Music Industry Asks US Government To Reconsider Website Blocking (torrentfreak.com) 203
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.
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.
The felony part will change stuff from civil to cr (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
but will comcast send an tech to court that can sa (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... That would be a $9.90 fine. You're asking for 1000 times at $990.
You need to check your numbers. That would only be 10 times on one track. He said a ten times on a hundred tracks so .99 x 10 x 100 and that makes 990.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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 (Score:2)
remember your have the right to jury trial in an felony case.
Make website owners Responsible. (Score:3)
Here's one.
Ditch the double standard regarding websites.
If a website exercises editorial control over what its users posts, then it is liable for what they post.
If a website doesn't exercise editorial control over what its users post, then it is not liable.
As it stands now, a website can exercise editorial control over what's posted, but when called out on copyrighted material, shrug their shoulders and whine that they can't control what's posted.
Pick one, then enforce the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, your idea is not well thought out.
You cite the traditional rule for liability for user posts, but that's not t
Re: (Score:2)
It's a mess to be sure.
But if I were a copyright holder, I'd object to being put in a position where I would have to police the entire internet for my stuff and then go through the process to have it removed.
At least a single site operator would only have their stuff to go through. So then the question would be, how can the site operator tell what is copyrighted or not. So that seems like a more appropriate area for them to be looking at.
So...make the site operators responsible, but provide a mechanism tha
Re: Make website owners Responsible. (Score:2)
Sure, no one likes to do work. But if a copyright holder doesnâ(TM)t care enough to try to protect their own rights, why should anyone else care to protect them? And if all the benefit of enforcement of copyright inures to the copyright holder, why should other people have to suffer the cost of carrying out that enforcem
Re: (Score:3)
"Sure, no one likes to do work. But if a copyright holder doesnâ(TM)t care enough to try to protect their own rights, why should anyone else care to protect them? "
That's an asinine position to take. First of all, many copyright holders are individuals, not corporations. Many don't have the time or money to police the internet. Sure, every copyright holder should take reasonable action to protect their copyrights, but your position isn't reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. For all intensive purposes Florida is a blue state from here on out, due to the large number of minorities and hence Democratic voters in the prison population.
As if it's a mystery as to why those minorities don't generally vote for Republicans. And the phrase is "for all intents and purposes".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, heaven forbid that the Republicans might have to rethink their platform and direction. That would be flip-flopping!
A Republican leaning police force and justice system would never, ever frame someone with a felony, for voting Democrat. Would they?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The danger here would be to establish a precedence.
the constitution will make it hard to block an sit (Score:3)
the constitution will make it hard to block an site as that is an 1st issue
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"2nd: partially gone, remainder under assault"
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Without the framers defining "Arms", this will always be under attack. Does that include any and all weapons? Can people own nukes? Should we be able to buy hand grenades at Wal-Mart? Can I "keep" claymores in my front yard in an effort to keep "the security of a free State"?
This also doesn't say anything
Music industry is obsolete (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Those people need to vote too! (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So anything that only benefits a minority directly will get shot down. Great. New road up on the hill? Nah, I don't live there and neither do 70% of the people here. Unfortunately it means that you can't live up there anymore so real estate down below becomes impossible to afford. But nobody sees that when voting no on a road he doesn't need. How about funding for colleges and universities? Nah, what for, I have my degree, screw you! Pity though that when I'm turning 80 and need a doctor there won't be any
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
The music scene in Canada 10 years ago was second to none. Bands like Arcade Fire, Stars, Deadly Snakes, Feist, Metric, Broken Social Scene, etc, etc, etc, plus dozens and dozens of smaller bands and labels. This was after 40 years of cancon regulations so I'm not sure you can blame cancon for the current state of affairs. Add the fact that no one listens to radio any more and cancon rules don't apply to streaming services - the argument could be made that the lack of cancon rules for new mediums is a p
Re: (Score:2)
Not Canadian but I think that it's a problem not limited to Canada. The fact is that local talent has always made the majority of their money from live performances. For some big performers, with really crappy contracts with distributors, they still make the majority of their money through live performances, which is why big name bands still do tours, and because distributors think that tours help sell product.
The problem really is that the present paradigm is untenable. Streams are too easy and cheap to ma
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
and to suggest otherwise would conflict with the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause in the US Constitution
That's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you want to leave it untaxed (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely...
Let's imagine copyright didn't exist. Let's say that some relatively unknown person tries to create a work they want to be freely available in the manner of the GPL, and they put it on the internet. Then, some bigger entity that is more widely known comes across it and appropriates it, but they do not provide the source code, which would have otherwise been required under something like the GPL. Because of how widely known the larger agency is, the smaller might not necessarily be easil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legally? No reason at all. Ethically? That's another matter... Or do you think that there is nothing unethical about plagiarism?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, current copyright law is so great that people still think Apple invented the portable music player and Tesla invented the electric car.
Because of how widely known the larger agency is, the smaller might not necessarily be easily found when trying to find the source code, and that's even *if* somebody bothers to look, and the creator's intent of wanting to keep the work's source code freely available is effectively destroyed
You are out of touch with reality. In this day and age, if it exists on the internet and the author wants it found, then it will be found.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suggesting that is only possible *because* the little guy has the arm of copyright to keep larger companies from misappropriating what they create. If people with the same name as a suspected terrorist can end up on a no-fly list despite not having any affliation with the agencies for which such a prohibition was made, you can be sure that a larger company's effecti
Re: (Score:2)
Small company uploads it to GitHub, their own website and The Pirate Bay. The big company will do what exactly?
You might be able to convince a few tech companies to stop hosting "hate speech", but you're going to need a lot of money to get them to stop hosting or linking to source code, and I'm not even sure if those managing The Pirate Bay would accept money to take down a torrent.
And if your argument is they can give it the same name to try to hide the smaller one, then we have trademark law to prevent th
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing... the pervasiveness of the big company will be such that web searches will not tend to find the free versions of the software, people will generally not even be aware that it was originally free.
Regardless, it's plagiarism at any level, and while it is legal to plagiairize public domain content, it is not considered remotely ethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing... the pervasiveness of the big company will be such that web searches will not tend to find the free versions of the software, people will generally not even be aware that it was originally free.
That's their own problem. If someone wants to pay $10 for something at Home Depot when Walmart has the exact same thing for $5, it's their fault for not price shopping and it's not Home Depot's problem to fix.
Regardless, it's plagiarism at any level, and while it is legal to plagiairize public domain content, it is not considered remotely ethical.
I don't think anyone would disagree a company that appropriates it with no attribution would be acting unethically. Whether there should be a law against it is a different question.
Re: (Score:2)
Music vs Internet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If we keep going at this rate the top ten will just be the ten.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize music existed for tens of thousands of years before the music industry existed, don't you? And that many, many artists have songs specifically about how bad the music industry is? Some examples:
White Stripes - The Big 3 Killed My Baby
The Animals - The Story of Bo Diddley
Elvis Costello - Radio, Radio
Pink Floyd - Gravy Train
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize music existed for tens of thousands of years before the music industry existed, don't you?
And both Vivaldi and Mozart died poor. In fact if it wasn't for patronage they probably wouldn't have been able to spend time composing at all. But there's something seriously wrong with an industry that turns some dude into a gazillionaire because he wrote a single "hit" and then sits back to collect royalties until the end of time. If anything this discourages future creativity -except from people who actually like creating new stuff. But those people would do it anyway - they don't do it for the financia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that music is aesthetically pleasing
I'm guessing it has been a while since you've listened to the radio.
RIAA and NMPA bullshit (Score:2)
"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)
"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)
Just my 2 cents
Tough for an ISP to effectively block sites (Score:2)
Net Neutrality (Score:3)
Conflicts with 5th/14th Amendment in the US (Score:2)
Attempts to criminalize copyright infringement by proposing felony penalties have never succeeded because copyright infringement
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
More Whack-A-Mole (Score:2)
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
When your business model is going down the tubes.. (Score:2)
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
Music industry why VPNs exist. (Score:2)
Shrug. Sure, music industry. Give it a whirl. You'll stop nothing. There's always another solution, even if it means a new internet.
How about none of the above (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
A strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Abolish copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd disagree. With copyright, I can publish a book and be assured that someone else (say, a large publisher) won't just grab the text of my book and sell it without giving me any money. I can also be assured that a potential movie produced from my work would earn me money instead of a studio simply taking the work and making a movie without paying me anything.
