Senate Takes Aim At P2P Providers

thejoelpatrol writes "The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by everybody's favorite senator, Orrin Hatch, is moving to outlaw P2P entirely by making it illegal to produce such applications. Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free music."' So, when was the last time that Kazaa told kids to steal music? Shouldn't the parents be the ones looking out for their kids? The RIAA is (surprise!) in favor of this, while P2P groups are (surprise!) opposed."

Comments

Foreign jurisdictions

[pjt33]

So P2P applications will only be written by people outside the US. If he wants to stop P2P, he should try outlawing possession of a P2P app.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[wulfwulf]

Or maybe we should start early in kindergarten and eliminate the part where we teach children how to share. Timmy might be a bully now, keeping all the juiceboxes for him, but 15 years down the road he'll be a law abiding citizen.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, how could we defind a P2P app: anything that can transmit data from one person (source) to one or multiple people over a digital source. So if you outlaw P2P apps, wouldn't, say AIM, FTP's and even email be illegal? Wow, there just went the internet, o well, at least the RIAA is happy!!

Re :Foreign jurisdictions

[protect imagination]

"Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal [their software]."

xandros oce download (via bittorrent)

Lindows Offers Free OS Download (via bittorrent)

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[boaworm]

Or even better, we could start eliminating kids that are likely to code such appliations in the future!

I bet RIAA would be in favor of that as well :-)

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Allen Zadr]

Agreeing with you, but why stop there...

"...those who a "reasonable person" would believe "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" copyright violations."

Why stop at copyright violations then? Timmy's mom should have the right to sue gun makers for "inducing and procuring" gunshot wounds. That way if Timmy get's mad when someone makes him share his juiceboxes - his parents can sue the Gun makers. It obviously isn't Timmy's fault.

I could have sworn that it was already illegal to aid, abet or induce any crime. A completely useless law.

Re:Re :Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what honorable senator Orrin Hatch is talking about. These companies are leeches which have sunk their sharp parasite teeth deep into SCO's intellectual property.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Dashing Leech]

I'd go a step further. Instead of just eliminating teaching children to share, we should instill in them the instinct to not share what is theirs as a means of protecting their property rights. We can also re-define "bullying" as "property rights enforcement".

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[The_Mr_Flibble]

does this mean a beowulf cluster would be illegal ? Think of the sigs man

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Allen Zadr]

As mentioned in the Digital Imprimatur (recommended reading) all of the technologies that you mention are facilitated by a designated server in their common use.

There are Peer-to-Peer uses of IM, FTP and EMail, but these uses are being degredated by firewalls.

That is to say that every hacker that decides they want to try their hand at cracking, or play with some script kit is directly causing the further segmentation of the internet into discreet networks connected only by the proxy servers hardened for use on the "open" internet.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[portnux]

Why stop there, why not just eliminate children altogether? Then the entire country could eventually be populated by short-sighted OLD FARTS like Orrin Hatch who could sell out the country without those nagging and inconvenient issues like "What effects are my corrupt actions going to have on future generations?".

Orrin Hatch is just one member of my list of people that would make the world a better place by simply changing location to roughly six feet closer to its center.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[badboy_tw2002]

We've been trying that forever. For some reason the football team seems to let a few geeks through each year. We need to improve the systems we have, not make new ones!

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Technician]

So P2P applications will only be written by people outside the US. If he wants to stop P2P, he should try outlawing possession of a P2P

In other news, the senator introduced a bill making it illegal to sell wine in containers larger than a single serving as large containers promoted overconsumption.

In other news, the senator intorduced a bill outlawing making cars with accelerator pedals as it encourages drivers to speed.

In other news, the senator introduced a bill that prohibited stores for displaying candy within the reach of children as it encouraged theft by young children.

In other news, the senator intorduced a bill that would prohibit the manufacture of copy machines because they encourage duplication of copyrighted work.

In other news, the senator introduced a bill that would prohibit the manufacture of a video recorder because they encourage the duplication of copyrighted work,

In other news......

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[rpresser]

The integration of UPNP into common broadband routers has lessened this effect, or at least made such lessening more likely. An application can now request a port for receiving without there being a genius at the keyboard.

ISP firewalling and port blocking still chills, of course, but I don't think the sky is black yet.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[swb]

Timmy might be a bully now, keeping all the juiceboxes for him, but 15 years down the road he'll be a law abiding citizen.

And a paid lobbyist for the RIAA and the MPAA.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know much about Ray Ozzie's Groove, but it sure does sound like P2P. If so, it is interesting to note that the US govt is a customer . . . http://www.groove.net/default.cfm?pagename=Custome rList

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[drtomaso]

I am afraid that you hit the nail right on the head with that comment.

The bill doesn't set up new criminal or civil penalties for those who "induce" copyright violations, but it creates a new class of people who can be sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement -- those who a "reasonable person" would believe "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" copyright violations. The "reasonable person" standard is a broadening of the standard that usually applies to contributory or vicarious copyright infringement...

Name any internet application that sends data between points A and B that doesnt "aid, abet, induce or procures" (NOTE the OR) copyright violation. Essentially, this bill would expose any computer technology firm, any programmer, any hobbyist, to vinidictive lawsuits from an intrenched media industry. Essentially, this gives the *AA "veto" power over new communications technology development in this country.

Since all internet/communications development will be at risk inside the US, all of this development will be moved outside of the US. In case you have been asleep for the last 15 years, this industry is the cornerstone of the explosive economic growth enjoyed by the US. Senator Hatch et al would like that all to end, just so the *AA and their extremely wealthy member corporations can salvage their failed business model.

For this reason, not necessarily alone, is this bill extremely bad for all Americans. Write these jerkwads, especially if you live in their states, and express your displeasure with their attempts to destroy your nation's currently very fragile economy.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[kabocox]

Timmy might be a bully now, keeping all the juiceboxes for him, but 15 years down the road he'll be a law abiding citizen.

You mean he'd be a corporate manager?

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Havokmon]

Remember, how could we defind a P2P app: anything that can transmit data from one person (source) to one or multiple people over a digital source. So if you outlaw P2P apps, wouldn't, say AIM, FTP's and even email be illegal? Wow, there just went the internet, o well, at least the RIAA is happy!!

SMB is P2P. Personally, I think anything that moves us away from that P2P crap and back to Netware client/server is good for the world.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Allen Zadr]

The sky is not yet black, yet the 'gnutella' spec has already been written for "Super Nodes" (translates loosely to [dynamically allocated] designated servers) to get around firewall issues.

UPNP can be a useful technology in the SOHO, however, because of the inherant security risks of being able to configure a firewall remotely (even if from a "trusted" interface), UPNP support on firewalls is "disabled" by default on most firewalls. The help item for UPNP is usually something like this - "ALLOWS DYNAMIC REMOTE CONFIGURATION OF THE FIREWALL - IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS, LEAVE THIS FEATURE OFF."

Again... you are expected to be a genious to use these technologies.

Finally, I predict that port blocking will soon go away... Port blocking is funny. Ports are arbitrary numbers that are standardized on "designated servers", yet there is absolutely no requirement for individual servers or computers to follow the port guidelines. P-to-P software has long been known to "port jump". Of course, this will likely be replaced by protocol aware proxy firewalls that simply won't let traffic through that it doesn't recognize.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations have been pressing for school children to be taught that sharing is inherently wrong for a long time. You can find FACT materials aimed at persuading educators to introduce this into the curriculum, perhaps in the guise of Social Studies or Citizenship. The Disney corporation provides "educational" materials for very young children that discourage co-operation and sharing in favour of relying on corporate entities and authority figures.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[potus98]

PLEASE don't give them any more ideas. And for goodness sakes moderators, don't mod posts like this up as insightful where more people are likely to see it.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Eudial]

Or even better, we could start eliminating kids that are likely to code such appliations in the future!

= Intellectual people.

I bet RIAA would be in favor of that as well :-)

Heh, the RIAA is like a crossbreed between Mao Tse Dong and Gestapo.

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Nicht P2P?

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[roman_mir]

Or maybe we should start early in kindergarten and eliminate the part where we teach children.

That way, you know, noone will be able to produce such apps.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Vitus Wagner]

Does US have enough aircraft carriers to enforce this bill on China or Russia?

And since US effectively bans education with such bills, few years later every Finnish schoolboy would be able to defeat American Naval scquadron using just mobile phone. Of course, mobile phone, manufactured in Finland, and having no DRM functions would be required.

Btw. we Russians should cooperate with Finns and Chinese and stop write English language interfaces for our P2P software. Let Americans read hieroglyphs or Cyrillic.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I'm waiting for that generation to die. These people just can't grasp the universal nature of computers and need to get out of the way. And that's what I think when I feel generous. Most of the time I think that they're corrupt bastards who are doing it for their corporate pimps and know exactly that they are fucking it all up for the majority of the people.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

So P2P applications will only be written by people outside the US.

Hm. Yeah. Everything else is being outsourced anyway. May as well continue with our toys.

:: glum ::

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Monoliath]

This just seems to be another classic case of politics trying to regulate a very technical field it has very little knowledge of, with very general applications, which in turn will obviously create thousands of complications and loopholes etc. I'm sure many others have noticed, just how much work our dear senators seem to be putting into the RIAA groove and it's ripple effects, while making fools of themselves at the same time because of their lack of even the most basic concepts of internet architecture or networking. We have senators who are not keeping up with the digital age of our country, attempting to regulate and control the same. This, is ignorance. Total ignorance and will in future, begin to hamper and destroy the growth of the internet, turning it into yet another censored overused, advertisement infested medium much like t.v. and radio. Controlled by corporate sponsors and special interest group funding. We need to vote in political leaders who are educated at least on how to research these kinds of things and truly understand them before regulation, instead of mindlessly spitting out paper legislation that will cause more damage than development. I'm not saying that they need to be programmers, no. I'm saying they should at least make an attempt to understand the issue from all perspectives and not just one. This all seems to prompt for much more action from the technical community of the internet. With the kind of expansion that is taking place, and the role that the government is playing within the future development of the internet and the software written for it / on it / that it will utilize, defensive mechanisms should be put in place by those who hold much support in the technical community....could this be the beginning of the digital-law-enforcement age? Where we could vote in technically adapt individuals into political positions, enabling someone who truly understands what they're regulating...how much would that change the way technology and the internet develops in the next hundred years.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Wakko Warner]

If he wants to stop P2P, he should try outlawing possession of a P2P app.

See my sig.

- A.P.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they recognize https, it's a waste of time.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Izago909]

Knowing Hatch's other brain children, I'm not very shocked by the news. As with most of his other bought-and-paid-for legislation I don't see much coming from this. On the unlikely chance something is produced, won't the vagueness of the wording be applicable to legitimate P2P applications as well? This sounds just like the Betamax case. An industry doesn't like new technology, so they buy politicians to try and completely outlaw it. P2P is the future of the internet. Star topography, even though the dominant layout of the internet, still has major weakness that mesh topography can provide solutions for. By the looks of everything, he is being so vague as to include any sort of decentralized communications.

I was always told republicans were about less government intervention into personal and business sectors. In the last 4 years I've seen more laws passed where the government takes an active role in propping up the powers of big business while legislating away so many personal rights and privileges. This doesn't seem like the hands-off approach they like to pat themselves on the back so much for.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just like the patent cases, where you take existing patent and add "digital' or "computer" to it to make a new one. Here, you take a law and add "digital" or "copyright" to it to make a new law. If the parallel holds, be prepared that this new bill to be passed easily.

Next stop, it will be illegal to kill someone digitally or exploding bombs without copyright licenses.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[gandy909]

What is needed is a real, visible, public, long-term effort to get Hatch replaced in his state. Sure, he is just one guy, but if we can get this one prominent and powerful guy booted out for someone with a better sense of what his job is supposed to be, and more technically inclined, too, then maybe some of the others will rethink their positions. And I don't mean he is the only one who needs out, but start with one, then move on to others next election.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[utlemming]

You laugh, but that is what the anti-gun lobby tried a few years ago. The tactic was to hold the gun makers liable for the product -- the argument was that the gun groups were liable for creating a product that has a primary function of killing. Where the argument failed was that the anti-gun groups were attempting to hold liable the gun manufacturers for the actions of the "end-user." An interesting argument that was propigated was that the design and the nature of the product aided the end-users in the design to kill. The gun groups used, as an argument, that if they are held liable for a product that works, then so should car manufacters. The analogy was that holding Glock guilty for shooting John would be like holding Ford guilty for Sue intentionally running down Bill. In this case what is happening is an attempt for producers to be held liable for the end-use of products that they have no controll over. The difference here is that it is the first time that the actions of an end-user can make the producer liable. Even though Hatch says that it won't affect the Sony-Betamax decision, it will. How could it not? The suit that I would love to see under the Induce bill is for for someone to sue Ford, Wal-mart, Dell, an ISP, and the Power Company. After all, Jane needed to go to Wal-mart in her car to get the CD's so she could put them on the web. And since Dell put a CD-Rom in the computer which requires power, and the ISP connection to use the P2P program. Afterall, they all should know that the use of their products can be used to infringe copyrights. Maybe it is an oversimplification of the arguments, but the bill is way too broad, and could be easily abused.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. They need to be very careful how they define P2P in bills. P2P really isn't the right term to use for apps like Kazaa, Gnutella, and BitTorrent. By definition, IP is a peer-to-peer protocol and all internet applications are peer-to-peer. P2P is just a buzzword for two kinds of internet apps. One might be better to call client to client, where a central server only helps to set up a connection between two clients. That's what BitTorrent and the original Napster did. You'll notice this is also, technically, how FTP works. The other kind of "P2P" app is the decentralized app. Gnutella is in this class. There is no central server, but many servers that talk to each other to make a psuedo-multicast network.

Bills like this need to be careful. If they ban "peer-to-peer" applications, they'll have managed to ban the internet. If they ban one type of "P2P" app, they'll have banned FTP and many IM apps too. If they ban another type, they'll have banned multicasting.

But that's all irrelevent to this particular bill. This bill doesn't state anything so technically unambiguous. It just seems to talk about what a "reasonable person" would think was infringing. Can you get any more subjective? What would be the difference between BitTorrent and FTP, or Kazaa and IRC/DCC? The bad part about this bill is that it isn't technically specific, but totally arbitrary. Any reasonable person would say that the web can be used to commit copyright violation. Will you ban it? There are also reasonable people who would say Kazaa is the best medium for distributing their own works. Will you punish these people because other people do infringe copyrights via the same medium? This bill is just too arbitrary and unbalanced. It will not be fairly applied, and people will suffer for it.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[dgatwood]

Heh. I'd love to see a Jonathan Swiftian white paper on this subject.

But seriously, every major tech company in the world is going to come out against this because there isn't a single one that doesn't have some piece of peer-to-peer technology. Without P2P, modern computing couldn't exist. As far as home computing is concerned, it started with AppleTalk in the 1980s---a self-configuring supernet on top of an existing network. We now have similar technologies for finding out about printers and servers on your network. Do you want to go back to having to manually plug a single computer into a single printer? Then vote for this bill.

And then there's FireWire. It's an entirely peer-to-peer communications standard. If it weren't, you couldn't plug a firewire camcorder into another one and copy your home movies. Want to go back to anlog video? Vote for this bill.

Let's not forget iChat's Rendezvous support. Want to stop using that LAN chat software? Vote for this bill.

Don't forget Microsoft. They have zeroconf networking, though they call it uPNP. That would be illegal. So would your wireless router.

And what about the internet itself? Border Gateway Protocol? Illegal. RIP? Illegal. Your collection of Cisco routers? Illegal. I guess it's back to manually maintaining router tables for the entire internet. But wait.... The internet itself is an example of a peer-to-peer network by its very nature. Two computers talk to each other without going through a central server. But I'm guessing Mr. Hatch uses AOL anyway, so he won't notice the difference except that the Internet went away....

And lest we consider going back to what we had before the internet, Bitnet is the same way, and UUCP doubly so. In short, if a bill like this were to pass, technology as we know it would cease to exist.

Hell, your telephone is a peer-to-peer mechanism, as is the U.S. Mail. Two people talking to each other are engaging in P2P communication. Guess Mr. Hatch will have to kill all the people on Earth and let God sort 'em out, because that's the only way he can really eliminate peer-to-peer communication. Or we could just lock Orrin Hatch up in a rubber room and tell him that peer-to-peer communication was outlawed. He would perceive roughly the same effect, and in anyone's book, it's certainly a good start.

It's nice to see such enlightened senators. I remember one time when senators couldn't spell the word Internet. Now they can spell "P2P". Baby steps, one letter at a time, I know. Maybe one day they'll be able to spell words like freedom. Until then, does anybody know of cheap apartments in Canada?

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[mark-t]

Indeed, as would the apache webserver... or IIS, for that matter

(hey... y'gotta find _some_ positive spin on it, right?)

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[diggum]

I wonder if being forced to read your report aloud to the class can be considered a violation of a kids intellectual property rights.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach Stallman what sharing means while you're at it. He talks about teachers telling him to share in grammar school, but not share software. He dorsn't seem to get it that you don't have the right to share what you don't own. Therefore, you cannot share software unless you have licenses for everyone.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Allen Zadr]

That plays directly to my point.

For the republican gun interests, it's O.K. to make guns, but not weapons of copyright infringement.

They want to have it both ways.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Stargoat]

Orrin Hatch, the Republican Senator from Utah. Orrin Hatch is the biggest jackass in the Senate.

1. Last year, Hatch proposed creating black-ice like software that would destroy the hardware of people who download music illegally.
2. One of Hatch's staffers illegally cracked several Democrats' computers in the Senate.
3. Hatch's staff illegally used software for hosting a website at the same time Hatch was proposing destroying the PCs of those who would do similar.
4. Hatch is routinely involved in passing laws to reinforce copywrite protections, even if there might not be any grounds for the lawsuit.
5. Hatch's boy is a lawyer, one of who's clients in the SCO.
6. Hatch is constantly trying to amend the Constitution. For example, he keeps introducing an amendment to ban flag burning over and over and is now talking about amending the Constitution so Schwarzenegger can run for President. But he opposed the ERA.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[sadler121]

/begin Rant Good luck trying to get Utahians to replace Hatch, they almost belive that he is Jesus Christ incarnate, and even if that weren't the case ~90% of Mormons (like the rest of the country) are mere sheep, who can't think for themseleves, (more so than the rest of the country, many have the "follow the prophet" syndrome, also known as the Lemmings syndrome) /end Rant

If only we could get Utahns to vote this basterd out, it would make the US a better place, but I am afriad we are stuck with him for a while.

OK, go mod me down as Flamebait, I'll go quitly...

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonimo Covarde]

Or maybe we should start early in kindergarten and eliminate the part where we teach children how to share

Do we teach Timmy to share the other kids juice boxes?

Do we teach Timmy to take without asking or to take what isn't given?

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[kerika]

It's my impression from reading the article that peer-to-peer software is not going to be made illegal, per se, but that is will be okay to sue the creators of any P2P 'wares that can be used for the illegal sharing of copyrighted material.

A fine point, you say? Perhaps, but I'm sure that the legislators would argue that as long as the software creators are being conscientious (read: being good little lapdogs of the RIAA) and including some kind of blocking scripts that scout for some kind of watermark on any potentially shared file, then they would become immune from suit. It would be wrong to read this legislation as an attempt to destroy P@P technology; more likely, this is a concerted attempt by the RIAA and its backers to bring all P@P software under a certain standard.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[RichardX]

Ob Hicks (paraphrased)
"We're losing the war on drugs. Think about that for a moment, we, the world's most powerful nation, are fighting a war... and people on drugs are winning it. Some pretty smart mo'fos on that side!"

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[terrigena3]

Mr. Hatch, it recently came to my attention that you have introduced legislation to the Judiciary Committee that targets 'P2P' software.

While I certainly understand your intention is to protect children from "induced" piracy, you may not be aware of the other applications for this technology and market trend. You have probably been lobbied quite heavily by various industries in this matter, and could benefit from a balanced perspective given by average user.

P2P has become the most promising new form of sharing information and data. It does not discriminate between software, digitized documents, video or music. It is an electronic library. I belong to several information sharing groups on two P2P networks. We do not share music or major motion pictures, but instead focus on the exchange of culturally and politically relevant documentaries, commentary and news resources. Much of these items are obtained from The Library of Congress. Our groups have taken this activity offline by burning our compiled information to CD and have placed these at local coffee shops for the benefit of any member of our community. P2P promises to be a revolutionizing force as more people start shifting to viable and ethical uses.

Because of the nature of file sharing it is not possible to filter. In an age when industry has increased its push to commodify what we see and hear, it is necessary to have allies in office who are willing to protect the people's right to self educate and make informed decisions. It is essential to the preservation of our Republic.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of every parent to determine what his or her children can see and do on the web. Regulating the Internet would be a huge mistake by setting an abominable precedent. We cannot begin filtering for the general public the way China does. While I agree with you that firms should not profit from "theft" there must be a better solution. If market regulation is necessary in your view, then I suggest the alternative of forcing P2P networks to only operate on donations made by its members or only getting profit through licensed works.

The RIAA may be telling you that their profits are shrinking, but they aren't telling you the whole truth. Independent labels do not belong to the RIAA, and as the Hip-Hop and Indie movements continue to grow, more of our dollars shift to small production companies. The RIAA does not speak for the entire industry, in fact it represents fewer labels of the overall total present in our country than it did just a few years ago. Furthermore, this industry association has not taken into consideration that the tastes of the tech savvy public have changed and we are no longer interested in purchasing 'formulated' music. Indeed, the underground music scene has been able to self-produce and promotes through the use of home computers and live venues. Personal technology is now matching that which the industry previously invested millions in. This is what the free market is intended to do, bring prices down so the average consumer can benefit. More young Americans are interested in free music, but not necessarily monetarily free. Rather, independent of corporate or social engineering influences.

Services like Ebay's Half.com and Amazon.com allow consumers of music to sell or auction their old and used CD's for a fraction of the original price. This is a legal method of shifting licenses and accounts for a large portion of music purchases conducted today. I don't expect the various industry lobbyists to have told you about these services, so please investigate them.

Let us also consider the present economic climate in our country in comparison to Europe. In its European launch, Apple's iTunes service sold over 800,000 licensed song files in its first week. These sales were considerably larger than America's iTunes store, which has only sold ten times that in about one year. Both regions have access to the same P2P networks and both have high speed Internet accesses. The difference is t

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Superfreaker]

Oh yeah?
I'd go a step even further. Instead of just eliminating teaching children to share, I'd eliminate children! so ptttthhh!!!

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Alsee]

I'd love to see a Jonathan Swiftian white paper on this subject.

It becomes difficut to do when people have already gone so far off the deep end. Hatch has stated that he wants to remotely destroy people's computers. He has introduced legislation to outlaw ordinary computers. Hatch has has sponsored or co-sponsored no less than SIXY-SEVEN attempts to ammend the constitution, often various attempts to STRIP AWAY PORTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. And those are just the antics I can think of off the top of my head.

Attempting to parody Hatch is like attempting to parody White Supremacists or fanatical religious fundamentalists (of any flavor). Anything short of "lets eat the children" winds up looking just like the genuine and sincere words of those you wish to parody. It is frighfully hard to successfully parody some people.

-

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[sparcnut]

Or we could just lock Orrin Hatch up in a rubber room and tell him that peer-to-peer communication was outlawed.

Even telling him that P2P is illegal would be illegal!

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[LifesizeKenDoll]

That'd be "Ein Vok, Ein Reich, Kein P2P"

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Dashing Leech]

I'd eliminate children!

Now that would be just dumb. Then there's nobody to grow up to enforce IP rights in the future. Also, there's no customers to pay for the licensing of IP. In short, it is counter to the goals of protecting and profiting from IP, therefore it is by defintion a Bad Thing (TM).

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[CantGetAUserName]

Are you kidding?

This is a technology that's going to force damn near every PC on the planet into obsolescence or at the very least require a new OS. All the stuff in the middle is going to have to be changed as well, after all we can't be allowed our precious 'analog hole', can we. And who do you think is going to have to stump up - clue: it's not MS or Sony or even the government (which mostly these days seems to work to funnel taxpayer money to friendly companies but that is an entirely different debate). Oh, sure, there will be some horse-trading of a few million between ISPs and such, but that'll just get tacked on to your bill (at a 200% markup, of course) and no more will be said about it

Think of it as a new, one-off tax that will spawn (or perhaps excrete is a better word) a further tax to rent stuff you used to own.

Damn, that sounded like a flame. Must be getting low on caffeine to get that feisty.

The worst bit about the world these days is that I can scarcely spot the parody any more.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Jim Starx]

I personally don't feel I should jump through the RIAA's security hoops if I want to share information. Because that's what P2P lets you do, share information. It doesn't matter if that information is a song or a book or kiddy porn or a funny picture or a program or my homework or whatever. The current interpretation of free speech includes the transfer of information even if it's not spoken.

This law is trying to let people sue the company for the actions of the customer. I don't care if it's a gun maker, the guy who sold you a duel tape deck, it doesn't matter. The customers actions are the customers responcibility.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[MisterMoney]

"...he should try outlawing possession of a P2P app."

don't give him any more suggestions!!! he's probably drafting the bill for this one as we speak.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[ross.w]

Godwin's law! Godwin's law!

Man that was a short thread.

What?

Well someone had to do it.

Didn't they?

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Alsee]

The sky is not back yet, but it is goind exactly as described in Digital Imprimatur. It's a long but important read.

And how is it that the Digital Imprimatur is happening right now? Well take a look at this Slashdot story Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. But guess what? The Slashdot story completely missed one vital point. These new Cisco routers DO NO BLOCK VIRUSES. No, what they really do is check that you are running a TRUSTED COMPUTER and then they remotely scan the software running on your computer. If you are not Tursted Computing compliant, or of you are not running the approved and mandated software (or if you are running prohibited software) THEN THIS ROUTER DENIES YOU INTERNET ACCESS.

Of course it is being billed to enforce that you are running an approved and up-to-date firewall and/or anti-virus software and/or that your operating system has the latest patches. That's how it supposedly "fights viruses".

Of course enforcing that you are using a Trusted Computer means that you no longer own/control your own computer. Of course enforcing that you are running all of that approved software and latest approved operating system patchs also means that you are forced to run only the approved operating system (Palladium anyone?). It also means that if you attempt to change any of your settings or modify your software in any way you get locked out completely, you lose your net connection, you can't open any of your 'secure' files, and most of your software will refuse to run.

It's true that ISP's can't start installing these new Cisco Routers unless most of their customers already have Trusted Hardware - they'd be locking out almost all of their customers. However the plan is to simply include the Trust Chip as standard hardware on all new motherboards sold, starting this year. They don't have to convince you to buy a new Trusted Computer, they simply HAND you the new hardware when you replace your old PC. There's no reason not to accept a computer with the Trust Chip in it, you can simply leave the chip off and the machine can do everything a normal computer can do and run all existing software. Over the course of 4 years or so essentially all PC's get replaced as obsolete. Around 2008 or so pretty much everyone is expected to have a Trust Chip. Then the ISP's can install the new routers and lock out anyone that has failed to comply. It will only be a few percent, and the company will simply say "Your Fault, you have an incompatible computer, go buy a modern machine to replace your obsolete hunk of junk."

At a Washington DC Global Tech Summit, Richard Clarke Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security called on ISP's to enforce exactly such a policy. See the PDF here. His speech starts on page 7, but you can skip to the last two paragraphs on page 11 through the end. He says TCPA(Trusted Computing) is a "Good beginning, but not enough", tells ISPs to use TCPA to enforce the use of firewalls and other software in order to get a hookup, asks them to implement a National Strategy to Defend Cyberspace. He asks them to do so "in the spirit of 9/11", to do so for our National Economy, to do so for our National Defence, to do so for Our Way Of Life For People Around The Globe, and even to defend us against Osama bin Laden himself. And the PDF notes that the audience responded with applause.

If there is no massive public backlash against Trusted Computing it will simply be dumped in our laps and the sky will become very dark indeed.

-

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Orrin Hatch, the Republican Senator from Utah. Orrin Hatch is the biggest jackass in the Senate.

[...]

2. One of Hatch's staffers illegally cracked several Democrats' computers in the Senate.

He may be a jackass, but that doesn't make him one. Actually he apparently took a lot of flak from his conservative mates for insiting on an investigation of the matter:

Slate Magazine: Sen. Orrin Hatch

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad I don't live in 'the land of the free'.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

but 15 years down the road he'll be a law abiding citizen.

Not to mention being a good capitalist and a follower of the American Way (tm).

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Zordak]

I know Slashdot is all about bashing Republicans and all, and the facts are not terribly popular around here (especially when they don't support the majority opinion), but you might note that the co-sponsors include Sens. Leahy and Daschle. The Democrats are hardly our all-holy protectors on this issue. And for the record, I'm a conservative Republican, a Mormon, and even moved to Utah about a year ago (much to my chagrin -- I'm outta here in February), and I'd just like to state that I hate Orrin Hatch.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Idn' it funny how they despise immigrants untill they have a famous one who actually agrees with their claptrap? Ah well an Austrian birthed their philosophy why not have one spouting it.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[STrinity]

One of Hatch's staffers illegally cracked several Democrats' computers in the Senate.

The Dems apparently misconfigured their computers so that confidential files were visible and accessible to anyone on the Senate network. What the aide did was unethical, but to call it "cracking" is absurd.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[dekket]

Did you even read the article? It doesnt say precisely that we should outlaw p2p - it says we should outlaw the applications that benefit from it by inducing "children" into the art of stealing. Yea, right. The children in this matter, is everyone I guess. There's not a living soul on this planet (with an internet connection, that is,) that hasn't atleast tried P2P to download *whatever*.
But that wasn't my point... I get the hypicrisy on this, just like you do - but you took it to the somewhat extreme. Like the article said, its a "narrow" focus - which will expand after a while, I'm sure. But not so far that it would actually hurt companies like MS - unfortunately.
True though, P2P is a part of todays perception of freedom. I recently got a letter from Telia, saying I had been serving the movie "Secret Windows" - which I havent. However, a friend of mine hooked his laptop up to my net a few weeks ago, and he might have. I donno. Pisses me off though that I'm not able to use whatever protocol I want without being scanned.
Being a free world (right...) and all, should we discuss invasion of privacy? Because I could probably go on for ages... Why do I feel like reading a senators email...

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly the ability to attach stuff to emails would have to go, and usenet binaries as well. Forget bittorrent. Text might be allowable, but it depends on the content, clearly that would have to be carefully monitored.

But in order for legislation like this to constitutionally legal, wouldn't the gov't have to prove that it's used exclusively in a criminal way? There's nothing inherently criminal in p2p, and there are legitimate applications, for example, mandrake offering club members early access via bitttorrent to the latest release.

IANAL, but isn't there legal precedent for not forbidding programs which have legit uses, even if they have illegit uses? I may be thinking Sklyarov and the blind having access to ebooks.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[subterfuge]

the same kind of moronic sheet-stains who I live with in NY who voted in a socialist from a different state to be our US Senator [we could have put up our own, REAL commy like Mario Cuomo - but nooooo, we get stuck with the impeached former president's puppet master who had yet to unpack the U-Haul when the campaign started...] I'll trade Utah's morons for NY's - there are fewer of them...

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is wrong with the principle stated in your example of point 6? Something wrong with not being born in the US to non-US parents?

I'm a Republican, and I severely dislike Hatch. And I wouldn't vote for the current gov of CA for President of the US ever either. And yes, I agree with point 6 generally--I think certain politicians who yap about amending the Constitution like it's some holy grail should shut the hell up. This includes Republicans such as Hatch and Bush on marriage, but also Democrats who think lifting the 2 term limit for president is a good idea or changing to a pure popular vote to elect the President (I like state rights, which is reflected in both the Senate as well as the electoral college).

But I don't have a problem with revising the Constitution to allow foreign born individuals with established track records to run for for the office of President. The citizen naturalization process is difficult but not enough, but someone who has served and held public office should be allowed the opportunity.

I don't see why a baby born on some embassy's steps might have the chance to run but a person who has served in a significant public office cannot.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Allen Zadr]

As has been noted in several discussions here, Slashdot is slighly more libertarian than "democratic", although it's fun to bash George and Dick. I know several conservative Republicans that don't understand how Dick got away with handing all of these huge contracts to Haliburton (his former company) without an open bid process. Though they are also quick to point out that all of the contracts since have been under an open bid process since, and Halliburton has still been winning most of these bids.

Orrin Hatch is a well known (and strangely, well respected) member of congress, and he gives convincing arguments (assuming you don't know the subject matter either). I don't blame him or any other senator for introducing such a bill (someone would have done it -- [[again, Orrin Hatch has a history of introducing well intentioned, but not well thought out bills]]). I'm just appaulled that this bill will likely get floor time.

Afterall, bad bills get introduced all the time. When a bad bill get's seriously considered, put up for a vote and (god forbid) passed... that's when something is broken.

And you're right, I mention "Republican gun" interests, simply because in my mind it draws a simple parallel, not because I specifically believe that Republican gun interests are behind the bill. I'd say even more strongly that this type of bill, if passed, would make a convincing argument for stronger gun control laws in the future (making it more advantageous to the democratic bleeding-heart liberals).

For myself, I generally don't trust politicians in groups. Each one, alone, can do little harm - and most of them are genuinely concerned and intelligent people. Politicians in groups are a dangerous lot that too often suffer from "group-think", regardless of the ever-fading ''party line''.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

'So P2P applications will only be written by people outside the US. If he wants to stop P2P, he should try outlawing possession of a P2P app. '

Well yes, that would be the next step, once its classified as illegal, well technically you would not be able to use it if you live in the US. But I thought they were only targetting p2p systems that allow sharing of RIAA related stuff, some out there are strict indie.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Darkangael]

So tcp stacks would now have to sniff all packets to ensure that copyrighted material wasn't being transmitted?

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll trade Utah's morons for NY's - there are fewer of them...

That's spelled Mormons. You left off the m in the middle. ;)

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope they didn't. Godwin's Law, while amusing, really doesn't add anything to any debate - even less than the "low information" posts it was supposed to criticise.

Comparing to Nazism is a perfectly valid comparison in many cases, and there are many parts of the Nazi regime which have been mirrored in actions by people throughout history.

Calling "Godwin's Law!" is, in my view, akin to trolling - trying to stop a discussion without adding anything of value to it.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Intrinsic]

At this point if they have trusted computing in place I think the internet would split? not everyone would want to run trusted hardware...
Maybe this is where wirless networks are going? we might be able to eventually create seprate networks that span countries..
Just a thought.

Re:Foreign jurisdictions

[Alsee]

internet would split?

The problem is that you still have the network effect and the Embrace Extend Exterminate process at work. Anyone on the 'Trusted-net' would be able to see, use, and link to everything on both nets. Anyone and anything on the 'freedom-net' would be able to see, use, and link only things on the 'freedom-net'.

So everyone and everything is better off switching to the 'Trusted-net'. The more things that move inside the Trust-wall, the less there is left outside the wall. The less and less there is left outside the wall the more and more you suffer by remaining outside the wall.

Maybe this is where wirless networks are going?

Wireless is at the forefront of the charge INTO Trusted Computing! Remember, they are billing Trusted Computing as a security system. Security is a hot issue in wireless.

-

Madness

[dave420]

This is just ridiculous. Compensating failed business models through rigorous legislation. Did anyone ask for more proof the US is run by big business? If so, you've just been served.

Re:Madness

[Threni]

> This is just ridiculous

Hey - it worked for viruses and drugs...

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Failed business models? If someone is stealing from your store, you don't have a failed business model, you get a guy to stand in front of it with a big fucking bat. I love you way you guys try to justify stealing, it's really getting funny.

Re:Madness

[Kick the Donkey]

Actually, I think the problem is more that law-makers feel the need to create laws to make it harder to break existing laws. Pure bull shit. The existance of P2P software is not bad. There are some very legitimate uses for it (we use it at work for large document sharing). But its already illegal to trade in copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent (as it should be).

This is just like so-called open container laws. It is already illegal to drive drunk. But, the very act of having an open bottle of booze in my car is illegal. Why? By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. The only problem is when I, as a drive, start drinking from it. But then I'm breaking an already existing law!!!

How about we just start enforcing the laws we already have before we start writing new ones.

Re:Madness

[91degrees]

What's the problem with stealing? Nothing wrong with wanting to get something for the lowest price possible. Our whole society is based on this principle.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. They are two totally different things.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. People steal a lot of cars off of dealer lots, is that clearly a failed business model? Maybe we should give them all away for free instead.

Re:Madness

[basingwerk]

It's only property if you can keep it. You could keep your property with a big fucking bat, but you can't keep people from sharing data with that. If you can't keep your IP, perhaps it should be regraded from being property to something else. You can't own space or the air, or the sea, so we don't class that as property.

Re:Madness

[nomadic]

It's not "law-makers", it's Orrin Hatch. This is one of the problems, everyone sort of just waves their hands and complains about politicians in general, rather than holding specific people responsible.

Re:Madness

[Natestradamus]

It's comfortable to have somebody to point the finger at, but Orrin Hatch is just their puppet of the moment. Should he be voted out of office, they'd just buy a new senator.

Re:Madness

[dunstan]

It goes deeper than this.

In the old world there was a simple distinction: either a band was signed to a label, in which case the label dictated their term, whether they were promoted etc; or the band wasn't signed to a label and had no channel to get their music to listeners.

In the new world, P2P is an alternative channel between producers and consumers in which record companies have no control - the process has become disintermediated. In this world you have the appalling prospect (for the companies) that talented, affluent people will make music because they enjoy it, and and then distribute it via P2P networks so that people can listen to it and enjoy it without paying them.

In essence, the scarcity of music distribution has ended, and the beneficiaries of this scarcity (the record companies) are seeing their business model starting to fail. They're doomed, and they know they're doomed, but they're also keen to prolong their dominion as long as they can.

Dunstan

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on! Look at Hatch's record. It's not just this one thing he should be voted out of office for.

Re:Madness

[Natestradamus]

Oh, no doubt! Still, there's no cause to believe a "successor" would not immediately be found.

Re:Madness

[deck]

In the intrest of keeping various intellectual property safe, I propose the following. Put blindfolds on everyone so they cannot see to communicate as being able to see may induce copyright infringment. Gag everyone so they cannot speak and insure that childern are not taught to speak. Verbal communications can violate copyright. To back this up, plug everyones ears so that they cannot hear.

Senator Hatch has popped his hatch on this legislation. He is just being a pawn of certain coporate powers that do have a FAILED BUSINESS MODEL with respect to ideas and data. The music industry thinks of music as if it were something that can be put in a bottle and only let out when a payment is made. They feel hurt that they cannot get a royalty payment every time a piece of music is played or heard. They would love to have your CD/MP3/etc player enabled, by legislation, to send them notice for every play so that you may be billed for it. They would love to have legislation to have everyone equiped with a micorphone and detection equipment that would bill you for everytime that you heard, sang, or whistled a tune. NOTHING in the music industry's opinion should be in any sort of public or open domain since they cannot profit from it if it is.

Coporate leaders have one goal, to control as many people as possible. It is not evil to make money. It is not evil to have power. But these people have an unquenchable thirst to increase their power over others. Using the US Government to do this is legitimate in their view. As a matter of fact, anything to increase their power is legitimate if they are not punished for it.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why I'm developing a way to drink out of closed containers. Soon enough we will be able to drink our Coke out of refilled Nady light cans. And it will still be legal, because the container is closed!

Re:Madness

[EllisDees]

So what store am I stealing from when I download the latest Wham! mp3 from Soulseek?

Re:Madness

[djmurdoch]

But its already illegal to trade in copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent

In your country.

(as it should be).

I don't think so. There are many legitimate uses of copyright material that don't need the copyright holder's consent: I can borrow a book from the library. I can photocopy parts of it. I can quote parts of it in my own work.

In Canada, I can make a complete copy of a music recording for my own use. This is as it should be, because I pay a levy on recording media which goes to the recording industry.

This is a *much* better system than the "no copying without consent" system you have. Yes, it's unfair to the people who use recording media for other purposes: but it doesn't criminalize the reasonable practice of making a copy of a recording.

Re:Madness

[opos]

Nice strategy:

• Outlaw cars: they induce kids to speed
• Outlaw pharmaceuticals: they induce kids (and adults) to abusive use
• Outlaw alcohol: (tried and failed)
• Outlaw life: it induces people to deviate from the norm?

Re:Madness

[Ignorant Aardvark]

This is just like so-called open container laws. It is already illegal to drive drunk. But, the very act of having an open bottle of booze in my car is illegal. Why? By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. The only problem is when I, as a drive, start drinking from it. But then I'm breaking an already existing law!!!

Come now, the reason for the open container law is because it's often hard to catch someone drinking in the act. But if they have an open container of alcohol in the car, what possible reason could that have other than that they've been drinking from it? I don't consider this unreasonable at all.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but this 'argument' is pure BS.

Whether the new law is reasonable or not is certainly arguable, and I would agree that it is not reasonable. But to claim the record companies are using this to uphold a 'failed' business model is nonsense. Nothing has 'failed' in their model. If you choose not to buy CDs or records, that is your choice. What you do not have the right to is acquiring copies of music you do not have license to. That is stealing, and it is well within reasonable action for the record companies to attempt to prevent someone stealing their property. Whether you agree or not with the way music is produced and marketed is inmaterial and has no bearing on the issue.

Re:Madness

[bgeiger]

But if they have an open container of alcohol in the car, what possible reason could that have other than that they've been drinking from it?

Did you stop to consider that maybe, just maybe, a passenger was drinking from that container? The driver could be (and usually is) cold sober.

Re:Madness

[Politburo]

Open container laws are a way to prevent passengers from drinking. The idea is that if passengers are drinking, the driver is more likely to drink. My German friend found this incredulous.. when we jokingly asked "Well, what's to stop the driver from drinking in Germany?" he replied, ".... not drinking!"

Oh, if only things were so simple here...

Re:Madness

[Mephiska]

You're missing the point here.

From an economic perspective, technology has made their business model, music distribuion, mostly obsolete, and so they have turned to legislation to preserve their business and outlaw said technology.

The bread 'n butter of what the recording industry does, sell CD's, is no longer necessary to the majority of consumers. There is no value to the consumer, they are desperate, they know their end is in sight. The frightening thing is they have turned to Congress, and Congress is listening.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why everyone should have several open bottles of IBC on the floor of their car.

--
IBC is a root beer that comes in a plain brown bottle that resembles a Budweiser with the label torn off

Re:Madness

[dave420]

I hear ya. Those sorts of laws are really part of a nanny state. Luckily, in the UK, you can drive soaked in beer and vodka as long as you can pass a breath test.

Here's an honest question - why, in the self-proclaimed land of the free, is there such insane lawmaking? Don't Americans mind?? It's not as if anything undo-able happens if someone breaks this new law. If Timmy downloads Shrek 2 instead of paying $10 to go see it at the cinema, no-one died. No-one's feelings can't be put right with a little money (not that it's right to do so). p2p doesn't warrant a hard crackdown.

Re:Madness

[areve]

It's not the software at fault. They really are mad. If I was to post a movie clip on slashdot I'd be posting a bittorrent link or my webhost would shut down my site in minuites! P2P is a solution here along with how to get Linux ISO's out fast.

Re:Madness

[Enigma_Man]

Let me replace the idea "drinking" with "pirating music", and I think you might get the drift of things:

Come now, the reason for the anti p2p law is because it's often hard to catch someone pirating in the act. But if they have an open p2p network in the computer, what possible reason could that have other than that they've been pirating from it? I don't consider this unreasonable at all.

Now... admittedly drunk driving is a lot worse of an offense than say... sharing a few mp3s... but breaking the law is breaking the law, and you can't just draw arbitrary lines like that.

-Jesse

Re:Madness

[alexq]

Not too long ago, I read Penguin Island, a French satire circa 1908. It satires much of French history, through a made-up society of Penguins. What's amazing about it is it goes into great detail about how corrupt the government is, and how big business owns it. In other words, it's not a new concept at all - and still, no one has figured out how to address it.

Re:Madness

[Mark_in_Brazil]

This is just like so-called open container laws. It is already illegal to drive drunk. But, the very act of having an open bottle of booze in my car is illegal. Why? By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. The only problem is when I, as a drive, start drinking from it. But then I'm breaking an already existing law!!!

This has been my argument against gun control laws for years. Why do we "need" gun control laws, I ask.
"Because people might commit crimes with guns," apologists for unchecked government power tell me.
So then I ask: if the bad things people might do with guns are crimes, aren't there, by definition, already laws against them? Why do you then need another law making guns illegal too?

--Mark

Re:Madness

[Rotten168]

As far as I know, we can make a copy here for personal use too (and have always been allowed to), we just can't distribute it to anyone else.

Re:Madness

[Suidae]

Here's an honest question - why, in the self-proclaimed land of the free, is there such insane lawmaking? Don't Americans mind??

Well, we Americans who know about it mind, but the vast majority don't know or don't know what to do about it.

Sure, we can e/snail mail a representative, but there really isn't any feedback from that process. It feels about as effective as throwing a penny in a fountain and making a wish. Mostly people just bitch about it to each other while the big companies bath senators in money.

Re:Madness

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

The failed business model in question is the record companies' stranglehold on the music industry.

Few people seem to realize the hypocrisy of their sudden rush to "protect the rights of artists." (When did an "artist" become someone who makes music, not someone who paints? When did "musician" become a dirty word?) The biggest threat to those rights is, and always has been, the record companies themselves.

