Slashdot Mirror
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act
slashdoter writes: "EFF has some info on a new bill before Congress. The
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000
says that you can use the internet to move music as long as you own the CD. You can
read the story
at the EFF website." The
360-word bill
would have cut the my.mp3.com lawsuit off at the knees, so naturally
mp3.com likes it;
if it passes, mp3.com might even discover its
missing backbone.
So check to see whether your Congressperson is
on the House Judiciary Committee; if so, since that's where the bill is, your opinion can have some real leverage.
Send email!
slashdoter continues: "And on a side note, I just received my welcome letter from the EFF and was angered to find I was only member #11420. After 10 years that's all they have. Come on, as a student it only cost me $20(US). Words are nice but money speaks."
On another side note: civil-rights-wise, it's ironic that this bill's author also introduced H.R. 1081, a silly thing that died in committee. A hate-crime law with stiff penalties for flag-bashing.
unlike the mp3.com service that would somehow make users prove that they owned the CDs, the napster service is not able to verify that a user had a particular CD that they are sharing. But still, would this silence the RIAA?
Snail mail doesn't go far enough -- any idiot can write a letter and mail it. If you really want to make an impact in today's jaded DC politics, you have to think big. Unless it's staring them down from the heavens, they'll just ignore it. Hire skywriters.
-- Anne Marie
The law states that you can listen to the CD: provided that the transmission is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording.
Ok, how do I prove that I own it?
My MP3.com's solution of testing once for the physical presence of the CD is not adequate. Because I can:
1. Borrow the CD from the library, "prove" that I own it, and then return it
2. Buy the CD from a store, prove than I own it, and then return it for a refund.
3. Borrowing CD's from a friend. Similar to #1.
4. I may NOT get credit for the recording when I own it, but not on CD. How do I prove that I own the record?
The only way around #1-#3 is to request that the requestor show to provide the CD each time, defeating the point of convenience.
I think that Democrat is in for a big larting at the next convention....
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Does this mean that "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (being a dramatical musical work) is out?
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Don't give the Republicans a halo just yet. Maybe they are hands off concerning economic freedom but let's not forget who sponsers the bills for mandatory internet filters in schools and libraries, prayer in schools, flag-burning amendments, and bans on pornography. Each of the major parties advocates some form of socialism - the Democrats want economic socialism and the Republicans want cultural socialism. The Libertarians are the only ones who want true freedoms across the board.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
pardon me for jumping in on this obviously partisan thread. but you guys, along with your democrat brethren are absolute morons.
the party is more important than the man
the man is more important than anything. when you start giving up your own beliefs for any group, you become a simple minded fool. The US was founded on the public for the good of the individual. not the other way around. It's pretty funny, though, for you to say that Bush or Gore would be okey-fucking-dokey in office just because of the fact that they'd sort of stick to an extremely loose set of standards set by other rich tax-raisers.
Oh well, at least Republicans are admitting that Bush is a fuckwit and that they're just voting republican because they believe that baby's shouldn't be slaughtered in the woom. but once you've been born, you're on your own fuck-o.
me? i'll be either voting Nader or writing in McCain. The two party system influences me about as much as race influences who my friends are.
BTW - assuming precedence, this post will be moderated up to 4.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The truly absurd thing about the whole lawsuit fiasco is the question between "my bits" and "their bits". The only true place that "my bits" are kept when I purchase a CD is on the CD itself. Whether I use "their bits" stored on MP3.com's servers or copy "my bits" and store them in my MyPlay locker, I'm not using the original bits. I would always be streaming copied bits. I think this is the biggest failing of the courts thus far, to not recognize that their is no distinction between "their bits" and "my bits". There are only "bits".
And this obviously begs the question of what's to stop me from ripping a friend's CD and then uploading those MP3s to my MyPlay locker? How does actually uploading MP3s prove ownership any more or less than using the Beam-It techonology. The bottom line is that neither company has "proof" that I truly own the music that I want to access. Yet one method is legal and the other is not. "My bits" vs. "their bits".
For these reasons, I cannot honestly believe that MP3.com was consciously committing copyright infringement, as the record companies maintain. They had a business model that made it legitimately easier for the user to use their service. I use both and would much rather "beam" my CDs than rip, encode, and upload.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I would mod this up but I already have posted to this story. BTW I got 3 points for submiting this story so I can take a hit here.
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
(Note: replace the references to Julie Andrews with your favorite artists if necessary.)
Suppose Julie Andrews is going to record a new album (she can sing a bit... just one second more...), and the record label is going to use SDMI to "secure" the music on CD. Suppose the only software that can read SDMI-secured CDs are for Windoze and Macs.
Suppose the online copies of the Julie Andrews album is released in Windows Media format rather than something useful like Vorbis.
Does that mean I'm shit out of luck if I'm using Linux and looking for "street legal" SDMI-compliant software (with the RIAA pulling the Intervideo defense to shut us up)?
Will the RIAA get MP5-armed agents to do a "shoot to kill" at the next Jon Johansen?
Will the SDMI ever be used in the first place to create "racism by reason of operating system?"
Trivia: Ms. Andrews' case against the doctor who wrecked her voice would have been handled by Lewis A. Kaplan if it weren't for the doctor's settlement.
Not true. It takes a surprisingly small number of people to exert a great deal of influence on a politician. At the Congressional level, they know that for every letter they get, there are thousands of other people who feel the same way. A friend of mine in the PR business orchestrated a campaign among friends and acquaintences to influence the city council of a major California city. With only a couple dozen people writing and faxing, she had the entire council discussing the matter within a couple of days. Do indeed write to your congressbeing, because even a single letter carries a tremendous amount of weight.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Yes, you already have the right to listen to your music, make mp3s, send it to yourself over the 'Net, etc. But...
That part is a completely new right which does not currently exist. This basically closes the technicality whereby RIAA kicked mp3.com's ass.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
At first I was discouraged to join since I saw that they would lose 4% of my transaction by using a credit card, but then I figured I was going for a slightly above-average (average donation is $65) contribution, so the small amount that was given to visa was less significant.
If you've been thinking about joining the EFF, just go ahead and do it. Even if you can't or don't want to select one of their pre-defined amounts, send them $5 or something... We're at a very pivotal point in history here. 200 years from now, we will look back at this as a very defining moment in the development of our technology and government.
Every major group of people with a strong interest in a particular aspect of society needs an organization to represent them in our government, and the EFF is that organization for the geeks.
If you're interested in what they have done for us so far, and what they are working on, go to http://www.eff.org/archive.html.
--
EFF Member #11254
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Wow, it's nice to see that someone else realizes this. It doesn't take much to see that the entire presidential campaign (and, indeed, many other political canidates) is full of complete idiots. I don't particularily like Bush, but the Republican platform most accurately describes my views, so there you go. Whatever your political stance is, people, remember that the canidates will generally toe the party line; vote based on platforms rather than the mindless mudslinging.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
or....He's 12.
Any Democrats that agree with me here and hate this guy simply because he's a republican. Fuck you....you don't get it either.
--
The man is more important than the party. The Keg is Almost dry. Vote on who's going to go get more beer.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Isn't that a reason to vote Libertarian, not Republican? In my opinion, that three Republicans sponsored this bill (along with the Democrat) might as well be coincidence, as it seems like both major parties are singing the same tune. If you really care strongly about Freedom vs. Socialism, either vote Libertarian or vote Socialist -- don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans are the protectors of our liberties any more than the Democrats are.
If you live in central San Diego (and if you don't, it sucks to be you), you can be proud to know that our local Representitive, Brian Bilbray, fully supports HR 5275. His position statement on the subject can be found here. Of course, MP3.com is a San Diego company, so we should expect his support, but it's still nice to see that somebody in congress has a clue about this stuff.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
There is the issue of ex post facto, which works both ways: you cannot be convicted of an act committed before it was made illegal, nor can your conviction be overturned if you broke a law before it was changed, although quite often, a reversal in the law on a certain issue may be accompanied by the previous law being overturned by the courts.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
For reference, I am a Libertarian, since a Libertarian is the only person you can really trust with protecting your rights. I do also send in snail mail letters, if the issue is particularly important to me. It only takes 10 minutes to print something out and write an address on an envelope. Phone calls are also a good way to reach your reps.
-
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
How long until 360,000 words in riders about such relevant things as immigration, smoking advertising, and of course video game violence are added in? Doomed to failure =). Seriously, it is nice to see something so succinct come from a politician.
--
--
The gravitational constant of protein has changed. - Turbine
Check out the EFF's Contacting Congress page. It's got a lot of ideas on lobbying Congress and the White House.
I'm not familiar with American Law, so can sombody answer this question: if this law is passed and MP3.com already has to pay a few cents to record companies for my.mp3.com, will mp3.com be able to stop paying the companies, or since the settlements were made before this law would they stil have to pay
it pretty defines their my.mp3.com service.
Just a quick side curiousity, who has the patent on this?
This seems pretty sparse to be enacted, are many other bills this succinct?
--
+&x
Actually, the music may belong to a few different folks.
First, the music belongs to the person or people who wrote it. They get residuals every time the song is recorded, sold, and played. Sometimes this is the artist, sometimes a third-party songwriter. It all depends. Read the liner notes to see who owns the songwriting credits.
Second, the music belongs to whoever holds the release rights to it. Often times this is the music company (which is why Prince waged his protest, BTW), but this is not necessarily so. This is also the reason many artists start their own record labels - to have control over how and when the music is released, originally, and on compilation albums. Most times the record company will own the recording rights initially, though in some cases the artist merely cedes the right to first release to the record company and retains the right to re-release the songs after a certain period of time. This is akin to deal authors strike which allow them to distribute their own writings overseas, or in reprint form, as they wish.
Thirdly, the music belongs to whoever purchases it, to a degree. There are already laws and case precedent regarding this.
In each case, a different aspect of the music is owned by a different person. I think it would behoove all the music fans out there to learn a bit about what happens with music when it is produced, which will make us much better at arguing the points we need to argue.
