You All Disgust Me

If you don’t support net neutrality, you are wrong. No wiggle room – you’ve made a logical error, and need to rethink your position.

When did companies start looking for legislation to prop up an outdated business model? When did governments start allowing it to happen? Did I miss a fucking memo or something?

The LA Times is reporting that the RIAA is trying to have a federal exemption lifted that has been in place for decades. This exemption states that radio stations are not required to pay a royalty to record labels and/or artists since the airplay results in higher sales. Makes sense, right? Not to the RIAA, apparently. They want their cut. Quoth the music don:

“The creation of music is suffering because of declining sales,” said RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol. “We clearly have a more difficult time tolerating gaps in revenues that should be there.”

How much ballsier can you get? In case you can’t read between the lines, let me translate for you: “We just realized that there were some people out there enjoying music without paying, and they need to pay. They need to pay US.” Apparently, making billions of dollars per year isn’t enough. They cry “P2P and digital downloads are cutting into our CD sales!” Well guess what? CD sales only comprise less than 1% of the RIAA’s profits. Cry me a fucking river.

Maybe if you hadn’t sued over 20,000 people, including a 66-year-old grandmother (who is apparently into Trick Daddy), a single mom, and even dead people, you wouldn’t be seen as the worst company in the US.

Oh! I know! Why don’t we just screw the artist! They are claiming that the artists receive too much money (a complaint never heard voiced by any artist EVER) and are petitioning the feds to lower the amount that they pay out to artists under statutory deals. Nice.

They’ve even managed to dredge up a washed-up loser has-been to back their “no radio play without pay” scheme. Mary Wilson, a founding member of the Supremes had the following nugget of wisdom to impart:

“After so many years of not being compensated, it would be nice now at this late date to at least start…they’ve gotten 50-some years of free play. Now maybe it’s time to pay up.”

Pay up for WHAT? For you performing some songs *decades* ago? Now that you’ve benefited from radio play in the form of increased record sales way back when, you want to change the rules so you get paid twice for the same thing? That’s double-dipping sister. Get up off your ass and work like the rest of us.

It’s truly pathetic when The Onion (a parody site) manages to predict the future with pinpoint accuracy.

Here’s a few helpful links for dealing with the RIAA:

• The EFF’s “How to not get sued” page
• Boycott the RIAA
• Magnatune – pay what you feel is fair, and download in multiple DRM-free formats! Unlike the RIAA, Magnatune is not evil.

…and I have no idea what it is.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Maybe Wil can shed some light on it. He’s a numbers kind of guy.

If not, this guy seems to have some info.

Recently, Canadian MP Joy Smith proposed a well-meaning, but utterly unenforceable and ridiculous bill. Officially, it’s known as “BILL C-427″ which is another term for “let’s legislate that which we don’t understand”.

The provisions of the bill basically state that anyone with a wifi connection is now considered an ISP, and are held accountable for the comings and goings of all users, as well as content passing through it. Here are a few choice snippets:

“Internet service provider” means a person who provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or not the service is provided free or for a charge.

So anyone who has a wireless access point, either at home, or your local Le Starbuques (hey, it’s in Canada!) is now considered an ISP.

5. (1) No Internet service provider shall knowingly permit the use of its service

(c) by any person who the Internet service provider knows has been convicted of any offence under this Act within the previous seven years; or

(d) by any person who the Internet service provider knows has used the Internet within the previous seven years for a purpose that would be an offence under this Act

So, if I’m reading this right – and I think I am – anyone who is an ISP (home WAP users) now have a responsibility to get detailed background information on anyone who uses, or might use their service. Kiss those free wireless hotspots goodbye, folks! Companies won’t perform background checks along with those $15 venti Frappucinos, I guaran-goddam-TEE it.

10. (1) The Minister may order an Internet service provider to use all means that are reasonably available to the Internet service provider to prevent access by its subscribers to any material on the Internet that the Minister, after reasonable inquiry, determines to be material referred to in sections 6, 7 or 8.

In case you’re curious, sections 6, 7 and 8 cover “material that advocates, promotes or incites violence against women”, “material that advocates, promotes or incites hatred against an identifiable group within the meaning of section 319 of the Criminel Code” and “child pornography”, respectively. So now, not only do you need to filter who can use your free, public hotspot, you have to restrict what they can see as well. And, of course, they want to have ease of access to the data in order to “protect the children”:

13. (1) The Minister may prescribe any special powers that are reasonably necessary in the opinion of the Minister to facilitate searches of electronic data or systems or storage in the execution of a search warrant issued under section 487 of the Criminal Code, in respect of an offence or suspected offence under this Act.

If you want, you can read the entirety of the bill here.

Now, the chances of this actually happening are pretty much slim to none, but the mere fact that someone proposed it with the intent to make it into law shows that those who are in power often truly don’t have a clue about the technology they attempt to legislate.