"The artist formerly known as Prince" didn't change his name to a weird symbol on a whim; he did it because before he was famous, a record company had gotten him to sign a contract so one-sided that they even owned his real-life name. (yes, it's Prince ... talk about child abuse) Going back a few years, the singers and songwriters of some of the real classics of modern music, especially (though far from exclusively) those who were not white males, were paid a pittance for their work that record companies made a fortune from. In court, the record companies have insisted time and again that $100 was more than fair compensation for all rights to a song that they made tens of millions of dollars off of.

Even today, most musicians see only a tiny fraction, if any, of the money from the sales of their CDs. They earn their money primarily from concerts. The money from that overpriced CD -- the one that sells for twice what a DVD of a movie that cost a hundred million dollars to film -- goes straight to the record company, and stays there.

The record companies have a lock on the distribution of music. Anyone can rent a studio and make a CD ... even me (William Hung move over!) ... but if they want to get it in the record stores and on the radio, they have to sell their soul to a record company.

That's why P2P scares the living shit out of the record companies. They know what the real numbers are, not the doctored ones they show Congress. They know that their serfs are deserting them for independant labels and self-distribution. They know that the massive consolidation of radio station ownership since Orrin Hatch and his buddies threw out rules that had preserved competition for decades and handed the market over to their supporter and propaganda wing Clear Channel is costing them a fortune in payola. And I'm sure they know that they're turning out endless streams of overpriced music that, fundamentally, sucks.

But they can't do anything about that. (except maybe the sucky music) They know they're dinosaurs. The know the industry has changed, and their chosen business model -- total control of production, distribution, and sales of music -- is going the way of a business model based on total control of buggy whips. So they're getting people like Orrin Hatch to pass laws to force the market to continue to support that model.

It isn't fans sharing music by the record companies' serfs that the companies fear ... they know, their public statements to the contrary, it isn't hurting their sales, and quite possibly either increasing them or offsetting what would be a greater decline. What leaves them terrified is the existance of a distribution channel that they don't and can't control which will free musicians from being serfs of the record companies in the first place. They fear a system that will allow musicans to keep on doing what they already do -- making their money off of concerts and other sources of revenue -- and not have to sign their lives and their rights over to any record company. They know a system which connects the producer and the consumer directly will have no place for parasites that have gotten fat from feeding off both ends of the line.

This is the sa

Re:Madness

[sindarin2001]

Americans don't know what's going. There's this group of nerds that scream out everytime a new law like the DMCA or perhaps even the Patriot Act gets signed into law, but the rest of the nation points and laughs at the "uptight crazy people" (no, I haven't actually been called that...as far as I know). The American public is blind, and it doesn't help that many of our laws are pushed through Congress because "it's for the security of our great nation", when really it's a grab for power (sometimes unchecked power). Education about these issues is about the only way for the U.S. to get a grip back on it's lawmakers, but I'm afraid as an American citizen that by the time it happens, it will be too late to make any changes.

Re:Madness

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Here's an honest question - why, in the self-proclaimed land of the free, is there such insane lawmaking? Don't Americans mind??

Sad but true: most don't, because they don't want to be bothered to analyze these things themselves. They prefer to just accept what they're told, and UnitedStatesian politicians learned a long time ago to claim that every law they make protects freedom. The inherent oxymoron is the elephant in the living room that no major media outlets ever mention, even in an extremely egregious case like when politicians claim that the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted to protect UnitedStatesians' freedom. Anyone who has even a basic understanding of what the USA PATRIOT Act does realizes that it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights and a number of other rights UnitedStatesians had before the USA PATRIOT Act was made law.
I am not saying all UnitedStatesians are this lazy; a good chunk of the readers of /., for example, do analyze these things and get all worked up about them, as I do. My father is not a geek (he was, though- an electrical engineer), and not any kind of "leftist" (or even a Democrat, which passes for "Left" in the USA, but would be considered Center-Right in just about any other country in the world), but he has been paying attention and seeking out more info, and he's really mad now. Dad is a nearly-72 year old self-described "lifelong Republican," but he is so upset about, in his words, "what those motherf***ers have done to my country" that he will not only vote for a Democrat in the upcoming US presidential election, but for a particularly unlikeable one. Dad sees that as the only way to save the country he loves from the authoritarian excesses (and economic mismanagement... and ignorance of how to use the military properly... and failures of diplomacy... and etc. etc.) of the current Republican-controlled government.
So as I said, not all Americans are lazy like that, but most would prefer to look the other way while stuff like the USA PATRIOT Act gets passed, and while politicians like Hatch propose ridiculous crap like this latest insult to our intelligence, then listen to campaign ads and sound bites in which politicians tell them their freedoms are being protected by all the things they missed while they were watching NASCAR races, NFL games, and the "Sex and the City" and "Friends" finales.

--Mark

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just cut to the chase:

• Outlaw kids
  

Re:Madness

[Creepy Crawler]

I think you found the underlying premise of all these laws..

If you did something, they can arrest you. Just make it so the very act of going to work is an arrestable offence

(no permit for that gun, beer can in back, 1 MPH over speedlimit, shoes off, wernt nice enough to officer.... oh, Did you not tell the officer your name? whoops. slammer)

Control is easily gained by controlling laws and enforcers themselves.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good...if you need me I'll be at the Ferrari Dealer....

Re:Madness

[Lonewolf666]

Are US lawmakers really THAT stupid?
There is a nice little device called a breathalyzer, which the police can use to determine if the driver is drunk.
It is not considered 100% reliable, but it is way better than inferring that the driver is drunk from a bottle lying around.
If you want even better proof, do a blood alcohol test on the guys who test positive with the breathalyzer. In Germany, this is the preferred method of establishing proof of DUI.

Re:Madness

[julesh]

Exactly the same thing has been said about technologies like e-books and print-on-demand presses allowing writers to get their content to the public without going through traditional presses.

I don't see the public queueing up to buy these products.

There has to be a filter on quality, and the record labels / presses have traditionally provided this. Of course, other organisations could step in to provide a similar framework for these 'new channels', but without there being a viable business model for them, they will be unstable at best. Building the public's trust in your filtering abilities will take a long time.

Re:Madness

[djmurdoch]

Are you talking about backup copies of something you already own? The Canadian law allows more than that: I don't need to already own a copy in order to legally make another one for personal use.

If you are claiming that Americans also have the right to make personal copies, then what's the basis for the demonization of Kazaa? It's just a way to allow people to make their copies more easily.

Re:Madness

[drtomaso]

Failed business models? If someone is stealing from your store, you don't have a failed business model ... I love you way you guys try to justify stealing ...

First, its not stealing- stealing is a legally defined term, and violating copyrights doesnt fit that definition. It is however "copyright violation," which is a completely different crime.

The business model of distributing digital information on a physical media is dead as, to use the classic slashdot example, the buggy whip manufacturing industry. When little Susie downloads Britney's latest "hit", shes paying exactly fair market value for it- that is a whopping $0.00. The value of a perfect digital copy in the modern computer age is approximately zero. The only reason copyright holders (note I dont say artists) still charge $12.99 and up for a CD full of perfect digital copies, is because the use of copyright law artificially limits supply.

Does this mean artists wont have incentive to create? No. Artists will still make a living the way they have for centuries before and during the age of recordings- by sponsorship and charging for live performances. In the modern computer era, it really sucks to be in the business of distributing digital media- because copies are so easy to make as to be almost worthless. That, unfortunately for Sony, Time-Warner, et al, is just the way the cookie crumbles.

What is it about filesharing that is so immoral it demands to be illegalized? Nothing- other than a bunch of really wealthy companies used to make a lot of money by artifically regulating the supply.

In an age when a senator's loyalty can be bought for around $50k in campaign contributions, its not enough to simply cry "Its Illegal!" and damn all the millions of people who actively engage in filesharing daily. The sheer numbers of people involved demands that we examine why this is still illegal.

Re:Madness

[Inebrius]

P2P is just a tool. While it can be used for copyright infringement, it also has a greater public use for freeing information. Not all information, news, and media should be controlled by corporations.

I see a potential use, where important news, like the videotape of the Rodney King beating, could be distributed in its entirety, not just the few seconds the major sensationalism based media shows. There are plenty of examples where the media reports matters of public concern in small, biased bits and pieces, where the public really wants to see more. P2P can be used for distributing pictures, audio, video clips, custom maps from a favorite game, recipes for cooking, etc.

Cars, crowbars, guns, knives, xerox machines, and VCRs all have legitimate uses, even though they can be used to commit crime or break the law. P2P is not the problem here. P2P is just starting to grow to its potential and there are those who wish to cut its head off and squash technology which has many other benefits.

Outlawing P2P will only serve to benefit the profits of a corrupt industry that has shown they care about 1 thing at the expense of our rights and freedoms. The music industry has shown they can break laws (price fixing/collusion), bend them (not paying royalties to artists, market manipulation, deceptive contract practices), or get the laws changed to benefit them (copyright extension, $150,000 per infraction).

Re:Madness

[Scyber]

Its not that it is difficult to catch them drinking, it is because it is difficult to establish probable cause in order to administer a breathalyzer test and/or search the vehicle. The Open Container law gives the Officer the ability to do both.

Re:Madness

[Caiwyn]

Your e-book example is relevant, but I don't think it's the lack of a quality filter that's holding them back. The real trouble is promotion.

With the exception of a microscopic minority, the vast majority of people using p2p use it to search for material they already know. On rare occasions, they may try out something that has been recommended by a friend, but this is a similar concept. Ultimately, people don't really discover new music using p2p applications, and that's where the analogy falls down.

The music labels aren't afraid of losing power. They're afraid of losing money. As broadband connections get faster and advanced compression makes files smaller, it won't be long before you can quickly and easily get a lossless copy of a CD without paying for it. When this happens, they lose money, even moreso than they are now. They are trying to keep that from happening.

Personally, I despise their actions, as they treat their honest customers like criminals and degrade the quality of life for everyone with their lawsuits and their lobbying. The potential destruction this bill can do to the internet itself is outrageous. But I understand and sympathize with their motives.

It's one thing to download music via p2p as a way to test the quality of an album, or even to try something new. But if you keep that music and choose not to buy the CD or compensate the publisher in some other way, you are effectively stealing. Pay for what you want to keep, or delete what you've downloaded and move on.

Re:Madness

[grahamm]

That is probably why, whenever you see charts or statistics of "legal" music downloads it only includes the sites where the downloader has to pay. They never even mention that it is possible to legally download tracks which are either free of charge or for a fee from the artist's (who is often both writer and performer) web site.

Re:Madness

[ckaminski]

It's not about power...

It about money. Plain and simple. Money. These people are too short-sighted and arrogant to be power hungry. They want their fancy cars, and jets, houses and surgically altered wives. And they want protection. As long as it's taxpayer funded.

Money, pal. :-) There's a reason why "follow the money" is the #1 crime-solving method...

Re:Madness

[Rotten168]

When you say "personal copies" I was thinking copies of something you already own.

The Slashdot community is hopelessly stupid and hypocritical in terms of their complaints about copyright... copyright is the only thing keeping the GPL from having any meaning whatsoever and copyright is the only thing preventing a company like Microsoft from trolling a site like Sourceforge and stealing gigabytes of the crappy code that's usually posted there.

Re:Madness

[ad0gg]

Montana has no open container laws, you can drink while driving.

Re:Madness

[mpe]

This is just like so-called open container laws. It is already illegal to drive drunk. But, the very act of having an open bottle of booze in my car is illegal. Why? By itself, there is nothing wrong with it. The only problem is when I, as a drive, start drinking from it. But then I'm breaking an already existing law!!!

Also whilst it isn't illegal for a passenger to be drunk, these laws make it illegal for passengers to drink. But odds on they are not used against the rich who have minibars in chauffeur driven cars.

Re:Madness

[mpe]

Come now, the reason for the open container law is because it's often hard to catch someone drinking in the act.

But there are standard forensic tests to find out if someone is too intoxicated to drive. If they are it dosn't really matter where they consumed the alcohol.

But if they have an open container of alcohol in the car, what possible reason could that have other than that they've been drinking from it?

Could just as easily be a passenger, most cars are designed to carry several passengers.
If there is a real requirment to prove the driver was drinking from that container then (again) well known forensic tests will do the job.

Re:Madness

[mpe]

This has been my argument against gun control laws for years. Why do we "need" gun control laws, I ask. "Because people might commit crimes with guns," apologists for unchecked government power tell me. So then I ask: if the bad things people might do with guns are crimes, aren't there, by definition, already laws against them? Why do you then need another law making guns illegal too?

Do you think a criminal is going to be that concerned that they can't use a legal gun? It's not as if these laws appear to have much effect on black market gun supply...

Re:Madness

[ahodgson]

Orrin needs 50 other politicians to agree with him just to move this out of the Senate, and another few hundred to make it a law. Do you really think this won't pass?

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control advocates still seem to believe that restricting gun ownership someone makes it harder for criminals to get guns. Past experience be damned.

Ask them if they know anyone who wants marijuana or even cocaine but hasn't been able to acquire some. That's after 100% prohibition for the better part of a century. Ask them why they think gun control would work any better.

Ask them why prominant gun control advocates seem to think it's OK for their own bodyguards to be armed, why they think it's OK for government agents to be armed, and why they think that none of those guns would ever find their way into criminal hands, even given otherwise perfect gun control.

Re:Madness

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Do you think a criminal is going to be that concerned that they can't use a legal gun? It's not as if these laws appear to have much effect on black market gun supply...

We're getting pretty far from the original topic now, but isn't that all the more reason not to keep guns (and therefore self-defense and any kind of deterrence) out of the hands of law-abiding citizens?

As the old NRA saying goes, if guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns...
In Switzerland, the presence of guns in every household (guns were issued to and taken home by everyone who performed the mandatory military service) did not lead to higher crime rates - it in fact led to very low rates. Similarly, when Kennesaw, Georgia passed a VERY liberal (in the sense of "liberty") gun law, crime rates went down.
I don't think that's enough evidence to say guns reduce crime, but it is enough to say guns don't cause or increase crime. So the authoritarians' argument to take guns out of the hands of people ("they might use them to commit crimes") is... well, shot to Hell.

--Mark

Re:Madness

[syberanarchy]

Not all information, news, and media should be controlled by corporations.

Gasp! I'm going to call the FBI! I think I may have found a potential terrorist! ;)

Re:Madness

[mark-t]

Actually, the strongest argument _for_ gun control isn't that they are used to commit crimes (even though that is the one they invariable mention). The strongest argument for gun control is the simple and inalterable truth that guns are extremely dangerous, and as dangerous tools, should have their availability quite strictly controlled. Yes, in the hands of someone who has been well trained a gun is not overly dangerous, but without gun control measures, the likelihood of someone who isn't so well trained having a gun escalates dramatically. This potentially poses a danger to both the gun owner and the general public, and is why gun control can reasonably be argued as not redundant, merely because there are already laws against the crimes that happen to be committed with guns.

Re:Madness

[M. Baranczak]

The only problem is when I, as a drive, start drinking from it

Why is that neccessarily a problem? For most adults, a SMALL amount of booze won't affect their ability to drive safely, (and drunk driving laws do reflect this fact.) If it's legal to drink one beer, then start driving, why is it illegal to drink that beer WHILE you're driving?

Since it takes roughly an hour to metabolize one drink, you should be able to finish off a six-pack in an 8 hour drive, as long as you space the beers properly, and maybe stop for lunch along the way..

Re:Madness

[mpe]

Does this mean artists wont have incentive to create?

A more fundermental question would be "Does the possibility of making money act as an incentive for creation?"

No. Artists will still make a living the way they have for centuries before and during the age of recordings- by sponsorship and charging for live performances.

Or they have a job and make music, write books, etc in their "spare time".

Re:Madness

[M. Baranczak]

This is definitely a big problem in politics - I think it just represents intellectual laziness on the part of the public. People either get caught up in the "right vs left" game, or else they shrug and say "all these guys are liars, they're all the same". Both approaches avoid a thorough and open-minded assesment of the real issues at hand; after all, an such an assesment would actually require effort.

Re:Madness

[mpe]

You're an idiot. People steal a lot of cars off of dealer lots, is that clearly a failed business model? Maybe we should give them all away for free instead.

If someone takes a car then the dealer has one less car to sell. Also a car, as a physical machine, has a real and quantifiable cost of manufacture. A music recording is simply data, which can be copied at negligable cost.
A better analogy would be if someone used a matter replicator on the car dealer's stock. Matter replication machines do not exist outside of fiction...

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of who really runs the show. The bill holds the company responsible for the individual's abuse of the product. And somehow, when this same logic is applied to the huge gun manufacturers, it becomes ridiculous to the same people supporting the bill.

Re:Madness

[AaroneousMaximus]

Stealing from your store? What does your store sell? Maybe it's vegetables? Now they're not actually taking your vegetables, they're taking the seeds out of the ones you sold them, and using them to grow their own in vegetable gardens. Is this stealing? I think not. Still going to go get them with your "big fucking bat"? Maybe instead all you have to do is get the cops to do it for you, after you call in a favour from one of your Utah based Washington buddies.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

I can borrow a book from the library.

Since no copying operation is performed when you borrow a book (you're not making a new book), this shouldn't be covered by copyright anyway.

Re:Madness

[sadler121]

you should be able to finish off a six-pack in an 8 hour drive, as long as you space the beers properly, and maybe stop for lunch along the way..

I think you are assuming that others would do the same, not everyone is as smart as you are, (not to be condesending to you at all). A lot of our laws are made for the lowest common denominator, those who CAN'T space a six pack properly. As a result we get these stupid laws, like open container laws, to prevent the dumb ones from killing everyone else.

IMO we should just let survival of the fittest take its course and weed out the dumb ones in our socity.

Re:Madness

[__aanebg9627]

Long ago, monarchs granted monopolies (called 'letters patent' ) on the production of goods. The people holding these monopolies would make a killing, anyone else infringing on the monopoly would get shut down. Nations which didn't restrict production prospered, those with monopolies fell behind. When the U.S. Constitution was written, such powers to grant monopolies were considered and rejected as harmful to prosperous commerce; the framers were familiar with British experience. The British parliament severely restricted the ability of the British Crown to issue such monopolies in the Statute of Monopolies of 1624. Eliminating the Royal monopolies gave England the commercial foundation for its prosperous industries and later, the industrial revolution.

Copyright is just a relic monopoly from that bygone era, and should be abolished, just as the old industrial monopoly privileges have been. A copyright isn't 'property', it's a government-granted monopoly, that is choking off progress. You can call it property all you like, but the fact remains that it's only a grant of monopoly by the government; the many areas of fair use were put in to prevent abuses of that monopoly privilege. It's not all that different from a monopoly on the production of bread, porcelain, or trade in tea.

Re:Madness

[Our Man In Redmond]

Actually a band that wasn't signed to a label always had the option of -- get ready for it -- playing music for its fans in person. (Amazingly enough, bands signed to labels had that option, and often found it was the only way to actually make money now that they were signed to a label that insisted on nickeling-and-diming them to death as agreed to in their contract.) In recent years they've also had the option of making CDs to sell directly to the fans. Well, they've always had the option of selling directly to the fans, but until relatively recently it was prohibitively expensive.

Now there are two threats to the music division of what I've termed the Entertainment-Industrial Complex. First is that people will discover that you can find performers that play music you enjoy and are good at it, without their assistance and without having the EIC-sanctioned acts shoved down your throat. Second is that, having found those groups, you will support them through live concerts and recordings, without the assistance of the EIC.

There are a lot of people involved in the music arm of the Entertainment-Industrial Complex, from the guy stocking the bins at the Best Buy to the president of Warner Brothers Records, and this emerging paradigm is threatening every single one of them. It's going to be a long fight, and unless they adapt the EICers will die, but it's not going to be pretty along the way.

Re:Madness

[thenightisdark]

"There has to be a filter on quality"
Why do you want some one else to filter your quality? Have the self confendece to filter your own likes, and dislikes.

Re:Madness

[aj50]

AFAIK in the UK (and probably the us) you can make a backup copy for personal use but only if you own the thing you're copying and you can't distribute any copies. Also, if you sell the original you must destroy the copies of give them to the buyer.

Re:Madness

[djmurdoch]

The Slashdot community is hopelessly stupid and hypocritical in terms of their complaints about copyright... copyright is the only thing keeping the GPL from having any meaning whatsoever and copyright is the only thing preventing a company like Microsoft from trolling a site like Sourceforge and stealing gigabytes of the crappy code that's usually posted there.

??? What does this have to do with anything we were talking about ???

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone takes a car, then one less person will buy a car from the dealer. If someone downloads a song, there is one less person that will buy the CD.

Re:Madness

[Starsmore]

Something is only worth as much as the people will pay for it.

The people have obviously spoken; they don't want to pay ridiculously marked-up prices for products.

Corporate CEOs don't want to see their million-dollar paychecks disappear, so they con the government into making us keep paying them, even though the people have clearly said that they need to go burn in hell.

Re:Madness

[dunstan]

Often the filtering and promotion mechanism is hardworking DJs - radio stations get endless material sent in all the time, and if they can play something and then give details of how to get it for free on P2P then the industry has been completely bypassed.

Essentially we are seeing the cathedral of the music industry giving way to a bazaar based around P2P. This could be, creatively, a very interesting time to live.

D.

Re:Madness

[Rotten168]

??? What does this have to do with anything we were talking about ???

Nothing, I'm just ranting. ;)

The Children

[BSAtHome]

Yes please, will somebody think of the children. They must be protected.

Re:The Children

[xyvimur]

Children are extremely good topic for the `masses' - people who don't know anything about p2p will be against it - if you say them - that banning it will protect children.
Unfortunatelly not many know, who will really benefit from this legislation.

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

user@localhost:/$ su
Password:
root@localhost:/# apt-get libwww-perl-5.800
root@localhost:/# exit
user@localhost:/$ get "http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?x= &sid=113695&cid=9630515" | sed -e s/protected/prosecuted/

Re:The Children

[Ubergrendle]

Without doing any goolging, I'm willing to bet $$$ that Hatch is in favour of the NRA and rejects restrictions on gun ownership/registration.

I find this vaguely amusing -- P2P applications which hurt businesses must be made ILLEGAL, but ownership of devices that can be used to maim and kill humans and animals IS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

PS Note: I am against gun ownership, but consider legislating against such to be a wasted time and effort.

Re:The Children

[junklight]

So lets get this straight- the American government wants to protect *my* children by making the world the live in a poorer place as well as being full of laws that stop them thinking for themselves.

Sure glad I ain't an american at the moment

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite. On a parallel note, I fully expect to see stem cell research become legal again as soon as a big pharmaceutical corporation discovers an incredibly profitable application of it (in one of their overseas labs, of course)...

Re:The Children

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Children must be protected from the terrible secret of space. Do you have stairs in your house?

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. save the children. Oh, live for the children. FUCK THE CHILDREN - George Carlin

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is a god given right, If it wasn't why would animals be so tasty?

Re:The Children

[ALpaca2500]

yes, but guns are made specifically for that purpose.

Re:The Children

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but I am from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Punctuation, and I would just like to have a little talk with you.

Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[192939495969798999]

You know, client/server apps can distribute stuff illegally too! Heck, why not outlaw stores and banks, because people can steal things from them! They're effectively encouraging you to take the money from the vault!

ARGH!

Re:Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, they should outlaw guns too, because they induce children to kill, with false promises of looking cool.

Better yet, outlaw legislators because they induce the public to go nuts and vote for them, with false promises of actually trying to help them.

Re:Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[lemody]

but client-server apps are not the same thing. i am sure that downloading pirate-sw has increased very very much when p2p came around.

Re:Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[192939495969798999]

Agreed, but the point is that the delivery system has nothing to do with the fact that people decided to share illegal content. People use client-server to share legal and illegal content all the time, and no one cares, it's just the idea that you can't "shut it down" with p2p that scares people, i think.

Re:Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[eggoeater]

YEAH!! And while were at it... let's burn some books! But only those 'BAD' books that teach children 'BAD' things.

Re:Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[k98sven]

but client-server apps are not the same thing. i am sure that downloading pirate-sw has increased very very much when p2p came around.

And the Internet is not the same thing as the US Postal Service.
I am sure that people sending kiddie-porn to eachother has increased very very much since the internet came around.

Ergo: Ban the Internet?

Re:Why not outlaw client-server apps too?

[lemody]

>I am sure that people sending kiddie-porn to
>eachother has increased very very much since
>the internet came around.

sure, especially with p2p progs. actually I do not remember seeing porn almost at all with traditional warezing, ftp-sites were for apps and games and nowadays also for divx/dvd movies.

Uh Huh...

[deutschemonte]

So are they going to pass a law that prevents the labels from illegally enticing people to buy CD's that have built in copyright protection?

Their argument is that DL'ing copyrighted works is violating the rights of the artist and copyright holders.

I say they are violating the rights of the people by placing undue restrictions on our property!

Re:Uh Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So are they going to pass a law that prevents the labels from illegally enticing people to buy CD's that have built in copyright protection?"

Or better still start attacking the content of music that incites illegal behaviour?

Re:Uh Huh...

[macdaddy357]

Yes, they have no respect for the property rights of their customers. They want to convince congress that "intellectual property" is more important than real, tangible property. They intend to do it through bribery. The RIAA and the labels that make it up won't have money to do this if we boycott them until they are broke. Don't buy CD.

Re:Uh Huh...

[DrEldarion]

It's their product. You have no "rights" that can determine what they do with their product.

You do have the right to not buy it, though.

Re:Uh Huh...

[Ice_Balrog]

I have a better idea... how about we have no laws on copy protection? That way, they can have their copy protection, and we can crack it (faster than they can come up with copy protection, I might add) and distribute the cracks freely. There's no need for extra legslitation that removes rights from either the distributer or the owner.

Re:Uh Huh...

[pyros]

I'm surprised nobody replied about Rick Boucher's bill, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act. It requires producers to clearly label their products as incorporating copy protection devices.

Re:Uh Huh...

[Opie812]

You have no "rights" that can determine what they do with their product.

Once I buy it, it is my product. I can do what I want with my products. They have no right to tell me what I can do with it once I buy it.

Having said that, I generally disagree with people making music available for distribution over P2P. Same for software, movies, etc....

These strong-arm tactics make me less open to their point of view over time. Every time I hear about this person being sued, that new law, I cringe and reconsider by position.

Re:Uh Huh...

[DrEldarion]

Yes, you can (well, should be able to) do what you want with it. However, they can always modify their product to try and stop you. If you don't agree with what they're doing, then you always have the freedom to not buy what they're selling.

Re:Uh Huh...

[dissy]

> It's their product. You have no "rights" that can determine what they do
> with their product.

That isn't actually true.

To understand why, you have to look at things from the start.

In the beginning, there was no concept of IP or laws about it.
People could create anything they want, but anyone else could rip it off.
Some people were OK with this, and planned for it. Others didn't like it of course.

So we setup a deal, which is called copyright. It's a give/take deal (like all are) which goes like this:

From the artists point of view, you
Take - copyright's, which state for a limited time you CAN say what can be done with your work in terms of who else is allowed to distribute it other than yourself.
Give - that work to the public domain after that limited time, so the world will be a better place with new ideas to build upon.

So you had the option of using copyright, or not using it.

Some people choose not to use it at all and the same 'anyone can rip the idea' logic applied. Some choose to accept the deal, and the public granted the artist a limited monopoly of sorts. Remember that this monopoly is only over who can distribute the work, under the idea that the person(s) distributing the work can do so for money.

But people nowadays are forgetting what the artist promised to give back to the public in exchange for this. The public domain gets that work to better everyone.
This is the cost of copyright.
If the artist did not want to accept this deal, then they should not have copyrighted their work in the first place.

Today, artists feel they can take our copyright deal and not pay for it by returning their works to the public domain.

It was only sorta bad when they just stated this was how they wanted it (IE stealing from the public by using copyright without paying) but little could be done because if I obtained a copy (legally or otherwise) it was mine to store and hold onto until the copyright expired, and at that time it was literally mine to do with as I would please.

DRM and these recent laws are actually making it illegal for the public to both demand payment, and try to collect payment by force.

Then on top of this (and LONG after the fact) the matter is made worse because a percentage of the public has decided to not honour the copyright deal what so ever, fully expecting to get ripped off in the end.
While most times this expectation may actually be right, there ARE times when it would not be, and these are the people/artists that still deserve the deal of copyright and can't get it.

Its almost perfectly comparable to a bank (the public) that gives out credit loans (temp monopolys) to people (artists)
When a bank does this, and a person does not pay back the credit loan, they are free to both never loan to that person again, as well as attempt to collect their debt.

These new laws are basically making it (in aniligy) illegal for the bank to collect their past due debts, AND forcing them to still hand out loans to these people.

Natrually the bank (IE the public) would hate this!
If the bank was to decide that they simply are not giving out loans to anyone at all anymore, the govt would definatly not step in and tell them they have no choice but to do so.
But this is exactly what has happened with copyright.
We, the public, are told to deal with getting screwed, and told that it will continue to happen, by our own government.

Both sides are guilty here. First the artists, then the people.
I'm not going to pretend I have any numbers or percentages of each group are playing fair vs are playing crooked, but I think it is safe to say its a BIG percent on both sides not playing fair.

The only answers are, both sides need to straighten up and fly right, or just remove the deal all together.

I must be new here...

[sploo22]

So, when was the last time that Kazaa told kids to steal music? Shouldn't the parents be the ones looking out for their kids? The RIAA is (surprise!) in favor of this, while P2P groups are (surprise!) opposed.

My gosh! Thanks to the submitter, I know exactly what position to argue! Thanks so much!

Baaaaaa.

Oh, the children...

[Dagny Taggert]

This makes me sick! We better outlaw the production of any software that plays MP3s as well, since they are accessories to the crime of stealing music. Oh, and CD burners, and operating systems, can PCs and phone and cable lines. In fact, someone had just better come over to my house and arrest me right now. Sheesh!

Re:Oh, the children...

[eofpi]

Not to mention making Microsoft illegal, as their operating systems are the most common (if not only) environments for p2p apps.

so, what does that mean?

[dekeji]

It will be interesting to hear these people come up with a definition of "P2P" or "software that encourages children and teenagers to infringe copyrights". Any definition I can think of would include most Internet software and, for that matter, Microsoft Windows.

Re:so, what does that mean?

[MoonFog]

Not only that, P2P is an interesting alternative to the traditional C/S model. This appears to be a move that is not very well thought out, are they going to ban FTP since you can distribute copyrighted material over FTP as well? I don't think these guys know enough about technology to really tell what's going on and what needs to be done. I'm fairly sure they are not even willing to hear expert opinions on this either..

Re:so, what does that mean?

[Short Circuit]

How about word processing software? Or college classes requiring you to write papers? Or every instance of a family singing "Happy Birthday"?

Re:so, what does that mean?

[eofpi]

I haven't read the text of the bill myself, and, as my sig says, IANAL, but everything I've read about it (probably all biased, but still...) says it's even more overly broad than the DMCA. It seems to me that we would effectively be able to say anything related to data interchange documented in an RFC would immediately be illegal, regardless of legal usefulness.

Regardless of whether they want expert opinions on this or not, they need them. Anyone else up for writing their congresspeople?

Re:so, what does that mean?

[CodeJudge]

> It will be interesting to hear these people come up with a definition ...

The proposed law is quite short: it basically #includes the definition of breach of copyright that applies to individual acts and says anyone who makes a product that enables it "shall be liable as an infringer". It's a direct attack on the "substantial non-infringing use" shield for manufacturers set up in the Betamax case years ago.

EFF has good analysis of this on their web site: it's unlikely to result in more guilty verdicts, but is going to result in many more completely specious lawsuits.

Basically, it allows media companies to "sue to death" the manufacturer of any technology that threatens to reduce their margins. They'll lose at trial, but at a million dollars a month for lawyers, what little company is going to get that far?

Re:so, what does that mean?

[subStance]

I don't think these guys know enough about technology to really tell what's going on and what needs to be done

Since when has that stopped laws being passed ?

There's apparently a great line in the new Michael Moore movie where a senate guy says something along the lines of "We don't read most of the bills that we pass".

Re:so, what does that mean?

[manabadman]

What in the world are you talking about? Oh, think I understand. You raise some good points. Where exactly will the line be drawn? I think we are OK for the time being though.

How about word processing software? Or college classes requiring you to write papers?

Persons can use Word Processing software to duplicate (plagiarise). Likewise college courses do drive alot of persons to copy the work of others in an unethical manner. But in both cases the intent of the software manufacturer/college is not to encourage copying. In fact colleges strongly discourage unethical use of other's work.

Or every instance of a family singing "Happy Birthday"?

I don't think that copyright holder has ever claimed that private performance of his or her song was in violation of their copyright.

From the article, quoting from the bill - "creates a new class of people who can be sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement -- those who a "reasonable person" would believe "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" copyright violations"

The spirit of the bill doesn't seem to include any of your examples, but we all know how creative these lawyers can get.

By the way 'Happy Birthday' is now free, anyone can use it. Previously while still under copyright Sony had to pay US 1 cent in fees for each device (well for some watches anyway) it produced that played that jingle.

Re:so, what does that mean?

[jc42]

[A]re they going to ban FTP since you can distribute copyrighted material over FTP as well?

Probably. And they'll also ban SMB file sharing, since that clearly enables copyright violation.

Of course, this will make Windows boxes a lot more secure, so maybe it's a Good Thing.

And who'd have thought that Orrin Hatch would be the one that would finally force Microsoft to remove a major security hole from their software?

Actually, when you consider that unix-like systems are multi-user systems with a file system that encourages shared files and enables cooperative development, I'd wonder whether this bill would ban unix file systems.

Maybe what we should do is check out the computers in use by Hatch's political organization, and demand that they remove all software that enables copyright violation, starting with their email software. Maybe that would get the message across.

Re:so, what does that mean?

[silicon not in the v]

Maybe what we should do is check out the computers in use by Hatch's political organization, and demand that they remove all software that enables copyright violation, starting with their email software. Maybe that would get the message across.

Now that would be a cool move. I don't think they realize how idiotic and broad the legislation is. It will probably have to hit them in the nose before they will realize what they have done. I would like to pursue that with the police if that passes. What? You have an email account? We'll have to press charges against your ISP. You have a computer you use to check that email? We'll have to confiscate that.

Re:so, what does that mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they don't. I mean, most bills are insanely long so that's a lot to read. On the other hand, don't forget that they do have a fairly substantial collection of staffers around to read the bills for them.

Re:so, what does that mean?

[cliffmeece]

Something like that has already happened

Orrin Hatch, Software Pirate?

Re:so, what does that mean?

[jc42]

Yeah, I remember the fuss over Hatch's web site using unlicensed "pirated" software. They apparently did get a license after this was brought to light.

But the current legislation is even more extreme, in a sense. Hatch and his people wouldn't be able to avoid the issue by belatedly applying for a license. Even if they had a license to use things like email and browsers, the license wouldn't stop the copyright violations that these tools make easy. You can't give someone a license to violate other people's copyrights.

We should be pointing out to them that email and browsers are primary examples of tools that enable copyright violation. If they really believe in what they're proposing, they should remove such software from their own computers. If they don't, they are openly telling the world that they consider themselves exempt from the rules that they want to impose on the rest of us.

Re:so, what does that mean?

[LucidBeast]

Microsoft is distributing SDK for P2P. I haven't looked at it closely, but accoriding to the FAQ, you could easily develope a filesharing application using it. Download

As with Guns.

[jjholt1213]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. P2 has many legal uses they've been posted here many times before so I won't repeat them now. Maybe we should ban the sale of car's people break the law in them all the time so they must be bad aswell. or ban razor blades and OTC pain killer's 100's if not 1000's of people attempt sucide using them. See It gets alittle out of hand doesn't it.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

If the statistics tells us anything it's that: People don't kill people Americans kill people.

Re:As with Guns.

[MoonFog]

But a big corporation is "loosing" money on P2P, cars MAKES money for corporations. Unfortunately, it really is that cynical.

Re:As with Guns.

[theridersofrohan]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

and so do monkeys!... if you give them a gun. (thanks eddie izzard!)

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, uh, people do." But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that.

Additional thanks to Eddie Izzard.

Re:As with Guns.

[nandu_prahlad]

The way it works is through lobbies and pressure groups. Lobbies have privileged access and influence with Washington. That is why even though guns kill people there is such a tough time passing gun control legislation. Purely because, the gun lobbies have a huge war chest of dollars, and have a very effective lobby. P2P software users are just regular joes. Even though P2P doesn't present as grave a danger as guns & they are several million users of p2p software than those who own handguns, they do not have a lobby group or access to a collective war chest to fight cases. When a user is hit with a law suit, he has only 2 options, he can choose to settle with the RIAA or he can choose to settle with the RIAA. It is mostly an individual's battle. As it is not possible for other users to support him, for obvious reasons. Any misgivings that a sued individual has about RIAA heavy-handedness is lost among the voices of other "special interest" groups in Washington. It may make shockwaves that the RIAA has sued a 12 year old kid, but they don't reach where it counts ie., Washington.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact remains that the 12 year old girl was sharing copyrighted music.

continuing the gun analogy, if a 12 year old kid shoots someone its still murder.

(although i do disagree strongly with this bill)

-bh

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

So bad the large corporations. Do most employees not work for small companies, and do these small companies not (collectively) contribute more to the economy than the large corporations? So encourage the small business over the large corporation.

Re:As with Guns.

[Chatmag]

One of the arguments the anti-gun folks use is that certain weapons can be converted into fully automatic, high magazine capacity weapons.

In Iraq, Volkswagan Passats (and other makes) are being used as car bombs, so maybe we should outlaw VW's, as they are too easily converted into car bombs.

I'm all in favor of banning razors, long live the beard! (except for women, hairy legs and arm pits are a definite turn off).

Re:As with Guns.

[sabernet]

If a 12-year-old girl steals candy from the store, will she get threatened with a lawsuit vs a baseless and ridiculously large settlement?

No.

She will pay the MATERIAL damages(or return the candy), and get a scolding from mah and pah(hopefully). In turn, she learns a valuable lesson.

There is an air of "fairness" that you seem to forget.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly how many gun control laws are on the books right now? Have any of them had any statistically significant impact on crime

Why don't you compare the murder rate in Toronto to that of Baltimore, further compare the number of shootings.

I've lived in both cities, they are of comparable size and ethnic makeup. They have largely the same criminal activities.

The big difference is, Mickey the nickel-and-dime pot dealer doesn't carry a gun in Toronto.

Gun control does work. The "if you criminalize guns only criminals will have guns!" argument is so lame. Of course, criminals will have guns. And they'll be locked up for having the guns - ergo being criminals. Duh.

A concealed carry in Canada is considered a violent offense, and carries hefty (10-20 year) jail terms. 16 year old niggers are stupid, but not stupid enough to risk that.

Re:As with Guns.

[pyros]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people

I think the gun helps. You're not going to kill too many people standing on the corner going "BANG! BOOM! RATATAT! BOOM!"

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew someone would make this analogy, but there's a massive difference between gun control and the subject of this story: namely p2p software has both legitimate and illegitimate targets (copyrighted and non-copyrighted files). Guns, on the other hand, only have one major target: Life; and they destroy it rather than share it equally.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

that's eddie izzard material you thief!

Re:As with Guns.

[tanguyr]

ROFLMAO.

thank you very much, that made my day.

Re:As with Guns.

[toiletmonster]

i know its a joke, but thats not even close to true.

Lenin's collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths. In 1932, Stalin ordered the Ukraine starved to enforce collectivization and crush Ukrainian nationalism. At least 8 million Ukrainians were murdered. Others resorted to cannibalism. From 1917 to Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union, worshipped by leftists around the world as the pinacle of human political accomplishment, shot, tortured, beat, froze or starved to death at least 40 million of its people. Some Russian historians claim the true figure is even higher.

About 25 million soldiers died in World Wars I and II. Another 12 million were killed in the 20th century's other wars and revolutions, a total of 37 million dead.

In China, Mao Zedong had 2 million 'class enemies' shot when the communists took control. Another million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were 'liquidated' from 1950-1975. During Mao's Great Leap Forward, in which China's farmers were collectivized en masse, an estimated 30 million or more people starved to death. Another two million are said to have been killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution.Total: 35 million dead.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews.

supposedly about 10,000 iraqis have died "due to us intervention in iraq" (iraqibodycount.org -- a rabidly leftist freakshow). bodycount.org doesn't distinguish between innocent iraqis and saddam's raping, thieving fedayeen thugs for example. it also includes "civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation." on the other hand it only includes deaths confirmed by two different sources.

Casualties from saddam's gulag alone (not even mentioning casualties from wars, starvation, poverty, sponsered terrorism, etc, etc) are about 200,000 over about 20 years which averages to about 10,000 dead iraqis a year. (data from a new york times article, link here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp ?ID=5773 ).

so if you figure that saddam would have been in power another 10 or 20 years, it could be argued that american intervention in iraq has saved
100,000 - 200,000 lives. and thats probably a conservative number since we don't count how many people saddam caused to starve by destroying the economy, dead iraqi soldiers from crazy wars, etc.

these are obviously not super solid statistics. (figures don't lie, but lyars can figure) but i'm just saying that its not easy or obvious to conclude the war was immoral or bad or not worth it or whatever if you only consider innocent civilian deaths as a metric. and its too often assumed to be otherwise.

Re:As with Guns.

[toiletmonster]

what about target practice? what about self defense? hunting?

Re:As with Guns.

[mark-t]

The biggest problem with guns isn't that they can be used to commit a crime... the biggest problem is that they are extremely dangerous. And with gun control, the likelihood of a person owning a gun who isn't trained in handling their weapons responsibly and safely is dramatically lower than it would be otherwise.

Gun control should not be seen as a measure to reduce crime... at best, that just might be a convenient side effect. It really should be viewed only as an effort to control the availability of what is ultimately an extremely dangerous device when in the hands of someone who hasn't gone through a satisfactory level of training in weapons safety and handling. In many respects, not unlike an automobile, although I would say that guns are more dangerous because they can harm people at a greater distance with much less effort.

Also, when a person has been trained in the proper and safe handling storage of guns, it becomes that much less likely that their gun will be stolen and used for a crime that way, simply because they've secured their weapon in a place where thieves are unlikely to be able to get it.

So ultimately, the real problem with guns isn't their availability, it's the level of education that people have on their use and storage, but it's actually easier have gun control than it is to try to start a nation-wide education program when a lot of people would just be apathetic about it, effectively diminishing its effiacy to near zero.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people

Its usually the bullets.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

i know its a joke, but thats not even close to true.

Statistics were mentioned; the death due to violence rate in the US is close to 9 people per 100k inhabitants (with cities over one million around 16 dead per 100k). That's more than Northern Ireland during the time of the troubles (around 8 on average). Much more than even the most violent European nation (Britain, closer to 4 on last count), more than Germany and France (around 2.5 to 3 if memory serves) and Scandinavia; close to 1.

So Americans do indeed kill people, New Yorkers before zero tolerance (at close to 32 dead per 100k) managed to kill a far larger percentage of their population than the IRA, lots of people. The rest of the world is just happy that you don't get out more (only what, 5% have passports?), Iraq notwithstanding. :-)

And incidentally, some backwaters in Europe with the highest incidence of gun ownership also have the lowest incidence of violent deaths, guns in and of themselves don't actually kill people. However, those are of course long guns, there is almost no hand gun ownership in (Northern) Europe (as there is little percieved need) and I don't know the ratio of handgun to long gun for the US. So, I'm left to conclude that 'Guns don't kill people, Americans (with handguns?) kill people (well mostly other Americans).

And you fingerprint the rest of us on entry? :-) You should be leaving in droves if you're afraid of violence, maybe trying to shoot your way out? :-)

Re:As with Guns.

[toiletmonster]

hmm....

US has 4 murders per 100,000 people
France has 1 murder per 100,000 people
UK has 1 murder per 100,000 people
Ireland has 0 murders per 100,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

is 4 murders per 100,000 people a lot more than 1 murder per 100,000 people? i guess i don't really know. i don't feel unsafe in my city.

maybe only 5% have passports because its the best place in the world to be. last time i checked, everyone outside wanted in. the US is also really freaking big. not having left germany is like not ever having left ohio. ooooo there are germans that have been to paris. sheesh its only like 5 miles away.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want to compare the 'murder' rate per country, as that's subjective. You want to compare the number of dead as a result of violence as that's a more certain statistics, all dead people tend to end up in the statistics with non of that "but it was only man slaughter/self defence" bull shit that US constantly pulls. (A bit like the "No our quota's full so we can't take your report the NY police tried to pull when zero tollerance was in its heyday".)

And P.S. you don't need a passport to go from Germany to France or vice versa, and haven't in a long time, so that's no reason.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

US has 4 murders per 100,000 people

7.12 homicides per 100,000 in 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control

and that's homicides - if you look at all firearm related deaths, irrespective of intent, over the same period, it's 10.36 per 100,000.

Of course, the CDC only publishes US stats, so we can't compare with the other countries in your list.

Re:As with Guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guns don't kill people, it's just the way the bullets rip through their flesh."

I'm confused

[orin]

Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products, but P2P vendors are?

Both products, of course, can be used without breaking the law.

Re:I'm confused

[lacrymology.com]

" Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products, but P2P vendors are?"

Yeah, but what good will P2P do you when the King of England starts pushing you around? Well? That's what I thought.

-m

Re:I'm confused

[forgotmypassword]

Handguns have a functional purpose other than to kill human beings?

Re:I'm confused

[RayBender]

Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products, but P2P vendors are?"

Yeah, but what good will P2P do you when the King of England starts pushing you around? Well? That's what I thought.

Actually, as any experienced grass-roots activist, political dissident, resistance fighter, insurgent, terrorist or law enforcement officer knows, the key to successfully opposing those in power is a secure communications network. Encrypted P2P comes pretty close to that. That may be part of the reason it's being outlawed.

Re:I'm confused

[mangastudent]

Handguns have a functional purpose other than to kill human beings?

