Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Puts Words in Mouth of CA Attorney General
An anonymous reader writes "In another example of Microsoft Word meta data coming back to bite you, Wired News reports that a document circulated by the California Attorney General to fellow lawmakers supporting new restrictions on P2P software was actually authored by a senior vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America."
Our Constitution in the U.S. prevents Congress from making any law infringing on our natural freedom of speech. To me, P2P is communication, which is speech. Therefore, the federal government has no mandate to restrict it.
Our 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution allows the State and/or the People to cover anything the federal government can not. Should California desire to restrict P2P, it should be able to. If you disagree with California's take on this restriction, you can move to Arizona or Delaware, or another state that doesn't have such a restriction.
I'm a firm believer that State governments should be manacled by the Constitution as well, and in my perfect world the State would be just as restricted in making laws against speech. But nonetheless, I'd rather see bad laws at the State level rather than the federal level.
Keep the goons in Congress restricted from making laws, and you'll find almost everyone is happier.
Power is transferring from the state (the general state, not just California) to corporations. If this continues, companies will rule. This is perhaps the ultimate downfall of democracy, and the end point of capitalism.
It gave me an interesting idea, though. If this situation actually happens, or even if it doesn't, imagine a company run as a democracy. Regular elections for CEO (of course there would have to be some accountability rules so they don't milk it for personal gain before stepping down, but that'a already a problem anyway). I can imagine workers for such a company being more motivated, and certainly more financially healthy since the massive salaries at the top would essentially be spread around.
Independents like me are also protected by copyright.
But note: if the goal is to "legitimize" p2p so that artists get paid, how would you do it?
Would you add a new Internet tax that everybody should pay?
Would you add new monitoring software so that an agency can track what people are doing on the net?
Would it actually be any more helpful to independents?
Do you think that everybody whose income depends on their ability to sell their own copyrighted work should just have to find another job?
These are the real questions...
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
The problem with all of this is that it's so hard to determine who's the good guy in it. It's like watching a bad western with only black hats in it.
On one side, you have the kids that are freely breaking copyright laws left and right because they want to watch a movie or listen to a song but for whatever moronic reason don't feel they should have to compensate anyone for it (to the dolts that will undoubtedly say "but it costs too much, they're just ripping us off.. waahh waahh.. let me suck my thumb like a little baby" - deal with it. It's called making an informed decision. If you don't think it's a value purchase, don't make the purchase. Doesn't mean you can just rip off a copy for yourself without compensating anyone).
On the other side, you have these assmunching wonders who are penning laws and signing the dotted line with the names of public officials. WTF?
Sigh... if you need me, I'll be working on my rocket ship to Mars. The rest of you bozos can fight it out amongst yourselves. There's no "good fight" here to join...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
That's just plain dirty pool. And since when does an Attorney General have time to combat crap like this, in a state where illegal immigrants flow across the border, you have one of the largest open-air markets for drugs, and your state was just taken up the poop shoot by Energy producers.
Screw the media companies. They can fend for themselves. It's the citizens of California the AG is sworn to protect.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
No kidding. I'm not trolling.. I'm very serious. Lobby, corporate and special interest groups are very persuasive when it comes to politicians. That means campaign contributions, "donations" or whatever. The RIAA and MPAA are behind legislation.
Drug companies are represented by some major players - some politicians listen to the money, not to the constituents.
This (situation) sounds nearly exactly like the energy policy of the US government in 2001. Back when Cheney headed up writing national energy policy in private / without congress or some members of the cabinet available to discuss policy.
So it seems it is possible to have something better than a blank check.
This article's mention of product liability warnings reminds me of that Bloom County strip in the 80s where sleazy lawyer Steve Dallas is contemplating whom to sue after getting pummelled and hospitalized by Sean Penn's forehead.
After explaining why he shouldn't sue Sean Penn ("juries love famous people, and he might return to beat up the plantiff"), or his wife, Madonna ("proving liability might be difficult, and she might return to beat up the plantiff"), or Opus the Penguin ("never, ever sue poor people"), he settles on suing the Nikolta Camera Corporation, a "huge, multinational corporation with gobs of liquid cash," on the grounds that they were "criminally negligent in not placing a warning sticker on their cameras that reads, 'serious injury may result from photographic psychopathic Hollywood hotheads.'"
He then finishes up by waving a flag and declaring, "America, Land of the Lawsuit... God bless her!"
I guess the P2P software companies are likewise criminally negligent in not warning people that their products could lead to some harm.
