RSS
Add to Chrome
RIAA, MPAA Outline Plans for Draconian Copyright Laws

RIAA, MPAA Outline Plans for Draconian Copyright Laws

Submit brief to govt “anti-piracy czar” Victoria A. Espinel bemoaning industry losses, and outlining a plan to crackdown on online copyright infringement. Among the proposals are website filtering, search engine keyword blocking, a crackdown on domain name registrars and proxy services, monitoring of social networks for promotion of infringing websites, bandwidth throttling, and “consumer tools” installed on home PCs that detect and delete illegally obtained copyrighted material.

Despite the Government Accountability Office already questioning the entertainment industry’s piracy claims, it submitted a brief to the govt’s new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria A. Espinel, bemoaning the industry’s losses and outlining a plan to tackle the problem.

Dubbed the “anti-piracy czar,” Espinel’s post was created towards the end of 2008 as part of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (PRO-IP Act) which increased penalties for intellectual-property infringement, and provided the Justice Department with more resources to coordinate federal and state efforts against counterfeiting and piracy.

She requested comments on the forthcoming “Joint Strategic Plan” for intellectual property enforcement and a group of copyright holders that includes both the MPAA and RIAA were all too happy to oblige.

Its outline for tackling the problem is truly frightening, and includes all of the very worst possible solutions. Among the proposals are website filtering, search engine keyword blocking, a crackdown on domain name registrars and proxy services, monitoring of social networks for promotion of infringing websites, bandwidth throttling, and “consumer tools” installed on home PCs that detect and delete illegally obtained copyrighted material.

It’s hard to think of a list of options that could do worse damage to the Internet than this.

Search engine filtering sounds eerily reminiscent of China and its much publicized filtering of the Internet to stifle political dissent.

From the brief:

Search engines: Popular web search engines are often the primary resource for Internet users to locate links, websites and software that allow users to download and view illegal content. In most cases, typing the name of a movie title with generic

qualifiers such as “watch online free” will return numerous web search results for links and resources to illegally download and view that title.

The entertainment industry apparently wants the likes of Google and Yahoo to somehow rid search results of any keywords that would aid and abet the practice of downloading or streaming copyrighted material without their permission. Good luck with that one.

Also of concern is its desire to monitor social networks for any discussion of infringing websites or links to infringing content.

Social Networking: Social networks are increasingly being used by the operators of infringing websites to promote illegal websites, communicate with large “fan” bases and spam links to infringing content. Social networks are now important tools in the promotion and optimization of illegal websites.

So coming soon to Facebook and MySpace pages everywhere may very well be govt agents on the lookout for illegal file-sharers and links to file-sharing sites.

The last one, the use of “consumer tools,” as though they’re being helped by allowing businesses to scan and monitor their PCs for signs of acquiring content that hasn’t been paid for, is probably the most galling of all.

It continues:

There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers, including many that are already used for spam and virus protection.

  • Consumer tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).

I can’t imagine any person in their right mind would install this on their PC, but if packaged properly – as perhaps a “malware” removal and protection program – some may just fall for it.

Moreover, as usual the entertainment industry likes to focus on solutions that ignore the real problem – it’s lack of concern for what consumers really want. The solution to piracy always has and always will be providing consumers what they want, where they want it, and all at a reasonable price. It’s Business 101.

“These tools, it must be emphasized, are critical, but they are means to an end,” reads the briefs closing remarks. “That end is a dynamic, content-rich, readily accessible, and hassle-free marketplace that excites and engages

consumers, while it also compensates those who, for almost a century, have made it possible for American movies, music and other media to entertain and educate audiences around the world.”

With DRM like the Content Scramble System (CSS) on DVDs, copyright holders have gone out of their way to hassle consumers crazy enough to think they actually owned a product after purchasing it, even warning them that making one backup copy of a DVD is illegal.

In the end the entertainment industry is playing a dangerous game against technology and consumers where everyone loses.

Stay tuned.

