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.
EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers
I hear some lawyers are more than just profiteering bastards and actually want to change things...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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?
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
'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"
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.
And how, exactly, is the "Sony Bono copyright extension act" *not* stealing. See, copyright is a deal (see the constitution) where the people (the folks who purportedly authorize government intrusion, BTW) allow artists to maintain a monopoly on their works for a certain period of time. At the end of that time, that work becomes public domain. That is, it belongs to everyone. The artist is compensated.
So, for example, Walt Disney creates Mickey Mouse and produces some cartoons. He is provided a monopoly to make money from that work, and in return it will belong to everyone in 2001. Well, Walt was WELL compensated for producing it, and now he's dead, and Mickey should be ours.
Instead, Eisner buys a few congressmen, and they steal Mickey from us! Mickey Mouse is a cultural icon. He's part of the American consciousness.
Lots of other stuff was stolen from us, too. A lot of it are things that the corporations can't make money on, but they're like "hey, we can't just give away our assets", so it will sit in a vault and the tape or film or whatever it's on will deteriorate until it's gone forever.
This is actually closer to the real definition of stealing, because we are deprived forever of the item, not just an opportunity to make money from it, not just an exclusive right to make copies.
So we complain, we try to point out to them why they are wrong, but they just ignore us. So, we just ignore them, too. We just turn our backs on the bastards that have stolen our culture and our heritage and are trying to take everything else away from us, too. We turn our backs and just say "Fuck you. We're going to do our own thing". We're going to take our country back, one way or another. So you just keep taking money from the traitors that are exploiting us, and sending our jobs over seas, and leading us down the road to a litigation-based economy (how sustainable is that?). You take their money, and pass the laws they want, and we will ignore you more and more. Until your laws don't matter to anyone anymore, and you become irrelevant.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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).
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.
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