Internet Association Hits Back At RIAA's Desire To Wipe Away DMCA Safe Harbors
from the good-for-them dept
On Friday, we wrote about how the RIAA has already started pitching the terrible idea that we should do away with the important DMCA safe harbors, which make sure that liability for infringement is properly applied to those actually infringing, rather than tools and services. The RIAA, however, thinks that it should be everyone else’s responsibility to prop up their increasingly obsolete business model, so they want to do away with the safe harbors and make every internet service liable if anyone uses their service for infringement. Of course, what this would do is stifle innovation broadly, because companies would avoid any kind of user generated services, because the liability would be super high. Sure, some of the big players would stick around, because they’ve got enough money and lawyers, but new startups would be few and far between.
Thankfully, some are already pushing back against the RIAA’s crazy desires, and the Internet Association has pointed out that this move by the RIAA highlights the industry’s real end goal with SOPA: to make the internet responsible for propping up their business model.
“The DMCA provides a framework that appropriately balances the interests of copyright owners with the rights of users and the development of new and innovative products and services. The RIAA’s statement that it wants to change the DMCA lends support to those who suspected that SOPA’s stated objective of targeting offshore websites was really a stalking horse to achieve the RIAA’s true objective — to amend the DMCA by having Internet companies police user activities,” Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman said in a statement to MT. “Congress should reject the RIAA’s invitation to amend the DMCA.”
Of course, a reasonable argument could be made that the DMCA’s safe harbors are already too far tilted towards copyright holders, considering the number of bogus takedowns we talk about regularly. A much more reasonable system would be a true notice and notice system, in which those accused of infringement would be given an opportunity to respond to a takedown notice before the content itself is taken down. That simple change would help prevent the all too common case of the DMCA being used for censorship.
Separately, the RIAA’s end goal goes way beyond just making internet companies police user activities. They want nothing less than to have the internet re-crafted in their own image, protecting an obsolete business model while limiting any competition and disruption they don’t like.
Filed Under: balance, copyright, dmca, innovation, safe harbors, sopa, takedowns
Companies: internet assocation, riaa
Comments on “Internet Association Hits Back At RIAA's Desire To Wipe Away DMCA Safe Harbors”
Anomalies
> considering the number of bogus takedowns we talk about regularly.
But OOTB says these are all anomalies. All of them. No matter how many. Every grain of sand on the sea shore is an anomaly and should have really been a grain of gold dust in Hollywood’s pocket. Every star in the sky is just an anomaly and should have been a wish granted to a Hollywood executive.
Re: Anomalies
And don’t forget the anti-techdirters pulling that same shit every time the business models Mike promotes are successful?
How many anomalies does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Re: Re: Anomalies
How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
How about reforming the DMCA with some real and serious penalties for bogus takedowns.
Especially takedowns that are for material where the requester is not the copyright owner or authorized agent of the copyright owner.
Surely Hollywood wouldn’t object to that? They wouldn’t want someone else taking down their online content with bogus takedowns.
Re: How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
I agree. How about, every time someone sends a bogus takedown, they lose a finger or a toe?
Sometimes the old ways ARE best.
Re: Re: How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
Make it worse. If you don’t hold the copyright all your copyrights transfer to the public domain.
Re: Re: Re: How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
What if you don’t hold any copyrights?
But at the same time, it is important not to overreach. Even when we tend to want to do so because of seeing it done by example by Hollywood.
Maybe you should lose your ability to ever send DMCA takedowns. Let’s say a Sick Strikes “alert system”.
Maybe if you are a frequent filer (say, over ten thousand DMCA notices per day), then you get to reset your six strikes every 30 days. So the penalty isn’t permanent. Just enough incentive to make you want to get it right. That should stop the more brazen abuse such as four major Hollywood studios simultaneously taking down a video they don’t own, but that embarrasses them.
Maybe there should be statutory damages for bogus takedowns? That way even if you’re up against a giant corporation, you merely have to prove the takedown was bogus, but you don’t have to prove actual damages. If such bogus takedowns really are anomalies, then a statutory damage award once in a rare anomalous while should be a problem, should it?
Re: Re: Re:2 How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
No, they lose any rights given to them for that work under the relevant statutes seems like a better punishment.
Re: Re: Re:3 How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
Judges should be given the prerogative to strip copyrights and patents for that matter when they are being abused.
Re: Re: Re:3 How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
Judges should be given the prerogative to strip copyrights and patents for that matter when they are being abused.
Re: Re: Re:3 How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
that would mean it wasn’t a bogus DMCA
Re: Re: Re:4 How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
It’s still bogus if it’s found to be fair use or permitted use for the individual in question.
Re: Re: Re:5 How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
Under current case law, aren’t they REQUIRED to consider fair use before filing the bogus DMCA notice?
Re: Re: How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
How about every time you make a mistake you lose one of your body parts? Sheesh…people here are so focused on exceptions they completely overlook/ignore the general rule.
Re: How about penalties with teeth for bogus takedowns
It doesn’t matter if we are talking death penalty here. The problem is that DMCA already have potential penalties for wrongful claims but it is essentially impossible to proove since it takes you prooving that they “knowingly make false claims”. To proove that is almost impossible for anyone living outside the head of the person filing the claim!
Of course, a reasonable argument could be made that the DMCA’s safe harbors are already too far tilted towards copyright holders, considering the number of bogus takedowns we talk about regularly.
So a handful of questionable notices means it’s tilted in the favor of copyright holders? Wouldn’t the millions and millions of legitimate notices then, by that same logic, mean that things are tilted in favor of the infringers? Can you clarify why that would cut the other way?
They want nothing less than to have the internet re-crafted in their own image, protecting an obsolete business model while limiting any competition and disruption they don’t like.
You make post after post about how their business model is obsolete, but you never discuss the details of what you mean. What is obsolete about it, precisely? I suspect you simply mean that as long as they exclude others from that which is not naturally excludable, then that’s “obsolete.” Am I right?
Re: the FNG
have not been on here long have you? this site has more examples then a lobbyist bribe money. heck why even here? google it.
Re: Re:
What is an obsolete business model is the music industry insistence that recorded music can still profitably be placed on pieces of plastic with 16 songs where only a few are worth listening too then shipping it to stores and playing it on a big clunky device where it is easily rendered unplayable with a single scratch.
Same goes for movies.
Re: Re:
If the bogus DMCA notices are really so few as you suggest, then how about a statutory damage for each one? If they are so rare, this shouldn’t really be a problem.
Surely it is just a coincidence that four major Hollywood studios would simultaneously take down a video that they don’t own, but the video embarrasses them. Gee that surely isn’t any kind of organized bad behavior that ought to be criminal.
Mike has explained how the business model is obsolete many times. In short, we live in an age where digital bits are not scarce and cost nominally zero to send anywhere on the planet in real time. Build a business model that is not victimized by that, but rather that leverages on that. Gee now? Let’s see? If it costs little to send bits around, but costs something to store them and set up servers, and I have lots of content, how could I make money from that? Hmmmm? What if there were other premium perks that could be paid for, such as skipping ads? Or getting to vote on elements of what is good/bad in the content? I didn’t spend more time thinking about this than it took to type this. I would also point out that there are other scarce things to sell, and that has been done since forever. There are advertising supported business models. Subscription business models. Streaming models. Radio-like models. A content owner could set up a new internet form of “cable subscription” that bypasses the cable companies entirely and lets consumers pick ala carte. I could go on, but I suspect it is pointless. Just keep fighting change that is inevitable.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes music is no longer regarded as a product that we pay for per song. Instead we pay for it indirectly through services or subscriptions.
Music is an enticement to get you looking at ads or having access to vast libraries of songs or get you to live performances.
The industry needs to get it out of their heads that they are creating a product for direct sale. There is a disconnect between the industry and those that consume their product and until they reconnect with music listeners they will continue to suffer the consequences like people turning to alternative means to get the service the “legitimate” services are not adequately offering.
Re: Re:
“So a handful of questionable notices means it’s tilted in the favor of copyright holders? Wouldn’t the millions and millions of legitimate notices then, by that same logic, mean that things are tilted in favor of the infringers? Can you clarify why that would cut the other way?”