-Jimmie
PS. As an amateur musician moving toward professional songwriting, I can tell you, the money is in writing most of the time.
I really believe this is the right way for US citizens to decide what "fair use" is. The start-ups will never have the amount of money needed to wage lawsuits against the larger concers. (read mp3.com vs RIAA). It also isn't fair under the current system that people that are legitimately in business to make money off of IP can't count on a fair and stable political/court environment. Therefore, it seems like the best way is to propose legistlation so that it can be discussed and debated and we can come out with something that (most) everyone can agree on. IMHO anyway.
Which is actually the same thing. You want each individual, whether as a private citizen or as a member of the government, to have as much responsibility and accountability as possible. Therefore in government you want the power distributed to each individual representitive rather than them having to "toe the party line" or follow the dictats of the leader.
What, are you kidding? I love living in a land where ignorance of the law is not considered an excuse for breaking it, but we require fleets of lawyers and judges who undergo long, expensive educations and years of experience to interpret it. Its a cool feeling to be sitting here wondering just how many things I did yesterday that would get me prison time or hefty fines had I been caught by someone who somehow recognized it as a crime. For instance, I spent nine months unknowingly commiting a crime in my state a couple of years ago, before I got married, and just recently learned about it. Glad I didn't get caught; $500 or a 60 day stay ($1,000 and 120 if they'd have found us on the wrong day :)) in the pokey would have made my minimum wage earning ass homeless. Hell, we have a one year old daughter to worry about now, so I guess dad's not "getting his medicine" (reference: Chris Rock) until we leave this state, as we can't afford to have a nosy neighbor cost us $500. :) Laugh; if you don't, you might just start crying when you realize that nothing I've written here was fictitious.
Deo
It's a little vague. There's that whole bit about is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording. The obvious question, of course, is what constitutes "proof." Although the post says that this would have invalidated the mp3.com lawsuit, I don't know if that's wholly true: the RIAA could have harped, instead, upon the strength of "proof" checks... dollars to donuts that BeamIt wouldn't have passed corporate muster.
I have a sad feeling that if this makes it to law (and I'm going to snail-mail my congressman) that it'll be twisted such that only the proprietary systems of the RIAA will be considered "proof." Meaning woe to those who buy CDs and don't get the keycode or something similarly (inappropriately) lowtech that gets shipped with it...
or, worse, unique identifiers per CD, to defeat those who would buy, BeamIt, and then return the CD... said CD is back off the market, there go Joe User's priveleges. Ok, maybe that's a valid use, but how in god's name can you say they wouldn't then use it to do some serious tracking.... don't play Bobby's CD in Judy's CD player, or the authorities will be notified!
Paranoia is fun. Eep.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
downloading gnapster RIGHT NOW... dodododoooo
------------------------
------------------------
Is your sig file boring?
- price of media
- price of production
- price of distribution
- profit for record company
- fee to some copyright organization
- sales tax
Now when you could buy a virtual CD, something like a legal ownership of the music, then you could download and use the mp3 legally. I am pretty sure that price of CD without the first 3 components and with reduced 4th one would go into more than affordable range. Then mp3.com could provide this service of selling virtual CDs to gain legal permit to the songsIf programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
This law would have no effect on MP3 since there actions were illegal at the time. Constitutionally, you can't have a law take place retroactively. This is done to protect people, so that (for lack of a better example) if abortion was made illegal today, doctors couldn't be prosecuted for what they did last year.
Some sort of amnesty could be arranged, but I doubt it in this case.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Wow, it's nice to see that someone else realizes this.
I know, and we're in the minority. Unfortunately, it's very counter-intuitive to a lot of people, who primarily look at personalities. Not to say that the man doesn't matter at all (Clinton has made the Presidency a laughingstock), but most people don't realize that Congress has far, far more power than the President. Even if you got some 3rd party fool in the White House, all that means is that nothing would happen for four years.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I wrote to my representative and informed him that I wanted him to support this bill. It doesn't really have anything to do with Napster, and a lot to do with my.mp3.com. But, being rather ignorant apparently, and even though I barely mentioned Napster in my letter, I got a letter back telling me that my support of Napster was noted and that he'd look into the bill. Damn! That's annoying. I don't really support Napster per se, I am just against the rampant abuses of copyright that have taken place over the years and this bill is at least a small step in the right direction.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I doubt that it will change any ruling. After all mp3.com didn't abide by one of the requirement, provide proof of ownership.
This is the ONE time that karma doesn't matter. Well, there was that other time, but this time I mean it.
I was talking about e-mail. If they get an e-mail message from %lt;l33tD00d@hotgrits.org> they will have no idea if Mr. "D00d" lives in their district or not. If you're sending e-mail, it's a good idea to include your full name and address.
Free Hans!
