RIAA, MPAA Recruit MasterCard As Internet Police 421
An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, MasterCard felt the wrath of Anonymous Operation Payback-style DDoS attacks after refusing to process payments that were intended to fund WikiLeaks, the website which began leaking confidential US diplomatic cables last month. Now, the company is preparing to head down another controversial path by pledging to deny transactions which support websites that host pirated movies, music, games, or other copyrighted content. MasterCard lobbyists have also been in talks with entertainment industry trade groups, including the RIAA and the MPAA, and have made it clear that the company will support the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), sources close to the talks have said."
most of the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams (Score:2, Insightful)
most of the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams and some even list fake games or other stuff just to make there file list seem big.
Re:most of the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams (Score:5, Insightful)
If I say that people engaged in prostitution are more likely to have STDs, am I a knowledgeable person, or would you convict me of engaging a prostitute? Perhaps I must also be a fool because I know things about 419 scams? Surely I'm a terrorist for seeing weaknesses in the TSA programs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you say that people engaged in prostitution most likely have STDs, I'd say you've made an educated assumption. If you say that most people engaged in prostitution do have STDs, I'd be led to assume that you had firsthand experience.
Follow the same logic for your other examples. OP said "most pay warez sites seem to be scams" (rather than "must be" or "are probably") and "some even list fake games" (rather than "probably" or "might"). This implies firsthand knowledge.
LRN2IMPLY
Re:most of the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams (Score:5, Informative)
For all that (rather tortured) explanation, one simple fact remains: knowledge does not always imply guilt.
People can have friends who experienced the field firsthand (he could be a teen), or they be a researcher in that field (he could be working for the Business Software Alliance), or they could simply be (inaccurately) extrapolating from what he's heard.
Re: (Score:2)
The keyword in his post is "seems". If he had bought, he'd knew.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are we to assume you work in law enforcement? It's difficult to see how a normal person could interpret his statement as admitting any of those things.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather have it known that I purchased the game legitimately, and had to use third party tools to make the software playable as opposed to being yet another person lumped in as another freeloader.
If paying customers make a loud enough statement about something, publishers back down. The removal of some Draconian DRM systems in the past were victories, however small, in this direction. What would help immensely is if publishers see people buying games and stating explicitly they their choices were affec
Re: (Score:3)
Most girls are whores.
The above statement doesn't imply that I pay for sex,
Only to the extent that it doesn't imply that you have sex.
If you had, you'd have to pay for it. Your admitted knowledge of girls is too limited to assume otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... are you young, have good disease free equipment, and extremely attractive?
http://www.cowboys4angels.com/ [cowboys4angels.com]
http://www.vipmaleescort.com/ [vipmaleescort.com]
http://thestraightmaleescort.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Just a gigolo
everywhere I go
people know the part
I'm playing
Paid for every dance
selling each romance
every night some heart
betraying
There will come a day ...
youth will pass away
then what will they say
about me
Artist: David Lee Roth Lyrics
Re: (Score:3)
"Most girls are whores", and the previous narrative (although brief and poorly phrased), are two completely different situations.
The first would be a general statement, not a personal insight. It's usually one that comes from the guy who can't get laid, and is angry at the remainder of the population who is.
The second would imply intimate knowledge of the topic.
Consider it in a real-life context. If you were walking down the street, and the police stopped you
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you're going to pirate something... why would you pay for it?
A) Unless you know where to get it, you can't.
B) Why pay to get 1 real thing when you can pay the same (or less) to get hundreds of pirated titles?
Re:most of the PAY warez sites seems to seen scams (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you're going to pirate something... why would you pay for it?
The six million dollar man was not available in the US until recently. So instead of a Bit-torrent download, I now have the complete Time Life set.
I wanted a legit copy for a long time, but I wasn't allowed to have one for decades. I don't download warez or songs, but if the industry is going to have its collective head up its ass when it comes to releasing stuff to NetFlix or DVD, then frankly it deserves to lose revenue to others that
After all its just for our own good. (Score:2)
So you want to arbitrarily block transactions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, fine. You are now liable for any criminal transactions you don't block.
If you don't like that, you will send my money where I tell you to.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, fine. You are now liable for any criminal transactions you don't block.
Just like the police are liable for any criminal activities they can't stop.
While I agree with your sentiments, it's not exactly a fair solution.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, they already are. They eat the cost of criminal transactions rather than force their customers to absorb all of those losses. Given that, it makes sense for them to block people from making payments to criminal enterprises (since their "customers" could easily turn around and say "I didn't buy those downloaded CDs, I'm not paying that money.")
