RIAA and MPAA want spyware on every computer, border searches of iPods Read more: ht

[V-Man339]

I trust you too, RIAA/MIAA.

There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).

Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks. [This suggestion is preceded by a list of filtering methods, like protocol filtering, fingerprint-based filtering, bandwidth throttling, etc.]

Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products. Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.

The government should develop a process to identify those online sites that are most significantly engaged in conducting or facilitating the theft of intellectual property. Among other uses, this identification would be valuable in the interagency process that culminates in the annual Special 301 report, listing countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection to U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Special 301 could provide a focus on those countries where companies engaged in systematic online theft of U.S. copyrighted materials are registered or operated, or where their sites are hosted. Targeting such companies and websites in the Special 301 report would put the countries involved on notice that dealing with such hotbeds of copyright theft will be an important topic of bilateral engagement with the U.S. in the year to come. (As noted above, while many of these sites are located outside the U.S., their ability to distribute pirate content in the U.S. depends on U.S.-based ISP communications facilities and services and U.S.-based server farms operated commercially by U.S.-based companies.)

The planned release of a blockbuster motion picture should be acknowledged as an event that attracts the focused efforts of copyright thieves, who will seek to obtain and distribute pre-release versions and/or to undermine legitimate release by unauthorized distribution through other channels. Enforcement agencies (notably within DOJ and DHS) should plan a similarly focused preventive and responsive strategy. An interagency task force should work with industry to coordinate and make advance plans to try to interdict these most damaging forms of copyright theft, and to react swiftly with enforcement actions where necessary.


Of course, these comments are just an entertainment industry wishlist, an exercise in asking for the moon. But they reveal a great deal about the entertainment industry's vision of the 21st century: less privacy (with citizens actively participating in their own surveillance), a less-neutral Internet, and federal agents acting as paid muscle to protect profits of summer blockbusters.

 

[Warped]

not cool, this is why i stopped the downloading unless i buy it or its free from the artist/developer/creator

 

[V-Man339]

not cool, this is why i stopped the downloading unless i buy it or its free from the artist/developer/creator

I don't suggest buying things either. Not after the Sony BMG rootkit debacle.

 

[Raziaar]

**** those stupid things and the people who wrote them. Our government agencies don't need to be ****ing used as their copyright enforcement police. ******s.

 

[Stigmata]

Border searches of ipods? What the **** are they thinking?

"Looks like you have a lot of White Stripes on this thingy here. Do you have the rights to a backup copy of these songs?"
"Yes."
"Do you have the documentation to prove it?"
"Uh... why would I have that with me?"
"Alright, sir, we're going to need to talk to you in private. Follow me."

 

[Noodle]

Federal involvement shouldn't go any further than it would towards any other form of theft or legal violation. Copyright theft isn't much better or worse than shoplifting, although the amount of money lost due to it is probably larger. Federal involvement should be proportional to the value of the stolen goods.

As for the privacy issue, if you're actively downloading something illegally, than you forfeit your right to privacy when you break the damn law.

Edit: yeah, they are being over the top, though. searching your damn iPod (unless they have a warrant for some reason) would be a bit ridiculous.

 

[Warped]

seems like everyone should just team up and start suing the RIAA and MPAA for breaking so many ****ing laws themselves. everyone would be better off with them gone and artists would get more respect

either that or a massive exodus from those two institutions and the people help create something better that we all can live with

 

[nurizeko]

For all the crying over the damage that a kid in Boston downloading a copy of some song is doing to society, when I look outside I see a healthy vibrant country that while it has its problems, is hardly stagnating, with people coming up with ideas, making their buck from it and changing with the times.

¬ _ ¬ @ the RIAA

The future's now old man and you aint invited.

 

[Solaris]

I ****ing hate these bastards and this is why I don't feel a tinge of guilt about pirating everything possible with regards to large corporations.

$10 for a ****ing ebook on the kindle is ridiculous. The product has no distribution costs, costs the publisher virtually nothing and they net 90% for doing **** all.

**** that.

 

[Raziaar]

Federal involvement shouldn't go any further than it would towards any other form of theft or legal violation. Copyright theft isn't much better or worse than shoplifting, although the amount of money lost due to it is probably larger. Federal involvement should be proportional to the value of the stolen goods.

As for the privacy issue, if you're actively downloading something illegally, than you forfeit your right to privacy when you break the damn law.

Edit: yeah, they are being over the top, though. searching your damn iPod (unless they have a warrant for some reason) would be a bit ridiculous.

Except shoplifting is different. Shoplifting doesn't generate a copy. It's taking from finite, tangible supply.

