Slashdot Mirror


Savebetamax.org National Call-in Day

Rinisari writes "Savebetamax.org, a project of Downhill Battle, has set up a national call-in day for September 14th. They ask that on that day, each person signed up call a specific congressperson about the INDUCE act in an effort to keep a steady stream of calls all day. The "Save Betamax" nomenclature comes from the fact that the INDUCE act could reverse the decision in the 1984 Sony v. Universal case regarding Sony's Betamax VTRs and copying of copyrighted movies."

73 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

    A chance to slashdot congress!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Finally! by i+love+pineapples · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A chance to slashdot congress!

      Well, just think... I know not everyone here on /. is an American, but if we can take a server down, we're very likely to get somebody in Congress's attention.

    2. Re:Finally! by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA. :) It's a phone-in campaign. Unless he also works the phones, the sysadmin will not notice.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Finally! by Jordy · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is really annoying is that this Act is supported by Barbara Boxer (California Democrat). For some reason California's Senators are extremely anti-tech industry and yet they keep getting elected. The movie/music industry is big, but it doesn't hold a candle to the tech/consumer electronics industries in CA.

      I just don't get it. I hope we do slashdot them. Heck, you can hit the EFF Action Center and faxslashdot them.

      --
      The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
    4. Re:Finally! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The movie/music industry is big, but it doesn't hold a candle to the tech/consumer electronics industries in CA.

      I suspect that part of the problem is that the copyright cartel controls 90+% of the 'official' information flow - television, radio, print even billboards. This puts them in a position to have a huge effect on public and private opinion, something that few other industries are able to do and the copyright cartel gets gets it effectively for free.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wrote (mostly email, some snail) to pretty much every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee re: INDUCE a couple months ago. The only reply I've received has been from Sen. Feinstein. I live in NY, so Hillary and Schumer ignoring me is f'd up. Feinstein sent me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts on "music file-sharing." Even though her letter did not address any of my points or even acknowledge whether I was pro or con on file-sharing, she "will keep [my] thoughts in mind should [INDUCE] come up in the Committee."

      She believes "the protection of IP rights is vital to a flourishing economy, esp. in CA." And that "we must work to prevent the creation of digital copies of copyrighted works that can be illegally distributed throughout the world." Um Dianne, INDUCE doesn't do that. It's a cash payout to your big donors.

      If I have any further comments or questions, I should "feel free" to contact her DC office at (202) 224-3841.

      INDUCE, still wallowing in the Judiciary Committee, is now called "Inducing Infringements of Copyrights Act of 2004" and is still called S 2560. So if you call, refer to it by number or the new name.

      Make one or two points max per call. You can call again.

      Emphasize that you are against S 2560.

      If you're from the Senator's home state, mention it and say that you vote. It should theoretically make a difference.

  2. First thought... by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...was "damn, are they DECADES to late! These Sony BetaMax nuts are worse than Mac people or Amiga owners -- and that is saying something."

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  3. They'll call this terrorism. by rokzy · · Score: 5, Funny

    a conspiracy to affect communications and actions of the country's leaders.

    who the hell do these people think they are anyway deserving the attention of congressmen? they don't even pay the campaign bills.

    1. Re:They'll call this terrorism. by Virtuoso(ViP) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe because the congressmen are supposed to represent the people who elected them and not the people who bribe them?

      -Virt

    2. Re:They'll call this terrorism. by Valar · · Score: 2, Funny

      *whoosh*

    3. Re:They'll call this terrorism. by October_30th · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, it was most certainly a joke. However, in this world that's quickly turning into a libertarian dream (i.e. a nightmare for the rest of us) of uncontrolled capitalism and neo-feudalism where consumers play the role of serfs, it's kind of starting to make sense.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see that in a decade being a congressman or an MP will be officially regarded as just another profession in the same way as being a doctor or a lawyer is. They'll charge a fee for their services and the more you pay the more you'll get.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:They'll call this terrorism. by slaad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Joke? what are you talking abo.. Holy shit, you're one of them. You're in on it too. (PS, please no insightful mods :) )

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
  4. Not the INDUCE act again... by Silverlancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering what the RIAA is doing, music, movie, and other media companies shouldn't be given any privledges at all, nevermind the ability to veto technologies because they don't like them...

    1. Re:Not the INDUCE act again... by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you ever heard of Larry Niven's "ARM"? In his stories they are the technology police of the UN (who run the planet) and are charged with suppressing all new dangerous technology. (Read as any new technology period). They are the most corrupt organization in his stories.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  5. What happens then? by usefool · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Betamax was really saved by this project, what's going to happen?

