Purported ACTA Wishlist Would Put DMCA To Shame 348
ulash writes "Ars Technica has an article about the (alleged) leaked 'wishlist' that RIAA submitted to the US government back in March of this year listing what they wish to see as a part of ACTA. The list includes such gems as forced filtering of materials by the ISPs, gutting the parts of the DMCA that provides safe harbor to the ISPs, and even restricting supplies of 'optical grade polycarbonate' in countries 'with high rates of production of pirated optical discs.' While the effectiveness of such a 'wishlist' on the law is not by any means objectively measurable, if one takes into account how *AA was instrumentative in the passing of DMCA, I think it is more than likely that they will get at least some of their wishes."
Re:At what point (Score:1, Interesting)
When they are in control of the government.
I still don't see why we don't just shift to open source governance [metagovernment.org] and get rid of these politicians who pander to interests like the RIAA.
the printing press (Score:5, Interesting)
had some unintended consequences
it made books cheap, leading to better educated commoners, leading to the creation of a middle class, leading to the idea of democracy and equality
i'm obviously broadly glossing over the historical details, but the lesson is that the printing press allowed for the realization of a number of previously impossible and unforseen societal changes
whatever the internet is going to do society in the realm of unintended consequences, one is sizing up pretty obvious:
the invalidation of the concept of intellectual property
intellectual property works when only a small number of players distribute data. it takes a lot to run a vinyl pressing plant, and easy to find and shut one down that doesn't play by the rules. but when every single person is a one man effortless data distribution factory, then getting everyone to play by the rules of the game becomes impossible to enforce
such that there is no more game. the idea of intellectual property simply ceases to be a valid concept. if it gets out on the web, it stays there. and anything not on the web is given a strong incentive to get on there. witness the imbroglio over guns n roses chinese democracy album recently. once its out there, you can't take it back, and it is extremely easy and anonymous to get out there
what can you enforce in such an environment? say the *AAssholes actually get their way and get all of their draconian laws passed. who cares?
do they honestly believe anything will change? the technology will simply treat their laws like damage, and route around them. this is what the internet was made to do
go for it *AAssholes, give the laws your best shot. why do you believe any legal structure will work to contain the internet? or, i guess the next step is: break the internet. destroy what makes the internet compelling and useful in order to preserve a dying business model
heh, had to open my big mouth
There are lots of gems in that wishlist (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a good one:
"3. Provide that the presumption of ownership may be rebutted only if the defendant is able to provide concrete evidence to the contrary."
Yeah, that's right. Claimants own whatever they claim unless the defendant proves otherwise. Oh, and don't put up a fight if they sue you for having copyrighted material because:
"4. As a deterrent to groundless defenses, award plaintiffs full costs and fees for overcoming frivolous challenges to titles."
I propose a modest fifth bullet point. Anyone with a copyright may punch those damned ordinaries not in the "creative class" in the stomach at any time, without fear of reprisal. Genius!
Re:the printing press (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean in the dark ages? When there were no books available to the common person? No recordings of music for them to enjoy? No engineered medicines to improve quality of life?
The idea that content matters over physical goods came about when it was first possible to produce a physical copy tremendously faster than the original content. And this radically transformed society forever, generally for the better.
I'm merely asking how one reconciles too seemingly opposing points:
1) copying things is easier than ever before. Information apparently wants to be free
2) information is the only instrument of value or progress in Western society. It, more than anything else (besides perhaps the British Rule of Law) is the difference between man of today and man of 1400 AD.
I'm not willing to throw intellectual property under the bus until you can explain to me how people with ideas can distribute their life work and be fairly compensated.
Re:Congress has become a liability (Score:2, Interesting)
Getting rid of congress and passing everything onto the people through referendum (some sort of yearly limit would be necessary for legislation) seems like a better choice to me at this point.
I agree, let's hire Diebold to make sure that the process is fair. And Fox News to make sure the opinion of the masses is completely impartial.
Though that was satire, I honestly can't say your idea would be worse than what's currently in place. Regardless, a purely democratic government would likely leave 'large minority' of its people quite oppressed. The US is(was?) a constitutional republic for that reason.
