Slashdot Mirror
PIRATE Act Introduced in Congress
certron writes "Xeni Jardin has written a story for Wired about the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" aka the PIRATE Act. It and another related bill are designed to criminalize P2P filesharing by lowering the burden of proof for law enforcement and proposing jail terms of up to 10 years. The bill was introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, both of whom received large contributions from the entertainment industries. Under the bill, even sharing a single file (if a judge decides the value is over $10,000) could land a user in jail. Read the full text of Orrin Hatch's remarks."
sometimes it is just so blatantly obvious that people will go to great lengths to contrive clever acronyms despite the obvious redundancies within the actual expanded title.
come on now.
Honestly, the prisons are full enough as it is with petty criminals, if they even attempt to enforce these they are going to fill them up even faster. And, who wants to put in jail? If this gets passed and starts getting actively enforced, hopefully someone is going to stand up against this. I hope you've all donated to EFF lately...
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
So now the prison system will be keeping DANGEROUS FILE SHARERS off the streets, while at the same time Los Angeles is releasing thousands of prisoners early becuase of a lack of funding. I'm sure glad that John Q. Empeethree won't be hassling our celebrities anymore! Whew!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
This is from Hatch's own site . . .
- Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) in introducing the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act" (the "PIRATE Act") to allow the Department of Justice to exercise its existing enforcement powers through a civil, rather than criminal, enforcement proceeding.Does anyone need more proof that the Republicans and Dems have become just two sides of the same coin? After this, I don't trust them to do much of anything right. *sigh*
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence.
I'll be damned if that doesn't sound just a bit like SCO.
The coolest voice ever.
Last I checked copyright infringement was still illegal. Does society need more laws that state copyright infringement with P2P is now illegal? ... I mean honestly P2P development is strict freedom of speech. Not to mention the good that comes from it [e.g. BitTorrent].
Laws like this make me proud to live in a backwards country such as Canada.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Any law that simultaniously lowers the burdens of proof while raising penalties seems like a fundamnentaly bad idea.
Tho, I guess after the War on Drugs put a generation of poor & minority youth in prision, they have to do something that has the same effect on whites & the middle class, lest they look racist (not an easy trick for a Republican from Utah to pull off).
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Hello, this is your wake up call to reality. Do you really think a clause will stop law enforcement from finding criminals? Then commit a crime and put a clause on your doorstep that no law enforcement is to enter your home. Stay inside your home and get someone to do your stuff for you (groceries, etc). You should then be able to get away with free crimes!! Right???
DrkBr
DMCA... PIRATE... Who do you think owns your country? I don't mean to offend you geeks in the US and EU, but your governments perpetually place the interests of large corporations above citizens. Your government is not acting in your best interest. Tell your elected officials that you disagree with what they are supporting, and command them to stop.
Heck, I'll just cancel my dsl and join a health club or something. If I just wanted to surf I could use the computer at the San Jose public library or at work.
Hopefully the Japanese companies don't go after the fansubbers if this happens.
"It is critical that we bring the moral force of the government to bear against those who knowingly violate the federal copyrights enshrined in our Constitution."
Yeah. I'll feel guilty about it, when the fed actually proves that copyrights exist in order to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It sure doesn't feel like limited times.
You've heard it before. And you'll hear it many times over again.
"Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives,
Well, in some sense they always will be. We're consumers, the objects of our consumption need an origin, and corporations are that origin. How they choose to design products, manufacture products, market products, and lobby for legislation regarding products will always exert an incredible level of completely transparent control over our lives.
It's up to individual consumers to render that control opaque -- but total opacity is very, very, very difficult.
The coolest voice ever.
"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes, but under what odd twisting of logic can it be worse than shoplifting the CD?
We are seeing the music industry going steadily more insane every day, and when something with that much money goes mad life gets interesting. Piracy isn't right, but it is inevitable during the transition between the RIAA and whatever distribution/compensation model we invent to replace it. Draconian laws with punishments as inappropriate as this one wants are definately not the solution to theft of music.
