Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Sends Letter to Senate Supporting INDUCE Act
The Importance of writes "Slashdot has discussed the INDUCE Act before (and here and here). The act would make 'intentionally inducing' infringement a crime, but defines inducing so broadly that all sorts of technology is threatened. A little over a week ago, tech companies and civil rights groups sent a letter to some senators asking for hearings on the bill. A couple of days ago, the RIAA responded with their own letter sent to all 100 senators. There is also an abridged and annotated version of the RIAA letter. LawMeme has put together an index to INDUCE Act analysis."
S. 2560, introduced by Senators Hatch, Leahy, Boxer, L. Graham and both Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Daschle - is timely, warranted legislation. We urge you to support it. It is intended to target bad actors only - those who have built business models to get away with stealing the creative work of predominantly American artists. The bill finds the right balance to protect both technology AND content innovators.
I *love* that they use the word "stealing". No matter what spin they try to put on this issue, spreading and copying music is not stealing.
Four of the top ten downloaded applications on the Internet are P2P programs operated by companies who purposefully set them up to be used for illegal conduct. Popular for sure... but lawbreaking nonetheless.
Oh, I just LOVE this. Yes, BitTorrent (just took over as the leader in P2P traffic) was created for illegal use. I could see Kazaa or Napster, but BitTorrent, no, I just don't believe that.
But it has been hijacked by some unscrupulous operators who have constructed a business model predicated on the taking of property financed by my member companies.
As far as I am aware, BitTorrent has no true business model. I got the software legally and without cost.
We take profits from sales - when we're good and lucky enough to get them - and plow money back into the search for that next great talent who will thrill music fans around the globe.
When you're lucky? Give me a fucking break. You support the consolidation of radio and other music distribution networks so you have tight control on who listens and how they listen. Perhaps if radio and music distribution wasn't controlled by you and your existance wasn't backed and supported by the government (who should have broken you up years ago) I would believe you.
In 2000, the top ten hits sold 60 million units in the U.S. Seven of the ten sold more than 5 million units each; every one of them sold at least 3 million units. Then the slide kicked in. Last year, in 2003, the top ten hits were cut almost in half, to 33 million units. Just two of the ten sold more than 5 million units; five of those top ten hits sold less than 3 million units.
Where are you statistics about units shipped? I don't see them listed there. Looks like spin to me.
This creative product is lost forever. Many of our greatest performers took years to catch on before their careers took off. In today's world, those performers are being cut before they have a chance to delight fans and realize their own dreams.
*BARF* You don't have creative products for the most part. You have cookie-cutter talent that you create and promote. You cut their chances at survival by overplaying their one-hit-wonders via your controlled outlets.
They are havens for pornographers that project their filth into your homes when your kids innocently seek to find their favorite artists.
Yes, news at 6, your children are affected by porno!
Do these illegitimate services compensate artists? No. Songwriters? No. Pay taxes on the value of product? No. Compensate the record label in any way? No. Invest in the generation of new art? No.
Do you fairly compensate them? Do you pay taxes like you should? Do you care about anything other than your bottom line? Would you have mentioned your own compensation if you did?
My industry can continue to sue users, many of them kids, to establish deterrence and educate the public. But the real villains are not the kids. The real villains are those profiteers who offload liability on these kids and are laughing all the way to the bank as American courts struggle to apply existing law (or misapply it) to this abuse of good technology.
So stop suing the children you claim you want to protect from the supposed evils of P2P. Also, please show me where BitTorrent (again the leading P2P application) is making enough money s
why was I not on their mailing list?
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
Both are lossy formats, so they are a lesser-quality than the original.
Havent there been quite a few articles recently talking about the rather steep decline in peer 2 peer downloading in specific age groups? you would figure if the number of people dowloading music thru less then legal means that would also mean that their losses wouldnt be in such a slide....unless the slide in sales is actually being attributed incorrectly?
free the content, and collect on the storage
I believe that if we can moderate that letter from the RIAA, it would have a score of (-1, Troll).
If some American citizen is going to emigrate i can help to start a new life in a free country ;)
SHE does throw dice.
"They intentionally invite theft. They are havens for pornographers that project their filth into your homes when your kids innocently seek to find their favorite artists. They compromise computer security. They facilitate the unintended disclosure of personal documentation - resumes, tax and credit card data, medical returns and more. And their warnings - about privacy abuse, security, pornography and copyright - are anything but conspicuous. No objective review of these services can possibly conclude that they have any pretense of legitimacy." ... And they cause IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) - Although this is more subjective
This induces people to commit crimes by copying and sharing these recordings that would never exist if the RIAA didn't sell them in the first place.
ARREST THE RIAA!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
We urge you to support it. It is intended to target bad actors only
Bruce Willis and and Sylvester Stallone were unavailable for comment.
The same arguments the EFF uses in their mock Ipod lawsuit also apply to general purpose computers. After all, Intel and Dell could have designed their systems to only boot an approved OS like Windows DRM, and Microsoft could have made a version of Windows (Windows DRM) that only runs approved software, and software capable of infringment would not be approved. True, end users of computing hardware and software would not get in trouble as with the SSSCA and CBDTPA, but if it is illegal to sell general purpose computers or distribute the software needed to run them (Windows XP, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, etc), what is the difference in the end?
When will the senators etc. relise EVERYONE hates the RIAA and similar groups. If they support something then everyone else should be anti it. It's like Microsoft or the bogey man. All really evil but no one who can do anything about them ever sees them.
I like muppets.
In their upcoming election:
Support those candidates who aren't in bed with the RIAA (are there such people?)
By continuing to vote for the same people who take bribes from the RIAA, you're supporting the DMCA, the INDUCE act, and any/all of the other lamebrain pieces of legislation the RIAA wants to push through.
Anyone who votes for those who support these poor pieces of legislation deserve what they get.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
"This creative product is lost forever. Many of our greatest performers took years to catch on before their careers took off. In today's world, those performers are being cut before they have a chance to delight fans and realize their own dreams"
Err, did I just miss something? This is all their own fault, or concentrating entirely on the teen market and dropping any acts that don't sell at least 1.5 million with their debut. Them not nurturing talent is hardly filesharer's fault.
Their whole bloody argument is that filesharers aren't buying lots of albums (debatable, I know). So what does that have to do with the idea that bands not selling lots of albums aren't around any more?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
And while we're at it, why dont we ban cd-r and dvd-r drives, since they can be used to copy cds and movies, and audio cassettes, since they can be used to copy music as well. One could even go as far as suggesting that all computers and the internet be banned, since they are obvious outputs for warez and piracy.
Do you really think that "Big Brother" will really reach out and destroy your precious Nerd Utopia?
Yessssss......myyy..pressssiiousssss......
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
It is getting near election time. Time to remind these senators who actually votes them into office and keeps them there.
I already wrote a letter to mine. Do it now.
It's important to point out the absurdity of the wording--the fact that it's too broad and could even be used to target Mead and other paper companies for making tracing paper.
It's heavy handed legislation whose wording leave too much open for interpretation. That alone is enough to have any sane legislator view it as unsound public policy---regardless of the bill's true vs perceived/implied motivations.
Keep it short, but point out how ridiculous it is.
lies, lies, contrived statistics, spin, I'm a tool, lies, emotional evocation, misrepresentation, lies, lies, damn lies
Sincerely,
Mitch Bainwol
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Bureaucrats United with Lazy Lobbyists Stopping Helpful Information Technology act.
trick tricksy RIAA tries to tricks us. wants to steal our PRECIOUS.
As long as people continue to shove money into their warchest, they can expect more of the same. This issue has almost become source of amusement- it's like the consumer public is paying the RIAA/MPAA to build a lynching platform, and to supply the rope and enforcement detail that go with it.
The solution is simple: stop buying, stop stealing, stop playing the game.
versus the RIAA who can contribute millions...
Who are the politicians likely to listen to?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
According to this proposed law, anything that can be used for or is used in the infringing of copyrighted material can be construed as inducing infringement.
In order to infringe on copyrighted material, you need to have the material itself and a device or method to copy it.
Therefore, copyrighted material is an inducement to infringe.
Copyrighted material can't be copied if it's not created.
Artists create copyrighted material.
They are therefore contributing to the infringement of copyrighted material.
The RIAA can only exist if it supports artists.
The RIAA supports artists who create copyrighted material.
The RIAA are therefore contributing to the infringement of copyrighted material.
Because of this, the RIAA should be ordered to stop supporting artists as a result of this law.
Since the RIAA cannot support artists, it must cease to exist.
Hooray!
That green slime had it coming.
... the tech groups and civil libertarians aren't nearly as forceful as the RIAA folks. The RIAA ensures that all Senators are made aware of their arguments and yet the opposing side doesn't canvas the entire sum of senators. I think in the least case Our Side has to match the efforts of the RIAA in so far as making lawmakers aware of the issues.
Hot off the heels of iTune's 100 millionth (legit) download and the movie industry's lucrative success, they need to really crack down on piracy!
"Derp de derp."
> I *love* that they use the word "stealing". No matter what spin they try to put on this issue, spreading and copying music is not stealing.
:-)
I have to agree with you. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something they have; copyright infringement is merely making a copy of something and passing it around. It's like cutting the line to pay cover charge at a bar, kinda. But it's not so literal. In Canada, it's legal to do pretty much anything except distribute copies of copyrighted material. But many institutions have a free pass on it, like libraries and museums.
> Oh, I just LOVE this. Yes, BitTorrent (just took over as the leader in P2P traffic) was created for illegal use. I could see Kazaa or Napster, but BitTorrent, no, I just don't believe that.
They are only attacking Bit Torrent because it broke Kazaa's record. Bit Torrent was created as a science project to see if it would work, and when it did, the usefulness of the project became apparent to anyone who wants to pass around large files. Actually the original use was not intended for copyright infringement at all... it was for public projects like games mods and stuff like that. Gamers really pushed its use more than anyone at first.
> *BARF* You don't have creative products for the most part. You have cookie-cutter talent that you create and promote. You cut their chances at survival by overplaying their one-hit-wonders via your controlled outlets.
Funny you should mention that. Last nite I happened to catch part of the Jessica Simpson show and I was thinking how much she is like a replacement for Britney... like a cutout doll, but not quite as stupid as Britney is. Stupid, but not that stupid.
They are in it for money, and music was never about money... it was once about spreading news and stories all over the land, because music was easier to remember than a long dry tale. Bards intended it to be useful as a way of transfering data between cities. The songs made people want to listen, as a side effect.
Nowadays, the music industry is only an industry.
> "They are havens for pornographers that project their filth into your homes when your kids innocently seek to find their favorite artists."
That's just a way of getting sympathy, they're using. It's nothing new. They'll tell you that child porn is available on these systems and that the systems are to blame. Next they'll say terrorists profit from downloading.
> Do you fairly compensate them? Do you pay taxes like you should? Do you care about anything other than your bottom line? Would you have mentioned your own compensation if you did?
Totally accurate. The industry has been robbing artists blind for decades now! It's a crying shame.
Corporations are never going to support interesting new music. They get a new hot ticket and try to get others to be breadwinners for them. It destroys the music and the life of the artists. Touring also hurts the artists, who are no more than slaves to their creativity until they have to become shitty just to have some peace of mind.
It's just the way it is, and it's always been. Greed ruins everything.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I'm all for electronic harassment.
Record all of your complaints in wav format, copywrite your own words, and email them to the RIAA.
The stupid analogy act.
Whereby, if someone uses that stupid shoplifting analogy to compare to copyright infringement, they get sentenced to 1000 years and regular beatings with a baseball bat.
RCA made the television on which I've been watching VH-1's "I Love the 90's" this week.
"I Love the 90's" has been showcasing, among other things, music from that decade-- with the intent to make people want that music again via nostalgic feelings.
I've been watching these shows while sitting in front of a computer running LimeWire, so when I hear a snippet of an enjoyed-but-forgotten song from the 90's, I punch it into LimeWire and have an mp3 of it a few minutes later.
So who's liable for "inducing" me here? RCA? Viacom (VH-1)? Someone else?
This is a slippery slope here; once you start going after any tool that might possibly be used for some currently illegal purpose, where do you draw the line?
Hahahaha!!! :))
For once, being in a third world country feels great. No big brother watching while you pirate to your heart's content!!
Law enforcement in countries like China/India is especially more difficult given the HUGE populations and meagre resources/understanding/moral (read corruption) at the disposal of the law enforcement agencies to go after the culprits.
This will force the music and software companies to sell there wares for cheaper and more reasonable prices. If they don't, then won't sell at all, like now where most of us simply pirate all the stuff!!
Three cheers for poverty and bad law enforcement!!
Agree totally. Speech and singing should also be banned as people often SING copies of songs, WITHOUT PAYING AN ADDITIONAL FEE.
-- Yours the RIAA
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
glad to see you are getting the whole police state corporate facism thing down to a fine art
now i know why cribs is on TV to show me how poor these people are and how they must struggle to make ends meet when you only have a few billion to go round
...after all it is overwhelmingly preferred pirating software tool in use worldwide.
1: They might once have been necessary, as when the cost of production, distribution, and promotion was a high barrier of entry to independents.
2: That case no longer exists in anything like its original form.
