Skip to comments.RIAA: U.S. copyright law 'isn't working'
Posted on 08/25/2010 12:03:18 PM PDT by a fool in paradise
ASPEN, Colo.--The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday that current U.S. copyright law is so broken that it "isn't working" for content creators any longer.
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.
"The DMCA isn't working for content people at all," he said at the Technology Policy Institute's Aspen Forum here. "You cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It's simply not possible. We don't have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears, such as cyberlockers like [file-hosting firm] RapidShare."
The complex--and controversial--1998 law grew out of years of negotiations with broadband providers, Internet companies, and content industries. One key section says companies are generally not liable for hosting copyright-infringing materials posted by their companies, as long as they follow certain removal procedures, once contacted by the owner.
In response to a question from CNET, Sherman said it may be necessary for the U.S. Congress to enact a new law formalizing agreements with intermediaries such as broadband providers, Web hosts, payment processors, and search engines.
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."
Lance Kavanaugh, product counsel for YouTube, disagreed that copyright law is broken. "It's our view that the DMCA is functioning exactly the way Congress intended it to," he said.
The United States leads the world in the creation of innovative new Web ideas, Kavanaugh said, in part as a result of the compromises made when drafting that law: "There's legal plumbing to allow that to happen, to allow those small companies to innovate without [the] crushing fear of lawsuits, as long as they follow certain rules. Congress was prescient. They struck the right balance."
Last week, the RIAA and a dozen other music industry groups called on Google and Verizon to crack down on piracy, saying in a letter that "the current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators."
Sherman acknowledged on Monday that YouTube is now doing a fine job of filtering and removing copyright-infringing videos. But, he said, Google "could stop filtering tomorrow and have no liability," as long as its YouTube subsidiary replied promptly to notifications.
And, he suggested, it could do far more: "If you enter in 'Beyonce MP3,' chances are, the first thing you'll see is illegal sites."
Disclosure: McCullagh is married to a Google employee not involved with this topic.
Update 6:20 p.m. PT: During dinner this evening, Cary Sherman told me that his response to my question earlier Monday was not a call for new legislation. Instead, he said, the RIAA would like to see congressional action only if necessary to formalize a voluntary deal with partners such as broadband providers. But a broader law enacted without their cooperation isn't what the RIAA wants, Sherman said.
RIAA demands even MORE power...!
I’m not willing to see free speech hindered and the first steps taken to turning the USA into an Orwellian state, merely to protect the copyright “rights” of a few movie companies.
I hope the new Congress shoots them down and backs off the 95 year copyright to 7 years, the way it was when copyright law was first established.
"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.
The RIAA is gunning for their own FBI/NHS law enforcement agency beholden to the RIAA to scour the web for their protected content (including peeking into files).
They aren’t even all landed in the US. Maybe the RIAA should appeal to the United Nations. < /snicker >
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”?
There have been proposals in the US, Canada, and EU to add a “media tax” (bailout) to internet accounts that would go to Big Media to “compensate them” for “lost revenue” by some people who use computers.
And you can follow that none of that bailout money would make it to the affected artists or their families (in the case of older artists). Without an audit of which files were improperly transferred, the industry would just apportion as it sees fit and maintain the status quo.
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?
In other words, the merger of Corporation and Government (i.e. Fascism). Say it aint so, Joe.
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!
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
“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
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
Former RIAA Lawyer At DOJ Will Only Avoid RIAA Issues For A Year
techdirt ^ Posted on Saturday, May 02, 2009
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
RIAA Insists That Musicians Can't Make Money Without The RIAA
Tech Dirt ^ | 13 April 2010 | Mike Masnick
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
If The Industry had its way, you wouldn’t be allowed to check out a CD from a library (they pushed that legislation in the 1980s) and you wouldn’t be able to buy/sell used CDs (they pushed that in the 1990s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.