Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act
An anonymous reader writes "The US Copyright Office has proposed a new version of the Induce act. Under this new version it is apparently more difficult to bring charges against a company for inducement. Stories on the subject can be found at DRMBlog.com and at News.com."
Something out of the Copyright offic that actually makes sense!
It's a start to change, but there's still a long way to go. The fact that they're still planning on outlawing P2P networks is crazy. I'm not going to bring up all the arguments about what P2P networks are and what could be illegal like has been done so many times before... but, are the people making this laws STUPID?
Find Nearby Indie Events
I've posted both the email the Copyright Office sent out and the HTML version of the "discussion draft" along with some initial analysis here: Copyright Office Produces 'Discussion Draft' Alternative to INDUCE Act (IICA). My basic take is that although this bill is an improvement, that doesn't mean much. Instead of being ludicrously overbroad, it is now only excessively overbroad.
Now groups like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and their allies in Congress are scrambling for legislation such as the Induce Act that would overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Does this mean that the 9th Circuit is a radical judge making rulings based on personal opinion? I especially love the term "allies in Congress" as if this is some sort of important war.
Main Entry: inducement
Pronunciation: in-'düs-m&nt, -'dyüs-
Function: noun
1 : a motive or consideration that leads one to action or to additional or more effective actions
2 : the act or process of inducing
3 : matter presented by way of introduction or background to explain the principal allegations of a legal cause, plea, or defense
synonym see MOTIVE
...another law used by BigCorp to enslave the masses?
saying: "Download KazAAm for $5.00 and get access to all the copyrighted songs and movies you want!" is "inducement".
saying: "KazAAm 2.0 is released, it is a P2P network designed for decentralized distribution of binary files" isn't.
Sort of like selling a smartcard reader/writer is no crime, but advertising it as a tool to hack DirecTV is.
Frankly, there are regulations governing other businesses that could be "shady". Most municipalities have pawn shops licensed and required to report every transaction, and it's illegal for them (or anyone else) to knowingly buy stolen goods.
I think the goal here is to stop companies from profitting by promoting an illegal product. The law probably sucks though, because laws always go to far.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Could it be another trick by Orin Hatch?
First have a proposed act that is so ridiculous no one can sanely accept it, then turn around and seem to offer a compromise, and suddenly the masses gobble it all up!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Scenario: If I had a CD and I lend it to my friend Fred. Now Fred wants to listen to this CD but based on this new copyright law couldn't I be inducing him to commit break copyright law because I have given him the digital media which makes it easier to copy?
Did anyone else notice how this law can be used to restrict information because you can induce someone to commit copyright infringement without providing links or files. I mean if I tell someone how to make a crack for a game by providing only locations and hex changes, I could be inducing them to break copyright couldn't I?
http://bmi.com/news/200408/20040818a.asp
"The performing rights organization generated royalties of more than $573 million for its songwriters, composers and music publishers. Royalties increased by $40 million or 7.5% from the previous year.
BMI President and CEO Frances W. Preston said both the revenues and royalty distributions were the largest in the company's history."
Sooner or later this 800 pound gorilla is going to trample their manufactured crisis.
The U.S. Copyright Office has drafted a new version of the Induce Act that it believes will ban networks like Kazaa and Morpheus while not putting hardware such as portable hard drives and MP3 players on the wrong side of the law.
Does this umbrella cover IRC - something that has a (supposedly) legitimate use? I can understand the regs on p2p software, but can't IRC users say "we're just chatting..."?
From TFA: "Last week's meeting was attended by representatives from IBM, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, the Business Software Alliance, the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America." How come no one very interested in free speech is attending these meetings? I'd expect maybe the Creative Commons people, or someone similar to attend.
"First it was the Hollings bill, then Induce, now the Copyright Office's bill. They look different, but they all revolve around the same thing: Giving content (providers) veto power over all new technology," Rodger said. "Who decided that holders of government-granted monopolies should determine the future of high tech? I don't remember reading that memo."
Mirrors my feelings exactly. Just goes to show that companies (with convenient government puppets) will stop at nothing to establish monopoly over everything in their power.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
"inducement" as a legal term with a specific meaning in intellectual property law. It typically means that someone is doing something which would *not* strictly speaking be considered an infringement of a copyright or a patent. But what they are doing is "inducing" infringement, i.e. causing, encouraging, soliciting others to infringe.
It's a concept that carries over from criminal law. It's sort of like, hey, she didn't commit the crime, but she did solicit others to do it for her, or something like that.
Heh, just wait till you get there.
