Slashdot Mirror
Howard Berman Talks About P2P Piracy Prevention Act
An anonymous reader writes "I know Rep. Berman is not held in high regard on Slashdot, but he has posted an article on Findlaw where he discusses his self- help for P2P piracy bill. He has not convinced me that this is about preventing theft, rather than preserving old business models, but the bill does appear to have a lot of safeguards built-in." I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
...it worked for South Park brilliantly.
Blame Canada!
--strangeloop
Ah, is this the new justification for stealing? I'm starting to see this phrase more and more. "You see, your honor, I didn't actually steal this stereo. It was that Circuit City has an outdated business model!"
How about this: if you like the product and think it's worth the money, pay for it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and "out of touch" to think that people should be paid for their work.
Yeah, that must be it.
> Most of the 150 million or more P2P software downloaders believe they will never be hauled into court, and they are right.
"...and I'm eternally grateful that so few of them bother to vote."
I do not care how many safeguards are built into this law, it is still nothing more than legalized vigilantism. The right to determine guilt and mete out punishment belongs in the hands of our justice system, and not in the pockets of billionaire movie producers.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Sugar coating poison might improve taste, but it will still kill you.
The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works. All it can do is impair the illegal distribution or reproduction of those works through a public P2P network.
While it may help to stop people from destroying your local computer's files it will NOT stop them from DoS attacking you?
They need to be held accountable for ANY and ALL financial damage that they do to the computer that was being attacked AND the computers around the original that were also being hindered by their attack.
While I agree that P2P have little use outside of illegal activities (outside of FurthurNET and the like) I don't think that these laws are the way to put a stop to it.
Nor do I believe that infesting the P2P networks w/poor files does it either.
I know that ATTBI was disabling users that were leaving movies in their shared folders (yes, ATTBI users be careful). I believe that going through the ISP may be the only method. If the ISP doesn't cooperate, uhh, sorry.
No matter what you do, no matter what measures you take, you can't constraint what you do or not do with computers.
/. stories. Please make the voices stop.
...
It all started in a garage, as a hobby. If necessary, it will start again in a garage.
Those who love computers and the community created because (and with the help) of them can not stop to do their thing, irrelevant if it's moral or immoral, legal or illegal.
Computers are tools. No more, no less than your common screwdriver. "Clever" tools, yes, but what you do with them is *use* them.
I'm sick and tired of all these p2p-related
now where is that asbestos suit
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
I know how to get some polititions attentions!
Slashdot their web servers!
(well cmon guys, its been 20 posts and the thing isnt dead yet)
This
for language and continue to use the term "Congresscritter".
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
How about some legislation to make music subscription services possible? The record companies have driven musicbank, myplay and napster out of business by making it impossible to get reasonable licensing terms. Legal distribution technology was built before napster ever appeared but the music business saw this as too much of a threat to do business with.
There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license, a flat fee for one off streams and higher fees for downloads. Oh then they should fix up that silly CARP royalty rate so that we can have small stations again....
The poor average consumer....
Who could ever go against a bill that has the words "self help" in it so much.
(and they said ignorance was bliss)
This
Industrialisation is great for material productivity. However, the efforts to apply industrialisation to; Warfare: eg the mechanisation of warfare, turning the battlefield into a factory of devastation. Education: eg the factory-like layout of schools, children lined up in neat rows all working on the same thing, the production-line style exam systems. Music: need I say more? has worked in the sense that they have made some people extremely wealthy, but have failed the human race dismaly. The only way up is down...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
What is to stop a copyright holder from self-helping themselves to total data wiping? There are utilities out there (and it would not be a huge effort to write another) to wipe a drive via low-level formating (I remember a certain old version of McAfee antivirus and one of its DAT file updates had a bug which would wipe the drive on shutdown....) Hey - no data at all, no evidence of foul by the copyright owner. Yes, I know there would be the evidence of the access via the ISP's logs or a company's firewall logs but it would probably take a lot of effort to convince some tech support staffer to check out the logs and then even more effort to get them to provide them as evidence ("Oops ... we deleted/lost/whatevered those logs the next day. Too bad.")
... is that they intend to cause small amounts (in terms of $ value) to *many* people & still escape liability.
That and they are being so vague about the DoS they have planned that they hope to snow technologically illiterate folks (e.g. congress) to pass this because they won't "really" be causing harm.
Why not ask this guy if there is any sort of due process in this? E.G. if I'm not doing anything wrong & they harm me (even if I don't meet the caps), why can't I sue them?
OTOH, we all know that liability can be trumped up, right? Go to small claims, name the CEO of whoever DoSed you & state that your damages are more than the minimum; count it however you have to. Enough nuisance suits like this might draw a bit of attention, even if they probably wouldn't hurt them financially...
Then again, they only intend to unleash this DoS overseas, right? I guess it makes it so much easier that way, since they may not be able to fight back with lawyers as effectively. OTOH, you could (possibly) have them declared criminals under the anti-hacking laws in some countries. I hope they don't plan to travel much...
RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music
ARE YOU A PHP DEVELOPER? WORK WITH ME ANE MAKE MILLIONS!
Web Developer II
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Assuming everything in the article is to be believed (and that I understood what he was trying to say correctly), copyright holders can only take technical measures to stop the distribution of a file if it doesn't interfere with the distribution of the other files and doesn't cause any (much?) harm to the computer and doesn't affect the stability of the network or the ISP. To be quite honest, I'm not even sure this is technologicly feasable. If they aren't allowed to root my box, how are they supposed to stop me from sharing a single file?
The only explination I can come up with is that either Berman thinks that it is feasable for the RIAA et al to do this, or he doesn't think its feasable but feels obligated to pass useless legislation for people who I assume are compaign donors.
Of course, if it is possible to stop the sharing of a single file, remotely, without taking drastic measures, then I want to know how...
The problem is that I just can't believe it, because (perhaps due to stupidity) I cannot imagine any way for the counter-attacks to be so narrowly limited, and yet still be at all effective.
This leads me to believe that this law, the way Berman is describing it is absolutely useless and no one will ever have any opportunity to use it for any purpose. But then why is it being purchased? Probably because there's some backdoor or technicality, so that someone will be able to use it beyond the scope that Berman is talking about. I'm getting a whiff of that "too good to be true" stench, and think that in a few years Berman will be saying something like "I had no idea it would be abused in that manner."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My first reaction is that this notification clause means that if you ask the person you are trading with whether they are knowlingly giving you a bogus file, then they are obligated by this bill to disclose that. Can that be right? Wouldn't that just mean that you could send a Kazaa IM saying "is this file legit", and if you get back an negative answer go ahead and download. That might be an interesting balance - if you had to do this by hand, it might move file trading back to a level difficulty similar to copying tapes (i.e., not that hard for one, but mass distribution's not worth it for the average consumer), which I think was a good balance.
Also interesting is the requirement of listing tactics with the AG's office. Is this information available under FOIA? What exactly do the record companies have to disclose?
Maybe I should peruse the text of the bill before coming up with more theories.
The only reason they want to stick to the old business model, is because it worked so well for them, advertise a few artists like crazy, and people will buy their albums..
P2P gets rid of that, people choose what they want to listen to, and because of that the big labels don't know what people are going to buy, and more importantly, P2P is a great way for artists who are not on one of the 5 major labels to become known.. lost business for them..
quite understandible that they would dislike P2P..
MABASPLOOM!
We all know who would win the hacker battle between the record company and the public.
Hmm.. How long did it take them to figure it out about napster? computers in general?
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
...so put a license on something you write that
allows public access EXCEPT to RIAA and anyone working in connection with it, write the AG to inform them you will be looking for illegal copies of your stuff, and hack away at the machines of the RIAA to find same. Whatever they do or have done, can be done to them, if they are crazy enough to want such an environment. Registering in this way even if you don't intend to do anything extraordinary could provide a "get out of jail, free" card should you happen to accidentally hit someone's machine...
This of course is a feature neither Berman nor the RIAA seem to think about (any more than he evidently has thought about the dollar threshold; it would be better if there were no such threshold and the enforcement were criminal, not civil, so that the RIAA's larger number of lawyers would be less an imbalance),
This bill is written in such a very diabolically clever way. It sounds so reasonable and safe, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Berman points to all the safeguards and asks how a reasonable person could possibly be against such a harmless little self-help measure. But there are so many exceptions and limits that those safeguards have no teeth. The most telling thing to me is that the RIAA wouldn't say what they would do if this law was passed that they cannot already do legally. The two examples of actions they would take, (1. seeding P2P with fake files and 2. finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users) are already legal.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The Berman bill allows a victim of computer damage caused by overzealous "copyright owners" to sue for damages. Sounds reasonable enough.
Except, of course, that lawyers are prohibitively expensive for most computer users. Even if one does go through with litigation, the record companies & c. have far more legal manpower and available funds. The price-fixing lawsuit took 2 years. Do you have two years to pay a lawyer?
"In July, three colleagues and I introduced H.R. 5211, the Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act. The bill ensures that copyright owners won't face liability for using reasonable, limited self-help to prevent the theft of their works on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. "
:P. Just like it's OK to have a loaded gun tied to your door so that if someone tries to get into your house, they get shot! (What? That's not OK? Oh, well, it should be.)
