Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government Music Piracy United States Entertainment

Music Industry Asks US Government To Reconsider Website Blocking (torrentfreak.com) 203

Posted by BeauHD from the sneaky-bastards dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: At the start of this decade, U.S. lawmakers drafted several controversial bills to make it easier for copyright holders to enforce their rights online. These proposals, including SOPA and PIPA, were met with fierce resistance from the public as well as major technology companies. They feared that the plans, which included pirate site-blocking measures, went too far. In the many years that followed, the "site blocking" issue was avoided like the plague. The aversion was mostly limited to the U.S., as website blocking became more and more common abroad, where it's one of the entertainment industries' preferred anti-piracy tools.

Emboldened by these foreign successes, it appears that rightsholders in the U.S. are now confident enough to bring the subject up again, albeit very gently. Most recently the site-blocking option was mentioned in a joint letter (PDF) from the RIAA and the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), which contained recommendations to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) Vishal Amin. The IPEC requested input from the public on the new version of its Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement. According to the music industry groups, website blocking should be reconsidered an anti-piracy tool. "There are several changes that should be made legislatively to help legal authorities and third parties better protect intellectual property rights," the music groups write. "These include fixing the DMCA, making it a felony to knowingly engage in unauthorized streaming of copyrighted works, and investigating the positive impact that website blocking of foreign sites has in other jurisdictions and whether U.S. law should be revised accordingly."

"As website blocking has had a positive impact in other countries without significant unintended consequences, the U.S. should reconsider adding this to its anti-piracy tool box," the RIAA and NMPA write.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Industry Asks US Government To Reconsider Website Blocking More

Music Industry Asks US Government To Reconsider Website Blocking

Comments Filter:

  • The felony part will change stuff from civil to cr (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:08AM (#57713994)

    The felony part will change stuff from civil to criminal courts where the standard of standard of evidence is a lot higher

    • Re:The felony part will change stuff from civil to (Score:4, Insightful)

      by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:22AM (#57714068)
      Taking away people's right to vote and own firearms because of streaming? Wow, talk about overreach. This should get laughed right out of Washington. Problem is, there's enough money behind it that it probably won't.

      • That was my first thought as well. You could have a group of people who have lost their right to vote because they had a P2P program running which accidentally or purposefully shared their music folder out. I'm of the opinion that copyright violations are wrong and should be punished, but definitely not with the level of fines we have today and absolutely not with a felony charge. (It should be something more along the lines of 10 times the market value of the copyrighted piece shared. So if you share a hun

        • Exactly. Then there's the group who might technically even be innocent but enter into a plea bargain because they cannot afford a proper defense.

          The punishment for copyright infringement should be a sensible, reasonable fine. Not a life ruined for sharing a couple of songs. Especially when we're talking people simply using a P2P program, rather than people sharing because they are motivated by profit (large scale sites)

        • but will Comcast send an tech to court that can say beyond a reasonable doubt that IP = that user?
          and when crossed examined be able to explain why they can do that but can't get the cap meter right
          If your system can show that IP = that user then why does also show that users to have used there internet on a day that they had no power and there modem was off?

          You just have to point to cases in where the ISP systems where off to make the reasonable doubt part kill the case.
          http://www.dslreports.com/show... [dslreports.com]
          http [arstechnica.com]

          • The big problem is that, if the music industry gets to write the laws, they'll make it so "we see this IP address" is proof enough of "it was you who uploaded those songs." Having an open router, a hacked computer, or simply a roommate won't be a defense if the RIAA/MPAA get their say.

            • In an criminal jury trial you need to prove that evidence is linked to an person and not just an account. And what are going to do fill up jails with people waiting years for the back log of cases to work thought the system. Hell most cops look the other way on small possession pot as the system will get very over loaded if they booked people on it.

              I don't think that can make so that some can get an felony photo ticket to an rent a car user with out them being able to question the people who give the court

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • You'll get no argument from me that people who serve their time for non-violent felonies should have their voting rights restored instantly. I might even be able to be convinced for violent felonies as well, but we could take the "easy win" of restoring voting rights to people convicted of non-violent felonies after they've served their time.

        • It's many times worse than peopel 'accidentally' downloading. I run torrent to do things like download LibraOffice and Linux distributions. From time to time I get a violation notice from my ISP. Once they even cut me off and I had to call them.

          Someone claimed that they had proof I had downloaded specific files, porn files, at specific times. Luckily I log my traffic. When I called the ISP their first answer was I shouldn't be running Torrent software, which I use for legitimate purposes. Their next was for

      • Unfortunately it is the sign of the times. With the options available, we now try to choose the ones that hurt people the most.

        I had a friend get a DMCA take down on a video he posted (about his pet rats) just because he had some music playing in the background. The video wasn't about the music, the quality of the song wasn't great, and it wasn't the full song.

