US RIAA Says ISPs Could Start Policing Copyright By July 12

[engine]

US RIAA Says ISPs Could Start Policing Copyright By July 12 [news.cnet.com]

The country's largest Internet service providers haven't given up on the idea of becoming copyright cops.

Last July, Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and other bandwidth providers announced that they had agreed to adopt policies designed to discourage customers from illegally downloading music, movies and software. Since then, the ISPs have been very quiet about their antipiracy measures.

But during a panel discussion before a gathering of U.S. publishers here today, Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, said most of the participating ISPs are on track to begin implementing the program by July 12.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Self indulgent, admiring and important group aren't they. Did I miss a law being passed giving them policing powers without recourse and indifferent to rights and freedoms?

I don't trust them to be 100% accurate, some people are going to get accused and others will be targeted by con artists unwittingly. Am I being harsh? Yes, but let me ask you - how many unsecured wi-fi networks are out there right now?

Sit at an airport with radio shack available gadgets and you're soon logged into other people's facebook and twitter... The PUBLIC won't be up to speed on securing their own signals by then.

[shoemoney.com...]

[DeeCee]

I must admit I would be perfectly happy if they start policing movie and music downloads. Its about time someone starts kicking these thieves in the butt.

The reason the ISPs might be interested in permission to police it is likely that it is cheaper for them to build/run an enforcement organization and system than it is to keep building more and more infra-structure to keep up with all the increasing number of thieves out there that think they can and should download everything for free.

My ISP just a couple of weeks ago sent out a letter stating they will begin to implement limits and overage payment on all Internet access accounts. First time ever with any limits.

The new monthly limits are so huge though, that it surely indicates that there are someone out there that think they should download every movie in existence. I am working on the net almost 24x7 and have servers that on their own up/download huge data-structures 24x7, and I am still light-years away from ever getting up to those new account limits. That tells me what network traffic I am competing with out there on my ISPs network. So, please. Kick them off. More (faster) bandwidth for me.

Yes, there will be scammers that would abuse people's open wi-fi networks. I see those open networks floating the airwaves from my neighboring houses as well. Some people are just ignorant on security. But that is a totally separate issue. The "someone else did it on my account" defense will only work once.

Which movie downloaders would want to be parked out on the street for hours, waiting for a movie to download on wifi? For hacking, yes sure. But just to steal content? And if it is your neighbor riding on your wifi (which I am sure some teenagers will quickly figure out after our new limits are implemented), that will be fixed too. The ISP can simply drive around the neighborhood with the right equipment and can see exactly who is carrying which traffic. Which "house" is running on someone elses account.
Decades ago, when I lived i Europe, some of the national TV channels (which you must pay license fees for) did exactly that. Driving around the neighborhood with a van checking the signals. When someone was caught watching these (over the air) channels, but had not paid their state license fee, someone would be knocking on their door. They got a bill (plus a forced new monthly license bill) and a fine on the spot. So the technology and idea is as old as I am.

That one month where someone gets caught for "bad downloads" and Daddy can't figure out whether "little" Johnny did it or someone else caused the account to get caught, maybe they will have an incentive to fix their networks. That way they will know their own teenagers did it. :)


BTW. There is a secondary reason ISPs /cable providers want to do this of course. Including wanting to implement download limits. They can then push people to use their own on-demand movies instead of other systems.

My TV, Blue-Ray DVD player, and my media player can all connect to Amazon, Netflix and many others to buy/download movies. But they all count as Internet access, and would count towards the max Internet limit.

The cable provider's own on-demand access to movies does not count as net traffic, I think. That "download" is part of the cable and movie bill. Not the Internet bill. :)

[lucy24]

Did I miss a law being passed giving them policing powers without recourse and indifferent to rights and freedoms?

Don't need one. There is no legal right to use the Internet, any more than there is a legal right to shop in a particular store or use a particular company's services. An industry can't assess fines, confiscate property or put you in prison-- those are governmental activities. The only thing a business can do is deny access to its product or service. That's perfectly legal so long as it isn't openly discriminatory. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" = no problem. "No Irish need apply" = nuh-uh.

"Self-policing" in any industry means they're facing the threat of governmental regulation, so they jump in and do it themselves. Or at least present the appearance of doing it themselves.

[DeeCee]

@lucy24,

Right On...

[incrediBILL]

An industry can't assess fines, confiscate property or put you in prison-- those are governmental activities.