Since there's no warning sticker on this spindle of blank CD-ROMs on my desk, I think I'll see how many of them I can shove down my throat.
On the same subject, have you seen some of the warning stickers manufacturers DO put on their products? Can I get a reply with some examples? I'll start off by citing the sticker on the baby stoller that reads "Do not fold stroller with infant inside."
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
are being studiously ignored in so many other ways?
Let's take a look at guns, for example. REPLACE([Wired Article],'P2P software','assault rifles') and suddenly you've got the arguments for every single pro-gun-control group in the USA. Personally, I'm much more worried about the imminent public danger of a submachine gun than I am worried about the threat to public safety presented by Kazaa. Yet why is the state AG not addressing gun control instead of P2P?!
If we wanted to pull this little idea out a little further, how about we apply it to speeding? Car companies sell us their cars by telling us how fast we can go! McDonalds only recently started cutting back on portion size, but I don't remember any state AGs railing against the public safety risk of a Big Mac.
It's no surprise that our politicians are in the pockets of big corporations. When I talk to people about situations like this, they most often say, "business as usual," shrug, and turn away. Not enough of them get angry and vote. Our politicians are crooked because they are ALLOWED to be.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Are people really surprised? I have to thank microsoft for the metadata feature. Without it, this particular push by MPAA would have slipped by with fewer people getting pissed. Businesses have been buying influence for a long time people. Get over it. Those who think this kind of isn't happening are living on mars. Just look at the fat tax cuts Bush gave the richest 10% of america. The rich will always try to screw us, unless we educate ourselves and make sure we don't let them. So far, it looks like the efforts of the rick to deprive the middle class is going swell. Public education is getting worse, jobs are going over-sea and business aren't hiring. Life is great, if you're rich. Otherwise, you have to keep bustin' your butt. People need to get out the vote and think for themselves. That means not buying into party lines and thinking critically for yourself.
Something I found on Raymon Chen's weblog.
5 11 62
"A Georgia State University study shows that U.S. senators have an uncanny knack for picking stocks that outpace the overall market. Professor Alan Ziobrowski's analysis of senators' financial disclosure data found that over a period of six years, the lawmakers outperformed the market by 12 percent."
Link to npr (I realise this is possibly not the favoured radio station round here...)
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=17
I think the most suitable term for describing the innovation by Microsoft Word is meta-data. It symbolizes the real freedom to non-word users like me, and fight against secrets that the public should know. From the case of SCO-Microsoft, to the case of P2P-sharing, this technology opens another world of computer usage of Microsoft Word. Who's benefit from it? Of course are the public.
From another point of view, the usage of meta-data is serious, which means that if you don't want your words logged by anything, you should use plain text editor.
The scary thing is that it's so common that many people find it to be completely normal.
Like a recipent told me; "It's not corruption when we call it campaign contributon"
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
I'm a firm believer that State governments should be manacled by the Constitution as well, and in my perfect world the State would be just as restricted in making laws against speech.
Um, they are. States cannot make laws which (explicitly) violate the US constitution.
A recent (and highly controversial) example of this would be the US Supreme Court ruling that the Texas anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. The majority decision read in part - "[consenting adults'] right to liberty under (the US Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their [personal] conduct without intervention of the government...".
(Btw, Justice O'Connor agreed with and voted with the majority decision, but in a separate opinion indicated that the law should have been overturned because it violated the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection for all persons. Another example of the principle of US law trumping state law).
(Also btw, I am just using the above example because it is a recent and clear example of US Constitutional law trumping state law. I don't wish to get sidelined into a flame/discussion about the validity of decriminalizing homosexual behaviour (at least in this thread)).
So, getting back to the parent's original point - if the Feds decided that P2P was inherently constitutional, it would make it extremely difficult for states to pass law restricting it. Conversely, were the US gubbamint to place significant restrictions on P2P and those laws held up in the federal courts, then that would pretty much preclude it's use anywhere in the US, given the interstate nature of the 'net.
Oh yeah - IANACLE.
- Jeff
"Long as you're not afraid, nobody can run your life for you. Remember that. Hell is being scared of things. Heaven is refusing to be scared." - Tom Robbins
However, if you kept reading your law book, you could have found that the 14th (IIRC) amendment has been established by the courts to extend the restrictions placed on the government in the bill of rights to the states as well.
Through a process called "Selective Incorporation", meaning that each amendment is applied to the states as soom as a court says so. This is why your local/state can't violate your 1st amendment rights, but it is currently legal for cities like Morton Grove IL to outlaw handguns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Democracy isn't a system of government, it's a determination of accountability. The US has been a democracy pretty much since the beginning, even when State governments were allowed to pick Senators (because all of the state governments were democratically elected.)
