Slashdot Mirror
Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody
This bill, put forward by your friends and mine, Msrs. Leahy and Hatch, would task the JD with filing civil actions against "pirates" - essentially putting your tax dollars to work bringing civil actions against college students in the name of the very largest Copyright holders, allowing them even more spare pocket change to spend lobbying to restrict your already shrinking online freedoms. A choice snippet from the floor: "For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."
And it gets better: "In the long run, I believe that we must find better mechanisms to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--our children--are not being constantly tempted to infringe the copyrights that have made America a world leader in the production of creative works." Hold on to your wallets folks, they're telling us to "think of the children" again..."
The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay. You create a level below a certain point where you're not taxed (say... $10,000), and then after that, you pay. You could also tie it to length, so a longer copyright would cost more than a new one.
Wow, outsourcing legal work to the goernment, and you don't even need to pay them! Man, is that a racket or what? Up until now, you actually had to be elected to treat taxpayers as your own piggy-bank, thanks to the RIAA and the MPAA, copyright holders (with influence) can now get paid by the american people for... suing the american people!
Now hold up here, are you saying that the taxes that are taken out of my summer job are gonna go towards prosecuting my friends that are stealing music during the school year?? Well... can I at least choose who gets axe then?
I suppose it's nice that the fees are reduced for smaller entities. But can individuals or small organizations actually enforce copyright online? I mean, most people don't have the resources to fund drawn out or chronic lawsuits. Is a cease-and-desist letter powerful enough?
Utter and complete crap from our congress yet again. What toads.
Most of the music downloaded is theft.
Why stop at "theft" I say it's treason!
The point of this isnt REALLY about who stole what, but all of the freedoms... legitimate freedoms we lose so that Super Corp X can keep a few more dollars. And the sad thing is it is perpetual... the more rights they take away, the easier it will be for them to do it again... and again. Until we have nothing left.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Getting a bigger, more productive Patent Office which thousands of new analysts who know their stuff would do a lot to fixing some of the problems in the economy. By putting many people on the payroll who know what bad patents are, the government can ethically protect businesses from the real pirates: the ones who use IP law to control the productive capabilities of American industry.
Reform should not stop here though. The Bush Administration should make it a priority to strip the FDA of most of its discressionary powers to block drugs it thinks "don't do enough" and to give it more resources to expedite the processing of drug safety tests so that drug companies can profit more easily (thus they don't have to charge as much).
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
It is a question of resources. Their are a lot of more serious crimes being 'overlooked' that don't get enforced. Why are copyright laws enforced with such vigor, yet white colar (Sunpoint Securities) and illegal's are give what amounts to a free pass?
Wait, wouldn't that same bill also allow the Attorney General to prosecute people infringing the GPL? If we use the open licenses more and more, it serves us in the end, no? Or does it apply only to copyrights made with the copyright office? I think this could be indeed a useful law in the future, if used by us GPL lovers. What do you think?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Why should a CIVIL matter with VERY LIMITED PROVABLE DAMAGES land anyone in JAIL?
That's the plain fuckin truth right there. We see Big Money directing Big Gov't. In fact, Big Money not only writes the law for Big Gov't to pass, it now gets to direct Big Gov'ts long arm of the law.
This is fucking sick. I don't care if copyright infringement is illegal, there was already plenty of law to deal with it.
Dear Americans: Your system fucking sucks. Thanks for pushing it on the rest of the world, too.
This is /., not Fantasyland.
[Fantasyland is believed to be a registered trademark of the Walt Disney Corporation. It is used here without permission, but concurrent with the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994) and the copyright laws of the United States protecting parody and satire.]
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Cuban security director: "ma'am, Cuba loves its children."
Woman: "Cuba only loves its children until they grow up."
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I think you misunderstood what this is doing. This has the government sue people, but the RIAA et al get the money. The peoeple pay for the lawyers for the corporations, basically
Mrs. Lovejoy "Think of the children! Will somebody please think of the children!"
How about making some of the crappy software companies write cheaper! I buy sotware if I know I'm going to use it on a regular occasion but if I'm doing a school project and need to use something for 5 minutes and probab;y never touch it again, why would I waste $50 of my already taxed to death money? Why does everyone see a big fat dollar sign above my head? I live and go to school in California, the most expensive place to be.
Now you see how all the offshored people feel about having to pay taxes that are then used to pay to help relocate their jobs offshore.
It sucks.
I always thought the deal was the government give a monopoly to a creator in exchange for the creator doing the enforcement of the monopoly. Now government is extending the term (already done) and proposing to take on the role of enforcement also. What is government getting in return for taking on this extra burden? A small increase in filing fees and nothing else? If government is becoming a larger partner in IP enforcement shouldn't they get a larger cut of the IP profits? Somehow I don't think that the Hollywood accounting that goes on in IP companies will ever give government a larger cut.
I always found it odd that this post gets protection of my live time plus seventy years but a new drug only gets seventeen years plus a few extra months the lawyers cheat out of the system at the end of the seventeen years. If something that reduces suffering is only worth 17 years maybe the founding fathers were right to put the copyright term at 28 years.
In the beginning the recording industry ripped off poor (especially black) artists. The film industry moved west in order to avoid payment for their use of patented technology. These two industries are the original pirates, that's why they are so frightened of modern day pirates.
It is only natural that they feed like pigs at the trough that contains the tax receipts. Industries built on theft don't stop doing it once they become "successful", they do more of it and on a much grander scale.
Legislation is in the works to ban the key combinations known as "Ctrl+C" and "Ctrl+V".
Downloading American music would be treason, sure, but I think donwloading Arab music would be an act of patriotism. Then again, listening to Arab music would be pretty suspect. Guess we get those traitor pig dog downloaders either way.
are so high in price that only large organizations can afford to apply for them.
I have had many ideas I could not patent, trademark, or copyright because I could not afford to. Plus their database is hard to search, one of them is still in telnet form! When will these databases get into the 21st century?
My former employer said they made 40 patients based on my ideas. I tried to search on the employer's name, but that is not an available option. I searched on my name, which came up with nothing. So obviously they registered the patents in someone else's name as the inventor. Which I later found is not valid to do, as I am the inventor of those ideas.
Give a discount to people based on income level for the fees. For Pete's sake they can gather the info from the IRS for people and the SEC for companies. Also have an idea tax that taxes a small fee for revenue used for the ideas, so the government can collect some money as well.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Because this wheel is extremely noisy.
If enough people made noise about white color crimes laws would change, actions would be taken.
We as a people pick and choose what we fight for and against. But unless you take into consideration your actions there are penaltys.
I think copyright is wrong, Does that make it right for me to download music I don't own.
I think abortion is wrong, Does that make it right for me to blow up hospitals that perform those abortions?
If I think copyright is wrong, Does that make it right for me to download music I don't own.
Where do we draw the line? At some point it has to be drawn.
Personal Website
And I wouldn't expect Vermont's other Senator, Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), to have many friends in the majority party either.
Remember this next time you're chanting, "Anybody But Bush!"
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
....works that don't have such legal complexity overhead and consumer at risk issues?
i.e. free software...
the more complexity that is built up, the sooner the ever advancing world will move forward beyond such getting in the way complexity.
a simple matter of the ever increasing velocity of reaching new things for us all to benefit from and/or enjoy.
I agree.
The validity of the GPL depends on intellectual property rights including copyright. How can we condemn a group like SCO who is trying to violate our property rights when we support the mass violation of others' property rights?
The community's position on things like the validity of the GPL is greatly harmed when we cheer for piracy.
Look, I've downloaded songs too... but I don't claim the moral high ground. It's bloody piracy, and I know it.
And I say it's genocide! Times a million!
nt
No, you mistunderstood.
I agree the methods are wrong, But its our own actions that have fueled the methods.
Plenty of the actions by the "Homeland of Securitys" can be deems wrong and against our founding fathers ideals.
Why then do they get away with it. Because the "wheel" called terrorism made so much noise the goverment had to act.
Personal Website
We also know that by and large, "piracy" translates to end users redistributing reduced quality versions of the real products on their own dimes to the profit of the record and film industries. There are a long list of reasons why the Hollywood content cartel do not like letting the free market determine how they get marketed instead of giving them sole discretion as to what the public finds out about a product before release, the main one is that it can make crap movies or records DOA befcre they hit the street as well as take good ones to number 1. However, "protecing businesses from incompetence" is not a proper use of taxpayer funds.
However, the real question here is WHY should the Feds spend our money to assist copyright holders take legal action against end users. Traditionally, that is the copyright holder's problem, which the copyright owner asserts in exchange for the ability to derive income from the copyright.
If you wish to donate YOUR money to the RIAA and MPAA for attacking end users, your privilege. Don't bring the rest of us in to this.
Tech Public Policy stuff
G) the role of the victim copyright owner in providing relevant information for enforcement actions and in the computation of damages;
Not only do we have to pay for the investigations and lawsuits, we have to pay to train people to do them. Furthermore, there seems to be limited legislation setting or limiting the amounts in such suits and that the copyright holder may have the power to decide on amounts. It seems that now some of the possibly exaggerated figures coming from RIAA/MPAA spokespeople may be represented by the government in a court of law. In my mind, copyrights should be protected an piracy is wrong, but this bill seems to have a high cost to the people without providing any clear benefits for them.
_____
Thank you.
Where do we draw the line? At some point it has to be drawn.
I'm thinking maybe it should be somewhere before the blowing up hospitals point. How about you?
OR, the more you consume copyrighted works, the more you should pay, no?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Why stop at "theft" I say it's treason!
Or, as the scientologists call it "copyright terrorism".
Conclusion:
Get a fucking life.
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.
Get a sense of perspective, for God's sake!
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars film should get you a stiff fine at worst. Prison? Are you kidding? I don't think people should breach copyright (sorry, it's not the same as stealing), but your extreme view shows you're way off base. Prison is for people who are dangerous to society. I am 100% sure that you yourself have done things that are more dangerous to society than downloading a stinking movie online.
What we all really know for sure:
1) Copyright and patent law in this country are out of hand, giving people the impetus for unlawful resistence.
2) Unlawful resistence is unlawful and not particularly effective in this case.
Everything else is speculation and fiery opinion. Personally I'm for reforming the laws. In the meantime, as an artist myself I have released some of my work under a creative commons lisence. I encourage other artists to do the same.
Cheers.
IT IS NOT *THEFT*!!!
It is copyright infringement. Plain and simple. I have not walked into the studio and taken the physical property of the artist. Still think its theft? Dictionary.com:
Copyright infringement doesn't meet all of those conditions. When I download something, I have not removed "every part of the property" -- you still have your copy, and so does the artist, the studio, etc.
So please, stop spreading the propoganda. It's not theft.
Except there's no theft occurring - it's copyright infringement. Making a copy of something is not theft and no matter how many times you say it, it will not become theft unless we completely change the meaning of the word 'theft'. Saying it is theft makes you a terrorist - you see how stupidly people distort the meaning of these words today?