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
  6. Uhhh by Frogbert · · Score: 5, Funny

    Umm the 80's called... they want their format back.

    1. Re:Uhhh by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have to admire Betamax. It died way too young... but without what it did at the Supreme Court, VHS and DVRs might not be considered "fair use" and therefore might not have even been born.

  7. We've heard this song before... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We've heard from these Downhill Battle people before. They proposed the a scheme to try to collect Apple/Pepsi winning-cap codes for iTunes downloads that neglected the fact that there were limits to how many songs a given person could download, neglected the fact that the rules said non-transferable, and that the group didn't disclose just how they selected the artists they wanted to favor.

    In short, these guys come up with nice ideas that don't work due to real world constraints.

    1. Re:We've heard this song before... by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      In short, these guys come up with nice ideas that don't work due to real world constraints.

      Oh, they're libertarians?

  8. Why all in one day? by A1kmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be better to spread it out over a long period of time, otherwise they will know it is an organised compaign and will just disregard the calls? Is there any advantage to do this all in one day whatsoever?

    --
    X-Has-Sig: yes
    1. Re:Why all in one day? by i+love+pineapples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be better to spread it out over a long period of time, otherwise they will know it is an organised compaign and will just disregard the calls?

      I agree; Correct me if I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how calling a politican works, but if 1,000 people call Mr./Ms. Senator in a day, whoever records these types of calls will probably end up becoming annoyed/overloaded/whatever and is likely to dismiss the high volume... If the 1,000 calls are made over, say, a few months' time, wouldn't it be more likely that each call is recorded and reported?

    2. Re:Why all in one day? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Congress was actually in session, it might cause congresscritters to talk about the fact that their office phone people are getting overloaded.

      Of course, annoying a congresscritter's staff is a good way to NOT get whatever you want. Staff members sometimes have the critical influence over the congresscritter they work for on technical issues they don't understand.

    3. Re:Why all in one day? by qbwiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't it likely that if the phone calls were spread out over time, they would be more likely to be forgotten and underestimated? If the previous phone call about an issue was a few days ago, you might not really link the two in your mind and figure out the strong support for an issue. If they all come at once, it's relatively easy to notice that there is strong support for an issue - you've been dealing with people who care about it all day.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    4. Re:Why all in one day? by i+love+pineapples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they all come at once, it's relatively easy to notice that there is strong support for an issue - you've been dealing with people who care about it all day.

      True, if the phone calls are few and far between. If the phones are ringing off the hooks for days, then maybe the congressperson might take notice, but wouldn't a single day of calls be forgotten after weeks of relative silence? I'd think a steady stream of daily calls would be much more memorable, and much less likely leave a negative impression. Remember that the person answering the phone is probably some underpaid staff, and as another poster said, it's bad idea to piss off the congressperson's staff.

  9. Wrong! by BalorTFL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is perhaps one of the most important legal battles in this area for quite a while. If the Betamax decision is overturned, it will be an enormous setback to proponents of fair use. As for the INDUCE act? Not only is it full of ridiculously vague wording, but it boggles the mind in terms of the rights it would take away. If it passes, things could change in a big way . . . and not for the good of the people, but for the good of the big corporations backing it.

  10. I just signed up.... by Rageon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me crazy, but wouldn't it have been usefull to have listed the time zone the assigned time is for? You think that might come in handy for something like this.

  11. RTFA and blurb by frankthechicken · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then read the actual ruling.

    It would be madness if Hollywood et al got their way, if only because as the article stated, Hollywood benefitted enourmously from sales of VCR.

    1. Re:RTFA and blurb by buford_tannen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be madness if Hollywood et al got their way, if only because as the article stated, Hollywood benefitted enourmously from sales of VCR.

      Yes, it would be madness. But Hollywood doesn't care.

      Now it is possible for them to sell read-only playback devices (such as the DVD) and if they ban all DVD-R, CD-R (+/-RW etc etc) then it won't affect their bottom line in the least. They can still profit from home videos that people can still play, but no one can record anything, except the organized criminals with their shops full of equipment... and people with legacy equipment. And once NTSC and PAL have been replaced by newer digital formats, that legacy equipment will become mostly useless. Hollywood would like nothing better.

      You better stand up for your rights, or they're gonna kick you in the scrote.

      Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen

      --
      Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
  12. Coral cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.savebetamax.org.nyud.net:8090/
    http://www.downhillbattle.org.nyud.net:8090/
    http://www.virtualrecordings.com.nyud.net:8090/bet amax.htm

    c'mon people.. we talk about using coral to prevent killing webservers, then we don't use it in the main post.
    get with it! =)

    1. Re:Coral cache by realdpk · · Score: 2, Informative

      The last half dozen coral links I've used, for slashdotted articles and non-slashdotted articles, have been basically down or so extremely slow as to be not worthwhile.

  13. So, this means by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... I can watch my old Betamax tapes again? Good, I hate Congress interfering with my video formats. Next thing you know, they'll make DVD+R illegal, and only DVD-R formats will be allowed!

    No, seriously, they could have chosen a better name. "Save Betamax" doesn't mean shit to Joe Consumer (How many people actually remember that decision?). If you phrase it as "They're going to make it illegal to set your VCR to tape a show while you're away on vacation", that'll mean a lot more, although it would be a crappy domain name. But I'll be calling anyway, and you all should too. Write letters to the editors of your local papers,while you're at it.

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    1. Re:So, this means by nicholasbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about Save the iPod?

      The Free Culture student movement is already running just that campaign: SaveTheiPod.com

      We've also launched a continuation of the campaign here: SaveThe.org

      So check out those sites, and then go to FreeCulture.org and join the international student movement for free culture.

      (If it isn't already abundantly clear, I'm part of the movement.)

  14. It's hard to fight by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    800,000 geeks vs $800,000 (campaign donations?)

    It's be great if it'd work, but it's hard to beat the money of the big corporations....The more I read the news, the more I see the big boys on the hill getting in on this....

    Scary stuff it is...

    1. Re:It's hard to fight by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      800,000 geeks vs $800,000 (campaign donations?)

      It'd be great if it'd work, but it's hard to beat the money of the big corporations....The more I read the news, the more I see the big boys on the hill getting in on this....


      Ask any politician which he would prefer: 1000 voters going to the polls, or $10,000 (extra '0'.) You'd be hard pressed to find one that would take the money. Interest groups for corporations hold power, but there aren't 1000 Jack Valenti's in each and every district to vote for Congressman X.

    2. Re:It's hard to fight by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      800,000 geeks vs $800,000 (campaign donations?)

      800,000 Geeks = 1839 Geeks per Congessional District. Assumming 3% of Geeks heed this call to arms, which I doubt, that is 51 calls per district. I've seen more signatures on a petition to replace a village traffic light.

    3. Re:It's hard to fight by theboy24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is a good point, but with the way that redistricting has been going in a large # of states, most of them do not have to worry about re-elections unlss they publicly screw up really bad. I'm sure some of you remember the fiasco that went on in texas, or the fact that only somewhere around 20 house seats are seriosuly contested each election. Not only are we losing our rights as consumers, but the system is being rigged so that we have no control over the media and content that we spend our money on, and no effective way to change it if we live in the wrong district. I know the arguament has been/will b made that we have a choice not to buy, the problem is that if this trend continues there will be no choice in the marketplace, Big Media (riaa/mpaa/ect.. will haev enough influence and control that they will be telling you exactly what you can buy and how you can use it, and eventually that if you refuse to give them your money, that you are doing soemthing illegal, but more ominously that if they have their way, there simply will not be choice, you will buy their product or go home empty-handed. The more that this is allowed to happen the more it will continue to happen, if they can do it with movies and cd's theyre not going to stop untill everything that you ever buy is owned by them. We are rapidly losing our rights, and the ability to gain them back. this should be a wake up call to anyone who cares about having a government that is responsive to the people. Think about it for a minute, if the system did work, then how are we in a situation where most mainstream media and content comes from a very small collection of organizations that arent held accountable for anything, coupled wit hthe fact that most national politicains do not have to worry greatly about re-elcetion. Things might be a lot different If they actually had to get re-elected and defend things like INDUCE to a public that wasn't being manipulated by those same media interests, but o-well. Someday we'll be telling our grandchildren about the good ol days, when we had consumer and poltical rights. Alright, no more rant. thanks for bearing with me =)

      --
      I must bid you farewell....... "walks out amid the gunfire"
  15. Re:Obligiatory Simpsons Quote by atrader42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this, boys and girls, is why we at least read the description of the article, even if we don't RTFA. We're trying to save the right to fair use on media, not trying to save the abandoned video format.