I find it especially ironic that the same congress that can't seem to punish the aristocrats who steal millions from their employees wants to send people to jail for up to ten years for stealing a little music...
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
You're right, she does. Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers. The most they can do is say something like 'Performing the music of FZ" or "...the music of a guy named Frank," and the whole thing starts to look ridiculous.
Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.
Oh, well.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
...the P2P companies are trying to ransom the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue.
This is HILARIOUS! They're accusing P2P "companies" of trying to get a monopoly on music distribution? Isn't that a little like Napoleon accusing Hitler of being a dictator? Holy tamoly, these guys got balls.
Secondly... the fact that they use "companies" shows once again that they don't get it. Computer networks don't have to be sponsored by companies! These lawmakers are so deluded that they not only do they allow corporations to overrun the country, they refuse to acknowledge that indviduals even exist anymore.
It gets worse every day...
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
True, but they'll make the case that you made it available for 493,563,221 downloads for a total intellectual property value of $10,000,000,000 or so.
Every time you read this, I am going against my principles.
Well, if you were the widow (or offspring) of a popular artist, and the government gave you this kind of power, wouldn't you milk it for all it's worth? It beats working for a living, that's for sure.
Apart from armed rebellion, voting is the only meaningful feedback mechanism you have, and is considerably less messy, so I suggest you use it.
The press has been bought off. Shame is obsolete. Overt corruption has somehow morphed into an asset. Bald-faced lying to the public no longer surprises anyone, much less gets anyone in hot water. And, if you're not careful, voting will become just another CBS/Gallump/Diebold opinion poll, with every bit as much scientific and moral validity.
Don't give up the last lever you have.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Suing is one thing. Jail is quite another. Current copyright law protects the industry at the expense of the artist, and is worthy of nothing but contempt. As long as these kinds of laws remain on the books, all law becomes contemptable.
What?
It's really amazing...
When jobs are oursourced overseas or we bring people in with H1 visas they tell us "let the free market decide" and that we shouldn't be "protectionist."
But when one of their corporate buddies starts to have a problem, they pull out the guns. It goes for music as well as drug companies (not allowing us to reimport drugs from Canada is definitely protectionist).
Boy... how long can any of us hold out faith in our government?
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
Does it go after the big time pirates?
No, because those big time pirates are in other countries.
This bill will enable companies to destroy families by throwing the 16 year old kid in jail for sharing expensive applications.
What harm are file sharers doing to society? Why does their action warrant time in court and/or prison?
I fail to see how this will even help corporations who see piracy as a problem. Often the reason people download expensive software is because they can't afford the price. Sure, that's no excuse, BUT will those companies see increased revenue as result of these actions?
So, what does throwing these kids in jail accomplish?
It just makes our government look like it is under the thumb of the corporate world.
Actually, I think this is good, in a way. Perhaps it will start to move more people towards Open Source applications, where downloading software is not illegal. I honestly think the reason Windows is so popular is because of the initial ability of users to easily pirate the operating system.
I pray for a day in which people will not be put in jail for downloading programs. Perhaps 2005 really is the year of linux?
Suggests that something is wrong with the legal system when a man proven innocent in one court can then be found guilty in another court for a crime the law already said he didn't commit.
http://www.wpxi.com/news/2954803/detail.html
Wh at ever happened to telling a kid's parents, and letting them kick her ass? Or just exposing her to public shame? Does everything have to involve draconian penalties imposed by the almighty nanny state? The prosecutor fabricates TWO very serious felonies to deliver "justice"--what a joke. The funny thing is, under this logic, if she just took the pictures of herself, and did nothing more, she would still be guilty of the "possession" felony!