Henry Hyde is a good guy-- I don't see what you accomplish by trashing him on general principles. The slashdot They're All Bought Anyway Corps never seems to deploy when democrats are talking. Gore said some virulently anti-gay things in the 80's, but people have been remarkably forgiving of him (I would say, way too forgiving). Republicans on slashdot appear to be guilty until proven innocent-- often, are still 'guilty' no matter how hard they fight for us. If anything, the biggest threat to the CS community is the fact that the community refuses to vote based on the issues they bitch constantly about.
Democrat politicians know that they can support the RIAA, push for national ID's, oppose fair use, support the clipper chip, and hold up export controls on strong encryption. Why? Because programmers vote for them anyway. So, naturally, that is their record. The only technology issue which the democrats can brag about on slashdot right now is the M$ trial-- and their solution, a breakup, makes as much sense as cutting a planaria worm in half: you just get two monopolies.
Yes, Orin Hatch authored the DMCA. And the RIAA and the courts (judges appointed by who? oh yeah, the president) have interpretted the law in ways that Senator Hatch didn't expect or like. That's why the Senate filed a brief with the courts saying that they didn't support the interpretation of the DMCA. That's why they are holding hearings. Hatch pinned Gail Rosen to the wall in the Napster hearings he called, while democrat Diane Feinstein supported the RIAA as it fought the idea of fair use tooth and nail.
So if you are from California (many/most of us are), vote against Feinstein. If you are from Utah, vote for Senator Hatch. That is, if these are the issues you care about. It is very telling that one of the authors of the DMCA is fighting the way it is being interpretted in courts, and we should be helping out.
I figured out what is wrong with legaleeze. It is as though through carefully constructed statements, people are writing logical programs in the English language.
The only problem is that nobody ever documents their code.
when you start giving up your own beliefs for any group, you become a simple minded fool.
No one is "giving up any beliefs". I have serious differences with the Republican party platform, but they most closely represent my beliefs (note "my beliefs"). However, I also am a realist. Democracy works on votes. Guess what? We don't elect a dictator. The President has to work with Congress.
What was that you were saying about "simple minded"? Reducing a complex subject to flamebait does not help your point.
i'll be either voting Nader or writing in McCain.
Thus proving you have absolutely no idea what either man stands for. It's not as bad as the fools who says "I'm voting for either Nader or the Libertarians", but close. While I severely dislike McCain, he's definitely not as bad as Nader.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Actually, this is somewhat untrue. "Freedom" depends on your perspective. The more "freedoms" corporations have, the less "freedom" people have. At least, if you agree with Noam Chomsky's analysis. If you agree with that starting premise, both parties are guilty of taking away freedoms. The Republicans are more likely to take away freedoms (in the form of "moral issues") from individuals, while the Democrats are more likely to take away freedoms from corporations (EPA, gun control, etc.)
I think that way too often Republicans are mistaken as being libertarian. If you want to be a true libertarian, you could vote for neither Democrats NOR Republicans with good conscience, especially if you use the entirety of the platform as a deciding factor.
If the Reform party hadn't suddently develop a massive taste for social issues, it might have had a possible chance.
Also, the authorship of the bill is not exactly an "open party" Since it's original author is a Republican (correct me if I'm wrong), he would insist on one Democrat join in order to ensure the "bi-partisan feel." However, other Democrats are not necessarily welcome to the "authorship table."
yours,
yours,
kbs
things we can tell about reality master by reading his posts in this thread...
Pretty close, although not that impressive when you consider that 90-95% of Slashdotters probably fall into those categories.
However, I do take issue with this...
He's got no political perspective as, in his eyes, the Republican vs. Democrat debate is an Us vs. Them thing.
Not at all. I'm an engineer. To me, everything comes down to "what works" or "what doesn't work". Not everything the Democratic Party advocates is bad, and not everything the Republicans advocate is good. But on balance, Democrats advocate more central government control, and that has been proven time after time that it doesn't work. But government control sounds like such a simple solution that unfortunately people fall into the trap of wanting the simple solution. People very rarely apply any historical perspective.
Take Vouchers -- I advocate vouchers because public schools don't work compared to private schools. I also think that poor people should have the same ability to put their kids in the school of their choice as rich people. Yet Democrats usually oppose vouchers. Why, when the people it would help the most are poor people in bad schools?
I'll tell you why: Control. Schools are one of the most powerful institutions of social architecture. Democrats believe passionately that the government has a role in shaping and molding people into having the beliefs they think they should have. If parents could make their own decisions about how to educate their children, they would be giving up a great deal of their power.
But social architecture has failed over and over and over, and in fact, almost always does more harm than good. Welfare has destroyed the character of generations of poor people, because many people refuse to believe that you can't simply give away money in order to raise people out of poverty. But it sure sounds good on paper.
You think you have me pegged in some nice little slot in your mind, but quite frankly you haven't proved you have any "political perspective". You only seem capable of throwing out little cynicisms to prove that "Hey, I'm not fooled by any of the candidates, I know what's really going on". It must be nice to have a neat little view of the world, full of "rich people that don't care" and "poor people screwed by The Man". Guess what -- the world is more complex than your narrow little view.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Congress kills the law
Having but one fatal flaw:
It made too much sense
Ah, but all of the MP3s stored on MP3.com servers came from CDs that MP3.com had PURCHASED, or from independent artists who had given permission for their music to be placed on the site. If MP3.com had merely let users upload MP3 files into private lockers -- a more time-consuming and less space-efficient way of doing things -- they would have been much less vulnerable.