At least the US govt is predictable because you can understand what motivates it ($$$$$). Canadian govt is just plain fuckin insane.
Tell Sheila Copps I never got my flag if you see the bitch.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Hmmm...perhaps we could turn the INDUCE act to our advantage as citizens. Our overly litigious society seems to believe that everyone is a victim. If this law holds the P2P companies responsible, despite the Copyrights Office's modifications, couldn't one simply claim "They made me do it. I didn't want to. They didn't tell me it was 'wrong.' They made it so easy. And my Mommy and Daddy didn't love me enough as a kid." Perhaps we could turn this "everyone's a victim" flaw in our currnet society to some beneficial use.
"Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
IANAL and IANAPO (I am not a police officer), but how to you "induce" someone to commit an illegal act? If the person has criminal tendencies they are (eventually) going to do something criminal.
How can the RIAA believe that Apple and the other makers of MP3/WMA/etc players are trying to "induce" people into stealing music? My iPod has a very legitimate use: holding my entire music library in MP3 form so I can enjoy it anywhere I go (BTW: I own all the CDs I've ripped to MP3). I really don't care to carry 500+ CDs on me at all times so I can pop the right on into a CD player when the mood hits me.
Idiots....
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Ya, the new version is more difficult to bring charges of infringement than the previous version which allowed parents to be charged for inducing copyright infringement simply by giving birth.
If I had a CD and I lend it to my friend Fred.
Actually, that would be unlawful in the United States even without an Induce Act. First sale (17 USC 109) doesn't apply to "rental, lease, or lending" of a CD.
I guess Canada sucks too, eh ?
First of all, recording artists aren't always songwriters. "Performing rights organizations" are BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP, which pay songwriters and music publishers for radio play and other public performances of copyrighted songs. Harry Fox Agency pays songwriters and music publishers for putting songs on CD. The record labels pay recording artists for putting their recordings on CD but make the artists pay for their own recording and promotion expenses.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, and absent any other overt act, an "overt act" does not include:
The following are some good provisions, really.
(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
So BitTorrent is still okay, although the other P2P clients are in a little more shady of a situation.
(B) distributing any dissemination technology that incorporates reasonably effective measures to prevent or halt dissemination that constitutes infringement within the meaning of this subsection;
Reasonably effective is incredibly vague. If we can be as slightly effective as some copy protection crap, that would be simple.
(C) advertising, marketing or promoting a dissemination technology that does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes;
(D) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology when the information does not specifically encourage the use of that technology for infringing purposes, including through instruction manuals, handbooks, user guides or customer support services;
It's good to say both of those things, at the least. Just don't put up screenshots of your product being used illegally (um, Appollon).
(E) the providing of information on the use of a dissemination technology by a person not affiliated with the creator or distributor of that dissemination technology in the context of commentary, criticism, or reviews of the dissemination technology; or
So, wait, I can explain that a tool can be used illegally, so long as I didn't release it? At least they remember what free speech is. I didn't expect that.
(F) providing products or services to a distributor of dissemination technology in the same manner that such products or services are provided to other members of the public, including but not limited to financial services, delivery services, advertising services, product reviews or evaluations, library services, real estate services, customer-support services for users of computer software or hardware, utilities and telecommunications services.
But its still bloody easy for "regular" America to get busted for "inducement". Jesus, why doesn't the RIAA and the MPAA just declare open war on their customers, and convince Congress to force us to give them X amount of dollars per month. That's the only thing that'll make them happy.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
So does this also outlaw those spammers who offer to sell you a backdoor into pay porn sites?
Almost worth it...
:-)
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Can anyone explain to me why buraucrats are now drafting legislation?
-Peter
While I think the INDUCE act goes WAY to far in criminalizing things, I think something needs to be done about P2P networks that thrive on copyrighted material. There are legitimate uses for P2P (as many torrents show), but when something is used for 99.9% copyright violation, something needs to be done. If I ran a flea market and rented booth, I couldnst claim I didn't have any control over what was being sold. And if 99% of the booths sold illegal merchandise (stolen merchandise, illegal fireworks, drugs, etc) you can guarantee that the flea market would be shut down eventually. Plausible deniablility can and should only go so far.
Could Kazza be used for legitimate uses? Sure it could. But is it? Not a chance in hell. And they do nothing to try and even try to push people toward using it legitimately. P2P shouldn't be outlawed. But if 99% of your network is copyrighted material, and you are told this over and over again, and you do nothing to even pretend to try and correct the problem, then your network should be shut down. Common carrier status only works because most of the traffic is legitimate traffic. When all the traffic is in violation, then common carrier status doesn't help anyone and should be revoked.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Yes, it's easy to sit back and be shocked at the draconian measures that even this reduced-scale Induce bill promotes. I'm sure that the /. crowd will do more than an adequate job of pointing out the unfairness of it -- and I don't disagree with their condemnations.
