MPAA Puts Words in Mouth of CA Attorney General 685
An anonymous reader writes "In another example of Microsoft Word meta data coming back to bite you, Wired News reports that a document circulated by the California Attorney General to fellow lawmakers supporting new restrictions on P2P software was actually authored by a senior vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America."
Woah (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Independents like me are also protected by copyright.
But note: if the goal is to "legitimize" p2p so that artists get paid, how would you do it?
Would you add a new Internet tax that everybody should pay?
Would you add new monitoring software so that an agency can track what people are doing on the net?
Would it actually be any more helpful to independents?
Do you think that everybody whose income depends on their ability to sell their own copyrighted work should just have to find another job?
These are the real questions...
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Interesting)
People say: "the artists should get paid!" but the same then say "but a tax isn't fair!" and so on.
Unfortunately, gropus like the EFF want you to keep thinking about this as no more than a struggle with an Evil Oligopoly, but the same stuff applies to every author protected by copyright.
Again, it only makes sense to consider the full context as well as the solutions put forth by groups like EFF [eff.org] before you make up your mind.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true at all. Depending on who you talk to, the problem with the RIAA/MPAA isn't that they are trying to protect copyrights. The problems include:
They are trying to hang on to an archaic business model and distribution system.
They are trying to outlaw a better distribution system and technological progress.
They are trying to maintain overinflated prices.
They are using unethical tactics.
Money they "win" does not go to the artists.
Copyright law has been modified from its original intention to support maximizing corporate profits at the expense of public rights, progress, and costs.
If you actually read the EFF [eff.org] position on these sorts of things, you'd see that they have sound arguments against the RIAA and MPAA.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, you just did exactly what I'm talking about, flow the dialog into the same old anti-RIAA thing.
Look, I agree that P2P tech itself should not be held accountable. And I agreed with the EFF when that was their position. And note also that the EFF used to suggest that the RIAA should be suing infringers [com.com].
But the EFF has come to adapt a pro file-sharing-even-when-it's-copyrighted schtick, and that's when they got off track.
Re:Overstating a bit... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The RIAA and MPAA are groups that include all of the major content distributors. Sony is not a monopoly, but the RIAA and MPAA are literally "the many as one" mono=one poly=many.
2)You are correct that the people involved in a transaction are the final arbiters of what the "correct" price in the transaction is. When enough people are will to defect to an illegal method with an inferior product you might take that as a vote that CD prices are too high.
3) Again, for the people who haven't opted out of this system CD prices are "correct" for others they are sub-optimal. There are people who will buy a $300,000 car, that does not mean that is the proper price point for all cars.
Don't misunderstand me, downloading music you have not paid the producers and/or distributors for is against the law (though I have downloaded songs that I DO have on CD because it was easier that ripping it myself- is that wrong?) but the fact that it is so common now indicates that the winds of change are stirring. Breaking the law is not disincentive enough to stop people, there has to be a greater good in not breaking that law. People stop at red lights because they realize there is a social contract between them and the other drivers that benefits everyone. Copyright has hit the pivot point where it benefits too few of the people to be respected. This is the same thing that happened to prohibition, a law that benefits too few or inconveniences too many can't survive long.
Not just about MPAA/RIAA? Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you're doing exactly what you're accusing the EFF of doing. If you want to engage in substantive dialogue rather than gross generalizations, talk about what you find wrong with their clearly labelled premises and conclusions.
Personally, I think the concept of a tax is incorrect as well. However, if you've read The Future of Ideas by Lessig, or Digital Copyright by Jessica Litman, you might be more amenable to look at copyright historically, and see that the EFF is actually taking a dangerous route by allowing any compromise in this area (because in the 20th and 21st centuries, the public's side always compromises, while the copyright holder's side always has remained relatively rigid. The result is less and less rights for a public that wishes to participate in culture and not simply consume).
Copyright is an important law, but it is not a moral black/white law, and it has always functioned best when it is loose. As heretical as it sounds to today's ears (inculcated as we have been with an increasingly propertized concept of copyright over the last few decades), I don't think noncommercial usage should require payment, and I think stepping back from a 'solution' that is the only solution we should allow. Any other fix, via a tax or a 'smart' internet which charges and monitors for copyrighted-work transfer, would be a much more serious loss to all the public, including and especially future artists, than noncommercial personal copying.
Re:Not just about MPAA/RIAA? Exactly. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is obvious that artists deserve compensation for their work. Anyone who claims otherwise is a twit. However it is also obvious that the RIAA is not the way to give artists compensation for their work. I agree that it'd be nice to build a perfect replacement for the RIAA then dismantle the RIAA. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, so that isn't going to happen. Whatever we replace the RIAA with will also have problems and unfairness built into it, I guarantee. I think that a "pay the musicians internet tax" is a very bad idea, as are taxes on blank media. The main reason is that a) under the current setup the money goes to the RIAA, not artists, b) it charges everyone not just people who want music, and c) It means that my money goes to support bands I don't like, I want more specific payments.
The "Tip Jar" model has multiple problems, primary among them is that it relies on the honesty and generosity of Joe/Jane average. I honestly don't know what a good solution will be, I do know that to meet my definition of "good" any solution must include the destruciton of the RIAA. Not because I hate them, but because its self evident that they are leeches who impede the idea of getting money to artists.
I do know this though: if we can find a way to get even $.50 to a band for every album downloaded they'd be making double what they make now. Hell, I'd pay $.25 per track (around $2.50 per album at an average of ten tracks per album). I think that given the relatively low price people may be more willing to pay than conventional wisdom says they are. How to get and gather those payments I don't know.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Interesting)
"One way or another something will have to give. It would be in your best interests as an artist, and mine as a consumer, that it is not the corporate solution that comes out on top."
Here's the deal -- once you understand the details of the alternative, only then can we compare them to what we have now and see how they both measure up.
But as long as the dialog reamins fixated on freedom vs. Great Satan, we're not really talking about anything meaningful.
I have read the alternatives, and I reamain unconvinced that they are better.
1) I don't like the idea of a new government agency to track Internet use.
2) I don't think it's practical to hinge it all on "voluntary" terms.
3) The alternatve would just be a new agency that pays out to the RIAA anyway.
And so on. The point is that rather than talk about how much wind the RIAA sucks, we should be talking about how much better the alternative system would be.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't download music, why should I be punished? My company doesn't burn music CDs, we archive our projects and data on CD and DVD, why should they have to pay the RIAA tax? My CD burner at home is used mostly for storing my digital pictures. Why should I pay the RIAA tax?
I hate to say this, but there is ALWAYS going to be some sort of theft going on somewhere. People still steal CDs from retail stores, after all. The internet may have made it easier to break the law, but if they just made it easy to comply with the law, instead of punishing their would be customers, copyright infringement would drop.
Apple and several other companies have already proven that given a reasonable and easy method to legally download music, people will do it. If those were real mp3s instead of a restricted format, I bet there'd be a LOT more people downloading. If there were a convenient method for me, I'd do it. I just haven't seen one that I think is worth it.
So I don't buy. I also don't steal. I simply do without. I shouldn't have to pay a fine for using the internet.
On the other hand, like the audio cassette and CD fine that I'm already forced to pay, I think it would legitize copyright infringement. After all, if I'm going to be punished one way or another, I might as well take advantage.
That last sentence is the most important. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, if I'm going to be punished one way or another, I might as well take advantage.
This is the exact same reason the murder rates were ridiculously high several hundred years ago in Europe (or at least Britain). There were so many poor people, the theft rate was quite high. The penalty for theft was made death by hanging, and hey, whaddaya know, that's the same as the punishment for murder. So why not kill the guy so you can take more of his stuff with less risk of getting caught?
If the punishments for minor infractions are made similar to those for greater infractions, people will tend to think less of committing the greater. If we're forced to pay more for using the Internet because of the people piracy, well then, why shouldn't we commit piracy, too? After all, we've already paid for it, haven't we?
Of course, they'll still sue you. And levy the taxes on a dozen forms of media, and raise CD/DVD/movie prices. Because they don't get that treating customers as criminals is not the way to handle this, and all they see is $$$$.
Dan Aris
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not irrelevent, it's annoying, and that's why more people aren't using it. If you could just download mp3s instead, you wouldn't have had to jump through those hoops. It's not irrelevent, it's symbolic of the stupidity in the industry, they only manage to annoy their honest customers while the people who steal the music enjoy greater freedom and less hassle.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Two tips come immediately to mind:
1) View all studio recordings as advertisement and nothing else. If people are willing to pay for a physical copy of that advertisement, so much the better - but don't expect them to. Your prepared music being distributed VIA ANY FASHION in the modern music industry has but one primary purpose to serve: to get your name out there.
2) Start viewing live performances as your bread and butter and your only means of actually, you know, making money within the industry. If your style of music doesn't lend itself well to live performance (techno, etc.), come up with a different form of spectacle to keep the audience entertained - they want to pay you money to participate in an event, and you need provide that event. This is your new means of earning an income - selling spectacle to the masses.
--Ryvar
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say, not everything lends itself to a live performance. But some things can only be done (and recorded) live.
Should the London Philharmonic income be limited to only those who can actually attend the performance? Or some group such as Mannheim Steamroller? I don't really want to buy a t-shirt from them.
Not everything lends itself to 'spectacle' or live performance.
Mannheim Steamroller (Score:5, Informative)
I've been to a couple, but the problem is, they sound just like the CD. One, the Ice-Capades-alike, I honestly didn't realize the band was there until the end, when they stood up for applause. I thought they were just playing a CD. Thanks to synthesizors, amplifications, click tracks, and a few other technology bits, the performances are indistinguishable from playing the CD.
If the CD can stand in that well, I don't know why they perform at all. I'd rather just have the CD, thanks.
I know they aren't the only group who does this. I know I've also seen a lot of things like Superbowl performance or Emmy performances that are indistinguishable from the CD (and I don't think they were all lipsynching, though maybe I'm wrong). Living on performances isn't a good idea for a lot of groups who make good music, but don't really gain any benefit from giving a "concert".
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Now back to the issue at hand. Not everything lends itself to 'spectacle', but not everything lends itself to a CD or radio performance as well. Market develops a framework, inside which people and businesses need to operate. If that framework changes, that may harm a few players, but that's a fact of life. They have to deal with it. Many things are not practical today, in the current environment. Clever hard sci-fi movies are one example, there are simply none of them made. One or two small budget productions per decade at most. That's just one example, there are thousands more examples of things markets do not provide, but we do not miss them, because we don't have them.
The alternative, of course, is a shift to a more planned economy (at least in the field of music). There is nothing wrong with state support, as witnessed by the European filmmakers and art in the Soviet Union (not kidding). And a nice side effect is that artists suddenly find that they can live on $50000-200000 just fine.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know who controls most music venues? Do you know who owns the most radio markets and controls the playlists? Do you know who earns the majority of the money from your concert performances? The answer is Clear Channel.. and no that's not tin-foil goodness, that sadly is true.
Corporate influence bought deregulation resulting from the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and the whole MPAA issue is probably small peanuts relative to Clear Channel's influence.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I would do nothing, since the exchange of information between two individuals is already a legitimate practice.
Of course, based on the hypothetical "solutions" you're suggesting, the real question you're looking to answer is "How do you maintain the viability of selling recordings?". If the people who stand to benefit from that can't figure it out, then let them go out of business. Performers can go back to making their money the way they have throughout the majority of human history: Live performances, and commissioned works. The best part about this? The money will be well spread amongst musicians instead of making a small few vastly wealthy and screwing everybody else. The idea of being able to create a recording and have it be an endless fountain of wealth with no more input of labor from the creator was broken anyway. Nobody deserves a free lunch.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
P2P is already legitimate. P2P has never been illegitimate. The statement has as much basis as "knives are illegitimate", "fire is illegitimate" or "sports cars are illegitimate".
The problem is people trying to *il*legalize it.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone's current chosen profession and it's ability to feed them or their family should not dictate my personal freedoms.
So what if artists don't get paid? Who the hell promised that they WOULD get paid forever? Will people will stop making music just because they can't sell 10 million CD:s? No. Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand? No. Can I make a living building sextants? No.
Nobody gives a rat's ass about the people that got laid of in the automotive industry because of robotics. Just think of all the lumbermen we could employ if we outlawed concrete! And tractors, what evil! There used to be millions of hard working people just barely making a living planting crops! Oh, the good old days of Old Industry before all of these horrbile, apocalyptical, communist inventions ruined our society and took away the ability to make a living!
If new thechnology will kill the music INDUSTRY, then let it die, since it is obviously flawed. It's called a market economy, if nobody wants your stuff, your fucked. Laws are not going help.
mod parent UP (Score:5, Interesting)
Beautifully stated. I wish my friends in the movie and music industries would all listen when I try to tell them the same thing. But they won't, so they're doomed to follow the buggy whip manufacturers to death and obscurity.
Besides, artists will always be able to earn a living. Britney and Beyonce may not make millions of dollars a year anymore (actually, those are bad examples, since Pepsi will probably keep paying them both for a while, especially if they do a commercial where they kiss each other, but I digress), but they'll still do better than Joe Sixpack ever will. It's the industry executives, with nothing really to fall back on, who are really and truly screwed.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
But your analogy is completely wrong. People do want the stuff.
The real question is, can you get people to pay any amount at all for it, when there's a "free" option on the Internet?
Listen to your own attitude. You sound like the type of person who does the absolute minimum to follow the polite rules of society but beyond that, fuck everyone else. I mean, look at this statement:
Someone's current chosen profession and it's ability to feed them or their family should not dictate my personal freedoms.
You mean, your freedom to use their copyrighted material without compensating them? Selfish attitudes such as yours are actually quite prevalent in the world (imagine that), and believe it or not, most musicians and movie makers are not going to stand on street corners and manifest their arts for free, to anyone who comes by, out of the kindness of their hearts.
Your analogy was of new technology coming in and displacing the old. But the analogy is wrong, and it doesn't event make sense, because there is no "new music" coming in and replacing the "old music." What has happened is that technology has given us a way to very easily deny artists compensation for their work.
The trick in the next century will be to provide people with a way to pay what they think is fair for artistic creations. Then we'll see if the majority of people are fundamentally greedy.
Answer this, honestly: is the $10 price of a DVD so unfair, really? Do you really think you should be able to get it free just because there's a convenient technology available to do it? If $10 is too high, what would you pay?
You fly back to "capitalism" as an excuse for your greedy attitude, yet you don't seem to realize that if you have a method whereby you can always acquire a product for free, you completely undermine the basis for the system, which is that buyers and sellers agree on a price through the action of supply and demand. You've artificially turned the "supply" dial to infinity, and it's wreaking havoc.
(None of this is to say that music or other content isn't extremely overpriced, but making it impossible for artists to get any compensation whatsoever for their work is not the solution.)
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. I'm fine with that. I'll either make do with what's in the public domain, commission a work, or (gasp) create my own art. Where did people get the idea that the "recording industry" was a necessity for life?
Sean
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P isn't about just trading feature movies despite what these bozos would have the legislature believe. I know more than a few people who use it to get free amatuer p0rn clips, race videos, and other USER made stuff - they have NEVER gotten an MP3 from P2P. Why should they be penalized?
The heart of this matter - despite everyone turning this into an RIAA debate - is that a member of the Motion Picture trade association appears to be helping AUTHOR documents for a legislative office. If this were a gun manufacturer or P0RN industry executive would we be a little more incentivized to talk about the REAL issue here perhaps? These people have NO business attempting to shape legislation in this manner - why is everyone debating P2P when that is NOT the issue here?
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. [stanleylondon.com]
Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand? No.
No, but you can donate them! [biblesociety.org]
Just wanted to point out that long after an industry has died, it will have some remnants doing it for the fun and the novelty. Also see swordsmiths, buggy whip manufacturers, and so on.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Artists should get paid the same way everybody else gets paid. They provide a service. Indviduals choose whether or not they would like to part with some of their money for said service, at the price set forth by the service provider. It's the same business model as everybody else in the world. So, what do you do for a living? Write code for an employer, maybe? Well, you provide your service (code writing) to the employer, who chooses to part with some of his cash in exchange for your services. It's the same thing for motion picture artists. Peter Jackson and crew spend considerable time and money creating The Lord of the Rings film adaptation. You decide you would like to see it, so you part with $10 to view the film.
The difference is as such. While your skills are only of interest to one person (your employer), the artists skills are of interest to many, many people. It's also much easier to rip off the artist, and not pay for his service, than it is to rip you off by not paying your salary. Your current chosen profession and it's ability to feed you or your family should not dictate your employer's personal freedom to consume your services, and not cut you a check, right?
I agree, business models have to change, and they are. I make my living as a photographer, mostly weddings and portraits. In the last five years, the average cost of wedding photography has right about doubled, because of copying. It used to be that photographers made most of their money off reprint orders from families. Those orders have pretty much ended since everybody and their brother has a scanner and a printer, or the "Make Prints from Prints!" kiosk at Wal-Mart.
The business model used to work like this:
1) Look at your costs. $30,000 worth of equipment plus insurance, maintainance, replacements, backups, etc. Studio overhead, business overhead. Film, developing, printing. Health insurance, mortgage, food, etc.
2) Determine profit necessary to stay in business, and eat. Say, $2,000
3) Charge the couple $1,000. Make another $1,000 off reprint orders from parents, grandparents, friends, family.
Today, step 3 is ) Charge couple $2,000, and give them the negatives/high res image files. Let them deal with making crappy prints from their home printers to save a few bucks, because they don't listen when you tell them to bring them to a pro lab.
So who wins here? Nobody. Who loses? The customer. Now the couple is paying more, and getting worse quality. Technology is a two-edged sword...
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Independents like me are also protected by copyright.
Indeed, I fully agree.
But note: if the goal is to "legitimize" p2p so that artists get paid, how would you do it?
There are lots of suggested methods, you could tax CD-Rs which are most commonly used by P2P users for backup of the files they download. You could start a subscription service, under which you pay a (small) fee and have access to a P2P network (note this differs from such things like iTMS et al in that it's a P2P network, not a store). There are lots of proposed solutions, it's just that no one is listening. It's also possible that artists may have to take a loss here and find another way of making income. Maybe CDs on demand instead of mass production.
Would you add a new Internet tax that everybody should pay?
of course not, that's senseless. The only people that should pay are those that use the services, a net tax will not do that.
Would you add new monitoring software so that an agency can track what people are doing on the net?
Again, no, we only want to charge those that use the services.
Would it actually be any more helpful to independents?
It seems to be fairly helpful to a lot of them. But what does this have to do with anything? If it's not more helpful to the independents we shouldn't do it?
Do you think that everybody whose income depends on their ability to sell their own copyrighted work should just have to find another job?
If need be, yes. You are not entitled to an icome via your method of choosing.
Look I'm not some kid that only wants free music, I'm on the music making side of this too. But I'm realistic about this too. My groupd puts out CDs, and yes they can be very expensive to produce, but we have come to realize the money isn't in the CDs. We make more money charging $5 a head for a concert than we do selling CDs for $10 a piece. That's just life someimes. Sometimes you take a loss in one place to gain in another.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not the goal - your statement assumes that people should not have the freedom to use a tool without the oversight of a nanny government because that tool can also be used for illegal purposes.
The goal of the MPAA appears to be to "delegitimize" p2p applications because it can also be used to bypass payment schemes of copyrighted material - and any legal use, or users, can just be damned.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I have one simple question for you then. as a Fellow Indie film maker....
why do you make films? I make them to be seen and I am honored when it is good enough to be "violated" and "stolen" by people on Kazaa. Hell my next large film to be soon released by the new film group I have joind/formed. will be available 100% free in a low-res form online. but still purchaseable for $9.99 online in DVD form.
do I care if someone thinks my film is great enoguh to be copied (no I wont have any protection what-so-ever on the DVD) and distributed?
nope, It's a gague that the film is a gigantic success, and I need to start submitting it heavily to festivals.
Hollywood is acting out of greed not out of any noble intentions... and nobody should ever see anything that hollywood does as anything but suspect.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
If the goal is to "legitimize" p2p so that artists get paid, how would you do it?
How about starting by turning the royalty system from a cashcow from the rich to an incentive to the working musician?
Do Beatles^H^H^H^H^H^HMichael Jackson need any more money out of the Beatles recordings made in the sixties? Why are dusty recordings by dead people more valuable than new, innovative stuff recorded today? Why do artists have expectations of recording one album and living off the proceeds for 30 years when nobody else has that kind of realistic expectations about their own work?
I'm not saying "old" means "bad", I have loads of albums and MP3's from the fifties and sixties, I'm saying that maybe more of the current compensation should go to people who are still alive and making their living out of music. The people who had one hit 20 years ago can frankly go find another job rather than expect to leech off the public forever.
One idea: create a system that rewards musicians who allow live recordings of their performances to be distributed for free or for low cost.
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
Scenario:
You publish some of your creative content. Once published, content is essentially accessible to the general public at no cost. That's the nature of it. Your ideas become public property because ideas, once released, force themselves onto everyone who comes in contact with them, just like Jefferson said.
Now, your copyright identifies you as the original creator and the source for potential future works. Perhaps copyright will protect you from parasites who might try to hijack your work for their own exclusive gain, but nothing more.
You have made little or no money from your initial offering to the public. Your work, so far, is merely an investment. If you are any good, people will appreciate you. They will hope for more.
You will say: I own other ideas; ideas that are uniquely mine, and that nobody else has but me. These ideas are worth something to the public, and I will release them to you if you make it worth my effort.
If the public, based on the merits of your previous ideas, would like to be edified by your continuing work, then they will support you in your work. And if you become so astoundingly popular, why not hire a publishing house to get the word out to the masses? They could even take a small cut of your earnings. What a novel idea.
How can this go wrong? Why not use a system that actually cultivates excellence by feeding the true masters? Why not let the mediocre find something else they truly excel in? Why do we celebrate mediocrity? If the people still want the latest sexed-up teenage sensation, why, they can still vote with their money.
Isn't it time for people to think about what they really want? Why is it that we are force-fed our culture, as it were, through an I.V.?
It is not a hard issue. Why is there such debate?
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily. My job is to write code for use by my coworkers. I don't sell anything. In fact, I don't even hold the copyright to the code I've written: it's a "work for hire," so my employer holds the copyright. Neither I nor my employer sell this code, yet I manage to make a great deal of money doing this.
I fail to see why artists can't adopt the same model: if you want to get paid for producing something, get someone to hire you to produce it.
Re:Patronage System (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This isn't just about RIAA/MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the response:
1) if the record companies are making money off CD sales, then money can be made of CD sales
2) if the artists start to throw off the record industry and take control over their work, that could be their money instead of the record companies'
3) in an effort to screw the record industry now, p2p disenfrachizes those CD sales
4) that, in turn, disenfranchizes the hope of those same artists from reclaiming those CD sales
Re:Woah (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing is that it's so common that many people find it to be completely normal.
Like a recipent told me; "It's not corruption when we call it campaign contributon"
AG is quilty of copyright infringment himself! (Score:5, Funny)
Tell the robots what you think. (Score:5, Informative)
CA State AG Public Inquiry Unit [state.ca.us]
or
You can contact the Public Inquiry Unit at (916) 322-3360 or, within California, by calling (800) 952-5225.
Cynical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cynical (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cynical (Score:5, Interesting)
"A Georgia State University study shows that U.S. senators have an uncanny knack for picking stocks that outpace the overall market. Professor Alan Ziobrowski's analysis of senators' financial disclosure data found that over a period of six years, the lawmakers outperformed the market by 12 percent."
Link to npr (I realise this is possibly not the favoured radio station round here...)
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=17
This is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
However (Score:5, Funny)
nice, puppeteers... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh thank you! I am so glad that a piece of software for sharing innocous content is being watched by out government so that I am not harmed in any way by the pure evil contained inside.
If P2P software can be used to violate law, the argument goes, its makers should be obligated to incorporate a warning on the product or face liability for deceptive trade practices.
Yes, because we all know that hammers, cars, broken beer bottles, rolls of duct tape, and pieces of rope all incorporate these warnings...
We view with grave concern reports that at least some P2P software developers may be adding features deliberately designed to hinder law enforcement in its prosecution of crimes using P2P software.
Awww, I view with grave concern the fact that the MPAA is paying off government officials so that they can control their market by influencing, greatly in their favor, the laws that are passed and excuted upon everyday citizens.
Whether it is the widespread availability of pornography, including child pornography, the disclosure of sensitive personal information to millions of people, the exposure to pernicious computer worms and viruses, or the threat of legal liability for copyright infringement, P2P file-sharing software has proven costly and dangerous for many consumers.
This is my favorite. Widespread panic techniques. Mention that it has child porn abilities! The exposure to viruses is the OS' and the users' fault not P2P software.
God, what a bunch of trash. Glad that we have these people in office so that others can use them as puppets.
Re:nice, puppeteers... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with all of this is that it's so hard to determine who's the good guy in it. It's like watching a bad western with only black hats in it.
On one side, you have the kids that are freely breaking copyright laws left and right because they want to watch a movie or listen to a song but for whatever moronic reason don't feel they should have to compensate anyone for it (to the dolts that will undoubtedly say "but it costs too much, they're just ripping us off.. waahh waahh.. let me suck my thumb like a little baby" - deal with it. It's called making an informed decision. If you don't think it's a value purchase, don't make the purchase. Doesn't mean you can just rip off a copy for yourself without compensating anyone).
On the other side, you have these assmunching wonders who are penning laws and signing the dotted line with the names of public officials. WTF?
Sigh... if you need me, I'll be working on my rocket ship to Mars. The rest of you bozos can fight it out amongst yourselves. There's no "good fight" here to join...
There *is* a good fight. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. I don't normally download copyrighted materials without permission (as far as I know). I have on occasion. Whooptie-doo, come get me. I do download copyrighted works with permission, from indie artists and such. And I downloaded a bunch of Metallica stuff from their website. I was a sucker and bought their latest CD. The only redeeming quality was the passcode included with it that allowed me to download a bunch of free tracks from their website. What if I put those on a P2P network?
See, here is the dividing line for me on this whole issue. There are bad guys on both sides, but there are no good guys that I can see on the MPAA/RIAA side. I don't believe their BS about "protecting the artist" for one AMD clock cycle. They are in it to retain their stranglehold on the music industry. At least with P2P, there are some legal uses for it. Placing restrictions on it for the benefit of the corporations is NOT the correct thing to do. People are using it to break the law? Go after them, that is your right. They tried this, but in a half-assed attempt and got a nice PR road rash from it. The laws are there, they don't have to get any new ones passed. Just because they couldn't easily reach out and grab the perps isn't the rest of the world's problem.
There's no "good fight" here to join...
I think the fight to join is the fight of freedom. With freedom, you have the choice to break the law or not. Without it, your only choice is to conform or to break the law. Look at the recent goings-on with Howard Stern and other DJs who are getting hammered by the puppets at the FCC. Clear Channel is using a government agency to do its bidding. I heard people at work say "I am glad Stern is getting kicked off the air, I hate him." I could have argued, but instead I educated them. It doesn't matter if you like him or not, he is being thrown off the air because he spoke out against Clear Channel, GWB, and the religious right. It doesn't matter if you like him or not, he should have the right to say what he wants to say (within the established rules, of course). He didn't violate any rules. They pulled some clips of him from 3 years ago, and said it violated their standards! And instead of fining him, they just cut his show from their stations. There was no appeal, no nothing. And what he said was nothing you can't hear elsewhere on TV/Radio. It is a farce, and it is only one of many going on in this country. And before you say "Hey, if you hate this country so much, why don't you leave?", remember this - I love this country, and the reasons this country is so great is BECAUSE of our freedom. Freedom that is systematically being taken away from the people in favor of large corporations.
Re:nice, puppeteers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm
Finally P2P restrictions from the right place... (Score:4, Interesting)
Our 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution allows the State and/or the People to cover anything the federal government can not. Should California desire to restrict P2P, it should be able to. If you disagree with California's take on this restriction, you can move to Arizona or Delaware, or another state that doesn't have such a restriction.
I'm a firm believer that State governments should be manacled by the Constitution as well, and in my perfect world the State would be just as restricted in making laws against speech. But nonetheless, I'd rather see bad laws at the State level rather than the federal level.
Keep the goons in Congress restricted from making laws, and you'll find almost everyone is happier.
Re:Finally P2P restrictions from the right place.. (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW, California has no right to do this either.
Key Words (Score:4, Funny)
To me, the federal government is my servant and as such they should pay me taxes, not the other way around.
Open Office looking more attractive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate Policymaking (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be very interested to know whether this Attorney General received campaign "contributions" from the MPAA, and how much. What do you have to pay to buy an Attorney General these days? $10,000? $50,000? I hate that everyone has their price, but what really makes me sad is how low that price is sometimes...
Re:Corporate Policymaking (Score:5, Insightful)
Lobbyists are one thing. Talking in someone's ear, buying them lunch, being recieved by a politician to discuss your views and desires. But to have actual direct input into policy making as the VP of a for-profit organization must be illegal and if it is not should be made so immediately.
This makes me nothing short of sick, SICK. And it has nothing to do with P2P, it has everything to do with for-profit agencies running the government. I mean damn, if the MPAA and RIAA are allowed to write policy and law, it will soon become government "against the people."
Re:Corporate Policymaking (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this isn't illegal. Take a look at what Cheney did with the energy task force. Having Enron write their own energy laws is like having the fox guard the henhouse, but there is nothing illegal about it. Government has been having "industry leaders" draft legislation affecting their industry for years now. That's why large corporations can pollute the environment with little or no responsibility. When the industrial polluters are writing pollution laws, business is good for everyone, except those unfortunates that live downwind.
Re:Corporate Policymaking (Score:5, Insightful)
And the US sets the trend. In Europe, there has tended to be much more concern for the weak. Unfortunately, this has started to change lately, with rightist governments in power and under pressure from the USA. I cheer for the left wing victory in Spain, and hope the same will happen elsewhere, though rather without the help of terrorists.
Re:Corporate Policymaking (Score:5, Informative)
Not illegal. Not even close. In fact, there are many currently-standing laws that are:
- written entirely by private organizations
- copyrighted by those organizations, with a limited license granted to the government for enforcement purposes
- if you want to read the frickin law you must buy a copy from the private company
And for the grand finale: any other person who makes copies of these laws available to the public is prosecuted for copyright violation [google.com]! Note that the this case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, but they refused to hear it.The law of the land is: you don't talk about the law of the land.
Re:Corporate Policymaking (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one of the more repulsive decisions I've heard about in a while. They are basically saying that the law can be copyrighted and sold because to do otherwise would be too expensive for the government. First of all, the government could contract out such work on standards codes, making them works for hire that the state would own the copyright to. It's fine to pay someone for their expertise in crafting a law. It is definitely not fine to require people to pay for access to the text of the law. Seems like that would make ignorance of the law a valid defense.
Then VOTE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then get off your ass and VOTE, or run for office. These days the political climate is overwhelmingly in favor of the little guy, because people are so disenfranchised. If some 80 year old farmer from Vermont can get elected to congress for being a "regular hard working guy", why can't you? There's something like less than a 20% turnover of elected officials these days; our government is chock full of career politicians more interested in getting reelected than actually representing the people or working for good government.
