Dianne Feinstein, MPAA / RIAA representative
p2pnet news view Politics | RIAA | MPAA News:- Hardly was the blood dry on the Obama presidential inauguration documents when the news came that RIAA and other vested interest lawyers are to run the US Department of Justice.
Now hard-core corporate entertainment industry stalwart Dianne Feinstein (see if you can guess which one she is) is trying to piggyback vested RIAA and MPAA interests on Barack Obama’s $838 billion economic stimulus package.
And she’s using that tried and trusted favourite ‘kiddie porn’ as the means.
You know how it goes.
But hang on! Wasn’t there’s something about lobbyists being reined in with Obama in office?
No worries, though. Feinstein isn’t a lobbyist. She’s an elected US senator and can therefore have only the interests of the people who put her into office at heart.
So that’s okay, then.
Corporate network management amendment
“We just sent out an Action Alert to let you know about a proposed amendment to the stimulus package,” said Alex Curtis in Public Knowledge four days back, going on »»»
This amendment, put forth by Sen. Feinstein, would allow ISPs to “deter” child pornography and copyright infringement through network management techniques. The amendment is very, very controversial for a couple of reasons:
- Infringement can’t be found through “network management” techniques. There are legal uses for copyrighted works even without permission of the owner.
- It would require Internet companies to examine every bit of information everyone puts on the Web in order to find those allegedly infringing works, without a hint of probable cause. That would be a massive invasion of privacy, done at the request of one industry, violating the rights of everyone who is online.
Feinstein’s corporate network management amendment didn’t make it, says The Register, but, “lobbyists speaking with the Washington DC-based internet watchdog said that California’s senior Senator is now hoping to insert this language via conference committee – a House-Senate pow-wow were bill disputes are resolved.
“This is the most backdoor of all the backdoor ways of doing things,” the story has Public Knowledge’s Art Brodsky saying.
“Conference committees are notorious for being the most opaque of all legislative processes.”
Opaque, you say? Lovely! Just what the RIAA and MPAA ordered.
The Register continues »»»
According to Public Knowledge, the Motion Picture Association of America is behind Feinstein’s language. The MPAA doesn’t like copyright infringement. And you can bet the child pornography bit was tossed in for added effect.
But the “network management” bit sounds like ISP speak.
As Art Brodsky and his colleagues pointed out, network management is used to manage networks – not filter content. Content filters are used to filter content. But American ISPs – particularly cable ISPs – will take any excuse they can find to throttle certain traffic.
And if they’re using copyright infringement and child porn as excuses, they’ll have to start sniffing packets. So, Feinstein’s amendment would also destroy net privacy – if there’s any out there.
Word from Public Knowledge is that Congressman Henry Waxman will back Feinstein’s amendment when it turns up in conference committee. Representing a district near Hollywood, Waxman has long backed the MPAA and the Recording Ass. of America in their efforts to crack down on P2P file sharing.
Money talks and Bullshit stays right where it is
In 2007, The Consumerist, whose readers voted the RIAA the Worst Company in America, had another interesting post, this time observing Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) wouldn’t get very far without the active and enthusiastic help and support of various (and many) politicians, p2pnet noted, continuing »»»
“But wait, aren’t these representatives supposed to work for you?” – it wonders in a question also asked by many people in many places at many times.
“Do you believe some politicians are actually, or in effect, being paid by the labels to represent their interests?” – and, “If so, is that acceptable?” – p2pnet enquired of Jim Griffin, at the time ceo of Cherry Lane Digital and who’s now also a member of the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) advisory board, a long time ago.
Griffin responded:
Of course it is actually happening and of course it is acceptable. Our United States Supreme Court is clear and I agree with them: Money is speech.
What can you do if you disagree with the labels? There is more money on the side of customers and technology than on the side of media, and history reflects the imbalance that runs counter to your suggestion that record labels’ interests are overly represented in Washington or Brussels or other law making capitols.
Collectively, ‘consumers’ do indeed have the money and the power to compel the labels, studios and software companies to dance to their tune, and that’s the way would be if consumers were in any way organised. However, that isn’t the case, although thanks to the growing popularity of the Net, which gives people everywhere, the ability to communicate instantly with each other, without the interference of the corporations, the picture is rapidly changing, to the extreme alarm and consternation of said corporations.
But as things presently stand, unlike the labels, ordinary people singly or en masse don’t have teams of expert PR hacks behind them, or highly placed, highly paid, spinmeisters – call them lobbyists – whose sole purpose in life is to pressure politicians in the halls of power, and behind closed doors, with self-interest points of view, day in, day out.
