders of the majority of the copyright out there. Under international law, every time I take a picture, write a /. comment or a blogpost or make a recording on my cellphone I own the copyright to it.
That makes ME a rightsholder.
The system as it stands, despite the problematic parts of the DMCA actually rather works okay here. The balance struck wasn't struck where the RIAA says it was, with damn good reason. Say I post a video of something silly to my blog, you like it and upload it to youtube. Technically you've committed copyright infringement -but chances are, if you credit me and link the blog I would be grateful rather than angry.
But it's impossible for youtube to know how I would feel. What the current DMCA means is -if I don't like it, I can file a takedown notice and get it down if I want, or say thank you and leave it up if I want.
What the RIAA wants here would remove that level of self-decision from the millions of rights-holders who are NOT the RIAA and turn ISP's into a police force. Youtube would have to somehow verify that you either created the video yourself or have an agreement with me about it everytime you do an upload !
That's a massive legal overhead and in the very vast majority of the cases it would be a complete waste. That's not even considering that a video you don't own, nor know the creator of may have been published under a CC license - and now youtube has the duty to go find the original web-page and check that ?
I agree with the judge here - the onus for identifying and reporting should belong to those rights-holders who desire to excercise control, not with the ISP's whose job ought to be to build reliable fast servers that are not so congested as to be unusable. The moment and IT company has more lawyers than developers things go to hell for customers. Just look at Microsoft. Let's not force that to be the case for every ISP and 1-man hosting company in the world as well !
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually - here's an even better example. As any WoW player will tell you before engaging a raid it's common practise to watch videos on youtube showing screencasts of the fight. This is among the best way to study tactics for it.
Those videos usually have three core parts:
1) The actual gaming things captured. This is copyright blizzard (Actually it's a derivative work, the art in the game belongs to them but the screencast is not the art itself and has more to it) - but blizzard has already given explicit p
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
"As the White House recently noted in its strategic plan to combat intellectual property theft it is essential for service providers and intermediaries generally to work collaboratively with content owners to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement," Sherman wrote. "We need businesses to be more proactive in addressing infringement, not less."
Can someone please inform Mr Sherman, that removing 10,000 videos in 24 hours is pretty much as proactive as you are going to get?
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone please inform Mr Sherman, that removing 10,000 videos in 24 hours is pretty much as proactive as you are going to get?
I'm fairly sure it was 100,000.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not forget the detection algorithm's which are really damn good.
It's not like I wouldn't expect them to use the DMCA frivolously and then complain when everyone uses it to the letter of the law.
I suppose in the end the only way to appease the beast is with large sums of money. Feed it now to quell it's anger!
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Since when is it their job?
Worse. They're saying it's an ILLEGAL exchange.
The DMCA makes it legal UNTIL a takedown notice is issued.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA does not make the exchange legal or illegal; rather, it provides a mechanism that allows ISPs to host user-uploaded content without liability for copyright infringement, provided the procedures are followed with respect to takedown notices. A person who makes infringing copies is still liable for making those copies, regardless of whether the copies are uploaded to an ISP, sold on the street, etc. Of course, not all copies are infringing (though the RIAA would probably disagree with this last statement).
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the Viacom vs YouTube ruling was fair, especially considering internal memos admitted that the "illegal uploading" was done by Viacom themselves.
I thought not even the RIAA could justify Viacom's side of this case.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
c'mon.. you know RIAA could justify anything.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think in this case the court did exactly what congress intended, and it is constitutional. Service providers like YouTube cannot be liable for posted content and stay solvent, so to allow the business to grow they made it so. No one is going to suffer irreparable damage by having a video pulled for a free posting service, so there is no reason not to have the service provider pulled. A user can also post it on their own dime or use another service, or fight the right to have it posted. Stakeholders are not going suffer irrevocable harm by having unlicensed content up for a short while, so there we go.
The only thing I would like to see are stiff penalties for parties who use the DMCA to harrass people, but this is no different from SLAPP laws, which have helped some, but there is still a huge problem with big corporation limited free speech of the average person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is a Good Thing. I do not *want* service providers spending time and money policing their networks; both as a customer and a shareholder I see no benefit to me in a service provider cooperating with the {RI,MP}AA beyond the absolute minimum required by law. That minimum just got lower. :-) If the media companies want to crack down on copyright infringement, le
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
No, but it definitely be the best thing that could possibly happen to the RIAA.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, I thought the RIAA was the Black Plague.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Liability, ie paying money or going to jail has pretty much been the way to make people do the right thing for quite a while.
It was a bunch of lawsuits against file sharers that made iTunes successful, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it made a significant impact, IMHO. The vast majority of downloaders, when asked why the downloaded music illegally, replied that there was A. no way to try before you buy on most songs, and B. no store that sold tracks individually. Is it any wonder, then, that when such a store came along (and also provided better ease of use) that most of those people started using it? Who would have thought that maybe those people really were telling the truth when asked their reasons?
The people who did
Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Funny)
"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States
"eeep!" - RIAA runs away
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously...... the whole point of the DMCA was to protect third-party companies. If I upload an infringing video and Viacom complains, then youtube is expected to honor the request. BUT if I then file a motion to reinstate the video because it doesn't violate copyright (for example it's me singing my own song), Youtube is supposed to restore the video immediately.
From that point forward youtube is now held blameless as a neutral party. They followed the rules. Why RIAA would want youtube to be punished makes no logical sense, except in the mind of a bunch of greedy tyrants. I guess RIAA doesn't want youtube restoring videos of Me singing my own song..... they want all music production to be in *their* hands, not in the People's hands.
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, putbacks are legally binding [wikipedia.org] (see last two items).
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Informative)
You're not picking nits -- you're so technically right that you're practically wrong.
The safe harbor only exists if "[the service provider] upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." 17 USC 512(c)(1)(C).
You don't have to take advantage of the safe harbor provision. But if you don't, the copyright owner can bleed you dry. And don't think that corporate IP attorneys don't recognize that fact.
If you follow the DMCA, you can be sued. However, you can at worst wind up the trial stage with limited discovery and a summary judgment. The copyright owner faces a real challenge piercing the safe harbor -- as shown by the Viacom decision. You have no incentive to settle for any amount greater than the cost of defending yourself to this early conclusion, if you're inclined to settle at all.
If you do not follow the DMCA, you can be sued. Worse yet, even if you've decided that the video is fair use, you cannot limit discovery, and you are virtually certain to be unable to use summary judgment to avoid a trial on the merits. Fair use is a fact-based balancing test. Summary judgment can only be used where there is no reasonable factual dispute. If there's any resonable question of infringement instead of dair use, you're on your way to a trial and bench ruling or jury verdict. Also, unless the judge permits you to bifurcate issues like damages and willfulness, you're defending the whole enchilada at the same time. Infringement, damages, and enhancement. Your rational settlement number just became the costs of a complete defense, and a risk-of-loss-adjusted-number under at least one theory of copyright liability. Even worse, there's something to be said for the Vlad-the-Impaler logic of running someone through with their own legal costs. Think of SCO (acknowledging that they were, at first, the copyright aggressor), or a pre-Google YouTube running on venture capital without the shield of the safe harbor.
The first route is a cost you don't need. The second route is a cost you cannot afford.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States
"You must not have gotten the memo on the latest version of ACTA... oh right, it's secret. Well, about that..." - RIAA
FTFY
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
"But we have treaties!" - Londo
"Words on a page. Ignore them." - Refa
POINT: I don't consider treaties to be higher than the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) or the People (ultimate authority). They can be signed today and nullified ten years from now, if we so wish. When the Russian Federation took-over for the collapsed Sovyet Union, they said they would honor the treaties but they didn't have to. The new government could have just as easily nullified them as being "illegitimate acts" by a defunct government. Another example is when Japan walked-out of the League of Nations, nullified their treaties, and started building tons of battleships.
