Slashdot Mirror
Senator Seeks Restrictions to Music Laws, Fines
Justen writes "Following this article from last month, Senator Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.) has announced that he will seek to limit federal penalties for copyright downloads and seek to restrict the subpoena power essentially granted to the industry through the DMCA. The RIAA responded by calling the current situation an 'epidemic.'" Sadly, there's no quantitative values for proposed reduced measures yet, but given the speed at which government moves it's reassuring to know the issue is this far along already.
I can't wait for the day a senator says we have to repeal the DMCA.
The cynic in me wonders why he's doing this.....
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
That in addition to Rich Boucher in the house, there are some senators with a modicum of common sense.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
As Gandalf said, "The pieces are moving...", and there is nothing that can stop them.
It will be interesting to see where all of thsi goes...the RIAA making music sharers into Robin Hoods', one senator (Hatch) saying that mp3 sharing is eqaul to shoplifting, and this guy saying he wants to limit the DMCA.
Interesting times ahead....
...since when has Orrin Hatch been anything but extremist in *any* of his views?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
face facts...
Look, the RIAA won't be stopped, too many ppl, both in goveremnt and as a consumer simply don't understand, and won't do anything to fight it, which will simply cause them to grow.
RTFM
Awwwhhh... it had to be a Republician to come out with this. I sure wanted to claim this one for our team.
Makes you wonder if some college kid called his dad in government and said, "You know, Dad, it would kick ass if you would stomp some RIAA ass for us."
Honestly though, appropriate fines is much, much more likely to be honestly viewed as part of the "solution" to the "problem." The current over-the-top fees are simple scare tactics.
Honest, appropriate fees are much more likely to protect the copyright owner.
Davak
It's good to see that at least some of our politicians have a sense of justice. Our communits (slashdot?) should back theses politicians that are taking the hard road with contributions and support (so our voices can be heard)
Don't Try to Outweird me, I get stranger things than you with my breakfast cereal every morning
dude's from minnesota.... he's obviously worried about losing all those lucrative file-sharing jobs to canada...
Senator Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.) has announced that he will seek to limit federal penalties for copyright downloads
I didn't realize there were federal penalties for downloading copyrights.
"First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
...an epidemic." Yes, the Centre for Disease Control should help stem the tide of this subpeona plague.
appropriate fines are... not is
Trying to stay on topic:
Coleman said he didn't have any specific numbers in mind yet for revised penalties.
I love politicians sometimes. They may not know how to fix something... but they will always give you their input on how NOT to fix something. 150k per song is wrong. 145k per song is much better? 1k per song? Come on, dude... make a stand!
Davak
It's nice to see that there is at least one person left who belives that the fines should reflect the crimes commited and not reflect how much the riiia wants to scare people.
I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
Putting aside what this guy is doing, I've always been a little surprised that the GOP doesn't side with downloaders on the P2P issue. I think that the fact that they don't shows that they have a very real committment to property rights, and that they don't want to compromise that for political expediency. In that sense, I think it's fairly admirable.
Because on the other hand, Hollywood is one of the main sources of support for the Democrats. The Democrats raise tons of money out there, and movie stars and other prominent Hollywood types are almost all Democratic.
P2P represents an almost ideal way for the Republicans to extract revenge on Hollywood, to "cut off their air supply." But there's almost no support at all for doing that within the party.
I know it will rub a lot of people the wrong way to say that it's possible to interpret protecting the property rights of international corporations as a principled position, but I think that's what's going on.
I sort of wish they wouldn't, though...
It was so easy to hate Normy....now I might actually have to eat some crow with my Republican friends and think about giving him a vote next time
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
The gov't isn't ALWAYS slow. Look at how quickly they passed legislation for the do-not-call list. If 50 million people sent letters/emails to their congressmen and told them to overturn the DMCA it would be history!
It seems to me, copyright laws were written with publisher in mind. The high penalties prevent a company like Random House from lifting a work from McGraw Hill and selling and distributing the books. Fining a 15 year-old $100,000 for sharing the latest Limp Bizkit single is just a little out of whack. The "crime" doesn't fit the punishment.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
The RIAA is going overboard with their subpoenas... $150000 per song??? They're blaming something for their economic woes (and i've seen the statistics- they don't have many) that can make them more money when they exploit it. It's no different than when they claimed home radio taping was killing music in the 80's. Hmmm... they seemed to have survived that, didn't they?