[email protected]

Jared Moya
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
eddy
eddy

piracy is the pretext . the gov is worried that the net is too educational. they want to make it like cable, with a zio-filter to brainwash kids into fighting wars for israel

Coconut1967
Coconut1967

Seriously SAM I AM is nothing and he will clearly just argue to argue, his only end retort will be you are a thief and he does not even know if you ever infringed. He just assumes it because you come to this site. His ignorance is plentiful and will spew corporate lines even though none of this has anything to do with him. If you ignore him he will go away. Funny thing is he does more to encourage piracy than he does to stop it. P2P.net did some investigating on him, interesting read and will help in ignoring him. Like the P2P report said ........Did he get permission to use the name SAM I AM??????? Or did he steal it?????? He should be paying royalties because this is what he spews only worse because he took that name as his own.

Coconut1967
Coconut1967

Seriously SAM I AM is nothing and he will clearly just argue to argue, his only end retort will be you are a thief and he does not even know if you ever infringed. He just assumes it because you come to this site. His ignorance is plentiful and will spew corporate lines even though none of this has anything to do with him. If you ignore him he will go away. Funny thing is he does more to encourage piracy than he does to stop it. P2P.net did some investigating on him, interesting read and will help in ignoring him. Like the P2P report said ……..Did he get permission to use the name SAM I AM??????? Or did he steal it??????

People Want Change
People Want Change

I find it hard to believe that sam I am actually believes the things he espouses, if he does he certainly isnt in sync with the rest of the world. I firmly believe that almost all of the piracy "problems" would be solved by simply charging a tax similiar to the tax already being imposed on blank media and mp3 players that would cover internet file sharing. What people really want is to be able to be part of a community, discussing and sharing their purchased media with family and friends. How simple, Give us a legal service in which we can do this and your "problems" are no more. Granted its not going to be an easy pill to swallow, but its the best and quickest solution for all of us.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

"Your last comments are even crazier."Right, Jared. You expect an illegal, hiding, online free-for-all to define digital industry going forward while the government stands idly by unable to do a thing because of the American Constitution. And you call me crazy.heheh.

Some Guy
Some Guy

Only an ignorant fool or greedy fascist cheerleader would support this. The same ninnys that fall for any and every government or corporate sponsored bogeymen. So we are to condone crippling and complete control of all information so an industry can stay profitable? Really? The stunning level of ignorance and gall people like Sam I am demonstrate should act as a kick in the ass to the rest of us. Tyranny doesn't respect you, I or even your ilk Sam I am. You wanna live in a nanny state, go ahead, I for one am sick to death of being cheated and robbed and then having to listen to insipid little mental midgets like you spew nonsense.

Drew Wilson
Drew Wilson

Google already complies with the DMCA by effectively saying, "If you find a search result of an infringing nature, then send a complaint and we'll remove it."As far as I know, they have been more that co-operative to the point where serious questions are being raised over if it's too easy to take down content.On YouTube, Google complied further with a filtering system even though everyone knows no filtering system is going to really cut it. Naturally, the whole filtering system is completely flawed and people can easily bi-pass the filters.The proposal asks Google to filter keywords. Guess what? The Chinese have been bi-passing such restrictions for years via the asterisk. Example: Met*lica. Easiest way to bi-pass something like that in the world really. The MPAA/RIAA's proposal to that end is completely useless.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

Hey Jared, well you know, the whole notion that anonymous unlawful behavior will force industry, any industry anywhere anytime, to do ANYthing that doesn't advance their business plan and their responsibility to their shareholders is a dumbass pipedream.They have every right to do their business their way, and you have no right to infringement just because you don't care for their methods or products. And of course, they will legally fight back with all their resources by any means necessary, including consulting with their government, who wouldn't?......and government will support the law and their source for tax revenue that benefits us all.No one needs to "find (you) a single Legal.....service" because no one owes you one.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

"the real problem – it’s lack of concern for what consumers really want."After 11 years of careful study, a period of government "hands off" and a range of digital industry approaches from education to legal confrontation, it's pretty clear what consumers want.But that vision of an internet devoid of respect for the price of digital product or accountability to unlawful behavior and a legally mandated cloak of privacy to facilitate that illegal behavior was never the future; instead, this selfish ZEROPAID vision has, for the moment, put the future on hold. But not indefinitely. The adults will inevitably take charge as always.They always do.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