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, fine. You are now liable for any criminal transactions you don't block.
If you don't like that, you will send my money where I tell you to.
Yes, but this is also similar to a Google story recently, (and a comment I made about the possible dangers of Google proactively filtering content of this nature). For whatever reason, the pressures in this respect seem to be causing a lot of big companies to bow down and make what could be really big mistakes. These mistakes invalidate parts of the DMCA protection by proving the company/companies can filter stuff - but you already allude to that.
Re: (Score:3)
There are some things MasterCard doesn't want you to buy.
For everything else, there's MasterCard.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're performing illicit activities, wouldn't you want to use a pre-paid credit card for that? Why would you use your official MasterCard, which has you home address listed, reports to credit agencies, has sales records that could be subpoenaed ... Why not just buy drugs with your MasterCard while you're at it. Seems pretty stupid.
I also don't get what MasterCard gets out of sucking up to the RIAA et al.
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't get what MasterCard gets out of sucking up to the RIAA et al.
Maybe MasterCard just really enjoys sucking? Some people do ya know...
will indy music sites get shut down as well? (Score:4, Insightful)
will Indy music sites get shut down as well?
pioneer one donations?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Indie music is destroying the industry by providing more variety, fresher ideas and comparable quality for less money (or even FREE) without paying a dime to the RIAA. How are artists supposed to express themselves artistically without the RIAA protecting them?
Re: (Score:2)
In theory ok, in practice... (Score:4, Interesting)
While I'm not against Mastercard saying "We won't allow customers to use Mastercard to buy illegal goods", I doubt they'll have a proper list of who to deny.
It would be ironic if suddenly less people allowed Mastercard for online purchases. I gotta imagine that nowadays online transactions are a large proportion of their income.
If you are paying for pirated movies... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The banned payments probably include advert spending, t-shirts and donations too.
I did my part (Score:4, Insightful)
Cancelled my MasterCard, then chopped it up. Enough people do that, MasterCard will start to wise up.
Of course, I'm probably going to replace it with some flavour of Visa, which is probably just as evil and certainly did jump on the ban-Wikileaks bandwagon.
Re:I did my part (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they would.
Considering thats 2 million cards worth of plastic with unique numbers that have to be linked to an individual with a credit score and yadda yadda yadda.
They wouldn't lose Revenue, but it'd decrease profits.
Re:I did my part (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I haven't really missed the card since I cancelled it (shortly after the Wikileaks/MasterCard issue popped up).
I may just not bother to replace it for some time, if ever. Debit's pretty handy, and it's the same money anyway (if you're like me and pay off your credit card right away).
For any big purchase, I have a line of credit with much better terms than any credit card I've heard of.
I suppose there will be an issue if I ever use PayPal again... oh, wait, they're evil too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's one problem I have with debit cards vs. credit cards. (At least theoretically; it's never come up for me.)
I'm supposed to get the same protections on both. I can use either in similar ways.
However, if there is a dispute, the money's in different places. If I have a credit card dispute, I've got the money, and they have no means to get it from me for at least as long as the dispute goes long. If I have a debit card dispute, the money's out of my account until the bank puts it back, which is
Re: (Score:3)
Debit's pretty handy, and it's the same money anyway (if you're like me and pay off your credit card right away).
Unless you're in a location you trust, debit is a really *really* bad idea. If a machine has been tampered with, a thief could gain access to your account. And guess what? If you lose your cash, *the bank won't help you*.
Conversely, fraudulent transactions on a CC are trivially reversed. Given the choice, particularly when traveling, I'd use a CC over a debit card any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
I was actually going to do that, but then Visa came and also blocked Wikileaks. There's no one left to replace them with.
And no Amex, Diners, etc. aren't "real" credit cards. They aren't accepted in places I want to buy from.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancelled my MasterCard, then chopped it up. Enough people do that, MasterCard will start to wise up.
But if nothing comes of it, will the geek wise up?
Soon the government check won't be in the mail
(AP) - 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Before too long, the government check will no longer be in the mail.
Officials have settled on the dates when millions of people will no longer be able to get their Social Security and other benefit checks by mail.