And if prisons are your business it is much better to fill them up with computer nerds, pot smokers, and other non-violent types. Who wants a bunch of violent prisoners in their prison?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
>Would your disdain change at all if it was your single file that was being shared?
there's a response to this kind of argument (as seen on The West Wing):
-if your son/daughter were murdered, wouldn't you want the death penalty for the accused?
-yes, and that's why I don't think that victims' parents should be on the jury
this is the basis of being judged by your peers, not your victims, a principle which is all but lost in corporate-controlled America (and other countries)
I once laughed at the way OCP ran everything in Robocop.
I've stopped laughing...
That is plainly wrong.
It's not so plain either way. There's plenty of truth in his claim.
For example, current copyright law has terms of 97 years. Only "the industry", in the form of large corporations, can profit from anything for that long of a time. The artists would get paid the same regardless of copyright lasting 15 years or 100.
Nobody plans out more than 10 years when considering an attempt to profit from creativity, whether by writing a novel or hiring a singer. All copyright revenues past 15-20 years is just free money for big publishers. (And the more money they collect from Elvis, the less they need to pay to today's performers)
My problem is that the fine for shoplifting, or ACTUALLY stealing the CD, carries a minimal fine and a small mark on your record. Possibly a short stay in jail.
Why is it that when the "Intarweb" is involved, legislators suddenly lose touch with reality?
Yes, the record companies do have the right to protect their content. Those laws have been in place for years and did not lock people away for 10 years over 1 track from a $1 CD that they charge $20 for.
The punishment should fit the crime.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
What is going on is that even the evil forces of people like Orrin Hatch are realizing that criminal penalties are _not_ appropriate, that branding "otherwise law-abiding" people as felons for something that is individually rather trivial, but on a massive scale certainly non-trivial. It would behoove people to at least give them the credit for that observation rather than run headlong into Orwellian nightmares. Frankly, I don't feel sorry for anyone involved in this argument. No one is forcing you to play their game, but if you want their products, it shouldn't surprise you that they will do everything to ensure that you play by their rules.
What are we to do? Ignore them. Don't steal their products. Don't buy their products. Don't even listen to or watch their products wherever they might be. In the end, maybe by ignoring them for long enough they'll all go broke and die. In the meantime, get out of the damned house, go to a pub and throw your sheckles in the hats of your local musicians who really DO need the money. Buy their CDs. If you have a business, sponsor their gigs. You might even enjoy life a little more in the process.
Remember when the Do-Not-Call anti-telemarketing registry was challenged by the terrorist marketing agencies and Billy Tauzin, chair of the House Commerce Committee, remarked that "50 million Americans cannot be wrong" (referring to the 50 million Americans who signed up for the Do-Not-Call Registry)? Well, taking that statement at face value, twice that many Americans download music off of the internet, so therefore downloading copyrighted material cannot be wrong simply because the threshold 50 million Americans do it. Of course, 50 million Americans can be wrong and usually are wrong, but at least with the telemarketing bill Congress was listening to the people. That's its job. Here, Congress is listening to special interest groups whose interests are anathema to much more than 50 million Americans. One more thing to notice is that the PIRATE Act, like all restrictive copyright legislation (such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) that assfuck the rights of Americans, is sponsored by both a Republican and a Democrat. Screwing us on this issue is always a bipartisan affair. That's why these bills are never campaign issues. No matter which party you vote for, you are going to get screwed unless you are the RIAA or MPAA.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
The "tends of thousands" phrase sounds more like a declaration of war against the citizens of America by the increasingly corporate owned government of ours. At a minimum, it sounds like a crackdown on "dissidents". When 1.5 million people are downloading today in America, most of which are law-abiding citizens that don't traffic in drugs, commit violent crimes, and pay for their groceries.
Could this have happened if the RIAA and MPAA were not busy purchasing our congressional representatives?
How do we stop this? I don't just mean the bill; I mean how do we stop the trend. How do we get politicians to represent the people again?
One question I have is how are we a representative democracy if we are no longer represented?