After accepting massive kickbacks^U incentive payments^U campaign contributions^U goodwill from the RIAA and MPAA, 3 other hosers and myself came up with this great idea to legalize vigilanteism!
{legislator "vote for me" babble deleted}
Self-Help Is Necessary to Effectively Stop Illegal Downloading
Because I said so. Nyah nyah.
For legitimate online business models to take hold, illegal P2P downloading must be made more difficult, and copyright owners need effective sticks to accomplish that goal.
Because Lord knows they couldn't come up with a compelling business model by themselves.
{...} Accordingly, I believe copyright owners should be free to use reasonable, limited self-help measures to thwart P2P piracy if they can do so without causing harm.
Um, it's not very effective at preventing piracy if it doesn't cause harm, now is it? In other words: "I feel that the money RIAA is paying me is more than enough to justify them being allowed to do whatever they like to YOUR computer."
The safe harbor from liability contained in the bill gives them this ability - making clear that in certain, carefully described scenarios, they cannot be sued for availing themselves of self-help methods.
Yes, "availing themselves of self-help methods" is the biggest lawyerspeak I've ever been able to come up with. Aren't you proud of me? Anyway, you can't sue them because you were doing something illegal to begin with! So
In drafting the bill, I have tried to ensure that only reasonable self-help technologies would be immunized, that the public would be protected from harm, and that over-reaching or abuses by copyright owners who avail themselves of self-help would be severely punished.
I have done the bare minimum to try and hide the fact that I am a happy puppet for the almighty (c).
A Crucial Limitation: The Bill Immunizes Only Targeted, Non-Invasive Self-Help
"I put this in here to try to shut you whiny types up."
Obviously, it is critical that a liability safe harbor be appropriately limited. The bill imposes a variety of limitations on the self-help measures it immunizes.
Hey, I'm not a total idiot!
{...} The bill says copyright owners get immunity from liability under any theory, but only for impairing the "unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction" of their own works on public P2P networks.
Of course I didn't define P2P network. Bah, who needs something like that? Anything RIAA doesn't like is a 'public' P2P network as far as my wallet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I am concerned!
{...} For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.
Which was none, just FYI, because the copyright holders have purchased protections against being sued by having enough lawyers to smack anyone who dares to disagree into submission. Oh, and only corporate networks count. If they break your home network because they think your video of Grandma's birthday party is a video of Britney Spears, that's all well and good also, Besides, nobody likes your grandmother.
So copyright owners must tread very carefully to make sure they can avail themselves of the safe harbor.
Yes, we wouldn't them overstepping their Constitutional or other legal boundaries, now would we?
Some, in the media and among the piracy profiteers, claim that the bill is not limited in this way.
How dare you question me, you 'piracy profiteer!'
They claim that the bill gives a copyright owner immunity for anything she does, no matter how illegal, as long as one effect is to stop piracy on a P2P network.
Oh, wait. It pretty much does.
According to their "logic", the bill would allow a copyright owner to burn down a P2P pirate's house if one effect of the arson is to stop the pirate's illegal file trading.
Right, that isn't this legislation, but will be tacked on as amendments to the It's For The Children (IFTC) Act of 2003 and the The Terroists Have Already Won (TTHAW) Act of 2003.
Clearly, the bill says nothing of the sort, and no judge or disinterested party could read it that way.
Unless they were sane.
The bill immunizes one thing, and one thing only: limited self-help the only effect of which is to stop the piracy of the copyright owner's work on a public P2P network.
Because we all agree that copyright must be protected above all else! God save the RIAA!
{...} The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate.
Oh, wait, thanks to a nice little loophole, yes they can, especially if said virus just "disables" P2P software by writing some values to the registry, which is a "database", not a "file", after all. Right?
{...} The bill further states that, except in certain necessary circumstances, copyright owners cannot rely on the safe harbor if their anti-piracy actions impair the availability of other files or data within the P2P network.
"Certain necessary circumstances" includes protecting their own copyrighted works. But pay no attention to that fact, please.
The bill denies protection to a copyright owner if her anti-piracy action causes any economic loss to any person other than the P2P pirate.
Ah, yes, the impossible to prove 'economic loss.' How much 'economic loss' is involved in you having to reformat your hard drive after the latest RIAA-Virus 'accidentally' 'disables' a few key things for your OS? None. Sucker.
Thus, the bill protects ISPs, P2P network users, and the Internet public at large against any cognizable harm that could result from the use of self-help technologies.
There's no risk!* (*Where risk as defined as losing actual dollars, something that courts almost never declare has happened when computers are involved.)
{...} The P2P piracy bill provides such incentives by subjecting transgressing copyright owners to more liability than they have under current law.
Of course it doesn't add any criminal penalties for doing these illegal things. After all, these are big corporations we have to look out for.
{...} An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law.
Of course, they won't win, because they'll be buried in lawyers faster than they can say "boo"
{...} To ensure that aggrieved parties always have at least one remedy available, the bill provides a new civil remedy beyond those authorized by current law.
Which, again, no sane person would even attempt to get, unless they enjoy being devoured by packs of rabid lawyers.
{...} Accordingly, it gives copyright owners extremely strong incentives to only use self-help measures that clearly qualify for the bill's safe harbor. If they stay within the limits, they are safe. But if they go further, they face even greater penalties than they would under current law.
Actually enforcing any of those penalties, of course, is impossible, so the people padding my wallet are safe either way!
{...}However, I don't claim to have drafted a perfect bill, and I welcome suggestions for improvements.
Which I will promptly file in my shredder.
One must remember that if a copyright owner _were_ accused of damaging someone's computer, it would still be up to the plaintiff to prove that the copyright owner violated one of the safeguards in the Berman bill. Considering that most copyright owners who will use this bill are corporations with millions invested in lawyers, any individual who wishes to sue them under one of the bill's safeguards will find himself fighting an uphill legal battle against some of the country's best lawyers.
As we've seen in the past, simply the threat of legal difficulties is enough to make people settle a case they might have every reason to win. If this bill passes, we may see the media companies using their vast legal strength to strongarm people away from valid lawsuits.
From the TV/Movies/Music industry.
..
Yeah baby, our boy has sucked on the Entertainment tit for
Ready for this?
$1 9 4 , 6 4 1
He is going to lie at every chance possible because like ALL politicians, Republican or Democrat, he walks whatever line pays him money.
There are no exceptions, Berman is quite literally full of shit and acting only in the best interest of his masters.
If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable.
/.ers out there, but I certainly can't afford my own in-house counsel. If I get my files wiped out, I'll curse, I'll scream, I'll rant on this website (for damned sure), but I won't be able to afford a suit.
If you think about it, this shifts the burden entirely on the P2P user.
The Congressman is correct when he states that there is no way that Record Companies can drag 150 million downloaders into court. What this legislation does is allow the record companies to take matters into their own hands and then see who has the stones to come back and sue the record company if they go too far.
Think about it: If a company sends a virus to your computer that wipes out all mp3 files, whether legitimate or not, are you going to sue the record companies? I don't know about any other
I think the record companies are betting on this. Much like the way they do business in general, they'll just sit back and make everything and everyone come to them.
Brilliant. I think barring a class action suit or a really rich person who gets a vital business document wiped out, the companies are pretty safe from anybody watchdogging excessive vigilantism.
Although....how ironic would it be if Shawn Fanning came back to sue the very companies that killed Naptser? Almost makes me want to take up a pre-emptive collection.
-FC
The recording industry has always used a technological advantage over its consumers in order to curb (not prevent) piracy. This is nothing new. For example, in the late 80's came the CD. Everyone preferred the CD due to its unmatched quality. Sure you could record to cassette, but you - as a consumer - could never match the quality. Now here we are in the 21st century. We now have the ability to duplicate that quality. Think of this; if MP3's could have only only achieve a maximum bit rate of 56kbps, do you really think Napster would have been such a big threat? In order for companies to survive, they must be able to offer a better (quality - literally) product than what could be acquired for free. If they cannot do this, there is no market for them. Due to what I outlined above, many feel there is no market for the recording industry - at least not based on the original model, which relies heavily on the existance of technological gaps between producer and consumer. This is exactly what laws and DRM are about. It is a feeble attempt at preserving this obsolete model by artificially forcing a technological gap between consumer and producer.
Naturally, they want to end free music on the radio, The RIAA wants Pay-for-Play radio. Let's hope lawsuits and trying to buy legislation both fail.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
To hear him tell it, the bill doesn't allow anything that is currently illegal. The bill also obviously doesn't say what it DOES allow. To hear his description of this very vague law, it would seem to be completely unnecessary. Therefore, the fact that it's out there implies that it actually does something. Therefore, he must be lying.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Lets be honest, there are too types of people here, some are concerned about their rights and how these new laws will unfairly restrict them when they are trying to do perfectly legal things. The others are also worried about this, but they are also unhappy because they know they will be loosing a free ride that they've been enjoying for years. I'm the second type. While some people might settle for a compromise that could involve DRM, and P2P hacking, i don't like it and i think its bad enough with the (early generation) DRM in DVD, and with judges coming down on napster. Maybe you think im a total asshole who's out just for my self. Maybe you think that im just as bad as the RIAA or MPAA. These people can, and will put the laws into place, and even if it was very closely monitored to ensure that law abiding people were protected, can you honestly say that you wouldn't feel violated in some way?