But you can be blocked, prohibited or evicted for using their property to commit crimes.

Hope blocking machines that are compromised and used in botnets is part of this as well and if it isn't, it sure should be!

[JAB Creations]

First please remove "US" from before "RIAA" as the RIAA is anything but American!

Secondly their blind drive to suck money out of anyone and anything needs to be stopped. It starts with musicians and helping them stay independent of the record labels that steal the vast majority of the money that the artists generate.

Thirdly DeeCee, I just can not begin to describe your posts without breaking at least half the forum TOS so I'll just say this; file sharing isn't thievery, ripping off artists, musicians and other performers is. Publishers have long preyed on the people who do the actual work. Support artists, musicians and other performers by compensating them directly through their sites while simultaneously not giving money that will go to people who would prey on those doing actual work.

Fourthly file sharing is an undeniable and clear solution to the problem that is the industry of publishing. Real people don't feel like spending three to four hours of their money on say a DVD that will take half an hour to get to the menu, will only work on certain devices, attempts to install spyware on your computer, fights your ability to make backup copies. The people who own the rights to "Happy Birthday" wanted to collect royalties from children's birthday parties for goodness sakes! This is about people's culture and their right to freely exchange it, NOT the right of publishing thieves.

- John

[DeeCee]

@JAB

a) How and whether labels rip off musicians is an issue entirely different from whether intellectual property rights should be upheld. I might even agree with you that labels rip off musicians. But nothing forced the hand of the musicians when they signed that contract, because the label's services served the musician a purpose when he/she signed it.

Nothing prevents the musicians from releasing and managing their own music. In fact I have friends that did exactly that. They gathered the money to produce and create a CD with their own music. It did not sell well, though. They did not have a label's marketing machine behind it. But that cannot be blamed on anything except bad marketing (or bad music :)).

Independently of whether they have a label contract, musicians, writers, actors still want to get paid for their work. So whether a musician have signed over to a label the "rights" to their music, or whether he/she still own it themselves, I certainly assume you are not implying that "we the people" should simply be allowed to download anyone's music and movies for free, without paying the creators for the time and work they put in?

b) File sharing is OK, if it happens in a way that controls the rights and payments to the people owning the content. Whether that is an individual musician or a publishing label. Otherwise it is illegal, and a violation of that digital right. (Unless only stuff in the public domain is shared.)

--

"People's culture and their right to exchange it". Hogwash.
It is an issue of people getting paid for the work, time, and creative ability they put in, if they decide that is what they want to do with it. Any musician is free to put their OWN creations into the public domain and give it away for free, if that is they choose. But it is their choice, and rarely the choice they make. Most of them dream of that big contract with that "evil" music label. It is not until afterwards the musicians find out that they badly managed the contract talks, when they find out that the labels get paid too handsomely for their "marketing and distribution". Or that those musicians might have signed over all rights + their eternal soul to fulfill their dream of getting on that big label.

"People's culture" cannot simply be, that they should freely share or steal anything they want with anyone they want, when that "culture" is created and owned by someone else. If you want to share something with someone, then first CREATE something. Then you are free to share it anywhere you want.

Just like I cannot simply decide to move into your house or drive off in your car, just because I might decide that it is in "my culture" to do so.

If you do not want to pay for something, then simply do not buy it or use it. Easy.
You cannot go to the supermarket and just walk off with its groceries, just because you decide you "want it", feel like you "need it", or that in your "culture" people actually do have to eat.

Stealing is Stealing. It does not matter what form the other person's property takes. Whether it is that person's house, car, furniture, bank-account, OR their music/movie creations.

The fact that something happens to be able to be translated into a digital format does not suddenly magically make it "public domain", "free to share everywhere", or "free for the taking".
If you believe that, then please send me your bank-account and credit-card numbers so I can "share" them. I feel a culture of "other people should share their bank-accounts" bubbling up from the pit of my stomach. :)

[Rosalind]

DeeCee, my ISP also wants us to move to a new contract with limited bandwidth, they've been hassling us for ages to "upgrade". So it's becoming more of an issue. In the UK a lot of it's down to the popularity of BBC iPlayer and video sites, as well as whole movie downloads.

"Self-policing" in any industry means they're facing the threat of governmental regulation, so they jump in and do it themselves. Or at least present the appearance of doing it themselves.