Re:At what point (Score:5, Interesting)
This is clearly demonstrated by their willingness to punish children, to control their lives, sending them to jail for copying music whilst simultaneously promoting the self destructive practices within that age group via that same content, in affect priming them for intimate contact with publishing executives.
The only constraints that will limit the corruptive practises of these organisations are the ones forced upon by the general public, those that appreciate that the quality of an industry is not defined by the profit it makes but by the nature of the products it produces and whether that product supports a healthy society or as is clearly apparent the product in fact attacks society, tears down family values and, even promotes criminal behaviour.
Re:Presumption of guilt (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess this will come down to who has the stronger lobbyists: The *AA or the telecoms.
That is really goddamn scary.
=Smidge=
Re:the printing press (Score:3, Interesting)
Please don't say IP. There is *NO SUCH THING* as intellectual "property". Musicians and content "producers" have the right to get a return of their investment. But after that return, they're no longer being "stolen" by pirates because they already got their money back.
I'd recommend you to read The Pirate's Dilemma [thepiratesdilemma.com], and see how piracy is beneficial to EVERYONE. It's more about economics than morals. In fact, the U.S. progressed so fast because they "pirated" european patents and paid absolutely no royalties (don't believe me, read the book).
Important article (Score:5, Interesting)
If you haven't read TFA at http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673 [ieee.org] , kindly do so. It makes some pungent observations, frex this one, which pretty much says it all:
"Copyright is being turned from a limited-term incentive designed to encourage creative artists to a broadly scoped transfer of wealth from the public to the private realm. As the industries that generate copyrighted materials seek control over not only their works but also the devices on which we watch, listen to, and remix them, copyright law is turning into technology regulation."
My Wishlist (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:At what point (Score:3, Interesting)
What, like the British television tax??
Tho that one at least goes to support publicly-available broadcasts. If the **AA were to get such a tax enacted (and I'm sure they'd love to collect an annual fee for every receiving and/or recording device) it would go directly into their own executives' pockets.
Re:At what point (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad Hypothetical Alert!!!
That's because copyright violation is a civil and not criminal charge.
The original poster was on to something- only the RIAA would sue somebody for downloading a song that glorifies theft and murder. (I'll find a specific rap song for you if you really need it). To spell it out for some of the slower readers, it is ironic that they would sell you an album promoting theft and lawlessness, and then sue you for doing what their own product encourages.
Re:At what point (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, I hadn't clicked through any links, I'd just read the first page. After a teeny bit more reading I can see some pretty nasty flaws though:
If the majority in any local district gets to decide the law, what's to stop a large bunch of psychopaths moving somewhere and saying that murder is okay in their town? That's pretty extreme but the same kind of thing could apply to copyright and that type of thing. You'd still get people or corporations moving to certain areas where their nefarious schemes can be done legally.
You also need people to run the computer voting you are using, and those people can be bought too. I don't think there's any way of fully weeding out corruption unless everyone is a computer expert and can ensure that no dodgy dealings are going on. I think there will always be focuses of power in certain areas, you can't get rid of the need for authority and leadership. Even (or should I say, especially) something like wikipedia needs rules and admins who have power over the general public.
A Shorter List (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Copyright remains with the author or creator. In the event that there is more than one author or creator acting as a group, each shall have a share of copyright but cannot enter into exclusive agreements without the approval of the other holders.
2. Ownership of copyright cannot be transferred to a non-creator.
3. Fair Use and format shifting are consumer rights, and unreasonable restrictions on these rights shall be prohibited./P
Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what, I don't buy their stuff, but then I might want to buy something that is completely unrelated to the RIAA.
You know, cable television service.
Except that due to the proddings of these organizations my cable-box is a piece of shit. If I switch input sources on my television, it loses its HDCP connection and must reconnect (this results in a few seconds of black-screen that aren't necessary).
The nice company, Scientific-Atlanta, decided to be very safe in their design. When their smart cable box determined that an evil pirate like me decided to include the input source from my cablebox->HDMI->TV with my Cablebox->Composite out->TIVO->Composite->TV (you know, the low res stuff). The cable box freaks out and blocks ALL output on all video sources.
The result is that whenever my Cablebox detects a HDMI connection, it shuts down all other outputs and displays a large "OMG DON'T USE ANYTHING BUT HDMI" message with an 'ok' dialog.