3: They continue to live well off the efforts of others, not due to any contribution of their own that actually adds to the work being done, but rather through their ability to continue to convince the workers that they remain somehow essential to that worker's survivial.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it, but still they fight like a devil trying to safeguard their way of doing things, at all costs. This INDUCE lawproposal is just one example of how tenatious they want to keep their profits rolling, instead of searching for other ways themselves. It isn't the first, and it won't be the last. And they do not care how broad it is, believe me. Infact, the broader the better, because then they can sue evryone who is even just running a P2P prog they don't like.
r e).
The amount of bull they FUD is unbelievable. First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies/etc.. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music or movies, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=fairsha
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die. But ofcourse, for the time being they are going the other way (as others have done in the past); trying to manipulate the law to their needs, so that, basically, their way of doing business gets entrenched in law and protected by law, even if everyone else would be made a criminal by it.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
...any semblance of freedom or sanity--yes. Big Brother just might.
But even if BB does manage to turn the world of entertainment into a fascist police state... it won't last. Therefore I've stopped fretting.
making it illegal to INDUCE Congress into using IP and "doing it for the children" as reasons to hinder the progress of Science and Useful Arts by restricting what computers can do.
:) You're not helping.
They will cripple computers because computers are machines that can send, receive, copy, modify, and display huge amounts of arbitrary data. That's really all that computers do. Copyright law allows authors the exclusive right to copy, distribute, make derivative works of, and display or publicly perform the work. Funny, since these restrictions are exactly the things that computers do.
So, computers are copyright breakers. Therefore, the way to preserve copyright is to cripple computers or make them illegal. But that would hinder the progress of science, since computers are NEEDED to advance science these days.
So who will win? I dunno. I would like to think the Constitution will win, but I dunno. My request here is that you minimize the amount of money you give to the copyright industry because they realize that they need to make computers illegal to stay in business. They will just do it in 1000 little baby steps like this law where they make more and more computer uses illegal until you can't do much of anything with these machines without the permission of giant corporations. Then they will decide to just make the machines themselves illegal, and we can all sit around the house watching our perfectly legal Content Appliances wondering how the heck the rest of the world has left us behind.
PICK ONLY ONE:
COPYRIGHT
COMPUTERS
Oh, and please don't download illegally using Kazaa or whatever.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Wow, I thought the porn heaven was California, maybe they should propose forbidding life there.
This is intentionally inducing .....
BPAC
It is also called free speech.
could this bill also apply to libraries, which also are in the business of distributing music for free?
Why does the US government want to destroy it's own computer technology industry? It's own economy?
It's the kind of policy that a.... terrorist might think up.
Up here we pay a piracy tax. I can download as many songsas I want, for free, and it's not illegal. I don't feel sorry for them one bit if my downloading cuts into their record profits.........
That's what they are trying to do!
Seriously, how can anyone look at all that they have been doing and not think that this is part of a general attack on the Internet, Personal high-performance computers that the owners control, and the general power/potential for free information that they bring.
Do I think that the RIAA is hatching plots with the goal of stifling free speech? No, of course not. I think that they want money, just as John Ashcroft wants us all to be "moral" and do what he thinks is right. In either case, however their interests dovetail. A captive, easily controlled consumer base with no freedoms is also a captive easily controlled population.
IMHO this is just part of a general attack on free speech even if those leading the charge say, and think, otherwise.
Microsoft didn't sign the letter sent by the concerned tech companies and civil liberties groups.
And if MS isn't against this bill, how can any reasonable thinking person be against it?
Don't tell me, tell your Senator.
Member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation? That's a great place to go to get form letters to send out to your congressmen, find out about copyright law and digital rights, and, of course, donate or become a member to an organization that has professionals involved, including lawyers.
...out of the way right away. Before anyone starts bitching and complaining about the whole "copying music/software is stealing" and then the enlightened come back with "no it's copyright infringement" and then we get into the whole car analogy.... etc.... I'll start off with the "NEW AND IMPROVED CAR ANALOGY"(TM) ... as far as I can tell it's the closest damned thing to a valid analogy as I can get to (and still maintain the simplistic view that talking about cars empowers one to employ):
... now, and idiot can see that you have NOT stolen a good-god-damned-thing... so besides breaking and entering (maybe... if you needed to do so in order to scan the car) what crime have you committed? Automobile manufacturers are just lucky that no such technology exists, otherwise their business models would be in just as much jeopardy.
Suppose you somehow manage to build a true-blue 3D copying machine. You feed the damned thing with various scrap materials that you own/paid for and take it to your favorite car manufacturer and use it to scan a car.... note that this scan does not in ANY way have any effects (adverse or otherwise) on said car. A short time later, however, you are the proud owner of (insert car name here)
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
There is a key difference between stealing a physical unit for sale versus an electronic unit. For example, if I steal a candy bar, the store cannot continue to sell that exact bar. If I download a file, the original remains, and can still be sold.
The wording on this bill is so broad that you can sue the creaters of ARPANET. The intent seems to be simillar to patent laws. Everyone is going to break it all the time and most will be ignored. However, it gives large corps that desire it legal right to sue anyone they want.
Soon everything is going to be illegal and it will all be about who can afford the better lawers..... or maybe that has already happened.
I'm a little disappointed that Apple isn't on the list of companies requesting a review -- it would seem that their iPod produce is certainly one of the affected devices.
May we never see th
Is this what the future holds for the US?
Companies creating laws that take away rights of citizens? Corporations that make people consume as much as possible using any means necessary?
It looks like the corporations vs the rest of the world. Only the corporations are used to organising themselves and normal people aren't.
How unfortunate that the representatives of the citizen are only representing themselves and corporations. I was about to suggest that the "normal" people form a group to fight evil groups somehow, but that's supposed to be your government's job.
Instead, my advice is to just vote after checking out internet news that is unbiased instead of watching corporate US TV news.
- -- Truth addict for life.
it has come to our attention that you are talking about potential problems in ip law
due to the nature of this sort of discourse, it is possible it might induce infringement of some ip laws
therefore, we have no choice but to take legal action against this website until such time that you are bankrupt
thank you,
your friendly riaa
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do they do it to:
1: To enrich big companies that hold their contracts?
2: To enrich themselves?
3: To enrich their descendents for n generations through perpetual copyrights?
3: Because it's more fun than anything else they can think of to do?
4: Because the music is in them and this is what they do, and they'd perform for free on the street corners if there was no other way to express themselves?
5: Some combination of the above?
Your answer to this will determine if the failure of the big record companies will destroy the creative future of music for us all.
Observation: There are a lot of fiction authors who publish their work for free on the Internet because they can't sell it otherwise. The lack of a big publishing contract has not stopped these people from creating and sharing their works with the rest of us!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This entire thread is deja-vu. RIAA gets mentioned and we hear the same posts over & over.
Whatever the outcome, make sure to check here to see how your representatives will have voted, decide whether that represents you, then donate and vote accordingly.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
X = RIAA, SCO, MPAA or whomever you want to go away.
1: Send a mail to X complaining about [insert issue here, today: INDUCE] add "(C) 2004 your.name.here" in the bottom of the letter.
2: When they reply, send a Cease and Desist letter to the X since their computer has made an illegal copyright infringing copy of the email in its memory. Demand the immediate destruction of all their computers and servers and the lobotomy of all employees who has come in contact with the letter. Write "(C) 2004 your.name.here" in the bottom of the letter.
3: goto 2
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
The current copyright laws are insufficient. They are being flouted by far too many people. What are the options?
Do nothing:
The problem is, the law is being broken. Either the laws are bad or the people are bad. Neither of these is a state of affairs that should be encouraged.
Outlaw the technology:
Dangerous. And will fail to address the problem. People will get hold of the technology from somewhere.
Abolish copyright:
While music would continue to be created, it is unlikely that there would be as much. Musicians would not be able to survive off record sales, and since they wouldn't be so willing to pay for a recording studio, the quality would go down. Is this what we want?
Legalise file non-profit file sharing
Well, this could work. It's counter to common sense though, and there is the very real possibility that people will decide to stop paying for music, leading to the same problems as abolishing copyright.
Charge a levy on file sharing apps
Could work. Seem a little impractical, and hard to come up with a fair way to distribute the money.
So, what is the answer?
They've already been at it with something like that before, they dubbed it TORA BORA - The idea is that `Trusted Operating Root Architecture' (Palladium) will stop the `Break Once Run Anywhere' attack, by which they mean that pirated content, once unprotected, can be posted to the net and used by anyone.
Essentially, it only involves replacing all general purpose-computers with semi-programmable applicances. Your burners would be appliance add-ons and the Internet no longer a general purpose network, but a semi-restricted appliance network. Welcome to the future.
Fortunately, that seems to be many years off, and Longhorn's ship date seem to drift further and further off. None the less, just be beware that there are people that seriously wish to do pretty much what you just suggested.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Like I care? AM radio is very lossy, and that's where I've often fallen in love with the songs I've chosen to own afterwards.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Mitch says:
Global sales of recorded music dominated by our country quadrupled from 1980 to 1999. Then, almost on a dime, that trend line reversed, with sales figures falling by about a third to the mid point of last year. Before the launch of lawsuits by the industry last fall against those induced to steal music online, we were spiraling down with no sense of a floor.
Why? There are a variety of factors, but the most critical are the twin challenges of physical and online piracy. Physical piracy has been a problem as long as music has been recorded, and has climbed to staggering levels. But it is the relatively new online piracy that has had a truly devastating impact in a short amount of time, which makes action to combat it crucial. And the most virulent form of online piracy is file sharing on P2P (peer to peer) networks.
I say:
The S&P 500 dominated by large, tax-paying companies increased 1200% from 1980 to 1999. Then, almost on a dime, that trend line reversed, with the index falling by about a third to the mid point of last year. Before the launch of lawsuits by the industry last fall against those induced to steal music online, the S&P 500 was spiraling down with no sense of a floor.
Why? There are a variety of factors, but the most critical are the twin challenges of people buying stocks when they were too high and other people selling them. Stupid people has been a problem as long as stocks have been traded, and has climbed to staggering levels. But it is the relatively new stupid Internet user that has had a truly devastating impact in a short amount of time, which makes action to combat it crucial. And the most virulent form of stupid people is file sharing on P2P (peer to peer) networks.
Draconian laws like these is shooting its own foot.
If this law passes development of new technologies will become too expensive to be held inside US. The costs involved in legal actions to avoid developer and researche team to get jail will make technologic industries emigrate to countries where there are no legal problems like this.
Investments in new technologies will still occur, but will occur in foreing countries, like India, China and Brazil. Good for them, terrible to US.
Migration of these companies will cause unemployment, and migration of talents to other countries. The education level will also get lower.
New technologies will be sold only outside US, in order to avoid lawsuits too. And the sales of technologic gadgets will lower considerable. A huge part of the American economy will be teared of.
The whole computer industry will flee from the country. Searching new countries where it can develop new technologies and distribute it through the new globalized world.
The impact of such reactions in US economy will be so destructive that it can easily, in matter of 5 years, become the 10th biggest economy in the world, or even worse.
IMO this law should be carefuly considered by the US Senate, because the reactions will be very unpleasent to all US citizens.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
A beautiful myth -- and utter garbage. A few million file sharers -- a few billion inhabitants of this Earth. Yeah, that's going to happen. Would that there really was a song so popular that everybody actually wanted it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So this act makes Xerox and similar machines illegal?
Someone call Xerox, HP, etc and get them to pay lawyers and lobbyists to fight this act NOW.
wake up and hold your nose
Safarti keeps screwing this up (Knew I shouldn't have ditched Firefox)
2 &item =2918
But if you feel the need to take action, then take it:
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=
This will allow you to email your senators (calling would be even better -- but this is the least you can do)
And if you're not an EFF member already, you should be.
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/d urable/2000/01/27/p7s2.htm
Butcher Dave Stevens may mince meat, but not words.
"To us, an ounce is an ounce, and a pound is a pound," he affirms while slicing a skirt steak in The Chop Shop, Leigh-on-Sea, eastern England. "A kilogram is a foreign measure, and our customers don't understand what it means."
For Mr. Stevens and his business partner, Mandy Reilly, who describe themselves as "British to the core," threats of fines and the argument that the rest of Europe went metric long ago fall short. They are among thousands of British shopkeepers ready to take on Prime Minister Tony Blair's government - and the entire European Union - over the push to phase out Britain's old imperial measures. Says Ms. Reilly: "We aren't about to stop doing something we've been doing for centuries, just because Europe says so."
What the Federation of Small Businesses, representing 75,000 firms, has dubbed the "metric monster" began stalking Britain in 1971, when pounds, shillings, and pence were phased into a decimalized currency.
Pressure for a total conversion to metric has been building ever since. But there's a Churchill-like determination among old-standard stalwarts that echoes Sir Winston's 1940 speech, when he pledged that in the face of Hitler, Britain would "never surrender."
Holdouts found an ally in 1989; then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (no EU fan) won a 10-year reprieve, allowing British traders to sell loose goods exclusively in nonmetric quantities. But the Blair government, which favors closer EU integration, didn't seek an extension. So as of Jan. 1, the government warned traders they could be fined as much as 2,000 ($3,300) and have their weighing and measuring equipment confiscated if they didn't label everything in metric as well as nonmetric units. All but a few imperial measures are to be phased out over 10 years.
