Senate Takes Aim At P2P Providers

Foreign jurisdictions by pjt33 · 2004-07-07 00:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by wulfwulf · 2004-07-07 00:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by boaworm · 2004-07-07 00:34 · Score: 3, Funny

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 :-)

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by Allen+Zadr · 2004-07-07 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:Re :Foreign jurisdictions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:42 · Score: 2, Funny

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 by Dashing+Leech · 2004-07-07 00:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Allen+Zadr · 2004-07-07 01:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by portnux · 2004-07-07 01:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by badboy_tw2002 · 2004-07-07 01:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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 by rpresser · 2004-07-07 01:29 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by swb · 2004-07-07 01:29 · Score: 2, Funny

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 by drtomaso · 2004-07-07 01:48 · Score: 2

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 by kabocox · 2004-07-07 01:52 · Score: 2, Funny

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 by Allen+Zadr · 2004-07-07 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by Eudial · 2004-07-07 02:32 · Score: 2, Funny

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?

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by Monoliath · 2004-07-07 03:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Izago909 · 2004-07-07 03:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by dgatwood · 2004-07-07 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by diggum · 2004-07-07 05:07 · Score: 2, Funny

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 by Allen+Zadr · 2004-07-07 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by Stargoat · 2004-07-07 05:16 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by kerika · 2004-07-07 05:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Alsee · 2004-07-07 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by sparcnut · 2004-07-07 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

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!

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by CantGetAUserName · 2004-07-07 07:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by Jim+Starx · 2004-07-07 07:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by Alsee · 2004-07-07 08:30 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Foreign jurisdictions by dekket · 2004-07-07 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

Madness by dave420 · 2004-07-07 00:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Threni · 2004-07-07 00:13 · Score: 2, Funny

> This is just ridiculous

Hey - it worked for viruses and drugs...
Re:Madness by Kick+the+Donkey · 2004-07-07 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
Re:Madness by nomadic · 2004-07-07 00:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by dunstan · 2004-07-07 00:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Re:Madness by djmurdoch · 2004-07-07 01:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by bgeiger · 2004-07-07 01:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
o/~ All God's children shall be free in Pirates of the Caribbean, when we reach that Magic Kingdom in the sky... o/~
Re:Madness by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2004-07-07 02:15 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by julesh · 2004-07-07 02:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Inebrius · 2004-07-07 02:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by Caiwyn · 2004-07-07 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by M.+Baranczak · 2004-07-07 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

The Children by BSAtHome · 2004-07-07 00:10 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Re:The Children by xyvimur · 2004-07-07 00:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Why not outlaw client-server apps too? by 192939495969798999 · 2004-07-07 00:11 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--
stuff |

Uh Huh... by deutschemonte · 2004-07-07 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

--
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.

Oh, the children... by Dagny+Taggert · 2004-07-07 00:12 · Score: 3, Funny

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!

--
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".

so, what does that mean? by dekeji · 2004-07-07 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by MoonFog · 2004-07-07 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

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? by eofpi · 2004-07-07 00:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
Re:so, what does that mean? by jc42 · 2004-07-07 00:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

[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.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:so, what does that mean? by silicon+not+in+the+v · 2004-07-07 02:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds

As with Guns. by jjholt1213 · 2004-07-07 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:21 · Score: 2, Funny

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. by MoonFog · 2004-07-07 00:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

I'm confused by orin · 2004-07-07 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by lacrymology.com · 2004-07-07 00:22 · Score: 5, Funny

" 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

--

#
# Modus Ponens
#
Re:I'm confused by RayBender · 2004-07-07 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Re:I'm confused by meringuoid · 2004-07-07 00:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:I'm confused by Kierthos · 2004-07-07 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:I'm confused by confused+one · 2004-07-07 01:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 02:09 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Syberghost · 2004-07-08 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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. by gotroot801 · 2004-07-07 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

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. by PeeAitchPee · 2004-07-07 00:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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. by torpor · 2004-07-07 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 ...

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Inducing Children to Steal. by dave1791 · 2004-07-07 01:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

"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. by Ignorant+Aardvark · 2004-07-07 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Re:Inducing Children to Steal. by killbill! · 2004-07-07 01:34 · Score: 2, Informative

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

The Bill Itself by Karrde712 · 2004-07-07 00:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.

