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."
the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).
Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be used to kill as well as heal. But since the rest of his top contributors are pharma co's he isn't likely to raise that as an issue is he?
Sigs cause cancer.
I haven't been following too closely, but it seems like he just keeps coming up with stuff like this, and just keeps getting smacked down, because even an idiot can tell it's not reasonable. Why doesn't he find a new cause?
Orrin Hatch has been in the pocket of the recording industry for ages. Could it have something to do with the disproportionate royalties he receives for his avocation as a "popular song writer?"
Congress can't overturn a decision by the Supreme Court, thats a convenience of having a well-designed government. What they can do is change the law, which would effectively allow someone to sue using the Betamax issue all over again. If this case makes it to the US Supreme Court, the Court could choose to apply the new law, or the old, or throw out the new, or the old, or somewhere in between.
So while Orrin Hatch may be a sleazy politician, he's not the Darth Vader who will pervert and destroy the entire copyright system in the US. (yeah, yeah, the ??AA has already done that, ha, ha, +1 Funny)
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced "sometime next week," a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure.
Does anyone know who opposes this in the Senate? They deserve a cookie.
is a bill outlawing Oriin Hatch, the RIAA and others like them that are anti-american and try to take away our freedoms.
IANAL, but won't this have a "chilling effect" on technology? Isn't it one thing to go after people who break the laws, rather than going after people who might offer ideas on how to break the law (or ideas with other applicability)? I guess this is one of the reasons I can not find anything which will record streaming media on the internet, and I have looked and looked and looked. One of my professors has his lectures streamed on-line, and I wanted to copy it to watch it later, but could not. I guess with this law, if someone made software to copy that streaming content, it would be illegal. Oh well, less power to the people I guess.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes.
:
just that last bit again
they could be used for unlawful purposes
that applies to, well, everything. I could easily murder someone by smashing their head in with my laptop.
Surely, by this logic, my laptop should be banned, given that it can be used for an illegal purpose?
or is it just friday and I'm just as drunk as your average legislator? hell, I can't tell.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Ralph Nader called Washington DC a "corporate-occupied terrority," and I think we need little proof beyond this bill to bolster his claim.
Giant corporations walk into a congressman's office, just flat-out order him to introduce a bill that their lawyers wrote that suspends the Constitution so that they can make a little bit more money, and the congressman goes right along with it, apparently without a moment's hesitation.
As far as enforcing this law, I cannot imagine in a million years that any standard of fairness would even be considered in its application. As Drummond states in Inherit the Wind, "I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish. I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches -- its upholders as well as its defiers."
When people who innocently use technology like TiVo and VCRs and CD burners start getting randomly sued and arrested by RIAA and MPAA members, I can only hope that the public outcry is strong enough to reverse the trend. But I fear that the opposite will happen, that we'll all be huddled under our bedclothes, shivering in fear that the giant corporations will come after us next. Terrified that armed corporate goon squads, deputized under the banner of protecting copyright, will break our doors down, confiscate our computers and home entertainment systems, and lead us off in handcuffs, we'll do anything to protect ourselves from them, even if it means testifying against a neighbor, friend, or family member. Boy, do I hope that I'm just being paranoid.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04192003/utah/49303 .asp -- "I'm not here to justify polygamy," he said. "All I can say is, I know people in Hildale who are polygamists who are very fine people. You come and show me evidence of children being abused there and I'll get involved. Bring the evidence to me."
Hatch said he could not take unsubstantiated claims and enforce law, and he would not "sit here and judge anybody just because they live differently than me. There will be laws on the books, but these are very complicated issues," Hatch said.
Here's a plan. Go to the pawn shop, buy the junkiest, most disgusting VCR you can find, and mail it to any senator listed on the bill. Bonus points if it is a) old, b) heavy, or c) not working. Enclose with it a note that says something to the effect of "Dear Senator: As a loyal and concerned citizen of the United States, I am hereby turning over equipment which could potentially be used in copyright infringement, pursuant to the INDUCE Act which you are supporting. I intend to continue turning confiscated equipment over to you until I receive word that the Act has been rescinded. Sincerely, a patriotic constituent."
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Unfortunately, if it's got Bill Frist as a co-sponsor, it does have a pretty good chance of passing. The political clout of the Majority Leader is not something to take lightly.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I have a Sony DVCam. I can record images of my little nephew running around, and of my trips and stuff, but its digital, so I could make perfect copies of things that I have recorded. I can also set the camcorder up in a theater (if i was so inclined). So should that be illegal?
An iPod can put legally bought songs on it, It can also play pirated MP3's.
Hell, if we want to go far enough, I can kill someone with a hammer, or a computer monitor if i really needed to. Should Craftsman be liable becuase I used their tool outside its scope and purpose? Cause thats what this bill will do to digital copying.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Well the great thing about this plan is that as soon as most americans can be made guilty of a felony for owning a vcr, they can be relieved of their voting rights as well. Then the senators and congressmen can just vote themselves into office, and pass the office down by inheritance.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
In case you hadn't noticed, the crap that gets passed into US law gets forced on the rest of the world soon after...
Yeah, like democracy. Say whatever you want, but "the Divine Right of Kings" sure had a swell ring to it.
Assume this law passes, so it's illegal to show someone how to infringe copyright. Now certainly, murder is a worse crime than copyright infringement, so if it's illegal to show someone how to infringe copyright, it should also be illegal to show someone how to commit murder. Right?
Once that law passes, you sue the MPAA for every violent R-rated movie for showing people how to use a gun to commit murder (or they just quit making those kinds of movies, in which case they lost a large percentage of their revenues).
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Providing this bill does fail to pass, the end result has a positive side to it. Americans seem not to pay attention to anything that doesn't borderline a conspiracy theory, and completely asinine legislation like this is the best chance to wake the citizenry to the abuse of our legislative system perpetrated by the entertainment industry over the last 8 years.
I know many of my friends and family did not really take an interest in these kinds of issues until several months (years now?) back when lobbyist for entertainment interests managed to introduce a law granting 'policing' powers to copyright holders.
Abstract concepts like the limitation of copyright lengths for the public good and 'access' prevention affects on fair use do not register with most people - that the government is outlawing VCR's will.
I too am somewhat surprised that the popular media is not more on this, though I guess I shouldn't be given that many media organizations are owned by the same interests trying to introduce these steaming piles of legislative rubbish.
'...aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures...' using this definition, would not ALL providers be subject to this law?
"Kazaa is designed specifically to be capable of sharing copyrighted material, with the intent to share or proliferate. If you downnload a copyrighted song with it, you are using it for exactly what it was made for. "
Right? Or does Kazaa have non-infringing uses? Does a gun have non-killing uses? The question is one and the same: do you ban the item for its controversial use.
Here is a gun that was not designed specifically to be capable of destroying flesh - quite the opposite. With this counterexample I have refuted your argument in its totality.
In one post you've dismissed America's millions of sport shooters, while I have dismissed the four or five bands trying to use Kazaa as a distribution mechanism. Think about it.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
Photocopiers, photographics cameras, camcorders, cd burners, computers, printers (not only the one attached to your pc, I am also talking about the traditional tree killers ones), telephones, cellphones, TV, radio.
All of these technologies (which today all use digital mediums) can be used to break the copyright law. So under the new law will be illegal.
USA can say hello to the dark ages.
Mexican and Canadian soldiers will be arriving one year after this law comes in effect. Welcome your new copyright "thieves" overlords!!
Using a recursive acronym for a bill that will make copyright holders even MORE powerful?
I'll bet Darl McBride is behind this somehow.
To stop gun crime, simply remove the reasons for gun crimes to happen. If everyone was reasonably well off, with a certain level of comfort, why would they shoot anyone?
If you outlaw guns, it just means only the most hardcore criminals will have the guns. Outlaw digital copying, and only the most hardcore copiers will keep doing it.
Even if it was $1 for a cd/dvd/whatever, someone somewhere would still be copying and stealing it. Even if it was *free*, someone would rather download it than run down to the store just to pick it up.
My point being, that it is *impossible* to prevent theft unless you get everyone to agree not to steal. It's called the Social Contract. However, we are *never* given the choice to enter into that contract, we're *born* into it. Effectively slaves to laws we never agreed to in the first place.
Some people reject this forced contract purely on that basis, even if they don't know it. The teenage stereotypical rebellion? The black market? I digress.
You can make an infinite amount of laws, it will not change anything. You can imprison the *entire* population, and people will still pass around contraband. The only thief that won't steal is a dead thief, and dead thieves don't buy *anything*.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Apparently, you're not familiar with Utah politics.
