President Obama Discusses Three Strikes Anti-Piracy Law

[unozero]

Hollywood lobbyists are trying to launch an assault on Internet providers and fast track tougher anti-piracy legislation in the United States. Ari Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, says the industry has been discussing these plans with President Obama outside of the public’s eye.

Story Continued


HAHAHAH all you libtards that voted for Obama regretting it yet?

 

[Tyguy]

"Unlike earlier projections that up to 95% of the file-sharers could stop downloading copyrighted content, the piracy rate has actually increased in the face of the new law."

slippery slope...

 

[Raziaar]

Story Continued


HAHAHAH all you libtards that voted for Obama regretting it yet?

Libtard? God, shot the **** up. You reveal your true self when you use a name like that.


It said nothing about Obama or the white house having decided a position on this. So why do you take that to an automatic failure by the president?

If he DOES end up supporting such a thing and works to get it passed, I will consider it a failure by the president. But that hasn't happened, and you're a fool for trying to insinuate it has.

Obama is not a perfect president. Far from it, like all the others. His biggest problem with me is a lack of action towards the progressive hopes and goals of the people who got him elected.

 

[Darkside55]

If he DOES end up supporting such a thing and works to get it passed, I will consider it a failure by the president.

Oh man, the president imposing such a harsh restriction on people stealing shit would be such a failure.

 

[unozero]

Exactly he's Carter Numero Dos.
He ain't gettin' shit done at all,and Biden also already swore allegiance to groups like RIAA.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh man, the president imposing such a harsh restriction on people stealing shit would be such a failure.

Did you read the article? In other countries such a thing has increased the rate of piracy. That's the kind of effect that reminds me of prohibition or the drug war. In addition, I don't believe the United States Government should be catering to the Hollywood lobbyists. The actions and tactics of the RIAA, the MPAA and others have been nothing short of disgusting.

 

[Darkside55]

In other countries such a thing has increased the rate of piracy.

Doesn't mean it might not work here. Worth a shot, anyway.

 

[Solaris]

Doesn't mean it might not work here. Worth a shot, anyway.

You don't commit internet piracy?

Come on, virtually everyone does.

If there wasn't an Evo rule against it, I'd probably say something like "I admit to piracy".

 

[Kinslayer]

internet piracy

virtually

www.instantrimshot.com

"Everyone does it" doesn't make it legal or right, to stay on topic.

 

[Darkside55]

You don't commit internet piracy?

Not being poor feels good, man. You should try it sometime.

 

[Raziaar]

Doesn't mean it might not work here. Worth a shot, anyway.

So you think supporting what the draconian recording industries wants is worth a shot?

Sorry man, but you don't have to be a proponent of piracy to be an opponent of this.

 

[Darkside55]

So you think supporting what the draconian recording industries wants is worth a shot?

Uh, what do they want besides people paying for records instead of downloading them? Paying for goods and services otherwise you get fines and punishments? How draconian.

 

[Tyguy]

There should be measures to restrict the ridiculous fines they impose on people first...that seems to be the more outlandish aspect of it all.

 

[VirusType2]

www.instantrimshot.com

"Everyone does it" doesn't make it legal or right, to stay on topic.

If the speed limit is lowered 55, but everyone does 65, that's not legal, but is it "not right"?

Then it seems lowering the speed limit (adding 3 strikes) actually made people drive faster (download more shit).

'3 strikes' will inevitably hurt entire families with internet access.

If adding new laws towards piracy prohibiting filesharing don't work (despite already existing laws) then maybe the law is wrong. Maybe the speed limit is wrong.

Copyright was intended to keep people from taking ideas and keep people from profiting from others work. When it comes to filesharing, in some countries, it is not illegal to download mp3s and other digital media. Are these nations of 'wrong-doers' or do they have it right?

The evidence gathering in filesharing cases is highly erroneous. The Pirate Bay, for example, intentionally throws random IP addresses into the mix - this address could be yours or mine. Other flaws in the evidence gathering include - highjacked wireless devices, botnets, friends using their connection for unauthorized activities like downloading, and many more.