However, for a person like myself who just wishes to lawfully make use of technology, I despise all of you on both extremes of this argument. That includes you fucking jackasses that continue to utterly abuse the rights of copyright holders with your weasely content stealing methods. Yeah, good job setting up your servers with the latest Hollywood movies, Silicon Valley games, etc.
Here's a big thanks from those of us in the middle who are caught up in your arms race of constantly increasing anti-piracy laws and pro-piracy techniques.
Thanks. Thanks a fucking lot.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Our government isn't 'fucking insane' as you bluntly suggest - it's just inept. There is a difference. Fucking insane would be to pass bills like the Patriot Act, INDUCE, DMCA, Homeland Security measures, etc.
Oh, and as for Sheila Copps, the only reason you know her name is because she pulled the 'badmouth Americans' publicity stunt in a lame-assed effort to show her constituents that she is working for them. Please consider this one of the many examples of ineptitude displayed by our government.
"Sir I just heard of a network that connects lots and lots of computers, and it allows them to exchange files"
"Sounds terrible. Let's go ban it"
"Will Do. Going ahead with Plan Q: BAN THE INTERNET"
"Hmm. We just destroyed all that e-commerce stuff we do"
"We sure did"
"damn..."
--you can smoke weed.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Drug use is not legal here. Marijuana is still illegal, although there have been thoughts of decriminalizing it, which is completely different from making it legal.
Decriminalizing it basically means the users (of marijuana) who are caught with small amounts (I can remember the exact amount) don't face charges and/or possibly jail time. It's the drug dealers who get hit.
But this is far from making it legal.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
".. causes the user of the technology to infringe copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue, about whether to engage in such infringement; "
Doesn't this mean that all the file sharing programs have to do, is to pop up a dialog box for each file that is can't verify the user has the rights to download? Wouldn't that give the user a specific, informed decision about every file and also remove the program from inducing infringement by the terms of this draft?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
- (A) 13 14 distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
P2P networks are capable of substantial noninfringing uses (whether or not they experience substantial noninfringing uses).So the question comes down to whether or not a P2P network is designed to be used for infringing purposes -- it seems there is some measure or intent that is required for this to be true, and that seems awfully hard to decide or prove one way or another. But, this is sufficiently ambiguous that it would need to be decided in a very messy court battle. Plus, this clause doesn't place any limitations on the extent of infringing purposes for which the technology must be designed - one could argue that if it allows even a single infringing use, it was designed that way, and therefore it was designed to be used for infringing purposes.
Of course, one could make the same claim about email.
First-- lending him the CD by itself is not infringement. But if he asks to borrow it because he wants to make copies for, say, five friends, it seems to be perfectly reasonable to say that this is inducement.
Now, IANAL, but I am wondering about crazier scenarios here. What if I loan my CD to my friend and he makes a copy which is allowed (but probably infringing) under the Home Recording act. My understanding is that the Home Recording Act merely prevents prosecution for certain types of infringement, not actually classifying them as non-infringing. He is not liable, but am I?
Another example. "Send your documents more effectively through Microsoft Exchange Server" can reasonably be expected to cause at least one person to email illegal MP3's over Microsoft Exchange, so is Microsoft liable?
Of course this probably doesn't matter. Long ago during the Napster era, ad-hoc P2P networks arose. Even if Grokster turns out the lights and shuts down their servers, the network that they created will continue to be accessible using open source Gnutella clients. So none of these laws address the P2P issue for the recording industry. As such, they simply represent a power grab by a frightened industry whose current business model is threatened by technology in general.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
People that sell weapons, tools, and cars better be punished too. I mean, they sold me that car, I had to run down the school children. They sold me the pistol, so I had to shoot someone. They sold me the chainsaw so I had to re-enact a movie that they produced.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
In my town, a shop called up in smoke has opened.
Not 3 blocks from the police station.
I believe that its set up to run, as a private club, and that you need to bring your own. I havent been in yet.
We are about an hour north of buffalo.
Well, I posted the email I sent to Hatch
here. This was the 3rd time I've contacted him, and the other twimes, he (or whoever answers his mail) always personalized the response, addressing specific concerns and questions I had. This time, it seems to be nothing more than a form letter. Enjoy!
