Slashdot Mirror
Coble-Berman Bill Would Restrict Fair Use
Amazing Quantum Man writes "News.com is reporting on the new Berman-Coble copyright bill. This bill is a two-edged sword. It would make life easier for webcasters, but it would restrict fair use. Interestingly, according to the article, Berman allegedly opposes the bill that has his name on it as a sponsor! I don't think it's on Thomas yet, but Politech has a copy of the bill (2.1M PDF)." The report which the memorandum attached to the bill refers to is online. Congress is making an effort to reconcile traditional copyright law with the realities of digital copying; there's no telling whether the end product will be something tolerable or not.
Copyright has a long tradition, It wasn't something drempt up overnight and in IMHO on the whole not to bad, the only thing I would change would be to reduce the length of the copyright(basicly putting the law back to where it used to be).
I live in the UK, and it seems that the US and UK are making extram changes about somthing they don't understand, they should ask them selfs: what is copyright for? and is there anything wrong with the current system. and I think they'll find that copyright it to protect the original producer from being ripped off and at the same time to encourage creativity and derived works and that there's nothing wrong with the current systems.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Who was it that said that the greatest danger to law enforcement was unenforceable laws?
This is the case here. Congress (and all the people who are paying for them) are trying to change the reality of a society that's very rapidbly becoming a 'free information' country. They're trying to put limits on something that is changing the world very rapidly and in a very chaotic manner. You can call it 'destructive' if you want to, since it's certainly destroying organizations and businesses that survive by controlling information, but it's jsut change.
The problem with trying to control this change is that you can't legislate fish into flying or birds into swimming. Just look at Prohibition if you need an example. A small subsection of the country's population tried to legislate away people's rights to get drunk and wasted. They had good intentions. Alcoholism is certainly a problem and destroys many, many lives. By making a law that was disliked and unenforceable, however, the country opened itself up to the ravages of organized crime more than ever before.
Look at the 'War on Drugs'. Hard drugs (and even some 'soft' drugs) ruin lives and kill people. That doesn't change the fact that people want to get high or stoned. You think that columbian drug lords would have vast fortunes with which to buy submarines and advanced IT installations if the American government hadn't created a situation in which it was more profitable to do dusiness in an illegal manner than legally?
Information is in the same boat. Companys claim billions and billions of dollars of 'lost sales' (cough *bullshit* cough) on music, software, game, and video piracy. People want to use the stuff in a 'fair use' way. Even moreso, they want to pirate it and not pay for it. All the government is going to do by creating a law that makes it more difficult to legally share information is make more people into criminals who weren't before.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Quote "'The biggest impediment to more licensed, lawful services online is piracy, and that's why he is pushing his peer-to-peer bill,' Smith said. Berman represents California's San Fernando Valley, adjacent to Los Angeles and Hollywood's cluster of entertainment companies. " - End Quote
I mean. I may not agree with him but this is a politician who is doing something most politicians don't do. He's representing his district ( this includes the media/software conglomerates ) and so you have to give him credit for that
NOTE: I don't endorse the proposal, but before people roast this guy alive just remember where he's coming from. Unlike Hollings who doesn't care a lick about his constituents
I'm a government consultant for a large institution on the east coast, known for its strongarm tactics. We have recently been contacted by some of our constituents about this so-called "file sharing" that's a goin' on on the internet. Our job is to put the kabosh on it, tout suite! However, before we lace up the jackboots, we wanted to know what a bunch of college students and open source advocates thought.
What an utterly laughable idea.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
are they going to arrest me and my friend for our Jerry Springer video collection?
They might not arrest you, but they will certainly make fun of you.
Best Windows Freeware
All of this is a total rehash of the printing press.
Years ago there was no mass publishing, information could be tightly controlled, accessable by only those with the books, or access to them, or those with the sizable sum necessary to pay a scribe to copy one.
Along comes Gutenberg and his printing press, all hell breaks loose. Suddenly the cost of reproducing data decreases, consequently it costs less to purchase as well, so there are more who can afford it. The Powers That Be (PTB) freak out completely, and begin to exert all manner of controls over the presses and the publishers.
After some time the PTB settle on a concept called copyright. Which was ok at the time, presses were still relatively rare and pricey, and it helped apease the small number of authors and scribes who were upset. But more importantly it allowed the PTB to control to some extent the dispersal of information.
Hop forward to today, now everyone it seems has their own press in the form of a PC, the PTB flip again, because their former solution is basically obsolete, no matter what the seem to try to adapt the system. Creators and publishers are up in arms again, but what can be done.
I haven't a clue where this will settle, but I do have a feeling that I'm not going to like it. Time to begin hoarding old hardware.
You hit a key term here, but slightly off. It should be 'disruptive' instead of 'destructive' and then you not only get right to the truth, but you enlist years of sociological research behind legislation like this and other recording-industry abominations are bad.
/. and the geek community in general is that Internet, file sharing, and the like are bad for some current business models, but in the long run good for society. We point to examples like VCRs, for instance. The problem has been one of convincing the mainstream non-geek population that this is true.
The common opinion on
Enter the term, "disruptive."
There is a sizable body of mainstream economic literature (sorry, no URLs handy, ran across this in dead-tree pre-URL days) that focuses on "disruptive technologies" - how they are bad for some businesses and business models, but good for society as a whole. This is non-geek literature.
