Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act

It's a start... by ahsile · 2004-09-03 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:It's a start... by garcia · 2004-09-03 03:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

but, are the people making this laws STUPID?

Greed is a powerful thing. The laws are being made by people who enjoy the perks of working for the corporations.
Re:It's a start... by Vengeance · 2004-09-03 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem isn't so much stupidity as complete and utter boneheaded ignorance. The vast majority of our lawmakers are simply very very far out-of-touch with the concerns of folks like us. Most of 'em don't grok what P2P networking really is, don't see any benefits to their lives from doing it, and frankly don't have a problem with allowing industry groups to own various playing fields which they've always owned.

--
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Re:It's a start... by Bull999999 · 2004-09-03 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

It could also be due to the fact that your average citizen also don't know what P2P networking is about other than downloading illegal songs using Kazaa.

--
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Re:It's a start... by garcia · 2004-09-03 04:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ah, more leftist tripe from garcia. Clearly any desire to maintain ownership of property is labeled as "greed"... until its your property in question.

Perhaps I wasn't clear... The government officials that are accepting payoffs to put through laws favorable to the coroporations are greedy.
Re:It's a start... by TheGavster · 2004-09-03 04:10 · Score: 2, Funny

So what we really need to do is fill the reelection coffers with money made selling bootleg movies we got off KaZaA ...

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Re:It's a start... by dgatwood · 2004-09-03 04:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's a thought. Vote. If you live in Utah or Vermont, vote for the strongest opponent of Hatch or Leahy. It's pretty bad when a normally-hard-line Democrat advocates voting out a Democrat, but there, I just said it.
Tennesseeans, vote against Frist. He's a sponsor. South Dakotans? Daschle. Vote them out. If enough of the bill's sponsors are voted out of office, this bill will die as it should. With the exception of Graham in South Carolina, they're -all- up for reelection this year. Vote these corporate tools out of office. Tell all your friends to vote against them, too, and tell them why.
The INDUCE act is typical of what happens when a bunch of idiots think that they can legislate against social change. They tried it with prohibition and with segregation. Look how well those worked. The result of this law, if passed? Nothing. The people who maintain this software will suddenly be replaced by people in other countries. People will continue to violate the draconian copyright laws. P2P will become more and more untraceable and more and more secure. The end result will be that the MPAA/RIAA will lose the current benefits of P2P (tracking popularity), but their efforts will do nothing to stem the tide of illegal downloading.
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.
The world is a different place than it was before Napster, and no matter how much the people in power want to go back, wishing won't make it so. The sooner they accept this and work to find mechanisms for making money in spite of the inevitability of P2P, the sooner they'll be profitable again. The harder they try to fight technology, the more they will lose.
Remember: VOTE

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:It's a start... by KefabiMe · 2004-09-03 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Being a politician should not be something one is for a lifelong career. The founders of our country all considered their job something other than "politician" while starting this country. The country should be run by the people, for the people. A lifetime in politics puts you out of touch as to what the "people" really need.
Re:It's a start... by KefabiMe · 2004-09-03 05:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Managers did exist before the industrial revolution. They might not have been called managers then, but when people worked through the day, they had the equivalent of a "boss" that told them what to do.

And yes, I still think it holds true. If the country is to be run by the "people", then policy makers need to be part of the "people". Not some political aristrocrat that has friends mostly consisting of other aristrocrats and has not lived a normal everyday life for decades.
Re:It's a start... by tsg · 2004-09-03 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Vote these corporate tools out of office.

And the next set of corporate tools in.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:It's a start... by mefus · 2004-09-03 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why should he pander to the lowest common denominator?

The problem comes when legislators and interested readers aren't aware of all the peripheral meanings and the implications that words take on in a legal context. Inducement, for example, has extremely broad scope in terms of what is an actionable act according to the (proposed) new law.

It appears at first blush the copyright office wishes to mitigate liability for corporations without providing similar clear language for p2p users.

When that is the case it becomes evident that the mere invocation of the word inducement compels the inclusion of at least a paragraph of explanatory text to expose all the subtleties implicit in the law.

And here we are, seemingly "pandering to the lowest common denominator", burdened by shades of meaning that aren't evident in the straight dictionary meaning of the word, but necessary to its understanding. IMHO, this exposes the inutility of the word for discussion.

