MPAA and RIAA’s Anti-Piracy Plans Harm The Internet

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Oct 27, 2016.

  1. HardOCP News

    HardOCP News [H] News

    Messages:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Ummm, duh. No one disagrees with the fact that artists have the right to protect their copyrighted works. It's the way the MPAA and RIAA go about it that people object to.

    The Internet Infrastructure Coalition is urging the U.S. Government not to blindly follow the RIAA and MPAA's input regarding online piracy threats. The group, which represents tech firms including Google, Amazon and Verisign, warns that the future of the Internet is at stake.
     
  2. Tak Ne

    Tak Ne [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,233
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Google, Amazon & Verisign might represent a much bigger group but old industries have been at this a lot longer. They know better than anyone who to bribe / payoff to get things done.
     
  3. travbrad

    travbrad [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,253
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    In the music business the artists aren't really getting the money anyway either. Whether it's streaming, CDs, tapes, or vinyl the record labels will always find a way to screw the artists. The RIAA are protecting the profits of talent-less leeches and middlemen. The artists make almost all of their money from live concerts and/or merchandise (if they didn't get screwed on that too)
     
  4. Bowman15

    Bowman15 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,237
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    Yup, somebody should remind them that they aren't the actual artists. Just the pimps that collect the HO's dough...
     
  5. BloodyIron

    BloodyIron 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,440
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Twenty years later. Do they still think they can stop piracy?
     
  6. emphy

    emphy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    206
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2016
    Being somewhat pedantic, the works don't really need protection. Quite the opposite, those works are doing fine thanks to copying technology. What you're talking about is the right to legal enforcement of the monopoly on said copyrighted works, supposedly protecting the artists' income, and actually doing the opposite of protecting the creation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2016
  7. drakken

    drakken [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,196
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    considering that half of the law suits by those groups are against people without the funds or the knowledge to fight back, when there is no evidence and some times those two groups don't even own the rights or represent the actual artists... they really should be told they can not file any more legal suits on behalf on anyone at all as a company or corporation. If they want to represent people or companies create a new company with some one who goes to prison if say they file suit against any old ladies that do not even own a computer, and that they have prove by showing evidence of what happened to themselves, not holding up a piece of paper with a million dollars written on it and saying it represents money. All that does is confuse a jury. If they lost money because some one downloaded music from a hacked account, press charges for the hacking. If they download something from someone offering protected content for free, go after the person who did not have the right to offer it for free.

    The biggest issue with those two is that they often do what they accuse others of then attempt to settle their guilt for pennies. I forget which case that happened in but the people who create the work of art, have to file a physical copy with the copy right office if it is audio or video, the people performing it, the people who wrote it, and the people who funded are the ones that should have the rights to music for their lifetime plus ten years so that people don't just declare them dead and try to collect on someone's labor. I have been declared dead a couple times when I was not around by sleazy people trying to take over a trust account that is almost forty years old at this point. Though the military Killed in Action because I took an earlier flight to cut short my holiday in new jersey in nineteen ninety seven still is the funniest one. How some one shows up at their next duty assignment on record and is there for a couple months before the commander says we need to verify your dna since apparently you went down with a commercial flight on your way here... then when I get to my duty station we need to verify your dna you are listed as killed in action, we need to change that to missing in action. They did not check at kessler I think, but that was TDY or tempory duty assignment and I think they did it again at davis mounthan... either that or someone I slept with wanted to make sure I their child's father...