People whine about corporate involvement in government, then do nothing when it comes time to do the one thing corporations can't- actually place a vote, or run for office. Voter turnout in this country is pathetic; 3rd world countries have better turnout than us, and they have to deal with gunslinging "supporters" and whatnot. In Russia, Putin's opponents simply disappear.
What's your excuse?
Re:Then VOTE! (Score:4, Insightful)
(BTW, I Vote) Vote? Vote for WHOM? For example, in the upcoming presidential election, do you think either Kerry or Bush is going to have the interests of P2P users or the MPAA/RIAA at heart? Then you have the hundreds of millions who say "duhhh, well I HAVE to vote for Kerry or Bush, or my vote won't count... In order for a vote to COUNT, an underlying assumption is we actually have a CHOICE, instead of two republicrats.
Hell, things have gotten so bad, Bush is now spending like a socialist and not doing anything about the borders! You have some right-wingers scratching their head wondering if this goofball is really a Republican at all (never mind the usual Rush apologists for this behaviour) aside from the terrorism stance. And of course you have Kerry, whose a multi-millionare, so yeah, he's REAAALLLY going to look out for the little P2p downloading guy or girl! Right!
Right now, I'm really stumped as to who to vote for in many elections because I really don't see too much of a choice nowadays...
Your comment has been obscured with lead paint (Score:5, Informative)
That's in a case where the water isn't nearly as muddy as with the MPAA's shenanigans. There are legitimate reasons for which copyright laws exist, the MPAA is maneuvering behind those.
I have 10-year-old twins, one of whom once testing a little high for lead levels in my old apartment; gee, I guess there was no danger after all. Is there any cover at all for stacking a CDC board's medical decision with voices from the paint industry?
How can I too read this meta-data? (Score:5, Informative)
How too can I find dirty corporate laundry? (Score:4, Informative)
For example, checking this box and then searching for "sco" returns 4600 web pages containing a link to a
Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
It gave me an interesting idea, though. If this situation actually happens, or even if it doesn't, imagine a company run as a democracy. Regular elections for CEO (of course there would have to be some accountability rules so they don't milk it for personal gain before stepping down, but that'a already a problem anyway). I can imagine workers for such a company being more motivated, and certainly more financially healthy since the massive salaries at the top would essentially be spread around.
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the future.
Re:Democracy (Score:4, Informative)
I think the actual quote was:
"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and Corporate power.
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, it's the beginning point of a lot of really good sci fi books.
Re:Democracy in corporations. (Score:5, Informative)
> corporation. Unfortunately, I forget the name
> of the person that introduced this.
> -- ravind
The company is called Semco, it's in Brazil, and the CEO is Ricardo Semler. You can read about it in his excellent book Maverick!. He's written a follow up called The Seven Day Weekend which I'm getting when it's available here in paperback.
"If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should people give up these rights when they enter their work place? In politics we fight like tigers for freedom, for the right to elect our leaders, for freedom of movement, choice of residence, choice of what work to pursue -- control of our lives, in short. And then we wake up in the morning and go to work, and all those rights disappear. We no longer insist on them. And so for most of the day we return to feudalism. That is what capitalism is -- a version of feudalism in which capital replaces land, and business leaders replace kings. But the hierarchy remains." - Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars, 1996
How many times do I have to say this (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, who cares. I'll continue to reap rewards from vendors and lawyers who send .DOC files.
Not surprising.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just microsoft word (Score:4, Insightful)
These and many more support meta data. No word processor is safe. If your going to write controversial material, click File, Properties in the menu of your word processor and edit out the meta data!
Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
Tricksy word processors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tricksy word processors (Score:4, Funny)
CTRL-C is "copy" (not cut)
CTRL-X -s "cut"
CTRL-ALT-DEL + ALT-S is "secure your windows box"
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Say it with me (Score:5, Funny)
PDF!
How soon until we see sanctions... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just plain dirty pool. And since when does an Attorney General have time to combat crap like this, in a state where illegal immigrants flow across the border, you have one of the largest open-air markets for drugs, and your state was just taken up the poop shoot by Energy producers.
Screw the media companies. They can fend for themselves. It's the citizens of California the AG is sworn to protect.
Re:How soon until we see sanctions... (Score:5, Insightful)
You poor, naive fool. The AG's purpose is much the same as everyone's purpose: To keep his/her job.
Doing what's right for the people don't make a popular politician.
The Spirit of Steve Dallas lives on! (Score:5, Interesting)
After explaining why he shouldn't sue Sean Penn ("juries love famous people, and he might return to beat up the plantiff"), or his wife, Madonna ("proving liability might be difficult, and she might return to beat up the plantiff"), or Opus the Penguin ("never, ever sue poor people"), he settles on suing the Nikolta Camera Corporation, a "huge, multinational corporation with gobs of liquid cash," on the grounds that they were "criminally negligent in not placing a warning sticker on their cameras that reads, 'serious injury may result from photographic psychopathic Hollywood hotheads.'"
He then finishes up by waving a flag and declaring, "America, Land of the Lawsuit... God bless her!"
I guess the P2P software companies are likewise criminally negligent in not warning people that their products could lead to some harm.
Since there's no warning sticker on this spindle of blank CD-ROMs on my desk, I think I'll see how many of them I can shove down my throat.
On the same subject, have you seen some of the warning stickers manufacturers DO put on their products? Can I get a reply with some examples? I'll start off by citing the sticker on the baby stoller that reads "Do not fold stroller with infant inside."
Re:The Spirit of Steve Dallas lives on! (Score:4, Funny)
I shit you not.