Absolutely.

In fact, in the US at least, civilians and the police are explicitly forbidden to kill. for any reason whatsoever.

We are allowed to use "lethal force" to stop someone in certain situations (and unfortunately effective stopping often results in killing, but that's not the intent). I can go into details, but that's the basic principle.

Re:I'm confused

[meringuoid]

Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the actions of the people that use their products, but P2P vendors are?

It seems to me that the gun nuts may actually have a use here.

If computer hardware can be restricted under munitions export laws, then computers are weapons.

If computers are weapons then they come under the Second Amendment.

If computers come under the Second Amendment then all this godawful stuff about federally-mandated DRM is unconstitutional. You'll take my general-purpose programmable computer from my cold, dead hands!

Re:I'm confused

[SpaceLifeForm]

Download and play a Britney Spears MP3 of course! Makes 'em run.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they do, you can shoot a person in the leg, or the hand, or the foot, or you could kill a lot of people.

Re:I'm confused

[KarmaOverDogma]

You most certainly ARE confused.

Gun Lobby : Large, established, quite powerful not without cash
P2P "lobby": Puny, new, weak, and poor (at least at this time).

.

Re:I'm confused

[Planesdragon]

Both products, of course, can be used without breaking the law.

Kindly point me to a napster-style (i.e., search and download) P2P app that includes a working and used feature whereby the copyright status of any given file can be verified before I download it.

BitTorrent--which, IMIANALO, would be still legal under Hatch's law--is a file from the creator to a "mini-P2P net". It's inherently permission-driven.

Not so for other P2P programs I've seen.

Re:I'm confused

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Yes! You can also pratice shooting humans and slow/near animals.

Re:I'm confused

[Kierthos]

Well, if you're downloading things that you know are freeware but are just not available from the original site (for any number of reasons), then it's not infringing.

Just because a large number of people use P2P services to download movies or music does not mean that everything that gets downloaded is copyrighted or infringing. (I know of at least one person who used KaZaa to find an old video card driver he needed.)

Kierthos

Re:I'm confused

[confused one]

Yes.

Hunting (you need a big handgun).
Protection... from animals. I WILL NOT hike in certain parts of the country without a gun, or at least a big can of police/military grade pepper spray.
Target practice. Granted, this can be argued to be a form of practice for killing humans... But, many people find it, in and of itself, to be fun, challenging, and a good stress relief.

Re:I'm confused

[JJahn]

Well the second amendment does say "A well regulated militia". There are of course varying interpretations of what that means, or if it is even relevant to the second part about not infriging rights, but it seems to be the current consensus of the Supreme Court that regulating weapons is OK.

So I guess those DRM restrictions are just constitutional regulation.

Check out Findlaw for more information about the Second amendment.

(Disclaimer: This isn't how I personally feel, but its something to think about)

Re:I'm confused

[dave420]

When you download Shrek 2, no-one dies. When some nutter lets loose with his .50 in a shopping mall, you get the picture. It's not that hard a concept to grasp ;)

Re:I'm confused

[dave420]

Except that not all weapons come under the second ammendment. In fact, lots of people would argue that allowing rednecks guns doesn't come under it either ("militia" hardly suggests self-defense - kind of tenuous claim at best). The second ammendment is so anachronistic it's unbelievable.

Something else to think about... most gun owners are white, and politically right-leaning.

Re:I'm confused

[mangastudent]

[me] and unfortunately effective stopping often results in killing, but that's not the intent

Oh, so that's why everyone carries and uses nonlethal weapons which are just as effective and much less risky. Oh wait, they don't, and you're just spouting semantic bullshit.

(Getting off topic, but might as well play this thread out.)

If you could cite some "just as effective" or even somewhat effective non-lethal weapons, I'm all ears, I'd really like an option more gentle then a .45 230gr Golddot travelling at 800fps. But to my knowledge there aren't any (discounting shotgun launched "beanbags", which you can't carry concealed, I'm sure can still be lethal, and are otherwise impractical for daily carry by police or civilian).

But it's not "semantic bullshit"; there are roughly three ways to "stop" someone, in order of increasing effectiveness: will, blood, and CNS.

It would appear that most of the time, the threat of getting killed stops a criminal. E.g. something more than 90% of the time a threat alone works (I've seen this with my own eyes in the Boston area subway system). Also, it's my impression (I'm sure the statistics can be found) that most times a perp is hit, he doesn't die; the rule of thumb for handguns is only a fourth of those hit in the torso will die, and there are a lot of non-torso hits (which are still dangerous!).

There are plenty of situations where one hit stops the perp because (I assume) he loses the will to continue his threat.

Now things get really messy, and there's also disagreement in the field of "terminal ballistics"; I'm with Fackler.

One or more hits to the center of mass that penetrate will cause enough blood loss to stop someone. Unfortunately, this can take 1-2 minutes, during which a moral wound can be delivered to you. That's why you keep firing until the perp is down.... :-(

Loss of blood doesn't automatically result in death, but absent quick treatment at a good trauma center....

Finally, "best" of all (when narrowly looked at from the viewpoint of stopping) is a Central Nervous System (CNS) hit: spine or brain. That's another reason you shoot at the center of mass, you may get lucky and get a (non-fatal, perhaps) spine hit.

Of course the perp will likely be paralyzed for life, but ... in all these cases there's a reason why you (civilian or police) must be justified in using lethal force in the first place.

Anyway, at least we are agreed on this:

Guns don't kill people; people wielding guns kill people.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

If computers are weapons then they come under the Second Amendment

The second amendment protects the right to bear arms - mainly firearms. The second amendment does not protect your right to own/produce sarin or other chemical weapons, anthrax or other biological weapons, thermonuclear weapons, or other various explosive devices such as live rocket launchers, phosherous grenades, and flame throwers.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

And most who commit crimes with guns are neither white or right leaning. What is your point?

Re:I'm confused

[silicon not in the v]

You're confused? At least you know you're confused. These moron senators still need to be told of their condition.

Re:I'm confused

[Bob Loblaw]

So that was what they are talking about in the "right to bare ARMs" ... computer processors "exposed" on the net via P2P ...

Re:I'm confused

[silicon not in the v]

I live in Idaho, where mountain wilderness is a 20 min drive away. Many people I know have a handgun that they keep just to take with them when they go camping. There are a lot of wolves, bears, mountain lions, etc. out here, so protection is a very real factor.

Re:I'm confused

[dave420]

Wrong and wrong. What's your point? :-P

Re:I'm confused

[Rhys]

F9/11 comes out as a torrent.

Sen. Hatch tries to ban p2p again.

Hmm.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but what good will P2P do you when the King of England starts pushing you around? Well? That's what I thought.

Actually, as any experienced grass-roots activist, political dissident, resistance fighter, insurgent, terrorist or law enforcement officer knows, the key to successfully opposing those in power is a secure communications network. Encrypted P2P comes pretty close to that. That may be part of the reason it's being outlawed.

Or you could download and play her the latest [insert name of current untalented reality TV star turned pop star / girl band / boy band / pop idol star .... the list is so long that just about anybody in the pop charts will do]. I am fairly certain that would send her running for cover.

Re:I'm confused

[BgJonson79]

You can only man-carry a .50 cal rifle, it's bolt action, and you can only do a shot every 20 seconds at best. Plenty of time for citizens with balls to remove you as a threat.

Re:I'm confused

[dave420]

The calibre is irrelevant, yet somehow I'm not surprised someone is using that to justify the pro-gun stance. A gun is a gun and can very, very easily kill a person. It's rather harder to kill someone with an .avi file... Come on - there's no logical argument against it :)

Re:I'm confused

[paganizer]

Thats MORMON, not moron.
sheesh, kids today.

Re:I'm confused

[BgJonson79]

Caliber is extremely relevant! Kill someone with a .000000001 :-). Or, shoot someone with a 50... I don't think it'll happen.

Besides, it's not a secret that guns make it easier for people to kill. But normal people don't kill others, so it shouldn't matter what type of firearm a normal person has.

Guns also makes it easier for my single, 89-year-old grandmother to discourage the stupidity of home intruders, if it ever came down to it. And, it provides for the defense against not just the common criminals but the uncommon ones in Washington, DC.

End rant.

Re:I'm confused

[jdog1016]

Gun manufacturers/retailers have legal guidelines to follow in manufacturing and distributing guns. But P2P vendors put out a product knowing damn well what it is often used for and yet have no guidelines to follow and install no preventative mechanisms in their software. That is irresponsible.

Re:I'm confused

[Pantero Blanco]

Well, they can prevent the deranged human being that broke into your house from killing you.

Re:I'm confused

[confused one]

first, thank you for the sig., I needed a laugh.

My younger sister is a park ranger for the Forestry Service on the west coast. She carries both a .40SW and the largest container of pepper spray they make. If you ask her about the pepper spray, she'll say "Oh, that's for bears..."

I was the geek of the family.

Re:I'm confused

[bcboy]

I don't remember the bit in the 2nd amendment about chemical weapons. What are you talking about?

Re:I'm confused

[reverse flow reactor]

Kindly point me to a napster-style (i.e., search and download) P2P app that includes a working and used feature whereby the copyright status of any given file can be verified before I download it.


Not all are production code yet, but they are working on it:

Creative Commons Technology

RDF enhanced Search Prototype

How to Tag HTML pages

How license embedding works in MP3s

Applications integrated with Creative Commons

Re:I'm confused

[clambake]

When you download Shrek 2, no-one dies.

Not true! Valenti kills one kitten for every download fo shrek 2. So, YOU are actually a kitten killer for downloading it. See what you made him do?

Re:I'm confused

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

What good will a gun do when the King Of Englands starts pushing you around ? He's probably going to send an army or at least a commando team, so the only thing to make a difference you could do with that gun is shooting yourself (and if it's decently planned, you won't even have that chance)

Re:I'm confused

[dave420]

You've missed the point completely. Normal people don't kill others, true, but normal people aren't normal all the time. People get angry, and when they get angry their mentality is affected. Having, in close proximity, a weapon designed to inflict death in milliseconds means if you get all hot under the collar, before you've calmed down in 3 seconds, 5 people could be dead. That's why the suicide rate in the US is much higher than in most other places - the fact someone can end their life without forethought, instantly and without pain means people DO. Take away the guns, and those people would all still be alive. It's not rocket science :)

Dude, I'd be more scared of your granny mistaking the postman for a gang of youths. I mean seriously - old-aged drivers are bad enough - now they're armed?? sheesh! only in America.

Re:I'm confused

[BgJonson79]

Guns aren't allowed in Japan, which has THE highest suicide rate in the industrialized world. We let cops carry guns. They (usually) don't go about killing people when they get mad? Are cops better than the rest of us?

That said, take away all the guns, there will still be plenty of crime. So guns don't cause crime. Take away the people, no more crime. So clearly, the objective is to ban people to reduce crime :-)

Besides, when you take all the guns away, it's the government that kills you instead of the average crook.

I submit to you the #5 on the Slashdot Hall of Fame, browsing at +3 and nested, to get more and better answers than I can provide.

I guess I did miss your point. It was my understanding that your point is that putting guns in someone's hands makes them a killer. If this is the case, then I simply don't agree with it.

Also, living in an apartment complex, there'd be no reason for the postwoman to visit my grandmother, and post office workers usually don't accost elderly women.

Re:I'm confused

[Syberghost]

Handguns have a functional purpose other than to kill human beings?

That's not even their primary use. It's not even in the top three.

This'll get shot down quickly as being too vague.

[gotroot801]

Why, Sen. Hatch, I can download illegal MP3s through my web browser! GASP! Better shut down the WWW.

Oh, no! Now there's this FTP program people are using! Better shut that down, too.

Zounds! Someone just e-mailed me a song! Bye-bye, e-mail...

Inducing Children to Steal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its hard to find sympathy for America and its RIAA, and its so-called 'industries'.

Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal..

This, coming from the same government who think its perfectly acceptable to "legally profit by inducing children to kill and steal (oil in Iraq)".

As long as the U.S. falsely believes in its own security above all else, it will continue to be a criminal police state populated by hypocrites and irresponsible drones, run by the insane.

You get what you deserve, America. Restrictions on your right to cultural communication are all the lobbyists truly want.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[proj_2501]

all nations believe in their own security above all else. that is part of a government's job.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[PeeAitchPee]

Guess what, Europe (and Australia . . . and Canada . . .)? You're next. Don't think for a second that storebought government officials are unique to the US.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't think for a second that storebought government officials are unique to the US."

True, but;

1) We know the range of Iraq's missiles and ignore the whole 'they've got nukes' bit of the state of union address.

2) We mostly vote according to the record of the MP rather than their advertising.

3) We think that freedom of speech also means stuff that's unpopular, irrational and sometimes off colour.

4) We rarely think that government should be protecting us against ourselves.

5) We didn't allow the growth of an evangelist christian superbloc with direct ties to government, then stick by the claim that our church and state are separated.

6) We use democracy as a method of changing policy because we don't have access to armour-piercing bullets.

7) We _have_ to get on with our neighbours.

And finally;

We haven't yet redefined words such as 'mercenaries' into 'private security contractors'.

Hope that helps.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Natestradamus]

Wow, that post looks like it might have been generated by a script. You know, the pick one from each column of keywords/phrases sort. It's so hard to find any originality anymore.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[dave1791]

"Its hard to find sympathy for America and its RIAA, and its so-called 'industries'."

"It is hard to find sympathy for Europe and its GEMA, and its so-called 'industries'". See, a little noun replacement and we can offend a whole new group! What exactly are "so-called 'industries'"? Please define it Mr AC.

"This, coming from the same government who think its perfectly acceptable to "legally profit by inducing children to kill and steal (oil in Iraq)". As long as the U.S. falsely believes in its own security above all else, it will continue to be a criminal police state populated by hypocrites and irresponsible drones, run by the insane."

Oh boy! In case you did not know this; the electorate in the US is hoghly polarized about the current administration. Half the pupulation loves it and half of the population loathes it. As one of the "despise" half, I am offended by these generalizations of America. You dislike the politics of the current administration, so by extension you dislike me as well - even though we are likely of the same opinion wrt. the Bush administration. People like you give me the urge to vote Bush in November as my own way of saying "fsck you too".

I happen to live in Europe and I have encountered this high minded bigotry many times. Why not replace the word "American" with say Paki, Jew, Muslim, Turk, Nigger, Spic, Gook, etc and then think of what you would find "wrong" to say. Making hateful generalizations about ethnic groups or nationalities is at best moronic, and at worst small minded and dare I say - evil. It is the same thing that led to the Holocust, Dresden and Hiroshima, 9/11 and the Isreali-Palestenian conflict, Rowanda, Kosovo, etc.

Go ahead and mod me offtopic. Karma ain't everything.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[AndyMouse GoHard]

...but as far as democracies go we've raised the "artform" to a new level.

However, this article is just another example of the erosion of freedoms going on in the US. 20% of us will vote in the fall and the rest won't care. Just let me drive my SUV!

Bill

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly are "so-called 'industries'"? Please define it Mr AC.


Ummm ... "Music" "Industry" .... "Film" ... "Industry" ...

These 'industries' produce nothing of any tangible value to the purpose of state, other than 'entertained citizenship', yet they consume uncountable resources. Just like a few stadiums in the Roman Empire we all know were only there to keep us all 'in check' by the 'powers that be'.

Kill your Television. It is the enemy of your state.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[torpor]

I dunno, in a twisty sense I think it is sort of insightful. That a few Americans get their feathers ruffled by such statements doesn't mean its Flamebait, necessarily.

Fact is, the RIAA is only able to exist and propagate its tendrils of control because the public don't do anything about it. It makes no sense to have such draconian restrictions on technology; yet that is what is happening, behind the curtains.

Because someone doesn't come forward and sponsor a bill to protect the emerging P2P industry, before it is /crushed/defeated/degraded/monopolized by existing powers, these powers are able to sponsor their own bills.

Americas' freedoms, and the so-called glories of its citizenry are one thing. But farcical banter about what is 'right and wrong' about America, while lobbyists and special control interests are writing new laws for you, and only for you, is another thing entirely.

RIAA is getting away with this bullshit simply because the American public are too lazy, and too irresponsible, to actually rise up and do something about it. As long as the Television Always Works After Dinner, most people don't give a damn what their politicians are doing to protect the right of free speech, free media, and free culture.

P2P networks are of the people, and for the people, and NOTHING ELSE. So far.

The American government is working pretty hard to change that. Lord knows, it dislikes it whenever anything else of the people, and for the people comes along to lure the masses from its protectionist skirts ...

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[dave1791]

"We mostly vote according to the record of the MP rather than their advertising."

No more or less. You do this. I do this. Do your neighbors?

"We think that freedom of speech also means stuff that's unpopular, irrational and sometimes off colour."

I can't speak for the places where they spell it "colour", but generally it has been the case that freedom of speech is more extreme in the US than is the case for Continental Europe. The line between what is acceptable, but unsavory and what is incite-full is generally more liberal in the states. France and Nazi stuff for sale on Ebay comes to mind. Hate groups banned in Europe move their servers to the states. This is less the case post September 11, but given time to settle down, it will return to being this way.

"We rarely think that government should be protecting us against ourselves."

Ask a group of people anywhere if they want their government to protect them from themselves and would will probably get a unanimous NO. Now ask them if they want GM foods banned because they might not have the willpower to leave them on the supermarket shelves.

"We didn't allow the growth of an evangelist Christian super bloc with direct ties to government, then stick by the claim that our church and state are separated."

There is a lot of talk of the rise of evangelicals, but that is just media chatter. They have always been there and have always had political clout. And is not oppressing a block of voters that you disagree with undemocratic?

"We use democracy as a method of changing policy because we don't have access to armour-piercing bullets."

But Armor piercing bullets are more fun!

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[dave1791]

"These 'industries' produce nothing of any tangible value to the purpose of state, other than 'entertained citizenship'"

They make money.
1- Make cheezy action movie
2- Sell it all over the world
3- Profit

BTW-Porn falls under the same heading.

"yet they consume uncountable resources."

Oh dear, I have been hooked by a hard core green. Ummmm, heavy industry produces tangible things. It consumes vastly more energy and resources and often just produces and 'entertained citizenship'. Lets see mobile phones, SUVs (starting to see them in large numbers in Europe as well), even bicycles. IT involves a lot of nasty chemicals used to make computer parts. Software and Entertainment are about the least resource intensive busineses I can think of.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Ignorant Aardvark]

As long as the U.S. falsely believes in its own security above all else, it will continue to be a criminal police state populated by hypocrites and irresponsible drones, run by the insane.

Every nation considers its own security above all else. To do the opposite would be to commit suicide.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[killbill!]

Guess what, Europe (and Australia . . . and Canada . . .)? You're next. Don't think for a second that storebought government officials are unique to the US.

About 2 weeks ago, the French Industry minister caused quite a ruckus by officially blaming declining music sales on poor quality, lack of diversity and outrageous prices, exhonarating p2p.
Moreoever, he urged the record industry to move away from the CD and give legal music download sites their chance, instead of clinging to obsolete technology and business models. Quite a U-turn for our government, as it used to go the usual canned lawsuit route until recently.

I am astounded that the news never made it out of France: wasn'it the first time a G7 government told the record industry to quit whining and adapt? Or was it because the US goverment was too busy surrendering to the RIAA? ;p

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[dave420]

No, but you guys are about 50 years down the line... ;)

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[pappin]

Actually a Canadian court has already said (twice I think) that the music companies can't go after the user.

See this CBC article: "Online music swapping legal: court"

With any *luck*, our system will shrug off such idiots.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate groups banned in Europe move their servers to the states.

I dont know about that (dont visit these sites) but people hosting "copyrighted" (as in "to embarasing to be copied to a critical public") tend to move to europe. Which is proudly hosting excerpts of scientology papers for years now. On a on-topic side note, creating and hosting peer-to-peer applications which have amongst other a populair use involving breaking copyright law has been ruled legal as well. Compare kazaa`s fate with napsters fate.

Now ask them if they want GM foods banned because they might not have the willpower to leave them on the supermarket shelves.

Apparently a label will do for EU consumers. A democraticly elected european pairlement decided so. Ofcourse if "distributing" exspensive patented genetics by means of seeds across the fields of unsuspecting farmers falls under the freedom of speech I really dont know. I guess if you were to ask the right people they will say so. Somehow I am not convinced US elected leaders didn`t listen to their electorat when they decided against regulation.
Given the "(genetic)code is free speech" idea I might even agree. Personaly I think even the labels are stupid.

This is a very very intresting and scary but troll-only discusion, Especially considering the US president doesn`t need congresional permission to invade this country.... not that getting that would be that hard.
I better shut up now...

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[adonoman]

And that's why I love Canada

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Jugalator]

Guess what, Europe (and Australia . . . and Canada . . .)? You're next. Don't think for a second that storebought government officials are unique to the US.

I'm legally downloading copyrighted music from my favorite P2P network. Are you? :-)

/ Swedish Slashdot Visitor

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[mdielmann]

Ask a group of people anywhere if they want their government to protect them from themselves and would will probably get a unanimous NO. Now ask them if they want GM foods banned because they might not have the willpower to leave them on the supermarket shelves.

Two points in response to this.

I'm disappointed to say that I have relatives that think profiling (of Middle Eastern people in this case) is okay, even though just about any statistical analysis of 9/11 shows that it isn't the biggest problem in the world, the U.S., or even NYC (if you look at murders in the last 5 years). We had something that was orchestrated by probably no more than 3 dozen people in the U.S., yet we are going to assume that if we look at the (tens? hundreds? of) thousands of 20 to 30-something Middle Eastern males, that we will be likelier in catching the next attack. Never mind that the last "terrorist attack" was by a white guy (McVeigh). And yes, my relative lives in the U.S. "Please, government, protect me from the evil (obviously Middle Eastern) terrorists!"

Second, GMO foods are sold in the country I live in. (My concerns are about chimeric organisms, not so much those organisms that could be or are created through selective breeding.) And they aren't labelled as such. Although I don't think my kids will grow a second head from eating GMO foods, I'd rather not feed them to them until some real research or long-term studies have been done (how do you feel being part of the biggest, most uncontrolled lab, the U.S. public?). Some people have religious beliefs, such as not eating pork or cows, and would not like to eat anything that includes their genes. This may be ignorant, or extremist, but people should have the right to live how they want if it isn't harming themselves or others. So why can't they tell us what we're eating?

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[rainman_bc]

Me too! /Canadian Slashdot Visitor.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Em Adespoton]

This is true to a point... just witness the recent "Sponsorship Scandal" in Canada.

However, also notice the results -- in the US, the result is that the officials stay bought, and stay in power -- in other countries, the political structure is often designed to discourage such activity, and the voters have enough power (and wield it) to remove people from power who aren't representing their constituents.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[dave1791]

"I'm disappointed to say that I have relatives that think profiling (of Middle Eastern people in this case) is okay, "

Amen Brother! I also muss fess up to relatives that think it is 100% ok and look at me like I have a second head when I argue against it. My original argument was made in haste and annoyance, but I still believe that such profiling reflects more in the proflier than the profilie. Lumping people into groups is something that we can all be prone to if we are not careful. I know that I have made assumptions based on outward appearances before and I am not proud of it.

About the GMO food example. Labeling is something that compabnies will not do willingly. It is actually ironic; in the US there are these wonderful "Food Facts" labels that simply don't exist in Europe. If you buy a snickers bar in the US, it will tell you just how unhealthy it is. If you buy the same bar - remember; same company, same product - in Europe, there is absulutely squat re. nutritional info. I would actually expect the opposite.

I agree 100% on labeling of GMO products. If they can convince me that it is in my interest (e.g. enhanced nutritional value, etc) to buy/eat them, then I will. Otherwise I will pass them by on the premise that I do not plan on being the guenea pig. This is where I disagree with those in favor of an outright ban (the prevaling attitude in the EU). I actually once heard the argument that "people would end up buying them anyway". Well, I can put that box of crackers back on the shelf after reading the label, yet it is assumed that for my own good I do not have the discipline. Actually I just used this as an example to point out that there is no monopoly anywhere on government that tries to 'protect' its population from themselves.

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[Starsmore]

Of course, he does point out a good point about Hatch targetting the firms that try and profit from inciting children to steal... But when was the last time you had to pay for a P2P program (not counting Napster after it got ass-raped by the Feds)?

Re:Inducing Children to Steal.

[IloveMorphine]

wow... i certainly had not heard of this... and i live in the US.

Gun Control

[Anonymous Coward]

If only some of this energy could be directed in a more useful direction. How about s/p2p/guns/g:

"The Senate Judiciary Committee is moving to outlaw guns entirely by making it illegal to produce such products. The Senators say such firms "think that they can legally profit by inducing children and adults to kill. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises." ...but only in my dreams, unfortunately.

Outlawing p2p wont be enough...

[some_random_person]

Why stop at outlawing p2p software? The obvious solution here is to just make the internet illegal because you couldn't possibly be able to use either the internet or p2p software for anything legal.

Re:Outlawing p2p wont be enough...

[Kick the Donkey]

You mean porn is illegal?

Land of the Free

[cassidyc]

to do anything except honk off people with more money than you.

Still, glad I live in a more enlightened place

CJC

Re:Land of the Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Land Of The Free*

*Subject to terms and conditions. Must be a large corporation to apply. 10% trade in on your ethics and values when choosing either a)"Monopoly for beginners" or b)"How to get government to do your bidding with a sack of cash". See in store for details.

The Bill Itself

[Karrde712]

Can anyone post a link to the text of the Bill itself? It might be prudent to examine the letter of the law before pre-judging its merits and faults.

Re:The Bill Itself

[Karrde712]

Actually, here it is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S. 2560:

Re:The Bill Itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Sibling post doesn't lead right to the bill, but you can find it eventually. It looks like an interesting read. Skip to the bottom for the text of the law.

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FRIST, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, and Mrs. BOXER):

S. 2560. A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement of copyright infringement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise with my esteemed colleague and friend, Senator LEAHY, ranking Democrat Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to introduce the ``Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004.'' This Act will confirm that creative artists can sue corporations that profit by encouraging children, teenagers and others to commit illegal or criminal acts of copyright infringement. Senator LEAHY and I are pleased that Majority Leader FRIST and Minority Leader DASCHLE and Senators GRAHAM and BOXER are co-sponsoring this important bipartisan legislation.

It is illegal and immoral to induce or encourage children to commit crimes. Artists realize that adults who corrupt or exploit the innocence of children are the worst type of villains. In ``Oliver Twist'', Fagin and Bill Sikes profited by inducing children to steal. In the film ``Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang'', the leering ``Child-Catcher'' lured children into danger with false promises of ``free lollipops.'' Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal--that they can legally lure children and others with false promises of ``free music.''

Such beliefs seem common among distributors of so-called peer-to-peer filesharing (``P2P'') software. These programs are used mostly by children and college students--about half of their users are children. Users of these programs routinely violate criminal laws relating to copyright infringement and pornography distribution. Criminal law defines ``inducement'' as ``that which leads or tempts to the commission of crime.'' Some P2P software appears to be the definition of criminal inducement captured in computer code.

Distributors of some P2P software admit this. The distributors of EarthStation 5 state, ``While other peer 2 peer networks like Kazaa or Imesh continue to deny building their programs for illegal file sharing, at ES5 we not only admit why we built ES5, we actually promote P2P, endorse file sharing, and join our users in swapping files!''

Recently, in the Grokster case, a Federal court drew similar conclusions about the intent of other distributors of P2P software. It warned that some P2P distributors ``may have intentionally structured their businesses to avoid secondary liability for copyright infringement, while benefiting financially from the illicit draw of their wares.'' In other words, many P2P distributors may think that they can lawfully profit by inducing children to break the law and commit crimes.

They are dead wrong. America punishes as criminals those who induce others to commit any criminal act, including copyright infringement. The first sentence of our Criminal Code states:

Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal .......

Indeed, it is absurd to think that our law might be otherwise. No civilized country could let sophisticated adults profit by tempting its most vulnerable citizens--its children--to break the law.

I think we must understand how some corporations came to confuse child endangerment with a legal business model. Their confusion seems to arise from court cases misinterpreting a well-intended Supreme Court decision that tried to clarify two critical components of federal law: the law of secondary liability and the law of copyright.

The Supreme Court states that secondary liability is ``imposed in virtually all areas of the la

Re:The Bill Itself

[freqres]

This is classic. This is a work of art in and of itself. Given the subjects of P2P software, Oliver Twist, save the children, Sony Betamax, pornography, viral redistribution and 'nothing to fear' and to come up with a document such as this is amazing. I don't think Orwell could have dreamed up better doublespeak. Oh the humanity, save the helpless street children from the luring 'child-catcher' Kazaa. Orin Hatch is my hero. I for one look forward to serving my political bullshitting corporate sponsored overlords.

Re:The Bill Itself

[axafluff]

Uma, please kill the bill.

Re:The Bill Itself

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how they look to WORKS OF FICTION as proof that this is a huge problem and play "The Chef Card" (What about the children!?) to make it an emotional issue. Yes, let's ground everything in irrefutable fact, shall we? Sheesh!

What they don't see is how this bill could be used against the RIAA and the music companies for endangering children and seeking to profit from them by price gouging them on CD's to the point where the kids seek file-sharing as a method of obtaining the music that is now so far out of their income brackets that they can't buy any. Once they've firmly established that these kids are downloading music without paying for it, they can then file a bunch of threatening lawsuits against them and bully these kids and their families into settling out of court. Instant profits and they barely even have to pay their lawyers! Sounds like a trick the "Child-Catcher" would use. Let the kids have some free songs via P2P. Watch them get addicted to it and then greedy about downloading more and more, then catch them in the act and extort money from them. Verrrrry sneaaaaaaaky!!!!!

Other firms known...

[thentil]

Other firms known to 'induce' copyright infringement: Any audio recording device. Any video recording device. Libraries. Any cd, vhs, dvd copier. The Internet. Ban it all, let God sort it out! *sigh*

Re:Other firms known...

[fewnorms]

Quote from the Senate (?) when Sen. Hatch proposed the bill, pay special notice to the lines in bold

"I also want to thank everyone who has worked with us to craft a bill that addresses this serious threat to children and copyrights without unduly burdening companies that engage in lawful commerce in the wide range of devices and programs that can copy digital files. As (the) Sony (ruling) illustrates, clear knowledge that a copying device can be used to infringe does not provide evidence of intent to induce infringement. It was critical to find a way to narrowly identify the rare bad actors without implicating the vast majority of companies that serve both consumers and copyright-holders by providing digital copying devices--even though these devices, like all devices, can be misused for unlawful purposes. In particular, I would like to thank the Business Software Alliance for its invaluable assistance in crafting a bill that protects existing legitimate technologies and future innovation in all technologies--including peer-to-peer networking."

What bothers me more actually, is that he routinely talks about "protecting the American artists, children and taxpayers"
Most of the kids out there by now know exactly what they are doing when downloading or swapping music.

robbIE takes aim at /. users?

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately, the fauxking pateNTdead PostBlock censorship devise, is practically as useless as gnu online dating, was.

felonious corepirate nazi billyonerrors' puppets, sheesh!@#$%

take care. lookout bullow.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators.... perfecting the power of sharing, since/until forever.

email

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for making email software.

Outlaw everything!

[SilentSheep]

Why not outlaw IRC and web browsers too. There's as much copyrighted material distributed via these forms too!

Re:Outlaw everything!

[lacrymology.com]

" Why not outlaw IRC and web browsers too. There's as much copyrighted material distributed via these forms too!"

Because there are very few (if any) lobby groups whispering into Hatch's ear.

-m

Skip the Middle Man

[bman08]

Let's just cut to the fucking chase and outlaw music altogether. That's what my parents always did; if you can't play nice, we're taking the toys.

Re:Skip the Middle Man

[JoelClark]

With the shit that's coming out these days, I have to concur...albeit for different reasons.

Re:Skip the Middle Man

[scoot241]

If we're going to outlaw music, then we must outlaw everything that makes a sound. Musical instruments, speakers, tables, chairs, trash cans, people... the list goes on and on.

Re:Skip the Middle Man

[Stoik]

Doing so, youll have to pay royalties to Taliban, who did it first in Afghanistan quite successfully. They dint have any P2P issues... No IP infrigenment at all. Darl would love it.

Obvious attempt at drug dealer comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

The senator's wording is obviously trying to imply some insidious element corrupting your child s morals with promises of pleasure, read drug dealer. Such alarmist propaganda is only caused by big business influencing a Senator to make such bombastic statements. That's the scary insidious element in our lives, not P2P.

Only way to win

[Lord_Dweomer]

Ok, even if this does go through, there is no chance in hell it will actually stop the creation of P2P, as it only affects the US. Last I checked there were other countries to program things in.

But for any who want to try fighting this on the homefront, I think our best chance is the media. We need to do whatever it takes to get the RIAA, Orrin Hatch, the MPAA, etc, painted in a bad light by the media not just for suing kids, but for pursuing these draconian measures.

Most people have no idea these kind of laws are being proposed, they just hear about the lawsuits.

We need to make them aware. The Daily Show is a good place to start. I'd love to get Hatch on there and have Stewart grill like they did that spammer.

Next Year...

[dave1791]

Well, if you are not allowed to develop P2P in the US, then only foreign P2P apps will be available. Then we will hear about legislation to ban these evil foreign pirate apps... ...or sever the US from the rest of the internet. After all, the world is full of shady characters just waiting to pollute the minds of the young.

Oh boy, I am on a soapbox today.

Re:Next Year...

[basingwerk]

It would be odd if America put up an iron curtain so soon after the one in Europe fell.

Re:Next Year...

[Natestradamus]

No, no, it's not a firewall, it's a freedom wall!

Re:Next Year...

[Alranor]

or sever the US from the rest of the internet

There are times when I almost wish you'd do that, at least then the rest of us wouldn't get anywhere near as much spam as we do now.

Re:Next Year...

[TheLetterPsy]

I can't believe I'm saying this, and I'm not sure if it's your sig or not, but that 'evil' quote was used in a recent airing of "7th Heaven" on the WB. /proceeds to go watch hours of Kung Fu to rid self of WB memories

Re:Next Year...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will just move my spam operations to, where do you live again?

Re:Next Year...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, probably we (the evil eurasians) will also undoubtedly posses certain WMD, causing a CIA/FBI/NSA etc. conspiracy that will lead to the invasion of _the rest of the world_. The US already mentioned they would invade my hometown, The Hague (for different reasons, but hey, reasons can change, apperantly)

Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?

Re:Next Year...

[dave1791]

Really? I don't watch much TV, so I never heard it. It is not my sig

Re:Next Year...

[Jonathan Quince]

No, no, it's not a firewall, it's a freedom wall!

And with the Internet routing around it (perhaps through Belgium?), it can be no more effective than the Maginot Line.

I'll have some "freedom fries" with that, please... ;-)

Re:Next Year...

[gcaseye6677]

All that these new P2P bills really do is shift the responsibility of enforcement from the record companies to the state and federal governments. If a company is inducing people (or children, to make it sound more dramatic) to violate the law, they can already be sued. The RIAA must have realized that its lawsuits are getting expensive and sees laws like this as a way of transferring the enforcement costs to the taxpayers.

Re:Next Year...

[Keruo]

it is freedom wall, but on which side are you standing?

Re:Next Year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering?

I think so Brain, but what if the gorillas don't want to anally rape the congresmen?

Re:Next Year...

[red floyd]

All that these new P2P bills really do is shift the responsibility of enforcement from the record companies to the state and federal governments.

That's the RIAA's business model. Sit back on their asses, let the ca$h roll in, and let the Feds do their dirty work.

Re:Next Year...

[Soul-Burn666]

Actually that's much more correct than what you meant.

The origin of the word "Firewall" isn't a wall made of fire, but rather a wall that can block fire. Like "blast door" isn't a door that blasts everyone that tries to pass it, but rather a door that can withstand blasts.

Therefore a "freedom wall" is a wall that blocks freedom.

Re:Next Year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, Donnie.

Re:Next Year...

[mdielmann]

In the spirit of ignorance, wouldn't that be a French wall, French being the opposite of freedom to uninformed Americans?

Re:Next Year...

[3terrabyte]

You should watch Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings. Looks like you could use any culture. Sometimes they use classical music in the cartoons.

Re:Next Year...

[Jugalator]

...or sever the US from the rest of the internet.

And doing that kind of thing is pretty damn similar to what the chinese government is trying to do in many cases, and not too far away from their reasons either. Protect the country from... umm... stuff we deem illegal... by... hmm... making development of that stuff illegal!

If this is OK, next big news on Slashdot will probably be that you're forbidden to browse to specific web sites.

Re:Next Year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that "freedom fries" only come out cooked right when you use the right oil.

Re:Next Year...

[Alsee]

Unfortunately the side with the most clueless votes.

-

Certainly.

[Gordonjcp]

I'll give you my telephone number, and you can ring me and tell me what tunes you want. Then, I'll drive round to your house with a tape. Maybe he should outlaw cars, telephones and tape recorders. Or even ears. Maybe if I drove round and sang the songs, he'd outlaw me singing. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Re:Certainly.

[Petronius]

In related new, Hatch wants to outlaw the printing press.

Legislation and litigation don't work

[91degrees]

Clearly thesolution is more legislation and litigation.

Clichéd, but...

[Zab UvWxy]

...when peer-to-peer is outlawed, only outlaws will have peers. At least, non-government-sanctioned peers.

GNU/Linux and P2P are like paedophiles

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/Linux and P2P are like paedophiles, and that's why we are determined to label it as that.

Profit? Uh...no.

[Famatra]

"Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal."

Thankfully I only use P2P programs that are GPL, and thus free as in beer, so little if any profit motivation there.

The best p2p applications are usually free / open source like eMule, Freenet, and how apparently even Shareza 2.0 is open sourced under the GPL.

We control the horizontal We control the vertical.

[1u3hr]

For those who didn't read to the end of the article, I think this is the vital bit Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement. "Legitimate uses of peer-to-peer are upheld, while those who intentionally lure consumers into breaking the law are held to account. Under this legislation, the path to legitimacy remains clear: Respect the law and block the exchange of works the copyright owner has not authorized."

So UNLESS a P2P app blocks all not-authorised (by the *IAA) file transfers, it will be considered illegal. The implications are amazing, and could easily be applied to hardware (any file copy, burn to CDR, upload to MP3 player, etc...)

Only reinforces an existing trend

[mangu]

Don't worry, P2P will not die that easily. Isn't all new software development outsourced to India, anyhow? And, sure, they *can* outlaw possession. It has worked wonders for drugs, hasn't it? Look out for new India-Colombia joint ventures. Both production and distribution taken care of.

Every day...

[svg]

I become more and more amazed at the stupidity of everyone in government, and the music industry. They have clearly lost the ball, and are trying to protect short term profits, while sacrificing, long term market stability, profitability, not to mention a positive public image. I used to be really depressed. Then I realized that all these technical solutions wouldn't work; the techno-neophytes that supported/introduced this legislation would retire, or die. For a short period of time, I was happy. Then I realized that there are still places in the United States where evolution isn't taught in the schools. [And yes, there is a link, stupidity, evil, and fundamentalist religions rear their ugly heads everywhere]. Now I am depressed again. The technologically enlightened should form their own country, and screw the rest of them. Except the telephone sanitizers.

Clearly, there must be a balance to online music sharing, but music companies must recognize that they have to adapt to the changing world like the rest of us, or be left behind.

Re:Every day...

[gtaluvit]

Yeah, great idea. Let me know when our "new" country survives the great Emacs/Vi Civil War.

Re:Every day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I realized that there are still places in the United States where evolution isn't taught in the schools.

You know this wouldn't bother me except students who are "fortunate" enough to attend schools where eveolution is taught, can't even do basic math. Instead of people making a stink about crap like evolution, lets get the fundamental education system to the point where school students can even comprehend evolution.

We get the government we deserve?

[grunt107]

More evidence of the US government being completely owned by corporate interests. While P2P systems are being used for some illegal purposes, their intent is to share information (and processing cycles). With grid computing being a "tech du jour", this proposed "law" could (probably would) be enhanced to charge people with negligent virus transmission/hacker activity - if I let others use CPU cycles on my computer and one turns out to breach an FBI firewall, I am therfore responsible for said criminal's actions.
Puh-lease people, take the list of politicians supporting this bill and get them out of office!!!

Re:We get the government we deserve?

[torpor]

More evidence of the US government being completely owned by corporate interests.

Thing is though you can't avoid corporate interest. Corporate interest is the fundamental strength of the American economy.

Without corporations creating and defeating and dominating new markets, America goes poor.

Its one thing to resist the New World Order. Its another thing entirely to live in it. It is upon us, there is nothing left to do (armed revolt? no. civil disobedience? no. none of these things work any more) ... but get corporate.

Me, Inc. is the only path to survival in the New Global Order.

Re:Senator Hatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Its akin to a movie "star" talking about politics. Leave those discussions to the experts in the field.

excuse me? You're saying that unless you're a politician, you shouldn't get involved in politics? Are you some sort of fascist? The basis of a sound democracy is that EVERYONE is welcome to have their opinion and participate.

Right after..

[Quixote]

making it illegal to produce such applications.

Worry about that after you make it illegal to produce guns, Senator.

What was that? Guns don't kill people, people do??

How's this any different?

Of course, since Sen. Hatch is supported by the NRA, don't expect him to do anything about guns
(not to threadjack or anything, just drawing parallels).

effects

[dncsky1530]

I found this article that shows the direct inpact on digital media companies, its details that large fines could mean that a single lawsuit could force companied like Apple out of business

Re:Senator Hatch

[rylin]

I'll be back.

New bill

[Mr_Silver]

When will a new bill be proposed that prevents Orrin Hatch from proposing dumb bills?

Actually scratch that, how about one that prevents him from proposing any bills whatsoever? The guy certainly seems to need a cooling off period.

Re:New bill

[LittleGuy]

When will a new bill be proposed that prevents Orrin Hatch from proposing dumb bills?

General Election, November 2006.

Utah Slashdotters, Register and Vote.

Where does it say P2P will be illegal?

[Hachima]

I don't see any place in that entire article that mentions outlawing P2P entirely. It only states that pentalities can be given to creators of software that induce software piracy. It will also allow owners of the distributed material to sue those involved. P2P can still be used for legal purposes. For example the current beta test of World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute the 2 gig installation program. This new bill will not make the legal use of P2P illegal.

Re:Where does it say P2P will be illegal?

[Ed Bugg]

I don't see any place in that entire article that mentions outlawing P2P entirely. It only states that pentalities can be given to creators of software that induce software piracy. It will also allow owners of the distributed material to sue those involved. P2P can still be used for legal purposes. For example the current beta test of World of Warcraft uses bittorrent to distribute the 2 gig installation program. This new bill will not make the legal use of P2P illegal.

It makes the developer responsible for the use of the program. If I were to develope a P2P program and someone uses it to distibute copyrighted material, I would be held liable for their actions and can be sued.

Peer to peer is the holy grail of networking

[Raindeer]

Could someone please tell those in charge that the basic premise of peer to peer (and modern networking as a whole for that matter) is not to cheat somebody out of his/her rights. Peer to Peer is the holy grail of modern networking. Everybody who has ever thought about networking has been wondering how to build a network in such a way that all nodes can connect with all others, without having the need for a central switch/server controlling all the aspects of the communication.

In the lower network levels you see these kinds of networks in wireless setups. They tend to have problems with scalability. In the higher network layers it has turned out to be possible to create networks that are not in need of a fixed central node that controls communications. However you do see the advent of supernodes to improve communications.

Illegal stuff generally ends up on the most efficient network setup. It used to be BBS, then FTP and now Peer to Peer. However in the end, Kazaa, Gnutella and Bittorrent are all modern answers to the question: How do we build an FTP-system without the need for a central server that will run out of its bandwidth the moment it is announced on Slashdot.

Re:Peer to peer is the holy grail of networking

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody who has ever thought about networking has been wondering how to build a network in such a way that all nodes can connect with all others, without having the need for a central switch/server controlling all the aspects of the communication.

And then somebody else slaps them in the side of the head and says, "We call that the Internet, moron."

Re:Peer to peer is the holy grail of networking

[Raindeer]

And then somebody slaps the AC over the head with a large trout and points him to the DNS.

Re:Peer to peer is the holy grail of networking

[Nurgled]

What's your point?

Surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were TWO (2) surprizes in one paragraph. Thatz too much. My affect is now blunted!

Won't happen

[Pedrito]

There's no way this will happen. They'd essentially have to make the internet illegal since every application written for the internet is about transferring data in one form or another. This is just stupid. Even if congress passes a law, I have no doubt the Supreme Court would strike it down, even THIS Supreme Court. I doubt Scalia or Thomas would help, but most of the rest have some basic sense of law and the bill of rights.

And as we saw in the Slashdot post yesterday, file sharing is clearly destroying the movie industry. Not! The only thing hurting the music industry is the music industry. They're putting out crap music and they're suing their customers. If they changed these two things, they'd probably be back to record (pun not intended) profits.

Not only am I not buying today's music, I'm not downloading today's music. Because it sucks. Britney, please don't do it again! Quit. Go home. Please!

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's what they said about the DMCA.

But it's not like anyone has been prosecuted just for writing software. Oh, wait.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd essentially have to make the internet illegal ... [in the USA]

So flame me, but please let them. After all, you have already let them make the USA a police state that probably even STASI would have been proud of, proliferated spam to make life a living hell for almost every single person with e-mail on this planet, so why not let them outlaw internet itself - in good ol' Judge Death spirit "Crime is committed by living humans, therefore life itself is a crime".

Outlawing the 'net in the USA would have the benefit that the rest (over 90%) of the world would no longer have to suffer and be plagued by your spam.

