Slashdot Mirror
Alternatives to the CBDTPA?
badBillStomper asks: "In the next few days I will be meeting with my Congresswomen to discus the effects of a Sen. Hollings CBDTPA on your average customer/techie. I have read tens (if not hundreds) of comments on the various OSDN sites explaining the very obvious reasons why the CBDTPA would cause a great deal of harm to the technology sector as well as consumers. Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model. While this may be a valid argument, it does not provide a legislative alternative (something which many on Capitol Hill are scratching for). Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track? Most internet users are familiar with the fact that someone with an intermediate amount of network knowledge can tap into data which is sent from one location to another. Vice President Al Gore was the first to link the internet to the idea of the 'information superhighway.' Since Americans are already used to this term, what would the effects of the creation of a kind of 'net traffic cops;' i.e. a law enforcement type of agency which monitors web traffic and fines individuals which break laws, i.e. distribute copyrighted information?"
Why does there have to be any legislation involved at all? Piracy is something the commercial software industry has been dealing with for over 20 years. I don't understand why MPAA & RIAA need hardware changes legislated to solve a problem that is not new. Especially a law that won't even solve the problem (wrt overseas pirates whose governments look the other way).
Why should Congress be the ones playing traffic cop? The corporations have money. If online pirating is hitting their pocket books in a serious manner, they should do what any other group would do: bring the offenders to court.
Take gnutella for example. How hard would it be to write a client which trolls for people providing my copyrighted information? Log the top X number of abusers, and take them to court. Don't smash them like a bug, that is too expensive. Just hit them up enough that it is no longer worth it to them to distribute copyrighted materials. For every one of these guys slapped on the wrist, you will convince 10 people that it isn't worth the trouble.
Just my $0.02.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
No legislation will be acceptable. It isn't the federal government's place to enact any legislation above standard copyright protection. The RIAA and MIAA need to either "Come up with a new business Model" OR start enforcing their copyrights. It is up to the owner of the copyright to enforce and protect his/her copyright. This whining about "We need legislation because there are far too many people pirating..." just won't do. It is up to the copyright holders to protect their own copyright by prosecuting individuals who infringe and pirate, and sue for damages.
When you go to the grocery store, do you see a policeman walking around following you everywhere you go, each aisle you walk thru.... NO! This is because it is up to the grocery store to provide it's own security... and press charges upon anyone who shoplifts from the store. The government needs to stay out of this. This is between the RIAA/MIAA and consumers. PERIOD.
I question the very first propisition here. Where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or even the Declaration of Independence does it say that business is protected against competition or themselves for that matter? The laws are already quite satisfactory if not overly draconian (read DMCA bad here) concerning copyright already. What the MPAA and RIAA want is the equivalent of patents AND the government to do their dirty work for them. Copyright was NEVER intended to serve this function. For that matter - what about the rediculous extention of the copyright period?????
They have MORE than enough protection already. Tell them to develop NEW business models that work in today's infrastructure -not go to congress and cry all the time!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
The argument should be that consumers and the electronics industry should not bear the cost of protecting the intellectual property of the RIAA and MPAA.
If you want alternative legislation, propose a consumer's bill of rights that guarantees consumers the right to copy multimedia files for their own use and that prohibits technology that would impinge on that ability.
Piracy is already illegal. How does adding a new law improve anything? If Congress really wants to look like they're doing something useful, they need to take a look at all the existing laws that are 1) stupid, 2) caused more harm than good, and 3) pork, and repeal them.
With each new law passed being hundreds or thousands of pages long, the complexity of law has gone to outrageous proportions. The last thing we need is more complexity. It would be best if we could simplify the law so that we can enforce the important ones.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
How about these alternatives: (a) no bill (b) a bill which is 180 degrees off from those currently pending: strong protection of fair use, prohibition of changing technology standards (HDTV) to benefit content providers at the cost of consumers, explicit acknowledgement that the Constitution does not guarantee any industry a certain rate of return no matter what their profit margin was in the past, etc.?
sPh
That's the problem with congress these days, they only measure their progress against whether or not they're passing laws. Never mind the damage they cause.