The record companies' argument was that it was illegal merely for MP3.com to create a database from CDs that it owned (as though it made no difference how that database was used).
The RIAA got its tail kicked by the Rio court when it tried to pull a similar stunt regarding the hard drives on personal computers. But they won against mp3.com -- which serves to illustrate the much different and more restrictive standards that are in effect when it comes to commercial use.
I would rather see an 'intellectual property licensee's rights' bill. That way, a person can move the data around no matter what it is. Also, this bill still doesnt fix what the DMCA breaks.
If My.MP3.com licenses content from the major labels, while requiring downloaders to prove they own the material they download, doesn't that mean that the record labels are getting paid twice on the same music?
Scan the barcode for proof!
-Nev
So then what about the average middle class person whose kids are stuck in the shitty school? They can't afford private school either. Everything isn't black and white like vouchers insinuate.
Take Vouchers -- I advocate vouchers because public schools don't work compared to private schools. I also think that poor people should have the same ability to put their kids in the school of their choice as rich people.
your concepts are absolutely whack. private schools are better for PRECISELY the reason that opening them up to all people (read: vouchers) would kill them. Public schools aren't failing because of some mythical malaise surrounding these institutions. And if you give everyone a voucher to go to a private school, guess what...you just turned it into a public school. Sure, there are subtle differences, but these are moot in the long run.
As far as your view on the role government should play in people's lives, you've got the same problem as every other democrat/republican i've ever met. You all want more laws, it's just a question of whether your state or the federal government gets to make 'em and enforce 'em. I say to republicans and democrats and libertarians and the green party, keep your fucking laws off me.
oh. and if you're view is so en-fucking-lightened than what's with this cute little jibe:
Democrats believe passionately that the government has a role in shaping and molding people into having the beliefs they think they should have.
umm...i had a pretty democratic upbringing. and although i hate democrats now about the same as republicans, i take issue with that statement. It's fucking anti-democrat propaganda. but, lest this thread continue, i will say, you have you views, i have mine and nothing i will ever say or do will make you change your mind.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
lest this thread continue, i will say, you have you views, i have mine and nothing i will ever say or do will make you change your mind.
Actually, my beliefs have evolved a number of times in response to reading other's opinions. In fact, I used to be much more Libertarian, until I figured out their beliefs had fundamental flaws (as I stated in another part of the thread). Can you say the same? Is there room in your philosophy for error, or is everyone just wacko and just wants to force laws on you?
By the way, I'm not sure where you read into my views that I want to create more laws. I want to replace a lot of laws, and do away with a lot of others, but clearly the net total number of laws should be reduced.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Actually, if "legalese" were TRULY like a computer language, then you wouldn't have argue about the ambiguities inherent in so many of the laws!
:)
I thought it would be quite fascinating if it was required to write the laws in an unambiguous language, designed to be interpreted by a machine.
Legislators could feed new laws in a massive population models, to try and get an idea of how their laws were going to affect the society. They could also use "legal validation" techniques to find out if their new laws conflict with any old ones, and perhaps to give them ideas on how to consolidate the laws they are trying to pass with ones that already exist (to try and reduce complexity).
Court cases would be handled by modeling having the prosecution & defence come up with models of their case (with the human judge/jury existing to make decisions about model conflicts), feed it all into the "did the defendant break the law?" legal testing machine, and yet a guilty/not guilty, perhaps with an acceptable range of punishments.
A non-binding version of this judgement-machine could be used so that individuals & organizations could try and model types of behaviors that they want to pursue, and see whether it is illegal or not.
It goes almost without saying, of course, that all the laws should be Open Sourced
defeat those who would buy, BeamIt, and then return the CD... said CD is back off the market, there go Joe User's priveleges
That's why most stores won't refund opened products that are nearly pure IP. Such products (CDs, videos, DVDs, etc.) are typically exchanged for an identical opened title. Some anal-retentive stores (not naming names) even refuse to accept returned computers because the operating system (not naming names here either) install disc "has been opened."
Will I retire or break 10K?
How would you like congress telling you you had to let people publish your Slashdot comments in a book just because the person publishing the book had already read them on Slashdot? In fact, when a situation like this came up (the whole John Katz Hellmouth fiasco) people were outraged. But when a bill comes up, a bill under which Congress strips record companies of the ability to use their property, Slashdotters are overjoyed.
This kind of hypocrisy is troubling.
This form will ask for a state/zip, and spit back your representative. http://www.house.gov/writerep/
interesting to see that the bill is sponsored by 3 republicans and 1 democrat, the republicans have this image of being owned by big business(music industry)...
who digitizes the music
That would be the compact disc manufacturer. The music is digital before it is even packaged. Who compresses the music, on the other hand...
Will I retire or break 10K?
