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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
...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!
could this bill also apply to libraries, which also are in the business of distributing music for free?
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!
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
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."
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."
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."
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."
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...
To attract women! (Except for the women musicians, of course...)
"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=
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
"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.
if government was run the way slashdot thinks it is, then why are we all still using computers? remember the SSSCA?
Remember the DMCA? Didn't help Joe Voter one single bit, and yet it still became law - and has been expanded on since. Law bought and paid for, by entities that have no vote.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Here is how it works. We Canadians pay a tax on blank media, such as CDs, minidiscs, DVDs, tapes, MP3 players, and VHS tapes. Now, included in this law is the provision that you can copy to these media for personal use, without breaking copyright law. Downloading to your hard-drive does NOT qualify, even if you say that you intended to burn them to CD and then delete them from your hard drive...there may be a recent ruling that clarified this and made downloading allowable, but I'm not aware of it.
Recently, a judge said that sharing songs online is no different than placing a photocopier in a library. He argued that, although the person sharing a file is providing an automated copying service to the public, it is the person USING the service who is making the copy, and therefore, breaking the law. So, in Canada, it is illegal to download songs, but precident now says that the mere act of sharing them is not illegal. This is different that the USA, where both parties are making the copy, and both are breaking the law.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
"Intellectual property" itself is an abuse, and should by your agurment be lost. For all my intellectual creations are based upon the work of others, and those of society that pave our roads and feed our bellies are those that allow me to have the free time to be creative. Creativity is not an island, and all of us that create stand on the shoulders of giants. There has not been one invention, innovation or creation that stands alone as the work of one person without the support of society and history behind them.
Your argument is false because intellectual property is theft from the public society that allowed it to be created in the first place. While patents allow monopolies of thought, and copyright lasting virtually forever, there is a land grab going on for IP, where the only winners will be the RIAA MPAA "robber barrons" who declare it's fine for them to base their movie on a classic novel, but it's not ok for me to base my movie on an old classic of theirs.
Copyright must be a balance between the individual (or group of individuals - not corporations) who do the hard work of creating, and of society that by feeding and clothing them, and supporting their creative efforts, allows them the time and energy to be creative. Limits on the term of copyright is one way to balance this. Copyright must have a short, limited lifespan, and must remain in the hands of those that create it. Sure, they should be able to licence their efforts to others for limited times, but they should always own their own IP and especially moral rights, which should never be removed or waived. Fair use is another balance - the fair use to parody, quote, review, question. The fair use to copy for non-commercial use. The fair use to back up what has been purchased to protect against damage. The fair use that your own IP is as protected as much as those of the big corporations.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
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
Canadians can download... they'd can't upload/share/distribute/etc.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
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
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.
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.
"some people actually think this will be a viable method for sustaining wealth when our manufacuring industries are gone"
No, some people just think that in the future everything along those lines will be automated, therefore involve a much smaller portion of the population. As a result, most economic activity will be intellectual in nature. Therefore the continued existence of a capitalist economy requires intellectual property. It's pretty simple really.
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
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.
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?
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".
"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.
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.
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
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!):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.
Wait... I think they got that backwards...
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
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