----Begin Letter----
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 (S. 2560). I appreciate your comments and apologize for the delay in my response.
The media have widely broadcast misconceptions about the intent and purpose of this bill, spreading concerns that S 2560 would outlaw Google, eBay, iPods, VCRs, TiVos, computers, CD burners, recordable DVDs, and a litany of other multi-use devices and Internet service providers. Let me be clear: This legislation was not designed to have any effect on these or future technological innovations, and I will work to ensure the final bill that is considered by Congress meets those criteria.
S. 2560 has one goal - to crack down on those whose intended purpose and sole business model is to induce children, teenagers, and others to illegally download copyrighted music and movies for free. Without the illegal copying, these filesharing companies would be out of business, yet they amass huge profits while their customers are being forced to pay thousands of dollars in damages to the copyright owners. This bill is merely an attempt to close the safe-harbor loophole that these companies are using to knowingly lure their victims into this illegal activity and make them face legal liability for their actions.
From the beginning, I have worked with the technology industries to craft S. 2560 so it targets only a small group of bad actors without affecting legitimate technology interests, and I will continue to work with them to ensure that we find the best way to achieve this goal. I certainly welcome any proposed improvements or alternatives to the approach taken in @. 2560.
Again, thank you fro writing.
Sincerely,
[Sig]
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
that's funny, when you have the "Gotti" family endorsing the "Capone" family. Can you say "you lose".You are sooo pwned,.."don't attempt to change the channel, dont adjust your set."
This is a positive move towards what is really best for Americans which is to just forget about tech. Technology is just not American like it used to be. Americans don't want it and don't need it. Laws like this are what the American public wants and that's why they're being written.
Just get rid of it. Who needs that crap. It's good for nothing but child porn and thieving. If technology can't work the American way, then America doesn't need technology. I applaud these efforts.
Kill your PC, be a real American.
Caution: I'm not a lawyer nor even a trained actor.
I find the applicable parts of Audio Home Recording Act (17 USC 1001 and 1008) rather quaint: you can noncommercially reproduce a recording onto a Music CD-R and lend the duplicate, but because of a technicality in the definition of a "digital audio recording medium" or "analog recording medium", you can't do the same thing with the pre-recorded CDs or cassettes.
And are you saying that one cannot loan books to friends under the current law?
The copyright owner's exclusive right to distribution of a lawfully made copy or phonorecord by "rental, lease, or lending" extends only to copies of computer programs and phonorecords of sound recordings. So you may loan a lawfully printed book to a friend, but you can't do the same with an audio book.
You can bring yourself up to speed on the disastrous consequences of the Induce Act on the future of technological innovation by reading some of Ernie Miller's excellent articles. LawMeme provides a regularly updated index to Ernie Miller's Induce Act writings, which is a good place to start reading.
Ask for a lot more than you expect to get. Then you can appear reasonable when you compromise down -- even as the resultant compromise exceeds your original, occulted goals.
This is what happens when pragmatism wins out over principle, but no one pays attention to that... same as when it happened with the DMCA, Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, AHRA, etc. Reactionary pragmatists come out in strong support for modifying it to strip some of its teeth away, dismissing campaigning on principle to abolish it as impractical... and the core of the law sits there festering on the books while the progress-minded pragmatists comfortably pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Hallelujah
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
We're heading towards a global library of media. The pirates should be left alone, theres still enough capitalism left in the system to pay for movies. I hit this IN DEPTH: Chapter 6
God spoke to me.
No, the reason I know her name is because I grew up in Hamilton.
And is she not behind the recordable media levy as well? And no, that does not mean "Canada is OK with you copying CDs". It's socialism, making sure everyone feels the "pain" of the recording industry.
They just have different, yet equally stupid IMO, solutions to the same imaginary problems.
Hey, I know! Let's negotiate with Quebec on a new constitution that declares french people to be 10% awesomer than english ones!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...why not just reduce its duration rather significantly? It has been shown to be a good incentive for innovation and creative, err, creation, so it's a good thing to have around, but the current situation where it lasts 100+ years cannot be (and is not) healthy. Bring it down to something like five years. That would seem like the best solution for everyone*: people get to share their music around completely freely and legally, artists get to make money off of their work (I don't have any statistics, but I'm fairly certain the vast majority of albums are sold within the first few years after release), and people suddenly have a whole lot less motivation to actively go around pirating -- there'd be plenty of legally free music around to satisfy just about anyone, and five years isn't too long to wait if there's something new they want but don't have the money for. People might even actually feel it's wrong to pirate, as (a) there's be no reason to, and (b) they wouldn't have the excuse of the current "just about anything is illegal, so who cares?" situation to justify it.