This is a very dangerous situation. More laws = less freedom, plain and simple. If you need a law to defend you're freedom, its only because the idiots in congress are looking at taking that freedom away. Hell sometimes there are laws (constitutional amendments even) that should protect us, but they just IGNORE those.
The Supreme Court should start to exercise a policy of immediate judicial review of any bills that they think are unconstitutional, no waiting on a challenge. Congress is openly thumbing its nose at very many of our rights, the court should begin to smoke any of the unconstitutional crap they're coming up with before we the people even have to deal with it.
No law in this case would be a good law.
As far as 'the IP police', this may be actually more preferable to any legislation concerning copyrights/intellectual property piracy. I firmly believe that the government should not set standards for technology (should be resolved within the industry), nor should they legislate morality (what happened to parents/community and mores?). I am afraid that I would be opposed to any legislation that would restrict my fair usage of any piece of equipment or media.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
"Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model."
Change happens. The entertainment industry has to change to keep up with the rest of the world. What congress needs to understand is that the government does not exist to to protect business models from potential threats. It is one thing for the government to punsh those who redistribute someone else's intellectual property without permission, it is another thing entirely for the government to tie the hands of the people, restricting legitimate use of computers, in an attempt to preempt theft.
Does the government put antitheft systems into our cars to prevent people from from stealing them? No. Should the government put antitheft systems into digital devices to protect music? No.
Change happens. Old industries die, new ones are born. That is the nature of reality. The entertainment industry MUST change, and a democratic government has no choice but to sit back and watch.
The RIAA and their cronies have to get on board with the new technologies, and not fight against them as strongly as they do. Sure, there are always going to be some slashdotters and the like who insist on getting everything for free because of strongly-held beliefs that all data should be free (like beer) and that intellectual property is all a bunch of BS. However, 98% of America would prefer to use a legal, low-cost alternative to Grokster and Kazza than to have a bunch of illegal MP3's sitting on their hard drive.
If they'll help to create the mechanism by which I, for $1 each, can download tracks from any label from the Internet, I promise you, my copy of Kazaa Lite is going right in the virtual trash bin.
modern choral music...
There are PLENTY of laws on the books that make it a crime to copy software (or any other copyrighted material for anything but fair use).
What the software and music industry seem to want is the Feds to establish "internet police" to relieve them of burden of prosecution. Perhaps this strikes some as sane, to me it just seems insane.
In an era when our legal and civil rights are being stomped on by business and government alike (for example Alcoa lawyers are attempting to seek that they have the right to enter the homes of folks who oppose an Alcoa stripmine) are we just to smile and say "please, limit my liberties a little more!".
This of course TOTALLY ignores the fact that unlike the U.S. superhighways, the information superhighway is international. Let's see how those "net cops" catch folks in Taiwan.
I do not condone stealing copyrighted material. But bad laws will not help the situation.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?
Could it be that the reason it is so difficult to find a reasonable answer to this question is that there is no reasonable answer at all? The "piracy laws" already exist, and are applicaple to digital piracy. No new laws were needed to shut down Napster. No new laws will be needed to stop some bozo from from selling pirated DVDs on the net either.
By the way, if by "congresswomen" you mean Dianne Fienstein and Barbara Boxer, be sure to talk to them about some of the questionable "Sept 11 laws" they've been supporting.
This is certainly the right answer, albeit not to the question posed. However, it probably implies the correct question, which is what can be done to deal with the morass that copyright has become? There are a couple of questions that Congress really should be addressing:
The key legislative need is clarification of the government's position, rather than relying upon the courts to thrash this out. CBDTPA's flaws are deeper than the content providers vs. computer industry conflict, and patching it will only slow the development of the clarity needed to go forward.