And which person are you?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I know for a fact that this simply not true. I am currently a memeber of an industrial band. The only place people have heard my music is from downloading it off of P2P networks. I do have a siteon mp3.com (Mendeleev's Machine). However, very few people have visited it. I have gotten more exposure on P2P networks by sending messages to people (on KaZaA) or by chatting to people (DirectConnect). I am able to tell them about my band and they download it and give it a try.
P2P has given me a free method of distributing my music. And I currently don't care much if others download my music. I would not be receiving any money anyways. I am making music because I like it and I want to let others listen to my creations. P2P gives me an easy method to do so.
neurostarThey set the prices (they have settled and been fined a minimal amount) and we have to pay them. There's no real other option for music lovers.
If you can't afford Britney Spears, switch to another band on another label. In addition to the Universal label, Vivendi also offers the mp3.com label, which has mostly new bands, and a CD usually costs less than $10.
Will I retire or break 10K?
(b) EXCEPTIONS. Subsection (a) shall not apply to a copyright owner in a case in which in the course of taking an action permitted by subsection (a), the copyright owner impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copy-right owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 10 106; 11
that is, the limitation here is that the impairment of the network has to be "reasonably necessary." So Berman is correct in saying the law wouldn't allow burning down a P2P pirate's house, but DoS and anything else "necessary" to stop a file from being transferred would be legal. Well, I'm glad to know there are SOME limitations!
How hard is it to run a line out to your sound card?
How hard is it for Congress to close the analog hole and criminalize the possession of high-end audio equipment without an audio engineering license?
Will I retire or break 10K?
In order to prevent the massive graft and fraud perpitrated by our elected officials, today the "Sane Legislation Protection Act" was proposed in the House, it allows voters who participated in the last election to take a baseball bat to the body of their elected officials, when and if they vote in a manner inconsistant with the platform on which they ran.
In order to ensure that this does not lead to massive abuse, citizen voters will need to file notice with their municipality prior to any thrashing. No evidence is required as it is assumed that a full confession will be produced as a matter of course. Additionally, any damage to property not directly on the body of the elected official, under a $250 threshold, is specifically protected as part of the cost of ensuring freedom to the citizens of this great land.
Without a corporate sponser it is assumed this legislation is dead on arrival.
Okay mod this out of existence, seriously who turned the computer on for this poster. Or maybe they went to the city and got themselves a puter and a book, windows for dummies cliff notes edition
The music distribution industry is killing itself.
Running a business means one thing that they miss:
Find a customer need/desire
-then-
Fill the customer need/desire in a way that satisfies the customer while making a profit.
They don't have their eye on the ball any more. The customer doesn't want what they have to sell in the format they want to sell it in. Therefore, the customers are looking elsewhere.
Because the customer does not want what they have to sell, they will either go out of business (however long that takes) or learn to fill the customers needs/wants. Either way the "modern" music consumer will win in the end.
If this law passes or not, music consumers will find a way to get their wants/needs filled. The horse is out of the barn. The consumer will work around the RIAA roadblocks in order to fill their need/want of a certain style of music listening.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Okay, the RIAA is more than welcome to launch all of the attacks on my system they wish to. I reserve the right to viciously retaliate with whatever is handy. If I have a CCW and some person takes a shot at me with a gun, so I pull mine and fire back... it doesn't matter that the person was an off duty cop, they didn't tell me, and they tried to kill me, self defense.
I suggest we all just prepare to have very fun "self defense" tools ready.
This chucklehead is my congresscritter.
And my senators are Boxer (0wn3d by MPAA/RIAA) and Feinstein. (0wn3d by MPAA/RIAA)
The guy who's challenging Berman for the 28th District on the Republican side would rather be Mayor of the San Fernando Valley, and is (not) campaigning accordingly. There's a Libertarian, but as a third-party candidate he has two chances: slim and none.
Representative government? Ha! What a fsckn joke.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Shut up.
By and large, what Rep. Berman says is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the bill.
He can clarify until he's blue in the face, but until he changes the contents of the bill, he's talking out his hat. Everything anyone has said about the bill, every criticism, is still in full force. This does very little to negate any of it.
The exception is that some courts can consider the "intent of Congress" if they want, but depending on that to clearly define the purpose of the bill is awfully cavalier, at best.
Say I work for the RIAA. I have discovered a suspeccted pirate. I find a security hole in some software he is using and root his system.
Would the following be allowed under the bill.
1) Record the boot sector
2) Wipe the boot sector
3) Send the following message to said pirate:
"Your computer has been temporarily disabled because you are sharing copyrighted files.
Please report to the nearest police station to have your computer restored."
Caveat: he's doing this now. I don't think this is a year for him to go on the ballot. Dammit.
This sig no verb.
I agree that sharing files with family and friends and making backup copies is fair use, but sharing copyrighted files with complete strangers does not fall under fair use. My rule of thumb is if there is a possibility that more than one copy will be used simultaneously, then it is not fair use. Therefore, sharing with millions of strangers is not fair use because there is more than one copy being used at once. Having your CD collection copied to ogg files to listen to at work is fair use because no one is at home listening to your CDs while you are at work.
I use the same philosophy with regard to software. I don't feel bad having a copy of a program installed on my laptop because I know when I am using my laptop, I am not using the copy on my desktop. Of course, now that I almost exclusively use Linux at home, that dilemma has solved itself.
This space intentionally left blank.
You are far, far too cynical.
Berman isn't acting only in the best interest of his masters.
He's acting in his own best interests. They only happen to coincide with RIAA's, insomuch that his interest is in getting big bucks from RIAA.
Offer him $194,642 and you'll find that his interests suddenly happen to coincide with yours!
You gotta love politicians, 'cause it's illegal to shoot 'em...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
If you use that phrase again, me and my elite crew of katana-wielding trolls will come to your house and whack off your genitals.
Its worse than referring to Microsoft as M$ and using it reduces whatever point you were trying to make to the rantings of an immature crybaby.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
You know, I never figured out if someone proved there is a causal link. Did the industry give the politician money, and then they voted they way they want, or does industry just give money to people who have the same attitudes to them. Is this Berman fellow already on the other side of the copyright issue and the music industry decided to help his campaign (thereby undermining democracy in a much more subtle way) or is he just taking bribes?
I've always believed in the bribing scenario, but we need more conclusive proof to make the case.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is that it is morally justifiable to steal from someone simply because you think their asking price is too high. This position is indefensible.
I am not a file trader and I cannot stand people that distribute others hard work. However I don't think anyone should be given this type of vigilante authority. I will guarantee that anyone attacking my machine for any reason will be immediately sought out and destroyed. Oh hell pass the bill we need some incentive to create reverse attack p2p firewalls.
Got Code?
Or maybe they went to the city and got themselves a puter and a book, windows for dummies cliff notes edition
The FOR DUMMIES® series books and the CLIFFS NOTES® series books are published by the same publisher. Thus, in a way, all FOR DUMMIES® books can be considered CLIFFS NOTES® edition.
Brought to you by DORD. Buy DORD stuff at ThinkGeek
-- PinocchioThe Porn Industry has been ravaged(?) by online theft for as long as MP3's. Yet porn is one industry where year after year profits are higher, and the Internet is more and more integrated.
Just maybe, Music and Film are losing profit because the content sucks. Because their business model doesn't embrace the Internet and nobody wants to pay $10 to watch "dude,where's my car" and "I still don't care what you did last Summer". Maybe we've been suckered once too many time in buying a cd($16.99) of a marginally promising band that has a catchy song or 2 but sucks crank on the other 13 tracks.
If you think
Sunnyvale ....yea riiiiiiggghhhtttt
Got Code?
If the slashdot community spent half as much time fighting music and movie piracy as they do bashing the RIAA/MPAA, maybe the proble would go away. They don't care about fair use, they care about piracy. If there were no piracy, there would be no DRM and DCMA. It costs the RIAA/MPAA a lot of money to support these types of things, and they wouldn't spend the money if they didn't think it would help them lose less revenue from lost sales.
Vote for Pedro
There are so many things wrong with this argument it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Consider these two quotes that set up the issue:
Notice what follows immediately from these statements:
I ignore all the dross about "self-help" as nothing but sanctioned vigilante hacking.
Copyright holders have exactly one cogent argument: enforce existing law! For example the following ideas would be far more constructive:
Legal notice: the following statements represent my opinion, and is not to be taken as a statment of fact. Now, with that libel safe harbor in place :-)
Your a f***ing liar Berman! Plain and simple. That article is almost entirely bullshit. I can't believe an elected representative would stand up and put their name on bald faced lies which are easily discovered. Where to start:
If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability. A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. For instance, if her actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she will remain liable under whatever previous theory was available.
This is a lie. The law provides a clear exemption for copyright owners who disrupt the distribution of other files on a p2p network. From the bills list of things which cause a copyright owner to lose the protection of the bill:
"(A) impairs the availability within a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network of a computer file or data that does not contain a work, or portion thereof, in which the copyright owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106, except as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of such a work, or portion thereof, in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under section 106;" (emphasis added)
You could drive a truck thru that loophole, which Berman doesn't mention. If fact, his statment A copyright owner who does more will still be liable. is simply a lie.
