RIAA, MPAA recruit MasterCard to help them police the Internet

[Poll_Blind]

Hat-tip to Slashdot, from MyCE:

Two weeks ago, MasterCard felt the wrath of Anonymous Operation Payback-style DDoS attacks after refusing to process payments that were intended to fund WikiLeaks, the website which began leaking confidential US diplomatic cables last month. Now, the company is preparing to head down another controversial path by pledging to deny transactions which support websites that host pirated movies, music, games, or other copyrighted content.

Article is fairly short, and so I just excerpted this little bit- but the whole article is worth looking over.

Key here is "other copyrighted content" which is an ambiguous term, especially in the United States where pretty much everything produced falls under some form of copyright protection, including things like messages posted on a web forum.

PB

[mrfrapp]

1. That was quick.

"Key here is "other copyrighted content" which is an ambiguous term, especially in the United States where pretty much everything produced falls under some form of copyright protection, including things like messages posted on a web forum."

Spot on. Copyright has quickly and very recently become a byword for "Copyright owned by a large corporation". The message is clear. They are telling us that they consider only officially sanctioned entertainment to be worthy of copyright protection.

[MilesColtrane]

3. "They are telling us that they consider only officially sanctioned entertainment to be worthy of...

copyright protection."

Then they'll have to try to change the law to reflect that.

As it is written now, any schmuck sitting at home (like me) is afforded copyright protection as soon as he writes a song. (It would be wise to register that copyright though.)

[mrfrapp]

8. You're absolutely right

You're absolutely right, they will have to change the law but they've never had a problem doing that in the past. Their rhetoric is carefully chosen to condition people into accepting that only corporations are worthy of retaining a copyright over a creative work. Unless we educate people the day will come when these large corporations will finally lose patience and demand that these laws be passed.

[MilesColtrane]

2. "other copyrighted content" which is an ambiguous term"

It's pretty clear that they're talking about web sites that host and or distribute material to which they do not own the rights.

At least it is to me.

[Poll_Blind]

5. Your message above is automatically copyrighted to you.

It's pretty clear that they're talking about web sites that host and or distribute material to which they do not own the rights.

At least it is to me.

I have just reproduced your copyrighted work and DU is hosting and distributing that reproduction.

No, it's not a Lady Gaga song or a movie but the same laws apply. DU was recently sued (and thankfully won) by Righthaven for copyright infringement because someone had posted a small snippet of one of their copyrighted news articles. I have, in fact, infringed on your copyright more than the poster did by posting that snippet. If all of this sounds nonsensical, it is. But that does not make protections under U.S. law any less strict or the legal avenues any more constricted.

Under the partnership that this OP describes, could Rigthhaven have asked Mastercard to deny the process of financial transactions for Democratic Underground until the court case was resolved? Absolutely.

That's the problem and an attempt at hopefully defining the ambiguous nature of copyrighted material and especially the danger of credit card companies who are willing to extra-judicially prevent credit card transactions based on copyright infringement.

PB

[MilesColtrane]

6. Short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection.

Even if they were and I followed this post with:

©2010 by MilesColtrane. All Rights Reserved.

Your reproduction of my copyrighted words in reply falls under the terms of Fair Use.

Fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy- righted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copy- righted work.

Furthermore, if MasterCard has any lawyers on staff, and I think they've got a couple, they would have advised the company that Righthaven's suit against DU had no merit and that arbitrarily refusing to process DUs transactions was opening the company up to a possible countersuit and the permanent loss of DUs business at the very least.

[walldude]

4. LMAO.. the equivalent of a finger in the dyke.

Someday the RIAA and MPAA might pull their heads out of their asses... but I doubt it.

[MilesColtrane]

7. Yes, yes we know.

Nobody wants to pay for their music and movies.