New recipients of benefits will have to accept paperless payments
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like an odd reaction - it's the TV network that sold those ads. I just stopped watching TV networks, and haven't seen that sort of annoying ad for ages. I still see more traditional ads in some official TV downloads, but those are far less annoying - and of course no ads on Netflix where I watch most of my TV. I think you're boycotting the wrong guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikileaks is an illegal business?
bye bye mastercard (Score:5, Insightful)
Money = Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this right, money equals speech [wikipedia.org], according to various Supreme Court Rulings [wikipedia.org]. But a major corporation whose credit and debit vehicles constitute one of the major means for tendering payment, i.e., speech, is permitted to filter your payments to whomever it likes.
In other words, a bank gets to decide when your speech is acceptable and when it isn't.
And, of course, if you're wealthy or powerful enough, this isn't a hindrance. But if you're a working stiff, living on a trickle of cash flow and using revolving credit to solve the logistical problems thereof, you're essentially subject to the bank's approval of your fiscal expression.
Yet another distinction between serfs and lords in the information age.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
At the time of the founding fathers a corporate charter was granted with the express goal of doing something and was forbidden, by law, to diversify. For example a
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but was the East India Company as pervasive and powerful overall as large corporations as a whole are today
Far more so. The East India company had far reaching global powers which extended to the use of deadly force, a virtual global monopoly, and a cozy relationship with the British government/empire.
That's not something that Google, Microsoft, Mastercard, or any other company enjoys today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Money = Speech (Score:4, Informative)
> So let me get this right, money equals speech,
> Yet another distinction between serfs and lords in the information age.
Nope.
Cut the hyperbolic crap. Even the Wikipedia article that you linked to refutes that (emphasis mine):
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law.
They didn't rule that "money equals speech". They ruled that "spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech". There's a difference, a big one in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Also Money = Speech goes right out the window the second you talk about illegal activity, so I suspect the courts would probably support Mastercard in this.
Let's step through this:
1) My speech is protected.
2) My neighbor's speech, which I agree with, is protected.
3) Giving my neighbor money for a bullhorn to amplify his speech is illegal?
This seems like a pathetic attempt at damage control by muddying the waters in an attempt to associate Wikileaks with "pirates". It will work about as well as crying rape d
Re: (Score:3)
Money = speech, but only for large values of money.
Not really, as small amounts of money equate to small amounts of speech.
look at it another way: 10% of the people hold 90% of the wealth. That same 10% control 90% of how things operate around here...
My question is... (Score:2)
Is this even legal?
I mean, since when can a credit corporation tell you what you can and can't spend your money on?
Where exactly do they draw the line? Who makes the decision as to what is ok and what is not okay?
I see this as a very slippery slope. Mastercard should be very careful with these heavy-handed decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the BoA has a document stating its required to stop transactions, its interfering with a legitimate transaction and should be accountable as wire fraud (deny of funds).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But this is screwed up in that it's not illegal to give money to, say, Bit Gamer or The Pirate Bay, but they're denying it anyway.
Just pirates or all copyright violators? (Score:2)
Computing should just buy the music industry (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire music industry, worldwide, only sold $15.8 billion in product last year. For comparison, worldwide liquor sales were about $220 billion, and a single booze company, Diageo (Smirnoff Vodka, Johhny Walker, José Cuervo, Baileys, and Guinness Stout) has more revenue than the entire music industry. On a worldwide scale, the music industry is tiny.
On the movie side, MGM just came out of bankruptcy, and Warner is close to it. Hollywood Video went bust months ago, and Blockbuster is in bankruptcy. (Many Blockbuster stores will close after the holiday season.)
In computing, Apple's revenue for fiscal 2010 is about $63 billion. Microsoft revenue was about $60 billion. HP annual revenue is about $120 billion. Dell annual revenue is about $52 billion. Google is around $23 billion. Comcast is around $36 billion. AT&T is at $124 billion. Any of those players could buy out the entire libraries of most music and movie companies.
I'm surprised that Apple hasn't just bought out the music industry, rather than negotiating with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Never noticed how the little dogs make the most noise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They only have influence if you watch it. And these days of the information age, the only people who watch TV the most are in the 40-60 bracket last time I looked. They are for all things a dying breed, most of the people here span two generations of information technology. We can remember the world without information being so easy to get, and we know how awesome it was when we could get it.
The current generation of kids(20 and under) have no idea what life was like beforehand. They'll be the ones driv
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they're waiting for it to get even cheaper. With the MPAA's current antics, it probably will.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
how long before they designate "linux.org" as a hacking site... or other Open Source projects? Or other competitors, for that matter...