  16. Ummm, the 90s called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...they want their joke back.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Intent of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hear alot of people claiming that the intent of the law is only to go after so called bad actors, and will not be used against VCR makers or computer makers. What those people forget is that in court, the intent of the law doesn't matter, only the actual wording. Anyone using the intent of the law as a defense in court will lose and possibly be laughed out of court. That means this law will be used to sue Apple, Intel, IBM, and Microsoft for making general purpose computing hardware. Even with the new wording, the EFF mock complaint against the ipod is still valid, as apple could have used "reasonable measures" such as only allowing the ipod to play DRM encoded files and have Itunes verify the CD is a pressed CD and not burned before allowing any ripping. The same applies to general purpose computers, which could have been locked down like the Xbox to only run OSes and software that use strong DRM and require checking with central servers before a document or whatever can be transfered (to prevent a user from retyping a copyrighted work like a book by hand). Keep in mind no one intended the DMCA to be used against third party printer cartriges, but it was.

  19. Clarification on Betamax decision by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the story summary:
    1984 Sony v. Universal case regarding Sony's Betamax VTRs and copying of copyrighted movies
    Not exactly. It covered time-shifting, of which copyrighted movies were a particular example. The Supreme Court was almost at a loss of what to do due to ambiguity of Copyright law and the lack of widespread VCRs in the home when the last major Copyright law was written (1976). They dared to divine the intention of Congress by saying that time-shifting constituted fair-use, and hinted that Congress should follow up with a more specific law in the future. Now Congress is doing the clarification, and it looks like it won't be in the consumer's favor.

    Shameless plug: this was covered almost a year ago in my blog article U.S. corroborating with WIPO to overturn Betamax decision and also eliminate public domain (which I've shamelessly plugged here before).

    More trivia: before the Betamax decision, movies would come on HBO before videotape release (prime example: Star Wars -- HBO copies for a time were the only way to get a Star Wars videotape). Due to the assumed illegality of taping off HBO, movie studios considered HBO airing to constitute less ownership than selling videotapes. The Betamax decision reversed this notion, and thusly also the order of release.

  20. What This Actually Means by danger_boy_13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who don't want to read the decision or Downhill Battle's site, the Betamax decision is what basically allowed us the technology of DVD/CD burners, tape recorders, and VCR's (along with possibly P2P networks) by saying that, just because some people are using them (VCR's at the time) to participate in illegal activities (copying copyrighted movies or shows), the technology itself is not the culprit. Therefore, the technology is legal. This is a vital decision for the technological world and a good thing to get involved in if you can.

    1. Re:What This Actually Means by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference between Betamax and P2P is the disparity between legal and illegal uses. Think of VCRs, almost everyone has one and uses it mostly for legal purposes. However, a good chunk of the traffic on P2P networks involves illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.

      (1) Under the Betamax ruling there is in fact no legal difference. Both are legal.
      (2) Attempting to apply your rule is a legal absurdity, as I'll explain.

      You are erroneously looking at it restrospectively (backwards in time) rather than prospectively (forwards in time).

      The proper question is if I invent a new and never before imagined product, can I legally bring that product to market and make millions? Or would I be legally liable and sued into bankruptcy if I brought it to market? What does the law say? How do I decide whether and can and should do so?

      Under the Betamax ruling I am perfectly free to bring that product to market and make millions if it has "substantial non-infringing uses". I can do so if it a legitimate product with legitimate use. It is not my fault if someone uses my perfectly legitimate spoon to commit murder. It is not my fault if two of my first three customers use my perfectly legitimate spoon to commit murders.

      Under your proposed rule I would need to have a magic crystal ball and to predict what percentage of customers would use my never-before-seen product (and thus unpredictable and evolving product) the way it was intended, and what percentage would use it improperly. Not only that, but what percentages do you propose makes for a legitmate and profitable product and what percentages makes for an illegitimate and sue-me-into-oblivion prohibited product? 25%? 50%? 75%? And if my best guess at that future percentage is close to the cut-off, and I supposed to gamble at making millions or being sued into bankruptcy? And what if that usage percentage drifts around over time? Does my product randomly flip-flop between legal and illegal? Some random weeks I can be sued into oblivion, but other random weeks and other cases the judge tosses out any suits against me? Also according to your suggestion, if the product slightly exceeds that "magic percentage" then you would be unfairly depriving the other "legitimate" users of the right to make their perfectly legal and legitimate use.

      If I were the first to come up with the VCR and P2P, and first did so today, I could quite reasonably guess that the most common use for VCR's would be for people to make multiple tapes for each other, possibly even organizing some sort of infringing tape clubs. Based on that guess I would expect to be sued into oblivion, and thus not intruduce my product. The movie industry would then be making $ZERO from tapes and tape rentals, rather than earning more from VCR's than they do from theaters as they do now.

      And being the first to come up some form of P2P, some never before explored idea, I could quite easily imagine that the most common use would be for bands to self-publish their own music. Perhaps I myself am in a band and that was exactly my intention in creating it, and thus obviously the only usage that occured to me. In that case I would release my product with perfectly good intentions and apparently in full compliance with the law. However I would then unexpectedly and unjustly get sued into oblivion when "too many" people began using my product in a way I never intended, a way I never even imagined.

      No, what you sugest makes for absurd, unjust, and worst of all unpredictable law.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  21. Not too worried - I live in a free country by dr_skipper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, the US... Land of the free.

    I'm not too worried, I live in Canada. It's a little better here.

    Maybe Canada will have to occupy the US soon to liberate it. =P

    1. Re:Not too worried - I live in a free country by synergy3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not too worried? How far behind do you think Canada will be if the US adopts this law? They will be next up for the corporate money machines. They money machines already have their power there in Canada.

    2. Re:Not too worried - I live in a free country by mikeloader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that in Canada we allow you to copy but then we tax the media to death to protect the people who might be hurt if you were to copy. So enjoy copying onto your tapes and discs and enjoy paying the taxes to subsidize Canadian artists. I'll probably flamed for this, but I don't need the right to make backup copies of my DVDs. On the off chance that a DVD or CD breaks, it's cheaper and less work to just buy another than to make copies of hundreds of discs. I'd rather have copy protection built in than subsidize artists. I have the worst of both worlds. I refuse to copy something I don't own and I have to pay extra taxes for thsoe who do.

    3. Re:Not too worried - I live in a free country by Peyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps the orginal poster confused you cannucks with pirates?

      --
      What?
  22. cut it out, guys.. by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know.. if we keep up this annoying nonsense of protesting to our elected leaders via the phone, they're gonna include the telephone as a weapon of mass destruction in the newest Patriot Act. _Then_ what are we gonna do? I suppose we could take to the streets.. then that will be made an act against the state. You see my point. We should just forget it all, and go back to our T.V.'s.

    --
    ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    1. Re:cut it out, guys.. by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i don't mind burning a few points.. I think we always need a little reminder that we're at war for our rights. Otherwise it wouldn't make headlines so often. We seriously need to all activate and make the phone calls that we believe in. And _that_ is no joke.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
  23. sorry for them... by ezonme · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Their business model is history... If they win this battle the RIAA/MPAA will know how it feels like to shoot themselves in the foot when they realize that they lost a powerfull distribution/advertising channel like the P2P networks. The indies will always find a way to get their productions to the people, they don't need p2p, just a website.

    What's next?

    1. Re:sorry for them... by jgalun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with the treatment of P2P on Slashdot is that most posters are unable to distinguish between P2P technology and the popular P2P networks.

      The INDUCE Act does not outlaw, and the RIAA/MPAA, are not opposed to P2P technology itself. Professor Susan Crawford, positively quoted in a previous Slashdot story about the INDUCE Act, says, "The Act (to be proposed tomorrow by songwriter Sen. Hatch and others) amends the copyright law to say that anyone who 'induces' copyright infringement is himself/itself an infringer."

      The act is about is preventing copyright infringement via P2P, not about P2P. Believe me, Orrin Hatch, the RIAA, and the MPAA have absolutely no problem if some P2P network replaces Google as the search engine of choice.

      More to the point, the RIAA/MPAA have no problem using P2P themselves if they can control it so that it does not get used to pirate movies and music. If a proprietary P2P network that allows them to charge for distribution of works turns out to be the best way to rent movies, the MPAA would be happy to cut Blockbuster out of the picture and keep those profits to itself.

      What they cannot allow is unrestricted use of existing P2P networks for piracy of music and movies. And let's face it - that's exactly what Kazaa and Limewire networks are used for today. I say this as someone who uses P2P to PIRATE MUSIC AND MOVIES. But at least I admit that's what I use it for. I don't pretend that P2P is a future business model for the RIAA/MPAA that they are too stupid to understand.

      Many on Slashdot make the argument that P2P-based music and movie piracy is actually good for the music and movie industries, because it may actually lead people to purchase more music and movies - music and movies that they otherwise would not know of. And this argument may be true.

      The problem is that it ignores the fact that while content piracy is good for content producers when it exists in moderation, it means certain bankruptcy for content producers when taken to an extreme.

