Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Google The Internet United Kingdom Entertainment Your Rights Online

Copyright Industry Calls For Broad Search Engine Controls 421

Posted by timothy
from the y'know-voluntary-like-taxes dept.
The copyright battles going on right now are not all about SOPA, PIPA, or even the wider-reaching ACTA: suraj.sun snips thus from TorrentFreak: "At a behind-closed-doors meeting facilitated by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport, copyright holders have handed out a list of demands to Google, Bing and Yahoo. To curb the growing piracy problem, Hollywood and the major music labels want the search engines to de-list popular filesharing sites such as The Pirate Bay, and give higher ranking to authorized sites. ... If the copyright industry had their way, Google and other search engines would no longer link to sites such as The Pirate Bay and isoHunt. In a detailed proposal handed out during a meeting with Google, Yahoo and Bing, various copyright holders made their demands clear. The document, which describes a government-overlooked 'Voluntary Code of Practice' for search engines, was not intended for public consumption but the Open Rights Group obtained it through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Industry Calls For Broad Search Engine Controls

Comments Filter:
  • 2084 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TemperedAlchemist (2045966) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:17AM (#38855839)

    We should also all install mandatory software that makes sure we don't infringe copyrights.

    For the children, of course.

    • Re:2084 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lennier1 (264730) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:27AM (#38855883)

      They already tried that in Germany.

      The publishers of school books wanted to lobby/buy themselves an agreement which requires a percentage of schools and teachers to install a software on their machines to ensure they don't have any unlicensed material on them.

      Kinda like Origin, but enforced by the government.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:32AM (#38856747)

      Stories like this are why I will never spend another $.01 on music from the major labels. I support musicians I like by going to their concerts and buying their T-shirts but never again by paying for the privilege to listen to a recording of their music. My piracy of music is civil disobedience against the RIAA and MPAA for the copyright terrorism they continue to perpetuate. First it was the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act which ignored the interests of all mankind and extended copyright protection of 75 year old movies for another 20 years specifically to enrich USA media companies. The USA Congress specifically disregarded the rights and interests of the people who elected them into office in order to line the pockets of major corporations. Then it was Metallica suing Napster destroying something which they actually could have leveraged to control online MP3 distribution.

      It is my hope that some countries will finally pass rational copyright legislation which sets copyright terms back to the Copyright Law of 1790 which set a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive. To this original law I would require that the work remain in print and for sale to the public. eBooks makes it easy to keep books in print so this should not be a huge burden to copyright holders. The moment something goes out of print (or a site ceases to exist on the Internet) the material should enter into the public domain. For example, the day Microsoft stops selling / supporting Windows XP the operating system should enter into the public domain for free use by all.

      • by Voyager529 (1363959) <voyager529 AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday January 29, 2012 @11:56AM (#38857983)

        Just putting it out there...if you're going to call it civil disobedience, then make sure that you're down with the road you're choosing to travel. Civil disobedience means that if they decide to sue you that you plead guilty to the crime, take the sentence they give you, and forego appeals. Civil disobedience means that you believe in your cause enough to take the punishment they dish out in order to make an example as to how harmful the rules are with the hope that your sacrifice will influence positive change.

        Using the principle famously exemplified by Gandhi and Rosa Parks is admirable, as long as you're willing to go to the lengths that they're willing to go in order to do it. If that's genuinely your goal, and you're okay with it, then I applaud you and support you. However, if you're going at this with even the slightest intent to settle out of court, plead 'not guilty', or appeal a verdict, then you're not following a cause, you're justifying copyright infringement.

        Personally, I'll settle for using Spotify.

        • by Imrik (148191) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:38PM (#38858669) Homepage

          Pleading not guilty or appealing could also be civil disobedience, as long as you're not denying what you did, just claiming that it wasn't or shouldn't be illegal.

        • by celle (906675) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @02:50PM (#38859065)

          "Just putting it out there...if you're going to call it civil disobedience, then make sure that you're down with the road you're choosing to travel. Civil disobedience means that if they decide to sue you that you plead guilty to the crime, take the sentence they give you, and forego appeals. Civil disobedience means that you believe in your cause enough to take the punishment they dish out in order to make an example as to how harmful the rules are with the hope that your sacrifice will influence positive change."

          "Civil disobedience" is just a nice term for ignoring the law in order to challenge it. Bad laws are meant to be broken.