There is WAY too much power in hands of corporations right now. At least "big government" still nominally has the power to regulate these behemoths, even if they are paid to not use it.
So the question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this really mean? On the face of it no one should really object to Mastercard / Visa / etc denying service to criminal enterprises or criminal activities. This is to be expected both in terms of business ethics and legal liability.
So the question is: who determines which enterprise is criminal / violating copyrights and what are the criteria and what is the process to have someone cut off? What is the appeal process?
From TFA:
"This move by MasterCard is just another in a recent long line of corporations and organizations that are taking it upon themselves to define the legality of situations rather than leaving it to the courts. One problem is that the US federal government is allowing the lobbyists for these organizations to dictate right and wrong. The RIAA and MPAA were the big influence behind the government’s seizure of several domains during the last week of November. "
Worst case, this is a monetary blacklist controlled by the RIAA (eg: RIAA sends unsubstantiated note to Mastercard listing "offenders". Mastercard moves immediately to deny service.) Very nice club for the RIAA to hold.
Re:So the question is... (Score:5, Informative)
What does this really mean?
It means that the banks are deciding what's illegal now. The government either doesn't have the authority (not this country) or a real reason to shut them down, so now the banks are doing it for them. Justice is served?
So donations to say (Score:2)
http://www.slsknet.org/donate.php [slsknet.org] that are made with MC will not be honored?
May you live in Interesting times (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs MasterCard? (Score:2)
I wonder how many thousands of snipped-up credit cards (along with a final payment, if necessary)it would take to persuade MasterCard that they are being stupid. I wish I could say I used them so I could be one of them.
How do you buy illegal stuff online? (Score:2)
While there's boatloads of free legal porn out there, some people still feel the need to pay for it. I assume that the same goes for the illegal stuff, you can get freebies if you look hard enough and some of the people producing it are amateurs but others are expecting to get paid. Certainly the FBI mail order stings we've heard about in the papers involved people sending payment in some fashion or another to obtain their illegal porn with kids or whatever. How did they do it then? How do they do it online
This != Internet Police (Score:2)
Isn't it illegal for MasterCard to knowingly take part in illegal transactions anyway?
This is hardly "internet police", this is common sense.
Anyway, if MasterCard is so bad you can go to the other vendor. [wikimedia.org] Although when they both block something legal [businessweek.com], this can cause problems.
What is needed here is that they either get in big trouble for taking part in illegal transactions even if they don't know, or they have to agree to some "common carrier" like status in which they are not allowed to discriminate against
Re: (Score:2)
> What is needed here is that they either get in big trouble for taking part in illegal
> transactions even if they don't know, or they have to agree to some "common carrier"
> like status in which they are not allowed to discriminate against any transaction that is legal.
This would involve the government actually doing their job and REGULATING. Neither political party will do that now... or they will do something like they did with net neutrality yesterday and only make it APPEAR like they doing re
This is going to bite them in the ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
If MasterCard and Visa does this for the MPAA, then anyone filing a lawsuit against any company will also name them as a Defendants so that there can be an order that will prevent MasterCard and Visa from processing payments until the Court is happy.
Solution perhaps to SPAM, but not piracy. (Score:2)
Applying this to pirate content is kind of lame, since payments aren't what drives that. BUT I've always thought the Visa+Mastercard collectively have always had the power to end 90% of all spam, and could do it in a matter of weeks.
All it would take is:
1) terms of service forbidding UCE for products.
2) a few effectively placed honeypot/canary accounts
3) a couple tiger teams to place orders for the products that get spammed, and
4) kick the plug on the commercial accounts that
Usenet providers (Score:2)
Re:Usenet providers (Score:5, Insightful)
So I can't use a Mastercard to pay for Usenet service, then?
The first rule of Usenet is, you do not talk about Usenet.
next step towards the corptocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
So.. is this what the next 20 years is going to be like?
Will it be that if you don't play by the corporation's rule they will put you on a black list and you won't even be able to live?
Because that's the direction it looks like it is heading right now. Maybe we're already there as important as the credit reporting agencies already are...
Re:next step towards the corptocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pretty much the definition of restraint of trade. If financial companies run this course, they might find themselves on the receiving end of a different kind of lawsuit, anti-trust.
Has there been any meaningful enforcement of antitrust law in the US since 1974?