The only way Hatch is getting out of office is if he decides to retire. The people here are so brainwashed by his campaigns that nobody stands a chance against him. First off, he's been in there forever, so tells us that gives him an advantage to get more for Utah. Which is probably true, from what I've heard about Congress. Secondly, he's Republican, so he's pretty much a shoe-in. He could go on national TV and burn the flag and the original copy of the Constitution and probably still get elected here. *sigh* It's sad, really.
Yes, I live in his district, no I didn't vote for him, EVER. Yes, I have written him countless times and gotten the same form-letter back talking about how great copyright is and that he has to stop the evil pirates. (AArrghhh!!)
No, I won't be voting for him this year. I typically vote Libertarian these days. Not to mention, I pretty much agree with your assessment and feelings about him. I'll write myself in before I vote for that a$$hole, and I don't want the job!
When Otto von Bismarck invented the concept of public pensions in the late 1800s, the retirement age of 65 was chosen -- and life expectancy was 45.
When Social Security went into effect in the 30s, with a retirement age of 65 based on the German system, life expectancy was 63.
Come to Carousel! Come for renewal! There is no Sanctuary, and runners deserve their fate at the hands of the sandmen.
This brings up an interesting point. People hate Communism. Do you know why? Because Communism involves the State stepping in and telling you where you can live, how much money you can make, how much of X product you can purchase, what ideas you are allowed to express, what church you can go to, and so forth. The State takes away your rights.
Now we are faced with more and more right-wingers who want to regulate our lives to death to satisfy a few greedy entertainment executives. Load a "bad" program? Go to jail. Buy a VCR? Go to jail. Devise an algorithm to uncripple your own media? Go to jail. This is the world that faces us, if this agenda is successful.
Bill of Rights? We're talking about legislation specifically designed to take our rights away.
Now, back under your bridge, Troll.
dinner: it's what's for beer
"I'm hoping he'll raise taxes though, since part of fiscal conservatism is that you shouldn't spend more than you have."
Um, the fiscally conservative response would be to cut government spending, not raise taxes.
By some things I've read...this can be as low as $30K/yr. I make more than that....I consider middle income to be from about a low of $35 to under $100K. Depending on your location in the US.
I think we could spend a whole lot less in welfare, and govt. assistance programs. Get people to work. I think the medicare bill needs to be immediately revamped, to let the govt. bargain with the pharm. companies...THAT would significantly lower govt./public costs. I'm not economist, but, from what I read...the deficit as related to GNP isn't actually that bad...but, is starting to get scary. Considering all that's happened to the economy (9/11, corporate scandals, .com bust, wars), I can understand the deficit a bit....
I don't think it is that bad to cut the funds to the congress or to the states. I believe if they have money...they WILL spend it, period. The only way to get them to spend less...is to dry up the sources. Unfortunately, they haven't seen light of this yet. There is a ton of waste in the govt..we need to make govt., in general, smaller....less involved in people's lives...and certainly not a paymaster for people on the dole....and not as a wealth redistribution system as I see them now.
I'll listen to Kerry...but, hope he says something substantial. All I've heard him say so far for middle income tax relief...is targeted tax breaks for those with kids or other targeted breaks. That's not fair. If he said he'd cut all taxes on people making between $35-$100K, regarless of marriage status, if you have kids or not, etc. and based soley on if you work and pay taxes. Yes, I'd say that would be real reform. I'd definitely listen to that.
But, saying giving tax breaks based on your lifestyle or family status instead of just how much money you make...I don't consider that at tax break of any kind. It has to apply to all people in a salary range.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I wanted to express my dismay at the continuing assault on the public's rights with regards to Sen. Orrin Hatch's forthcoming introduction of legislation that amends Title 17 and the copyright laws. The "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act" that Senator Hatch is preparing to introduce contains an amendment to Title 17 in Section 2 of the Act which has nothing to do with the unlawful exploitation of children. Specifically, the amendement appears to make it a crime for anyone to develop, discuss, buy, sell or recommend tools or information that will allow for the "fair use" rights of average citizens to be realized if these tools might also be used for copyright infringement.
Are we going to outlaw the VCR Senator? Are we going to go to jail for using copy machines? Are we going to discourage research into cryptography by academia and computer security professionals such as myself? Are our legislators going to continue catering to the special interests that are lining their war chests with contributions or are they going to stand up for the public's right to use content they purchase as they wish?