As for the rest of what you say, I can only agree that people who continuously infringe copyright are not doing us or them any good. If you don't agree with a company's method of distribution or other practices, the most effective thing is to refuse to buy their products and legally protest against them. Infringing their copyrights isn't helping your cause, it's just self-serving. It especially annoys me when little punks try to justify it by saying it's some kind of moral retribution. No it's not - you're just a cheapskate.
That said, the RIAA and MPAA are disgusting companies and the politicians who support these measures need to be better informed by non-corporate entities or else oustered from office. Having the Justice Department get involved in these civil matters is absolutely ridiculous unless they're going to make themselves available to everyone for every type of civil matter. That could get interesting - I'd finally be willing to start my software company if I knew the JD would work as my defense counsel for any frivolous patent (or other) lawsuits that might come.
I realize that artists need some sort of protection, but it's really the entrenched ones who worry about this. A friend of mine is a freelance composer of original music for software, radio, TV and film productions, and he's got samples of his work on his site that he's just giving away. Of course, they are copyrighted and if you wanted to use them in your work or sell them, he needs to get paid, but he's not wrapping them in all sorts of layers of protection to ensure it, since what he really wants to do is attract new customers.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"Song of the piracy apologist" sounds pretty cool. Who's it by? I'm having trouble getting sources for it...
I've tried fast track, Gnuttela2 and Edonkey, all of them have found nothing!!
Boy, you seem to have had this one Locked & Loaded and ready to fire on a moment's notice.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
about the view that people who make illegal copies should be punished(and usually it's advocated that it should be severe punishment) is that it is simply against the law and therefore WRONG! If anything, law-breaking on a large scale should be an indicator that the law needs to be changed.
Song of the piracy apologist:
Or, in other words, if you agree with this screed, please use it to spam any future discussion of intellectual property law with pre-canned arguments rather than engaging in a rational debate framed in your own words.
(p.s. post it anonymously so people don't know who you are and mentally label you a mindless parrot)
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Why then do they get away with it. Because the "wheel" called terrorism made so much noise the goverment had to act.
Unfortunately the "wheel" called government has been causing pandemonium, so they shouldn't be surpised that a few other people "had to act" too.
People don't realise that it does indeed cost money to produce creative works, and those people who invested in them have a right to protect them. If it costs you $100 million to create a feature film, what incentive is there for you as an investor, a studio, whoever, to put that money in if within a week of the final edit being finished it is distributed to your entire audience for free?
Somebody else here has already pointed out that "open music" is about you going out, playing an instrument, singing, writing lyrics and tunes, putting it all together and distributing it under the terms you want.
The "file-sharing" model is to open enterprise what warezing Win XP is to downloading your favourite Linux distro.
So, instead of trying to take other people's music and distributing it without their permission, how about you actually try and create music people want and give it away under terms like the GPL, much in the same way you do with software now?
No? Why not? No, seriously, I want to know why not...
Fuck the children.
...not only will be making any copy of any "portable" media, illegal, but to legally create anything that resides upon any portable media, you must first be granted a license permitting you to do so.
But if you post AC, how can you prove you wrote those words for the benefit of whoever paid you to write them? Yes, you goofed. Posting astroturf is one thing. Posting RIAA propaganda and not getting paid for it is fucking stupid.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Most of the music downloaded is theft."
I can't believe this was ever modded up to +5 interesting. It's factually inaccurate and close enough to a troll to be marked as a troll. Not to mention it's about as forward thinking as shooting yourself in the head to wake yourself up.
#1 What is the definition of Piracy? Is it making illegal copies and then selling them, or is it just making illegal copies? What about copies for backup purposes or that fall under "Fair Use"?
#2 Most other crimes carry the "burden of proof" on the prosecutor. Why is this one different? Hey there, John Doe is using Kazaa, even though we found no MP3 files on his hard drive besides the ones he bought or has a right too, the fact that he has Kazaa shows that he "Might" be sharing said files with others. We have no evidence of the sharing, but the fact that he uses Kazaa is enough for us to brand him a pirate! Slap an eyepatch and peg-leg on him and send him to jail!
#3 So what pirates are they targeting? While a majority of the pirated copies come from other countries such as China, Russia, etc, we have no legal power over there, so instead we shall target teenagers and college students who don't know any better and only want to share songs with friends, etc. "Sc*w fair use, we got the copyright laws rewritten to exclude it. Jane Doe is using part of a Metallica song in a college presentation, so we will lock her up and throw away the key!
#4 How much money earned is enough? Oh sure we make a ton of money selling $20USD CDs that cost us 50 cents to make and ship, and only give $2USD to the artists, but we could be making more if the John Does and Jane Does of the world stop using our songs without permission and sharing them, while they are promoting our songs and possibly generating more sales, we have a potential to earn even more income by suing these individuals.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I have a feeling this was modded based on length along...
I said jail.. That can mean a week to think about what you did. I didn't say the state pen.
I think the punishment should be based on the actions..
1) Did you download it to watch yourself?
2) Did you download it with the intent to put on your ftp server for others to download.
3) Did you record it with the intent to distribute illegally.
Personal Website
Wow, I tried to see every argument you made, but there can be no expectation that I read all of that. You should come up with a more concise summary and link the overly verbose rebuttal of the 30 random comments that pissed you off. Regardless, I don't believe in copyright, and I can tell you why without using 30,000 words:
Copyright was created, at least in this country, for the extrinsic purpose of promoting "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." Note that the exclusive rights granted are only done so for a specific end. I am not one to say that just because it is in the Constitution, that makes it right. Rather, it is just a tidy summary of my views on intellectual property. If the consequent is no longer contingent on the antecedent, we can remove the antecedent as extraneous. That is, if the "progress of sciences and useful arts" no longer depends on intellectual "property", then there is no need for this legal entity.
Many believe, and I'm sure you're one of them, that copyright and other intellectual "properties" are intrinsic rights of the author. I just disagree. There is no Archimedian point from which such disparate views can be arbitrated, so I don't see this debate being resolved anytime soon. However, I am quite certain that my position is coherence and cogent. You can only contradict it by assuming intellectual rights are intrinsic. Which is fine, but I can simply assume the opposite. And there's no way you can say that my view is wrong because of X, because whatever X you choose, I choose my view to trump it. So please, go ahead and try.
In a criminal case, the government must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil suit, they must only prove the preponderance of the evidence.
In a criminal case, if the defendant is acquited, the goverment must return the defendant's belongings. In a civil case, the government can seize a person's belongings and the defendant must prove his innocence to get them back.
The most significant difference is that in a criminal case, if the defendant can not afford an attorney, the government must provide one. In a civil case, the defendant is left to fend for himself.
Yea, fair use and all that crap. Most of the music downloaded is theft. The person has no copy of the song. The movies downloaded, Its theft plain and simple.
Hey, moron. This potential law isn't about the criminal act of copyright infringement - the JD already handles the criminal part. This potential law is about granting the government the authority to be involved in civil cases.
The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal law is that the government is not supposed to have the authority to punish we the people unless they have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil law is for cases where there is only a preponderance of evidence. Civil law has only ever been meant to encompass civil entity versus civil entity, not government versus governed.
When the dispute is civil entity versus civil entity, who is supposed to decide which side the government should back? Criminal law already deals with copyright infringement.
Take for example the IBM versus SCO fight - that is a civil dispute, which side should the government be backing? Neither. The government should never be involved in civil disputes except as the adjudicator.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I have to pay 3% of the remaining value on the computer to the local county
Good God, where do you live, Soviet Russia?
Yikes!
People around here are damned near ready to go to war over 0.095% per year.
The argument has been completely substantiated in repeated studies, the ones the RIAA didn't pay for. The only studies that contradict this are the ones the content cartel bought, the same way MS buys FUD studies.
P2P promotes sales. It does NOT displace them unless the product is such crap that the normal fan base for a musician won't buy it. That's why the industry uses Big Champagne for marketing purposes. Google is your friend, look up the studies yourself. You've wasted enough of our time.
Tech Public Policy stuff
No it's not theft. Your thinking comes from the belief that IP holders have a right to the ip they controll. In fact all they have is privilige,a leagly sanctioned privilige, granted for the express purpose of increasing the public good when those grants of privilige expire.
They do NOT own that music or movie or concept. The minute they place that info in the public view, WE own it. However in order to incourage them to create such things we (via our proxy, the government) grant them a limited monopoly on the profitable distribution/use of that material for a limited time.
At least that is how it is supposed to be in the United States. But corporate $$ has been spent to buy poloticians and propaganda untill a suprisingly large number of people actually believe they have some sort of natural right or ownership over ideas just because they were first to come up with it, or at least file paperwork claiming so.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Just in case the server crashes and burns (like they usually do),I have put up a mirror.a s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02237 %3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lop= nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02237%3A&%3bsiteId=3& %3boId=2110-1028-5203059&%3bontId=1023&%3blo p=nl_ex a s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.01932 %3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lop= nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.01932%3A&%3bsiteId=3& %3boId=2110-1028-5203059&%3bontId=1023&%3blo p=nl_ex a s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3Ah.r.015 61%3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lo p=nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3Ah.r.01561%3A&%3bsiteId=3&a mp%3boId=2110-1028-5203059&%3bontId=1023&%3b lop=nl_ex a s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02192 %3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lop= nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02192%3A&%3bsiteId=3& %3boId=2110-1028-5203059&%3bontId=1023&%3blo p=nl_ex 2 37: is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/thomas.loc.gov/cg i-bin/bdquery/z%3fd108%3As.02237%3A
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthom
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthom
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthom
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthom
The mirror of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.02
I think my Firebird has been hijacked out of Slashdot - such a rational post can never come of ./
Great Post - somebody should get it printed on a T-Shirt.
Why isn't the UN and their international tribunals doing something about this??? People are committing acts of GENOCIDE against the music industry, and nothing is being done. I say we hold a war crimes tribunal and hang the lot of them.
Sorry.
Ahh but that defines the taking of solid objects and was put in webster before computers even existed.
If I take a copy of microsofts source code home and put it on the internet not only can I be fined for possible losses but even jail time is possible if they can prove my intent to defraud them.
Personal Website
Personally I feel i should be able to do ANYTHING i wish.
And i act on that concept every day.
And if some of my actions happen to hurt some company ( at least on paper, it doesnt harm them in reality anyway )with too much money to burn, i really dont care.
You broke the record: that was the longest strawman post I ever saw!
On abortion: "Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers"
That's right. All your base.
Hey moron. The post was not about the rights or wrongs of the laws passed.
It was about us supporting RIAA's movement by performing, supporting, and telling people to do the acts they say we are doing.
Personal Website
Ahh but that defines the taking of solid objects and was put in webster before computers even existed.
That what theft is about. Copyright infringement long predates the existence of computers.