Re:Ahhh is widdy baby's feelings hurt? (Score:4, Funny)
yes, that worked out real well for Japan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually nullifying the League treaties worked GREAT for Japan..... until they rather stupidly decided to attack a continent-sized nation. If they had not done that, they could have walked-out of the League with no further repercussions and existed independently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that congress should be able to pass any law, whether constitutional or not?
Why bother with a constitution if there is no way to enforce it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
And, United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The italicized bits are rather important. Section 1, creates SCOTUS, and gives Congress authority to create the lesser courts; Section 2 spells out what that authority is; the structure of the sentence is a little bit odd, but it is clear that their authority applies to laws enacted by Congress and deciding if they may conflict with the constitution. If they decide there is a conflict, the law cannot
Re: (Score:2)
The irony, of course, is that the Constitution states that treaties are the highest law of the land, equivalent to the Constitution itself.
Knowing that detail makes your post quite comical.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States
"That is for the court to decide (against)." - RIAA
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Uuuuuh
Isn't this kind of thinking what copyright laws are supposed to prevent?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Isn't this kind of thinking what copyright laws are supposed to prevent?
Copyright laws are created to promote the sciences and useful arts. It says that in the Supreme Law of our nation. But a copyright that locks-up items for ~150 years does the exact opposite - it harms the sciences and arts. Imagine if you could not read Tom Sawyer or hear Rhapsody in Blue or see Van Gogh's starry night painting, because the corporation had them locked in a vault.
That is not promoting but instead damaging
Re: (Score:2)
Disney's "Song of the South" locked in a vault...
Duh? (Score:5, Informative)
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
YES, THAT'S THE POINT. If you (the RIAA) want to police that crap, do it on your dime. The Service providers don't know jack about who owns what, and is not their responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to police it, they should keep on wanting. If they want to argue their case to an enforcer based on representing ONE of the BIASED points of view, then that's fair enough.
Oh noes (Score:5, Funny)
Boo hoo, you can't get other people to do your jobs for you, you lazy fuckers!
Too Fucking Bad (Score:2, Informative)
Typical RIAA, whining about when the Law doesn't give them what they want...
Guess they didn't bribe^H^H^H^H^H lobby enough...
Re:Too Fucking Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse than that (from their perspective)... they got the law they lobbied for, but didn't realize that
a) It would be applied as written
b) That anyone could actually afford to comply
c) That a financial model would exist where it made sense for the service provider to defend the ability to post content against a hail of RIAA/MPAA member lawsuits.
Suck it, RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
In other words, minimizing the illegal exchange of copyrighted becomes the responsibility of the copyright holders, by forcing them to identify which works are their copyright, and which works they would like to not have floating around on the Internet. Go cry me a river. It's bad public policy only in the world where 'public" is defined as "corporations under the RIAA umbrella".
The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law. I haven't bought a new CD in years, my movie buying is exceedingly limited, and care less and less about ripping any movie/song that I like.
Before someone accuses me of not wanting to pay for content that I use - nonsense. I actually donate money to a completely silly online game because even FB game developers need to eat, and I donate to NPR because I listen to them. I pay if I think I'm getting something in return, or if I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause. I feel that I don't get anything from the media conglomerates.
Go suck it, RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause
Ditto. I recently subscribed to Asimov's Science Fiction because I heard they were in bad shape (dropped below 15,000 subscribers). I enjoy short stories so I decided it was worthwhile to give them ~$30 a year to keep this literary genre alive. I'm supporting art for the sake of art, because I don't want to see it disappear.
But I feel absolutely no compunction to buy a Britney, Lady Gaga, or Black Eyed Peas CD. Maybe I'll pick-up their greatest hi
Re:Suck it, RIAA. (Score:4, Funny)
Comm64, just when I've written you off, you say something that endears you to me.
I'm also one of the 15,000 by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law.
