P2P Bits

yohaas writes "Two Op-Ed stories today in the NY Times address music sharing. In one Kembrew McLeod says that the lawsuits aren't working and gives some alternate suggestions. In the other Harvard Law professor William Fisher says that the industry is going about the situation in the wrong way, concluding that 'the record industry's response to file sharing--trying to block the technology altogether--would generate the worst of all possible results'. Neither article is comprehensive, but they are good read nonetheless." Reader Brill Pappin points out that Canadians aren't afraid of the music industry. And reader The Importance of Being Earnest writes "The INDUCE Act, which would make it a crime to 'induce' copyright infringement, such as by inventing things like the Betamax, has finally been officially introduced. The bill has been renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act [PDF]. In addition to the name change, there has been another slight modication: 'counsel' is no longer part of the proposed statute. Here is a line-by-line refutation of Hatch's introduction [PDF] to the Act. EFF has shown how broad the Act is by writing a mock lawsuit [PDF] suing Apple (for making the iPod), C|Net (for reviewing the iPod), and Toshiba (for supplying hard drives for iPods). Previous Slashdot coverage here."

Comments

Warning -

[calypso15]

If bill is passed, please INDUCE vomitting.

Re:Warning -

[stripe]

This bill is so obvious that I wonder what they are trying to hide. ie Send this one up as a ballon to get shot down while they sneak some other laws thru underneath the "noise" generated by this bill.

Re:Warning -

[zangdesign]

I'm seriously debating the idea of suing the entire membership of RIAA, if the bill passes, under the same rules that drug-crime victims are allowed to sue drug dealers.

Basically, sue them for contributory negligence by supplying the music in the first place.

yay for legalized bribery!

[lordkuri]

great.. more laws BOUGHT to prop up an obsolete business model.

when do we start enforcing the constitution and putting a stop to legalized political bribery?

-lk

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[southpolesammy]

Not a law yet, just a bill. And given Sen. Hatch's track record, I wouldn't worry too much about it becoming law.

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[the_mad_poster]

It's consistent worrying about this flaming asshat's policy of blatantly handing out free kicks in the nuts to consumers on behalf of business interests that has prevented him from having a good track record on bad bills.

By all means - knock the hand wringing up a notch.

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[Anonymous Coward]

Political bribery need to be criminalized and a strict system set up to ensure that no bribery happens under the table. Even if that system involves something drastic like: having the state control all of the politician's money or monitoring them around the clock.

Just as the USA has a separation between church and state there needs to be a separation of industry and state.

back on topic: making it illegal to invent things is a very innovative way to stifle innovation.

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[cynic10508]

when do we start enforcing the constitution and putting a stop to legalized political bribery?

As a representative of the World Ethical Association of Salient Entrepreneurial Lobbyists (WEASEL), I must say that your statements constitute libel. Our attorney, Leonard "J" Crabs will be in contact. For the legal proceedings may we suggest KY.

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[swv3752]

Maybe introduce a mandatory cap on campaign treasuries. If the treasury goes over the cap then the monies go to the State.

If bribery is found to have occured, then federal prison sentences should be imposed on both the elected official and the Company's officers.

Re:yay for legalized bribery!

[dslbrian]

Not a law yet, just a bill. And given Sen. Hatch's track record, I wouldn't worry too much about it becoming law.

Still, given the number of people in Utah who own iPods and CD burners, it makes one wonder why they keep re-electing that clown. Apparently they haven't connected the dots between their diminishing rights and their senator...

Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[Anonymous Coward]

"The INDUCE Act, which would make it a crime to 'induce' copyright infringement, such as by inventing things like the Betamax, has finally been officially introduced. The bill has been renamed the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act"...isn't a loophole for this simply making a multi-funtion method for *whatever* where one of the funtions happens to circumvent or break copyright protections?

Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[kfg]

No need. Everything can already be used to break copyright if you try hard enough. iPods, VCRs? Pffffft! Tip of the iceberg. Here, let me give you a concrete example of using a device to infringe upon a copyright:

Three rings for the elven kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for mortal men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

RUuuuuh roh, Rasro! AMD, ASUS, Addtronics, nVidia and NEC have now all induced me to infringe upon a copyright.

The printing press that made the book I copied it from could itself induce copyright infringment. A pen, a charred stick, both induce copyright infringment. The pen is used for such all the time. A Q-tip can be used as a pen. All artist supplies can infringe both visual art and literary art.

I can take this 10 mm box wrench and use it to scratch "Three rings for the elven kings" in the dirt or on a concrete wall.

The prosecutorial scope of this bill is infinite. It isn't a "loophole" when anything can be used as a copyright infringing device, it's an "Everybody goes to jail free" card.

Here, let me give another example, although I can't do this one directly, so you'll have to imagine the scene:

Here I am, standing in a large empty space, I have no impliments and only have on as much clothing as is necessary to make the image palitable to you, now -- I beging to recite. . .

Three rings for the elven kings. . .

My parents have just become illegal.

KFG

Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[An Onerous Coward]

The goal of this attack on consumers^W^W^W law is to close the very loophole you describe. In the Sony vs. Betamax case, the Supremes ruled that a device was legal so long as it had "substantial non-infringing uses." This law would overrule that decision by saying that anyone who created a technology that "induced" people to copyright infringement should be held responsible for the infringement.

I worry about Senator Hatch. He just doesn't seem to give a rat about whether the laws he proposes are sane, or constitutional.

Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[lynx_user_abroad]

By citing Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang and others, I believe our esteemed Senator has himself comitted an act of infringment.

Further, since he is no doubt aware that the Congressional Record is mandated, by law, to publish such proceedings, he is clearly inducing our government to commit an act of infringment too.

We should be rejoicing; in the proverbial puff of logic, he has just outlawed our government.

err, or something like that...

Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[cbr2702]

Congress cannot "overrule" a supreme court decision. They can use logic or recent evidence to convince the USC justices that the "substantial non-infringing uses" test is no longer a good test, and they can even try for a constitutional amendment if they really want to. But simple law-making cannot force the court to reverse itself here.

Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[kfg]

And Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a trademark of Count Louis Zabrowski. Man, this inducing to infringe upon IP gets deep.

It's also obscene and promotes prostituion. A chit is military scrip and a bang is. . . well, I think you know. Yes, that's the actual derivation of the name of the car. It had a reputation for being, what is often called in the colloquial, a bit of a "crumpet collector."

I wonder if our erswhile student of Brigham Young University and Senator from Utah knows he's saying "I've just been paid, now I'm going to get laid"?

And the book is intended for children!

Please, won't he think of the children?

KFG

Re:Not my area of expertise (legal or IP)

[shotfeel]

Sure they can. IIRC somewhere in the decision it also says that congress is free to change the law to make it illegal, but as the law stands now (now being now and then), it is not illegal.

Unless the courts find the new law to be unconstitutional, they are bound by it in making their decisions. That's part of the separation of powers/checks and balances mojo.

So technically, they can't overrule a court decision, but they can make it moot by changing the law.

I may screw this up...

[trainsnpep]

I remember a quote from a book I read abuot 5 years ago....or something like it.

To make a pig go forward, tie a string around its leg and pull it backward.

The basic instinct of anyone or anything - pig or human (or as the RIAA seems to consider P2P users pigs) - is to go the opposite of the way you're being directed. Now, I'm not saying the RIAA should encourage P2P, I'm just saying they are definitely going about it the wrong way. I've gotta agree, they're doing it all the wrong way. Perhaps some positive campaigns, not negative ones?

Re:I may screw this up...

[I8TheWorm]

Have you seen the MPAA commercials? They're showing pictures of the production crew, editors, etc... and that downloading movies affects these people and their families. Quite the opposite PR campaign that the RIAA is using which is "stop downloading or these large corporate executives will have to buy a smaller yacht."

I wonder if the MPAA campaign is appealing to the public any better?

Re:I may screw this up...

[vDave420]

The basic instinct of anyone or anything - pig or human (or as the RIAA seems to consider P2P users pigs) - is to go the opposite of the way you're being directed.

RIAA bashing will get you your +5, despite being factually inaccurate.

I like bashing RIAA as much as the next /.er, and working at a p2p company, I have good reason.

However, the truth of the situation is that despite having reservations over being told what to do, most people merely accept instructions from authority without questioning them.

I would say that desipte RIAA attmpeting to shut down my business, that they are, in fact, going about the situation in "the right way(tm)", where "right" in this context means "likely to achieve the majority of self interest goals", if for no other reason than because most people don't question "authoritative answers" to issues they encounter.

I fairly recently had a discussion with a friend of mine, who fairly clearly demonstrated this principle. She had heard on the "FOX news" that downloading mp3s would cause you to go to jail. When I asked about this, seeking more details from her (remember, I make p2p software, so am interested in average people's thoughts on the subject) she actively avoided putting any thought into the subject, and instead rapidly retreated to the comfort of TV-delivered answers, as stated in passing moments across the "news" about it being illegal or being responsible for "starving artists" or "child porn".

To me, it just reinforced my oppinion that the average person (and this friend is truly an average American) would rather just accept the "Authoritative answer from TV" to nearly any problem or situation encountered.

What a long post to disagree with your off-the-cuff statement, eh?

-dave-

Re:I may screw this up...

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

Actually, no, they're not a lot more effective.

See, I don't have a television. The only place I have seen one of these ads was in a cinema.

The result of me having to listen to propaganda like that without the benefit of "mute" or "fast forward" buttons, while trying to "do the right thing" and actually *spending* $20 or so on admission to a movie on a non-discounted night, left a distinctly unpleasant taste in my mouth.

If it weren't such a cool movie (LoTR 3), I would have been decidedly dempted to leave, get my money back, and hit bittorrent.

The MPAA, though, is in very little danger from downloads. It will take a bite out of DVD sales, but the box office can never be replaced. I don't know many people with 8-point surround sound and 15-foot high screens, and those few who do aren't usually worried about the cost of a DVD.

Re:I may screw this up...

[nine-times]

Personally, I think you're both partially right- in that people rarely have good reasons for what they do. They are usually A) following instructions, senselessly, merely because they were told to, B) rebelling against authority, senselessly, without even considering whether the authority is right, or C) doing whatever they are most used to doing, senselessly, merely out of habit.

Often people are motivated by a combination of these three, with (A) being dominant for most people most of the time, (B) being more forcefull, generally speaking, in teens, and (C) in older people. Amusingly, sometimes (B) is acutally (A), as people often rebel because someone has told them they should. Now, people never think that's why they do the things they do, but it, quite often, is.

Either way, you can try to predict people as a fun game, but trying to associate reasons to human behavior for any practical purposes is dangerous.

Canada and the music industry

[nostriluu]

Reader Brill Pappin points out that Canadians aren't afraid of the music industry.

