Recording Industry Using Net Neutrality Debate To Try To Link Child Porn With Copyright Infringement Again

from the it's-not-the-same dept

We’ve already seen how music industry execs and lobbyists cynically use “child porn” to their advantage (even, sickeningly, declaring “child porn is great”) by lumping it in with copyright infringement in trying to force filters or other third party policing of the internet on politicians and companies. What’s amazing is that they don’t seem to have any shame at all in doing so. The latest example can be found in the “open letter” put together by a bunch of music industry trade groups (RIAA, A2IM, AFM, AFTRA, ASCAP, BMI, NMPA, SESAC, SoundExchange, the Recording Academy, the California Songwriters Association, the Music Managers Forum, and the Nashville Songwriters Association International) to Verizon and Google asking them to make sure their proposed “framework” for net neutrality still doesn’t cover forcing ISPs to be copyright cops. It’s no surprise why they sent this letter, but the inclusion of “child porn” with copyright infringement is really ridiculous:

The music community we represent believes it is vital that any Internet policy initiative permit and encourage ISPs and other intermediaries to take measures to deter unlawful activity such as copyright infringement and child pornography.

The industry seems to work overtime to try to link these two concepts together, despite the vast differences between them. It’s really an incredibly cynical, exploitative and disgusting move by the recording industry, and people should really start calling them on it.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: a2im, afm, aftra, ascap, bmi, nmpa, riaa, sesac, soundexchange

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Recording Industry Using Net Neutrality Debate To Try To Link Child Porn With Copyright Infringement Again”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
38 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The technology for anonymous P2P has existed for a decade. And if people want to trade child porn, that’s where they’ll go regardless of what the RIAA does.

In my opinion, any network so anonymous it cannot be traced even for child porn should be illegal. The costs to society for creating untraceable online hacker/spammer/pedophile/terrorism havens far outweighs any benefit these services might provide.

And taking down networks like Tor/Freenet/I2P is just as easy as tracing a node and then imposing sanctions (or filtration if overseas) on that IP.

But that would require ISP cooperation and God forbid they lift a finger to do anything except collect subscriptions.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Ending the evil perpetrated against the RIAA

Isn’t an “exploited” RIAA basically the same thing as an exploited innocent child?

Seriously, I would like to end both of these, and I propose the easier problem be taken first so we can focus our resources quickly afterward to tackle the greater challenge. First, let us downsize copyright law significantly so that it will not be nearly as possible in the future to exploit the RIAA’s monopoly subsidy grants. Afterward, children everywhere will celebrate.

NAMELESS.ONE says:

Prob with record industry here

is the proof that FBI agents are actually pulling guys off missing children cases to look after obama biden Hollywood IP.

SO the try at think of children is utter fail and in 10years of bittorrent i’ve never seen anyone even think of or try to upload sick kiddy porn.

IN fact i hardly bother with porn , i am human and an adult.
FACT is i sense an ACTA leak shortly , odd how these kiddy porn messages start coming right when a doc gets leaked….

So also would you be thinking of children to have htem all staying in doors away form sickos at the park that could kidnap them?

Would it also be safer keeping them away from cocaine and meth dealers to have them online more?

WELL, i am sure mike there is some study proving i’m right some wheres…..

AND i’ll add if they even so much as mention canada , i am now milling around a slander and defamation suit , seeing how we pay a levy…

SO by htis article people in Canada paying a levy aka license are pedophiles?

SLANDER and DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER MAN HARDCORE.

PopeRatzo (profile) says:

A music lover's prayer

Dear God, please destroy the “music industry”. Not the musicians, just the “industry” part. We haven’t needed them for at least a decade now, and they never were much good anyway.

While you’re at it, if you could please destroy the “movie industry” too.

I know that the destruction of the music “industry” and the movie “industry” doesn’t mean there won’t be music or movies, just that the people who leech off the artists will have to find other employment, probably as pimps or drug dealers. Maybe it’s best just to smite the lot of them.

Amen.

Patrik (user link) says:

Re: A music lover's prayer

Well, if musicians are all working together to make money, wouldn’t that just be the new “music industry”? You can’t have a propagation of recorded music without an industry.

You people love to attack the middlemen, but you’re ignoring the fact that FB, MySpace, TPB, Bittorrent, Google, Pandora, Spotify, etc are the new MIDDLEMEN! How much ad revenue do these sites make off the content of others? That’s the entire scope of their business model! You can’t be much more in the “middle” than that.

And besides, this scare tactic of “They’re linking child porn with copyright infringement” is patently transparent. They’re only correlated together in as far as they are both illegal activities that propagate through the web. And for a rather long missive, “child pornography” appears only one time. But I doubt anyone bothered to read the actual letter.

But wait, let’s be a little antiseptic and think about this. Copyright issues might come into play: If we just consider the “actors” in child porn to be “content creators” then don’t the “performers” technically own the rights to their performance? I don’t believe there are scripts, so the performance would solely be the property of the participants (especially since I doubt that these children sign contracts that release the reproducible rights of their performance) Is there a royalty scheme in place for these “actors” or any system of recompensation? Or should they just be happy with the free “promotion” they received from starring in a child porn flick?

dave (profile) says:

The RIAA’s current business model relies on vicious criminals raping children on videotape. Without such heinous crimes, the RIAA has no argument to convince us that they deserve any special consideration.

It’s disgusting that the RIAA would exploit underage victims just to try to convince people that their archaic business model should receive special protection under the law.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

It is truely amazing to me how desensitize, and cynical I have become. The words child prostitution, kiddie porn, and its for the children have become synonymous with “I have an agenda”. Politicians, lobbying groups, and anyone seeking attention use this very tragic subject to push their agendas.