Self-interest might push them towards policing the net, but so far we've seen a whole lot of nothing. I think the appearance of doing it themselves is all we'll see until there's a hefty financial incentive for ISPs to do this. A bit of carrot and stick in terms of fines and bonuses might do the trick.

@JAB, most creative works are a collaborative effort. There's a reason musicians are keen to get signed to a major label, or writers like Amanda Hocking sign up to big publishers as soon as they have the option. It makes for a better product. I'm fed up of hearing people characterise everyone who works in the creative industries as parasites if they're not the ones with their names on the front of books, albums or films. It's rot propagated by those who want to justify their bad behaviour, and it demeans a lot of talented individuals who work behind the scenes to enhance our culture.

[JAB Creations]

First it's important to define what is what so with agendas removed...

Stealing = theft, theft infers the removal of the original. If someone steals your car it is no longer where you last left it.

Gross copyright infringement = copying the original and selling it for profit.

File sharing = copies the original and gives it away for free.

Piracy = stealing $8%! on the high-seas.

-----------

In order to steal a movie someone essentially has to steal the master copy. File sharing is physically incapable of stealing the master copy because all file sharing is digital-based.

People in and associated with the RIAA have pushed for sickeningly extensive copyright length; it was originally 14 years and has now become almost two hundred years to infinity subjective to corporate definitions. That means if we had the same laws since it was possible to write in any physical form all religious holy books could be copyrighted and someone could send you a bill for saying, "Oh my God!" which is essentially the same thing the MPEG-LA patent troll group wants to do by charging everyone for decoding H.264 encoded videos. Same groups of people with the same agendas.

- John

[DeeCee]

@JAB

Stealing potential Revenue = Stealing the music/movie

There is a reason the "right" the creator has is called "copyright".. As in the right to control who copies their work and how, including their inherent right to prevent file-sharing. Also includes the right to be the one profiting from it, unless the creator put it into the public domain as a free item. Whether you steal the car or the right of the creator of a digital item to "control copying", it is still a violation.

Not really much reason to discuss that. Copyright (right to control copying) is known across the world, and does not magically disappear, become invisible, or will not land you in court, just because you would like to be allowed to do file-sharing. File-sharing of copies without permission is illegal. Clear as day.

As I said, just because something can be made into an electronic format, does not suddenly make it "free for the taking" or "free to copy". As long as you pay the creator's required price per copy you make or share, I am sure they would be nicer about it. :)

[DeeCee]

@Rosalind,
Yes, you are exactly right. The label/publisher (and all the people behind it) has a great part of the final product sold. Whether it is the marketing machine and distribution to get the creation sold, the graphics designers putting the right decorations on it, the image consultants sticking the right "image" on the musicians, or the editors making the author's scribblings more enjoyable to read.

That's what I meant in my earlier reply. That the artists signed up with that big-label machine for a reason. Because they want their music or book to become a success and sell. Which is not easy to do on your own, especially not until you have already become rich and famous and can potentially pay for and manage those services separately.

Then later, when the creation does sell, the artist suddenly no longer like the (sometimes bad) contract they signed on to get those services, and the publisher becomes "the evil machine", that should not be taking away from the artist's profit from their lovely creation.

Everyone wants to eat their cake, and keep it too.

Or if the creation happen to be one that can be made electronic, the "consumers" suddenly think that they should be able to take free copies of said creation for themselves or worse, "file share" it with the world for free.. :)

[incrediBILL]

I just love how stealing music and movies is justified as not being theft because the originals aren't taken,

How broken can someone's moral compass get to the point they don't know right from wrong and take things that don't belong to them and justify it with technicalities of whether or not it's physical or digital goods?

Stealing is stealing, whether it's stealing the original or making a copy because it simply DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU AND YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT UNLESS YOU PAY FOR IT!

Can it be any simpler than that?

Nope.

Maybe my Momma just taught me better than to take things that don't belong to me.

Problem with the whole planet is the entitlement mentality to just take whatever they want. This is probably why gaming video cards have anti-theft devices at Best Buy because the youth of today can't distinguish the difference between copyright infringement and actual thet, and those that argue the difference don't see the damage they're causing to the collective moral compass.

It's not stealing, this isn't 'the original' video card, this is just one of the 10K copies they made of the video card in China so it's copyright infringement! :)

[DeeCee]

@incrediBILL, HEAR, HEAR !