Even the Bill of Rights, long held to be an example of something that trumps democratic involvement and hence, somehow proof America isn't a democracy, is modifiable should the people choose to modify it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, i would easily believe that P2P software is used mainly for trading of copyrighted material and pornography. Even done a search for something other than porn or copyrighted material? Probably some people have, but not everyone, probably not even a majority
Now, I am aware of bittorrenting legally and the like (indeed, I got bittorrent banned at my work because I use it to get redhat isos), so please don't jump on me for actually supporting a point in the article.
Doesn't make it right that they write up these docs for the AG.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
So what if artists don't get paid? Who the hell promised that they WOULD get paid forever? Will people will stop making music just because they can't sell 10 million CD:s? No. Can I get a job as a professional scribe, doing nothing but copying bibles by hand? No. Can I make a living building sextants? No.
Beautifully stated. I wish my friends in the movie and music industries would all listen when I try to tell them the same thing. But they won't, so they're doomed to follow the buggy whip manufacturers to death and obscurity.
Besides, artists will always be able to earn a living. Britney and Beyonce may not make millions of dollars a year anymore (actually, those are bad examples, since Pepsi will probably keep paying them both for a while, especially if they do a commercial where they kiss each other, but I digress), but they'll still do better than Joe Sixpack ever will. It's the industry executives, with nothing really to fall back on, who are really and truly screwed.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Remember what happened when the PDF regarding Carnivore was released with the "sensitive material" (like developer names and such) blacked out? Someone figured out how to easily reveal the names and re-released the document, embarrassing the FBI.
this is the same guy who wouldn't stop the SF mayor from issuing gay mariage licenses. whatever you think of gay marriage, an AG is supposed to uphold the law, and let the courst/legislators make changes. he is a favorite for governor. and you wonder why my great state is so fsck'd up.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Haha, why not? They are guilty of treason, tyranny, corruption... Spies get put to death, and these people are far more damaging to our country than most spies. Furthermore, our public officials should be held to much higher standards than citizens.
No, I don't really think killing them would be just, but given that citizens who betray this country are often sentenced to death, I say, "String em up!"
Seriously, some fucking heads need to roll for this sort of thing.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It is obvious that artists deserve compensation for their work. Anyone who claims otherwise is a twit. However it is also obvious that the RIAA is not the way to give artists compensation for their work. I agree that it'd be nice to build a perfect replacement for the RIAA then dismantle the RIAA. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, so that isn't going to happen. Whatever we replace the RIAA with will also have problems and unfairness built into it, I guarantee. I think that a "pay the musicians internet tax" is a very bad idea, as are taxes on blank media. The main reason is that a) under the current setup the money goes to the RIAA, not artists, b) it charges everyone not just people who want music, and c) It means that my money goes to support bands I don't like, I want more specific payments.
The "Tip Jar" model has multiple problems, primary among them is that it relies on the honesty and generosity of Joe/Jane average. I honestly don't know what a good solution will be, I do know that to meet my definition of "good" any solution must include the destruciton of the RIAA. Not because I hate them, but because its self evident that they are leeches who impede the idea of getting money to artists.
I do know this though: if we can find a way to get even $.50 to a band for every album downloaded they'd be making double what they make now. Hell, I'd pay $.25 per track (around $2.50 per album at an average of ten tracks per album). I think that given the relatively low price people may be more willing to pay than conventional wisdom says they are. How to get and gather those payments I don't know.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Just use xtraceroute!
The classic cyberpunk situation of no government at all other than the 'megacorps' doesn't seem to fit too well.
I actually prefer the model in SLA industries, which is a world in which all of the corporations eventually merged into a single huge one which basically makes everything.
If it's active in a particular country, it can undercut or buy out ANYTHING that country's industry can produce several times over, so if it's there, everyone works for them, and then buys stuff made by them. SLA actually print their own money for countries it is active in. Of course, you can choose to be paid in local currency instead if you choose, but since you're inevitably going to buy from SLA eventually and you'd incur a fee turning it back to SLAbucks there's no point.
There are still governments, too. They say stuff sometimes. But basically they know they have the choice of either having SLA in their country or not. If they hack it off, SLA can just leave, leaving the country to build an entire economic infrastructure from scratch with no ability to trade with any SLA-linked nation (SLA won't stop them, but they'll have nothing to offer that SLA can't offer better). So they effectively have control with the illusion of choice.