A friend of mine once said that if we had the Congress 100 years ago that we do today, we'd have subsidies for buggy whips.
The way to fix the problem isn't surveillance or legislation; the real solution is to adapt the marketing model to price the music/movies whatever low enough that that the financial benefit of bootlegging doesn't exceed the moral benefit of legitimate copies. This is perfectly doable, given the exceedingly low cost of online distribution.
Two points - first, the music industry works by their oligopoly on the distribution of physical media and store shelf space. THAT is what they don't want to give up, because then their role as middleman becomes irrelevant.
Second, i'd feel a lot more moral inclination to avoid bootlegging if music artists saw even a dime for every dollar their label makes off their art.
The plain and simple truth is that the vast majority of working, professional musicians are NOT part of the major label system. In fact, it's very difficult to make a living at music once you're signed your soul over in blood to the labels. This legislation is NOT FOR THE ARTISTS. It is for the record distributors.
The movie industry is different, but only slightly. VCRs were supposed to destroy their industry, but instead it became a huge boon. Most people watch most movies only once or twice, so they need to keep the per-view cost down, period. They've already solved their distribution problem, unlike the RIAA.
Think about it... do you really believe this legislation is to protect ARTISTS? Or, gawd forbid, consumers? No, it's their to keep a couple of fat industry's reality checks from bouncing for a few more years.
I say we let the Invisible Hand of the market slap some sense into them.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
If something like Senator From Disney's bill must be made into law, then it should absolutely make the **AA miserable while giving them what they claim they want. Here are my proposed amendments to any such bill.
1> To be eligible for protection under this Act, the copyrighted material shall lapse into the public domain in 5 years. (If you want "traditional" copyright, then you must depend on "traditional" copyright law)
2> To be eligible for protection under this Act, an unencrypted copy of the material must be first filed with the Library of Congress. The LOC shall hold that copy in escrow for the five year copyright period. When the five year period expires, the copy at the LOC will be freely downloadable by anyone.
3> No legal action may be brought under the terms of this Act without a signed complaint from the copyright holder.
4>No legal action may be brought under any term of this Act regarding any material that does not have an unencrypted copy on file at the LOC.Any legal action filed under the terms of this Act where there is no unencrypted copy of the digial material on file with the LOC will bring an mandatory fine of not less than 10 million dollars per occurance to the copyright holder, and a mandatory prison sentence of not less than 5 years to the person who signed the complaint. (If you sign for a corporation, you'd better make sure of your facts!)
5>All hardware affected by this Act must remain capable at all times of processing unencrypted content without restriction. Where this appears to conflict with any other provision of this Act, this requirement shall take precedence.
I think there is flawed thinking at work here. Every industry that produces something is subject to theft. There are laws against it but no other industry demands that legal steps be taken to make it impossible. This is akin to grocery stores (who take heavy losses to shrinkage) lobbying for tracking devices in all food packages so that they can monitor their locations at all times, in order to deter theft. Congress would find such a suggestion ludicrous, and well they should. The media and computer industries are welcome to pursue their own means to deter theft, but it is not a government matter.
Eric Christian Berg
The copyright holders need to start suing people who are using P2P programs to distribute copyrighted materials without permission. Once that happens the use of P2P software will stop really quickly.
It's very simple. Introduce some sort of Draconian legislation, not because you expect it to be passed, but to soften the electorate for a "compromise," which is what you really wanted in the first place.
We don't need legislation. Neither the motion picture industry nor the record industry needs protection. They're doing just fine, and if they started being smarter, they'd do even better. When they say that profits are being sucked out of their businesses by hordes of evil pirates, they are lying and they know it. What they want is very simple; they want more control over the market so that they can bring back the halcyon days of poorly paid "studio talent" and ring in the new days of corporate-controlled boy bands and Britney Spears clones. The motion picture industry tried this before with chains of theaters and this practice was declared illegal. They want legislative imprimateur not only to own the theaters this time but to own the idea of a theater. It is the exact same deal.