This is my opinion as well. I'm at the point where I just don't care about certain laws anymore due to the way in which they are kept in place by a corrupt political system.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me more about this "stealing from the public domain" bit
Re:Suck it, RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't steal from the public domain. ...
But you can steal 'the public domain'.
The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose
That steals the common from the goose. http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Goose_commons.htm [wealthandwant.com]
Mod the parent up (Score:2)
Most insightful post of the day.
You can't steal from the public domain as long as the work remains in the public domain. They are trying to kill the very idea of a "public domain". It's hard to believe that the members of the RIAA and MPAA aren't dragged out of their homes and flogged for what they're trying to do to our culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> You can't steal from the public domain.
Sure you can. You can refuse to pay forward. This makes it more difficult for new works to be created.
All works are derivative. The more stuff is owned, the more likely some new
artist will run afoul of some 50 year old piece of cruft and be sued accordinly.
Some corporations (like 20th Century Fox) even have the gall to claim ownership
of an entire genre or sub-genre (space western).
Every work under copyright is a legal landmine waiting to go off.
Re:Suck it, RIAA. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, as is clear from TFA, land mines don't pick and choose their targets.
There's still a little part of me that believes the entertainment industry itself will eventually realize that what they're currently trying to do will also kill their own industry. A very little part. And I'm not holding my breath.
I grew up during a period when local TV stations had film libraries covering the entire history of American movies and a big chunk of foreign films. After the 10pm news, they'd play these old movies, and another one after that and another after that until the "Sunrise Semester" public service programs ran at 6am. I was able to get a comprehensive education in American Film, including film noir, iconic westerns like those of John Ford, the great films of Fritz Lang, Otto Preminger, John Huston, Douglas Sirk, Billy Wilder, right down the list, from the Marx Brothers to Busby Berkeley musicals, Hitchcock to Don Siegel. And foreign films from Fellini to Michael Powell to De Sica (sometimes badly dubbed, but still...) When I got to college and majored in writing, I had a rich vein of great storytelling to draw from, thanks to these film libraries. Today, such things would be completely impossible. How much harder it is to develop both a love of cinema and the wealth of experience of seeing such a huge number of great films.
Most of these local stations pulled their own plugs by replacing the late movie with two episodes of some lame late '70s TV show, but that kind of exposure to a great art form is no longer possible to young people, without expensive cable television subscriptions.
I used to haunt the record stacks of the Chicago Public Library, listening to classical music from Early Music through contemporary, and jazz, and blues, and everything.
I used to think that the internet could recreate this experience for future young people, but it looks like these goons who represent the entertainment industry are trying to kill that off entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't steal from the public domain.
One could make the argument that going out of your way to avoid adding to the public domain is a form of 'stealing' from it. I'm unclear if that was his point or not, but it's a valid complaint.
"Nefarious company X STOLE that BSD code!" Well, guess what... that was the intent behind the license.
No, it wasn't, for a similar reason to what I wrote above.
Arrrrr! (Score:5, Insightful)
It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.
Aren't you guys trying to force service providers to pick up the tab by changing the law -- you sit back and collect the profits while they pay the costs? I recently calculated that for about $33k worth of hard drives filled with infringing MP3s (average 4MB in size) I could be sued for statutory damages greater than what this country's entire economy made in 2009.
Don't cry to me that you can't pass the buck to service providers here when you've got that kind of legal power at your disposal.
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>RIAA sits back and collects the profit while ISPs pay the costs
Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile..... just like I smiled when Saddam Hussein was terminated. For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing. Such as when Emperor Nero died.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know: If I picked-up the morning paper and read that someone shot the RIAA CEO in the head, I think I'd actually smile.....
Why would you do that when you have a perfectly good Slashdot RSS feed somewhere on your computer?
Or do you mean you'd want to hear about it as quickly as possible, instead of a couple of days after the fact? ...yeah, then why would you choose the newspaper of all things, instead of reading the live updates on the Internet?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If you skip reading the paper one day, you could miss any event that happened.