The worst part of this is that Senator Hatch is hiding this amendment inside of a bill supposedly designed to punish unlawful child exploitation. Now what person in there right mind would come out in opposition to laws against unlawful exploitation of children? It is a totally underhanded ploy by Senator Hatch to pass legislation aimed at helping some of his largest contributors, while sneaking it into a bill that would make a colleague think twice about voting no on the other provisions hidden inside.
I urge you to work hard to strip the copyright law changes from this bill when it is introduced into the Senate and, if not abandon them completely, at least address them separately. These deserve to be argued on their own and not as part of some other bill or compromise.
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled against Hollywood in the 1984 Betamax case when they determined that any device capable of a substantial non-infringing use was legal. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 shored up the rights of the average citizen and made home taping legal given the properly used equipment and blank media. Let's build on these rulings and continue to represent your constituents rights, not trample them into the ground. If the old business models of the media conglomerates cannot adapt to the technology of today or the future, then they need to come up with a new business-model or go broke. Our legislature should not be in the business of restricting the public's rights so that outdated companies that do not innovate and move with the times continue to survive.
I believe the gaining momentum and popularity of Open Source is directly related to the increase in out of control copyright and patent policies. The more barriers/restrictions/controls corporations put on their customers to use the content that they paid for, the more people will turn away from their product to pursue a more open channel for content.
I personnally swore never to buy another version of MS Office because of the protection put on the software to lock it to a single machine. I don't appreciate being treated like a criminal, and now I can just use Open Office instead. I used to buy a lot of MS software but now I won't touch it.
Same with Intuit Quicken. I won't buy any more of their products because of the way they treat their customers. Even though I used to buy their quicken software every year (up to 2001).
Both companies have lost out on a lot of purchases I used to make because they started treating me like a criminal and controlling how I used the software I paid for.
I think open projects like Wikipedia and Open Source text books will thrive and blossom in this hostile copyright environment that has been created in the US. Information wants to be free of the represive regime corporations put it in.
I'm a Brit, so I'm a little bit out of the loop here, but EVERY time the name of Orrin Hatch appears in the media, he is pimping and lobbying for Hollywood/Madison Avenue.
Maybe I haven't quite grasped the niceties of American politics, but aren't senators supposed to do things in the interests of their constituents? Or is everyone in Utah a rabid copyright litigant?
Maybe you should have let them secede back in 1862 and saved yourselves a whole lot of trouble..
When Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable type in 1440 A.D., an awakening revolution swept the world -- The Age of Enlightenment. People could afford to buy printed books, and they could be printed cheaply. Education was no longer only for just the wealthy! The first book to be printed en mass? The Bible. Now it could be argued that someone, somewhere along the line held the copyright to the collection of books, if not the collected authors of each book. Was Gutenberg the first person to rip off a book for his own gain? Previous to the printing press, the bible was hand written by monks, and sold to the wealthy. If lesser people had access to a set of Scripture, it was memorized and recited to others as chants.
Growing up as a kid, the first thing I did with my paper route money was to buy a cassette recorder from Montgomery Wards. (with condenser mike, no less) I wanted to record my favorite songs off the radio, cutting out the drivel, leaving something worth listing to. Maybe that made me a criminal at age 12? Oh, wait, we already have teenage criminals that basicly copied and traded music like I did -- I just did it in a less technical way. (swapping tapes at school)
Maybe, if extremes could be acted out, we would have our own Fahrenheit "2005", where it would be illegal to have anything that could infringe on anothers copyright. The copyright police could go around and smash and burn anything they felt was in violation.
Contributors? How about the public library! If I can go to the library and check out a book, but if I need/want the volume, I can make a photo copy of it, or even hand write the text down for distribution or my own use. Should we ban the library also, as contributors? How about a pencil? I can write the lyrics to a song down and walk around singing it -- thus infringing on the song writers copyright.
This bill reeks of Orwellian overtones. :-(
Newt-dog
My Doctor prescribed daily nasal saline irrigation, hehe
I'm currently a resident of Utah and I cannot tell you how embarrassed I am every time I hear "Senator Orrin Hatch ..." come up in a newscast. This man wants also to amend the Constitution to permit naturalized citizens (meaning not born here) to run for the Presidency just because he's buddies with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I do everything I can to spread the word that this guy is a class A dunce and some people I talk with are coming around and wising up. You can't afford to be utterly clueless about tech in a tech-driven world, it's starting to spill over into our basic rights for crying out loud!