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.
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....
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.
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...
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!
" Awwwhhh... it had to be a Republician to come out with this. I sure wanted to claim this one for our team."
And which team might that be?
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.
Perhaps, he too has a 12 year old daughter?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Give me a break!
Exactly! I know it's been said before, but this is the heart of the problem. Everyone can be a publisher. It's the reason why the internet is such a disruptive technology, such a force for change.
It's also a situation, as you say, that existing precepts, principles, and prejudices simply weren't designed for.
And it's a situation which challenges the power and the very existence of the large publishing organisations (whether in print, film, music, or whatever). No wonder they're doing all they can to prevent it:
Of course, some of these actions have additional effects, e.g. DRM controlling access to the works which do get published. But I suspect that in the long term, it's this preventing-Joe-Public-from-being-a-publisher aspect which will prove to be the important one.
Technology is breaking down the exclusivity of so many means of creation and publishing - the desktop publishing revolution brought some of the power of the great publishing houses to the individual, and similar advances have brought some of the power of the recording studios, radio networks, photographic workshops, post offices, movie studios, sheet music publishers, news networks, &c. Not all the power, of course - there's no substitute for artistic talent and creativity in any sphere, and these advances tend to promote the spread of mediocre more than outstanding work.
It's sad to see the hatred and bitterness with which these advances are being treated by existing publishers, because I don't think they're as threatened as they think. People will still want good music, good books, good movies, &c, and there will still be money to be made providing them. It might not be with the exact same business model, or in the same form, but I'm sure sooner or later something will get sorted out. In the end, it's only the publishers of mediocre, worthless material who need fear. Which perhaps explains the current situation rather well...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Yeah, :/
Weird part is I have written all of my congress critters, even left my name with Sen Dayton's people as a volunteer when he was looking at spam legislation, Normy is the only one who ever wrote back.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
I don't know how you come to your conclusion about the two parties, but it seems way off.
Democrats generally tend to look for new ways to spend money on social programs, while Republicans look for ways to cut taxes, and sometimes even cut back on the size of government.
I would think that a large middle class would benefit Republicans, because the middle class can generally provide for themselves, and don't require as much social spending, instead, as their incomes increase, so does their tax bracket, and they're more likely to demand tax relief, and therefore vote Republican. If the middle class were shrinking, then they'd be more likely to demand more social spending and therefore vote Democrat.