What is this, annual Falling for the Bloody Obvious month?
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Congress has the ability to pass laws. Therefore, every "problem" must have a solution found by passing a new law.
If the solution does not include passing a new law, then you must have the wrong solution.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
It needs to be emphesized that the 'problem' Hollywood is confronted with has already been confronted, and solved, by the software industry.
No legislation of any kind is necessary, except the repeal of the DMCA of course.
Software is even more prone to illegal copying and distribution than video or music, yet the software manufactuerers gave up on 'copy protection' schemes years ago as unworkable, ineffective, and harmful to their legitimate customers' need to back up their software and data.
The solution instead is to serialize each instance of the software sold and cross-reference that serial number with the credit card or other identification of the purchaser, such that if 10,000 copies of program A, serial number #12345, appear on the web the copyright holder can go after the original purchaser as a first step.
This doesn't stop all copyright violations, but it does make most people very, very reluctant to share copies of their software, and, as a result, the software industry is flourishing.
There is absolutely no reason Hollywood couldn't attach a serial number to every digital movie or braodcast sold and downloaded on the web. Sure, some would crack the serial number and remove it, but the vast majority of people are not inclined to give away things they themselves had to pay for, especially if there is some risk (however remote) of their name staying attached to the illegal copies.
I say it again, Hollywood doesn't need this law any more than software manufactuerers needed it 15 years ago. The problem has already been solved without legislation, by the marketplace, and if Hollywood weren't so rigidly stuck in the 20th century they would have long since figured that out by now.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The problem I have with the media companies is that they're trying to construct electronic delivery systems that have two characteristics.
The first is that piracy would be difficult, although not impossible. In my view, this is pretty hard goal to argue against.
The second goal is the one I have trouble with. They're trying very hard to avoid electronic distribution systems that would mitigate their existing advantages.
Right now the big media companies are the gatekeepers of the existing distribution system. If you want to get a record into the stores, or if you want to get a movie into the multiplex, you need a big company's help, and in practice, that means you have to give them more than half of the money.
There has always been piracy -- I'm 40, and I used to make extensive use of my cassette deck, as did everyone else I knew. Piracy is nothing new. What's new is the potential for media distribution systems that give individuals and small independent companies the same sorts of access to the public that the big companies have.
The media companies want to prevent piracy. But I think that we have to do what we can to shift the emphasis away from piracy, and towards the creation of open distribution systems.
Now one problem with open systems is that people will buy something and resell it or give it away. My argument is that this inevitable fact doesn't outweigh the overwhelming public interest that would be served by open distribution systems.
Let the media companies go after pirates after the fact. Give them stiff peanalties, something that will defer people from sharing songs for free on the net. Why give something away when there's a real downside, and no upside?
Let the media companies choose the formats they use for their products -- if MS wants to make a player that will try to validate the user as an authorized owner, and they want to use that, that's great. Let them come out with new electronic audio players that will police their media rights.
People whine about the new celine dion cd coming out in copy protected format, but that's the right of everyone involved. Celine Dion doesn't owe me free music, and neither does her record company.
But it's fundamentally unfair for the government to get between you and I, and say that we can't exchange a song that one of us created over a network in a specific format, because that format doesn't provide the media companies with assurances that the song wasn't pirated. That's an unreasonable burden to put on us, and it will, to use a MS phrase, "stifle innovation."
It seems to me that the core problem here is that the media companies take a big bite out of the transaction because they control access to the distribution system. Without that gatekeeping role, they don't produce enough value to justify their cut.
Unfortunately for them, computer networks are going to wipe out that gatekeeping role unless people like your Representative vote for laws that provide artificial support for it.
It sucks for them, just like automobiles sucked for buggy whip manufacturers. But it's good for the world.
Let them build whatever system they want (crippled cd's and authenticating players and all), but don't force everyone to use it.
Make sure that we preserve the ability to build alternative systems.
They can develop a copy-identification system along these lines with three separate elements, and then announce that it has four.