A similar solution could also be applied to software patents (and maybe other patents, dunno), though with the speed the industry is moving something like two years would be more appropriate.
* No, I did not include the RIAA in 'everyone', as while they technically are most unfortunately a part of it, statistically they are an entirely insignificant portion (there's like, a single to double digit number of executives, and maybe a few hundred employees?).
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
If you have a CD, you should be able to let your friend borrow it, or even rent it to others. Now if someone made a website that charged 5c to allow a rental of information, you could make a ton of money, and it wouldn't be piracy, because you shouldn't use your CD while yours is checked out.
God spoke to me.
OK, your post establishes that the publishers are screwing the artists. Why's that our problem? The argument against P2P and such is that it harms sales...if this isn't happening, then leave the fucking geeks alone. If you can't get paid fairly for your work, that's unfortunate and all, but really no fault of ours.
All we're saying is that if the labels are making money, they have no right to bitch at us for pirating their stuff.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Dude, you need a better contract. If it's not clear enough who gets what, don't sign. Oh right, then you couldn't work because the RIAA is a cartel and none of them offer better terms... So why doesn't the AFM go to court to put a stop to this? Stop taking it up the 4$$ dude, the RIAA is your problem more than anyones. If AFM isn't doing anything, you need a new organization that doesn't pander to RIAA instead of you.
Copyright law is over? You have to be kidding. Yes, the RIAA and MPAA and similar groups are greedy jerks, and so on and so forth, and the Creative Commons is noble and wonderful and all that, but the fact is big business has power. I really expect that we'll see a "war on piracy" that's quite similar to the current "war on drugs". Sure, it can't be "won", and piracy will continue, but people *will* go to jail, and what's more a majority of non-technologically oriented people will think it's a good thing ("those pirates are trying to destroy HOLLYWOOD! Throw the book at 'em")
Score:37294, Insightful
The reality is that copyright law as we know it is over. Regardless of your views on whether copyright law is still valuable (and personally, I think it is), the public of the world has spoken. They have committed en masse acts of civil disobedience. There is no going back. The people pushing for this bill are trying to stop a train going at full tilt with no one behind the wheel. And while I, as a supporter of -reasonable- copyright, wish it weren't so, the cat is out of the bag. They watched and did nothing as the Internet became a popular mechanism for getting music, and in doing nothing, lost their right to do anything.
Where's the grey line on this though. A lot of ISPs advertise downloading music at high speed as part of the upside... but don't mention that much music might be copyrighted, or that you have to pay for the others.
There is free (or at least freely distributable) music though, and paid services... so would this be clear?
Good luck on that - Quebec border guards are striking this weekend. I agree that Canada's solutions to the 'problem' are weak. But at least they aren't as heavy handed as 'solutions' that allow the RIAA to sue end users. I am relieved (and a little surprised) that Canada hasn't just adopted US policy on the whole matter already. Maybe there is some hope for us yet.
Is Slashdot planning on ever fixing this graphic? Obviously some third-grade dropout designed it. If you can't remember that there's red stripes on both the top and bottom, just remember that there are 13 stripes in all - you know, like the original 13 colonies?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Depends on the specifics of the local law. I read some time ago about the Dutch changing their stance on what they call "soft drugs" to the point where they will arrest users if they simply make themselves too conspicous. In other words, keep it out of sight and you're fine, but do it in public and you run a risk of being arrested for it.
In very general terms decriminalization can also mean the society in question will *barely* tolerate the drug use, but still be opposed and even hostile towards that activity.
If people wanted to interpret this law badly, anyone can be convicted of a crime. As more of these laws are passed. Speak out against the government, and the FBI will find something to put you in jail for. www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA
God spoke to me.
As a member of the American Federation of Musicians (I am a freelance musician in Chicago) who has performed and recorded in royalty-pay situations, I can tell you that the artists are the FIRST to get the shaft.
On the other hand, songwriters are one of the last to get the shaft. If you can manage to get a song written, published, and recorded without running up against Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs, then you get to double-dip on the royalties: once as an artist and once as a songwriter.
www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA Read book 6, starting halfway down. I cover this, the next step, and the ultimate end game.
God spoke to me.
How about impossible unless they market it for illegal use..
Other then that they should NOT be responsible for its (mis)use by its customers..
End of story.. no need for a yet another law..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How about flooding the P2P networks with files that it is LEGAL to redistribute?