Britain has already found old habits die hard. Despite the switch to a decimal currency 29 years ago, the term guinea (meaning one pound and one shilling) is still used by some auction houses. And many British folk prefer to weigh themselves in "stones" (14 lbs.) rather than pounds or kilograms.
Americans have proved no keener on metrics. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires the simultaneous use of American and metric units. Last year, taking account of resistance by business and consumer interests, the Clinton administration persuaded the EU that all goods exported to the US continue to be sold in both units at least until 2009.
The new British rules apply not just to pounds and ounces, but to linear measures as well, raising problems for traders long used to yards, feet, and inches. Jose O'Ware has been selling window furnishings from her east London store, Fourth Avenue Blinds, for 30 years. "I have 4,000 readymade labels, and they're all in inches," says Mrs. O'Ware. "It would cost me thousands of pounds [dollars] to change them."
And there's another problem, which she shares with customers: "Ask me for something that is 59 inches wide, and I can see it in my mind. But ask for 1.3 meters, and I can't even begin to think what it would look like."
O'Ware vows she won't give an inch. "What are they going to do, confiscate my tape measure?"
But Britain's Consumer Affairs Minister Kim Howells has warned, "Anyone determined to be a metric martyr will have to pay the price."
Early in the New Year, a trading standards officer from a local council turned up at The Chop Shop and served an "infringement notice," giving its owners 28 days to convert their scales to metric.
O'Ware has had no such visits - yet. Interviewed on French television earlier this month, she declared she was prepared to go "to prison if I have to. If a British government is willing to prosecute an Englishwoman for trying to save part of our way of life, then so be it."
Well I appreciate that none of us wants to live in an Orwellian nightmare, I can't say that it's entirely undeserved. We had the right to share files freely, and we abused it. The results are detrimental to society, and therefore that right is now being taken away. People can complain about it all they want, but the fact is that intellectual property is this countries largest export and it will be the basis of the future economy of the world. This being true, it is the responsibility of every world citizen to respect intellectual property and behave appropriately.
It's easy to rationalize that it's okay because it's just the music industry, and the RIAA and their respective labels don't actually make music. The fact is if people don't respect the music industry, they should not buy or listen to it's music. There are lots of other ways to support music, buying indy music, attending live shows, donating money. Notice that none of those options involve not compensating artists whose livelihoods depend on music. If this were about social revolution, people would not be stealing music, they would be supporting local and independent artists.
This is a lot like why people can't legally do drugs. Too many people are irresponsible about it, and it ruins it for the rest of us. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame the government or big business for their own indiscretions. That fact is you simply can't have rights if you refuse to take the responsibility to not abuse them.
Sadly, you make some very good points, but they get lost in the noise. Maintaining a professional demeanor is very important to being heard and understood. I assume since you are posting these thoughts here, you want others to listen to them. I respect the opinions you present, but using foul language and vicious comments only undermine the (otherwise very high) effectiveness of your message.
Because we all know that gansta rapper songs about cop killing and drugs are wholesome familiy entertainment...
By my culture-o-meter, homestarrunner.com >> Britney + NBC + Disney *COMBINED*!
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
So, in other words, unsigned musicians and amateur video editors are SOTL. Well, ain't that nice. Sounds like the IRAA has a second agenda - to record music legally, one must be signed.
To attract women! (Except for the women musicians, of course...)
[Quote]In 2000, the top ten hits sold 60 million units in the U.S. Seven of the ten sold more than 5 million units each; every one of them sold at least 3 million units. Then the slide kicked in. Last year, in 2003, the top ten hits were cut almost in half, to 33 million units. Just two of the ten sold more than 5 million units; five of those top ten hits sold less than 3 million units.[/Quote]
If they didn't try to spin out the same old shite (boy bands, brintney clones...), then maybe I might buy a cd or two!
I'd like to take this opportunity to induce you to share all your movies and music with this software.
Follow this graph and see the campaign contributions increase as S2560 approaches a vote. Shameful.
I'll begin this post with a startling opinion: Both political parties are the same.
The president is only a tool of a mouthpiece who is appointed by the ruling corporations in our society. They are given a certain amount of power for 4 or 8 years, thrown into the Retired Presidents Club (RPC), and pampered for the rest of their lives (with given book deals, speaking engagements, etc.)
We members of the honorable Peon Club must learn how to maneuver within the system. Those that do so are the same people you see on Oprah signing books after the show.
My favorite method of the moment is to operate within the guise of a Corporation so that I pay the gov't less taxes. Amazon.com has many books on this subject.
To sum up my little diatribe, everyone needs to find their own tinfoil hat and wear it!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
"S. 2560, introduced by Senators Hatch, Leahy, Boxer, L. Graham"
Guess who just got a letter telling her that she's lost *my* vote?
Anybody that sides with Hatch on issues like this loses my vote forever.
The EFF has issued an action alert about the proposed "Inducing Infringement Act". They have set up a website where you can push a button and a pre-composed letter gets sent directly to the senators.
2 &item =2918
Please help and participate and also tell your friends about it:
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=
Last week I discovered that my mid-range Dish TV plan has added around 90 of Sirius Satellite Radio's music channels. This is the first time I've enjoyed radio since moving out of range of KCMU (founding station of grunge) Seattle in '89. CD's have never made me give up my vinyl collection, and to my ears 128-bit mp3 compression is as bad as 8-track. Dish's own music channels sound no better than 128-bit. The Sirius channels don't - just compressed and the bass eq'd up a notch. Just got a new phono cartridge, but it turns out that one Sirius channel will at times have content that's about 50% drawn from my old vinyl - and well-selected at that - so that cartridge may last a long time. What's more fun is that another 6 or 8 of the channels are playing mostly very good stuff I haven't heard before, mostly in free-format, live DJ style.
This is the anti-Clear Channel, and severely undercuts the star and marketing strategies of the big labels and broadcasters by pumping out a lot of less-heard stuff. But it also severely undercuts my reason for building my own collection in the past: a shortage of good, fresh stuff on the radio meant that to secure a supply of stimulating, diverse and inspiring tunes I had to amass racks of the damn things. Nonetheless, at my best I can only equal, not surpass, a good DJ making selections more out of love than promotion.
And no friggin commercials. Aside from losing big on some mp3.com stock, this whole file-trading thing has been too limping in fidelity to matter to me. But radio this pleasing means both I have little reason to build my own collection except for disks by the truly-obscure artists I see live, and I'm not paying into a subscription plan either, really, since Dish added these for free to the TV plan I already had, and Sirius is mainly in it for the hope that I will subscribe to put 'em in my car (a temptation).
So I'd say the current industry + the file-trading industry (to the slight extent there are true INDUCErs) taken together as a whole, as the synthesis of that thesis + antithesis, is Siriusly challenged, and that essentially free (or cheap), noncommercial (inter)national satellite radio is the new antithesis to the whole lot of 'em - who are as usual still fighting the last battle among themselves rather than noting the fast approach of their common obsolescence.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
If it were up to me, those sunhumans would have been put up against the wall a long time ago. In the mean time, though, the tobacco industry has provided us with a handy solution. After all, why spend huge amounts of time and money gassing degenerates when you can make billions convincing them to gas themselves?
Just look at the selection of senators and congress crawlers looking seriously at this filth. It's quite bi-partisan.
...
...
... "
The Senator from Disney is a Democrat, Senator Hatch is Republican. There isn't any difference between the two. None. Zip. That's why they can trade members like baseball players and the same policies continue to be enacted.
That's because R's and D's have NO PRINCIPLES, they react to focus groups and think tanks with what they think will get them re-elected this time.
Read the Libertarian platform on this, and ask yourself what you're actually voting for when you cast your ballot.
==
http://www.lp.org/lp-blue-ribbon.html
"We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself.
We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:
Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
Electronic bulletin boards, communications networks, and other interactive electronic media as we hold them to be the functional equivalent of speaking halls and printing presses in the age of electronic communications, and as such deserving of full freedom;
Electronic newspapers, electronic "Yellow Pages", and other new information media, as these deserve full freedom.
==
http://www.lp.org/issues/internet.html
Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want.
The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard -- the voices of people who simply could not afford to publish their ideas or display their artistic talents to a wide audience using older technologies. Established interests of both the left and the right fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Internet through new laws and regulations.
America's Founders couldn't foresee the Internet, but they knew that government control of information was not only a violation of personal liberty -- it was a threat to their hopes for a nation based on the principles of self-government. So they gave us the First Amendment.
==
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Yup, and with the crap the music industry is putting out there for us today.......I don't see this happening anytime soon....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Induce what? Labor?
Yes, I can RTFA, but why isn't a basic piece of information like this in the summary?
www.downhillbattle.org
www.freeculture.org
www.free-culture.cc
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
If not, what are they waiting for?
Four of the top ten downloaded applications on the Internet are P2P programs operated by companies who purposefully set them up to be used for illegal conduct... IN JAPAN
no, not even that helped.
That the music they're 'producing' is a load of shit?
Touring also hurts the artists, who are no more than slaves to their creativity until they have to become shitty just to have some peace of mind.
Your banter, while righteous, is for the most part accurate. However, touring does not hurt artists. Most real talent in the music industry are, first and foremost, performers. Most of them enjoy playing for people and performing, and quite a bit of money they make is made touring, as opposed to record sales.
For the past, say 50000 years, since music was invented, there has been no method of reproducing it, short of live performance. Once recording was invented, things got a little weird. Musicians are all about playing music. The recording thing is just a 'recent' fad.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
EFF.org
Yeah, I know; a bunch of links isn't insightful and karma-worthy. But I want people to visit these places and be better informed anyway... I'm tired of the RIAA & co. oversimplifying everything.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Lenz' Law - an induced current, E-field, or B-field, goes in the opposite direction. I.e., if I induce a current in a wire using a B-field (magnetic field) going one way, the current will go the other.
Therefore, isn't the RIAA INDUC[E]-ing exactly the behavior they claim to oppose? Can we sue them for that, under this new law?
for not providing proper attribution.
Bill Hicks, R.I.P.
>The recent letter signed by a group of interests seeking a hearing (which we too support) is a case in point. It states:
;-)
>>"While we agree with the need to penalize those who intentionally cause Copyright infringement, we are concerned..."
>Those who accept the core purpose of the bill ought to come forth with constructive and concrete suggestions, not hypothetical and peripheral concerns. Why? The men and women of the music community and their families - and other content creators - deserve action. We can't afford paralysis.
So he's claiming that these companies now have the responsibility of rewording the proposal? I thought that was the politicians's job.
>So please look carefully at this legislation. And please do not let perfection be the enemy of the good or tangential excuses be the enemy of common sense defense of property rights. Too much is at stake.
Whooo!!!! OMFG he doesn't understand ANYTHING about the legal process, does he? A misplaced comma can completely change the meaning of an english sentence, and in the context of a law, that can make all the difference in the world! Even worse is when the intent of a bill can be misinterpreted because it was hurried through the red tape without being completely looked over! I sure hope this guy never decides to practice law.
My only other gripe about the response letter is where he calls P2P pirating "identical" to stealing from the record stores. Well, that and all the 1 & 2-sentence paragraphs, but I tend to do the same thing when I'm writing on a short timeline
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
Of course, this is infringement of Bill's IP....
I was examining my crack pipe today, and I realized something. If this new law passes, I can blame the company that makes the glass used to blow the crack pipe for my habit! I'm going to sue the glass manufacturer! More CRACK!!!
"Any law that makes criminals out of over 10 millions americans, probably isn't that good of a law" - Dan from the TV series Sports Night
This quote applies here as well becuase even if this passes, there will always be a way.
Between my wife and I, there areseveral computers, an iPod, three CD-RWs and a DVD-RW in my home. If this law passes, is the government going to go house to house to confiscate everything that "infringes"? Or will they graciously allow us to keep what we've got?
Here's how to stop the RIAA...Everyone needs to boycott purchasing anything they've had their grubby, greedy hands on! A day (or more) of lost sales will... 1. Piss off the retail outlets enough (due to lost revenue) to complain how the RIAA tactics are killing their business! 2. Take money away from the RIAA (the less they have, the less they can use to litigate). 3. Piss off the artists enough to find a new way to get their music out, hopefully via a "new business model", one that's compatible with "fair use" as we (/.'ers) see it! Money and Power ultimately are the deciding factors here, guys! No one listens if it doesn't affect their pocketbooks or chances to remain in office! If you don't vote, only pirate music/games/movies/software, and are just a plain burden on society...How long do you suppose we all will remain "free"? By the looks of it, we'll have electronic implants forced on us, told where to live, work, and when to piss...in the not to distant future. I for one don't want to have "big brother" telling me how to live my life and control EVERYTHING I do! So for all those that fit into the preceeding categories...STFU, get off your asses and do something about it! Nuff said...