Not really true, there's just a bit of confusion going on now. The courts are sorting it out for us and will let us know if we should be afraid or not real soon.

There was a photo of the Culture minister wearing a t-shirt that said "I support canadianmusic.com." Of course, it really should have said "I support thecanadianmusicindustry.com." Two entirely different things.

Canada not afraid

[jeepee]

Pretty logic Canadians are not afraid....
File sharing is legal here...

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html

Re:Canada not afraid

[Otter]

In the Canadians' defense, aren't they already paying a surcharge on recordable media and MP3 players to the music industry? It seems unfair to preemptively tax them for copyright infringement and then complain when they infringe.

Re:Canada not afraid

[56]

I go to the University of Toronto, and a girl from my college, Vic, got her internet connection suspended after a round of threats from, if I remember correctly, Paramount. I guess it could have just been scare tactics, but you wouldn't think the university would be willing to set a precident like that if they didn't feel like they had a reason to back down.

The Vic newspaper said she was using Kazaa, which doesn't make much sense as we have our own UToronto-wide file-sharing network using DC++ that goes at like 7mpbs and has a huge selection...

The article you cite is dated March 31, so maybe the instance I'm referencing took place prior to that date.

Re:Canada not afraid

[Ubergrendle]

I'm not so sure that its legal, just that the CIRA has not come up with a viable copyright infringement legal case that works within our justice system...yet. Once they have a framework, I fully expect numerous lawsuits in a similar vein to the RIAA.

We're in the midst of federal elections here. Unfortunately its the standard issue of compromised choices. I can vote for the Conservatives, who although state they are hands-off for business subsidies and want to eliminate CANCON, they also would override the canadian consititution in issues of gay rights, want to privatise healthcare, and have heavy backing by funadmentalist christian groups from the rural western provinces.

Alternatively, I can vote for the Liberals who have been plagued with spending scandals, are firm supporters of CANCON, and wish to strengthen copyrights rules. Unfortunately they're the more progressive party in terms of personal rights and freedoms and have a less aggressive tax-cut strategy.

The New Democratic Party would raise taxes both on the recording industry and on the CDs... no one would buy them anymore, and the recording companies would go bankrupt. ;)

Ironic...

[Shoeler]

That the RIAA is spending millions or tens of millions or more of their "hard earned" money to combat piracy, but yet they see fit to increase the price of downloaded songs from iTunes, Napster, etc. At $.99 songs were a bargain, but why the hell would I go out to download an album that I can buy on a CD for the same price???

Re:Ironic...

[Fearless Freep]

If the RIAA really actually cared about the *artits* they would spend a lot more time working to make sure the *artists* got more money per CD and didn't get acidentally trapped into vicious contracts

There's a *lot* more the RIAA could de doing to help the people they supposedly reresent then going after file sharing. I mean, if a CD is sold a few less times due to downloads then the artists loses a few hundred bucks and the record company loses thousands. If the RIAA really cared about the money the arist was making or losing, they'd be fighting the record company to change the way contracts work so that the artist *gets* more then spare change per cd

Not that I think filesharing s right in it's own, but who is the RIAA really repersenting? Their targeting seems to be off a bit

Re:Ironic...

[I8TheWorm]

Go to The RIAA's site where they make no bones at all about the fact that they represent the labels. They make an aside that they sort of represent artists, but only because they fight for freedom of speech so the labels can sell more CD's.

Notice, also, that they're a .com, rather than a .org ;)

Other perspectives

[sphealey]

I think it is important to read Jerry Pournelle's perspective as well, however. As a person who has earned his living from selling written works for more than 30 years, he brings a different viewpoint to the discussion, and asks some good questions of the more radical end of the anti-DRM group.

sPh

Re:You US'ians sure have a twisted law system

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we don't have enough money to get our government to listen to us. Don't worry about us, though, it's only a matter of time before enough people realize that guns are a hell of a lot cheaper than lobbying.

It has always been this bad

[nebaz]

I could start about how corporations have bought the congress and that we are going down a road to hell, but unfortunately it has been this way for a long time

Whoa there with the brainwashing

[bigberk]

... address music sharing. In one Kembrew McLeod says that the lawsuits aren't working

Does anyone else notice a pretty serious effort to associate, psychologically, music sharing with illegal activities? The two don't always go together. I share legitimate music on the Internet with strangers. And I legitimately share music I own with close friends. They're trying to brainwash us (and it's working BTW)

There goes ftp...

[jbeaupre]

Can't write ftp code. Could be used to copy files... Worse, don't try reading a childrens book to your kids while away on business (which the US Navy encourages by offering recording services). Unlawful encoding of copyrited material.

Re:There goes ftp...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Even pen and pencils are ilegal then. Those can be used to copy written IP.

Like things are going I expect to see Americans, Canadians and Europeans seeking refuge in Cuba.

That proves it....

[Kenja]

File sharing is legal in Canada and its had no effect on the quality of music and art, just look at all the high quiality IP comming out of the land up north! I even hear that Shatner is back in the recording studio.

Neither of the NYT articles get it..

[CashCarSTAR]

Both assume that somehow the RIAA should play nice with alternative distribution/promotion methods, and somehow that they are trying to do that, just going about it the wrong way.

Frankly, that's foolish.

The RIAA has absolutly nothing to gain by releasing the promotional controls they have over the industry. Why? Because it completly removes all their power. P2P/Webcasting make the threat of the next big thing coming up outside their reach very possible...and possibly very likly.