All credit card companies do this (Score:4, Insightful)
If a cc company doesn't like your product, for whatever reason, they'll institute policies banning you and everyone else in your business. Is it legal to buy marijuana in your location? It doesn't matter if you live in one of the many places where it is, cc companies won't knowingly give those merchants accounts. Want to buy pictures of "child models"? Those sites can't get cc companies to work with them simply because their product is icky (not illegal in most countries, just really icky).
Sell something, do something, say something that the cc companies think will make them look bad and they'll cut you off. This is a surprise?
What's surprising to me is that the cc companies have decided that "pirate" sites (or however they define this subset of customers that they're going to cut off) are a sufficiently serious source of bad press that it's worthwhile to cut them off. More people every day are becoming more educated about media distribution, how evil some of the companies involved are, and how not-necessarily-immoral is the whole notion of downloading media. They might derive some public-image profit in the short term among the uneducated but I have to believe that in the long term most of their customers are going to understand this was a really dumb move.
Why? (Score:3)
But you can still donate to the KKK? (Score:3)
So, let me get this straight... Mastercard won't let you buy a T-Shirt from Pirate Bay because they are evil haxors, but, I can still use my card to donate hundreds to the Klu Klux Klan? What does that say about Mastercard, or the rest of America for that matter?
How is it that the KKK didn't get branded a terrorist organization right after 9/11 anyhow? Why is it that we support/tolerate homegrown terrorism, such as white supremacy, as long as those guys aren't muslim?
What a fucked up country the USA is.
Re:Thanks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did people pay to infringe copyright? I thought the whole point was that you get the stuff for free anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
I know eh?
That got me thinking - if I'm allowed to create backup copies of items I've purchased, can I claim that I am merely helping someone create a backup inside the cloud if I seed my downloads, just as others are helping me create backups in cloud?
Re: (Score:2)
can I claim that I am merely helping someone create a backup inside the cloud
Sure. But you aren't planning to abuse your backup for illegal playing purposes are you? Just as a backup, right?
Re: (Score:3)
No, i'm visually checking my backup for data corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Verification.
Re: (Score:3)
Somehow that seems even sh*ttier than stealing it, since they are actually paying money, but not to the people who created the software. It's like a double f*ck you.
Re:Thanks... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't, but the Pirate Bay actively encourages people to go out and buy branded T-shirts and such which support them; this merchandise is manufactured and sold by a third party (of which there are many). I've no doubt other sites do something similar.
Watch how quickly the merchandising companies drop them if Mastercard approach and say "Nice business you got here. Be a shame if you weren't able to accept credit cards any more." The already did something similar with allofmp3.ru.
Re: (Score:3)
Well and good, but the Pirate Bay have always contended that what they're doing is not illegal in Sweden.
(Not that it's always done them a lot of good, but I note the site's still there....)
Re: (Score:2)
We've all been paying for it for years with the RIAA/MPAA hollywood accounting, price fixing and cartel-like behaviour.
Copyright infringement is just Karma on those dying lobby groups.
Not to mention the MPAA/RIAA tax on blank VHS, Cassettes, CD, DVDs, etc.
I'm an indie film buff, and bi-weekly patron and volunteer at a local indie music venue. I don't watch or listen to Hollywood crap or boring mass produced "Pop" music....
Re: (Score:2)
No, i think it will help get rid of all the trash sites and leave all the quality sites. So in this case it may backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
They want a share of the billions and billions (are they up to trillions in their fake losses yet?) that is lost to piracy every year.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose the *IAA kickbacks will be larger than the fees gained on infringing sites.
Why else would they do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of all the companies that proudly labeled their spray cans 'CFC free' - after CFCs were prohibited by international agreement.
Re:Business (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose the *IAA kickbacks will be larger than the fees gained on infringing sites.
Which is sort of funny, since it means that MasterCard doesn't think is piracy is significant enough to make money off of.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the fact that he MPAA and RIAA have significant clout with retailers? If they tell retailers "Drop MasterCard or we'll drop you", quite a few retailers would no longer accept MasterCards. There goes those profits!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "soon"? The only medium not controlled by corporations (at least not fully) is the internet. But, we're working on that one...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Cyberpunk gave us a pretty good idea what's gonna happen then: When you outlaw money, money will only be used for illegal means because, well, you can't really buy your dope with your credit card. The net effect will not be that (printed) money ceases to exist, it only becomes a secondary currency for the more illegal deals. And since people cannot earn that money legally, like they can now to buy their illegal goods, they will have to break the law to access this currency.
In short, you force people
Re: (Score:2)
Raising the question of which company shits on its customers more consistently, MasterCard or Blizzard?