Wow, you have as many issues as the RIAA. How the hell do you take a story about copyright and turn it into a conspiracy on Israel and Zionist. Get a grip buddy, not everything in the world is about empowering Israel, your current statement makes me think you are blindly following the anti Israel movement.The only thing I have to say about that conflict is that everyone on every side is responsible for that mess. All sides have to give their heads a shake for the conflict to end.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

Lololo....yah Jon told me all about him.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

What steps have the industry taken to adapt their business model to the change caused by the internet? What bold new business strategy have they put substantial effort in to give an alternative to illegal downloading? Have they launched a comprehensive add based model? What about a system where songs are held until a certain amount of money is generated, then release the song under a creative commons license? The only creative thing I saw them try was a subscription model, but the services were terrible, and lacked many artists. No one will sign up to a monthly fee if they are not getting all the artists under one service. The industry has failed to do anything substantial with the internet, and their business is failing due to the lack of innovation. If they actually made concerted efforts that failed, people might feel more supportive, but they have not.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

"So we are to condone crippling and complete control of all information so an industry can stay profitable? "Of course not. I would never support such an outrageous suggestion. And you are free to create and distribute your creations as free as you see fit. Just as you should be.In fact the ONLY "information" that is encumbered is that which is actually copyrighted merchandise, a PRODUCT, whose development was PAID for by an entity and whose sales revenue repays then rewards that investment.I know this is a bit complicated for you "Some Guy", but little school kids can grasp it.http://www.copyrightkids.org/cbasicsframes.htmSo I have every faith you'll eventually get it, too.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

Of course they do. I find no fault in that. Its called "self-preservation.""No one needs to 'find (you) a single Legal…..service' because no one owes you one" - That's plain idiotic. When they're bemoaning declining sales year after year they owe it to themselves and their customers. If they refuse to compete the marketplace will give them what they're "owed" by default.

mountain_rage
mountain_rage

That is where you are wrong, society has every right to fight back against laws they find to be illegitimate, even by ignoring the law. Private copyright infringement crackdown can be likened to prohibition. A large portion of the population did not support prohibition and continued to drink, meanwhile those who considered themselves moral compasses were outraged. In the end the laws failed, because it lack widespread support. We live in a democracy, corporations shouldn't have final say on issues that affect the general public. Human nature is to share culture, its normal behavior, you can't legislate that away. Everyone has downloaded a file at one time or another, so essentially anyone can be guilty of these "Laws", that isn't justice, its extortion.Meanwhile consumers have still not been given what they want in relation to online services. We have no DRM free service with extensive catalogs, competitive prices, add supported models, or anything of that nature. The music and movie industry is still hesitating to launch any service because it wants to lock it all down, sell you 10 copies of the same file because you use it on different devices, and charge you more than a physical copy to do that. I can buy a video game on steam for less than a music cd, and cheaper than the game is in retail. This service is in direct competitor to music and movie sales, they all fight for our entertainment dollars. How is a cd of 10 songs worth more than a video game? They are loosing in the youth market, because they are not pricing themselves right, and not I, or anyone else should feel bad that they are losing money to file sharing. Until they get public support, they shouldn't be given any more power to extort money. The internet, and society should not suffer because a business is incompetent, that is just stupid.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

The troll is back...ololoConsumers have never been given what they want, only what the industry allows them to have - digital crumbs.Find me a single LEGAL online streaming service, for example, that offers a range of quality TV and movie content.Find me a single LEGAL music service that offers a selection comparable to even the worst of music-oriented BitTorrent tracker sites.

Charlie
Charlie

I've followed Zeropaid for at least three years, and I'm terrified the direction that we are headed in. I personally know artists who owe their fanbases to the Internet. They're doing just fine. This may seem surprising, but people are still paying for music.But if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Get a different job. You're taking up space in the music industry that could be better filled with someone else.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