The fight over P2P and webcasting is not intended to raise money in the short term, it's intended to monopolize the promotional channels to ensure their long-term relevence.

Re:Neither of the NYT articles get it..

[hackstraw]

People, stop thinking of the RIAA as a company. They are not. They don't have any distribution or promotion methods. They do 2 things. They "give" labels to albums that have sold X numbers of copies (gold, platinum, etc), and they go to court. Don't believe me, read it from them.

If I were a lawyer, and couldn't get a real job, playing the RIAA game would certainly pay the bills.

The silver lining in the falling sky...

[Mr. Neutron]

Let's say the EFF's worst nightmare scenario occurs, and legislation eventually gets passed making all sorts of things, from DRM-free hard drives to writing simple Internet clients, to "unprotected" ADCs in every possible consumer device, illegal. Eventually the people are going to realize that we've stumbled into Regulations Hell, and the people will demand a repeal of all of these stupid laws. "Load a program, go to jail" laws will not be popular, and when ordinary people start getting busted for doing utterly benign things, there will be a backlash.

The simple fact of the matter is that the existance of the Internet has made unlimited digital sharing a reality. The genie's out, people love getting free stuff, and nothing short of a police state is going to stop it. The content providers are either going to have to find a business model to take advantage of this, or learn to live with it. It's that simple.

Re:The silver lining in the falling sky...

[Mr. Neutron]

The repeal of Prohibition, passed February 20, 1933, ratified December 5, 1933

Re:The silver lining in the falling sky...

[bigberk]

The simple fact of the matter is that the existance of the Internet has made unlimited digital sharing a reality. The genie's out, people love getting free stuff, and nothing short of a police state is going to stop it.

Exactly. I would take it further toward basics. One of the fundamental design purposes of a digital computer is to copy information perfectly. This is what data storage and retrieval is all about! Right now you're sitting at a desktop machine, the result of billions of dollars of research, all to ensure reliable and efficient data duplication/processing. Trying to restrict actions (like media copying, format conversions, data uploads) is just plain silly when you've got math and physics against you.

What we're seeing is a conflict between the desires of a corporation and the realities of modern digital computing infrastructure. Digital computing is going to win, because we need it.

Here's an analogy. In India, multinationals have tried to enforce patent rights on seeds to prevent locals from sharing crop seeds as they have always done traditionally. But a seed grows when it is placed in the ground, and plants reproduce -- this is nature's design. The people decreed that they will plant and swap seeds despite what law tells them to do.

And soon that's what we will do too (in the digital context) because things are approaching sillyness.

Re:The silver lining in the falling sky...

[sowth]

Except 90% of the things are behind the scenes. The average person won't understand why they can't even copy their own files. They will either believe the propaganda that DRM is "security" or just think their computer is "acting up."

For at least a decade most computers have been buggy as hell and virtually no one does anything about it. They just say "computers are that way, nothing can be done." In fact, many of them demand Microsoft software because they think their computer won't work right without it, but it is the worst.

Don't expect the general public to understand what is going on or try to do anything about it if they do.

Re:The silver lining in the falling sky...

[Anonymous Custard]

and when ordinary people start getting busted for doing utterly benign things, there will be a backlash.

ahhhhh... but therein lies the key... You're right that a law that starts being used to bust everyone will soon be repealed.

But when an unreasonable law is rarely applied, and therefor publicly accepted/ignored, then everyone becomes a criminal, though usually thy're not prosecuted. Think of stupid 55 mph speed limits. Everyone (in my area) drive at 60-80 miles an hour, and 99% never get a ticket, so they never lobby to get the unreasonable law repealed and the limit raised. But for those who do get caught, they have no recourse in court, and the argument "everyone else was driving 80 mph" never proves to be an effective defense, since the law was so clearly broken and teh speeder was so clearly guilty.

Thus, instead of keeping people safe by making people drive more slowly, selective enforcement gives the law enforcers broad, imbalanced powers. They can pull over just about anyone on the entire highway, since very few people drive at 55 mph or lower. I'd bet that statistically 95% of people drive at least 5 mph over the speed limit on the highway. So if they don't like the way someone looks, or they want to meet a cute woman, or any other reason, a police officer can pull over anyone at any time, because they were "speeding".

This new Copyright Inducement law will now be applied to everyone who it could be applied to. It will be applied selectively. Most people, unaffected personally, will not be motivated to get it repealed. Congresspeople will see hat it's not a majority concern in their district, so they won't pay attention to it. And, like the 1% of highway speeders, a few unlucky bastards will find themselves undeniably guilty under the law with million dollar court cases against them.

So thats why it's up to activists and watchdogs to get this legislation stopped before it gets passed.

Re:The silver lining in the falling sky...

[mog007]

Drug prohibition has been going full strength since the 70's, and it hasn't showed any signs of slowing. It's responsible for jailing people that arn't real criminals, just as prohibition did, and it's certainly contributed to crime, just as prohibition did. Not to mention the havoc in third world governments that illegal drugs are netting. Drugs havn't been made legal, and I doubt they will be. Corporations didn't have nearly as much power over the government back in the early 20th century, but they do now. Don't expect a turn around of the DMCA in 10 years, it's not likely to happen.