[albo]

@lucy24: insofar as the "right" to use the internet is concerned, this is a goal sought by the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, as regards Freedom of the Press. See [en.wikipedia.org...]

[J_RaD]

oh boy the RIAA again......


as for everyone else on their soapboxes, once this line is crossed, it will be really easy to cross others, the ones that you might not like.

Self indulgent, admiring and important group aren't they. Did I miss a law being passed giving them policing powers without recourse and indifferent to rights and freedoms?

I don't trust them to be 100% accurate, some people are going to get accused and others will be targeted by con artists unwittingly. Am I being harsh?

right on point.

I will roll down my stairs laughing when the drum beaters in this thread start getting these "emails" .... cause you know they will eventually. Some might even get their internet access shut down.. oh my, a real knee slapper that will be... all cause they did? nothing?

wouldn't be the 1st time.

sometimes the rights of the bad guys have to be protected as much as the good guys.......

[tenerifejim]

Before I post my tuppence - I think that file sharing of copyrighted works is wrong (if you do not have the permission to do so). It is by most definitions stealing.

However, I have several issues with the way in which ISPs will be monitoring the traffic and the wider ramifications of personal liberties and privacy.

Since we all like analogies: would we think it is OK for the postal service were to look at our mail because they think we "might" be sending something stolen inside? Maybe simply because the parcel is quite big. Or maybe, they will just simply look into every parcel and letter, just in case.

I know quite a lot of people who are already fed-up with what appears to be the overtly heavy-handed approach of authority (government or organisations) to the "criminal in potential".

Travellers at airports are all treated as potential terrorists.

Parents can't video school plays because they could be potential paedophiles.

Kids can't go into shops because the could be potential shoplifters.

...this is a long list - too long for here.

Now add to this: people who use the internet quite a bit(or just people who us bittorrent) are potentially stealing movies.

Is this right? Is this the society we want?

File sharing of illegal content, like most crimes, comes from social causes. I suspect most illegal sharers will be teens (although my apologies to that particular demographic if this is not true!) and we all know about the complex psychology of what drives and motivates a young person (peer group, sex, cheap thrills). We know there will be miscarriages of justice here, with Grandma getting a fine (or worse) because here grandson download the latest albums when he was over last week.

There is already huge concern in the UK (where I am) over the extradition treaty that we have with the US. The EU almost certainly would not allow ISPs to do this. But sharing takes two and I have to wonder how long it will be before we see young teenagers in Britain being extradited to the US using powers originally designed to battle Al Quaeda.

On a secondary note - I probably watch about 2 hours of TV a day through the internet on iPlayer and Sky+. I have had to upgrade to unlimited very quickly. It doesn't take that much to hit your limits.

[Gibble]

What bothers me is "grey areas" of "illegal content".

My power goes out for an evening, nothing gets recorded on my PVR that night. What options do I have to keep up with a show?

I can try and find it on at a later time or a different channel. But often, I don't notice the recording is missing until the next day, when it's too late to find it.

Or, I wait until the season is over, and FINALLY released on blu-ray and buy an entire season for one episode. Not going to happen unless I would have bought the season anyway because I liked the show...and I do purchase a lot of seasons.

My other option is to go online, download a torrent, watch it, and delete it.

Or, depending on the show, I just stop watching it. Some shows are fantastic, but you can't miss an episode or you've lost a huge chunk of the story, for example "Lost".

The issue for television shows, is that we live in an on demand world, and I still can't just watch what I want, when I want.

It's getting better. Some channels show shows online...sadly, that often it's geographically limited, and if you're in Canada, you're out of luck on most things.

I have no problem paying. I do, I pay a lot for cable and a PVR so I can watch shows, most of the time I don't even bother skipping commercials. However, it's ironic that the better technology gets, the less freedom I have.

Pre-digital Television, I could watch a show in any room of my house. Now my PVR is tethered to a TV...if I want to go downstairs and watch the same show, I need to buy another box to connect to that TV...and I've tried. Unfortunately, my area is upgraded to Digital, so I need a box on every TV, but, I can't get the "whole home" packages that allow a show recorded on one PVR to be watched on another because the "lines" in the area need a further upgrade to allow that...

...you've already got the signal in my house, and the show saved to a hard drive. Why can't I watch it on another TV?

