Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Copyright Bill
The Importance of writes "C|Net News is reporting that a new copyright bill, to be introduced next week by Sen. Orrin Hatch, will likely overturn the Betamax decision (which held that VCRs were legal) and threaten all sorts of innovation. EFF broke the story and Copyfight has been all over it. Don't miss the comments of law professor Susan Crawford who says, 'This is amazing. Now we're waaaaaay beyond contributory and vicarious theories of liability, which are court-created and pretty darn broad on their own.' Text of the bill here and PDF."
Sigh. Is anyone actually surprised anymore by yet another attempt to remove more freedoms? I thought progress was being made with the bill to remove the more dangerous elements of the DMCA, and now a new "Free Speech Killer"... The world's going to hell in a handbasket.
I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell, but as it might, we'd better make sure to make our side of the case clear. Hatch may want to blow up our computers, but I hope there are some senators who realize that "He took away your VCR" won't go well on the campaign trail.
"Your Rights Online: Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Slashdot Execution Bill"
/. know about these bills.. someone has to do something, the general public needs to know whats going on.. having flamewars on /. isn't going to stop this.. Doesnt ANYONE have the ability to get this in major news outlets? No one from CNN or something reads slashdot?
/. about how our rights are being taken away and then no one else i know offline knows anything is happenning. FUCK!!!
Might as well, since it seems only people on
I'm so sick of reading on
It would be fine it the length of copyright was also reduced to say 7 years instead of the infinite lifespan copyrights have now. Not really infinite, but anything copyrighted right now will remain so long after I die.
Only by offending consumers and performing in-house raids to confiscate VCR's and arrest their owners, is it possible to get the public outraged. Non-slashdot-readers don't hear about bad laws until they're passed. Outrage from the general public will wait until this passes.
I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood
Why doesn't he find a new cause?
Campaign donations. I guess he gets paid just to bring this stuff up, irrespective of whether it passes or not. Just making the right noises to please his masters.
#!/usr/bin/english
Child Exploitation? Child Exploitation? This has about as much to do with child exploitation as it does with farming subsidies or strategic national defense. The only reason this has "Child Exploitation" in the title is so that Hatch et al. can demonize anybody who opposes this as "having voted against protecting children from exploitation".
This is not about protecting America's children against exploitation; this is about protecting the revenue stream of a powerful business lobby.
Senator, you're a schmuck and a tool. The afterlife, if it exists, will most likely be a very unpleasant place for you.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
...to vote Libertarian. Question for conservatives: What the hell do you see in Republicans these days? They've become a bunch of right-wing socialists at this point.
There is just something wrong about advocating PRISON TIME for someone commiting a nonviolent offense WITH NO PROFIT MOTIVE. Unlike the previous boogeyman of drug laws, nobody is even being hurt here - hence the whole idea of fair use. There's just something fundamentally wrong here. These proposed bills are getting crazier and crazier.
Legislators in Canada (I am not an American. YMMV) looked at this and while recognizing a problem, rejected the notion of stiff criminal penalties for this kind of thing. This concerned me here enough to write a detailed letter to the committee reviewing these laws in Canada.
Control over media devices has another impact to - it's about control over the PRODUCTION OF MEDIA. With so much news and speech regulated THROUGH the media, this is tremendously important for the future of free speech in the USA.
Sigh, sometimes I think the world went mad while I wasn't looking. You just don't put people in PRISON for sharing a SONG with NO PROFIT. There is this thing called CIVIL law. Sue him into the ground, sure. Prison is where you put murderers and rapists - not copyright infringers. I wonder how many politicians in the USA would see the irony if they looked back at the treatment of international patents over historical timescales.
Arrgh! Please, get involved in this process and get organized. DO SOMETHING.
"Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act of 2004."
What!!???
Using peoples' fear of child exploitation as a tool to push through draconian copyright measures to help BigCorp Inc. is despicable.
Surely this _is_ child exploitation.
It's bad enough that there are sickos in society preying on children for their bodies without someone to then abusing that exploitation to steal their legal rights.
Fascist Alert.
Has anyone out there noted that he is not sponsoring legislation to make sure that computer programmers get copyrights and royalties for their work just like musical writers and performers do? I think that if he gave one rats rump about realy copyrights he would start with the people who are being ripped off of their rights the most.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Just making the right noises to please his masters.
Or (and this is probably closer to a tin-foil-hat type theory, but that doesn't make it false), he is taking the extreme so much farther out that the merely ridiculous looks sane by comparison.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
...I would recommend that you do the same. Looks like a full court press while the Republicans control everything...too good an opportunity for the greedheads to pass up.....
Not intentionally trolling, but is it any wonder why other countries don't accept our way of governing with open arms.
US Ambassador sales pitch on democracy:
"So look, get get all this freedom in a 'democracy', but the trick, and you'll love this, is that you have the freedom to take away freedom. Now don't do it right away, give them 100 or so years and then start doing it slowly so that no one notices til it's too late. It also helps to get in bed with big business cuase oil or not, cash is king."
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Since they "aid" and "abet" copyright infringement, normal CD Burners would also be illegal under this law. It's as if Sony Music wants Sony Electronics to stop making devices that are obviously designed solely to pirate their copyrighted works.
These congressman are paid hitmen and are all corrupt because the system is about lobbying(which needs to be outlawed). Lobbying = Corruption. This should not be a lobbyocracy but a democratic republic.
A handgun is designed specifically to be capable of destroying flesh, with the intent to wound or kill. If you shoot someone with it, you are using it for exactly what it was made for. The fact that it can be a deterrent to crime is just a side-effect of this feature. It is not a seperate type of use altogether, as the gun lobby tries to phrase it. (Note: I favor gun ownership rights - I just think that this particular argument is a stupid way to try to support it. The reason I support gun ownership rights is specifically *because* guns are an unbalancing factor that makes it trivially easy to kill - that's the kind of power that shouldn't be solely in the hands of government.) Digital copying, on the other hand, has uses that are totally independant of copyright violations. Outlawing it is like trying to reduce traffic fatalities by making it illegal for anybody to own a car.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Interesting that the government thinks it owns my body. ugh. I guess they can't risk me dying. They need the tax revenue.
From what I have heard, Hatch is a very amiable, likable guy. People who have told me that have also told me he is completely full of BS. The folks in particular I am thinking about who met him came away with an overall good impression, saying "he's a really nice guy" but were also somewhat frustrated because he would pretend to answer their questions but really just gave them a stream of BS (that sounded good, but looking back it was clear he didn't know what he was talking about). Unfortunately, folks like this slip through the cracks and into office a lot in a democratic system; I think that's the bad we take with the good.
I think if Hatch were up for re-election in November, he might get the boot (even in the ultra-conservative state of Utah). But his term isn't up until 2006. There is a good Democrat running against him then, I wish I could remember his name, that might have a shot. But I am just worried that with 2 years left to go, Hatch has plenty of time to do some positive PR work to help his image.
You have to remember that most of those goodies arrive after a lawmaker leaves office, in the form of cushy consulting jobs, or positions on corporate boards that require little if any actual work.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The perfect time (in the government's eyes) for you to die is at age 6x and 1/2 when you retire - you've spent 40 or more years paying into social security, but haven't yet started drawing from it.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
I don't think writers or performers get royalties if the work is produced as work for hire.
-Peter
I'm also pretty sure that he's got himself covered in regards to any possible charges of being bribed by lobbyists, PAC's, etc. He's probably too smart for that.
However, I can't but help feel that he is a traitor. He is un-American, and I hope that he loses re-election. The 1st Amendment is 1st because of its importance to America, and the 1st Amendment is America.
You attack the 1st Amendment, you attack America.