List of those to sue so far

[f0rtytw0]

I hope this passes since it could be great at generating income for me or at least be a great investment. First off I can sue Dell since I have a computer from them and it was really easy to get and they gave me no warnings on how easy it was to use a computer to commit fraud. Then I can sue Microsoft for making an operating system that allows for easy copy right infringement. Their "copy" and "paste" methods have cost trillions and trillions of lost sales and IP revenue. Then I am going to sue my ISP for giving me internet access. Finally I am going to sue the government for inventing ARPA Net which evolved into the IP stealing networks we have today. There are pleanty of others on this list but I think this is a good start. All I need is a couple hundred million dollars to start the lawsuits but the return on this inventsment is quite substantial.

Their tactics aren't ineffective

[bobhagopian]

Lord knows I don't agree at all with the RIAA/MPAA, and it certainly hasn't stopped me (or probably most other /. readers from "sampling" music "before I buy").

But, their tactics have worked reasonably well, at least as a low-pass filter. I'd say that the lower 80% (in terms of resourcefulness) have significantly reduced or altogether ceased downloading music and videos online. Everyone is afraid at some level of the RIAA, and the effect has been noticeable. Whether or not the RIAA's campaign has been cost-effective is another matter, but that's not to say that it hasn't worked.

Read the fake suit ... then write your Senator

[Random BedHead Ed]

This lawsuit is creepy, but extremely plausible. After reading so much Grooklaw recently I felt like I was reading a real lawsuit. Time to write our senators this weekend. Find your senators here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

And the EFF's action item on this, complete with a sample letter, is here.

We should all make a habit of this - I personally don't write these people often enough.

Re:Read the fake suit ... then write your Senator

[Jalthar]

Furthermore, try to take the time to sign up to the "EFF Action Center". Then, instead of wasting time composing messages on Slashdot to complain about the idiocy of this law, spend your time editing the text of the barebones message EFF provides for you, so as to increase its impact. While sending one of a whole slew of identical emails definitely will show your support for this matter, a well-written (be nice!) "personal" note would have even more effect. Bonus points if you can point to specific companies in your local state that would be adversely affected by this law...

RIAA Members would be first victims of this law!

[GuyverDH]

Lawsuit brought against audio / video equipment manufacturers and the studios that bought them that allowed the music / movies to be recorded in the first place. Then the equipment manufacturers and companies that used them that created the CDs, cassettes, DVDs, and VHS tapes of the movies that allow people to see them and possibly record them. Then we go onto the chain stores who purchase the equipment to play them and the media that contains the information that can be copied. all of this before we ever hit the first end-user law-suit.

Re:Is it just me?

[KevinKnSC]

Um, have you ever been to Utah?

Fight back, why don't you

[chatooya]

Downhill Battle is the group that's best leading the fight to stop the RIAA and the major record labels. Check out the summer concert flyering campaign.

If it passes, write this letter...

[k4_pacific]

Dear Senator Hatch,

In order to comply with the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, I am turning in my now illegal devices which can be used to infringe copyrights to you so that they can be properly disposed of.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

Now, round up a bunch of broken VCRs and old 486 PCs (think thrift stores), and send them, along with your letter to:

Senator Orrin Hatch
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

0.001%

[artlu]

Does anyone know the cumulative total of all the RIAA lawsuits? These are just being instantiated in order to scare the general populus into thinking they get sued. Sure, go download music as much as you want but if you share it you get sued. It is definitely a one way street.

What I don't understand is that I can have an archive of music on a network and someone can "break in" and steal that music from me and then I can get sued by the RIAA. Where is the logic in that!

Aj

GroupShares Inc. - A Free and Interactive Stock Market Community

Re:Problem with Paying a Monthly Fee for file-shar

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, there's a fairly simple solution to that.

Expand the issue to not being merely file sharing (which is an issue of reproduction and distribution) but expand it to the entire scope of copyright (so that this scheme would also apply to creating derivatives, and some public distributions and performances and such), and then instead of paying a monthly fee, don't pay at all. But rather than make this available altogether, which would merely be the abolishment of copyright, instead only permit natural persons to be shielded by this, provided they are acting noncommercially.

Then things become pretty simple: ordinary people don't pay artists at all, unless either a) they want to (because they feel charitable, or can't find an alternative source for the works) or b) they're using it commercially. Businesses would of course have to pay regardless of whether or not they're using the work commercially.

How that money is allocated would be just as it is now: up to the various parties involved to hash out.

Welcome to the Dark Ages.

[BrookHarty]

That's a scary bill, I don't think it will pass, its too vague.

But, I'm getting tired of hearing how some elected fuck nut bought and paid for by special interests are introducing a bill to fuck over Americans.

Key word, ELECTED OFFICAL.

How can I hope for the best for America, when they want to re-elected people like this over and over. When questioning our presidents actions is Un-American? When watching a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 can make your blood boil, and still people don't do anything.

Seems like the Dark Ages.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages.

[Kphrak]

When watching a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 can make your blood boil, and still people don't do anything.

Umm...offtopic, but I still feel constrained to reply: Fahrenheit 9/11 is a "mockumentary". It is not real life. It is a carefully collected montage of video clips designed to preach to the choir. The people who listen to Michael Moore and Al Franken and take them seriously are no different than the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter; they're listening to what they want to hear.

There are a lot of good people to listen to on both sides of the fence, and you can usually find them because 1. They don't resort to childish insults and ad hominem attacks, and 2. They acknowledge the other side's viewpoint and might even agree with some points. Watching Fahrenheit 9/11 might get a chuckle out of some, but your blood isn't going to boil.

And actually, the fact that we have people whose blood will boil over an extremely biased presentation of exactly what they want to hear is the reason why we get such crummy elected officials. People thinking, "Well, he's basically the same as Bush...but...he's not Bush! He says so all the time! I'll vote for him!" or "He's crazy and he spends most of his time fellating the record industry...but at least he's a Republican! I'll vote for him!" will hurt us even worse in the years to come than they are already doing now.

