The RIAA Armageddon has begun

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1573 of them)

Glad people are paying attention to this.

felicity, Monday, 17 March 2008 19:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

2 years pass...

WOW

Holy Shit!

From Gizmodo:

The RIAA and MPAA have submitted a plan to the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. It's basically a plan that they want the government to enact, and it's terrifying.

Here are some of the lovely things that they're calling for:

* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;
* mandatory censorware on all Internet connections to interdict transfers of infringing material;
* border searches of personal media players, laptops and thumb-drives;
* international bullying to force other countries to implement the same policies;
* and free copyright enforcement provided by Fed cops and agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security!).

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:15 (4 years ago) Permalink

Is this possible?

Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

probably not

fuckin' lame, bros (latebloomer), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

File sharers=Terrorist

Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, its not going to ever happen, but imagine the balls to even ask.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:40 (4 years ago) Permalink

exactly

bug holocaust (sleeve), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:47 (4 years ago) Permalink

"* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;"

I can't even imagine how this would work. . . .

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:47 (4 years ago) Permalink

love these fucking guys

mdskltr (blueski), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:48 (4 years ago) Permalink

Imagine the lines at the Canadian border when the enforcers have to go through every iPod song-by-song to check for infringement.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:50 (4 years ago) Permalink

if you start your bargaining high enough you might get something passed that's not quite as bad but would have seen to be too extreme if you had asked for that in the first place. That's the reasoning behind it.

pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials

How would such spyware determine what mp3's/mpeg's a user has downloaded and what ones he's ripped himself for personal use? These organizations have really shit the bed this time.

Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

"* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;"

I can't even imagine how this would work. . . .

Probably pretty simple, they have programs in commercial use even now that can detect a track and detect whether it is a commercial recording or not, and then take automated steps to get rid of it. If you have ever uploaded a video with a commercial song to youtube in the past few years, it gets taken down within minutes.

I'm sure all they would need to do is search for the itunes purchase tag or whatever kind of DRM is supported by the companies paying into the program, and it could work!

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

But what about stuff that you burned yourself from CDs/LPs? Or would it just indescriminantly delete that?

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

they want you to buy from itunes etc not rip your own cds. They want you to buy it twice.

pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

How would such spyware determine what mp3's/mpeg's a user has downloaded and what ones he's ripped himself for personal use?

This is the biggest problem, and perhaps the scariest. What if they took this method:

"Any authorized content needs to have this encrypted code embedded in the file. The RIAA and MPAA both mandated this code in all of their products, therefore, if your binary file does not have the code, it could potentially be an illegal file."

It would be one more step towards eliminating the freedom of production that the internet has democratically given to the entire world. The solution, of course, would be to dump the internet before it becomes something like cable TV, and go underground yet again. I bet there are plenty of hackers ready and willing to work on such a system.

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 20:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

pfunkboy OTM. You bought the LP, you bought the cassette, you bought the CD, why the hell aren't you buying the MP3?

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:01 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm sure hackers would figure out a way to delete the spyware in the first place.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:02 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I rip a lot of vinyl to my computer. Are they saying that any file not encoded with these RIAA codes are considered illegal?

Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:03 (4 years ago) Permalink

Well, that's my paranoid dystopian conspiracy theory. I think ripping an LP is safe by today's standards.

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:04 (4 years ago) Permalink

That sounds like what they are saying.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:04 (4 years ago) Permalink

I mean I don't see how the spyware could work any other way.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:05 (4 years ago) Permalink

I may be totally wrong ripping an LP. *google search*

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure it's considered Fair Use.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:08 (4 years ago) Permalink

Actually I'm wrong. The RIAA does NOT consider that Fair Use. But they also haven't taken anyone to court over it. I can't imagine they'd win.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:10 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm sure playing the Beach House album this afternoon with my front door open also violates Fair Use. Frreal, eff these guys.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:16 (4 years ago) Permalink

RIAA vs. Diamond has mostly settled that, I think?

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

xp

carson dial, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:16 (4 years ago) Permalink

This is pretty telling:

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:18 (4 years ago) Permalink

itunes/amazon artist rates are insane.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:24 (4 years ago) Permalink

sorry, too small, the big image is here:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Basically you need to sell over 1k albums a month in physical CDs or mp3s via iTunes, Napster, or amazon in order to make minimum wage. And if you get 4 million plays on Spotify then you still won't make minimum wage.

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:25 (4 years ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

RIAA doesn't believe that case actually happened.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:25 (4 years ago) Permalink

"Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said." This is just crazy!!! Are they saying we only pay for the right to listen to the music we have bought, but our ownership of the music ends with our ears?

Jacob Sanders, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yes.

Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:37 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yes, you can't even let your significant other listen to the album with you.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

next step of having to pay monthly fees to renew yr mp3s, can't wait.

FC Tom Tomsk Club (Merdeyeux), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:47 (4 years ago) Permalink

Now that all music can be converted to a practically non-physical object by even an 8-year-old kid, is there really anything pointing to a future for the RIAA beyond Orwellian info surveillance?

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:49 (4 years ago) Permalink

The only rationale they can offer is that pirates are "hurting the artists" but please take a look at the above chart to see how well the legitimate industry treats those same artists.

Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:50 (4 years ago) Permalink

let's also be fined for whistling the tune we heard on the radio. a lot.

thousands of masturbating weirdos (whatever), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:50 (4 years ago) Permalink

Why stop there? How about paying royalties when you get an earworm?

Johnny Fever, Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:51 (4 years ago) Permalink

i already do. sadly for all concerned the royalty-paying is all in my head.

thousands of masturbating weirdos (whatever), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

Has there ever been a good, in-depth comparison of the RIAA since 2000 versus the film industry freaking out over videocassette in the early 80s? I'd be really curious to see a side-by-side to see what steps were taken that lead to wildly different results.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

RIAA is going to be non-existent within 20 years, is my prediction

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

in-depth comparison of the RIAA since 2000 versus the film industry freaking out over videocassette in the early 80s?

these aren't even remotely comparable scenarios, sorry

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:55 (4 years ago) Permalink

"Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said." This is just crazy!!! Are they saying we only pay for the right to listen to the music we have bought, but our ownership of the music ends with our ears?

afaik, the riaa has always taken this position. they do so not because they intend to prosecute anyone for "committing the offense"(they've said they wouldn't prosecute someone for ripping an MP3 version of something they already own). they do so to avoid waiving other legal theories over which they would prosecute someone for "committing the offense."

Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

hydrapower

thousands of masturbating weirdos (whatever), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:57 (4 years ago) Permalink

is it just me or do these figures indicate that any musician wishing to make a living making music should just stop recording? there's no point in it. nobody thinks it's worth anything. if you want to increase the value of something, choke off supply. make a living via live performances and commercial/product placement recordings

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

these aren't even remotely comparable scenarios, sorry

Um, I would say that two industries dealing with new technologies that have a dramatic impact on the distribution of their major products are somewhat similar.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

nah. the scale is completely different, and is the key thing.

I won't vote for you unless you acknowledge my magic pony (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 15 April 2010 21:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

Well, yeah, the scale is a big difference. I'm not saying the two situations are exactly the same, but I still think it would make for an interesting study.

he's always been a bit of an anti-climb Max (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 15 April 2010 22:00 (4 years ago) Permalink

BMG and Round Hill Music (whoever they are) are suing Cox Cable for not disconnecting users at the behest of the music industry, Cox says that "infringement" needs be proven before they disconnect someone.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/music-publishers-finally-pull-the-trigger-sue-an-isp-over-piracy/

My favorite sentence from the music industry flacks:

In their complaint, the music publishers describe the Cox network as an out-of-control den of piracy. "Today, BitTorrent systems are like the old P2P systems on steroids," BMG lawyers write.

Not to mention the potency of today's marijuana...

Pooja Bhatt's erotic thriller Jism 2 (GOTT PUNCH II HAWKWINDZ), Sunday, 30 November 2014 11:41 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

A new generation of Super Piraters

ancient texts, things that can't be pre-dated (President Keyes), Sunday, 30 November 2014 11:50 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

You know, just a couple of days ago I was sitting behind a late 50s/early 60s government worker on the bus and he was watching a pirated copy of Annie on his laptop. For a brief second I thought to myself that maybe I was just being too much of a prude about illegal downloading and hell, if this old guy is doing it then maybe I can do it too and save a couple of bucks on things that are difficult to rent or stream online. Then I realized that no wait, if this old guy is doing it then this is where the whole thing crashes to a halt.

how's life, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 10:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

how could you tell it was pirated?

koogs, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 12:48 (1 week ago) Permalink

Because it comes out 3 weeks from now?

how's life, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 12:51 (1 week ago) Permalink

not the old version then?

koogs, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 12:53 (1 week ago) Permalink

how could you tell he was a government worker?

Abstinence Hawk (frogbs), Wednesday, 10 December 2014 12:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

I would have thought Why is a 60 yr old man watching that garbage? Especially when he could have downloaded Mr. Turner which also leaked in the wake of the Sony hacking.

xelab, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 12:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

xp: sorry, that was completely irrelevant info. But he had some kind of government id on a lanyard. Most people I ride in with are federal employees.

how's life, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

obviously an NSA worker embedding neural tracking programs into the film's pixels

ancient texts, things that can't be pre-dated (President Keyes), Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:11 (1 week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.