Moving on in his article, we find this little gem:
The bill specifically states that the safe harbor does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader. Thus, a copyright owner can't send a virus to a P2P pirate. Nor can it remove any files on the pirate's computer. Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works.
This qualification is no where in the bill. The entire list of actions which constitute a copyright holder overstepping their bounds is listed on page three. And There are only three of them. The first is (A) listed above. The second is (B)causes economic loss to any person other than affected file traders
But the third is the real killer.
(C) causes economic loss of more than $50.00 per impairment to the property of the affected file trader, other than economic loss involving computer files or data made available through a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network that contain works in which the owner has an exclusive right granted under section 106; or (emphasis added)
So if they can't delete the infringing files, why are the infriging files exempted for the amount of the "economic loss"? How could those files possibly involve any economic loss if the copyright owner can't "delete or alter" the files? Jesus, I can't believe a lie that blanant.
Another non-existant protection:
The safe harbor is also lost if the anti-piracy action causes more than de minimis loss to the property of the P2P pirate. This limitation represents a recognition that even pirates should not be seriously harmed by copyright owners.
Once again, this is nowhere in the list of actions which cause a copyright owner to lose their "safe harbor". Nowhere. To claim otherwise is quite simply a lie. Once again.
Finally, the safe harbor is lost if the copyright owner fails to notify the Attorney General of the anti-piracy technologies she plans to use, or if she fails to identify herself to an inquiring file-trader. These notification provisions ensure that copyright owners who choose to employ self-help measures will operate in the light of day.
Fails to identify themselves to an inquiring file-trader? The requirements in the bill force the affected party to determine the copyright owner who took the action thru their own means and contact them. After the fact. So when I get up in the morning and a bunch of files are missing, how am I supposed to know what happened to them? Or why they're gone? Or who did it? Write a letter to every single RIAA member asking if they did it? Oh yeah, that's really the "light of day". More bullshit if you ask me.
An aggrieved party - perhaps a P2P user or an ISP - can sue the copyright owner for any remedy available under current law. For instance, the aggrieved party might be able to bring a civil action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or a state denial of service statute.
Sure, but there's just one hoop to jump thru. You have to get permission from the Attorney General first! And if the AG doesn't like your claim, too bad. Game over. No process for appealing such a decision is granted. Since when am I required to obtain the AG's permission to file a civil lawsuit? The only reason for such a clause is to provide a way to reduce the number of lawsuits RIAA members would be subjected to under this bill. After all, why let the courts decide civil suits when a political appointee like the AG can do it!
Gah, I'm so mad I could spit. You're a liar Berman. Liar liar, pants on fire. Anybody who votes for this guy next fall is a moron in my opinion.
There should be legislation for a compulsory on-demand music license
There already exists a compulsory mechanical license for an underlying musical work that has already been recorded and published, which means you can have your cover band[1] re-perform the work and then sell phonorecords[2] of that. Though this license does not grant access to the original recording, some covers go on to be more popular than the original recording, especially when performed in an original arrangement (which is permitted to a limited extent in the compulsory license law).
[1] cover band n. (Popular music) A musician or team of musicians that primarily performs covers[3].
[2] phonorecord n. (Copyright law) A copy of a sound recording, such as a vinyl record, a tape, a CD, a downloaded compressed audio file, or any other medium on which a sound can be fixed.
[3] cover n. (Popular music) A sound recording of a musical work that had been made popular through another recording. The artist performing a cover generally pays a songwriter's publisher the statutory royalty rate (about eight cents per copy) for the right under copyright law to record and distribute phonorecords of a musical work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And the companies do create something; they fund the creation and distribution of music. Whether or not there are better models to bring this about is not the issue.
I agree with you that this bill goes too far in giving the RIAA unprecendented power; I am no fan of the RIAA or its business practices. But the suggestion that it is justifiable to steal (or violate copyright, whatever) nonessential goods because you disagree with the RIAA's business model is simply indefensible.
Dear Representative Bernman,
If you desire to appear to your constituents as a well-infomed representative
rather than than an elected music industry official, you might want to rethink
your one-sided policies regarding P2P networks.
Reading your comments (dated September 26), it becomes clear that your notions
of P2P networks and the scope of their functions as piracy havens are limited
to an industry perspective whose interests may not necessarily benefit the
consumer.
While we can never expect our congressmen to become fully educated pertaining
to technological concerns, what you propose, to allow the sabotage of P2P
networks, would very likely compromise the daily tasks of millions of
legitimate users and would hardly succeed. Software always adapts to such
attempts and legions of capable programmers have the ability to combat any weak
tactic that might be implemented if your resolutions were to be passed.
We cannot just grant businesses a carte blanche to go after offenders in any
way they please simply because they have not found an adequate solution to
their own petty piracy problems which arguably do not translate into profit
losses anyway. Ultimately the music industry must stop resisting change and
respond to the demand for a new business model-- one which consists of an
online service, not an endless supply of overpriced discs. This is inevitable.
Sincerely,
JP
whats wrong with sunnyvale?
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
When I first glanced at this one, I thought it was entitled P2P _Privacy_ Prevention Act. Heh. My mistake. :)
Oh, wait...
To an extent, both of the currently lawful attacks you pose are easy to hold off.
seeding P2P with fake files
The nature of P2P file sharing systems that use multi-source downloading is that files with a lot of sources will tend to get downloaded more often, and crappy files won't have a lot of sources because they're either deleted before they're shared, or renamed to "* (Promo).mp3" as happened with the first copies of "Barenaked Ladies - Pinch Me.mp3" that went on the P2P systems.
finding shared files and intiating multiple slow-throughput connections to the host so it accepts no other users
My P2P software already detects this. If less than 67% of the nominal outgoing bandwidth (set in the Throttle box) is used over a 60-second window, it starts another queued upload.
Will I retire or break 10K?
the record companies & c. have far more legal manpower and available funds
Than several dozen victims who decide to take class action against labels?
Will I retire or break 10K?
That's some of the most convoluted logic I have ever encountered. Words mean things, my friend, and the word 'force' most certainly does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.
The fact of the matter is that the **AA, the copyright cartels, have not proved that their incomes, or the artists which they rip o.. er, represent, have been damaged by Kazaa et al.
Their shrieks and cries of doom, and destruction, on the contrary, echo their histrionic historical wailings, about every new media development under the sun, decimating their livelihoods.
None of that has come to pass.
Let a few truly independent investigations be run, on the claim that the copyright cartels have suffered loss that warrants such draconian laws, and then maybe, we can talk to them, and treat them as deserving of our "concern" (for want of a better term.)
At the moment, all we have is a bunch melodramatic control freaks, in a behaviour-loop, with no proven basis for their "concerns."
As such, people who know their track record (no pun intended) choose to treat them with the contempt they deserve, and will continue to deserve, until they stop lying, distorting, dissembling and duping, and come up with some independently verified, hard facts that merit that anything is done.
In my humble opinion.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
if MP3's could have only only achieve a maximum bit rate of 56kbps, do you really think Napster would have been such a big threat?
Easy. Recordings would be pirated as two files, one containing the low frequencies and the other containing the highs. A similar technique (low bitrate MP3 on the low frequencies and something else on the highs) is used by PlusV and mp3PRO.
Actually, mono at 56 kbps, with suitable pre-processing, doesn't sound too bad. Not exactly CD quality, but not AM radio either. It sounds more than good enough to put on a pocket music player.
Will I retire or break 10K?
so... let's move from the concept of file.
Lets create "mesh" operating program for information storage where everything is stored in one place and you create object by placing a carefully selected question to the mesh contents.
There will be no such concept as "deletion".
This makes the words "deletion" of "file" obsolete...
Hmm... may be this is my pipe dream?
It's the music pirates who have forced this on us. Why isn't anybody complaining about them? If they went away, so would DRM.
Bullshit. What the **AA's want is pay per view/listen. DRM is the way to that.
Though I'm not sure that he accurately represented his bill, as I haven't read his bill. I believe one lowers one's intelligence and writing level by reading legal documents; they're all poorly written, and I don't want to subjugate myself to that. However, after posting this message, for the befit of /. [I'm sure all of you want my words of wisdom (;-)], I'll read the bill. I'll post a commentary on the bill later.
Firstly, I don't support this type of bill. Let it be known off the bat and out front that I support file-sharing services, no matter what files are being shared. I believe in the freedom of information. However, I would accept some limitations, were copyrighted music to be limited to only 10 years.
But, assuming we go with this law, I have some serious concerns with it. All of his safegaurds will prove irrelevant if we have to PROVE that the copyright owners stepped outside of the protected bounds. The bill should state that copyright owners have to PROVE that they were within the protected bounds.
I am also concerned about an escalation of counter-efforts between P2P developers and the Intellectual Property industry. Invariably, P2P developers will win, as we develop under either OSS or FS models, which allow for problems to be rapidly fixed. However, its still a problem. More and more layers of code will be added as P2P developers code to counter the IP-industry's attacks. This will contribute towards hyper-bloatation of software code, and lots of wasted effort in which will amount to a futile cycle.
I'm also concerned about the minimal amount of damage that IP owners can be held liable for, something like $200 dollars worth. I may not have $200 dollars worth of software on my computer, since I've downloaded it for free from Debian.org, and you couldn't put an $200 dollar market price on the data-files I own (things I've written, pictures, icons, etc). But to ME, its worth a lot. To me, the information I have on my computer is worth more than my car.
