RIAA demands even MORE power...!
"Years of negotiations". Considering many people didn't even get the internet until after 1994 (Windows 95) I find this hard to swallow. They may have discussed possible issues, but they weren't affected "yet". Hypotheticals instead of problems. Much of it centered on putting up laws making it illegal to strip off copy protection codes from discs. Sony and others put lethal code on their audio CDs that could even freak out in some drives and kill the operating system.
And Freenet, Usenet, Tor, I2P, etc etc etc. Sucks to be you, Mr. RIAA.
Does anyone want to take any bets about a new federal “media tax” being proposed in the future - you know, to be collected for and given to these “starving artists”?
All together now....AAWWWWWWWWW. *Sniffle*
Well, Cary, you should have been a bit more careful and clever when spreading the cash around the DC Beltway.
You see, they will write any legislation you want if the price is right.
Untold sites and articles told you that DMCA would be a huge bust and simply add miles of red tape. It is chock full of silly provisions and restrictions written by non-technical people which technical people must interpret and attempt to comply with.
Incidentally, you can probably see how Obamacare, written by non-medical and non-insurance people, will go over with medical and insurance types.
The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries, Sherman said: "We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship--not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers." But, Sherman said, "if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine."
Erm, legislation doesn't 'facilitate,' Cary. It demands compliance, not cooperation, and it threatens fines and imprisonment - but that's really what you're after anyway so why sugarcoat it? Do you think anyone believes a word you say at this point?
What happened to your precious sue-John-Doe strategy? Many people pointed out that suing your own customers might not be the way forward but you ignored them. After some high-profile losses by your bumbling legal representation and after being smacked down by judges who happened to notice that the RIAA were not the FBI and vice versa did you finally work out the futility of it all?
"If you enter in 'Beyonce MP3,' chances are, the first thing you'll see is illegal sites."
Hard to respond to that one, Cary, since it's so simple-minded and petty - but then so are you and your colleagues. But let me quote John Lydon of the Sex Pistols: ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
Extending it to 99 years the day before Mickey Mouse enters the public domain is... shall we say... Micky Mouse.
Hint - I'm not “ripping off” any Lady GaGa music and I'll turn you in for littering if you try to give me any!
TRANSLATION:
It doesn't REQUIRE broadband providers and Web companies to enforce our rules.
Wait...when OTHER laws don’t work( such as drug laws/marijuana) the answer is to DE- CRIMINIALIZE and legalize the action.
And marijuana does far more harm to the human brain than someone o You Tube singing a copyrighted song without permission.
So, if the RIAA can’t control everyone, and can’t punish every lawbreaker the answer is simple- eliminate the law!
Less crime, more happy people.
I've purchased it in 8 track, LP and CD.
Haven't I EARNED the right to download a torrent of it to my PC?
I've already financed a portion of Jimmy Page's satanic paraphernalia purchases, am I supposed to now also underwrite Robert Plant's emerging need for Depends undergarments?
Will Obama’s copyright czar help save the music?
Yahoo news ^ | Sat Nov 15, 2008 | Antony Bruno
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139489/posts
“Soon after an inauguration that Washington, D.C., insiders are speculating could be one of the musical events of the year, Obama will officially name a copyright czar — one of the most important decisions he'll make, as far as the music business is concerned.”
Copyright treaty is classified for ‘national security’
CNET ^ | 12 Mar 2009 | Declan McCullagh
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2206036/posts
Last September, the Bush administration defended the unusual secrecy over an anti-counterfeiting treaty being negotiated by the U.S. government, which some liberal groups worry could criminalize some peer-to-peer file sharing that infringes copyrights. Now President Obama’s White House has tightened the cloak of government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this week that a discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and related materials are “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.” The 1995 Executive Order 12958 allows material to be classified only if disclosure would do “damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.”