Esoteric reference.
by calling the situation an "epidemic". Once again, we have an establishment that blames everyone but itself for its problems.
It wouldn't be an epidemic if the RIAA reacted favorably to the fans by listening to them, lowering the prices of music, offering songs online for a reasonable fee.
Naw, they'd rather alienate their customer base by suing them. Foot, meet bullet.
Sadly, there's no quantitative values for proposed reduced measures yet, but given the speed at which government moves it's reassuring to know the issue is this far along already. Um, what does that jibberish mean?
Beep. Boop. Beep. You have questions. I have answers and your home address.
Although it is not the huge sweep against the RIAA that I'm sure we would have hoped for, it's a step in the right direction (especially for a republican). I encourage you all to use the Contact and feedback links on Senator Coleman's website to support this stance. Furthermore, trash the DMCA while you're at it, more senators need to hear about that.
Intresting wording here. Looks like the RIAA is trying to pull the same stunt as VeriSign, make themselves out to be the underdog here. They have some huge public relations control to do here after suing the 12yr old (ya ya it was the parents but in the news, it was a 12yr old) and that old lady on a mac. Both made local news and gave the RIAA a very black eye to the every day citizen who has had nothing but info from the RIAA camp.
One thing about the mass suing by the RIAA though, I kind of wish it had more of an impact in the court systems. I was hopeing that they would have tried to sue someone very wealthy who didn't want to settle out of court and bring it up in the public eye and allow the DMCA to finally be challanged all the way though. As of now the RIAA is banking on the fact that the people they are suing will just setting and this will never see the light of day in any court room. Atleast it feels like that from the people that they have been suing. This type of situation is a win win for them. They get money, they set a court presidence, and they frighten people all by just sending out a letter.
One good thing is that some companies, like verizon, are still making a stand against their requests to fork over users. While they have ordered by the courst to hand over people so far, they are still fighting it and for that we have some hope that this mess of a law may soon be challanged and maybe, just maybe, finally thrown out.
Remember this -- the Republicans are, first and foremost, the party of big buisness. Anything that helps out large cooperations, despite the cost to the little guy, is in line with their ideals. There's a very good reason the RIAA president is a republican.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Tell him that you support him.
We need to slashdot Coleman to show him the amount of popular support he has.
Writing Senator Coleman once a week with my opinion about the RIAA's Gestapo tactics must have bore some fruit! Or else he got sick of me filling up his inbox :)
"Who hasn't slipped into the break room for a quick nibble on a love Newton before?" - Mr. Peterman.
I don't want to think that I'm the only reason for this happening, but I'd like to think I played a small role. I'm from Minnesota and try to follow my elected representatives in Washington. When Senator Coleman joined the senate in January of 2003, I saw that he was appointed as chairman of the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. I began to write and call him (quite often at that). I'd imagine that hundreds of others people (both Minnesotan and otherwise) did the same thing. Believe it or not, American Government does work and in early August Senator Coleman announced he was going to start investigations into this stuff.
Then when EFF sent out an email in August asking people to send thanks to the Senator, I was one of the first in line to do it, hopefully this will help to ensure that Senator Coleman continues to be receptive.
Of course, if you don't want to go through the effort you can either send money to the EFF or just deal with the fact that corporations own America.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Look at where the Democratic party gets its money.
Since the RIAA has stepped up its attack, how many lawmakers (or should I say lawmakers' kids) have become the targets of this attack? Because, I think that number is growing and the lawmakers just want to make sure they get their and families' asses covered before it' too late. What do y'all think?
Did you see how fast those guys moved on the do not call list? Those guys can move fast when want to.
You're right, actually. But I'm sure that with the loose cannon tactics the RIAA is so fond of, sooner or later your prediction will come true, and some rich kid's parents will get sued.
Let's just hope they get pissed off enough to actually try to take it to court and get the subpoenas shot down.......
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
Why not move to overturn the DMCA itself?
Write your own senators and congressperson.
Heres a link to a pre done letter off the citizens against government waste site
Write your reps
It also suggests that at this point, they've become so entrenched in this mindset that they probably WOULD happily start suing more and more people, the more their sales start to slide. Which, I personally think represents one of the most profound perversions of our economic principles imaginable. Did anyone else who bought something from Magnatunes in the last week stop to think, gee, I probably just sent another subpoena to some grandmother in NYC? That's virtually how bad the situation has gotten, and a logical conclusion that can be drawn from their quixotic belief that ALL their sales problems are from piracy. It boils down to, "Buy our stuff or we sue you."