They'll even be telling the truth -- FUD (I've filed off three serial numbers... were they bluffing about the fourth one?) becomes an additional element.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Congress ALREADY gave them the ability to implement DRM (Copy protection) technology and convict anybody who breaks that DRM technology.
This industry hasn't even done a decent job taking advantage of the DMCA, which is PLENTY sufficient and then some.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
When audio tape decks became popular, VCR's, the **AA claimed that it would destroy their business. In fact, the RIAA was successful in making sure that the DAT (Digital Audio Tape) standard never made it to the consumer level.
While the argument here is the same as DAT, "but people can now make 'perfect' copies..." I think it still falls through overall. Why? Because there just isn't enough time!
It's obvious, to me anyway, that the Recording Industry targets the exact same market segment that has the most time & energy to spend making copies in the first place. (14-24 yr olds) Once you've passed the target demographic, the recording industry could just about care less what type of music you're interested in. Yet they want laws passed that will affect everyone!
From the perspective of someone who is past the "target demographic" I see this attempt at curtailing the habits of one group of people by passing laws that affect ALL people as unconscionable.
Most people over 24 or so will go buy music/dvd's rather than rip/burn them simply because there isn't enough time! Yet these same people are virtually ignored by the recording industry.
I don't think legislation is the answer. I don't see any reason for an industry who has a narrowly targeted demographic to get legislation passed to help it remain focused on that narrowly targeted demographic while the rest of the world/economy changes around it.
I don't see why people outside the recording industries narrowly targeted demographic should have to suffer at the result of sweeping legislation.
More and more, it seems to me that the **AA is crying for the tech sector to "Do something so we don't have to change our business model!"
Why should they?
There are (supposedly) thousands of out-of-work techs from the dotcom demise. There is NOTHING that prevents the recording companies from hiring some of these people to develop technology for them.
So what does it come down to? Here are my thoughts:
I have some thoughts on this, thanks for prompting me!
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
I agree with you that the CBDTPA is terrible but I think that the nature of your question is the wrong one. The fundamental problem here is that we do not need any news laws. I realize, of course, that it isn't legislatively sexy, or politically gainful for a budding Senator to say that but it's the truth.
The proponents of the bill claim that the current anti-piracy measures are insufficient, and unless "something" is done the "Content Production Industry" will collapse. And, they claim that if this industry collapses nothing new will ever be created. As proof of the damage they cite the lack of Consumer Broadband and Digital Television, as well as declining CD Sales.
As Carnivore and magic-lantern demonstrate governments can track user behavior online. And, they are exploiting those abilities to the utmost. They have been focusing on terrorism lately, but they can always turn their eyes to copyright infringement if they wish. I believe that those tracking powers are too great and need to be reigned in not expanded, but that is a discussion for another time.
Therefore, despite what the "Content Production Industry" claims, the existing laws can be enforced. We do not need to change the underlying code in order to make it more difficult to trade files, nor do we need to make otherwise legal activities (such as fair use) illegal for fear of theft. Such bills only punish the vast majority in order to catch the few, and in so doing, go against the whole point of criminal justice; to defend the majority, not persecute them.
Digital Television and Broadband have been held up by competing standards, low demand, unfair competition, and the last-mile problem. Despite what the bill "finds" the lack of demand is the fault of a number of factors not potential piracy. Even if it was, that lack of demand is not a social problem requiring government efforts. The rpbolem is one for the marketing departments not public servants.
When you consider CD-Sales the same problem of proof exists. When Napster was at its zenith (at the height of the tech boom), CD Sales were up. Now, in the midst of a U.S. recession, they are down. Doubtless copying is part of this but, how much? And, does that impact justify increasing the prices on most consumer electronic products, and making life more difficult for consumers, electronics producers, and even copyright holders? Again the proponents of the bill have not offered any hard proof. The same goes for Movies, books and other cultural works.