Re:Welcome to the Dark Ages.

[I8TheWorm]

Except that it was a re-published article, and the first link I found to it. Otherwise, I agree that the NYP is a rag.

Funny timing

[I8TheWorm]

I just got off the phone in a lengthy conversation with a friend who is a widely recorded songwriter. You can imagine the arguement between a programmer and a songwriter regarding the issue or piracy. He brought up some interesting points (and I like to think I did too)...

• Songwriters feel the RIAA is going about it all wrong. The RIAA is funded by labels, so of course that's the drum they'll beat the strongest. The NSIA believes the RIAA's PR is attricious, and will (already does) hurt the performing industry. Nobody cares that record labels with a bad business model (read, spend too much money on production and marketing per cd) are either not making as much money or losing some. The NSIA (and others) have and continue to pressure the RIAA to change it's tactics.
• Songwriters are in a different situation than programmers. I can charge whatever I like for my time or my programs. Songwriters are beholden to federal law (in the US) regarding what they can charge which is $0.085 per song per album cut, and $0.015 per song per radio play. Songwriters cannot charge a salary and forego any rights to what they write legally.
• Songwriters love the idea of iTunes and other paid services. Part of reason is their pay per download is likely to go up from their pay per cut. The only downside is the copyright law has to be amended (again) to allow this, and until that happens, iTunes etc.. will have to put the artist money in escrow.
• The media hasn't been any help in that corporations going after the little guy are front page news (ala the McDonald's coffee burn woman), while details that emerge later (also ala the McDonald's coffee burn woman) make small print in the back pages. The little girl that was sued by the RIAA got seven messages from them telling her to stop sharing files.
• 
  
  The RIAA is just another group funded by large corporations to pursue their interests, rather than the interests of individuals, and I could care less if they disappeared tomorrow. I know this, though: Sharing songs with no revenue going to the people that created them is financially harmful to the songwriters. Music isn't something that a person can't live without, and listening to radio is free.
  
  Here's something else I know. If labels like RCA didn't spend $250,000 recording a CD (that could be done for easily 1/10 that cost) they'd have less to cry about in the profit news.

Re:Funny timing

[steve buttgereit]

"Songwriters are in a different situation than programmers. I can charge whatever I like for my time or my programs. Songwriters are beholden to federal law (in the US) regarding what they can charge which is $0.085 per song per album cut, and $0.015 per song per radio play. Songwriters cannot charge a salary and forego any rights to what they write legally."

This sounds like manditory mechanical licensing (might have the exact terms wrong... I can't find my copy of 'This Business of Music' right now). This isn't the fee the songwriter gets paid for an original recording, but rather means two things: 1) that once you record a song and publish publicly, anyone can make another recording of the same song as long as it's substantially true to the original recording (whether the songwriter likes it or not), and 2) the people making the second recording (the licensee) must pay the statutory royalties as you describe them. The right to make the second recording and the payment for that second record is dictated by federal law, but not the original recording of the work. And it's payable to the copyright holder which may/may not be the songwriter.

Songwriters can negotiate for whatever they want for the initial recording and radio play is mostly governed by the public performance license clearing houses (ASCAP/BMI/others).

This is worth a double check, it's been about a decade since I was actively in the business, but I think I've got the facts right in principle if not in specifics.

Cheers!
SCB

Re:Funny timing

[I8TheWorm]

I imagine some cost less, some cost more, but that $250,000 was from real experience.

I played with a band that now has 5 CD out independantly. Earlier in their career, they signed a contract with RCA to put their first CD out. They had their own tunes, but RCA demanded they use some "canned hits" as well, and they were wrestled down to only 4 originals on the CD. During recording, the label began catering sessions from restaurants like Sunset Grill (a non-cheap restaurant in Nashville) and the like. Once this band finally realized the catering wasn't free to them, they had it stopped. Then the cost of studio musicians came into play. Added to that, the producer had to find (at the label/band's expense) some obscure rare microphone for just one song, which halted production. Of course, hotels aren't free for the couple of days that you're not working in the studio. When I was a session bassist in Nashville, I was $50 per song, which is scale to the AFM. However, Michael Rhodes, Mike Brignardello, Glen Worf etc... are more like $300 per song. There are other useless extravagent expenses the label throws in, and there's wasted time spent by the label's hand picked producer, all adding to the cost of production. For this particular band, it came out to $250,000.

The saddest part is after wasting all that money, the label shelved the completed project, not wanting to spend the money on marketing. In reality, they could've had the same quality with $50,000 in the studio, and had $200,000 left over for marketing... or a novel idea, spent less on marketing and having done so, spent less on the project as a whole. But the labels like their model of wasting money on 95% of the artists while 5% of them make the $$ to fund the rest. Anything different would be admitting that the labels have no clue what listeners want, and the Billy Gillman's of the world would never happen.

Re:Funny timing

[steve buttgereit]

Actually, the labels want to keep you in the haze of "I've made it" long after the dotted line is signed.

Ultimately, as long as the perks keep flowing (and yes the band pays, but usually doesn't notice), the band will produce good work, not question the deal as time goes by because they're living the high life, and they keep the carefree/rebel image that is demanded by popular music.

Once the sales have stopped (and the royalties), so do the advances and everything else. But until they decide not to release or the sales stop, they want to foster the rockstar lifestyle in their acts: it's in the label's benefit.

Even large once established acts are like this. I know a guy that was a guitarist for a big name, 80s band (one album went platinum more than several times over). After a time in the spotlight and enjoying the rock'n'roll way, let's just say I've got a nicely surfaced kitchen table right now because the guy's got to make a living one way or another. The royalties? Mechanical Syncronization rights and publishing? HA! That's all for the label.

This is why I got out of music as a profession. There were better ways to make money and I can write the music I want and not be beholden to anyone.

Cheers!
SCB

Suing Makers of MP3 Players

[CHaN_316]

EFF has shown how broad the Act is by writing a mock lawsuit [PDF] suing Apple (for making the iPod)

Ummm...that's not too far from reality. The RIAA tried to sue Rio for making MP3 players in the late 90's. I refer you to this wired article.

Media complicity in legislative corruption.

[bgeer]

I was reading this and I got to thinking...

"Senator Orrin Hatch today introduced a bill that supporters say would prevent software companies from profiting from Internet piracy. But opponents say it would outlaw legitimate technology, possibly even VCRs. Orinn Hatch's campaign received contributions from the bill's industry supporters in his last election."

Sounded like a Headline News blurb until the last sentence huh? Just imagine if news outlets were required to report on Politicians' conflicts of interest when they were mentioned in connection with legislation that would benefit their backers. Just imagine how much effect that little disclaimer would have on the mind of people listening to the story. We could do a better job of controlling campaign influence than McCain-Feingold does without limiting free speech at all. Whores like Hatch and Boxer would be exposed on a regular basis. IANAL though, so what do you guys think?

Re:Media complicity in legislative corruption.

[Sgt York]

That's actually an interesting point. In science, you have to go through lengthy disclosures about any potential conflict of interest. If they exsist, they must be disclosed in any publication or presentation you make. It doesn't restrict what you can submit for publication, but putting it out there that AstraZeneca funded your research puts a big grain of salt into your claim that Nexium is clearly superior to Zantac.

This kind of thing is not limited to any small number of Congressmen; it's ubiquitous. They all need to have their laundry aired on a regular basis.

Re:Fingers crossed....

[sixteenraisins]

Even more frightening (and this may be slightly OT) is that if this bill passes and becomes law, it could (will?) open the door for similar legislation reaching to other types of technology as well.

Think about it - if they outlaw a certain piece of technology solely because it could be used to circumvent copyright (the iPod is a good example), then how long will it be before some capitol hill schmuck decides to author a law making other devices illegal? After all, a rifle could be used to shoot someone, a car could be used to race illegally, and a toaster could be used to electrocute someone in the bathtub.

I'm not necessarily saying that this would certainly happen; only that a bill like this would open the door for it. You just watch.

A concerned Internet User

[Psymunn]

Man, there's this great ad campaign in Vancouver, BC where a kid gets caught stealing a candy bar and just tells his dad 'but you steal satellite singals.' It's brought to you by the concerned statelite people of north america or something.
Man, i love those 'Concerened X's of Y.' Who are these people. Are they a a group of house wives (or husbands) who get together and say 'our society is falling to pieces, we must raise money to publish adds that will make satelite-single-stealers/internet-pirates/movie-bo otleggers feel bad about themselves?!? I just wish the cable companies or record companies would flat out admit it's them who are frowning apon what you are doing
At the end of teh day, I'm goign to give up UT because 'killing people online is still killing.'
And remember children: 'When you download MP3s, you Download Communism!!!'

List of Outlawed Technologies

[Apocalypse111]

Assuming that this passes, here is a partial list of technologies that will shortly be outlawed, as they could be used to violate IP laws...

Portable MP3 Players (iPod, Rio, etc)
Tape Decks
Record Players
DVD Players
Camcorders
VCR's
Computers
Cell Phones
Voice Mail
Cameras
Typewriters
Pencils
Pens
Paint Brushes
Chalk

This list subject to change at will without notice.

INDUCE Act wording includes two tests...

[Kurt Gray]

The way I read the text of the INDUCE Act that offending "activity" would have to clearly be intended for infringement and "...including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability" so this is not describing any software or device that facilitates piracy but rather software or devices that clearly have a purpose of nothing other than piracy *and* the creators of said tool are using it as a revenue source. So I'm not sure how this would apply to cases where a kid writes a crack tool and releases it for free... since there's no revenue, no commercial viability, does this not apply?

Re:INDUCE Act wording includes two tests...

[ClickTheVote]

1) Judge Patel found and the 9th Circuit affirmed in the Napster case that barter is commercial activity. Making 'unauthorized' copies is commercial activity.

2) INDUCE trumps the Supreme Court's "Betamax" ruling that a device be "merely capable" of substantial non-infringing uses to be legal. If INDUCE becomes law any device, service or person that induces a person to infringe copy-rights is infringing (and therefore most likely a felon). Once they shut down Limewire and Morpheus as companies, they will go after everyone running those apps and the coders who build anything that touches copy-righted works.

INDUCE is on the fast track to passing and becoming law. You can help defeat this overly broad and ill conceived piece of legislation by faxing your reps in Congress now. Click The Vote has free tools to help you do this.

Sure, blame Canada Again....

[axis-techno-geek]

Just because home copying is legal in Canada, ie. you borrow my disc and make a copy that is legal under the Canadian Copyright Act. Making a copy and giving it to somebody is illegal.