So again...what are my options to watch it in another room? I can download. It would be the most convenient. Instead I have really long cables I can drag throughout my house to connect to a different TV...however the remote is now useless as I'm too far from the PVR to use it.

...so here's the question. Is it still an illegal download if I have the show on one PVR, and want to watch it on another TV in the same house? Considering if I lived 20 miles south, I'd be able to spend the $400 on a PVR upgrade to allow me to do just that?

[JAB Creations]

DeeCee, who said anything about potential revenue? You and Bill are backing up people who want to take people's livelyhoods away, who have claimed piracy has cost their industry more jobs than it's actually ever created, who want to take people's ability to call 911 if their house is burning on the grounds that they may have "stolen" some music or movies...

Have a read...
[boingboing.net ]

Speaking at the MIPCOM conference in Cannes, Simmons said, "Make sure your brand is protected. Make sure there are no incursions. Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don't let anybody cross that line." - Gene Simmons

Yeah, piracy is the real problem here, not the beyond mentally disturbing and completely psychopathic blind hatred for people who don't shell out all their money for grossly overpriced low quality goods. Not the people who have monopolized "American" mass-media removing things like requiring news agencies to be fair and unbiased in their reporting. Or in example the newspapers also run by the same people who don't care about reporting about companies firing people before they're vested for retirement and then try to promote meaningless superficial events instead.

To support those people and those actions requires one to be utterly and undeniably deranged. It has nothing to do with compensating people who do the real work and to suggest otherwise is a flat out lie.

- John

[J_RaD]

please don't visit canel street in NYC...... your face will catch on fire.

also don't EVER, EVERRRRRRRRRRRR, hit record on your tape deck on the radio. oh crap, sorry I did that 1000's of times when i was a kid.

[DeeCee]

@JAB,

Aah.. So if some wants to keep their given and legal rights to what they create, and choose to require to get paid if other people choose to use their stuff, you believe they suffer from

beyond mentally disturbing and completely psychopathic blind hatred for people

I see. Yes, sure.

No one is forcing you to "shell out" all your money. Content creators are not out to get you.
You have the same choice we all have. Don't want to pay? Do not play.

I am not going to follow you into the latest side-track of whether news is unbiased or not. I do not expect them all to be. Hardly any of them are.

I have seen your various video rantings on YouTube on SOPA, NDAA, CIA assassins, rights to copy other people's stuff, ComCast being out to get you - stopping your videos, messing with your cable connection and not your neighbor's, and many other similar topics. :) I can imagine how far out into the weeds the conversation will go. So it stops here.

[incrediBILL]

You and Bill are backing up people who want to take people's livelyhoods away

Don't be making nonsensical arguments and attributing it to anything I've said because that's your folly, not mine.

I make my living off copyrighted material and, assuming by the fact that you're on WebmasterWorld, that you do as well or have customers that do. The same or similar idiots stealing movies and music try to steal my content, probably yours or your customers as well. They seem to think they can make their livelihood by taking MY livelihood away and seem entitled to do so, like it's their right!

If you don't have a problem with infringing, which it appears you don't, what would you do if someone infringed all your or your customers websites? How about they published your content in so many places that your rankings, or your customers, vanished within a week. Would you still call it stealing or infringing when you can't feed the family as they sit there with big hungry eyes wondering why there's no food on the table and the power just went out.

"Sorry kids, you can't eat tonight because someone infringed Daddy's website but that's OK because at least they didn't steal it."

I guess when it happens to musicians or filmmakers then it's OK to screw those greedy people and the entire economy each one of them supports such as assistants, roadies, etc., they make too much anyway (not the ones I know) and can afford to be ripped off, it's OK.

who want to take people's ability to call 911 if their house is burning on the grounds that they may have "stolen" some music or movies

FWIW, nobody is taking away anyone's ability to call 911 by blocking access to a pirate site. Cutting off the internet is just one service which doesn't mean they'll render the phone and/or TV inoperable. Unless your phone is Vonage or a "magic jack" that makes calls over the internet in the first place, which would make doing things that risk your internet access incredibly stupid.

It's probably fair to say the planet is full of scumbags that don't respect the property rights of others that are now bellyaching because the people that own that property are stepping up measures the make sure it's not being abused. Let's all try taking some personal responsibility here. If nobody steals stuff, or 'infringes' things, they probably won't get into any trouble. Now teach your children not to steal as well, or not to 'infringe', because if nobody did it, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Then again, if a bunch of dysfunctional idiots didn't buy ED pills over the internet we all wouldn't be inundated with ED pill spam either.

