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.
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
Don't give the Republicans a halo just yet. ...
Oh, there is no question the Republic party is far from perfect. The religious right is definitely a pain in the butt. "Prayer in schools" is particularly irritating to me. But all freedom begins with economic freedom, and the religious right makes a lot of noise, but fortunately doesn't have that much power in the party.
One issue I will defend them on is mandatory filters in schools and libraries. I realize reasonable people can disagree on this, but I think the key point is "public places". People in public have a right to a reasonably non-threatening invironment, and I don't think it's unreasonable to attempt to block severely offensive material. For example, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that my little girl should be able to go to the library without teenage boys bringing up women having sex with animals as a joke. For some reason, people think that if the filters can't be perfect, then they're useless. As long as they stop most of the behavior, or make it difficult enough that it's not worth messing with, then that's good enough.
As for the Libertarian party, I like a lot of what they believe in, but unfortunately the party is full of extremists who believe that one set of principles is always applicable in all circumstances. The most telling debate I ever had with a Libertarian is one guy who advocated that people should be able to shoot guns at other people, and in fact had the perfect right to do so -- until he actually hit someone. You see, you have the right to do anything you want until it infringes on someone else's rights, and his infringement didn't begin until he hit someone.
I've had Libertarians tell me that weapons should be absolutely unrestricted. Howitzer on your house? No problem. Personal nuke? Yup -- it's your right, as long as you don't set it off (thus infringing on other's rights).
That's the problem with Libertarianism in a nutshell. It's all based on negative feedback. If you crack down hard enough on crime, then crime ceases. The flaw in that reasoning is that it assumes people are perfectly rational, and people simply aren't.
Now, I will grant you those examples are extreme cases, and I believe (hope) that the rank-and-file libertarian believes that some preventative limits on personal freedom is necessary to prevent total anarchy. But if you look at other, more minor, things, you find the same thread of problems in the philosophy. All negative feedback, no willingness to do some preventative measures.
Not to mention that they advocate going back to the Gold Standard, which is just insane, 19th century thinking. :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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?
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
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
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'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
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
--
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.
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.