Mod me down, but part of me wonders how this is news. Of course the industry lobby that wants to end "music piracy" that cuts into industry profits is going to lobby for means to seize offending domain names. It'd be news if the MPAA/RIAA lobbied AGAINST this practice. As long as the RIAA/MPAA are behaving in a manner consistent with their interests, they remain an easily predictable player (anybody could see this coming from miles away). I'm pretty much fine with that, though. They're entitled to spout whatever BS they want to, really. The people who think they're wrong need to take steps to reign them in if they're running so amok. It's easy to complain about them, but harder to do something about it. I guess that's why we all complain.
I'm absolutely with you here; this isn't surprising (or really interesting, either).
Just a reminder, from the HN Guidelines (in the footer of this page): "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."
Though I agreed with the sentiment of your post, inviting me to downvote you really puts a bad taste in my mouth. As long as you're contributing to the conversation, hell if I'd downvote you. People who use the down arrow as an expression of mere disagreement make this site a little less valuable.
Well said, though I would add that there are groups who are working to spread alternate viewpoints in the industry, the public, and on a policy level. It's well worth your time to check out the excellent policy work being done by the Future Of Music Coalition (futureofmusic.org) and I'd also suggest checking out the A2IM which has not-insignificant pull in some of the same circles as the RIAA.
It should also be pointed out that the RIAA works directly from policies set at very high levels of the majors. There are a lot of people who internally see things in a very different light. So turning complaint into education can be a very effective agent of change.
Individuals or even small groups of people are essentially incapable of accomplishing anything on the scale of taking down the media trusts. The only step individuals can take is to complain, and thereby try to spread their outrage to enough people that change becomes possible.
I support domain seizures. Can anyone give me a good argument why domains shouldn't go into an administration period when it is discovered that they are serving up copyright material?
Because I personally want to kill the concept of copyright.
Hear me out, I'm articulating probably a more radical position than I probably personally believe. I don't want to upset the status quo by fiat. I don't want to just destroy the AAs in a flash of legislative or judicial action.
But the question of who owns art is getting pressurized. Why should any particular company be profiting off of the Beatles music now? That is _our_ music, _our_ culture. An artist does not create in a vacuum.
For a brief while in my life I was able to access just about any piece of work--music, TV, movies--in my culture. It changed how I viewed intellectual property (along with the usual litany of Lessig et al literature).
Right now our culture is trapped. It is owned by companies that taint our viewing experience with commercialism, piggy-backing their own signal on _our_ discussion. Marketing means war for your mind, which comes out a lot more paranoid than I mean it, but I hope you'll see the point. I don't want to have to think about which car is sexiest for my socio-economic position while catching up on [Show].
More to the point I don't want to leave a really emotional, poignant moment in a TV show directly into noise about which razor I should buy. It's like having a loud friend at the movie theater--except that you can choose your friends, you can only fast forward through commercials.
And this only happens because of copyright, because some men in suits have the right to determine what we see.
Copyright isn't about protecting intellectual property, it's about maintaining control.
Now I've attacked advertisements, which means someone will point out that advertising funds mosts of our TV shows and movies. As far as I can tell, it just doesn't have to be that way. We'll be able to set up our own TV studios soon at minimal cost, and then we won't need anything more than our own talent.
So you see, the people who are against domain seizures may partially be angry at the rights violation, the government regulation. But they're probably also for the open internet--an open internet where copyright becomes less and less important.
In our lifetimes, we will see the end of copyright. It will come naturally and effortlessly; it will not be a bloody revolution.
This isn't a question about marketing. It's a question of copyright and how to enforce it properly. It seems a little off topic when the poster's argument against copyright is a diatribe against companies who make razors. But that's how the majority of responses read. Very utopian without the least bit of practical sentiment.
"Copyright" is such that it takes a trial to decide whether something is or is not infringing, so you can't just administratively seize a domain.
You think some site is serving up copyrighted material? Get a warrant, file a suit. Let proper authorities do it. Anything else is theft, plain and simple.
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Your domain will be seized. Two minutes on your site and I find a reproduction of a copyrighted menu and pizza shop logo. You think it may be fair use? Too bad, you're advocating for seizures, not the due process that would allow you to argue that in court. Are you sure about your position?
And what percentage of the people whose work is on those sites is upset about it? They only have to file a takedown. In the case of the Pirate Bay they won't take it down, even if I am the owner.
> Can anyone give me a good argument why domains shouldn't go into an administration period when it is discovered that they are serving up copyright material?
How do you know that said site is serving up copyright material in violation of the relevant law?
Yes, I'm serious. Be complete and precise. In particular, deal with fair use, jurisdiction, and ownership. (Remember, there's no central registrar.)
Copyright lawsuits take days to deal with these issues, so if you've got something faster ....
>Can anyone give me a good argument why domains shouldn't go into an administration period when it is discovered that they are serving up copyright material?
because serving up copyrighted material very well could be in the interest of humanity, and some people prefer outcomes that favor humans over corporations.
Can you give me a good argument why domains shouldn't go into an administration process when it is discovered they are serving up material that I personally find objectionable? It will probably apply just as well (as long as you remember that copyright privileges are arbitrarily granted and not inherent).