The other thing is that there is absolutely no credible evidence to support filesharing reducing sales, there is just as much 'evidence' (really these are both drawn conclusions) that says that filesharing increases sales due to the free promotion and word of mouth they get from it.

The sales models and distribution methods for media conglomerates is well behind the times. In most cases, digital distribution is not even available for a particular product. In addition, a large portion of 'illegal downloads' are from people that cannot purchase the media. It is not sold in their country. So how is that hurting sales?

I'll use SXSW mp3s as an example since they are legal to download - these mp3 downloads introduce people to new genres and new artists. People share it with friends/family, or talk about specific artists they've discovered through these promotions with friends. It's how I discovered about several bands that I am now a fan of. These artists are so obscure, I would have never heard of them.

Free internet distribution is especially crucial to indie and upstart artists, filmakers, and other media creators. Think 'viral'.

Many artists and filmakers (often small and independent content producers) have come out publicly to thank filesharers for spreading their work. The free promotion and 'word of mouth' (via internet) increased sales tremendously of otherwise unknown works.

Now why would huge media companies have a such a problem with that and want to change the laws to stifle this? Because they are competing with these upstart content producers.

 

[Warped]

I stopped downloading illegally and I don't ever want to get back to it. I'm just hoping friends of mine quit too. they're all like, "hack you psp bro" and I'm like dude, when I buy the games for $6 used its not a big deal.....but getting nailed by Bubba every night doesn't sound appealing to me

 

[VirusType2]

It's been like 15 years since Napster, and still America hasn't figured out how to deal with filesharing.

Canada no longer pursues filesharers. Instead, they've added a tax to blank media. Done and done.

A blank media levy was introduced in Canada in 1997

A private copying levy (also known as blank media tax or levy) is a government-mandated scheme in which a special tax or levy (additional to any general sales tax) is charged on purchases of recordable media. Such taxes are in place in various countries and the income is typically allocated to the developers of "content".

 

[kupocake]

Instead, they've added a tax to blank media. Done and done.

That was an intelligent enough idea, but everyone's warehouse sized disk-drives make it completely redundant.

I pretty much only pirate Japanese products these days. I may not be an American citizen, but I consider it a kind of Pearl Harbour tax.

edit:

not an American citizen

Harbour

You'd have never guessed if I hadn't pointed it out...

 

[VirusType2]

Here's something I just came across and wasn't aware of. I don't know how accurate it is, coming from wikipedia

UNITED STATES

Audio home recording in general

17 U.S.C. § 1008, as legislated by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, says that non-commercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings is not copyright infringement. Non-commercial includes such things as resale not in the course of business, perhaps of normal use working copies which are no longer wanted. It's unlikely to include resale of copies in bulk and Napster tried to use the Section 1008 defense but was rejected because it was a business.

From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992: "In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" .

From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992: "In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies for private noncommercial use".

The United States music industry[citation needed] administers the Audio Home Recording Act and foreign hometaping royalties for artists on US sound recordings as well as US record labels. These royalties are administered by The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for writers, and Harry Fox Agency for publishers. AFM and AFTRA also contribute to retrieving foreign funds.
[edit] Blank music CDs and recorders

17 U.S.C. § 1008 bars copyright infringement action and 17 U.S.C. § 1003 provides for a royalty of 3% of the initial transfer price. The royalty rate in 17 U.S.C. § 1004 was established by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998. This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD. A similar royalty applies to stand-alone CD recorders, but not to CD burners used with computers.

Thanks to a precedent established in a 1998 lawsuit involving the Rio PMP300 player, MP3 players are deemed "computer peripherals" and are not subject to a royalty of this type in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
Other countries are listed there as well.

I think this Wikipedia entry is missing a new law that was enacted under George W. Bush, and also the "Digital millennium copyright act" under Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

 

[Stigmata]

Uh, what do they want besides people paying for records instead of downloading them? Paying for goods and services otherwise you get fines and punishments? How draconian.

Yeah, how draconian of them to collectively have an unspoken monopoly over the music industry, being able to charge as much as they want, and continually trying to control when, where, and on what devices your songs can be played, who you can play them to, and how many times you can transfer them before you have to buy them again.

Oh, wait.

 

[Darkside55]

being able to charge as much as they want

Oh help! Help! It's $13 for a CD and $1.29 for a digital song! I'm being oppressed by these moguls of the music industry!

They're controlling what devices my songs can be played on, which is why CDs work on a hojillion devices and most digital players support both mp3 and AAC!

 

[Stigmata]

$13 for a CD would be awesome, if I wasn't being horribly overcharged for the "convenience" of labels controlling distribution, IP rights of the music itself, and maybe letting the artist get 5%. But that's what happens, and that's what makes CDs NOT worth the purchase.

CDs work on everything because they arrived before DRM. CDs are dying because MP3s are more convenient. DRM is getting easier to implement because MP3s are more popular.

 

[VirusType2]

Yeah, how draconian of them to collectively have an unspoken monopoly over the music industry, being able to charge as much as they want, and continually trying to control when, where, and on what devices your songs can be played, who you can play them to, and how many times you can transfer them before you have to buy them again.

Oh, wait.

And after all that money grabbing, they -

Sell thousands of Mp3s without paying the artist anything: Pink Floyd vs. EMI

Use their music and name for promos and such without the artists consent: The Smashing Pumpkins Vs. Virgin Media

Release albums without consent or paying the artist, even when he is no longer under contract: Sony Vs. A. Fernandez

Even without a contract, Sony decided to release a new album with previously unreleased Fernández material without the singer’s permission. Upset by this move, Fernández’s lawyer sent a cease and desist to the label, but heard nothing.

Use fine print and power-suit lawyers to push musicians around.

Overwhelmingly sign contracts that pay artists very very little for physical album sales.

Pay artists .03 to .11 cents per mp3 downloaded (if they pay anything at all). That's right, the artist can get as little as 2% of the cut for selling their song. Oh, and split that amongst the members of the group.

Fail to pay artists anything when they win a case against a filesharer or filesharing site (Almost no one got any money out of the Napster lawsuit - that's right, the Record companies and their lawyers simply kept the hundreds of millions they made "getting the money in the interests of the artists".)

"If anything has been paid so far, it has been minimal," Rosenthal said. "The labels are always going to try to hide the money or use some self-serving formula when they finally get around to paying the artists."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9882624-7.html

 

[Darkside55]

$13 for a CD would be awesome, if I wasn't being horribly overcharged for the "convenience" of labels controlling distribution, IP rights of the music itself, and maybe letting the artist get 5%. But that's what happens, and that's what makes CDs NOT worth the purchase.

I like your justifications. "$13 for a CD would be fine if it didn't go towards this, this, and this, so I'll just download my music for free and stick it to the man." Keep raging against that machine, bro.


Stealth edit: Also these justifications based around slights to the ARTISTS are especially laughable. "The artists get screwed so I'm going to screw the RIAA back! Yeah, that'll learn 'em! I'm fighting for the artists!"

Shut the hell up, you're just trying to justify getting something without paying for it and you know it. What about artists that've spoken out against piracy? I guess you're fighting for them too, huh?

 

[VirusType2]

Stealth edit: Also these justifications based around slights to the ARTISTS are especially laughable. "The artists get screwed so I'm going to screw the RIAA back! Yeah, that'll learn 'em! I'm fighting for the artists!"

Shut the hell up, you're just trying to justify getting something without paying for it and you know it. What about artists that've spoken out against piracy? I guess you're fighting for them too, huh?

I didn't advocate piracy, and I don't think filesharing should be illegal - like in more progressive countries where it's not, so you shut the hell up.