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
Re:It's a start... by Idarubicin · 2004-09-03 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's a thought. Vote. If you live in Utah or Vermont, vote for the strongest opponent of Hatch or Leahy. It's pretty bad when a normally-hard-line Democrat advocates voting out a Democrat, but there, I just said it.
Tennesseeans, vote against Frist. He's a sponsor. South Dakotans? Daschle. Vote them out. If enough of the bill's sponsors are voted out of office, this bill will die as it should. With the exception of Graham in South Carolina, they're -all- up for reelection this year. Vote these corporate tools out of office. Tell all your friends to vote against them, too, and tell them why.

Do check where their respective opponents stand on this type of legislation first. Not living in any of those states, I can't say. It's a pretty dumb protest if you vote out one guy because he supports these laws, only to replace him with a different shill who also supports these laws....
It might also be worthwhile to consider their stances and voting records on other economic and social issues--if they only do things you disagree with in one area, you might be better off with the devil you know. Unfortunately, voting is a very blunt tool for bringing about specific policy reforms.

--
~Idarubicin
Re:It's a start... by belmolis · 2004-09-03 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The trouble is, Pat Leahy is a terrific Senator, and it is very likely that his opponent will take the same position on this issue. A better approach would be to try to get Leahy to change his position.

HTML Text and Analysis by The+Importance+of · 2004-09-03 03:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by garcia · 2004-09-03 03:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by dafz1 · 2004-09-03 03:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

IANAL, but I do have a degree in Poli Sci, and the INDUCE Act couldn't "overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling". The INDUCE Act will just be a not filed injunction in reality.

The Supreme Court, which has the tradition of judicial review, which allows it to overturn laws they see as unconstituional. The Betamax case, which doesn't specifically site a constitutional cause, allows use of technology in a non-infringing manner, even though the manufacturer knows it could be(gleaned from the Grokster decision). Unless the RIAA/MPAA have justices in their pocket, it's doubtful this law will be able to stand up to the Betamax standard. Then again, Orrin Hatch is chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, the first stop for federal(and Supreme) court justice appointees.

Note: I'n not volunteering to be the person to be the case that tries the INDUCE act, should this awful piece of legislation pass, against the Betamax standard.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by Paulrothrock · 2004-09-03 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

There wouldn't be activist judges overturning laws if there weren't activist Congressmen making them.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by White+Roses · 2004-09-03 04:05 · Score: 3, Informative
The 9th circuit has always been the "rogue" circuit, making controversial decisions, and so on. As of 2 days ago (Sept. 1, 2004), *all* of the leadership posts for the 9th will be filled by women, from Justice O'Connor on down. How's that for rogue?
From the State of the Circuit speech:
- "Among some of the issues decided or, in one notable instance not decided, by the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit were: whether "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in California schools; whether the EPA needs to perform an environmental impact assessment before allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the U.S. under NAFTA; whether murderers sentenced to death by a judge, in violation of the Constitution's jury trial guarantee, can nonetheless be executed without re-sentencing; whether reasonable suspicion is needed for immigration agents to disassemble a car crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in order to search its gas tank for drugs. These are not easy issues."
Indeed they aren't. Plus, the 9th has the most cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. They're rogues alright. But they make hard decisions, and generally are in favor of keeping the government the hell out of people's business.
--
Do not touch -Willie
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by danila · 2004-09-03 04:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was always confused about this whole lawmaking thing. It seems to me there are already too many laws and there is no need for thousands of people working full-time on making more. It's not like we need a law for every goddamn possible situation.

The problem is when there is no need for lawmakers, they invent that need themselves, simply because by making themselves useful they can get bribes from campaign contributors. They are just like bureaucracy in this sense.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by Twylite · 2004-09-03 05:13 · Score: 2, Informative

The 9th Circuit ruling and the Betamax ruling set precedents. In the future other courts will refer to such precents and determine the extent to which they are applicable to new cases.

Laws do not overturn rulings, but they regularly superceed precedents. A Betamax-equivalent case could be brought before a court which must now consider the fact that the environment under which the Betamax decision was taken (i.e. the laws applicable at the time) is different to the new environment (assuming the INDUCE act is passed), and that the Betamax precedent thus has limited effect.

Always remember that the law trumps precedents. Courts must rule according to law. Judicial precedents serve to clarify the courts' interpretation of laws with respect to the conditions of a case. Only in cases with the same legal environment and factual background is a court bound by the precedents of other courts of an equal or higher level. At any time, a new law can be passed, even with the explicit intent of changing something that has previously been set by a judicial precedent (assumedly not to the satisfaction of the lawmakers).