Aside from that, even if this bill implements the protections I suggest to punish all transgressions by IP interests, more users would still be harmed (many) by the attacks of IP interests than are today (nearly none, as no IP interest dares launch such an attack).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
If you stole my car and I showed up at your house a week later and shot you in the head, I think I'd goto jail for murder.
Does it bother anyone else that the judges are gaining power all the time? What do we need congress for anyway, since any judge can just change the rules in the middle of the game?
Some of these laws open up the door for way too much interpretation. How is it proven that a file someone deleted was indeed copyrighted by the person who deleted it? Who gets the benefit of the doubt? Was a line crossed "a little bit"? What if the damages are unforseen by the copyright holder, or due to a bug in any of the software down the line (filesystem bug in the latest kernel shows up the time they delete that file)? There are no means to actually determine what happened, what was used to make it happen, or what people knew at the time it happened.
Guess who gets to decide? Your judge, that's who. Who needs those other branches of government, anyway?
One of the things that makes market economies work is that people know where they stand in the law, most of the time. If lawsuits are flying all over the place, and nobody knows where the money's gonna land, who would invest? George Will wrote an interesting column about businesses getting as far away from Mississippi as they can because the judges work so hard against those evil "Big Businesses". And, by coincidence I'm sure, Mississippi is the poorest state in the nation.
We need to put power back in the hands of Congress. I actually don't like that idea much either -- I'd prefer that we put power back in the hands of the states -- but it's better than the whims of appointed judges.
And another note, how is this law "necessary and proper" (the clause of the Constitution under which Congress presumably passes the law)? Why can't it be reserved to the states? Why does this need to be a nation-wide law? Think about how many laws on the federal books could be left to the states. Sure, interstate commerce, treaties, federal taxes: all those are "necessary and proper" at the federal level, but this ?
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
So my teacher has been going on and on about how America was like a adolescent child that Britian just forgot about for years when the US was still colonies. Then suddenly Britian decides to tax the colonies and impose many rules and such on them. The "child" had gotten its taste of freedom and would not let go of it. So they revolted. This really related back to this if you think about it. They let all this filesharing go so long that it will be imposible to stop now. We've felt the freedom, why would we give it up for some music file we can't do anything with?
:P
Sorry guys, but it doesn't work like that. We'll just have to revolt.
Just trying to find a use to this education I keep getting thrown at me.
--Angelo
After having read several articles and message boards concerning the USA's Peer to Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R.5211), I must admit that I am left with more questions than answers.
Being neither a citizen of, nor resident in, the USA, I have questions and concerns which I have yet to find any discussion to date.
My first concern has to do with property and privacy rights,invasiveness and tresspass in those instances where the target of a "self-help" action is the citizen of a country other than the USA.
Given that it is reasonable to assume that the 'copyright owner' may have to access my system in order to determine whether I am in possession of pirated material. Even if nothing is found, I have been the victim of tresspass, by a foreign entity who is operating under a 'safe-harbour' provision which does not exist in my country; however the tresspass committed is a crime.
How will 'copyright owners' guarantee, or even be certain, that the IP address they chase down resides within the jurisdiction of the law under which they are acting?
How would a foreign target of a 'self-help' action gain access to compensation? If they are not governed by the law, then they cannot use said law to access compensation for damages.
Would the tresspass against myself, or a foreign organisation or company, be considerd an un-provoked agression against the people of a sovereign nation? Could such an action be cause for referral to the international court or the UN?
Is this bill yet another example of the USA not understanding, or (more likely) caring, where its borders end?
Does anyone know of references to information which would answer my questions?
All insight is most welcome?
Natty
Maybe the rain Isn't really to blame. So I'll remove the cause, But not the symptom!
Did the industry give the politician money, and then they voted they way they want, or does industry just give money to people who have the same attitudes to them
With all the absurd crap Congress has been pushing lately, the former seems much more likely.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
One of the issues not addressed by Berman in the article or the bill itself is this: the mere presence of an item on a p2p network does not prove infringement. How are the copyright holders supposed to prove that someone is infringing on their copyright?
Most of the time, determination that a violation of law has taken place is done by the court system. Berman's bill has no provision for determining whether a given copyright is actually being infringed, nor does it specify a process that a copyright holder would go through to determine that a copyright is being infringed.
This and this alone should be enough to cause problems. By allowing private entities to determine and prosecute violations of law, the bill essentially places police power in the hands of private entities.
Write your congressman to complain! Most of them are lawyers, so should understand reasonable arguments. One plus is the bill is relatively short, so should be easy to comprehend.
Only you can prevent Bad Law!
I do not fit this mold.
I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.
Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.
I want unencumbered computers because:
I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?
I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?
As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...
So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.
Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.
Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.
once we are all required to have a fritz chip and MSFT palladium software (and yes this bill is out there and being pushed thanks to the right good gentleman from NC) this will all be irrelevant. it will happen automatically. all your files will be compared to a central DB to determine if you own them. by Gen 2, your own microprocessor will do this. no new software will run unless it does. if you don't own the rights, it will be deleted by your own system. any software, anywhere can be instantly revoked in this manner if your PC is on a network. give this some thought. now imagine a new breed of virus. picture the whole US getting a format c:. then go vote.
mudweasel "and i wudda gotten away with it too if it hadn'ta been for you meddling kids."
Rep. Berman's bill, and his apology for this bill, reek of promotion for himself and for his constituencies, the movie and recording industries. But beyond this, they have no intrinsic merit of their own.
Berman states that "Lawsuits and prosecutions of the most egregious P2P pirates certainly will provide some deterrent, but can't be relied on alone." This is perhaps the only genuinely true statement in the whole piece. But he states that because this is so, the only solution is vigilantism by the entertainment industry.
Berman states "the bill says nothing of the sort" about such actions as allowing "a copyright owner to burn down a P2P pirate's house if one effect of the arson is to stop the pirate's illegal file trading." This is doubtlessly true. However, every argument he makes indicates that some computer file equivalent of this would, in fact, be allowed. To see why, examine a number of his claims about the new law:
*If the "actions have some other effect - such as knocking a corporate network offline, or wiping out files - she [Hilary?] will remain liable..."
*The bill "does not allow a copyright owner to delete or alter any file or data on the computer of a file trader."
*"Nor can it even remove files that include the pirated works."
*There is no immunity to copyright owners if "their anti-piracy actions impair the availability of other files or data within the P2P network."
*"The bill denies protection to a copyright owner if her anti-piracy action causes any economic loss to any person other than the P2P pirate. Thus, the bill protects ISPs, P2P network users, and the Internet public at large against any cognizable harm that could result from the use of self-help technologies."
*"The safe harbor is also lost if the anti-piracy action causes more than de minimis loss to the property of the P2P pirate."
*And is also "lost if the copyright owner fails to notify the Attorney General of the anti-piracy technologies she plans to use, or if she fails to identify herself to an inquiring file-trader."
Do these statements, taken together, make sense? The writer, Rep. Berman, betrays a profound ignorance of the technology he is hoping to regulate and control, which makes all of his statements a hollow mockery. Copyright holders may not delete files, harm hardware, disrupt or affect ISPs, knock out networks, disrupt other P2P activities (or the file-trader's other on-line activities), nor do anything without telling those being attacked (and exactly how is this to be done?). If this is so, what is the attacker going to do, call the file-trader names? Either files, or networks, must be attacked, bandwidth paid for by ISPs, not the recording industry, be used, or this bill is a complete sham, shameless posturing by a politician currying favor with those who fund him.
"If a copyright owner can find a way to only impair the piracy of her copyrighted work on a P2P network, she will have no liability." However, if this attacker does more, the attacker must, in most cases, under this bill, be sued by the wronged party. This is a very great flaw. Many, inside companies and out, have hesitated to seek redress to a wrong because of the expense, stress, and uncertainty of court cases. In this situation, we can be sure that many private citizens will not feel they are up to battling the permanent legal staff employed for just these cases by the entertainment industry. The industry, while they may suffer the occasional spectacular defeat in court, will consider it just a cost of doing business, because they will be able to intimidate so many people from ever daring enter a courtroom. For how many people have *never* copied a song file?
This is the first crux of the matter. The entertainment industry seeks to make pretty much the entire computer-using population of America *officially* into criminals. That's pretty serious stuff. And its only reason is so they can continue to make money on a pre-Internet business model. You can imagine what would happen to you in your own job if you were that lazy (to say nothing of that unethical). Besides, remember Prohibition.
And there is an even more serious issue, if that is at all possible. This claim is based on flawed reasoning about copyright, which the entertainment industry is seeking to shove down the throats of all Americans, hoping none of us is at all reflective about the purpose and nature of our laws.
The Ninth Circuit wrote a ruling in the Napster case. That is determining the future of Napster. But it does not mean it cannot be questioned. Courts, particularly lower courts, have been wrong in the past; they are wrong now. It is our duty in America to work to correct this.