Or the one every techie has seen:
"This is not candy. Do not eat silica"
Re:The Spirit of Steve Dallas lives on! (Score:4, Funny)
"Warning: product contains nuts"
Re:The Spirit of Steve Dallas lives on! (Score:5, Informative)
My daughter is allergic (as in "drop dead allergic", not as in "itchy itchy allergic") to nuts (tree nuts -- walnuts, cashews, pecans, etc...), but not to peanuts (which, as the parent notes, are legumes). So, if I look at a jar of peanuts, I need to know if it's been processed on the same equipments as tree nuts (aka "nuts"), so that I won't buy it and give it to my daughter.
Isn't it amazing that the same legal arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's take a look at guns, for example. REPLACE([Wired Article],'P2P software','assault rifles') and suddenly you've got the arguments for every single pro-gun-control group in the USA. Personally, I'm much more worried about the imminent public danger of a submachine gun than I am worried about the threat to public safety presented by Kazaa. Yet why is the state AG not addressing gun control instead of P2P?!
If we wanted to pull this little idea out a little further, how about we apply it to speeding? Car companies sell us their cars by telling us how fast we can go! McDonalds only recently started cutting back on portion size, but I don't remember any state AGs railing against the public safety risk of a Big Mac.
It's no surprise that our politicians are in the pockets of big corporations. When I talk to people about situations like this, they most often say, "business as usual," shrug, and turn away. Not enough of them get angry and vote. Our politicians are crooked because they are ALLOWED to be.
The Real Issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone is commenting on the fact that the MPAA wrote this document, but what is more disturbing to me is the actual precedent this kind of thing sets, as mentioned in the article:
And it's interesting that this comes right around the time that Congress is passing legislation banning liability suits against the fast food industry... [cnn.com]
So, while Congress says "Hey you have to be responsibile for your own actions with regard to the products you use, even if you use those products as intended", the state attorneys general are saying "Hey if you get in trouble, it's the product manufacturer's fault, even if you're choosing to use the software in a way not intended by the company."
So why not take the EFF's argument one step further? If I drive a Ford to rob a bank, is Ford then responsible also for not warning me not to do so?
Of course, I'll probably get modded down for being off-topic...
buying influence (Score:5, Interesting)
Micosoft's best technology of Word(TM?) (Score:5, Interesting)
From another point of view, the usage of meta-data is serious, which means that if you don't want your words logged by anything, you should use plain text editor.
Or, the lawyer is pirating MSWord? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't care what the AG says (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. God forbid we have anonymity or encryption.
[shrug] Well, as I said earlier, I have no interest in following directives like these. Software can be developed privately and via anonymous access through Freenet if necessary. It'd be a pain in the ass, but I'm
* Not interested in adding back doors to my work
* Not interested in stopping work on problems of how to provide secure/nonabusable/anonymous P2P systems (yes, part of that is to benefit users concerned about law enforcement attention).
If the AG wants to do something to go after people operating in legal gray area, he can go after people with radar detectors (speeding can, y'know, kill people, whereas a pirated song only means that a large company gets a small amount less money), or those committing corporate accounting hanky-panky, or any number of other more damaging actions. Admittedly, there aren't people with deep pockets and old-boy connections to the government trying to finance hunting people down (note: AG can also go after corrupt government officials, IMHO), but theoretically that AG was appointed to be the servant of the people, and as the House is demonstrating, popular support for the RIAA is awfully low.
News at 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait.. it's the same comapanies...
Well at least I'll hear about on the radio...
Oh wait those are the same companies too...
Well at least they will discuss it in the next session of congress...
Oh right I keep forgeting.....
Normal business practice (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called lobbying.
Big companies talks to politican and tells him: "We know our business better than you.
- P2P is bad for the public in gerneral and bad for my business.
- Terrorist use P2P to coordinate their attacks.
- P2P is used for distributing kiddie porn, P2P Software comes from shady sources.
- These are bundeled with spyware and zombie bots to attack other websites.
- What about $2000 I spend for your reelection champaign?
-
Meb. Not impressed. (Score:5, Funny)
We NEED to be thanking M$ for this... (Score:5, Funny)
You know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop downplaying this, dammit! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is hard proof that our Attorney General (if you live in CA) is undeniably in-bed with the MPAA. If you look up the political donations, and find the MPAA as a big contributor, then not only could you get him kicked out of office, but he could potentially face criminal charges.
It's one thing when corruption is subtle. It's quite another when corruption can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Warning found on a crowbar: (Score:5, Funny)
What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
But we remain concerned about the potential dangers posed to the public by peer-to-peer file-sharing technology.
p2p is terrorism at it's finest! It causes the death of many people, and is more fatal than second-hand smoke! Fellow members of society are adversely affected by your useage of such applications, because surely the data residing on your machine can cause heart problems for your neighbor, will cripple their offspring, and will ultimately blow up their house.
"Harmful to the public." What kind of bullshit are they trying to pawn on us? One can argue that the RIAA and MPAA are harmful to the public, by way of the negative influences upon the younger generations of society. One can argue that I could fend off an army of attacking barbozons with a spoon. One can argue that Rush Limbaugh is both detrimental and beneficial at the same time. I don't know how they can argue that p2p applications themselves, though, are harmful to society.
Re:Stupid Bush! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid Bush! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time Americans stopped calling themselves a democracy.
.