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.
“But don’t ask me to “buy” a song or video when it’s not really true.”
Same as a house. You may pay the bank off. But don’t pay your property taxes & see how quick you “own” it.
“MAP, in the FTC’s view, is a form of price-fixing...”
What the heck do I care what the FTC says? They’re not interested in anything more than legal niceties. Whatever some lawmakers, motivated by the falsehoods of perfect competition theory, said was bad a century ago is bad now. No matter that no consumer in the history of the world was ever hurt by price agreements between private companies. Try reading Friedman or Armentano, who know a little more about reality than the bureaucrats at the FTC.
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.
Of course it’s not working. It’s built on a lie.
I have the capacity to copy anything to anything and, believe me, I use it frequently.
But you can modify the house while you’re on-time with the payments, right?
If you paid for it all at once, it wouldn’t matter, would it?
“We all want legal protection (or at least prosecution of the criminals when we are wronged). The RIAA thinks they get to be first in line just because Obama has stacked the Injustice Department with RIAA lawyers.”
That’s what I’m getting at. This ought to be a limited, practical disucssion. They’re not saying copyrights should be absolute and extend at least 100 generations after the originator’s death, with life imprisonment for anyone who dares transfer information from one format to another. Yet, for some odd reason, free speech, Orwell, fascism, Evil Corporations, and so on get drawn in. All I’m asking is how come this never happens when we discuss property rights, for instance?
Much of the music I buy now is from Independant artists, frequently at their performances.
The old record companies are no longer the “Gatekeeper” for music, just as newspapers and the networks are no longer the “Gatekeeper” for news.
The RIAA knew this was coming over a decade ago, when they attempted to sue the original MP3.com Indie site out of existance.
Yes they have piracy, but more than that - they now lack the ability to prevent a deluge of new artists from oversaturating the market.
The old days are never coming back.
Remember when it was home taping that was going to kill the business?
“But you can modify the house while you’re on-time with the payments, right?
If you paid for it all at once, it wouldn’t matter, would it?”
True about modifying.
Still, don’t pay your yearly “tribute” to the taxing authorities & see how quick the Sheriff of Nottingham comes out to claim it.
I've pretty much stopped listening to music on radio and purchasing CDs. Ditto for music via the internet. Most of it isn't worth the trouble the RIAA can inflict upon you. The "creators" may think RIAA is looking out for them. Instead, they may be driving away potential customers/listeners.
Poor Tom Edison had no idea of how much he enriched the lawyer and lobbyist professions with his invention of playback sound.
Orwell, fascism and evil corporations don't come up when we discuss the use of eminent domain to obtain land for private development?
RIAA wants legislation that makes others responsible for policing the Internet, so RIAA can benefit from that policing.
According to some reports, even the artists/musicians do NOT benefit from such actions, only RIAA does. hmmmmm
The RIAA started out saying “per format” and got it.
now they are saying regardless of format.
This is sour grapes and they deserve to rot.
The RIAA is trying to demand that all cellphones contain an FM radio (to compete with Pandora which suggests musicians a listener may like based on other preferences).
The public keeps leaving the plantation to go live independently and the suits are getting nervous that they will lose their cushy jobs.
RIAA needs new business model
To force other private organizations to enforce on their behalf is crazy.
Without the big money we would not see the great bands like Metallica, and dozens of others, anywhere.
We'd have only Billybob and the Jerk-offs from the local Holiday Inn...but it would be FREE.
I see this is like how the state governments make all of us business owners collect sales tax. The business owners become the collection/enforcement arm of the state. I then do this work for the state government for free (or even get taxed to do it).
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.