(in fact I advocated a private copying tax/levy)

 

[Darkside55]

Then why are you even bringing up the RIAA's policies with artists into a discussion about piracy? Argumentum ad hominem doesn't really factor into this debate.


Besides, it wasn't just you. Stig was talking about "I'm not going to buy a CD because the artist only gets 5%."

 

[VirusType2]

Then why are you even bringing up the RIAA's policies with artists into a discussion about piracy? Argumentum ad hominem doesn't really factor into this debate.

I guess I've got a unique view here:

I'm against piracy, but I'm even more against media companies that rip off their clients. When it comes to music, see the links in my previous post. These publishers are supposed to be acting in the interest of their clients.

If you follow me in video game threads you know I'm strongly against power lawyer companies like the alleged Activisions of the world. However, being against the publishers doesn't mean I am for video game piracy, because that pisses me off just as much.

Back on topic, I'm simply saying record labels are often fairly dodgy about paying their artists, while they supposedly 'fight the good fight' for them, creating new laws and suing everyone and their grandmother (but really take the money for themselves).

13 some years after Napster, and they thought this was over, we've got a MUCH bigger filesharing problem with no workable solution in sight.

EDIT: and now they want more bureaucracy and kicking families off the internet (3 strikes).

I was suggesting the private copying/filesharing levy as a possible solution instead of another decade of legal craze.

Besides, it wasn't just you. Stig was talking about "I'm not going to buy a CD because the artist only gets 5%."

Sorry, I overlooked that comment.

 

[Stigmata]

I like your justifications. "$13 for a CD would be fine if it didn't go towards this, this, and this, so I'll just download my music for free and stick it to the man." Keep raging against that machine, bro.

Well that would explain why I've bought DRM-free albums online directly from artists...

[edit] Let's put it this way. If it were more difficult to pirate, then no, I probably wouldn't pirate music. But I still wouldn't be buying more music to make up for it.

I've bought CDs before. I don't go around pirating shit left and right just to be some hilariously misguided anarchist. I have about 50 CDs beside my computer, all legally purchased from actual non-black-market stores (except for a couple NIN albums that I bought online, directly from NIN). I didn't buy these because the price is just right (except in NIN's case) - I begrudgingly bought them because I love the artist enough to want the physical medium despite the obscene price, thinking that I was supporting the artist. But the truth is that I've given maybe three dollars to Queens of the Stone Age and Radiohead, and even less to other artists and groups, while giving ten times more to the companies that propagate this ridiculous, monopolistic, abusive media industry to begin with.

The funny thing is, if I hadn't bought these albums, I'd have enough money to go to some concerts and buy some merch.

 

[VirusType2]

I have just about 1000 retail CDs, and I've sold or traded another thousand in used 'record' stores. But then, I've been listening to music before 1982 when the CD was introduced. I also have a box of cassette tapes.

Supposedly, it's illegal for me to rip my music CDs onto my hard drive (or even my MP3 player!) for my convenience. I would like that law changed.

 

[Krynn72]

haha stupid libtards voted in a president who trys to enforce the law. FAGS

Also, stupid pirates who try to justify their illegal actions. Why don't you go illegally murder Hitler before he kills all those Jews. FAGS

And stupid Krynn stop using hyperbole so god damn much. FAG

 

[Ravioli]

Europe recently voted NO in a similar law. I think it was about 96% of the votes were no if i remember correctly. If someone can find the source that would be nice (im too lazy)

 

[Darkside55]

I hope you will forgive me, Virus, if I'm somewhat unsympathetic to the plight of the music artist. Hard as I try I cannot see making even 5% per sale off MILLIONS of sales to be a cause getting up in arms about. I won't grudge you for it, of course, I'm just saying I can't quite empathize with how labels are "screwing over" their artists when said artists are generally obscenely rich.

If I ever catch you in one of those video game threads arguing about publishers, though, I'll be more inclined to agree. I know how much most people in the video game industry make.


