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."

6 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright owners != artists by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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...

    1. Re:Copyright owners != artists by sotonboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dont think putting fat guys in suits out of work is a bad thing. And if you do create the more direct flow of cash to the artist then the fat guys wont have the money to buy the laws. Once it starts it may well snowball.

  2. I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. Give 'em a chance by seaniqua · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Support the EFF! by faqmaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:Yeah right, 5 bucks by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Interesting
    (yes, I said steal, let go of your state of denial, nerd)

    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