The constitution is a very special case. It provides for an avenue to challange a law directly. The court will not simply "bypass" the law when it rules - it either upholds it or rules that the law is unconstitutional and no longer valid.

The only bases on which a court can rule in a manner inconsistent with a law is when the law is inconsistent with the constitution, or inconsistent with another law that the court chooses to observe in preference given the facts of the case. The judiciary interprets and adjudicates the rules created by the legislature; it has no power to create substantial law.

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by Dirtside · 2004-09-03 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

But when Congress makes a stupid law, and the law will never be repealed because special interests spend so much money keeping congresspersons in their pockets, our only real alternative is to have "activist judges" abort those stupid laws. (Or a violent revolution; take your pick.)

Maybe they "go above their mandate," but Congress's implied mandate is to make laws for the good of all the people, not for the good of a handful of corporations and their shareholders. If Congress isn't going to play fair, why should the courts?

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! by agentkhaki · 2004-09-03 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

"It's not like we need a law for every goddamn possible situation."

On the contrary. Until something is done to curb the rampant abuse of existing laws (and legal precedents) by the lawyers, this is exactly what we need, and will continue to need. Until we can somehow stop them from exploiting the smaller loopholes (which always exist), the solution to the problem cannot be leaving even larger ones.

That isn't to say that I disagree with what you believe in principal (or at least, what I think you believe) -- that the legal system, and the ideas our forefathers set forth in the form of checks and balances, has become so corrupted it is essentially worthless. To that, I agree.

"The problem is when there is no need for lawmakers, they invent that need themselves, simply because by making themselves useful they can get bribes from campaign contributors..."

This is like debating what came first -- the chicken, or the egg. Are the lawmakers creating laws in order to receive financial perks, or because they receive financial perks? The answer is that it doesn't really matter. Again, we have a situation that can't be dealt with by the current legal system. Those who pass the laws will never implement a law wherein they are no longer allowed to receive these perks (ie, get rid of lobbyists, who sadly, have just as much power as those belonging to the legal/political/insurance money-triangle/orgy).

We could go on and on, debating the good and the bad and recalling instances of abuse and corruption and problems. But we don't have to. We can agree that changes need to be made, and that they can't be made by the current system, which loves itself too much to destroy itself.

The answer might be that the entire system needs to be uprooted, and new seeds replanted by the governed. Not by those in power, or by those whom others say "let s/h/it make my decisions for me." Rather, by those who say "this is how my life would be if I were running things, and I'm speaking only for myself, and none other."

Unfortunately, the world is too well connected for this to happen. Were we, the people, to revolt, and destroy every shread of our current legal/governmental system, we would quickly find a host of other countries on our doorstep, eager to take us over and make us their own. And it would work. It would, no if's, and's, or but's. And then we would be right back at square one, or perhaps farther back, a Goliath sized (insert principality with some, but not all, rights here).

So what is the solution? Hell if I know... (rant cut short by lack of time :-)

--
Ack!

Re:I should probably RTFA, but... by stratjakt · 2004-09-03 03:18 · Score: 5, Informative

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!!!!

Shut that HATCH by Gentlewhisper · 2004-09-03 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Still is too vague by Manip · 2004-09-03 03:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Re:Still is too vague by jackb_guppy · 2004-09-03 03:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Lending him the CD - would not be an inducement.

The reason is you no longer have have the CD, he now has it. So only one copy. Fee for the copy has alredy been paid.

If you maded a copy for him, or you lent him your to copy to make copy, then you would falling
Re:Still is too vague by danila · 2004-09-03 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Still is too vague

Oops, it seems you are already 50% sold on the law. You already took it for granted that we need some form of Induce Act, now we only need to agree on the specific text.

The truth is that there is no problem to solve with this law, except for the problem of failing business models. Have you actually seen or heard about those strange and dangerous people that go and induce people to break copyright law? Other than on Hatch's/RIAA speeches, of course...

I haven't. There is no need for this law, regardless of how vague/specific it is.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Still is too vague by Sentry21 · 2004-09-03 06:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Move to Canada. If I have a CD and lend it to my friend Fred, Fred can just rip the CD, make a copy, burn it, mix it, or whatever, and then give it back to me. As long as he is using his copy for his personal use, it's non-infringement.

I find it amusing to no end that lending a CD could be considered an infringing act. Talk about absurd. I'd jump ship when the idea was considered.

