Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Hatch Warns Labels: Don't Make Me Come Spank You
TonyPyGarthno writes "Facing a veritable who's who of the music-copyright wars, Chairman Hatch threatened -- in surprisingly direct terms -- to force the music labels and publishers, by legislation, to make their content digitally available for a standard fee if the record business continued to ensnarl e-music with lawsuits. As a capper, Hatch suggested that Congress might even go so far as to offer its own comprehensive definition of 'fair use' to hasten the arrival of paid digital music -- an action that would have implications far beyond music.
The full story."
Many of you seem to be supprised by Hatch's position on this issue. I suppose it's because most of the folks on slashdot tend to be more leftwing/democrat (correct me if you disagree). I realize that many republicans have taken the "we must save the children even if it means infringing on basic rights" attitude because its a popular stance to take.
But you must realize that at the heart of most rightwing/republican views is about the government having less control and people having more personal rights (such as being able to copy music you own). Many republicans are actually on our side when it comes to issues like this one and censorship and the like.
my other penis is a vagina
But a lot of smart lawyers and historians have looked at the current situation, and I have yet to hear a proposal that can guarantee artists are compensated.
Did you mean "still compensated hugely for minimal effort?" Life is not fair. There is no guarantee that what made you rich last year will make you rich next year. Consider the poor wheat farmer. Twenty acres can produce enough wheat to feed a whole town for a year; that's a HUGE amount of wealth...in a subsistence economy. But the economy has changed, and now it's barely worth it to farm a single field. The music industry, whether it realizes it or not, has changed. Mass production of music has arrived (near-infinite perfect copies at zero marginal cost) and NOTHING can change that (cue Jon Katz - "Look what we geeks have done to the recording industry!") The question now is who will cling to the old business model until it dies (taking them with it), and who will work to develop new models.
But a lot of smart lawyers and historians have looked at the current situation, and I have yet to hear a proposal that can guarantee artists are compensated.
That's funny...I can. "Don't perform or record unless you're paid!" BTW, Phish seems to do fairly well, in spite of their policy of permitting ANYONE to record them, make copies of the recordings, and distribute them. I suspect that the advent of MP3s has affected them not at all.
The really interesting thing to consider is what will happen when we all have 1GB/s connections and 50TB hard drives at home, and we start trading DVDs? Will Tom Cruise and his crowd start suing us?
From the New York Times, Dec 00:
ORRIN HATCH FINDS CURE FOR AIDS
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) shocked the entire medical community today after announcing he and Congress had found a cure for the AIDS virus. This shocking revelation comes only weeks after Hatch raided several major Chinese prisons, freeing political dissidents from torture. In addition, on the way back Hatch discovered El Dorado, the legendary City of Gold. After narrowly escaping from a rival German archaeologist, he returned with enough funds to ensure Social Security will run for decades. "This is a great victory for America," Hatch was quoted as saying. "With this out of the way, we can finally get down to solving this whole digital music problem." Hatch is expected to stop whale hunting by the end of the year.
Copies for the wife (but not your friend, unless he's a "special" one) falls under the umbrella of community property law.
:-)
You might have purchased the CD, but you both own it. You both have equal rights to it. Nobody can come in and force you to buy a second copy of the disk. Do I really have to point out the utter silliness of claiming that houses are community property, cars are community property, but a $20 CD isn't?!
Obviously, this argument doesn't extend to friends. And I don't burn and share tapes or discs with friends, with the sole exception of _Daria_ tapes I pass to a friend without cable TV. But I make him watch the commercials.
However, I'm getting *very* tired of people claiming that if I like an album I need to buy three copies of it - one for enjoyment at home, one for enjoyment at work, and a third copy to enjoy in the car while commuting between home and work. And if the wife also likes the album we need *five* copies. Yeah, right.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Here is a good guide to "fair use" for the uninformed.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Hatch wants to legislate 'fair use' to include giving tapes of albums to spouses and friends?
Is this a sign from God?
Do Orin Hatch and Jello Biafra actually agree on something?
What are those pigs doing flying by my office?
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Maybe he's concluded that the recording industry deceived and used him to get DCMA, and now he wants to 1)repair some of the damage he was tricked into doing, 2)show the industry executives that he won't be fooled again, and/or 3)send a message that you pull such scams on him at your own risk.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Actually, one of the things that the pro-DeCSS movement cites is congressional records of (among others) Orrin Hatch describing what their intent of the DMCA is - which is not what it ended up being. As the article says, Hatch intended to use the DMCA to encourage record labels to embrace electronic distribution. Hatch has always been on the good side of the DMCA debate.