Fifth RIAA Attorney Tapped For Justice Department (Obama DOJ not quite what reformers hoped for...)
http://www.dslreports.com ^ | Apr 14 2009 | by Karl Bode
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2230305/posts
Former RIAA Lawyer At DOJ Will Only Avoid RIAA Issues For A Year
techdirt ^ Posted on Saturday, May 02, 2009
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2242767/posts
Plenty of folks have noted that the Justice Department has been the landing place for a number of RIAA lawyers. Some have suggested not to get too worked up about this, given that the Obama administration's ethics rules supposedly forbade those lawyers from being involved in issues related to their former work. However, it looks like the limit on these guys is actually quite narrow and for a very short period of time. We'd already noted that the highest ranking former RIAA lawyer, Thomas Perrelli, in his Senate confirmation hearings, said he hoped to use his position to increase intellectual property enforcement from within the Justice Department.Now, Pro Publica, an online investigative reporting operation, has published the ethics agreements signed by Obama administration appointees, including Tom Perrelli’s agreement, which appears to only preclude him from working on issues that impact his former clients for one year. Also, it seems pretty narrowly focused on the specific clients he worked for, but not other aspects of the same industry. In other words, in less than a year, he can certainly start helping the RIAA from within the Justice Department — and his Senate testimony suggests he's interested in doing so. That's not quite the ethical separation we were led to believe would exist in the administration.
RIAA/MPAA Want Government-Mandated Spyware That Deletes ‘Infringing’ Content Automatically
Gizmodo ^ | 15 April 2010 | Adam Frucci
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2493629/posts
RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Tech Dirt ^ | 13 April 2010 | Mike Masnick
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2493731/posts
Deal Would Mandate FM Radios In Cell Phones - agreement between NAB/RIAA headed to Congress
Information Week ^ | August 23, 2010 02:13 PM | W. David Gardner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2576075/posts
I’ve been saying since before 2000 that this is what will be the excuse for completely shutting down the Internet in Amerca.
Discussion of copyright law, for whatever reason, really brings out the barbarian within. I wonder why, say, laws against stealing other people’s houses don’t occasion as many cries of “fascism.”
How about the truth: the RIAA’s business model based on selling a product which is marginally free to produce—an extra digital copy of something costs effectively nothing to produce—isn’t working. Supply and demand regulates prices for goods based on scarcity. When the supply is potentially infinite, the price tends toward zero.
It turns out most of us are willing to contribute $0.99 to get a song (or $9.99 for an album with ten or more songs) so that artists get paid. (cf. Apple’s iTunes business model).
I suspect there would be even more enthusiasm for paying if folks had the sense that a significant fraction would actually get to the artists, rather than almost all of it being absorbed by the bloated lawsuit-factories that call themselves “recording companies” or “record labels”.
“RIAA President Cary Sherman said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains loopholes that allow broadband providers and Web companies to turn a blind eye to customers’ unlawful activities without suffering any legal consequences. “
What Crap... if I take a bottle of 151, stuff a rag in it, light it and throw it into a building, is the liquor store I got it from responsible somehow for my actions? Please!! Anyone can do illegal things with any product if they choose to to say that another company is responsible for ensuring nothing illegal is done with your product is absolute nonsense.
RIAA is an example of why Business Socialism needs to end.
We keep passing laws to “protect” this business model....even though it is a useless model in this modern era
Wait until the e-books stop selling.
Even the song “Happy Birthday” is still copyrighted and subject to royalties if performed in a public place. So, when the restaurant staff comes out with a cake and sings they should be paying a vig to Time/Warner.
IMHO, copyright lasts far too long.
One word that describes the reason the Music industry is no more. RAP.
If the music industry would have initiated their own MP3 libraries online, with a cheap and easy way to purchase single songs, the general public would have developed the habit of legal purchases years earlier.
But they dug in their heels, and the more they tried to sue their way to maintain control, the more control they lost. They were no match for a technical revolution they didn't want to acknowledge.
They helped create this mess...I don't feel sorry for them.