The real problem is that the length of copyright protection has been abused horribly. Copyright serves a valuable purpose as a LIMITED monopoly, but large corporations have essentially removed the "limited" portion. (Yes, it's still technically limited in that you can wait for about 95-120 years to use the work, but that's literally a lifetime so it might as well be forever.)
Copyright should be reverted to the 14 year span plus an additional 14 years if you renew the work. I'd even be willing to compromise with the large companies who would suddenly see a huge amount of their work entering the public domain. Everything produced up to the start of the "Original Copyright Term Length Act" would be assumed to be automatically renewed. Furthermore, we would phase it in for old works. Start with everything produced in the 1920's and 1930's that is still under copyright protection. Then, after 3 years, everything from the 1940's. And so on until everything is either Public Domain or covered under the new law. Yes, it would take 27 years to completely catch up, but it would give businesses time to shift their strategies to accommodate the new (old?) laws of the land.
Re: (Score:2)
can ... be assured that someone else (say, a large publisher) won't just grab the text of my book and sell it without giving me any money
If you mean plagiarism, the solution to that is digital notaries. Ought to enhance them and raise their profile. If you mean, selling a print run, or even selling ebooks, there's stuff we can do about that too, without resorting to copyright and all its baggage. However, the end game is for selling of copies, particularly digital copies, to be allowed to die of obsolescence.
There's just way too much "Mother may I?" about the current system. And it's largely because so many people are so afraid they mi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mean plagiarism. That's something else entirely. I mean specifically publishing a version of the work without the author's/artist's consent. For example, I self-published a novel. I own the copyright on it and all money from the sales (after Amazon's Kindle cut) comes to me. I get to decide what price to sell it at, where it's available, what the cover art is, etc.
Now suppose a major publisher discovered my book and loved it. However, instead of offering me a publishing contract, they decided that t
Re: (Score:2)
Free Rider Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright is rent-seeking and harms society as a whole. It should not exist at all.
Really? You've found a solution to the free rider problem [wikipedia.org] as it applies to creative works? Please publish it and collect your Nobel Prize in Economics immediately because nobody else has found a better solution.
Copyright needs some serious reform and much shorter protection periods but to claim that it is harmful in general is a claim not supported by the evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? You've found a solution to the free rider problem as it applies to creative works?
Careful there, friend. There are lots of people here who will be happy to inform you that the free rider problem is not a problem at all, but a birthright.
Opinions != facts (Score:3)
There are lots of people here who will be happy to inform you that the free rider problem is not a problem at all, but a birthright.
A lot of people think a lot of very stupid things. Having an opinion doesn't mean it is objectively correct. A lot of people think crystals have magical healing powers. Doesn't mean I should take them seriously without evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet somehow the Fashion Industry survives without copyright [ted.com]
In school kids are taught to share their toys.
As adults digital sharing is illegal and (excessively) fined.
And people wonder why there is cognitive dissonance.
Sharing is not the same as copying (Score:2)
And yet somehow the Fashion Industry survives without copyright
The fashion industry absolutely does use copyright [lexisnexis.com]. Clothing is generally specifically excluded from copyright protection as a functional item but it does apply sometimes when the design rises to the level of a creative work. Sometimes it can benefit from design patents or trademarks as well. Furthermore you are comparing apples to oranges. Replicating an article of clothing has a substantial cost, especially at scale. Perhaps you have never seen how clothing is made but it is a laborious process and r
Re: (Score:2)
The only part of the clothing industry that involves IP at all is Trademark, not copyright. That why designers slap their logo on their designs because no one can copy their design if it includes the logo. Take the logo off and it's not protected.
So people buy legal knockoffs all the time, where it's a MIC purse instead of an MK purse where the MIC kinda looks like a MK. Totally legal, though designers sometimes scream about it.
The free rider 'problem' is not a problem. The fashion industry does fine becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is rent-seeking and harms society as a whole. It should not exist at all.
hmmmm, I dunno about that. It is overused and massively abused and in it's current state does more harm than good but there is ultimately a reason for it, in theory at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is an artificial extension of the natural right of exclusivity of control over who could copy a work they had created if the creator never allowed anyone to access the work in the first place. In theory, copyright exists to give people incentive to publish and share their works with other people while still enjoying a limited form of that original exclusivity insomuch as it can be enforced by law.
Without copyright, it's pretty much a given that people will resort to self-censorship as a means