--Dan

Artists are NOT suffering by flinxmeister · 2004-09-03 03:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Artists are NOT suffering by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-03 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Excuse me, but for lack of a better way of putting it, you're colossally full of shit.

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.

Yes, recording companies will tell you that royalty pay increases, but they never seem to release a breakdown of who gets that pay. I would venture to say that the majority of it does not go to artists like myself, who play on your film scores, your commercials, for whom this is a daily living, not the difference between the 1.2 million dollar or the 2.1 million dollar house.

It's the media conglomerates that are the gorillas here. Royalty checks for those like myself are insulting at best. (This is why I have a day job in IT for now.)

Please do not EVER confuse the RIAA and MPAA with actual ARTISTS.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering by networkBoy · 2004-09-03 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you agree there are 1000 songwriters, composers, music publishers (combined with executives who get their share)...
I think you will find there are easily ten times that many people with their hand in the pot for that money. so there would only be $57K per "employee" -nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Artists are NOT suffering by black+mariah · 2004-09-03 03:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

BMI claims to represent over 300,000 artists. Let's do some math.

$573,000,000 / 300,000 = $1910 per year

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering by flinxmeister · 2004-09-03 03:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'll take kneejerk reactions without reading for 500 million, Alex.

Please read my post and my link, before calling me "full of shit"...(colossally even!) I never said anything about the RIAA and/or MPAA.

The article is from BMI. Anyone can join BMI, from the individual artist (like me) to the largest publisher. The fact that BMI is collecting record revenue and royalty payments means that the money is flowing regardless of what's happening with Kazaa/Morpheus/etc.

The fact that you don't see much of this money will NOT change with the INDUCE act...in fact it will probably get worse if the INDUCE act is passed because it will stifle the very innovation that is changing the system waaay for the better for musicians like you and I.

In short, this guy that's "full of shit" is full of the same opinion you are. The real exploitation is happening with the old status quo, not the new world of "illegal" downloading.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering by KitFox · 2004-09-03 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Soooo...
Your original post actually had nothing whatsoever to do with anything? *confused*.

The post that you were responding to was pointing out that even though the music industry claims that they are hurting because of P2P, they are reporting increases in various numbers that indicate the opposite. Nobody ever said that artists were making millions per year. They just pointed out that the dollar amount going to artists was going up (By 7.5% in fact), and that makes it more difficult to say "The music industry is hurting because of P2P!"

Unfortunately, their quantification of "The music industry is hurting" seems to be based on "Well, we sold this much, but we THINK we should have sold THIS much more." and "Everybody who has a copy of this song/album that didn't pay for it is (insert price of CD here) lost revenue!"

Now, I guess one could say that more artists are coming on the bandwagon, and so that number should be going up much faster to accomodate them. Thus implying that there is less for everybody. But forgive me when I don't have a bleeding heart for this issue either. Did we mention that the economy, at least in the US, stinks worse than a roadkill skunk in Florida after 2 weeks in the sun and humidity?

As such, summary and from personal experience, which is likely to be duplicated:

1) "There are fewer CD sales! (It must be because of P2P!)"... Well, I used to buy CD's. When I had money, I'd buy an average of 5-6 CD's per month. Now I don't have much money, thank you US economy, and what I do have is going towards more important things like housing and food and utilities. CD's are the last thing on my mind.

2) "Every P2P download is a lost sale." Uh, no. I listen to obscure music that doesn't play on the radio. Not to mention that I don't want to invest hours listening to the radio mindlessly hoping that the song I want to check will come on. So I download it to see how it is. And well over 99% of the time, I delete it shortly thereafter. But according to them, I'm a lost sale!! $17.99 lost to them for each song that I downloaded (And no longer have). As if I'd spend $17.99 to find out that I want to throw the CD away. ("But that under 1% of the time, you're stealing!!" I still wouldn't buy the record for $17.99. I suppose I could download it from something online like iTunes, but then it's not worth the cost, hassle, and cost of my time. But fine, I'll concede that anyway. (Counts) So the record companies have lost $15 in iTunes downloads on me. Oh, and Apple has lost hundreds on an iPod on me, because I burned the 15 MP3s to an MP3 CD so I could listen to them in my car. Riiiiight.)

I don't think the current system works. I don't think the theft is a good thing. But honestly, if I could pay $0.50 for a song, and know that $0.25 is going to the artist, and $0.25 is going to infrastructure, and it's not bogged down in DRM, then that would be a hell of a lot easier, and finally worth my time as compared to P2P. Heck, at that point, I'd STILL P2P and delete 99%, but I'd get the paid-for versions of the songs that I keep.

So, what did your math actually accomplish? I mean, even it's not accurate, because it's not a matter of $xxxx per artist, it's more a matter of "These 5% of artists get $xxx,xxx and the rest get $xx or $0, since they are still busy waiting for their sales to exceed baseline limits." And it fails to mention that with that royalties value, hundreds times more than that was actually transferred in media sales. A tiny chunk of that went to materials cost. A tiny chunk went to distribution and retail salespeople, advertisements, etc. A tiny chunk went to royalties (Sent to the actual artists). And a huge chunk went into the pockets of the multimillionaires who run the label companies. Find me any artist who makes a lot of money, and I can almost guarentee their label makes more off them then they make of themself.

THAT is what needs fixing. Getting the money into the hands of the people who actually PRODUCED the product.

--
@Whee

IRC? by StevenHenderson · 2004-09-03 03:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

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..."?

Re:IRC? by calypso15 · 2004-09-03 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can understand the regs on p2p software

You can? You understand it? Or you're willing to accept it? Or you just don't care? Because, I neither understand it nor am I willing to accept it. P2P has a myriad of legitimate uses, especially to someone running a *nix system.

See, the problem is that people go "Oh, well, they want to ban X? I don't use X, so that's alright." They don't think about the fact that it's X today, but hey, that just set a precedent for banning Y. Soon you're going "Aww crap, IM just got banned because it includes a file transfer feature. How did this happen?"
Re:IRC? by Dever · 2004-09-03 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

" I understand that they are irrefutably making people lose money, yet I also think the RIAA and MPAA are lost organizations that support Broken Business Models (TM)."
first, that is not irrefutable. do you think it's the piracy or the 'Broken Business Models' that is causing the problem? because if you think it's the latter i don't see how you understand the regs to be worthwhile. you did make both statements however.
and yes, i would support a ban on guns if it miraculously happened. because they induce DEATH, by design, not copyright infringement through alternate uses.
if p2p killed thousands of people a year i'd want it banned too.
???!!!%%%### yeah!!!

--
- I'd prefer not to.

Anyone sensible even attending? by ajayvb · 2004-09-03 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Anyone sensible even attending? by tepples · 2004-09-03 03:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hardware manufacturers are interested in free speech, for without at least some semblance of protection of free speech, nobody may lawfully buy their products.
Re:Anyone sensible even attending? by Alsee · 2004-09-03 08:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why? Because at the other meeting the EFF and other public-oriented groups said all sorts of things Hatch did not like. They showed it was a bad bill and poked all sorts of holes in it. Hell, even the RIAA representitive pretty much had to conceed their points that there were ugly problems with the bill.

It's much easier to ram through the bill you want if you can keep the opposition out of the room.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... by GillBates0 · 2004-09-03 03:21 · Score: 5, Informative

by Will Rodger, director of public policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association:

"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

Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... by Paulrothrock · 2004-09-03 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just goes to show that companies (with convenient government puppets) will stop at nothing to establish monopoly over everything in their power.
If you want to change the law, get disgustingly rich and BUY a NEW one!
Jeez, it's like the commies never paid off a government official before!

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... by jeffasselin · 2004-09-03 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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. Oh I know P2P is probably not a critical advance, but it's in its infancy, and we cannot truly know what it might bring us beyond the current applications. I've thought about how distributed computing and P2P technology could evolve and change the face of computing.

Also, the constitution is about the PEOPLE. It should, beyond any other purpose, serve the people who constitute the nation. Laws should also reflect the needs and wants of the people, and not of small groups and corporations. If the laws are badly implemented or irrelevant in a new society, they should be changed or annulled.

I don't want people who create works or invent, or think up new technologies to have those exploited by others for profit, but non-for-profit and personal use should not be outlawed.

--
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... by stubear · 2004-09-03 05:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"...but non-for-profit and personal use should not be outlawed."

Now define not-for profit and personal use. Should PETA be allowed to use music, speeches, and photographs to promote their causes? What if I as an artist disagree with PETA? What rights do I now have to stop them from using my work? What if they alter part of a photograph o fmine and change the meaning to the exact opposite? One could argue that stadiums do not earn revenue from the use of songs during spoting events, the people are there to watch a game after all regardless of whether or not music is playing. Should they be allowed to use music without licensing it first and paying the artists?