The core of all these is issues is what copyright is and what it is for. The better part of two centuries of legal opinion have argued that the purpose of copyright is to maximally promote the creation of new and original works. It therefore follows that if current copyright law is working against this purpose, this copyright law is being incorrectly created, interpreted, and applied. Many, including many artists, have argued that this is the case. It is a particularly pertinent argument because it may most dramatically affect the technology and software industries rather than entertainment industries, for the technology and software industries are by an order of magnitude larger than the entertainment industries, they more directly affect the productivity of the entire nation, and the most creative, value-producing segments of this industry in the software branch are the open source projects, which depend on freedom to copy and improve for their productivity.
Arguments put forward by the entertainment industry that they are promoting the maximal creation of new and original works by instituting the kinds of copy controls they advocate cannot be supported by any objective reading of the evidence now available. The recording industry has been charged for decades with cheating the artists upon whose work they depend. They have just agreed to pay some 135+ million dollars rather than continue a legal case charging them with recording price-fixing. Despite all this extra money, much of the genuinely wonderful new music of America remains unheard on major media outlets nor available in most retail distribution channels, and is accessible only through the venue of small concerts (coming to your area soon, hopefully), unusual single-store, specialized sellers, or, wonder of wonders, on-line. Uncounted older works remain locked up in record company vaults.
In terms of business, the fact of the matter is that CD sales were continuing to rise, despite companies' artificial inflation of their prices, *until Napster was killed*. And then both CD sales, computer sales, and the technological economy itself, began to drop, or slow their increase. All of these show the recording companies' arguments to be specious. Either Napster was actually promoting music sales by facilitating music "previewing", or the drop in CD sales was due to the economic slow-down. In either case, it wasn't music file-sharing.
The entertainment industries have fought against every new technology for distributing created works - player pianos, Xerox machines, cassette tapes, VCRs, and now computers and the Internet. In every case, these technologies have brought a myriad of benefits to users (read: us), and have likewise created myriad new business opportunities that have improved the leisure and business lives of all of us. But had it had its way, the entertainment industry would have banned them all, and presumably the printing press and typewriter as well, if they had been around at the time.
"Copyright" is a control on the copying of created works. This is subtly different than ownership of physical property. But beyond this, despite the utmost importance of the concept of "property" to our government, our culture, and our economy, our government has always reserved to itself the right to restrict the property rights of citizens or companies, or even to take them away altogether (e.g. eminent domain), for the public good. Property rights are not, in fact, infinite in their scope. They must be balanced against the public good. Similarly, definitions of what copyright is should not, and must not, be extended to the extent that they curtail creativity and the production of new and original works, and make nearly all technologically knowledgeable citizens into criminals (but thereby provide a permanent cash cow, at our expense, to a tiny segment of American business).
What kind of society do YOU want to live in? One where it is possible to get the music you want? One where this is not possible, and an unseen corporate body (or government) can potentially control the copying of ANY file on YOUR computer, whatever you say? One where ANY electronic freedom of speech can potentially be prevented, and tracked, because some stranger controls file-copying in the machine in your home? Again, what society do YOU want to live in?
The issues are, even though America has built its world-wide image on its entertainment products, and we have great sympathy for them, much of our real technological economic strength will be subject to evisceration merely to create a massive, highly unethical, legal power grab by the entertainment industry in order to lock-in a continued cash flow when they are unable to summon the imagination or skills to create business in any other way - at the expense of all of us, our Constitutional freedoms, and the very creativity and communication that has powered and enriched America during its entire history.
Dear Slashdot Editors,
Please fix the improper American Flag image you currently display. You are missing a red stripe at the top.
I have read threads about this that says someone named "taco" acknowledged the problem but didn't fix it. If this was an oversight, my apologies. If this wasn't an oversight, FUCK YOU "taco". Slashdot is hosted on US soil so you better pull your head out of your fucking ass and remedy this problem immediately.
And to all you US bashers: "go fuck yo'selves'.
Forgot to log in! (damn)
Other post with same subject can either be ignored, or read, your choice. It is reproduced below.
I do not fit this mold.
I actually *want* to pay to download music. The labels made a big mistake when they rejected the Napster proposal.
Downloading software I don't own used to be a big deal, but only because I wanted to learn about it before wasting my money. I have never made a dime off of software I did not own. Today, getting demo copies of things is a lot easier. This also makes OSS tools attractive to me because I don'e have to worry so much about the license.
I want unencumbered computers because:
I believe I have the right to do what I wish with the hardware I own. Same for media. This has been true my whole life and people made lots of money, why can't this continue?
I want Peer to Peer because it is a great technology that we have not yet fully explored. It has a lot of potential for those who want to explore distribution methods that are *not* beholden to the corporations. I pay for hardware, in some cases software, and bandwidth, why is it wrong to use the two to benefit me?
As for old business models, yep, they are old. I was taught that in this society, you either adapt or die. If you are not improving your business process, then be sure your competetors are. The media industries are not adapting, they are litigating...
So, I agree that something needs to be done because, in the case of music right now, things are clearly wrong, but I am not greedy, just wary of losing my rights.
Rights are funny things in that they are very hard to obtain, but very easy to give away.
Remember, not everyone here believes everything said.
Blogging because I can...
Right now the Illegal activities are the killer app, there is no doubt about that.
Does this mean that P2P has little use? No! We are all caught up with the illegal use, that good uses are getting the short end of things right now.
P2P can and will prove to be a good distribution model for those smart enough to use it. Given the right business model, the word of mouth nature of P2P can be a good thing.
Some companies are starting to get the picture about P2P and what it can mean to business. Consider PTC. Long time big software company selling high-end tools. They see P2P as the next killer app for engineers using their products. What do they do instead of litigation? They provide P2P to their users as a nice value add. Built the technology right in where users can make good effective use of it. This helps them keep the price of their product within a range that supports their business while enabling their users to get more use out of the software they use.
Soon everyone of their users will be able to host their own conference server and invite anyone they choose to share their data in an interactive and secure way. This whole thing is likely to save a lot of time and travel costs. This clearly is a good use of P2P.
Right now this model demonstrates how P2P can add considerable value to a pay software model. Lets add a little more thinking the P2P way. Lets say that a loyal user of the software wants to collaborate with another user. What's to say that they can't just get the software from them on a trial basis? Have any idea how hard it is to get people to look at your MCAD software? Damn tough these days. Why not let your users work for you a little? Let the software run while connected to the paying user and not others. Maybe prevent the paying users from sharing with others while someone is license sharing.
Soon the paying user will grow tired of sharing, and the other user having had a good experience just might be interested in a quote. This would save a *lot* in paid sales people who tend to travel a lot, ask for margins and eat a lot of lunches.... Just a P2P thought.
It is funny to me to see smart, creative business people using P2P ideas, instant messaging and other cool internet technologies to get their work done faster. These same smart people use the internet to lower the cost of distributing their product saving their users time and effort in the process. Not exactly in the way I described above though.
Meanwhile, on the other side of things, I laugh as I also watch the media companies work harder and harder at sticking their heads farther up their ass hoping they can just litigate the whole thing away.
I say that P2P will always be here. Some say that it needs to be stopped. They also say that the only realistic way to do that is to hobble all of our machines so that we can't actually do it.
Given that P2P could very easily be out-marketed, shifting the burden to the entire IT industry and its users is nothing more than a crime. --Just as plain and simple as Jack would put it himself.
Please explain to me how stealing our right to create with machines we are supposed to own is any less of a theft than P2P downloading is today. Consider in your answer the fact that P2P is shown to help sales. Also consider the cost the theft of our rights will have on future generations who find themselves beholden to a select few who make all their technology decisions for them. Who exactly will those decisions benefit
One more thing about the marketing. Nobody is better at it than the media companies right now. Why they don't just bend that marketing engine toward sales via the net is beyond me. With the right investment and a little thought, using Kazaa could be old hat in as little as a year. Why fight what you can easily marginalize?
My own kids have made pretty good use of Kazaa yet they still buy CD media. Why do they do this? Its because of that powerful marketing engine. They are tuned to it and want to be a part of it. Burning a CD of content that you got from your friend does not do that today. Maybe burning a CD with custom content that comes with your paid download would, shouldn't they at least try before trashing all of our rights?
The bottom line here really is about the business model and there really is no hiding that fact. The media companies want to continue to be in control of all distribution when it is becoming increasingly clear that they don't have to be. They don't want to compete and never will and they are fools for it.
The amount of money spent on the lobbying efforts, lawyers and other foolish ventures that will generate little return unless they are a complete succcess could be spent on efforts that will generate real returns in as little as a year.
How? Hire me.
I am not kidding, if it is money that they think they need, then we should help them get it, but preserve our rights for the longer term in the process...
Blogging because I can...
SO... They don't have to prove that I'm trading illegal files before they can act against me, but I need to prove that they damaged me before I can act against them??
Does anyone else notice the scales of justice tipping precariously close to one horizon??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
That =should= have been "P2P Privacy Prevention Act".
(Well, that's how I originally misread the headline.. tho I'm not so sure it isn't more accurate.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I'm confused about what measures Berman believes would be acceptable, after reading the many disclaimers here.
This bill makes more sense when combined with the trend of media consolidation.
For instance, Time/Warner/AOL is a single company that controls both a large number of copyrights, and also a large portion of the internet infrastructure. Under this bill, TWAOL could develop and deploy router filters that would watch for packets that match the signature of P2P transfers of Time/Warner copyrighted works, and drop the packets.