        A just justice system needs to take in account that there can be a lot of laws, and while ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, the context on how a

      • Re:The felony part will change stuff from civil to (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kilfarsnar ( 561956 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @09:37AM (#57714384)

        Taking away people's right to vote and own firearms because of streaming? Wow, talk about overreach. This should get laughed right out of Washington. Problem is, there's enough money behind it that it probably won't.

        Taking away people's rights after they have served their time for a felony conviction is the overreach. That's some bullshit, right there.

      • remember your have the right to jury trial in an felony case.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It will *also* open up the door to abuses using the already overworked public defender system, in which everyone who cannot afford a personal law-firm of their own will be told
      "uh yeah the evidence is overwhelming so uh your best bet is to plead guilty, anything else your life is basically over lol"
      as has been rampant across the US.

      It also *further* shifts the burden and costs away from the music industry by having the government - and therefore taxpayers - cover everything; prosecution, defense (in many ca

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      I don't know about the US specifically but moving minor crimes to a higher court increases the chances of having it dismissed.
      A judge accustomed to murder cases probably doesn't want to be bothered with kids running torrent sites and will probably do their best to get them dismissed ASAP in order to deal with serious affairs.

      In fact, in France, the strategy is the opposite. Instead of pushing for severe punishment, the music industry wants enforcement to work more like parking tickets: a small fine that is

  • the constitution will make it hard to block an sit (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:09AM (#57714000)

    the constitution will make it hard to block an site as that is an 1st issue

    • It does seem like prior restraint to me. The last time that was a big issue was when the government was trying to hide bad actions form us, but that was before many of you were concerned with anything beyond your next meal. Without looking it up first, I bet a quick look into 'prior restraint' will help you consider of this is a good thing or not.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by atrex ( 4811433 )
      It didn't stop them from implementing FOSTA-SESTA. They've got their loophole: the government doesn't censor the site directly, they make the ISPs liable if they don't censor it for them.

  • Music industry is obsolete (Score:3)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:12AM (#57714010)
    Music industry (i.e. record labels) is obsolete and haven't mattered since artists went digital. Why are they still being listened to?

    • Because they spend money on campaign contributions [opensecrets.org].

      Hmm... If we all chip in, you think we could afford a politician that actually works for us for a change?


      • Hmm... If we all chip in, you think we could afford a politician that actually works for us for a change?

        During the benighted campaign in which we finally found both a giant douche and a turd sandwich so foul that whoever won was certain to be the ruination of us all, I considered this. Why did we end up with two candidates who were provably not in the best interests of the general public, could we outbid their respective PACs to get a better agenda from one of the candidates?

        I think the answer is probably

        • "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

          That's why direct democracy is a bad thing. Unless you want the country to be even more run by the media than it is already. Because all you'd get with direct democracy and people voting on everything is that the "news" (I'll use the word very broadly here) will be even more an instrument of public opinion swaying than they are already.

          Take a look around the people you live with. If you have a good stomach, take a good look at Y

          • We should have PSAs run showing Nazi, pedophiles, etc. saying to the camera "I'm voting!."

            If you are a nation of bad people, then the government should reflect their choice. The government represents it's people... Yes, Trump is America. The darker side of it you don't want to admit exists but that is just hiding from the truth. Dictators are also; just not by direct consent.

            "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
            -Frederick Douglas

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

            Unless you want the country to be even more run by the media than it is already. Because all you'd get with direct democracy and people voting on everything is that the "news" (I'll use the word very broadly here) will be even more an instrument of public opinion swaying than they are already.

            We can implement a simple process change to fix that.

            For a bill to become law, it must:
            1. Be voted on twice, with the second time more than 2 years after the first
            2. Pass with a majority in the first round
            3. Pass with a super majority in the second round, e.g. 60%

            Alternatively, if a bill passes with an even higher super-majority, e.g. 75%, then the 2nd round can be skipped.

            I believe at least 30% of the country are conservatives (with a small c) who like things exactly as they are. Combined with the folks wh

            • Super majority would guarantee no laws are passed unless they were absolutely not controversial. I'm not sure anything that matters is not controversial.

              I do like some of your idea though. A law is passed by majority, and all laws have a mandatory sunset period (2 years sounds good) then it gets voted on again, once again by simple majority. If it passes the second time, it gets a 6 year sunset period for revote (always thereafter). This can help us stop some of the knee-jerk stuff and remove political capi

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

                Super majority would guarantee no laws are passed unless they were absolutely not controversial.

                That not true. It could be controversial, but as long as less than 40% of the people are consistently against it, it will pass eventually.

                The point of requiring a super majority is to prevent flip-flopping. The only thing worse than a bad policy is a bad policy that constantly changes. Over time people can come up with ways to deal with a bad policy, but they can't keep up with a moving target.

