RIAA: Don't let Net neutrality hurt piracy fight
WASHINGTON--The Recording Industry Association of America's chief voiced skepticism on Tuesday about the need for Net neutrality rules, but warned that the government may need to step in if Internet service providers don't become more proactive in fighting digital piracy.
The House of Representatives subcommittee hearing was further evidence that the now years-old debate over Net neutrality is taking on a new dimension, in which concerns about Internet piracy are entering the debate. Net neutrality, of course, refers to the idea that network operators should be barred from discriminating against or prioritizing Internet content that travels on their pipes.
RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol told the panel that a Net neutrality bill proposed this year by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) isn't all bad because it views "unlawful" content, such as copyright-infringing material, as unworthy of protection by Internet service providers. He said he hopes that approach may even help to pressure ISPs to "focus on the piracy problem."

Still, Bainwol said he strongly prefers that the entertainment industry and Internet service providers work together on the piracy question in an unregulated fashion.
"My fear is that legislation will take time," Bainwol said. "We have a problem that is right now."
If private sector action doesn't pan out, Bainwol said the RIAA would return to the committee for its "help" on the matter.
Markey attempted to reassure copyright holders that his bill will do nothing to hamper ISPs' ability to block "unlawful" pirated content, vehemently taking issue with any suggestions to the contrary.
"This whole idea that this legislation helps piracy is 100 percent wrong," Markey said. "It's a red herring. We should put an aquarium out here because there are so many red herrings floating around to mislead about what the intent of Net neutrality is."
The bill that Markey introduced in February would enshrine certain Internet nondiscrimination principles into law--namely, that the government should adopt and enforce "baseline protections to guard against unreasonable discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet."
As in the past, the effort is mostly supported by Democrats, although Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) is also a co-sponsor. They argue that it's necessary to keep the Internet open and democratic. Some Republicans on Tuesday argued new laws are unnecessary because of a lack of visible discrimination problems by Internet service providers--because they could harm ISPs' antipiracy efforts.
A 1998 law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, says Web hosts and ISPs aren't generally liable for infringing activity on the part of their users, provided that they don't condone infringement, that they remove infringing material when notified, and that they aren't deriving financial benefit from it. But some ISPs, such as AT&T, are exploring ways to filter their networks for pirated content, even though they arguably aren't legally required to do so.
"It would be remiss for us as a body to interfere in these efforts," said Mary Bono Mack (D-Calif.), the widow of singer Sonny Bono. "I think this bill would do that."
Bainwol, for his part, said he was "heartened" to see that Markey's bill recognizes "that Internet freedom isn't synonymous with a Wild West in which the taking of our property is accepted or, at best, ignored." But he worried that the bill could unwittingly limit forms of "network management" used to police networks for copyright infringement.
His remarks are similar to those made earlier this year by the Motion Picture Association of America, which argued that attempts to prohibit network operators from discriminating against or prioritizing Internet content could limit their ability to police their networks for copyright infringement. Recently, the cable industry, which has long opposed Net neutrality regulations, raised similar concerns.
Steve Peterman, co-creator and executive producer of the hit children's series Hannah Montana, said he strongly condemns piracy, but he argued the Net neutrality bills put forth by Markey and the senators would do nothing to harm those efforts. Peterman spoke on behalf of the Writers Guild of America, which says Net neutrality laws will ensure a diversity of new content can surface without interference from big-media "gatekeepers."
"We don't want (the piracy issue) to be an excuse for limiting our access to the Internet as a means of communicating with an enormous new audience," Peterman said.
The event marked the second hearing on Net neutrality legislation in two weeks. Senate Democrats have also renewed their call for the antidiscrimination rules, with a particular focus on whether the Federal Communications Commission has the necessary authority to take action against network operators found to be interfering unreasonably with their customers' network traffic.
Comcast, which is under investigation by the FCC for its handling of BitTorrent file-sharing traffic, was the focus of a large chunk of the Senate hearing but didn't attract as much attention at Tuesday's House event.
Republicans and some Democrats have long argued that Net neutrality regulations are unnecessary and will stifle the growth of new broadband networks. But Pickering, the bill's co-sponsor, said his measure is necessary because of contentions by Comcast and others that the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce its own broadband principles, which say consumers have the right to access the lawful Internet content and applications of their choice.
"I think this legislation is very helpful," Pickering said, "in that it says very clearly we will codify these principles."






There are no "pirates" only freedom fighters!
Less than that if it isn't sold anymore by a publisher within those time periods.
For games and software programs.... as soon as it stops being sold in stores or online by the manufacturer of said game or software program, it should come off copyyright.
All I have to say, is this:
The recording industry is not so important that they can re-write sovereign constitutional law.. The fact that they are attempting to undermine the constitutions of numerous countries with these heavy handed legal approaches is amazing.
If these cowboys can't give a flying pig's eye about fundamental constitutional law.. and other law.. why are people taking them seriously... that judge that tried to sue those poor koreans for tens of millions, because he claimed they had lost his trousers.. the similarity is painfully obvious.
Not so long ago, our laws where written to protect us from people whom abuse power, to try and provide the greatest amount of freedom... in the old days there was empire, .. now there are cronies working for corporations that have about as much power.
Don't give a corporation power over your sovereign law... if they want to whine about their business profits... let them update their business model, rather than spread viruses on their CD-Roms and DVD-s that install with the auto-load process. (this has happened) and spyware which screws with basic functions of the OS kernel (this has happened also).
There is only so much a consumer will take, before they rebel. This is true for authority of any kind.
As for the telcos, their fascist dream is to turn the Internet into Cable TV 2.0. No thanks. The internet is bringing a much needed breath of freedom and we need to tell these corporate greed mongers to back off.
And those are SHORTER commercials than on the TV!
The internet shouldn't become Cable TV 2.0, it should be written that the cable companies and internet companies HAVE to adhere to Net Neutrality in law.
And, dont think for one second that once this power is established, that every corporation (and corrupt or self-righteous politician that the special-interests own) wont begin immediately using this power for their own ends (only an ignorant-fool... would believe otherwise).
This is exactly why we have (and should have) "common-carrier" protections. It protects ALL free-enterprise (not just big-business), as well as the citizens, basic rights.
And, isnt it funny how in one stated position, the RIAA (and its cronies in Washington) absolutely decry ANY restrictions, whatsoever, being placed upon big-business, while at the same time demanding that big-business have the, absolute, power to completely control (and monitor) consumers..?
Personally, I think such lying, deceitful, double-talk, from the Government, the RIAA (and the MPAA, although not specifically mentioned) is patently obscene. But, I honestly just dont think (with the way our Government is now, so obviously, doing "business") that there is anything (short of an open citizen-revolt) that will stop this ongoing travesty.
Net neutrality prevents one company from bribing your ISP into shutting down or interfering with another. One example is if (Senator's opponent in the next race) were to pay your ISP to spam filter out all emails from your campaign.
Many new and innovative services will soon be coming to the Internet. These services will change the lives of the next generation in the same way the telephone the car and running watter have done in the past.
Just like the people who made buggy whips, some leaders of soon to be failing industries fear change. The Automotive industry largely displaced the horse and buggy industry, however they created far more jobs and wealth.
I am also willing to bet if you took away everything he owns, placing him in lower middle class he might change his tone a bit.