I know this is hard to believe, but it is possible for something to be illegal without being theft. Murder is illegal, it isn't theft, kidnapping is illegal, it isn't theft, parking on a yellow line is illegal, it isn't theft, treason is illegal, it isn't theft. Copyright infringement is also illegal. It is not theft.
Theft is one very clearly defined crime. Copyright infringement is a different very clearly defined crime. They do not have the same actus reus. They do not have the same mens rea. They do not have the same penalties. They are different.
What is the obsession with confusing the two?
"In the long run, I believe that we must find better mechanisms to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--our children--are not being constantly tempted to infringe the copyrights..."
Yes, and the best way to make sure little Billy doesn't become a mean ol' evil pirate is to have the DOJ prosecute his ass the moment he downloads Barney's latest hit ... :)
(Not that people who listen to Barney's latest hit shouldn't be prosecuted, obviously ... but for different reasons, damnit!)
'Did you download with the intent to profit' would be a better starting point. Followed by 'intent to redistribute without profit'.
Moreover, fines help offset the enourmous cost of running a legal system. Jail sentences help increase the enourmous cost of running a legal system. A week in jail? It's probably cheaper to throw a person in for a month than a week (here's a hint: the most expensive part is entering/exiting jail)
I understand that you're advocating responsibility and justice but there are more important things to do with jail cells. Filling them with Kazaa users and pot smokers is causing more financial and social problems than it fixes.
"That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple. "
Yeah, because a person who has a 0 day copy of Star Wars cost the studios about 10 bucks. Personally, I don't think you go far enough. I think we should kill people who have 0 day copies of movies because after all, protecting George Lucas *has* to be important or else maybe he'll get bored and not make another great great star wars movie.
Penalties should get higher and higher and higher until people *learn* their lesson.
In other news, the house judiciary approved the removal of hands for stealing bread. Bakers everywhere breathed a sigh of relief.
Awesome. Totally awesome.
:)
Eh. I download music. I will offer no defense or moral or legal justification for it however.
I download a lot of music in fact. But, let's consider the last week:
Friend sent me a link to this album by the Stars. Very good. Like, I was amazed how good. It was so good in fact that I went over to Amazon and ordered it. I also noticed on Amazon that they had another album, so I ordered it too, without having heard it before. Purchase was justified as the music was really top notch.
This actually repeated itself twice in a week. Friend sent me really crappy rips of Pinback's new album Offcell... burnt them to CD, played them over and over and over again. Ended up buying that CD, as well as their two previous CDs. While I was at the store buying those, I noticed another CD from another artist I had downloaded (VAST) and grabbed that as well.
I have a lot of music however that I never did pay for. There are a few albums in there, that if I could find, I would definatly buy in a heartbeat. There are also a lot that I really would never buy in a second.
Now, im a reclusive computer geek type. I do not as a matter of habit go out to shows, or assoicate with people. If I hadn't gotten those albums from that friend, I wouldn't have bought them. Ever. And I also wouldn't have been buying random albums from bands that get absolutly zero air time on any radio station... in fact, this brings up a curious question. These artists I like are indie. where did people hear about them pre-internet? I don't know.
So, anyways, that's just one persons experience. I won't attempt to say I'm right or justified in downloading music. However, in my specific 1% case, it has made a big difference in the music I listen to. If it goes away, *I* will be out of a great source... and I'm not positive what it would be replaced by.
So, recognize that I've only had one semester of constitutional law, but....
Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution says that the judicial power applies to "cases" and "Controversies." Under current constitutional doctrine, this means that in order to get into federal courts on a civil matter, there is a requirement that the person bringing the suit have standing: He has to have an injury which can be remedied by the court.
I don't think that the Justice Department would have standing because it neither (1) has been injured nor (2) is an organization litigating the rights of its members, who have been injured -- this is about what happens when the RIAA sues people.
IANAL (yet...), so don't consider this legal advice. But, the whole thing just seems a bit fishy.
And Beatrix Kiddo is gonna kill 'em all.
"For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."
Everyone here is talking about whether piracy is right or wrong. Duh. It's wrong. That's not the point.
This law would give the government the authority to punish people based on a preponderance of evidence. There has always been a distinction between civil and criminal law. When there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but two people are still in dispute, the government is not allowed to get involved, because they tip the balance too much. If there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, how is the government supposed to decide which side to support? This law is saying in effect, "whenever we're not sure if someone has been wronged or not, the government should back party A." It is completely antithetical to the distinction beetween civil and criminal law.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I presume here that we're treating copyright (and other similar intellectual property) the same as tangible artifacts.
Let's say that someone breaks into my home, and steals my TV. Right now, I can enlist the help of law enforcement, who might catch the person responsible for the theft. If they do, provided I want to pursue this, they could then go ahead and prosecute the thief, and if found guilty would then serve a punishment. I might not get my TV back, but the person who stole it did not 'get a free lunch'.
The same principle seems to be applied here to copyrights. The thing I need to understand, is the theft of a copyright a civil matter, or a criminal matter? If it is a civil matter, then the DoJ certainly does not need to get involved, they have enough to do in the criminal arena. Let the RIAA, the MPAA and all their cronies fund their own lawsuits, just like everyone else who has to fund a civil lawsuit. But if the theft of a copyright is now a criminal matter, and is to be considered a felony, then I see no reason why the person who has a precious artifact stolen has recourse to the police and the DoJ whereas someone who stole a copyright does not have access to these resources - especially if the consequences for the person who stole the artifact is the same for those who stole the copyright.
I personally don't care too much for the RIAA and MPAA's strong-arm tactics, but copyright certainly needs reform. Perhaps there needs to be a two tier copyright system, there would be Copyright I and Copyright II. I would envisage Copyright I to be like existing copyright. It would expire 90 years after the death of the creator, and the Copyright I holders would have recourse to the civil courts for enforcing their rights. It would be cheap to get, but expensive to enforce. There would also be Copyright II. Copyright II would be more expensive to maintain, and as someone mentioned earlier, yes there would be a 'tax', maybe a yearly tax. The Copyright would be tradeable, and would be in force as long as the 'tax' is paid on it (so the likes of Mickey Mouse would be protected forever). Copyright II would however, because of the increased fees that Copyright II holders would pay, would have recourse to law enforcement and the Department of Justice in order to enforce those copyrights, and theft of the copyrights would enjoy penalties like that in criminal theft cases.
That would be my simplistic way of reforming the copyright system.
Mark.
Why not have the RIAA/MPAA start with:
1) Kids, Grandkids and up to 3 generations removed of senators/POTUS who vote/sign the Hatch bill. (4th cousins would be search free)
2) Then, do the same to the DC aides.
3) Then, the people and families of the military.
4) Then, move onto anyone who gets a gov. check for thier work.
5) Then, move on to the states with a similar 'you work for the governement, follow their laws' idea.
Too bad none of the kids of a Senator are willing to be civialy disobient and break the various 'assine' laws passed by Congress. As opposed to just being a drug-using MP3 file swapping citizen who is just hope to not be caught.
what about the right of those who create content to decide how content can be used for a limited time as copyright law allows. What about artists rights to be appropriately compensated for those ideas if the creators don't want to give their content away for free?
Copywrite keeps wrongly getting extending for longer and longer time. however copyright is important idea. GNU is based on the rights copywrite gives.
Its a question of scale. Noone ever got sued for making mix tapes for personal use. People have gotten in trouble for bootlegging, which is mainly what pnp is used for these day. PNP and "file sharing" is so out of control the government now feels compelled to act. You can thank all those pirates on P2P networks for that.
Don't forget the rights of those who create things.
All of these arguments hinge around a belief that artists deserve to continue making money from the same work for the rest of their life, without having to produce anything new.
I do not believe in 'Intellectual Property'. The concept that a person, or group of persons, should have some right to 'own' an idea, concept, or particular method of expressing an idea, or concept appalls me, as it would any person more concerned with the welfare of the species, than the welfare of the individual members of that species.
IP laws are self-contradictory, and ill-defined. If I saw a Frank Lloyd Wright building, and built one which looked similar as a tribute, I would not be sued. Few would call me a criminal, and none would call me a pirate. What if I liked a very nice suit, and copied its design to produce my own suit? If I do the same thing with a song, or a movie, or software than I suddenly become a thief. It is not fair, and it is not logical.
What about DNA? My doctor now has a legal right to take a blood sample I have given him for testing, extract, and copyright MY genetic code, without my permission. I am now a thief, just by living. Is that 'moral'? Shouldn't I have some legal right to own at least the code that makes ME? No, of course not. How could I? He filed for the copyright/patent before I did. I have no rights. I didn't 'think of it' first. He 'invented' me, and that obviously helps to 'progress the progress of science, and the arts'.
Every thought you could ever think, has been thought before. The 'original' thinker just wasn't in a position where they could purchase 'protection' from the government. All concepts, ideas, algorithms, and dreams are built on the concepts that you have already been exposed to. ALL WORKS ARE DERIVITIVE WORKS!
IP is just an excuse that smart but lazy people use to keep from having to produce anything new. It is inherently evil, and sets BACK progress by its very nature.
OK, copyright holders have a right to protect their copyright privileges (they aren't really "rights" in the sense of, say, free speech, which is considered a natural right). The point is that the government should not be subsidizing their right to protect their privileges.
He's a Republican in Democrat clothing. Take a look at his record and note how often he's working with Senators "Disney" and/or Hatch.
"WE are the ones removing our rights. We do this by making stupid statements, by performing illegal actions and in turn throwing fuel in the RIAA fire."
That is complete BULL. WE are not removing our rights. WE are doing nothing of the sort. Making stupid statements isn't against the law, nor do stupid statements make law.
What WE are talking about here is the RIAA and MPAA, which have already milked our wallets, for arguably putting stupid statement in the cineplex, are now getting even more money out of our wallets in order to prosecute ourselves.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether Star Wars gets taped or whether music is shared illegally, it has to do with who pays for the enforcement.
The Gov't has already granted the copyright. That copyright has allowed the MPAA and RIAA to exist in the first place. That copyright has allowed them to be funded to the hilt.. enough to hire lawyers that sue 12 year old girls.
Wish I had mod points today.
I think you're saying that the fact that some people abuse rights is what loses them for us. That's a fair point, and quite possibly true. On the other hand, as a matter of semantics, if they can be legally taken away from us then technically they're priveleges not rights.
Who defines theft? In this particular situation we can't rely on the government to define morality for us, as the government does the will of the party in power, and the party in power has a vested interest in creating law in support of those, like the RIAA, who give it cash.
I do believe that filesharing is immoral. But I believe it is immoral to about the same degree that kicking a door open rather than pushing it open is immoral - the marginal damage is negligibly small. And, if the profits of the recording industry are as damaged as they say, the system itself (their business model) could be said to be broken - unsustainable in a free market. In that case, the system needs to be fundamentally changed, as opposed to litigating against those who have individually done so little damage.