Re:The Bill Itself by Karrde712 · 2004-07-07 00:20 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
Re:The Bill Itself by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:26 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Other firms known... by thentil · 2004-07-07 00:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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*

Skip the Middle Man by bman08 · 2004-07-07 00:16 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Next Year... by dave1791 · 2004-07-07 00:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

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... by basingwerk · 2004-07-07 00:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
I stole this .sig
Re:Next Year... by Natestradamus · 2004-07-07 00:38 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke
Re:Next Year... by Jonathan+Quince · 2004-07-07 01:28 · Score: 4, Funny

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... ;-)

--
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
Re:Next Year... by gcaseye6677 · 2004-07-07 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by Keruo · 2004-07-07 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Re:Next Year... by Soul-Burn666 · 2004-07-07 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
^_^

Certainly. by Gordonjcp · 2004-07-07 00:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Clichéd, but... by Zab+UvWxy · 2004-07-07 00:18 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
"I don't get it." -- ObviousGuy

Profit? Uh...no. by Famatra · 2004-07-07 00:19 · Score: 4, Informative

"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. by 1u3hr · 2004-07-07 00:19 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by mangu · 2004-07-07 00:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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... by svg · 2004-07-07 00:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

effects by dncsky1530 · 2004-07-07 00:20 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Peer to peer is the holy grail of networking by Raindeer · 2004-07-07 00:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Use Adsense for Charity

Won't happen by Pedrito · 2004-07-07 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

What about Skype? by The+Rev · 2004-07-07 00:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Taylor made arguments by bman08 · 2004-07-07 00:26 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

What exactly is P2P? by RC_Car · 2004-07-07 00:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

A non-lawyer's interpretation by Karrde712 · 2004-07-07 00:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.'.

--
You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.

Re:A non-lawyer's interpretation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by julesh · 2004-07-07 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by marnerd · 2004-07-07 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

--
Not so much a sig as a lack of one.

What about the candy manufacturers? by hal2814 · 2004-07-07 00:28 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Superfluous where it's already illegal by eofpi · 2004-07-07 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

...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).

--
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.

Misuse of "steal" again, sigh by dunstan · 2004-07-07 00:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town

The obvious counter-statement by rhadamanthus · 2004-07-07 00:32 · Score: 5, Informative

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".

--
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.

This is good because by Peaker · 2004-07-07 00:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by TiggsPanther · 2004-07-07 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."

inducing to start smoking is no problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Inducing children to start smoking is not a big concern to senators, it seems. This music thing is what kills the nation.

Don't Forget the Co-Sponsors: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:35 · Score: 5, Informative

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!

"The Corporation" by afxgrin · 2004-07-07 00:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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" by afxgrin · 2004-07-07 02:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorry, the URL is somewhat broken, I forgot about the space in the URL. Here's a working link:

The Corporation

Plan ahead by G-funk · 2004-07-07 00:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!

Re:Plan ahead by JWW · 2004-07-07 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Senator Hatch by tdemark · 2004-07-07 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Not just P2P! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 00:57 · Score: 2, Informative

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!

Oh. Nice. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · 2004-07-07 00:58 · Score: 2, Funny

That's right, give the bastard ideas

--

Technoli

I'm confused... by Kjella · 2004-07-07 01:00 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

In related news... by alexo · 2004-07-07 01:03 · Score: 2, Funny

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? by Col+Bat+Guano · 2004-07-07 01:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

There's nothing wrong with stealing. by Lochin+Rabbar · 2004-07-07 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by SaturnSS · 2004-07-07 01:11 · Score: 2, Informative

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

--
85% of Americans think this signature sucks

The bill doesn't even mention P2P by michaelmalak · 2004-07-07 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

My Solution by Mr.+Cancelled · 2004-07-07 01:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-07-07 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

Which bill? by cjpez · 2004-07-07 01:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
Al Qaeda has ninjas!

Once again, I have to plug Rick Boucher (Rep. VA) by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2004-07-07 01:17 · Score: 2, Informative

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. by baadfood · 2004-07-07 01:17 · Score: 2

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.

Don't blame the technology. by YouHaveSnail · 2004-07-07 01:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

Prior Restraint, it is Unconstitutional by RalphSouth · 2004-07-07 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

HOWTO use P2P the propper way by NoSuchGuy · 2004-07-07 01:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-07-07 01:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My letter to Hatch by cvd6262 · 2004-07-07 01:41 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--

I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

Words as tools? by Maljin+Jolt · 2004-07-07 01:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
There you are, staring at me again.