...
THEN we can make the President's "Abu Ghraib" argument (disregard all these memos about torture, it's just a few bad apples)
utter rubbish
why not just reduce its duration rather significantly?
Some Constitutional theorists will argue that the Congress can't take back a windfall. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the Congress from taking "private property [...] for public use, without just compensation." Some judge is going to interpret "private property" to include the last 95 - n years of a copyright term and "just compensation" to be in excess of millions of dollars per work.
In addition, the United States won't be able to pull out of the WIPO treaties, one of which guarantees at least a life plus 50 copyright term, without attracting severe economic sanctions from other sovereign states.
Because this is one very specific weird peculiar issue widely known only among geeks -- even if it does affect the population at large. Even if the polititions in question get voted out of office, it'll get blamed on the economy or the Iraq war or abortion or some other big-name issue. Your concerns won't even cross anyone else's minds.
People have morals, not corporations. "The stockholders" (as a group entity) don't have morals.
A corporation is going to maximize profit and minimize risk. Those are the survival rules for corporations.
Corporations are going to try to keep as much control as they can, and that's why they use whatever monopolistic, power-grabbing tactics they can. It minimizes risk.
Don't expect corporations to behave like people. They aren't people. They're machines trying to optomize an equation.
> you're colossally full of shit
I think the parent post chose the wrong target for its vituperation.
I don't think the grandparent post was presenting the quote as truth.
I took it as exposing the other face of the two-faced RIAA argument that their revenue is going down due to file sharing.
Or at least make it a possibility that it is illegal for the following to exist if it passes:
:)
1) Upload/Download ratios of any kind no matter what the purpose.
The act states that anything that gives incentives or better performance by requiring the end user to participate more in a possibly infringing act... wait a minute - does this mean that slashdot's moderation system would have to be reworked -- you get moderation rights by reading more... hmm. The possibilities and permutations of twisting this bugger.
2) FTP, SCP, SFTP combined with directory listing of files.
Well -- it's definitely peer-to-peer. Just twist...
3) E-mail
Okay - not quite peer-to-peer however definitely has infringing abilities.. er.. okay.. this would tkae a lot of bending.
If you stretch it a bit further, it could also make VPN networks illegal.
Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have the Congressional Network shut down due to infringing activity?
I would like to hear a hypothetical example of any plausible scenario, where this act could somehow be used against someone for disseminating technology.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Most of em are also not of the same generation as those who use P2P. By and large the people who will be using Kazaa (so far as I can tell) are those in the 16-29 crowd wheras (the last time that I checked) most U.S. Lawmakers were in the 35+ crowd. Moreover the U.S. (unlike other countries such as France) does not make a habit of electing technically trained individuals. We have a few doctors and Psychologists (3 total in Congress I believe), but by and large out lawmakers ate taken from Legal, Government, or Business-trained individuals, hence this kind of profit-centric anti-technology thinking.
Senator Disney is retiring. I don't have much confidance, though, that his replacement will be much better.
Yesterday this was posted on the Mcrosoft Music store:
How can I get MSN Music downloads to play on my iPod?
Although Apple computers and Apple iPods do not support the PC standard WindowsMedia format for music, it is still possible to transfer MSN Music downloads to an iPod, but it will require some extra effort. To transfer MSN-downloaded music to an iPod, you need to first create a CD with the music, and then you need to import that CD into iTunes. This process will convert the music into a format that can play on the iPod.We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy.
Interestingly enough, today the same page reads:
Unfortunately Apple refuses to support the popular Windows Media format on the iPod, choosing to only support their own proprietary DRM format. If you are an iPod owner and are unhappy about this, please send feedback to Apple and ask them to change their policy and interoperate with other music services.
There are more than 70 portable audio devices that support MSN Music today, and we hope that someday Apple decides to join with the industry and support consumer choice.
link
RIAA vs. Microsoft...oh what a battle that would be!
"...support consumer choice." Imagine Microsoft stumping for consumer choice. Can anyone else taste the bile?
1) Fighting peer to peer instead of embracing the change will lead to the RIAA/MPAA's destruction.
2) Hatch is writing laws on behalf of RIAA/MPAA fighting peer to peer.
3) Vote for Hatch
?????
5) Profit!
paintball
It's funny that when a person asks a question they get a score of ZERO, but the answers to that question get +5 moderated. There are no stupid questions, only stupid people who ask questions.