If, on the other hand, the RIAA is merely keen to get as much money from lawsuits as possible, regardless of how negligibly small the effect may be on sales, then I have no sympathy. I'll keep kicking the door open, especially if my hands are full (metaphor alert: I'm a student in debt).
Note: this applies only to filesharing. I do not support commercial piracy, as this invalidates the above argument by competing with the recording industries on their own turf by unfair means.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
True, but a legitimate question is "should corporations be allowed to hold monopolies on culture?". I don't think copyright should be abolished but this "world leader in the production of creative works" BS ignores the fact that mass-produced culture is not very authentic culture. Weaker copyrights might make a stronger society... it's an option worth exploring anyways.
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.
Go to jail for copying a song? Sending somebody to jail is not cheap. Not only do you have to pay the (relatively trivial) cost of incarceration, you also lose that individual's productive input to society. Also, the more people you put in jail, the more construction activity must go into jails (instead of say, libraries or offices). The more people in jail, the more guards/wardens/police/judges/lawyers you need. Human potiential that could be put towards space, towards knowledge, towards medicine...
As a general rule, when "everybody" is breaking the law, it's time to revise the law, not throw more people into jail.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
"Hold on to your wallets folks, they're telling us to "think of the children" again..."
In other news, Michael Jackson's lawyers blame the RIAA for the alleged behaviour of their client.
(And for the record, I think MJ is innocent of these charges.)
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.
And God help you if you are smoking a joint when you get caught. America already has the highest percentage of its population in prison of ANY country. Period. We are a Prison State. Ordinary people fear the police more than criminals. Does it really have to be this way?
When will we be liberated?
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004
This is the so-called PIRATE Act previously Slashdotted. Note that the "related bill" mentioned in that posting does not seem to have materialized yet; it does not seem to be any of the four posted here.
The main thrust of the PIRATE Act is to allow the Attorney General to bring civil actions against copyright violators; before only criminal actions were possible (civil suits had to be filed by the copyright owner). I find it difficult to tell without going and reading Title 18 whether all the money resulting from the suit goes to the copyright owner, but some of it definitely does ("and restitution to the copyright owner"). There's some administrivia in the bill as well, but it seems to do what it claims to.
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003 (ART Act)
The official title of this bill says it all: "A bill to provide criminal penalties for unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility, to provide criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized distribution of commercial prerelease copyrighted works, and for other purposes." There's some weird stuff going on with it on Thomas; the entire bill seems to have been rewritten at some point, but the number retained. I can't tell how many of the changes, if any, were substantive.
The HTML on the revised bill is broken, but reading the original version, it makes use (but not posession) of camcorders, cameras, and other "audiovisual recording device[s]" in a theater illegal, with a penalty of "not more than 3 years" in prison, or 6 years for a second or subsequent offense. It also sets a minimum value for "prerelease" copyrighted works, which includes movies not out of theaters yet; the assumed minimum for P2P'ing such a work is 10 copies and a total retail value of $2500. Note that this bill specifically targets P2P filesharing; it makes reference to "making [the work] available on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to reproduce the work through such access." That last bit seems written to exempt streaming, but I'm sure you'd be ruled against in court if you tried it.
There's also an easy-to-miss bit at the end of the bill which recommends "amend[ing] the Federal sentencing guidelines, as necessary, to provide for increased penalties for offenses involving the illegal reproduction and distribution of works protected under title 17."
United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 2004
This one is straightforward and is as described in the posting; it increases patent fees across the board (I can't tell how much without looking at the stuff it amends.) It also allows "small entities" to get a 75% cost savings if they file electronically, and adds "maintenance fees" at 4, 8, and 12 years from filing to keep the patent from expiring early. Sounds sketchy, but I'm not complaining. There's also some stuff about trademarks, which probably doesn't matter much.
Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004
I don't know why this one was even included. It doesn't really seem relevant to anything; it makes some changes to the definition of "prior art," but it only seems to apply to things developed under a "joint research agreement," so I don't think there's any way it can be other than what it claims, which is "A bill . . . to promote cooperative research involving universities, the public sector, and private enterprises."
Because then there's no incentive for copyright holders to ever release their property.
Oh Yeah? Well murder is taking one's life, kidnapping is taking one's kid, parking on a yellow line is taking away the safety of someone else, treason is taking away the safety of a county, and copyright infringement is taking one's work. :-D
Well, the figures I've seen from customs activities border enforcement show that detected counterfeit computer software and music and related multimedia have increased 400% in the last couple of years, and piracy rates in this area are 40%.
When you have _actual evidence_ of this level of lost income, which for the government translates into lost taxes, then you understand why the government is stepping in and helping.
I'm sure if the figures were much lower, the government couldn't care less.
Considering a reply to this post made me think of an interesting idea. Open up a music store, stocked full of great music. Allow people to come in and grab a CD with high quality MP3 files of anything they want. But here's the twist: run their credit card through for the purchase price, have them sign it, but keep it on file without putting the charge through (eg: a deposit). Also, make them sign a legally binding contract that:
(1) they can't share the music or they'll face huge financial penalties;
(2) if they don't like the music, they have to send the CD back within 14 days; and
(3) if they do like the music, come back to the store and exchange the CD for the full retail album.
Basically, if they send the CD back they don't get charged. But if they keep the CD or come in and exchange it for the real thing, their credit card purchase gets put through.
It'd be interesting if you could somehow watermark the MP3 so that it wouldn't alter the music quality but would insert a signature with that person's identifier. That way, if it is shared, they get faced with a huge lawsuit and massive fine for breach of the contract they signed.
Would this work? You'd need the participation of the copyright holders, naturally. But it would address the whole "sharing is advertising" thing.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I always thought the deal was the government give a monopoly to a creator in exchange for the creator doing the enforcement of the monopoly.
"to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The deal is that they get the monopoly for the act of creating their works and inventions. There's never been any "principal" decision of who is to enforce it, as far as I know. Certainly, by their right to secure the monopoly, making the government enforce it is fully constitutional.
I think the government should step back and look at what the goal is: To promote the creation of new works and inventions. The expectancy to make money is a driving factor. But if I write a book today, do I expect money in 2150? (which would hopefully be life + 70 for me) No.
Ask any movie producer, book author, music artist when they expect to make money off their work. Sure, sometimes a book like LotR can become massively long after it was written, but did JRR Tolkien make it because it'd be a wildly movie triology in the next millenium? Hell no.
There's two kinds of copyright. One that promotes the creation of new works, and one that promotes the hoarding of existing IP because some works will become "classics". The latter is a cancer that only contributes to making artificial profit, not to advance science nor the arts.
That is why copyright should be cut, massively. A few decades should be more than enough to put it through any normal life cycle (like e.g. cinema -> rental -> dvd sales -> premium channels -> normal channels -> reruns).
What is a concern, is the "pollution" of the setting, like e.g. the Star Trek universe. However, make it real simple. Only what is expired from copyright is expired. E.g. if TOS didn't contain the Borg, but Voyager does, they are copyrighted as long as Voyager.
But if you want to take Capt. Kirk on adventures to meet some completely new and unknown aliens, you're free to do that. If the "original" can't introduce enough new things (new characters, new plots, new items) to live with that during say, 30 years?, well they don't deserve it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The topic does come up often enough that it makes sense to compose a relevant posting ahead of time. If your post is good, then the earlier it's submitted the better odds of getting modded up.
I see nothing wrong with that. I realize you're just pointing out the fact, but likely others will use it as some sort of ad hominem attack.
Dear Mr. [me]:
/
Thank you for contacting me about intellectual property protections. Although we disagree on this issue, it is good to
hear from you.
Throughout my career, I have been concerned about the theft of intellectual property and the effect it has on
innovation. Protection of digital content is just one aspect of this effort. On March 23, 2004, the Senate Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on physical piracy, entitled "Counterfeiting and Theft of Tangible Intellectual Property:
Challenges and Solutions," at which the Committee examined the harmful effects of stealing another's creation.
Reasonable estimates show that the U.S. economy loses between $200 billion and $250 billion annually to piracy and
counterfeiting. At that hearing the Committee heard from a representative of Burton Snowboards, which employs 350
people in Vermont. That witness reported that knock-off Burton products have been found in multiple countries, and
fake goods often turn up on internet auction sites.
The improper use of Burton's trademarks is illegal, it is unethical, and it robs the company of revenues it should
rightfully reap but that others siphon off. In the 104th Congress, I introduced the Anticounterfeiting Consumer
Protection Act of 1995, which gave law enforcement additional tools to fight counterfeiting and which became a public
law. I am currently looking at additional legislation that would help hard working Vermonters protect the goods they
produce.
Likewise, downloading music without paying for it, and without the copyright holder's permission prevents artists,
authors, musicians - and those that work behind the scenes to produce creative content - from realizing the benefits
they deserve.. In order for the promise of new technologies to be fully realized, high quality digital content needs
to be easy to use and portable, and I am glad to see that several companies are now offering legal alternatives that
are meeting with success. This is a development I continue to encourage.
While illegally downloading music is wrong, I do not think that handcuffs for copyright infringers should be the
government's only option. That is why, on March 25, 2004, I introduced the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against
Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act." I do not believe in a "one size fits all" system of justice, and the PIRATE Act
will provide needed flexibility by allowing the Justice Department to pursue civil penalties for copyright infringement
when criminal penalties are not appropriate.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue, and please keep in touch.
Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
http://leahy.senate.gov
Since counterfeit snowboards seemed totally off the wall to me, here was my reply:
Dear Senator Leahy:
Thank you for your response. It does not, however, show consideration of
many of the most pressing issues in "intellectual property." Please detail
what you are doing to:
- Roll back copyright terms to the reasonable period envisioned by the
writers of the Constitution
- Allow Web "radio" to have the same rights to broadcast music as
over-the-air stations, without the additional fees for using the music
which are currently assessed, which only serve to enforce the broadcast
monopolies while restricting artist access to the public
- Preserve the "fair use" rights that have long been in copyright law
against the large corporations working to remove or negate them through
using encryption technologies
- Undo the chilling effects of the DCMA on free technological development,
where it prevents normal testing and reverse-engineering of encryption
schemes
- Restore restrictions on the number of radio or television stations that
may be owned by any single corporation (surely you are aware of the
political disaster that results f
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
"even though CDs have dropped in price over the years."
Unforunately, not true. But it does add vigor to the debate.
I think you mean "Well, the prices have stayed the same, but allowing for inflation..."
Everything else is going down in price (except commodities, but they vary day to day), except CD's. The RIAA cartel can lower the price to $8 and kill off piracy.
Easier to get congress to prosecute trivial cases against a bunch of 18 year old college kids. Great plan. What next? Re-educate high school kids so they know that when they copy MP3's, they're fueling terrorism? Oh wait... that's already being done.