Here
Read Calder v. Bull, a decision rendered back at the end of the 18th century or so. The ex-post-facto clause has long been held to apply only to criminal sanctions, not civil ones. In that case in particular, the Connecticut legislature (sitting in its preconsitutional capacity as high court) revised someone's will, having the effect of "punishing" one party but only in a civil capacity. Several tresspass cases from the Jim Crow south in this century have upheld that reasoning.
And even if it did apply to criminal sanctions, your example is still wrong. There's nothing constitutionally"ex-post-facto" about making something legal which was previously illegal. It's strictly a negative restriction.
-- Anne Marie
Don't you think it's a little strange that he couldn't get at least one other Democrat to support it? Don't you think he would rather have a 2/2 balance?
I'll give him credit for sponsoring it; not all Democrats are anti-freedom. But more often than not, Republicans vote to give more freedom and take away government power, and Democrats vote to consolidate power and take away freedom.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I love the concept of the bill, although I would definitely want to go through the details with a fine-toothed comb, especially since UCITA was supposedly a good idea when it came out.
But, my political instincts, and I am rarely wrong (sadly), are that this bill will never see the light of day. It will either:
A. die in committee in the House
B. have riders attached and amendments made that turn it into a pro-RIAA bill
C. fail to be called to the floor during session due to opposition from big bucks
D. if passed by the house, never get heard as a bill in the Senate
E. if passed by the house, die in committee in the Senate
F. if it makes it through the Senate, have riders or amendments so it's a sacrificial lamb to offer up the president
G. if it passes through both Senate and House, have amendments and riders during conference
H. if it makes it through all that, be vetoed by the President (either one) due to some political infighting between political sponsors and the President or during some battle over funding.
So, basically, fight the good fight, talk to your senators and congressmembers, but you're going to have to watch this all the way through the political process to make sure it comes out the other end in a good form.
Many bills are offered, few pass, most are sacrificed.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
This bill was authored by & co-sponsored mostly by Republicans. It will easily get approved by the chairman. Let's hope the commitee democrats can't kill it. The entertainment industry is one of the democrats' biggest supporters.
I wouldn't be so quick to peg that as his motivation...
Boucher is my congressman, so I know a litle bit about him. He is very progressive and pro-technology. This kind of law is not out of character for him. He seems to "get it" more than other congressmen when it comes to technology.
Locally, he's done a lot to lay down a technology infrastructure in our region. He's very interested in technology issues.
My stretched cassette tapes and scratched LP's for CD's without paying for another copy of the royalty? I already have one of those and do not wish to buy another! I can prove I have the 12 inch or cassette. Where do I trade them in? I would love to trade in my FLOYD records. They have been played too many times to be really enjoyable anymore.
The truth shall set you free!
If this passes, RIAA members may include a EULA with every CD sold: "By breaking the seal holding the CD in the jewel case, you agree to this EULA. ... You waive all rights under the Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000."
Will I retire or break 10K?
In this case, it might be that the Republicans think the record industry can be shaken down
Im not disagreeing with you, but notice the following:
Rick Boucher (D-VA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Fred Upton (R-MI), Ray LaHood (R-IL)
if this were the case - i guess the Republicrats were working together on their shakedowns now!
Wouldnt surprise me a bit.
There's a basic truth about this:
An email is worth 1/20th a printed letter or printed postcard.
A printed letter or postcard is worth 1/5th the value of a handwritten letter or handwritten postcard.
[rule of political communication - I've been lobbying as a citizen activist for decades]
So, go to the nearest coffee shop or restaurant, get some of those free postcards, slap on 20 cent stamps, and handwrite to your congressmember and senator a short polite postcard about why you want this bill (give number and title) to pass. Then sign it, give your name, phone and address, and send it in the mail. Choose a cool postcard - they love those.
If you do this, you have the best chance of affecting them. The only thing better is a visit in person.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Why are video recordings not included in the provisions of this bill? Surely this is the next medium to undergo the Internet distribution trial-by-fire. "Flickster" is just around the corner (cf. whois flickster.com).
It also fails to address the Napster situation as it exists today. Surely the law does not consider an individual offering MP3s on Napster to be a transmitting organization. Napster itself is certainly not the transmitting organization, nor is the request to transmit sent to, or even through, them. Using the terms from the bill, Napster only offers a directory of individuals willing to transmit works, as everyone knows.
This bill doesn't seem very useful to me, and may prove to be a distraction from the larger issues.
Who is sponsoring the sponsors?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Nope. You don't understand the trial (or the law). A Diamond RIO gadget is a "recording device", and thus protected by the AHRA. A computer is not a recording device (it's a computer), and thus not protected by the AHRA. The AHRA only allows people to make digital copies with recording devices, but not other machines such as computers.
I decided to kill two birds with one stone and ask my Congressman to oppose the Internet filtering rider and support MORLA in the same note. Here's what I wrote.