After years of this news growing, I still have not seen a coordinated large-scale effort to restore balance in our government so that it truly represents the people, and respects our principals.
While I consider myself a free market capitalist, and personally choose not to download music that the creators do not offer for free, I completely disagree with treating the American people as dissidents, as this bill and other are increasingly doing.
Is China becoming more like us, or are we becoming more like them?
Open Standards Portal
Not practical. Look at the diversity of opinion on SlashDot
OK, then how about an Electronic Frontier PAC? NORML (the weed law reform organization) has both a charity and a PAC; why can't EFF?
Cover bands are legally allowed and don't represent an endorsement by the original author. Your Neo-Nazi argument is an extreem even without the Nazi refferences. The title "Frank Zappa would agree: blah blah blah" is obviosly an unauthorized endorsement. But a Frank Zappa cover band that states "[so and so] performing the music of Frank Zappa", is perfectly fine in both a legal and moral sense. This is all really irrelevent anyway, the yahoo article was about a zappa song used in an advertisement, not about cover bands.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Congradulations, are you happy being part of the problem?
Ignore anyone who tells you that you can't do anything. That you're powerless. That its inevitable, that its good for you. Ignore anyone that tells you to sit down, shut up, and eat whatever shit they feed you. Because they're wrong. You can do something, and that's what they're scared of. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
And no, corporate power isn't better-adapted to its environment than nation-states. To be more specific, Darwinian theories of evolution do NOT apply, as there IS NO ENVIRONMENT. What we have here is a power grab by a small segment of the population, one trying to return us to the "glory days" of late-19th-century Industrial Feudalism. The fact that they're using a philosophy as weak and repulsive as Social Darwinism to support their position is just the icing on the cake.
You're misusing the definition of a nation-state. A nation is a group of people that feel like they belong together as a group. A state is large government agency. Americans are a nation that have a state. You don't have to have a state to be a nation though - the Palestinans are a nation as are the Kurds (I tried to avoid those examples due to the feelings involved but couldn't think of nothing else).
Anyway, getting back to the matter - a kingdom can be a nation-state, as can a city-state for that matter. The question really becomes how big a group of people do you need to have to be a "nation" but thats neither here nor there.
Live your life well, try to bring more love than hate into the world. That's all. No big stuff -- no Revolution, no Topple the State, no Stop the Corporations. Work to your scale, as an individual; the rest is History.
That quote is deeply disturbing. I can't tell if you're playing Snowball in Animal Farm or the Ministry of Truth in 1984. I'm not about to advocate revolution but sitting back and letting others decide your life has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Bullshit.
Regardless of your claim that corporations are more efficient than nation states (which is a whole other argument, and is like comparing apples to oranges), I dispute that we should accept corporations as our government. Why? Because I believe that the best government is that which is for the people, and responsible to them. Efficiency is totally irrelevant - the question of what is the best government is a question of morals, beliefs, passions, and theology, not mathematics and work-motion studies.
Furthurmore, resolving that, since you are an individual, you have neither influence nor potential for influence at a national level is dead-end thinking and as repulsive a philosophy as handing government over to corporations. I could point out that people in power are individuals, and such an empirical argument is enough refutation, but taking it to a normative level is more satisfying: You can say that small scale things, like helping people out of a burning building, or giving directions to lost people, are good and important, but involving yourself in a cause you believe will improve everyones lives, like participating in a campaign to roll back the influence of corporations in national politics, is inherently superior in goodness and importance. I hate to quote a movie here, but "The greatest evil is the indifference of good men."
And finally, it isn't social evolution, it'd be political evolution.
Actually, I'm surprised that instead of supporting and nurturing technologies (like p2p) and liberalizing the restrictions on information in support of new industries that can employ lots of US workers, they're supporting legislation that will drive these industries offshore, thereby shifting what could have been US jobs overseas.