As for personal use, should I be allowed to distribute music via P2P or give it out to friends? How is that personal use exactly since I'm not personally involved with interacting with the art? Couldn't one argue that value is being placed on these works, albeit not monetary, and thus they are creating a commercial enterprise around the trading of intellectual property?

As with most problems the answer lies in the middle and both extremes are wrong, including you. Creative Commons licenses are one area I happen to agree with Lessig. They put the power to allow greater use of their work squarely on the backs of the artist which is where it should be. Any other solution is either trying to "get shit for free" or "locking up art for eternity", neither of which is good for the art community and for the public at large.

Re:I should probably RTFA, but... by ipgeek · 2004-09-03 03:22 · Score: 5, Informative

"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.

Re:Canada, here I come. by stratjakt · 2004-09-03 03:22 · Score: 2, Funny

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!!!!

Inducing people.... by thewiz · 2004-09-03 03:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

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"?

Re:Inducing people.... by stratjakt · 2004-09-03 03:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

The RIAA and Apple are on the *same side*. Apple is the RIAAs best friend. They promise higher profits with lower overhead, just so long as that pesky competition to iTunes is crushed under the most severe of criminal penalties.

They both want it to be illegal to advertise P2P clients as a source for free entertainment. They both want Kazaa, morpheus, etc to dissappear. It hurts their respective business models.

The decision as to who is doing the "inducing" is up to them, and they can make it as arbitrarily as they want.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Inducing people.... by black+mariah · 2004-09-03 03:39 · Score: 3, Funny

It is all in how you market something. "Rip all your songs and put them on our MP3 player!" is one thing. "Download everything for free off of Kazaa and put it on our MP3 player!" is another. Inducement isn't a new idea. Look it up. Google usually works wonders. Dumbass.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Inducing people.... by surprise_audit · 2004-09-03 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

You're forgetting that in the RIAA's world, even if you legally bought the media at full price from a music store, ripping MP3s from it is piracy. By that logic, anyone that sells you the technology to rip mp3s is "inducing" you to steal music. It doesn't matter that a small percentage of iPod owners are actually ripping music they wrote and hold copyright on - the vast majority of owners are being encouraged to rip "illegally".
That's not necessarily my point of view, BTW. I've got some vinyl LPs that aren't out on CD, and if I ever get around to it, I'll be ripping them somehow...

It's an infringement to lend a CD by tepples · 2004-09-03 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-03 03:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

What if we change the wording, and said...

"I bought a CD. Then I gave it to Fred, free of charge, and when he was done listening to it, he gave it to me, also free of charge." :-)
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD by rwoodford · 2004-09-03 03:53 · Score: 2, Informative

That loophole is probably filled by these phrases:

"...for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage ..."

and

"... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending."

Of course, IANAL.
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD by urulokion · 2004-09-03 04:49 · Score: 2, Informative

First Sale Doctrine definately does apply in the case of my loaning MY CD to anyone else. A CD is just like a book. It is my property. I can fold, spindal, mutilate, playing, listen, frisbee, rip, time shift, and whatever else I think think up. The only rights the copyright own still keeps are the copy right and public performance.
The statutes that you are citing apply to those activity for commercial gain. Notice there are movie rental stores all over the place in the US. But also note there is not a single place where you can rent any type of music media (CD, albums, singles, etc.) Well you can thank the RIAA and the record labels for getting that little nugget added into the law.
Yet we can buy used music CDs. We thanks to the First Sale Doctrine. Thank goodness past courts did 'get it' when it comes to the copyright laws and the Constitution. My faith in current day courts have taken a lo of bruising.
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD by 955301 · 2004-09-03 05:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Good workaround this time.

And, if you own a company, then not only are you not breaking any laws, you can write off the lost goods. So your coporation buys the cd and you, as a rep of the company lose it, Fred finds it, loses it. You as an individual find it again.

Give it back to the company as capital stock when you want to "lose" it again. Love this country.

--
You are checking your backups, aren't you?