Because it’s not a “handful of questionable notices”, boy.
The amount of fake/phony/incorrect notices appears to be between 1/3 and 1/2 of ALL notices.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s still over a third of ALL notices being questionable. That’s 30% too many, in my book.
Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed. I would grant you that unchallenged doesn’t mean legitimate, but even so, come on.
Re: Re: Re:
If you believe it is important to recite data, then it is even more important to identify the source of such data.
Re: Re:
Wouldn’t the millions and millions of legitimate notices then, by that same logic, mean that things are tilted in favor of the infringers?
No. That just means that many people use various services to infringe. That isn’t going away, no matter how we structure the DMCA.
In a properly balanced system, the DMCA notices would only take down material if the notice wasn’t bogus. A notice-notice-takedown system accomplishes that better than the one we have now.
Re: Re:
The millions and millions of legitimate takedown requests only show that they’re wasting their time playing whac-a-mole, while the “handful” (read: thousands) of illegitimate/bogus takedown requests show that they’re taking away individuals’ rights in their futile quest… and occasionally it’s done out of pure spite and censorship with no repurcussions because “OMG, Piracy!”
Re: Re:
“What is obsolete about it, precisely?”
They can’t make money from their business model anymore because it relies on (in this case) recorded music being hard to access, making physical copies worth a fair amount of money. Today, recorded music is extremely easy to access, so physical recordings are worth less.
Re: Re:
“So a handful of questionable notices means it’s tilted in the favor of copyright holders?”
It’s not the notices themselves that unfairly “tilt,” it’s the blind acceptance of them without proper review.
Re: Re:
Yes, you are right. This is certainly why yet another person or group here has flagged your response. Opinions contrary to group-think are not well tolerated, which flies in the face of a site that professes it wants to promote vigorous discussion.
BTW, I am certain there are many instances where the “business models” promoted here are quite beneficial. However, given the complexity of many so-called “content companies”, it is much to simplistic to even suggest that all would be well in their world is they simply adapted, by adopting, the economic musings on this site.
Copyright is the biggest obstacle to providing the sum of human knowledge and culture to all of humanity.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
What is good about keeping the people of poor countries in ignorance, and easily influenced by religious and political extremists?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It keeps them ignorantly paying multiple ‘collection societies’ for the same song — when only one, or possibly none of them even owns the work in question.
It keeps the people of poor countries from daring to innovate.
It keeps the people of poor countries in fear of speaking freely.
I’m sure a Hollywood executive could list other good reasons to keep the people of poor countries in ignorance, but I hope that is enough examples to answer your question.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Why do you imagine these benefits accrue only to the people of poor countries? America is a wealthy country, but most of its citizens are poor. Many of us also enjoy the fear of speaking freely and of daring to innovate.
Re: Re: Re:
“You make that sound bad.”
Nope. It is just bad in itself.
Re: Re: Re:
You have it exactly wrong. It is an ancient form of advancing the arts and sciences. Applying it to the modern world results in constricting the arts and sciences.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
whoosh
No one is asking “to make the internet responsible for propping up their business model.” In fact, clearly under the status quo the products of the copyright industries are used to “prop up” these “innovative” Internet companies.
Re: Re:
yes, they are. Just like the sale of blank media is used to prop up their obsolete business model.
The copyright industry does not have products.
If you mean the media made by the media related industries, I for one would like to see every blockbuster movie or formula based song made by the BIG guys, dissappear completly and forever.
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
The products of the copyright industries believe their products to be the defacto authority on media and thus its delivery. Currently their byproduct is playing a much larger role than I’m sure even they had intended. They are fostering the descent of democracy or, more apt, freedom to communicate (not how you see fit but how I see fit). How? Simply by being overpaid simpletons of questionable origin that lack integrity, foresight and, ironically, creativity.
In short copyright is the scourge of speech and has been and is being abused to such a degree as to render its importance somewhere between free speech and life.
To utter words unto human kind does not entitle the utterer to forever prevent those that can hear from repeating them. The same for a painting, a poem, a song, a thing.
The objective of copyright is to provide he that utters provisioning for a fair and just capacity for recompense before enabling the creation to foster more creation. Dust upon dust creates bricks upon bricks and houses that burn.