You really are a tool. Why do you apologize so hard for facism?
Ahh but that defines the taking of solid objects and was put in webster before computers even existed.
That's ridiculous. Copyright infringement predates Webster. I'd say the printing press pretty much let that cat out of the bag a few hundred years before Webster was even on this planet.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
A side note: this is exactly the foundation of copyright doctrine in Europe: the droit moral (moral right) of the author.
I think it's really funny to see the entertainment cartels push for American doctrines and laws in Europe (e.g. long term copyrights, protection of access controls a la the DMCA), and then turning around and use the droit moral doctrine in the US to make their policies more palatable.
Just like the lie that the DMCA was a consequence of international treaties, while it was the entertainment cartels that lobbied for those treaties in the first place.
Yes, the cartels want their cake and want to get to eat it too. Yet when we citizens even think of doing the same, astroturfers like grandparent poster start berating us.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.
Yeah, because downloading a movie is such an anti-social act that you need to be completely deprived of your liberty at the taxpayers' expense. Geez, get a grip and then get some perspective.
I do not have a signature
Their are a lot of more serious crimes being 'overlooked' that don't get enforced. Why are copyright laws enforced with such vigor, yet white colar (Sunpoint Securities) and illegal's are give what amounts to a free pass?
Securities fraud is rampant, I work for a Telco that is merging with Cingular. Upper management gave themselves stock at 9 dollars, and agreed to merge at 15 dollars. Employees bought stock at 29.50.
Over 80% of the stock holders are employees loosing money due to this merger. Where is the investigation of back room deals?
Normal citizens will not vote or fight the problems of today. They could care less. The small number of people who do rally against a cause are beaten, gassed, and thrown in jail. You can't even protest in this country anymore without physical violence from police. Riot control is big business, every major city is expanding to fight who "The people".
The only movement of today is the rich corporations who give money to the politicans to further their goals. There are more Haliburton trucks than US Aid and Humvees total in Iraq.
We have local politicans accepting money that makes the news ever year, and they stay in office. Unless an opposing Political group can force them out of office.
Jaded? How about realistic, our country is in shambles. We are at war (Vietnam2, the police action) and the only thing King Bush can do is denounce gay marriage, talk about God gave him the right to rule, and take more vacation days than any president in history. (While at WAR to boot!) But don't follow the issues, look at the red herrings in the new, Kerry's wife owns stock in company that outsources, boooo, hisss. Wait, shes not on the board? Kerry fought and denounced the war, that makes him evil! Wait, he earned the right to talk about the war. Bush, well he got free haircuts in the state guard. Whos the real hero?
While the EFF and LP are working their ass's off in lawsuits, this country is a battered and going down in flames. Outsourcing, unemployment rates, religious actions, crime are the issues, but the most important thing is Piracy. Piracy is the back room companies burning off dvd's by the hundreds, not a college trading a britney spears CD. Thats copyright infringement.
I'm just young enough to think I can make a change, but old enough to know better.
Fuck it, time to listen to garagebands.com and drink booze, at least those mp3s are free!
Eisner's family owns a large estate in SE Vermont for many years.
So, see how Eisner has rewarded Leahy for his work on the Mickey Mouse copyright extension and other acts of kindness.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I've seen this post before. How does it get modded at +5 Insignful.
-1 Redundant and -1 Troll seems more appropriate
I wasn't really sure how to respond to this as many of the points are valid. I don't apologize for violating copyrights and just disagree entirely with the copyright system.
Now, I would support the copyright system if it was a system of open distribution, like a GPL style system, but to say without copyright you can't have the GPL is not really the case if what a person is really advocating is change, not simply elimination. I think the arguments that person made are pretty weak but I also think some of yours are.
You say it's legally and morally wrong. Legally, yes, morally, who's morals? Yours or mine?
I think Abe Lincoln says it better than I ever can:
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
Hear hear. I always thought that a constitutional amendment preventing "criminals" from having their right to vote taken away would be an interesting negative feedback mechanism on the creation of new laws. If your legal system and society is healthy, then you should have a small number of criminals, and their votes won't make too much of a difference in the decision-making process. If you start making too many things illegal, then you make more criminals (who presumably won't be happy with you), and they will vote you out of office ASAP.
If you don't have this kind of negative feedback on lawmaking. then the legislators are free to keep on making more and more laws which disenfranchise more and more of the population (by making them criminals, then refusing to let them vote) - which means that the laws will keep on being made for the benefit of a smaller & smaller subset of the population.
I know you were trying to be concise, but would you mind explaining why you believe that the progress of sciences and arts no longer depends on intellectual property? I don't quite see it.
Also, remember that, as the parent said, the GPL depends on copyright. Do you think open source software would get along just as well if licences like the GPL weren't enforcable because copyright didn't exist?
There would have to be ways to ensure that trivial changes are not enough to make the work somehow "new" enough to qualify for the cheap rates.
I'll gladly sell anyone fifty years of complete copyright protection for a trillion bucks or so.
This was very long. You repeat many things, I assume for emphasis. Well written - the size, good grammar, side-topic attack style, and lack of virtually language errors shows it was created in advance.
So sharing is illegal. So was booze in the US. Didn't really stop anything. After all that, you're right. Copyright infringement is illegal, and people do feel a need to explain or excuse themselves.
That said, I'm going to state why I think P2P is here. It's very easy under current technology. Your rant ignores this. Human nature means it's not going away and attacking people this way is a silly decision. It *is* easy. Unbelievably easy.
Trying to make the people being attacked pay for the abuse, while historically repetitive (see the losers of any World War), is not a good business decision. RIAA needs to public favour I'd say, worse than it needs money.
RIAA sees all these people with music and as a capitalist company, must see a market.
Obviously, based on the numbers alone, all these people were not buying the music before - it's just so easy to get it now, so they do. RIAA wants a piece of this impulse downloading - imagine just a few cents for every song! Wow. We all have dreams, and this is RIAA's big wet one - finally, a new market.
Assuming these people actually have money, of course. The numbers for downloads probably overwhelm funds.
Hmm, it sort of funny when your think about it.
They have this general count of songs traded and since they don't own the market, the only option is to count them as a loss. Then music execs who have a loss at work to explain can blame the nebulous, mysterious market of people that appeared. "It's not my fault! See the dark cloud of P2P - they stole my sales last quarter!"
Cost and ease.
If copying is easy for me, I would believe it's just as easy, or more so, for RIAA companies and such to make them, but I don't see this. Maybe it's bad advertising and I just haven't heard about it, but RIAA companies -must- have lower production costs simply due to improved tech. I would hope so.
Despite what you've said, I've only seen my costs to buy music rising till recently (where the heck do you shop?). Then RIAA keeps implying this all my fault. This is bad advertising to a paying customer.
I'm seeing research saying P2P hasn't hurt sales at all. And didn't Australia just set a record year?
If RIAA believes P2P is so bad, they need to do something productive. Spend a bit on R&D for new ways to capitalize music - good companies do R&D to create new products, right? This is how you make markets. They should treat P2P as a competitor, whether they admit it or not. I suspect they know this. Since I don't work for them, I have no idea what's behind the PR spin.
Hmm. Maybe they do already. I see a lot of news about FUD and legal attacks from MS all the time too.
And all that crap about "Why would anyone pay for something the can get free?" How much bottled water do you and your friends buy, you weiner?
The main difference between the two is that your post doesn't prevent anyone else from making their own posts. A patent can apply to anything that uses the same underlying idea. This idea is usually much broader than the creative ideas covered by the copyright.
For instance, copyright prevents you from selling (without permission) a Star Trek story involving Kirk and Spock. Imagine if the copyright holders could prevent you from selling any story involving people from Earth exploring other worlds in a spaceship.
It's scary because it provides the federal government with a very effective way to crush political free speech. Why? First, keep in mind that, unlike many countries, including some other democracies, we do not and cannot have seditious libel laws--meaning the government cannot openly ban criticism. For that, we can thank the First Amendment and our culture of independence.
But recall that any effective criticism of the actions of government agencies and politicians will require fair use quotations. Under current law, the government cannot use copyright to attack that sort of unwanted speech. Copyright infringement lawsuits are civil lawsuits, initiated and (even more important) funded by private entities. This law would allow the government to create an "enemies list" to be attacked on alleged copyright violations and open up the entire resources of the federal government in those lawsuits.
Keep in mind that the government does not have to win these cases, it simply has to file a lawsuit to create an enormous burden on its critics. (This is a bit like both the Nixonian and Clintonian administrations using the IRS to attack political opponents.) And remember too that the government doesn't have to sue over the specific book or media production that criticized the government. It can sue in some totally unrelated area. It can crush an opponent without ever appearing to violate the First Amendment. That is what I mean by scary.
Second, the law is stupid because it demonstrates no awareness of just how cluttered, contradictory and filled with gray areas present day copyright law is. Yes, there are areas where the law is not gray, republishing without permission a recent best-selling book for instance. But there's no need for the federal government to intervene in those areas. Civil suits already work quite well there. Will the government intervene in more ambigious areas? If it does, it has taken sides when it shouldn't. If it doesn't the there are lots of people, particularly impoverished authors and publishers, who are being denied help but are forced to pay taxes to fund lawsuits the government does choose to initiate.
Finally, the law is clearly unfair. The bill isn't intended to help a poor author or publisher (like me), who typically can't afford to sue, even if he has a good case. The remarks about "technological challenges," "technical experts," and "electronic data" make it clear that it's the deep-pocketed entertainment industry who'll be getting their legal costs covered by tax-payers. This law is about ordinary citizens being forced to fund lawsuits that only benefit those who can easily afford to file their own civil lawsuits.
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
http://www.InklingBooks.com/
Song of the piracy apologist...
(#1) I do not believe in copyright laws.
And there you have it. Apparently, piracy is capitalism. Just another form of "competition." Not paying for something is capitalism. And if you believe in paying for the CD at the store and not getting for free, you don't believe in capitalism. Again, the mind boggles, but this deserves further examination.
Apparently, you do not understand capitalism. Funny thing about it is that if any product ends up costing the consumer and exhorbant amount more than their perceived value of the product, the more consumers will likely steal/copyright infringe said product. It's not a matter of "morality", as capitalism and morality have nothing to do with each other.
In fact, Sony recognizes piracy as a competitive force.
Additionally, many stores I once bought CD's from had all titles available to me at $11.99 or less (in America) about 8 years ago. CD's have not reached those prices at these stores in ages (and I know people who work there, and the reason for inflated prices is not because of the store looking to make a larger profit).
Well, the argument I was trying to make is more that we should only hold copyrights necessary to the extent that progress of science and arts depends upon them. Whether copyrights and other intellectual property concepts are, in fact, necessary, is another question. But I also feel that they are not. For example, some sciences have applications to business needs, such as genetic engineering, while some do not, such as astronomy. And while there has been much more business interest in biotechnology and related scientific endeavors of late, the attention paid to those that do not share such business interests is, in my view, sufficient.