--
Rob Carlson
even the unpopular rights of the distributor and facilitator
/. to 'understand' the opposition: Listen up monkey - Im gunning for ya, yes, I am actively GIVING YOUR CRAP AWAY and telling people how to do it, and advocating it, and facilitating it. In 24 months when your revenue is 1/2 what it is now, you'll have to find some honest work, and Ill be enjoying my Arts, and funding ARTISTS not Corporate whores... ph33r m3**.
/. - look it up prick.
Isnt the fact that the internet makes this function unnecessary even considered by anyone? What right do the 'distributers' have when we are copying bits? And 'facilitator', is McDonald-izing the arts in America a good thing?
I think the bastards are done - one way or the other, the RIAA is finished, the MPAA is next.*
* This is a note to the RIAA/MPAA weazel who surley reads
**Thats a joke for
Wow, talk about your unprovable, flamebait blanket statements.
First of all, it's not "blanket". I made a point to say "more often than not". Second of all, maybe you missed when Democrats were trying to ramrod socialized medicine through a few years ago? That's called "the government consolidating power, and taking away freedom". Yes, it was Republicans that saved us from the horror of a bill.
You'll also note which party consistently votes to give more power to the state and local levels, and which party consistently votes to take away power from the state and local levels. Yes, more local power == more local freedom.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Somehow, I find this statement rather ironic. I'm sure it's unintentional:)
Heh! It does sound funny when you put it that way. It's all in the context, though. When it comes to individual freedom, you want as much power as possible in the hands of the individual. When it comes to the government, you want as little power as possible concentrated in one person.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Obviously all governance cannot be done by the fed, nor should it - locality always has a place, that's the point of representative government. But by being a citizen of a large nation you must learn to share governance with those who disagree with you. You cannot stick your head in the sand like the anarchists and proclaim that "everything will be wonderful once power is vested in a goverment small enough to agree with me."
Secondly, "ramrod socialized medicine through"? Using a nasty verb doesn't convince everyone you're right. Some of us _want_ a single-payer medical system not controlled by HMOs.
Have a good weekend!
Congress people still tend to only respond to faxes, phone calls, in-person visits, and most of all, postal mail ("snail mail"). E-mail is typically ignored.
However, if you feel you absolutely cannot bring yourself to go Herculean task of printing out your message and putting it in an envelope, then at least include your mailing address at the bottom of your e-mail. Otherwise, your Congressional representative will have no way of verifying that you actually live in their district, and will definitely ignore your message. They will probably ignore it anyway, so send snail mail. It is much more effective.
Free Hans!
What is a nondramatical musical work?
Do we know how various comgresspeople stand on this one? What committee leaders are critical to it getting passed? Are there swing votes who might be influenced by a concerted writing campaign?
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
And above all, SEND REAL MAIL! This point is repeated in every article about contacting our reps, but it's worth repeating again...
REAL MAIL IS THE BEST WAY TO SHOW THEM YOU CARE
If 1/10th of us write a letter, and we get our girlfriends/boyfriends to write letters, and they get one friend of theirs to write a letter, that's worth more than every one of us sending 10 emails from our various email accounts.
GAIN EVERLASTING LIFE
I'm rather ignorant when it comes to law...
If this bill passes, will mp3.com be able to tell universal et all. where to go? I mean, the judge ruled that mp3.com needs to pay some heavy cash for every copyright violation. Does this bill mean that they won't have to pay up?
---
Desperation is a stinky cologne
... aren't you allowed to make backup copies as it is on any media you wish, mp3s included? Isn't that fair use? If you own the CD, aren't you already allowed to make mp3s of them and send them off to your server at work from home via the Internet & ftp?
Isn't this bill redundant?
But then again, how many bills and laws aren't redundant. I guess everyone just needs to be formally told what their rights are. Eventually, every time we buy music we're going to get some Miranda rights telling us what we're allowed to do with the music.
J
"The Sound of Music" is probably a "dramatical musical work."
It's still not out of the legal woods - there is a civil lawsuit from teh shareholders who argue that because mp3.com knew what they were doing was illegal when they started Beam-It (bearing in mind that myplay.com was already operating a similar service *legally*) they are responsible for the financial losses as a result of plummeting share prices.
Add into that the completely unprofitable terms they agreesd with the publishers and labels there's no way they can demonstrate a business plan which will let them survive.
So... if they go into hibernation and hope that bill succeeds then they might survive, but that's assuming they can survuve the rest of the lawsuits. Instead - if they launch Beam-It again it'll drain their funding anyway but keep their users.... until they can no longer afford the per track fees.
The thing is - mp3.com have now set the goign rate for licensing fees - so they've probably screwed up companies like Musicbank who were relying on acquiring these licenses, and I guess they've stopped myplay.com from trying to do the Beam-It thing also - at least until the bill comes through.
Fun Fun Fun....
Since the RIAA loses money every time we download a file from Napster, I have begun downloading files 24 hours a day! I have already download Britney Spears' and The Spice Girls' over 350,000 times! By my calculations, they'll be broke by July 2003!
Dammit, somebody get me a Beowolf cluster and an OC3!
sig fault
The party is more important than the man. Freedom is better than pseudo-socialism.