Lastly and most importantly, the whole point of copyright law is to encourage the production of "science and useful arts..." It is not intended to create or sustain a publishing industry. Despite what Jack Valenti says they have not proven that the current state of affairs will reduce the number of authors, musicians and filmmakers out there. All that they have shown is that it may reduce the number of publishers out there.
The bottom line is; there is no proven compelling public need for this kind of legislation. If anything the need is to examine the charges of price-fixing and stifling competition that have been leveled at the industry and to examine the digital tracking of the Justice Department.
The clear avenue here is not to do nothing but to prevent harm from being caused.
"new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?"
None. First I want legislation to protect me before I vote for any legislation to stop piracy. (And whan I say piracy, I mean true piracy, the kind that causes harm, not the definition that the RIAA has bastardized in order to explain their lousy sales.)
The reason that the CTPBASPAFP is so awful is that there is all this 'protection' for the handful of corporations trying to get it passed, and none for anybody else. I want legislation that protects my rights so that a corporation cannot impede them. DigitalConsumer.org has the right idea. Establish our rights first. This is absolutely necessary to enact before you can go legislating anti-piracy measures.
Why? Because, for one thing, the MPAA and the RIAA have some extremely broad defintions of what piracy is. They think that burning a song from an MP3 is piracy. It's not. They measure any time they don't force a customer to give them money is piracy. By their defintion of the word, a huge portion of the internet population would have to be punished.
So let's say, hypothetically, that our rights are established exactly as DigitalConsumer stipulates. Now we can start talking about legislation because we know what they law cannot say. It's easier to define what Piracy is at this point and determine a suspect's guilt. Once they do that, then they can investigate individuals or groups who are seeking to distribute their content in a way that causes harm to the normal distribution channel.
Let's say that somebody records an episode of That 70's show, which is available on public broadcast (no cable or satellite required...) and makes it available on the web. Is it piracy? By DigitalConsumer's bill of rights, no. It's space shifting. You can't go after people sharing that show. Does it do harm to the industry? That's debatable. If somebody doesn't watch the show on TV they're missing the commercials that make it money. But wait a minute, that's not piracy. If I missed That 70's Show and f'd up the taping of it, the only other choice I have to watch it is to download it. The studios have a real easy way to get me to watch the commercials for it. Provide it, with commercials, for me to download. Simple. That's why it's not piracy. I'm not relieving their ability to make money off it.
The people's rights are far more important than the corporations'. Protect our rights, and then we'll work with corps in order to keep piracy down. Don't keep piracy down at the expense of our rights.
"Derp de derp."
This has a big pile of problems.
First, those serial numbers can always be removed. It's not always easy, but only one person has to do it for an unnumbered copy to "escape" onto the web.
Second, if the serial number is used to trigger million-dollar court cases, then someone who steals a DVD from your briefcase is causing you a million-dollar problem (he can distribute it and get you sued) instead of a $20 problem (replacing the DVD).
Third, mass-market digital media formats (DVDs, CDs, etc) are stamped from a master, which leaves them not well suited to serialization. Software serialization only works because you type in the number yourself.
And last, tying serial numbers to identification is heavy-handed. It pretty much eliminates the possibility of cash purchases, movie rental, or resale. The market simply won't bear it.
Frankly, I doubt that even in the software world, where serialization roughly works, that it would be sufficient evidence to convict someone of piracy in a court of law.
They are not entitled to any further legal protection as this time. With the infinite copyright protection laws (we all know that if we made it to the point that a copyright would expire Disney, etc would get copyrights extended again) they have the legal power to control copying of their material for plenty of time.
I might be a little more accepting of DRM ideas for recent performances if copyrights were limited to 20 years.
That way I could get unencumbered digital copies of works such as Star Wars: A New Hope, Saturday Night Fever, Emergency (the TV show), CHiPs, I Love Lucy, etc.
There is the another side to the issue though. Electronic media works by copying the data from one place to the other. It is not feasible to allow only the copying you approve of and deny all the rest of the copying.