                I'm not sure anything that matters is not controversial.

                Where did you get this from? Lots of things are important but uncontroversial. Having elections matters quite a lot

      • Because they spend money on campaign contributions [opensecrets.org].

        Hmm... If we all chip in, you think we could afford a politician that actually works for us for a change?

        You are overrating money.

        We didn't get a President Forbes, despite all of Steve Forbes' money. He didn't even win the party nomination.

        Money matters, but blaming your losses on money is a way of avoiding the fact that you didn't make a compelling case (yet) to enough of the public.

        Focusing on money in politics is also a trick to get away with regulating speech.

      • Hmm... If we all chip in, you think we could afford a politician that actually works for us for a change?

        Isn't that how Beto rose to fame?

    • The local artist is obsolete (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Layzej ( 1976930 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:36AM (#57714112)

      It's the legal streaming sites that are killing the music industry. Local artists were able to make a living and even thrive 10 years ago during the period of rampant piracy. Streaming seems to do well for the top 100 artists, but is killing the local music scene. One local artist laments "This song has been in the TOP 20 charts (CBC Radio 2 & 3) for 10 weeks, climbed to #3. In 2018 that equals $44.99 in sales. [cbcmusic.ca]"

      This is an artist that was previously able to make a living through digital downloads. The ecosystem was much healthier in the rampant piracy years of the 2000s.

      • Re:The local artist is obsolete (Score:4)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @12:04PM (#57715276) Homepage

        This is it exactly. Services like itunes and spotify, as well as sites like youtube and facebook have leveled the playing field for artists. People are finding music by artists that they would never discover on the radio or at the record store. My son in law has a band, and they are really good. But there is no way that a major label will pick them up. He told me last night they might have a spot on spotify.

        I have a theory that the anti streaming artists saying they are not getting paid enough. I think what is really happening is they are finding out what their music is really worth. An they are not happy about it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Layzej ( 1976930 )

          This is it exactly. Services like itunes and spotify, as well as sites like youtube and facebook have leveled the playing field for artists. People are finding music by artists that they would never discover on the radio or at the record store. My son in law has a band, and they are really good. But there is no way that a major label will pick them up. He told me last night they might have a spot on spotify.

          I wish your son luck. He may have a better shot on spotify if he's willing to fork out ‘playlist payola’: "The only problem is that the biggest playlists on Spotify aren’t organic, they’re bought-and-sold like radio playlists of old. Which means it’s nearly impossible to get discovered with great music alone (just like before)." - https://www.digitalmusicnews.c... [digitalmusicnews.com]

          P.S. you should post your son's band page. Can't hurt.

      • "In 2018 that equals $44.99 in sales."

        That obviously isn't much, but if its that popular, I would expect him to make decent money doing live performances. Maybe the ability to "make a living through digital downloads" is no longer an option, for good or bad. Not everyone can make a living working from home.

    • Personal opinion aside on the quality of popular music.
      They are a lot of amateur artists and musicians who really just suck. It isn't that we don't get their art, it is that they are just bad at it. The record industry is still the massive firewall to weed out the untalented performers who think they are all that, and help talented performers tune their craft. Then there is the push to sell and market them as a brand.

      Even for digital music, most of the popular stuff is from record labels. The freelance st

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thogard ( 43403 )

        20 years ago a local radio station ran a contest to find local new music. The rules were something along the lines that the band had to have made the album in the last year that had at least 6 songs, they could nominate one of the songs for the contest and they had to live in the listening area. They had about 3,000 albums submitted from a population area of about 3 million. I take that to mean that there is about one album made per year for each 1,000 people. That could mean as many as about 7.2 milli

    • Of course the Music Industry matters. They have money. They may not matter for the industry, but they certainly matter for poor politicians desperate for donations.

  • Time for a tax on intellectual property? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:18AM (#57714036)

    It's becoming clear that protection of intellectual property (IP) is costly. In the physical world, people pay a property tax for fire & police protection. Maybe it's time for IP property holders to pay a tax on their property as well. Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain, and the pool of IP taxes collected can be used to defray the costs of protecting paid-up intellectual property. Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!

    • Maybe it's time for IP property holders to pay a tax on their property as well. Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain, and the pool of IP taxes collected can be used to defray the costs of protecting paid-up intellectual property. Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!

      Deep-pocketed industry groups like the RIAA would love it, as they can afford the tax but small, independant competitors would struggle to pay the fee and find a profit. Thus publishing creative works would be even more cost-prohibitive than it is already, unless you're loaded.

      Congratulations, you've achieved the exact opposite of what you set out to do!

    • Re:Time for a tax on intellectual property? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @10:43AM (#57714770)

      Maybe it's time for IP property holders to pay a tax on their property as well. Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain, and the pool of IP taxes collected can be used to defray the costs of protecting paid-up intellectual property. Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!