INDUCE not good, but something needed by dirk · 2004-09-03 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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"

Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed by JonnyCalcutta · 2004-09-03 04:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

when something is used for 99.9% copyright violation, something needs to be done.
Quite right! Probably the best idea is to get rid of the laws being violated. Or to put it another way, when even a large minority of people do something it is crazy to make that thing illegal. Laws should reflect the whole of society rather than just being a tool for certain well placed minority groups to mould everyone else.
If you don't like the way that concept of 'freedom' pans out then, as you American's like to say, why not give communist China a try.
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed by captaincucumber · 2004-09-03 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

You may call them copyrights, but I call them copyWRONGs

Seriously, it's ridiculous, listen to yourself. People just want to listen to music and watch pornos. If it really hurts those industries, then a few a few less pornos will get made, and a few artists won't get signed. True artists will endure. The world will go on. No cultural harm will be done by a few record executives not getting as rich as they would like. We need to rework the whole system for scratch.

But you're just a troll anyway.
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed by cdrguru · 2004-09-03 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is needed is for the RIAA, record companies and music producers in general to go out of business. Fold up. Stop making CDs. Bands can make their own CDs and sell them on streetcorners, because the entire retail network that is fed by RIAA members will collapse.
OK, then maybe we can get some sanity into this discussion.
The problem is if we just ignore copyright completely - and it becomes legal for large corporations to do so - the biggest distributor wins. Who might that be? Maybe Wal-Mart, maybe Sony. No way is this going to help anyone.
How does this happen? Very simple. If there is no rule against republishing any work, then someone is going to grab everything there is to grab and start selling it. Cheap, because it cost them nothing to produce. Which would you rather do, download a movie and make your own DVD or buy one at Wal-Mart for $2? How about music - if you could buy anything for $1 at Wal-Mart instead of downloading chopped-off, sometimes shoddy stuff, which would you do? What if you don't have broadband Internet access or you already used up your bandwidth allocation this month? There is still a place for physical distribution, but without copyright the big distributors are going to absolutely take over. That wouldn't do the artists any good, but it sure would help Wal-Mart's bottom line. It might help Sony's, too. It would not help the artists, and probably wouldn't help the average consumer.
Please think how eliminating copyright laws would really affect everyone before proposing silliness like that.
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed by Dever · 2004-09-03 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

" Probably the best idea is to get rid of the laws being violated. Or to put it another way, when even a large minority of people do something it is crazy to make that thing illegal. Laws should reflect the whole of society rather than just being a tool for certain well placed minority groups to mould everyone else."
that is stupid reasoning. 'we americans' have checks and balances especially so minorities don't get trampled by 'the majority'. so should racial segregation in the south 50 years ago have been made legal in the states that had a majority of voting racists? should the world at large have condoned germany and its genocide because the majority of germans supported it too?
what we DON'T need is mob rule. because that's what you get when you start passing laws just because the majority of people want them passed.
social issues / law are NEVER made right or wrong strictly because of the number of people supporting it are a majority OR a minority. that is why we have rights as citizens, and laws that were designed to protect those rights of ours from being infringed upon by corrupt government, enemy states, and mobs.
if parent is +5 insightful you mods are +5 dumbasses.
my examples could be slightly better as pertaining to 'whole of society' but neither does that strike down the point that mob rule is not righteous or fair rule because of its majority status.

--
- I'd prefer not to.

I sit in awe as the situation escalates by osgeek · 2004-09-03 03:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:A potential advantage... by DaFallus · 2004-09-03 03:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is all this law is. Apparently no one is able to think for themselves anymore. This whole Inducement Act crosses a line which the government was not meant to cross and its all because the government is nothing more than a pawn of large corporations. This act inhibits our freedom of speach by taking away personal accountability. The only way someone could actually induce you to do something would be if they had a gun to your head, in which case it might be better to let them kill you instead of having to see what future the RIAA and the MPAA hold for technology in this country.

Just read this atrocious lie:

"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) takes an uncompromising stand against censorship and for the First Amendment rights of all artists to create freely. From the nation's capital to state capitals across the country, RIAA works to stop unconstitutional action against the people who make the music of our times--and those who enjoy it."

--
No one cares what your captcha was

Houston TX, USA

Go big and ban it all. by Acts+of+Attrition · 2004-09-03 03:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Does it really make sense? it's still wholly against P2P networks.

"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..."

Re:Go big and ban it all. by Carnildo · 2004-09-03 09:31 · Score: 3, Informative

My reading of the law is that it is targeted mainly against p2p networks that are used mainly for copyright infringement.

Section 2A would cover any p2p application that automatically starts sharing files

Section 2B would cover any p2p application that explicitly blocks suspected RIAA/MPAA peers

Section 2C would cover any p2p application that includes incentives for sharing copyrighted work.