In other words, it is a model for a censored internet -- placing big media in the position of a gatekeeper -- determine what data is allowed to cross the wires, and what data may not be transmitted.
Assume everything Berman says about limits to the law is true, just to avoid bogging down in the details. Let's look at what this law is really about. Let's apply Berman's P2P "piracy protection" theory to laws about slander/libel: I have the right that only the truth should be told about me - anyone spreading lies can be sued for the damages it causes me. Therefore, I should have the right to block content on the internet to anything anyone says that I feel is slanderous. Further, I should be immune from prosecution if I do so. I promise I won't trash their hard drive - but I will shut them up and unilaterally deny them their free speech rights so long as I have good faith in doing so. I don't need the courts to validate that I'm right and the other person is wrong - no need to bother with law enforcement, probable cause, any of that. If I say it's libel, then I can enforce the law myself without the help (or hindrance) of the courts. Anybody else see anything wrong with this theory?
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Forcing: To compel through pressure or necessity.r ce
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fo
So if the MPAA/RIAA succeeds in being allowed to put DRM into our chips, seems to me that we are being 'compelled through necessity', at least the necessity to continue life as we knew it before DRM, right?
For instance, "He was forced to to play shortstop in order to play with the team" would be entirely correct, although you might claim that 'he' wasn't really forced to play. But the context of "I was forced to comply with DRM in order to watch the Star Wars Epsisode 0 DVD" seems to me would be correct according to the dictionary def.
So yeah, the MPAA/RIAA is attempting to FORCE us to comply with their rules in order to play the game & these rules would end up removing many of the parts of the game we have come to like (from copying VHS/cassette tapes to TiVo).
Not to mention providing a scary power to regulate what we can and can't see on our computers, which are rapidly becoming the way folks interact with the world outside of their immediate circle...
And when I get my brother to repair my car for free, I'm otaining something I would otherwise have had to pay a mechanic for. No, it is not illegal, because mechanics don't have the RIAA to buy laws making it illegal to not pay for having a car repaired.
However, you are wrong, when you say they fund the creation and distribution of music. Artists pay the labels (who RIAA represent), and most artists don't ever earn enough money through CD-sales to fully pay out the loans they get to pay the labels. And paying for the distribution is exactly the old-fashioned business model we are talking about. We can distribute music cheaper ourselves, why should we have to pay for it?`
"In the sense that you are illegally obtaining for free something that you would otherwise have had to pay for, it is stealing. Perhaps not in the precise legal definition, but close enough in discussing the moral and ethical ramifications."
On the contrary.
The paramount legal raison d'être for making the distinction between theft, and copyright infringement is the moral, and ethical basis of this distinction.
Theft involves the commandeering of an object, or objects such that the rightful 'owner/s' of the object are deprived of its use. Steal my horse, and I am deprived of transportation. Copyright infringement does not deprive the 'owner/s' of the use of the object. Copy my video tape of The Mummy and I (the 'owner') am not deprived of the use of my copy of The Mummy. It is the 'owners' deprivation of use that defines theft.
A Copyright is the monopolistic license granted to the holder to control the reproduction, and use of a work of art, and/or science. Copyright infringement is a usurpation of a work of art, and/or science that has been copyrighted. That is to say a copyrighted work has been used, or copied with out permission of the copyright holder.
The distinction is clear; theft deprives the 'owner' of the use of something, whereas infringement alone does not, but only uses something without permission to do so.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
I've been reading how people are blaming the music industry for having an outdated business model, which I think is true. But is it the music industry's fault or is it that capitalism cannot handle the technology? What computers and P2P systems have eliminated is scarcity, the basic problem in economics. How will the economy handle technology that can replicate a physical object? Once people have the ability to make a copy of everything, does that mean we still need an economy.
Just some thoughts. I'm no economics major. I would like to know what the rest of you think?
No legit ISP (or broadband supplier) is every going to allow the RIAA appointed crackers to use their service to smash random computers on a whim. a/ It would violate the usual terms and conditions of all ISPs and b/ any hosting ISP would rapidly be isolated from the internet when everybody else firewalled it's packets to /dev/null.
My problem with this bill is this:
Let's say that it has all the safeguards Berman says it does. However, the RIAA damages my computer anyway. What could I do about it? Absolutly nothing!!
Even if I take them to court, guess what? They'd be able to afford better lawyers than me. Which means they could even take a sledge hammer to my computer and get away with it.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Let's just say the 1st, 4th, and 6th are all getting bent a little here.
Many P2P's now have chat built in. Your not going to be exercising your freedom of speech or peacful assembly while under a DoS attack. The 4th? that old nag, I guess probable cause is enough, lets throw away the rest. And last but certainly not least the 6th. Oh sure, you'll get the speedy trial. The accuser who is doing the DOS makes sure of that, without the hastle of a jury or any "Assistance of Counsel" don't need that, your already guilty.
What I imagine the RIAA and its co conspirators are afraid of is that when they go damaging networks (and remember, the Internet is a peer to peer network, as most networks are these days: SNA used to be an exception but even it may be peer to peer now) that the aggregate damage to a large class of people may be way over $250. Time to investigate and clean up damage, even when actual damage done is minimal, is routinely included in the cost of an attack when such attacks are brought to the attention of the FBI or other law enforcement now. Same would be so for home users, and one exceeds a $250 threshold very fast when billing such out at consultant rates. Took 6 hours to restore your backup? At $50 per hour (and why should you work for RIAA for less??) that comes to $300, over the threshold. Enough of those and you can come up with a bee-yootiful lawsuit. Some jurisdictions have become famous for doing this, we may also recall, with damages figured in really monumental sums. So the safe harbor better damn well be airtight or RIAA (or anyone else with deep pockets) would be crazy to do any damage at all. This is why the alleged prohibition against ancillary damage is suspicious.
And should the 4th amendment not work, you can always try the 2nd one....
well, if you could get together matching funds + 1 indefinitely to fight the RIAA then it'd be possible to find conclusive proof.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Let's say that Berman's description of the bill is accurate. (Not that we believe this for a second--we _can_ read, afterall.) If so, what kind of "self-help" (i.e. "attacks") does he seem to think are permitted? With all his disclaimers, it's pretty hard to tell.
Answer: (1) They scan a P2P server for infringing works. (2) Then, they just download the infringing work. Alot. (3) Optional: Meanwhile, they create honeypots to flood the P2P nets with false files of their copyrighted works.
The effect of this is to cripple the pirate server and blow its bandwidth pipe. The elegance of this is that the attack ends immediately when the server owner removes the infringing file. Meanwhile, every download is a separate act of infringement by the server owner. As a bonus, the pirate's ISP will probably go apeshit over the traffic volume, causing the pirate additional grief without the **AA having to do any additional work.
This is a good plan for the **AA because it is mostly non-invasive (no more so than other downloading guests), deletes no files, requires no viruses, and probably doesn't fry any hardware (though it may every once in a while).
BUT if that's all the **AA had in mind (and that by itself would be bad enough), why is the bill so vague? Why is there a threshhold damages amount of $250? No, the **AA want to go further, and they're paying Berman to get them there.
(There is, of course, at least one problem with the above scenario. If attackers are required to ID themselves to a target server as "I am a **AA goon", as Berman suggests, then the target servers will learn to ignore them. Such a plan only works with anonymous, IP-shifting attackers.)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
...a rip-off of Yahoo's, I find this slightly ironic.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
Look, if it is so cheap and easy to create and distribute music without the labels, then why don't we see anything coming out of any other channels? If you are right, then why are artists still signing contracts with the labels, if they have an alternative that will both make them more free, and make them more money to boot? Until we see a robust alternative (legal) distribution channel, your argument carries no weight.
To make silly laws moot, we simply need a nice generic library that:
1) uses simple xml to define protocols, and therefore allows mimicing of known, popular protocols like ftp, http, pop, etc. Stuff that never will be blocked.
2) routes (and spreads around) p2p packets.
3) resistant to attacks. (perhaps some nodes that perform the "white blood cell" role.
4) can preserve anonymity.
5) uses strong encryption, including the use of key servers and have nodes rotate keys every week or so.
6) The ability to 'tunnel' other applications through it, much like ssh.
If that existed, they can legislate 'till the cows come home.
Cheers,
-b
Your distinction between copyright infringement and theft is technically accurate; but it is a distinction without a difference. Nobody has argued that the labels have been deprived of tangible goods. We are discussing the moral and ethical ramifications of music traders illegally obtaining something that they do not have a right to, not whether the labels are losing physical assets. In this context, I believe that it is useful and fair to refer to the trader's activity as stealing, even though it is not precisely accurate.
Congressman "Hollywood" Berman received approximately $200k from the entertainment industry in the last election cycle. I've already emailed him asking that if I could raise $250k for him, would he drop the bill? He never responded.
I'm not going to copy/paste it all, but details here: http://www.dtman.com/index.html#20020726_1
Correspondence to him and to my own Congressman are in the forum.