So what happens? My Tivo records nothing but a large dialog box instead of the television show that I am completely within my rights to record.
Of course, this doesn't happen if I use the component connections on the cable box, which kind of makes this entire attempt to block piracy COMPLETELY FUCKING POINTLESS. It simply causes me to not be able to use all of the functions of the equipment that I already own.
So I had to ditch the HDMI connection, or manually operate my TIVO....
Or I could just spend 10 seconds and download an unencumbered pirated version that works better.
Re:At what point (Score:3, Interesting)
As a foreigner I assure you that I have no access whatsoever to your legislators, nor to my own for that matter. In fact it seems that the situation is essentially identical in all countries. That suggests to me that the RIAA are actually the covert intelligence operation of an invading alien force, sent here to cripple our culture and make it possible to shutdown our technology remotely.
Indeed, it is the most plausible explanation: RIAA and its ilk are actually slime creatures from outer space, and not very nice to the human race. They'll suck your brain out through a straw, you just can't trust those guys. So hide the children, lock the doors, and always watch the skies.
Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that anytime a large organization abuses its power/influence and Slashdot calls them on it, there are always those like you who rush in to defend said organization? I realize you're probably not really an employee and are probably not a paid shill; however, the reason why such accusations come up from time to time is that it otherwise doesn't make sense.
The GP was trolling in tone, but it tangentially raises a good point. Artists don't have to sign with a label. They are totally free to release music on their own according to any business model they wish. Some of them do so, and others do not. Those who choose to do so obviously have reasons. The labels are able to provide marketing and distribution services which the artists apparently find lacking in other models.
I think the "slashdot community" (and by that I mean the generally highest-modded opinions expressed on this site) believes that the record labels should not be able to support their marketing and distributing activities through the restriction of opportunities to subvert those marketing and distribution activities. On the flip side, it also seems that most people do want to "consume" the artists'-who-choose-to-use-the-labels music. In other words, if at least some people (and in fact a very large number of people) didn't want to buy it, this discussion would be moot. After all, it's extremely easy to make the record industry as it exists now go away -- simply don't purchase their music. If people didn't buy, the industry would already be defunct.
What we have, then, is a situation where 1) people want the music, but 2) some don't want to pay for it, and 3) those can get away with not paying for it fairly easily. The people who want it and do pay for it are subsidizing the attacks on those who want it but don't pay for it. Further, regardless of your ideology on how things should be, it's difficult to argue that the large scale transfer of copyrighted material is legal under the law. That is, if you share a CD with a friend (or even several friends) you can argue that as a fair use. If you transfer a copy of that CD to a few dozen strangers, under current US law, I don't see how that's defensible. The labels are in a position where they have a right which is being violated, and enforcement is essentially impossible. All of these laws are their attempt to make enforcement of their rights possible. In other words, even their current business model should be sustainable given current law if enforcement of their rights were possible.
They [the labels] have, by any measure, gone way way too far. ACTA is an undoing of some of the best parts of the DMCA, and a totally unreasonable extension of the liability of other industries. At the same time, you can't say their business model requires expanding the authority of the government.
And as the GP said, if you want them to go away, it's easy -- don't buy their products.
Re:At what point (Score:2, Interesting)
What would be really interesting is if representatives could not recieve renumeration for their efforts, but instead had to pay from their own pockets traveling/food/etc. Or at the most, only recieve the "average" wages of their constituents as renumeration. I think that would lead to a lot more fair and equitable laws being passed. And elected officials would actually *care* about how much their constituents earned, and they would have a desire to increase the standard of living for all.
At least I *think* so.
Re:At what point (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly not... they're spending more money to produce the crap that they're making now than they did to make the truly good works of art of yesteryear. The movie industry has been going steadily downhill since 1939 (slowly at first, but with gaining moment recently), and the music industry has been going downhill since the 1970's. There's still a few places you can go to see real talent, but it's mostly been stifled by people who would rather not take risks.