Somehow, I find this statement rather ironic. I'm sure it's unintentional:)
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I dont have any qualms loading an mp3 file, that i own as a cd, record or a cassette. The proposed act doesnt limit it to just cd's as your title suggests. Phonorecords, in this case, implies all legally owned music despite the medium? Correct me if im wrong?!
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
that's chaired by Hyde. Aside from being owned by special interests he's quite possibly the dumb dirt stupidest person in national office. Every time I hear him open his mouth I'm truly appaled.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Doesn't this just mean that i can receive transmission of "music" only if i can prove i already "own" CD.
"Crap, I'm being sued?! Call a lawyer! NO, WAIT! call the CD store! $12.99 for the CD is cheaper than a lawyer!"
It's not for everybody
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but frequently, bills like this are used as 'incentivizers'. That is, they'll be advanced in order to get some well-heeled lobby group to part with some campaign cash. Once sufficient tribute has been extracted, it's quietly strangled in committee. In this case, it might be that the Republicans think the record industry can be shaken down. I don't know whether this is really the case (sometimes a bill is really a bill), but try not to be too disappointed if what seemed to be a sensible idea never sees the light of day.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
The RIAA and the record companies are big monsters as are the media companies. A law like this would have broad effects because it could also affect non music media such as DVD movies, copies of works of art, and such. There is going to be a strong backlash against this from some big names....
-Moondog
Exactly who is doing any selling here? Selling copyrighted works without permission is certainly wrong, but that is completely different. We're talking about streaming files, for free, to people who have already purchased the cd. I think you're just confused.
This also resulted in artists touring again to sell CD's of their old albums.
Why should anybody have to buy the same album twice? That's just plain stupid.
I have to say that I think the owner of the music should have the rights to commercial distribution of the works in any medium. (mp3.com is not a charity, it is a for profit company.)
Mp3.com is not giving copyrighted music away to just anybody. They are providing a service to owners of CDs for free. They are making CDs more conveniant to own. How is this bad for the artists? It in no way replaces having to own a CD, it merely compliments it.
This has nothing to do with p2p music sharing or making mp3s yourself from your CD collection. But if someone is going to make money distributing music, it should be the owner (and hopefully the artist).
As I said before, Mp3.com is not broadcasting any music that the listener has not already paid for... so this argument is moot. Also, artists that distribute their music through mp3.com are paid from a pool of $20,000 every month depending on how often their music is listened to. And they still get to keep the rights to their own music!
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
You could buy a used cd, get the files and then later sell it back and buy another one - keeping the files on your system.
While not the same as getting the music for free you would get it much cheaper than if you bought the cd from Camelot or even BestBuy. Even worse in the eyes of the RIAA is that they won't see a dime. First Sale would also ruin the idea of an id code keeping a lid on the number of times you could grab files. I purchased it, I now own it. Regardless of who the previous owner was I have a right to download my own files using this cd.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Wait a minute!! You forgot the all-important "Hot Grits Down the Pants" death penalty clause!!!!
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Re: Nothing would happen.
And this is a bad thing?
Yeah right, all we need is more laws.
A President that does not contribute to more beurocracy would be a blessing.
"Man will cease to commit atrocities when he ceases to believe absurdities" --Voltaire
Wow's that quite a statistical analysis you've got there. Update your count, because it now looks like three Democrats and six Republicans are co-sponsoring this bill. Gosh, that's certainly enough now to draw a correlation.
I would challange you to back this assertion of yours, but I think it will be more telling to watch this bill get thrashed by Hyde and everyone else on the Judiciary Committee. Selling influence is bi-partisan, and though the entertainment industry leans Democratic, they've hardly put all their eggs in one basket.
And hey, remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? Or the, *drumroll...* DMCA?
--
Right.... the bill allows for all nonmusical dramatic works. I was just trying to explain why a MDW would be specifially disallowed. :)
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
It's about time something like this went through official channels. It is absolutely the right of the owner to disseminate their purchased material as they see fit, so long as it does not jeopardize the rest of the artist/audience relationship (ie. revenue losses, misrepresentation, doctoring of copyrighted materials). No musician under Universal or BMG was forced to sign with them - they chose to turn their expression into consumable product, so they shouldn't complain about everyone taking part in the exchange they chose as well.
If they wanted otherwise, they should have stayed in that garage.
Where Your Vote Should Go
great comedy company.
Like, what if I have the cd, but I broke it. Can I download someone elses copy of the mp3? What if I own the cassette? What If I bought the CD, and then lost it? What if I found the CD that someone else lost? What if my cd was stolen?
This is a question I've had for some time, especially since most of the stuff I download from napster, is music I used to own, but lost the originals. I feel like I'm entitled to the music, since I have already paid for a license. If I lose my Office 2000 cd's I'm entitled to install someone elses, provided I still have the certificate of authenticity, arent I? Then why not the some for music?
It's not a coincidence that there are three Republicans and only one Democrat on this bill. Don't get all your information from the media (including Slashdot), look at reality. And this not rare, it's typical. Please vote accordingly.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.