With /., if you miss it once, you know there'll be a dupe in a day or so.
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Insightful)
For a few rare individuals, the world would improve if they ceased breathing.
When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life. If the RIAA CEO died, he would simply be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate. Do you know what he looks like? Does he have a family? Do you know anything else about him, other than he's the CEO of RIAA? CEOs -- They talk, mostly. Sometimes they sign things. That's not a reason to kill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very rare that a single person is the cause of large problems. There are a few cases, but they are vanishingly few. Most of the time the individual doesn't make a whole lot of difference and the parent is correct that the RIAA is one of those. Getting rid of the management would cause nothing to change. The problem is endemic of the whole system. The media companies have a corporate belief in this, and the RIAA is their mouthpeice/enforcer. Getting rid of a few individuals would change nothing.
The onl
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But then the ECAA (Evil CEO Association of America) would insist on a takedown due to copyright infringement.
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>When we indulge that kind of thinking, we devalue human life.
Yes but if we allow murderers (saddam) or thieves or tyrants (RIAA CEO) to continue abusing other humans, that THAT is a devaluation of life. It is because we are sick of seeing our these crimes that we hope the Idiot will die, and the suffering stop.
.
>>>be replaced by a carbon-copy duplicate
Yeah but maybe his fear of being shot in the head would make him tread more carefully, and not piss off the voters. He might even reverse policy and form a gentler, kinder RIAA. (As Obama did when he replaced Bush as president.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad part is some other scum fuck would take his/her place. It would have to be known that anyone who dares take that position puts their life in immediate danger. Fight tyranny with tyranny. But good luck hoping that will ever happen.
And yea there are many of us who would smile of that happened. But that day will most likely never come.
Re: (Score:2)
Because iraq's conditions improved immensely with saddam's removal... right? none of this all out war between two religious factions business that he held at bay through fear of force.
Saddam was a nasty man, but at least he kept order.
Re:Arrrrr! (Score:5, Informative)
Just for future reference,
33,000 USD of hard drives, currently at about 1.5 TiB for 80 USD [newegg.com], is 633,600 GiB.
633,600 GiB can store 158,400,000 songs, at 4 MiB apiece.
The second trial of Jammie Thomas awarded the RIAA 1,920,000 USD for 24 songs, which comes out to 80,000 USD apiece.
For 158,400,000 songs, the RIAA would be awarded 12,672,000,000,000 USD (12 trillion short scale). That's only a bit less than the national US debt [brillig.com], which is 13,208,593,598,669 USD (13 trillion short scale) as of this comment!
Hey RIAA (Score:2)
The RIAA wants there cut of the deal! (Score:2)
The RIAA wants there cut of the deal!
Let me get this straight. (Score:2)
We're going to be getting advice on morals and comportment from Paris Hilton next, I take it.
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Funny)
Sure. The difference is that Paris Hilton would be insightful enough to see the irony.
RIAA are really fighting a stupid match here (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, on the surface it sounds good for the RIAA being able to hold a gun to YouTube's head every time an infringing video is posted. But what would that in practice mean? It would mean that any video that hasn't been reviewed and approved by YouTube would be a liability - and knowing the RIAA, a big one. It'd basically be a license for the RIAA to print money off YouTube, since it's highly unlikely they could keep everything away. They could just continue to make increasingly more impossible standards of screening and cooperation for YouTube to fail.
I think if this ever gets to the Supreme court, Viacom will be handed a slapdown so big their head will be spinning for years so I almost hope they do. Imagine if every comment here had to pass through an editor in case it contained copyright text of Scientologists or whatnot, it'd be the death of all discussion forums. There's no way the Supreme Court would leave a sword of Damocles hanging over every site operator like that, they're more than smart enough to figure out their guideline would be the guideline for all copyrighted content.
Any bets on what serial killer YouTube will be likened to?
