8 ms·
Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes
- stfu 15y agoFor some odd reason this doesn't suprise me at all... The Freedom of Information Act is really a blessing in cases like these.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- aw3c2 15y agoThis is about politic lobbying by interest groups that hits closely to a hacker's interests so I say this is relevant. An alternative explanation would be that it is "internet politics" and by that relevant to people who use the internet and even more important, rely on the internet. But your comment might even be downvoted just because it does not contain anything contributing to this thread but just spreads negativity.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Bud 15y agoIf you think this isn't relevant, I don't think you have the slightest clue about what the "HN ethos" supposedly is. If that's what you think, btw, back it up. Don't just flatly state that the article isn't relevant (especially when it obviously is).
- Jach 15y agoI didn't downvote you. However, from the guidelines (which I'm sure you don't need a link to): Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
- aw3c2 15y agoDeeper link: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozies-up/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/copyright-czar-cozi...
- rsingel 15y agoThanks very much for linking to the original story. The author, David Kravets, did a bang-up job on it. (I edited it). And while I'm glad Mike Masnik of Techdirt reblogged it, I wish the OP had followed the link to the originating story, which has primary documents.
- SODaniel 15y agoIn Sweden the RIAA/MPAA has been deeply involved in dictating copyright legislation and using the police as their private enforcement agency for years. Not even a secret.
- earbitscom 15y ago> "In theory, the government should be representing the people, but the cozy nature of the relationship suggests it was exactly the opposite. The government was representing industry against the public interest." Aren't artists and content creators "the people", too? Just because the RIAA represents the "industry" to so many people doesn't mean that they're not, if even as a bi-product, fighting for the rights of artists.
- lawnchair_larry 15y agoIn fact, they're not.
- ubernostrum 15y agoThe RIAA is fighting to maintain an outmoded business structure in which major record labels' presence as a middleman was convenient for artists seeking broader visibility and distribution. It is no longer the case that an artist must sign away all of their rights and virtually all the resulting revenue from their work merely to get their music distributed, so what purpose does the RIAA serve?
- earbitscom 15y ago> merely to get their music distributed That is correct. Distribution is such a small part of what a good record label does for you. Even if you want to believe that an artist can do all of the things a label can do for them, that's not to say that they want to, or that they can do those things while successfully continuing to do what they do best - which is make music. Just because a handful of artists have achieved success without a label does not negate that the most successful artists today are still using them. Take it from someone who works with hundreds of labels - the best ones still add tremendous value. The RIAA fights for the rights of labels, and by default, some of those rights are shared by artists.
- earbitscom 15y agoI'll also point out that the people who have achieved the greatest results without a label, NIN, Radiohead, etc., were already famous, due in no small part to their prior labels.
- ethank 15y agoConsidering the fact that the very reason that the RIAA exists is because of the government (collusion/anti-trust laws prevent labels from working together directly on things like pricing) and as a lobby organization, this doesn't seem that revelatory. The whole point of trade associations (MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, ESA, CRIA, AJA, BSA, etc) is to avoid collusion while protecting the interest of associated members. I had a lot of things I had to be aware of when working with other labels. All these tests, etc. SOX compliance also added another wrinkle. In the case of those mentioned, usually these members are associated with intellectual property and representing copywrited works.
- _delirium 15y agoThe whole point of trade associations (MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, ESA, CRIA, AJA, BSA, etc) is to avoid collusion while protecting the interest of associated members. They vary in just how much they really have that aim, though. In some cases they really are organized as a way of protecting collective interests (e.g. the interests of the whole sector) without crossing over into collusion; with other organizations, it comes closer to attempting to collude without being caught. For example, is the purpose of the organization to expand the pie for music sales in general, or is the purpose to keep up profit margins by reducing competition among its members? The RIAA in particular has been caught doing that on numerous occasions. It's lost cases over pretty overt things like price-fixing, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does a lot of less overt things as well (various kinds of signaling and informal agreements to structure operations and campaigns in mutually beneficial ways). Professional organizations that represent a sector, like the IEEE or ACM, seem to have a somewhat "cleaner" record on really promoting the sector rather than mainly aiming at reducing intra-sector competition.