We are all presumed guilty anyway, as we are charged a tax on blank CD's for money to go to the "poor starving" artists. SOCAN has collected the money, but last I had heard none (or very little) had ever made it to the artists as it was mainly used to pay for the administration of collecting the fee.

Canadian CD's

[spectasaurus]

It's not surprising that Canadians are not flocking to pay sites for music. At $.99 USD for each song, an entire CD will often cost more than $20 CAD. Most CD's in Canada are already priced at $12-$16 CAD. Why would we want more expensive, inferior quality music in the form of MP3 or other?

Canadian Culture Minister

[CHaN_316]

The Canadian Culture Minister you're talking about is Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, and she has a bill to make downloading music not legal again. However, we are days away from the Canadian election, and the riding she's in (Louis-Hébert, Quebec) is a tight race according to this site. Make sure you check this site again after the election (June 28th) to see her fate. And for our Canadian slashdot readers, please get out and vote!

P2P is not a big deal

[t_allardyce]

The bottom line is: I don't think its that much of an issues that the music labels might loose a business model entirely. Jobs have been lost for less and just because a small group of over-paid people happens to be on the line it certainly doesnt mean we should loose rights. Factories close all the time and 1000's loose thier jobs just like that, and all it gets is a 10 minute news item. No-one ever suggests we should have continued the manual production line instead of using robots. There are far fewer people who stand to loose much over loss of CD sales and most of them make enough in a year to retire for ever. The industry is saturated with bad music and acts that all sound the same and frankly it wouldnt be such a disaster if it collapsed. I don't believe for a minute that suddenly no-one would produce music, small-time groups probably wouldnt even tell the difference, neither would those with serious fan-bases, music concerts would still be popular, but you probably wouldnt be able to make millions off crappy boy-bands that churn out the same headache inducing crap every month and the side-effect would be many people not bothering to start their own group because "theres not enough money in it" oh what a loss!

For years CDs have been sold on the economic principle of supply and demand - people have been prepared to pay nearly as much as a concert ticket to buy a CD (say 1/2 - 1/3) because in their head they figure "i can listen to the CD 100's of times so it must be worth it. Meanwhile the labels and to some extent the artists have thought "well i can sing this song once and sell it 1000's of times!" Now the consumers have started to figure that they can get music for free, this is also how supply and demand works, no its not the same as shop-lifting or raiding the warehouse! so get over it. Governments have no right to screw with our rights over this.

Re:Fingers crossed....

[PitaBred]

Hell, if this crap passes, I say we sue Apple, C|Net and all these 'enablers', so that when we lose the suits, the law will be more or less invalidated by the courts.

DRM and copyright

[spreer]

I think that it is clear from this piece that Pournelle has conflated two different arguments in his head. One is the one that Doctorow has made against DRM, saying it is at its core unworkable and bad for all those involved. The other is the one made so often by P2P users that they should not have to pay for copyright works.

Somewhere Pournelle seems to have jumped to the conclusion that giving up on DRM means giving up on copyright altogether. That is not the case.

-snip-
So what we are really saying here is not do individual authors and composers have a moral right to dictate how their creations shall be distributed, but do they have rights in the legal sense that will be enforced by laws and both civil and criminal courts?

Doctorow and his group say "not really." He also chooses his examples carefully, most of them out at the extremes; but everyone knows that hard cases make bad law, and while the law has to deal with extreme cases, it isn't normally written with only those cases in mind.
-snip-

Imagine, for example, that Apple talked the RIAA into allowing them to remove DRM from songs sold via the iTunes Music Store. What kind of effect would this have on music piracy? Not much, I would argue. All of those songs are already available as mp3s on the P2P networks. The cat is already out of the bag. Adding more (legit) copies of those mp3s will not contribute substantially, partially because people who use the legit services are less likely to use P2P networks.

There is a point that Steve Jobs made when he announced the iTunes music store. The core of it is this: if you make a legal option that is superior to the free options (easier to use, more convenient) most people will chose it. Current technology has made infringement much easier, and you will never be able to stamp it out entirely. What you can do is provide options that more people will want to use.

Well, what if I built an illegal free iTMS? I don't think there is a way to do this. Anything centralized can be busted, and anything distributed will most likely be less reliable.

It is still be the job of law enforcement to try to keep large-scale infringment from happening. Technology makes infringement that much easier, but DRM does not really make it much harder. This doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and give on copyright. But it doesn't mean DRM is the right answer either.

Leahy and Frist's comments about the bill

[pridkett]

Please note, this isn't just a one sided issue. This bill also has it's cosponors Bill Frist (Senate Majority Leader) and Tom Daschle (Senate Minority Leader). We have to call our Senators NOW to stop this.

Also of interest, might be the comments made by Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Frist (R-TN). I've got the entire senate discussion of the bill available on my web page. You should read it and the EFF's rebuttal before calling your senator.

Take action now and we can kill this before it ruins innovation.

Still has to be proven in court

[canfirman]

(Preface: I am not a lawyer, but here's my $.02):

Even if this did make it into law, it would still have to be proven in court. I would think that most "defendants" under this law would try to prove the legislation in it's current form is too broad in scope, as virtually anything can be used to infringe at least something that's "copyright protected". I'd be willing to bet that some judge looks at this and dismiss the case.

If I remember correctly, American law is unenforceable outside of it's borders, but it'll be interesting to see if other countries (e.g. Canada) follows suit.

Re:You US'ians sure have a twisted law system

[Hatta]

How is this funny? We need to be talking about revolution, and we need to be talking about it now.