SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the -best-laid-plans-of-mice-and-men-oft-go-astray dept.
Cary Sherman, the chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, has some choice words about the current state of US copyright law. He says that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, rightsholders must play a game of whack-a-mole with Internet companies to get them to remove infringing content.
But that "never-ending game" has allowed piracy to run amok and has cheapened the legal demand for music. Sure, many Internet companies remove links under the DMCA's "notice-and-takedown" regime. But the DMCA grants these companies, such as Google, a so-called "safe harbor"—meaning companies only have to remove infringing content upon notice from rightsholders.
Sherman added:
Compounding the harm is that some major online music distributors are taking advantage of this flawed system. Record companies are presented with a Hobson’s choice: Accept below-market deals or play that game of whack-a-mole. The notice and takedown system—intended as a reasonable enforcement mechanism—has instead been subverted into a discount licensing system where copyright owners and artists are paid far less than their creativity is worth.
If the RIAA is tired of playing whack-a-mole, perhaps it's time for them to greet their new mole overlords.
See our previous stories: Why the Record for DMCA Takedown Notices to Google was Smashed Yet Again and Fair-Use Proponents Score Early Win in DMCA Copyright Case.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @03:08AM
That would only solve the problem after the fact, and would more easily be compromised with vague language in the law. How about preventing them from censoring data before any checks and balances are involved? We need to have due process from the beginning while still keeping safe harbor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Monday September 28 2015, @04:41AM
After the fact works just as well as before the fact if they know they're going to be personally accountable for it. The worst abuse at the present is automated. Knowing that they'd be personally going to jail for running such a scam would put a substantial damper on the practice.
There's going to be some overreach, but knowing that they're going to have to convince a jury not to throw them in jail is a step in the right direction.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday September 28 2015, @07:19AM
It wouldn't work, two words...Scooter Libby. All the corp would have to do is have plenty of scapegoats to throw away (and with the way they are trashing the economy it really wouldn't be hard to find plenty willing to take the chance) and it would be business as usual.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2015, @08:11AM
No it doesn't, because it compromises our principles. Even if your plan worked out, I would reject it for that reason alone.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday September 28 2015, @02:53PM
It doesn't compromise my principles. Sending people to prison for willful anti-social behavior is pretty much exactly what crimes against white collar crimes are. As it stands there's no penalty at all and the people who do this sort of thing are not going to be deterred by the fact that there's a small monetary fine attached. They have more money than anybody has any right to, a fine of a few thousand isn't going to do much good.
They need to actually spend a few days in prison for the behavior.