Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Sides with Record Labels Over DMCA Subpoena Powers
Injektilo* writes "The Washington Port is reporting
that the U.S. government sided with the recording industry in its dispute with Verizon Communications Inc. on Friday, saying a digital-copyright law invoked by
record labels to track down Internet song-swappers did not violate the U.S. Constitution." We've been following this case.
Warning, the Washington Times link actually takes you to the Washington POST.
Not as bad as goatse... but still a phony link!
It's not just the Republicans that are in cahoots with the RIAA- the Democrats are just as bad. Even if we had a different executive administration, the RIAA would still have governmental support in cases like this. How can the American public's voice be heard when its elected officials repeated do not accurately represent them, and kowtow to corporate interests? What can be done?
guess what hillary rosen's up to these days?
just heard this report by investigative journalist greg pallast that says she been tasked with re-writing iraq's intellectual property laws.
so we've got corporate vultures writing iraqs laws... people with no experience in government or nation building... pretty disturbing.
Using my European logic to think, I think the answer is very simple. Do not vote for the Republicans nor Democrats, and tell all your friends to do the same.
You do have alternatives, don't you? If you don't, that's scary...
Well, what did you expect?
That the junta^Wgovernment repeals a stupid law? Has that ever happened in the recorded history?
Govermnent does not kill stupid laws, judges do.
That't why the Bush clan made sure that judges sympathetic to their cause have the majority in the important courts.
This is how a dictatorship works, you know? The government makes stupid laws, and there are no independent judges to declare it unconstitutional.
Think about our children?
We need to bust people before they commit crimes and if the police search your home when you did not do anything you are still innocent. The dmca needs to be applied so copyrights are also protected in the digital age like regular text is.
http://saveie6.com/
This brief is essentially meaningless. It has no legal bearing. Ashcroft's justice department has been anti-Constitution since day one. Constitutionally speaking, the RIAA needs a warrant to get this information. The only question is whether the Federal and/or Supreme Court have the enough integrity to uphold the Constitution.
Seems like bad journalism at its finest.
The story says the Justice department merely filed a brief with the court stating their position, yet they refer to it as a "ruling". So which is it?
"Verizon's persistent efforts to protect copy thieves on pirate peer-to-peer networks will not succeed," [RIAA's Matt Oppenheimer] told Reuters.
Copy Thieves. heh
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I don't have much idea about the US legal system since I am not even a US citizen. But isn't the US Supreme Court supposed to deal with constitutional issues? If not, then how does this work?
From the article:
:-)
Verizon says such a move is necessary to protect user privacy because otherwise any copyright holder -- or anybody claiming to be a copyright holder -- could easily obtain the name and address of any Internet user.
Ok. Here is the idea--
By default everybody owns the copyright to everything they write, right? Which means that everybody problably owns a copyright to something....
Lets all claim that our college papers may be being passed around Kazaa, and ask Verizon for the name and address of everyone using this network. Or pick your favorite P2P.
Submit this request in writing, etc.
This should give Verizon legal ammo to use against the RIAA.
Since I have written some interesting articles and documents, maybe I will do this first
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Of course one branch of the government is going to support the other branch.
Didn't you guys ever take any civics class? Industry writes the laws, congress passes them, judges uphold them, and the president smiles at the camera. The four branches of government.
Seems the record companies are complaining of lack of revenue in CD sales... yet they have no qualms about spending millions in legal fees to piss off consumers. Makes you wonder if they are so poor as to invoke legal protection to increase revenue, where does all the money to lobby legislature and hire lawyers come from? I think the US needs to seriously investigate it's priorities as per legal disputes... should it be aiding multi billion dollar industries by granting almost dictatorial powers, or helping the average American consumer live a free and happy life? Seems it's current stance is based more on financial gains than consumer protection.
Verizon argues that record labels should be required to get permission from a judge, rather than a clerk, a move that would add another legal hurdle to any copyright investigation.
Will this make any difference other than just delaying the inveitable i.e name release of the file-sharers?This is what happens when corporations can legally buy politicians.
...disgruntled geeks start bombing RIAA offices? That'll be fun.
Repeal the DMCA!
Its not the Washington Times its the Washington Post.
Maybe if we could get more geeks in Senate we could change the laws. We need some of you slashdot people to run for Senate based on issues we care about.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Thats the Washington Post, not Washington TImes
That is because corporations are viewed as legal individual enities; with the rights of a person. Which is a situaion I don't believe the founding fathers had any way to predict or develop contingency plans for.
In a normal situation, when I have a problem with a law, I would suggest petitioning your congressman and seeking popular support. But IMHO, with copying things it's different, the only real way is with civil disobedience and defiance.
First, copying things is a moral right, like freedom of speech, that exists above government. If we try to petition our leaders to obtain this right - then it would imply that the right to copy derives from the powers that be, and that is intellectually dishonest.
Second, the main foundation behind politics is that it's better to fight wars of words than wars of bloodshed. But copying things doesn't require violence at all. It can be done with impunity, little risk, little fear of getting caught, and no violence initiated on our part. The old rules just don't apply.
Thrid, laws like the DMCA, infinite extensions, and suvere disproportionate punishments and the like are just symptions of trying to impose copying restrictions in the information age. The sooner we get the problem at the root, the sooner we will get the dogs off our back.
Fourth, we have a moral imperitave to hit the people behind this like the RIAA and the MPAA where it hurts - in their revenue streams, so as to thwart their advances on our rights. Defiance of copyrights is the only real way to do that. Does anyone really think we would get that thru legal petition.
Fith, these industries not only controll the media, they are the media. They have an unfair advantage, and incentive to lie about the nature of copyrights, and even call people dishonest names like "pirate" - this is the only real way of dealing with that.
You have to get to the Supreme Court by appeals. So first you have to have you case heard in lower courts, and even then the Supreme Court has the power to pick which case it will hear, so you might never get that far.
This is not a ruling, it is an amicus brief filed by the justice department. Essentially it says that they support the DMCA and the powers given under it - it just shows their position on the issue. The DoJ can "rule" all they want on this, but it wont be any more effective then me going outside and "ruling" that my neighbor has to give me his car.
Amicus briefs are filed every day by the DoJ.. so this is nothing extraordinary. Move along, nothing to see here except utter confusion generated by the poster of this topic.
Might as well since it doesn't hold any weight any longer. They should take out "persuit of happiness" and all privacy clauses to make it more in line with the DMCA! This is all utter BS!
I am BLaRG!
PS cnn is owned by time-warner.
http://saveie6.com/
You are all criminals. Its only a matter of time you are ethnically cleansed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
~~~
Y'know, normally i'd have an allergic reaction to this sentiment, but at this point i'm willing to agree.
I'm a republican. The last time I voted for a Democrat was in 1992 when I voted for Clinton (which I hate to admit in public). I promised i'd vote for a yellow dog sooner than i'd vote for another one.
This administration is not making me very happy however. I'm getting the same weird vibe I got with Edwin Meese back in the 80's.
I'm tempted to change my voting habits but it's taking me a lot to get past my antipathy towards Slick Willy, Daschle and Pelosi, and everyone associated with them.
When a choice of two turds is offered, choose the turd that hurts you least, I suppose.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Arrest the criminals before they commit crimes?
I think its time to leave the USA, I mean if things keep getting worse I'm going to leave. When it gets to the point where someone can point the finger and have you raided just because of a filename, something is wrong there.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"This is how a dictatorship works, you know? The government makes stupid laws, and there are no independent judges to declare it unconstitutional."
We need some oldstyle patriots (terrorists in modern doublespeak) like James Maddison to straighten this shit out.
Didn't you know that the corporations are rewriting the constitution? The preamble goes something like this:
We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more profitiable economy for our shareholders, increase our bottom line, protect our corporate interests, ensure the protection of our intellectual property, have full control to abuse our environment, and secure the enslavement of the common people as mindless consumers, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
Aren't you proud to be an american in this day and age? I sure am.
Even scarier, is this gen from the Justice Department statement of the decision:So aparently it's accepatable to violate the due process rights if suspected crininals. I look forward to seeing the 'clarification' of this statement that is sure to be issued, because we all know the justice department can't support the violation of the due process rights of suspected criminals.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Isn't retribution against civilians of an occupied country (for the sins of its government) against the Geneva Convention?
Correction; a vote for Nader was a vote for... ...Nader.
(wait for it)
No-one is guarenteed votes, no one is owed votes and the perception that votes "rightfully" only belong to one of two parties is a reflection of deeply rooted problems within our system of government.
Wow, Washington Times then becomes the Washington Port? Wow /. editors are amazing in their skills...
Folks, listen. Redistributing material for which you do not own the copyright isn't your natural right, it's not your Constitutional right, and it's not a business model either. I don't care what is your excuse.
...Or, continue being the Industry's biotch with a fat wallet and no willpower. Whichever path you choose, stop freakin' whining about it. Just stop, crybabies.
The fact that you owned the album in the 70s, but accidentally left it in the back window of your Dart Swinger does not give you the right to secure your own illegal copy. Just because the industry fixes prices at inflated levels does not grant you the right to secure an illegal copy. Just because one song out of 10 is decent does not give you the right to secure an illegal copy. Just because distributors are screwing artists with predatory contracts does not give you the right to secure an illegal copy.
I could take issue with not being able to listen/watch something that has some lame copy protection, for which you do have a legal copy. But, that's not the case here.
So, it's up to you. Stop listening to, and distrubting illegal copies, so the RIAA doesn't have legal fodder. Stop listening to radio payola pop garbage music, so you aren't brainwashed into consumer frenzy. Stop buying pop music from major labels, (here and abroad, and at any price.)
The purpose of the executive branch of US government is to enforce the law, and not to judge its constitutionality. If you're going to blame someone, blame congress for passing this law to begin with. This law will eventually be visited by the Supreme Court, at which time it will decide its constitutionality.
The real problem here is that it is far too easy to enact laws and far too hard to repeal or overturn them.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Haven't they suffered enough from oppression, aggression and absence of rights?
I think it's great that Verizon put up a fight. They've provided a larger number of people with some pretty mediocre service for a long time, so it's nice to read about them making a positive difference.
...copyright owners have a clear and unambiguous entitlement to determine who is infringing their copyrights online and that entitlement is constitutional.
It is absurdly ill-thought-out that a "court clerk" gets to "rule" on whether the or not the RIAA has just cause to demand people's personal information. And I certainly hope that Verizon defies them in this regard and lands this in an actual court case. This would be an expensive move on their part, so I'm not holding my breath.
The RIAA's statement shows just how far from constitutional that they think Napster (et. al.) permits them to go:
Um, no. The courts have an unambiguous entitlement to determine who is breaking the law. That entitlement is constitutional. Having a copyright does not make you a peace officer; it does not qualify you to be trusted with confidential information and to use that information only in support of the court's decisions. The mechanisms currently in place to defend against such abuse are substantial (if flawed).
A court clerk (for all their many virtues) is not going to be qualified to verify that the methods by which the "infringing" IP addresses were discovered are valid or applicable to this law. The RIAA is going to get vast amounts of data on perfectly innocent people and force them to prove their innocence in order to remain connected to the one truly Free information media we have left.
How many minutes will it be until the RIAA uses this information to attack people like you and me that are freely expressing our discontent. After a 100 people who speak out against them have paid more than $1000 dollars each in lawyer fees to retain our Internet connections, who will dare to risk their connection by speaking out against these people.
If there is no blanket ruling against the RIAA in the first court case to come to trial what will follow will be ugly. First because of all the innocent, decent people that will be caught in the crossfire, second because measures this draconian will make even the average human sufficiently aware of the injustice to finally stop buying CDs.
Sure they did, it's called the SECOND Amendment...
But really, I think the problem here is that the government has had the misleading assumption over the past years that the fourth amendment (against unreasonable search and seizure) was intended solely as a restriction upon the government. Since the whole basis of privacy can be summed up in the fourth amendment, I think it's high time that it was used to protect the individual on the entire basis that I believe it was founded. No one, including and probably most especially the individual or corporation, should be able to subpoena records or enact searches without the full weight of a warrant dictated by probable cause. That would mean no blanket "file trading is done on your networks, give us access!" statements in the same way that (at least prior to the Patriot Act) the government can't issue warrants for every residence in Texas on the basis that "drugs come in there."
nuff said
Verizon is a company that has so far stood up strongly to the RIAA, and I would be convinced to purchase internet service from them if it was available in my area. Not for the fact that I will be d/ling mp3's, but for the simple fact they will protect my constitutional rights.
Look, I'm sick of this shit. I'm not a Bush supporter by any means, but Bush and other Republicans have no loyalty to the entertainment industry. And why would they? The Democrats are the entertainment bitches. It's the Democrats who get all the entertainment money, it's the Dems who push laws like the DMCA and Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act. Its the Dems who want the CBDTPA. It is doubtful that protecting entertainment intrests is the "Bush clan's cause." They are simply holding up their interpretation of an already existing law.
I understand that it's hip to hate Republicans, but get your facts straight.
Here's the bottom line: You KNOW trading MP3s is illegal, regardles of your personal views on the matter it IS against the law.
If you want your privacy respected, RESPECT the law!
I think the RIAA are a bunch of swine myself, but sheesh people you are breaking the law, they're in the right you're in the wrong.
That the junta^Wgovernment repeals a stupid law? Has that ever happened in the recorded history?
Prohibition.
1). A boycott will not work. We are presumed guilty on this, so lowering sales will increase the RIAAs mind-share among neutrals, that we are doing actual damage.
What can we do? Support the artists we can enjoy and respect us regarding this issue. They do not even need to be P2P friendly..bands and artists that are neutral towards live music at least will do the trick. We will see more respect coming from the industry.
2)For the "anti-pirates" out there, realize that suggesting the purchase of a live album, in the eyes of the labels is the equivilent of piracy. If it is not available, do not reinforce their meme-share by encouraging used sales over P2P sharing. Both are one and the same.
3. Forget about changing the political system. In fact, thinking that we can change things through matching their lobbying efforts is silly. The only way we can win is to bring it to the public. Do not support parties, support their supporters. Throw your hat in the cacophony of support for a common cause. Even if the politicians are corrupt, our trust must be in each other. In this way, we can avoid being ignored by the politicians, and in essence, make our goal reality.
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy but that could change." .Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 5/22/98
LOL! Talk about a Freudian slip. Did he really say that??
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Forgive me in advance, I am not a Constitutional lawyer. A quote from the article disturbs me,
"nothing in the Constitution specifically barred the investigative process set up by the DMCA". I thought the Constitution said that those rights not explicitly granted by the Constitution are reserved". What gives? Or is this just the puppet masters taking advantage of lazy, complacent, purposefully ill educated Americans once again?
No, that's a Dan Quayle quote.
So who will the RIAA go after when a computer in a 7-person household using NAT to share bandwidth downloads an mp3? If a minor downloads the music, are the parents liable?
You're correct, the Supreme Court has the final word on whether something is Constitutional. However, it is a long slow process. The Supreme Court does not take a case unless a Consitutional question is an issue. And they don't take it until it is "ripe." That is, it has to have been through all the various levels of courts beneath the Supreme Court, and the specific Constitutional issues identified. Things that tend to bring the Supreme Court into action are instances where courts in different parts of the country interpret an issue differently. So if an appeals court on the west coast and an appeals court on the east coast come to different conclusion on Constitionality, the Supreme Court is more likely to step in and settle the issue. What this question requires is a little more riping.
I really wonder why you folks seem to think it is ok to steal music, just like a Pawn Broker has to tell who sold stolen merchandise to him, why should Verison not have to do the same thing for music and movie thieves?
The music companies have every right to get as much as they want for their music. If you don't like the cost, don't buy, but DON'T steal it, just because you can.
HipOldGuy
HipOldGuy.com
Or flush them both down the toilet. Turn yours into a protest vote, and either don't vote, or vote for a no-hoper candidate. If enough people did this, the main parties would get the message!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Shut up. You are free to do whatever you choose
Heh.
This quote nicely stands on its own, and makes your opponent's point without his even bothering to respond.
Very considerate of you, IMO.
No, YOU shut the fuck up, idiot. *I* didn't vote for the knobs that are currently in power, and what gives you the idea that I did?
I don't understand how it is not stealing just because you "Wouldn't have paid for it." If I walk into a store and steal something I can't say It's ok, I wouldn't have used it if I had to pay for it. I will still go to jail, and I will deserve to go to jail. It's that simple. The fact that it costs too much doesn't give you the right to steal it, the fact that the record company stole it from the artist doesn't give you the right to steal it. It's still worng. Artists have the ability to go other places with their music. If they wanted you to get their music without paying for it, they would distribute it to you for free on Kazaa. But they made a decision to let the RIAA distribute their music for them, so they are not getting ripped off they are entering into a contract willingly. You are ripping yourself off by purchasing the music (those who still purchase it.) The artists have the right to sell their music for however much they want. You have a right to buy it or not buy it. This is not like telephone service or oil or even Microsoft(Don't get me started here). You do not need Brittany Spears Music to function in your day to day life. Nobody is creating a monoply on music. Don't like paying for CD's: go record yourself singing into a microphone and play it back(it's still music). The music companies have every right to charge whatever they want for their "Quality" music. This is not a commodity market and the music companies are not setting prices on Pork Bellies they are setting prices on a product that is differentiable and unique. If you don't like it ok, don't pay for it, but don't steal it. its wrong and is punishable by law.
As far as Verizon is concerned. They are right. The Copyright holders are responsible for finding offendors and then subponeaing Verizon for specific info, not a blanket list of guilty and innocent so they can find people to prosecute.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
The story, sir, has obviously been corrected. It did in fact say that the government "ruled." If I offended you in some way(how, I do not know, as you did not submit the story yourself), then I am sorry. I was merely pointing out, albeit in quite a strong manner, that the story was grossly inaccurate and was inviting a vehement discussion on an issue that was not present. So if I offended you, I am sorry. However, I stand by my original comment with regard to the story as originally posted.
The founding fathers were very cautious to specifically mention individual rights, and to limit power. The early governments of the United States were equally cautious.
To be granted a patent (a monopoly on production of an item) required the approval of the Secretary of State, among others.
A corporation was only created for a very important matter. I mean, before the United States was its own country, the entire damn colony of Virginia was a corporation. After the founding of the United States, corporations were created to do something such as build a public work: the first one was created by the US Government on contract to build a bridge. It wasn't until practically the end of the 19th century that it became commonplace to create corporations for personal profit.
The founding fathers simply never assumed that corporations would be mutated into what they are today. A corporation in their time was a charter from a King to do a given job. Now it's given to anyone who wants to sell something.
we need more green party and independants in office. we all need to read the daniel quinn novel "Ishmael". we all need to hear what michael moore has to say. democrats are becoming republicans. we need to take this fucking country back. get to the voting booths. please, for the love of this nation. vote.
It's pretty chilling that the DOJ doesnt mind that a pedophile serial killer can draw some whacky doodle .. claim it's being pirated on the internet and then get the address of kids they've been stalking online.
Don't worry though thanks to the vision and foresight of DOJ, the county clerk's office will charge high fees to keep such individual copyright holders from being able to enforce their "rights".
If ruled against, it's entirely possible that Verizon would simply create a 'copyright claims' department to shovel this information out to anyone who asks. This would protect them from future lawsuits ("See? we're cooperating fully").
A spammer could then, conceivably, send you an email to/through Verizon (anonymously, through a proxy server, etc.) then contact Verizon, demanding access to your email inbox/log files to see if you're receiving 'copyrighted' material.
Hell, after a few requests, they could even forego the 'email' part:
Spammer: Hiya Bill, it's me again.
Verizon: Hey Mark! Need to track down some thieves again? <snicker>
Spammer: <chuckle> You know me, Bill- my justice is swift!
Verizon: Ha haaa! You da man! Shall I zip it for ya?
Spammer: Please.
in any administration the government would side with a law on the books. do you realy think that the the executive branch would want to step on the toes of the legislative branch and undermine the credibility of the passage of the law?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Do not vote for republicans or democrats which do not support your opinions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
are you a retard? we do have an indipendant judiciary fool.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Brilliant response. Suggest action instead of words, when you know the action is not feasible. You are well aware that no one can up and get elected without major financing, massive time expenditure (on the order of years) to build a support base, and complete upheaval of their entire life. So if this person does in fact try, they will be tied up in it for years during which time nothing will get done and you won't have to listen to them. If they don't you can attack them as having no conviction. Even if they do manage to get elected, years down the road, then that one vote in the Federal Government will not be able to effect any change in policy, and still nothing changes. Truly brilliant. My hat is off to you.
People like you disgust me.
Like so many listed there.
Seriously, if you dislike President Bush just say so, and list the reasons why you don't. If you feel you are right there is no need to make shit up.
You're entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
--Joey
I think we need a government that doesn't bow down to corporate interests at every whim.
Actually it just says that you have the right to persue happiness, not that you are garunteed happiness. And in this case it's probably just assumed that your persuit of happiness mearly interfears with someone elses. And they complained first, which for some reason makes them more right than you or something like that. But you know what, I'm sure that if you started giving congressmen millions of dollars that you might convince a few that your right to persue happiness is more impotant than someone elses.
MOD PARENT UP!
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Yes but a Pawn Borker does not have to submit a list of people who he suspects sold him stolen goods, when there is not a specific instance of stealing in question. Michael
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Really, this is a big deal. I should be up and running around, ranting and raving about how horrible it is. I told people to go rant and rave about how great it was when Congress (it was Congress, wasn't it?) decided to re-examine the DMCA, so I'm going to just end up sounding like a hypocrite, so I do understand that this isn't okay. But I just don't feel like caring anymore. I want to care. Really I do. And I suppose in all reality, the problem is that I actually do care. I love my country, and that's why I hate to see it raped so horribly. And it's not just this either, there are so many things America, my country which I do very much so love, is doing horribly wrong right now. Honestly, I feel like a bunch of our government officials are taking the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and wrapping them around their phalli and using them to whack off, not noticing or caring that they fall to shreds, just caring about their own personal orgasms. And humorous as this may sound to some people, I don't mean it as a joke. I suppose this is exactly why I should be jumping up and taking action. And I know that I have to, because if I don't stand up for my beliefs, I can't expect anyone else to. I will keep fighting, too, in whatever ways I can. But for now, it's just too much, too depressing for me to handle. I think I'll just lie here awhile then, just lie back in my chair and let the depression swoop over me like a dark sheet.... The depression is comforting somehow...
http://mediagoblin.org/
Actually, the founding fathers DID anticipate it, and were certainly AGAINST it. Here's a good primer on the the topic, and a host of links from google about it, mostly of public interest groups opposed to corporate personhood.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
The problem here is that the RIAA is going to make VERIZON foot the bill for protecting their 'God-Given copyright.'
As an ironic aside, the publishing industries of America (yes, all of them) clawed their way to the top by blatantly stealing IP themselves. The book industry routinely ripped off Enlgish authors from the start of the Industrial Revolution (itself stolen IP)to about the time that......they had lots of IP to protect themselves! Convienent. We are the suckers that have to obey, I guess.
--------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Verizon isn't my friend. I'm not sure if they are even the enemy of my enemy. But in this case, good for Verizon for fighting the good fight. (For whatever reasons.) Far too many ISPs simply roll over and play dead whenever they get a DMCA letter from some ambulance-chaser, like the bogus Avagrams from $cientology. (They frequently claim copyright over stuff that isn't theirs. That's why I'd never put up a page on a US server.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I was with Kinko's when they went through the "fair use" wringer that really started this ball rolling (that and the VHS copying ruling). I support the idea of copyright, it makes sense to protect creative works so they can benefit the creator. The problem is that the copyright term has been extended to a virtual infinite length of time.
As a creator of art, do you really need protection for your work for the next 100 plus years? Let's go back to 14 years plus a single justified 14 additional years. It just makes more sense. Anything that needs more protection can be trademarked.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
We need a deterrent to our elected and appointed leaders selling out to CorpGovMedia. So I say we take 10% and try them in a court of law for crimes against the people, and then hang them by the neck until dead on Washington Mall (if found guilty).
7
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
And as for his argument, the issue is complicated by the fact that the RIAA can also check out what ELSE you've been looking at online. How do you like that?
Actually, as a liberal, I prefer the conservative appointed Supreme Court justices.
A boycott will not work because people are too addicted to the mass marketed shit out there. Not only that, but what is the market share of the slashdot readers? Those teeny boppers will never agree to a boycott....they are too spoiled.
The Supreme Court can hear any case it pleases. Ripeness is just a method for the Supreme Court to reduce the number of cases it must hear, and is a form of self-restraint on the part of the Judicial branch. Also, the Supreme Court can rule on any case that includes some aspect of federal law, not only issues involving the Constitution.
Now, that's only if this gets past the court now. But here, the DoJ is merely adding their opinion, rather than being the applicant. So the courts might not look at this as governmental abuse of the Constitution. But it would be come a crowbar in the future for the DoJ.
Here, the DoJ isn't looking out for the RIAA's copyrights, it's merly using them as a tool to gain even MORE power than PATRIOT already gave them. First it's bookstores and libraries that are forced into the role of gov't watcher of your information habits (and don't think that when they subpoena records from Borders or Barnes & Noble that they also won't get records of music and other purchases made at those stores), now it's your Telco/ISP for your communication habits, when they don't already have a secret tap on your phone.
I'm not normally this paranoid, but Ashcrost is the #1 threat to this country, far more dangerous than Bin Laden...
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
It really isn't that hard. I've been able to get everybody who has mentioned to me their irritation with the same worthless choice on the ballot to agree with giving this a try so far, and given the amount of political discussion going on lately it fits pretty easily into conversation.
it's so easy, employ a really weak breakable encryption for all filesharing activities. if they are then after you give them the DMCA in return up their asses.
-T
The only thing the constitution says about intellectual rights, is that congress can grant them, with some restrictions. Unlike freedom of speech (a natural right which the constitution protects), copyright is granted by congress, and congress can take it away. The constitution simply gives congress the power to grant copyrights, much like it can grant the right to collect unemployment and welfare (interstate commerce clause). Copyright itself is not a constitutional right.
Better question: where is the moral right to profit from my own creativity???
No one has a right to profit. Congress can grant you a limited monopoly on your work, which gives you more opportunities to try making a profit. If you fail to do so, tough luck.
we make a living creating material that people like to see and hear.
Most of the people at this site make their living creating content. They at least admit current copyright laws are ridiculous.
P2P is going to kill us.
Would you care to provide some evidence to back that up? The record industry reported record profits during a slumping economy while Napster was in full swing. Their revenue did not come into check with the economy until Napster was shut down. As far as anyone can tell, the advertising potential of p2p more than compensates for lost sales. This of course, is because most people are honest! If you were smart, you would put samples of your work on p2p networks and tell people where they can buy the whole thing.
By the way, blaming p2p networks for piracy is like blaming guns for bank robberies. They are tools, not criminals. Oh, and the internet itself is a p2p network.
Must resist urge to correct...can't stop self...arrg...I think you meant "ripening".
Why not fork?
Yet, the shareholders don't know they are being screwed over.
(By the way, the RIAA gave a similar bribe to the Democrats, so Gore would most likely have sided with them just like Bush did.)
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
um, yeah they do, at least in my neck of the woods. They must provide the serial numbers of everything that is brought in to the police so the can match it up with a "hot" list
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Gore, who is also a corporate stooge, received a similar bribe, so I'm not saying he would have been any better. But I'm just wondering if Republicans are happy about Bush based on this outright bribery that he received. It certainly doesn't reflect well on his honesty and character.
What I'm saying is that perhaps they could use the RIAA to get a subpeona where they ordinally could't get one by concocting some excuse for the RIAA to be involved?
sri
"Verizon says such a move is necessary to protect user privacy because otherwise any copyright holder -- or anybody claiming to be a copyright holder -- could easily obtain the name and address of any Internet user."
And thats exactly what we should do if this is upheld - abuse this law as often as possible to show how little the government values your online privacy.
Once average people see how easy it is to get thier personal information they may wake up a little and start to demand changes.
verizon dsl: check
kazaa running 24/7, 16 concurrent users at all times throttled at 24kbps, supreme being participation level: check
60 gig usb drive holding entire mp3 stash: check. "oops. i don't know what songs you were talking about. all i got is this unconnected usb cable."
milk carton of old 80s cassettes rotting in my closet: check. "honestly officer of the court, all of the songs i have is copies of those on the cassettes. don't believe me? come on over and double check." (when they do that, the world really has been warped by corporate power and the riaa will be the least of my worries at that point).
hey, at least there is no newsgroup porn police, then i'd really be in trouble.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course there are other countries outside the US that do have a three-party (or more!) system. Take Canada, for example. Here in the Federal elections what we have is five parties now. There's two on the left, the New Democrats, who are national, and the Bloc Quebecois, which is a Quebec separatist party that just happens also to be left-wing. In the centre are the Liberals (capital ell) and on the right there are two parties, the Conservatives and the Reform party.