Recently I saw an open letter to craigslist on forced child prostitution. My first thought was “what is their agenda?” My second thought was “Its probably the newspapers trying to get their classified ad revenue back”.

Organizations that represent the abused children of our world should take these people to task for using this as a rallying cry. It dishonors the abused children.

Sam I am says:

There’s no equation of rights infringement and child exploitation here, merely the mention of both as unlawful online activity that inappropriately exploits the (fading) perception of privacy. All unlawful activity including phishing, cc# interception, stalking, anything illegal and on the network, will be defined as such and combatted as such. The free ride that all forms of unlawful internet activity have enjoyed because tech outpaced law is drawing to a close as it must, as we always knew it would. Those who advocate the internet must remain an unregulated free-for-all have always been on the wrong side of history. We’re presently sorting online rights—rights that swing both ways—and the grouping of internet based illegality will continue. Get used to it. And knock off the sophistry.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There’s no equation of rights infringement and child exploitation here, merely the mention of both as unlawful online activity

but the assertion that these things are not only technically unlawful but also bad relies on mutually contradictory logic.

If the free copying of music and movies hurts the music/movie production industry and results in less music and movies being produced (arguably a bad thing) then why doesn’t the free copying of child porn hurt the corresponding production industry and result in less child porn being produced?

You could of course turn this argument around – but you can’t have it both ways.

coldbrew says:

Re: you're on the wrng side of technology

While you may be correct about the “wrong side of history” in some sense, you are on the wrong side of technology. You don’t understand how the internet was built to combat the very forms of censorship you find acceptable. The internet will simply route around your artificial obstacles. You may be able to censor the web, but you will never censor the internet.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There’s no equation of rights infringement and child exploitation here, merely the mention of both as unlawful online activity that inappropriately exploits the (fading) perception of privacy.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Are you outright admitting that ISP’s policing copyright is a fundamental invasion of privacy? That the music industry won’t be happy until the entire communications industry is required by law to implement global, warrantless wiretapping?

Good to know.

All unlawful activity including phishing, cc# interception, stalking, anything illegal and on the network, will be defined as such and combatted as such.

Yet, their letter mentioned none of these things. I wonder why? Could it be because Nigerian royalty scams don’t cause the citizenry to clench their vaginas in fear quite like child rape does?

The free ride that all forms of unlawful internet activity have enjoyed because tech outpaced law is drawing to a close as it must, as we always knew it would. Those who advocate the internet must remain an unregulated free-for-all have always been on the wrong side of history.

I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence that this is even close to true. If anything, the internet is becoming more open. Filesharing is increasing, communication is increasing, and all attempts to curb online activity (even by repressive governments) are little more than nuicances to everyone but an unlucky few. Even on the tech side, proprietary technology is on the way out, and open source and open standards are more common now then ever before.

So, keep dreaming that dream.

Get used to it. And knock off the sophistry.

Pot, meet kettle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If an ISP is NOTIFIED that you have used their networks to break the law, why should they not be required to impose sanctions on you for that? How does it remotely “invade your privacy” for them to do so?

If you connect to open P2P you CHOOSE to make your connections public. And if your P2P is so anonymous, law enforcement can’t even trace for child porn, it has no place in civil society and should be banned.

None of this has to do with your privacy. It has to do with you wanting to break the law and then escape punishment for doing so.

A, Nnoyed (profile) says:

Copyright control agencies are deceitful.

I am annoyed that the music copyright agencies are always coming up with a new Red Herring. This child pornography issue is another Red Herring. Since the early 70’s the music industry have always come up with a new Red Herring as an excuse to explain a decline in sales.

The copyright control agencies lobbied lawmakers to:

1) Outlaw Home Taping.

2) Blamed the loss of sales in 1981 on home taping when in fact the recession dried up the money for consumers to make discretionary purchases.

3) Lobby Lawmakers to pass laws which were passed requiring manufactures of high fidelity cassette recorders and cassettes to pay a fee to the copyright control agencies, just in case the cassette was used to record copyrighted music. They were successful and consumers wound up paying this hidden fee even if they did not use the cassette to record copyrighted music.

4) Outlaw the Digital Compact Cassette.

5) The lawmakers as a compromise to the copyright control agencies passed laws that required that all consumer CD recorders incorporate the Serial Copyright Management System and only copy music on CD ROMS that were encoded to indicate to the consumer CD Recorder that it was a CD ROM on which a fee was paid to the copyright holders.

6) Now the Red Herring is the sharing of copyrighted music.

Both lawmakers and copyright holders have failed to take into account that there are more opportunities for consumers to spend their discretionary money on things other then prerecorded music.

Danny says:

Disgusting...

To use a terrible crime justify your existence when your existence doesn’t even relate to that crime (unless those record studios have been working to combat child porn all these years and no one knew about…) is the lowest of the low. Its not like we’re talking about someone trying to help victims, fund volunteers to track down child porn collectors, or in some way stop/reeducate/reform those who commit those crimes. We are talking about people who will do and say anything to maintain their existence.

Anonymous Coward says:

The ISP should absolutely be responsible for filtering and blocking illegal content on their network. For example, if they KNOW a site overseas is breaking the law. KNOW it. But the local government can’t shut that international site down, why should the ISP not be mandated to block it?

Such levels of ISP responsibility should apply for any Internet crime. And yes, piracy is a crime.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
08:56 AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal (16)
06:18 Ajit Pai Hits CES... To Make Up Some Shit About Net Neutrality (24)
06:24 Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case (22)
06:49 AT&T Exec Insists That No Broadband Company Is Violating Net Neutrality Even Though AT&T Is Absolutely Violating Net Neutrality (19)
06:45 Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality (61)
06:28 Ajit Pai Whines About The Numerous State-Level Net Neutrality Laws He Just Helped Create (47)
More arrow