Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Bill could Stifle Innovation
binder520 writes "Wired has an article on how the latest Senate Bill, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will hold technology companies liable for supplying devices or software that can be used to illegally copy music, videos, software, etc. It looks like it is time to write to your senators, because the verbiage in the bill is too subjective for any technology company to stand up to the media giants. Say good bye to your VCR, MP3 players, CD/DVD burners, etc."
Do politicians in America go out of their way to stifle innovation or is it just my perception?
Guess what the senator says about holding gun companies liable for murders committed with their products?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Read Atlas Shrugged. These laws are not being put in place to be followed. There are there to be selectively enforced.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
He got caught, so he wants everyone else to suffer too.
Is it just an oversight on the part of readers, or journalists, or Slashdot editors, or some combination of the above to ignore many other things that also stifle innovation, like high taxes? Isn't it at all possible that more companies would invest in research and development if they could afford to do so, but they cannot because too much of the potential profits are seized by the government?
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
The mere fact that Wired and the WSJ are both running stories against this bill suggest it has zero chance of ever passing. But it's nice to see a traditional print newspaper warm to some of the issues near and dear to nerd hearts.
Oh, here's the link to the WSJ article, but it probably requires (pay) subscription.
It is becoming increasingly common for legislators try to get any bill passed, no matter the constitutionality of it.
Between the defense of marriage act earlier today and this, I am just so disgusted with the whole lot of them.
With the betamax decision, it was ruled that it is ok to make personal copies of tv shows. It is logical that the same could be said of recorders of CDs to MP3s or (preferably) OGG or FLAC.
So now Hatch comes up with a bill that would do nothing but tie up the courts (after causing pause to innovators) until it is ruled unconstitutional and we are back where we started.
Then Hatch comes up with practically the same bill all over again, and the process continues ad infinitum (sigh)
I don't know about you, but I refused to do business with people in Utah because of their inability to deal with electing senators and I'm happy to tell them that and I do take my business elsewhere. Too bad he's not up for reelection for another two years. Ever notice that everything he does seems to be more involved with other states than his own? I don't think he's been working for the people of Utah since maybe the 1980's.
I vote against Hatch every year. Unfortunatly he's part of the local political system and the LDS Church loves him so he won't be voted out.
And he knows it -- he really doesn't care what he does to the people of Utah (or the rest of you). He knows that nobody will hold him accountable. As long as he keeps getting his kickbacks from his big corporation buddies he's happy. Complaints from the "little people" (us) don't even register.
One of the best things he's managed to do is convince the local news outlets (the biggest being owned by the LDS Church) to never report on what he is doing in Congress (aside from when he gets voted "best dressed..") If the citizens of Utah were kept up to date about the legislation he proposes and what his votes are there would be a huge outcry for him to be tossed out on his ass. Supposedly the natives here (I'm not one of them) value things like privacy, personal rights, etc. All the things that Orrin's bills seek to take away.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
We can't be content with merely banning devices that can illegally copy copyrighted material.
We need to ban any device that can potentially play illegal media!
No child is safe while televisions and music players exist which could possibly corrupt their minds with illegally copied media!
Ban all Media Players now!
If it is possible to prosecute for the illegal use of a product which has a legal and legitimate use, then surely by extension it will only be a matter of time before someone (unless they already have) sues bullet makers for providing the means to kill people.
I know that guns don't kill people, it is people that kill people, but a VCR / CDR / generic recording device does have legitimate uses that don't violate copyright.
I am glad that I don't live in the states. If this is the model of democracy and things being done for the people rather than for the oligarchs (read the corporations the politicians seem to owe their souls to) then I would hate to see a country really in need of liberation.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
I still don't understand Hatch. I've said this before, but I remember Hatch kicking Hillary Roisen's ass about fair use early in the debates. At the time he led a heroic effort to stop the RIAA from imposing undue restrictions. I don't understand why he changed his mind...
E.g. from: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2001/01/15/Music/TAlong with the nation's teen-agers, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah is an unlikely proponent of the online music company. A key Hatch aide recently left Capitol Hill to become Napster's chief lobbyist in Washington. Unbeknownst to many, Hatch is a prolific, yet frustrated, songwriter who says Napster is a great way to get your music known if you don't get a record deal.
"For every Metallica, there are thousands of talented songwriters whose music will never be recorded, talented musicians whose work will never be heard by the public. Peer-to-peer technology (like Napster) may help some of these artists," Hatch said in an interview with Inside magazine.
Sen. Hatch is only protecting himself from these damn pirates, since it is practically assured that his music is on the top of pirates most wanted music lists around the globe. Or maybe hes a just the fascist pinhead he asserts himself to be.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Here is what I wrote; please use it, change it if you like, and email it to your state's senators:
(Your Senator's Name Here),
The passing of the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 (S. 2560) would be a mistake felt by both consumers and manufacturers.
Those of us with enough personal responsiblity would suffer the most, as the price of devices manufactured for media duplication sky-rockets, due to high legal fees, and the need to develop exotic copyright-protection schemes. Due to the vague wording of the Bill, our ability to own music, movies, and other media may even disappear as consumers are forced to adopt the entertainment industries' extreme piracy prevention schemes.
Please remove your support from this Bill, as it only punishes the law abiding citizen and an industry that produces to meet a consumer demand. As usual, the criminal would find a way around this limitation.
Thank You,
(Your Name Here)
Considering the subject of this thread, I guess I should write up some legal document releasing this sample email into the public domain, so no one gets sued for using my material...
Whatever; just send it in.
Or the bill could be decided by the leadership to be of extreme importance and put on a fast track to go through subcommittee, committee and on the floor in the matter of weeks, if not days. There is no requirement that there are hearings on a bill, and while there may be outcry, members and senators are not in a real fear of losing their job because they did not hold a hearing on a bill (unless there is public outcry).
Or it could be attached as a rider to another bill or to the approps bill. There are many ways that a motivated Congress can quickly pass bills. While this is a general good outline of the process, it is not uniform and many bills have been approved quickly when the leadership (particularly if both parties) wants it. A good example you know about...Patriot Act that was passed within weeks. You don't know about the tons of other examples because they happen without much fanfare.
I hated Orrin Hatch before it was cool. Remember the methamphetamine anti-proliferation act? The one that would prohibit the dissemination of information about how to get, use, or make drugs?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yeah, but the major media powers would hate that, since you wouldn't need to consume anything new. What they should do it come up with a way to make you forget the actual content, just that you really liked it (no matter if you really did). Then you'd want to buy the next great thing from them.
They'd make sure that the boof! also wiped out the book:
Hey, a new Tom Clancy book! Here's $9.95.
boof!
Hey, a new Tom Clancy book! Here's $9.95.
boof!
Does anyone know where that site is that lists all contributions made to senators and such (how much and where from)? You know, these people legally have to report all contributions and such. I've looked around for links here on slashdot, and also through numerous google searches.
When I voted against him last time, he was still pretty popular, but I've been hearing a lot of complaints lately. Oh, and by the way, not only am I LDS, but a native. As for writing to him to change his mind, whenever I do that I get a response that feels like he's patting me on the head, saying, "Ah, gee, that's so cute that you believe that." Maybe I should run. And, as a matter of Hatch related silliness, was anyone aware that Hatch's son is one of the major lawyers for SCO? At least, that's what the article I read on MSNBC said.
What I haven't figured out is how the heck these people (if you can call them that) can claim to be representing THEIR constituents with bills like this. California legislators (especially those in Southern California districts) I can understand, and maybe some of the New York ones...but as far as I can tell, Utah is about as dependent on Big Media for their economy as South Carolina (i.e. Fritz Hollings) is...This particular senator's wild-eyed berserk enthusiasm for grossly overeager "Copyright Protection(tm)" particularly baffles me in light of the fact that it puts him AGAINST the "Clean Flicks"** people in their case, and his state especially seems to like those.
Is it really just that "The Two Parties(tm)" really ARE the Disneycrats and Ruperticans* as I've been calling them for the past several years, run by their respective media masters?
(* - as in Rupert Murdoch/Fox Network, in case anyone didn't guess that...)
(** - "Clean Flicks" is a company that buys original media, then edits out the "objectionable" parts that might offend the delicate sensibilities of viewers, especially in the Utah/Idaho area, such as naked people, discussions of icky things, and bad words. While my personal feelings towards this attitude range from contempt to disgust to anger, it is for philosophical/artistic reasons, and I nonetheless think that they are FIRMLY within what ought to be obviously legal actions within the doctrines of "Fair Use" and "First Sale" to anyone that isn't being paid off by media lobbyists...or at least that's my opinion.)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I was involved in a lawsuit where a village selectively enforced conflicting regulations when I was building a house, stopping me. I showed up with reams of evidence showing that, for example, my case was the *only* case in the 40+ years of one regulation that it was ever brought up.
The result? A Federal court judge ruled that there is nothing is wrong with selective enforcement of *ANY* law so long as the selectivity is not based on race, religion, etc. And she cited precedent (why my legal team didn't know or tell me this before I paid them 6 figures is another story).
So in this case it would be perfectly legal and proper (although likely immoral) to pass such a broad law and then go after anyone with a dissenting opinion of how government should be run.
I am saddened by the country we are passing on to our kids. As my father, a decorated veteran, said of the proceedings, "This isn't the country we fought WWII for any more."
Couldn't agree with this more... What a worthless waste!
It is so tiring reading about how these people want to legislate the hell out of everything.
I am far from an anarchist, I beleive in laws and regulations, however, I am a firm beleiver that it is the people that should be running this country and not the sorry politicians whose only goal in life is to make life easier for a select group of people.
I do beleieve that laws can stifle progress. Once more, it is so tiring watching lawmakers in the US proposing methods of government on the Internet. These ridiculous laws passed in the US will do nothing to stop development of software in other countries, in addition, the Internet will continue to propogate the software around the world.
The only thing that I would have to say to my Senator if he were looking at siding with this legisation would be to get a life! There are far too many more important things to deal with that would genuinely improve the quality of life in the US.
If the citizens of Utah were kept up to date about the legislation he proposes and what his votes are there would be a huge outcry for him to be tossed out on his ass
Is there a website with this information? There should be a place you could go to see what your state senators and local representatives proposed, what committees they are on and what came out of those committees, and how they voted on various bills and issues.
I know this information is public, but I'm not sure there is a good way for the public to access it and there definitely should be. If anyone knows of a website, please fill me in.