"So we are to condone crippling and complete control of all information so an industry can stay profitable? ”Of course not. I would never support such an outrageous suggestion. And you are free to create and distribute your creations as free as you see fit. Just as you should be.Of course you have. It's your only solution to the problem. Internet disconnection, a ban on public access Wi-Fi, and website filtering would all truly cripple the Internet just so that a outdated distribution industry could try and stay afloat. All network traffic would have to be monitored and inspected for signs of infringement if the plan is to succeed, therefore "encumbering" all information.Warping the Internet will not convince people to become customers anymore than putting a gun to their head would. Purchasing a product is a voluntary transaction, and unless the record distribution business gets it act together and convinces them to buy by making a convincing pitch with appealing prices and selection it will die a slow death like any other business that ignores the marketplace.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

"society has every right to fight back against laws they find to be illegitimate, even by ignoring the law"I wholeheartedly agree, mountain_rage. That kind of freedom is the civil disobedient basis of a working democracy.So now we are getting somewhere as along as you also agree that when you are noticed, monitored, apprehended, tried and convicted, society as a whole also has the very same right to punish you to the fullest extent that the law allows while pressing for ever greater punishments that incrementally truncate your ability to ignore that law until you have zero freedom, zero privacy and finally, zero ability to continue to rip people off.To be fair, it has to work both ways.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

"See where this is going?" Destruction of the 4th amendment? Not likely unless you have a Constitutional Convention card saved up.Empower industry? They use bogus fake statistics that have no correlation to reality. Even the GAO recently admitted as much, and even noted reports of piracy having a "net positive effect: in certain content industries (like music which Ive discussed over and over).But, we already have physical 99 cents movies (Redbox), copyright holders could offer the same content streamed to your TV and keep all the profits for itself in the process, or even charge less being there's substantially lower costs for storage, stocking, distribution, marketing, upkeep, etc..The truth is that nobody knows what the real losses from piracy are. All we have our estimates at best, exaggerations at worst. The 1:1 argument is nonsense.Perhaps the most telling statistic of all is the increasing popularity of the digital single. While track sales soar album sales decline, perhaps having a greater detrimental effect than piracy has ever had. The profits once made by selling an entire album will never match those of the new "greatest hit" era."The world is sorting this out along lawful, just and predictable terms, Jared, while industry pros like me meet with our government representatives. And while pirates make free copies of for-sale merch destroying our privacy and while you whine you want 99cent movies, for God’s sake. And I think you actually want to be taken seriously, too" - ? Nonsense. Whine? That's EXACTLY why industries like yours are losing customers to piracy. Rather than giving them what they want you blast them for "whining?" Since when has asking for a product been deemed "whining?" Too funny.Fuck them all? No just you.Music artists existed long before record labels ever did, and will certainly live long after.The law step in? To do what? DPI will never happen, at least not in the US. The dam Constitution of ours has a way of its own sometimes.Again: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Your last comments are even crazier.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

Jared, I’ve never said any of this is a particularly good idea. The good idea is let every business set their standards and pay the freight or do without and let them die of attrition, just like every other business model. Legal, effective, fair and inescapable.But pirates are surprisingly, shortsightedly stupid. You SEE where this is inevitably GOING and yet you STILL will not advocate lawful protest. Amazing. By breaking the law year after year you hand the high cards back to the industries you claim you do not want to empower and challenge government not to stop you. Oh really? How foolish can you get? If you have a problem with any industry anywhere of any kind on principle legally defending itself from a sustained and unlawful ransacking, you aren’t thinking clearly about how this works at all.We’ll see 99cent movies and TV shows when we return to $10,000 homes, $1500 new cars and new $5 Levi’s. And 10cent milk. Same old premises...you sound so 2003 now.You probably still think the majority of “touring” should be profitable or that digital workers should live on t shirt sales. Or that only “true” art is created at no charge. The world is sorting this out along lawful, just and predictable terms, Jared, while industry pros like me meet with our government representatives. And while pirates make free copies of for-sale merch destroying our privacy and while you whine you want 99cent movies, for God’s sake. And I think you actually want to be taken seriously, too.In that case, I’ll take a new $1500 Photoshop software package for 99cents. The DVD it comes on costs even less than that, right? Fuck their R&D, fuck their salaries, development costs, physical overhead and retirement plans. Fuck their shareholders AND their return on investment. Fuck them all.And if Adobe doesn’t wise up, I’ll steal it online and show them who is really boss. Then we can cry together about “Adobe’s greed and my privacy rights” when the law steps in.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