Since the government can't act DIRECTLY to stop them (well, it could, but it won't) the best thing they could do is seek to limit the RIAA's power to weild lawsuits. If you eliminate the chance of them profitting from this (the fines would be less than the lawyers' fees), and make sure no one suddenly wakes up to discover a quarter-million lawsuit in their mailbox, then the RIAA might just be forced to face reality.
(WHY the RIAA is taking this stance is another issue altogether. I personally think it's a snowball, once they started trying to convince their shareholders that their problems were due to piracy, it took on a life of its own)
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Sadly, there's no quantitative values for proposed reduced measures yet, but given the speed at which government moves it's reassuring to know the issue is this far along already.
:)
Well, we've seen Congress demonstrate that they can act quickly if they want to. The Do-Not-Call thing went through in something like 2 days. I'd read someplace that there are more people downloading music than on the do-not-call list (admittedly not all americans,) so quick action is required
Even further off topic, but wasn't it a mistake to demonstrate that they could pass a bill that fast. I'd think the press would have a field day the next time something takes forever.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Love the sig.
I actually thought this was a pretty funny troll. I would like to take this time to thank all of the trolls who try harder (unlike trolls such as the gnaa or ascii-goatse trolls).
The RIAA is abusing law (DMCA) and using 'big government' (the passage of said DMCA) in their actions. They are threatening people by wasting the resources of the government with their increasingly frivolous lawsuits (each of these has to be handled by a court clerk).
-
Its Sad.
Its too bad the general public doesnt have a clue about what is going on.
Eventually it will effect them, but by then it will be too late.
Its not just with the music indstustry, its under attack from all sides.. both private industry and goverment..
At least we can tell our grandchildren how we used to be free. Assuming that remains permitted speech of course.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Apparently Coleman doesn't like outrageous fines or the complete lack of due process the DMCA lets the RIAA get away with. That's good, but he could go further. What are his opinions on the circumvention clauses, the ones which make DeCSS code illegal to use, possess, or even discuss? And are there any other evil parts of the DMCA I'm overlooking? It would be really cool if Coleman's proposal morphed into some kind of DMCA reform, or even totally neutered it.
Litigious bastards
Give me a break!
Approporiate fines should be the ones that most people can realistically pay without filling for bancrupcy, going homeless or applying for welfare. Also, as the article mentions, ones people can risk fighting rather than being scared into a settlement.
It's the approporiate laws that should be related to the possibility of enforcement, after some consideration for graveness of the crime, and it's time for some realistic corrections for copyright and some other things like pot or driving speed on a straight, empty road.
The problem is that the law is disproportionate to the losses suffered.
,at least we can have some sanity with the laws we do have.
The founding fathers who designed the Copyright law always intended to punish those who copied for profit more than those who copied for personal use or distribution for friends...yet that distinction was removed. That should be put back.
There should be a cap on fines for copying that does not involve distribution for profit. IF we cannot have some sort of compulsory licensing
Do you really think that sending letters (and why the fuck not email?) to these so-called representatives actually applies "pressure" to them? HA! The only things that pressures them are the money they get from their corporate masters and the advice they get from their PR reps.
This particular drone happens to have no funding from the RIAA, so he saw a chance to manipulate a public issue to his benefit.
I am beggining to think that our only solution lies in this song...
People should stop calling them "the RIAA" because they aren't worth the time and effort it takes to type the word "the" or to hold down the shift key Instead just call them riaa.
Nathan Friedly
...k-i-l-l-e-d, "revoked."
Being that this was a design company, everyone was in costume and very good ones at that. There were some Darth Mauls, some Ghostbuster guys with lighted 'Proton Packs' and of course several 'The Artist formerly Known as Prince'-es, Purple Rain era.
Norm was walking around and stopped at the refreshment table. I walked up to him, shook his hand and said, "That's the best Norm Coleman costume I've ever seen. Good job."
His smile faltered for a moment, then he replied, "uh...Thanks.."
First time I've ever seen a politician run out of stuff to say.
It's called the Center for Disease Control.
-insert a witty something-
Funny thing is - having done all that and more, I'd be willing to give up my 6fig salary for some fucking representation in our government.
The only difference in my attitude from 20 to 35 is that I am no longer willing to suffer for my beliefs - hardly a noble change...
I just gave Coleman twenty five bucks. You should too.