It depends largely on how you define "progress". But I know that people will still be singing, writing, or learning whether copyrights exist or not. That there may not be anymore "blockbuster" sized games or movies is not a loss, or an insignificant loss compared to the curtailment of freedoms that their existence requires.
Senator xxxx,
Please vote "No" on S.2237.
- Having a look at who is sponsoring it (Hatch and Leahy) alone, it is obvious that this is a matter of legislation on behalf of the large media conglomerates.
- This legislation would involve the justice department in pursuing action against casual, non-criminal (civil) infringement.
- This legislation is an attempt on behalf of the large media conglomerates to place upon tax payers the legal bill for pursuing unreasonable and outrageous civil penalties against their sons and daughters in highschool and college.
If we are to be forced to assume the legal bills of the RIAA and MPAA, then it is time to have a legitimate and serious public hearing on the illegitimacy of the ever expanding "Intellectual Property" regime that is:
- Destroying our commons.
- Defying the intent and wisdom of our founders.
- Tying up and suppressing the past 70 years of our history in the pocketbooks of corporate non-entities.
- Inventing a "right to profit" from what was originally a right of the public to promote the interests of the commons.
Disney's archive vault is NOT the commons.
Thank you for your time,
xxxx
Wow, I tried to see every argument you made, but there can be no expectation that I read all of that.
Attention deficit disorder? I read it all, and while there are some points I disagree with (like the list of 15 traits at the beginning) the rest was a fairly sound deconstruction of someone's argument.
As far as your not believing in copyright law, I coincidentally wrote a reply in another discussion before this one came up. A lot of that is still valid to this discussion. However, regardless of whether you believe in copyright or not, it shouldn't affect your judgment of the original post. We currently *do* have a thing called copyright. If you'd rather it didn't exist, I suggest you appeal to your elected officials to have it removed from the books.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Arguments that I grant have some merit.
But I, without doing any appreciable amount of file sharing myself, still find myself opposed to laws supporting the whole Intellectual Property Rights junta.
Why? Because, despite all the logic you produce, I see my rights being steadily eroded in favor of the big media corporations. And I see the government spending more and more money to prop up what amounts to piracy against of my rights - those fair use rights that have been part of US law for years now.
And these rights are being eroded in favor of short term profits, often at the expense of any real creativity in the fields that the corporations purport to benefit.
And the more that continues, the more I find myself thinking that despite the logic in your arguments, despite the support that I think artists deserve, despite all my sympathies for the hard working creators, the price is just plain too high.
Song of the piracy apologist:
(1) I do not believe in copyright laws
If you agree with this, feel free to repost it in the future.
It's called an 'income tax'.
So if you make $1000 by selling copies of your music, and I make $1000 by running a restaurant, do you think your $1000 of income should be taxed differently than mine?
I don't mean to sound trollish, but shouldn't terrorism be the DOJ's biggest focus right now? There's been an attack on Turkey and Spain this year alone. Between this recent bill and John Ashcroft's assault on porn, the JD is getting distracted.
(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
In the country I live in (USA) copying CD's is legal. Making MP3's out of them is legal.
Some people would like to make you think that "If you didn't pay for it, you're stealing." It's not true. As far as I know it's perfectly legal to tape things off the radio. It's perfectly legal to make mp3's out of those tapes. The P2P systems that exist now are just a higher quality easier versions of doing that. The legality is essentially undefined since we are in new territory that there aren't laws for yet. In our system, unless it's expressly forbidden by law, it's legal.
The mess we are dealing with now is silly paranoid whining from overzealous wealthy record companies. I believe in the compulsory licensing model the EFF proposes, it's a good idea. I think if the radio stations can play a song you should be able to swap it as an MP3.
As far as destroying the profitability of the record companies goes, I'm not so worried about that. The days of the starving artist are gone, replaced by the 12 year old multi millionaire crappy artist. I wouldn't cry too much if the record industry got significantly less profitable. They need to be able to make money but the model that exists now is unreasonable.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
This is a repost of an comment, which admitted to being a repost as well, from a story earlier this week.
Can't these people come up with their own arguments?
EVERYDAY IS CATURDAY
The issue at hand is whether this law is moral or not, i.e., whether it should exist. If the original poster could have ended his argument at the appeal to current law, it would have been a very short post. Of course piracy is against the law. No one is arguing that it isn't. But whether it, or the laws that forbid it, are moral is another issue.
The argument is that this is legislation on behalf of large corporate interests.
If you had any idea of the voting record and campaign contribution histories of these individuals, you would know that this is legislation either directly written by or in its language and intent approved by, these same interests.
We're speaking about Orin "Give the RIAA the power to remotely disable computers" Hatch, here.
Further, senators do not actually read these messages. Well, a grunt sometimes gives them a sampling of letters from constituents to read, but for the most part they are checked "constituent" or "non-constituent" and "for X" or "against X".
There is no point in crafting an "argument" when your audience will only be an intern giving 2-5 seconds per letter.
Shoot fast, furious, and from the hip. If you can agitate your opponent with rhetoric and ideology, you're 90% there.
I think you might have set a new record for "longest post that never mentioned the topic of the article." You could at least mention the legislation that everyone else is talking about, but I guess it never occurs to anyone to cut, paste, then edit.
How about Song of the RIAA Apologist:
"I believe that if something is wrong, illegal, and cuts into my bottom line, it's okay to prevent it by buying legislation and spending massive amounts of other people's money, while being a pain in the ass for people who aren't even doing it."
-- . . ramblin' . . .
I read the original post as a presentation of the logical inconsistencies contained within that reply they quoted, demonstrating how what was claimed to be the "typical attitude" of P2P sharers is self-contradictory. The morality of it all is another long philosophical discussion.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
when I tried to apply for them. Also you only listed the basic copyright fee, which is misleading if you need more than that.
My ideas or products are worth more than those fees, but I am dirt poor and have lived paycheck to paycheck giving ideas and products to companies that paid me very little to work for them. I am now out of work, and they fruadlently filed the patents on my ideas without having me sign the papers, as I am the originator of those ideas and products.
I have not earned an income since 2002, so applying for those fees are out of reach for me.
I feel like I have been used like a tissue, and thrown away once I got enough raises or gave my employers enough IP that they didn't need me anymore.
$335 to $385 may seem like a small fee to you, but it is way more than I can afford due to my economic status. I have no angel investors, no grants, cannot get a loan, and no source of income available, plus nobody will give me a job. Being out of work since 2002 is also something that counts against me. I feel like I have been blackballed by many corporations with a "do not hire" flag on my employment record.
So since you seem to know it all, how can I earn the income to get the $400 or whatever to file the patents and trademarks for my ideas? If it keeps up, I may become homeless soon.
The most I ever made from a Lemonade stand was $20, at 15 cents a glass. They tax the kiddies now for doing that, BTW.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
copyright infringement is taking one's work
No, it's not!. It's taking a COPY of it! Geez.
Notice the person making this claim never actually buys tickets or t-shirts themselves. It's always "someone else."
Perhaps in your blind community it is, but personally, if I like the tune, I'll buy it. I've even had albums specially ordered in, based on what I've heard from Napster/Morheus/WinMX/etc. And I have no scruples with making a copy of a CD, or ripping tracks to MP3, arranging to the order I want to listen to them in the car/at home, whatever - because I've paid to listen to the music. As for the comment about radio stations, free advertising, etc - what about non-needletime records? Presumably, by your argument - these are fair game? And the bit about what price CDs retail at? I haven't seen them drop in years (I'm in the UK, btw). And weren't they supposed to be near-indestructible when they were introduced? Now you just need to leave one out of the case for half an hour and it skips all over the place. Cost-cutting on the protective material, was it? My heart bleeds.
And let's get this straight - when you talk about stealing from recording artists - what you really mean is theft from ponytail record execs. So don't say people are taking food from an artist's mouth, instead - say people are taking cocaine from a suit's nostrils. It's far more accurate.
Song of the RIAA apologist: Gimme more, gimme more, gimme it now, I need my next fix of cocaine and my latest manufactured boyband is flopping and I need to blame it on something or I get fired. Oooooh, what's this Kazaa thingy? Methinks I spy a scapegoat...
Everyone here is talking about whether piracy is right or wrong. Duh. It's wrong.
Of cource piracy is wrong, but were not talking about people who board ships and murder people here, we're talking about illegal copying - which is not wrong in the slightest. No more wrong than refusing to go to the back of the bus (if you get it)
I think you're the one that's missing the point. In the eyes of the internet, there is no difference between free speech content and copyright content - when you set up soneone with power to censor one, than its unaviodable that they also will have power over the other. Copyrights are immoral, they are unenforcable, and they have no place in the information age. They simply need to go.
-John Van Voorhis
Coming from a country that built itself on infringing existing copyrights. Look back at the history of the USA and how it used to deal with copyright. Now they want the Criminal Justice System to also prosecute Civil cases. Since when has the establishment been civilian? The sooner the USA stops the commercialisation of the government (see Senator Disney and Senator RIAA as examples) then perhaps the government might get back to being "for the people, by the people".
Wow. this is the largest number of straw men I've ever seen set up and knocked down. Instead of picking on silly 13 year old kid's confused comments, how about you try arguing with big people.
Hell yes. Prison time for copying a movie. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I hope somebody steals your car with the excuse that they did not believe in property-ownership laws.
I hope they don't, but they're welcome to a COPY of my car. You fucking idiot.
You know, if you didn't come across as a rich spoiled brat it would help your cause.
http://www.inklingbooks.com/inklingblog/index.html
If you're interested in technology and society issues, the blog also has articles on Harvard and the Unabomber, a review of an early scifi classic film ("The Day the Earth Stood Still"), as well as Tolkien's attitude toward technology and racism.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
but Merriam Webster disagrees.
Main Entry: piracy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
Consider Disney and Pinnichio. Right now, stipulate that it's sitting in a vault, earning $0 in income. (If not the case for Pinocchio, then consider another film).
If Disney gets it out of the vault, they can make $X million in gross revenue, with $C million in costs. It's the judgement of Disney's management that $X is less than $C. If $X were more than $C then Disney, profit-maximizing corporation that they are, would distribute Pinocchio and make a profit of ($X-$C) that way.
Your proposal is to increase $C by adding another tax to income from copyrighted materials. That makes Disney MORE likely to keep Pinocchio in the vault (no revenue, no expenses), rather than take it out of the vault (same revenue, increased expenses).
Oh, and what is the "fair market value" of 20 million copies of the Linux kernel which contain my copyrighted material? Do you want me to pay tax on that every year? It's a tiny amount of material, to be sure, but I do own the copyright on it.
Uh, no. He's starting from the premise that if people consume what you offer for sale, then they'll pay the price you set. If they don't want to pay your price (and can't talk you down), they simply won't consume it. Your premise is true, but irrelevant. You might as well argue that shoplifting is OK, because the store owner opened his store without an "inherent guarantee to make money."