This is probably OT, but I followed your link and I'm curious as to how to interpret Sec. 109(b). Does this really say you are not allowed to re-sell a CD or computer program you've legally purchased? Maybe I just don't know the legal meaning of "notwithstanding", but that section confuses me. It seems to say in section 109(a) that you can sell your copy, but then directly afterward say "subsection a does not apply". I guess people treat "legalese" as a seperate language for a reason :).
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
Like phucking hell. The only thing the Induce Act does is protect the RIAA/MPAA/MGA/Warner Bros/Columbia. It doesn't do jack or shiite for the technology; every nation in the world has agents in the US, fully capable of breaking into some pittful little civilian company and steal whatever they want.
See, there's a bunch of fucking Britts who like Star Wars. And they have this little "religion", all unto themselves. But had George Lucas have been put out of business by everyone RIPPING HIM OFF, they wouldn't have their stupid little religion. There wouldn't be any Spoon, because the SPORK would have taken over the entire god damn world.
Then where would you be? Hunh!? Hunh!?
You'd be a non-lightsaber-wielding spork owner, that's where you'd be...
In part because modern civilization and its economic model is based on technological advance which provides new opportunities for increasing the net output of society. If you stop, block, or slow technology, it's the entire civilization that suffers
This is, of course true. The upside is that there will always be a civilisation ready to leapfrog the one which is hobbling itself (Hungary, China, India). This is a very well-established pattern (The moslem and Roman empires spring to mind). Sadly, design patterns as a concept has not reached politicians yet.
Luckily for me, I don't live in the US.
The new USCO-proposed INDUCE Act is still *very* dangerous, and vastly extends the arm of copyright law. Please take a moment, read my analysis, and post your thoughts, because I am quite worried about some of the elements here.
The new act bans P2P retransmission mechanisms that are dissociated from content. The following thing is considered "inducement":
distributing any dissemination technology that, when used as intended, automatically cuases the user of the technology to infringe copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue, about whether to engage in such an infringement
Mechanisms that this ban includes:
Allowing remote, unauthenticated, or anyonymous publication mechanisms. Freenet, for instance, would be illegal if this act is passed, as the mechanism has everyone acting as a distribution point for anyone that wants to distribute data.
Partial-download sharing would be disallowed, as you must allow uploading of anything that you are downloading -- even if your own download is not infringing.
Scanning of drives for files to share would be legally dubious -- it might be necessary to force the user to manually add each file. The same goes for systems that share all files in a directory hierarchy, such as Windows Filesharing or FTP or Web servers.
It might require P2P systems to request metadata regarding file hashes (rather than simply *allowing* them to do so) to present data to the user so that he may make an "informed" decision.
Also banned is:
actively interfering with copyright holders' efforts to detect infringing uses of dissemination technology and enforce their copyright against those users
This would anonymous distribution systems, such as cypherpunk mailers, Freenet, Kast, and so forth -- a coder that adds features to prevent identification of end users is clearly interfering with copyright holders' efforts to enforce their copyright against such end users. This might also make illegal Tor and Zero Knowledge Systems' now defunct privacy services when used in conjunction with P2P.
offering an incentive to users of dissemination technology to make infringing use of the technology, such as providing improved performance of the technology in exchange for infringing distribution of copyrighted works
A significant factor in this is that there is a very great demand for cheaply distributed infringing files today (hence all the people downloading infringing files using P2P distribution mechanisms). The problem is that frequently infringing files are in greater demand than non-infringing files. Many interesting mechanisms to advance P2P system performance (like trust networks, free market sales of data a la Mojo Nation, etc) would be banned by this, as distributing infringing content is associated with distributing *desired* content, which many systems have good reason to encourage users to do.
failing to take reasonably available corrective measures to prevent any continuing acts of infringement...that were committed before the effective date of this subsection
I find this to be very unclear. What criterion is to be used for "reasonable"? Is it "and still maintain a profitable service"? Before something like this gets signed into federal law, I want to see this clarified.
Distributing a dissemination technology as part of an enterprise that substantially relies on the infringing acts of others for its commercial viability or the revenues of which are predominantly derived from the infringing acts of others
Wow. Sounds good, actually *very* scary. This could be repaired with the addition of a single word -- "...as a part of an enterprise that necessarily substantially relies on the infringing acts of others." As this clause is currently written, it means that if the majority of people using a commercial file distribution service *happen* to be infringing, even i
May we never see th
How successful would the most popular music store online to date have been if Record Industry PHBs, who thought 'Rip' meant rip off, had this law in place three years ago?
