RSS
Twitter
Hollywood's Favorite Lawmakers Preparing Next Level Of Draconian Copyright Laws
from the because-ProIP-wasn't-enough dept
Because (of course) last year's ProIP bill that (once again) strengthened copyright laws wasn't enough, Hollywood's favorite lawmakers all got together outside of LA and complained about how copyright laws needed to be even more draconian. They once again quoted the same mythical stats about the damage done by infringement, and didn't hear from a single defender of the public or someone who could explain the basic fact that strengthening copyright law doesn't solve anything. Instead, they just complained, blamed pretty much every foreign country (other than France) and insisted "something must be done!"
Apparently changing their business models to adapt to a changing marketplace has yet to be considered. Not when all of these Congressional Reps from California have no problem swallowing made up stats and misleading fear mongering from an industry unwilling to embrace new business models. Instead, they blame everyone else, including apparently a major session blaming Canada. It's still not clear why Hollywood thinks Canada is such a copyright pariah. The country already has pretty strong copyright laws and doesn't seem to be a haven for piracy at all.
The only country they did seem to like? Apparently that would be France, which just sneakily (after most of Parliament had gone home for the night) passed a three strikes bill. The entertainment industry execs seemed to think this might be a perfect solution -- once again looking to kill off any opportunity to create a better business model, and instead piss off fans and drive them further underground. It's like seeing the same dumb horror movie over and over again, where we the consumers/audience keeps yelling out "no, don't go in there!" and yet they still go in there, make the same mistakes over again and end up only damaging themselves. Is it really that difficult for them to recognize that the business model is the issue, and no amount of increased copyright protection is going to change that?
In the meantime, it's pretty sickening that our elected officials would choose only to hear from one extremely biased side on the debate, and will now introduce legislation that bails out that one industry at the expense of the public. Clearly, these hearings were not to "hear" anything new -- but to put on a puppet show prior to already written (by the industry) legislation to be introduced.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Ever seen the movie Ground Hog Day? I'll bet its available on a p2p netowrk somewhere.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Next stop, the United States of America
it's pretty sickening that our elected officials would choose only to hear from one extremely biased side on the debate
You write this as though you're no longer living in this country.
Where the hell are you?
This is the standard operating practice of today's government, which makes decisions based on who lined the contribution pockets with the most amount of cash.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Next stop, the United States of America
It's the LEFT Coast!! What do you expect!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm not sure how we could get a three strikes law passed in the US. The "problem" with the US is that we have this thing called due process. Thus, for each strike we'd have the right to fight it in court. Hollywood doesn't want that. They want a fast three strikes and you're out.
However, ISPs could institute such a policy voluntarily. And only enforce it in areas without any broadband competition. That way they could get rid of their bandwidth hogs. But like I said, that would only work if there was no competition. In most areas there are at least two broadband providers in an area, cable and DSL.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"I know I should not be downloading material that I know I should be paying for because it is against the law, but what the heck...what gives them the right to tell me I am breaking the law? All that does is piss me off! They have to adopt business models that let me keep doing what I am doing. Don't they realize they are the problem, and not me?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I see weird harold is posting anonymously now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
No, Weird Harold posts as Weird Harold.
Canada is a haven for piracy. The taxes on blank CDs and combined decision by law enforcment and the courts to pretty much turn a blind eye to music sharing has turned Canada into a free for all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Yada yada yada...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
So, doing what the entertainment industry wanted is law enforcement and the courts turning a blind eye? Umm... Wow.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
If one pays a levy, then it isn't "a free for all". You forget that it was the music industry that wanted the levy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I suspect the MPAA is targeting Canada because of a popular Canadian based torrent sight that actually sued them first.
At this point, there are no signs of this site rolling over for the MPAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Apparently changing their business models to adapt to a changing marketplace has yet to be considered.
Of course, since changing the business models would completely eliminate the big studios and record labels. What's so hard to understand? Just sitting on a big leather chair and raking in money is much easier than actually doing something useful. That would require, you know, work. And we can't have that, now can we? *shudder*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Damn it! I should have ditched work to go. I was hoping the BB post would get at least one of us there.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And you're doing what...?
You're just ranting and raving with your same old same old at the same group of people who *already agree with you*, and yet you don't *do* anything about it. Buy your own lawmaker to get your own laws passed, for example.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sigh
Only the French could give us a run for our money in the Fucking-Up-Democracy Race...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sigh
Only the French could give us a run for our money in the Fucking-Up-Democracy Race...
Don't worry. We'll 'normalize' with them soon enough.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Sigh
The US is a Democratic Republic. A true Democracy is fucked up by nature, i.e.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Sigh
As someone who appreciates a good quotation, Bravo!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why would ISP's cooperate?