Section 2D is an anti-grandfather clause: once this passes, if you're distributing a p2p application, it had better not be in violation of 2A, 2B, or 2C

2E is a problem: even if you didn't make the p2p application for copyright infringement, if the users have decided to use it primarily for that purpose, you're guilty. I don't think this section will stand up in court, though.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

Dialog box loophole? by patbob · 2004-09-03 03:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The draft of the act says:

".. 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.

very squishy by The_Bagman · 2004-09-03 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Here's the really interesting exclusion (i.e., something that does not count as an overt act that is liable):

(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.

Not sure about that. by einhverfr · 2004-09-03 04:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

I see. by Renraku · 2004-09-03 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:I see. by Blue+Stone · 2004-09-03 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

" People that sell weapons, tools, and cars better be punished too. "
Interestingly, Hatch introduced (it says here) legislation "in March 2000 to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits arising from crimes committed with their guns".
'Hypocritical douche-bag', is the phrase you're fumbling for.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

Form letter from Orrin Hatch by cvd6262 · 2004-09-03 04:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Typical by pjt33 · 2004-09-03 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

children, teenagers, and others

He takes four words to say "people", because "people" just isn't sufficiently alarmist.

Oldest political trick in the book! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-03 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Rather than get rid of copyright entirely... by Illissius · 2004-09-03 04:44 · Score: 2, Informative

...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.

Re:Rather than get rid of copyright entirely... by Dirtside · 2004-09-03 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

...why not just reduce its duration rather significantly?
While this is the proper solution (or at least one version of it), it won't happen because you'll never get the big media interests to discuss it publicly. Try to engage them in a public forum of any kind, and get them to explain why copyrights need to last forever, and they'll ignore you, refuse to respond, change the subject, or respond with non-sequiturs. Here's how it might go:
Illissius: Explain why copyrights need to last 90 years.
RIAA (for example): We have to protect the rights of artists to profit from their work.
Illissius: But they can profit on a much shorter timescale than 90 years. And making copyright shorter will encourage more creativity, since people won't be able to just create one thing and then rest on their laurels for years on end.
RIAA: Well we have to prevent piracy, which takes away huge amounts of money from these poor starving artists.
Illissius: What? That doesn't make sense! You didn't even answer my--
RIAA: Sorry, we have to go.
* RIAA runs off and continues bribi^H^H^H^H^Hgiving campaign contributions to lawmakers.
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?).
Logically, you're right; it's not a good solution for them, but it is for everyone else. However the RIAA has something that the rest of us don't:
1) Billions of dollars to spend on lobbying lawmakers;
2) Employees (lobbyists) with long experience convincing those lawmakers to do bad things.
As much as we here on /. (and other fora) bitch about it, unless we put together a concerted, organized, directed, and above all well-funded effort to convince lawmakers otherwise, we're screwed.
It's a bleak picture, but not hopeless. In the long run I think the RIAA will eventually lose, namely because all the laws they create will not stem the tide of casual piracy, eventually things will come to a head, and all the money in the world can't buy off fifty million pissed-off Joe Sixpacks who just want to download free music.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

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")

Re:Copyright law over? by mefus · 2004-09-03 14:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

[blather]...piracy will continue...[blather]

Talk about NOT getting the point of his post!

This is a war on the Information Commons, not piracy. They want to remove your ability to read a book twice, and similar rights you've always enjoyed. They are trying to lock up the exchange of information.

Please, who gives a damn about the so-called pirates (stupid phrase, anyway).

--
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!

American flag by operagost · 2004-09-03 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Corporations don't have morals by lildogie · 2004-09-03 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Finally.... by punkrocher · 2004-09-03 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is still completely absurd that they can outlaw something that 'induces' someone to be music pirates or what have you. Guns are still legal. Could those induce someone to go on a shooting spree? There are perfectly legal uses for p2p. Congress must realize that destroying something because of bad side effects dispite monumental good uses is totally and utterly inane.

--
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting be

501(3)(a) by Sloppy · 2004-09-03 06:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

(3) For the purposes of this subsection, and absent any other overt act, an "overt act" does not include:
(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;

With that exemption, I just don't understand how this act accomplishes anything. This is a complete waste of legislative effort. Any technology is going to be capable of substantial noninfringing use. Indeed, it's very hard (impossible) for tech to even know when it is infringing and when it is not.

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.

No supprise. by Irvu · 2004-09-03 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act

81 of 263 comments (clear)