Inspecting data packets proactively without cause or warrantis certainly unconstitutional (UK and France you're out of luck).From the 4th amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/Good luck trying to convince the courts that we need to begin "searching and seizing and " all network traffic to find scofflaws. You see the thing is you won't know if it's copyrighted or even illegally distributed until AFTER you've examined it, all without "probable cause." You'd have to inspect all network traffic to make the system work. How else? And in the process you'd wind up inspecting home videos, political interviews, etc. just to weed out illegal transfers of Eminem? It's ridiculous AND unconstitutional."Courts after court the world over is finding that well documented online behavior is unreasonable and therefore monitoring gains credibility everyday." ? Where? China? The only place it has any credibility is among those in the entertainment industry and the politicians they lobby with inflated figures and promises of campaign cash. Why do you think the UK govt had to sneak the DEA in during the "wash-up" period with little more than 2hrs of debate? Critics abound, especially among technical experts and free speech advocates.The digital industry could stay relevant if it offered consumers what they want, where they want it, and at reasonable price. Find me a single legal movie streaming site for example, that has a selection comparable to P2P. It just doesn't exist. The same for music, TV, the list goes on and on. They're trying to use the govt to distort the marketplace.What's great about capitalism is that eventually profits, or the lack thereof, will force their hand. Blaming pirates is just a ruse to prevent them from having to change their business model, both in terms of pricing and content accessibility. They have nothing to lose, but everything to gain if they meet the challenge head on. Offer TV show and movie streaming for 99cents a pop and include they're entire library. I'd pony up and be a loyal customer in a heartbeat.

Sam I Am
Sam I Am

Oh come on Jared, you think this is ultimately about the record labels?? There’s no 14th amendment deprivation of life, liberty, or property in DPI, in fact there’s no reference anywhere in the Constitution to guaranteed privacy. Google it. And the 4th amendment protection from “unreasonable search” fails when the facts indicate “probable cause” and the search is held as reasonable. Courts after court the world over is finding that well documented online behavior is unreasonable and therefore monitoring gains credibility everyday. The pirates are doing this to themselves. And who cares if some can and will slip through? With every illegal use of a technology, that tech will come under regulation. If you want your VPN’s then stop using them unlawfully. The ones caught will pay enormous prices with their lives and finances so that IP remains a viable and sellable product. But you are looking at this from “privacy”, the wrong perspective I think. Try to see this from the majorities point of view.Intellectual property is the coin of the realm for the 21st century and beyond. Everything is moving to digital. We can at least agree on both of those.Recorded music is the least of it and the canary in the coal mine. Screw the RIAA. But if If you and your readers actually believe that government should (and will) just let the entirety of digital industry lose its commercial viability because your “right to infringe it in privacy” is worth more, you should get out of ZeroPaid a bit more often.And if you base your writings on the belief that your privacy is an unalienable right that guarantees you a shield to unlawful behavior, trying visiting a prison sometime.

Jared Moya
Jared Moya

But, that's the thing. Unless you violate the 14th amendment and inspect each and every data packet P2P will persist. It's that simple. darknets, VPNs, Usenet, and even physical P2P (HDD swaps) will still continue unabated.Look at what's happened in France. People have simply switched to using cyberlockers and video streaming sites that are out of the govt's perview as part of Hadopi. It's silly.Worse still is that is that it will also put and to public access Wi-Fi. An educated citizenry will be sacrificed on the mantle of corporate profits. Compete for heaven's sake or die. It's time we recognized the difference between music artists and music distributors. Record labels are not vital to the industry in the age of digital distribution. The record labels don't want a crackdown for the sake of artists, but rather only out of a sense of self-preservation."Three-strikes," web filtering, and a ban on public access Wi-Fi are all charades that won't have any tangible effect on the problem. People will simply do as they always have and switch to other, ILLEGAL, alternatives so long as record labels demand price points are out of sync with what the product actually costs to produce.$9.99 for an album whether it's digital or physical is nonsense. Digital albums should be priced at half the amount to reflect the lack of packaging, breakage, and distribution.I desire for "zero freedom, zero privacy" proves just how desperate record labels are.



VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely