Howard Berman To Force ISPs To Do RIAA's Bidding
from the the-representative-from-hollywood-strikes-again dept
First Congress tried to require universities to act as the RIAA's servants (or Congress would take away funding) and now they're trying to do the same thing to ISPs. Rep. Howard Berman (who continually lives up to his nickname of being the Representative from Disney), the head of the Intellectual Property subcommittee (which, as Larry Lessig has pointed out, is like asking a Representative from Detroit to head up the committee on auto safety), is about to introduce legislation that would require ISPs pass on RIAA/MPAA threat letters to subscribers (found via TorrentFreak). Of course, Berman doesn't seem to note that the entertainment industry process is based on extremely flimsy evidence and the whole "settlement process" amounts to little more than an extortion shakedown from the entertainment industry. It's not easy to fight back, and often people feel compelled to settle. With ISPs forced to do their bidding, it will only encourage the entertainment industry to send out notices based on even weaker evidence, since the whole thing has become a revenue generator for them -- and this will simply increase their channel -- all with government support. This is making a mockery of the intent of copyright.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, isps, piracy
Companies: congress, mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
He won't bite the hand that feeds him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
RIAA can waste their time and money on this all they wan't. Even do illegal shit along the way...which is what they are famous for. I just love how they play the victim and are "cracking down on theft" (it's NOT theft, been proven how many times that SHARING is NOT the same as STEALING.) but yet they themselves break the law and refuse to pay legal fees when something is indeed their fault.
Fuck the RIAA. They are NEVER going to win this one. We've been telling you idiots for years. Either adapt to technology and change your business model...or DIE. But don't try to blame technology for your death. That's your own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
RIAA can waste their time and money on this all they wan't. Even do illegal shit along the way...which is what they are famous for. I just love how they play the victim and are "cracking down on theft" (it's NOT theft, been proven how many times that SHARING is NOT the same as STEALING.) but yet they themselves break the law and refuse to pay legal fees when something is indeed their fault.
Fuck the RIAA. They are NEVER going to win this one. We've been telling you idiots for years. Either adapt to technology and change your business model...or DIE. But don't try to blame technology for your death. That's your own fault. "
Amen, thought it should be quoted for being so truthful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what?
Also the level of encryption is actually a joke by today's standards.
They can easily get your IP address. Funniest thing, they don't even have to download Torrents. They can just get a hold of the tracker and read that data. It holds the address of every Peer and you can even 'see' what is in the torrent.
The RIAA is there simply to make money by abusing the legal system, and they seem to have quite a number of politicians in their pocket. The only way to stop this is in legal battles, best way for that is to stop giving them ammunition.
Once they have nothing left to shoot we can try to fix legal mess they've made, and then you can buy your music very cheap and DRM free (the way they SHOULD be doing it).
Oh, and those of you who think you shouldn't have to pay ANYTHING think again. You CAN steal an album, and I can see how distributing (even for free) whole discographies to compelte strangers should be frowned upon.
But by all means give them to your friends. There's a nice act from 1992 signed by Bush that protects that fair usage. It's just the indiscriminate distribution to the masses that can be seen as 'illegal'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What to do
"i got my cd's stolen". nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What to do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could be transmitting copy written stuff for work. Say - from Network Servers to my laptop to work on.
I could be working remotely and copy a couple of music files from my PC at home to listen to while I'm on the road.
Perhaps, even I could simply be copying data to another machine I own for backups.
Who is to say?
I guess we'll be guilty until proven innocent. Yaaay congressman Berman! King George would have been proud!
Doesn't matter, I won't buy any more or any less anyway. I'm annoyed and all bent out of shape about it, and I don't even use Torrent to get illegal crap.
For some of us, who buy stuff, this is only making us more and more bitter against these organizations. Sure, 95% of it's illegal, but then - I bet if we dig deep, a lot of that money that goes to politicians and political parties has exactly the same issues now doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree completely. RIAA's Gestapo tactics are annoying the hell out of the adults who pay for their music, making us more likely to say fuck you, RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullshit. We're not talking about theft. If I DL a song from a P2P program, I am NOT "breaking into" someone's PC and "robbing" them of their files. Nope. The guy I'm downloading from OPENED his door and is allowing people to come in and wants to SHARE his collection. It's no different than a buddy of mine making a mix tape for me to listen to, because he wants to SHARE with me the music he likes. THIS is how any band ever became popular and the RIAA is just pissed because bands are actually able to become popular WITHOUT the help of the RIAA. In fact, the RIAA doesn't do SHIT for the artists anymore, except ROB THEM BLIND. Why do you think there are so many indie bands today...why are doing FAR better than if they were with a major (RIAA supported) label. And so many indie bands out there with websites that offer their entire album in downloadable MP3s right from the site! These are true artists who are not in a band to become rich and have the most money. They are in a band because they love to make music and they love reaching out to the people who enjoy their work. That is the definition of a true musician. And a true musician would be HONORED if you were to download all of their songs, weather you pay .99 cents a track or 0 cents a track. They are happy you are spreading their music around for all the world to discover. I know if I was in a band, I'd be HONORED if I found out my album was the most popular downloaded on all the P2P and torrent sites.
So, back to the topic...this has NOTHING to do with Clinton's electronic theft act. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THEFT. We're talking about the RIAA being the greedy assholes that they've always been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There he goes, telling those whoppers again. The NET act of 1977 established criminal penalties for non-commercial copyright infringement, which was not previous a crime. It did not make copyright infringement theft and the US Supreme court has been very clear on that point. This has been pointed out to RandomThoughts and some of his friends many times so it's not like he can be excused on the basis of ignorance. Still, he continues to trot this tired old lie out on occasion. But what do you expect considering that...
RandomThoughts is a Shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just a question. How come when you watch a DVD the first thing you see is you can not make copies of this movie and distribute it whether or not you make a profit off of the sale (plain english for the legal mumbo jumbo). So, we all agree that is illegal, right? To make a copy of a dvd? Or cd? Or are disclaimers completely useless these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me one court decision where a person was sent to jail for theft by copying and sharing a DVD movie and NOT sent to jail for copyright infringement. Just because it is not technically theft does not give people the right to legally share the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there it is. The real truth is just a "technicality" for the likes of you, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Law is law...it's illegal. It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. And it's illegal. There is no grey area. It's against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well Carry on RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
RIAA can waste their time and money on this all they wan't. Even do illegal shit along the way...which is what they are famous for. I just love how they play the victim and are "cracking down on theft" (it's NOT theft, been proven how many times that SHARING is NOT the same as STEALING.) but yet they themselves break the law and refuse to pay legal fees when something is indeed their fault.
Fuck the RIAA. They are NEVER going to win this one. We've been telling you idiots for years. Either adapt to technology and change your business model...or DIE. But don't try to blame technology for your death. That's your own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woo hoo, another RIAA smackdown
Not sure who said it, but basically some smart old guy in the history books said that a person is a very intelligent being but people as a whole are dumb. We are proving him right with this and other issues(immigration, energy, education.)
Karl Marx(father of communism or socialism i think) said that democracy would fail due to a small minority having all the wealth and power. Basically making it almost impossible for the "American Dream" to become a reality. When this did not happen, he said the one thing he overlooked were the unions. They independently regulated industry in it's infancy. Now the wealthy have basically created their own regulating bodies(RIAA in this example) to fool us into believing what they say.
The only reason we are allowing this to happen is because we have soo much. 2 cars, nice house, A/C, cable, big TV, internet soo fast that we can download so much illegal media in one night to cost us our life savings.
We need to wake up and fix this, or just bitch some more and drink our starbucks and be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to mention Martin Luther King Jr., who said in his letter from a Birmingham jail that "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
There, now argue with Martin Luther King Jr. motherfucker.
I dare ya.
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you can go to jail for criminal copyright infringement (= infringing for personal gain (you make copies and sell them for example)) but "regular" or "personal" copyright infringement (you copy/download something for yourself) is a civil matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please do not address them as the RIAA
Stop playing into their hands. By calling themselves, the RIAA, they're avoiding using the names of the real companies behind this extortion. RIAA is the scapegoat they WANT you to hate - so that people DON'T associate the individual companies with the horrible actions of the RIAA. The Big Four, Sony BMG, EMI, Universal and Warner. These are the ones who provide most of the RIAA's funding.
Never, ever buy any products from these companies - this includes buying/renting movies, software and electronics. The only way they will learn is if we collectively bring them to their knees by not spending a penny. They will break eventually if enough people work together. You also have to explain what they're doing to your family members, co-workers and friends so that they also stop spending their money on RIAA-related products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please do not address them as the RIAA
I'm sure in the world of the tech this is not the first time we've seen companies hide behind multiple subdivisions and group names in order to create an additional persona. Be it to create a scapegoat(as in this case), reroute/redirect money from and then back to themselves, or just the old fashioned protection from questionable (or illegal) activity companies love shift blame so they can maintain their plausible deniability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RandomThoughts
...unless you live in Canada! Oh sweet, sweet Canada where putting a shared folder on your computer has been likened to having a photocopier in a library - not illegal.
It only becomes illegal if you are *taking from* another without owning the rights to it.
Good luck proving that one on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, exactly. It is against the law to "share" copy written material no matter what people say. And SP, your friend who makes the mix tapes for you is actually breaking the law by giving it to you. With today's laws, even if you don't make money off of giving away that copy written material you are still violating the law (doesn't anyone read the disclaimer before movies anymore?).
So, SP, calm down. They are not throwing innocent people in jail. While I do not agree with the RIAA's tactics or the laws themselves, I do agree that right now people are breaking the law. And we shouldn't ignore anyone who breaks the law just because "everyone else does it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So it's illegal to share Linux? It's interesting how you and your buddies like to ignore any legal rulings you don't agree with. Like the Supreme Court ones declaring copyright infringement not to be theft or establishing fair use exemptions to copyright infringement. If what you said was true then it would be illegal to share any portion of any written thing created in the last 30 years or so. Please stop telling those lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No because Linux has an Open Source Copyright which is not really what copyrights were setup to be (protection of written materials for companies). This is an example of technology muddling the law with technicalities. A Linux Copyright basically says, use our software and distribute for free all you want, but sell it and we will come after you.
Like the Supreme Court ones declaring copyright infringement not to be theft or establishing fair use exemptions to copyright infringement.
One, I never said theft, it's copyright infringement. I said "sharing" which also doesn't fall under the fair use exemptions. People are confused about fair use in this forums. Fair use says you can use material for "commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author" (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html). How does downloading a song to listen or a movie to watch fall under Fair Use? Please explain where it says you can download a copyrighted song to listen to for your enjoyment and share with your friends.
Again, I might not agree with the companies charging so much for their music and their horrible litigation tactics, but in the end it is their right to do so. We live in a day were immediate satisfaction is wanted. If you don't have money, just download the song instead of saving you money. Sad really, where has our ethics gone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, so copyright protections aren't supposed to apply to individual artists, musicians, writers, etc, only to companies? That's just baloney. Period.
You're really on a roll, aren't you? A "Linux Copyright"? There are no special copyright laws for Linux. And furthermore, the GPL under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit selling it.
Read your own post: for the purpose of "commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works". You really ought to read what you cut and past if you're going to do that.
Apparently down the same drain that respect for truth went.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't wrong, but my words sure were misconstrude. They say in their copyright you can openly use their material for your own personal use, but not sell it. Just because some music is not written under a copyright that says you can freely distribute it doesn't mean you can for Fair Use. Just like you can't distribute Windows for free, but Linux you can. My "blanket" statement was wrong, and taken as such.
Oh, so copyright protections aren't supposed to apply to individual artists, musicians, writers, etc, only to companies? That's just baloney. Period.
Again, originally in the early 1900s it was meant to protect businesses. That is history. Now or course the law has expanded, but I said originally.
You're really on a roll, aren't you? A "Linux Copyright"? There are no special copyright laws for Linux. And furthermore, the GPL under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit selling it.
I was using Linux as an example since you brought it up. And it sure does say you can't use the original source code and sell it. Now you can use it as a basis to create your own operating system, but you can't outright sell the original code.
Read your own post: for the purpose of "commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works". You really ought to read what you cut and past if you're going to do that.
Hmm, let's see. I download a song to listen to over and over again. Am I making a commentary? Nope. A parody? Nope, just want it to listen to. New reporting? Am I reporter? Guess not. Research? Nope, since I'm not writing a paper later about it. Education? Nope since I'm a student...gee I guess I'm listening to it for myself...not Fair Use.
Apparently down the same drain that respect for truth went.
And the ability for people to twist things for their own selfish arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still lying.
Hmm, let's see. A teacher of a musical history class copies parts of some musical works and shares those copies with the students in class. Depending on the details, that's fair use.
How about the ability of some people to hang a liar out to dry and then watch them twist in the breeze?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct Count
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA Garbage...
Isn't it nice to be Canadian!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A 22-year-old University of Oregon senior who made thousands of musical recordings, movies, and computer software programs available to the public on his website Friday became the first person convicted of internet copyright theft under a federal law enacted in 1997.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9908/20/internet.theft/
I seem to see the actual word "theft" quite often here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9908/20/internet.theft/
I seem to see the word "theft" in that article quite often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guy got 2 years probation. In the CNN article the word theft came up a few times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm, the NET act is No Electronic THEFT act. Sounds pretty obvious to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google copyright theft jeffrey gerand. I included the link earlier but Techdirt staff is "reviewing it. Yeah, it shows exactly what I am purporting.
Jeffrey received 2 months probation. He wasn't selling anything, just had content available on his website (not for sale.)
He was charged under the NET Act, which stands for No Electronic THEFT. That seems pretty obvious that the law states that if you violate copyright law, you are in fact a theif.
Whose your daddy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems Techdirt needs to review the post I made that contained the link. Maybe they don't like the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've read the article and the only fact(s) that can be extracted from the article is that James Robinson is in the RIAA's pocket...how else would you explain an Assistant Attorney General incorrectly calling copyright infringement theft...
You can post links to a gazillion articles that call, or that include quotes from people who call, "copyright infringement" "theft", it has no value whatsoever, since there's the Supreme Court's ruling saying it isn't...
and you're not so stupid that you don't know
1) that articles carry absolutely no weight in this
2) about the Supreme Court's ruling
so you're clearly being intellectually dishonest...the trademark of a shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I did was point out what the law actually says. I didn't make any judgements about the law being good or bad. What is your agenda?
I understand that people fileshare and not all filesharing is against the law. People should understand though that the law says they can go to jail for sharing copywritten material via their websites or via email or whatever. Why do you attack people who bring that up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, since the T, or "theft" is in title only. Nowhere in the law does it compare ot equate copyright infringement and theft.
Keep tryring though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]