Without your creations humanity itself is worthless, yet, without your humanity your creations are vile.
The reach of copyright in all its present majestic circumstance ebbs. Alas, the kingdom must repent and reappoint the purveyors to humanity.
How long is too long? How soon is now?
Re: Re: Re:
“The products of the copyright industries believe their products to be the defacto authority on media and thus its delivery.”
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Specifically I suppose I was zeroing in on media (songs, movies, publications etc.) with an allusion to pre-Internet delivery mechanisms. (cds, tapes, windows, venues etc.) and their apparent wish to continue to control the latter via the former. i.e. these are my goods and I’ll deliver as I see fit and as I’ve seen fit for a hundred years.
Everyone’s shit stinks and your million dollar blockbusters are much more shit than not, so .. desist from insisting it be a surprise to those that choose to open the package. There is no package.
Exactly? It means just because you’ve succeeded in manipulating “copyrights” in your corner as well as the previous means of dissemination do not suppose that it can always be so. That’s what it means, I’m sure of it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ohhhh.. you mean “products of products” yeah? I don’t proof read, I just type. Take from it what you will, nay, what you can and we’ll call it good. Good?
Re: Re:
Right. No streaming or download service would exist without Hollywood movies and major label music.
They’re not as irreplaceable as they’d like to think. The continual growth of independent music is proof of that.
Re: Re:
Right, the argument of “nobody would ever use the Internet except to pirate music”. Thoroughly believable and totally not pulled out of your ass.
been saying this for absolute ages. what a shame you didn’t come out and state this a long time ago. and if you think for one minute that it’s only the entertainment industries that want this, think about who is backing their every whim. without the constant introduction of new laws and the upgrading of existing laws that do nothing but make it harder for everyone to use the internet except those industries, it’s obvious the stake the government has got in this whole fiasco. once enough money has been paid to politicians to keep the changes desired coming to those industries and enough of the wanted changes have been implemented, who do you think is then going to take the control off of those industries? the very organisation that is backing the industries in every way possible, but not getting any of the deserved anger for removing as many freedoms and privacy as possible, while also introducing as many surveillance laws as possible. THE GOVERNMENT! that is also why as many other countries are being forced to follow the same course, backing these industries and introducing shit laws that screw the people, using every incident that can be used to try to show that so and so wouldn’t have happened if more cameras were installed, more e-mails could be read and more phone calls could be listened in on! think about what it’s gonna be like when you cant even complain about a service, for example, without being jailed. and wait and see, if there isn’t a serious obstacle put up, that’s the world we are fast heading towards living in. fancy it?
Re: Re:
“what a shame you didn’t come out and state this a long time ago.”
You must be new here…
Re: Re:
Paragraphs, capital letters at the start of sentences, coherence – these are all recommended in writing for a reason.
tl;dr so GIGO.
Broken link
By the way: the link around “the industry’s real end goal with SOPA” is broken.
It’s likely you left off an end quote, because the URL has “%20target=” appended to the end.
The RIAA who make nothing themselves, and scream ZOMG PIRATES to try and keep their jobs.
How many times can that envelope of cash get people to forget how many times they have cried wolf?
The RIAA who were awfully silent when some of their membership were caught committing commercial copyright infringement in Canada, but scream bloody murder if someone hears a song on YouTube and they didn’t get paid.
If they want more rights and powers, then they need to open up all of the members books for review. Lets see these imaginary losses, and how they actually were just used to pay bonuses to CEOs who declared war on consumers. Lets make sure that the penalty for screwing up is the same they used against the public. $150,000 statutory damages for every invalid notice, they (like infringers) are breaking the law afterall. Whats good to beat the public up with is good to beat a corporation with.
Could kill off much of the Internet we know today, but would also likely drive innovation and users towards a peer-to-peer encrypted and distributed network model.
Re: Re:
you mean like a BBS system?? (thats pre internet kids)
Re: Re: Re:
Those where the days, the problem is that 56k modem speeds are not that good when downloading content today as games are slightly larger than 5mb… as they used to be and even a small video clip can be 300mb.