Consider how much economic activity was generated by the whole Y2K thing, and by how much economic (ie, hardware purchases, purchases of broadband) by Napster. These events, although by themsleves, did not contribute a lasting economic impact, the investments that they induced people to make (ie, always on internet, faster computers, more computers everywhere), created a ready market for all those internet companies that survived the shakeout - ie, Amazon, eBay, etc.
For an example of how US restrictions have nurtured overseas industries, look at India's pharmecuticals industry, which went from generics and copying patented drugs, to partnerships with US companies to conduct research, manufacturing, and clinical trials. A similar gap is happening in embryonic stem cell research. China is driving development of new video entertainment technologies because they don't want to be beholden to US patents on every unit they sell (ie, Dolby, MPEG2, etc.)
The early movie industry was based on what the movie companies would now call "piracy". Songwriters at the turn of the century decried recording technology as theft of the songwriter's trade. Basically, whole industries have all, at one point or another, been accused of unfairness (ie, unfair competition, destroying jobs, etc.) Many, if not all of them, have spawned far more jobs and economic wealth than the industries that preceeded them.
Instead of turning back the clock at the behest of monied interestes, and setting US economic progress back years, if not decades, we should be liberalizing our laws. The idea that to effectively promote a new music act, or book, or movie, requires a whole bunch of money and time is no longer true (the demise of the multiple layers of distribution between recording artist and the now defunct corner record store - which didn't exist one hundred years ago, is an example of that.) Regarding research, investment, and development - the money will ALWAYS be invested when investors smell money - the fact that they will have to recoup their money faster, or will have to contend with more competition merely drives more competing efforts, which means MORE JOBS FOR EVERYONE, MORE CHOICE FOR CONSUMERS, and A MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY.
I agree... these things are illegal... but it's frightening that the potential monetary damages and jail time are so high!
I've been watching Animal Planet all day... guy starves his dog to the brink of death, leaves it outside, he gets a $500 fine... no jail time, etc...
But allowing someone to copy a music file has routinely caused people to get multi-thousand dollar judgments held against them...
Now we're talking jail time + fines...
If even one or two people are financially ruined and left with a shattered life, it will be a tragedy.
I'm just hoping this winds up like that FBI warning at the beginning of dvds and tapes... yeah, $250,000 fine and 20 years in jail for copying... ok...
We can do nothing.
... Countries -> Multicountry pseudo governments (like EU) -> World Government
Yes we can, and we will (I hope). Look at your evolution trend:
Individuals -> Tribes -> Cities -> Kingdoms -> Countries...
Now follow the line of reasoning:
The trend is for organizations to become wider. The day many people WORLDWIDE are fucked up, because capital respects no country, and cares about nobody, is the day that you'll begin to see a push for a worldwide government that can regulate capitalists worldwide...they will have nowhere to hide.
Some thing will be governed worldwide, some others in a regional way, just like Federal and State governments can peacefully coexist, so will countries. But the shift will not be swift...
The other alternative is that 99% of the population become slaves or exterminated (less jobs available than people, remember automation?).
unfinished: (adj.)
Wait, wait! I propose that dead people get perpetual license to restrict use of their ideas. Do you know how liberating that will be?! That means that virtually ALL COMEDY (which traces its lineage to Menander) will become illegal. No more vacuous shows like Family Guy, King of Queens, Friends, Will & Grace, etc. Oh ye gods, one can only hope...
Yeah, right.
Corporations are more efficient at creating wealth than nation-states
Correction: Corporations and their laws are more efficient at extracting wealth. They do not necesarily create wealth. For example, a company can be granted a monopoly, and become the most valued company on earth (Microsoft as one of the examples). But that does not create wealth at all. They are charging you more than they are offering in return, because you or your other companies have no other option than to pay the extra "price". And all other companies and their citizens earn less. The thing becomes worst with patents, as they can not only extract wealth from everyone else, they can STOP progress by laying mines of restriction on what everyone else in the world can do. That's not only granted by the pantents themselves, but by the assimestric nature of justice (big company dumps 100 millons in lawers and you have to defend yourself with much less...in effect).