      That is why Adobe could care less if you use a pirated copy of Photoshop to make your first web page, but will absolutely send in the BSA ninjas if you run a 200 man web design firm that doesn't own a single license to the product. Short of a totalitarian state, piracy could never be stamped out. It's reality of life, just like stolen merchandise is in the retail business (no, I am not saying that copying copyrighted works is equivalent to stealing physical products). The RIAA and MPAA understand this. They're not worried about the guys who videotape movies and sell a dozen copies on the street corner. That's nothing to them.

      The problem with uncontrolled P2P networks is that, if unchecked, there is absolutely nothing stopping everyone from pirating music and movies. Look how easy it is to get popular music and movies on Limewire today. And Limewire has what, a few million users at any given time? Well, what if downloading movies and music from Limewire were known to be legal, and what if it were covered on the front of Time or Newsweek, as Napster once was? You'd get 50 million users. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be using it constantly. The number of shared files would balloon. The speed of acquiring files would, correspondingly, increase.

      It would be wonderful for all of us. But it would be the end of the RIAA and the MPAA companies. Because who the hell would ever pay for music and movies under those circumstances? Sure, a few collectors - like the people who insist on buying vinyl records today - but the majority could care less. I assure you, in the time of iPods, the packaging and liner notes mean very little to the average consumer.

      That's why the RIAA and MPAA need to have legal means to fight file sharing. They'll never shut down online piracy completely - just like Adobe will never be able to track down every home user who has a copy of Photshop 5.5 on his PC that he got from a friend. But they don't need to. They just need to have enou

  24. Lost Cause by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I also support our 'data rights', this is a lost cause at this point. Its over, and we have lost.

    Congress does *not* give a damn about the citizens, they are only concerned about the people that line their pocketbooks ( i.e. the 'media' and other large corporations ).

    The very structure of this country has changed, and the citizens are going to be mowed over.

    Fight it all you want, but id rather pick battles that aren't lost already.

    The 2nd revolution is long over due, before the "American experiment" fails, and its remains fall into hardcore socialism.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  25. Uhhhh, a mime called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  26. Corporate bridge burners.. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, let's just say that hollywood only has tunnel vision and can't see any potential for growth beyond their current business models.

    That was why they sued sony back then, they were scared shitless by the prospects of their property being stolen!

    Unfortunately for them, they lost, but even then they still managed to get a new cash cow out of it. Home videos.

    But with the coming of DVDs, they decided, "hey, we needed home videos no more, now that we got these new high tech media like DVDs and CDs that can only be pressed at the factory, why not we make all recording mediums illegal eh"

    And if this law passes, the implications are powerful. With CDRs, DVDRs, videos, cassettes, maybe even video cameras all outlawed? Guess who are the only ones with access to recording equipment?

    Just because they produce some lousy stinking movies doesn't mean they produce ALL the material in the whole wide world. What about people making home videos of little nelly celebrating her first birthday? Or can you imagine needing to procure a license from hollywood in the future just so you can make a video recording of big nelly's wedding?

    No good would come out of this man.. no good at all..

  27. No one's listening. by hotspotbloc · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm sorry and hope I'm wrong but IMO they're not going to listen. They didn't listen to us over the PATRIOT Act, Carnivore, electronic voting or the DMCA. The politicians will pay a little lip service to the media saying they're "still investigating" the bill in question and haven't made up their minds while in reality they've already cast their lot to the highest bidder.

    Let's face it: the politicians stopped listening to their constituents a long time ago.

    If I may quote the great FZ from "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing":

    You say yer life's a bum deal
    'N yer up against the wall ...
    Well, people, you ain't even got no kinda
    Deal at all
    'Cause what they do
    In Washington
    They just takes care of NUMBER ONE
    An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
    You ain't even NUMBER TWO
    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    1. Re:No one's listening. by Adam9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the attitude that allows them to think that we don't give a damn. I bet you don't even vote in the general election either.

    2. Re:No one's listening. by hotspotbloc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Been registered since I was eighteen and haven't missed a federal election yet. Even in the military I made sure to vote.

      The problem is the facts are the facts. Check out opensecrets.org, put in your Rep's name or any of the backers of the DMCA or INDUCE and look where their money comes from. Until real campaign finance reform is passed, like only voters can contribute (No PACs, unions or churches) I feel the system will never be fixed.

      What can I say but "Prove me wrong!" (To quote Seymour Skinner).

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  28. Could the come up with a worse name? by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, could they come up with a worse name? (Well yeah, now that I think about it, I guess they could. But still.)