There's not enough Darwin awards to go around!
rant
This is getting ridiculous. Since when did anyone have a RIGHT to make money from anything? Just as in any profession, the easier it is to duplicate the results, the lower the pay. Just ask Doctors, Engineers, IT professionals, Accountants, etc. who have seen their salaries drop due to ever increasing competition, computers, automation, spreadsheets, etc. Think about when (long long time ago) when to calculate something we now take for granted, took days or months or even years. But the RIAA complains it can't maintain lavish lifestyles because their product is easily copied - Boo F*cking Hoo.
Hell, it's so ridiculously easy to make "music" nowadays, and they are still B*tching. Wait till things like Reason, Sonar, Cubase, Fruityloops, become widely known about and start dropping in prices - hell they really aint all that expensive now for what they can do (like reason being a rack of studio equipment for 600 bucks) - especially when sound cards and DSP become of higher and higher qality
/rant
"In both cases, it's identical to someone walking into a store, taking some CDs off the shelf, and walking out of the store without paying for them."
Shall the RIAA also sue music stores for not taking appropriate measures (dogs, assault rifles, a moat?) to prevent conventional theft?
I can't help but wonder if this act would also include cable modems and DSL and other high-speed transmission methods. We all know that you don't really need broadband to surf the Web, send email, and IM. No, you need broadband to download lots of stuff. And generally, that means using some sort of P2P. So, clearly, companies that sell these big fat pips capable of downloading and, especially, uploading lots of data are clearly inducing copyright infringement. (Uploading? What, are you producing home movies and emailing them all to your family members? Bah! We all know you're stealing from some poor artist.)
Actually, I've recently come to the realization that this assessment is correct.
What's worse is the mindless masses that quite vocally support one party or the other - without having any idea what their party really stands for.
Sickening.
Instead of writing your senator, why not write to the media outlets? TV, radio and newspapers are more likely to get their voter base up in arms. Here are the links to the newspapers in Hatch's area: Salt Lake Trib
Deseret News
Now, is there anything on that list you're going to want to listen to next year?
Any questions?
What's really happening is that CD sales are up, but hits burn out faster than they used to. "Time on the chart" has shortened. That needs to be mentioned to rebut the RIAA's arguments.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced the Inducing Infringment of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) in the Senate. The bill would make it illegal to "intentionally induce" copyright infringement, but is worded so broadly that it would have all sorts of unintended consequences, one of which is to severely limit, cripple or kill innovation in many different fields
:-)
Fortunately I live in Utah and will be voting for someone else. Hatch "claims" to be for the people. A comment I've heard him say frequently. Then why is he in the back pocket of these special groups such as **AA? People here in Utah have been telling him to spend his time on more important issues.
After reading the article I'm pissed. Making MAME illegal? Transmitters? 3D printers?
What is the man thinking!!!
Personally I don't think Hatch is all that great of a singer. I've heard a couple of his songs. I think he could use more singing leasons myself
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
They are given a certain amount of power for 4 or 8 years, thrown into the Retired Presidents Club (RPC), and pampered for the rest of their lives (with given book deals, speaking engagements, etc.)
Why oh why did I read that as "spanking engagements"? God, now I need some brain bleach.
p0rn wants to be free!
-
Four of the top ten downloaded applications on the Internet are P2P programs operated by companies who purposefully set them up to be used for illegal conduct.
That's stating it in a manner that doesn't leave room to consider it an opinion, Bainwol is flat out saying that those four companies are intentionally incouraging others to break the law, something that is already illegal. I suppose he'll squirm out of it because he didn't name which four, but frankly I'd love to see all ten sue him and the RIAA for libel and demand an immediate, very public retraction.Inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures". Hmmm lets see... What kind of devices "induces" copyright violation ?
- CD-R
- photocopiers
- scanners (you could in theory scan entire books and "pirate" them online for people to "steal")
- computers
- digital cameras and camcorders (i.e those "pirates" that tape bootlegged version of concerts, and that "steal" money away from the concert promoters who wanted to be the only ones doing this scam)
- pen & paper (combined with scanner. see above for details).
Man they're gonna be busy suing a LOT of people... Hehe reminds me of this article.
What about Melissa Etheridge, Ani DiFranco, etc. - they might be in it for the women too...
So many laws are plagued with them. This is a case in point. The lawmakers seem incapable of making legislation dealing with technical matters, especially where the Internet and computers are involved. We all see how well the Can Spam act is working.
The concept of this "paid for by big media legislation" is carrying things to extremes and shows their desperation. There are all sorts of analogies that relate to this, but one of the most simplistic that comes to my mind is that a hammer can be used to commit a crime, even murder, therefore the possession, manufacture or sale of hammers must be made illegal as well as the use of blunt objects like rocks that could be used as a hammer. This proposed legislation makes as much sense.
Recent news articles say that the BSA claims that software "piracy" has cost the industry $29 billion. I call BS. The vast majority of such copyright infringement is by people who cannot afford the ridiculous prices of M$ software and would not otherwise use the software if they had to pay the full retail price. I suspect that the buggy whip industry did everything they could think of to discourage the use of automobiles. Our current IP situation leaves the "AA" associations in the same position. They have to find a new paradigm because this one just isn't working. All they are doing is pissing off their customers. I think that the success of iTunes shows that alternatives can work if they will just move their thinking into the 21st Century.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Does the that Kazaa is only available for Windows imply that Windows is also responsible for this? I mean if they use that fact that a piece of software such as Kazaa exists that COULD be used for coyright infringement, wouldn't it also apply to Microsoft as the fact that it is a necessary precursor to Kazaa?
Stupid argument, yes, but I don't see what is different about it.
Senator Hatch is a very funny guy. Here is a man that creates S.2560 that wants to shift the burden of responibility of Internet use on the developers of the software and not the parents.
However, he also created bill S.659 which is to offset the responibility of gun misuse from the makers of the guns to thepeople who misuse them.
In other words, it's just fine to blame programmers for what people do with their software, but when it comes to guns you are on your own.
This bill is a huge load, I promise that I have been writing my senator (Bill Frist R-TN) asking him to stop support for this bill. Funny thing is that I've also written my Rep. (Bart Gordon D-TN) and at least I get a reply from him (he doesn't like the bill either). Bill First won't even bother to lift a finger for you.
Thanks,
Justyb
A recent poll shows that more people are having unconsenting sex because of p2p, and that there bastard offspring were aborted by murdering doctors.
Mobile chem plants and Weapons of Mass destruction have been found in Iraq and destroyed to prevent the terrorists from using p2p networks to deploy them on school busses, full of pregnant p2p crack whore 12 year olds.
The earth was created in seven days be an omnipotent being for us, the wonder humans to inhabit with all our glory, that is until Satan made the bad actors write p2p software.
So, I urge you, don't let Satan take your soul, ban p2p now..
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Like the Mafia, these organizations have only one credo - grab the money and run. In pursuit of this money, they will extort, threaten, intimidate, and bribe whoever they deem necessary to achieve their ends. They have put a lock onto the actual content that eventually gets distributed, manipulating stock levels and distribution channels to artificially inflate the end cost to consumers.
In two extreme examples of the incredible lengths these organizations will take to enhance their own accounts at the expense of others we cite the following.
The RIAA has sued approximately 1,500 kids in the last year. Each suit brought against the children asks for a whopping $150,000 per file. For most kids, this spirals the overall suit into the millions. I find it odd that the average population goes ballistic when they hear about a schoolyard bully stealing lunch money, but condone the actions of the RIAA, which can be just as damaging to a child as sexual assault and abuse.
With the growth of gangs, and the overall diminuation of the sense of security in schools today, the RIAA have been conducting sweeps in schools to search for illegal CD's. Forget looking for guns, knives or drugs, they can only kill or maim our children, while the other heinous activity costs a corrupt organization a reported sum of money that bears no relation to reality.
And in the most bizarre twists of logic, the MPAA/RIAA realized that these enforcement activities and lawsuits were costing them money, money they had worked so hard and long for, and deserve so justly. So they have bribed state and federal legislators to create laws that take the financial burden away from them, and make the taxpayer pay for it.
All this in a time when the economy dropped about 12 percent, so they claim that the 7 percent drop in CD sales was totally dependant upon the amount of file sharing going on. Forget that companies and individuals were going bankrupt, we lost a drop in the bucket of our usual billions, so we're going to make every child in America, if not the world, a criminal.
The real criminals are those in the RIAA/MPAA who deny the progress of technology, and the required alterations to the distribution channels that would allow for consumers to get a quality product at a fair price. They have abused the legal system, conspired to create global laws and treaties that make the f
I think the current economic situation is creating the dilemma you allude to (and it is a problem).
/why/ CD's are being sold for far more than their cost of production aren't important. The important bit is that 1) the incremental cost of production is low, and 2) some people have found a way (the Internet) to make it virtually zero. In a truly competitive legal-economic system, this would--by force of competition--become part of the mainstream distribution channel. Economics favors a sort of "lowest-energy state" much as chemistry does; in this case it is extremely high volumes and low prices, since the incremental cost can be brought to zero.
The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there are two fundamental forces that affect the price of goods in a capitalistic economy, one in each direction. The first is the profit motive: everyone selling things wants to make money, so they tend to favor high prices. The second is competition: if someone else finds a way to produce something for less (or accept less profit), they'll be able to sell more of it than the other guy who's charging more, and come out ahead.
The reason the free market is a good economic system (usually) is that competition will drive the price of anything down to something close to the cost of production. Put another way, "whatever they can get away with charging" and "how much it cost to make" are pretty close much of the time. This system works pretty well for a lot of things: for instance, computers. I'm quite frankly surprised that people manage to make laptops for $1k.
The problem is, what's the cost of production of music? It's not that high, any way you slice it: there's a guy in town that makes professional-sounding recordings with a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and under a day's work editing. It certainly costs much less than $15-$20 to make a CD, in the volumes that they're sold in. Where does the extra money go?
Mainly: marketing. See, in many businesses it's possible to compete on price and quality without major investments in marketing. However, there's something about the mass-market music business that makes a well-marketed $15 CD sell better than an equal-quality $5 one. Maybe it's that their main market (12-20-year-olds) is highly vulnerable to advertising? Maybe it's that the quality of music is a subjective thing: people can be convinced that one band is better than another through an advertising campaign, but nothing is going to convince me that a 40GB disk is bigger than an 80GB one. (However, see "megahertz myth" for an attempt.)
It's also interesting that I can buy a recording of the New York Philharmonic--a group comprised of around a hundred musicians each with years of training--for the same price as one of a lone pop singer accompanied by a synthesizer. Discuss.
The details of
But it hasn't. There's iTunes et al., but they still sell music for more than the cost of production. Unauthorized copying (it is NOT "piracy", no more than masturbation is murder--think of all the little sperm that never got a chance!. Piracy involves robbery and murder.) is as prevalent as it is simply because the current distribution method isn't the economic ideal. Why isn't it? That's debatable. But it is, and everyone knows it. In the minds of lots and lots of people, economic pressures, in this case, trump legal ones.
No legislative remedy to the problem you mention will succeed until the cost of music approaches the cost of production and distribution. Unfortunately, no economic solution can succeed without either fixing the *social* problem of vulnerability to marketing or changing the legal framework in a way that renders the current business model impossible.
I'd like to second that, and expand on it a little. Our general response to anything that includes the letters RIAA is to rant about how evil they are. Their product is lousy, their business model is obsolete, they deserve to die, etc.
The record companies do a lot of good things. Artists willingly get contracts with these companies. There are quite a few people making a living in the music industry, and the recording companies are the base of that. I like music, and I want to know that the people making the music are being compensated for their work. That includes performers, studio techs, CD mastering, etc. At the moment, buying the CD in the store (and compensating distributors and retailers, as well), is the best way to do that.
We are generally not opposed to copyright. The GPL and most other licenses are based on copyright. We like having the right to control our own works, even if we choose to waive that right. The record companies have those same rights. If they don't want their works shared on the net, they shouldn't be shared.
So I don't think it's black and white. The RIAA does a lot of stupid, evil things, but they also do some good things. I can disagree with some of their contract terms, or their monopoly building, or their approach to copyright enforcement, but I appreciate their product and recognize their right to distribute it the way they want to.
Now, as much as hyperbole has taken over the world, I think we make a better argument by having a reasonable, balanced position. If the tech community comes out adamantly opposed to copyright infringement, and denounces use of p2p software for illegal copying, we suddenly don't look like lawless communists. Our complaints about monopoly abuse or the positive uses of p2p stand more ground if we make it well known that we support a copyright holder's rights.
Right now the music companies could have online distribution of their entire collections. I think we'd like that (although they would probably do a lot of things with it that we wouldn't like). I'm sure they'd like to get rid of the CD companies, the distributors, and the retailers so that they wouldn't have to share profits. But they'll never do that now because they are afraid of piracy. They want the same thing we do, but can't do it because too many people would rather cheat. So, they try to find ways to prevent people from cheating. That's where we flip out.
We can't rewind time to when online distribution was an option. We can't change humanity so that people will pay for what they can steal. But the things we can do will be ignored unless we have credibility. As long as our basic argument is "they are evil and only make crap!", we have no credibility.
I know it's a fatally insufficient plan, but we're supposed to be the smart ones. Lets try winning by presenting the best, most reaonable argument.