Contribute to Coleman online: http://colemanforsenate.com/
If you contribute, be sure to call the campaign office and say why, e.g. that this is about his stance on the RIAA. The number is (651) 556-1846. They'll take your comment very seriously when there's money behind it.
If you're a Democrat, like me, just lay down your guard and be a single issue voter for a minute. If getting slashdotted means money for politicians, they'll start taking us seriously.
On one hand you've got Orrin Hatch, who is extremist and wants to imprison people for downloading music. Then you've got guys like this doing a complete oppisite. Oh well.
Senator Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.) has my vote the next election. It's about time that there was a real cause to vote for the majority that doesn't vote.
Have you seen those ads at the beginning of movies? They depict the "blue collar" side of the movie industry talking about how the industry needs every cent it can get in order for them to keep their kids fed. We didn't think the RIAA would come out suing before, so there's no guarantee that the MPAA won't start next year. Though you have to admit music file-sharing is MUCH more common. While it's nice that the Republicans may support file-sharer's rights, it's too bad it's for the wrong reasons... politics as usual.
Republicans want to tell people how they should run their lives. Restrictions on abortion. Promotion of religous views. Ass^Hhcroft.
Democrats want to tell companies how to run their business. Stronger EPA. Generally pro-union. More govenment is wiser government.
This is probably a wee bit simplistic. Or way off; that's possible too. But it didn't put you to sleep, did it?
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
would this be happening if Sen. Wellstone had not died in that plane crash, or if Walter Mondale was able to take over his seat, despite that tawdry "memorial service"? Probably not...
That's impossible, when they selected the people to sue, they put them through a very selective filter to make sure that no important politicians or their families got sued... if one was selected, the code switched it to an old lady or 12-year old girl.
I'm really more of an ordinance violation, although some days I feel like a tort.
"Their". "There" is a location.
And besides, even if your conspiracy theory were correct, it doesnt change matters. If a majority of voters in his district were bank robbers, that wouldnt allow him to justify smaller penalties for bank robbers.
The problem is that (as per the RIAA), that this IS an epidemic. However, it is a civil rights epidemic. Granting governmental authority to a non-governmental body is a GROSS violation of how things should be done. Im personally surprised the DMCA hasnt been challenged just on those grounds.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
The RIAA responded by calling the current situation an 'epidemic.'
An epidemic? Maybe, in the sense that the VCR was an epidemic.
One man's epidemic is another's business opportunity. RIAA hates the phrase "new business model," but so what? It is inevitable -- it has to happen.
RIAA is properly pursuing its rights against individual downloaders -- a far better solution to the problem than seeking ludicrous laws to castrate my computer or shut down legitimate businesses.
I agree that the statutory damges for downloading 100 tunes is ridiculous (minimum of $50,000, plus an award of attorney fees. To me, the interesting question is not that, but rather what should it be? A number properly tuned to be large enough to deter people from doing it without authorization (as opposed to going to a download service), accounting for the risk of getting caught and the cost of litigation?
What do you think? 1,000 per incident or $5 per song plus an award of fees, whichever is greater? (for "individual and non-expansive or non-commercial use copying")?
If that's all you are doing "waiting," then you will do a lot more waiting. Put together good, sound reasons, and lobby actively or support those who are lobbying -- until then, no Senator has any reason to do that.
Realistically, Senators will vote for or against a bill for one of two reasons: (i) they think it will get them elected; or (ii) they think it will get them votes for another bill whose passage will get them elected.
Until you start providing (i) or (ii), your hopes are going to remain just that: hopes.
Wow, this Norm Coleman fellow is completely off his rocker here!
... and here I thought Jesse Helms was insane!
Anybody who actually thinks that seeking $97.8 billion in damages (from someone as dangerous as a college student, no less) is excessive obviously needs a better grasp on reality.
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." (2 Timothy 3)
"Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and say all kinds of evil things against you for my Name's sake. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven." (Matthew 5:11-12)
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." (John 15:18)
"No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me." (Matthew 15:20-21)
"If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints." (Revelation 13:10)
"Jesus replied, The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and 'dies,' it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!" (John 12)
"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." (Mark 8:34-)
That oughtta screw up some hypocrisy meters.
This combined with the Verisign/ICANN thing is gonna leave a whole lotta angsty dotter teens unsure about all that they thought they knew.
Not sure who to hate today?
My comment above was not meant to be posted anonymously.
RIAA revenues in 2001: $13.7 billion RIAA new releases in 2001: about 27,000 Figure 10 songs per release avg $13,700,000,000 / 27,000 / 10 = avg $50,700 revenue per song So the way the law is written right now, a song being pirated just once is worth three times more than it is on the free market.
but the reason isn't that people should be fined less than publishing companies.
Why not?? No matter what your view is on intellectual property, everyone has to agree that there's a world of difference between distributing someone else's creation for profit, and distributing it for free. A publishing company violating current copyright laws would be trying to obtain profit by distributing a work, whereas individuals are simply saying, "Here, do you want to listen to this too?"
This is clearly different. It speaks both to intent and to personal gain, which most areas of most legal systems take into account.
It's good to protect the publishers. I mean what programmer or artist here wants to get their work ripped off? But the punishment has to fit the crime. The fines need to be enforced but they also have to be reasonable. We've come up with creative arguements to justify it but file "sharing" is stealing. If someone found a way to download money off your paycheck you'd freak, right? But you can't go to court and nail them for 1,000 times what they took from you.
Following this article from last month, Senator Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.) has announced that he will seek to limit federal penalties for copyright downloads and seek to restrict the subpoena power essentially granted to the industry through the DMCA.
On another note, Gary Coleman has announced the he simlpy seeks attention.
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
"There" is a location.
"There" can be a district, which makes the grammar marginally more correct.
Im personally surprised the DMCA hasnt been challenged just on those grounds.
The DMCA is being challenged as several ISPs aren't giving in to the labels' imitation subpoenas.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sadly, there's no quantitative values for proposed reduced measures yet, but given the speed at which government moves it's reassuring to know the issue is this far along already.
Actually, government has begun to move quite remarkably quickly on certain issues which intersect in areas of technology and popular concern. (Do-Not Call List is a prime example, and this seems to follow suit.)
I'm no longer shocked when gov't actions take days or weeks instead of months or years.
These fines have two purposes: 1) recompensate the copyright holder for economic losses, 2) deter future infringment by both the violator and others.
(1) clearly is greatly exaggerated under current policies. A single instance of downloading in violation of copyright all tracks from a particular CD at most constititues an economic loss to the copyright holder in the amount of the payment the copyright holder would have received from a retail sale of this CD.
In a single instance of acquiring an entire CD in violation of copyright, this is the maximum economic loss. However, in the most common cases, such as where only one or two tracks are acquired, or where the violator would not have been willing (in the absence of the availability of the infringing copy) or able to acquire a retail copy of the material, the actual economic loss to the copyright holder is only a small percentage of payment for a retail copy, or even non-existant.
But what about when the violator himself or herself redistributes infringing copies of the copyrighted material? Who here should bear the burden of economic loss to the copyright holder? If the original violator bears the economic burden, then future violators in the same "copy tree" can not also be made to bear the economic burden, because the copyright holder has already been compensated.
To charge that the original violator ought to bear the economic burden incurred by the intentional and willful acts of all future violators in the same copy tree, is to assign responsibility to one person for the uncoerced, intentional, and willfull infringing acts of another, to which the original violator contributed no force or persuassion. To do this is seriously morally troubling; I am not responsible for the uncoerced, willfull acts of other self-determining, copetent agents.
Therefore, the only economic burden that a violator may be made to bear for a single instance of infringment, is the actual economic loss incurred by this single instance of infringment.
This sets the upper bound for the recompensatory component of the fine at the actual economic loss incurred by the copyright holder for this single act of infringment; about $15 for all tracks from a single CD.
The fine may increase in consideration of the deterrent component, but the deterrent must correspond reasonably to the recompensatory component, even if this means that in cases of minor economic loss the deterrent will not be great.
This is as it should be; deterring minor econimic loss is surely much less the concern of law than deterring major or devestating economic loss.
I suspect that reasonable and morally conscious people will conclude that the deterrent component not exceed twice the compensatory component, and should approach this only in cases of the most flagarent infringment indicating a severe opposition to the rule of law.
Therefore, in the case of even the most flagarent infringement, the total fine for the infringing copying of all tracks of a CD will not exceed $15 x 3; $45.
If I distribute all tracks of this CD 100 times, for example, then the maximum fine I may be assigned is $4500.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
P.S.
I meant to agree with your point that we need to get active and contact legislators. I was just trying to say that it doesn't have to come down to threatening their re-election. We can also in many cases win by informing them. Pointing out that industry lobbiests have selfish motivations contrary to the public interest can be a powerful point. Most of them want to help if we can convince them of what is in the public interest.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.