With politicians like yours, I honestly think the USA don't really need the enemies it makes - your own leaders are your worst enemies...

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States Government has a history of ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Remember, the Supreme Court has no power to back up its decisions. In the end, it's still up to the other branches of the government.

Re:Senator Hatch

[richie2000]

He obviously knows dick about it.

Oh, he knows full well which side of his bread has all the butter on it and who does the buttering. Mmmm, butter...

What about Skype?

[The Rev]

Doesn't Skype prove that there are legitimate uses of P2P that aren't even about sharing files?

It's a technology. This is insane!

Re:What about Skype?

[lucas teh geek]

what does skype got to do with p2p? isnt it a VoIP client?

Re:What about Skype?

[Hektor_Troy]

P2P is, in case you failed to notice, an abreviation. It's short for "Peer to Peer" which means that the communication between P2P-clients take place without the use of a central server.

Skype does not have a central server; the communication protocol is indeed Peer to Peer.

P2P is a description of the way a communication protocol works, not of the function of any program.

Re:What about Skype?

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit of both, IIRC: it's a VoIP client that uses P2P as a method of transferring the voice data.

Re:What about Skype?

[lucas teh geek]

yes, thats all good and nice if we ignore the context of the thread, which is talking about outlawing p2p filesharing. of course, then we'd look stupid and start talking about completely irrelevant stuff

Does anyone read the articles?

[KerosX]

Where in the article did it say that P2P applications (in general) will be outlawed?

So, what is the solution?

[91degrees]

Should we legalise file sharing? Should we abolish copyright? If we do, what will be the incentive for creators to publish their work? The desire to create?

So, can we make a whole class of software illegal? Well, we can. Considering a substantial part of the population uses it though, it's unlikely that would prove to be too popular.

So, what do we do?

Re:So, what is the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to leave government regulation out of this matter altogether. Let it run its course, a cat-and-mouse game of one-upmanship, with the media companies trying to protect music and movies with encryption and DRM on one side, and a worldwide network of hackers breaking that protection on the other.

I know which side will win.

what will be the incentive for creators to publish their work?

True artists create art because they feel compelled to do so, not to make money. It is who they are. That art is something inside them that has to come out. Art and music were being created for a long time before we had the idea of copyright, and will still be created once copyright is gone.

Re:So, what is the solution?

[91degrees]

True artists create art because they feel compelled to do so, not to make money. It is who they are.

Indeed they will.

Why will they publish?

Re:So, what is the solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because they love what they do and want others to experience it? Many artists feel their work of art isn't complete until someone sees/hears/reads it. They feel any money they receive from this is just a bonus. Street performers are a good example of this.

Some people have been known to do things without having a profit motive.

Re:So, what is the solution?

[kryptkpr]

Why will they publish?

I publish my content (see sig) for the sheer joy of watching the numbers on my statistics page slowly go up every day when I wake up. I have a job, and I don't expect to see any money from my music for a long time to come (looking into getting the gear together for live performances), if ever.

It seriously makes my day to learn that even 30 people listened to my songs yesterday, and 10 of them decided they were good enough to download an MP3! Watching your chart ranking is damn fun as well..

(vvvv So click the damn link already, and get listening vvvvv)

Taylor made arguments

[bman08]

This is an awesome argument. We can just use all of the NRA's carefully crafted arguments replacing guns w/ p2p apps.

Kazaa doesn't steal music, people do...
You can take my limewire from my cold dead hands...

Not to mention awesome statistics like... More music gets stolen every day by bootlegging operations than by p2p users.

Fun Stuff!

Re:Taylor made arguments

[Shillo]

The only problem with cold-dead-hands argument is that it's a bit unimpressive to point Kazaa at the person who wants to take it from you and pull 'Download'.

--

Re:Taylor made arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the NRA is successful in pushing their political agenda is because they are a well organized and well funded group of citizens who vote! How many P2P users are even registered to vote?
That's what I thought.

Re:Taylor made arguments

[Mephiska]

Who's this Taylor and why is he making arguments for the RIAA?

Re:Taylor made arguments

[El_Smack]

The reason the NRA's argument's work so well it that they are based on a correct principle.

Technology (guns/cars/internet/p2p apps) isn't bad, but people use it to do bad things.

Punish the people who commit the actions, not the tools used. You may not like guns/p2p apps, but no one has any right to take them away from a law abiding citizen who uses them in a lawful manner. Unless, of course, we give up our rights to groups that promise what they cannot deliver.

No more Bittorrent?

[hexxeh]

Hear that? That's the cries of anguish from Linux distributors who won't be allowed to use Bittorrent to send out ISO's anymore.

Does this mean that Windows...

[dhandler]

would essentialy become an illegal tool, since P2P once was (and in some ways still is) a key underpinning of its networking functionality?

What exactly is P2P?

[RC_Car]

Would this stop the development of BitTorrent? I was never sure if BitTorrent was really a P2P program or just a new way to transfer files that shares bandwidth and helps out sites that have high bandwidth consumption when they release new products (didn't Mozilla offer a BitTorrent download once?)

How is a P2P program classified? Couldn't just about any data sent from one computer to another computer be considered P2P?

Re:What exactly is P2P?

[Petronius]

Windows filesharing (network 'neighbourhood')
letting friends access your FTP server
burning to a CD, handing the CD to someone
playing a CD in your backyard for your friends (peers)

they're going to have a hell of a time creating the legal language that accomplishes what they want.

Re:What exactly is P2P?

[ViolentGreen]

No. None of those are peer-to-peer. The term peer-to-peer describes a network without set servers. Your frist two examples adhere to the traditional client-server model. Your second two aren't even remotely related.

Re:What exactly is P2P?

[Petronius]

2 PCs running Windows NT Workstation on the same LAN don't qualify as peers? See that's my point. WTF is a server? a client? on a p2p network you are by definition a server and a client/consumer of data. What if you're only leeching?
When 2 people swap CDs, they are acting as client and server on a network.
A bunch of kids are in a classroom and one of them says: "I'll give you a copy of my latest Metallica CD if you give me a copy of your latest OutKast CD". Doesn't this qualify as p2p?
My point is: it's going to be near impossible to define this stuff in legal terms.

Re:What exactly is P2P?

[ViolentGreen]

Your workgroup example is still the traditional client-server model. It's not an issue of whether or not they "qualify as peers." Each machine on the LAN acts as a server for it's files. There is a fundamental difference between the p2p model and the standard client-server paradigm.

CD burning/trading does not quailfy as p2p because there is no network involved. You can't extend it to here without extending it to every other possible information exchange between people. I assume that is your point though.

Re:What exactly is P2P?

[ViolentGreen]

I guess what I am trying to say is that the term "peer-to-peer" is not ambiguous. There are distinct differences between p2p and the client-server model.

Be more specific.

[numbski]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

More precisely, kids who play videogames kill people.

Thanks Penny Arcade! :P

A non-lawyer's interpretation

[Karrde712]

Basically, it seems that they're trying to restrict the law in a very reasonable way. The law states that in order to be in violation, it has to be proven that the P2P application's only method of commercially viability is by inducing copyright violations.

Sounds reasonably fair to me. It's not an end-all "P2P is evil and must be stopped" bill. It's a method to keep out the more dangerous offenders. For example, BitTorrent should be immune to prosecution under this law because its main intended purpose is to lighten the hit on the download of new versions of legal software, specifically Linux distributions.

Kazaa, on the other hand, really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Perhaps if they didn't have a built-in MP3/Video player in the client, they might have gotten away with it, but they specifically built the GUI so as to make it easy and convenient to download illegal songs and movies.

And yes, I acknowledge that there are legal downloads that can be made through Kazaa, but most of those were added as an afterthought in order to try and delay/counter litigation.

Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
`(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.
`(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, it seems that they're trying to restrict the law in a very reasonable way. The law states that in order to be in violation, it has to be proven that the P2P application's only method of commercially viability is by inducing copyright violations.

The thing is, it's logically impossible to prove that somebody is guilty in this way. To make the law in any way effective, you would have to assume guilt and require people to prove their innocence.

Kazaa, on the other hand, really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Perhaps if they didn't have a built-in MP3/Video player in the client, they might have gotten away with it, but they specifically built the GUI so as to make it easy and convenient to download illegal songs and movies.

"download illegal songs and movies"? The only type of file I can think of that is illegal is child porn, and I don't remember a child porn tab in Kazaa.

Did you mean "illegally download songs and movies"? Once more, I don't remember any setting that Kazaa has that says "ignore public domain and freely licensed media". You are aware that people give away audio and video files freely, aren't you?

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

Kazaa, on the other hand, really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Perhaps if they didn't have a built-in MP3/Video player in the client, they might have gotten away with it

What? So, the reason is that Kazaa plays music, and not that it allows you to share music?

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[Hektor_Troy]

The law states that in order to be in violation, it has to be proven that the P2P application's only method of commercially viability is by inducing copyright violations.

So, if I make a P2P program, that can ONLY (through magic) share music and video against the wishes of the copyrightholders, and I make it a GPL program, thereby making it (pretty much) commercially unviable (as in, I can't really sell the program and expect a profit), then it would be legal? Somehow I doubt that.

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[julesh]

The law states that in order to be in violation, it has to be proven that the P2P application's only method of commercially viability is by inducing copyright violations.

No it doesn't. In fact, that's the current legal situation, and why Napster ended up being shut down (its only technically viable use was to distribute music, of which such a large majority was copyright violation that it was deemed to be the only viable use) while Kazaa was allowed to continue running (largely due to the reasonably large number of legally distributed pron videos on the system...).

What this does is change it so that it doesn't have to be proven that that's the only way it can be viable, but rather that the author's intent in developing it was that it would be used for copyright violation. And this doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, either, merely enough evidence to convince a 'reasonable person' (a rather interesting legal fiction, IMO) that it was the case.

This kind of legislation makes me glad I don't live in the US.

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[marnerd]

Sounds reasonably fair to me. It's not an end-all "P2P is evil and must be stopped" bill. It's a method to keep out the more dangerous offenders. For example, BitTorrent should be immune to prosecution under this law because its main intended purpose is to lighten the hit on the download of new versions of legal software, specifically Linux distributions.

This bill could easily kill BitTorrent, or more specifically ruin the lives of the people who developed it. And probably will. Here's the scenario:

The RIAA/MPAA first goes after Kazaa and other software and services of that sort. Once they take out the easy targets, they will inevitably start going after the more innocent software. They more or less have to, or the users booted from Kazaa will just use the next easiest system. Eventually, they are bound to get to BitTorrent.

Now, BitTorrent has plenty of non-infringing users; certainly a higher percentage than Kazaa. But there would be sufficient grounds to bring a case, and a judge is probably not going to throw out a case that hinges on what a "reasonable person would find". That's exactly the sort of decision that it, in theory, best made by a jury. Once it makes it to a jury trial, the developers start to run into real legal costs and probably go broke even if they win. And winning is not a foregone conclusion; counting on a jury to reasonable apply a reasonable person standard is definitely a crapshoot.

Come on, we have seen this dozens of times. The big fish don't have to win the lawsuits they bring to crush the little fish. Previously, BitTorrent's protection came from case law decided when a big fish went after, say, a medium fish that fought back and won. If this bill becomes law, it will nullify that protection. I hope the BitTorrent developers aren't from the US!

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[djaj]

No it doesn't. In fact, that's the current legal situation, and why Napster ended up being shut down (its only technically viable use was to distribute music, of which such a large majority was copyright violation that it was deemed to be the only viable use) while Kazaa was allowed to continue running (largely due to the reasonably large number of legally distributed pron videos on the system...). Wrong. Napster was shut down because they maintained central servers with indices of files you could download, the vast majority of which were copyrighted songs, and they refused to block access to these songs when asked by the copyright owners (remember, they would ban users, but not block access to the material). Kazaa and its ilk were allowed to continue running because there was no central server, so they had no way of knowing what their software was being used for (and no way to block copyrighted material even if asked).

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

The law states that in order to be in violation, it has to be proven that the P2P application's only method of commercially viability is by inducing copyright violations.

The law doesn't state that at all--look at the excerpt you posted. It only says whoever is deciding one of these cases should take into account whether the system relies on copyright infringement to make money. In fact, it doesn't even say to consider whether infringement is the only way of making money; it's bad enough if it currently happens to be the way it makes money.

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[Apathetic1]

That's a slippery-slope argument. I'm not saying it won't happen but your conclusions don't follow logically from your premises. It's not inevitable that the RIAA/MPAA will go after Bram Cohen, although I wouldn't take bets on it if the law is passed.

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation

[marnerd]

The slippery-slope fallacy only applies if you can't show that the final premise can be reasonably derived from the initial assertion. I believe I established that it can in my original post, but let me clarify my argument.

It is reasonable to assume that if this law is passed, then the XXAA will sue Kazaa and the other services that are clearly primarily engaged in supporting copyright violation. It is also likely that they will win. This second assertion is just my opinion, but I belive it likely in face of the "reasomnable man" standard in the bill.

It is also reasonable to assume that at least some of the Kazaa users will want to continue their activities after their primary venues are gone. Some of them will almost certainly use BitTorrent.

BitTorrent is already used to facilitate the trade of copyrighted works. I can't imagine the XXAA NOT wanting to shut them down particularly after they take out the "low hanging fruit" and users start to migrate to systems that were previously primarliy legitimate.

Actually, forget the slope, you can skip right to the conclusion without involving Kazaa. Right now, case precedent to a large extent protects BitTorrent from lawsuits. If this bill passes, that precedent will be nullified and that protection lost. Some lawyer, somewhere, will be able to convince a deep-pocketed copyright holder to go after BitTorrent; it's what they do for a living! A judge is unlikely (in my layman's opinion) to deem the case completely meritless; deeming that the "reasonable person" standard should be decided by a jury. Then, win or lose, Bram and whoever else gets dragged into the case is stuck with legal costs.

If this law passes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Short list of things that can "induce children to commit copyright infringement" that this law will make illegal:

- personal computers
- operating systems
- almost all software
- printers
- xerox copy machines
- cameras
- VCRs
- blank videotape
- CD/DVD burners
- blank CDs/DVDs
- DVD players
- camcorders
- cassette tapes and players
- protocols such as FTP, HTTP, SSH, TCP/IP
- iPods and any other HDD-based mp3 player
- libraries
- all musical instruments
- pens
- ink
- pencils
- paper
- paint brushes and paint
- rusty nails (a child could scratch text from a copyrighted book onto a table surface or wall)
- human vocal cords (a child could sing the lyrics of a copyrighted song)

What about the candy manufacturers?

[hal2814]

They are out there every day making deliciously evil candy that entices kids to get in the car with strangers. This must be stopped!

He is my favourite senator now

[Timesprout]

For being able to look past my greying hair and see the vunerable inner child within me. I feel so young and alive now.

hey Hatch... WHERE IS THE MONEY???

[Anonymous Coward]

If Hatch really wants to keep the children from being induced to steal, he and those other "caring" politicians should introduce a bill that outlaws the US government.

The money being "lost" due to P2P is chump change compared to the trillions of dollars that the US government cannot account for.

We can measure Hatch's sincerity by how quickly he moves to protect the millions of US children that are learning bad habits from the US government. Please tell him it is an important issue that needs his full attention until the matter of the missing trillions is resolved.

Superfluous where it's already illegal

[eofpi]

...and outrageous where it's not.

Luring people with false promises of legally free music is false advertising. Last I checked, this was already illegal.

They might have had a leg to stand on about easy access to pr0n, if it wasn't for the equally easy access to it on the rest of the internet. And besides, there are already plenty of (iirc, mainly state and local) laws regarding the accessibility of pornography. Last I knew, those laws were still in effect.

Which brings us to the part that's outrageous. Based on the premises behind the previous two paragraphs, they aim to make p2p software illegal, because it PERMITS these activities.

This is akin to making it illegal to make cars capable of exceeding the speed limit, on the off chance that someone speeds. But that would never fly. It's called personal responsibility. If I speed, I get a ticket (or have at least earned one, whether or not a policeman was around to give me one). I know this. You know this. Lots of people do it anyways, but they know they're taking a chance. P2Ping is no different (the rare instance of legal usage excepted).

What about FLOSS P2P?

[manabadman]

"Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch, clearly targeting P-to-P vendors, claimed his bill focuses on companies that profit by encouraging children and teenagers to infringe copyrights."

But what does that mean for the organizations that develop P2P applications, but do not profit from thier development. For example gnutella, giFT, and OpenFT ?

Would bittorrent fall in this category? It is certainly used to distribute pirated material, but its intended purpose (and popular use) is to distribute legal (FLOSS, demo) items.

The Yahoo! article wasn't clear. It says the bill attacks P2P developers, but all the direct quotes by Hatch say that he is after companies that develop software anticipating that software to be used for piracy.

"it creates a new class of people who can be sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement -- those who a "reasonable person" would believe "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" copyright violations"

"Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of 'free music.'"

I don't know if you can fault the intent, but my guess is that poor legal implementation will again be our undoing.

Re:What about FLOSS P2P?

[halowolf]

I'd say that it means that whoever posted this article got a little hyped up over the bill. The bill doesn't outlaw P2P apps.

Its enabling those that induce people to steal to be sued. No doubt the law will be abused, due to its broad definitions, to shut P2P down, but it certainly doesn't outlaw it. Though I'm sure that will be the end effect anyway if this bill manages to get into motion.

Don't get me wrong, this bill is very bad and has obviously been bought by the RIAA, MPAA and other related businesses. It needs to be fought, but please lets not get hysterical. Focus bravo!

Misuse of "steal" again, sigh

[dunstan]

Repeat after me: "Illegal copying is not theft, it is illegal copying".

The equating of illegal copying with property theft is now so widespread that it doesn't attract comment: this is bad. Those who misuse the language in this way should always be corrected.

Dunstan

Re:Misuse of "steal" again, sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I would mod this up if I could. Copyright infringement and theft are completely different crimes with completely different consequences, and when the RIAA and MPAA lackeys call it theft, it's propoganda, plain and simple.

Re:Misuse of "steal" again, sigh

[halbritt]

It's not "piracy" either. Unless someone is wearing an eyepatch and a parrot while they are infringing.

The obvious counter-statement

[rhadamanthus]

Hatch, a Utah Republican, said in a statement. "Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of 'free music.'"

While it is not at all clear that Kazaa has ever told people to use it's software to steal, it is clear that some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by bribing senators with campaign donations.

Open Secrets

Note that he recieves a generous bonus from "lobbyists" and "TV/Movie/Music".

Re:The obvious counter-statement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that he recieves a generous bonus from "lobbyists" and "TV/Movie/Music"."

More disturbingly, pfizer and Glaxosmithkline. The former being the makers of Viagra. I suppose if he's planning to kill the broadband killer app, Qwest communications might be a bit miffed.

Re:The obvious counter-statement

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'll notice, Computers/Internet is only about 52 grand below the TV/Movies/Music contributions. You'd think he'd only slightly favor these industries.

This is good because

[Peaker]

One step further in the actual enforcement of copyright is one step further in its abolishment.

People will not stand for copyright when it actually enforced.

Re:This is good because

[TiggsPanther]

People will not stand for copyright when it actually enforced.

Worse. It's sending us well on the slippery slope to anarchy. Or, at least, to general disregard of inconvenient laws by the the majority of people.
And I'm not sure they see that.

They're creating laws that corporations love, but the mojority of society in many countries do not like. Are they persuading people to stay within the letter of a law they don't believe in? Probably not in a lot of cases. instead people just dismiss the Law as an inconvenience. This is not going to end well.

yes, sometimes laws probably need tightening up to stop rampant law-breaking. But each law really should be looked at case-by-case.
Why was the law created?
What was society/technology like at the time?
What are things like now?
Does $ACTIVITY$ really need protecting/prohibiting now as it did back then?

Copyright law probably needs wholesale revision, but not automatically in favour of (large) corporations.
Currently they're wanting to restrict more things, and impose bigger sentences. What people see, though, is them being faced with out-of-proportion punishments for something that's not perceived as a serious crime.

Copyright needs reworking. Allow more stuff, decrease restrictions, don't penalise for what should these days be allowable, reduce copyright periods and allow things to hit the Public Domain within the public's lifetime, and don't make breaking the law seem more attractive than obeying it.
Conversely, what's left as illegal should be serious breaches that really do look like criminal activity and make them the ones with teh heavy punishments. Mass bootlegging factories of DVDs, and making a profit for someone else's work does seem to warrant heavy punishment. People sharing MP3s doesn't seem to warrant the same level. But the **AA (and local equivalents) want to make it so, and people can't understand that thinking.

Tiggs

Re:This is good because

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse. It's sending us well on the slippery slope to anarchy. Or, at least, to general disregard of inconvenient laws by the the majority of people.
And I'm not sure they see that.

I thought speed limits already achieved that.

Taking aim...

[bgarcia]

Senate Takes Aim At P2P Providers

Apparently, they are also taking aim at John Kerry: link

Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

"But for any who want to try fighting this on the homefront, I think our best chance is the media. We need to do whatever it takes to get the RIAA, Orrin Hatch, the MPAA, etc, painted in a bad light by the media not just for suing kids, but for pursuing these draconian measures."

Most of the media is owned by the same companies that own the record labels. Do you really think that they will do anything that hurts their argument? The only reason the RIAA gets away with its actions is because their side gets media attention, while the other side is barely covered.

inducing to start smoking is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Inducing children to start smoking is not a big concern to senators, it seems. This music thing is what kills the nation.

your senator would like to hear from you ...

[Serendipity79]

Please contact him at http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offic es.Contact

Let's do something about it

[CoryS0L0]

Can we the people do anything about this ridiculous possibility? Can the /. community start up a massive petition and push it right down Sen. Hatch's throat? Let's stop whining and start taking some action.

Protecting

[Rinisari]

I think we Americans need to protect our children not from P2P networking, but from overbearing legislators that fail to seek the opinions of their individual constituents. Too often are the ears of congresspersons only open to those mouths that speak with short words and big bills.

Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin seem to do all the talking to congress nowadays, rather than the faxes, phone calls, and letters from those who don't have a buck to spare.

Back to the old ways

[houghi]

Before fast Internet connections, in the time of 14.4K and even before that a friend of mine copied his music from the radio.

Users will find an other way to copy their music.

What these people and institutions fail to see is that a copy is not the same as a (lost) purchase. There are people who have thousands of CD's on MP3 and never listen to them. They would never have bought them anyway.

If I buy a RollexX for 10EUR, that does not mean that I would have bought a Rolex for 10.000EUR. Laws do not stop people from doing what they want to do. It just makes it illigal.

Don't Forget the Co-Sponsors:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. LEAHY - D VT
Mr. FRIST - R TN
Mr. DASCHLE - D SD
Mr. GRAHAM R- SC
Mrs. BOXER -D CA

Bi-partisanship at its best!

Re:Don't Forget the Co-Sponsors:

[Anonymous Coward]

Leahy, Daschle, and Boxer are the holy trinity of asshats in the Democratic party. If you live in the districts of these three you ought to vote against them. Everybody else, go vote Democrat.

Re:Don't Forget the Co-Sponsors:

[jlev]

I wrote my Senator. How about you?

---

Senator Leahy,

As a Vermonter concerned with civil liberties, and their rapid destruction by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Senate, I was shocked and dismayed to see that you cosponsored S. 2560. This bill, while short, it tremendously broad, with far reaching implications for many entirely legal forms of data transfer over the Internet.

Why is this sweeping redefinition necessary? Isn't the DMCA enough? That already makes legitimate research illegal, and has caused numerous chilling effects on art, parody and legitimate businesses. (http://www.chillingeffects.org/)

I have long admired your politics, and you have frequently been a defender of privacy and freedom, with your sponsorships of senate bills 436, 1440, 1695, and others that restore Congressional oversight to the executive branch. How can you now move to destroy freedom and privacy with this bill?

Bill 2560 seems to make any involvement with software that can possibly be used to infringe copyright illegal. Many innocuous protocols and software can be used in this manner, including HTTP, FTP, AIM, and email itself. Had I enclosed a copyrighted MP3 file in this message, or even a link to it, or written instructions on how to acquire it, under this act, both you and I would be liable.

This bill is a direct attack on free speech, and I am appalled that a man of your principle has cosponsored it.

Sincerely,

Josh Levinger
Norwich, VT

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[mmclar]

At school we used Microsoft's SMB protocol to share music on our network. They made it hella easy. Should they also be a target for this bill?

Music by Orrin Hatch

[Anonymous Coward]

He's an "artist". The Music of Orrin Hatch

It's all Al Gore's Fault...

[scrod98]

for helping create this intarweb thingey in the first place. Thankfully, we have insightful people like Senator Hatch to watch out for the needs of the American corp ^H^H^H^H people.

Re:It's all Al Gore's Fault...

[atomm1024]

Well, if this bill passes, then Gore will probably be liable as an inducer, since the modern Internet does indeed exist largely because of his economic and legislative initiatives. And these P2P programs wouldn't exist without the internet, would they...? LAWSUIT TIME!

Not just P2P applications

[gorbachev]

This is the bill that would technically outlaw VCRs, DVRs, mp3 players and everyone supplying parts for the manufacturers.

None of those companies would, of course, ever be sued, because they're bed buddies with the RIAA, but the slope is definitely slippery.

What if Tivo falls (completely) out of favor with the MPAA or some other entertainment industry group? What's to keep MPAA from suing (or "encouraging" the US Government to sue in their behalf) Tivo on the grounds of this proposed law? Nothing.

This bill HAS to be killed.

Proletariat of the world, unite to vote out corrupt politicians (that's Mr. Hatch, btw)

To all those making comparisons to gun control

[night_flyer]

for those wanting gun control instead are being hypocritical, as with P2P it how you use it.

of the guns in the US, only .02% are used in crime (That is assuming that a different is used for each crime)

Re:To all those making comparisons to gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

0.02% of millions is still a lot.

Re:To all those making comparisons to gun control

[ponxx]

> of the guns in the US, only .02% are used in crime
> (That is assuming that a different is used for each crime)

~400,000 crimes/year are committed with a firearm in the us according to the bureau of justice. Approximately 5 million guns are sold each year.

Assuming a lifetime of the average gun of 50 years, that makes ~250,000,000 guns in the US. 250,000,000/400,000 would make ~0.16% of guns are used in a crime *every year*.

Over the lifetime of a gun (still assumed at 50 years), the probability of it being used in a crime is thus ~50x0.16%=8%.

Of course you rightly point out that it is very unlikely each gun would be used in a crime only once, but seeing that was the basis for your argument ...

The numbers you *might* have been referring could be for *deaths* rather than crimes...

Guns *kill* just over 30,000 people/year in the US, so for each gun in existence, the chance of it being used to *kill* a person is ~0.012% *per year*. The chance of a gun being used to kill a person over the lifetime of the gun is accordingly 0.6%.

OF course all this involves some estimation, but to come to your number of 0.02% of guns being used in a crime ever, the US would need to be selling roughly 2 billion guns every year (I assume the BoJ figure of 400,000 crimes using guns/year to be correct). Or if you meant to say "used in a crime every year" the total number of guns currently existing in the US would have to be 2 billion, either of these are obviously wrong...

Yes, but does it aid for copyrighted only?

[192939495969798999]

Kazaa makes it easy to download and view songs, but no one says you have to or are allowed to download copyrighted material with it. I have a number of friends who distribute their bands' music with Kazaa freely, because it boosts their fanbase, and because radio is corrupt. If you want to download a Metallica song, we all know that those songs are on CD's you can buy at stores, and we all know you're not supposed to "steal" things. It's just like stealing a term paper... if you just want to read it, I don't really see a problem, but if you're going to distribute said term paper, that's your own dumb fault, not the fault of the tool of distribution.

"The Corporation"

[afxgrin]

If you've never seen this film, The Corporation is a documentary covering the history of how corporations came to exist and their roles in society today.

This film begins by conducting a psychological prognosis of a corporation, where they find it's condition is of a psychopath.

It was shown on the Canadian equivalent of PBS.

So here's oddly enough a bittorrent download of the 3 part series.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1983/The Corporation(3).torrent

If anyone is asking for more proof, I think this film will provide it for them. Otherwise, I still found watching this film to be very informative.

Re:"The Corporation"

[i621148]

can a torrent be slashdotted or this should just help it get faster right? anyway, the tracker link was down for me...

Re:"The Corporation"

[Anonymous Coward]

The canadian "equivilant" of PBS is CBC.

TVO stands for TV Ontario, which is a provincially funded television station (albiet, by the richest province in Canada).

Re:"The Corporation"

[stratjakt]

No, the CBC is a crown corporation, they sell advertisement to make money like any other network. Of course, like any other crown corporation, they hemmorage cash at the taxpayers expense, but I digress..

TVO, like PBS gets a grant from the province, but relies heavily on donations for funding. It's a non profit network (no commercial advertisements) like PBS.

Re:"The Corporation"

[afxgrin]

Sorry, the URL is somewhat broken, I forgot about the space in the URL. Here's a working link:

The Corporation

Re:"The Corporation"

[Lattitude]

Ok, but let's just say it's the Ontario equivalent of PBS, 'cause I don't receive TVO in Alberta (we have "Access" - same idea) and last time I looked, I still live in Canada...

Re:"The Corporation"

[schon]

Disclaimer: I am Canadian, and am a supporter of PBS ("Friend of 7".)

(no commercial advertisements) like PBS

Bwahahahah... Have you ever watched PBS? It's filled with commercial advertisements.. Let me provide an example: "This program is brought to you by a grant from the Chubb Group".

What is this, other than a commercial advertisement? Because they're not 30-second clips interrupting the program doesn't mean they're not commercial, or advertisements.

Re:"The Corporation"

[denis-The-menace]

I've seen this. It's awsome.

Highlights:
-A study of the effectiveness of kids nagging their parents for stuff (to help the Corp increase sales!)
-Why you don't see people singing Happy Birthday on TV anymore.

WARNING: If you live it the USA you will not want to drink your milk after seeing this!

Re:"The Corporation"

[plenTpak]

Corporations can be found to be psychotic?
Does that mean that they can also be forced to seek treatment if they're diagnosed that way?
(I'm just asking!)

Re:"The Corporation"

[denis-The-menace]

Here's a link to their site

Re:"The Corporation"

[Anonymous Coward]

"last time I looked, I still live in Canada..."

Surprising, considering how the last election was stolen from Harper. The chances of the undecided splitting the way Elections Canada said it did was thousands to one against.

Re:"The Corporation"

[mdielmann]

The amazing part for me was when Fox got off on the appeal (in a case brought against them by their former investigative agents) because there was no obligation to tell the truth in journalism.

Re:"The Corporation"

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this, other than a commercial advertisement? Because they're not 30-second clips interrupting the program doesn't mean they're not commercial, or advertisements

They might be advertisements in a sense (I think of them as mostly public relations), but not all these organizations are for profit companies. For example, listening to a recent broadcast of NPR, I was informed that the program was supported by the "Kaufmann Group of Kansas City". That organization is a philenthropic trust fund setup by a man that is know dead, I would guess they aren't selling much.

Besides, I find them much easier to live with than the subvert... I mean advertisements on the other channels. I'd much rather a three second message from a company saying it supports "such and such" programming than a thirty second commerical about how my life would be so much better if I ran out and purchased products X, Y, and Z RIGHT NOW!

Re:"The Corporation"

[jhunsake]

Do you have another torrent link?

Re:"The Corporation"

[afxgrin]

Umm currently I don't. Your best bet is to just search Suprnova.org for working torrents.

Another simpler, enforceable solution...

[Jesrad]

... would be to make copyright infringement legal. Voilà, no more evil file exchanges, no more "thievery", no more "digital crimes". End of the problem !

Makes more sense, doesn't it ?

Re:Another simpler, enforceable solution...

[TiggsPanther]

That smacks of overkill, and would probably be a very bad idea...

And it still makes more sense.

Tiggs

New

[pibakic]

here?

Are you?

Hmmm?

His own words a little while back

[HermesHuang]

At least in this statement he sounds reasonable (from June 17). He's worried about viruses, spyware, and such, but realizes the potential for p2p networks. Haven't been able to find the stuff opposing p2p yet, but searching senate writings is a grand pain.

link: http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?i d=623&wit_id=51

Re:His own words a little while back

[fallen1]

The Judiciary has been slashdotted. Either that or <tinfoil hat on> someone warned "good ole' boy" Orrin about his sounding in favor of P2P and they are now expunging the records </tinfoil hat off>. Should be interesting to see if his comments are still there or were "lost during system failure" or some other technical bs...

Re:His own words a little while back

[LouCifer]

At least in this statement he sounds reasonable (from June 17). He's worried about viruses, spyware, and such, but realizes the potential for p2p networks

If he's worried about spyware, viruses, etc then he's going about it wrong. P2P has its legitimate uses (see Cloudmark's software - uses P2P to classify whats spam).

I'm moe inclined to believe that he's using the threat of viruses and spyware as a scare tactic against P2P. Typical politician jumping on the bandwagon to make himself look better.

Re:His own words a little while back

[HermesHuang]

this link seems to work better
http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_member_statement .cfm?id=623&wit_id=51

It means...

[Kjella]

...that if everyone and everything is a criminal, you can persecute whoever and whatever you want, assuming you have time and money.

Besides, ban development? The top quality software is already OSS (eMule, DC++, Shareaza, Freenet etc.etc.) There's no company to ban, no company to levvy sanctions against. In fact, you could reasonably argue that each person just wrote a piece of GPL code, which someone else used to assemble a P2P application.

Of course, making it illegal to write any code that could be used in a P2P network would effectively kill the OSS movement dead, which I suppose is part of the plan. Dead in the US, at least. The US economy will survive, because it'll be feeding off talent abroad. The US itself though, will decay. Not that I care, I don't live there :)

Kjella

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[arpy]

Why, Sen. Hatch, I can download illegal MP3s through my web browser! GASP! Better shut down the WWW.

Oh, no! Now there's this FTP program people are using! Better shut that down, too.

Zounds! Someone just e-mailed me a song! Bye-bye, e-mail...

Eh gad, finally it's time to invest in Gopher. Many years have I waited for this! And to think they called me mad.

How is this guy getting voted into office?

[Xshare]

Does the RIAA have THAT MANY people voting? I mean, you'd think that thered be enough people voting against him in the election.... Unless of course his opponent is the same, in which case the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Re:How is this guy getting voted into office?

[emorphien]

I don't know, but it's beginning to worry me. This guy reaches new levels of uninformedness every week,

Re:How is this guy getting voted into office?

[Megane]

Looks like it's time to "Rock The Vote" against this guy in his state. Not just the "nerd/geek" crowd, but anyone of college age.

Oh wait, he's from fscking Utah. Guess who keeps voting this tool into office?

Re:How is this guy getting voted into office?

[Megane]

P.S. The above was by someone who usually votes Republican. It'd be worth losing a seat to get him the hell out of DC.

Plan ahead

[G-funk]

Call my a cynical old prick (well don't bother, I know already), but I say it's inevitable that in 10 years you won't be able to legally run any p2p in the US or its "do as we say or we bankrupt your farmers" states such as Australia. So instead of jumping up and down and pretending two hundred thousand nerds can change shit, we need to start focusing on what we'll do to get around it.

Re:Plan ahead

[RLiegh]

So instead of jumping up and down and pretending two hundred thousand nerds can change shit, we need to start focusing on what we'll do to get around it.

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more if I tried. Since I'm out ofcoffee, I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say "it's 'do as we say or we bankrupt your farmers' states such as Australia"; but if you mean what I think you mean (that they are already facing what we're about to) maybe we should find out how they are coping with their draconian laws?

Re:Plan ahead

[JWW]

The thing is when they start coming after people, it won't be two hundered thousand nerds, it will be tens of millions of file sharers.

There are orders of magnitude more file sharers then there are drug users violating the drug laws. Just put it this way about 50 million people elected the president in the last election. It has been estimated that that many people have used p2p for file sharing. The politicians schilling for the RIAA are playing with fire. A voter backlash on this issue could be enourmous.

I know that even though I am a conservative, I have very strong libertarian leanings. There is no way in hell that Hatch would ever get my vote. The Republicans have to be very careful with this, there are a lot of closet libertarians in their midst who do not like this kind of legislation.

And since when does a private company get to use the government's resources for its own civil suits? No citizen would be allowed to do that. It is so costitutionally wrong it makes me sick to think that some scumbag senator actually though it up. Do those idiots even read the constitution?

Re:Plan ahead

[dbc001]

we've got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!

Hear! Hear!

I agree. It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now.

Hear! Hear!

You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier!

So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere!

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am a conservative"

You're a liberal bullshitter pretending to be a conservative.

Re:Plan ahead

[bluprint]

And since when does a private company get to use the government's resources for its own civil suits?

Well, IP laws on the whole operate under (or it might be better to say "were created under") basically the same precedent. That is, government/public resources used to protect private business ventures.

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, IP laws on the whole operate under (or it might be better to say "were created under") basically the same precedent. That is, government/public resources used to protect private business ventures.

Only as a means towards a public end. The minute that the law subordinates the public interest to the artificial monopoly carrot, the law becomes unConstitutional.

If the public's long-term interests would be best-served through shorter copyright terms, or through anti-DRM provisions ("if you use DRM, you lose copyright"), then those are the directions that the Congress should take.

Re:Plan ahead

[orderb13]

No, those idiots have never read the consitituion. If they had they would have realized that all these wonderful laws they've been putting into effect for years are illegal. Much like the IRS.

Re:Plan ahead

[ahodgson]

Uh, they changed the constitution to make income tax explicitly legal. Probably not the best call, but they managed it.

Re:Plan ahead

[2WheelCowboy]

First there was the war against poverty. Then came the wars against drugs and terrorism. Soon we'll have the war against P2P. Can I be the first P2P Czar?

Re:Plan ahead

[bcboy]

... and remember, "they" is "we". The income tax had very, very broad support with voters, because the alternatives (which they lived under) sucked.

Re:Plan ahead

[Zareste]

Do those idiots even read the constitution?

Gyahahaha! Aha! Ahahahaha! Wow man, that's... that's just...

Oh wait, you're serious.

Re:Plan ahead

[bluprint]

You are making an overall point about wither IP laws are, on the whole, good or bad. That doesn't really contradict my point.

The idea that IP laws serve (to a net positive degree) the public/consumer is debatable. I happen to believe that, on the whole, they don't. I won't argue the point however, primarily because people a lot smarter and more articulate than I have done so adequately already, however, we should at least recognize the one certain point that IP laws remove the responsibility for protecting business practices/ideas/etc from the business. Without these laws, companies would be responsible for protecting "idea assets" themselves, now we all (consumers) subsidize business by paying (via higher taxes) for that protection for them.

The only reason I made that post, was just to point out something that most people don't think about. For example, we have all heard the argument(s) that without IP laws, no one would ever create anything new. Again, I won't argue that, but we (generally, based on my own experiences from childhood until current) typically don't get the whole picture. What are the othe sides of the coin, even before getting into arguing specific points such as wether indeed there would or would not be new innovation without IP laws?

Re:Plan ahead

[ahodgson]

It had broad support at what, like 2 or 3%. I doubt it's quite as popular now :/

Re:Plan ahead

[statusbar]

Millions of potential inmates! This is what we need - More inmates available to do cheap labour!

--jeff++

Re:Plan ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

... and remember, "they" is "we".

No. You may be part of that "they" but I am not. I wasn't even alive at the time.

Re:Plan ahead

[G-funk]

There can be no voter backlash, simply because the **AA will buy the new politicians. I honestly believe the only things that could change this trend are revolution (not liklely), a total overhaul of the representative system in the us (slightly more likely) or the eventual slow painful soviet-style collapse of the corporate-controlled western capitalist democratic way of life (just about inevitable in my view).

Of course FTL travel, or spock turning up next weekend or a small nuclear war(oxymoron?) or sizeable natural disaster could change everything for better or worse quite quickly. /cynical old prick

Re:Plan ahead

[G-funk]

What I meant was basically every few years, we sign a treaty to promise to bend over our citizens to US terror/copyright/anti-drug/whatever laws in return for a slight increase in our import quota in the US for various Australian exports, such as beef (hooray no VSE) and wheat.

How about SMTP

[bigberk]

SMTP is essentially a peer-to-peer protocol, allowing arbitrary hosts to exchange mail. The client can act as the server, and vice versa in any mail transaction.

So if SMTP servers like Postfix, qmail, sendmail can be used to perform copyright violations (as they certainly can and do, depending on what a user sends) this would make these core Internet applications quite illegal.

I beg to disagree.

[Illissius]

America was such a great nation, for so long. How does it deserve to have the likes of the Bush Administration and the RIAA inflicted upon it?

Goodbye internet

[polyp2000]

Well, I suppose if they are going to make it illegal to create peer to peer software for the purpose of transferring files then I guess than means, no more web browsers, ftp clients. No more distributed computing (seti/ anti-cancer/ whatever) clients. Basically anything that allows a piece of data to move from one computer to another (tcp/ip, is clearly the root of all evil since it provides the basic framework for p2p to happen). Obviously it is a completely absurd idea and will never work. I dont know why we are worrying so much.

Oh my god

[Anonymous Coward]

God, with every day I am getting a little more thankful that I am not living in the US.

Looks like the government is about to compete and eventually surpass china when it come to restrictions and control of the people.

Messed up point of view

[Winterblink]

Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal.

Actually, I rather prefer to think they're helping children to learn to share, which is something we should all be encouraging. ;)

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[Anonymous Coward]

So UNLESS a P2P app blocks all not-authorised (by the *IAA) file transfers, it will be considered illegal.

That's easy, just pay attention to the copyright bit contained in MP3 files. That's always accurate, right?

hello

[hello_test]

My server is not working

Dear America

[Anonymous Coward]

With the RIAA, MPAA and The Bush Administration, you have now seen the full power of our mighty empire.
Perhaps you wish to reconsider your withdrawral from the commonwealth and return to the motherland?
We await your responce

Yours,
The British Empire.

Senator Hatch, Software Pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Orrin Hatch, Software Pirate?

Re:Senator Hatch

[tdemark]

excuse me? You're saying that unless you're a politician, you shouldn't get involved in politics?

No, I think he meant "If you don't understand how P2P and the Internet works, then you really shouldn't be trying to change it".

'Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free music."'

That's an interesting statement. But, couldn't a similar argument be made about the auto industry: "Many companies have commercials showing how fast their cars are. One even shows their car going faster than sound. Obviously, these are false promises of how fast you should be able to drive. Therefore, we should legislate that no car should be able to go faster than 65 miles per hour. Yes, there are some areas where it is legal to go above 65, but, for the greater good, those areas will be removed."

Incidentally, unlike speeding, no one was ever killed by someone using a P2P application to break the law.

- Tony

OutRage!

[SadPenguin]

This is a proposterous proposition. P2P filesharing, (though frequently abused) needs to be taken for what it is: a protocol, and a means of using one's own internet connection for one's own purposes. This would be not only an inhibition, but a gross imposition on sharers everywhere who would be unable to even legitimately use these protocols that do their job so wonderfully. This is a case of the government taking a much too narrow scope of a stance on an issue of technology that they don't/partially understand the intricacies of. Really what needs to happen in our gub'mint is that those involved need to stop making decisions that just look good to people with money (RIAA MPAA etc), but rather take realistic considerations for the greater good of their constituents. Sure this would placate some overzealous anti-share folks -- "Ok, now people won't copy music", but then things would just revert to the days when it was google your ass off, and eventually find the illegit media somewhere anyway.
Oy, Orrin Hatch needs to keep his hands to himself.

"Worse....Or Better?"

Yes, they are useful for maiming as well

[benzapp]

You can also induce fear in the target by not actually hitting him.

High calibre handguns are also useful for shooting animals. A .45 can seriously wound a bear, and easily kill a deer.

Suffice it to say, one shot to a limb of a human and it is gone.

Nothing!

[warrax_666]

Should we legalise file sharing?

File sharing is already legal as long as you own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder (or if it's public domain).
Granted, lots of infringe on copyright, but that has always been the case (maybe not with the same ease as with digital media, but that's beside the point...) and current legeslation already forbids that.

Should we abolish copyright?

False dichotomy. File sharing and copyright can coexist (as they currently do).

If we do, what will be the incentive for creators to publish their work? The desire to create?

Believe it or not, most artists (hint: I'm not talking about Britney Spears here) become artists because they have a desire to create, not for financial gain. Just try to imagine how many struggling artists there are for each famous/wealthy artist.

So, what do we do?

Nothing. No new legeslation is necessary.

Re:Nothing!

[91degrees]

File sharing is already legal as long as you own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder (or if it's public domain).

Sigh.. Okay. I'll clarify.

Should we allow unrestricted sharing of copyrighted media files?

Believe it or not, most artists (hint: I'm not talking about Britney Spears here)

How elitist of you

become artists because they have a desire to create, not for financial gain. Just try to imagine how many struggling artists there are for each famous/wealthy artist.

Indeed. Believe it or not, these people also like to eat. They would still create, but only in their spare time. If we force artists to work full time, a lot less work will be produced.

Nothing. No new legeslation is necessary.

But people are breaking thelaw on a regular basis under current laws? Is this a good thing? To me, it means that either the law is bad, or the people are bad.

Wouldn't it be nice

[fw3]

if /. posters (or editors?) bothered to RTFA?

Nowhere do I see where p2p software is being made illegal. This bill is adding a specific class (companies hosting P2P networks *for profit*) for *civil* lawsuit.

No criminal statute here that I can see. Yes the bill is taking aim at p2p -- in expected ways, I dunno (or care-- I don't use p2p nets) if it's good law but the article here is seriously misstating content of the proposed law.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

So, suddenly, if I throw up an ircd on my connection, and someone starts using it to host an XDCC bot, who should be responsible for any piracy? Me? The owner of the bot? Khaled Mardam-Bey of mIRC fame? Jarkko Oikarinen, the creator of IRC?

Don't forget the rest!

[Libertarian_Geek]

"Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy".
Sorry, I don't wont Mr. Daschle and Leahy to get lonely. They deserve some credit too. What's their motivation? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[Lumpy]

and we are forgetting the P2P networking protocols? like Packet Radio??

So therefore ham radio operators using Packet which is a really good example of P2P networking needs to be deemed illegal/unamerican also?

The bill is extremely vague and covers so much ground that it is a nightmare waiting to happen.

anyone explain them...

[Anonymous Coward]

that IP is also a Peer to Peer protocol please ?

Re:Outlaw the internet too!!

[Anonymous Coward]

IP (Internet Protocol) is peer2peer.

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because web browsers and the FTP and email protocols exist for the main purpose of anonymously and illegally acquiring copyrighted works without paying for them.

Oh wait, no they don't!

The web, FTP, and e-mail serve up primarily either non-copyrighted items, or copyrighted items legally (i.e. from the copyright holder). If they don't, it's quite easy to see the source of the copyright infringement and to stop it.

On the other hand, programs like Kazaa and others of its ilk exist for the sole purpose of facilitating the illegal acquisition of copyrighted (and non-free) works. Now we can pretend that there are people that use Kazaa without infringing on copyrights, but you and I both know that close to 100% of P2P traffic is illegal copyright infringement, and these programs are created and marketed with this in mind.

Open source

[A_GREER]

What if the companies like apple, novell, redhat, and any company that sells Linux or UNIX band together and stop this nonsence.

P2P, IMHO, is the ideal way to transfer linux isos which would make normal server to client connections buckle!

P2P is a tool, like a hammer, it can build a home or knock one down.

The US government

[Soothh]

is making the idea of moving to another country more apealing every day

Not just P2P!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the posts here so far, I think some of us are missing the big point. This law is way more draconian then just outlawing P2P, which sounds good to the senators. It makes any manufacturer of any product that is capable of copyright infringement liable for the infringing acts of their customers! This liablility is huge and will stiffle companies from even making new products.

Makers of a VCR, camcorder, music player, CD/DVD burner, taper recorder, etc. would be liable for infringement by their customers. Companies will not risk this liability.

They wanted to get rid of fair use and freedom of content out right but everybody yelled. Now they are attacking it indirectly. They successfully outlawed reverse engineering of encryption (See DMCA). Now they want to make it too risky to develop content management and creation products. Fair use and content freedom are fine with them if you have no tools to exercise them!

Read the Electronic Frontier Foundation article. Their lawyers wrote up a fictional lawsuit where Apple, Toshiba and CNET News are sued under this law for aiding copyright infringement via the iPOD and a written review of it.

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&it em =2918

Write your Senator now! Call your Senator now! This must be stopped!

Re:Not just P2P!

[The_Mr_Flibble]

I thought it was very funny Mr Hatchs new law It would mean that I would be a fugitive for setting up a large scale p2p network and facilitating in copyright infringment. Wait a minute No I wouldn't be a fugitive the company directors would be they are responsible for my conduct and I was only following orders. Network engineer looking for new job since us goverment made my old one illegal. Will be my new sig, if this gets through. And the phone companies my god the world would be in chaos. Oh wait a minute this is just us law. I'd best start saying my goodbies to all my friends in the states Seeing as though this new law that he wants would open up everyone and everything to more lawsuits. Sorry I have just realized what this law is all about and it's to funny.

Law is for sale to the highest bidder

[WCMI92]

When the masses finally wake up to this fact, will people respect the law in the morning?

I don't think that they will.

Civilization is not possible without the rule of law. Bad law inevitably weakens the rule of law and thus, leads to anarchy.

Frankly, I don't think anyone would ever be convicted of P2P "crimes". I can't see a jury ever siding with a convicted corporate felon like the RIAA versus a 12 year old who used Kazaa.

This is why they settle these cases for whatever they can get.

That is, until the Digital Copyright Amendment is added to the Constitution and people accused of copyright infringement are denied trial by jury.

Think that's farfetched? Don't. All it will take is some miniskirt-clad cash toting IP Cartel lobbyist bimbo to whisper in some Senator's ear while doing other things for him that unless "Intellectual Property" is protected, the terrorists win...

Ten years ago, people who would have predicted the DMCA would have been called crazy, yet, within that time we got the 1996 Telecoms act, the DMCA, several attempts at banning free speech on the internet, a SUCCESSFUL attempt to ban political free speech (campaign finance reform, note it doesn't stop the RIAA from lobbying Congress, it just stops people like US from combining our money to pay for ads to expose Congress's actions in favor of the RIAA), among others.

Oh. Nice.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

That's right, give the bastard ideas

I'm confused...

[Kjella]

Maybe if I drove round and sang the songs, he'd outlaw me singing. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

...am I supposed to be for or against Orrin Hatch now? ;)

Kjella

Outlaw the RIAA!

[SammysIsland]

I think the RIAA is encouraging children to steal music by putting it out there to 'steal'. Or maybe we should just stop this whole thing at the source and start arresting the artists themselves.

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[julesh]

There's actually a solution to this. You require users to certify that they own the copyright to the content they distribute and grant permission to the software to do so before allowing it to be distributed.

As this is as close to being sure that any software is going to be able to get (how on Earth can software check that a random file whose format it doesn't understand is the property of its user?), it should be permissible.

money maker

[Valen1260]

Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal.
How does one profit, legally or otherwise, from offering free downloads?

In related news...

[alexo]

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by everybody's favorite senator, Orrin Hatch, is moving to outlaw knives entirely by making it illegal to produce such instruments. Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to kill. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free stabbing."'

Doesn't this take email out as well?

[Col Bat Guano]

Delivering email is a P2P program - lots of cooperative servers passing messages on, until they finally get to their target.

Same goes for RTSP (real time streaming protocol?) for broadcasting I believe.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[smaring]

I'm surprised that so many /. folk have so much faith in the credibility of mainstream media. The only way to get unbiased information is to go to the source!

"`intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability"

So, basically, Orrin is saying that if a reasonable person (i.e. juror) could be shown evidence, and conclude without reasonable doubt, that the intent of any commercial venture is to profit from the illegal actions of others, that they should be held liable.

Proving that sort of intent is NOT a simple matter. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the nature of a particular type of software.

I'd refer to it as political FUD.

P2P encourages stealing. Guns don't!

[Rsriram]

Of course, guns do not encourage shooting but kazaa encourages stealing and should be banned. *these Americans are crazy* tok! tok! tok! - Obelisk

When will they learn?

[nurb432]

You cant stop something because it MIGHT be used improperly.

If that was the case we would have to outlaw most everything in existace. Like cars, sticks, fire, bricks...

The last thing i downloaded via 'P2P' ( actually Bittorrent, but who is counting ) was a ISO for Mepis, and no one got on messaging me suggesting i should download copyrighted music...

These idiots should be voted out of office. Actually they should be thrown out for incompetence, but thats a bit more difficult.. we cant even get rid of a lying cheating president that was proven guilty in court and legally impeached.

Sad state of affairs these days.

Re:When will they learn?

[Creepy Crawler]

---These idiots should be voted out of office. Actually they should be thrown out for incompetence, but thats a bit more difficult.. we cant even get rid of a lying cheating president that was proven guilty in court and legally impeached.

Bet 1$ that some fuck will say "whats wrong with sex?" ...

Most people dont understand what Clinton did soo wrong (YOU wanna lie to that judge over there?).

IRC

[SammysIsland]

Why is there no targeting of IRC? That is where I have done a great deal of my DLing.... It's great for entire CD's, software, and even better for Movies than P2P. It seems strange to fight only half the battle.

Re:Corporations

[spiny]

'The revolution will not be available on bittorrent'

There's nothing wrong with stealing.

[Lochin Rabbar]

At least stealing is not automatically wrong, it's just the act of obtaining something surreptitiously. My son steals music all the time, he borrows my CD's without telling me, and I steal them back. I'm fine with this, as long as he doesn't thieve them. Theft is wrong and as you say copyright infringement is not theft. Children should be encouraged to steal music so that the can learn about it, and broaden their knowledge. A child that listens only to music they have bought and payed for, or that the media conglomerates see fit to broadcast is a child that is deprived of the riches of our culture. A society that tolerates such deprivation in the pursuit of corporate profit is truly decadent.

Tell Sen. Orrin Hatch your opinion

[SaturnSS]

While I am a strong supporter of IP rights this bill scares me the most by establishing a blanket effect over P2P development. This bill has the possiblity to be as disruptive as the DMCA.

Everyone should write to Sen. Hatch

Re:Tell Sen. Orrin Hatch your opinion

[brysnot]

Writing to that ass clown doesn't do any good. I write to him (as he is my senator) and he just sends a form letter thanking me for supporting him.
What we need is our own slush fund to buy radio and tv time to air our own commercials during election time to vote him out of office.

Re:Tell Sen. Orrin Hatch your opinion

[SaturnSS]

Just remember you're dealing with some 18 year old staffer with a poly-sci degree where IM is the extent of his/her computing capacity. You gotta mention "I oppose" quite a lot. ... the alternative is you can always call Sen. Hatch up: 202-224-5251

This has already happened, at least once...

[dpilot]

Think for a moment about the state of personal data backup.

It really stinks.

Now imagine a device suitable for backup of digital date, reasonably dense, read/write, and small enough to fit into a drive bay. Not only that, but it's originally introduced for consumer applications, so there's a large market base to really drive the costs down.

Finally, imagine that the first use was to record audio, and it scared the RIAA so much that they essentially drove it out of the market.

That's right, Digital Audio Tape. Right out of the chute, it was 3X the density of a CDROM, back in the 1980's, when it would have been a meaningful density for backup. Presumably density could have been improved along with other magnetic media, to keep it useful for backup.

But no, too dangerous to RIAA profits. So now practically nobody backs up disks. I know at home I just back up a few critical files - really just keep spare copies around on several computers. The drives to do real backup are too expensive.

But it didn't have to be that way.

Innocent until proven guilty?

[vulcan_pupil]

What ever happend to "innocent until proven guilty". In a court of law, one is inoccent until it is proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt (idealistically), they have committed the crime. This legislation considers poeple guilty before they have even committed the crime. Redundancy aside, I think more people need to consider our legal system's view on John Q. Public. I, for one, do not like being viewed as potential criminal #424-90-8621.

The bill doesn't even mention P2P

[michaelmalak]

In fact, the bill doesn't even mention technology:

'intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

That goes straight to the First Amendment, and even any discussion about "fair use" (such as on Slashdot) would be deemed copyright infringement.

Assuming that copyrights are first reduced to "limited times" as spelled out by the Constitution, an inducement law might be appropriate -- to prosecute (rather than reward with millions of dollars) people like Shawn Fanning of Napster who actively solicit infringement of specific copyrighted titles. But this bill is not that because it is overly broad.

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[1u3hr]

how on Earth can software check that a random file whose format it doesn't understand is the property of its user?

You haven't heard of "trusted computing"/Palladium?

My Solution

[Mr. Cancelled]

Introduce legislation to prevent people from lobbying for business's in which they themselves have a financial interest in.

For example, if I remember correctly Senator Hatch supposedly receives royalties from several (questionable) musical projects of his. Thus he should not be allowed to introduce legislation which could financially benefit him through his affiliation with the RIAA, and/or his project(s). It's a clear conflict of interest to me.

There should be a window of time to make this a viable solution. Something to the effect off not being able to profit or work for any represented industry's for 5 years prior to taking office, or 5 years after taking office. This should eliminate any doubts about someones ulterior motives, while ensuring that people aren't passing laws simply to increase their own bottom line.

Thoughts?

Let's extend Godwin's Law

[JaredOfEuropa]

...or rather Godwin's Rule perhaps. Invoking the magic words "The Children" as a justification of your own cause, should automatically result in you losing the argument, and the closing of the discussion.

Incidentally, I'd love Godwin's Rule to be adopted in politics. For a very good reason: when someone makes a comparison to Nazi's or feels a need to protect The Children, you can be sure that the rational part of the discussion is over, and that all that's left is emotions and name calling.

Re:Let's extend Godwin's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Or howzabout Godwin's File-Sharing Corollary: in any discussion of file sharing/P2P apps, the "stealing/intellectual property violation/copyright infringement/theft" dance is inevitable. Plus, it's usually the same people doing it each time.

Re:Let's extend Godwin's Law

[Detritus]

If it saves just one child...

Maybe little Timmy was an idiot, and his demise will improve the gene pool.

Re:Let's extend Godwin's Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the same go for "Terrorists"? Removal of this word alone would increase the intelligence of any political discussion tenfold.

Re:Let's extend Godwin's Law

[CoolToddHunter]

Interestingly, a book with a character that shares the name of your example addresses this question.

The response of Scrooge in Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" sounds very similar to yours.

`If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, `they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

I believe Dickens' point was that we as humans have an obligation to other humans and we should not make the determination of who recieves help or not, but that we should help all.

So, if we are genuinely saving children and not at the expense of squandering other children, then one child is worth it. You never know when that one child my be your own, or when that one child might have been you.

Re:Let's extend Godwin's Law

[Detritus]

What if the cost of "saving one child" is a billion dollars, or making life a little more miserable for the rest of society?

We could save a few children's lives every year if we banned little league baseball. Even more would live if skateboards and bicycles were banned. Reducing the speed limit to 5 mph would save many thousands of lives. Just think of how many lives would be saved if we banned unhealthy food and drink.

Re:Let's extend Godwin's Law

[CoolToddHunter]

What if the cost of "saving one child" is a billion dollars, or making life a little more miserable for the rest of society?

Your post said nothing about these types of situations; only that maybe Timmy was an idiot. My response stated "So, if we are genuinely saving children and not at the expense of squandering other children..." I would define spending undue resources (that could be used to save many children) on one child as squandering. Banning little league altogether is likewise squndering many children for the sake of one. However, what is the price of one child? At what point do you say the child isn't worth it?

I don't like this idea at all but....

[Anonymous Coward]

it does not look like he's trying to kill all P2P just the ones that make any cash.

This bill should not and does not threaten in any manner the further advancement of technology. It is not a technology mandate. Only individuals or organizations which profit from intentionally encouraging others to violate our copyright laws should fear this legislation. It has been carefully crafted and will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that its language accurately reflects its sound intent.

So this means that free (beer) P2P apps that have no ads are ok. but still.....

Which bill?

[cjpez]

So does anyone have the bill number, or a thomas.loc.gov link? I'd love to call up my senators about this, but I'd like to be able to use terms more specific than just "that one p2p bill from Hatch." Why don't they put that kind of information in their articles?

Re:Which bill?

[Glock27]

S. 2560

Re:Senator Hatch

[LouCifer]

excuse me? You're saying that unless you're a politician, you shouldn't get involved in politics? Are you some sort of fascist? The basis of a sound democracy is that EVERYONE is welcome to have their opinion and participate.


No, I'm saying that people uneducated in the area in question, who rely on the tidbits of information they're exposed to should STFU about the subject unless they've got adequate information on both sides of the argument before they make an informed decision.

The likelihood that Hatch is going on what the lobbists are telling him is higher.

Once again, I have to plug Rick Boucher (Rep. VA)

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

http://www.house.gov/boucher/internet.htm

On this one page, Boucher argues for the protection of Fair Use, for his "Digital Milennium Consumers' Rights Act," against using the DOJ to attack P2P, for...

Oh, hell. Just go read *everything* he's doing. Boucher is the anti-Hatch, and I hate the fact that I'm moving to NC and won't be able to vote for him any more. He is, I think, the one lone voice in the government that actually understands the slightest bit of what he's legislating about.

TCP/IP is the root problem.

[baadfood]

Obviously the designers of TCP/IP all need to be locked up for producing a protocol that enabled the dissemination of copyright works accross a network that could survive nuclear war. Or something.

Gotta love the spin

[Quila]

First, of course is the "for the children" angle which Hatch always uses. When politicians say "for the children," hold on to your rights.

Second is the "big bad corporations" spin, forgetting that this law was paid for by "big bad corporations." There's also the fact that a simple search for "P2P on SourceForge will produce pages of non-corporate P2P applications that this bill also targets.

Hatch is a Hollywood-owned political hack, and his bills have a nasty habit of being declared unconstitutional. But let's not let this one go that far -- call your senators (unfortunately, my loser senator is busy trying to become vice president, so will probably not care and be as absent as Kerry anyway).

Re:Senator Hatch

[LouCifer]

Oh, he knows full well which side of his bread has all the butter on it and who does the buttering.

Exactly. He's a puppet for the **AA.

This is the equivilent

[jav1231]

of outlawing brewing containers because you can make moonshine in them. This will never pass muster in the Supreme Court, should someone challenge it.

Just more proof that government is out of touch

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I hear Senators do illegal things too, perhaps being a senator should be made illegal for the sake of our kids.

Senator Hatch may find p2p offensive, but what i find offensive is our government. First off the guy's party lied to our country in order to profit from the take over of another country. He obviously is getting greased by the RIAA and others who are out to control the market.

This isnt about p2p, its about whoever is paying Hatch money under the table to keep things as they always were for those who control distribution.

Finally the consumer has a voice, and the market is in terror!

During the big Internet boom, corperations were scrambling to figure out what to do with the net. They quickly threw up their corperate sites... We can see Mcdonalds menu online, order pizza hutt online, or download movie trailers...

But they cant control the net. Until now. They're finding ways to weasel their leverage on the internet.

They have absolutely no right to dictate what you code (say)

People talk on P2P networks. People trade recorded TV shows, personally footage. I once knew a website that hosted videos of Wu Shu competitions (Martial arts), and due to the overloading bandwidth on his site... he decided to just host them through WinMX to help ease the burden. He informed everyone through his website, and folks helped by sharing the bandwidth burden.

P2P and SERVERS are a BIG free speech issue. Currently all cable/dsl broadband subscribers are not allowed to run servers. Their Terms of Service clearly state that you can not run servers.

They're taking away the right to contribute to the net at the pipe.

Why? The corperate excuse is.. "Cable cant substain that upload traffic" or "we do not provide dynamic IPs" etc. Whatever the truth, its becoming the standard. And if we allow this to continue, the net will be nothing more than just another corperate marketing tool.

USERS are considered CONSUMERS... and as we know Consumers have very little rights by design.

P2P first... servers next. Why not make FTP illegal? IRC? WWW ? NEWSGROUPS?

Its all about control.

Don't blame the technology.

[YouHaveSnail]

P2P has obviously become strongly associated with music swapping, so it's easy to see why Senator Hatch and his sponsors seem to think that stopping the technology will stop music swapping. But he's sadly mistaken, and this would seem a very poorly considered piece of legislation.

Is there an important difference between P2P networks and, say, everyone running a copy of Apache and having Google index every machine? Yeah, sure, it's a little different, but the effect is the same. Every copy of MacOS X includes Apache, and if all P2P software went away tomorrow, I'll bet Apache would be put to service doing the same sorts of stuff.

Is there an essential difference between P2P networks and distributed file systems like AFS? Not, I think, when it comes to providing an ability to share information.

So as soon as you start legislating against certain technology to try to stop some social misbehavior, you're into a great big game of Whack-A-Mole. And the more you keep at it, prohibiting first one technology and then several others, the more damage you do. What's more, if you go after the vendors, you can really only succeed in driving the technology underground and making criminals out of all the people who are smart enough to understand it and want to tap into its power.

But there are two sides to this story, and those who swap music illegally are as guilty of ruining things for the rest of us as Hatch and the RIAA. By flouting the law, illegal music swappers make existing law seem ineffective and force copyright owners to look for new ways to protect their copyrights.

If you find yourself rationalizing the trading of copyrighted music over P2P networks, you are the problem. If you're trading stuff that someone else owns over the net (or anywhere else) then you are a criminal. If you don't like the way the law is written, then do something about it. But if you just go ahead and break the laws you don't agree with, you're the reason that we keep getting more stupid laws (and laws that are more stupid).

Worst linking ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell are you linking "equivalent" to tvo.org? Is TVO a substitute for all things?

Why is "The Corporation" plain text, with a bittorrent URL below?

You'd think, in 2004, people would know what a hyperlink is supposed to look like :/

Re:Worst linking ever.

[afxgrin]

My apologies.

I figured that next to the linked word 'equivalent' it would show tvo.org, and that you would get the idea. Yes - I thought of the same question myself, and assumed you would understand.

In regards to the link not working for the torrent:

Here's a working one for you.

The previous link didn't include the space between The and Corporation ...

Enjoy.

Re:Worst linking ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a working one for you

:)

My friend, I'm trying to point out that links are supposed to bear the name or a short description of what they link to. For example, a link to google should look like:

Here is a link to Google. You do not link "here" or "link". You link the words that describe what you will see when you get there.

If that requires rearranging your sentance, do that. It's important to get it right. For example, rather than writing:

I really enjoyed Gulliver's Travels. It's the best book ever -- here's why...

You might try:

I really enjoyed reading the best book ever, Gulliver's Travels.

Re:Worst linking ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

And thanks for the link. That's a really interesting documentary :)

Stealing.

[Allen Zadr]

Copyright infringement is still wrong. If you are sharing your music with people you actually know, fine - - so be it. It's sharing (though still not legal).

However, if you are putting your music on a public network (Gnutella, Kazaa, Website, FTP, it doesn't matter) this action is both morally and legally wrong.

When someone takes, copies or distributes something of value without permission, that action is generally referred to as stealing. Even if it doesn't fit the "legal" definition, that's the way people use the English language... get over it.

Re:Stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are right; copyright infringment is wrong and in violation of the law, but in both the spirit and letter of the law, copyright infringement is not stealing. If it were, it would be called copyright theft. This was esablished a long time ago and has a history of precidents.

I never said copyright infringement wasn't wrong.

When someone takes, copies or distributes something of value without permission, that action is generally referred to as stealing.

"Take" and "copy" are two totally different things. One implies theft, the other implies copyright infringement. It may be "generally referred to as stealing", but what you have just described is the textbook (and lawbook) definition of copyright infringement, not theft.

Even if it doesn't fit the "legal" definition, that's the way people use the English language

There is a very clear legal definition of copyright infringement, and also a very clear legal definition of theft. They are not the same. This is why we have laws and the language known as "legalese"; to help make exacting distinctions between things like copyright infringement and theft.

Re:Stealing.

[Zen Punk]

When someone takes, copies or distributes something of value without permission, that action is generally referred to as stealing. Even if it doesn't fit the "legal" definition, that's the way people use the English language... get over it.

Actually, the fact that I see several posts of this nature every time the topic of copyright infringement comes up on /. suggests to me that your view is not the de facto definition accepted by all English speakers.

Re:Stealing.

[plague3106]

Copyright infringement is still wrong.

I thought economics was based upon the idea that we have scarce resources. Since we can make exact copies of music and alot of other data, doesn't that mean the economic value of it drops to 0?

Re:Stealing.

[Allen Zadr]

True. Lawyers get paid quite well to learn how to speak in precise talk that is not appropriate for normal conversation. Many people who want to protect their interests also learn how to use this type of language.

What I'm saying is that if someone refers to copyright "infringement" as stealing, it's because that person sees a "loss of value".

I believe it to be a perception difference. If someone sees a digital commodity having no value, then they see infringement. If someone sees music as having value, then that person will likely see theft. Either way, I don't see any constructive value in trying to avoid the central issue by telling someone that they are symantically wrong, if you are trying to convince them that mass distribution is not equivilent to theft - explain why.

Re:Stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever your perception (or mine, or Big Media's for that matter) is on this is irrelevant. Perceptions are inherently subjective. Laws are written to be as free from ambiguity as possible. What matters is what the law says. And the law clearly, incontrovertibly, says that copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing. This is my central issue. This is my only point.

Re:Stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, shit, and I thought this blog was for sharing ideas. Fuck. I guess it's time to log off, and never visit again.

I really wish Hatch would go away.

[Talonius]

Maybe it is time to institute term limits for Congressmen, ala the President. Maybe it is time we force Congressmen to open their personal checkbooks and submit themselves to a security background check whose results would be made public.

This guy is such a shill it isn't even funny. He doesn't represent the common person - how in the hell does he continue to remain in office?

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[jcallaha57]

ftp, ssl, http, email, usenet, etc. Damm - Orrin Hatch could uninvent the Internet! Why not just outlaw network protocols altogether? That would teach Al Gore a lesson or two

Social Responsibility

[eer]

Shouldn't the parents be the ones looking out for their kids?

Of course they should, but doesn't society also have a role in helping look after kids? Where's the social responsibility of giving kids free access to guns, drugs, sugar, p0rn and sex, and then falling back on "it's someone else's responsibility" as the pimp's excuse?

It just burns me up to see that kind of remark made.

On the other hand, Sen Hatch should be working as hard to protect fair use protections for consumers as he is to knock back rampant piracy.

Piracy is not fair use. Misappropriation of other people's labor and effort (whether GNU licensed software, studio-produced rock 'n roll, or expensively researched and tested HIV drugs) is piracy, and it should be the "concensus of the commons" to defeat it.

If you don't like the rules, change the rules - don't just steal.

Prior Restraint, it is Unconstitutional

[RalphSouth]

The whole thing sounds like prior restraint. The right to free speach is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights! You make the assumption that any p2p application is uese for illegal purposes and that any mp3 file is copyrighted material. It is like assuming that all news papers will print treasonous material; this is not a valid assumption. P2P can be used to transmit pictures of my dog to a friend, with an mp3 of her barking her fool head off.

You want to poke a finger in the RIAA? Get a college student to upload a whole bunch of different mp3 files from a broad range of sources. Make sure that all of the mp3 files are titled with almost right rock music names and make sure the content is not copy righted.... Or, set up fake identities that do that. Create a lot of them. Make them sift through it all.

There will still be P2P development.

[vegetablespork]

Unfortunately, given the backers and the money behind this bill, it's probably as good as passed. The Senate has no fear from geeks in its members' reelection campaigns--the numbers just aren't sufficient and most of them, particularly Senator Hatch of the RIAA^W^W Utah are so entrenched that voting for them is more a ritual than an election.

So we will thus see P2P development continue the same way crypto development continued during the reign of the RSA and (still) IDEA patents: offshore. There will be all kinds of disclaimers saying Americans shouldn't download the packages, and like the RSA and IDEA-enabled crypto stuff, Americans will download it in droves anyway.

Why is this not covered by the first ammendment ?

[farzadb82]

IANAL but, wouldn't banning P2P apps be against the first ammendment ?

P2P software is really a medium for sharing information, which to me would imply that it would be covered by the first ammendment.

HOWTO use P2P the propper way

[NoSuchGuy]

How to use P2P the propper way:

1) Sing or play a song:
- Text and Music have to be in the Public Domain
- A nursery rhyme is just fine.
2) Recod this song in your favorite format (mp3,ogg,divx,mpeg,...)

3) Use a P2P application to share "your" song

Your arguments:
- Freedom of speech
- You want to promote your singing skills
- You are better than any of the American Idols
-

You have another legal use of P2P.

Re:HOWTO use P2P the propper way

[Spetiam]

Why not just say, "I use P2P to download Linux distros?" I mean, isn't bittorrent a P2P app? Before I broke my Windows installation, I used to always do bittorrent downloads with Shareaza. Heck, you don't even have to go through the trouble of making a recording, just write a short essay or put your /. posts in your share folder. I used to put political cartoons I made in there...though I don't think anybody downloaded them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My letter to Hatch

[cvd6262]

I'm sending this at:
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction= Offic es.Contact

Dear Senator Hatch,

This is the third letter I have sent you over the last three years. I am a Ph.D. student at Brigham Young University and I have lived in Utah County for almost ten years. For my education, and my employment, I have worked in cutting-edge technology and multimedia. I have authored DVDs for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as several other commercial DVDs. I have also traveled to Europe and Africa to collect audio and video materials for use in online language instruction, so I understand the time, effort, and money that is required to produce high quality content.

However, your current assailing of fair-use rights has once again reached the point of being absurd. Your bill outlined in this article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st ory&cid=77 &e=1&u=/mc/20040706/tc_mc/billtargetsfirmsthatindu cecopyrightviolations
seems to follow the attitude of legislating broadly, intending to enforce narrowly. Senator Hatch, we have seen "from sad experience" that this does not work.

When I wrote you before, concerning Dmitry Sklyarov, you responded that the DMCA, as currently instituted, struck the proper balance between content provided rights and the rights of consumers. My question is this: What has changed in the last two years that the DMCA suddenly does not go far enough in impeding citizens' rights.

You might believe that peer-to-peer technologies have no legitimate purpose. I know this is wrong. I have used P2P applications to quickly move huge amounts of data across heterogeneous networks, saving me hours. I also attended a subcommittee hearing you held at Brigham Young University where four local firms, including Novell, demonstrated how they were using P2P applications.

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the present INDUCE legislation, and realize that the scales are already tipped in favor of copy-right holders.

Regards,

Jeremy Browne

Re:My letter to Hatch

[vegetablespork]

Nice job nailing him with his own words from his previous letter. I'm going to have to start saving those replies--there might be a similar nugget in one someday.

Re:My letter to Hatch

[cvd6262]

Yeah, I should post the text from the letter he sent me about Dmitry. He said something to the effect of: "Because Mr. Sklyarov's case is still pending, tt would be improper for me to comment on it at this time."

Bullocks!

Does that mean that if I get wrongfully imprisioned, as long as my case is "pending", I cannot even turn to a local senator for help?

BTW, my mother-in-law, along with a lot of people around here, blindly vote for this guy every six years. God couldn't get elected as a Democrat in Utah. My mother-in-law told me she votes for people's "character", so I detailed the crooked nature of Hatch's voting record, including the Ephedra fiasco. She's not convinced, but at least its a start.

Easy fix:

[Anonymous Coward]

Outlaw senators and the RIAA.

Orrin Hatch, is he really human?

[portnux]

Given his emphasis on profits over, well, pretty much anything else in the world, has anyone taken action to test Orrin to verify that he is actually well, HUMAN? I can't help but think he might actually be a cleverly disguised Ferengi. Please see http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm and tell me if I am completely off base with this concern.

Words as tools?

[Maljin Jolt]

My advise to all opressed people: Use the same technique law/politics people are using very often against you. New-speak. Just change terminology, invent new words, as they do to infect you with false distractive ideas.

In case of P2P, say 'an equiv' instead of 'a peer'. Say 'resource scattering' instead of 'file sharing'. Say 'support lobby' instead of 'tracker server'. Insist you are not a peer, but an equiv, that you do not share files but scatter resources. Make a difference out of nothing, just as is the method of making human laws.

Words are software. Human brain is adaptable. Geeks are the most adaptable from all people, because they understand nature of software. Resist rigidity of any ideology by resillience of mind.

Re:Once again, I have to plug Rick Boucher (Rep. V

[vegetablespork]

Even though you're moving, you can still donate to his reelection campaign. If individuals like us used our money the way the *AA and big corporations do, their power would be somewhat diluted. Unfortunately, we have moved from "one person, one vote" to "one dollar, one vote." The plus side for you is that you can still "vote" for Rep. Boucher, even after you leave Virginia. Peace.

Kill Bill 3

[trigggl]

Have no fear, the international community is here.

They can outlaw software all they want. Anyone having trouble getting their Linux box to play DVD's?

They outlawed spam, which nobody wants. How effective will they be outlawing something that people do want?

It's amazing how the RIAA can sway the opinion of Republicans and Democrats. Remember when the recording industry was the bad guy? Tipper Gore anyone? Now suddenly, they are the good guys. :-/

Teaching mass murder and planetary extinction

[Mysticweed]

I call dibs on the lawsuit against Martin-Lockheed for enabling poorly behaved rulers to kill millions in a single blow and cause global extinction. Missles anyone? Not to mention the car manufacturers for encourging theft with their ready to use get-away wagons, just add gas.

Sony vs. Sony deatchmatch

[wardk]

this simply enables the inevitable multi-billion dollar lawsuit of Sony's left arm...by Sony's right arm.

No excuse, No protection

[LittleGuy]

Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free music."'

...and they'll still go after the kid...

This just in ...

[das3cr]

This just in: The Senate Judiciary Committee, is moving to outlaw UUCP. It's obvious that UUCP is stealing profits from legit copyright holders. In the interest of protecting children we owe it to them to free the computers of these malicious functions. From this day forward computers will not be allowed to be networked.

In another not so surprising argument : the copy command (Ctrl-c) and the equally insidious Paste (Ctrl-v) command illegally lure children into breaking the law. The Senate Judiciary Committee has also made a move to ban these commands for all non Gov't purposes.

Re:This just in ...

[WeblionX]

At least I still have shift+del and shift+ins!

Dont forget Cars....

[nurb432]

We need to sue car makers because some moron got drunk and ran down little Timmy while he was waiting on the bus. It gotta be their fault for making a car that could kill..

Oh, and the liquor store, the brewery.. hell lets sue the state for providing the road he drove on...

Or how about using a bicycle to transport said copyright violated copies ( kid listening to music on his Ipod ).. we should sue them too, and apple...

Re:Dont forget Cars....

[Dun Malg]

We need to sue car makers because some moron got drunk and ran down little Timmy while he was waiting on the bus.

Also, we need to be able to sue the operator of the bus line.

Re:Dont forget Cars....

[2WheelCowboy]

Don't forget the ultimate enablers, the glass and aluminum manufacturers. It's hard to get drunk without cans and bottles to carry the alcohol. Since alcohol comes from grain, let's sue the farmers too.

Citizens of Utah, PLEASE vote Orrin Hatch out of office.

Re:Dont forget Cars....

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to need another Timmy.

Re:Dont forget Cars....

[miskatonic alumnus]

I love this stuff. Continuing in this vein, we should sue the petroleum industry (for providing the fuel for automobiles and electricity, and the raw materials for plastics) and the metal industry (for providing the raw materials for wires -- which conduct the wares, and guns -- which do the killing.)

Taking this to its logical conclusion, let's just sue GOD, since (S)HE created all this stuff to begin with, along with all the "criminals", and therefore is ultimately to blame. And who are GOD's mortal representatives? That's right, religious leaders! Let's sue all the churches. Put their leaders and followers in jail! Make 'em pay! Everything will be alright if we can just MAKE 'EM PAYYYYYYY!!!

Re:Dont forget Cars....

[myowntrueself]

'What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand'

Where it says 'in the context of a well regulated militia', thats the part I don't understand.

Re:Dont forget Cars....

[Mycroft_VIII]

The explanation is fairly straight-forward.
The Authors of the constitution and the second amendment had just fought off the rule of a king and government they felt was unjust.
In part they were able to do so through the formation of the various state militia's, groups of privately armed and trained citizens. Thus they saw fit to explicitly prohibit the federal government from infringing in the private ownership and possesion of arms. In large part specificaly so such militia's could be formed if needed. Arms being "every arm of the soldier, however terrible" according to them, Jefferson specifically iirc.
The only confusing part of that is the use of the phrase 'well regulated' as the term has changed meaning in common usuage to mean regulated as in regulations of law or rule, back then it ment regulated as in a properly functioning machine.
Of course many have tried, falsly, to claim that the second only refered to 'official' militia's, such as the national guard. However any reading of what the founding fathers themselves said about thier intent shows that the militia is the main side benifit of the second (thus it's specific mention), not it's sole purpose nor a limit thereof.

Mycroft

IRC

[Kr4Ck3r]

What would this mean for the dozens of irc clients out there will the DCC function. Are they going to try an outright ban IRC as well or mandate crippled clients?

Orin the Bitch

[SQLz]

I mean, what do Orin's constituents think about him introducing not one gawd damn single useful piece of legislation? Talk about being someone's bitch, is Orin giving blow jobs at the RIIA HQ or something? Christ almightly.

if you could just mash a button....

[zogger]

....and make unlimited copies of cars for basically zero cost, then yes, of course, we should just give them away for free. there would be no need to "steal" such a copy, it just wouldn't happen. Maybe some day we will have replicators for tangible products.

The deal is, a copy (of as copy of a copy) of an intangible is still that, a copy of an intangible. A society may choose to make an intangible an artificially valuable product that may or may not be sold, but that is up to society to adopt or to reject, it is not intrinsically a default that any random intangible should be, or even could be everm treated as a tangible product, or that intangibles and tangibles are the "same thing"..

The idea that a copy of an intangible, that is so cheap to produce as to have a cost approaching theoretical zero, should be of such worth that it is treated the same as any tangible product is just an abstract way of looking at it, it is not the universal way, that's why you see other nations ignoring the "worth" of an intangible and allowing free replication, because they have determined the greater good is in the development and universal access to the technology used to make such copies is of "more" worth than the ability of society to try and restrict this technology and use. It was determined that encouraging the freedom to use intangible replicators for intangibles was perfectly fair and a fine thing to do. I would imagine they will feel the same as soon as we have tangible replicators.

The entire deal of using technology was to free humans from drudgery and to "share" the results of knowledge widely, so that all may benefit. It is only in some places and in some peoples minds that this sharing is someone wrong and criminal. It is not by nature or intent or design, the "same" as theft of a tangible product, the property of another. You may call it that, but it doesn't make it so.

If you wish to offer a tangible product "for sale" that is your right, do so, some may purchase your product. If you wish to claim that an intangible is somehow of substance, that you can hold it in your hand, that this intangible product is the same as a tangible product and claim that someone has "stolen" your vaporus hallucination, than you would be wrong, as it cannot be done. You may try to force your views on others, even a so called government might, but they would be engaging in..well, totalitarian measures. They are enforcing a loss of technology, to restrict it to a few, so that a few may profit immensely from the transfer of an intangible that is approaching the sum of zero in cost in terms of money involved. A physical medium, with weight and substance and normal costs involved, is a completelydifferent matter, that is,in fact, a tangible and may be considered property in all places and nations and cultures. Intangibles are only considered property in some places, and usually in places where greed and narrow mindedness and..hysteria in the clinical sense, has overshadowed common sense, rationality and a spirit of neighborliness and commonality with your fellows.

When dealing with such as intangibles, you may attempt to force the notion that your emperor has clothes on, and they are splendind and lustrous, but if people are sane, rational and use common sense, they will merely glance and see that your emperor is in fact naked, has no clothes on, and merely legislating by decree and edict that he "has splendid and lustrous clothes on" does not make it so.

Lofty claims!

[kingLatency]

"Don't buy the hype. Any member of Congress who supports this bill is voting, without so much as a hearing, to undo more than a century of solid copyright case law that has protected innovators and technology from the terrible power of entrenched industries and, in the process, created the American economy."

That's what P2P United's executive director said. There's some truth to this statement, but this is a massive exagerration. Sounds like both sides are full of it.

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[Symbiosis]

Sure, the web/ftp/e-mail/et al "serve up primarily" copyright-compliant information. Well, at least most of the sites I know of, but I really can't make blanket statements about the whole internet. But I digress.

Just because most P2P applications today are used heavily for the trade of "non-free works" does not mean that their sole purpose is the aquisition and distribution of such. The fact of the matter is that these applications came out in a time when people wanted to trade these things and they were an easy choice (and the bandwidth started to become more plentiful). Web/e-mail/etc. was started by government types and got itself mostly established before joe schmoe could be the majority user (or at least content supplier) of it. There's plenty of copyright-infringing web sites out there, but they're surrounded by legit sites as well. (If it were possible, it would be interesting to compare the number of Warez/Music/Movies FTP sites to legit FTP sites in the pre-napster days.)

The fact of the matter is that these programs exist to share files, and the files people want to share is music/movies/porn/whatever. That's a product of the audience not the creator. Killing the creator does not fix the underlying desires of the audience and they'll simply find another way until they've got a compelling reason to play by the rules (as well as a reasonable set of rules).

Won't you please think of the children?

[yankeessuck]

Sen. Hatch and the other backers of this bill should be ashamed of themselves for hiding this ill-conceived special interest law behind the veil of "protecting the children". I can't see how anyone in their right minds believes this BS. At best, this is disingenuous. I tend to think of this is as outright lying to the public. Why aren't more people incensed about this?

Re:Profit? Uh...no.

[Jagasian]

You left out Bittorrent, which is the best P2P app for throughput. I have seen it move a 1GB file to tens of thousands of peers, just this past week. No other P2P app works that well.

Or even better...

[h4rm0ny]

Or even better, we could start eliminating kids that are likely to code such appliations in the future!

That isn't a new idea. Frighteningly, it used to even be one that was explicitly stated. When a bill was proposed to introduce public libraries, there was massive opposition from the Tories (closest equivalent in the US being the Republicans). Favourite quote from one being: "the people have too much knowledge already: it was much easier to manage them twenty years ago; the more education people get the more difficult they are to manage."

Education equates to being difficult to control. Always has, but it's necessary for the health of society - the eternal dilemma of the ruling classes.

Re:Or even better...

[EnderWiggnz]

which is why the republicans on this side of the pond are busy trying to dismantle "public education" here...

Re:Or even better...

[JWW]

Are you insinuating that the democrats actaully built worthwhile public education??

If you are really concerned about public education get involved at the LOCAL LEVEL. No amount of federal money (not even an infinite amount) can solve the problems of public education. The only solutions worth a damn that will bring any positive impact are all local inititives, like getting parents involved, knowing and talking to your kids teachers, knowing the material they are teaching with, helping your kids learn, and supporting you local school (through taxes, donations, or both). Federal money always has too many strings attached or a hidden agenda, or both.

Re:Or even better...

[EnderWiggnz]

first - in the interest of full disclosure, i live in one of _the_ best public school districts in PA. period. no exagerration.

the major problem with public education is the funding mechanism, i.e. local property taxes pay for local schools. poor neighborhoods dont pay a whole heckuva lot of prop taxes, and therefore have crap schools.

i'm interested in what just happens with the "gambling bill for prop tax relief" that just passed in PA.... it promises to even out funding, and reduce local prop taxes. i'm sure that it wont....

as for getting involved... look mate, i was seriously propositioned to run for boro council 4 days ago. i am involved.

Re:Or even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

"massive opposition from the Tories"

Bullshit.

Re:Or even better...

[mpe]

That isn't a new idea. Frighteningly, it used to even be one that was explicitly stated. When a bill was proposed to introduce public libraries, there was massive opposition from the Tories (closest equivalent in the US being the Republicans). Favourite quote from one being: "the people have too much knowledge already: it was much easier to manage them twenty years ago; the more education people get the more difficult they are to manage."

If the copyright laws of today had existed in the past then public libraries would have been impossible in the first place.

Re:Or even better...

[Doctor Faustus]

That's great for getting *your kids* educated, but it doesn't do much for overall social improvement.

Re:Or even better...

[rewt66]

It does for your neighborhood/town/city. Worldwide problems are too big, you can't get any traction on solving them. Locally, though, you can make some difference. Enough people doing that adds up to "overall social improvement".

Do what you can where you are. Trying to solve too large a problem is effectively the same as doing nothing.

Re:Or even better...

[Just Some Guy]

i'm interested in what just happens with the "gambling bill for prop tax relief" that just passed in PA.... it promises to even out funding, and reduce local prop taxes. i'm sure that it wont....

That is almost always a lie. In Missouri, gambling was supposed to help fund education. We all want more money for education, right? Think of the children! What happened was that the education budget was, say $1B. Gambling raised, say, $500M for the schools. $1B + $500M = $1.5B of highly-funded learning, right? Wrong! The school budgets didn't increase at all. The money coming in from gambling replaced taxpayer funds - it wasn't added to them.

So Missouri taxpayers got a lower tax bill that year, right? Wrong! The first rule of governmental spending is that it almost never goes down. The state found some other project that coincidentally needed $500M (probably For The Children). The gambling proponents sort of told the truth: the money did go toward education. What they left out is that an equal amount of money from other sources came out of that budget item.

Good luck in PA. I hope it works out better than it has for any other non-gambling-centric state (ie, excluding NV) that I've ever heard of.

Re:Or even better...

[Doctor Faustus]

Locally is far too large a problem in our case. My son is going to private school.

Re:Or even better...

[ahodgson]

Good call. Your politicians agree.

Re:Or even better...

[BK425]

I don't want to insinuate that the good Doctor typed something moronic, but if everyone worked locally in the manner suggested by the post the Dr replied to how could that -possibly- not "do much for overall social improvement"? Federal funding (wich after all is just local entities taking your tax money and forwarding it on, and bloody little of that) is no match (pun intended) for people going down to local schools and involving their expertise/interest/time/money in that school. I do realize that the whole personal involvement thing is messy and all, but still...

Re:Or even better...

[bcboy]

Public education gets little federal money. Republicans haven't been using federal money to destroy public education. Rather, they've been 1) passing unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind which have zero chance of improving education, but are busting budgets across the US and are supplanting local curriculum standards; and 2) spreading enormous piles of disinformation about the quality of public education in an effort to discredit it.

The keys to understanding the problems with public education are 1) understanding assessment (What are you trying to measure? What tools do you have to measure it? What do the tools really measure?), and 2) understanding where the money is going.

The per-student cost of public education went up significantly a couple decades ago due to a single cause. When you find out what that cause is you'll understand why Republicans don't like to talk about it when they're bashing public education.

No society in history has become literate through private education. Private education is a failure.

Re:Or even better...

[EnderWiggnz]

yeh, thats pretty much what I expect to happen...

the funniest thing is - i really dont give a shit about the whole gambling thing... it seemed to be a huge moral dilema ... whoopee, now we have slots in pa! so, instead of crossing over into NJ Atlantic City/NY Indian Res/WV - our residents can blow the money here. fine - at least we get teh tax revenue...

but some of the puritanical nuts were soooo opposed...

what i really want to see happen in PA, is the abolishment of the state liquor stores... i mean - i'm a guy who believes that the governemt has a place in providing certain services, but WHY THE HELL ARE THEY SELLING LIQUOR?!@?!

at least rendell managed to get some state stores to open on sunday... and guess what - the world didnt end...

Re:Or even better...

[CKW]

The per-student cost of public education went up significantly a couple decades ago due to a single cause. When you find out what that cause is you'll understand why Republicans don't like to talk about it when they're bashing public education.

I'm an expert googler, but there's too many possible matches for me to determine what you are talking about, although I'm very very interesting in knowning.

So what was the cause of the increase in cost per student decades ago that you speak of?

Re:Or even better...

[DonGar]

And the common long term follow up is that gambling revenues decline somewhat after the first couple of years because the novelty has worn off. This cuts education funding, and monies moved elsewhere do not move back. Thus in the long term education funding goes DOWN.

Re:Or even better...

[bcboy]

EnderWiggnz is on it.

The ADA is a huge expense. One example: if a public school gets a deaf student they provide a translator. This is expensive. Private schools just say "no". This is a central problem of most voucher programs. If they exempt private schools from ADA, manditory assessments, and other costly mandates, they dramatically bias the market in favor of private schools. As public schools lose students (and so, funding), disabled students are effectively ghettoized.

Bush can't get up on television and say "hey, if you're deaf, go f* yourself", but that's the basic thrust of his policy.

When a conservative proposes a voucher program that holds private schools to the same standards I'll believe their intentions are honorable.

(Incidentally, in the example above, if the translator happens to have a teaching certificate they get counted for the purposes of calculating student/teacher ratios even though they are full-time with one student. Beware of uncontrolled studies of the effects of student/teacher ratios.)

Re:Or even better...

[mrchaotica]

Poor neighborhoods having crap schools is not just due to lack of money. It's more a social and cultural issue.

The kids in poor communities aren't encouraged to be good students, so they don't. It's all a part of a "culture of failure" they have. There was an excellent article about this in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution (written by a black guy, in case somebody wants complain about racism), which I'll summarize:

Black people have trained themselves into believing that "The Man" is keeping them down, even though that's no longer true. They teach their children to blame others for their faults, rather then themselves, and believe that everyone is "out to get them." This manifests itself in distrust for the police, claiming racial discrimination where none exists, refusing to accept responsibility for the actions of their children (e.g: "It's not my fault my kid became a drug dealer!"), and making it cool to be a poor student.

Here's an example: black people claim that the SAT is discriminatory because of cultural differences. At first glance, this seems true: black students do average lower on the SAT than other racial groups. However, they average lower on both verbal and math. You have to consider that the SAT tests logical reasoning rather than recalling specific knowledge (with the exception of basic math formulas and vocabulary). There is nothing cultural about math formulas, except that black people think it's cool not to learn them.

As for verbal, the questions are based on relationships between sentences in the passage - you don't have to have ever read the passage before, or know anything about the subject, to answer correctly. The closest thing to a legitimate complaint is the analogy section, because it depends on vocabulary. There still isn't an argument, however, beacuse other racial groups (e.g. asians, non-english europeans, etc) could have all the same complaints, yet they don't make them - and they have similar scores as native-english-speaking white people! (Anecdote: I'm a student at Georgia Tech, and the classroom I'm sitting in now has 13 non-white people (including the professor) and 11 white ones, so don't tell me non-white people can't do well on the SAT!)

I'm sorry that I had to talk specifically about black people, but I did beacuse there is unfortunately a correlation between low-income and black, especially in the city.

If you insist on blaming it on money, consider this: the school I graduated from is one of the best public schools in Georgia. Other schools, even in the same county, were very very bad. They all recieved the same amount of government funding. You know why mine was so much better? They got a substantial amount of funding by donation - on the order of $50 per student, per year. The poor schools didn't get this funding, because the parents in those school districts didn't care enough to give it, just as they didn't care enough to make sure their kids did their homework, or behaved in class, etc.

Recently, the county redistricted the schools, moving students from poor schools to better ones. You know what happened? The quality of the better schools went down, despite having the same teachers and the same equipment as before!

Throwing money at the issue won't solve the problem, because it's a cultural one.

Aside: spending the money more efficiently wouldn't hurt, though. As an example of what not to do, my school system gave every teacher a computer. One computer per classroom, for the teacher's use, despite the fact that it was intended to "encourage the use of technology in teaching." What was it actually used for? E-mail between the teachers. In the (extremely rare) circumstance that the teacher actually wanted to use the computers to help the student's learn, we had to borrow an old crappy one from the technology department. Examples: business simulation in economics class on a P-100 even though the t

Re:Or even better...

[CantGetAUserName]

That cause being...?

Re:Or even better...

[Ioldanach]

Are you insinuating that the democrats actaully built worthwhile public education??

What worthwhile public education we have exists in spite of both parties. A government that needs to control its people does not desire an educated people. This goes for either party in the US. Republicans do not have a monopoly on bad education decisions.

Re:Or even better...

[Doctor Faustus]

if everyone worked locally
They won't.

Re:Or even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Private education is a failure."

Yes, crummy private schools like Oxford, Yale, Harvard and Stanford: Failures.

Re:Or even better...

[Anonymous Coward]

What worthwhile public education we have exists in spite of both parties, and in spite of the teachers' unions.

There are many good teachers out there, but the neither the government nor the unions are improving education.

...And don't get me started on listening to my high school teachers complain about how little they were getting paid..

Re:Or even better...

[jaxle]

The per-student cost of public education went up significantly a couple decades ago due to a single cause. When you find out what that cause is you'll understand why Republicans don't like to talk about it when they're bashing public education.

Are you refering to the civil rights movement or am I missing something that happened in the 80s?

Re:Or even better...

[EnderWiggnz]

> in spite of the teachers' unions.

repeat after me - its not the unions job to educate the students, the unions job is to represent its members, the teachers, against their employers.

improving education is a distant second goal FOR THE UNIONS.

Re:Or even better...

[EnderWiggnz]

yes, obviously those schools have to take EVERYONE, they dont get to pick and choose their pupils at all... nope... totally open to the public...

Re:Or even better...

[Lord Kano]

The per-student cost of public education went up significantly a couple decades ago due to a single cause.

Teachers Unions? An explosion in administrators and their salaries?

No society in history has become literate through private education. Private education is a failure.

Society is a secondary concern. I am more concerned with the children who are my responsibility. A GOOD public school will provide an excellent education, so will a GOOD private school.

LK

Re:Or even better...

[drbrooks]

What good will it do for your children to have an excellent education when there are no jobs out there, because the masses are too igorant to compete with the rest of the world? The competiveness of a society depends more upon the education of it's lowest educated members, not it's highest. Remember, if you don't pay to educate them, you will pay to incarcerate them. Which is cheaper in the long run?

Re:Or even better...

[beej_55]

The discussion about private schools is not about higher education, it seems more about grade-level schools.

Re:Profit? Uh...no.

[dave420]

There are free-as-in-beer closed-source, non-GPL'd apps out there too, you know...

Uh, search the archives.

[GrnArmadillo]

If the EFF is to be believed, the pending super-DMCA, intended to overturn the current Supreme Court ruling saying that technology which has "substantial noninfringing uses" can't be withdrawn from the marketplace (Sony was one of the parties RE: the VCR), will allow just such lawsuits. It was posted here a week or two ago.

Sounds Good, Let's Kill the Monster.

[twitter]

Let's just cut to the fucking chase and outlaw music altogether.

That sounds great, moral hypocrisy drives me nuts. I hate companies that advertise to children. I especially hate companies that promote such bad morals as seen in "popular" music. Self-indulgence, theft, murder, promiscuity and mindless demand for material goods of all sorts are what most music companies promote. Is it any wonder their customers "steal" from them? Most of all, I hate corporate welfare when it sponsors all of the above.

What the feds give, the feds can take away. The problem only exists because government intervention in the market has created a worldwide cartel of five music publishers. If it were not for the FCC and FTC, the RIAA would not exist. If the airwaves were cleaned of commercial smut and music were treated like tobacco, alcohol or the porn that it is, the RIAA would shrivel and die.

The music industry does not need Federal protection, it needs to be set free. P2P is not the problem, the industry is. Most independent music publishers have enough confidence in their product to ignore the kind of "theft" they consider advertising. Excessive regulation of the airwaves, created by a temporary technological need, has not given the public educational and entertaining programming, it's created an immoral monster that now threatens freedom of the press.

Loosing?

[fluxrad]

Although you do have a point. Considering the amount of cash the RIAA and MPAA are willing to shell out in campain donations and anti-consumer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H piracy ads, I suppose you could say they are "loosing" money on P2P ;-)

Inducement and Free Speech

[ebeneazer]

If p2p providers can be found guilty for inducing "children" what about Movie and Music producers who promote questionable messages with certain types of films or music. If a neutral type of technology can be outlawed because it may be used for bad purposes, how can this type of inducing media be protected under free speech? I guess it's okay if Smith and Wesson makes the guns so long as they don't hire Bob Marley or license his song?

So would a film that portrays a fictional p2p service in a positive light also be illegal? What if it portrayed in a negative light? (probably ok) What if someone *gasp* downloaded the film via p2p? (definitely not ok--unless it's Farenheit 9/11 ;)

. . . the not so faint scent of hypocrisy wafts up from below . . .

Apparently Sharing is Bad?

[glowimperial]

I imagine he has no idea how many legitimate uses a P2P application has, especially inside large corporate networks?

Microsoft to be shutdown ...

[kabz]

The Senate Judiciary Committee today announced that due to their '... contined non-cooperation and intransigence ...' the bank accounts of Microsoft Corporation would be frozen pending removal of the P2P application from Microsoft Windows XP.

A spokesman for Microsoft repeated Bill Gates assertion that '... NetMeeting was a key part of Windows.', and that it could not be removed without causing loss of functionality for installed systems.

I find it very worrying...

[JustNiz]

that the US Senate Judiciary Comittee (and in particular Orrin Hatch) are either totally corrupted by the giant corporations, or are completely ignorant of the subject matter they are meddling with (or both).

Its boggles my mind that these bureaucrats persistently abuse their position of power yet are allowed to continue trampling on and removing basic rights of all US citizens for their own corrupted agendas.

Thank God not all governments around the world are allowed to act in the same appalling way.

Been listening to RMS, I see.....

[DesScorp]

Teaching kids to share doesn't mean teaching them to share EVERYTHING.

And what's with the Bully thing? Bullies beat up other kids, usually for the feeling of power it gives them. I can never recall a kid being labled a bully because of all things, he wouldn't share his juicebox. That kid is saying "Fuck you, YOU share YOUR juicebox. This one's mine". Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with that. Little Timmy says keep me out of your P2P argument. I'll keep my juicebox AND download shit from Kazaa in 10 years.

Can't outlaw copyright infringement

[Greyfox]

Without outlawing communication. If we'd had this climate 20 years ago, the Internet would never have been developed (In the USA Anyway.)

this is a backdoor stealth law

[zogger]

This law, if passed, will destroy the internet as we know it. It won't eliminate it, but it will destroy the most important aspects of it, the ability for any human to contact any other human and to transfer thoughts and ideas either in real time or in a time shifting manner.

It has very little to do with music copying and sharing, although that is what their words say. It WILL be used in a number of ways to regulate and surveille and restrict the internet far beyond what is going on now. The globalist fascists will push this one strongly, just watch it. It is completely in line with other fascistic legislation passed recently such as patriot acts 1, 2 and 2.5, and the "homeland security" act. They are using file sharing as the red herring to get it passed. Look at the act, remove the idea of music/movie file sharing, just concentrate on the technological aspects of it, then you can see it. It CAN and WILL be used by prosecutors to apply to any number of *things* as relates to the internet as we know it today, just like they are already applying provisions of the patriot act to crimes outside of factual political terrorism.

Re:this is a backdoor stealth law

[danheskett]

Patriot acts "2" and "2.5" have not passed.

You are being a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The bill says nothing of music/movie file sharing. Nothing of the sort. You made that part up in your little head.

The bill does talk about a specific type of a single application.

All your little conspiracy theories about the Patroit act are about to fall apart.

Re:this is a backdoor stealth law

[zogger]

and your neocon schemes have been exposed for what they are, a fascist takeover. If you support them, you deserve whatever happens to you. For a hint, go back and research what happened to the brownshirts-the neocons of their era and region- once their usefulness was no longer needed.

have a good day.

Re:this is a backdoor stealth law

[danheskett]

I am not a "neocon". I am saying that your posts show a disconnection with reality.

For example, your claim that proposed draft bills that have not been voted on once are in fact the law of the land. Completely false.

I am well aware of what happened to the brown shirts.

But none of that changes the fact that you are disconnected from reality. As you will see in Novemember, we are set for a democratic election and an orderely transfer of power.

Re:this is a backdoor stealth law

[zogger]

The patriot act wasn't voted in? Provisions in the second and third weren't voted in? Of course they were. Unless we are talking about different things.

Sorry about calling you a neocon if you aren't of course, I'll admit to unnecessary flaming there.

As to an orderly election, it might happen, but it depends on what you call or classify as "orderly". If it's only the two monopoly parties on the publics airwaves in the so called national debates, like it was last time, I wouldn't even get close to calling that orderly. I think if a candidate can get legally listed on the ballot in the majority of the states, they should be in the broadcasted debates, at a bare minimum. If you can classify corporate bribes disguised as campaign contributions paid to politicians as "orderly" I'd have to object to that assertion. And look at what just happened, the records of outright foreign lobbyists "aren't available" in common electronic form, because it would "crash the system". These aspects and more to our political system and as it applies to elections are not in any way orderly to my way of thinking. And then if you want to get into blackbox no trail, no reasonable audit, no legitimate verification styled voting, I'd classify that as outright indications of fraud and malfeasance, the exact opposite of orderly.

Re:this is a backdoor stealth law

[danheskett]

Provisions in the second and third weren't voted in? Of course they were. Unless we are talking about different things.
The USA PATRIOT act was passed. NONE of the laws designated as it's "successors" have been made law.

like it was last time, I wouldn't even get close to calling that orderly
That is the definition of orderely. Order is the opposite of choas. Look it up. Even if we have what we had last time, it will still be orderely. Why? Because at the end of the day the law is the final answer. Because at the end of the day the government never loses its continunity or legal authority. Because checks and balances work. Look at many other countries. Of the 170 or countries in the world, many many many do not have an orderely transfer of power. We've been doing it for over 225 years.

I think if a candidate can get legally listed on the ballot in the majority of the states, they should be in the broadcasted debates, at a bare minimum.
You do not decide what happens in debates. Neither do I. Who does? The Presidental Debate Commission. Who is that? It's a group of television stations. Private television stations. If you would like to see a debate of all such candidates, you should try to persuade PBS. They've done them before (84, 80, 76) and eventually the ratings were so bad they cancelled them.

And look at what just happened, the records of outright foreign lobbyists "aren't available" in common electronic form, because it would "crash the system".
See, here you go twisting the facts. That was the claim. That claim is being challeneged in court. This is how things work. Someone made an FOIA request. It was rejected on stupid grounds. That claim is being tested in court. Justice and law will prevail. It happens everyday in this country. In your vision of the country has become do you think we'd have a FOIA to follow? Courts? Due process?

And then if you want to get into blackbox no trail, no reasonable audit, no legitimate verification styled voting
Well let's see what has happened. California Secretary of State has decertified machines without paper trails. So have 15 other states. In this country, the counties operate elections with supervision from the respective state governments. Due process is being worked out. The bad machines are being tossed. The ones that work and protect the propriety of the election are kept.

These aspects and more to our political system and as it applies to elections are not in any way orderly
What you are saying is that you don't like the order, not that there isn't order. Our political system is amazingly ordered. Compare if you will take the time to the political system in dozens of other countries. Our process is (1) democratic, (2) representative, (3) transparent, (4) open and (5) effective.

Just because you don't like the results or the order doesn't mean you get to go around calling everyone facist and accusing them of a bona-fide overthrow of the sitting government.

No need for an iron curtain...

[Mr. Neutron]

The EU will pass the same stupid laws.

I'm moving to Norway. My grandmother's a Norwegian-American. Is that enough to get me in? I hear they actually speak English better than Americans do...

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Way to go, USA!

[Argonath]

You're about to make a world record of criminalizing and restricting your own citizens with laws which only purpose is make rich corporations even richer! How long will people stand this before running to barricades.. Bit by bit citizens rights are narrowed while restrictions are widened. Please, welcome your new form of government.. police state

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[Anonymous Coward]

Photocopiers do not actively block the duplication of copyrighted materials. Is the bill vague enough to include these?

The Parents

[Fished]

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of the pretension by many on slashdot that parents can somehow, magically (perhaps with the eyes in the back of our heads?) supervise and/or control every thing our children do.

Look - I have four children, and I do my best. I try to maintain some idea of my oldest's websurfing habits, and have a silent proxy between him and the Internet that helps. I have a channel lock on my TV. I'm at home nigh on 24x7. But ... the bottom line is that my wife and I are outnumbered 2:1, and there is no way that two people can supervise four children every minute of every day.

Moreover, at the end of the day, I have to allow my children to have some freedom or I become a far worse tyrant than Orin Hatch ever dreamed of being. I /can't/ watch them every minute of every day and expect them to grow up to be independent, responsible citizens. I have to give them some freedom to make mistakes and do my best to limit the scope of the mistakes.

What makes this difficult is that kids have to play with other kids, and I have little control over what these other kids might expose my kids to. What am I to do when the kid down the street has been reading Yugi-oh! slash with graphical scenes between characters in this children's TV show and decides to expose my children to it? He found it on Google looking for cards, and this is Not a hypothetical example. How am I to protect my mildly autistic four-year-old twin daughters from the sick ideas this 11-year-old kid gets from such sources? (Again, not a hypothetical example.) I kicked the kid the hell out, but wouldn't an ounce of prevention and -- dare I say DISCRETION -- on the part of the adults who write this crap have gone a long way? They are like the person who hand a gun to a four-year-old, then say "we didn't KNOW it was loaded."

Yes, my wife and I supervise our kids, and we are here /always/. But, tell me, how are we supposed to supervise each and every one of our children every minute of every day? It's a literal impossibility, and would be a bad thing if we tried. How do we supervise our children at school? (And if you think we can homseschool autistic twin four-year-olds, I invite you to try.)

Now, no doubt some member of the slashdoterotti will not pop up with the brilliant idea that I shouldn't have had more than two kids. But ... first of all, I had no way of knowing that half of my children were going to be autistic. By the time this was at all apparent, all four children had been born. And there will be no more fruits of my loins, if you take my drift. Moreover ... isn't society supposed to protect the weak and the helpless? Don't we want to be a society where children can grow up without fear? Where it is possible to raise more than one child (all the children you can really supervise rigorously) without having to worry about our children being exposed to every kind of sickness there is?

Now, to come back to the subject, I think Orin Hatch's argument is stupid. But I don't think some reasonable restraints of public speech on the Internet are stupid. I think they're necessary - just as they are in 'real' life. Lets face it, you don't get to go streaking down main street starkers and call it art - why should you get to do the same thing (or worse) on the 'net and defend it as free speech.

How long will a society that makes it difficult to raise more than one child last? Answer: 2-3 generations, max. So, keep up the good work guys. I've always liked the idea of anarchy, and I probably won't live to see it get bad.

Re:The Parents

[BSAtHome]

You obviously haven't seen the Simpsons... (quote stolen from the preacher's wife).

Lets face it. I am glad my parent *don't* know all I did. They are happy they don't know, nobody got hurt and eveybody is happy.

Raising kids is not about supervision as a goal. Parenting is about guidance. The kids have and must have their own mind. No parent may force his/her ideas upon a child (see history lesson 101 for details).

Re:The Parents

[Fished]

No, I've seen the simpsons. I'm just sick of seeing this "shouldn't parents supervise their children" argument trotted out every time someone with no kids wants to make sure that some trivial infringement on his "rights" doesn't come to pass.

Re:The Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

"You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of the pretension by many on slashdot that parents can somehow, magically (perhaps with the eyes in the back of our heads?) supervise and/or control every thing our children do."

Who cares what you think? You're a parent who has four kids and the rest of us should not have to change our lives so that you can properly handle your four kids. Maybe you should have thought about that before you had four kids. Again why should the rest of us that don't have kids make serious concessions for those who do?

"But I don't think some reasonable restraints of public speech on the Internet are stupid. I think they're necessary - just as they are in 'real' life."

Why are they neccessaary? Is this because you can't control what your kids do on the Internet? Did you realize that the Internet was not designed for kids and that maybe you should be not letting them use it at such a young age unless you are there. Or even better you could setup some rules on your computer with some extra software that would block out unneccessary websites. Banning certain material on the Internet is a ridiculous idea brought up most often by ignorant parents who don't realize that the Internet is not owned by them or there government and was not made for there children. Society makes enough concessions for you parents as it is, we don't need to start banning material because you have too many kids and cannot approriately spend the time with them or setup monitoring for them while they browse the Internet. Which once again was not created for children!!!!!! To all you parents that want to make laws on such thing, GET A GRIP, the Internet is not made for your kids and if you want them to use it you should be there watching them and making sure that they are seeing only what you feel neccessary. There should be no law restricting what everyone else can do simply because you are too lazy to provide adequate safety controls for you kid.

Re:The Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

"What am I to do when the kid down the street has been reading Yugi-oh! slash with graphical scenes between characters in this children's TV show and decides to expose my children to it?"

So what are you saying the government should ban such things as Yugi-oh from the Internet.

"But, tell me, how are we supposed to supervise each and every one of our children every minute of every day?"

Personally, I don't care how you handle your kids. Since there your kids you better figure that out on your own. However, trying to pass the job off onto the government by making more laws is ridiculous and is punishing a large section of the population because you can't control your children. Parents often use the argument that they cannot possibly watch there kids every minute of the day, however they should have thought of that before they had kids, especially in your case where you have four. Simply because you can't watch your kids every minute of the day you feel that it is ok to start delegating that responsibility to the rest of society? Do we all just look like babysitters for your kids or what? Get a grip parents, think before you have children and if you don't have time or are expecting society to raise your kids for you get a clue.

Re:The Parents

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no trivial infringement on rights. Every infringement has meaning or application.

Re:The Parents

[Fished]

I dunno.... Certainly there's something trivial in here somewhere. I think perhaps our society has slidden so far into the "rights" camp that we've given up common sense. Maybe what's trivial is the application of the "right"? Let's face it, to take an ammendment that was intended to defend free religious and political speech and apply it to forbid even the mildest restraint on Internet porn is a bit of a stretch - a stretch that never would have been made until the '30s or so.

What I think is missing in most calculations of "rights" is the realization that the overblown granting of "rights" unintended and unenumerated is basically a 20th century phenomenon. We managed to get along for quite a while without it and do things like eliminate slavery (constitutional amendment, /not/ the courts) grant women the vote (constitutional amendment, /not/ the courts), etc. I just don't know that an activist judiciary is a good thing, and I certainly don't think expansive interpretation of the constitution to grant "rights" hitherto unheard of (e.g. a woman's "right" to do with her body what she wants or the "right" of homosexuals to receive all the protections of an instituion designed to regulate pregnancy) is a good thing.

It's all crap anyways!

[dorphat]

I, personally, believe that everything they're putting out in the supposed form of music is crap. If they gave me a reason to buy whole CD's (as in 14+ good tracks to a CD) I'd buy it. Simple as that. Instead they're promoting bands that are putting out a bunch of crap to fill up a CD around their hit single. Screw that. Im not going to pay my earned money for a CD that is 1/14th good. Make some good music, and we will buy.

"the children"

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free music."

The hallmark of every corrupt, greedy, scumbag politician: somehow involve the word 'children' whenever describing something you're* against.

*: or those who paid your bribes, rather.

Senators

[wschalle]

I wonder how much money it takes these days to buy a Senator like the esteemed Mr. Orrin. If the RIAA's claims are true, and the recording industry is suffering so badly at the hands of these destructive, criminal teenagers, how do they have the spare cash to purchase their high-powered champions?

A shame

[Lewis Daggart]

It'll be a real shame if this goes through. Right now, P2P programs are ow I find anything I can't discover on google. They're my second tier search support.. and I'm not even talking about illegal stuff.

The other day I found old recordings of a school concert I performed in when I was 12 on WinMX. Indi music, flash vids, sound clips, whatever. If a site is giving me a slow download, I pop open Winmx.

Inciting illegal behavior

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

Let me get this straight:

For years, the music industry has claimed, in Congressional hearing after Congressional hearing, that the creators and distributors of music that encourages its listeners to behave in an anti-social fashion bear no responsibility when those listeners follow along. (I agree with them, by the way, but that's not the point at the moment) They have gone to court over and over again to prove that they have no liability when they tell children to kill, to rape, to use drugs, etc., and those children do so.

Now they want to criminalize the act of writing computer programs which could be used for copyright infringement because that is "inducing" children to break the law.

Now, wait just one cotton-pickin' minute here. If selling music that glorifies committing crimes, and in some cases has a clear and direct call to commit such crimes, is not "inducement" to commit such crimes, then how is writing computer programs which may be used to violate copyrights, among many other legal uses, "inducement" to violate those copyrights? They want to have it both ways.

Ooooh that smell ... Can't you smell that smell ... Ooooh that smell ... The smell of hypocrisy surrounds you ...

And let's not even get into the gun industry. By Orrin Hatch's logic, since guns are used in crimes, the gun industry is "inducing" children to hold up liquor stores. Handguns in particular should be banned, since their overwhelming use is to either kill human beings or practice killing human beings. It follows the same logic. So how come Hatch is so worked up about copyright infringement but he doesn't care about murder?

Ranting on Slashdot is fun, but it doesn't change anything. We need to be active. We need to vote. We need to get our friends and relatives to vote. And we need to do it now, before "inducing" people to vote against the party in power becomes a crime, too.

Thanks to Pixie2Pixie

[Anonymous Coward]

I've rediscovered the Pixies, I forgot just how good they are.

Sorry but Bam Thwok sucks.

Without P2P old music can't easily be rediscovered, without it old music will just die and be forgotten.

Tipping my toes in the iTunes pool of music too, who would of thought that people would pay to download music online?

Long live P2P, thanks for making music accessable and fun again.

That'll stop it!

[callipygian-showsyst]

Just like Orrin Hatches' (suuport for) laws against Sodomy stopped Sodomy! In fact, when the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconsitituional, hundreds of thousands of folks said "Hurrah! now I can be a Sodomite!"

Children.

[lusid1]

Whenever they start using the C word to justify making something illegal you know they're full of Sh*t.

Sh*t, P*ss, F*ck, C*nt, C*cksucker, Motherf*cker, and T*ts, and now Ch*ldren.

I agree it wasnt about sex

[nurb432]

I agree totally, and if people would go back and take a hard look at the impeachment case it was not about 'sex', it was mostly about lying about several items to the public.

The press tried to make it 'its just sex' in order to diffuse the seriousness nature of the proceedings and the resulting impeachment. ( and to help keep him in office )

The entire thing was a big black spot on this countries history and was embarrassing.

Re:I agree it wasnt about sex

[Creepy Crawler]

It wasnt soo much lying to the public as it was lying to the Grand Jury.

Jury- "did you have sexual relations with Lewdinsky"
Clinton- "NO"

I say string the fuck right then. Any normal person woulda been locked up for quite a long time for perjury. Then he was impeached for said offence, and STILL STAYED IN OFFICE

BMG is starting to get it

[ControlFreal]

The Bertelsman Music Group (BMG is now starting to get it: in Hollland, they will start selling "budget" CDs, that cost only EUR 10,- per copy. On the other hand, they have no nice booklet; the contents are just printed on the disk.

The above only goes for Dutch music in Holland (and German music in Germany). International CDs will go down to EUR 13,-.

Slowly, they are starting to get it. Just wait...

OT The purpose of firearms....

[dfenstrate]

The one and only functional purpose of firearms is to put holes in things. Firearms & ammunition differ in their ability to make holes exactly where aimed, make holes of different sizes, make holes at different ranges, and differ in their ability to make so many holes in a given amount of time.

Now, if you want to get into philisophical discussions on if and when putting a hole in a person is a justifiable course of action at times, well, several other posters are going into that.

But do not confuse 'function' with the more emotional notion of killing someone, or however the device is used.

A gun is a machine, an inanimate object with no will or purpose of it's own.

Incidentally, I'm all for the distributed ability to make holes easily when the situation calls for it. A situation that calls for making holes in another purpose might be when someone poses a grave threat to the safety of myself or people I care for.

Does Hatch have a doctor?

[EvilStein]

I think someone should find out. Clearly Senator Hatch is suffering from some severe mental issues. I worry about his health.

(That's a polite way of saying "Geez, this guy is a fucking nutcase.")

Him and Falwell should get together and try to ban the Teletubbies or something equally useless.

Re:Does Hatch have a doctor?

[BCW2]

Like most members of Congress he is treated at Either Bethesda Naval Hospital or Walter Reed Army Hospital. Just like the President or members od the Military.

Re:Does Hatch have a doctor?

[AaroneousMaximus]

I suspect it a case of enteraintmenindustrycamapignfunddonationsitus. Can anyone confirm this?

Ooh, nice precedent!

[MooseGuy529]

Imagine what you could say...

Digital cameras have a "portrait" mode, and they can be used to take pictures of naked kids, so are digital camera manufacturers inducing people into making kiddie porn? Yes! We *must* ban these evil devices!

My stereo has a dual tape deck with a fast-dubbing feature, so is it encouraging me to copy tapes? Yes! We have to ban *these* too!

...and so on. GET A CLUE: BAN THE ACTION (PIRATING/STEALING/SHARING/LIBERATING MUSIC), NOT THE METHOD!

Look at murder: Only items with a purpose completely dedicated to hurting people (guns, etc...) are regulated. I can kill someone with a pair of scissors, but they're not banned because you can kill people with them! <sarcasm>OH, won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!</sarcasm>

But I digress...

BMG is starting to get it...

[ControlFreal]

The Bertelsman Music Group (BMG is now starting to get it: in Hollland, they will start selling "budget" CDs, that cost only EUR 10,- per copy. On the other hand, they have no nice booklet; the contents are just printed on the disk.

The above only goes for Dutch music in Holland (and German music in Germany). International CDs will go down to EUR 13,-.

Slowly, they are starting to get it. Just wait...

Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples ...

[johnkoer]

As a member of Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples, And Teens, And Gays Against Parasitic Parents (SSCCATAGAPP) alls I have to say is "I dream of an America with nudity and F-words on network TV, where the whole world doesn't stop because a school bus did. Children are the future. Today belongs to me!"

I'll Juris Your Dictions

[TubeSteak]

I could have sworn that it was already illegal to aid, abet or induce any crime. A completely useless law.

Which is why Orinn Hatch is (surprise!) an idiot.

Yeahhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, programs like Kazaa and others of its ilk exist for the sole purpose of facilitating the illegal acquisition of copyrighted (and non-free) works.

You have got to love blanket statements like this. As if by saying it enough times will make it true.

All of the hardcore pirates, games, apps, movies, mp3, et all use FTP for their primary mode of data transport. Does that mean that FTP is bad?

I'll buy that most P2P programs have been/are being used to move "warez", close to 100% is bs but whatever, but does that make it bad?

Black markets always exist for a number of reason. Availablity and price of a product, laws regarding the use of a product, and a general tendency of people to always like "sticking it to the man." Laws, and silly arguments like yours, will only strengthen the black market in the long run. Rather the market needs to change such that these forces are more in balance with the current tech/consumer (citizen dammit!) desires.

They can have my apache2 .....

[ajs318]

..... when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Seriously, all this fuss is being made because people aren't paying record companies money anymore. You know what? I couldn't give a fuck. Record companies made every penny they ever earned because the ability to manufacture recorded media was scarce. Now it isn't -- thanks to the Internet, ready availability of CD burners, compressed audio formats, portable devices, and so forth, just about anyone can make records. I'm almost surprised the RIAA aren't trying to demand that you buy a licence to own an instrument (after all, performing a song might be construed as copying it, in some warped, twisted way).

Of course, before you can make a record, you first need a song. Musical talent is a scarce commodity -- and the person whose voice is on the record is the only one whose job can't be done by someone else, and probably for less money. Everyone else is just a middleman, and is totally replaceable. That, the record companies need to realise, is how the real world works.

My proposed new business model for the recording industry works like this. A singer or band borrows some money to cover the overheads of hiring a studio, session musicians, producers, making a glass master, stamping CDs, designing and printing booklets, and so on (of course they may well already have some equipment of their own, so they won't need to borrow as much); and then sells the CDs at such a price as to recoup that loan and make a profit for themself. Like any other business venture, the money is lent on the understanding that the recorded performance will be of a sufficient standard that the resulting product will be saleable. Until the moment when the loan has been paid off, the lender has lien over the CDs and the content in them, and can prevent anyone else from distributing independent copies; but as soon as the loan is paid off, then control reverts to the original performer (until the work goes PD, anyway; and if the work goes PD during the lender's lien, that just serves them right for picking the wrong person to lend money to). Some fancy wording will almost certainly be required to prevent any shenanigans, e.g. where the artist holds out on the last pound and so the music still belongs to the lender.

I would also make it law that, once any debt incurred in making a recording is paid in full, then an artist must allow anyone to distribute copies of their work, for a fixed fee -- which would be the same amount irrespective of who does the distributing, and irrespective of the format in which the recording is made or the medium on which it is stored. This fee would be applied whenever a permanent recording of a copyrighted work changes hands, unless in the course of transfer the supplier loses the ability to make further copies. The onus would be on the supplier if any payment is made to the supplier, or on the recipient otherwise. (So I can make a free copy of an album I own for my MP3 player, but I have to pay to make a copy of my friend's album; and I would not have to pay anything if I sold a CD outright, unless I retained any copies of the songs on it. If my friend made a copy of one of my albums, it would be my friend's responsibility to pay the artist -- unless my friend bought me a pint, in which case I would owe the artist.)

It's also quite feasible that a few local bands could get together, pool their resources, and produce an album each without having to borrow any money against their "audible collateral" (for want of a better phrase to describe it).

Re:They can have my apache2 .....

[James Turpin]

The average salary of musicians is already under $20,000 a year, and now you want to take away their rights because you have an axe to grind with RIAA!?!

I propose a different solution:

Make it illegal for intellectual property to be owned by anybody but the individuals who originated it. Put a seven-year limit on exclusive distribution agreements, or any other servitude of intellectual property. Basicly, the corporation gets exlclusive rights for at most seven years (which is renewable as long as the artist is happy), after which the artist can take his album elsewhere, regardless of what he signed. It would be similar in spirit to Biblical indentured servant laws. You can only sell yourself (or your intellectual property) for a seven year term. Anything longer than that is inherently non-voluntary. Most artists will choose to set-up with as many distributors as possible once they have become known. Of course, the big recording companies could keep the artists by offering them more (not necessarily more money, just more in general - more distribution options, more merchandising, more promotions, better concert productions). It becomes a truly competitive situation when the artists have a right to choose after he becomes established.

Of course, the situation becomes more complicated when you have multiple artists. However, the artists should be empowered such that: (a) After seven years any unaninmous agreement between the artists in regard to their intellectual property supercedes contractual servitude of their intellectual property. (b) Individual artists can not be prevented from performing and distributing independent reproductions of material that they helped to write after seven years. That way a song writer can leave a band and re-record his songs with another band. A script writer can remake a movie after seven years with another movie company. They would not get rights the original performance, but they would get writes to their own intellectual property.

Re:They can have my apache2 .....

[flyonthewall]

I'm almost surprised the RIAA aren't trying to demand that you buy a licence to own an instrument (after all, performing a song might be construed as copying it, in some warped, twisted way).

Shhh... don't give them more ideas

Re:They can have my apache2 .....

[Anonymous Coward]

[posting as AC because I'm away from my usual PC]
I'm not really proposing to take anyone's rights away. In fact, I'm proposing giving people's rights back. Sorry if it came across a bit wrong, but I think I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you.

At the moment, an artist has to sign away their rights in their own work to the record company. Under my scheme, artists would not sell their work -- just secure an ordinary business loan against it. The finance company who supplied the money to press the first run of CDs gets to dictate the terms of distribution, in order to ensure that the repayment schedule is adhered to -- and is unlikely to approve of other parties distributing copies of the work. It is really no different from a mortgage lender imposing restrictions on your use of a house -- if you default on your payments, they want to be sure that the property is worth enough to recoup their losses. Once the loan is repaid in full, the artist regains control of their work.

Now the tables have turned and the artist has cash in their pocket. I agree with you that an artist should have the right to set distributors in competition over their work. But on the principle that anybody's money is as good as anybody else's, their options are either to block distribution altogether, or to allow other people to distribute it -- on payment of a fee, as long as the copyright in the work lasts. What I don't believe they have the right to do, is charge different people different fees; nor should they be allowed to permit only certain parties to distribute your work: everybody or nobody, and nobody different than anybody else.

This would allow private individuals to distribute copies of an artist's work -- including things like file sharing and cassette swapping -- but would require the payment of a fee. This fee would be no more or less than any record label would have to pay to the artist, so in principle it makes no difference how the work is distributed -- the amount of money is the same in any case. Obviously, there would be a requirement for distributors to keep proper records of transactions, but existing trading laws are probably sufficient if properly enforced.

I do like your "seven year rule" idea. I believe the repayment phase needs some sort of protection against abuse, and a limit on the duration of the lien would be a way of achieving this. I also agree that provisions must be made for collaborators in a joint work.

If you don't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS

[Bob_Robertson]

How many times will people get raped by the party of state power before they realize that there is not a lick of difference between those two faces?

Neither face of the party of state power wants you to have any control over your own lives. One side puts a nice shine on further controlling your private life, the other face shines the increasing control of your business life. Both vote for each others programs knowing that quid pro quo, one hand washes the other. Or face licks.

D's and R's both want whatever they can get from you. They will push and only back off to keep the general population from riding in armed revolt. Remember that the "assault weapon ban" passed a REPUBLICAN congress, who were trying to make sure they could push even harder.

Bob-

THE BOTTOM LINE

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet _IS_ P2P at its core.

PPP, which has been in use by people with modems to access the internet for more than a decade, and more recently also with DSL and PPPoE, stands for Peer to Peer Protocol.

Make no mistake about it, the internet is and always has been, a large peer to peer network. To suggest that P2P needs to be banned, is to suggest that the internet should be considered a failure and ended.

This is just another case of Democrats and Republicans putting aside their differences (if there are any) to screw the American people and grant wishes for big businesses. Three cheers for America's broken 2 party system!

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[lordkuri]

it does not stand for that, quit talking out of your ass and trying to score karma. It's POINT to POINT protocol.

see here

-lk

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[autocracy]

Yes, he's wrong... it's point-to-point. But each point is equivalently considered a peer.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. It has been a while since I read up on these things. TCP has always been considered a "peer to peer" protocol. And TCP is more fundamental to the internet than PPP. I guess with my mistake, my argument has only strengthened :)

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[regen]

PPP, which has been in use by people with modems to access the internet for more than a decade, and more recently also with DSL and PPPoE, stands for Peer to Peer Protocol.

No it doesn't. PPP stands for Point to Point Protocol.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[drinkypoo]

The points being considered peers has little to do with PPP; It's TCP/IP that's peer to peer. PPP can be used in a peer to peer style setup in which both ends know their own addresses and such, but it can also be used in a client-server fashion in which one system receives all of its configuration information from the server, thus in that state PPP is client-server, but TCP/IP is always* peer to peer.

* Arguably, some of the older TCP/IP implementations for personal computers which do not support "niceties" such as routing between multiple interfaces are not peers, they are clients.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[Our Man In Redmond]

Actually I remember PPP standing for "Point to Point Protocol".* Minor quibble, really, because when I first got into networking in 1995 the Internet was indeed held up as an example of a massive peer-to-peer network, where content is offered by the machines on the network, as opposed to a server-based network (think NT domain or Netware network).

Trying to redefine "peer-to-peer" network as "mechanism for wholesale IP theft"** will of course net make it so. This strikes me as one of those bills whose purpose is to make it look like Congress is doing a Good Thing(tm), only to have the law struck down in the courts so the congresscritters can say they tried, it's not their fault.

* But hey, they tell me I remembered the origins of PHP wrong, so what do I know?

** Yes I know it's copyright violation, not theft, but that's the way they'll try to present it.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[Anonymous Coward]

No, PPP stands for Point to Point Protocol.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[Mister Transistor]

It's true PPP stands for point to point protocol, but even if it didn't, for argument's sake, the "peers" involved are you and your ISP's DSLAM or termination bank, not the you and the "w4r3z" site you're trying to access at the other end of the world.

The PPP crapola usually never gets out into the network past your ISP. PPPoE is sending essentially the same bytes that a modem would send, but it's sent over an ethernet channel instead of modulated tones on a POTS line. Your data stream into the internet is encapsulated within the PPP (or PPPoE) packets, but the PPP headers get stripped off before your data stream is presented to the network-at-large.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE

[Alsee]

quit talking out of your ass and trying to score karma.

Yeah, I hate it when Anonymous Coward hoards all the karma points! I wish he'd just shut up and let me get more of them!

-

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[julesh]

Yes, but it only works for already protected content -- it doesn't apply in the general case. And there's little point in distributing protected content anyway because it's tied to your unique keys.

There is no way that it can tell whether, for instance, the sound that it is recording through the analogue input of my sound card is me practising with my guitar or me ripping off a professionally produced CD. I ought to be able to authorise copies of the former, the record company that produced the CD can authorise copies of the latter. But my computer doesn't know which file is which, and there is no way that it ever can.

Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people

[crimson30]

Stone: Inspector, that gun is making me extremely nervous.
Hammer: It's supposed to. It's not a room deodorizer, you know. Just relax, Doc. You know what they say -- guns don't kill people...
Stone: (interrupting) Yes, I've heard -- people do.
Hammer: No, bullets do.

Outlaw P2P

[neoRUR]

If you outlaw P2P then only outlaws will use P2P. Or so the saying goes, I guess that is how they think they can stop this.

We're on the precipice...

[gearmonger]

...of getting so far out of balance between innovation and protectionism that we risk never being able to recover from the damage legislation like this does to US industries, inventors, and technology consumers.

It's enlightening to think that this entire mess is related to the failure of campaign finance reform to adequately accomplish its goals; reason #1 why geeks should care about politics.

Moms Too Like Digital Content...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the parents be the ones looking out for their kids?

Shortly before Napster got the axe I showed my mom how to use it. I explained to her both sides of the digital music argument and let her do as she wished. She downloaded more music in week then I could have ever imagined. For the first time in her life she thought the computer was actually a useful invention.

While I was at my parents house for the 4th she asked me if I could put that "music program" on my dads computer. So I explained what happened with Napster, and how there was a risk of being sued by the RIAA for downloading music now. I told her that it just wasn't a good idea any more, and she says "Damnit, I really wish it wasn't illegal".

AC

But not on slash dot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"you are expected to be a genious"

But those who are a bit, er, challenged are allowed to post here on slashdot. Ironic world, isn't it?

Sounds just like in china..

[Anonymous Coward]

..is USA and china so much different after all?

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[1u3hr]

Yes, but it only works for already protected content

If you take their statements at face value, they want to make it illegal to transfer any file unless you have permission -- if a file lacks protection that would thus be blocked (i.e. unprotected = pirated). Obviously unworkable now, but if mandated...

Yeah! Run for president!

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters, someone here should start an IT-party and run for congress or president.. New parties come and go all the time here in the "old world" so it should be possible in the states too.

Do these idiots know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that they will be outlawing EVERY Internet client-server application in the process, with the exception of remote terminal apps? Every application I use and support on the Internet operates in a client-server, P2P mode; web servers, ftp servers, AFP, NFS, and Windows file servers, streaming media servers, etc. Has no one pointed this out to these morons?

Quick, Someone Share Orrin Hatch's Album!

[ras_b]

I know I'm late to this story so maybe no one will see this, but Sen. Orrin Hatch has his own cd out. Maybe if all of a sudden his album was downloaded 1000's of times, he would change his tune.

Actually..

[Lewis Daggart]

Kazza doesn't steal music, people do.. Actually, that would make a perfect counter ad-campaign. The best way to get your side out is to make other people feel you're on the same side they are. An Add campaign like that would get every pro-gun, pro freedom type activist on your side. It wouldn't even what their other politics are.

Capitalism and democracy does not go well together

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, as I have always tought - a democracy with capitalism is not a real democracy - just some fancy paper-democracy where the rich enteties hold the power and not the people. And these people that holds the money, makes the people believe they live in a perfect democracy.

Democracy is about One person = One vote, not One dollar = One vote. I would really like to see a capitalism-free world, like in star trek. :)

Programs don't break the law...

[zaphodchak]

Simply outlawing the development of P2P programs seems ridiculous. There are many legal applications for these programs (a la Bittorrent) and crushing their development is not attacking the source of the problem. Programs don't break the law, people break the law. If someone really wants some file, they'll look on IRC or another such service, and get it anyway. This movement seems to be simply attacking casual use further, by making software unavailable. Most casual users have already quit, what with the RIAA scare, and this seems to be trying to (along the 80-20 rule) stop the 80% of the people doing only 20% of the sharing. The 'teaching children to steal' part is funny though. Congress is not just Big Brother anymore, it's also Mommy and Daddy, policing evildoing youngsters and tackiling childrearing themselves.

To paraphrase Chris Rock...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not saying anyone SHOULD kill Orrin Hatch, but if they did... I'D UNDERSTAND".

(Very sad that in this world I feel the need to post anonymously, lest an FBI battering ram find it's way through my front door ten minutes from now)

I'm in

[theguywhosaid]

I'm completely in.

EFF Action Alert: Stop Orrin Hatch now!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can actually do something about it now: The EFF has an action alert that gets sent right to the U.S. Senators:
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp? step=2&item =2918
You can help by participating and forwarding this link to anyone you know.

Orrin Hatch is how old?

[Rai]

How close is this bastard to the grave? I gotta take a leak.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

and congress should be disbanded because they're inducing me to kick their asses.

Paranoia

[Positive Charge]

The voice in my head says this is an insidious government plot to keep people from communicating directly with each other rather than through servers that can easily be ordered to tap communications.

But that's nonsense.

Of course.

Anyway, if Orrin Hatch is able to draft this in a way that passes constitutional muster, I'll kiss him full on the lips.

Do what you can

[BCW2]

Write your Senators and Representatives and remind them that any bill concerning copyright in troduced by Hatch was written by the industry involved. Mention that it's common knowledge that Hatch is bought and paid for by: MPAA/RIAA and M$. If they don't want to get tarred with the same brush in this election year, they need to vote against it. Then vote accordingly. The same letter sent to local newspapers will have some effect also.

P2P vs Piracy

[i-Chaos]

My stance is simple: P2P apps, in and of themselves, should not be illegal - just like port scanner apps, or even virus source code, to some degree. Only problem is: Pirate traffic accounts for (and I can only guess this figure) at least 50% of the traffic on most P2P networks. P2P networks, like firearms, should not be outlawed, but rather regulated. How, and by what organizations? That remains for governments and nations to decide for themselves. The UN has stepped in to fight Spam, and I think that it's a good first step. If they start working on other fair internet use laws, then the internet would be a safer place, and I wouldn't have to worry about getting hit by the blaster worm before I can even finish downloading my XP updates.

And for those who think that "sampling" music on the net before buying a CD is good, and those who are using P2P to attain legal backup copies of music they already own - it's a load of crock. Sure, one of the side-effects of piracy is that artists are becoming more popular quicker due to their music coming down the grapevine faster, but it's just an unintentional side-effect. How many people actually delete MP3's of the songs where they didn't buy the CD? People keep illegal copies of songs that they've "sampled" but never bought - that's a known fact.

A good "sampling" system would be programs that create self-destructive tracks that die after X number of playing times. Imagine a P2P application that not only allows you to search and download, but allows you to RIP them from CD or DVD as well! However, only files of a specific format that has that sort of protection built-in should be ripped. RIAA would eat it up, as it would allow their artists' songs to be sampled without a real loss in revenue.

Bill Frist...

[Anonymous Coward]

...post?

Sorry :P

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[liquidsin]

They'll never shut down my super secret GOPHER piracy ring!

P2P is not the REAL problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

P2P is not the REAL problem! You can still burn a CD or capture the output off a sound card etc.

It think this blog entry sums it up best: Music industry + mp3s

Solution: Leave the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be flamebait but the solution is to tell this country to kiss your human ass. Remember, without us, the government has no one to control. Reminds me of the matrix eh? :). People bitch, moan, complain, and so on that the government controls them. Is it so friggin hard to tell them off and get together and make your own country, state, or whatever? For christ sakes people, we are advanced beings being owned by stupid government people who have no clue what life is about. FIX IT!!!

And if anyone from the government cares to sue me, start by e-mailing me at dmarescajr@gmail.com, my name is Daniel Maresca Jr. COME GET SOME!

Sure you can

[roystgnr]

If you want to outlaw copyright infringement without outlawing communication, all you have to do is make copyright infringement illegal, but with enough exceptions (called, say, "fair use") to allow people to talk freely about copyrighted works without allowing them to just repeat those works verbatim.

This bill won't outlaw copyright infringement - that's already been done. What it will outlaw is "acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement", which is just as vague as it sounds - by my interpretation (which is obviously narrower than Hatch's) there isn't a single P2P network in existance which would be criminalized, whereas by a broader interpretation (at least, I hope it's broader than Hatch's and any judge's) the iPod will become illegal.

raises an interesting question

[Mystical Presence]

In this day or RDP and other remote shell/desktop applications would it still be illegal to, from your machine in the states, connect through RDP/SSH/RSH/TELNET/... into one of my machines in Canada, where we are still free to create such obviously horrific and immoral applications, and then host it on a non-US server, would said application still be illegal to create?

"They tried to scare me," Borrayo said. "They told me, 'You're a pirate!' I said, 'C'mon, guys, pirates are all at sea. I just work in a parking lot.' "

A quote from here

Everyone Knows

[the_mushroom_king]

Orin Hatch is an idiot.

-- TMK

demo/repubican, they are all the same

[timts]

I assume everbody knows that, they both need coporate money to do their "champaign" and none of them really cares about the people.

Re:demo/repubican, they are all the same

[yourmom16]

there are a few differences(mainly due to differences in which corporations predominately fund them)

Maginot Line

[Anonymous Coward]

... it can be no more effective than the Maginot Line

Geoff Berner wrote a song about the Maginot Line. An MP3 of it is available from his website at http://www.geoffberner.com/.

The direct link is: http://www.geoffberner.com/maginot.mp3

Does anyone else think that...

[cmdrwhitewolf]

Senator Hatch possibly is going to wind up being the next Jimmy Hoffa as soon as Microsofts robo-goons figure out that his proposed P2P law can be applied to their beloved livelihood?

(Ya know, this latest moronic crusade of his *might* turn out to be a good thing after all - if it successfully percludes him from having a political career!)

Not going to make it illegal - UTFA

[nomadicGeek]

The proposal is not to make the software illegal. It is to make it easier for corporations to sue you for producing the software. There is a difference. The article goes so far as to spell it out

The bill doesn't set up new criminal or civil penalties for those who "induce" copyright violations, but it creates a new class of people who can be sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement -- those who a "reasonable person" would believe "intentionally aids, abets, induces or procures" copyright violations.

The headling says: "outlaw P2P entirely by making it illegal to produce such applications."

I guess that in addition to RTFA we need to have UTFA, Understand the f**** article.

While I am not all that impressed with the proposed legislation, being served papers because the RIAA is suing you for producing a P2P app is certainly much different from federal agents kicking down your door and arresting you because you just wrote a new Java app to share files on the internet for your programming class.

If you are going to get pissed off, at least understand what you are getting pissed off about.

Re:Not going to make it illegal - UTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Since when does legal 'intent' actually have anything to do with what you are intending to do? There will be an arbitrary level where 'intent' will be presumed.

for your annoyance - Hatch Speaks

[teamhasnoi]

Statement
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Counterfeiting and Theft of Tangible Intellectual Property: Challenges and Solutions

March 23, 2004

The Honorable Orrin Hatch opens his big fat mouth
United States Senator , Utah

Statement of Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, a blathering moneygrubber who's been paid to hold the opinions he has.

Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary who manages to keep their lunch down, in spite of the blatant conflicts of interest.

Hearing on "Counterfeiting and Theft of Tangible Intellectual Property: Challenges and Solutions" aka 'How to make more $$$ from my pals in the entertainment industry, by preserving what's left of their business model.'

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, for requesting and presiding over this hearing on the critical topic of counterfeiting and the theft of intellectual property rights embodied in tangible goods.

I also want to thank all of our distinguished governmental and private witnesses for appearing today to discuss these increasingly important issues. In particular, I want to thank Tom Donohue and the United States Chamber of Commerce for their leadership in calling for renewed attention to this important threat to the health and safety of our citizens, the growth of our national economy, and the reputations of our American manufacturers.

I believe that education and enforcement are the two key issues in any discussion of intellectual property theft and counterfeiting. These two issues are really two facets of a broader systemic problem that is easy to state, but difficult to solve.

Simply put, intellectual property rights are under siege. Intellectual property theft and counterfeiting are growing problems that are becoming even more difficult to detect and prevent. And these problems will continue to grow until we start taking stronger enforcement actions. Our markets are globalizing and copying technologies are becoming cheaper, better and more readily available. To combat the growing problems of intellectual property theft and counterfeiting, policymakers and intellectual property owners must bring two critical tools to bear: education and enforcement.

Education: Recently, the Chamber of Commerce asserted that American businesses need to pursue a "rebranding" strategy on the issues of intellectual property theft and counterfeiting. I agree with the Chamber that the industries that depend on intellectual property rights need to re-educate the public about the continuing importance of those rights.

I worry that it is easy for policymakers and business executives to underestimate the importance of this educational effort. Users of intellectual property have long educated government policymakers and enforcement officials about the importance of intellectual property rights. As a result, executives and government officials know that copyrights and patents protect incentives to research, create and innovate. Most executives and policymakers know that trademarks protect not only corporate reputations and revenues, but also the safety of the food that nourishes us, the drugs that heal us, and the products that enrich our lives and homes.

But too many members of the public do not share this understanding of the importance of intellectual property rights. Mainstream news outlets now regularly report claims that copyrights are "tyranny" and that the patent system is "broken." Too many law professors are now teaching that intellectual property rights are antiquated, dysfunctional concepts that impair the creativity and choice that they were meant to empower.

Those who know differently need to start speaking out. It is time for coordinated efforts to educate all Americans about the benefits of intellectual property rights. These efforts must also be proactive: If individual members of the business community wait until their particular rights are threatened directly, the appear

Right, Blame the makers

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it funny how all these matters only apply to the internet. For example, you never hear of the senate trying to hold gun makers responsible for the death of thousands of people (which is illegal I might add). Perhaps the goverment should start putting the law into effect for the people of their country rather than for the corporations of their company.

Seems it's always aboiut "protecting the children"

[Yenchatech]

Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal. Some think they can legally lure children into breaking the law with false promises of "free music."'

Now, I know children (especially teenagers) have had a lot to do with the explosion of P2P software use over the years, but it doesn't seeem appropriate to place the blame on them entirely. Once people in general find out about these programs, they all try to get their hands on it. I know I've met quite a few adults around my area who've either been using P2P apps like Kazaa, or have asked me where to get them so they may download their old favorites. I don't approve of alot our government does, but I especially don't like it when some RIAA-loving senator accuses my siblings, my friends and I of being the sole purpose the recording industry is losing money.

My $0.02...

Re:This'll get shot down quickly as being too vagu

[Anonymous Coward]

You just had to tell him THAT, didn't you? We could just happily download stuff via the web and ftp and nntp and whatever, but nooo, you have to ruin that for the rest of us. Thanks a lot. When they shutdown the web, what are we going to do to avoid work? No more /., eek!

Now, go to a corner and think what you have done.

So,

[Run4yourlives]

I guess hatch would support a bill allowing victims to sue gun makers then?

After all...it's pretty much the same thing, if you discount the small fact that copyright infringment never killed anyone.

Commodity economics?

[Allen Zadr]

This is absolutely the case! By making available unlimited copies of a commodity, you do bring down it's value.

If music has no value, then there would be nobody making it. Sure, people would still sing to eachother, and some people would record music, but the quality would go down. I have more than 6000 worth of recording gear, full digital recording capabilities, etc. But I can't mix an album as well as a studio can. Still, I would have to have a song that can sell 7100 copies before I break even on my investment (this assumes I have zero cost in making and distributing my own copies). At my popularity level (uh, my Family), if a digital copy is distributed of my music I have zero chance of making any money.

If the economics are changing, as many say that they are, then they are changing within a service economy from a physical distribution model to a digital distribution model.

Music is a service, and people get paid for doing the work that they do. Engineers, electricians, producers, musicians, vocalists, and they guy that cleans the toilets get paid for doing thier jobs. However, at your description, no value should be assigned whatsoever. Hey, maybe CDs are overpriced. Maybe they should be cheaper. However, the well established copyright laws say that, currently, each song that's less than 5 mintues long deserves to get 85 pennies for each time a copy is made for distribution.

Like all econmoics, we are dealing with economies of scale. Apple will make 14 cents for each download. Yet, this is still unreasonable in a commodity economy, but not a service economy.

Music is not a commodity, it is a service. And value needs to be assigned to it as to any service. Most people pay for cable when broadcast is free. Some people pay for commercial free music services. Why do people send money to NPR or PBS? There's no value there, right?

If you don't think a song is worth anything, why would you share it with someone else. It's worthless... just delete it. If you feel that you want to share it, then it must have some sort of meaning to you. If it doesn't, then don't share it. If it does, play it for a friend, and tell them to buy it.

There are two extremes to this, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to share music, ever. I'm saying that distributing a service to absolutely everybody for free is wrong for a reason. If an artist decides they want something distributed for free, then they will do so on thier own. Believe me, you are not doing the artist any favors.

Re:Commodity economics?

[will592]

On that note...if your music was good enough that people wanted to hear it you would quickly recoup your costs in producing it. No one ever guaranteed you the right to make money from making music. No one guaranteed the fine artists in Europe four hundred years ago any money but they suffered for their ART. Music is ART. It is not business. Go ahead and stop making music if you are only doing it for the money. I guarantee you that there are plenty of artists milling around who would spend all the money they have to play in a dingy bar just for applause and the appreciation of true fans. If you can't make a living making music then it's not my problem or the problem of our government. Get a real job and suffer for your art in your spare time. Can't afford a studio to mix your album? Then release an album that you mixed yourself. Some of the greatest music ever recorded has come out of garages and spare bedrooms. Are the paintings that Picasso made on burlap sacks any less quality than the ones that were made on a fine canvas? I say get over yourself. Remember the good old days when band put together tapes of their music and gave them away at concerts? Encouraged their fans to share them with friends so more people would come see them play? That is what music is about. To hell with the RIAA and to hell with greedy 'musicians' that feel like they are owed something.

Re:Commodity economics?

[Allen Zadr]

Right, but to distribute my music without my permission deprives me of the ability to try to make money from this craft. Or do you disagree with that.

If you buy my song from me and share it with your 10 friends, and immediate family, so be it. But once you put it on the open P-to-P networks, you are depriving me of the right to try to make money off of my craft. Yeah, maybe I suck. Maybe not.

Michelangelo and DiVinci had their salaries paid by royalty. They had good lives, and were specialists in art. Galileo suffered for his "art" because he disagreed with his employers. Court musicians were paid for their performances. Bach, Mozart and Vivaldi were all paid royal salaries to persue their art. Bethoven did so while going deaf.

Now music companies do not pay musicians salaries for free study. Instead, you are paid royalties for their work.

Maybe some rock bands wanted to give away their music because they were into that. Good for them. Maybe some others didn't, but damned it .. that's their choice to make, not yours.

Not all musicians play live. Not all good music is done for crowds, and not all musicians give away their music for free. I don't have to be (and am not) an RIAA member to get the protection of copyright law.

The taking away of P-to-P is stupid. 100% stupid, but I can't stand it when people say that it's O.K. to copy music just because technology makes it easy.

Re:Commodity economics?

[Caiwyn]

Allen, you just made a fan. That was a very articulate explanation of an idea I've been arguing for quite some time now.

Ultimately, it just comes down to the fact that real fans pay for their music. It's one thing to download via p2p a piece of music if you're trying it out before you buy it, but it's quite another to keep said music without any sort of payment. If it's worth holding onto, it's worth paying for. If it's not worth paying for, delete it. But only an honest consumer can make that distinction.

Re:Commodity economics?

[will592]

For the record, I don't disagree that it is wrong to distribute copyrighted music. I understand that if I do so I am in violation of copyright law. In fact, I don't share copyrighted music. I just get riled when I hear someone say something that sounds like they have a right to make money from their art. I agree 100% that you have the right to try and make money from your art but no one owes you anything. I am only against legislation like that proposed in this article and legislation that proposed to make it a criminal offense to violate copyright law rather than a civil one. No one should go to jail for sharing music or books or reprints of paintings. That's what fines and civil courts are for.

Re:Commodity economics?

[Caiwyn]

I just get riled when I hear someone say something that sounds like they have a right to make money from their art. I agree 100% that you have the right to try and make money from your art but no one owes you anything.

This sounds like more of a semantic argument than anything else... I mean, is the RIAA really contending that they deserve to be paid for music that sucks? I don't think so. They're contending that they deserve a fair chance to try, and I cannot dispute that.

I will agree with you, however, that this proposed legislation is the absolute wrong way to go about it.

Re:Commodity economics?

[Allen Zadr]

Caiwyn, I thank you (and have reciprocated in-kind). It's nice to know that I'm not the only person who is willing to go against the slashthink.

In fact, I think my excellent karma may be lost on this story, buy the time the mods are finished. Oh well.

Re:Profit? Uh...no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably, and that further shuts down stupid Hatch's theory that this is all about profit.

It seems its about sharing information: who owns it, if it can be owned at all, and for how long.

Do your part.

[ScytheBlade1]

Do your part.

Tell Orrin Hatch that A) This law will change nothing (I thought we had legislation to stop spam...), B) He's a US senator, and has no control over the spread of P2P apps oversears, regardless of where they come from, and C) He'd also be opening up a lawsuit vs. many, MANY legit companies. (ICQ to name a prominent one).

Bit Torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, I use Bit Torrent all the time. Even large companies are starting to use this technology like Blizzard when they released their world of warcraft beta.

You think bit torrent will become more 'legit' when more companies start using it? Encourage your universities and bosses to use it, its a great idea.

Uploads are the problem

[Rand310]

Uploads are the problem! We should just get rid of the upload pipe altogether. All users should only be able to download content off commercial websites. There is no reason to have an upload pipe at all. What do normal users have to share anways? We should put at stop to it. Make all ISPs have a cap at 0kbps u/l. ...oh, the internet won't work then? No one could get to a webpage? check e-mail? download applications? secure themselves with MS Updates!? No Porn?!! ::cough:: well then...

On the serious side... this is absurd. There is NO way to share a quicktime trailer over the internet that I can't grab to my own harddrive. No way to make a picture over the internet that I can't grab. If I can "see" it, I can have it, no, I DO have it. The internet is just one giant P2P network - data flows in both ways. Sometimes it's not the data you want but you don't destroy the network to stop the data from flowing.

this is absurd

Protect the constitution

[Nf1nk]

This is why we need a law that "proects the Constitution from attack" or more to the point makes senators (or represenitives) that propose laws later found unconstitutional unelegable for reelection. Of course I would like it to be even harsher and include fucktards that vote for these bills. The house and the senate need a good cleaning.
Oh yeah and go vote, Preferably against the incumbant whatever the office.

Re:Protect the constitution

[cpt kangarooski]

That would be an amazingly bad idea.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong about floating a proposal. Congress is a deliberative body. You would punish people for making a suggestion, even if it was immediately shot down by everyone and never was any 'danger' at all.

Secondly, Congress is not the ultimate judge of what is and isn't constitutional. So why would they have any idea whatsoever? The courts fulfill that role, and it is so difficult that not only are there several ranks of courts each of whom is able to correct the mistakes of their inferiors, which are easy enough to make as many constitutional issues are the farthest thing from clear-cut as you could imagine, but there is also the possibility of a court later reversing itself because it was wrong the first time, or it later turned out that a different answer was called for than the original one. Plus of course, which court can decide? Most every court in the country is capable of deciding a case on constitutional grounds. They often don't agree. Do you propose that the question be left to languish for many years until it can reach the federal Supreme Court? At that time, wouldn't the result of your stupid idea be a) to make the Court superior, instead of equal to, Congress, throwing the entire system of checks and balances out of whack, b) irrelevant since by the time the case could finally be decided on the merits, the particular member of Congress might be gone anyway, c) overwhelming, in that now damn near everyone would have standing to bring a case, resulting in either the courts being flooded with more litigation than they can handle, or having to deny these cases standing, d) antidemocratic in that all the vacancies in Congress would routinely be filled perhaps by appointment when possible, thereby not even giving voters the satisfaction of knowing that it was their choice as to who would represent them in Congress, e) antidemocratic in that it would discourage lawmakers from making laws that ARE constitutional, but where it is not absolutely clear-cut and obvious.

Frankly, your suggestion is about the stupidest thing I've seen this week. But chin up -- something stupider might yet come along.

See, the thing is, we have two great solutions to this already. 1) voters can elect someone else, 2) the courts can overturn unconstitutional laws, being very good at the job, and having an entire branch of government that deals with that sort of thing all the time.

I won't say that the government is perfect, but it's a damn sight better than anything you seem to be able to come up with.

Re:Protect the constitution

[Nf1nk]

The main thing I would like is more turnover in represenitives, more turnover kills some of the cronyism. I just can't help but think that Barbara Boxer has been in Washington so long that there is no way she even knows what the wheather is like in SLO let alone how we feel about our personal liberties

Re:Protect the constitution

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't mind turnover, but it should arise because people vote for different elected officials. There will be times when that is a bad idea; being unbeholden to special interests is good, but so is being experienced. All told, I'd prefer to have officials that are both.

Re:Protect the constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

...or more to the point makes senators (or represenitives) that propose laws later found unconstitutional unelegable for reelection. Of course I would like it to be even harsher and include fucktards that vote for these bills.

First, it ain't gonna happen. Congress already exempts themselves from such good ideas as fair-labor laws. Do you really think they would tie their own noose?

Second, this whole thing is about the free exchange of ideas. Your idea would essentially quash all debate and deliberation in bodies set up for just those purposes.

You'd never get past the first, but the second would kill it anyways with anyone who thought about the future consequences of that action.

I do like the bit about housecleaning, but do mind the baby when you throw out that bathwater. Getting people to vote, for whatever reason, is also a double-plus good.

Re:Protect the constitution

[Zordak]

Two words: Term Limits

Re:Profit? Uh...no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never really got into Bit Torrent, I find its hard to find good sites that host the files.

Apparently Shareza allows you to share bit torrent files so its all distributed? I used it, it didnt seem to work though...

Mod this baby up!

[teamhasnoi]

or at least read it. THIS is what we should be worried about. The people in congress no longer represent us as citizens, they represent those that have the biggest wallet.

In effect, our government have become uber-lobbists to you and I - Trying to convince the public that the issues they bring to the table are putting us in danger, rather than the interests of deep-pocketed corporations.

Write your Sentor

[Anonymous Coward]

Our friends at the EFF have provided a handy online way of emailing or faxing(I suggest faxing) your sentor.

The form can be found at http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =2918

Or you could use a sample letter produced by the Consumers Union, publishers of Consumer Reports, urging Congress debate the issue. A copy can be found at http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/0628%20InduceCon sumerLetter.pdf

And finally a petition by Mac fans has also produced a sample letter, available at http://www.savetheipod.com/index1.php

So instead just predicting a public outcry/backlash, help create the public outcry and backlash.

Make your opinion and voice heard, damn it!

Not Limited to P2P Either

[hotsauce]

Annalee had a nice writeup at AlterNet about how this would affect mp3 players, CD burners, video players, and a host of consumer devices. Coming hot on the heels of the Gartner report recommending the banning of iPods at work one has to wonder why in a free society we feel so much needs to be banned and prohibited.

I believe this is yet more misguided legislation to protect the profit streams of corporations while ignoring changing realities and efficiencies. But if we stubbornly insist on staying in the past, I doubt Asia and others will join us.

Re:We control the horizontal We control the vertic

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who support Palladium also want to "watermark" all content to prevent your scenario. Every sound card, CD burner, etc. would have to detect watermarks--which appear even in analog copies--and then refuse to record/transmit/whatever the data.

Re:If you don't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR TH

[Dan Farina]

I like my public schools though...

If we're talking at the federal level specifically (instead of the general philosophy), I don't mind paying more so the elderly can get social security checks and the destitute can get medical assistance. I like the fact that the government attempted many projects that were not touchable by the private sector at the time, such as the human genome project or the space program.

...sorry, but from my point of view, many Libertarians would throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's why I don't vote Libertarian.

Guns?

[sepelester]

What about outlawing GUNS? After all, their only purpose is injuring or KILLING people.

Seems to me that this senator of yours like killing better than filesharing!

Legalized Bribery

[max born]

If you've ever listened to any Senate Committee hearings you may have noticed that the ones who get to testify are often the industry execs who made campaign contributions to the very committee members they're testifying before.

Entertainment execs who got to testify at the DMCA hearings after giving $18,000,000 is just one example. Happens all the time.

See whose funding Hatch. Notice how the funding increases to match the bills being considered.

Brilliant idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instilling moral fiber in your kid? Teach him that stealing is stealing whether it is low hanging fruit or not. That's what my parents did and I don't steal music, despite the fact I am a very competent programmer and networker. I could hide my trail easily using other people's proxies, but don't engage in such activity.

I know a lot of people that have a "take whatever you can, because you have a right to whatever you can take" attitude, including several of my relatives. If their parents taught them right from wrong, without being hypocrites, things might be different.

But we live in an fscked up world with a lot of parents who like to dodge responsiblity because they are selfish, or are simply too screwed up to have a meaningful family relationship. Too bad the kids ultimately pay and end up just like their parents.

Losers beget losers. Of course no one takes any responsibility for themselves or their actions, and most don't even realize they are perpetuating the problem, so nothing will ever change.

This is why laws are created, because some asshole(s) figure out how to screw someone without breaking any current law, or engange in some new very dangerous activity that hurts others, so a new law must be created. Unfortunately this penalizes the 75% of the populace who possess common sense/morals, and would never do such a thing.

l8,
AC

The question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Where the hell are the militant activist!?

I mean we get these braindead fucks who blow up sausage trucks, vandalize mink farms, terrorize slaughterhouses and similar stuff, but we don't get ANYONE who actually fight for the freedom of HUMANS.

Damn i almost feel like starting something up. Citizen Liberation Army or something.

Software control

[DrCode]

You'd think he'd realize:

Software doesn't steal music; people steal music.

Re:Software control

[BelugaParty]

More importantly:

Software doesn't steal music; I steal music.

Damn stright...

[Allen Zadr]

But you can't protect the individual artist without protecting the person whom buys copy rights from that artist - through contract or otherwise.

This has nothing to do with P2P. If an artist wants to sell or give away his own music on his own web site, then he doesn't have to resort to seeding his music onto P2P networks. He just posts it on his web-site, FTP site or otherwise.

I think P2P is not the enemy, but I do think that mass distribution of music as a digital medium is wrong. That same artist who has little popularity and is not centrist enough to get a record contract... is the one hurt the most by P2P. If that person makes their living selling music, then giving it away on a P2P site is directly affecting that artists lively hood.

Mirimax, Sony Music, BMG will survive. The individual artist might not.

Re:Damn stright...

[Jane_Dozey]

"But you can't protect the individual artist without protecting the person whom buys copy rights from that artist - through contract or otherwise."
True, but the "old business model" is largly to blame for this situation of musicians not owning their own work in the first place...but that's another discussion.
Some artists thrive from sharing thier music. People tend to go out and buy good music on CD or from the internet if they like it. This is regardless of whether they've got the whole album for free off of the internet. People will pay for something they appreciate.

Yes, I totally agree that infringing on copyrights by widely distributing music on the internet is wrong, but the RIAA has their approach totally backwards They cannot stop people from sharing music, they can hardly slow it down. Why not embrace the technology? If you can't beat them, join them, and give them a legal and cheap alternative way of using existing technologies.
The induvidual artist could then follow suit and everyone would benefit.

Of course, I have no really good ideas on how this could happen so please don't nitpick and point out that I'm being an idealist. They're just thoughts :)

Re:Damn stright...

[AaroneousMaximus]

You can't? Bullshit... Look what the CRTC has done here in Canada to promote stuggling up and comming Canadian artists. The CRTC has never sold a single record. Dont' need P2P? Ya sure, you don't. I don't need a car to get to work either, but it sure makes life easier. Hate to break it to you, but the whole purpose of a technological evolving marketplace is to employ new technologies. It's not up to you "the artist" to write the rules, the rules are dictated by the technology.

Sure, don't use the tools, just don't blame your consumers when the way you do your business doesn't work.

I guess I'll just have to go back to being a minstral class-Beck

Re:Damn stright...

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

But you can't protect the individual artist without protecting the person whom buys copy rights from that artist - through contract or otherwise.

The individual musician needs to be protected from the RIAA, not P2P. It's not the people sharing their music who are cutting into their profits -- it's the people who are making millions off that music and not giving those musicians a slice. If you believe record industry accountants, even top-selling CDs don't actually make a profit. The record labels are actually a charity operation, running barely at break-even, just helping the poor musicians get some CDs out there. Or so they tell the musicians when royalty payment time comes around. Of course, all of the industry executives just happen to be independantly wealthy, which explains the million-dollar houses and the lifestyles to match.

This has nothing to do with P2P.

It has everything to do with P2P. The musicans don't make money from CD sales. The record labels make a killing, but few of the people who actually make the music -- only a handful at the very top -- ever make any money off of CDs. For them, it's a way to get people to hear their music so that those people will go to their concerts.

The record companies know that if there was a way for the musicians to get that music directly to the people who are listening to it, in order to entice them to buy the concert tickets and the T-shirts, then they, the record companies, will be irrelevant. Dinosaurs. Buggy whip makers. A business with neither suppliers nor customers.

A handful of top name musicans agree with them, because they know they're "top" because of their celebrity status, not because their music is any better than a hundred or a thousand up-and-coming competitors, and they want to keep that lock they have on the CD sales and the radio airplay. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by people discovering that Seether sounds just as good as Metallica. But for most -- all of the ones creating great music and trying to make a living at it -- the recording industry cartel is their enemy. Their fans aren't the enemy, the people who would hear their music and go to a concert or, yes, order a CD, aren't the enemy. The enemy is the people who want to make huge profits off their music and keep all the money for themselves. The cartel known as the RIAA.

That same artist who has little popularity and is not centrist enough to get a record contract... is the one hurt the most by P2P.

Um, how about "no"?

The only CDs he's likely to be selling are the ones from the card table by the door when he plays some local club. His music is not in the stores, not on the racks at Wal-Mart or WorstBuy or Strawberries. He's making a living off opening for better-known acts, playing at clubs, getting gigs where he can, and probably delivering pizzas to make ends meet. Nobody knows about his website, nobody knows about his music, and except for the people who hear him locally, nobody ever will.

If he puts his music out there on the P2P networks and encourages people to share it, then people who don't happen to live in his home town will hear him. People who don't randomly wander across his website will hear him. People who will love his music, who will go to his concerts, who will buy his Cafe Press T-shirts, and who will even order a physical CD off his website because they think he's awesome and want to support and encourage him, will hear him.

For him, P2P is a lifesaver and the RIAA, the recording industry who wants to make sure that nobody sells music without giving them the lion's share of the profits, the industry that wants to make sure that it's as hard as possible for him to get the fame (and sales) his music deserves, is the real enemy.

There's a book publisher who has put their money (and their copyrights) where their mouth is. Check out the Baen Free Library. For the pas

Re:Damn stright...

[Allen Zadr]

"The individual musician needs to be protected frm the RIAA, not P2P."

If that makes you sleep better at night, so be it.

"The musicans don't make money from CD sales."

Yes, they do. From every unit sold. It's pennies per CD, but this is money. And for an Artist that can't fill the concert halls - pennies per CD is still money. Now of course, they don't make any money until the revenue has paid back the record industries initial loan to the artist, but that's another argument entirely.

Dude, if I'm a bar musician and I want to promote my stuff, P2P is not my savior. A web site is. If I dump my stuff on P2P, nobody will grab it if they don't already know my name. If they do know my name, then I'm better off directing them to my web site, where I can also direct these fans to where my next gig is. Peer-to-Peer deprives me of that opportunity. Your argument up to the Baen Books point boils down to... The Music Industry is already hurting the artists.. why not hurt them more!

Baen Books:
There are several things that contribute to the "publicity" model of books that don't apply to Peer-to-Peer networks at all. First, the publisher chooses to issue the book in a digital format. Second, the publisher lists a "directory of choices". Third, the publisher can use this 'free' service as a promotional tool (facilitated by there being a directory of choices).

Point 1 - many bands have chosen to voluntarily publish music for promotional value, none of them have needed Peer-to-Peer to help them do this. Point 2 and 3 - By the time someone enters a song title or artist name, the promotional part isn't necessary. Go to the artists web site (most have one). If they want to share part of what they do, they will have done so themselves. There is no Peer-to-Peer directory of "what to look for", so there is no promotional use.

The multiple digital music distribution services that have popped up have had some great propotional success. "Featured Artists" pop up with free downloads from time to time, this is great. Peer-to-Peer, on the other hand, has no business distributing copyright materials.

Re:Profit? Uh...no.

[Jagasian]

Uhh, use google.com to search for bittorrent sites. My favorites are:
http://www.animesuki.com/
http://www.suprno va.org/

How typical

[CXI]

How typical of slashdot to make this sound like an Evil Republican Conspiracy(tm). I mean, after all it's all the rage to do that right? Of course, if you read the article you'd notice:

"The bill has powerful backers. Among the bill's co-sponsors are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy from Vermont."

What's that? Democrats support it too?! *GASP*!? How about a little fairness in the submissions once in a while? I know a large portion of the slashdot crowd will just see the submission blurb and go off a vote Democrat, thinging the Democrats are all nice and tech friendly, and little do they know... *sigh*

Re:Apartments in Canada?

[AaroneousMaximus]

I can hook you up, but not for long. Once this legislation gets passed, and all the software companies move up here, Real estate is going to skyrocket.

I'm surprised Orrin Hatch can spell P2P...

[The-Dalai-LLama]

...let alone grasp the principles that surround it well enough to mount his doddering charge to have it regulated.

How much longer do we have to wait until we get a crop of politicians who don't think digital watches represent cutting-edge technology? Furthermore, how much damage to the laws governing technology can the current batch of luddites do before they finally get too senile to find their own offices and either get voted out or die?

The Dalai LLama
...wasn't Orrin Hatch one of the wagon drivers on the original pilgrimage from Nauvoo?...

Don't Worry About It

[kc_cyrus]

There is nothing to worry about.

I just have to change my domain from myp2p-app.com to myp2p-app.cn or *.am
Why do i really have to worry about it?

(throwing out mod privs...)

[Ayanami Rei]

I've heard this argument thrown around a lot. Please enlighten me... what strings are attached, and what are the secret hidden agendas?

Re:(throwing out mod privs...)

[EnderWiggnz]

most of the "strings attached" are things like: compliance to the ADA, Title IX, Civil Rights Act, and now, NCLB.

sometimes, the "strings attached" are things like: you must turn over school rosters to military recruiters, you must report "violent acts"...

Previous slashdot discussion and other links

[SiliconEntity]

This has been (very!) widely discussed for the past few weeks. Here's the previous slashdot discussion. Also see the many pointers on Copyfight and Ernie Miller's blog. They've been posting on INDUCE almost daily. Good sources of information.

(what cause?)

[Ayanami Rei]

Re:(what cause?)

[EnderWiggnz]

forced integration/bussing.

the ADA.

Title IX.
---
yup - now that we have to educate blacks, girls and cripples, its suddenly expensive.

Target shooting

[ProfBooty]

It is a very inexpensive and relaxing hobby. Buy a cheap .22, cheap ammo, and you can shoot for a couple hours with 10 bucks in ammo.

Do a search on a hobby called "cowboy action shooting", its pretty neat to watch.

Freedom.... wall?

[AaroneousMaximus]

I hope everyone one gets the double irony of that post. Namely the conflict between the concepts of "freedom" and "wall". I'm sure eventually we'll all end up in our "freedom cages".

Re:Freedom.... wall?

[thecorndogofdoom]

Word...

Quite Orwellian, isn't it?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

(excuse the improper quotation, apparently the lameness filter doesn't like Big Brother, heheh)

Most of the spam comes from China

[Anonymous Coward]

Outlawing the 'net in the USA would have the benefit that the rest (over 90%) of the world would no longer have to suffer and be plagued by your spam.

HA!HA! Most spam comes from China, Russia and Korea.

Orrin Hatch is a software pirate

[JustNiz]

Sorry its so late but I just spotted this:
You gotta read it!

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305, 00 .html

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[AaroneousMaximus]

That's exactly the method of thinking that the RIAA uses. That you have a RIGHT to make money how you choose. Wrong. I could cry all day that I don't get paid to masturbate and eat corn chips, but that doesn't make it economically viable either. You want to get paid for somthing, you need a business model that works. Otherwise i'm not crying for you and your "rights". Not all music is done for crowds or live? Too bad! Maybe you're going to have to if you want some cash, welcome to the twenty first century.

Did you Attach your Check: Re:My letter to Hatch

[takochan]

Did you remember to attach that $10,000 'donation' to your letter..

Oh, you didn't... thats too bad.. off to the wastebin file .. must just be another clueless constituant...

[sarcasm (insight?) off]

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys all still believe in freedom.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

So go back to work in your mine or something and leave the rest of us alone.

What about the first amendment?

[abb3w]

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Doesn't a Xerox copier fall withing this bill's purview? A scanner/printer all-in-one combo unit? A printing press?

I don't get it.

[DJester]

Can someone please explain to me how it works that the majority of Orrin Hatchs contributions come from tech and communication companies (according to opensecrets.org) and yet he's so obviously against technology and inovation.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[Caiwyn]

To reiterate the original poster's assertion:

He is not saying that musicians have the right to make money how they choose. He is saying that they have the right to try to make money how they choose. Your analogy falls apart because no one benefits from you masturbating and eating corn chips, not even weird fetishists who are into that sort of thing, if you do it behind closed doors.

All music has to be done for crowds or live now? Gee, I wonder where your sense of freedom went all of a sudden. You're advocating that musicians be forced to make music a certain way for certain people, and that's far worse than what the RIAA is trying to do.

List of Members of the Committee

[ElForesto]

Why don't you see if one of your senators is on the committee? Write them and let them know what a bad idea this is. Unfortunantly, many senators will not accept correspondence from someone outside their state, so bear this in mind when you get ready to use your pen.

induce != produce!

[werdna]

Orrin Hatch, is moving to outlaw P2P entirely by making it illegal to produce such applications.

No doubt he would like that result, which failed in previous attempts to legislate regulation out of existence, such as the several forms of technology regulation previously advocated by Hollings. But that was not to be.

In any case, S. 2560 does not address production of P2P applications, but rather, the inducement of infringement by a third party. Some background is in order to understand the difference.

DIRECT INFRINGEMENT. Really, the question is when should a person be liable for infringement? One easy answer: when she infringes! Did Sarah infringe a copyright when she reproduced, distributed or made copies of a copyrighted work without consent or any other defense? If so, Sarah needs a lawyer. O/W, she isn't an infringer.

INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT. But then, couldn't Sarah avoid infringement altogether by instructing her employee, Julia, to make the copies for her? Nope! Even though Sarah herself committed no infringing acts (reproducing, distribution or derivation), Sarah engaged in conduct that gives rise to a kind of liability, the genus of which is variously called, indirect, secondary or derivative infringement. There cannot be any kind of secondary liability unless and until some third party actually infringes. Then, the question is when is Sarah liable for Julia's infringement, even though Sarah did not herself commit a prohibited act?

INDIRECT: VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT. The particular species of secondary liability in the Sarah/Julia example is called "vicarious liability," and it derives from the fact that she controlled (in her capacity as employer) the conduct of Julia, directed the infringement and then enjoyed a financial benefit from that control. It is a well-settled idea in copyright law, and offers nothing new to this discussion, except to understand some of what follows.

INDIRECT: CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. Now, what if Sarah didn't ask an employee about this, but new that Sleazy Sammy will take just about any work left in plain sight to infringe? Now, Sarah, knowing SS is going to do the deed, advertently places the copy in a location to facilitate the infringement. This now is the classic example of contributing to the infringement of another. (The classical example is leaving a print of a movie in a place for someone to pirate from.)

So, there you go. Acts of direct infringement by Sarah, she loses. If some third party, either Julia or SS infringe, Sarah might still be liable if she is vicariously responsible or if she contributed to the infringement. Proof of secondary liability is usually trickier, and requires proofs of scienter and financial benefit from the conduct, but varies somewhat, depending on the circuit.

NOW, the copying machine cases. Assume Sarah doesn't even HAVE a copy of the Paul, the plaintiff's, work. However, Sarah makes this really neat new movable type printing press, that can be used to reproduce and facilitate distribution of Paul's stuff. The question is whether Sarah can be liable for Carla Customer's use of the printing press to infringe Paul's work. (Once again, we assume that Carla DID THE DEED, and has no defenses. If she didn't infringe or has no defenses, then Sarah is always off the hook.)

This was a hot issue for awhile, that seemed to be raised by someone literally every time a new duplication or distribution technology is produced, from the player piano, to the radio, to the audio tape machine, to the television, to the video tape machine, to the DAT machines until today, with P2P filesharing technology. Allegations are old news. But what of the law? The problems are that the cost of suing a mass market of customers is often great, but liability creates a risk of deterring the development of useful and important technologies.

Well, the principal case here was the Sony Betamax case, in which the movie studios sued Sony for manufacturing a video-tape recor

Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

[Caiwyn]

Lots of talk here about the unfairness of corporate entities like the RIAA lobbying for bad laws, but no one has really touched on the fact that they're using today's big taboo to sell it to Congress: children.

The scope of the law is nothing new, but the way it's being presented certainly is -- Hatch is arguing that p2p applications induce children to break the law, to become criminals. P2P is sullying the lives of our children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

This disgusts me. I have to agree with George Carlin that children are the new taboo in the United States. Heaven help you if you say anything against the children, and may God have mercy on your soul if you so much as depict a child in a dangerous situation in a movie (thank you, Mr. Spielberg, for ruining E.T.).

Now we have a legislator trying to use the emotional value of the children to sell a bad bill to the rest of Congress. These are similar to the tactics that were used to pass the USA PATRIOT act. Let's hope that Congress has learned its lesson and is paying more attention this time.

Re:Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

[AaroneousMaximus]

Oh absolutely. Remember, P2P is merely the bastion of Terrorists and Pornographers everywhere. The irony of course being that while Kazaa is full of Porn, the pornography industry is more or less in the same boat as the RIAA. But I guess the religious right is too much of a political ally for the RIAA to also-(pardon the pun)- be be in bed with the Pornography industry .

Re:Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

[Caiwyn]

What do you mean? That the porn industry isn't lobbying for this, too? They are, actually. In fact, Titan Media (one of the big internet porn purveyors) has been filing lawsuits much like the RIAA against individuals.

Re:Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

[AaroneousMaximus]

Oh actually EXACTLY what I mean is that the pron industry IS lobbying for this too. Just pointing out the irony in using porn as their demon when they in fact have the same interests.

Let's just outlaw *EVERYTHING*

[Polarism]

Hell, while we're at it let's just nuke ourselves too.

Does this count?

[pyrrhonist]

The bill has powerful backers. Among the bill's co-sponsors are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy from Vermont.

Does this count as a frist psot?

http://action.eff.org/

[Crazen]

Please mod up. At the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) action center it's really easy to do something to help stop things like this. Provide some basic contact information, read the prepared letters (or edit it), if you agree, submit the form for email, or have your computer print out Faxs to your representatives. It couldn't be easier.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[AaroneousMaximus]

You're splitting hairs.

-Make money how they choose
-Try to make money how they choose


Sure they can try all they want, but they are doing somthing for which we are not obligated to pay for whatsoever (see my analogy), there remains no RIGHT to make money there. Even if your'e merely "trying" and not expecting to.

Ya try all you want - within the context of a world where digital distribution exists. If it doesn't work within that context, find a way the works. Live preformances were a suggestion, not an edict thank you.

Arguing for that "right to try" is like me asking for cars to be illegal so that I may protect my "right to try" to make a living as a cart and buggy salesmen.

This is what's known as a FREE MARKET (not that I'm a free market fundementalist). So please don't argue "my sense of freedom".

No no no, get this straight, your freedom to make money is limited to activities that are actually economically valuable one way or another. I'm not advocating musicians be forced BY US to operate a certain manner. I'm stating the very obvious fact of life that musicians, just like everybody else *gasp* must operate as modern technology dictates is economically useful. Deny that, and well, you might as well tell me you should be getting paid to yes, mastrubate and eat corn chips. (re KITH anyone?)



P2P may change what is economically useful in the industry, and maybe artists will have to expand and not be strictly recorders, but then doctors have to use X-rays, construction companies have to use bulldozers ect ect ect. Those are the facts on the ground. If you're going to deny that technology shapes our lives - well then welcome to slashdot.

Legislating said marketplace to suit your own purposes - especially through your Utah-based friends. No, that's restricting freedom.

Protection from ourselves

[RichardX]

I find it interesting that these kinds of measures are inevitably wheeled out in the name of some greater public good, for the benefit of The People though as far as I can see, The People are quite happy sitting at home listening to their MP3s and watching their DivXs, and for the most part aren't too worried about the sky falling.

I know this isn't 100% ontopic, but it's kinda related, and kinda interesting. The other day, for the first time in ages, I bought a DVD. I got home, popped it in my multireigion DivX capable DVD player, and turned it on. What's the first thing I'm greeted with? The movie?

Nope.
A minute long, unskippable demonisation of pirates, telling me how people who pirate movies are out to kill and rape my children (funny.. don't remember having any), and fund terrorism - um, how, exactly? since when do you pay for Bittorrent downloads. And of course, that pirate movies are inevitably terrible quality and will ruin your enjoyment. Funny. I've never been forced to sit through FACT preaching at me on a pirate DVD, and I tend to find that release groups take so much pride in their rips and distribution that the quality is uniformly excellent - indeed, with anime fansubs the fan-released movies often have better subtitling than the officially released ones.

So, their points?
1. Think Of The Children! (oh dear)
2. You're funding terrorism! (without spending)
3. Inferior products! (except.. they're better).

So, can anyone re-order these words into a popular phrase or sentence:
On, stand, leg, to, don't, they, a, have

CRTC, the Canadian cure?

[Allen Zadr]

"Look what the CRTC has done here in Canada to promote stuggling up and comming Canadian artists."

O.K.. I'll bite, what has this government agency done. Are they the ones responsible for taxing all blank digital media with the automatic assumption that it will be used to "infringe"? Yes, that's much better treat everyone like they are a criminal, because it's easy to be one.

"The CRTC has never sold a single record."

I would not expect a government agency to be in the business of selling records, but helping people, yes, that I would expect.

