Slashdot Mirror
EFF's Letter to the Senate on INDUCE
z0ink writes "Picked up off of EFFector today a letter to all US Senators on the topic of IICA (Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 -- formerly the INDUCE Act). 'In February, EFF proposed an industry-led collective licensing
solution that would ensure compensation for copyright owners
while minimizing the need for governmental intrusion into the
digital music marketplace,' writes EFF Executive Director Shari
Steele in the letter. 'It's time for a solution to the P2P
conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.' IICA has been covered here on Slashdot with more information available here."
"It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers"
Of course most copyrights are owned by publishers, not artists...
It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers
It's time for a solution to any problem that never involves lawyers.
Lawyers are a kind of leech that is created by the government itself: the law that governs what citizens are or aren't allowed to do (that means all of us) has become so complicated that we, the citizens, have to hire 3rd parties who are versed in its intricacies, to "interface" with the judicial system. This certainly isn't new, and it's the same thing in all countries in the world, but it never fails to infuriate me.
Make the law simpler, and (1) the leeching caste of the lawyers will not be required each and every time you have to talk to a judge, and (2) since people won't necessarily lose money on attorney fees, frivolous lawsuits designed to impoverish the defendants, or threaten to do so like the RIAA's strong-arm technique of wrestling 3 grands out of 13 year old teens, will disappear.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
One big problem is that Washington is made up of a lot of lawyers. Like they will allow the money to flow away from them.
Not sure which is more greedy...the record labels or the lawyers. They both want all the money and are not worried about the artist.
Evolution or ID?
But it's like talking to a brick wall. They see this as a "protecting against theft" issue, and no amount of oration will change their minds. The concepts of freedom to invent and create without worrying about being liable for any and every violation that might produce is lost on them. The concept of fair use, and reasonable limits to copyright are lost on them.
I give up.
dinner: it's what's for beer
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is a good thing.
The current online music business model sucks a big fat one. If improvements were made (better availabiliy of new and non-pop artists, choise of file size including lossless, etc.) and the fee were changed to a per-month system, I think enough people would switch over and make it work. I would gladly pay $10 a month for unlimited downloads of lossless material (the EFF says $5, which is derived from the statistic that the average american spends $60 a year on CDs, I would recommend a higher amount, though, because I expect that people would download more music in this system than they would buy in a store).
That's right, I read at +2 and post at +1. Not even I care what I have to say.
Its a fair letter but in this world political "support" speaks lounder than words, you know the kind of support that lines pockets.
Whilst there are artists (ahem) who strive to be "superstars" and there are companies (the publishers who end up OWNING the stars and their material) who will push their resources to get them there -AND- there is an audience for these "pop" sensations, then the monetary incentive will be there to support the publishers and their whims. And that is that.
I do wonder sometimes if the politicians passing these draconian laws have EVER copied a tape, made a compilation disc for the car OR HAVE TEENAGE KIDS who would be so inclined?
"In exchange for paying a low monthly license fee (as little as $5 a month could raise billions annually when spread over the tens of millions of filesharers), music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them."
Great idea braniac. End lawsuits protecting intellecual proptery and copyrights. Just give everyone all the music they want for $5. That will solve all the problems, eh? That will pay all the artists and publishers?
No. Thats a pittance. And people would still steal music (yes, I said steal, let go of your state of denial, nerd), refusing to pay this tiny fee.
This is just more leftist propanganda. Its "big business'" fault that individuals break the law. They should have reacted with a "better business model" or something. (that is you thieves' stock answer, right?) There is no individual responsibility for anything. Its not your fault you steal music and movies that you have no right to.
Buy a T-Shirt, or become a member. A sensible organization like this deserves your support.
Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
But I given up hope that anything good for fair use will come out of washington, The momentum from the clinton era is to strong now. And if Kerry gets in, he is bound to help his contributers back at hollywood, also (as much as I like Bush) Bush will not be any better, I don't think he has the time to look into and understand the issue at hand. Both canadates will not be good for fair use laws (better elect on other [more] important issues] So at this point I not going to worry about fair use anymore, it is dead, I will now give up (acturaly have a while back) and buy the DRM stuff (read iTMS, because atlest they are giving some ok rights to the user, read 5 computers can be autorized)
I belive that if this bill goes ahead it could act as a catalyst for other countries to pass similar laws and at the same time hurt the IT sector worldwide.
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
The problem is that the government will do anything to sustain the music industry. That involves wiping out the competition (P2P), because with P2P people can really choose the music they want to hear and discover alternative artists.
They only care about copyright owners, not artists.
I hate sigs
If the industry would just lower the price d/l ing of a song to something like 10 cents, this would all be moot.
.10 cents? (cheaper if you share) .10 cents if it was easy to get the un DRM'ed music.
Why wont they work with p2p software and have each d/l cost like
They would make Billions and it would cost them allmost nothing to distribute the music, because the fans would be doing it for them. Sure people would still d/l for free, but most people would pay
'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.'
The problem here is that Congress is full of lawyers bent on doing things that amount to full-employment programs for lawyers and accountants. A program like this one that would have the effect of reducing lawsuits has no chance at all.
We complain loudly about conflict of interest by legislators and regulators, while ignoring the biggest one of all: that lawyers write laws. I believe that being a practicing attorney should bar one from being eligible to serve in Congress in much the same way as being an insurance company executive, as a practical matter if not a legal one, bars one from serving as an insurance regulator.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I hate to say this, but their are several reasons this won't work. Unless of course YOU write your congress person. [to be honest most people are too lazy]
/.ers start writing.
The EFF idea makes too much sense, and therfore violates about 10 rules of making law
10 rules of making law
a. Any law congress shall enact must be hard to understand and convoluted
b. Any oppurtunity to get your face on TV to tackle a serious problem of your campaign contributer must be taken
c. Do not pass any law that may in any way reduce any lawyers potential to earn money
d. Keep starving artists that way
e. The EFF is just like the ACLU - it's just a collection of letters that your constituants don't know about - but probably won't like
f. If I don't understant it, I must fear it and pass legislation against it
g. This letter contains the phrase " P2P technologies", get RIAA approval on how to think about this
h. This letter contains the phrase "profound threat to innovation", get Microsoft approval after talking to the RIAA
i. Anything that congress can meddle in the better
j. If it's simple, makes sense, and doesn't require congressional involvement it must be wrong.
Also remember that this is an election year. The eff proposal removes a potential income source from lawyers, the single strongest lobby in Congress. This will go nowhere until people take the time to write their congresspersons. May I humbly suggest that my fellow
cluge
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
If gun control were pursued the way the INDUCE act goes after copyright violation:
Fishing sinkers would be illegal because they *might* be melted down and recast into bullets.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I can -buy- a lifetime irrevocable licence to -it-.
Not a plastic scratchy waste product. Not a shitty format digistream for my iPod.
A -full- perpetual, amd fully paid up licence please. And THEN, ill pay.
Ill burn my own dern copies. Ill mediashift too my own dern iPod. I just want a -licence-, and a one-time access to a 100% lossless audio format. And the burden of knowing Im a licensee, should be given to the RIAA. I fully expect THEM to proove Im a licensee, and as such can copy YOUR cd if mine gets lost.
"This music was made for you and me"
"/Dread"
...."Why do they call him Snowball?"
Some days I can't help myself, sorry.
he's bring up the "stealing vs. infingement". that is flamebait. it is a fact that unauthorised copying of copyrighted works without the owner's permission is "copyright infringement" and not "theft". this is true and anyone denying it is ignorant or trolling.
The problem is with the third paragraph. Making a copy of your legally purchased mechandise is still against the law. According to paragraph 3, even if you make a copy of an audio disc for your purposes; Should that copy ever be found in a condition by which it isn't under your immediate control (not on your person, on an internet connected PC, in your car) you are liable under the provisions of this law.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
It's not practical. It means that we assume that peopel are always going to spenda fixed amount on music in any given time. Not only that, but it means that those who can't afford it, rather than getting fewer songs, as is the case at the moment, will be entitled to none at all.
Some of us like to be able to choose the amount we spend.
$10 a month for unlimited downloads. Too bad neither you or the EFF will set the price.
I think setting a fixed fee would be a bad idea. No incentive -> degraded quality -> socialism -> death of the industry.
I'd gladly pay $200 for the latest Ferrari.
Grousing that some artists decide to do just that leads to a suggestion that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Because the ACLU supports the rights of KKK members (and anyone else) to demonstrate, do you therefore not support the ACLU? What political party, anywhere, has a platform each of whose individual planks you wholeheartedly support?
It will never happen. The best you can hope for in life is to support organizations whose views MOSTLY correspond to yours. Unless, that is, you want to be all by yourself. What's that old joke? I think it's from MAD magazine, mid 60's -- one Frenchman is a restaurant owner, two Frenchman is a political party (apologies to the French).
Bien soir.
(I think the joke finishes, "three Frenchmen is a love triangle," in case anyone cares).
Make the business world go around.. ( so its a slow downward spiral, but it is still 'round' ).
On a serious note, normally when we are discussing 'media copyrights', the holders are rarely the artists...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ever sinve P2P came out, and music labels started they fight against it, I saw almost nowhere artists tell us what they think.
In one way, engineers/hackers/nerds thinking what is best for them is not better than labels/lawyers doing the same.
A new distribution solution should involve all actors: artists, customers, distributors (whatever those become after the change).
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Lawyers know there is strength in numbers. I mean, you need at least 2 lawyers in the world, otherwise there's nothing for the first one to do!
Blar.
corrupt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-rpt) adj.
1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. An American politician
The ability for a few to get bribes to the detriment of the masses.
eg:
"I am the king of Nigeria. I have $20,000,000 for you. You can trust me. I'm not an American Politician."
actualyl no ,they are not ignorant, they are just plain STUPID.
yes I just called all of you that say copyright infringement is STEALING a bunch of STUPID IDIOTS..
I wrote to Dole & Edwards (the two NC senators) when Slashdot had the first INDUCE article.
While I've yet to hear back form Edwards's office (not suprising considering his current campaign), I did hear back from Dole's.
I was expecting the standard "but this is good for technology, live with it..." response, but instead got a short response that essentially said that she agreed that INDUCE might have some potential bad consequences for technology and innovation and that she'd investigate it.
Now, obviously it was just a form letter response, but it's perhaps the first time I've had a senator actually respond with potentially encouraging news.
The idea that without the record industry the artists will starve is nuts. The record industry comes very recent in human industry.
Bands and musicians might care to start performing live as a job of work rather than as an act of cherry picking and earn a buck.
There's no reason why musicians can't earn a living like brick layers, plumber, programmers etc all do. The need for the record industry is predicated upon a desire to turn a small proportion of people into multimillionaires.
Pandora HAS openned the box and there's no going back. All this concern about trying to wrestling the P2P networks is just tilting at windmills.
For real ppl, why all this politician hating? 6000 years ago, millions of light years from here - there was this politician that wasn't so bad.
translated: the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer.
This is not a trolling attempt but this law SHOULD pass. This is a law that affects Joe Sixpack. The DMCA, that was a law that mainly affect the IT sector, but this law affects anyone who owns a computer, an iPod or anything else that could possibly be used for copyright infringement. People will finally see what crooks those elected leaders are, sure there is no such things as an honest politician and Joe Sixpack knows this, but he just may not know how their representatives are huge sellouts to corporations. Once all these Joe Sixpacks see what the hell is going on, something will be done. So let this law pass, it's the only way change will happen.
Why on earth would these assholes propose a new fee instead of pointing out that the act would make every single recording device in the U.S. illegal? It makes me wonder how much money the recording industry gives to the EFF.
The act is wrong, and should be opposed on that basis. Anything else is just giving up, and the fee scheme is nothing but theft of money from those of us that do not copy other peoples property.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
P2P gives people too much of a choice when choosing their music.
The RIAA and Clear Channel have a monopoly over the listening audience in the states.
Pay per download can still control what a user can or cannot listen to by only making certain records and songs available. It's not just losing money that record companies are afraid of, it's losing control over the distribution of music.
Sure the radio is free (for now) but the listeners do not control what is played over the air.
I think it's time to re-examine the whole concept of copyright and intellectual property. Unless it can be proven that a person or business is profiting from copyright infringement, and that those profits are having a direct negative impact on the IP owner's ability to gain from their work, then I don't see why we should not let people share information (including music), and encourage businesses and aritists to find other ways to make a living from art, ie: performances, merchandise, etc..
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Copyrights are always owned by the artists. By law. By definition.
The are the creator of the work, and therefore automatically assigned the copyright, which cannot be given away.
(The RIAA once tried to change this by changing the law to allow "work for hire"-type music contracts, which would make the studios the copyright holders. Thankfully, it didn't pass.)
What you are thinking of is the DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS to specific copyrights. Such distribution rights are typically owned by publishers, by form of a contract with the copyright holder, the artist.
And it is exactly these distribution rights that, with the advent of the Internet and P2P, suddenly don't add nearly as much value to the music as they used to do, yet the products (albums) are still being charged for as much as they were in the old days.
Something's gotta give.
As far as I can tell people will always be file sharing, so why don't we come up with a responsible network that gives some incentive to the sharers to be responsible. Why is P2P so good? Simply put, high availability. Beyond that low cost to the owners of the material since they don't have to own a lot of servers and whatnot. So we need a network that can track sharers trades and charge them a nominal fee (read much less than current costs). I haven't seen much in the way of this but I did google across a relatively young and in the works network called bitmunk. It's still in beta and whatnot, but they seem pretty serious about all this, I even talked to to a programmer there and bothered him for some technical questions and he seemed pretty receptive to my comments.