I don't understand why ISP's would cooperate voluntarily with 3 strikes. A typical ISP in the US makes roughly $1000 to $1500 net per connection. Even someone who is downloading videos 24/7 does not cost that much to support. If the RIAA ends up getting it's three strikes and is at all aggressive about prosecution I would expect some serious push-back from the ISP's.
The people that are expensive to support are the techno-challenged that require lots of time online with support or even worse, the ones that need to have a truck rolled out to their home to reboot their cable modems. The "bandwidth hogs" generally a savvy enough to keep their systems running and when they do have a question they can find their own solutions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Why would ISP's cooperate?
Research the 1990s-- telcos received huge amounts of federal, state and local tax credits, taxpayer funding, and the like, to build and expand these networks.
There is no loyalty to the end customer. The network has already been paid for and consolidated, with your tax dollars.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I would down load movies for free if there was something worth downloading.
Now if the had something worth while to watch I would even pay to download it (i.e. Dark Night, which I paid to see in the threater .... first movie in 5 years)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Blame Canada, eh
times have changed our kids.
Our Kids are getting worse!
They wont obey their parents
They just want to fart and curse!
should we blame the government or blame society?
or should we blame the images on tv?
NO! blame canada, blame canada
with all their beady little eyes
an' flapping heads so full of lies
blame canada, blame canada
we need to form a full assault, its canada's fault
don't blame me for my son stan
he say that darn cartoon and now he's off to join the clan!
and my boy eric once had MY picture on his shelf
but now when I see him he tells me to fuck myself
well, blame canada, blame canada
it seems that everythings gone wrong
since canada came along
blame canada, blame canada
they're not even a real country, anyway
my son could've been a doctor or a lawyer it's true
instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue
should we blame the matches, should we blame the fire?
or the doctors who allowed him to expire?
HECK NO!
Blame canada, blame canada
with their hockey hullaballoo
and their bitch Anne Murray too
Blame Canada, shame on Canada!
the smut we must stop
The trash we must smash
laughter and fun
must all be undone
we must blame them and cause a fuss
before someone thinks of blaming us!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mike needs a thesaurus
I like, no, love, getting digital media through torrents, to be clear. I just wish we could have a new adjective attached to the IP laws instead of 'draconian'. Draconian always makes me think it involves the Harry potter universe, and we Muggles think it best not to meddle in Wizards' business. I think 'Onerous' would be a better fit, as taken from Webster:
"2 : having legal obligations that outweigh the advantages"
I like that more. give Onerous a chance, Mike.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike needs a thesaurus
Seconded.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Mike needs a thesaurus
Thirdeded
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In praise of 'Onerous'
Also, I think that 'Onerous' carries more intellectual cachet than Draconian, so it makes me feel superior. Kind of like using 'Eponymous' outside of conversations regarding REM.
Speaking of REM, anyone know where I can download "Daysleeper" in FLAC format on P2P?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Larry Lessig should be on speeddial.
Lessig made a great point in a somewhat related discussion. Sadly, and I can't find the actual reference, or context, but, perhaps you could find it.
It's very similar to this discussion at TED.
In the 1920s, Radio was a common technology, in the sense that extraordinary range- of people were radio broadcasters. Political Speech, Social Speech, Religious Speech was common in this space.
When People began to think that they could make Commercial radio function through advertising, the Federal Communication Commission began to implement a very different idea of how radio would function.
Working with Business and Government, the spectrum was allocated in such a way that made it so only a few could get access to the Spectrum.
By the mid-1930s NBC and CBS would be responsible for an astounding 97% of night-time broadcasting.
Now in both cases, what I am describing is an exogenous technological change which produces an explosion of democratic speech.
And this innovative, uncontrolled speech threatens.
And those threatened, then react.
They react to take a culture that had been unlocked, by this exogenous technological change and relock it up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Larry Lessig should be on speeddial.
you win for longest effing hypertext tag...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Draconian" and "onerous" sound much too extreme.
I believe a far better and more accurate term is "reasonable".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How are these companies structured? Transparently? Why NOT?
It's intentionally complex, because it isn't about market-based economics. It's about control. Hell, all the companies aren't even publically traded. Legally speaking, they are structured as subsidiaries, LPs or LLPs under the parent company.
This is interesting because it shields them from the SEC, regulatory, and public scrutiny a publicly traded company would require. Transparency is not required, and they don't even have to produce a balance sheet, yet they all get together and want to overtake our intellectual property system.
Something isn't right here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Canada
They hate us because years ago the industry up here decided that a levy on blank CD/DVD's and MP3 players would be nice. The Supreme court went for it and we were all told that, we cannot make available, but we can download until our balls fall off because the levy is paying the industry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment