Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act Introduced
Bootsy Collins writes "Last Thursday in the U.S. Congress,
H.R. 2517
was quietly introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill, authored by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA),
directs the FBI
to develop methods of deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks, including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies. It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad. Berman, you may remember, introduce a bill last year that would give the RIAA and MPAA wide latitude to
crack suspected violators' computers.
" Update: 06/23 17:03 GMT by S : We also covered a variant of this story on Saturday.
Considering this is a link based site, that really doesn't surprise me. Besides who wants to brows MSN sites anyway :P
Heres to hoping it wont get past the senate. Im not holding my breath.
I thought you could.
This man is bought and paid for.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Will any of you actually write your congress critters about this?
... I feel much safer with pot smokers and warez kiddies behind bars.
God forbid the FBI go after dangerous criminals
It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad
Piracy's bad......mmmmkay?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Next we'll see copyright education in public schools, just imagine, a textbook with a section on "Why KaZaA is Bad".
I can't believe this was introduced by a guy named "Lamar."
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
I wonder what they're considering a "file." If they're counting the gifs and jpegs for smileys, emoticons, ads, backgrounds for the chat clients and whatnot, that doesn't seem like a fair comparisson.
What am I saying? This is Congress at work...
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
I think it's very clear where Sen. Bermans' intrests lay. Does anyone know of any *proactive* [read: possitive] websites that track or publibly couter this slime ball?
Yeah, sponsored by the Microsoft and the RIAA. *shivers*
IAAAL - I am actually a lawyer
I swear the faster future tech and future laws spring up, the more and more I find myself in a future looking a lot like Judge Dredd. This particular saying bugs the sh** outta me: "Quietly introduced" What exactly does that mean...that these people will try and make up some sort of law and unless people are aware enough and rebel against it, there's a good chance it will come to pass? Not to be pessimistic...ahem, but as far as I know, countries go to war without consent of the people. You can bloody bet that laws can be "Quietly introduced" without the will of the people. QD
This should make a good "Fleecing of America" or "Your Money" episode, oh that's right, I'm talking about responsible journalism! Never mind! It's nice to know how my tax dollars are being pissed away, and I will remember that when it is time to vote!
Uhm..excuse me...but shouldn't the FBI be out chasing violent criminals and terrorists, rather than busting teenagers for downloading Britney Spears? Besides...it seems to me that all these wasted hours protecting the obsolete business models of private companies like the RIAA and MPAA might also be spent training agents more....as in making the 'intelligence' community a bit more intelligent.
Man, am I beginning to be annoyed, by all of the technically illiterate congress members, whose shortsightedness knows no bounds. I bet they scream bloody murder the day one their computer goes down, because a campaign volunteer downloaded an mp3.
This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.
develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement
What exactly qualifies as a "program?"
I know a lot of us are picturing armed FBI raids, computer seizures, kids being drug down the streets in chains for the crime of filesharing and being made into examples. It's possible... hell it's already happening.
However, I'm hoping it's more something like the current drug compaigns. Public awareness on "filesharing" and "piracy" as a crime. Consequences, that type of thing. I also hope that if it becomes obvious enough, people will wake up and Joe Average (tm) will finally realize the type of bullsh*t that corps like the RIAA are trying to pull with the law.
SERIOUSLY, the FBI has no place at all getting involved with copyright issues. There are a lot more things they can do that are a hell of a lot more productive, like preventing 9-11 mark II. We don't need them tapping our internet lines, tracing our IP's, or dragging more people in to court.
I think the USA needs a little bit of seperation between government and corporation - thought by now we all know who is really running the country anyways.
Based on the headline, I breifly held the hope that they would educate you on how to P2P. However, I then made the mistake of reading the summary. So what have we learned from this? It's not enough that you don't read the article before posting, you also can't read the summary before posting. If I hadn't, I could have posted a "OMG 3y3 can't bel3ive thye R go1ng to t34ch us to p1r4t3!!!!!!!1111", but now I'm stuck with this lame post instead.
Neither Smith nor Berman seemed anxious to comment on the legislation.
Heh...done like any professional three year-old who just messed in his pants.
SEC. 3. DETERRENCE AND COORDINATION.
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall--
(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--
(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or
(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet, without the authorization of the copyright owners; and
d00dz...l3337 h4><><0ring d0|\|3 |3y t3h g0\/3r|\||\/|3|\|7
(2) facilitate the sharing among law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers, and copyright owners of information concerning activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
The program under paragraph
(1) shall include issuing appropriate warnings to individuals engaged in an activity described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) that they may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Oooooh, scare tactics. Where's Shannon Doherty?
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF AGENTS IN COMPUTER HACKING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNITS.
(a) DESIGNATION OF AGENTS IN CHIPS UNITS- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.
(b) TRAINING- The Attorney General shall ensure that each agent assigned under subsection (a) has received training in the investigation and enforcement of intellectual property crimes.
More uber-l337 haxxors.
SEC. 5. EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT- There shall be established within the Office of the Associate Attorney General of the United States an Internet Use Education Program.
(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Internet Use Education Program shall be to--
(1) educate the general public concerning the value of copyrighted works and the effects of the theft of such works on those who create them;
(2) educate the general public concerning the privacy, security, and other risks of using the Internet to obtain unauthorized copies of copyrighted works;
(3) coordinate and consult with the Department of Education on compliance by educational institutions with applicable copyright laws involving Internet use; and
(4) coordinate and consult with the Department of Commerce on compliance by corporations with applicable copyright laws involving Internet use.
Free brainwashing too! Man, am I *ever* glad to be living in a country where my congressmen love me so much. I think I'll write them a loveletter right now. Or call them even. Where *did* I put those phone numbers?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Read the text of the bill (I can't find the link offhand, but it's out there) -- some of the paragraphs are downright laughable, particularly the one directing the FBI to educate citizens about the dangers of connecting to "unauthorized" P2P services.
Maybe one of these days Congress will stop trying to prop up a failing business model by turning the US into a police state. But I'm not holding my breath...
Oh! You mean downloading music without paying anybody for it is illegal?! Oh!! In that case I think I'll just stop.
::gasp:: the RIAA. And it hurts the artists. Well, it would if the music industry stays in it's current form. For the hundreth time, the market is changing. Perhaps, RIAA, you are no longer required. Please, Senate, don't ruin the industry squelching a change simply to support a company that makes large campign contributions.
I'm glad that education campaign is there, jeez, I didn't know that on my own. It hurts
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
It seems that everyone always gets upset when the government cracks down. The whole point in pirating/ copyright infringment is illegal. Its wrong to take something that someone is not giving away and use it. The fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you should.
Do people download music they wouldn't buy, sure. Is there legitimate use for p2p, yes. But it also can be used easily to set out your own inexpensive publishing house and give away what others sell for free.
Information has value, especially in the new economy. I sometimes think people get to bent out of shape when people/companies try to protect that value.
Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. This is true regardless of what you might think about the fairness of either the behaviour of the copyright owner or of the copyright law itself.
This bill is unique. It seems rational. In a world where senators advocate allowing copyright owners to (without due process) destroy or hack computers in an attempt to halt unlawful distribution of their materials, this seems sane.
It does nothing more than encourage law enforcement to cooperate in fighting crime, and puts the American people on notice that breaking the law is wrong, and that the people distributing many popular p2p programs plan spyware in their programs, and that the use of p2p carries risks for the safety of your computer, especially if they are used unwisely (like shareing an entire drive.)
You say
...is to provide federal funding to run ads against candidates or referenda which would weaken intellectual property laws such as the DMCA, the super-DMCAs, the CDBPTA (did I spell that right?), etc.
Why wouldn't they? They've already started doing it about candidates and referenda that try to legalize medical marijuana.
Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
They certainly should go after all software, music, and movie pirates, and take them down hard. If they make software piracy a lot more difficult, then it will force people to turn to free software alternatives. If they make music piracy a lot more difficult, then maybe folks will turn to lesser-known bands who allow mp3 downloads of their product and possibly find better-quality (but not as well-packaged, commercially) music. And if they make movie piracy a lot more difficult, then...uh...I dunno. I'm sure there's a good reason for that, other than the whole legality issue.
The bill, authored by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA), directs the FBI to develop methods of deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks, including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies.
Defeat file sharing through file sharing. Ah the irony.
Supporting P2P is supporting terrorist. Just like doing drugs, sleeping with people of the same sex, vandalism, murder, bouncing checks, jay walking, posting on slashdot, etc....
http://use.perl.org
Law enforcement agencies sharing information and teaching kids about why breaking the law is a bad thing. That honestly sounds like a good idea to me. Kids are taught that drugs are bad, that you don't shoot people - why not also teach them tearing away at the foundation of the economy is also a bad thing. Yes, the way the RIAA and MPAA approach things sucks, their business model is old, and they litigate to save themselves. But that doesn't mean that copyright is a bad thing, per se.
Around here, as much as people argue that open-source is the way for the world to go, every one of us has to admit that it's only our day jobs which allows us to spend our nights cutting code for open-source projects. Copyright is a Very, Very, Very Good Thing (TM). I don't think that fact is lessened by some idiotic laws which these guys have tried to pass in the past.
(2) educate the general public concerning the privacy, security, and other risks of using the Internet to obtain unauthorized copies of copyrighted works;
:P
Hey, don't touch that! You don't know where it's been!
"They're all over me!
They're inside of me!
Can't get 'em offa me.
I'm covered with....(bacteria)...GERMS!"
That doesn't sound too convincing, ANY file you get off the internet is a security concern, no?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
...tell us how many "emoticons" you've downloaded for the last month, and how many were the .mp3-s and/or the .avi-s???
that doesn't seem like a fair comparisson.
Who said anything about fair?????
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
So by running with your argument, I presume you'd find it acceptable to have the FBI serve as crossing guards for elementary school students? After all, we wouldn't want anyone breaking the law (failing to yield right of way to a pedestrian in crosswalk), would we?
If the FBI is going to be called in to prop up every Representative's pet industry, we may as well just give the next 9/11 hijackers the keys to the jet.
So, the government is going to tell everyone to stop doing this, and then everyone's going to stop. Is that how this is going to work?
I give them high marks for concept (snicker), now let's see them implement it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
From the text of the bill:
In addition, many of the computer users drawn to the convenience of peer-to-peer systems do not realize that these systems pose serious security and privacy threats to their personal computers or company networks. Recent studies reveal that the majority of the users of these systems are unable to tell what files they are sharing and sometimes incorrectly assume they were not sharing any files when in fact they were sharing all files on their hard drive.
Does anyone have a reference for these "recent studies?" What evidence suggests that running P2P clients is a security issue?
I don't know what is considered a strong argument in bill-writing, but in graduate school we are expected to provide specifics (including citations) when we describe the results of a study. Otherwise, we could be "creatively interpreting" the results, or better yet, making stuff up altogether. Assuming that these studies actually exist, I'd bet that the subjects were AOL users!
Hmmm. "...increased information sharing ... among various law enforcement agencies, copyright owners, and Internet service providers ..." Maybe they need to set up their own P2P network to handle all the information sharing. Then they'd need to police that for copyright violations, and then the database would grow, and require more effort to police. Suddenly this is a much more profitable and self-sustaining enterprise than I thought! Although how you prosecute yourself, I'm not sure...
Independent musicians and registration-free net radio at EmergentSound
Not too many conservative lawmakers representing Vermont these days ;)
I did, however, write with regularity to my conservative N.C. representatives when I lived there. I figured every minute some monkey spent reading a letter from a flaming liberal commie asshole like me was one less minute they could be holding prayer meetings or what have you.
...programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad
Is there any actual evidence that filesharing is bad? Weren't record sales up 10% during the height of Napster? Isn't that the only indicator? I'd be very interested in this. If there are stories of bands that go like "we were doing alright, we just put out our first album, then it went on KaZaa, and nobody bought it, but we have evidence that a million people downloaded the whole album and listened to it more than once and swear that they would've bought it if they weren't able to d/l it for free, and now we all work at a burger joint."
If there's no actual evidence, what are they going to teach? "Well, we've got heresay and conjecture, your honor - those are kinds of evidence." Does anyone actually believe that artists are worse off with filesharing around?
c-hack.com |
When copyrights were introduced to the U.S., they had a very restricted time frame (fourteen years I believe, without looking it up).
In the intervening years, various parties have managed to get the copyright period extended to a ludicrous extent, and it's for *one* reason: Walt Disney corporation can't come up with anything NEW that's any good, so they've gotta keep protecting Mickey and Donald and Goofy and all those other characters that, by rights, would have passed into the public domain decades ago.
Essentially, legislation and litigation are a poor but workable substitute for innovation and invention.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I mean really. Everyone here knows that the industry needs to change. They know it too. But the real problem here is that WE the US citizens are not being shielded. We elect these people into office and they work for us. However, at some point since they had the power they decided to give themselves more power. In the end, we have a Congressional body that obviously caters to the all mighty dollar. Therefore, screaming about it does no good. For those you tell don't care. Honestl, they don't.
Here's the insightful bit:
Since when did the US government guarantee that a corporation will earn money one way or another? I mean instead of letting the companies attempt to crack down on piracy their own way the companies beg and plead that the US government step in and be the daddy. The problem is that the government is not supposed to be involved in such matters. The ONLY thing the governement to supposed to do receive taxes to defend our countries citizens from outside attacks. Not police the world, bend to the will of a common nation governemnt (UN), or be involved in corporate legalities that do not directly affect the us citizens.
Online music piracy (incorrectly identified BTW), is nothing more than an easier way to "tape" a CD. We all know this. They know this. The bottom line is that the corporation needs to address this NOT the fucking government!!!
We OWN the governement. We are the BOSSES! They seemed to forget this. And we citizens find ourselves electing these people to office to only have them incorporate themselves upon entering office and then immediately being hired by a lobbyist firm as a contractor. This is why it's not called bribery. They are getting paid as if they worked there.
But I could be wrong...
Rivendahl
... there is nothing that has not already been thought
I've seen a few posts that have indicated that this law would be a Good Thing(TM). But in my opinion, it's useless. The law basically says that law enforcement agencies should share information to stop crime. THAT'S ALREADY WHAT THEY DO!!!
Yes, violating copyrights is wrong, both legally and ethically, and violations should be reasonably enforced. But will this really do anything for the big copyright violators? Prolly not. It's just more fodder to prosecute the small fries. The people who make a killing selling mass pirated videos, software, etc. in China will continue to do so. All this will do is hurt some more college kids who have no money and aren't making any off their "violations".
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
And it will. Sharing is not wrong.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
From Congressman Berman's own web site, you can see how chummy he is with the Holywood crowd, and even the BSA thrown in for good measure. Quoting from his own summaries:
[Quote]
DREIER, BERMAN REINTRODUCE RUNAWAY PRODUCTION LEGISLATION
"...Congressmen David Dreier (R-San Dimas) and Howard Berman (D-Van Nuys) joined by a bipartisan group of 44 Members of the House of Representatives today re-introduced legislation that provides wage-based tax relief for film and television projects produced in the United States..."
REP. BERMAN LAUDS AGREEMENT BETWEEN RECORDING INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
"...Rep. Howard Berman lauded the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Business Software Alliance (BSA), and Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP) for their announcement of joint policy principles..."
[/Quote]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
Doesn't the FBI/etc have better things to do then chase after a bunch of citizens violating copyright law?
Like protecting us from being blown up or poisoned by a bunch of idiots wearing diapers on their heads??
Sheesh where the hell is the priority system around there..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
(5) In addition, many of the computer users drawn to the convenience of peer-to-peer systems do not realize that these systems pose serious security and privacy threats to their personal computers or company networks. Recent studies reveal that the majority of the users of these systems are unable to tell what files they are sharing and sometimes incorrectly assume they were not sharing any files when in fact they were sharing all files on their hard drive.
Of all the P2P sharing software I've ever seen, none of them had defaulted to sharing my entire hard drive. It's not the software's fault that it's user has no idea what he/she is doing.
(6) The security and privacy threats posed by peer-to-peer networks extend beyond users inadvertently enabling a hacker to access files. Millions of copies of one of the most popular peer-to-peer networks contain software that could allow an independent company to take over portions of users' computers and Internet connections and has the capacity to keep track of users' online habits.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this is referring to KaZaA and the spyware it installs. What makes this interesting is that, given the above quote, the good representatives seem to favor non-binding EULAs.
(8) In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to act against infringements of copyrighted works, including those works protected under the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property of the World Trade Organization...
I think the Department of Father^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland Security has more important things to worry about than worrying about people distributing copyrighted music, don't you?
Now go do that voodoo that you do so well.
Howard Berman (D-CA) Correction: should be Howard Berman (DMCA)
There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
The FBI is an executive agency. I thought the agency is directed by the president. Legislature makes laws, executive enforces laws, and judicial interprets laws. I do not understand how or why the Congress would be detailing the enforcement of particular laws. Certainly Copyright law itself would already fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI. And would thusly be at the will of the presidency to either enforce or ignore. Does anyone have any ideas since IANAL?
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
I could be completely wrong on this, but just because somebody is downloading a song via p2p doesn't mean that there is a copyright violation being committed. If that user has actually purchased the album, then that user is not commiting a "crime" by downloading songs. Like I said, I could be completely wrong on this... but if I'm right, then the FBI is going to have to overcome the impossible task of determining exactly who is actually committing a crime and who is downloading legally.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
I know where you're coming from - to disclose, I like the general idea of copyright, and think it would be fine without industry shills. Today, copyright duration is, what, life + 3000 years? And fair use means that copying stuff for home use is only a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
My problem in light of above is, yes, the law sounds great on paper...but only there. Education is fine, but what about the inter-agency info sharing? Again, I would have not problem if it were used to get blatant commercial-mp3-only sharers, but lately it's been used to go after kids who basically build search engines. And I don't like that.
So it's like this - the law sounds good, but do you support a just law if you know for sure that it will be implemented in a monstrously unjust manner? That has to be considered, because a law in a vacuum is nothing. Consider sodomy laws on the books in most states - they are horrendously discriminatory against homosexuals and other people the Christian Coalition considers "deviants" - but I don't really care because they're not enforced at all, and amount to nothing more than a quaint little nuiscance. This law, on the other hand, while it sounds nice, has the potential to take down a lot of people who have the gall to allow people a way of sharing information without policing that information. And I don't like that at all.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Isn't the FBI stretched really thin as it is? Unless a lot of money is involved, they won't look at you twice. Are they going to run down every college student in the country who is sharing a few MP3's? No.
These people are all living in fantasyland. The senators keep it quiet because they know there will be a backlash. Berman is already saying "It's not my bill. It's his." The RIAA shows their idoicy by touting this bill that they haven't even read! Looking at his top contributors, I don't see the entertainment industry on there. Maybe he wants to get on their payroll?
I think the stealth with which this bill was put out indicates that the senators know that this type of legislation could damage their careers, but they want to keep the soft money coming in and keep writing up this crap.
-R
"If you download copyrighted materials... you download COMMUNSIM!"
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Both the candidates will both be owned and will both continue to fleece the public.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
the FBI should be busting people who violate COpyright (there is a criminal penalty for breaking copyright laws)
and they should be educating people that p2p violations are violations.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad.
Why copyright violation is called a 'crime' if it isn't even obvious to an average Joe that it's bad? People usually don't have any problems identifying common criminal activities as such; you don't have to explain to a person that murder, fraud, piracy (the real one), rape, blackmail are bad, pretty much regardless of the person's citizenship and cultural background.
Disclaimer: I *do* consider copyright violation a.. well, violation, but I think it is stetched too far these days. Humanity somehow existed for centuries without copyright protection, and, while authors often suffered from copycats, there always was an opportunity for a creative person to get food on table.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
We already have laws against all the "activities" that this law is supposed to cover.
Tell me, when will the US actually start *enforcing* the already existing laws, as opposed to wasting time making up new laws to overlap the existing ones?
Oh silly me, there I go thinking again...
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
(From Lamar's web site)
The 21st Congressional District stretches along the Interstate 35 Corridor from north San Antonio to west Austin and Travis County and encompasses all of the Texas Hill Country. Fourteen counties are included in the District.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
You know, it always amazes me listening to the slashdot rants and bitches about copyright protection. The "everything should be free, nobody should make money off of anything!" crap astounds me.
If someone creates something, be they a penniless mother of 6 living in a hovel someplace, or a big heartless, greedy corporation, they deserve to profit from it. Why should anyone create anything - programs, music, movies - and get nothing for it?
Before I get the "But Open Source" speech, wasn't that Linus I saw driving around in a very expensive Italian sports car? I more than suspect he knew his work would get him a very good paying job. Good for him. Just like a lot of other OS people are now getting paid well because of their work.
I'm a capitalist. People's inventions deserve to be protected, because it encourages them to keep on inventing.
To those of you who still say everything should be free, remember this:
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself. You better hope to God not too many people steal your company's product, or you'll be out looking for work again.
How exactly can "small government" conservatives be in favor of something like this? Is it really the government's role to educate its citizens about why this is illegal? It seems to me like it's a problem of, by, and for the record industry.
It just goes to show that for all the throwing around of phrases about "small government" the political right really isn't interested in cutting spending, they just like to cut the spending on programs they don't like. Tax cuts are phenomenally stupid and myopic if the government can't spend less money.
Rock over London. Rock on Chicago. Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
What worries me more than any possible filter on file sharing is that the current lawmakers feel that they need to create one. All data, is nothing but binary information, and honestly, can get passed around quickly, even through file sharing, if people know what theyâ(TM)re doing. It doesnâ(TM)t take much to change a filename and extension, and that will defeat almost any filter possible. The real danger is not what the FBI will block, but what they will be monitoring.
I am a private citizen, and not currently under investigation for any crime of any sort, I even have a clean traffic record, but the only way Iâ(TM)m letting the federal government read my mail, electronic or otherwise, is when they produce a search warrant. What disturbs me is hearing my colleagues saying, âoeIf you havenâ(TM)t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide.â If I remember my constitution properly, the theme is that âoeUnless weâ(TM)re sure youâ(TM)ve done something wrong, we have no right to look,â or "innocent until proven guilty."
And as far as investigations by the FBI go, they would do well to realize a few simple things. Treason is defined as aiding or abetting the enemies of the United States. Our enemies have always been those people who wish to destroy our freedoms, and take away our inalienable rights. I have to wonder why the FBI is concerned with minor file sharers, rather than a certain attorney general, and some members of the house.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"- Benjamin Franklin
In other news:
The United States Congress has passed a bill directing law enforcement officials to DO THEIR JOBS.
Seriously though, we should be asking our congressional representatives and senators to changes the laws. We'll never get anywhere asking them to stop enforcing existing laws.
~foooo
That I read this DLing roms. Funny thing is I use IRC to get them. First of all I don't feel so bad about getting roms for 2 reasons: 1) 50% of the time I can legally so (I have a vast collection of games, but all my old consoles are Kaputt) and 2) If I want to play certain games I have _no_choice_ but to get them in this manner.
Also I wonder if IRC is even covered by this bill. Has the government made an explicit legal definition of p2p yet?
100% Crunchier
Its scary to think that a few years ago I didn't consider the U.S to be like the book/movie 1984, while I'm sure many paranoid weirdos thought big brother was watching them do everything for the last 20 years.
Now, on the otherhand, I'm getting more and more worried as new laws are being passed. It's only a matter of time until we have police huts on every second block asking us to report any violators and ISP's are required to use government proxies to filter out "evil" information.
(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--
(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or
(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet
This sounds a little odd to me, more like the're trying to deter members of the public by offering copies of copyrighted works. Shouldn't this be something more like
To deter members of the public who are committing acts of copyright infringement such as: (etc etc).
Laws only seem to be as good as the wording they are written with - until a lawyer with better skills at manipulating said wording come around. Therefore, it makes sense to word them a little more intelligently.
. . .yeah right. . .
.MPAA/RIAA. . .go ahead. . .make my day. . .
.and this is a AC promise and guarantee. . .I WILL OPEN a can whoop ass. . .and they suffer from the might of the folks who share files legally.
.I am begging them to do it. They will see what it is like when you, Joe User, fight back!
Dirty Harry said it plainly. .
Should these morons decide to DoS my machine, even though I do share files, BUT LEGIT files that is, I will. .
Yeah, RIAA/MPAA hack my box? Heh, go ahead. .
'Educate the American public'. Right. Just like those 'drugs support terrorism' campaigns? What's next... 'Downloading MP3s make baby Jesus cry'?
If you read the bill you can see it's simply a repetition of the flawed arguments the big media companies have against P2P.
Take for example points (5) and (6):
Privacy and security violations need to be addressed by banning spyware/adware, not P2P networks. Misleading advertising seems to be the norm in the US rather than the exception, and nothing is being done about it. Gator is not a helpful tool if it's spyware. I am not 'today's winner' if this banner is flashing, because the banner flashes all the time. And if I've "just won $50****" I'm 100% SURE I won't be seeing any of that money at all.
Why don't they ban THAT?
And heck, if people are accidentally sharing their entire harddrive, then the software's interface needs to be improved, and the setup procedure for sharing files needs to be changed. Why doesn't a P2P app come with a warning if you decide to share an entire harddrive? Oh that's right, 'a good UI' still means nothing but flashy buttons and a 'cool skin' these days, thanks to Microsoft's own crappy UI skills and inconsistencies. The fact that creating applications for Windows is a pain in the ass doesn't help much either, because a programmer will be satisfied with something that 'just works' rather than something that works well.
From the user side, it's simple: if people are stupid and leave their house door unlocked, you don't teach them to brick their doors and windows shut, you simply teach them to lock their door.
The biggest problem I see is that this sort of stuff plays right into the hands of Palladium and friends. People don't want to take responsibility for their own safety. If someone comes along and offers them 'a completely secure platform!' with lots of bells and whistles in a colorful package, then they'll buy it for sure, especially after being 'educated' on how important security is.
I'm a little confused. I thought we didn't even have enough money to keep the arts in schools anymore.
Most people who post here know piracy is illegal, and they know that large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use. (Although some folks don't seem to realize "fair use" is a legal definition, but, instead, speak as if they, as individuals, get to decide what constitutes fair use.)
A lot of the noise surrounding this issue is generated by people attempting to pose as intellectual property revolutionaries, convinced that the Internet makes all previous human experience obsolete. This is bogus, of course. Most of these folks just want free music and free movies. And, I'm sure you've noticed that comments typically and quickly descend into namecalling and slander. (Apparently, not having much useful to sa y about the issue, a lot of posters can only stamp their feet, swear, wave the anti-corporate flag, and call people "evil".)
Meanwhile, SLashdot goes on posting these stories in an effort to drum up business.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
... is to provide the customers with what they want, as opposed to forcing them to get it on their own. Copyright laws should not be enforced to protect an organization from having to alter their dying business model.
"Not surprisingly, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), strongly supports the legislation, although an RIAA spokesperson said Friday the RIAA hadn't actually seen the written text of the bill."
LOL - doesn't matter what you may or may not be saying as long as you include the words "deter online piracy" and "stop peer to peer" the RIAA just hops on the bandwagon....
With this logic you could have a bill saying "All people over the age of 35 must ride on carousel - and music downloading is bad - nar" and the RIAA will support it
Ave Molech Setting
Once the public understands the value of copyrights, we'll see just how badly we've been fscked by Congress and the *AA....
Eldred? Is that you?
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall--
(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--
(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or
(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet,
without the authorization of the copyright owners;
So how do they do this without completely controlling the Internet?
GIGOwiz
Methinks we need to swap recipes.
-CM
The more they say it's "bad" ... the more kids will do it. But I mean, come on! "Piracy" or "Sharing" as some call it has been the staple of civilization since its inception. Not that I codone theft, but the excuse that prices are high because of theft/piracy/sharing and the rationalization that sharing/piracy/theft is okay because prices are high creates a circular argument/feedback loop. If prices were lower for individuals, say 75% less than now, I imagine that most people would probably buy more than 4x as much software.
// :-) C++ *is* evil!! C++.getPolymorphism().isBroke() == TRUE. java.use();
Take the economic perspective: say there was zero illegitimate copies of software... pricing & demand would be at it's natural equilibrium. Then say demand drops by 8% and piracy is 10% and price increases by some percentage, say 4% because unit costs (which are effectively $0 for software anyhow) increase slightly. But, on trying to reach zero piracy again requires either lowering the price, or some technical means (like TurboTax), which again reduces real and real+pirated demand. Also, there are some people who would never pay/buy software ever, and would just have to use something else (say, GNU/Linux); which is why demand is always less than real use (demand + piracy).
Shrink-wrap licenses + technical means of "piracy prevention" (dongles, errored-media key-discs, etc.) are simply going to drive black-box, software companies into the realm of unprofitability. Alienate your legit customers, they will go elsewhere.
delete this;
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
As a frequent file trader who knows that the RIAA has records of my copyright enfringement (I was once banned from napster by "Dr. Dre") I don't think that I have anything to worry about. I don't host or download that much, especially when compared to other people. Since they will probably go after the big fish first that leaves me pretty far back in line for prosecution. By the time they get to me they will be bankrupt because they have sued all of their customers and won't have anyone to buy their crappy music.
On a philosophical note, if the only time you hear a song is when you download it from kazaa is it really piracy? In the strict sense of the word of course it is but think about it. If I hadn't downloaded the song I never would have heard of it so I wouldn't have bought the cd. My music isn't generally played on Clear Channel radio, which is all that is available in most markets, so I coudn't have heard it between dj prattle and metabolife commercials either so where is the harm?
Do me a favor and double it!
This was more or less an incencitive to call for innovation (make something new and usefull and we the *governement representationg the people* will give you for some years a monopoly on exploiting your invention*. But slowly it was perverted by the copyright holder. Nowadays they try to make it pass as a natural law protected "RIGHT" of them to exploit something, and if somebody break thier right it should be enforced harshly. The problem here, is that copyright has grown imbalanced and the public interrest are gone completly lost.
Yes BALANCED copyright is a very good things. UNBALANCED copyright is dangerous as it is drowning those for which it was made to begin with : the public interrest. And I think this is what the posted is protesting against. The law are becoming harsher for breaking a privilege octroyed to a small group than some crime with far more impact (rape, hold up, political corruption) and the middle and ways to fight for the "enforcing" of this privilege are becomming increasingly out of whack.
You know, the difference between a police state and an ultra corporatiste state may not be that big...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Why do we need to make it a Criminal matter in the first place???
This bill needs to be renamed. Henceforth it will be known as:
"The Privacy Deterrence and Re-education Act"
It's not enough that we have no privacy; we have to brainwashed not to want it anymore. Welcome to the land of the free, ladies and gentlemen.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad.
Must be taking some lessons from the wildly successful DARE program. Reprogramming children is all good and fun except when they learn to think for themselves.
(senators say to themselves): Hmmmmm, what should we spend money on now? Should it be making sure the poor and elderly get proper medial attention, give people a fighting chance so they don't need to sleep on the street, or maybe make sure that noone in this country goes hungry? NO! How about we do some favors for the wealthy like give them a big tax cut, let corporation get away with screwing their employees and investors, and give the RIAA some proverbial head and follow through with the reach around before quickly snowballing the public while convincing them thats it s not only yummy, but good for them too.
Why do we have politicians? I thought prostitution was illegal in most places?
I recently read about the bill H.R. 2517 that was introduced by fellow Texan Lamar Smith. This bill would require federal resources to be used to protect the interests of a few large multi-national corporations. The Justice Department would also have to develop (i.e. spend money on) programs to educate people on why they should support these multi-national companies.
Although I agree with the reason for the bill (stop software/music piracy), I cannot see how and why the federal government should be charged with protecting these companies' interests. The FBI has more on it's plate (with such issues as terrorism) and should not be spending valuable time, money, and resources on this issue. If the companies are upset about something being done, let them be the ones to figure something out. It is not, nor should it ever be, the government's responsibility to protect and serve the large corporations over the people. Please, do not support this bill.
Whenever there is legislation, I think I'll just post what I wrote, so yall can use it if you want, or just to give ideas.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
I suspect that this will actually accelerate the death of the Music Industry. If such a bill has been passed, and the first couple of arrests are made. I suspect that the main demographic these people look towards for their money will instead gravitate to other alternatives. It would be harder to hold the attention of the younger generations.
Or maybe the first time parents of kids get dragged into court and music industry starts getting bad publicity because of it. This is a bill they don't want if they bother to think it through. I can't wait to see this pass.
sri
a lot of posters can only stamp their feet, swear, wave the anti-corporate flag, and call people "evil".
Probably learned it from the people stamping their feet, ranting, waving the pro-corporate flag and calling people "pirates".
Restore balance in copyright law and the problem will fix itself.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Does it bother anyone else that our tax dollars are paying for the enforcement of laws we think are unjust? IMO, I don't think giving the latest Britney Spears to 1,000,000 of your "closest friends" is exactly fair use; but it seems pretty clear to me that I shouldn't be paying for the discovery and investigation of this behavior. Let those who hold the copyrights pay for their enforcement.
[ home ]
Or did anyone else parse the article title as Privacy Deterrence?
I don't think you're taking this seriously enough.
According to this article today's Guardian, pirates killed or injured 145 people at sea in the first three months of this year. There are calls for the Royal Navy to station warships in the affected areas, to protect trade routes.
So you see, piracy is an ongoing and deadly threat... oh wait... *reads thread again*... Somebody seems to have started using the word "piracy" to mean "copyright violation". What an odd thing to do.
Must be, he was from Hill Country too. Unless his old district has been gerrymandered out of existence in the interim.
Yep, reproducing works of others is baaaaddd!
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Eat tainted meat, breathe polluted air, corporations will be the new government, bend over for the 1%, care only for yourself, vote republican or democrat.
Given the technical nature of the Internet, all this act will do is push file sharing underground.. A new system will be developed that is totally anonymous and will be impossible for the FBI to successfully track them. (private wireless networks anyone?) Congress does not seem to realize that they cannot police the Internet like any medium.. If they actually knew a damn thing about the internet and would stop listening to their lobbyists who all want control over each and every consumer on the internet, then maybe things such as this, the DMCA, these state super dmcas, and all these other stupid bills would stop coming up every month or so it seems.
The more control we allow the government over our lives the more the government will take from us.
Power == Control == Corruption
I look around and see all this patriotism in the united states, and I just do not understand how blind some of these people are. Granted the US isn't the worst country to live in (but if we dont do something soon, i fear it could end up this way, especially if another terror attack happens and more bills that take away our freedom and privacy are passed).
What the FUCK has the US become??
The man had his problems, but he gave the FBI a mission, tore their nuts off if they tried to do everything and went tooth and nail against corrupt politicians. Say what you will, and there is a lot of bad to be said, but Hoover was a FBI director that would actually get us what we want. He'd just about tell these wholy owned subsidiaries of the **AA to fuck off because we have terrorists to catch and if they got uppity with him, they'd find a few of their skeletons surfacing in their local media back home.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I was being facetious. For chrissakes, no one on here has a sense of humor, starting first and foremost with you.
Since you want to interpret everything literally, however, what we call "fair use" will effectively become a crime when all media are encumbered with copy/decryption protection schemes. In other words, it's not illegal to make a copy of the medium, but it is illegal to defeat the mechanisms we have in place to prevent you from copying. And if you find a way to actually copy something, it's useless as more than an archive. Why? Because it's impossible to actually play the media without a licensed player (remember DeCSS?). So you still like your fair use? We don't have it with DVD's.
So, again, laws as written are absolutely pointless. It's how they're implemented, including clever loopholes, that matters. As for fair use - no, it's not illegal to make personal copies. But it's not illegal to prevent you from doing it either, and as of now fair use is NOT a law - contrary to evidently public belief, you have no rights as such that have actually been legislated. Hence, we have the current sorry state of affairs, in which the **AA are belligerent in getting laws passed which make fair use impossible if not illegal.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
A new anti-drug ad campaign will include RIAA executives smoking crack and spouting off about lost business opportunities.
It is hoped that this new "reality TV" approach will show kids how drug use can lead to delusional behavior.
I would use it a lot more if it wasn't so slow.
eff you RIAA you can't tell me what I can download
and what I can't download.
Stupid laws are there to be broken. You'll need more jails too, for warez kiddie felons to store. Read this lengthy interview with Andrew Eldritch of Sisters fame. Actually just read this part:
At any given time, two million Americans are in jail, and only two states will let them vote while they're there. America puts more of its people in prison than any other country in the world, apart from Rwanda. I'm not going to get into the many iniquities of America's mass-incarceration policy right now, but it's worth noting that the slope of the pitch is increased by the so-called War On Drugs, which has systematically contravened the Universal Declaration On Human Rights and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments to the American Constitution in its drive to ensure that one third of all black American men will spend some of their life in prison. And a lot of Hispanics. (And more than a few white people.) In a quarter of American states (including Florida), nobody with a felony conviction is ever allowed to vote again. Other US states make it possible, but difficult, to regain the right to vote after a felony conviction. In Florida, one third of the black male population already cannot vote. Half a million people are disenfranchised in this way in Florida alone. Bush "won" the American election by "winning" Florida by 537 votes. Go figure.
Freedom is for those who deserve it.is scanning this guy's WEB site to see what software HE'S "Pirating"? After the last twit you woudl think he would be asmarter than that but then again he did introduce this bill didn't he?
;-)
Wouldn't it just be funny to find out his clerks run P2P software in the office? Or that he's pirating software like some other businesses out there? Anyone work for this idiot and willing to admit it? Give us the scoop!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
OK, Now I'll be the first to agree that (a) the music industry is represented by butt-heads that are unwilling to adjust their business model to a new world, and (b) the FBI has (or should have) bigger fish to fry than tackling small-time file-sharing copyright violators. BUT - in the real world we live in, copyright violations *are* a violation of Federal law, and it's certainly within the FBI's purview to go after these sorts of things.
IMHO, making the FBI responsible for tackling these things is a *good* thing. Why? Because if there is a Federal agency (which is subject to judicial review and tons of 'due process' restrictions,) charged with policing these things, then a lot of the crazier, far more Draconian legislative proposals to deal with widespread copyright violations (e.g. Fritz' brilliant plan of vigilante justice, with the 'victims' disabling other people's PCs) won't have even a prayer of getting passed.
Face it, until and unless there is a million-file-trader march to change the rules of the game, trading in copyrighted songs is technically illegal, and eventually the government has to stop turning a blind eye to it. A small, measured response by a government law enforcement agency will relieve the pressure on congress-critters to "do something" and make it less likely that blatantly stupid laws like universally mandated DRM or legalized vigilanteeism ever makes it to a committee.
And the FBI, like every other law enforcement agency when faced with these sorts of things, will have to prioritize its caseload, and will only bother going after the really flagrant violations that are likely to get agents promoted and budgets increased. Again, IMHO, the people who are trading thousands of these files, by and large, can't legitimately make the claim that they are just 'sampling' music so they can buy what they like -- there aren't enough hours in the day to sample all this stuff, and few people have the budget to buy that many CDs -- they are just hoarding for the sake of hoarding 'free stuff' and I have no problem putting that kind of file trader behind bars.
OTOH, there are a lot of moderate users of file trading software who occasionally download an album or three or ten, who may well intend to 'sample and buy,' and whose collective economic damage to the content-owners is small, (possibly even negative, if they generate goo word-of-mouth for some artists.) These people are such small fry that the FBI would never bother with them for the same reason they don't --generally -- send a SWAT team to raid a guy's hourse to confiscate a single joint of marijuana. It's not economically justifiable, and it makes the FBI look like fools in the press. ("FBI spends millions to capture John Smith, recover $0.95 in royalties for Britney Spears!")
You can't just hide in a whole and exepect the government to do nothing - the best you can do is hope for them to do something moderate and not over-react...
copyright wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't predominantly used by corporations (who act as "people" BUT NEVER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SO) to control their content in perpetuity.
. htmlt ml
An interesting article on why corporations are bad (mmmkay) in 2 parts:
http://www.poclad.org/articles/grossman01
http://www.poclad.org/articles/grossman02.h
Speaking from political experience, there is one thing that scares the bejesus out of your elected officials: Non-profit issue advocacy groups.
These groups can raise ulimited funds, are not required to disclose their donors, and most importantly, promise to run radio/television/print ads against any legislator that they deem "anti-tech" during election season.
Trust me, if your congressman knows that the "Coalition for Fair Use Computing Knowledge" or some such, will be watching how they vote on crucial tech bills (no matter how "quietly they're introduced), and letting their constituents know about it. They will think twice.
It's just that there are so many people who have convinced themselves that it IS in fact illegal to make copies of the music they own, and I mistook you for one of them.
And just a few days ago there was the article "Getting Law Enforcement Action for a Large-Scale Hack?" which showed how little the FBI was concerned, unless it was a major incident involving quite a bit of money.
Of course, its no wonder a business will do anything to inflate the damages, only way to get attention is to be the biggest victim on the block.
I cant believe with all the other current mandates the FBI/Federal Law Enforcement has, that this ranks anywhere near a top priority. I can think of 10 more important ones right off the top of my head.
International Terrorism (a la Bin Laden)
Domestic Terrorism (Tim McVey)
Black Hat Hacking
Intl Corporate Espionage
Border Security
Drugs (you can argue for legalization, but until then drugs is a major violent crime issue)
Organized Crime (of all intl & domestic ethnicities)
Corporate Malfeasance (Enron, Tyco, etc)
Political Campaign Monitoring
Catholic Church Criminal Indictments for Pedophilia and subsequent coverups(not happening at a federal level yet, but any other organization that large would have been targeted)
Copyright is wrong. It is an outdated concept that now directly contradicts First Amendment freedoms. Copyright, not the First Amendment, should go. People who violate copyright (which is itself debatable under the usual "fair use" arguments) are not criminals. They are just people doing what people have always done and should do: share ideas and culture. Painting that as a crime is just as misanthropic and deluded as you could be.
All of you who pontificate about how file-sharers are pirates and criminals and good-for-nothing freeloaders should wake up out of false consciousness and consider the consequences you think we all ought to live in. Information not only wants to be free, it must be free.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This law will not matter.
As stated in many posts already, the FBI has plenty to do other than track down copyright infringers. Combine that with the sheer numbers of people infringing and you start to see a picture of futility. Can you imagine what would happen to the court system if they prosecuted just 5% of the people using p2p? It wouldn't hold up, barring some infusion of major amounts of cash. Do not misunderstand me, there will be a few "big guys" prosecuted but much like stealing cable or satellite, the vast majority of people will go on with business as usual and every once in a while, we will read a "news" story about a "successful" bust. Aside from that, the p2p trend will continue and newer, more secure versions will arrive, only making the problem worse for law enforcement.
Unenforceable laws are not laws at all.
that we don't WANT copyright. If the "problem" is big enough to where the masses need "education", then obviously the masses don't want copyright protection and the government as the will of the people should follow suit.
-insert a witty something-
Guess its time for pirates to consider moving their activities to Freenet. Anonymous and censor resistant.
My point was that, if you're chatting with someone using a "rich" client like MSN Messenger or AIM, and your buddy makes a joke and puts one of those little winky icons inline in the text, that might count as a "peer-to-peer file transfer."
As for me, I've d/l'd no mp3s and several avis/movs in the last month. The same can be said for the previous year. I'm one of those (rare?) people that, while disgusted with the RIAA, still buys his own music. My wife thinks my habit of supporting local bands by buying their poorly-produced CDs after a show is a little weird. All I have to do, though, is make one little mention of her shoe collection...
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
My issue with this, and perhaps other people's as well, is that the government is spending so much time, money, and effort on this sort of thing while letting the rapers and killers run wild. The government's attitude seems to be that since a corporation can't be raped or killed, those aren't issues to be concerned with.
We OWN the governement. We are the BOSSES! They seemed to forget this.
And you, my good sir, must have just woken up from a very, very, VERY long nap there Mr. Rip Van Winkle. In case you haven't noticed, Amerika is a very, very, VERY different place that what you might have learned about in your 1950's era "Leave It To Beaver" fantasyland grammer school history and civics textbooks.
At various data parties not one, but several individuals (read: morons) have managed to share their entire C: drive with full access using standard windows sharing. I imagine they'll be able to share their CC numbers, password list and whatnot on P2P too.
OTOH, they're the same people that'll open the "I love you" virus, despite being warned, in case someone loves them. So I suppose that them having a network share and an email account is a security issues too.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Like kazaa, except that the only content that you can share is anti-piracy educational materials and lists of known pirates! But wait, there's more! For just $49.95 you can get kazap pro, which also includes mug shots of kevin mitnick! Woo hoo!
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
This is a perfect illustration why 435 representatives in Congress is not enough. Congressman simply do not have time for their constituents. They can't be bothered with the concerns of ordinary folks.
The original representation ratio was 1:30k. Now it's more like 1:575k. Today we have the technology that would make a meeting of 8300 representatives possible instead of completely impractical. Personally I'm fully in favor of a tenfold increase in the number of representatives in the House. Heck, even raising the number to something nice and round like 1000 reps would be a step in the right direction.
Constitutionally Correct
Yeah, I can understand your mistake. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Yes, information wants to be free, which is why it's hard keeping credit card numbers secret. If I had a secret black box that was uncopyable, I wouldn't be see protective of who could see it. But so far as we know, nothing like that exists.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
ACs need not reply ... and and if you do not offer me the respect of knowing my communicant, I will not read your post
Creating an account on Slashdot requires reading figures from a GIF image in some sort of "humanconf" system. Therefore, blind people cannot create accounts on Slashdot. By your own admission, which I quote above, you do not value an opinion expressed on Slashdot by any person without a Slashdot account. Therefore, you do not value the opinions expressed on Slashdot by people with vision disabilities.
Please defend.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Because they will take it to far. It is copyright infringement, but as son as an agency needs to crack down, they'll arrest peopel and give them unreasonable punishmensts, lock down there assets, and pretty much destroy there lives for what should be a CIVIL matter.
This is just a way to get the american taxpayer to fund policing that should be down be the copyright holder.
How long utilk people get sued or put in jail for having a movie quote in there signature?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
that violating a copyright, at least right now, in the United States, is not a 'crime' per se
Have you read Title 17, United States Code, section 506? Pay attention as well to the definition of "financial gain" in section 101.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So if the RIAA or MPAA are allowed to "crack" our computers, what does that mean for DMCA-related issues?
I mean, if I traded through, say, freenet - and they cracked/reverse engineered freenet (assuming they could, technically), does that mean the creators of freenet can sue based on DMCA violations? After all, they would have to reverse engineer the encrypted datastream to first see what was actually being traded - and as I recall, cracking encryption was at the very heart of the DMCA.
de minimis non curat lex
Seriously, compared to some of the shit that goes on in our society today, I really think the last thing we should be worrying about is copyright infringement. Sure it may be illegal, but when we can't even handle murderers and rapist, I don't think wasting time, energy, and money on copyright infringement is a good idea.
Of course, the corporations disagree because the more they push for stronger enforcement of these laws, the more money they can make. Theoretically speaking of course.
"including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies"
;)
hmmmmm, i wonder how they could get all that information out to so many agencies quickly and effeciently. is there some kind of way to share files between a large group of users that can balance the bandwidth load between all the users???
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
See, what'd I tell you? Another lamester heard from.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
They'll be as effective as the anti-drug education they've been pushing in this country.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
That's a nice way to describe a dupe!
You got it. Selective prosecution is the heart of any good police state.
It's just that there are so many people who have convinced themselves that it IS in fact illegal to make copies of the music they own
Actually, this may be true in the United Kingdom and Australia. Those countries have no Betamax precedent in their copyright case law and interpret "fair use" (also called "fair dealing" or "fair play") much more narrowly. Private home copying of music or dramatic fictional movies does not qualify.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The title of your post is pretty good, the content is utter crap. The content producers are now turning their lack of foresight regarding online distribution to their advantage. I do not see how a large percentage of the population can be criminalised to justify maintaining the margins of a business model that is no longer sustainable. If I fail to survive in my business market will you support my lobbying for legislation that criminalises YOU to maintain my wealth?
On a seperate note: The RIAA robots complaining about artists losing money don't seem to give a fuck about 3rd world child labor, I think your title suits these self-rightous hypocrites better.
No, they're not. Thousands of bills are introduced in Congress every year. A few of them pass. Besides, the FBI is a big place. They can afford to hire a few network geeks to track down illegal filesharing. And, remember, if you think rapers and killers are really running "wild", the first place to start is with your local police and sheriff. It's not the FBI that isn't patrolling your streets.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I keep reading the name of the bill as "Privacy Deterance and Education" instead of piracy. Not entirely unfitting.
ummm, they aren't going after people who use p2p to get pr0n are they?
No reason, just asking...
From the TV/Movies/Music Industry?
Naw I didn't think so. Every single time one of these stories comes up there is always a congressman taking a payoff.
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself.
In this economy, moms aren't kicking their grown-up children out of the house. At least one mom claims that minimum wage is worse than no job at all.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I know students who don't have CD burners, but have collections of 300+ albums just given to them by friends or at parties. I really wouldn't be surprised if the underground music exchange market wasn't several times the size of the above ground market.
Well, this is just clear evidence that we have to STOP the horrilbe scorge of HOME TAPING!!!!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
looking at the current state of the FBI and they way they Brilliantly handle cases such as Waco and Oklahoma City (Tim McViegh), the staggering success of the Anthrax mailer case, and the number of innocent lives it took for them to figure out who the Beltway Sniper was, if I were a file swapping tennie bopper I wouldn't worry too much.
Stealing copyrighted materials violates a federal law, hence the FBI should get involved.
And which federal law would that be?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yup. I got that part.
Stop right there, pardner...
This is exactly what the reasonable slashdotter is railing against. Let's pause for a moment, catch our breath, then repeat after me:
There is nothing illegal about sharing files. Even if it's done it on-line. Even if it's done using p2p. Even if it's done in a large-scale operation.
I'd love to string-up those selfish miscreants who share infringing music on-line, and it's not just because they are using up all the bandwidth or getting something for free that I would have to pay to get (obviously different moral standards). But I see even more danger in people who would use the "disallow all file sharing" cure to solve the "some childish thieves" problem.
The Internet, as we know it, is about peer-to-peer sharing. All of the greatest features of the Internet (USENET, email, WWW, IRC, etc) were originally peer-to-peer, at least until the abuses forced us to CancelMoose, Spamblock, Filter, or Botban the functionality to useless castration. We need to ask ourselves if p2p is worth anything, because our elected officials are clearly already asking those questions. We need to be prepared to answer those questions. If we had to give-up sharing of infringing material, would we still want the Internet? Statements like "large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use" reinforce the idea that the Internet is just a copyright-infringment-orgy with no other use than facilitating copyright infringment. If that belief is allowed to hold sway, then the heavily taxed, heavily regulated, privacy-free and totally useless Internet will surely follow.
They're only going to let us make the same mistake so many times before they reach the conclusion nobody important actually uses that stuff anymore.
In my opinion, if we are opposed to legislation such as the proposed, then we have an obligation to a) share files like there's no tomorrow, b) avoid sharing any sort of copyright-infringing material, and c) shun with utmost prejudice anyone attempting to destroy the community we love by wasting the precious resources on their own childish quest to avoid paying their own fair share.
We've already tried writing our congressmen (or we've decided it wasn't worth wasting a stamp on trying) why not try a new tactic; one we're already familiar with, one right up our alley, one that's both totally legal and totally moral, one that's sure to make the xxAA freak; boycott on-line copyright-infringing material and promote the sharing of legitimate material instead.
Back the downloaders, but smack the freeloaders.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the RIAA backpedals once the on-line community equates anything Brittany with being an Internet freeloader.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
This kind of nonsense is not going to stop until the media giants are made fully obsolete by a mass shift to independent artists/film/etc. P2P is a tool to help this happen, but it's not the end solution. We need quality musicians to stop signing record label contracts and lead the revolution against the big media middle-men. We need musicians that can think like entrepreneurs, not employees.
What we need is a movement like Open Source but for music: a legal and unstoppable alternative to the corrupt monopolies that exist.
Artificial scarcity is becoming more and more artificial. Soon all literature, recorded music and video will fit on a cheap disk. If disk space doubles every year for the next 14, today's 120GB drive will become tomorrow's 1PB drive. The Internet Archive, by comparisson, is "only" 300TB.
At that point, the protectionism will become impossibly difficult to defend. When each person could be be given a copy of the Archive of Human Knowledge for the equivalent of 1 week's wage, the issue will resolve. There will be those societies who become enlightened, and those who wither in the greatest of dark ages.
Agent Smith vs. a ten-year old. How appropriate. Thank God I'm no US-taxpayer.
In other news, the Homeland Security will be used against subway freeriders in New York City. Damn those pesky freeriders. Bring'em all to Guantanamo, along with these elusive Democrat cowards.
3% of the male US population are in prison. That is the highest inmate-population rate in all civilized states. Europe has a tenth of that and the US still has crack niggers running rampant in their inner city quarters. Damn.
war on drugs - failure, filled the jails, filled the pockets of the dealers
war on terror - failure, filled the Konzentrationslager, emptied the pockets of the state
war on freedom - success.
Last week, Sen. Hatch made an outrageous suggestion for a bill to allow copyright holders to destroy file-sharer's PCs . Some people thought this was just a spurious bill to take the heat off of the "real dangerous" laws that would then be proposed, which might seem more "rational".
Apparently this is the real bill.
So, please tell me what is rational about this? Yes, distributing materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. We already have laws and civil penalties for this. This may seem like a good law (in the same way that if we had a problem with lots of windows being broken, the FBI assigning more agents to a Broken Windows Units would seem reasonable), but in fact, it is not. If I find someone violating one of my patents, I sue them, hopefully I win, and they pay me recompense or the Sherrif comes and takes their car. This is how it works. I can't expect the FBI to go around looking for people violating my patents, gathering evidence at taxpayer expense, and then handing all the information over to me.
If they are to do so, they ought to do this service for everybody. Somehow I get the feeling they aren't going to be worried about my IP, or the IP of my friends with the Indy-band website. They are going to be protecting ONLY the big money, RIAA/MPAA IP. If you don't believe this, look at recent history. This is unfair and wrong. Yes, the RIAA and MPAA are suffering from massive violations of their IP rights. But to spend tax monies on agents specifically dispatched to police their IP is unfair to other IP holders, as well as the taxpayers. It is essentially a subsidy to the legal expenses of the RIAA and MPAA. Do we really want that? Let them try to work with the laws we have.
The MPAA and RIAA have a basic problem with their business model (they are basically in the same boat as each other). What they need to realize, is that in a world of near instaneous worldwide transmission and recording, once something is released, that's it, its out there. TV and radio have worked fine with this for years (few ever complained about people recording CHiPs and Knight Rider with their VCRs). Yet TV and radio made plenty of money. If the MPAA and RIAA want to make money, they need to rework their distribution methods so that the choke-point is closer to the artist.
Until the MPAA and RIAA realize that they can do things a different way, they will keep trying to get the government to enforce their easily-violated property rights. The only way to make them change is to NOT make it easy for them to sue half of America. Make it as hard for them as it would be for you, or me.
Funny how it's the copyright industries and their apologists always screaming about how the ability to create copies means the end of the world, etc., despite all previous experience to the contrary.
As far as previous human experience goes, the Constitution does not allow patents and copyrights to be given as a recognition of any sort of property rights in ideas and expressions. These artificial monopolies are things that can optionally be given, with LIMITS, to promote PUBLIC ends. The ideas about copying that you don't like are, by and large, the same ones that the Founders came up with. (Read Jefferson's letter on patents sometime.)
If you look at who has done the most to harm the PUBLIC ends for which copyright is allowed, I think you'll find it's not the file sharers. It is the publishers who want to DRM everything and extend copyright unto infinity and control stuff after the sale. Unlimited Government-enforced monopolies on speech and ideas is FAR, FAR more dangerous than even the garbage Chicken Little scenarios where the entertainment industry collapses.
I'm not inclined to like the RIAA, nor do I like their efforts to mutate copyright law to their advantage. But, I'm not surprise about it, and see no reason to rage about it. People will use whatever means available to sustain an advantage. Why should we be surprised that the recording industry is doing exactly that?
Frankly, we don't need new legislation to criminalize large-scale filesharing. It is already illegal.
If you walked down to your local bookshop, bought 500 books, brought them home, made duplicates of each book and then started selling them or giving them away, you would be breaking the law. I've yet to see anyone explain why duplicating CD's and putting them on public servers is any different.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What's illegal filesharing? How can it be illegal to share files? It's not even illegal to violate copyright.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Lynx currently gives:
Perhaps they can offer an alternative validation mechanism?
Yahoo! uses telephone verification, but what alternative verification mechanism do you suggest for users of Lynx and similar text based browsers to authenticate themselves to Slashdot staff, who are in no position to pay for a toll-free telephone number? Last time I e-mailed the staff of a web site using a humanconf-like system (it may not have been Slashdot) about this issue, I got a response asking me to think of an alternate system before writing back.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Don't you just love Texas and it's ways of fighting for the poor^M^M^M^M[insert adjective of choice, mine is stinking] rich?
Must-not-watch TV!
And how might that be accomplished? No, the bill is not at fault. Yes, it's the action. But when the FBI is licking it's chops to perform the misguided action, and there's no one with sufficient power willing to prevent them, then once the bill is passed, it can be assumed that Bad Stuff will ensue. Hence, the best point to prevent the Bad Stuff from happening is to protest vehemently to the Congresscritters considering the bill, as they at least are theoretically answerable to us, and enough noise has been known to change their mind. It takes a hell of a lot more noise to change the mind of the FBI, and is damned near impossible.
For that reason, I certainly stipulate that, from our vantage point, the action and the law are inseparable. Therefore, they have to be attacked as a whole at the weakest point.
P2P programs are just a tool. Using them to download other people's software is wrong*. Prosecute the users of the tool, not the tool itself.
Obviously, that's the theory from the slashdot crowd, but that's a less repeated mantra in law enforcement circles. In fact, were you to repeat that in the FBI crowd, I predict that "bullshit" would be the most common response. You will never convince them of that - they believe (perhaps correctly) that 95% of file trading is illicit, and that certainly believe that the 5% is not worth saving at the expense of granting the 95%.
Bottom line is that if this law is passed, Bad Stuff WILL happen. For me, that's enough reason to oppose the law, I don't give a damn how innocuous it seems on paper, as a law on paper is completely irrelevant and impotent.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
People like this is why... http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20021117
I wish they'd stop messing with stuff that they don't understand. Like, technology.
When do we get to the "land of the free" part?
Robocop. The world depicted in that movie is scarily prescient. Massive privitization of government services (law enformcement in the movie, prisons in the real world), government sell-out of citizens to the highest corporate bidder, crushingly inane TV considered uproariously entertaining ("I'd pay a dollar for that!" vs. 'reality' TV). Next up, Army Corporation and Navy Ltd.
I'm sorry but someone needs to kick these U.S. lawmakers is the ass (that means you people).
What happened to the U.S. government actually addressing serious issues in the world. We have a internal economy that is in shambles because the government can't enforce accounting regulations that (get this) ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. The U.S. is in the mist of a international nightmare with two countries (Afganistan... remember them, and Iraq) waiting on us to clean up the messes we made flexing our stockpiled military hardware, and a global reputation as an angry child with a big stick.
And these Congressmen think some sort of priority should be set on protecting an ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
Please... I understand the law should be enforced but do you think a cop is going to write out parking ticket in the middle of a murder arrest. When the FBI can tell me that organized crime has been eliminated, all escaped fellons have been captured, all murders have been prevented and all the missing children have been found. Then maybe we should let them look at the music industries small copyright issues. (and I mean small... I don't believe the industry is suffering one bit, we made only XXX billions instead of XXXX billions.. BOOO HOOOO.)
I don't see much to worry about in HR2517, at least on the surface (speaking as a copyright reformist who believes the current laws are unbalanced and ultimately are detrimental to the promotion of art and science). Iâ(TM)d like to see more education, especially if it helps wake up people to how restrictive the current laws are.
I tend to mistrust the further removal of due process that is talked about in the bill â" much of the bill is geared towards allowing copyright prosecutions to take place even if the material in question has not been formally registered with the copyright office. Iâ(TM)m not sure why this is such an urgent need for Section 2 points 8-11.
I tend to distrust a law that formalizes weak claims â" in effect the law seems to allow greater abuses where alleged copyright owners can file claims with less need to prove they are actually the copyright owners. We have all seen that the DMCA has been misused for false claims because the accuser does not have much downside. None the less, I might change my mind about this if someone could present a great explanation of why copyright registration exemptions are needed and why the current laws donâ(TM)t work.
Section 3 and 4 are kind of interesting â" I wonder how much budget will be attached to this bill to expand the FBI? I fear what will happen if this bill is actually passed is that the FBI will be burdened to do these action without any extra budget, and this will actually cause an overall decrease in the FBIâ(TM)s effectiveness.
All in all, it looks mostly like a bit of special purpose legislation that congress can pass to justify itâ(TM)s campaign fund raising. I donâ(TM)t think it will be particularly effective unless a lot of money is attached to the bill, and not much will come of it.
You seem to be saying making a distinction between sharing copytighted and non-copyrighted material. Fair enough, as far as that goes.
I've had more than one occasion to use lawyers about copyright issues (asking about potential liability involved in posting content/links to content on websites).
Nothing in those consultations and nothing in the language of the U.S. copyright law tells me that, for example, making digital copies of several thousand commercial CD tracks available on the Net constitutes fair use.
If that was fair use, then you could just as legally buy CD's, burn real copies on real blank plastic, and open up a shop to distribute them. Or, buy one Harry Potter book, make 10,000 copies, and start "sharing" them from your living room.
Yes, the Internet uses different technology, that is irrelevant a legal point of view. Pirating books didn't become legal when Xerox started selling copiers. Pirating music isn't legal just because the Internet makes it easy and popular.
As for p2p, I think the Internet, in its original form, was peer-to-peer in the social sense. I.e., everyone using USENET was a peer of everyone else using it.Content shared was personal content. P2P networks are something different, and bear a resemblance to old store-and-forward BBS systems like Fidonet.
I do agree that commercial interests have eliminated much of the joy of Internet use, but I'm not surprised to see it happen.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Ok so since when did it become ok for MY tax dollars to go towards protecting the copyrighted material of a company? You are taking MY money away to ensure the flow of money to someone ELSE....what the fuck?
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
... as well as all operating systems [it'll be tough to program around that one], all programs, and all software.
Don't worry, it's good for the economy.
A day in the life of a serf...
Anyone care to read the Bible? How about Zechariah 11?
i believe this has been covered on /. before, but the first google is this
I'm not an apologist for the recordng industry, and I've read rather a lot of Jefferson.
I agree that current copyright duration is far too long. I don't agree that the way to remedy that is to engage in massive copyright infringement Massive infringement will only result in new legislation that mandates new technical solutions that will inconvenience people,like me, who think almost all contemporary popular entertainment out to be burned and buried, not shared.
I also disagree that even overly long copyright duration has a serious and negative impact on the spread of knowledge and ideas. Yes, books and such are kept out of the public domain, but that has little real impact on what people read or what they listen to. The last I looked, very little in the way of public domain material was available in stores. Because publishers, wholesalers and retailers can't make a profit on it, Why? Because hardly anyone wants to buy public domain material. (And the Internet is not going to become some kind of universal library where we all go to get public domain material, to the exclusion of buying what we want. I.e., how many kids do you know who would watch a 75-year old public domain MIckey Mouse cartoon rather than pay to watch this summer's flicks?)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If we really had a massive terrorist threat including cyber-terrorism, why the hell are they adding this to the FBI's plate?
Did they already fix the problems within the FBI and among different agencies that led to the tragic failure to prevent 9/11 despite having all the info they needed?
Shouldn't the FBI investigate Enron, etc. and the role they played in influencing our government's energy policy with VP Dick Cheney in a manner that might've been illegal? Or investigate VP Dick Cheney's alleged fraudulent accounting practices while he was director of Halliburton? Given the HUGE relevance to this story after millions of us lost a big chunk of our pensions, why didn't we hear about this as much as even 1/1000th of Monica's story?
Oh, I forgot, we the public aren't supposed to care about things that actually impact us like (inflated gas prices or losing hard-earned pension funds)--we should only care about sex scandals of politicians because we're illiterate morons that believe corrupt politicians when they tell us they believe in the same God or religion as us since we don't have the ability to detect bullshit.
I suppose making govt larger and more intrusive is seen as a better strategy than fixing the specific problems that led to the failure to prevent it.
I lost someone who was working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and I'm very dissappointed at how they've handled it BEFORE and AFTER that tragedy.
We're the most technologically advanced nation on Earth...we can do better than this.
He either got an illegal contribution by the **AAs or was promised huge sacks of cash if he gets this passed.
I've looked over the article, and I don't see why this is such a terrible thing. So the FBI is going to have to create some kind of commercial or something telling people not to illegally download movies and music. And, our law enforcement agencies will cooperate more thoroughly in tracking down people who post movies and music to the web. In other words, activities that are *already illegal* will be more likely to be punished, and an effort will be made to convince people not to break *existing laws*. So what? I'd think this would be a GOOD thing.
.02... BTW: I liked your post a lot.
I think that many of the people here on Slashdot are going to respond to you with screeds about how terrible this act is, but really, it isn't. It just tries to improve our existing law-enforcement structure a little when it comes to copyright violations. For the life of me, I can't understand why Slashdotters get so up in arms over stuff like this. People shouldn't be pirating music and software *anyway*. It's not like there aren't any FREE alternatives.
Anyway, this is just my opinion. I don't see anything wrong with reasonable, government-agency based enforcement of the existing legal structure. So, please take the numerous, knee-jerk, "information wants to be free" responses you're about to get with a grain of salt, ok? Maintain that reasonable point of view, dude. Because I don't think we as a nation (at least) want to go too far in one direction or the other -- we don't want to lean too far into either camp. It's a compromise position that's called for. And, that means we're going to have to at least enforce SOME of the laws...
Anyway, that's just my
Phil
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
hmmm.....they want to look into our Pc's huh??? Well, to all those who are under the umbrella of our illustrious governmental observations, all I can say is zeig hiel!!
Someone PLEASE mod parent up!!!
I agree!
The term we need to use here is copyright infringment, and despite what geeks and lawmakers alike would love to believe, there is no way to codify the concept of copyright infringment in a way that a computer program or delusional person can always understand.
I have nothing againt an individual sharing copyrighted material, so long as he is authorized to do so. If somebody wants to share public domain stuff, that's okay. If somebody wants to share his own copyrighted material, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material with my explicit permission, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material without my explicit permission, but within the bounds of "fair use", I may not like it, but because we both live in this society and we've agreed that a concept of Fair Use is a good thing (and we're created laws specifically for that), that's okay, too.
But anyone sharing my copyrighted material against my wishes and for their own private gain (or to avoid their expense) is acting in a fashion which is illegal, selfish, and stupid. And it doesn't matter how corrupt our politicians are, or how evil the RIAA is, or how unreasonable copyright term is, or how many other people are doing it, or how slim their chance of getting caught is, or whether or not they would have paid for it otherwise, or how outdated the current business model is, or whether the author/artist would be "richer" or "better off" if he'd change his mind and allowed it to be shared, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, those are just the lame rationalizing of a delusional mind which has already admitted it is infringing someone elses copyright, but has decided to do it anyway for its own selfish reasons.
This is one of those things we can't really leave up to our computers or our lawmakers to decide. We have to decide for ourselves if we would rather live in a world where we have free access to all of the content produced by the RIAA and kin back when they existed, but nothing at any price since we killed them, or whether it's better off for us to respect the wishes of our valued authors and artists and acknowledge a right we know they can't well enforce in exchange for the things we will lose if we force them to enforce it poorly.
Thanks for letting me rant.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
How long until we start seeing posters in classrooms with Micro$oft, FBI, and maybe some happy-joy comitte logo at the bottom with text like,
."
"Do your parents burn CD's?
If they do, then they're probably copying without permission.
Tell your Teacher and Always get permission before you make a copy.
To find out more use keyword 'tocopyiswrong' or go to
goodkids.fbi.gov and click on 'My parents copy'
Or better yet, how about "Kid-Friendly" websites sponsored by the BSA with links that explain in happy-joy terms that mommy and daddy are criminals and all they have to do to get them help is to submit their home phone-number and press the button on the webpage.
Then there's always a campaign to have children turn their parents/teachers/friends in for a reward, revenge, or both. Imagine a pissed-off 13yr. old girl getting revenge on her mother, father, and family. Imagine the pissed off son who didn't get the family car for some bullcrap popularity fest. Oh yeah, lots and lots of possibilities on this one.
It won't be long until we're at the point where anybody who owns a computer is a criminal (remember, if you're not a cop, you're part of the problem). It won't happen overnight, but steps are being taken to ensure that it will happen, and that your computer can and will be audited regularly from a remote server and portable media which will happily RFID themselves as white-vans drive through neighborhoods with the appropriate active/passive scanners. It's not hard to implement now, and it will be easier in ten years when everyone is running wireless networks. If you've ever lived in another country where having "contraband" technology is a serious problem then the idea of a fleet of nondescript vehicles basically running the same routes as garbage trucks any time of the day or night shouldn't seem so far-fetched. If I had gone to the right schools and knew the right people I'd probably be deploying proof-of-concept hardware and software right now with a bunch of buddies in Virginia, and I would have been working at it since the eighties as more and more computers were being sold to the hobbyist market.
It won't be long before "Failure to register your computers" will result in stiff fines, jail time, and the Man taking all your nifty toys away. Right now, businesses that sell OEM M$ operating systems are the first step in the chain, but AMD and Intel will probably be targeted as the first line of "compliant" companies that will facillitate the security needs of big business over citizenry, and you can bet your ass that it will be slipped in under the asupices of "National Security", and "Trade Secrets". What applies to governments doesn't apply to businesses. Anyone who follows the privitization of the penal system will know exactly what a government-business relationship can do. Our only hope will be "whistle-blowers". Ahahahahaha.
People running OS'n which don't roll over and play happy with investigational API's are going to find themselves listed as pirates, and you can bet that 0400hrs housecalls with stun grenades, a battering ram, and anywhere from 8 to 15 officers all vying for the right to expertly place a knee on the back of your kneck while they zip-tie you and your family up and cart all your electronics out to a truck where they'll enjoy another life after they're auctioned off. Please remember that there's always a buck to be made from anyone "suspected" of criminal activity.
And before anyone thinks that they're safe using anything more advanced than a shovel or a rock needs to look back to the time when radios were a registered commodity. Even now in many parts of the world having anything capable of transmitting information can get you tortured or shot, and often the same applies to recievers. We still live in a world that is very very far from freedom.
I personally view any legislation that cloaks its true purposes with inappropriate language and exotic acronyms as a shot-across-the-bow of whatever fragile freed
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
That would seem to imply that if I 'steal' under $1000 worth of movies in 180 days, I'm okay.
Read it again. Section 506 states that if you "financially gain" from willful copyright infringement, you commit a crime. Section 101 states that if you trade copies of works, no matter how little they would cost legitimately, you "financially gain" the value of the copies.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Hey, it appears they have Linux code in their OS.
Some people may suspect they are violating the copyright.
Since all the copyright holder needs is suspicion, not proof, or court order, perhas they should attack all SCO users.
Nice rant. I can agree completely.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Well, this is just clear evidence that we have to STOP the horrilbe scorge of HOME TAPING!!!!
No, it is just clear that "home copying" is more than home copying. Giving away a few thousand bootlegged CDs in college is a great way to buy friendship. You might be able to get a couple girls in the sack. The people making these thousands upon thousands of copies of music aren't simply benign.
The person starting this particular thread was questioning the 2.3 billion download a month figure. The figure is probably low. It just measures P2P downloads. You need to add to that disk to disk and transfers on local networks. There are probably several hundred billion "unauthorized" copies of songs sitting in various places.
Generally, you have to measure things before you make decisions. The music industry doesn't have to fudge data to get big numbers.
The big numbers pretty much demand addressing.
Personally, I look at this technology that lets us quickly make millions of copies of things and see a great deal of opportunity. The cost is so low that I can see us moving into a world of massive above ground databases filled with every song, movie, tv show or newsclip ever recorded, and download them for pennies.
The two things the big numbers tell me is that home copying isn't home copying. Rather than trying to find ways to curb people, I think the market needs to find ways to use technologies to distribute the music above ground at a fraction of the cost that companies charge for CDs.
You know... grizzly bear arms.
iSKUNK!
Why did I read this as Privacy Deterance?
+1, Logan's Run reference.
-72
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
If they didn't, the statues might fall over. Imagine New York without her lady of liberty!
I'm a girl too! See naked chicks in my journal!
The beginning of the "War on Piracy(tm)". The corporations of America have now begun asking the US government to do the same thing to software that they did to drugs -- put millions of people in prison for something that should be perfectly legal in the first place.
Now don't get me wrong - I don't advocate wholesale usage of drugs, especially not massively mind altering drugs that make you do stupid things to innocent people (you know, like run them over in your car on the way home from the bar because you couldn't steer your car straight), but I think that what someone does in the privacy of their own home should be up to them. If someone wants to smoke a J in their living room... so what?! As long as I don't have to be there smellin it, I'm perfectly happy.
If the creators of software don't want anyone copying the software, they should make it technologically impossible to do so. If people want to copy software, and the software is not copyable, then they'll have to look for other software.
That's why I wish more power to Microsoft's Activation program -- I sincerely hope that they prevent every single illegal copy of every program that they sell. That way when no-one can run copies of their programs for free, they'll have to either cough up the hundreds of dollars or look for something else that works just as good.
Enter GNU/Linux.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Yes, another anonymous coward posting a comment: This isn't meant to be a troll, redundant or offtopic..
:-P
But, what I really want to know is this:
Don't we already have laws that deal with this? We have copyright law don't we? whats the point of proposing this garbage?
Doesn't Berman work for the Hollywood Nazis?
This was supposed to be a secret!!!
3 times a day I see american's freedom slashed by actual government.
how they can be hypocrital enough to still think they're in the land of the free.
But I bought the 500 books... that's a lot of books! What if I bought them expressly so that I can give away copies? Meaning that if I couldn't make copies, I owuldn't buy them... meaning no sale?
People always fall back on the same dull unimaginative moral abstracts when discussing this issue, the economics are more interesting, and hold a lot more promise. Someone did a study that said that 40 per cent of the people who downloaded music on the interent actually bought more CDs than before they started downloading. The RIAA has contradictiory data, but that's been cooked. I suspect that the rest of the downloaders are the people who never pay for music, and if you take away downloading, they're going to go back to taping off the radio.
I have to say that when I was downloading off Napster, I was also spending about twice as much on music than before. It's really hard for me to feel guilty about that. I was contributing more money, not less to the industry and to the artists. And I knew that if I stopped downloading, I would buy less. It was more music for me, and more money for the industry, a win-win. Now we're going to strangle the free exploration of music, and it's going to hurt everybody. Any form of morality that says a lose-lose is somehow better than a win-win is for shit.
My favorite of the new moralists is Micheal Eisner of Disney, who makes an obscene amount of money and cut the health benefits for the workers in his cartoon sweat shop. He published an essay about how filesharing "undermines the moral compass of America" or something like that. If he played this wiser, it would mean more money for the stockholders he's paid to represent, and more entertainment for the customers he served. BUt he's clininging to his powerbase, selling us all out, and collecting 600 million dollars... and that's not stealing?
Raw Capitalism, you've gotta love it.
It brought us the England the Dickens complained about. It makes us the only rich, industrialized nation on earth without a cohesive health-care system (your private cancer is less important than an insurance company's private profit ) and now it has brought us the beauty, the joy and wonder of society which tolerates a president whose only successes involve nepotism and the favors attendent to having very rich friends.
Money rocks! It slices. It dices.
According to the theory we all read in civics and economics, capitalism forces businesses operating in societies to respond to changes in the market by bettering production, distribution, marketing, pricing and anything else that will make everyone happy. That's the theory.
The practice, circa 2003, is something we never talk about here. Basically, what the record companies are working toward is an efficacious solution which makes the most efficient use of the market power that accrues to a well-funded, well-connected oligopoly: it is cheaper for them to buy nonsense lawmaking and policy for the protection of a loathsome business model than it would be for them to adapt to the world's dislike for coughing up billions that it's tight economies can't afford for digital information. YOu've got to admire it, just before you puke.
Where is all this going?
Essentially, there is nothing new to be found here. The Microsoft Case demonstrated that current administration never met a rich person or organization that wasn't worth a oving pearl necklace, while the legislative branches seem happy to pass legislation for the executive branch to sign without really worrying themselves overmuch about abstractions like your rights.
What's the solution: live somewhere else. Consider it. There are a lot of English-speaking countries in the world. You probaby won't get rich, but the odds are against that here, too.
Hell, with socilized medicine, might even live longer.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
you get what you deserve
- excesive government controls
- poor education
- poor environmental controls
- 20% of the population in the toilet
- but hey your in the 80%
Most of the world thinks George W is either stupid , bad or mad. I think they underestimate a very inteligent man - who was poor at the business of business but is great at the business of politics and lining his and his friends pockets. - Just look at where all the money for keeping tabs on the populace is going, and for searching for WMD's , and paying for the weapons used in the Gulf.
This is just a way to channel a whole heap of money to some company that can scan a few p2p networks.
Good luck with your government / president - your children are going to need it.
>> ... But I bought the 500 books... that's a lot of books! What if I bought them expressly so that I can give away copies? Meaning that if I couldn't make copies, I owuldn't buy them... meaning no sale?
Still illegal. Whether or not you think it is moral, or whether or not it means more sales of the book is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is against the law. Why be surprised when lawbreakers are treated like criminals? (And don't try to package filesharing as some pristine attempt to ensure free speech.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You state that copyright duration is far too long, yet you argue that the public domian is worthless because no one wants to watch 75-year old Mickey Mouse cartoons??
The public domain is worthless BECAUSE copyright duration is far too long. Trying to use the public domain currently resembles an archeological dig. People do not use or value the public domain because virtually nothing has been permitted to enter the public domain in decades. The copyright lobby is fond of the term "theft". Well, copyright extentions amount to the theft of roughly seven decade of material from the public! It is a theft of monstrous proportions.
Copyright was created for the purpose of feeding the public domain. Works are intended to fall into the public domain and enrich us all after a short period. The fact that the public domain is worthless is a perversion of the intent of copyright.
Original copyright duration was a maximum of 28 years. That would put a hell of a lot of books and movies into the public domain. Everything up to 1975. Hell, the original Star Wars would hit the public domain in just 2 years. Plus the fact that 28 years only applied if someone made an effort to renew. A great many works would fall into the public domain after merely 14 years. That means works as recent as 1989 would be available. That would include a lot of books, some of the music in my collection, and a lot of computer games and programs. Expecially all software made by defunct companies.
A reasonable copyright term would result in a rich and vibrant public domain. If anything. advancing technology should argue for shorter copyright terms. Back in 1776 printing and shipping times were measued in months. It could take years to realize a profit. Expecially since the US market was a mere 3 million people. Currently the vast majority of profits are collected on works within months of release. A copyright term of as low as five or ten years would have negligable impact on the creation and distribution of new works.
massive copyright infringement
I submit that the ones primarily responsible for the current state of affairs is the RIAA itself. They should have entered the download sales market the instand Napster made it blindingly obvious that it was possible to do so and that there was a demand for it. Hell, they should have thought of it first. That was over SIX YEARS AGO. Instead they left the market unserved and numerous P2P's grew to fill it. Now that they's finally "entered the market", their offerings are self defeating. No one wants to buy a crippled product. No one wants a restricted catalog with all the hot titles held back to avoid competing with offline sales. And no one want to pay absurdly inflated prices. A download is a far cheaper product than pressing, packaging, and shipping disks to retailers that add an extra 100% mark-up. They are perfectly capable of creating an interface/experience far easier, faster, and more featured than Kazaa. They could have had a thriving online business if they had chosen to six years ago and offered a full collection of non-crippled MP3's cheap fast and easy.
All too often the copyright argument turns into a false choice of two extremes. On one end you have the NET act changing copyright violation from the civil matter it was intended to be and making it a criminal felony. You have eternal copyright extentions. You have the DMCA saying you can't do what you want with the things you bought in the privacy of your own home. Technically it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts because any decryption a computer can do can be done purely mentally. You have the Audio Home Recording Act which was a mini-CBDTPA, it mandated DRM hardware in ALL digital audio devices. This act KILLED the perfectly good DAT technology, no one wants to buy a crippled product. You still can't find them over a decade later. They are currently finalizing mandated DRM in all high definition TV, and I predict the law will kill this tech too. People won't buy cripp
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I don't believe that the public domain will ever sustain a publication and distribution system that approaches the coverage and availability of the current commercially driven structure. Why? Because there's little demand for it and, therefore, little money to be made doing it. Almost all of what is published, recorded or filmed is very perishable and very forgettable. Even if it devolved into the public domain 28 days after publication, it doesn't strike me that it would find much of a market.
As for the RIAA...well, they're a lobbying group paid to advance the interests of the recording industry. As such, they are the last group I'd expect to propose major changes in the way pop music is made and sold. That's not to defend or support thier actions, but just to recognize the RIAA for what it is.
In any case, the usual course for change when technology obsoletes a business model is for entirely new companies to spring up, rather than existing companies transforming themselves. If (and I think it is a big if) the public no longer wants to buy real CD's in real stores, but would rather download music online, then we will see the demise of music stores and the music sections of book stores, as well as the demise of most of the major recording companies. Then, if the demand for recorded music remains, someone will fill the demand.
Meanwhile, the people responsible for copyright infringement are the people hosting and downloading copyrighted music, not the RIAA. No one really needs the music -- it's a luxury -- , and the RIAA hasn't forced anyone to do anything. They just provide a handy excuse for people who have figured out how to get something for free, and want a way to obscure the fact that it's illegal.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Why? Because there's little demand for it and, therefore, little money to be made doing it.
The only reason for the current almost nonexistant demand is the excessive copyright term. As for money to be made, once it's in the public domain it's a free resource. Any sale price above physicals costs is pure profit. And just as importantly it opens them up for derivative works. Virtually every animated movie Disney has ever released has been a derivative work of the public domain. Snow white. Cinderella. Pinochio. Junglebook. Treasure Island. Peter Pan. Beauty and the Beast. Little Mermaid. All of it. Disney's empire is built upon the back of the public domain. Two years from now we would be getting derivative works of the original Star Wars. (Thought hopefully not a Disney animated version, chuckle)
As for the RIAA...well, they're a lobbying group paid to advance the interests of the recording industry... just to recognize the RIAA for what it is.
The RIAA has gone beyond mere self interest. They have become a menace to society. Abusive contracts with artists is self interest. Illegal price fixing is a menace. Using DRM is self interest. The DMCA a menace. The Sony Bono copyright extention was merely a (severe) self-interest abuse. Trying to get liability exemption to trash people's computers is a menace. Lobbying about DAT technology is self interest. Exterminating DAT technology through that lobbying is a menace.
Between the RIAA's anti-social behavior and the fact that their current online "predicament" is primarily due to their own refual to serve the market, I don't feel much sympathy for them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Have to disagree. The reason there isn't much public domain material in the marketplace is that there's little demand for it. Reducing copyright duration won't change that fact. I can't foresee an economically viable way to sustain a market for public domain material. And, it won't be a free resource. With or without copyright, it costs money to print books, to advertise them, to distribute them, to pay personnel salaries, to pay rent, taxes, and insurance on physical facilities, etc. The only reduction in cost that I can see is that no money will go to authors. And that's not much of a reduction.
Again, I think it is a bit over the top to portray the RIAA as a menace bent on destroying society. Doing stupid things vis-a-vis popular music doesn't meet my threshold of societal threat. I agree that they are rather clueless and I don't support the intent of their efforts, but I'm neither chagrined nor surprised that they're doing it.
And, yes, most of Disney's efforts have been derivative. What's the point, though? Everything is derived from something else. Choosing to make movies based on popular stories that are in the public domain seems to me to be a sensiblle business decision. I.e., Disney knows the story is popular and successful going in, and they don't need to pay royalties to the original author. The fact that DIsney, and others, lobbied successfully for copyright extension shouldn't be a shock. Lobbying for the legislation was just another business tool for them. And, that's perfectly legitimate.
What is distressing, however, is the apparent widespread attitude among many who share your views about copyright that organized, professional political and lobbying activity to advance your objectives is somehow beneath you -- that such activity is unseemly and unethical. That's self-defeating prissiness.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The reason there isn't much public domain material in the marketplace is that there's little demand for it.
:/
Are you suggesting people buy something because it is under copyright?
The fact that copyright has expired has no effect on the demand for it. The primary cause of diminishing demand is excessive age. Falling into the public domain can increase demand for the work. With the expiration of copyright the work can be provided in previously unavailable forms, in derivative works which gain fresh copyright protection, at lower margins, and without legal encumberance. Some people already make a living scouring the public domain for new opportunities to make a buck delivering works to people. Opportunities that the copyright holder either chose to neglect, or never considered.
Saying the pubic domain is worthless for two reasons. First of all, if no one would ever want to deal in these works then having copyright extend here would be entirely useless anyway. Who needs copyright protection if no one wants to make/distribute copies??
Secondly, if the public domain is worthless then your statement that copyright durations are excessive doesn't make any sense. Copyright durations might as well be eternal.
If you actually read the discussion between Jefferson, Madison, and the other authors of the constitution it is clear that their intended purpose was to get valuable works into the public domain.
I think it is a bit over the top to portray the RIAA as a menace bent on destroying society.
Like any good villian, they think they are actually the good guys. They think they are saving society. I never used the term "destroying society", but I would say they have gone far beyond ordinary selfish interests and are wreaking havok. Getting laws that exterminate entire technologies and that exterminate individual rights is serious business.
most of Disney's efforts have been derivative. What's the point, though?
The point is that without the public domain none of those movies would have been made. The public domain is a valuable resource.
organized, professional political and lobbying activity
I have no problem with it. Unfortunately it's hard to get professional lobbing that serves the public interest to offset wealthy corporate intrests. I'm also not in a good position to contribute much money. I have in fact witten to several government bodies and contacted a few legislators. It's hard to make a difference that way though
I am actually in a position where I may get to speak with senators and/or congressmen. I have met some in the past. I hope to get a chance to raise one or more issue in person where it might have an impact.
that such activity is unseemly and unethical
I beleive that some corporate activity falls into that catagory. Congress is supposed to serve the public interest, and corpoate interests have been abusing the system. Part of the problem stems from court precident that corporations are persons. Ironically one of the judges who started this legal precident also ruled that blacks were not persons. Coprporations are people, but blacks aren't, LOL.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I don't believe I argued that the public domain is worthless, or that people buy something because it is under copyright. By and large, people are indifferent to, and more probabably, unaware of, the copyright status of a prospective purchase.
I can agree that devolution of a work into the public domain opens up opportunities that are not available while the work remains undercopyright. However, I think those opportunities cannot support the network of commercial information distribution we have today in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I believe that the prospect of financial reward is an important motivation for the creation of authored works. In many cases, it is probably the primary motivation. Copyright is essential to the channeling of that financial reward. Absent copyright, we would likely revert to the sitation that prompted the creation of copyright in the first place: rampant theft from authors by publishers.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I agree completely about the purpose of copyright.
Absent copyright
I never sugegsted eliminiating copyright, therefore your argument does not apply to what I said.
Last post said explictly reffered to copyright EXPIRING twice. I explicitly mentioned derivative works gaining fresh copyright protection. Those statements make absolutely no sense in context of copyright not existing.
You are arguing a combination of fallacy #41: Strawman argument and #24: False dillema. Straw man: I never suggest eliminating copyright. False dillema: We are not forced to choose between (a) revoking copyright and (b)increasingly oppressive copyright law.
I was arguing in favor of copyright. - but it was the copyright we had before they passed AHRA, NET, DMCA, and Sony Bono in the 1990's. I guess I'd also like to reach WAAYYYY back into the 1980's and yank the law mandating Macrovision in all video equipment. Copyright law has absolutely no business crippling perfectly legal products.
You yourself said copyright duration is excessive. I merely argued that the public domain is a valuable resource when copyright duration excessive. I pointed out that even a 5-10 year term would be enough to preserve a rich network of commercial information distribution. I said that not to argue for that term, but highlight the fact that the original 14 years extendable to 28 years was CLEARLY more than adaquate. Life+70 is pure abuse, it is a legalized theft from the public.
About my most controvercial point was that before the new INCREASES in copyright law P2P did not legally fall under the definition of infringement, and that that was ok. The RIAA could have done quite well under those rules had they initiated pro-customer internet sales six years ago when they were hit over the head with the fact that it was possible and that there was a demand for it. I think they could still manage it now, though they put themselves in a very bad position with that six year delay. Hell, their current anti-consumer offerings are getting thousands of customers.
And even if the internet causes the "destruction" of certain peices of the network of commercial information distribution, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every new disruptive technology causes some businesses to vanish and others to spring up. The law does not exist to ensure that specific companies continue to make a profit just because they made a profit in the past. Those sorts of laws were passed when the automobile appeared - laws to protect the tens of thousands of jobs sweeping horse-shit out of the streets.
Ordinary copyright law is exceedingly effective at dealing with the commercial exploitation of a work. That is exactly how copyright law was designed to work. Ordinary copyright law is perfectly fine for the job of encouraging new creative works. I'm not arging against copyright. I'm arguing against the New-and-Improved abusive copyright law changes.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.