Either way, in a story pretty much dedicated to laughing at the government trying to make a solution for something it doesn't understand, I'd be quite interested in why you think your government has done so much better solving a problem that is (in your own words) an economic problem. I'd be especially interested in how the CRTC specifically uses freely distributed and unregulated P-to-P to accomplish this.

A search on Google didn't do me any good, but I'm probably not searching for the right key words. Could you help me out here?

Re:CRTC, the Canadian cure?

[morgue-ann]

I would not expect a government agency to be in the business of selling records, but helping people, yes, that I would expect.

Well, I'm sure glad my government set up Folkways records through the Smithsonian.

Re:CRTC, the Canadian cure?

[Allen Zadr]

Interesting, but...

The Folkways program was an entirely private (though non-profit) enterprise founded in 1948, and was given to the Smithsonian Institute after the Folkway's Founder's death. The Folkways program has been part of the Smithsonian family of non-profit art/grant programs since 1987.

The Folkways company came into the United State's governments care the same way the Smithsonian Institute did in 1846. The beginnings of the Smithsonian Institute was a stipulation of the will of a rich scientist named Smithson. It has been run as a "public trust" by a board of regents (like most public Universities), since it's inception. The Smithsonian Institute is allowed to sell things and solicit funds, just like a University (or the US Post Office, for that matter).

Basically, I wouldn't say that selling albums is strictly what the 'government of the U.S.' is doing here. There is a relationship between the two, but not directly... If the FCC (strictly a government department, and not a separate entity) were to sell albums directly, then we'd have a similarity to the CRTC issue that I was answering.

Re:CRTC, the Canadian cure?

[AaroneousMaximus]

You're confusing the CPCC with the CRTC. And the point was that artists can be helped without the use of copyright law (as you assured was required), and heavy handege legislation. Furthermore, I don't think it is an "economic problem". The market always adjusts, it just takes differant forms. Maybe there will be no place for fatass corporate record executives. Maybe the new real service will be finding the music that's any good in a sea of mp3s. As long as poeple want music, it will be made. That won't fail. Maybe most musicians will have working class wages, and we get more selection. I don't cry about that. No, today we're supposed to cry for the millionaires who can't keep their iron grip.

Furthermore, I didn't say the CRTC was into P2P. However they, along with CBC has promoted Canadian artists, so as that they have been looked for on P2P's more often. And these up-and-commers have the most to gain from P2P. Sure you can rip off the entire Britney Spears album, but good luck finding more then a few "Doctor" singles. Enough to leave you wanting more. Those who need promotion have the most to gain from P2P, the exact contrary of your former argument.

Re:CRTC, the Canadian cure?

[Allen Zadr]

I couldn't find how the CRTC has been helping musicians, with or without copyright or P-to-P. Thank you for informing me.
It appears that you are saying that the CPCC was behind the "blank digital media tax", and not the CRTC (which I admitted above, and will admit again -- I don't know). Again, thank you for informing me. [Although this action makes it easier to justify P-to-P within Canada, doesn't it?]

I see what you are saying about the CBC promotion of "little artists". Thanks for a great example in "Doctor" ... The promotion slant is great to a certain extent - but yet after August 10th (the release date for "High Is As High Gets"), the entire album will be available for download over P2P -- simply because someone will put it on P2P for mass distribution. The promotion is great (if it's controlled) but at the same time that they should see the benefit [release date] instead - they will see their entire album ripped and available. So much for "hungry for more".

As I also said before, what the band wants to give away for free (or promotion) the band will do so. (See link on their site for Music - Audio and Video to see and hear). I'll bet they are offering the exact same three songs that you are getting from P-to-P, except you didn't have to read the rest of their web site. Seriously, Peer-to-Peer isn't doing them any favors.

P-to-P can be a great tool, but total unfettered access to all digital information (whether or not the copyright holder wants it there) is both it's strength and it's problem. What I'm saying is that if all music is freely available through Peer-to-Peer with no "copyright law", this situation will remove the market, period.

"Maybe the new real service will be finding the music that's any good in a sea of mp3s."

Great idea, Billboard will happily adjust to support MP3s if that's the only way for Billboard to stay in business. But Billboard will not be passing out money (not even 'working class' wages) to music writers and performers.

Another important point is that a large amount of music is written by music writers who currently get "working class wages" because of music distribution and copyright law. After you take away distribution accountability, how will the writer get paid? It will no longer matter who wrote the song. The "industry suits" will adjust, they will still get the money. Now they won't have any accountability to have to give any of their money to the "little" people who's shoulders they always have and always will stand upon.

Seriously, P-to-P doesn't help. I don't think it should be banned either, but when it's used for copyright materials, it's not helping anybody.

RIAA (Surprise!)

[Esion Modnar]

The RIAA would be in favor of repealing the Bill of Rights, if it served their bottom line. Of course, they know they couldn't openly support such an action, since the shock to the middle class would probably spur a revolution which would end with the RIAA members being among the first against the wall.

No blind folds either.

Only one thing to do...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Orin Hatch's email address? Each and every one of us should email him an "illegally" ripped MP3 (preferably a very large one) along with a note insisting that he shut down his email server, as it is being used to facilitate copying of music!

Outlaw paper too!

[prowley]

This is the equivalent of outlawing the printing press or paper itself, and I would an argument could be made for it outlawing the free press (or at least medium of it). Laws that make technology illegal are always stupid laws that block progress. This one seeks to outlaw something that is already illegal through another, more sinister, avenue.

Out You Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the eject button for the Senator?

a well placed car bomb should do the trick

[Anonymous Coward]

what was the question?

hey timothy, wrong "Topic"

[nusratt]

Like a lot of other p2p & DRM stories, this one would more properly have Tech / Net / Business / Media etc. (instead of "USA") as its "primary category".

Which, slashdotters, is just an oblique way of me saying the following (no, i wasn't just being an OT anal jerk) . . .
Given recent history and trends in matters of
-- global trade, trade agreements,
-- trans-national law-enforcement / internet-regulation,
-- and the covers-all-sins category of "fighting terrorism",
NOTHING which the US government does (in these matters) is really USA-specific. The USA is the proverbial 400kg-gorilla-in-the-room.
While it's true that it's the corporations who are really behind this stuff, and that those corporations are truly international, the fact remains that the US government is, far and away, the biggest weapon in the corporations' arsenal.

People outside the US really need to start giving their own governments more push-back about resisting US pressure on trade / tech / net issues.

(On the some-what related issue
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0 6/29/21 7209
about the USDOJ refusing to disclose its records of non-US lobbyists, non-USers should pressure *their* governments to disclose those lobbyists' activities.)

On the original topic of the US p2p legislation: remember how the US has made banking-outcasts of countries which won't betray the trust of their account-holders?
Well, imagine this:
"All ISPs and telcos who want to keep doing business in the US, must now start enforcing US standards for Net usage, in ANY other country they service."
Do you REALLY think it would be such a stretch for the US to say something like that?

Don't forget...

[StarKruzr]

... the emerging phenomenon of wireless mesh networking, which this bill would surely outlaw as well.

I seriously cannot stand Orrin Hatch. I used to be a Sean Hannity listener until he had Hatch on his program (who proceeded to bump me off the line as a caller, btw).

Copyright holders (especially media copyright holders): Wake the fsck up. Your existing business model has been obviated by technology. No amount of legislation can save it now. FIGURE OUT SOMETHING ELSE.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[Caiwyn]

Arguing for that "right to try" is like me asking for cars to be illegal so that I may protect my "right to try" to make a living as a cart and buggy salesmen.

That analogy still doesn't fit. People aren't still getting carts and buggies in that scenario. But people downloading music via p2p rather than buying it on CD or through iTunes are still listening to the same songs. Your analogy only works if there is a better product by comparison, and there isn't in this case. The comparison is between distribution mechanisms.

Remember, the music is the product/service, not the media it's on. As Allen pointed out, if it has no value, then why do people feel compelled to obtain/share it?

You are right to point out that p2p, and technology as a whole, will change what is economically viable. And that is what drives a free market, to be sure. But p2p and technology have done nothing to change the value of music as an experience for people. It might have changed the delivery system, it might have changed the medium through which it is obtained, but the music itself, the way it is produced and experienced, remains unchanged.

I don't want to criminalize p2p, but I don't want so many folks thinking recorded music is or should always be free for the taking. If anything, I would prefer that people pay for what they consume of their own volition, and I don't think it's so much to ask -- that people have enough respect for the work of others that they either pay the requested price for it or abstain from enjoying it. Is that really so much to ask?

Legislating said marketplace to suit your own purposes - especially through your Utah-based friends. No, that's restricting freedom.

Agreed. No one is arguing with this.

M isn't for money

[celeritas_2]

What happened to the gold old days when artists made art? Today most artists and artisans only whore themselves to the corporation and turning our society into a police state where you have to pay for the air you breathe. Open Source is the solution, the cure, not just open software, but open everything. The idea of a corporation is destroying our freedom. One day long ago, my country came into being by declairing independance from an oppressive king who had a monopoly on goods for the people and thus charged too much for everything. Today is a new day, a new age when the corporation is king with more power then ever before. Dare I say we declair independance once again?

Technology vs. Power

[AaroneousMaximus]

We can talk about music, but this whole scenario is a sythtom of a greater trend. We live in a society where technologcal development is supposed to make life better by audimating things. A technology has been developed that could - theoretically - completely audimate the music distribution process. So why doesn't everyone get everything for free? Oh because we're so worried about the economic establishment, can it be viable blah blah blah. Oh sure, maybe differant people will make the money, maybe not as much money will be made, but the job will be done. There will always be a market for music. Somehow, one way or another, really let's be serious. Sure the way we listen to it may change, or how much, when, what type. Music after all is culture, and culture changes with technology. We know this already, we can find many examples of it. Do we fear this change? No of course not. If We were only to fear technology no progess would be made. Instead we blaze forward like we always have. If we start second guessing that technology makes life better, where do we stop? Might as well go back to the stone age. Sure, I believe in a Pandora's box, but we can't be second guessing ourselves as engineers. So the center issue reamains, is our society really based on innovation and advancement, or is it like so many before it, merely based upon the control of power. The power of the record companies to gouge us for somthing we don't need (an obsolete distribution network). The power of Orrin Hatch to be re-elected thanks to campaign contributions from his corparte buddies which he has made a career in doing favours for. So make up your mind. The bravery to ebrace innovation, or the cowardice in the protection of the powerful (Like the RIAA to ensure us our music).

Hatch Perpetual Motion Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Orin Hatch opens his mouth and says what you would expect him to say.
2) Slashdotters freak out en masse.
3) The rest of the world ignores him until his latest ill-informed bill dies in committee.
4) Repeat.

P.S.

[Alsee]

P.S.
Yes, my post was hoaring for teh Funny Karma! And by replying to myself now I can get double teh Funny Karma!

-

Re:Norway. Don't waste your time.

[nusratt]

"the majority of the population now favours integration"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlarge ment_of_the_Eu ropean_Union#Norway

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[Allen Zadr]

Woa, nelly!

You are putting the cart before the horse, here.

The argument you are making makes it sound like it's perfectly O.K. to steal a buggy, add an engine to sell a car.

The fundamentals are not changing here. The economics may be, but the fundamentals are not. The basics are still the same. Someone writes music, someone else (maybe the same person, but quite often not) records that music. Give it away, sell WPAs or AIFs, or sell it on CD, LP or Cassette - the basics have not changed.

If you follow me so far, that's good. There has been no displacement of the basic technology of "music". Distribution is another issue.

Now, neither of us (Caiwyn or myself), have ever said that anti P-to-P legislation is a good thing. However, this sub-thread popped up in which someone claimed that music no longer has any value. Since that time, I have been claiming that music does have value, and that value is why copyright laws exist to make your econmoic "easy infringement" illegal.

How those laws have been defined for the last 25 years is just fine with me, and I don't see the need to change those laws. Make a tape for a buddy - I don't care. Make 20 digital copies for your "actual friends and family", whatever. Drop a digital distribution point onto the open internet, that's where I have a problem.

Further, I'm far more interested in finding the people who are doing the sharing than the consumers of said copies.

Go ahead and bring up the old "drug" argument. Since there is no financial advantage to those who distribute music for free over the open internet, if there is any punishment to be had, the availability will decline rapidly. Thus the problem would quickly solve itself (it already has started).

When P-to-P first got popular, nobody really thought about it's legality. The fall of Napster changed that. Now everybody is pretty well aware. Those who have any fear at all have turned off their sharing side making much of the classic P-to-P hot apps useless realms of nothing but the current top 50.

Suing children is bad business, sure, but sharing MP3s is illegal for a reason. The idea that music is a commodity with no value does not make sense. if there is zero money, then there will be no music specialists. The only jobs available in music will be for bar-bands, lounge acts, and the "stars" will be commercial jingle writers. The world needs more Barry Manilow's... Sounds great.

Digital "free" distribution will not kill the music industry. Legal or not, the industry itself will survive. Go back to selling TVs or Liquor or AOL Internet Access. What will die is the ability of musicians to make a living.

So "The Artist/Slave/Prince" thing will become even more common-place, and laws will have even less of an ability to protect them. All artists remain poor, and republicans will bitch about why the bleeding heart democrats feel the government needs to hand out musical grants to the "starving musicians" -- but only if they don't sing about "shit", "fuck", "satan", "damn", "sex", "drugs" or "rape". Or "Haliburton" for that matter.

What about F/OSS?

[generationxyu]

What about gnutella, Poisoned, mlnet, or any other number of GPLd P2P apps? Obviously this would make it illegal to make a profit off them, but what about when there's no profit to be had?

childish bickering

[nusratt]

so much of this thread has been,
"Stealing is Wrong!" "It's not stealing." "yes it is!" "no it's not!" "shut up!" "no, YOU shut up!"

Those people are missing the point.
It's not about p2p / stealing being right or wrong.
It's about someone trying to make it illegal to OWN OR SELL OR MAKE hand-tools, merely because they can be used to commit burglary.

the best solution: Carrot & Stick

[nusratt]

So many problems would simply disappear . . . tax the storage

Look! Another uninformed assumption from anti-P2P!

[One Childish N00b]

This might be a little offtopic, and this might be a little bit of an old point (or two), but it needs to be made. Not all P2P is criminal activity or takes bread from the mouths of 'starving artists'. I think we're all collectively tired of corporations, 'associations' and politicians treating everyone like a criminal.

- Some people don't mind distribution of their material via P2P. Hell, a lot of stuff that goes over P2P networks is public domain anyway.

Case in Point: My band (admittedly small) would be perfectly OK with everyone downloading our material over the latest and greatest P2P app all they want - simply because it's nice to know that as 'artists' (not trying to sound artsy about a hobby here) our art is being appreciated enough that people will take the time to download it. If people want to buy it, sure, that's great, but download all you want. I'm sure we're not the only band who thinks this way, either.

- Do these people know just how many people buy CDs after hearing a song or two via P2P? Here's something people like the RIAA don't seem to believe exists: I *like* owning the albums of music I like - I'm a collector at heart, really, and no real collector wants cheaply-made fakes in their set. My gf is an avid classic-comic collector, and she wouldn't settle for downloading and printing off the pages when she could buy the original, even if it did cost a lot of money to buy - While it's not strictly the same thing, I would much rather own the real CD than some burned copy I downloaded off the net.

I'd say around 2/3rds of the CDs I've bought in the last three years have been by artists that I first heard downloading songs via P2P. Sure, there have been bands I've downloaded MP3s of and haven't liked, but that's not a 'lost sale' - I wouldn't have bought it anyway - I don't buy what I don't like. (I think one of the things they hate about P2P is people can sample a band before they buy their album, rather than just buying what the record co.'s say is great).

What they've *gained* is a *lot* of ACTUAL sales from me due to P2P, and I'm sure I can't be the only one.

I'd like to say I'm glad I don't live in the US, as I'd hate for your erosion of freedom to happen here, but unfortunately I live in the UK, so I know whatever you guys pass, I'm going to get rammed down my neck in a few months time - but at least I have time to brace myself!

Lier?

[smashin234]

"I do believe that peer-to-peer file-sharing networks are here to stay" from: http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_member_statement .cfm?id=623&wit_id=51 So the famous senetor from Utah says that. And then he turns around and talks about how people share out personal information and that it is a security risk for both individuals and for the Government. How is making it possible to get sued making P2P software going to make it safer? No one will innovate if their reward is going to be the gov. on their ass. So instead of encouraging safer P2P (which he gives unstantiated claims that is unsafe), he tries to kill it off. Does he really believe it is here to stay? I wish I lived in Utah so I could vote this lier out of office.

My letter to Mr. Hatch:

[Newer Guy]

Dear Senator Hatch:

I saw that you wish to make all P2P applications illegal. Indeed, your quote said: "It is illegal and immoral to induce or encourage children to commit crimes,"

I have a request, Senator Hatch. Instead of making software programs, illegal can we make GUNS illegal? After all, it's been proven time after time that guns: "Induce or encourage children to kill each other" (my quote). To me, keeping kids alive is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT then keeping them from downloading the latest Britney Spears single off the Internet! Of course, I suppose if you let kids kill each other, then they can't download things - Right?

Perhaps this is your logic in trying to 'protect' kids from the wrath of the RIAA, while supporting the guns that they use to kill each other. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps you should encourage the RIAA and MPAA to distribute guns to children.

Of course, what I've just typed is 100% absurd, but no more so then your proposal to make p2p programs illegal. Not only is your proposed law absurd, but it also is quite likely unconstitutional. See, we have a Supreme Court in this country, which in the "Betamax" decision many years ago declared that techology that can be used for both illegal and legal puproses cannot be banned. Again, the MPAA was fighting Sony in this case to stop the VCR from existing. Ironically, the VCR (via movie rentals on tape) became one of their biggest profit centers.

Of course, if you're truly hell bent on shredding everyone's Constitutional rights, while you're at it, it would help the book industry by banning the copier, scanner and laser printer. This would also keep children (and adults) from breaking the law.

OH...and let's also make alcohol illegal (again!). That will discourage childern from drinking (and driving!).

Mr. Hatch, what I mainly want from my government is to keep me safe from enemies, foreign and domestic. That's it. I don't WANT you to be my nanny, nor do I want you to insert yourself into how I raise my children! Since you all seem to be doing a lousy job of keeping us safe from enemies, why not make that job #1 instead of wasting time keeping childern safe one MP3 at a time?

Thank you. XXXXXXx

Indict, try, and then punish Hatch by rule of law

[cryophan]

I am not advocating any illegal acts here, but the ruling elite of our country are selling us out to the corporations, and we should organize and take action at the ballot box to punish Hatch and his ilk. And this treason by Hatch, et al., will continue until we humilate and shame and send to lasting infamy some of these traitors. That will serve as an example and a deterrent to future politicians.

As it is now, traitors like Hatch are in a win-win situation--there is NO punishment for this treason. if they get thrown out of office, they will make even more money working as lobbyists for the corporations. We need deterrents to this kind of treason.

Here is how we can make this country a country that works to serve its citizenry, and not the ruling elite, the wealthy, the corporations: First, we elect representatives who say they will indict, try, and punish these politicians who have sold out the people to corporations.

Then they can write laws under which these traitors may be indicted.

They we indict and try them in a court of law.

Then we punish them publicly when they are found guilty. The Stocks? Flogging? Life in prison? These punishments are well suited for this type of treason.

We can do this. We have the power as granted to us by the Constitution. It starts here. One step at a time.

Why should traitorous politicians like Hatch get away with this. Why should dirt-poor young men give their lives in uniform just so they can scratch out a living, and meanwhile the imperial ruling elite like Hatch betray us without fear of the slightest harm?

These ruling elite should pay for their crimes after being tried and found guilty in a court of law. And they are guilty, no doubt of that. If you and I and our peer citizenry sit in the jury box, do you doubt conviction?

We have freedom of speech in the USA, at least for now. But you use, or you lose it!

You think such a plan is impossible? It is not! Not if you and I and 50% of the voters in each state believe it can be done, and then go do it at the ballot box.

Re:Profit? Uh...no.

[Alsee]

"Hatch says such firms 'think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal."
Thankfully I only use P2P programs that are GPL, and thus free as in beer, so little if any profit motivation there.

Hatch repeatedly lies or missrepresents in his text about the bill. There was a recent Slashdot link extensively analizing and ridiculing Hatch's BS about the bill, but I don't have the link handy.

Anyway, one of the main points was that Hatch was full of BS when he talks about 'profit'. The bill itself nowhere mentions profiting. The bill just as much targets GPL hobbyist contributors.

YOU! Your free contribution to this eeeevil p2p software induces infringment! Execution at sunrise for you! Ah screw it, just shoot him now.

-

Betamax

[Irvu]

Actually the sole purpose of this legislation is to functionally overturn Betamax making it effectively undone. IOf passed this legislation would effectively nullify betamax. If you read Hatch's 'arguments' (asnine rants) in favor of the legislation that is exactly what the bastard is saying.

Minimal implementation?

[Anarchofascist]

What is the smallest implementation of a P2P application? Can a simple (say, central-database-based) P2P application be written to fit onto a T-shirt?

'Cos if you write it, and print it, I'll buy it.

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post! Makes wading through them all worth it!

Bipartisanship

[Randym]

New legislation recently introduced by a group of powerful U.S. senators would allow artists and entertainment companies to sue creators of products, such as peer-to-peer (P-to-P) software, that "induce" copyright violations.

The bill has powerful backers. Among the bill's co-sponsors are Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy from Vermont.

So: not *only* do we have ignoramuses making law, but they are from *both sides of the aisle*. Seriously, guys, why don't you just OUTLAW FREEDOM, instead of nibbling away at it piecemeal?

Also, it is truly amazing that they can excoriate corporations for "stealing", but then turn a blind eye to the Enrons, Exxons and Halliburtons -- you know, the corporations who actually steal (but it's all *legal* stealing -- so that's 'OK'.)

And -- to the readers who made it this far -- what are *you* doing to ensure that these blockheads aren't going to be re-elected this November? Aren't you tired of the elites running America like it was their own personal fiefdom?

Libertarian copyrights

[argoff]

I consider myself libertarian, but unfortunately there are alot of libertarians out there that still see copyright as some kind of free market property right rather than the obtusive, intrusive, overbearing government regulation on information use that it really is. I guess if someone declares something a property right for long enough, people will start to believe it.

On the other hand most libertarians do recognise that there are god laws that justly address damaging choices, vs bad laws that simply try to controll peoples choices (usually on the grounds that if people have that choice, they will do damaging things, eg making gun ownership illegal because people can misuse guns). This law is clearly about controling choices, and not about justice.

It is a very sad one too, because every indication is that all the next generation technology will be p2p. Be it for CPU, files, calls, data, collaberation, searching, and even finance.

Re:Libertarian copyrights

[Bob_Robertson]

I think you'll find that the core libertarian, as opposed to Party Libertarians, agree with you completely.

May I suggest the writings of L. Neil Smith, where he speculates on the speed of scientific and social development in an environment without patents and copyright?

Simply returning copyright to the limited scope written into the American constitution (by elitist nobility-wannabe's) would go a long way to removing the abuses you address.

Bob-

Hm...

[Aeiri]

In related news, a bill outlawing VCRs and DVD burners was proposed yesterday. RCA, Sony, Pioneer, and Philips, all members of the RIAA, would be forced to shut down for creating devices that allow children to steal TV shows and movies if this bill passes.

The RIAA is strongly opposed to this bill, quoted saying "WE R BIG BIZNIZ!" to the press.

Re:Not Madness, Laziness

[symbolic]

The failed business model in question is the record companies' stranglehold on the music industry.

This "stranglehold" is totally imagined, and if anything, it's totally self-induced. We, the consumer public, have gotten, and will continue getting, exactly what we've been paying for. We must, because otherwise, we wouldn't continue paying for it, right? But we do. Who is really to blame for prolonging and exacerbating the copyright problem? Is it the companies who own the material, or is it our fault for continuing to fill their warchest with our money?

How to really piss off hackerdom

[ediron2]

... the bill, S. 2560 does not address ...

Now, if Orrin was big on irony, he'd have timed this to be S. 2600.

Like the old ad said: It's not nice to fsck with brother hacker.

Hey Utah!

[Black Jack Hyde]

Why not try voting the son of a bitch out of office?

Lawyer logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that automobile manufacturers should be prevented from making cars since drivers speed (and break other laws) using that logic.

Geez - what an idiot.

Re: Even telling him...

[Crudely_Indecent]

It wouldn't be illegal if he was gagged and couldn't talk back, and you included a facility to prevent the message from being recorded and played back or shared with others. Then it would be just a broadcast compliant with RIAA standards.

P2P Legislation not addressing the problem

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
It seems to me that the BEST way to deal with this is to bring back the idea of doing something because it is The Right Thing To Do. Since it is so easy to get a copy of music or software for a computer, it seems "harmless" to the average person. And, frankly, if their reason for getting a copy is to check it out before buying a legal copy, I have no problem with that at all.
However, too many of us believe it is "ok" to grab a copy of some software without paying for it, then go on and use it because we like it and it does what we need. That is NOT the "Right Thing To Do", because when you do that, you are, without a question taking cash out of the pocket of the company or person that created that software or music.
Whether or not we excuse this by the lame reason that "the big corporations charge too much" or "the artist will only get pennies of the cost" is meaningless. If you truly want to do "The Right Thing", then find a way to adequately reimburse the producer of the music or software.
There are a lot of sources of free, or nearly free music these days...say...your public library, or, the radio.
When I share a book with a friend, I hadn the physical book over to them, they read it, and, then they give it back to me. If you did the same thing with software or music, I suspect it would be ethically ok. However, making a COPY of that item, and giving it away, is just wrong.
I realize that this is probably meaningless to most of the folks out there, but, ethics do matter, both in the real world where we interact with each other, and, in the metaphysical world of our spirit, and whether or not it is a growing lively thing, or, being dragged down by all the questionable acts we perform.

It is tough to do, but, let's try to Do The Right THing, and, train our chuldren to do the same thing. In the long run, the world will become a better place, and, I suspect that a lot of the unpleasant things we see on the news today will go away.
Regards
Dave Mundt

that's 'our' government

[sh123469]

Just goes to show you how out-of-touch with reality the dimwitted corporate puppets we were dimwitted enough to elect really are.

It's time to vote out the lot of them. Every one that is corrupt, criminal, on the corporate take, etc. should be ousted. There are a few that actually want to do some good and they should be supported by getting rid of the deadwood that is stifling progress.

Keep voting out the lot until the message gets through that the public runs the government not the other way around.

The mass copying of music should be an indicator to the purveyors of copyrights, restrictive marketing, etc. that something is wrong with the current situation and should be fixed. At least, it should let our 'elected' people in congress know that the public doesn't agree with the laws as they currently are written.

If you produce a quality product at a reasonable price, people will buy it instead of going through the hassle of trying to make a decent copy.

When you buy a CD, you are paying for the music and hopefully at some point, the artist(musicians) see some of the money resulting from their work. We are not paying for the music to be obliterated, in some cases almost beyond recognition, with idiotic quality destroying copy protection schemes. The quality of the music has already been degraded enough by being digitized.

We aren't paying for, in the case of DVD's, long commercials (trailers of additional movies(put them in a trailers menu item don't force us to see them)), forced propoganda from the regime (FBI warnings), trailers of the current movie before seeing the movie.

We are paying for the actual disk (media) on which it is shipped. That is our property. We are also paying for fair use of the content of the media that we own.

Making copies of copyrighted materials for others is wrong.

Use of P2P for violating copyrights is wrong but there are so many other good uses to which we can put this technology that we should definitely not stifle its development.

Legislation like this proposal has one primary result, it forces people to go underground and make much better programs.

The day this passes, which it won't, we will have to 'pull the plug' on the internet in the US. By providing the means to move the data, it is conducive to such conduct as moving and sharing data.

Senate Outlaws WRITING a file sharing app?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

um...I'd be curious to know how many senators will get pegged on this one. *DING*, here's a fine to you Senator Foo. Oh, btw, your daughter owes the MPAA a cold billion dollars for stealing the My Little Pony movie... Also, these apps were designed to SHARE FILES...not infringe on someone's Intel. Prop. Are laws really going to change the social norm to discourage this behavior? I think not. That's like outlawing the production of cars because they can be used to smuggle Drugs. FOR cryin' out loud, when are the dipshits on the hill going to realize that they DO NOT have the answers (or intellect for that matter) to solve these issues.

Re:Norway. Don't waste your time.

[Mr. Neutron]

Will Smith: "Aw, HELL no!"

Oh well, there's always Tur^H^H^HPol^H^H^HLith^H^H^H^HKhazakstan

Someone explain to me.

[Atario]

I don't get it. Someone out there keeps voting for this lunatic. Who? And for the love of all that is sane, why?

P2P is inevitable

[presidenteloco]

Or more precisely, encrypted, fragmented, redundant, auto-roaming, self-healing, auto-coalescing, smart-data stores are inevitable. If you want to call that P2P, so be it.

The point is, CONTENT will be DIVORCED from LOCATION! It's as inevitable an advance as the very "interweb" itself was.

Can we handle this level of freedom and info-anarchy as a society? Who knows but we're going to be faced with it. Some puny US senator
(or senate or whatever) or two ain't going to stop it.

Architecture is politics. Politics can't control the info-architecture. The P2P architecture of the near future is an emergent system. A meme with its own self-replicating power. It's like trying to stop the common cold.

Read the f#*^^$#@ text of the bill

[Teancum]

The actual text of this bill really isn't that long. For the link impared, this is the formal text of the bill:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(g)(1) In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.

*******************

With all the knee jerk anti-Republican anti-anything sentiment on /., I am really surprised that nobody actually posted the contents of the bill itself.

The problem with this bill is that it is overly broad and can mean quite a bit to many people, and is so broad that it actually forces judges into interpreting this in whatever manner they really want to. This is especially surprising when Mr. Hatch's own website is railing on the fact that judges are ruling in areas he feels should be regulated by congress. A clue to Senator Hatch: If you don't want judges making arbitrary rulings, don't give them bills like this that allow this sort of broad judgement that makes them to have to create new laws for every arbitrary and silly concept that comes up.

Frankly, this is a poorly written bill, and should be killed for that reason alone.

What, from my reading of the above text can tell, this allows any system that allows bits to be copied in any manner, including chip manufacturers that incorporate the "MOV" opcode in their CPUs, to be potential targets of this legislation. By creating the "MOV" opcode in their CPU designs, they are intentionally creating a device that "intentionally aids, abets, induces, and procures and creates acts a reasonable person would find to induce copyright infringement". We are not talking P2P networks, but going much lower than that here.

Computers are information storage and retrevial devices. They work because they copy data and information all over the place. You can litterally sneeze, press the wrong key, and send a "copy" of any data that is on your computer to anybody in the world that is connected to your PC.

How this would more than likely be read by judges is that stuff like DeCSS would be illegal, because its purpose is to defeat copyright protection. I even think that was the intention of Sen. Hatch in this case. That is also why P2P networks of most sorts would also be declared illegal, although that is starting to get into more grey areas.

Where I wish that legslation would have gone, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is to go after hardcore(??) software pirates. I.E. people who make it their livelyhood to produce copies of copyrighted works without payment to the original authors/companies that make the copyrighted material. I could name many cases that I know of personally where for-profit companies, in some cases even with a business license and chartered corporations, in the USA (not some far-off country that has more liberal copyright laws), have copied computer software with impunity and only bought a single copy when they've sold hundreds of copies out of their store or business.

The key is the act of copyright

NEO Conservatism!

[Newer Guy]

True conservatives DO want Govt. out of peoples' lives as much as possible. Peoblem is, they represent the minority of the republican party today. The majority are what I call NEO Conservatives. These people, mostly right wingers WANT the government to intrude into its citizens' lives - as long as it's pushingg THEIR dogma upon them!! For example, look at Pat Buchanan. He's really upset at what his party has become. A true conservative would be, because they want Govt. OUT of people's lives. I had thought that John McCain was a true conservative too, but after I saw him drop to his knees and blow G.W. Bush last week, I write him off as a simple opportunist.

Bah.. Non productif 29 Billion Dollars

[Klanglor]

They added up all the 3DS, Maya and Photoshop that teenagers download just to be wanabe 1337...

I bet that if you add up the money in the pockets of all these teens around the would you would merly get 1 million dollars!

This is the classic invalid insurance clam, you know, the guy who has a big wearhouse that is loaded with 29Billions "worth" of equipment, but no customer can realy actualy buy one of them since it would cost like 10years of their paycheques. So what does the company do? He burns his wearhouse before he goes bankrupt to claim his insurance money at "his" MSRP.

Same story here, some softco, just want to alianate potential buyers to claim his insurance claim (which most of the time will be rejected and left with no wearhouse nor money.. MPAA, RIA, SCO?)

It is a stupid business strategy, even Microsoft is not realy pushing against piracy. He it says it does, but count the number of illegal copies around the world, you know they are not realy pushing it.

Now Imagine, the day that Microsoft, publish longhorn with a UNCRACKABLE RSA 1024Bit encription requiring a special BIOS to run it. BIOS will be free of charge, but you will have to pay 600$
20% of its userbase may pay up, 20% will stick with win95/2k, 60% will go to linux or MacOS to protest or maintain their budget.

Hey 600$ OS+ 1400$ = SLOW Memory Hug LongHorn, vs 1299 for a cooly stylish iMAC with MacOS Tiger running fast as lighting.

Thank you for reading uptill the end.

PS: I just notice the funny subtil joke "Redmond, We Got A Problem, The Tiger X is eating our Catles!"

Senators try to step in where they shouldn't

[shadowarts]

I don't think senators really know what they are talking about. In the past few years they really seem to show this. Either that or they are planning to take over the whole world. Think about it, they stop the internet, and computers for that sense, now won't be confused by fancy things. Then they just keep making laws until there are no more laws left to makes, now what do we have? As for me why don't we make real useful laws. Like a law saying commericials can't be louder than regular TV shows, that annoyes me and everyone I know. They just seem to wan't to crush computers.

Re:Misuse of "steal" again, sigh - and "piracy"

[dunstan]

Piracy is still rife in some parts of the world, and not only do shipping firms lose their vessels and cargoes but the crews are often murdered as well.

D.

It happened in Florida

[phlack]

The school budgets didn't increase at all. The money coming in from gambling replaced taxpayer funds - it wasn't added to them.

Check out this article. Granted, it's an editorial piece, but it is pretty accurate.

Something the article doesn't say...for the couple of years after the lotto was instated, education was highly funded. Only afterwards were the original funds slowly siphoned away, so now instead of the lotto being used as an enhancement, it's pretty much replaced the original funding.

The children of Florida thank Governor Jeb Bush for his wisdom.

Re:Liberals should be HAPPY about this...

[doppleganger871]

I see that I have hit a nerve. Well done.

Legal Distinctions

[digitalarena]

How curious that this should be picked as a target for such a law change. There is surely a legal distinction between *Correct use* and *Abuse*.

Manufacture of firearms is not illegal, in fact fireing a firearm is not illegal. Homicide however *is* illegal.

The logic that prompts this call about P2P seems to say, "If this technology can be used illegally, then we should make the technology illegal".

If true, this logic has more important problems to solve. For example:
* Close the whole internet down and make it's use illegal because of illegal spam, hate sites, and evil and illegal sites that promote other human misery, that cause more problems and misery than any form of media piracy.
* Outlaw the use of the Motor Car because they have been used for homicide, robberies, manslaughter... a whole host of other crimes worse than media piracy.

But while we know of the problems with those technologies, we know that outlawing them will not solve the root of the problems.

So why pick on P2P? and not some major carriers or contributors of Manslaughter, Homicide or worse???

Because someone has an axe to grind..? And it's not the public interest axe.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[AaroneousMaximus]

What will die is the ability of musicians to make a living. How do you know that? With all the music flying round P2P, finding music will be a service with a value. Radio will come into this. It already has. Perhaps however with no monopolies the market will be much more wide upon, and artists which can independantly distrubute will find indpendent internet dj's to promote them. People with taste will gain notoriety. It can work, but it will be differant.

My guess however is that, due to your political bias', you fear change. "Bleeding heart" indeed. Oh yes, gearing public policy to help people that need help *gasp* how horrible! A working class steelworker looses his job overseas to a korean. That's progress. An autoworker to a robot? Progress. A record executive to a P2P network. Oh, that's a new economic model which will destroy the ecomomic viability.

Bah, sorry if I balk on that one. Markets don't colapse as long as people want somthing. The differance is who's interest's you're looking out for. And as any good Republic - it's the rich and powerful.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[AaroneousMaximus]

-Analogy doesn't fit

I wasn't making the point that a superiour product has been invented. I was making the point that markets don't colapse when people do things differantly.

-People should pay for anything that enrighes their life.

Why? If they don't need to that is. If technology provides that is. Isn't that the ultimate goal of automation? Make things available with as little human resources commited as possible? Maybe people will have to pay for people to sift through the crap to find anything that is good. A "DJ" service rather than record executives finding acts on their on fruition, because they can sell them after that. It's backwards to the current model, but hey, it could work.

Don't fear the technology. Figure out how to use it.

Re:Senator Hatch

[adzoox]

Found this in metamod -

You don't bring up a good analogy with cars and speeding -

Cars go faster than the posted speed limits because

A) Cars are international - you can drive a car overseas/they are sold overseas where there are very high speed limits or no speed limits.

B) Many car companies have argued that high speedometers save lives - merging for instance is actually a legal means of breaking the speed limit. If you get pulled for speeding during a merge and were not speeding for more than 1/4 mile - you can get out of the ticket.

"Incidentally, unlike speeding, no one was ever killed by someone using a P2P application to break the law."

You don't know this to be 100% true either. Some local band could've found out someone was putting their music online and then "rubbed them out" for it.

You took the parent's "some" comments and turned them in to all comments and tried to make a point with analogies that didn't fit in this case.

If computers become weapons...

[AlexanderYoshi]

... will that mean that we will always have the right to own computers? If so, that could be very cool. Actually, if we look at the internet as well, computers become an access point to the first ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By using computers, we can create religions (see the Church of Google), create our own private press (see slashdot.org), assemble (see any IRC server from here to LA), and now be treated as weapons (see above post). The Use of Computers just might be the largest distillations of these amendments in the last 60 years.

Maybe we need to make a 28th Amendment - "The Right to Compute" just in case the first two aren't enough. :-)

-Alex

John Taylor Gatto

[Bob_Robertson]

If you really do like what are called "public schools" in America today, please read something by John Taylor Gatto.

While I would very much like to simply agree to disagree about your various other cited reasons, I cannot by law do so. I am forced to pay for them whether I agree with it or not, or be imprisoned and robbed to pay for them anyway.

Have a nice day.

Bob-

Hope

[Bob_Robertson]

Dan, forgive me for replying twice.

I just ran across an essay that you might find interesting. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1559

The author, Murry Rothbard, was an astounding writer with remarkable breadth of knowledge. His writing (and I'm told speaking) style is easy and clear, much better than my own.

I look forward to reading your impression.

Bob-

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[Allen Zadr]

How do you know that? With all the music flying round P2P, finding music will be a service with a value."

Let me turn your question back around. If Peer-to-Peer is the primary form of music distribution, then how will the Song writer get paid?

If Peer-to-Peer is the right way to go, great, but how does a song writer make a living? That's my question. Answer that to my satisfaction, and I'll be more than happy to agree that no-one is going to be hurt.

There are multiple (hundreds) of examples of good, popular songs that were not popular until performed by a different band. There are hundreds of examples of songs that were never performed by the original song-writer. Stephen Bishop (Songs performed by other performers) is one example of this type of song writer.

Here's what I balk at...
Vigilante Economics: If you think that P2P will even put a dent in the pockets of the record executives, you are kidding yourself. Sony Music will always sell televisions, radios, cameras. Music is a drop in their bucket. Seagrams will still sell liquor. AOL Time Warner will always sell magazines, television shows and Internet Access. It becomes unprofitable, they move on. They have other things to do. AND They will still hold the keys to the few profitable outlets left. (Music Videos, Concert Promotion, etc.). Profitable for the promoter, and the performer, but not the writer.

If it's just digital distribution you are talking about, fine. But in order to not effect a song-writer's month-to-month paycheck, said digital distribution has to have some sort of reliable copyright controls.

Am I scared, yes. Scared of people like you who think that nobody will be hurt except the mega-rich record executives.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[AaroneousMaximus]

-Sony Music will always sell televisions, radios, cameras.

Sony corporation is a large manufacturer of electronics as well as recordings. I didn't say it would colapse, but ya, I doubt that everyone will keep their job. And like many factory workers before them, that's not nessicarily a bad thing. On the contrary for sony to then move on to make that money in the electronics to play the music is EXACTLY what I'm advocating.

How the artist gets paid

Maybe they won't! For the recording itself that is. That's what I mean by "differant economic model". Maybe the incentive for finding music will increase, because the record contract model is obselete. This would likely force up the price of airtime on radio (IP, RF, or otherwise). A popular artist on radio could then sell the right to have future recordings at a radio station done at a higher price. A pay-to-record rather than a pay-to-play model. I don't know if it will work, but it could.

As for the writers, well naturally they would still get paid as a percentage of whatever the artist makes on a song. Or they could just outright sell the music. Will it be AS profitable? I didn't say it would. But again - so what? In fact, if more people can get more music more cheaply, that would force down the value of their service economically, regardless of the technology. Also - that's a good thing. They'll just have to keep competeing like everyone else in every other industry.

The core of my thesis is that if what you're doing is useful - then somehow, some way, you'll get paid for it. The correct model just has to be found (and the correct model WILL be found if the technology is allowed to be unrestricted). That and with unregulated technology, you'll get paid the appropriate ammount (as to being overpaid as with the current, broken model - which inversely works for everyone except the consumer). Yes the executives might be on the top of my list as "overpaid", but neither am I crying for the writers or people like you that are crying about what could happen to their paycheck.

Nobody gets hurt except the rich? Probably not, but I am ammused at the idea that the top of the ladder has been rendered obselete instead of the bottom for once. But then technology changes and people get hurt all the time. Doesn't mean music won't happen. If there's a market, then there's a market, then there's a market. People get hurt all the time by advancing technology, but they move on to better things (like said sony corp in your example).

Deal.

Well if I'm scared, in a more general way, then it's of People like you who are more concerned with their own personal interest, then the advancement of society and technology in a brave manner.

please....

[zogger]

...please, I was around and watched it live,I've spent no telling how many days-not hours but days-researching it. I was home sick from school when it happened, the first time I ever missed any school, we had a serious coup d'etat in 63, and the perps got away with it. clean away with it, then we had a whiteeash commission cover it up. The government ignores the constitution, I can site example after example. The supremem court refuses to hear critical cases in favor of creampuff cases. We have serious chronic vote fraud going on for years and years. We have legislation from the bench, and even worse than that, legislation from unelected bureaucrats, being enforced.

I guess if you consider fascism orderly, OK, I'll concede, you win. It's completely orderly by a dictionary definition, as in "new world" orderly. I'll switch to "honest, open, fair, reasonable, equitable" for my description, we don't have those as applied to government any longer.

Our government is none of those things, and the checks and balances exist in theory only for the most part.

Re:Commodity economics? - Too bad!

[Allen Zadr]

So, you are basically proposing that there no longer be consumer involvement in the recorded music industry at all.

Let me paint a likely picture for you. Without a consumer economic view - then the only incentives for a 'recording studio' to produce an artist will be for the strict functions of selling commercial air-time, commercial-free radio subscriptions, t-shirts or concert venues. My market only has one radio station that's willing to play 'hard rock' (for instance). They have a pretty low market share, but I suppose the few of us who listen are pretty loyal. The problem is, the don't play 'metal' or 'death metal', none of them play anything hard-core.

Supply and demand, right. Well no. Death-metal CD Sales are no worse here than in any other similar sized city. Hmm. These guys don't get radio play - and if they do (rare) it's usually so "cut" that the song doesn't make sense anymore anyway.

So, crisp and clean music prevails. Like Metallica's Black Album, everyone will be forced to sell out to even consider getting a chance to be noticed. Barry Manilow makes an unnaturally strong come-back. Very recent MTV2 popularity aside, Slayer, has not stayed together for two decades because of enormous popularity brought on through radio play.

Then again, I'm sure as hell not going to send them money if I don't have to. I can't afford that, but I have purchased their most recent CD (still not as good as "Decade of Aggression: Live!").

I love music. I play music. I write music. I know that I will never, ever make a dime doing music. I have other fish to fry. That said, the model of being able to purchase copies of music for personal use makes a lot of sense to me. I see it as the last thing that keeps companies as honest as they are (which, sadly, is not very honest).

You said, "if what you're doing is useful - then somehow, some way, you'll get paid for it." This may be the case, but then again - history shows that the artists will be greatly exploited if laws are not there to protect them. I could see a recording studio saying - "Nope, we can't record that. It won't make us 'radio' royalties because the FCC won't let that get broadcast".

Nope, I really see the "free music" for everybody thing making things worse, and worse ... not better. Those who benefit will be those who are willing to play for the corporate types, crisp and clean music only. "Oh baby, baby" and "Oops, I did it again" will be the only path to Stardom.

Saving the industry with 'free', may have worked in 1969 - before mass media ruled everything. Now, I don't see it happening.

It's quite likely that we will be able to see what effects Peer-to-Peer open distribution will ultimately has. I sure hope, for all of our sakes, that you are right, and I am wrong.

Tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in Canada theres already taxes on CD-R's, CD burners, MP3 Players, and god knows what else (I know Belgium has taxes on CD-R/CD-RW's as well, too lazy to find a link for other countries) and the tax was created to compensate the illegal copying... Not that this is new information to most of you.

'02 Canada

'03 Belgium