Here's a good quote -
-------
THE DMCA -- INTENDED TO CREATE what he called ''a stable, predictable legal environment'' that would boost the availability of intellectual property on the Internet -- had ''sadly'' failed for music, Hatch said. Instead of licensing their music to new e-businesses, the senator explained, the labels had kept it locked up in their vaults, cutting deals only to entities they control. Then, dropping the first of several warnings to the industry, Hatch argued that ''a policy of merely cross-licensing among major-label related entities might raise some competition concerns that this committee would have to consider'' -- in other words, an antitrust inquiry.
-------
basically, I think that Orrin thought he was helping an industry and giving them twhat they wanted and needed. Now they are clearly abusing his good will and making him look like a fool.
THe way that the recording industry is acting is extremely childish, amoral, and probably illegal. The tactics they are using could very well be considered "Racketeering", and Orrin probably doesnt want to contribute to that.
I also dont think that Orrin is a dumb man. He has some views and ideas that I strongly disagree with, but I think that he can see when an industry is acting a bunch of toddlers.
He can also see when they are abusing they're positions.
... hi bingo
And an idiot too...
Before you write this off as flamebait, consider: Sen. Hatch asked her, among other questions if fair use included ripping a CD for personal use, and making a copy for use in the car (essentially the same act... technically, one is making a perfect copy, the other a lossy copy). She answered that neither fell within fair use.
I guess no one has clued her in on the legal judgement from the early 80s that said both time and phase shifting were, in fact, covered by the fair use clause of the copyright acts.
How else do you think we are able to buy VCRs? There was a big push to have these outlawed, because we could make copies of copyrighted material for use at our convenience. The courts said: 'Big deal, it's fair use!'
I have to argue that copying a CD falls more squarely under fair use than does copying a movie from television. In the former case, you have paid The Evil Bastards (TM) for a copy of the CD. In the latter, you are copying a 'free broadcast'.
I seriously doubt that I share ANY demographic category with Sen. Hatch, but I am glad he has seen the evils perpetrated under the name of the DMCA and is actively trying to do something about it.
Eric
But would a court (the Consitutionally-mandated interpreters of the law, according to my high school government class)
Actually, you high-school government class is either oversimplifying or just wrong. The courts have ruled that they are the Consitutionally-mandated interpreters of the law, but that's an inherently circular argument. The Constitution never defines the "judicial Power" granted in the Constitution; multiple interpretations can be given to that grant, and only in some of them do the courts have the right to determine the scope of that grant. For example, it can be argued that the "judicial Power" only means the powers granted the courts under English law in the 18th Century; this is much more limited than the role that U.S. courts claim for themselves.
The owner of a a copyright has ABSOLUTE CONTROL over their work
No, they do not. They have the control granted to them by Congressionally-passed laws in accordance with Article I section 8 clause 8, limited by the doctrine of Fair Use.
For a member of Congress to make a copy of that work is to deprive them of their intellectual property rights. Note that phrase - "property rights." As in the government may not deprive you of your property without due process of law. As in eminent domain - the government can not take your property without compensating you. The congress-critters in question were not merely violating the law; they were violating the Constitution.
Except the Constitution never acknowledges "intellectual property rights". Instead, it assumes that an author has no inherent rights, and then gives the Congress permisssion to give authors exclusive rights for a limited time.
Steven E. Ehrbar
When even CNN was unable to make the proceedings out to be a triumphant parade of copyright absolutists, I knew things had gone poorly for the RIAA.
I do wish I had a recording of the full proceedings from CSPAN to make my own judgement; the streams were useless to me, being a RealNetworks-hating linux user.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Hello, and welcome! You must be new to life.
But honestly, do you actually live by this logic? How many times have you gone out to an expensive restaurant, when that money could have been used towards feeding starving kids in whatever god-forsaken nation needs it most right now? How can you pay for computer components and internet access when you could be using that money to help plant trees in your area? How many hours have you squandered on Slashdot when you could have been out building homes for those less fortunate?
"High priority" does not mean "only priority". There's an awful lot of stuff out there that needs to be addressed, and very little of it can wait for us to finish curing cancer, AIDS, and world hunger.
Remember, kids, it's only premarital if you plan on getting married.