- ethank 15y agoRe RIAA: I agree. I'm no fan. But what I said was that the point of trade organizations was to ensure collective rights while avoiding collusion. That is the POINT, that isn't what they always do. Sometimes they just hide collusion under the guise of avoiding it: hence lobbying. Also any time you have an organization speaking for many, there are never any "clean" records. IEEE, IETF, ACM all have had their controversies.
- kodisha 15y agoUSA folks - your move.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y agoWe're working on it ---occupywallst.org
- suivix 15y agoSitting in tents and blocking traffic doesn't help here.
- earbitscom 15y agoSitting in your room and reading the internetz does even less.
- Natsu 15y agoYou're right. Fundamentally, the question that must be answered is "what are you going to do about it?" They've got their answer: they've hired lobbyists to push for legislation, they've gotten a copyright czar who is working to broker voluntary agreements, and they're using the US Trade Reps to push for legislation abroad. I'm sure there are other things, too, that I forgot to list. Thus far, there have been few counters to any of that. There's the EFF and folks who also lobby, support political allies and expose what's going on, but not much else except unfocused and therefore ineffective protest, though the Pirate Party has had some notable success abroad in terms of getting votes. Admittedly, playing defense is much harder, but there are other possible avenues that haven't been tried. For example, forming a coalition of ISPs who do NOT subscribe to this agreement, pushing for copyright reform legislation, etc.
- fl3tch 15y agoOccupy Wall St is about bringing attention to corporate control of government. The RIAA/MPAA influence on copyright legislation and enforcement is a specific example of that. So, the protests are in fact relevant. I know it has become popular in recent years to pooh-pooh the effectiveness of protests and to claim that they are obsolete 1960s nonsense. I don't know why anyone tries seriously to make that argument after the events of the last year. The protest is alive and well and as effective as ever. If your protest isn't accomplishing anything, it just needs to be bigger. Put a million people in the streets next weekend and politicians will notice. If that's not enough, put 10 million people on the streets. A large enough crowd is impossible to ignore.
- joelmichael 15y agoWhy is it surprising that the government would be involved in enforcing its own law?
- sudonim 15y agoThe surprising part is that the RIAA is involved in setting copyright law. The surprising part is that the government was working with the RIAA to hide the outcome from public scrutiny.
- nextparadigms 15y agoBecause they said the 6 strike plan was "voluntary" on the part of the ISP's, and the Government more than likely forced their hands to accept the deal.
- muuh-gnu 15y agoSurprising it isn't any more, but it is still striking how recklessly one-sided and opinionated the goverment can be regarding one particular business. We dont officially know whether this relatively small business is _really_ that überimportant for the country, or did the business owners simply find a way to puppeteer the goverment to claim that it is überimportant. The circumstances strongly resemble the story of french 17th century button makers and their fight against innovation: "Two of the most extreme examples of the suppression of innovation in France occurred shortly after the death of Colbert during the lengthy reign of Louis XIV. Button-making in France had been controlled by various guilds, depending on the material used, the most important part belonging to the cord and button makers' guild, who made cord buttons by hand. By the 1690s, tailors and dealers launched the innovation of weaving buttons from the material used in the garment. The outrage of the inefficient hand-button-makers brought the state leaping to their defense. In the late 1690s, fines were imposed on the production, sale, and even the wearing of the new buttons, and the fines were continually increased. The local guild wardens even obtained the right to search people's houses and to arrest anyone in the street who wore the evil and illegal buttons. In a few years, however, the state and the hand-button-makers had to give up the fight, since everyone in France was using the new buttons." [1] and "The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated. Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods." [2] Sources: [1] http://mises.org/daily/4315 http://mises.org/daily/4315 [2] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070110/004225.shtml
- sudonim 15y ago1. I'm disappointed that the Government is working so closely with special interests like the RIAA to set legislation. 2. I'm glad that it is possible to FOIA it. People do lots of things to cover up unpopular news. It seems that for whatever reason, the people in charge wanted to brush this under the rug. If the government does this and we don't like that, let's exercise our right and vote them out. That there is no one who you'd actually want to vote in to public office to replace the scoundrels that screw the people over and over again is another issue.
- powertower 15y ago> I'm disappointed that the Government is working so closely with special interests like the RIAA to set legislation. If you're disappointed about the above just wait until you read about the blank CD tax which you pay every time you buy a blank CD. A federally mandated tax that goes directly to a private corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
- suivix 15y agoWho buys CDs? I think you're stuck in another decade.
- powertower 15y ago1. It's not just CDs. While the specific laws vary Country-by-Country, the gist of it is that anything that can store music is open to this tax. 2. The crimes committed so far should not be forgiven/forgotten just because we now have cloud storage and CD sales are going down. In Canada alone they've already collected a cool quarter billion due to this: http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm
- mkr-hn 15y ago"This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD. The royalty also applies to stand-alone CD recorders, but not to CD burners used with computers. Most recently, portable satellite radio recording devices contribute to this royalty fund. [13]." I've never seen one labeled for use with music. I doubt that's by accident.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThis should be part of the #OccupyWallStreet movement, too.
- lancewiggs 15y agoThe way to fix this is for the ISPs to charge the MPAA members to process any accusations. This was the result from the three strikes legislation in New Zealand, and since the law and $25 fee came into force a month or two back there have been _no_ recorded requests from the MPAA members to ISPs. It makes it obvious that even the MPAA knows that the claimed losses are a bunch of hogwash.
- twainer 15y agoLong-time lurker who just had to jump into the fray about this nonsense and non-story. Reading tech-dirt I came across quite a few comments equating copyright with censorship. You folks need to take a deep breath and then ask yourself if your support for your 'civil right' to consume something trumps the right of the person who produced the work in question to decided for themselves how the work should enter and survive in the marketplace. Because all I hear these days is that your desire to consume without renumeration is all that matters. Any deviation from that tucks into some part of the copyright conspiracy boogeyman. The most important right is that an individual should get to decide how their own works are treated - want to give it away for free? Want to set up your own torrent? Want to charge for it? It should be an individual's choice what they do with their work; you have no right to make that choice for them and it is a painfully shameful that capitalism's consumerist end has come to long polemics on why stealing something isn't - and now watching torrents of The Office is a civil right. There is an important statue being dedicated tomorrow in Washington DC - some of you folks should turn off Pirate Bay and pay attention to things that are actually worth caring about. By the way, I lost my single karma point to bring up the issue of individual control. The issue of piracy affects developers deeply - it's important to discuss it, not down-vote it.
- prodigal_erik 15y agoThis isn't about copyright so much as giving not just any private party, but one with a demonstrated history of reckless abuse of the legal system, the power to exile you from our civilization without so much as an impartial judge seeing probable cause. And for this system to function, it will obviously require tight control over anyone allowed to sell connectivity to the Internet, and zero tolerance for anonymous access. Sorry, a chance to pat ourselves on the back about MLK's victory two generations ago rings a little hollow now, especially when the same struggle today would probably end with him being disappeared.
- twainer 15y agoI do get your frustration. And we probably agree on quite a lot. I think copyright has lots of problems - but people not paying for anything isn't one of them. My frustration is that the people who don't like the old structure won't allow a new structure to monetize itself. The greatest thing that could have come about out of the shell of the music industry was a way to pay artists directly. Pirate Bay could put that system in place tomorrow if they cared to. But it hasn't happened and won't happen if people don't actually pay. The app store and iTunes are the closest we've got to that. But it doesn't make any difference that devs are independent - people crack their stuff and seed torrents all the same. So there is another better model that could have existed. But it is 'disappeared'. There could also be respect for the individual's right to mind their own creation. But that is also disappeared. Truth is the anonymous mob of the internet is another sort of unaccountable and unelected government. I wish it were different.