 

[VirusType2]

"U.S. Government Recognizes Benefits of Piracy"
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-recognizes-benefits-of-piracy-100413/

A report released by the Government Accountability Office questions Hollywood’s billion dollar losses claims, citing a lack of evidence as the main reason for the doubts. On the other hand, the Congress-commissioned report emphasizes that piracy may also benefit the entertainment industries and third parties.

They make more money every year and act like they are going out of business. I mean, if you read the list V-Man posted, they mean to lock down the internet until it's just an online store. Nothing creative can ever be done because everyone owns everything.


There's only one thing I really agree that isn't good, and that is leaked media. Some speculate they do this intentionally to generate more buzz and to have grounds for these crazy new laws. "our media keeps getting leaked, we must shut down the internets!" But nearly every single time, the media was leaked by an insider!

So are they doing it on purpose?

If not, how about stop giving out pre-release copies of your media? That should stop it right? Because obviously the people on the payroll won't leak it. RIGHT?

 

[Solaris]

Except shoplifting is different. Shoplifting doesn't generate a copy. It's taking from finite, tangible supply.

Exactly, pirating is like breaking into an art gallery at night, not damaging anything, looking at the paintings and then leaving.

 

[Ennui]

Exactly, pirating is like breaking into an art gallery at night, not damaging anything, looking at the paintings and then leaving.

It's really more like breaking into the museum gift shop with a massive copy machine somehow and making high-quality, glossy reproductions of whatever art prints they have in the store that you want and then leaving.

 

[Solaris]

It's really more like breaking into the museum gift shop with a massive copy machine somehow and making high-quality, glossy reproductions of whatever art prints they have in the store that you want and then leaving.

It really depends, when I (hypothetically) pirate films, I would delete them after watching becuase my hard drive is small.

Either way, it harms no-one if I wasn't going to pay in the first place. Also, it's only moral if you think capitalism is a system upon which you should base your morals.

I don't think corporations are beings that can be righted or wronged, just profit driven entities. 'Oh no! Sony made 5% less profit last year, how dreadful!'

Excuse me for not caring, and don't blame me for employee's being made redundant when the company treats and pays them like shit in the first place anyway.

I may not oppose capitalism as a system, but I sure as hell aren't gonna base my morals on it.

 

[Ravioli]

I dont think they will be able to make things like this happen, people simply wont allow the change. However, we all know how gladly people give up their liberty and freedom to the government (corporations) without question, so i fear that the future will totally suck.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

MPAA & RIAA suck. What else is new.

 

[unozero]

not surprising at all considering the fore fathers of the people that run these groups also ran the USSR.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Federal involvement shouldn't go any further than it would towards any other form of theft or legal violation. Copyright theft isn't much better or worse than shoplifting, although the amount of money lost due to it is probably larger. Federal involvement should be proportional to the value of the stolen goods.

As for the privacy issue, if you're actively downloading something illegally, than you forfeit your right to privacy when you break the damn law.

Oh, noodle. Theft law in both the UK and the US requires one crucial element for successful prosecution: it must be committed with the intent to deprive the victim of their property. Piracy deprives the 'victim' of nothing at all, except potential profits - which are not their property because no purchase (ie contract) has been made.

It's really pretty simple.

 

[Noodle]

Oh, noodle. Theft law in both the UK and the US requires one crucial element for successful prosecution: it must be committed with the intent to deprive the victim of their property. Piracy deprives the 'victim' of nothing at all, except potential profits - which are not their property because no purchase (ie contract) has been made.

It's really pretty simple.

It's still lost profit. The media provided has a legally established price, and taking the media without entering the required contract of paying the damn price is theft. When you gain possession of a copy of the media, the legal contract is that you exchange however much money it costs. As soon as you gain possession, that money becomes their property and if you don't give it to them, it is theft.

 

[Eejit]

It's lost potential profit, that's different from lost profit in a rather relevant way.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's still lost profit. The media provided has a legally established price, and taking the media without entering the required contract of paying the damn price is theft. When you gain possession of a copy of the media, the legal contract is that you exchange however much money it costs. As soon as you gain possession, that money becomes their property and if you don't give it to them, it is theft.

Say what you like, it's not legally the case, and there's no grounds for federal involvement of the sort you advocate. Legally and morally, theft requires the original owner be deprived of something they already had. They didn't already have those profits, whatever insane money metaphysics you invoke.

It's like opportunity costs. Really, what are they? They enshrine the mad notion that after an arbitrary point you are entitled to profits you have not made yet, and can consider them a 'loss', despite never having achieved them, either for reasons of contingence or for your own failure. And they say leftist politics is about entitlement...