That's exactly the same kind of "control" that firms have in the real world, which is why I prefer that model.
Everyone is just posting comments like "this is what happens all the time". Well, that may be true, but they can always spin it to appear that they were not influenced (see: Pres. Bush) by contributors.
This is hard proof that our Attorney General (if you live in CA) is undeniably in-bed with the MPAA. If you look up the political donations, and find the MPAA as a big contributor, then not only could you get him kicked out of office, but he could potentially face criminal charges.
It's one thing when corruption is subtle. It's quite another when corruption can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It'd be nice if this kind of disclosure would be required by law. (Who had what kind of input into this Document, a Change History, etc.)
I don't think it's necessarily bad if this kind of things happens, but it should be transparent.
get 7 free Japanese lessons.
A draft letter purportedly circulated by Bill Lockyer to fellow state attorneys general characterizes P2P software as a "dangerous product" and describes the failure of technology makers to warn consumers of those dangers as a deceptive trade practice.
By the standard he is using you could just as easily sue Microsoft for "deceptive trade practices" for enabling P2P networks to distribute files in a LAN or WAN. As a P2P software developer and distributor, we believe you have the ability and responsibility to better educate consumers about these known risks, and to design your software in a manner that minimizes the risks. We view with grave concern reports that at least some P2P software developers may be adding features deliberately designed to hinder law enforcement in its prosecution of crimes using P2P software. Companies that engage in such conduct, and fail to meet the important responsibilities referenced above, harm the interests of consumers in our States.
It is widely recognized that P2P file-sharing software currently is used almost exclusively to disseminate pornography, and to illegally trade copyrighted music, movies, software and video games. File-sharing software also is increasingly becoming a means to disseminate computer worms and viruses.
By the standard this guy is using, every single copy of Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP is an unfair trade practice set up with law enforcement evading equipment (IPSEC, VPN..)and Microsoft (and the Linux Samba team for that matter) have failed to adequately warn people of the dangers.
You could also go after anyone who runs an email server by that standard. I mean, my god man, the SMTP standard doesn't even confirm who you are! Email is dangerous! Tons of people get viruses and worms, they weren't warned when they downloaded the message! Or anyone with an email client that gives access to newsgroups or lets you download files. Or anyone who runs a webserver or an FTP server (the files *could* contain anything!)
Ahh, I love America...Land of the lawsuit.
Would he go away if we put a 200 page disclaimer on bootup?
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
No, it is clearly a better distribution system in terms of efficiency, cost, and convenience. (For example, see Eban Moglen's discussion of the topic.)
If the market is willing to pay what the seller's asking, then that's the price.
1. Have you never heard of a monopoly?
2. If a company (or group of companies) jacks up the price because people will pay it, that is by definition over-inflated.
3. The price would be a lot cheaper if they fixed the business model and using modern technology. Right now, the recording industry benefits most by overspending. It makes money on both ends: performing recording services, and selling the recordings. Because of their monopoly on the sales, they benefit most by being inefficient in the recording services.
Here is what's even more repulsive about it. The judges in that building codes case blindly assumed something in making that decision. They don't see anything wrong with it because you can still request or buy a copy of the law from the copyright holder. Here's the big problem with that: they are assuming the copyright holder will make it available. They never really have to, though. That is where this ruling can accidentally be applied in a police-state kind of way. The law can be enforced on the citizens potentially without their having any way to see what the law actually is.
Woe unto U.S. citizens if a company drafts and copyrights legislation like this, and then sets up an under the table deal to receive kickbacks on fines imposed against violators. The financial incentive to show the law would be gone as it would dry up the revenue stream of fines.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
``So your vote is for the terrorists to win? There sure as fuck did in spain, and it's going to cost us 200 lives before the next election.''
They did, and I'm not saying I'm happy with that. You need to consider, though, that terrorists don't just kill people for the fun of it. The acts you hear about are organized, which requires support, which requires that people agree with your cause, or with your power. Where the West has money to persuade and armies to enforce, its opponents have to use the means they have. It's more effective to blow up innocent people than to try and assault government officials.
The USA has made lots of enemies, and they are fighting back. Spain allied itself with the USA, and now suffers the consequenses. The USA has unilaterally attacked Iraq under the pretense of having evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which apparently are a crime for some countries to have but not for others. It has been punishing countries that didn't support it by not allowing businesses from those countries to get contracts, and Bush has repeatedly said that those who do not support him are against him and will be punished. Nobody in this war has clean hands.
All this killing and trickery to control others just makes me sick. Spend your energy on something constructive, for goodness' sake.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.