The purpose of this act is to outlaw Gnutella, Kazaa, and other networks like them. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you do outlaw these networks. Tell me Senator Hatch, how will that have any effect on either the Gnutella or Kazaa network? Kazaa isn't based in America, and isn't subject to American authority. Gnutella is completely decentralized. It isn't based anywhere. How do you plan to stop these networks? The great firewall of America perhaps?
OMG! The president induced me to pirate music!
You see, after 9-11, I was all freaked out, but Bush got on TV and told America that we should go back to our daily lives, and that would include shopping. So I set aside my fear, and went to the local mall. While I was there, I saw some new records that had come out the week before. I listened to them, and wanted to get a couple, but I didn't have enough money to buy them, since the recession led to me getting "let go" by my employer, who apparently didn't need anyone with Python skills anyway. So I went back home, and was all psyched about buying the CDs online, but with the shipping costs and everything I just couldn't afford to buy the music legally. So finally, I just got on Hotline and downloaded a few songs.
WTF? Is the FBI going to go after Bush for making me download music illegally?
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
What I want to know is why the tech industry (i.e. all those companies who have to spend $$$ to implement these laws and requests and stuff such as ISPs, hardware companies, consumer electronics nmakers, software companies like RedHat and so on) arent fighting back.
These new bills are likely to hurt companies are people hang on to old hardware/software/electronics instead of buying new DRM stuff. Plus the cost to implement theis stuff.
Not to mention ISPs and such who have to spend $$$ acting as "copyright police" for Big Media.
Why dont they get together and form a TIAA (Technology Industry Association Of America) or something and fight back.
What is keepnig the tech companies from fighting Big Media?
but then directly afterward say "subsection a does not apply"
Subsection (a), which describes exhaustion of the distribution monopoly after the first sale, applies to any distribution of phonorecords except to distribution through "rental, lease, or lending."
Considering the Supreme Court said that the intent of a law doesn't matter as long as the wording itself is clear, Hatch doesn't know what he is talking about. If Apple goes into court using the "intent of the law" to defend the Ipod like Hatch suggests, Apple will definitely lose the case.
What I think is not addressed nearly enough, is ... why the hell we think these musicians deserve so much money?
Writing music is really not hard. You know what's a lot more difficult than writing a 3 and a half minute single? Working at a fast-food resteraunt, chopping wood, picking berries, writing a human resources presentation... etc.
Why do we think these musicians DESERVE all this money? I don't think even the greatest musicans should make more than a living wage off of the sale of recorded music.
I'm entertained for about 4 minutes by a britney spears song - and I'm entertained for about 4 minutes by a Junior Bacon Cheeseburger. Why should I value one so much more than other?
How the hell did we all become convinced that music is so valuable? There's an infinite supply!! The number of great songs out there that you've never heard and will never hear -- would boggle your mind.
I've wrote, mixed, and mastered over a hundred songs. On the few occasions I've been paid; it's been a lot less than I ever earned working convenience stores, customer service, etc.
And as you can tell, I'm not that smart, I'm sure not special, I'm just another moron who spent the time to learn to write music. It's not hard, you could do it to, and then would you deserve millions? I HIGHLY FUKING DOUBT IT
(B) distributing any dissemination technology that incorporates reasonably effective measures to prevent or halt dissemination that constitutes infringement within the meaning of this subsection;
Reasonably effective is incredibly vague. If we can be as slightly effective as some copy protection crap, that would be simple.
"Reasonably effective" to a lawyer/judge means something completely different from what it means to the average English-speaker.
You assume it means 'somewhat' effective or 'something less than totally' effective. It doesn't. It means, first of all, 'effective'. But the standard to be used to judge how effective is a 'reasonable' standard, which basically means 'that which a reasonable person thinks'. So, rather than asking, "how effective is it?" the legal system asks "does a reasonable person think it is effective?" These concepts are completely different.
This is, first of all, an incredibly deceptive way to word a law that is already on shaky ground. Secondly, it means that there is no clear way to assure that you have complied with this requirement until after you have created and disseminated your software, and the results of it's 'effectiveness' in preventing copying are established. It's a textbook ex post facto law. Your guilt or innocence has only tenuous connection to your actions, and is much more dependent on the actions of others.
This definitely doesn't mean you can add something that doesn't work and expect it to fly. This also means that the end results justify the means, and are the judge of them. If it doesn't work and they can show it doesn't work, it can't fall under the category of 'reasonably effective'.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I think I'm going to start posting files with suspicious names on servers to destroy their system of identifying files.
For added fun put porn as the actual data for the files.
This is, of course, ridiculous as I'd be screwing the owners of the servers, so don't do it.