RIAA-Backed Intellectual Property Law Signed Off

[engine]

RIAA-Backed Intellectual [news.cnet.com]Property Law Signed Off

President Bush on Monday signed into law an intellectual-property enforcement bill that would consolidate federal efforts to combat copyright infringement under a new White House cabinet position.
The law also steepens penalties for intellectual-property infringement, and increases resources for the Department of Justice to coordinate for federal and state efforts against counterfeiting and piracy. The so-called Pro-IP Act passed unanimously in the Senate last month and received strong bipartisan support in the House.
"By becoming law, the Pro-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation," said Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

[carguy84]

By becoming law, the Pro-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation

And the RIAA will do nothing to evolve with the market.

[incrediBILL]

evolve

Evolve the market how?

Like how every record store in town has evolved out of business?

closed! gone! adios! poof!

Like how Yahoo Music just evolved into a footnote in history?

Like the new AC/DC album's initial pressing of 3 million units exclusively sold only at Wal-mart, no iTunes or Amazon?

I'm not sure but it looks like the market is devolving on it's own.

[carguy84]

Evolve WITH the market I said. The market is asking for digital downloads, sans DRM. When it doesn't exist, the market will seek alternative methods of acquiring it. When it's almost as easy as going to TPB or torrent, who's going to go shop at a B+M music store?

[CainIV]

The law won't change a thing except at excessive levels.

Half the people I know who think they are good people download (aka steal) music and DVD's.

The issue is that the public believes that it isn't stealing, and that they have the right to hear the song.

My sense is that the only way to change it is to change how the public looks at it, but that's a very difficult slope to climb.

[robognome]

"By becoming law, the Pro-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation," said Tom Donohue,

...so the media companies can avoid innovating in the way they deliver content.

It is largely a question of value. Most people don't understand why a single song would cost a dollar, since the next time you upgrade your OS you will no longer be able to play it. Imagine a CD that you are only allowed to play on a single player, or no more than 3 players - or stops working entirely when you buy a new player.

Suing parents isn't the answer.

[tangor]

If marketing changed to reflect public attitudes, and also honored the creators and producers at the same time, we wouldn't have a problem. Reminds me of an old movie: "I'll buy that for a dollar!" and 99 cents is about what anyone will pay for a song... remember all those 45s from way back when? That's where the money really existed. Collections attempted to recoup "losses" on songs recorded that could never compete with other singles, forcing buyers into albums just to get the one or two songs they wanted. That's the marketing side.

From the creator and producer side every tune downloaded without paying for it is a pinprick in the heart. Enough pinpricks and death by bleedout follows. I can see their side as well. (Professional musician for 32 years and you've heard my guitar and vocals on a beaucoup of famous recordings over the years when I worked as a studio musician...for only a handful of which I receive royalties...the rest were contract for hire).

But legislative step seems a bit draconian, and is clearly a last gasp for the production companies. Their day is nearly over, or at least their stranglehold is significantly diminished. What I don't like about it is there is a possibility for making ISP, websites, AND all providers inbetween responsible for POLICING content across their systems. THAT, in my not so humble opinion, is WRONG.

[np2003]

They need to change the DMCA law, it makes it so easy for ISPs to accept pirated content from any user. The ISP receives an infringment DMCA notice, they remove the content. The same user uploads the same file, under a different filename the next day and gets away with it. An altered policy needs to make the ISP responsible for lodging the IP address of such user and "banning" their account permanelty from their systems.

Sites like youtube, rapidshare, depositfiles would cease to grow pretty quickly.

[hutcheson]

IP address is not a reliable way of selecting people to send to limbo, as any number of judges have already told the RIAA.

Caveat: I don't have anything against youtube (or even craigslist). They can grow as fast as they want, for all I care. I can't see how I'm harmed by the volume of their content or the number of their visitors.

[graeme_p]

np2003: anything stricter than the DMCA would kill off user generated content. The only alternative is to hold operators of websites responsible (i.e. liable to pay damages) for content they did not even know was infringing.

If I uploaded a an article from a magazine to WebmasterWorld (pretending it was my own work) and WebmasterWorld Inc. could be held liable, how long could this site survive?

Also, why are the public are wrong to not regard copyright infringement as theft? No one at all thought copying stuff without paying was wrong a few hundred years ago. I cannot see why it should be morally wrong now - although you can make a case that it is useful to enforce copyright laws, that is an economic argument (that the government should intervene to reward certain people) not a moral one.