          "Using the principle famously exemplified by Gandhi and Rosa Parks is admirable, as long as you're willing to go to the lengths that they're willing to go in order to do it. If that's genuinely your goal, and you're okay with it, then I applaud you and support you. However, if you're going at this with even the slightest intent to settle out of court, plead 'not guilty', or appeal a verdict, then you're not following a cause, you're justifying copyright infringement."

          Responsibility of challenging a law you deem bad doesn't mean just lying down and getting stomped on as a means to fight it. It also means fighting to win otherwise you're at the mercy of everyone else to do something instead of doing it yourself. We use the tools and methods at hand that work. If it means blowing off the feet of those trying to stomp you so be it.

          "Personally, I'll settle for using Spotify."

          Another one who hasn't learned from history or Ben Franklin about liberty and security.

          • by swillden (191260)

            Responsibility of challenging a law you deem bad doesn't mean just lying down and getting stomped on as a means to fight it. It also means fighting to win otherwise you're at the mercy of everyone else to do something instead of doing it yourself. We use the tools and methods at hand that work. If it means blowing off the feet of those trying to stomp you so be it.

            The goal is to make of yourself a public example to show just how bad the law is. That means making sure that your violation of the law is as visible as possible, to ensure that you get caught, and admitting publicly and in court that you did it because you believe it's not wrong. Then, to make it really effective, you also need to get saddled with an egregiously unfair punishment to rouse public ire. You don't do that by fighting it.

            Otherwise, it's not civil disobedience, it's just being a scofflaw.

        • by russotto (537200) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @02:58PM (#38859115) Journal

          Just putting it out there...if you're going to call it civil disobedience, then make sure that you're down with the road you're choosing to travel. Civil disobedience means that if they decide to sue you that you plead guilty to the crime, take the sentence they give you, and forego appeals. Civil disobedience means that you believe in your cause enough to take the punishment they dish out in order to make an example as to how harmful the rules are with the hope that your sacrifice will influence positive change.

          Gandhi-style civil disobedience is for suckers. Governments have adapted and it is no longer an effective tactic.

        • by 0111 1110 (518466) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @03:24PM (#38859281)

          If you want to define civil disobedience that way, fine. We need another term then. How about if we call it 'principled disobedience'. The idea is that millions of people decide to break a particular law as much as possible, but if they are caught and prosecuted they don't have to necessarily sacrifice themselves to the unjust law. They can do whatever they want and say whatever they want that is consistent with their own self-interest.

    • by DanielRavenNest (107550) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:11PM (#38858543)

      Do the big search engines really want to take advice from an industry that is out-competed in distribution by *amateurs*? Most people sharing files don't make money off it.

      To those who ask "how will creators get paid?", there are plenty of people who will willingly pay for things at a reasonable price, as demonstrated by iTunes, NetFlix, Steam, and even for books, where Baen free library *increased* sales by exposing readers to new authors. I have 100+ DVDs that I got for about $6 each on average over the last decade. I got them used from the video store, and to me that was a reasonable price. $20 new is just too much for me, so I have nearly never bought new ones.

    • Re:2084 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Sunday January 29, 2012 @02:52PM (#38859081) Journal

      All they are gonna do with this bullshit is make kiddie fiddlers happy. Why? Because a true darkweb has ZERO censorship of ANY kind, that's kinda the point.

      First the geeks will get tired of the bullshit, that is how it ALWAYS starts, from the first P2P on it always starts with geeks getting tired of bullshit because they can handle fiddly buggy DIY kinda software which is what most first gen stuff is. Then the programmers among the geeks decide the code sucks, or the UI sucks, or both, and they start making it better. Always trust a programmer to scratch itches wherever possible and they HATE bad design. Once they've made things better then come the power users, not as skilled as the geeks but smarter than the noobs the power users are helpful in their own way because they work as a bridge between the geeks and the noobs and point out the problems noobs are gonna have with the software. Once those start to get ironed out here come the noobs because by this time word has gotten out there is a place where you can bypass the bullshit and we humans like to bypass bullshit whenever possible.