    The names (downhill battle, save betamax, etc.) almost sound like they're trying to turn people off to their cause--which, by the way, I agree with. Why couldn't they call it "Fair use" or "Save our constitutional rights from corporate greed!" or something.

    Even "File swappers for truth" or "ShareOn.org" (both of which suck) would be better names than what they're using.

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:Could the come up with a worse name? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I completely agree with you.

      I can imagine the average Senator's response: why do I care about saving an obsolete type of VCR?

      It should be called: "Save the VCR day"h, or something similar that makes it clear that the problem is far wider than Sony Betamax VCRs.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  29. You're mostly right by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The structure hasn't changed though. Do a bit of digging and you'll find the common man has never had any real power except right after WWII (and only then because there was a shortage of workers thanks to your friend and mine, the Machinegun). _All_ complex societies throughout history have been centered around satisifying the wants of a lucky few. Ours still is, it's just that technology and Globalism has expanded the number of Lucky ones, and the losses of WWII allowed the unlucky ones to make out OK for a while.

    Trouble is, just about every single poor and middle class bastard wants to join the oppressors. And every time you add an oppressor, you've got to add some oppressed. This is just the way human economy works. As soon as the masses make some gains, along will come someone to take them away so he can join the ranks of the wealthy and powerful. There is a way to stop this: forced birth control. Either that or War, famine and disease will work just as well. So long as there are too few people to effectively oppress. Capitalism needs lots of cannon fodder.

    Oh, and give me Socialism over capitalism any day. Adam Smith envisioned a world of small time shop keepers and factory owners with a stake in thier communities because they lived there. Globalism breaks all that. What's been keeping your job from going overseas is isolationism broght on by the Cold War. Now that that's over capitalism's busted. Capital will flow where ever labor's cheapest, and that flow will keep standards of living down. You're not gonna feel this too bad, but you're children will. Their lives are gonna suck.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. Re:Actually Beta is quite Popular by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Almost, not quite. Beta and BetaMax are two different animals.

    Beta was Sony's commercial endeavour and it was quite the hit, as you are claiming. BetaMax was the related, but different physical tape, consumer attempt that died a horrid death.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  31. The Subversives by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These people need to excep the subversives will win. The RIAA et all, need to understand that the least damange will be if they just play ball with what people want. If they keep buying bay laws. Then us citizens will stop respecting the laws, its that simple. Bigbussiness/Gov just needs to learn that you give citizens the laws they really want or you get criminals. The other thing is no you can't jail everyone. Look at interstate speed limits. Clearly the majority of general public favors higher speed limits. My evidence most peoplle are doing 5-10 over. Now if everyone is breaking the law(speed limit) then why have the law? Well police pull over people at random and issue tickets the rest of us get away with it. So its partial negative enfocement whic psycologicly casues us to feel we will continue to get away with it, we tend to go even fast the next time. If they just set the speed for passenger cars to 80 I bet most people would comply, which means you could take care of all the violators. People would then respect the speed law and obey even when it inconviences them. So now if you make stuip laws like "though shall not reccord stuffs with a broadcast flag set" if I want to reccord it I sure as hell with find away as will most people. Just like most people don't reall pay to have the city inspector out if they remodle the basement. They know is dumb and just a veiled tax and therfore say "screw it". I'll bet again if you rewrote that ordinace to say "You onlyl need to be inspected if you change a loaded portion of the structure" people would obey and we'd all be safer.

    Look at the history of our first revolution. Here is the scary part noone are thinking about. If you keep makeing stupid laws and by extention keep makeing averge joes who were once well behaived citizen criminals and subversives then you only have criminals and subversives. People don't like to feel that way about themselves forever. Eventually that emotional stage starts to work really good for revolutionary reasoning. Then you get a revolution. I am not saying its gonna be a bloody revolution or anything, but sooner or later people are gonna toss out the current power brokers, they simply will not play ball any more. People are gonna say, forigen policy be damned I don't think think my neighbor Ted is really fit to lead this nation on the national stage but if I elect him at least I will be able to live my life like I used to for awhile I am gonna do it. I think the future is bright domesticly but its gonna ruin our place in the world when it happens, and its all because the current powers that be are two blind to stike a ballance.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  32. How far would they go? by squatex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its just something Ive been curious about, but how far would they go with this act? Would external hard drives become illegal? usb memory sticks? the internet itself? This legislation seems so broad, that it seems they could ban just about any device on a whim. Jesus, I gotta move.