This just in ... by das3cr · 2004-07-07 01:49 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

--
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB

Dont forget Cars.... by nurb432 · 2004-07-07 01:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Or even better... by h4rm0ny · 2004-07-07 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:Or even better... by EnderWiggnz · 2004-07-07 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

which is why the republicans on this side of the pond are busy trying to dismantle "public education" here...

--
... hi bingo ...
Re:Or even better... by JWW · 2004-07-07 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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... by EnderWiggnz · 2004-07-07 03:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
... hi bingo ...
Re:Or even better... by mpe · 2004-07-07 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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... by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-07-07 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Or even better... by bcboy · 2004-07-07 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Sounds Good, Let's Kill the Monster. by twitter · 2004-07-07 02:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

I find it very worrying... by JustNiz · 2004-07-07 02:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Can't outlaw copyright infringement by Greyfox · 2004-07-07 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Without outlawing communication. If we'd had this climate 20 years ago, the Internet would never have been developed (In the USA Anyway.)

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Inciting illegal behavior by UnrepentantHarlequin · 2004-07-07 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

That'll stop it! by callipygian-showsyst · 2004-07-07 02:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!"

--
Best Buy can have you arrested

Ooh, nice precedent! by MooseGuy529 · 2004-07-07 02:40 · Score: 2, Funny

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...

--

Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist

They can have my apache2 ..... by ajs318 · 2004-07-07 02:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

..... 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).

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

If you don't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR THIS by Bob_Robertson · 2004-07-07 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative

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 Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics

We're on the precipice... by gearmonger · 2004-07-07 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

...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.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE by lordkuri · 2004-07-07 03:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Programs don't break the law... by zaphodchak · 2004-07-07 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE by autocracy · 2004-07-07 03:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, he's wrong... it's point-to-point. But each point is equivalently considered a peer.

--
SIG: HUP

Paranoia by Positive+Charge · 2004-07-07 03:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Solution: Leave the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 03:52 · Score: 2, Funny

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!

Not going to make it illegal - UTFA by nomadicGeek · 2004-07-07 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

So, by Run4yourlives · 2004-07-07 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Do your part. by ScytheBlade1 · 2004-07-07 04:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

Uploads are the problem by Rand310 · 2004-07-07 04:26 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Re:THE BOTTOM LINE by Our+Man+In+Redmond · 2004-07-07 04:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
Someone you trust is one of us.

Re:His own words a little while back by HermesHuang · 2004-07-07 05:09 · Score: 2, Informative

this link seems to work better
http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_member_statement .cfm?id=623&wit_id=51

Damn stright... by Allen+Zadr · 2004-07-07 05:12 · Score: 2

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.

--
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.

(what cause?) by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-07-07 05:31 · Score: 2

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Orrin Hatch is a software pirate by JustNiz · 2004-07-07 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorry its so late but I just spotted this:
You gotta read it!

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59305, 00 .html

I don't get it. by DJester · 2004-07-07 05:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Socrates last words: "I drank what?"

List of Members of the Committee by ElForesto · 2004-07-07 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.

induce != produce! by werdna · 2004-07-07 06:13 · Score: 4, Informative

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? by Caiwyn · 2004-07-07 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by AaroneousMaximus · 2004-07-07 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 .

Protection from ourselves by RichardX · 2004-07-07 06:45 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.

Don't forget... by StarKruzr · 2004-07-07 07:26 · Score: 2, Informative

... 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.

--

+++ATH0

childish bickering by nusratt · 2004-07-07 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Look! Another uninformed assumption from anti-P2P! by One+Childish+N00b · 2004-07-07 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.

Lier? by smashin234 · 2004-07-07 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

"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: by Newer+Guy · 2004-07-07 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by cryophan · 2004-07-07 08:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Homo Sapiens Americanus--A documentary in p

Re: Even telling him... by Crudely_Indecent · 2004-07-07 11:40 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--

"Lame" - Galaxar

that's 'our' government by sh123469 · 2004-07-07 13:09 · Score: 2

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.

P2P is inevitable by presidenteloco · 2004-07-07 17:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Read the f#*^^$#@ text of the bill by Teancum · 2004-07-07 18:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Slashdot Mirror

Senate Takes Aim At P2P Providers

178 of 869 comments (clear)