Re: (Score:2)
With this coming supreme court without Stevens? what have you been smoking
Dear RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Dear RIAA,
Shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, beat me by 6 minutes.
translation: (Score:2, Informative)
"We (The RIAA) were hoping to sue the service providers in addition to suing the end-user for making the illegal downloads. Waaah! Its not fair that you won't let us sue".
An open letter (Score:2)
Dear Cary Sherman,
Fuck off you sociopathic parasite.
Sincerly,
Everyone Else
awwww (Score:2)
The key word (Score:5, Insightful)
The key word in public policy is 'Public'. I think the RIAA doesn't seem to get that. The Public is what grants them copyright in the first place. The Public's interests should come first with respect to anything which the Public granted them in the first place.
Re:The key word (Score:4, Funny)
...braces for the -1, Offtopic
Careful Balance (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the balance between fistfuls of money and not having to work to acquire them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I read "Careful Balance" I immediately pictured a large scale, with an elephant on the left tray and a mouse on the right. This is the "careful balance" the RIAA wants so badly to preserve.
"We're giving you a $0.35 refund on that. Oh, and you, we're suing for the same thing as that guy but for $2.8 billion"
The courts don't make policy! (Score:4, Interesting)
the district court's dangerously expansive reading of the liability immunity provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] upsets the careful balance struck within the law and is bad public policy.
The courts' job isn't to make policy, it's to interpret and apply it! I'm tired of people criticizing court decisions because the outcome doesn't favor the party you're most sympathetic to. A decision is a good decision if it's consistent with the law, precedence, and is fairly and evenly applied.
RIAA, you want the law to say something other than what it does? Buy a senator, God knows you have enough money.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, sorry RIAA (Score:2)
Are you judges? No. Are you legislators? No.
Well then, it's a good thing it's not your job to form or interpret the law then, isn't it?
Go pound sand.
They have sued people for millions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They have sued people for millions (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be where they carefully balanced your right to make backups with the prohibition on selling or distributing software that would allow you to actually do it.
Fuck the MPAA RIAA. (Score:3)
Seriously. Nobody is buying their shit because it SUCKS. I never want to hear Taylor Swift and Avril Lavigne in my life. They are awful. "Fast and Furious" FOUR?!?! Like the first one didn't suck enough?
How about making a decent CD or DVD WORTH $9.99?!?!?
Idiots. I would sucker punch a movie or record exec in the face if I had half a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an idea to start "www.harras-a-ceo.com"
Their sites? (Score:3, Insightful)
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'
Do they really think that ISPs exchange copyrighted works on their own sites? Or do they think that because an ISP serves a site that makes the site belong to the ISP?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Simple logic :
The RIAA owns all multimedia.
Therefore, ISPs own all the web.
The RIAA is upset? (Score:5, Funny)
That's the saddest thing I've ever heard. No, really it is. I'm sorry if that came across as sarcastic.
RIAA's ploy (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the smoking gun from YouTube's founders (Score:3, Insightful)
Infringement is a matter of *PERMISSION* (Score:3, Insightful)
> What about the smoking gun emails from YouTube's founders?
What about the OTHER smoking gun where Viacom uploaded videos altered to appear to be leaks?
Copyright is a matter of *permission* Nobody but Viacom knows who they gave permission to upload the videos to. And they not only could, but did give people permission to load certain videos (that would appear infringing to anyone who didn't know that). Worse, Viacom's expensive lawyers couldn't figure that out, even after performing a detailed investi
do you hear that riaa? (Score:2)
its the sound of inevitability
you are defending a legal status quo that cannot be enforced in a world with the internet. that's pretty much the beginning and the ending of this entire story
pass all the laws you want, buy all the legislators you want. it will all be routed around
welcome to dustbin of history, you're irrelevant
He's WHERE? (Score:2)
For fuck's sake. Some one let him on the Internet?
Well ... (Score:2)
Maybe they should've thought of the consequences before Viacom actively sent people out to internet cafés and the like to upload infringing material in order to further their cause in the lawsuit which started this.
Re: (Score:2)