Slashdot Mirror
Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act
An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET the Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch. It looks like the RIAA is making significant progress manipulating the marionette strings in Congress. MP3newswire.net states that if such laws were to pass, the record industry would become the new AMTRAK. 'Bloated and inefficient as always, but now a drain on taxpayers wallets and liberty as well'." Infoworld has a story as well. Reader CryptoEngineer writes: "Marybeth Peters, of the US Copyright Office
testified recently before the Senate Judiciary committee in support of the INDUCE Act, which has been discussed
here
before. In summary, she thinks its not strong enough. Among other things, she proposed scrapping the Betamax decision, which makes it legal to timeshift TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."
Orrin Hatch should be beat upside the head with a mackrel.
That's just my humble opinion though...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
As much as I agree with the RIAA that piracy is wrong and should be stopped, things are getting ridiculous. Corporations shouldn't have this much power in government. This is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people, but is now controlled by the corporations...
Free iPod!eBay o
Does someone have a list of Senators currenty in favor of the act. They need to be urgently sto^H^H^H replaced.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
(here is the letter I sent, misspellings 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.
To your Senators.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
You know, I would like to see this pass, I would even like to see the Betamax decision overturned. Why you might ask? Because of the wakeup call it will create.
;) it will be those fighting for these freedoms they've become accustom to. It will force some hard decisions on the direction you want for your country, do you want to be ruled by a corporate agenda or by the freedom that America supposedly stands for.
;)
:)
Right now it's only a small fraction of the population fighting this, or that even is paying attention. However when the RIAA and their lawyer start suing and the VCR becomes illegal.... the public will finally wake up. The sleeping lion which usually let's the government pursue it's own agenda at will, will begin to fight.
There will be calls such as back in the revolution days, only this time it won't be led my traitors to the Britain (hey, I'm Canadian, the yanks were traitors in my eyes
If the RIAA pushes too far it could become the largest cultural revolution seen in a century.
That, plus all the tech companies dealing with this technology will move north and I'll never want for a job - there will always be a black market for time-shifting and the like equipment down south.
Instead of us whining on slashdot, we need to inform and mobilize the masses. They need to know what their rights are now and what is being done to take them away. They need to have the will to pull in the line of their government, order them on the direction to take. Maybe even get rid of the Democratics and Republicans, two parties that claim to be different but are both the same cultural poison. Come on, give Nader a chance, he has some great ideas.
What's next? Are you going to make Adobe Photoshop illegal? I mean, I could use Photoshop to fake legal documents - sure they've made copying currency harder, but it's a lot easier to create fake insurance documents, phony immigration papers, false birth certificates and vehicle registrations.
But do I do any of that? NO. I use it to make a living. I use it to create works of art, which in case they forgot, is one of the things that makes human beings noble and worth anything at all.
I'm sure that a lot of people use it for nefarious purposes. Adobe would be hard-pressed to make an application that's useful and yet could hinder people's evil plans for it. So they leave that to the user and the criminal justice system - as it should be.
Same thing with P2P networks. They just didn't realize how very many people are willing to bend or break the law given the chance. What, they thought everyone's basically GOOD at heart? SUCKER! P2P networks are handy. They have legitimate uses. The most valuable one to me is that heretofore unknown artists can make their work available and with just a little word of mouth, garner a lot of attention and notice they wouldn't previously have had.
And I think that, more than anything, is the crux of it. The establishment has made hoards of money and holds a lot of power based on the fact that previously it was difficult to even make a minor success of yourself. It was like the old system of banks and checking accounts. You couldn't open an account unless someone vouched for you. Similarly, before computers and the internet took over, you couldn't be a success unless someone already rich and powerful vouched for you. (Or you were extraordinarilly lucky. This wouldn't preclude talent, but any talented artist that was successful under the old system will first admit they were lucky to get there.) Frankly, it's mostly the same now, but it's changing. Bands are putting songs they can't get onto the radio on their websites. Videos MTV won't let you see are available online. I don't have to listen to KROQ's corporate-sanctioned IDEA of alternative rock - I can listen to KEXP Seattle right through my computer. Rather than wait several weeks for the "official" release, people globally can get the media they want today. I no longer get suckered into paying $16-18 for a whole CD of crap when all I wanted was one song that frankly, I'd be sick of in three weeks flat anyway. Wifey and Hubby get 10-20,000 subscribers a month and they have a nice house and take fabulous trips. Mark one for everyone.
Early in my Internet days I realized the great thing about it was, that with a little know how, a small investment, and a few ideas, anyone could make a few bucks. Some with better ideas would make a whole lot more. Sure enough a lot of people, it turns out, were actually quite willing to take their clothes off and start inserting all manner of objects in front of a camera - if they got paid for it. Did anyone realize how many whores there were out there before it became so easy to set up a subscription site? The free market used to be such a sacred cow with the conservatives. Suddenly they've had the rose-tinted glasses removed and realized the cow's a three-input bovine and they freak out and start legislating the use of inputs.
OK, I ramble, I get off topic. Score me a -1. But the point is, they see things getting out of control. They see their precious status-quo shaken. And rather than adapt and take this opportunity to finally and truthfully get to know their audience for the slightly-slimey and occasionally downright dirty hos they are, they freak out and start taking liberties away. They only way they can see to staunch the flow of blood is to put a tourniquet on technological advances.
We've got to stop this crap or else we're doomed to live with Brittany Spears and her ilk forever.
Sponsers/supporters of the Bill
Orrin G. Hatch
Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont
Bill Frist
Tom Daschle
Lindsey Graham
Barbara Boxer
If Ms Boxer is up for relection, I am voting for anyone that has a chance to replace her now.
Proposed Timeline: BetamaX decision is overturned. VCR's, Tivo's, and all manner of electronic gizmo are now rendered illegal. The MPAA, RIAA, and their cohorts will crack down on a select few people to make an example of them. For once, a legal battle fought on the grounds of COMMON SENSE will be won in court, but probaby be overturned by judges and/or congressmen or whoever decide these things (I'm Canadian) who have all recently bought huge new boats and houses with their big anonymous donations. Maybe, just maybe, at this point, Americans will wake up and suddenly realize that their country is being run by a band of brain-dead monkeys who don't give a rip about you, your job, your dreams or your future. Of course, it could also go the other way with the final vestigal organs of independent thought being wiped out forever, or fleeing to neighboring countries. Either way, it'll stop all this arguing.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
It's odd--at one point I had some respect for Sen. Hatch.
That has gone away. I wish all politicians would see this: STAY AWAY FROM MY FREEDOMS! This is the reason that I am more and more disgusted with the two-party system: they are both into increasing the power of the federal gov't. I am not. End of story
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)