Also, who cares if the RIAA never makes an extra nickle from these actions or if they never would or if the claims of lost income are totally exaggerated?

The point is, was, and always will be, that it belongs to THEM and NOT lazy entitled idiots stealing stuff.

If you can't afford to buy it, or are too cheap to buy it, doesn't give you the right to steal it.

Has society gotten to the point that stealing is now a human right?

"I can't afford it, but since I want it, it's my right to take whatever I want"

I'm flabbergasted people will sit with a straight face and make arguments to support and justify any unlawful actions, just amazing.

I weep for the future.

P.S. If you don't like how the RIAA and MPAA do business, stop buying, renting or subscribing to services for music and movies! Turn off your cable TV! Vote with your wallet or better yet, become Amish.

[J_RaD]

wow.... all that?


you'll be the 1st person to be taken offline by this rule you so feverishly defend


PS... business as usual.............., im sure someone will come along screwing with you until you never have the right to internet access again, and you'll be cool with that.

Meanwhile everything that has been going on continues un-interruped.

Sorry kids, you can't eat tonight because dad doesn't know how to provide for his family

[incrediBILL]

you'll be the 1st person to be taken offline by this rule you so feverishly defend

I'm not worried as only those living in glass houses are so concerned with stone throwing being so severely detrimental to their well being.

Considering I've practically DMCA'd a couple of people out of their "livelihoods", you're barking up the wrong tree here.

[DeeCee]

@incrediBILL

I think your earlier posting, on how some people seem to have an extreme sense of entitlement for things they did not acquire on their own, is right on.

Kinda funny, that while looking at this thread, my TV is showing the channel Investigation Discovery, with a discussion on how some people entirely lack moral or ethical compass. Their brains simply cannot comprehend when their actions are off track.

In addition to the clear societal trend towards a bad sense of unearned entitlement, maybe lack of moral/ethical compass comes into play here as well.
A feeling that if the rights of others or the laws limit that persons ability to get what they want, when they want, then their logic simply conclude that those rules and laws magically do not apply to them. :)

[graeme_p]

Copyright is not property, because it is arbitrary and invented. It did not exist until a few centuries ago, whereas theft has existed all through history.

The term of copyright is also arbitrary, and is whatever the legislature feels like - and is now so ludicrously long that things written when Queen Victoria was on the throne are still in copyright in the UK.

Copyright is breach of a government imposed monopoly. Breaching it is the moral equivalent of using Skype in a country where the law gives an incumbent telco a monopoly (also "stealing" their revenues.

My moral compass is broken, but some people are sipping up propaganda entirely uncritically.

Copyright law as it exists does not serve the intersets of society.

Also, Americans should read the clause of the US allowing copyrights and patents:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Your founders certainly did not regard it as property, but as a monopoly granted to provided an incentive for the greater good of society. They were entirely right. In a pure libertarian type free market there would be no copyright or patents.

The origins of copyright law lie in compelling people PROFITING from selling others works to share the profits. That is still a fair an useful approach.

[DeeCee]

There is an extreme difference between breaching copyright (my right to own what I create), and using Skype as "breach" of Telco's revenue stream. Apples and Oranges.

There is no inherent right of Telcos to own all phone-calls or to stop competitors from existing.
Neither do Telcos have a right to prevent competing technologies from taking away from their revenues. So, Telcos and copyrights are entirely unrelated issues.

If your Telco argument would hold, then all businesses would have a "right" to stop all competing technologies that might put a damper on their revenue. We would all still be using type-writers, because typewriter factories could have stopped computers and printers from competing them out of business.

I, however, have the right do be the one profiting from a text or music creation of mine.

If you want to "compete" with any revenue stream a writer or musician might have, you are very welcome to write or create music yourself. Then suddenly you would have all those same rights to your work.

[Harry]

Why do I feel like we've been infiltrated by PR trolls. Why oh why?

Just saying...

[DeeCee]

PR'ing for whom or what?

[J_RaD]

Considering I've practically DMCA'd a couple of people out of their "livelihoods", you're barking up the wrong tree here.

baaahhahahahha, I doubt that.

you keep barking up trees............ just pray you don't run across the wrong one, those roles just might reverse.