      So what we will end up with is some Freenet or I2P become the next Limewire. You think they would learn by now that the Internet will always route around damage, they've been playing whack a mole for what? 20 damned years now? you'd think they'd get the clue that they're doin it wrong if millions upon millions of people are going through all the trouble to bypass their bullshit. Of course look how many damned years it took for the record companies to get hit with the cluebat and now they are cashing record checks from iTunes and Amazon on MP3 sales, yet the movie companies are still charging ass raping prices on single episodes of shows (last I checked just for a single season of a series it was over $100 and it was all DRM tastic) and have made it illegal to rip your new movie to your iPod.

      so here we go again, time to route around some damage. i'm sure they'll keep throwing money and bribing congress until SOPA/PIPA and any other draconian law they want is passed, and then slowly but surely the darkweb will become the web and the former web will just be the home shopping network. So get to work geeks, we're counting on you.

  • by msobkow (48369) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:17AM (#38855845) Homepage Journal

    Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

    The last thing the world needs is ignorant luddites making the technology decisions for the global internet infrastructure.

    • by Dan541 (1032000) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:23AM (#38855861) Homepage

      If they new anything about the internet they would be making money from piracy instead of making stupid demands.

      • by Dan541 (1032000)

        Oh fuck, the grammar Nazi's are closing in.

        • by msobkow (48369)

          Heh, well if the worst they could pick apart was a typo, they must be in general agreement. Good enough! :D

    • by msobkow (48369) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:27AM (#38855879) Homepage Journal

      1970's: We're going to collapse because of piracy by people making cassettes of their LP's!

      1980's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of portable music players and people making cassettes of their CD's and LP's!

      1990's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of people ripping CDs to MP3 players and computers!

      2000's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of people sharing media online!

      Fuck off, chicken little!

      • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:24AM (#38856155)

        Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

        2000's: We're going to collapse because of the threat of people sharing media online!

        Fuck off, chicken little!

        Chicken Little has learned that if it shouts, throws a tantrum and pays enough money to the lobbyists, then it gets what it wants. You get to sleep in the bed you make, and the bed that the US has made with Big Media has left it a very comfortable bed for Big Media. Big Media doesn't want to consult with IT people who will tell them that what they want can't be done realistically. They don't even care how it will affect anything else - they only look at what it will let them do. Why let someone who knows what they are talking about get in the way of that - lets face it, politicians have no clue technically - but they are willing to pass asinine laws and then see them fail, after all, they did what they promised to do.

      • Yeah, they've been promising the end of the world for a while now. I mean, nobody takes the Jehova's witnesses serious anymore, why the content industry?

      • by Dogtanian (588974) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @07:34AM (#38856473) Homepage
        Your general sentiment is correct, but your timeline is slightly askew.

        MP3s were primarily a concern of the 2000s. While it's true that the parent MPEG-1 format was around in the early 90s, and a few geeks were sharing MP3 files from the mid-90s onwards, it wasn't until the end of the decade (circa 1998) with those uselessly low-capacity early MP3 players that they were on the industry's radar. And they didn't really hit the public consciousness until Napster launched in mid-1999, i.e. when the 90s were almost over.

        And the problem with MP3s AFAIK was *always* sharing and piracy. No-one cared about people ripping them to their computers in the 90s, because for most of the decade hard drives were barely big enough to hold a significant number of MP3s, and (e.g.) mid-90s PCs used most of their processing capacity just to play them back. As I said, nerd curiosity at that point.

        You could probably combine the 70s and 80s; people were taping in the 70s, and the industry woke up to the threat [wikipedia.org] in the early 80s- I don't think the Walkman was itself a threat, beyond the fact that it made the cassette an even more popular format. (Remember that most Walkmans and the like couldn't even record themselves).

        But you're right- the industry has made a fuss about this sort of thing before. They also did it with video recorders in the US in the early 80s, then realised that they could make lots of money selling prerecorded VHS tapes.

        Ironically, I don't entirely disagree that piracy may be an issue, and possibly moreso than it was back then. I'm happy for people to make money and profit from their efforts in the creative industries (that is, if people want the results of such efforts).

        This doesn't change the fact that the industry is- and always has been- a bunch of greedy bastards willing to screw over the working people they'd like to tell us are being hurt by piracy, and to use piracy as a useful indefinable excuse to cover up their own shortcomings (e.g. maybe people aren't paying money to watch their films because they're shallow, adolescent-oriented, unoriginal toss?) And while I might be in favour of reasonable copyright laws, that's certainly *not* not to the extent that those old, entrenched interests are pushing for draconian laws, not giving a toss about fairness or our civil liberties, just to preserve their own meal ticket.
        • by msobkow (48369) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @10:38AM (#38857429) Homepage Journal

          Yeah, but if I cited the actual cases, they wouldn't have that nice "once a decade" rhythm going.