They seem to have the right idea, no DRM but they do have watermarks so they can track you down and cancel your account if you start sharing elsewhere. Maybe this doesnt' solve sharing among friends but, that's probably not a solvable problem, iTunes doesn't even solve this.
Of course all this means we have to return the copyrights to the artists or someone more responsible to the RIAA.
My 2 cents: check out the network give them ideas, they seem pretty bright and eager to please.
Patrik
----------
Just your ordinary BOFH
http://killertux.org
I for one hope after law school to work with the EFF or FSF somehow...maybe not as an employee, but volunteering my legal services...much the same way i believe Richard Stallman and others have been doing as counsel for the FSF...
And too bad you got modded down for speaking the truth. Actually, it just proves your point. Good job.
I wonder if someone posted that "Linux users are leeches on the captialist system," how that would be modded?
I think we all know.
It's not practical. It means that we assume that peopel are always going to spenda fixed amount on bits downloaded in any given time. Not only that, but it means that those who can't afford it, rather than getting fewer bits, as is the case at the moment, will be entitled to none at all.
Some of us like to be able to choose the amount we spend. That's we insist that all internet services should charge per bit transferred, not a single "one-size fits all" monthy fee!
The EFF letter makes a serious policitical oopsie by using the term "collective license".
The word "collective" is an instant turnoff for Republicans (as well as Libertarians), and that's over half of congress at the moment. Say "collective" and from your own mouth you have labeled yourself as a socialist crypto-commie trying to steal everything that isn't nailed down, keep most of it for yourselves and your cronies, and use the rest to buy votes from illegal immigrtants and welfare cheats.
It's also not the correct term-of-law, which is "mandatory license".
Making something "mandatory" goes over well with most Republicans who got as far as congress, all Democrats, and the whole left-wing wacko squad. (The Libertarians will scream - but how much power do THEY have? B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
From the dictionary: "condone -- To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."
From the EFF site: File Sharing: It's Music to our Ears and The MP3 Caper, etc.
The EFF has long staked out a pro-P2P position, and has gladly accepted lots of membership dollars on account of it. At least when it comes to P2P, they entirely lack logical consistency.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Wait a minute... You want 10 bucks a month to get you unlimited lossless material? Ofcourse you would, I would buy a Corvetter for $100, but it is so rediculously low that it won't happen
The RIAA currently brings in about $12 billion/year in revenues. If 40% of U.S. consumers signed up for an all-you-can download music service at $10/month, the RIAA would generate the same revenue, and would no longer incur the cost of manufacturing or distributing physical CDs. They could probably increase revenues by 50% or more by offering a $20/month premium service with various value-added services (see below).
What keeps you from download 80 gig 1 month and never buying any more music for 3 years?
To quote an old MTV commercial, "Too much is never enough".
a) Updates. If you're 12, you have to subscribe so you can get all this month's new songs by [lame band name]. Otherwise you WON'T BE COOL like your friends and you might DIE! Who wants, like, old music from last year. Besides, your parents are paying the $10/month.
b) Value added services. Even if you're old enough that you could potentially be satisfied with a stash of back-catalog songs from your youth, they can probably get not just $10, but $25/month out of you, by adding premium features like:
Vanity Publishing could potentially become the faster/better/cheaper mechanism for the RIAA to obtain new content. Imagine a hundred 'Open Mike' channels (sorted by genre) where anybody can upload their stuff, paying a slight fee for the privilege (both to fatten the RIAA's wallet, and to keep spam and truly worthless songs out of the slushpile).
With such a mechanism, wannabe artists can get their original songs published; or even covers, remixes and other derivative works (fan videos, etc.) that once upon a time would have just gotten them sued instead of famous (i.e. Negativland). All Open Mike submissions will be rated via a Slashcode-like mechanism; the best ones will be copied over to the main 'Signed Artist' channels and the artists will start getting royalties.
>;k
> Grousing that some artists decide to do just that leads to a suggestion that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
Nooo, they should have the right, but If someone chooses not to join that, they should not be cut off from the world & radio, etc.
AgVulpine writes "Take a visit to Amazon.com and search for Doom3. Mixed in with the search results you'll find an interesting sponsored link. "Doom 3 on BitTorrent -- Download Doom 3 using BitTorrent at Suprnova (aff) -- www.suprnova.com" . It's this kind of crap that will give the US Senate Committee the leverage they need to push through the Induce Act (or ICAA), a bill aimed at shutting down all P2P networks. IICA has been covered here on Slashdot with more information available here."