Okay you really should give the great Bill Hicks credit for that one ;)
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Yeah, the corperations who donate to their campain funds so they can brainwash the public. Don't even get me started about how people can't just vote for anyone, but must choose from one of two politians - both of whom where paid off.
Going after P2P software seems silly since there are already laws to go after pirates.
P2P is just another medium, no different than someone using http or ftp to transmit copyrighted materials right?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Take a look at this PDF form. Its from BMI to license music. Its independant of the RIAA, its a broadcast license for a "facility" (a house, apartment, or dorm will suffice) to play music (even recorded music) for less than 10,000 people. Specifically, for less than 250 people (which most of us would fall under) it costs $15 for a blanket license of music which includes recorded music.
Is this a viable loophole to bypass the RIAA?
I think that what the ??AA also fears from P2P networks is that independent artists now have easy access to distribution channels that their "artist association" does not control. That factor is probably calculated in to their projected 'losses' due to file sharing networks. Also I would like to say that I'm ashamed that one of my state senators has signed her name to this bill too.
"Fights begin, finger prints er' took, days are lost, bail is made, court dates are ignored, cycle is repeated."
I *love* that they use the word "stealing". No matter what spin they try to put on this issue, spreading and copying music is not stealing.
So what is it then? Obviously, you understand what they mean, and yet you are still try to use semantics to prove your point. You're on a sinking ship if you think a semantics battle will win this fight.
You're archaic viewpoint is out of place on slashdot. Most of the people here make their living producing intellectual property. If you don't believe that intellectual property is worth anything, you should tell that to all the companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on R&D. You should tell that to Scaled Composites, or ARM, who do not produce any product, yet still have expenses and make profits. If it were really as worthless, as you claim, it would not be quite so expensive to produce.
Too many people are irresponsible about it, and it ruins it for the rest of us. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame the government or big business for their own indiscretions. That fact is you simply can't have rights if you refuse to take the responsibility to not abuse them.
Yes... but when big business infringes on my rights, it is my DUTY to stand up and complain. When the government refuses to recognize or protect my rights, it is my DUTY to hold that government accountable and replace it with one that will respect those rights.
I think you're getting rights confused with priveledges. Certain rights are guaranteed to you by law and by precedent, unless you do something to forfeit those rights. If you are a US citizen, you are guaranteed the right to vote once you reach the age of 18, unless you forfeit that right by committing a felony. Listening to music isn't a right, in the sense that voting is a right...it is a privelege. I am granted that priveledge when I purchase a tape, or a CD, or a download from ITMS. However, making a backup copy of a copyrighted material I have legally purchased is a right, in almost exactly the same way that voting is a right. The RIAA is trying to downgrade that right into a priveledge, and it is your DUTY just as much as it is mine to make sure that they fail in that effort, no matter what their justification might be.
There are lots of other ways to support music, buying indy music, attending live shows, donating money. Notice that none of those options involve not compensating artists whose livelihoods depend on music.
OK, fine. But at the same time you should notice the phenomenal success of Apple's iTunes store, which has just passed the 100 million songs mark. The options you offer don't solve the same problem that free music downloads address: going to a concert just doesn't scratch the same itch as hitting "play" on your stereo remote. Apple has solved that problem in an acceptable way, and has reaped the benefits.
At the risk of rehashing countless old slashdot threads, the RIAA's business model is doomed. People have learned that blank CD's cost almost nothing, and that it's easy to make a mix of good songs instead of paying grossly inflated prices for a retail-packaged CD... and the MUSIC SOUNDS THE SAME either way. During the years between Napster's shutdown and the ITMS startup, people said again and again that what we really want is a way to make a small payment to download the one song we wanted. Apple gave it to us, and LO! the market has rewarded them.
So far, the RIAA and the major labels have failed to give the people what they want, and the market is punishing them. Instead of recognizing that there is a legitimate market, albeit a market with much thinner margins than they are used to, and then acting to serve that market, the RIAA is acting to put their current market in shackles to keep their customers from running to buy what they really want.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
The irony is, if we put out our own "INDUCE" act, to blame them for "inducing people to violence, especially against cops" they would be the first to complain that it was too broad, because it might make them liable via one of their moneymakers (said gangsta rap).
/commit/ any infringement, you merely have to /encourage/ it. Thus it would be irrelevant if gangsta rap had nothing to do with violence against the police, it would be enough merely to advocate it in the song for them to have "induced" it, if we follow the "logic" of the INDUCE Act... But we already know that they do their thinking with their wallets, not their brains, so...)
So, "inducing" people to commit copyright infringement (where "induce" is understood to be VERY broad) is somehow worse than inducing violence against the police, of which they are surely guilty when same incredibly broad reading of the word "induce?"
(Mind you, under the act, it would seem that you don't actually have to
lets see your logic goes like this
A Republican sponsored a bad bill
A Democrat Sponsors said same bad bill
Therefor Repulicans = Democrats and vice versa
Buzzt sorry
Just because there are stupid D's and stupid R's doesn't mean they are the same, nor does it mean that other R's or other D's share the same views
Being a Democrat or Republican is not like being Borg
The Saudi royal family? That's what Michael Moore would have us believe. Presumably they lean towards preventing free flow of information though.
You evil, evil network hackers out there need to plant some music on the Sony, RIAA, or any .gov web site.
They'll end up breaking their own law, no? They have become a system for sharing files! OH NO!
I can also see this being used to target the victims of script kiddies who use trojan'd computers to share music with one another.
"Marge Smith, age 78, arrested under the INDUCE act because someone took over her computer and used it to share Nickelback."
This bill is equivalent to outlawing the production, manufacture and use of scissors because they might be used to stab someone.
:(
The potential loss of utility outweighs the alleged protection imparted.
People get stabbed by scissors from time to time, and the police and justice system deal with the actual crime committed quite well - without closing down the scissors manufacturers or arresting large number of outlaw scissors users!
The greed of these people has overpowered any shred of good sense they may have had left. Now I know the USA is in decline...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The problem isn't that R's and D's are the same, it's that: mainstream politicians are generally centrists, and the "center" of American politics is skewed to the right such that democrats are no longer very liberal.
By copying a CD, you're essentially killing the copyright holder by depriving them of the royalties they need to live upon.
"Murder" seems to be to be absolutely the most appropriate word for unauthorized copying.
You've violated the patents and design patents of this company and thus deprived them of the revenue they would have had if you had not done so and bought the car from them.
It's theft of services essentially. Much like cable or something. You've violated the companies' intellectual property rights and deprived them of revenue that was rightfully theirs.
Essentially, you stole money, not the car.
You think it's a joke? It's very real for camp groups that have been threatened for not paying royalties for singing around the camp fire.
Ok, so we all know that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to maintain their current business model, as it has made them large (read "ungodly") amounts of money over the years. They are so big, in fact, that, yes, they are in cahoots with big brother. Unfortunately for those of us not in the position to reap such rewards as big brother, we can only threaten to not re-elect those in bed w/ the **AA or we can bend over and take it you know where.
So I read the letter to the 100 Senators, and it is well-written, with a few contradictions. However, as much as I am against the further evaluation of this act, can we not see the problems that do exist with P2P? It seems the problem is the fact that programs cannot (or simply don't) discriminate against illegally created content. That is the real issue, and therefore is what the **AA should be supporting.
Oh yeah, and stop "hating" on the **AA for all the money they make. Those are just cheap, low-blows and effectively dodge the issues. I can also guarantee you that they are not arguments any (sane) senator would consider presenting to oppose the act.
Hhahah that rules!
*BARF* You don't have creative products for the most part. You have cookie-cutter talent that you create and promote. You cut their chances at survival by overplaying their one-hit-wonders via your controlled outlets.
This reminds me of a certain thing going on with Fiona Apple's new album. Instead of artistic talent, it's all about the money. They only seem to be able to promote a CD when it has a 'sure hit' included in its track listing.
First Fritz Hollings, and now Lindsey Graham! All the dumbest assholes seem to come from my state.
Hollings was pressured into retirement, but we need to get ready to vote that SOB Graham out now. (Only he isn't up for re-election this year.. too bad!)
In closing, South Carolina sucks.
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
You support the consolidation of radio and other music distribution networks so you have tight control on who listens and how they listen.
We tell you what's good and play it until you like it!
It's the survival of big record companies. When you can build a professional grade 16-24 track, 24-bit audio studio in your basement for under $10,000, and then use P2P nteowroks and the web to distribute and promote your music, why on earth would you need a reocord company?
Seems like the RIAA is trying to keep the independants out of the biz.
First of all, has anyone noticed the number of *awful* things sponsored by Sen. Orin Hatch? Why is he the source of so much stupidity? Why doesn't he get, y'know, voted out? It seems like a lot of things he does are awfully unpopular.
It is no secret that the intellectual property assets of our nation are under assault, as never before.
Absurd. We have had stronger intellectual property protection in our nation for the last few decades than we have *ever* had.
The bill is aimed at ensuring the vibrancy of both our creative community and our technology community.
I'm not sure that it helps either artists or technology companies. It is possible, if the RIAA's thesis that they are badly losing money is correct, that it helps music publishing companies.
We urge you to support it. It is intended to target bad actors only - those who have built business models to get away with stealing the creative work of predominantly American artists. The bill finds the right balance to protect both technology AND content innovators.
In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, 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.
As other analysis has pointed out, no, the bill decidedly *does* target people who are not "bad actors".
Global sales of recorded music - dominated by our country - quadrupled from 1980 to 1999. Then, almost on a dime, that trend line reversed, with sales figures falling by about a third to the mid point of last year. Before the launch of lawsuits by the industry last fall against those induced to steal music online, we were spiraling down with no sense of a floor.
I do not have the data necessary to judge the accuracy of this claim. However, I have seen many citations of numbers that do not agree with this, and many people have pointed out that there is a strong coincidence with the current economic recession and finally, that it is possible that RIAA-sold music simply does not have the appeal that it once did -- for example, the Internet allows a broader range of new types of music to be discovered, which makes the music that the RIAA markets have less advantage relative to non-RIAA marketed music.
I do not think that this data is convincing enough to broadly extend the reach of IP law, and to make illegal much development in a field that is seeing some of the most interesting research in computer science.
Finally, let us assume that the RIAA really is losing large sums of money and that copyright infringment is the direct cause -- what of the companies that have *benefitted* from the current boom in MP3s? Apple, HP, and many other companies have profited admirably. I know people that spent more money on music-related technology than ever did on music. There are still questions of whether this is a sustainable or long-term beneficial system, but even if the RIAA establishes that it is making less money is not cause for the RIAA claiming that this bill is necessary. Finally, the ultimate goal of IP law is to ensure that production in the arts continues -- I know people that have both pirated music and found new musicians that they were never familiar with before, and purchased albums from those (European musicians, odd techno types, and the like). In addition, electronic music distribution may be a more economically efficient method of music evaluation for such purposes than MTV or the radio. I am very unsure that even if the RIAA is making less money, that there is less money going into the pockets of content creators. The RIAA is primarily a set of companies that do music promotion. If promotion is no longer required for people to find artists that they like (the now-Microsoft-purchased-and-d
May we never see th
They are havens for pornographers that project their filth into your homes when your kids innocently seek to find their favorite artists. Maybe they should sue the senators kids, since by this statement, the RIAA is assuming they are using p2p software.
XML Database
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
Which is a bastardized version of the actual quote from Generation Swine:
The TV business is uglier than most things. It is normally perceived as some kind of cruel and shallow money trench through the heart of the journalism industry, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs, for no good reason.
itadakimasu
If you have large files you want/need to ditribute, now would be a great time to create torrents for them.
A wiki on creating torrents.
I *love* that they use the word "stealing". No matter what spin they try to put on this issue, spreading and copying music is not stealing.
Here is the problem. Copyrights and patents don't really philosophically equate to property any more than a lease of a car is. Are they both business assets? You bet! Are they both property? No.
Copyrights and patents essentially allow someone to lease exclusive rights to something related to "arts or useful sciences" for a "limited time." At the end, do the junk the copyright? No. Can they sell it for salvage cost? No.
In essence, you can have title to the copyright (just as you could, I guess, have title to an auto lease), but you don't get title to the work itself (just as you don't get title to the auto itself). When the lease expires, the actual rights to the property revert to the original owners. In the case of copyrights and patents, this is the public.
So my analogy to copyright infringement is that it is not so much like stealing as it is like trespassing on leased land. But then, that doesn't sound so bad, so they use the term stealing in public even when the courts have ruled repeatedly that these are not equatable.
Trespassing is also a better analogy because it has been equally controversial....
"As I was walkin'
I saw a sign there
And that sign said
No Trespassing
But on the other side
It didn't say nothin'
That side was made for you and me"
--Woody Guthry, "This Land was Made for You and Me"
Personally I oppose copyright infringement because it is not particularly limited in theoretical quantity. By allowing these people to be draconian about it, it drives open source and open content.
However, it seems to me that the INDUCE act trespasses on MY rights to develop and use legitimate technology. What about the next generation of DVD Burners. Will someone sue Phillips for inducing someone to pack these full of MP3s.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I live in Canada! Yipee, none of this RIAA bullshit. I firmly think we should enact a law that would allow the police to shoot Orrin Hatch on sight.
If the songs are 'reasonably' priced (as iTunes Music Store), people buy. When they are too expensive, people find other ways to satisfy the 'hunger'. Prices cintribute directly to filesharing (as does limit choices in supply) so...
Bring it on. Let's see if any of the defense lawyers can argue that if music were free, no one would steal it.
I could see Kazaa
Fine print from Sharman Networks:
Copyright: Sharman Networks Ltd does not condone activities and actions that breach the rights of copyright owners. As a Kazaa Media Desktop user you have agreed to abide by the End User License Agreement and it is your responsibility to obey all laws governing copyright in each country.
So Kazaa explicitly warns people to obey copyright laws of their jurisdictions. Kazaa does not induce infringement. It also, to its credit, has information for parents to protect their children from 'harmful' content, and everything concerning what information is shared, being a supernode, and how to enable/disable this stuff is explained on the site, so any claims of inducement by 'duping' customers into infringing copyrights should also be summarily rejected.
Still, I fear the 'reasonable person' standard will be too easy to prove, and that even Kazaa might be found guilty of inducing infringement under the new law. Somehow the fact that Sharman Networks benefits from infringement of its customers will be spun into a case that Sharman Networks 'induces' copyrights and lures children, despite explicit evidence to the contrary.
Hatch in his comments about the legislation, said the RIAA 'has to' have someone to sue, and since they couldn't prove inducement charges under current law, they need to lower the bar. Even if every company(in the US) that distributes P2P software is sued out of existence, the programs are still out there on people's computers; P2P networks will still work, and then there are P2P companies in other countries, who will not be affected by this law at all. All this will do is give the RIAA someone else to sue in addition to those they are already sueing(their customers).
I call b*llsh*t. Either the real villains are the kids -- the ones who chose to engage in each individual act of copyright infringement -- or there is no real villain at all.
This reveals the true agenda behind this sort of legislation -- to create a mechanism for enforcing their will without having to take the PR backlash.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Do be careful, I was recently flamed down for arguing the same topic yesterday.
More people need to help meta-modearte. It helps keep the 'powers that be' in check.
You made a lot of interesting points but your response took a little creative license WRT the original letter:
* The RIAA does not specifically attack BitTorrent. BitTorrent is not named in any part of the RIAA document.
* The RIAA does not say P2P is wrong. On the contrary, it makes one statement saying the technology is "magnificent". It points out that the law makes it mighty difficult to enforce a copyright when P2P is used.
Editorialize all you want about the quality of the artists but the bottom line is there are people paying for "creative product". These artists are agreeing to the terms of the deals that make their material available and assigning the distribution rights to members of the RIAA and they have a choice (albeit an anemic one - the RIAA has quite a hold on the industry - like Microsoft).
RIAA members have invested money and have a right to protect their investment. However, they must do so legally and should to so ethically. Going after kids is legal, though, perhaps, not the most ethical thing. However, what deterent means do they have to protect their investment in copyright which has been granted under US law?
And, THAT'S the fundamental issue. Should the law be changed to make it easier to inforce copyright?
The onus for protecting copyright has always been on the owner. That being said, Congress has the sole responsibility under the Constitution to create a legal environment that makes protection of copyright possible in order "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
Technological innovation happens. Photocopiers made it easier to copy print. Tape made it easier to copy audio. VCRs made it easier to copy video. The very nature of technology is to make things easier. So, attempting to prevent making things easier is an attempt to prevent technological innovation.
To change the law to stifle innovation in order to protect a recording industry failing to innovate is inconsistent with the responsibilities of Congress.
Existing law is enough. Innovation happens and it's up to the recording industry to adapt. They can continue to sue, if they want - that's their right. But, the world is becoming difficult for them to make any headway by sueing people. They are better off figuring out a different way.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Puts a new spin on the phrase "in case of overdose, INDUCE vomiting"!
You support the consolidation of radio and other music distribution networks so you have tight control on who listens and how they listen. Perhaps if radio and music distribution wasn't controlled by you and your existance wasn't backed and supported by the government (who should have broken you up years ago) I would believe you.
Do you care about anything other than your bottom line?
Money and Power! It is, and will always be about Money or Power.
The RIAA is afraid that the old way of doing buiness goes up in smoke... It's the same problem with the MPAA, Microsoft or any big enough giant company.
"We might be losing money! Quick, Launch Lawyers (Patent,DCMA, legislation, lobbying, etc.)! For great Profit!"
*sigh*
I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
PCs, Disk Drives, DVD/CD burners, could all be construed as "inducive" to copyright infringement.
Developers of Operating Systems, open source, or not, would be required to spend money and resources to avoid "inducing" copyright. Do you go after the people who wrote the compilers also, since they're used to write the code that is used to induce the copyright? What about the contractors who set up a production line for a DVD burner that was used for copyright infringement?
Where does the buck stop with this? If you give someone a baseball bat as a gift, and they use it to beat down your neighbor, does that make you a criminal? Should you be prohibited from distributing baseball bats? This logic is insane!
If this is passed, I would get out of this country, or at least get some gold or foreign currency. Our economy will collapse in a matter of months. No one has the resources to reverse engineer this functionality into existing product lines.
This will just drive the technology sector into bankruptcy and its resources will go to the entertainment industry. When all is said and done, the entertainment moguls will probably turn the tables and buy out the techs. Instead of "AOL - Time Warner", we'll have "Viacom - Dell - Comcast". There will be no jobs for millions of tech oriented college graduates, and they will not spend money on overpriced DRM enabled media if they don't have jobs. It's like an economic virus - once it consumes its host, there is nothing left to thrive on. Unfortunately its host is anything and everything in our economy that is even remotely involved with "entertainment".
"when a product is sold in a supermarket everyone gets paid, from the person at the till who takes the cash, the boy who pushes the carts back to entrance of the store, to the farmer and his helpers who grow the food"
This is similar to the way a company pays its R&D employees, who in tern paid for their own school, which paid it's professors, who propagated the intellectual property in the first place. You see, it's the same. It's just a little more abstract.
And no, I don't believe a company should own a patent forever and neither does anyone else. Copyrights also should not last forever, but most of the music we're talking about was produced recently anyway. I do not support unlimited copyrights on music, but I do support the rights of media corporations to sell music.
"Being a Democrat or Republican is not like being Borg"
This is true! The Borg are neither bribable nor blackmailable!
And how would you remind them anyway? Write a letter? You can write all you want, but you better be a big contributor, like the RIAA, if you want them to actually read it.
I for one welcome the great honorable revolution against pirates and new ideas, and hereby for the Bastardized Republic of America. With the coming of BRA, we must extend the Bill of Rights to include provisions to protect the American publics and corporations.
1. The freedom of speech, expression, press, and assembly shall not be abridged unless said speech, expression, press, and assembly threatens the welfare of the great American corporation.
2. The right of individual, in the service of the great American corporation, shall not be abridged..
3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the great American corporation, and in the manner to be prescribed by the great American corporation.
4. The right of people to their property shall not be abrdged, unless said property is beneficial to the great American corporation.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases unfavorable to the great American corporation. Nor shall private property be taken for public use, unless the property is taken for the good of the great American corporation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the privilege to a speedy and secret trial, by members of the great American corporation;to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in favor of the great American corporation, and to have the assistance of counsel for the great American corporation.
7. In suits at common laws, made by the great American corporation, the right of trial by jury shall be waved, and no fact tried by a jury or the great American corporation, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Bastardized Republic, than according to the rules of the great American corporation.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, unless such punishment is perscribed by the great American corporation.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the great American corporation.
10. The powers not delegated to the Bastardized Republic by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the great American corporation.
11. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the Bastardized Republic, unless such slavery and servitude are for the benefit of the great American corporation.
12. The right of citizens of the Bastardized Republic to vote shall be denied by the Bastardized Republic or by any state on account of unfavorable acts against the great American corporation.
I for one welcome our new Bastardized Republic of America. And urges the nations of the world cast away the misconceived notion of the evil democracy and embrace the great republic ruled by the honorable people with riches and wealth.
"I have seen the promise land! Where the nation of thieves are tossed into the burning wrath, and in its place rose the great nation of corporation, with their glorious wealth and strength and influence, and enslaved the evil public in the name of great profit and wealth for the deservingly rich." - O.H.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
I haven't sene this pointed out in the INDUCE Act talks, but it may have been discused already. But, if this would make the VCR and MP3 players illegal, wouldn't the next logical step be Internet connections themselves? I mean, if having a music player is inducing you to commit violations of law, isn't the Internet doing the same? Moreso even? (Since I have no MP3 player, but I do have music on my PC.) I'd love to see the RIAA go up against AOLTW or Comcast.
-bZj
.sig
Does anyone (the EFF, for instance) keep a list documenting various Senators' and Representatives' positions on INDUCE and other recent copyright-related legislation? I'm interested to know where my congressmen stand on these issues, and I'll bet lots of other people are, too. As it stands, the only guys I know who are standing up to this sort of legislation are Boucher (R-Va) and Barton (R-Tx).
If you care about this issue, you need to get involved by writing to your representatives. I'm talking real letters, not e-mail. Send them a well-written, reasoned letter detailing your argument and I guarantee they'll take notice. Just be sure to use a spell-check.
Well, many years ago people though that way. As a result they enacted an amendment which brought about "prohibition". After a while it was discovered that Alcohol was so engraved in our culture, that the amendment had merely forced the alcohol trade underground, bringing about a huge illicit trade and organized crime in general. Eventually people realized that despite the general consensus among the population that alcohol is bad, prohibition had done more harm than good and the amendment was repealed. I hope this has been a fun history lesson, it's too bad more congressmen haven't heard about this.
Then we won't have this problem... what am I kidding? Let's have capitalism, but lets change our government to true democracy, not a stupid republic. Even better, let us have anarchy!
RIAA - "... and guns INDUCES copyright infringement, since it promotes the download of our bad western movies."
NRA - "Oh really? Smith, Wesson, give them our rebuttal."
Smith & Wesoon - "Alright."
*BOOM!*
NRA - "That is the best rebuttal I have ever heard in my life."
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
That is an awesome deconstruction of the RIAA's arguments. Now you have to print it out and mail it to all of the senators, or your effort will be entirely wasted.
Don't stop now! You're almost there!
I hear about stuff like this and I feel a bit relieved that modern music is getting worse. More and more untalented "singer" models are making albums as popstars when they would be more fitting as pornstars...ala Christina Aguilera and Briteny Spears. Even Paris Hilton is recording a record (gag!) The percent of untalented, uncreative, uninspiring garbage that is being released is getting higher and higher. Today's so-called "artists" have a shorter shelf-life than a carton of milk.
By the time, the bottom-feeding record execs get our government-for-hire to outlaw filesharing completely, there won't be any music I'll want to download.
Given that this is traffic for this week since the Fedora FC3test1 announce, that's a bucket of legal traffic to put against whatever they're claiming.
Thief! RIAA! we hates it! We hates it forever!!!
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Um, no. Libertarians actually support the most extreme forms of capitalism imaginable through their promises of weakening government control to benefit the "individual". Well guess what: multinational corporations are run by small groups of individuals with their own private interests, and a libertarian government would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop this huge power imbalance between the rich and the relatively poor. We all know that money talks, and this would lead to the rights of citizens getting trampled even more than they are now. This is why I choose to be a libertarian-socialist instead of just a plain libertarian. Freedom for workers, government control for large businesses: this seems to be what you want, and it's not going to happen under pure libertarianism.
Save The Ipod has good info on this topic.
Dear Senator Leahy:
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
While ultra-aggressive copyright protections make our society more like a police state and, IMHO, a worse thing, there's always a point I like to bring up.
If we accord extraordinary protections, means of investigation for owners of copyrighted material, then I would like to insist that:
- aggregate information about me, such as Name and SSN, DNA checksum, whatever, also be copyrighted;
- that I own the copyright to this information about me and am the sole authority for its distribution and use;
- and that I am entitled to all the same extraordinary powers of investigation and enforcement that owners of other copyrighted material wish to obtain under these laws.
That is all."Provided by the management for your protection."
They have it in red China. Songs that are sung to praise the leaders and songs that sing about how great everything is.
Someone like W gets elected and then we have all of these right-wing authors and talk-show hosts that all of a sudden become relevant - they weren't relevant before, and won't be relevant if/when someone like Kerry gets elected.
The music industry should try to seperate itself from the government; the reason it should try to do this is because the music industry should remain in a place where it can enable artists to be critical of the government; where it can enable artists to be critical of unjust wars and other things.
When the music or entertainment industry goes to the government to seek help, they are hurting their future ability to remain independent of that government, they are hurting the ability of artists that they support in the future to be critical of the government, and to remain independent of the dark, inaccurate corners of that government's policies.
Any government will make mistakes, and constituent "bases" will take delight in things that need to be changed. Here is one area that artists can provide an alternate opinion, a different view - one can only infer from its actions that the music industry has no intention of trying to support and encourage diverse thought and opinion.
So they will keep churning out pickup truck and cowboy gear advertisements and SUV aftermarket parts advertisements and reality videos of karaoke, with perhaps the occasional college band-member's reality heartbreaking girlfriend-boyfriend relationship reality video mixed in here and there.
I think that a more likely scenario is that no one is really going to want to download anything the mainstream music media has to offer if they keep going at it the way they are going at it.
Popular music and conservative government should not mix, it does not lead to good things. If the music industry wants its fans to take care of it, and respect it, if it wants to attract talented artists who think outside the box, and aren't afraid to voice their political opinions, it should not go running to the government like it is doing.
There is the quote from an AC/DC song - "living on the streets, you gotta practice what you preach" - so that is, if the mainstream music industry wants to support and encourage artists that present an unbiased opinion, perhaps artists that present opinions that aren't as favorable to government and the status quo, they can't go running to the goverment for help like that. It won't work. No one is going to take the maistream music industry seriously.
Maybe all those dowloaders are just bored, and/or have nothing better to download. Destroying their ability to download anything other than music industry stuff via criminalizing competing technical gadgets isn't going to make them any less bored, or give them anything more interesting or more download-friendly (in a legal sense) to download.
First, define "liberal". It has come to mean someone who advocates the policies of the "left", embodied substantially in the socialist manifesto.
So, let's take a look at the socialist party platform and see what they advocate.
Regulation of business practices especially of stock markets. Both parties continue to increase the powers of departments that do that.
A graduated income tax. Social "insurance" for retirement and medicine.
Licensing of all professions by the state.
Oh, I could go on. These are all very "left" and all very "centrist" in the US.
Maybe you had some other policies in mind. Care to state what they are?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
My tastes are pretty varied, but here's what I want: Free, unDRM'ed MP3s that I can download. If I don't like the music, I'll trash the files, and if I like the music, I'll donate to the artist via whatever means they have available.
What are your favorite independent artists or free music trading sites for legit free music? Links would be greatly appreciated.
Of course that doesn't mean that the RIAA will lose this one: money talks louder than words. But to the extent that words matter, I think that sanity has won this round.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
How many of the great albums were recorded live? Hell, even some of the bands today are recording live. The Foo Fighters recorded a great album live in Dave Grohl's basement.
I totally agree the days when albums were really there to generate interest in seeing a band live. Many bands worked out songs on the road before they ever ended up on an album. (I think you made a mistake...you ment to say that tickets were NOT over three figures back then).
Even the Beatles worked their asses off in the early days...playing in Germany where they earned their chops. The bands today start out learning their instruments (that is if they even PLAY an instrument...but don't get me started on that) and 6 months later they want to put an album together, throw something together on Pro-tools and WHAM they think they have a hit record.
What is being created are not really musicians anymore but producers. Think about it, instead of having to get a band tight from practicing and gigging, they just spend all night on Pro-tools massaging a track. But if the industry ever turns around I think we'll have plenty of good producers and engineers out there!
You're totally right about Zeppelin. Page wasn't all flash...well, a little flash. But you listen to his guitar work and he really has that elusive thing called soul. And yeah, they knew how to play so they could stretch the song...and improvise. They were the extention of seeing a good blues band...which was my favorite extention of the blues: British Blues. Zeppelin, John Mayall and the Bluesbreakers, Cream, Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, Jeff Beck, early Stones....hell even "Exile on Mainstreet" Stones.
But, there are still good bands out there to see now adays. Bands that have taken up the torch of touring and just learning their licks out there on the road. But the others like Britiney, or Jessica Simpson or _________(insert flavor of the month band here) seem more like a traveling Vegas show.
Thats another thing...what ever happened to Bands sticking together? When I was growing up bands would hang around with each other for like 10 years or so before branching out. Now it's one album, then when the second one comes out they fight and break up then there's the fight in court on who gets to keep the name of the band. What up with that?!?
The good news is that the guitar is making a come-back in music. Which is good news for me since I'm a guitar tech.
I've rambled on too much...
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
(I left my typos intact...)
Dear Senator Leahy:
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
For those of you wondering how Orin Hatch can continue to collect votes, remember that tech savvy people are still a minority. Most voters don't understand what problems can arise from not understanding the society they live in. Our society is becoming more tech-centric as time goes on, but those issues do not matter to the average Joe or Jane. Check his stance on "more important" matters
3 &PHPSESSID=3b173ef984355263b98cfcfe422dcee7#20
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S088010
Project Vote Smart has more detailed information on him as well as our other corporate appointed representatives.
Whether I vote Democrat or Republican I will feel as though I have handed my freedom to a fascist. I do not feel that either of the mainstream choices in the next presidential election are fit to serve. I will be voting for a person I respect and share interests with. I have a lot of research to do, but if anybody can offer suggestions for candidates ( write-in or otherwise ) who truly love freedom more than money, I will be happy to consider them.
~DF
"It is intended to target bad actors only"
:)
Gee, I guess that is the end for Aaaarnold and so on
Units shiped, sales figures, it's all pretty meangless, just look at total revenue... it's very very true that top 10 sales have been a lot lot lower, but arn't we buying more singles which many songs which arn't in the top 10 in them?
It's spin to make a business redirection look like a loss to everyone, but there still pulling in the money, if not more money from the vast numbers of people who use the illegal downloads to 'try before they buy'
I went into shock over Leahy's position here. He's always seemed to 'get it' about tech issues. Then, I decided this was possibly a case of /. collective stupidity and went to his website (http://leahy.senate.gov), did a search on INDUCE, decided that his staff was lax/lazy since the articles came up in random-date order, found his press release on the introduction of S2560, and I just about died:
Right there is where he lost me. Here's the letter I've just sent. Keep in mind, I've considered Leahy one of the few net-friendly congresscritters, so I gave him a last chance to explain his stance. Considering his last paragraph tries to soft-shoe unintentional inducement, I doubt much will change (and I'll be singing Sayronara Leahy from now on!):I call b*llsh*t. Either the real villains are the kids -- the ones who chose to engage in each individual act of copyright infringement -- or there is no real villain at all.
It's not about copyright infringment no matter how much the RIAA complains about it. It's about illegalizing a technology that makes the recording industry obsolete. "Piracy" is just the excuse to get it done. The real villain is the RIAA.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
I think 100 Million worldwide is a lot, though.
That's 1 out of every 63 people on Earth. I think that's enough to say "Everybody". :-)
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
George Orwell described a bleak, decayed society in Nineteen Eighty-Four where science was banned and all technological progress was halted, unless it directly pertained to the military. I think what we see happening even now is corporations are working harder than ever see put an end to technological progress. Any progress in technology creates change. Any change is a threat to corporations. Any threat is a risk to them losing their immense wealth and power, and therefore, influence. Those at the top of this hierarchial society cannot retain their standing in the face of technological or any kind of intellectual advancement.
The only place all of this can possibly lead is to the society described by Orwel. The money and power are centralized to a very elite few while everyone else lives in a world where nothing is created to better their lives. Then the common people will no longer be a threat. This type of bullshit legislation will come again and again and again until what I have just described is achieved. The only alternative is for us, the "proles", to eliminate organizations like the RIAA.
Of course, this just something of a rant of my random thoughts on the matter. But I don't think I am the only one who sees where all of this could lead.
Why bother.
They are in it for money, and music was never about money... it was once about spreading news and stories all over the land,
Bzzz, no, it was about getting laid.
In particular, cute single american women should feel free to contact me. Don't forget to include a picture!
...in the form of a Shakespeare quote:
/. ;)
"My only love sprung from my only hate!"
In my opinion they should be embracing P2P - there are a myriad of ways they could actually use it to their advantage - Being a little less technophobic would let them bring down advertising costs, stop them pouring money into so many anti-P2P lawsuits and, most of all, let people discover the artists they will want to hear rather than the latest Britney Spears clone;
- Create a P2P client that offers free downloads of ALL the artists in their catalogue - sound insane? hear me out. The MP3s (or whatever format they choose to offer the downloads in, but it would, to get the most mindshare, have to be MP3s) would be encoded at a low bitrate - not so low that no-one would use the system, but low enough that a CD would be a viable alternative. (those downloaders who would just download and not even consider buying the CD, forget it, RIAA, they ain't buying those CDs even if you took away P2P altogether)
- They offer these files as a download from high-speed centralised servers, which would put an end to all those 'Remotely Queued' and 'Waiting for User' problems, as well as those slow download speeds from 56k'ers.
- 'You Might Also Like' categories set by users, with the option of making the client into an iTunes-type system, where you get high-bitrate MP3s rather than the low-bitrate ones, and get the program to use the ID3 tags in the files to give users a 'Buy this Album' button, maybe even with prompts if they downloaded, say, 3 songs from the same album, which after signing up you could order a copy of the CD straight from the record company.
- Throw a sizeable amount of money at the project for marketing. If they can get the amounts of people who listen to Britney Spears to keep on doing so by sheer marketing, they can get people to use a service like this. Throw in extras like signifiantly cheaper-than-store CD prices, extra content on the CDs, making previews availible of a few tracks from new albums via this service and nowhere else, and a few more tricks I'm sure their execs could dream up.
Hey presto, instant money-making machine - While Apple and a few others are doing it well with solely-MP3 services, I'd say it would be a great idea for the RIAA partner companies to group together to adopt - I haven't seen a service do this for CDs yet, and with the right amount of marketing (read: a lot) and well-chosen ideas for sweeteners, I'm sure this could work out pretty well for the RIAA, and even if it's a flop, they'd at least look a little better in the eyes of
[tinfoil_hat = on]
That is, of course, unless they don't want us to listen to the Britney clones they're marketing - maybe they're going for mind(share/control, delete as applicable) rather than market(share/control).
[tinfoil hat = off]
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Just look at the selection of senators and congress crawlers looking seriously at this filth. It's quite bi-partisan. The Senator from Disney is a Democrat, Senator Hatch is Republican. There isn't any difference between the two. None. Zip.
The only difference relevant here is:
(RIAA contribution to Senator 1) - (RIAA contribution to Senator 2) = ~0
There are only 435+100+1=536 elected Federal Officials. At about $10,000 per member per election, it's easy enough just to pay them all. (Or just the 51% you need, if you're cheap.) It's a trivial cost of doing business for a multi-billion dollar industry.
To play Devil's Advocate here... Okay, the term 'stealing' doesn't apply in quite the same way when we're talking about copying.
But maybe it's still pretty accurate. You may not be depriving the original owner of the material in question, but you are depriving them of many things related to it. You're depriving them of control over its distribution. You're depriving them of its scarcity, and the chance to profit from that scarcity. You're depriving them of editorial control over what versions are released, and in what circumstances. You may also be depriving them of their moral rights to be identified as the creator -- or vice versa, identifying them as the creator of a 'work' they never wanted to release. And of course, the most contentious one: in some cases, you may be depriving them of a sale.
The question we have to ask ourselves is: Doesn't the forced removal of all of these count as 'stealing'?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Wait... I think they got that backwards...
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
or (+5, funny)
...of a Futurama episode where Bender, Fry and Leela are trying to destroy the evil Santa through using a logical paradox, only it turns out Santa has paradox-absorbing somethingsomething. He and the RIAA seem to have some other qualities in common too ;)
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
First, gotta love section 1, that asks that the bill be referred to as the "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act of 2004". The bill has absolutely nothing to do with the exploitation of children, but who would vote against a bill whose title suggests that if you do vote for it you will be helping to prevent the exploitation of children.
/. start a campaign to remove Senator Hatch from office entitled "Corporate Lobbying Devolves into Blatant Deception and Exploitation of the American Consumer, Voter and Tax Payer Recall Campaign". We can start by gathering a large group of child exploitation victims to meet with Senator Hatch in his office to ask him why he is trivializing their experiences.
In response, I suggest that we on
If this bill passes, then the following seems likely to occur:
Xerox, RIP.
Kinkos, RIP.
Makers of video and audio recording devices, like CD / DVD burners, TIVO, etc, RIP.
Hey, maybe even the manufacturing of DVD / CD pressing equipment and film duplication equipment will be illegal under this bill. And how do the RIAA and MPAA geniuses propose to continue in business once that occurs?
If nothing else, I'll love to see the entertainment parts of Sony try and sue the electronics manufacturing parts of Sony out of existence.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Global sales of recorded music - dominated by our country - quadrupled from 1980 to 1999. Then, almost on a dime, that trend line reversed, with sales figures falling by about a third to the mid point of last year. Before the launch of lawsuits by the industry last fall against those induced to steal music online, we were spiraling down with no sense of a floor.
So it seems that the financials of Ford Motor Company are similar. Their net income was in the red until last fall, and their stock price turned on a dime around 1999 and went spiraling down with no sense of a floor.
One can only conclude that pirates were illegaly copying cars produced by Ford Motor Company until the recent lawsuits of the RIAA stemmed the hemorrhaging. Either that or there was a global recession that affected all businesses.
People have very short memorys.
we had computers before we had the internet and we had plenty of file sharing networks
how did files get shared before the internet? By warez traders , hacking groups ect; distributing cd's
people would travel between citys and swop disks full of dms files they would be passed out to friends who passed them to more friends.