          You also note I didn't mention the music industry's bad decision to accept a levy on blank CDs when they were losing their battle to take away our format shifting and backup-your-OWN-media rights. The movie industry has therefore NOT done the same with blank DVDs or BluRay discs.

          Unfortunately for the media companies, when the music industry accepted the levy, they enshrined our right to make backups INTO EXPLICIT LAW. The DMCA-like provisions of the latest round of lobbyist inspired bullshit in Canada is in direct contravention of the precedents set over the year and in violation of that explicit agreement regarding levies.

      • by Dan541 (1032000)

        Pretty sure there's a VCR in there somewhere.

        The copyright industry continues to disappoint me. Where's this collapse I was promised?

    • by isj (453011) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:28AM (#38855887) Homepage

      Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals

      Because when they withdraw them and make slightly less impossible and expensive proposals they seem reasonable to the politicians?

    • by Dunbal (464142) * on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:29AM (#38855889)
      Because they don't give a shit about the internet - in fact, they see it as competition. So the more ridiculous, expensive and useless things they can get the internet to waste money and resources on, the better.
    • by El Torico (732160) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:29AM (#38855897)
      Simple, it's because they don't care how much it costs someone else.
    • by SeaFox (739806) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:41AM (#38855953)

      Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

      They probably did, they just didn't like the answers they got.

      That and they don't see figuring out how to do it or paying for it as their problem -- it's for the search engines to deal with.

      • by mbone (558574)

        Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals without talking to someone who knows ANYTHING about IT and technology FIRST?

        They probably did, they just didn't like the answers they got.

        Probably not. They look for consultants who tell them what they want to hear. (I have some exposure in that industry, and it is very tough to get consultant jobs if you don't toe the party line.)

    • by Tom (822) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:55AM (#38856301) Homepage Journal

      Why the hell do these morons keep tabling impossible and/or extremely EXPENSIVE (compute-wise) proposals

      It's a strategy. These guys have been playing politics far longer than any of us. Starting with something far beyond even your own maximum target is a good way to get almost everything you were really aiming for out of someone who is naive and aims for a compromise solution.

      It even has a name, it's called the "door in the face" technique [alleydog.com].

      If you know it, you see it at works in politics pretty much all the time. In fact, I see it over here (Germany) so often that I'm beginning to wonder if they teach anything else in whatever newly elected representatives are getting in training.

    • by dbIII (701233) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:18AM (#38856675)
      Murdoch knows far more about it than most posters here would think (he bought his first ISP in 1992 FFS) but he wants a lot of what we think of as the internet stopped so he can get the advertising money instead of Google. This current layer of bullshit is an escalation of his travelling roadshow of the last few years where he called us all thieves to anybody that he could force to listen. The "luddite" paywall tactics were most likely designed to fail so that it can all be blamed on Google etc, and since newspapers were bleeding money anyway there isn't much financial difference even in the short term if they fail. That Chinese cable network Murdoch sold the year before last gave him far more cash from a single sale than all of his newpapers are worth, and the yearly revenue from Fox is probably more than they are worth as well.
      So yes, they know but they want to sell us space in a walled garden instead of letting us do things on the commons.
  • by tqft (619476) <[ianburrows_au] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:25AM (#38855867) Homepage Journal

    The movie and music industry make material available globally and easily themselves or the governments of the world regulate their distribution chain.

    Also the governments audit and oversee all their artist contracts and revenue streams.

    See how much they like government regulation and scream about the idea.

    • by mbone (558574) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:44AM (#38856247)

      Here is a simpler proposal that would strike fear and loathing in their hearts, and requires no government oversight :

      That content creators have a "moral right" to audit the books of those controlling their revenues. (Such rights are generally lacking, especially in the music business, where it is excluded by contract.) I have yet to meet a professional musician who wasn't convinced that their record label was stealing them blind, which, of course, they are, given that no musician can audit their books.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:41AM (#38855951) Homepage Journal

    These whores are basically wanting to censor for their own interest. No shame. No worries. No hesitation.

    Modern carriage industry refusing to die and taking everyone hostage.

    These need to be killed. Asap. first should be hollywood. else, we are never going to get 'cars' at this rate.