Stupid riaa. killing the internet for united state (Score:3, Interesting)
up until now everything regarding internet ranging from major routers to domain name registration regulatory agency have been in united states, run by united states agencies and firms. everyone was content with it, with a few moaning voices on minor stuff.
however if these faggots' sponsored bill passes, it will no longer be the case. no country will want to leave their connectivity to the world in a country which has a senate that is so easily made a bitch by some private interest profit groups, regardless of the excuses that are made and regardless of the pressure from their internal equivalents of riaa. national security interests and economic prospects of every country surpasses copyright shill rights.
i can cite you a number of recent big profile cases in which such private interest pressure groups , and even international ones, have found their cases thrown out by local and national governments or courts. im sure there are more among you who can remember these, and other examples.
result would be separate internets, one that is run by other sources, like u.n. or european union, or whichever local gathering of nations would create, and one that is run with corporate shills in america.
i dont need to tell you how badly this would affect everything american on the web, economically. and change how things work.
Re:At what point (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever I buy a CD (and yes, I do still buy them) I check the label. If it's a member off the RIAA, I don't buy it. It's not that hard to avoid them, if you know where to look. And because they aren't afraid of taking a risk (well, aren't *as* afraid) you tend to find better music on the indy labels anyway.
Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair warning, I'm giving a USA-centric reply here. If you aren't in the USA, this will apply much less well to you.
Really, the business model is not the problem I have with the RIAA and the companies that make it up.
The problem I have, and the problem that a lot of people here have, is that the RIAA based its business model on a social contract, and then purposefully perverted that contract. I'm talking about Copyright, obviously, as defined by the US Constitution. (Told you this was a USA-centric reply.)
Copying blatantly from Wikipedia:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
This was implemented first as a 14 year copyright, with an optional 14-year extension if the Author applied for that extension. That 14-year term has been extended several times in the last 200 years. Every extension of that term in the 20th Century (3 of them, I think) has been retroactive, mostly to prevent Steamboat Willie (the first cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse) from falling into the public domain.
Many people, myself included, view this as a violation of the social contract for Copyright, that refers to "limited times" for protection.
The problem isn't the business model, really. It's the dirty politics and betrayal of the public trust that allows that business model.
Re:What about when the **AA's are out of business? (Score:2, Interesting)
Would you sneak into a movie theater to watch half of a movie just because they wouldn't sell you a ticket to watch half of it at half price? Would you break into a museum to look at one piece because the museum wouldn't give you a discount to only look at one piece?
First of all, let me go on record as saying that these scenarios are ludicrous at best. But seeing as how you brought them up, let us discus how your logic is faulty in simple terms.
Now, for the movie reference, First fault is that you are comparing half a movie with one song, and unless we are talking about the Styx album Kilroy Was Here or any Pink Floyd album where the music is actually telling a story, that analogy is shot to hell. But to humor you, in the sense of video watching, if I think that only half the movie is worth seeing, then none of it is.
Now along the same analogy, only tweaked to make sense, it is like the local six screen theater charging you $46 admittance with the ability to watch all the movies in that one day, and it is the only way to watch the movies. Now, if all the movies are good block busters it might sound like one hell of a deal, but four of the screens are showing Pee-wee's Big Adventure, would you cough up the $46 to watch that one movie you wanted to watch, or would you just wait for it to come out on video, by itself, with none of the fluff or crap. But then the theater feels like it is losing money because people don't want to have to wade through their BS, so they start shutting down the video stores and the only way to see the movies is by paying for five screens of crap that no one wants to see... That scenario, stupid as it might sound, is the business model that the "album" represents.
And now to the whole "breaking into the museum for one piece of art" argument... ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?? *ahem*, sorry 'bout that. But seriously, you're joking, right? You aren't actually comparing the cesspit that is the music industry with a museum? But once again, let us dissect this logically. A museum charges a flat fee for you to make your own experience, or "playlist" if you will. You can go in and look at any pieces anywhere in the museum. If it were more like the music industry, you would have to pay ten bucks to get in to see the cubism exhibit, another fifteen to get in to see the Renaissance paintings, and don't even ask to see the sculptures....
Re:At what point (Score:3, Interesting)
There's still a few places you can go to see real talent, but it's mostly been stifled by people who would rather not take risks.
Bah. Just go out! Eventually you'll find some. If not at least you'll get some air and you'll see some people no worse than the dipshits being produced by the so-called major labels.
The good news is that internet distribution is quite feasible these days, and any asshole can master an album (I've done one, for example.)