But MP3.com did not use any osrt of GPL model. And, in fact, in the end they co-opted lots of "old school" label music without getting permission from the owners of those copyrights, ultimately putting all those garage bands who trusted them in direct competition with Madonna and Eminem. This didn't help those garage artists AND it led to their ultimate demise.
Without any copyright every indie artist would have even less chance to compete with megastudios. It's easy to talk about them as plantation owners, but the fact is these are not physical goods we're talking about - and those "plantations" would have their place with or without laws protecting them. Remember Pat Boone? Little Richard? Elvis? All those white boys taking the music from black boys and making money for those "plantation owners" without giving the creators their due? With no copyright protection at all EVERY garage band in the country striving for fame and/or fortune become subjects of those plantation owners.
We may not all have an equal chance at fame with the system as it is, but stripping away all copyright protections would make it even harder - not to mention all that GPL protected code that would end up in Windows uber-release XP2005. I don't know about you, but I don't contribute to GPL projects so that my work can go into the back pockets of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
I don't know much about copyright, but what if it could be transferred to a corporate entity that doesn't die off?
~Mike
Feel free to repost this (with attribution if you feel like it) in response to reposts of the above article.
And that (the parent), folks, is called generalization, and is the song of the hypocrite, one who won't bother to read any rational arguments and instead, much like the people parent mentions in their post, takes a sample (chosen by the parent to support his argument) instead of considering the true point of some of us here.
We have the internet now. We have discovered that digital information can be copied flawlessly in seconds, millions of times over. Hence, we use this ability, combined with having media in a file, to access the media we want to watch. Is it wrong to access information that isn't yours? Yes, of course it is. Is it wrong for recording companies to try to suppress the internet as a way of distributing music because it would force them to innovate and create subscription services that would benefit both themselves, the artists, and their customers? Yes, it is.
Recording companies realize that they have a pretty sweet deal as it is with their current, fully controlled distribution system (CD, radio, TV). Of course, these media are also largely controlled by the recording companies. ClearChannel. MTV. Resellers that, like the recording companies themselves, will not create a subscription service that benefits customers.
Do you not think that if a service was put in place that charged a nominal monthly rate for unlimited download access to a fast peer to peer network and benefitted the artists who made their work available to it that people would use it? As good as Kazaa and many of the other peer to peer networks are, they are often filled with spyware and other ways that the programmers can make money, often in annoying and legally questionable ways. If a service was in place where people could access fast downloads of the music (or other media, though starting with music would probably be best) they want, without any of the crap that comes with many P2P services, I believe that many would want to use it.
But back to the rebuttal. I admit that many of the points the parent makes are true. Sharing is not free advertising. Sharing is illegal. Sharing is piracy. Wait... Did I just admit half of the parent's post? Oh yes... that's because it was misguided attacks at only a few other posts, none of which really had any merit. Scratch that. ONE other post. Once again, the hypocrite is very good at taking the words of some and indicating that these are the words of all.
Why should the record companies invest in a subscription service for their works? Well, for one thing, it's what their customers want. For another, their industry is on the verge of collapse as it is. The internet is an enabler for artists, as well. If artists created their own distribution system, and distributed their works through digital file formats, what would be left for the recording companies to claim? CD pressing? Entirely unnecessary. Talent finding? If you have talent, distribute your files though this service and you will be heard. Studio recording? Can be found through independant shops. Marketing? Perhaps, but again, go to a marketing company. If they feel that you have talent and are a good risk, they'll help you.
Additionally, without such a distribution system, artists may go alternative routes and try new methods of releasing works while gaining funds, like the Digital Art Auction (finally starting to get ready for actual auctions) or the Street Performer Protocol. These make copyright entirely unnecessary, and if they gain popularity, may make much of the media on peer to peer networks fully legal.
But perhaps it's because I'm not an apologist that some of the things I am saying here make sense. In that form it shows that the parent is targetting the unrational trolls of our side and misrepresenting us as being
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Feel free to repost this reply too (and my appoligies for feeding trolls):
1) Allowing people to download one Britney Spears Song off Kazaa is the same as selling 500000 counterfeit albums of the same artist. (Ok, maybe with Ms. Spears, the cultural damage is just as bad, but I am not one to advocate censorship nor is this the point.)
2) After all people who download songs don't care about the artists anyway.
3) Threatening college students with millions of dollars worth of civil damages is great because it is the way of capitalism.
4) All copyright owners have the moral right to enforce any terms on the use of their material that they see fit.
5) Copyright ownership is somehow morally equivalent to real estate ownership, and should be protected perptetually.
6) The Home Recording Act was written by a bunch of patsys, though we do like our tax in it.
7) Loaning your CD to your friends so they can rip the MP3s off and put on their Ipod is Piracy (possibly protected under the Home Recording Act, but what do they care)
Look, quite frankly, I like the fact that the horrible bullys at the RIAA are behaving publically as, well horrible bullys. I hope that this does help to improve the indie record labels' outlooks and I hope that it also helps freely redistributable music communities (creative commons etc). But if you don't think that the CTEA and the DMCA are causing serious long-term harm to our society, then we have bigger issues to work out. These guys think "Gimme your work, that's mine FOREVER!!!!"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I emailed both of mine and one from a previous state I lived in. I did the third because I know him and think he is fairly honest. If that gets three nay votes I'll take it. Sometimes congresscritters do the right thing either; by mistake or if enough pressure from voters is applied.
The 3 of them know that I'm a veteran and I vote!
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Maybe people need to work on understanding what copyright does. Copyright permits the holder of the copyright (either the author or his assignee) the right (guarenteed through the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law) to control the distribution of the "expression" covered by the copyright (among other rights). Thus if the copyright holder doesn't want to ever distribute the information, they still have a copyright in the expression. Artists put their music out with copyright protection so they can control how the music is distributed. IT IS A RIGHT, a right granted by the Constitution. Hence the name, COPY /RIGHT (the right to control copies). No there is no "ownership" of an expression (music, book, movie, etc), but when you download music illegally, then it is theft of a copy that the copyright owner should have been able to control the distribution. If you don't like the system, either talk to the copyright owner and ask them to open distribution in some way, iTunes, creative commons, etc, or start voting people into Congress that believe in shorter copyright terms. Until then, remember this is a democracy, a system that only works when the people respect the will of the majority.
Crow23
Considering that blockbuster movies make "no money" and the whole idea falls apart. Production accountancy is the last, greatest legal lie.
The fact of the matter is that the answer is to roll back the bull, get rid of software patents, reduce copyright to the original lengths, get the corporations out of the legislation business...
And then mabye lynch them for being butt-heads. 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
IOW, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your argument, as lawsuits and laws are for those who can afford them - ie. the guys who screwed the artists in the first place.
This system is broken, and your BS doesn't fix it.
The truth is, as someone who has pirated music, I just dont give a crap about stealing music. Now I guess I could try and justify it with the standard reasons but you already know them.
Why dont the holier-than-thou anti-piracy types justify their position. The reason they dont, I believe, is because to them being on the side of the law is all that matters.
Either that or they believe in the "free market" and that by engaging in piracy you are somehow
'distorting' the market. As though there were such a thing as a free market in the music business.
Why you would defend the music establishment is beyond me. This is an industry whos meat & potatoes revolves entirely around leveraging as much dosh as possible out of Mom & Pops wallets by way of their children.
And they're fucking good at it too. When asked what they think they will be when they grow up, surveys show that the kids of today all basically think they're going to be fuckin famous. It's patently absurd. I really feel sorry for the little buggers actually. Not only are they constantly fed shit ideas/products but they have little to no exercise as well, and are so fat that it is believed a whole generation of kids are going to have serious heart problems by their mid-30's!
Oh Yes, I can see the future now. An entire generation of fat thirty-somethings living at home still clinging to the belief that a talent scout will 'find' them and shower them with fame, fortune and a triple by-pass operation.
Now what was I talking about, oh yeah piracy....
Imagine if the copyright holders could prevent you from selling any story involving people from Earth exploring other worlds in a spaceship.
It's possible for a copyright-owning plaintiff to win a copyright infringement lawsuit over only four copied notes. It's possible for the plaintiff to win a copyright infringement lawsuit over a melody that both sides agree the defendant didn't consciously know he was copying at the time he did it. See also this rant.
A friend of mine is a freelance composer of original music for software, radio, TV and film productions
When your friend creates musical works, what precautions does he take to prevent himself from subconsciously copying another composer's copyrighted works?
Destroying copyright doesn't destroy the outlets. It still takes an expensive FCC license to get a tv station and even more money to keep it running. You think without copyright MTV is going to be any quicker to put you into rotation? The Britney Spears and Jessica Simpsons would stll dominate because they have the money behind them. No copyright would change the kind of deals those people get, but for indie artists all it would do is leave them vulnerable to exploitation without ANY means of recourse; your band's underground music website becomes popular? Great! We'll use your music to sell pepsi... and you won't get a fucking thing - thanks so much for breaking down those "monopolies on popular culture."
Russia has just about zero enforcement of what little copyright protection exists in their laws. So, do you think MTV Russia is some sort of free range of Russian indie artists? Hmmmm... p diddy, Britney, Elton, Jessica... sure doesn't look that much different. And what Russian lables are those Russian artists on who DO get played on mtv.ru? EMI, Warner, Sony...
Without copyright protection indie artists don't suddenly become more marketable - they just become even easier to exploit.
And so do programmers.
sculpture is somewhat annoying to send over P2P right now. But this is a short term thing, and ultimately wouldn't last.
It won't last because here's exactly how sculptures will be ripped: Just shine a grid of laser beams at a sculpture placed on a turntable. Take picture. Rotate. Repeat. Process pictures into a mesh. Distribute mesh in 3D interchange format.
"This potential law is about granting the government the authority to be involved in civil cases."
Um... doesn't that strike anyone else as a dangerous precedent that could conceivably be extended to ANY area of civil law, such that the gov't could "take sides" in ANY civil suit??!
Someone above mentioned how this law could become a spearhead for censorship. I'm thinking if it isn't found unconstitutional, it could also be a toehold for just about any field that thinks the gov't should be on their side, and has the lobbyists and bought-congresscritters to ensure which side the gov't comes down on.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If you want to accelerate "getting there", then invest in companies that make 3D printers. Or wait 20 years for the patents to run out, and prices for sculpture replicators will go into a downward spiral.
Can you really, with fair conscience...
A politicians conscience is indistinguishable from his bankbook.
It doesn't matter. Freedom is about responsibility as much as liberty. Choosing to violate the law does not negate our freedom so long as we are likewise held responsible. Problem is, corporations like this are increasingly held less responsible for their ever-expandig freedoms.
Do I have the right to shoot the noise dog next door to be "free" of the noise?