The same applies to the small, independent technology companies. It’s a sad reality that breakthroughs likely to benefit consumers at the expense of the entertainment cartels are greeted with shock and horror by the corporations. Instead of trying to the enlist innovators and creators to help expand the envelopes of technology and knowledge, the industries all too often sue the embryo companies, acquire the technology and re-offer it in emasculated form..
Don’t get me wrong: Griffin is one of the most experienced, brightest and most articulate people working on the music scene, his views are, to a very large extent, representative, and I have tremendous respect for him. But ……….
Back to the The Consumerist post, it’s compiled a list of 50 congresspeople, “who took campaign contributions from the RIAA in the last election cycle” and has also linked their contact information, “so that you, as their constituents, can inform them that they’re taking money from the ‘Worst Company in America,’ and that’s going to cost them your vote.”
Good job, guys.
Money speaks. Loudly.
Ever since it went online in 2002, p2pnet has been highlighting the financial interests of many US politicians who seem to have a marked and unhealthy interest in entertainment cartel affairs. What do they have to do with p2pnet which is, after all, only a small Canadian site?
Politicians representing CanAmerica, as it’s rapidly becoming, bow without shame to interests represented south of the border, and as I say here in my purely personal opinion, “Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, on the record label side of the fence, and principal Hollywood studios Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney, with the Bush administration in lock-step, have totally overpowered Canada’s weak-kneed, weak-minded political leaders. It’s not merely embarrassing, it’s an international disgrace.”
So what happens in America ultimately has a profound impact on events not only in Canada, but in other so-called democracies around the world.
Here, we expand on five politicians (upper right) featured by The Consumerist list, thanks to the excellent OpenSecrets (OS) run by the Center for Responsive Politics to track money in politics, and its effect on elections and public policy. In all of the examples below, the money comes from the TV/Movies/Music category.
In order of appearance: -
Lamar Smith (top left), Republican.
TC – $7,500 Click here
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2002 - $24,812
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2004 - $66,583
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2006 – $65,900Orrin ‘Terminator’ Hatch (top centre), Republican
TC – $6,000 Click here
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2002 - $175,322
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2004 - $183,428
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2006 - $140,894Dianne Feinstein, Democract
TC – $4,000, Click here
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2002 – $242,066
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2004 - $294,816
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2006 - $284,844Hollywood Howard Berman (bottomleft), Democrat
TC – $3,500 Click here
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2002 - $222,791
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2004 – $144,000
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2006 – $180,550John Howard Coble, Republican
TC| – $1,000 Click here
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2002 – $38,483
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2004 – $24,250
OS – Campaign Finance Profile, 2006 – $19,000
Obviously, the numbers have changed in an upward direction and according to OpenSecrets, Feinstein is now indebted to ‘TV/Movies/Music” to the tune of an additional $265,016 for the 2008 Campaign Finance Cycle.
If you want to update Hollywood Howard, et al,, click here.
No need to stay tuned. You know what’s going to happen.
But no worries. Thanks to net coms, P2P People Power is on the rise and the Day of the Dinosaur is almost done.
(Thanks to all the people who sent in links about this)
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 14th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Feistein is a vicious paraiste who should be eradicated!
I voted against Feistein at the last election.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
What pigs! Great actors for the next film based on Orwell’s “Animal Farm”!
February 15th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
No wonder my complaint went no where. I complained to Feinstein of criminal violations by directv and there lawsuit campaign where they sued thousands of innocent people. I was told handed over to the FBI but looks like she may be in on suing innocent people.
When an innocent person is sued by directv or the RIAA, the court complaint was a fraud. Then on the basis of the frauduulanty lawsuit, they collect thousands of dollars. It is a crime to profit from a fraud. What is worse is congress has been assisting these companies in supporting the suits where the companies knew these people were innocent of wrong doing. As with any fraud, the victim becomes a victim of the crime of fraud. They do not have the thousands to defend so they have no choice but to give into the fraud. Then the settlement agreements state the victim cannot ask for criminal charges and cannot be a complainant in any criminal proceedings. Next scheme to let the perpetrator off the hook and get away with the crimes. Rob a bank and have the bank president sign saying he/she will not tell. See what happens. Justice needs to begin doing what they were sworn to do. That is defend the innocent people from such frauds. The next time I am a juror I will do what Justice has done. I will cast my juror vote ignoring justice. Need a witness? For me to be a witness Justice is going to have to be on the right side of the law and not permit corporations to conceal crimes behing private civil agreements.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Until lobbyists are STOPPED these twats will always get what they want.
Me personally will just stop buying media in general, sad really.