    And, NO - as you can see, this has gotten out of hand - there is no way to make it work. Now, its either us - the cyber age, internet, 'the people', or them.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      Yeah, but it's worse. Unlike the buggy-whip makers and carriage builders, they've demonstrated since the 1970's that they're not going ANYWHERE, no matter how much they cry and scream about the money they're "losing", their revenues have and seem to still be going UP, not down.

  • What alternatives are there?

    ITunes? Apple's been whining for a while about how low their cut per track is. Is it still DRM'd? Or did grow a pair and now serve up MP3s?
    Netflix (and similar companies)? Nice model, shame they screwed a lot of their customers recently with their pricing. They also don't have every show/movie ever produced. Nor does P2P I'm sure, but it's closer than Netflix. Nor do they have the most recent shows/movies.

  • Google and others should threaten to go to the FCC, FTC and others with a proposal: how about we provide you with software that can allow for total censorship of music and movies which are offensive to community standards? They can say "two can play at the using-a-government-as-a-weapon game" by creating software which can analyze radio broadcasts, cable TV content, etc. and provide end-to-end censorship of any content that violates community standards.

    Not that I am particularly fond of censorship, but it would stick a boot up these industries' asses and REALLY garner a lot of public support. There are a lot of people who want these industries to restrain themselves and are getting sick of their overall behavior (such as this issue and offending reasonable sensibilities for profit).

  • by AzN_DJ (950218) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:19AM (#38856129)
    4. Democracy on the web works.
    Google search works because it relies on the millions of individuals posting links on websites to help determine which other sites offer content of value. We assess the importance of every web page using more than 200 signals and a variety of techniques, including our patented PageRank algorithm, which analyzes which sites have been &ldquo;voted&rdquo; to be the best sources of information by other pages across the web. As the web gets bigger, this approach actually improves, as each new site is another point of information and another vote to be counted. In the same vein, we are active in open source software development, where innovation takes place through the collective effort of many programmers.

    6. You can make money without doing evil
    Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a "Sponsored Link," so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.

    Doesn't this proposal breach both these policies of Google?
    http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html
  • Let's say that Google de-lists a bunch of sites that the *AA's don't like. At some point a non-zero number of Internet users will not longer rely upon Google as their search engine (at least not for these materials), and will look to other search engines such as Bing, Yahoo!, or if they want to kick it old-school, HotBot, Askjeeves, or Altavista.

    But the the *AA's go after search engines s_0 ... s_i (sorry, no better subscript), then these disaffected users will now go even further afield, to find sites from

    • Remember when the compny behind the unholy Real Player went after a guy who linked to Real Alternative, claiming that he made that software? That's from a tech company. Do you expect that the tech-illiterates over at MafiAA would know any better?

  • Given that Google already de-ranks and de-lists sites that do not meet its own ‘quality guidelines’ or otherwise violate its policies, we do not believe that search engines would face significant legal exposure if they were to [pay us protection money]

    Now, I'm saying that you should really go and buy some insurance for your business from the insurer we're referring you to. Now, the decision is of course entirely up to you, and I'm not saying anything bad would necessarily happen if you were to

  • Past peak copyright (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mbone (558574) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:30AM (#38856181)

    We are past peak copyright, and they know it, and are desperate.

  • by boojumbadger (949542) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:41AM (#38856223)
    What I want to know is when the politician are going to start legislating the con-committal responsibilities that go with these so called "rights." I was taught that being granted rights meant there were a whole range of responsibilities that went with them. Let us come up with a few for Copyright. 1. If a protected work is out of active circulation (new copies promoted for sale in a currently readable format) for 10 years by any distributer who has purchased the right then the copyright returns to the author. If the author (or his heirs or assigns) is unable to offer the work for sale for an additional 10 years the work falls into the public domain. 2. Should a corporation owning copyrights outright through works for hire be guilty of any serious infraction - environmental, securities, labor, etc. - such work are forfeit to the public domain. Settlement of such charges without any admission of guilt shall not be deemed sufficient to avoid the penalty. 3. Format changes must be updated for similar platforms. If the content is electronic then the producer cannot create a new format for the sole purpose of reselling the content. Product support for older formats must be maintained. Other idea or refinements?
    • The original point of copyright is to keep a steady stream of inventiveness going for the public at large—with the idea that the works involved will eventually fall into the public domain and become part of our culture. The importance of copyright is illustrated by the time period immediately following the French Revolution, in which copyright was abolished... and the stream of new works dried up.

      The other side of this is that copyrighted works are supposed to fall into the public domain, not be in co

  • Why are the USians killing their own market (again) with this protectionism? Maybe it is necessary to feel extra pain before copyright is abolished.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's not going to be abolished. The American business sector sees its future not in production, but in intellectual property. Manufacturing, for example, costs for the raw materials, the labour to produce said item, transportation costs, insurance, all that sort of thing.

      Know what's cheaper? Having a lawyer write a letter claiming "You infringed on something that we might own. Give us money, now."

      This is the way of the future.

  • by kdemetter (965669) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @07:06AM (#38856345)

    "It is our policy , not to negotiate with terrorists".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:09AM (#38856637)

    It's about gaining absolute control over the distribution channel. Copyright violation is just the pretext. They want to be able to control all content distributon via the internet, the same way as they control other distribution channels.

    Without the channel control, their position as indispensible middlemen is under threat. The destruction of the internet as a communications medium, and the resulting destruction of any other venture that uses the internet in any way is merely collateral damage, not even particularly "regrettable".

    Even the most corrupt politicians can't come right out and say "We've been paid to hand total censorship control over the internet to the media companies". They need a plausible reason to make those laws, and the "fact" that the media companies are being robbed a large proportion if GDP is the reason they've chosen. It doesn't have to be a financially viable reason, just one that sounds better than "Because we're being paid to" when they are asked why they are passing such laws.

    It's all about gaining absolute control over the channel, at any cost. Remember, you aren't allowed to sing to yourself in a public place without paying a license fee - people have actually been threatened with lawsuits for doing so. They want control of the internet the same way, so fo instance, you can't make your own music or videos and post them for people to see unless you pay the media companies a license fee for doing that. Control over commercials so companies have to pay for the right to show commercials (like they do in magazines and cinemas now) would be nice too. Maybe that's the real reason they want to attack Google so much.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:14AM (#38856651) Homepage

    I make widgets. They are very special widgets. Firstly, I don't want anyone else making widgets. And it doesn't matter if people wants them or not or if they are over-priced or if the people are simply curious about my widgets -- they ALL MUST PAY. No refunds, no warranties, no guarantees.

    I'm already making loads of money from my widgets as evidenced, oh law makers, by the excessive money I pay you. But I need more. I need you to make laws and then to enforce them. Call out the military if you must, but my business must grow.

  • by cffrost (885375) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:32AM (#38856751) Homepage

    For most of my life, I've been getting increasingly resentful of these corporate pirates for stealing, hoarding, and even sometimes destroying human culture. They have no interest whatsoever in the "the Progress of Science and useful Arts," nor will they ever be satisfied with any "limited Time" regulating their monopolistic control over thoughts.

    Now, these assholes have already shown... [wikimedia.org] They cannot be trusted. [wikimedia.org]

    With the exception of some governments, NGOs, and a minority of intelligent artists, the public domain, as defined by law, is a thing of the past. My response to this government and corporations mutual disregard for the founders' more than generous monopoly terms, is to disregard those terms myself, with the maximum effect I can bring to bear. No useless letters to government prostitutes involved.

    My uTorrent stats show 964GB transferred in the past ten days, and a 1:12.8 dl:ul ratio since install. I put as much as I can on properly stored archival DVDs, but I'm one person with limited resources. One advantage that we "little people" have over libraries and funded preservation/conservation efforts is not having to wait past death to make a copy; I have a copy a minute after an RSS feed update, and at least ten more public copies before I'm done with it. Hopefully some of my peers are doing the same. You know, I find it tragicomical how these industrial copy-Nazis and their apologists get so confused about who's greedy, freeloading, cheap, thieving, and who's really "entitled."

    That all said, I'm not certain what I'm actually achieving in the end, but I do know that I'm motivated to try to improve things for maximum people, and the MAFIAA pirates' motive is amassing more corporate welfare; i.e., "transfer of wealth" at everyone else expense.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2012 @08:52AM (#38856867)

    ....then they can pay property taxes on it.

    That way the govt is reimbursed for all the services it provides in protecting this "property".

    And Sony/BMG will have motivation to let some older works slide into the public domain.

  • I don't know the exact figures, and I'm sure that it could be spun as lies, damned lies and statistics, but the entire movie industry takes in something like $60 billion a year. That's about one year at Intel alone. Maybe combine another half a company somewhere to get some more digits added up right. The music and video game industry...oh wait, we can not mention the video game industry because they figured out the piracy issue and aren't hammering laws down our legislators throats.