Our problem is to cast the free and open nature of the Internet as a mainstream distruptive technology as important to society as the telephone, automobile, airplane, etc. Take a look at the international nature of Linux (or *BSD) and tell me that the Internet hasn't done something immensely valuable for mankind. Letter-writing and co-operative journals are old, so is travel, but this is international collaboration of an unprecedented scale by common people. Not only do we take it for granted, we're about to throw it away in exchange for an outmoded and defective business model. (I know, there are no words about shutting down the Internet, but the sum chilling effect of DRM effectively does so by turning it into radio/television.)
This needs to become a mainstream issue, not a geek one.
(IMHO, the most socially disruptive technology of recent history has been the sanitary napkin.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
First, by the very fact that this legislation is being submitted, we know that the "established laws and traditions" which are being challenged by "emerging ways of the digital revolution" (btw, "digital revolution" is a dead giveaway, nobody who isn't on the industry dole would say that) is in fact the institution of copyright, which is being challenged by what I will call the Even Fairer Use practice of modern free information sharing. Thus the whole premise of your post is backward: you suggest that technology has somehow threatened our ability to take advantage of the Fair Use rights granted to us under current law, which couldn't be further from the truth. Of course, as a PR industry representative, your goal is not discussion but confusion, so such consistency would not interest you.
Your framing of the issue also makes your bias blatantly obvious: you suggest that Fair Use rights are in dispute, while tacitly assuming that copyright is necessary. To illustrate this point, let me rephrase one of your paragraphs: "What is copyright? Did God intend for us to have copyrights? Do animals have copyrights? Clearly, reasoning on this level leads quickly to absurdity." By your own "reasoning," this suggests that copyrights are as open to question (i.e., not inalienable) as are Fair Use rights, and you make no effort to show why one is preferable to another. In fact, copyright is the institutionalized restriction of the right to free speech, which you call inalienable; sounds like we should question the "conventional wisdom" about keeping copyright.
Next, you betray your insider knowledge that your industry trade group plans to continue purchasing this kind of offensive legislation until it succeeds. Gotta be careful about that. And you engage in some Western jingoism about technology, which is implicitly equated with copyright. Unfortunately, you fail to point out that much of this technology (e.g., the Internet) was created by government and university research which would have been impossible if intellectual property law was written the way industry wants it to be.
Then you suggest that we abandon common sense, suggesting that it has happened before without giving a single specific example, again for "technology" (and another slice of jingoism), which you again fail to link to copyright.
Your last paragraph, though, is by far the most obviously industry-funded. You dismiss "Fair Use" as an "anachronism" and an "antiquated ideal," without mentioning a single thing which might be wrong with it. I would suggest that it is copyright which is the antiquated anachronism in an age when digital copying allows us to benefit huge numbers of people for almost no cost. Surely that would accomplish "the improvement of the society of Man." You suggest that this bill and others like it will somehow result in improved technology, again without specifying how; in fact, it will not do this in any way. Finally, you attempt to flatter and browbeat the reader by suggesting that he is elite, and that elite people ought to favor this type of legislation, again without any sort of explanation why. Of course, this is because your reason for favoring this legislation is that it will either preserve or increase the profits that your employer makes from restricting the rights of others to distribute information.
Finally, your presentation is not credible. Your post contains zero grammar or spelling errors, no technological jargon or acronyms, and multiple marketing buzzwords. You are obviously not a programmer or a sysadmin; your background is clearly marketing and public relations.
I am very concerned that this post was moderated to 5. This means one of two things: either PR people are not just posting to Slashdot but also moderating, or the average Slashdot moderator is unable to recognize PR rhetoric when they see it. I submit this message in the hopes of helping to fix the latter if it is the case.
Congress is making an effort to reconcile traditional copyright law with the realities of digital copying; there's no telling whether the end product will be something tolerable or not.
Consider me a troll or whatever. I'm just honestly looking for a logical argument that somehow copyright law needs to be adjusted because the medium has changed.
Under prior law, copying works without due authorization has been illegal and punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
How does new and proposed law change that fact?
As nearly as I can see, new law seeks only to take away our rights to secure our purchases with backup or to transfer medium. It also seeks to control which devices can access the media the works are published on.
I find this to be unfair and a strike against innovation and the free market. It also further removes the classic "american tinker" that this country's industry and strength came from.
I guess I'm deviating from my original quesiton quite a bit. So to restate the question: How does new and proposed law become necessary simply because new media is available for publication?
IMHO, the secondary damage of the War On Drugs far outweight the damage of the drugs, themselves. By trying to interdict drugs, we turn them into a high-dollar business. Also IMHO, it becomes self-defeating, because the more successful you are at interdiction, the more the cost rises, the better-financed the drug supply chain become.
I heard on NPR that in the 1968 election, Nixon promised to reduce crime. After getting elected, he had to produce. Some of his advisors told him that all of the more traditional law enforcement techniques had been proven not to work. (by experience) His best shot was drug treatment, to reduce demand, and therefore crimes of financing. He went along with it, it worked, and crime actually did go down measurably. In the 1972 election crime was no longer a big issue, so he dismantled the apparatus, and the approach has never been taken seriously again.
Kind of like the way Clinton/Greenspan actually did achieve a "soft landing" of the economy right before the dot-com boom. But now the concept appears to be forgotten, and I have no doubt that whenever recovery comes, it will be back into the usual boom/bust cycles.
Back to topic, filesharing is an interesting comparison to drugs because it is a widespread crime. Perhaps it should be better compared to Prohibition, one of the stupider ideas the US ever came up with, and clearly the STUPIDEST thing ever put into the US Constitution.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.