      When the authors of the copyright/patent designed the IP system, the only role they assigned to the state is judicial recognition of valid copyright. In exchange for a temporary monopoly granted by the state, the role of enforcing IP was assigned squarely to the domain of the holder(s). In other words, the copyright holder doesn't get a free ride. Nowhere in copyright law is the state obligated to provide corporate welfare through subsidizing IP enforcement via taxation or any subsidy, and to suggest otherwise would conflict with the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution and the 5th/14th Amendment that government cannot deprive an person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

    • ... Any IP whose tax is unpaid reverts to the public domain... Go ahead, shoot holes in this modest proposal!

      Okay; I'll try my aim. When any business entity is forced to pay a "tax" of any kind, it doesn't actually hurt them in the least... they just pass that cost downstream to the customer. Thus, the only IP which would become subject to your forfeiture clause would be those which nobody actually cares about enough to spend any money on them... and the public domain ends up being littered with utter crap.

      I don't know about you, but that doesn't actually sound all that appealing to me.

    • If we tax them they'll expect more in return. I'd rather not give them any excuses to add censoring or other content filtering.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • But you also don't want any government assistance in its enforcement (outside of courts hearing cases). You want it completely free of any outside influence on its economics.

      The basic premise behind IP is that the value created by the temporary monopoly exceeds the cost to society of that monopoly. Since the value is given to the IP holder, that gives us a perfect benchmark against which to measure the costs of enforcing that IP. If the IP holder cannot afford to enforce its IP rights, that is a clear

  • Music vs Internet (Score:3)

    by Steve Jackson ( 4687763 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @08:39AM (#57714122)
    The Music Industry has ZERO usefulness to society vs. the internet... tell them to kick rocks.

  • "As website blocking has had a positive impact in other countries without significant unintended consequences, the U.S. should reconsider adding this to its anti-piracy tool box," the RIAA and NMPA write."

    https://www.engadget.com/2017/... [engadget.com]

  • Positive for whom? (Score:3)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @09:05AM (#57714240)

    "As website blocking has had a positive impact in other countries without significant unintended consequences, the U.S. should reconsider adding this to its anti-piracy tool box," the RIAA and NMPA write.

    Positive impact without unintended consequences FOR THEM I'm sure. Otherwise that statement is the steamiest of wet bullshit.

  • What I want to see is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @09:06AM (#57714244)
    the automatic and complete forfeiture of copyrights to the public domain IF a even a single false infringement take down notice is filed on behalf of a copyright holder.

    Just my 2 cents ;)
  • There are to many ways to work around a site block that the only people being blocked will be those that wouldn't go there anyway. Piracy was happening long before the internet was even a thing

  • Net Neutrality (Score:3)

    by NetNed ( 955141 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2018 @09:57AM (#57714514)
    Net neutrality got squashed which would have led to them doing this exact think so now they want to act like this is somehow in the constitution to protect their "content".
  • What the authors of the website-blocking approach conveniently neglect to mention is that other countries do not possess the 5th/14th amendment protection that government cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law. Website-blocking violates these amendments, which is why the public at large objected to SOPA and PIPA in the first place.

    Attempts to criminalize copyright infringement by proposing felony penalties have never succeeded because copyright infringement

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      Attempts to criminalize copyright infringement by proposing felony penalties have never succeeded because copyright infringement is a civil offense not a criminal one.

      Consider a felony conviction will also result no longer able to vote. Another method of voter suppression brought on by "liberal Hollywood?"

  • Pirate sites will just change hosting providers when they're blocked, just like they do now. Or they'll move to the Dark Web where it's almost impossible to find them anyway. Meanwhile the fucktard music industry (and whoever else would pile on) will leave a trail of broken, blocked hosting providers behind them.

    Just GIVE UP, RIAA/MPAA; why can't you see that what you're trying to do is impossible in the long run? You could kill the entire Internet, and people will go back to SneakerNet. You couldn't kil

  • Find a big target and litigate. Lose that case and have it reopened at a higher level. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    Find another target and litigate. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    Find a backer for a cash injection, find another target and litigate. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    Find another backer for another cash injection. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    Hopefully, after much litigation, the result will be that they go out of business permanently.

    Just think of the wonderful people behind all those SCO lawsuits and how they tenaciously p

  • Shrug. Sure, music industry. Give it a whirl. You'll stop nothing. There's always another solution, even if it means a new internet.

  • While we are at it, why don't we go ahead and repeal the DMCA, citizens united, drop software patents, and set the copyright term back to 20 years with no extensions.

    You know, actually move in the direction of fixing things instead of further in the wrong direction?

Slashdot Top Deals

Please go away.

Close