Now I happen to be incredibly pleased that the right is in total disarray, with the traditionally moderate Conservatives on the brink of going under and the radical Reform party way too right wing for most canadians outside a certain region in the west. That split has effectively made the right wingers ineffectual at the national level. The result is that currently the Liberals enjoy a huge split in their opposition that makes it most unlikely they will lose the next election.
On the other hand, just a decade ago the Conservatives were running the country. Canadians mostly don't "register" for a party (what a weird idea!) and instead vote for the party that they feel reflects their views on issues (wow!). Plus of course the voter turnout here is more like 75% which makes the U.S. Americans look pretty dinterested in voting.
What I'm trying to say is that yeah, having 3+ parties changes the game a lot and can result in split votes and so on. It also results in a lot of people doing "strategic" voting for their second favorite party if they think that will present a bad result.
And that's just the tip of the iceburg. There are voting systems developed now that are much more sophisticated to allow more different views and opposition.
Saying that a third party is impossible or stupid is just FUD. To bring myself back on topic at the last minute, I'll say that Nader would most certainly be on the RIGHT side in the DMCA/RIAA case.
simon
home page
has led me to quit buying CDs/music. I don't buy it anymore. Really. I have what I have and am content with that and will not buy another music CD in my lifetime. I accept compilations and copies from a friend or two now and again but that is pretty much it.
I haven't bought ANY M$ software of any kind since I bought my first PC (a top-of-the-line 486DX-33 in its day) for similar reasons. I don't like the behavior or politics of the producer of the product, so I don't friggin' give them ANY money at all.
They need me more than I need them (speaking as a generic "consumer"). Take that simple fact to heart and live by it. Realise that you really don't NEED to buy any CD or software package. You may WANT to but you do not NEED to and, in fact, you can get by very well if you simply refuse to spend your money on the crap. Spend it on more worthwhile alternatives, blockade giving them blood money. Make them find a new line of work or reform.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Ok all you Quake3/UT/Half-life/counterstrike kids, lets all grab our guns and go postal on anyone who supports DMCA/RIAA!
We all just need a unanimous direct democracy.
go stink up a fountain, RIAA!!!
Corporate weflare junkies like the RIAA should consider that they're opening up their personal lives and posessions to the public just as they open the public to their prying eyes. This isn't a one-way deal by any means.
If they want to start fingering users willy nilly, they can expect their home addresses and license plate numbers to be circulated as well.
Now I would never encourage anyone, especially not the young folks out there relatively immune to the reach of the law, to intentionally damage the property of or threaten the lives of RIAA executives once their addresses are published. I mean that could even lead to conspiracy charges. And just because they have a conspiracy to blackmail the American public, I wouldn't want to be charged with suggesting a violent conspiracy against them. So, I'm definitely not doing that. No sir. I hope these pigs live long and fat piggy lives and never get attacked in public or have their cars keyed so many times the insurance companies drop them or anything terrible like that. That would be terrible.
All I'm saying is that they really ought to consider who has more to lose in dropping basic privacy protections.
There's an old saying. Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. Get it?
How is this off-topic? Someone better get meta-moded with a slap in the face for that one.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
DMCA is a law, and it sucks, as america goes further into the technology realm, citizens will lose many/all of the rights we have associated with being individuals, as corperations start to tear into those whom are less fortunate than others, because they missed that .000000009 % profit.
Monoplistic corperations, are governments within themselves, they have everything our country has except a welfare system.
2cents of space
Take this one step further. Copyright a haiku. Have someone else spam it all over the place. Anyone who doesn't delete it, and all -backups- -copys- etc.... is an infringer right? So now you can subpoena basically any ISP / company/ whatver you want. Now that I think about it, doesn't even have to be haiku..free verse should work fine. (C)2003 Inanaeboy (Free right is given for this post/poem to be used only in the context of Slashdot and disucssion therein)g
Yes, Alcohol Prohibition was repealed in 1933. And in 1937 began the War on Drugs in the guise of the Marijuana Tax Act (passed over the objections of the American Medical Association because the Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner said pot "causes violent effects in the degenerate races"). Let's see, lessons of 14 years of rampant corruption, pointless and unenforcable laws, and government-created black markets forgotten in less than four years. I would say that they simply replaced one stupid law with a stupid and deceitful one.
Dyolf Knip
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges uness I could plant a tree in your yard, or if I said I didn't have an incentive to grow cotton unless I could own slaves on the plantation, most people would see this is these as the worthless shallow arguments that they are. But if I said I didn't have an incentive to to make beneficial or creative works without a copyright monopoly, then all of a sudden people just take it on faith, they don't even question it, they just assume that society would fall apart without them. In my humble opinion, this is intellectually dishonest, especially considering that the entire Renassance happened without copyrights.
The simple fact is, there is no equivalency relationship between copyrights and property rights - incentive does not a right make. The moral and historical foundation of property derives from the fact that property has physical limits, while the foundation of copyrights dervives from kings who granted publishers monopolies in return for not publishing bad things about the monarchy. The history of Copyrights is not one of rights, but controll of sharing and restricting the open use of knowledge.