    Lets be generous then...lets say annual revenue of RIAA/MPAA members is $100 billion...hell, lets say it's $200 billion (it's nowhere close to 200bil, but lets just say).

    $200 BILLION IS NOTHING. Why the hell are we letting these asshats try to control the internet? General motors has $135 billion annual revenue (wikipedia). Shall we let them just waltz into googles offices and start making demands about how they run their company? They're also just middlemen(mpaa/riaa)...they produce NOTHING. They add NO VALUE. They're a bunch of thieves trying to hold onto a failing business model.

    I say make them compete in the real world or get out.

  • by gavron (1300111) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @11:59AM (#38858009)

    The organizations pushing for these changes are not "Copyright holders" and there is no "Copyright industry."

    These are clearly trade organizations attempting to censor the Internet to effect a better bottom line. They are not the holder of any rights, other than being the US Hollywood movie studio and music lobbying arms, and they bring nothing to the table.

    Death to the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA. Long live freedom of speech, expression, and no more stupid nonsense words like "Copyright Industry."

    Seriously.

    E

  • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:17PM (#38858153)
    They have failed to adapt for 10 years now, and their solution is just web censorship. Fuck the MPAA and their ilk.
  • by bradley13 (1118935) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @02:46PM (#38859047) Homepage

    My latest piracy - entirely legal here in Switzerland, by the way - was to download a very nicely formatted complete set of the Harry Potter ebooks. Our family owns the entire set of books as dead-tree editions, but we wanted the option to re-read them as ebooks.

    Why piracy? I would have happily paid for ebooks (assuming a reasonable price), and I was looking forward to the promised release date of last fall (even though this was ten years after publication of the first book). However, the official ebooks are still not available, and the release date has been pushed a year into the future. So I gave up, and downloaded them from a link on TPB.

    If publishers (and authors, and musicians, and labels) want to end piracy, it's really simple!. Clue bat: (a) make your material available, (b) DRM-free, (c) at reasonable prices. Start with step (a). The stuff I have pirated is all material that I cannot otherwise get. As long as these idiots continue to shoot themselves in their collective foot, piracy will thrive.

    • by xenobyte (446878) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @04:30PM (#38859673)

      If publishers (and authors, and musicians, and labels) want to end piracy, it's really simple!. Clue bat: (a) make your material available, (b) DRM-free, (c) at reasonable prices. Start with step (a). The stuff I have pirated is all material that I cannot otherwise get. As long as these idiots continue to shoot themselves in their collective foot, piracy will thrive.

      Exactly! - Well said.

      I'm sure they know this... and chose to ignore it. Perhaps they're really, really, really stupid... but I think it's all about admitting the huge hole in their now seriously obsolete business model. They know they could make a lot more money and reduce the piracy to the freeloaders who's always been around with cassette tapes, VCR tapes and whatever it took to make a copy of someone elses stuff for free. It didn't hurt anything in the past decades and it still won't. Besides, back then they were already circumventing the geo-discrimination already rampant back then so it could have been even less.

      Here's an example from real life that shows how stupid release rules kills the business. A few years back I wanted a certain title by a certain french artist. I'm in Denmark so it has to be imported, but both Denmark and France is in the EU with the internal market and everything so that should be a piece of cake... Nope. Turns out the artist is distributed by a label here that owns the rights to all the titles by this artist but chooses to release only two (there's like 25-30) here. So, my local shop (who I'm eager to support) can just import it themselves, right? Nope. The label ACTIVELY blocks 'parallel import' so the shop cannot import it. I can import it myself quite easily by doing it online, but that would mean cutting my local shop out of the loop, thus costing it a sale. I don't want that. I can also give up having already waited and returned several times etc. Both options hurts my local shop who already invested time in researching this. There's no way they can turn this into a sale.

      I did get the title online (and my local shop died) but the stupid policy of not releasing all the titles and blocking attempts at importing them moved the sale from Denmark to France (a loss to the danish distributor) but could easily have lost the sale altogether because of the hassle. Some countries actually also block private import (Denmark didn't ratify that part of the Info-Soc directive which controls all this) which means I'd have been shit out of luck and had to go to the pirate market to get it. That would mean that nobody got paid at all (except perhaps a pirate) and that hurts both the label and the artist. Just how stupid is that policy?!?!

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...