File sharing is pretty much like sex, you sleep with someone who sleeps with someone else who sleeps with someone else and there you have exponential growth.
when you sleep with someone new think of how many sexual encounters you are linking in with, it doesn't take long before any release ends up shared with 100's of thousands, millions if not billions.
heck hash, grass is just the same,except maybe easier to get hold of.
you can bitch about it, legislate against it, even educate about it
but one things certain your not ever going to stop it.
and for those that can't get it for free, you can even pay for it.
maybe those corperate execs think they losing excusive pimp rights, but everything gets shared, in fact file sharing networks are breeding grounds for new talent, think about it if they sit in their cubicles rubbing thier grubby hands as new age voyeurs on the p2p networks, maybe they might see an unsigned band or two with tracks being shared amongst the networks users, see the profit and take them into their stable and sell them like the whores on 5th avenue.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
That's why I said "Eventually". Within 5 years, all the hardware on the market should have strong, possibly encrypted, DRM built into the BIOS and God only knows what else. Saying "don't worry about it" has always been a recipe for disaster when you KNOW there are wealthy, powerful people dying to make something happen.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
I understand what you are saying here, but legally, patents and copyrights ARE property, and have many of the same rights as personal or real property -- such as the right to exclude others, the right to sell, assign, or give away, the right to devise the property, and so on. Just because there is no "tangible" product doesn't mean that it isn't property, at least from a legal standpoint.
And just because patents and copyrights expire also does not mean that they are not property -- there are many interests in property that expire. Leaseholds are one, as you noted above.
I think your analogies are pretty good, actually, and perhaps trespass is a better term than stealing. In fact, common law uses the term "trespass" when you damage someone else's tangible property. I just thought I would point out that intellectual property, at least legally, IS property.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
This is a great excuse, better then the one "the dog ate it" if this law is passed.
Teacher - "Why didn't you do your book report?"
Student - "Because the law banned my computer, because it 'induces' copyright infringement by allowing me to copy music and games and movie and electronic books and..."
Teacher - "... why didn't you write it by pen or pencil?"
Student - "You said it need to be typed... wait, you're inducing us to infringe on copyright law, you're illegal."
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
This breakdown on where all the money goes from album sales says a lot.
In the Betamax era, Sony was a hardware supplier that had everything to lose if home taping of programming was banned.
Now, Sony's a content supplier and is on the other side of the fence.
Fair use is from case law (IIRC), not explicitly something the legislature decided should be done.
The problem with the Libertarian party is thatm once they're in power, they will get rid of all federal and state student financial aid & loan programs, State Colleges/Universities, The Public Education System, all public Transportation like the city busses that many people rely on. social sercurity, medicare, medicade, food stamps, unemployment, minimum wage. Programs like OSHA will be abolished and employers will have equipment that will injure someone on the job. But of course, let's all vote shitarian so we can make this nation a true Dog-Eat-Dog/Survival-Of-The-Fittest Nation.
p.s. it wasn't Darwin that said survival of the fittest, it was a stupid libertarian.
"But it has been hijacked by some unscrupulous operators who have constructed a business model predicated on the taking of property financed by my member companies."
As far as I am aware, BitTorrent has no true business model. I got the software legally and without cost.
Hmmmm, couldn't the same be said about Internet Explorer?
"They are havens for pornographers that project their filth into your homes when your kids innocently seek to find their favorite artists."
Yes, news at 6, your children are affected by porno!
Realy just a continuation of that popular FUD internet stereotype: The internet is a service where as soon as you launch it graphic imagry is shown with you having no control of it. Followed by IM's by pedophiles and phone calls from banks that your accounts have suddenly been emptied by people in the Caymen Islands.
The impression mass media gives of the Net.
Actually, IP is not property, not by any legal definition. The copyright or patent itself is the only thing that's property. The [work/creation/method/device design] that is copyrighted or patented is not property, despite the fact that 150 years ago someone decided to try to skew the debate by calling it "intellectual property". What copyrights and patents do is allow the people (and the law) to treat something that is fundamentally unlike property as if it were property. The only reason copyrights and patents exist in the first place is because "creative works" and "methods" aren't physical objects.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Why, then, can so few of you understand that stealing information is as harmful as stealing materials?
It's different. I don't think most folks here will defend copyright infringement as meaningless or intellectual property as inherently bad (though there are a few folks that feel that way).
However, copyright infringement *is* very different from theft, and should not be interchanged.
If I duplicate something of yours (while possibly infringing on a copyright), in the worst case I deprive you of a potential sale. As many people have pointed out, in many cases I do not even do that, if I would not have bought your original product. This clearly can damage the system that we use to fund content development, but the damages are obviously more limited.
If I steal something of yours, I deprive you of both the potential sale (without question) and the physical object.
The two crimes are *different*, and the cost of copyright infringement is never greater than that of stealing. In the worst cases, it can come close to, approximate the cost of stealing.
There are two variables involved -- whether people would actually have purchased the product, and what the materials cost of the good is. As you have pointed out, the materials cost of a photograph is very low relative to the purchase price. Furthermore, few people would steal a photograph except the people that were reasonably interested in it -- there are many photographs in the world, but only a few are of interest to any given person. Unless the photograph was simply priced too high for him to be willing to buy it, he would probably have made a sale.
The variables are very different in the music world. Trying out new music and collecting complete albums is of interest to a number of people. They would never collect all the photographs in the world, but many people do collect vast amounts of music. So the "deprived of a potential customer" factor is lower. In addition, while CDs are not that expensive, the distribution and production costs on a CD, the case, the shelf space, and so forth, and probably higher than those associated with a photograph. This makes the gap in damages between the different crimes of theft and copyright infringement greater than in the example of a photograph.
May we never see th
You're trying to apply social pressure to eliminate an act that people perform in private (download pirated music to their computers).
It's not going to work. Why bother? I mean, yeah, sure, if everyone took a particular action, IP would work. Same goes for communism -- if nobody became unmotivated in a communist nation, communism would work fine.
The problem probably cannot be stopped by politics, and likely not even significantly slowed.
It *might* be solved by technology -- massive deployment of DRM-enabled hardware that focuses on preventing people from *playing* infringing content rather that keeping people from making initial copies of the content. I don't see that as very likely.
The problem is this, going way back:
Once upon a time, someone realized that free markets were a really neat system for efficiently producing commodity goods. They caught on, and everyone started using them. A bunch of people got pissed off about particular nasty problems that had cropped up when people managed to take advantage of free markets (for example, free markets make certain assumptions, like complete information and rational actors, that are not always true). They tried to set up communism. It didn't work, because they failed to take into account another element of the system -- that people need positive feedback for doing the right thing. The production and sale of data became big. Fortunately, data replication was so expensive and hard to do that it was easy to tie the cost of the data production to the physical objects, and charge a fee at the time of the physical replication to cover the cost of both the replication and the initial creation of the data. We called the laws formalizing and supporting this "intellectual property" -- an attempt to introduce artificial scarcity, to retrofit scarcity into a system with no scarcity so that we could have a system to fund the production of more original content. This worked well for a while, but the cost of replicating data steadily fell. Machines helped, computers helped more, telecom helped more, and the Internet helped even more. However, for very massive distribution, there were still associated costs. Then P2P came along, and spread the cost of distribution among all the people obtaining data. At that point, the cost of distributing an arbitrary piece of data was effectively zero, so people could distribute anything, including data which used to be tied to physical objects, even if they didn't make a monetary profit in return. A number of the existing entities that depended upon such a system become upset, and tried to introduce "legal remedies", which would add a cost to distribution to the point that again content creation could be funded using the same old system. Unfortunately for them, it was very difficult to globally adjust the cost of every actor's actions -- this was the difficulty of enforcing laws like the one being introduced now.
I think that the free-market method of funding content production is probably dead in the long term, though perhaps not at present. The required scarcity is just not present. Tips might be introduced as a way of funding artists. Centralized production, where the government funds artists, might be possible. Perhaps some new economic system will be introduced -- something has to be done to fund new content production. But the era of free markets being applied to data is, well, over.
May we never see th
Honestly? I wan some of the stuff you're smoking. Really!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
We elect them (stupid us)
The Corporations and the Government keeps them there.
Factoid Alert --97.7% of US Senators will be reelected this year
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
you let us return the favor and enact a law that would allow the police to shoot Peter Jennings on site (pun intended)
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
As far as I am aware, BitTorrent has no true business model.
BitTorrent is no more a "business model" than HTTP, FTP, etc. It's simply a file transfer protocol. i.e. a basic tool. Business models apply to how you use tools.
I reserve my P2P client's usage for movies and pr0n.
I understand what you are saying here, but legally, patents and copyrights ARE property, and have many of the same rights as personal or real property -- such as the right to exclude others, the right to sell, assign, or give away, the right to devise the property, and so on. Just because there is no "tangible" product doesn't mean that it isn't property, at least from a legal standpoint.
If I lease a whole industrial complex do I not have most of those same rights-- i.e. the right to exclude others from tresspassing, the right to sell, assign, or give away for the terms of the lease, a portion of the office space therein? Or at least a lease could be crafted which could give me these rights.
And just because patents and copyrights expire also does not mean that they are not property -- there are many interests in property that expire. Leaseholds are one, as you noted above.
What kind of law? Tax law? I am sure they are but in terms of criminal law, the courts don't seem to make the same parallel. Of course, this is my reading, and IANAL.
But in a leasehold, you do not have title to the property (land, etc). You have a contract which assigns you certain rights to the property for a certain period of time. Sure, you could say that the leasehold is a form of limited ownership, or that it is an asset on the accountign books too, but you could also argue that should the actual land-owner terminate your lease they are not violating your property rights, and that it is a mere contractual dispute.
Also, if you lease a car, and jimmy the lock, open the door, and sit in the back seat because I wish I could have a car like that, you can have me arrested. It is illegal. But the car is not your property in any strict sense of the word.
The reason why I think that copyrights are becoming more analagous to real estate than to leases on such. Software, for example, when protected by copyright, may never meaninfully lapse into the public domain. Movie and eBook producers feel left out and want to have their works perpetually protected too.....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You're missing an axis. Try the Nolan graph, which includes "statist" "libertarian" instead of just the "left" and "right" that came out of the French Revolution.
http://www.lp.org/quiz/
By the "deomcrat" definition, they are liberals. By the classical Liberal definition, they are statist.
You are absolutely correct that these policies end up being both "right" and "left". Remember that Nazi means "National Socialist", yet fascist is considered "right" while socialist "left". The fact is that both left and right come together under the simple aspect that the individuals involved come to desire control over everything.
That is why the original statement that the American Congress is "right" is so absurd. The efforts at control by Congress are both left and right, they are doing everything to build the welfare (left) and warfare (right) total state.
The classical liberals are now called libertarian. www.mises.org www.lewrockwell.com www.fff.org these are excellent sources of information on the "classical" liberals.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
"Freedom for workers, government control for large businesses: this seems to be what you want, and it's not going to happen under pure libertarianism."
You mistake me. I want freedom. Liberty. The ability to say no. If you dilute that at all, you're not libertarian.
You cannot be "libertarian-socialist", they are opposites. A socialist believes in communal (state) ownership of the means of production, "property". A libertarian believes in private property. They two do not mix.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
it wasn't Darwin that said survival of the fittest, it was a stupid libertarian.
...unless, of course, you are not fit to receive a private loan, grant or scholarship. Is that what you're afraid of?
Evolution is actually survival of the fit, not just the fittest.
As such, since before government took over colleges there were grants, loans and scholarships, and since there are lots of non-government grants, loans and scholarships around today, you would have nothing to worry about if libertarians were to repeal the government ones.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Of course I am, because who gets the private grants at a private college? Mainly people that know someone that is in the elite circle, in other words, the rich. Oh you said a scolarship, which is based on grades in k-12, oh, but you stupid shititarians want to abolish public education. so that means people will still have private loans, oh, but wait, again you shititarians want to get rid of public education, so that means that how can anyone get an education except for the fuckin RICH.
Oh, that's right, you shititarians believe that the poor should have abolutely NOTHING and have no chance to get on their feet. That and you idiots believe that everything including murder should be allowed "of coursde because your belief is that if someone is willing to give up liberties for safety, they deserve neither", is why the shititarian party will never survive.
Bush said the right thing for the wrong reason. There should be limits to freedom "And actually it should be there should be some limits to freedoms". Society should not be too restricted nor too free.
A libertarian believes in (state-enforced) private property. How is that not diluting liberty?
Sorry bud. The libertarians get just as many campaign donations from big business as the republicans and Democrats and anyone else. All political parties are corrupt and blaming just one or two of them for the ills of this country is just plain wrong.
Go to the site and send a letter to your representative and senators.
Sent a letter to both my senators(I'm from MD), here's what I got back from Senator Sarbanes:
Dear Mr. XXXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 2560, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important matter.
I must frankly tell you that I am a cosponsor of S. 2560, which would expand the existing laws on liability for copyright infringement to cover those who intentionally
induce others to violate copyrights. The bill specifically does not affect the common law doctrines of secondary liability and preserves the "fair use" rights of
consumers. The term "fair use" refers to a limitation upon a copyright holder's exclusive rights, which permits the public to use a copyrighted work for limited purposes,
such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. On June 22,
2004, S. 2560 was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it awaits further action.
While our views may differ on this issue, I certainly appreciate hearing your concerns. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me again about matters of importance to you.
--There you go kids