Damn skippy. A dog is property - if my neighbor won't take care of the fucker and the police won't help, you damn betcha I'll resolve the matter myself. I won't use a gun (that's illegal in most cities) but I've done it before using other, quieter, means. It didn't result in a civil action but I was fully prepared for it: I'm sure he knew who did it, as I had spoken with him before and warned him of the end effect of failure to comply with his neighbor's (polite) request. If more people would have the guts to do this, there'd be a lot fewer barking dogs annoying entire neighborhoods of people.
Why not?
I just told you why - you tell me why not.
When our "freedoms" and illegal cross steps have to be taken. By supporting the illegal actions regardless of the cause or ideal behind it you bolster the RIAA's arguments.
The RIAA's argument is it's illegal - your argument then is just another circular validation of theirs.
The fact is we are in the process of redefining fair use - fundamentally that is ALL this boils down to. The SCOTUS has repeatedly defended certain "liberties" because of the impracticalities of enforcement, often relating to the substantial loss of privacy such enforcement would entail. We, therefore, have a responsibility (there's that word again) as technically competent developers to create as many technological means of defending our "rights" as we are able. The more able we are to prove the impracticalities of defending these laws, the better served we will be in the end - when these ridiculously overreaching laws are finally challenged in the courts.
Thus if the copyright holder doesn't want to ever distribute the information, they still have a copyright in the expression.
/RIGHT (the right to control copies)
That is only true since the insane expansion of copyright law in 1976.
The origial purpose of copyright was to get more works to the public and enlarge the public domain. Since a non-published work provided no benefit to the public, no copyright was granted on it. To get a copyright you had to actually publish a work and slap a copyright notice on it.
Artists put their music out with copyright protection so they can control how the music is distributed.
No. Copyright temporarily lifts certain uses out of the public domian to ensure that whatever profits the work happens to generate flow to the creator. If someone commercially exploits a work, copyright is there to give the creator the ability to sue fior those profits. If someone's going to make a buck, we're better off if it goes to the creator because that gives an incentive for more creation.
IT IS A RIGHT
The US Supreme Court dissagrees. They ruled long ago that there is no inherent right to copyright. It is a temporary and limited monopoly granted by the government.
a right granted by the Constitution
Wrong again. The constitution permits congress to create copyright if they feel like it, and only for the purpose of promoting progress of science and useful arts. Congress could simply have chosen not to do so and there would be no copyright at all.
Hence the name, COPY
No, not controlling copies. It is a temporary and limited monopoly on creating copies. Once someome sells you a book, that copy is your property. The copyright holder has NO RIGHT to control what you do with that book. The only things that are restricted are the rights to create new copies, to distribute the new copies, and public performance.
remember this is a democracy, a system that only works when the people respect the will of the majority.
They WHY THE HELL has every copyright law for at least the last 30 years literally been written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry?
If we were to actually ENFORCE current copyright laws we would have to imprison at least 60 million people (in the US), about half of them for one year and the other half for five years. The government would be overthrown overnight.
Copyright is a good thing, but our current copyright laws are an absolute abomination. Repeal every copyright law passed after 1975 and we'd have a fairly good system.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
There is an inherent conflict of interest when a Drug Company goes through clinical tests. They want to get their money's worth, the FDA wants safety. Read about Antidepressants & suicide. The most recent prescription boondoggles I can think of are the whole problem with Phen-Phen, hormone therapy for women causing heart attacks, and now antidepressants causing kids to suicide.
Drug companies have a 20 odd years until their patents expire, so they suppress studies, encourage off-label use (ie. giving medicine to age groups it wasn't tested on) and whatever other techniques they can use to get the drug to market and make their investment back
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You are right when you say a person needs standing, but the justice department in this case would be acting on behalf of the U.S. government. You can ask your con law professor why this is different. (Civil actions by the government are very common - securities actions, environmental actions, etc.)
With great power comes great fan noise.
After the first two patents you are awarded, the multiplier will begin to double with each new patent you apply for. This will help to prevent companies for applying for stupid schitt patents, because it will increase their multiplier. They will only do it on stuff that's really worth it. Oh, but to be fair, as time passes between patent applications, the multiplier will begin to decrease slowly, so if you are legitimately developing stuff that is HARD to develop, then it makes sense that you'll have a few years between patent applications.
Furthermore, the length in time of a patent would depend on many factors, such as the ones described in the first paragraph (e.g., a huge multinational's patents might last 1/3 as long as a garage enthusiast who stumbles across some great invention), the industry involved (e.g., software patents would last, say, two years at MOST), the difficulty and expense incurred in making the invention (which would have to be kept track of and audited, or else this number would be assumed to be ZERO), etc. Also, the amount you intend to charge for selling the invention individually, and for licensing the patent would be taken into account. That is, if it will legitimately take you ten years to break even on the costs of developing your invention, that will likely increase the time length of your patent (but no patent will ever last more than 20 years). However, if you say the unit cost will be two cents and the licensing will cost ten bucks, just to get a long patent life, and then you start selling the units at $5000 and the licenses and $10000000000000000000000000, then the patent office would actually monitor that and reduce the term of your patent accordingly. Say, you could deviate up to 15% (plus an adjustment for inflation or deflation, to make things fair) in price increases, and up to any amount in decreases, without suffering a shortened patent
The above should help aspiring inventors working in their garages or basements. But all of that simply means that huge multinational corporations will create a holding company to create a single patent and then license that patent for 0.00000000000000000001 cents per millenium. To avoid that, the law would state a few things: First, that the computations above would also apply to the licensees of a patent, and that licensee, in addition to paying license fees, will have to pay a licensing tax. In other words, say Microsoft invents something, opens a tiny company for the sole purpose of holding the patent, to make the patent application cheap, and then licenses it to itself for really cheap, and to others at exhorbitant prices, and then cites trade secrets when refusing to tell anyone what the price it pays is. What I'm saying here would mean that Microsoft would pay the peanuts to its holding company, but it would pay hundreds of thousands in patent licensing taxes to the government. However, that will not hold true for any nonprofit endeavors. So if some joe shmoe GPL developer or academic licenses the same patent, he wouldn't pay jack schitt in taxes, because if the license is for nonprofit reasons, there will be notaxes on patent licenses.
Finally, where will all these horrendous fees and patent taxes go? They will fund a better patent office, where many more patent examiners will be able to take a lot more time and resources to examine and really research these patents.
Oh, and there was one other thing that I forgot: A working model MUST be built and WORKING according to the patent. No more patenting ideas. You must be able to demonstrate that it works according to plan before you can patent it.
> including raising fees, raising fees more for those who most use the system, and providing discounts for small entities (who'da thunk?)
Big corp A need patent.
A create small company B.
B files patent with extra reduced cost (being small).
A buys up B for 1$.
Probably not the smartest thing to put in writing but me and my friends break the law nearly everyday because we find it to be stupid and pointless and arbitrary. I'm talking mainly about underage drinking laws/the fact that smoking/possessing pot is illegal and minor traffic violations and such. I personally am incredibly afraid of the police because in my limited experience, the police play the role of breaking up parties/giving out traffic tickets for safe infractions of the law (well what I consider safe. I realize we need to have a standard because we can't let everyone decide what's safe)/arresting people for smoking/possessing pot (IMHO, more harmless than many "legal" drugs such as alcohol). Thankfully I've never been the target of serious crime and honestly needed the police but it says a lot that I have such a low opinion of them because my experiences w/ them have been them enforcing laws I disagree with/are just a hassle/being enforced because they're laws and what we did violated the wording, not because what we did violated the spirit of the law/is a detriment to society.
I personally hate laws that are designed so that they are unforcable and then don't serve their purpose or end up being overreaching because they need to be objective even when serving a subjective purpose. Drinking age - IMHO, intended to prevent minors from making this decision on their own which they're not capable of making and harming their bodies. They needed an objective point to set the law instead of the subjective, capable of making this decision (same w/ why can't my parents serve me alcohol. I had a glass of champagne at my sister's graduation, was I 21, no. Law is dumb, IMHO.
Maybe you should just get up earlier to write stuff.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
I totally agree. I personally think jail should be primarily for violent criminals and maybe some huge non-violent ones (Enron/TYCO cases come to mind - NOT martha stewart). I think we need to get out of this it's illegal send them to jail mindset that seems to prevail. Why is downloading starwars, watching it once and deleting it, any more illegal than sneaking into a movie theater to watch it. In the second case I technically "stole" the cost of admission from the theater. In the first, I didn't even do that, all I did was gather enjoyment from someone else's work without compensating them. Illegal? Yes. Morally wrong? Depends, I've seen many strong cogent arguments that copyright/patents do NOT encourage creativity/innovation and many good arguments that say they do. Should I go to jail for cheaping out on $10? NO!!
In my head software/movie pirates are people who illegally PROFIT from other's works not those who illegally watch/use someone else's work for individual enjoyment. It's still illegal but in my head, not something that should be prosecuted. If it's so widespread that the *AA views it as a threat to business, then it's time to rethink the current business model if people don't feel like it's worth paying for your product.
Even the title says it all:
"Protecting Intellectual Rights Against THEFT and Expropriation Act of 2004"
Theft is taking someones property from them.
Copyright infringement is making a copy without permission.
This is a -1 TROLL bill.
Instead of "For the Good of Society" when the nazi's exterminated people they didn't like, our politikians use the term, "It for the Children!!!!" when passing authoritarian measures. It is a cop out phrase used when passing unpopular legislation or refusing to pass something the People want.
When the states were finally allowed once again to set their own speed limits, critics of that idea mentioned that 75 mph speed limits would be bad for the children.
The only patent reform we need to to stop granting patents for the fucking obvious! That by itself would eliminate about 95%+ of all patents.
I hope this doesn't extend to patents too
Lets take the drug companies as an example. They would all buy Patent II we will assume. So a drug company buys this patent on some new drug; lets say it stops hiv from progressing or something. So then we have a patented drug that costs even more (due to the tax which will be passed to the consumer) than the already huge american prescription costs. Those that can't afford it also have no chance of getting a generic ever! So I guess they can just die.
Apparently none of you hear have an idea how much it costs per year to house someone in a low-medium security prison. It averages to $40k/yr. Jails would be less. The point is that it isn't worth our money or effort to institutionalize people for "minor" violations of the law. This can be applied to any violation of law, not just copyright law. Here's a kicker for ya. Copyright has been changed thanks to Disney to last something like 120 years after last "production" of a work. How insanely unreasonable is that?
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
That's true. Taxing based on "assesed worth" is a different plan, similar to the old Henry George single tax on unimproved land, and motivated by the same reasons.
So, what's the assessed value of the linux kernel, and who is responsible for the tax?
If the assessed value is $0, then there are no damages when SCO, Linksys, or other companies infringe the license. If the assessed value is anywhere near the actual value to users, then who's liable for the billions of dollars in taxes?