Additionally legislative copy protection puts barriers in the way of amateur and/or poor (in money, not quality) content producers because software cannot distinguish between an independent film and an unauthorized copy of a copyright protected work.
I have enchanged some messages with my congressman about it and contemplated the ideas myself and I keep coming back to the idea that any laws requiring digital rights management and the like can only do harm and impede progress and creativity.
As both an amateur film-maker and a professional programmer, if a digital rights bill passes I will only be harmed and in no way will I benefit from it.
The MPAA/RIAA people need to look at their priorities. Microsoft is a nice example of what can happen when your "intellectual property" is copied and transferred willy-nilly all over the internet. Microsoft has still managed to turn a profit in spite of being a huge victim of software piracy. (One list I saw placed Microsoft at #1 and Disney at #37.)
They already managed to make digital audio tape (DAT) virtually useless. Now they want to make our computers and televisions useless as well. I'm sorry but they're not entitled to it.
Coding Blog
The only legislation that will help at this point would be legislation that defines IP piracy narrowly enough that there are a manageable number of pirates.
According to the conglomorates, piracy is doing anything with an IP that they havn't explicitly conceived of and allowed. This definition is so broad and so overbearing that its useless.
Consider a speeding ticket. They came up with a new class of law for a speeding ticket. Its an "infraction," not a crime or a civil offense. The standard of proof is whether the defendant showed some reasonable evidence that it didn't happen. And the penalties are tiny: fines less than a couple hundred dollars leading up to the eventual loss of your drivers' license.
Why did they need to come up with a trivialized form of law for speeding? Because virtually everybody speeds at least some of the time.
The lesson: you can't criminalize something that everybody does at least some of the time. You can either have an "IP court" next door to the traffic court (an abomination if I do say so myself) or you can take a smarter approach:
Define some core consumer rights:
1) The right to _own_ a purchased copy of an IP, even if the license purports to make it a rental.
The constitution talks about offerning authors an inventors the opportunity to profit from their works... Not the opportunity to control them. And with good reason - control is the opposite of freedom.
Ownership might complicate things a little at Blockbuster: A return would have to be architected as a repurchase of the IP instead of merely returning a rental. But so what? College book stores do it all the time: you buy the book with some confidence of being able to sell it back at the end of the semester.
2) The right convert an IP from one physical media to another (copy a CD to a cassette tape for the car), or to undertake or enable reasonable steps which accomplish the same result (download an mp3 of the exact song you own on CD, rather than having to rip and convert it yourself).
Is it reasonable that someone who wants to listen to a song at work, in his car, and at home should have to buy it three times? Or that someone who bought the IP 10 years ago should have to buy it again just because LP records have gone out of style? Of course not! Make that sort of activity not just reasonable, but in fact the law.
3) The right to modify any copies of an IP that you own in any way desired, and the right to create and distribute tools which perform such modifications.
Perhaps even go so far as to state that the owner of an IP forfeits the right to punative damages if he publishes the IP using a manner in which he intends to deprive the purchaser of these rights. No punative damages allowed if the DVD was published with CSS!
I'm allowed to write notes in the margin of a book, rip out pages, doodle on it, etc. I can sell the book to someone else later. I can even rip it in half and sell one half to one person and one half to someone else! Why should my rights with other types of IP be any less? They shouldn't!
4) Apply the legal standard of intent - that someone pirating an IP or enabling the piracy of an IP either intended to acquire an IP to which they did not own any rights or that they had demonstrated negligence in taking no reasonable steps to avoid enabling such piracy. (after all, a file on an open server is a little like a swimming pool: an attractive nuisance. No fence = no defense in court.)
With those rights firmly established, how many pirates will be left? Only the modern Robin Hoods who who set up download servers with no attempt to validate a recipient's ownership of the IP. You can deal with them either in the form of criminal theft or as civil cases. Either way, there are few enough that they can be dealt with effectively.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.