--I don't download or trade music any, zero. It's not really that importantto me. However, I am very concerned with any industry that conspires to stifle trade and is clearly ripping off people, as is the case of the music industry as it exists today. With that said, the current situation is that the music industry is more or less controlled and run as a collusionary monopoly, very similar and analogous to the energy cartels and middlemen "traders" and the lamer stupid corrupt politicians that raped california with energy costs. You have corrupt greedy "owners" who control the bulk of music, they pay off and bribe politicians, and also get together to keep their respective label monopolies and distribution methods set so that very little of any "competition" is allowed. Can you walk into localmusicstore.com and purchase a cd with hundreds of mp3's on it for the same price as a cd with a dozen songs? Nope, you can't. the tech exists to provide that service, as simple as a mass storage based kiosk and point and click screen to choose and then burn on demand, for instance. Can you pick and choose which songs you want on a cd, or to download at any sort of reasonable price? Only with tiny secure labels and artists, that's about it. This is no different from the enron and worldcom type scandals. We are getting the ILLUSION of free market competition, but not the reality of it. We have the technology now to make music much more affordable,including huge profits for all concerned, but the music monopoly companies conspire to keep it full price as if there have been no advances in tech. The cost of commercial cd's is beyond absurd, and there exists a very common sense business model which would still allow them to make billions, but allow more choice to the consumer. Everyone would be a winner, they-the monopolists-choose to remain recalictrant and the politicians refuse to stop their monopolistic practices except for that recent tiny miniscule fine they received. Those monopolists have been convicted of conspiring, yet have not received anything but a joke fine, no jail terms or anything, typical of the corporate fascist trends in government now. They do media photo ops, then it's back to monopoly business practices as usual.
Only solution I can se at this point is boycott them and their products, refuse to vote for politicians who support legalised hacking by private organizations, and to push for consumer class action damage suits all over the nation, instead of one big one, any consumer of music take them to local small claims court, make the riaa and record company execs show up in podunk usa all over, they fail to show, they lose in court. That simple. Even if they show up based on the large suits, the consumer will most likely win a case. Tear them apart with few hundred dollar fines all over the nation in hundreds of thousands of places, and get the publicity into the mainstream consciousness to encourage others to do the same.
First gut response: You anti-Semitic scumbag.
More reasoned response: Israel's actions have been reprehensible. The fact that human rights have been abused as part of a war against an enemy using despicable means to destroy Israel and kill Israeli civilians is not a justification.
But you claim that Israel's actions are an ex post facto justification for the wholesale murder and extermination of six million innocents? See first gut response.
First you agree with the previous poster, then you say that it is useful to discuss it using inaccurate terms. WTF?
The term "stealing" implies transfer of physical goods, depriving the owner of their use. You agreed that this was correct. The moral and ethical ramifications of this are different, and more serious, than the ethical and moral issues inherent in making unauthorised copies which do not deprive you of the use of your copy. Both are wrong, but one is stealing, the other is illegal copying.
The **AA wants to cast the discussion in terms of "stealing", knowing it is inaccurate, because the gut reaction is based on the assumption that the owner no longer posesses the stolen object(s). Their arguments would (rightly) carry much less weight if they were properly couched in terms of "illegal copying" or "copyright infringement."
Yes, both are wrong, but using accurate terms is important in putting the debate in its proper perspective. IMHO, "stealing" is a far graver offense than "illegal copying."
This is my
This Line, "Some, in the media and among the piracy profiteers, claim that the bill is not limited in this way.", sounds like something out of the Salam Witch Hunt or McCarthyism. If you stand up against this bill, you are automatically labled a "Piracy Profiteer". It may not be as bad as being considered a Communist (R) or a Witch (R), but it might ruin your reputation in congress. Also, if they do something to your HDD, if you bring them to court, how are you going to prove they did anything. How are they going to prove you did anything. Sounds like a bunch of crap to me.
-----.----.-------
I'll
That includes, sadly, the non-skippable ad feature on your dvd player.
You are free to disable it. If you can.
One further note about the first-sale doctrine. That really applies to the object you bought; the CD, book, clay tablet, whatever. You can take that object and sell it to someone else, smash it, paint it, or anything you want. What you can't do is violate the copyright on the contents. That is, if I buy a copy of the latest Stephen King novel, I don't get the right to re-print it. If I buy a copy of the latest (insert lame band here) CD, I don't get the right to post it to napster.
Yes, both are wrong, but using accurate terms is important in putting the debate in its proper perspective. IMHO, "stealing" is a far graver offense than "illegal copying."
Okay, I see the bone of contention here: you think that 'copyright infringement' is a much less serious offense than theft. I disagree; I believe that they are essentially equivalent, since their practical outcomes are the same (in this instance,) and hence I have no problem equating the two.
For example, whether you download Britney's latest album, or you steal one from the distributor, the upshot is the same: you now have something for which you have not paid. The worth of the physical item is negligible; it is the content that holds the value. Whether it's called stealing or 'illegal copying' is irrelevant outside of the legal arena.
"Okay, I see the bone of contention here: you think that 'copyright infringement' is a much less serious offense than theft. I disagree; I believe that they are essentially equivalent, since their practical outcomes are the same (in this instance,) and hence I have no problem equating the two."
You are once again, wrong. The practical outcomes are *not* essentially the same. The issue here is that one, theft, leads to dispossession, whereas the other, infringement, does not.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. 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 in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." -- Thomas Jefferson, 13 Aug. 1813 in a letter to Isaac McPherson.
The second sentence in the above quote goes to the heart of moral, and ethical difference between theft, and infringement. You will note that in the last sentence that Jefferson clearly states that the issue is not one of property. His basis for this conclusion is derived from the next to the last sentence.
"For example, whether you download Britney's latest album, or you steal one from the distributor, the upshot is the same: you now have something for which you have not paid. The worth of the physical item is negligible; it is the content that holds the value. Whether it's called stealing or 'illegal copying' is irrelevant outside of the legal arena."
Here you are being 'hyper-capitalistic' and thus miss the point. That point being that everything is not owned exclusively, nor privately held. There are some things that are held in *common* by the whole of humanity. Jefferson's use of air in the previous quote is a prime example of such common property. Again I quote from Jefferson's letter to McPherson-- "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society,..."
You'll note that the reason that copyrights, and patents are *granted*, i.e. given, is for the benefit of society as a whole not for the benefit of an individual, or some sub-set of society. In fact Jefferson points this out in the following quote...
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
Indeed, it is the "...profits arising form them..."(the them being inventions) and not control of an invention, and certainly not ownership that is being *granted* exclusively to the inventors/s.
To conclude:
The right to property is an innately held natural right, and given that theft is the deprivation of an individual of his/her property, then theft is necessarily a violation of an individuals natural rights. Copyrights, and patents are granted. A natural right is not granted, but is innately held by an individual. Therefore, infringement is not a violation of a natural right, whereas theft is.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English
steal : to take (something) without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it
- The boys were charged with stealing bikes from a house in Summerhill Rd. [T]
- The number of cars which are stolen every year has risen considerably. [T]
- She came home to find she'd had her TV and video stolen (=someone had stolen them). [T]
- When the book was published we found that the author had stolen several of our ideas. [T]
- The firm is now accusing a small band of its former employees of stealing trade secrets. [T]
- They were so hungry they had to steal in order to eat. [I]
- He has been convicted of stealing. [I]
Will you now admit that the word 'steal' can be accurately used to describe the misappropriation of something other than physical property; and, to wit, copyrighted digital music?The distinction is clear; theft deprives the 'owner' of the use of something, whereas infringement alone does not, but only uses something without permission to do so.
With all this talk of obsolete business models and such, has it ever occured to you that you may be using an obsolete definition of stealing?
-a
How to rationalize theft.
No.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
As you can see, my prefered method is just to be right. (Your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Sorry. That was pretty arrogant.
from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball
You'll note the part in 1a "with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
The offence of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another*** with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it.*** The property need not be tangible. The earlier offence of larceny involved "taking and carrying away" the goods and was until 1827 divided into Grand Larceny, which originally carried the death penalty or transportation, and Petty Larceny, when the value of the stolen property was less than a shilling. It was replaced by theft as defined by the Theft Act (1968). --The Macmillan Encyclopedia 2001, © Market House Books Ltd 2000
1 the act or an instance of stealing.
2 Law dishonest appropriation of another's property ***with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently.***
[OE thiefth, theofth, later theoft, f. Gmc (as thief)]
The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, © Oxford University Press 1996
Note the part about "...with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it."
The word steal has numerous definitions that vary in both kind, and degree. I don't think that stealing a base in baseball, nor stealing a kiss is illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Stealing is illegal, immoral, or unethical only when such an act is done with intent of permanent deprivation. Usage of the word 'steal' in other contexts does not bare consideration within the parameters of the subject under discussion in this thread.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
I have presented definitions from a two dictionaries which indicate that the word 'steal' may relate to the "without permission, dishonest, or unlawful" appropriation of non-physical assets, such as ideas or trade secrets. This idea is presented in the same context as the theft of property, not in alternate definitions like 'stealing first base.'
Your presentation of definitions which are narrower in scope in no way invalidates the broader scope. Unless you can:
A. Establish that these two mainstream dictionaries are erroneous, or
2. Explain why the appropriation of copyrighted materials is substantially different from the appropriation of ideas or trade secrets,
I don't see how you can rationally continue this line of reasoning.
DoSing someone who's currenting sharing your copyrighted material p2p is hardly a week later.
Vote for Pedro