As for kicking families off the internet...it is THREE strikes. You'd think after the first strike offending kids would have their asses whipped. I can't imagine many families getting their internets turned off.

Let's put it this way. If it were more difficult to pirate, then no, I probably wouldn't pirate music. But I still wouldn't be buying more music to make up for it.

This is going to become one of those, "I wouldn't buy it anyway, so I'm not really hurting anybody" arguments, isn't it? We all know where this is gonna go.

But the truth is that I've given maybe three dollars to Queens of the Stone Age and Radiohead, and even less to other artists and groups, while giving ten times more to the companies that propagate this ridiculous, monopolistic, abusive media industry to begin with.

Those people are rich, bro. I'm sure that they aren't hurting for money while the record companies bleed them dry. I'm sure Radiohead wasn't thanking God for the three dollars you put in their wallet so they can eat tonight.

Anyway, the whole thing's ridiculous. "Records are too expensive, pirating's easy, I'm not giving enough money to the artists, I don't have money for concert tickets," it all boils down to YOU JUST DON'T HAVE MONEY. So you try to justify getting something for nothing. Maybe you have bought 50 CDs. How many CDs have you downloaded? How many tracks from varying artists? And if you cared so much, giving even $3 is better than giving $0.

 

[VirusType2]

I hope you will forgive me, Virus, if I'm somewhat unsympathetic to the plight of the music artist. Hard as I try I cannot see making even 5% per sale off MILLIONS of sales to be a cause getting up in arms about. I won't grudge you for it, of course, I'm just saying I can't quite empathize with how labels are "screwing over" their artists when said artists are generally obscenely rich.

Well, if they sell millions of copies. But how many artists do that? The ones in the news that nobody likes. But the others, not so much.

Besides, keep in mind .05 x 1,000,000 mp3s is only $50,000. With 4 members in the music group, that's only $12,500. The publisher however, made nearly a million dollars. They didn't make the music.

As for kicking families off the internet...it is THREE strikes. You'd think after the first strike offending kids would have their asses whipped. I can't imagine many families getting their internets turned off.

Perhaps, but I'm fairly certain it won't fix the problem.

They want to burden ISPs with the task (I've read that this will cost ISPs much more than the actual losses the publishers are facing!), and that will drive everyone's internet bill up. Why should the ISPs foot the bill?

I suppose this also introduces privacy issues. Are they going to throw away right to privacy, or how exactly will they monitor this?

Plus, when Jane gets a letter in the mail that John has been downloading transsexual midget porn, shit won't be smooth.

Finally, it's more bureaucracy and ties up the judicial system for something I don't feel should even be covered.

The levy idea isn't radical.

 

[Stigmata]

I hope you will forgive me, Virus, if I'm somewhat unsympathetic to the plight of the music artist. Hard as I try I cannot see making even 5% per sale off MILLIONS of sales to be a cause getting up in arms about. I won't grudge you for it, of course, I'm just saying I can't quite empathize with how labels are "screwing over" their artists when said artists are generally obscenely rich.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Those people are rich, bro. I'm sure that they aren't hurting for money while the record companies bleed them dry. I'm sure Radiohead wasn't thanking God for the three dollars you put in their wallet so they can eat tonight.

Was kinda my point as far as what money goes where, and how I feel about it.

Anyway, the whole thing's ridiculous. "Records are too expensive, pirating's easy, I'm not giving enough money to the artists, I don't have money for concert tickets," it all boils down to YOU JUST DON'T HAVE MONEY. So you try to justify getting something for nothing. Maybe you have bought 50 CDs. How many CDs have you downloaded? How many tracks from varying artists? And if you cared so much, giving even $3 is better than giving $0.

I've bought about 50, downloaded about 200. I don't download individual tracks - that's what Youtube is for. And you're still kind of misunderstanding my position, bro.