So, Mr. Hatch: ES&D.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Well, if you thought the DeCSS lawsuits were frivolous, you're in for a new type. This would effectively ban the LAME-type projects that are source-only in order to avoid copyright infringement. Yep - you're 'inducing' violations by providing a means to distribute illegal copies of copyright materials. What about audio rippers? Well, if they can be inducing violations, they're infringing. Forget about fair use. All you need to ban some product is an example of its use for copyright infringement and a benevolent judge that would accept some broader definition for 'intentional'.
Also, this will be a generalized ban for any devices non-compliant with future equivalents of the broadcast flag in other fields. Maybe even selling the old non-compliant devices, as they're sure to be used for an infringing purpose.
I hope I'm wrong, but remember, if the wording of the law allows it, sooner or later someone WILL use it.
But seriously - look at the voting records as a whole on issues of copyright and personal freedoms. There is a *Massive*, *Stark* rift between the voting records of the two parties when it comes to civil liberties.
Yeah, I remember the principled opposition to the Patriot Act by Democrats...um, wait. But they did try to stop Republican Bill Clinton from passing the DMCA...hmm. Well, at least they stood up against Carnivore, Echelon, Clipper, CALEA and encryption export controls. Actually no, that never happened either. (In fact, John Ashcroft was a leading opponent of export controls).
It is increasingly obvious that neither major party gives a s**t about civil liberties; unfortunately the Libertarian Party consists mainly of nutjobs and there's no alternative for those of us who value both personal and economic freedom.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
It is worth noting that Senator Hatch has a long history of supporting legislation that tramples upon constitutional rights and civil liberties, this man is definitley an enemy of your rights and the constitution, anyone in Utah really needs to remember to vote and get this bastard out of Office. He has waged war on the Bill of Rights long enough. M
"If you make a product that has dual uses, infringing and not infringing, and you know there's infringement, you're liable." Wouldn't this automatically make all copy machines illegal? IANAL, but they seem to fall precisely into the same category as the VCR. I don't see anything that restricts this bill to digital media. I'm sure there are more ripple effects as well, but that one certainly jumped out at me. KeS
Oh, give me a break. The Dems in the house voted for the Patriot Act at 72.6%, while the Republicans were near universal (that took *real* guts to vote against it just after 9/11). You want to talk about the eight worst internet laws? 18 of the 93 worst offenders were Democrats, and only two were in the top 25. Echelon? Kerry is currently being bashed by Bush for trying to cut intelligence programs like that. Furthermore....
http://scorecard.aclu.org/archival.html
For 2001, the ACLU's overall rankings were 74% for Democrats and 14% for Republicans. *Of Course* you can pick out cases from the 26%. But it is horribly misleading.
Don't trust the ACLU? Look at EFF archives. Same sort of thing.
BTW, if you're one of the "both parties are the same" people, give it a rest and visit >A HREF="http://vote-smart.com">Project Vote Smart, a voting record site. Notice in the summaries that of the 107 different ratings, 93 of them had the parties almost completely stratified on the issue. Now, you can claim that you have a *mix* of alignment with the parties, but to claim that they're the same is just not correct.
Look, I know what it's like. I was raised a Republican. My uncle was even in the House of Representatives. I really, truly believed that they stood for civil liberties. But the voting records don't lie: when it comes to civil liberties, on everything but guns, they're just awful.
You know when it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theatre? When it's on fire.
Well then, next we should be banning:
1. Cameras - they can be used to take pictures of infringing or unlawful material.
2. Tape Recorders - they can be used to produce an audio copy of infringing or unlawful material.
3. Cell Phones - they can transmit infringing or unlawful material.
4. Magazines - in case anybody prints infringing or unlawful material.
5. Books - see point 4.
6. The internet as a whole - transmission of infringing or unlawful material.
...
I know I'm exagerating a bit, but it seems to me this law is like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear bomb - you'll get the desired effect, but totaly blow away things you did not intend to do. I feel innovation will be stifled because companies will be afraid of "possible infringement" and don't want to be liable.
I only hope that Congress wakes up and sees the impact of this law ... but I'm not holding my breath.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.