So no, companies PER SE, are not better at creating wealth, only humans create wealth, after all, it's all our work.
unfinished: (adj.)
Not everyone's goal is to screw everyone all the time.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
don't rapists usually get less than ten years? this is ridiculous.
Winners and losers:
Justice Department gets more funding, more cases, can claim to be "tough on crime". Winners.
RIAA/MPAA no longer have to shell out bucks to sue people, they just report them to the Justice Department. Winners.
Court system, clogged already, gets further clogged with 1000s of P2P cases. Losers.
US Taxpayer has to pay for procsecuting P2P file shares. Losers.
P2P file sharers now get criminal records. Think about all the losses that brings in US society. In some states, that includes the right to vote. Big losers.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: the move of copyright infringment from civil law to criminal law is one of the most nasty and dangerous changes in recent copyright laws.
Is that all of you "fuck them and lock them up" types would go and actually READ our damn Constution. You know, the document that is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the one to which all other laws must adhere and subordinate.
If you were to actually take the time to read it, you would find that in the first 10 ammendments, those that are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, Ammendment 8 states:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
This forms the very heart of our concept of justice. You do not cut off someone's had for stealing a candy bar, you do not kill someone for a simple assult. The punsihment must fit the crime. How then, can you possibly stand by the current law which allows for a statuority fine of $150,000 PER FILE shared? That is CLEARLY an excessive fine. How can you stand by a proposed law that allows for 10 years in jail for sharing files? This is more time than they gave the people who stole (which deprives someone of property, something filesharing does not) my friend's car?
What's more if you were to read the Constituion you would find it allows for copyrights to exist and describes what they are. It does this in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 Which says that congress shall have the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
It is then quite clear that current copyright law does NOT meet that standard. The time is quite clearly obscenely long (life +50 years) and therefore not the limited times the Constitution demands, and it has been twisted in such a way (the DMCA) that it no longer is used "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" but rather to attempt to maintain absolute control.
The Constituion is above all other laws, and the rights, and limitations, it lays down cannot simply be legislated away. Federal, and all other, law is subordinate to it. Copyright law as it stands is unconstitutional and therefore MUST be changed.
So quit with the "evil filesharers" crap. What they are doing my be against the law, but it is a law that has become unjust, and just because something is against the law does not mean that the punishment can be anything a coperation wants.
As a final note: If copyright infringement is such a problem, why did the media industry make more money when Napster was active and less after it was shut down? (it's a rehetorical question)
>so I decide to re-name my band "Frank Zappa Would Agree: Kill All the Mud-People"
That is misrepresentation and libel. The line is crossed when you take someone's non-existant opinion and change it to suit your own.
You could, however, say "Kill All The Mud People, performed to the music of Frank Zappa" because that would be what you're doing (playing a cover of a Frank Zappa tune), I assume. Or I damn well *HOPE* that it's still legal to state true facts.
Well, you could in the US, that is. A lot of other countries have (stupid) "hate laws" to ensure such hatred is bred underground, where it can damage society much more since you can't defend against what you can't see.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
But they need to offer an alternative. You can't just NOT compete with piracy. It exists, it is there, any amount of unconstitutional (8th amendment at least) laws cannot stop that. This is exactly like the horse and buggy. CD's and physical media in general are no longer needed to gain musical performances, aka the horse and buggy. Digital online music on demand is the car.
I'm gonna take a second here and digress. If I buy an album, let's take an example from my father, so say The Wall by Pink Floyd. He bought that fucking thing in the 1970's on vinyl. Why the fuck should he have to pay another $18 for a CD. He already has the license to play the music right? So why does he have to keep paying full price? If he had his receipt and original and went to RCA (I assume that's the producer, I'm sure I'm wrong) and demanded a CD, he'd be laughed the hell out of there. So then it seems he holds a simple physical item, like a camera for example. But the record industry wants to stop you from selling the album to someone else, or even making copies of it. They want it both ways. I say, fuck them and fuck them hard. I really want every person on Earth to steal as much music as they can until these shitbags realize they can't play dirty pool and get away with it.
Anyhow, these companies, in order to exist, have to adapt. The law should not adapt for them. They have to provide attractive, high quality and available music samples and songs for a reasonable price. That's so fucking simple it's goddamn amazing that only Apple has figured it out. I think the folks at the RIAA should have all their money taken away to feed orphans and they get to live on the street for the rest of their natural days. They have been suckling on the teat of popular entertainment and stifling innovative and creative music for ages.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
That first statement just shines of intelligence.
Legacy eh? So if it is HIS legacy, why would it be up to his estate to deal with HIS legacy? So she sees what in his legacy? Is it the financial aspect? or is it for continuing his legacy? How will the act of making it harder for others to continue his legacy (in a way) be good for anyone besides her and her lawyers monetarily? There is already abuse. The second one believes that they have a right to have complete control over a work that is in the minds of others and acts on his impulse to control is abuse.
I can only agree to one thing, and that is preventing lies. If someone is going around claiming authorship to a work by another or not giving credit where it is due, then it is completely undestandable when one brings the law down upon them.
Question everything.
The free market does not always know best. Car companies in the early twentieth century bought up public transportation and shut it down to force people to buy cars. They're still discouraging pubic transportation from developing even today. This goes against the interest of everyone but a few rich car dealers and manufaturers. All of society is made to suffer because that's how it works in a 'free' market.
And I think you overestimate how smart US citizens are (a remarkably easy thing to do). They don't think too far ahead. When it's really obvious they're getting screwed (like it was with Divx) they don't fall for it. But when it's less obvious (DRM in iTunes anyone?) they fall like a ton 'o bricks. And pretty soon broadband with be ubiquitous enough that they can start phasing out physical media all together. Heck, the Ignorant Masses will probably look forward to that day: no more carrying around 500 CDs. Which is all well and good untill you're paying 5 cents every time you listen to an AAC.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
All right, let Courtney say it again.
The internet gives bands a way to finally break clear of record companies, and here you come along telling us that we need them. Do you work for the RIAA, by any chance?
Distributing CDs cost $4, you charge your customer however much you want and pocket the difference.
Recording your music doesn't cost a fortune, either, as long as you have the gear to make the music (which you obviously already have if you're playing gigs) and can make the basic connection from your gear to your computer's mic jack.
Any questions?
Like what I said? You might like my music
who will respond to your post in the following manner:
;-)
"But wait! Think of his wife and kids! They too must be allowed to benefit from Frank's work!"
AFAIC your kids get the money and material goods you made when you die. Nothing more, nothing less. All the "IP" you created goes to the world, lest we be forced to pay Mozart's great-great-great-great grandchildren for Requiem.
If Frank fucking Zappa doesn't want some band to use his music or image...he can tell them himself
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
When does this madness stop? The guy is dead. His stuff should be PD at this point.
This should answer your question.. It's a table showing what sorts of works from which years are currently in the public domiain. Notice the "without subsequent registration" conditions? I'm willing to bet that Gail is keeping up with the copyright registrations to keep FZ's music out of the public domain.
Stack overflow: pid 352258, proc httpd, addr 0x11f7ffff0, pc 0x12000195c Segmentation fault (core dumped)
You haven't been paying attention have you? Cover bands are derivative works but the RIAA hasn't been going after them in the same way. Coverbands aren't legal unless they do far more paperwork than they tend to do. I know one band that chases down the copy right so they do do legal covers. They are called the Grand Wazoo --The band of a 1000 Dances and do some of the stuff Zappa would do and and they have music online for free. They don't make money from CD sales (they sell for cheap and give half the money to the local eye hospital) but they make their money from live shows.