As the industry stands right now, it's a long chain of exploitation. Labels control distribution, which means they control which artists can and cannot be distributed, i.e. which artists are successful and which are not (thanks to the Internet this is changing, but we're still in the woods). So as far as artists are concerned, they can a) get signed, lose the IP rights to their music, get published, and break even (and hey, maybe they'll be able to afford luxury items like chocolate and car insurance after their bills are paid!), or b) they turn down the label's offer, fly solo, and play to bars for the rest of their careers.

So there's that.

On the distribution/consumer end, you've got promotional singles that are almost always the best song on the album, and sometimes the only good one. But you don't get to hear any of those songs. You hear the single, and are forced to gamble on whether 90% of your purchase is going to be shit. And if it's shit, can you return it? Hell no! You bought it, you opened it - if you're returning it you must be a pirate. Your loss!

It's not fair. You can throw all the "life's not fair" talking points you want, but fair is good, and this industry can and should be more fair. I may have downloaded two hundred-odd albums without giving the artists a dime, but I've bought the ones I liked. I downloaded NIN's The Downward Spiral before buying it. I downloaded QOTSA's discography before deciding that it was good enough to purchase. [edit] And if you're mad [bro] that I only buy big name artists, I also own Tokyo Police Club, Clark, and Priestess albums.

The fact of the matter is that some music is worth my money, and some is not. I'm not going to gamble away my money on music I've never heard before. The music industry created this problem, and the only halfway solution is preview-piracy. I don't pay for trailers, and I don't pay for demos. I'm sure as hell not going to pay to find out whether your songs are going to stay on my mp3 player for more than a day. And if they do end up getting played a lot, chances are I'm going to spend money on the product itself.

But at the end of the day, you just don't see it my way. That's fine. Agree to disagree.

[edit2] I know you're going to pick apart my demos=trailers=albums argument. I know it's spurious. But look at it this way: A demo is a preview of gameplay, the single most important part of any game. They are designed to highlight what makes the game fun to play. The extra levels, soundtracks, characters, and so forth are just icing on the gameplay cake. Same goes for trailers; it's a preview of the quality of acting, writing, and directing of the film itself. A single is a bit different. It's the best parts of the whole (trailer) while being a preview of the mechanics (musical style/production). This lends itself more to smoke and mirrors tactics than either demos or trailers, because while video games and movies must necessarily be cohesive wholes, albums don't need to be cohesive, and they don't need to keep up a consistent level of quality - precisely because of the nature of the industry itself. Great songs are taken individually from mediocre albums and stand by themselves, but great movie scenes need the rest of the movie to feel complete.

 

[Darkside55]

Besides, keep in mind .05 x 1,000,000 mp3s is only $50,000.

You know I'm not even sure if it is 5%. I'm just going by the figure Stigmata supplied. It could be a lot higher, I don't know. Have you seen some of these peoples' houses on Cribs?

Perhaps, but I'm fairly certain it won't fix the problem.

Yeah, probably not. And you raise a good point about the privacy issue and costs to ISPs (and thereby the public).

Well, I guess all that's left to do now is wait and see what goes.

I'm not going to gamble away my money on music I've never heard before. The music industry created this problem, and the only halfway solution is preview-piracy.

Man, you would've hated living in the times without the internet.

 

[Raziaar]

Asking and requiring the ISPs to monitor all website traffic and data packets sent and received is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I'm sure they will appreciate that. I'm sure we'll even appreciate that.

It's like wiretaps for your internet! \o/

 

[Absinthe]

Holy shit, the president is TALKING?!?! to PEOPLE??? about STUFF!?!?

I am a fully outraged mother****er, unotard.

 

[Mogi67]

The sharing of thoughts should not be permitted. This includes music. Purchase required.

 

[Danimal]

I figured music artists know the money is in touring/merch anyway these days.

Right?

Spoiler

RIGHT?!

 

[kupocake]

Either that, or artistic expression and making decent tunes.

Ahahahaha, I slay me.

 

[Shyam]

HAHAHAH all you libtards that voted for Obama regretting it yet?

regretting being a retard all your life yet ?