Generally speaking I believe in the individual's ownership of their works. But possession is always nine tenths of the law and when that ownership becomes impossible to enforce someone is going to have to find a new way to start making money. The alternative is to impose impractical, repressive sanctions on the general populace without the necessity of guilt and with serious implications for civil rights and the potential for political policing - measures which, at the end of the day, will only serve to worsen the problem and make its perpetrators harder to catch. So much loss of liberty for so little advantage is unconscionable, especially when, almost without exception, it's actually in the service of entrenched elites and middlemen rather than the actual artists. This issue does not and has never involved any genuinely clear-sighted debate over how we can protect the rights of artists. It has always been about betraying capitalism's professed ideals by punishing consumers for the producers' incompetence.

 

[lord_raken]

When is come to music I think of it like this.

If you like a band you should pay for their songs and support the band so they can keep on making pretty music. Not paying for it is taking something that is not yours and pretty much a big F**k You to the band.

 

[VirusType2]

When is come to music I think of it like this.

If you like a band you should pay for their songs and support the band so they can keep on making pretty music. Not paying for it is taking something that is not yours and pretty much a big F**k You to the band.

Not really. Depends if you're Metallica or not.

In preparing to self-release our new album, we thought long and hard about how best to use the internet. Given our unusual history, and a long-held sense that the practice now being demonized by the music biz as “illegal” file sharing can be a friend to the independent musician, we have decided to embrace the indisputable fact of music in the 21st century, put our money where our mouth is, and make our record, Little By Little…, available for download via Bittorrent, and at our website. We’re not streaming, or offering 30-second song samples, or annoying you with digital rights management software; we’re putting up the whole record, for free, forever. Full stop. Please help yourself; if you like it, please share with friends.

Of course, the CD will also be for sale on the site, as well as in fine independent record stores across the country, in a deluxe package that includes a 30-minute bonus disc that serves as a companion piece to the record proper (retail price for the package is $11.99).

We embark on this experiment with both enthusiasm and curiosity—and, ok, maybe a twinge of anxiety. Why are we doing this? The short answer is simply that we want a lot of people to hear the record.

However, it’s important that people understand the free download concept isn’t a frivolous act. It’s a key part of our promotional campaign, along with radio and press promotion, live shows, and videos. It’s a bet that the resources of the Internet can make possible a new way for musicians to find their audience – and forge a meaningful artistic career built on support from cooperative, not adversarial, relationships.

We realize that digital files are the primary means by which a huge segment of the population is exposed to new music; we also believe that plenty of music lovers in the world will buy a record once they’ve heard it – whether via radio or computer.

We also believe there’s an inherent qualitative difference at work—not only between MP3s and CDs, but between clicking a mouse and finding a record on the shelves of a good record store. These experiences are not mutually exclusive – they’re interdependent facets of music fandom, and equally important considerations for a band in our position.

Even with the proliferation of websites and magazines paying attention to independent music these days, it remains difficult for bands—especially rock bands—to get exposure, regardless of how good they may be (or how successful they once were). Making the record freely downloadable removes the main barrier that exists between an artist and the world of potential listeners. And we do mean world; the web’s reach is everywhere.

Whether or not people will buy something they can get for free is obviously a big question, and there are facts and figures to support both sides of the argument. We think it’s not only possible, but likely. The more fundamental challenge is ensuring people have access to your work to begin with.

At the risk of sounding Pollyanna-ish, making records has never been about making money for this band. If the worst thing that happens is a whole bunch of people hear Little By Little… and no one buys it, we’ll know our experiment was costly. But that won’t make it a failure.

This is by no means a manifesto. We don’t pretend to be the first band to spin a variation of the shareware distribution model. We love record labels and record stores. We buy lots of CDs and are committed to supporting independent music. We’re not a bunch of fake Marxists. We’re just trying to be smart capitalists so we can sustain our lives as musicians. This is an experiment. We’ll let you know how it goes.

Meanwhile, please enjoy the record. Everything else is secondary.

http://www.harveydanger.com/press/why.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBgmC_USeoM
Harvey Danger has been around a long time. But new and Indy artists in particular often publicly state they want their shit shared (and I could provide a dozen examples if I could be bothered), and they are vocal about it. They also want you to buy it. But nobody will buy things if nobody knows about them.


Can you see how me sharing that Youtube video is beneficial to their career? How me telling you about some band you may or may not have ever heard of has released their album for free, is free "word of mouth" advertising for them?

Anyway, here's where to get their new album: http://www.harveydanger.com/downloads/

You can order it on disc in lossless quality, download different formats through bit torrent, and you can make a contribution (donation), if you would like.