That is why people who copy are not criminals, thiefs, or akin to pirates who board ships and murder people. No, infact they are really victims of a cruel deception. A deception that copyrights somehow financially benefit artists and creators. The simple fact is, that for every artist that makes it "big" there are litterally thousands who copyrights haven't helped a bit, even hindered, or destroyed.
However, this is not the only failure of copyrights - it is just one in many issues related to copyrighrts that are just blown off ignored, or glossed over. Like the failures of Hollywood culture, the failures of big media to provide quality material, the failures to provide reasonably priced books to college students while tabloids are dirt cheap, and massive anti-trust behavior in the software industry to name a few.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggist issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either half to controll all of it or none of it. Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected.
I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be good. The Greens are to the left of the Democrats. Had Nader not been an option, most would have voted Democrats or abstained. Ergo, Nader drew votes away from the Democrats. To think anything else is pure fantasy.
Both are Republican. Spot the common thread?
That was argoff, not me.
[Absurd, inflamatory assumptions about what I think deleted...]
But I have to laugh when Kazaa is equated to sharing with friends.
You said "many of the students bought it and copied it for friends.". I assumed you were referring to kids copying CDs for their friends. If you really meant kids spreading files around on Kazaa, you should laugh at yourself.
I write a song, I get...the right to distribte the sound recording the way I want to, and the right to [pursue] profit from public performance via radio and live. I will not give up these rights because of you.
Now I really am going to nitpick. Without copyright everyone has those rights. What you really mean are "exclusive rights". Also, the right to pursue a profit is not exclusive. A radio station can play your music for a profit and simply pay a compulsory license for it. Furthermore, I never said your exclusive rights should be taken away. Although I do believe they should be scaled back.
But I believe I have the right to a fair and equitable marketplace to either rise or fail in.
"Fair and equitable" is strongly debated. Some people consider a free market the only fair market. In a truely free market, copyright would not exist. Anyone could publish and sell a thousand copies of "Lord of the Rings". Competition would drive prices down to the cost of production.
The whole point of copyright is to provide authors with an incentive to create content which will enrich the public domain. The public temporarily gives up its rights to copy and publish certain original works in return for authors creating those works. By this measure of fair, once the author has had adequate encouragement to create a work, that encouragement may not be extended. Furthermore, congress can not offer encouragement that is not likely to effect an author's decision to publish.
Another philosophy suggests that authors 'own' their creations and have a natural right to control it. You seem to hail from this camp. Unfortunately for you, our contitution was founded on the previous philosophy.
I just saw some sad news on CNN - popular childrens' figure Easter Bunny was found dead on a Georgia road this evening. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Why hasn't anyone discussed the real issue here: common carrier status for Verizon.
Making them responsible for what goes over their lines is a slippery slope. If that is decided, then what? Do they start blocking ports that are "bad"? What's next?
This particular story has nothing to do with the usual copyright arguments on slashdot. It's more about "who is responsible for what".
Verizon argues that record labels should be required to get permission from a judge, rather than a clerk, a move that would add another legal hurdle to any copyright investigation.
Verizon says such a move is necessary to protect user privacy because otherwise any copyright holder -- or anybody claiming to be a copyright holder -- could easily obtain the name and address of any Internet user.
Kent: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton? Kang: It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!
...
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I was tired last night, so let me continue....
.... copyrights "benefit" artists, people who copy are "pirates", copyrights are intellectual "property" and so on.
While the problems associated with copyrights might have been bearable 20 years ago when the biggist issue was Xerox machines, today we are entering into the information age where information is so easy to copy and manipulate that there can be no middle ground. Our society will either half to controll all of it or none of it. Our communications will either half to be monitored or free, our privacy to be either contunuiously probed or protected.
In that sense, copyrights are like a vine that will never stop growing to choke off our freedoms until we cut it off at the root. The DMCA, infinite extensions, billion dollar lawsiuts, are all just symptoms of a poor belief system - not the cause. So the efforts to find a "middle ground" on copyrights are a failure because they do not address the core issue. That contrary to copyrights, the right to copy and distribute creative works and knowledge is a right!
Like freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, the right to copy things is a right that exists above government. It is a moral right, it is an inherent right, it defines the very nature of the human condition. It is beyond politics and the petition of leaders.
In fact, the entire foundation of politics rests on the notion that it's better to fight wars with words than wars with bloodshed. But to copy things does not require coercion or viloence at all, the rules are not the same. We will not change the copyright situation by petitioning our leaders, or voteing to change the system. No it can only be changed by defiance.
Defiance by holding the belief that people have rights, even if those rights appear contrary to the popular mob or to the system. Defiance, by shedding off the guilt and shame that those who try to impose copyrights impose on us and understanding that they are the ones who should be guilty and shamefull. Defiance by copying and sharing creative works whenever we have acess to them. Defiance by using technologies that make it harder and harder for copyrights to be imposed upon us. And defiance by rejecting the little lies like
In my humble opinion, only then can we and our children enjoy the true prosperity that the information age has to offer.