  33. wrong wrong wrong wrong!!! by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 2, Informative
    Jeebus cripes are you wrong. Judges look to intent vs. results all the time. The Yick Wo case is an example where the intent of the law wasn't to discriminate against Chinese laundromats, but the defendant in the case was freed because the law was being used exactly for that. In fact, since all law is public policy in some form or another, the courts always look to the intent of the law when deciding a case. Did this guy commit a murder? The jury says "yes." Well the law says I can give him 20 - life. Given that the object of the law is to deter people from committing these crimes, and though this is a terrible crime, it does not rise to the level of cutting him up and eating him. I will give the defendant X years... etc, etc.

    Regardless if the INDUCE Act will be used or judged this way, to say that judges don't look to the intent of the law they are weighing the facts against is just ignorant.

    -truth

    --

    I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

  34. If calling doesn't work... by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

    The assault weapons ban expires in 90 minutes. ;)

  35. Nuke the Whales by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least they've reserved the right to regroup under a good name if they fail. No one wants to "save Betamax" - everyone thinks of Betamax as a loser, especially if they know that it was technically superior to the winner, VHS. Political success depends on popularity and positive associations, even when you're right. Next time they can call it "SaveTaping.com", even though it will have little "tape" in the future.

    "ew, Beta" - Homer Simpson

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  36. Re:Is there an expert in International Law by chefmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A lot of that depends on how much you care about entertainment -- movies, music, and television shows -- produced in the US. If you don't, the most you will probably notice is a wave of electronics touting "DRM Free!" like the region free DVD players available all over the continent.

    On the other hand, if you do care about any US-produced entertainment, it will probably result in crippled media -- crap like DVDs that expire 24 hours after you first watch them, a blackout on new US TV shows until your government passes laws that keep its citizens from recording them off the air, and CDs that you can't transfer to your iPod or similar devices.

  37. This plan makes sense though by metalhed77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The previous plan may have been stupid, but this one actually makes some sense. Maybe it won't succeed, but it's a damn good effort and it at least gives the ordinary guy like me a chance to participate.

    --
    Photos.
  38. What about Hard Disks ? by MorseKode · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if they want to prohibit everything that can reproduce sound or video they have to prohibit every aviable storage medium, from ZIP 100MB disks to Compact Flash memory, and even HARD DISKs...

    IMHO i think this whole thing is too stupid, there will allways be a way to save analog or binary data. They wont go home by home checking for storage mediums and like allways happened, we will find a new way to record and copy music and videos.

    I cant believe the music and movie industry hasnt figured this out yet, but it just a matter of time they understand they wont ever finish piracy by prohibiting or sueing.

    Some day..... i hope..... in a near future..... they will realize they wont go anywhere acting like this, and understand that they have to compete with piracy as companies do with each other, the one that ends earning money is the one that gives you a better product or service.

  39. Re:Is there an expert in International Law by mvdwege · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just look at the sordid history of the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive). You will see that the entertainment industry will meet up with some European Commisioners, have lunch, and presto! two months later the relevant committee comes up with a new EU directive implementing the latest draconian US copyright law into an EU Directive.

    I am not hopeful. And I live in one of the countries that generally implement EU directives in the most liberal way possible.

    Mart
    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  40. Lettered by TurtleQ · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article didn't cause me to signup, but it did induce me to compose a letter to my local congressman independently. Seems like if we all do a little bit...

  41. Until... by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...people are heavily penalized for piracy and thier awareness raised, this kind of effort will not attract much attention. The fact is that Joe Average out there actually believes it's OK to install the copy of Windows XP that came with their laptop on another box because they don't plant to use XP on the laptop. Or, she thinks it's OK to download a game ROM to play on MAME as long as it's deleted in 24 hours. Or he believes that installing and trading warez is OK as long as you don't get caught. All of these people are wrong.
    I think that if the penalties for doing anything like the above were made much steeper and the enforcement much stricter, then people would really be aware of the problem and would have more understanding of why the betamax situation is important. Unfortunately, their ignorance makes them think that all the warez and "free music" they get from the net and all the illigit software they install falls under the same umbrella as VHS tapes and TV. And since THAT'S always going to be legal, in their minds, there's nothing to worry about. They don't eve "get" the problem. But what do you expect from Joe and Jane AOLer?
    Things have been moving in this direction for quite some time now. Some people out there believe that everything needs to be done for a fee and they've got hold of the steering wheel right now. This is why it's important to support alternatives that are still free (beer and speech). As long as people like me (those who believe in doing some things for free in both senses) there will always be a way out. This whole betamax thing is just an extension of this battle. We were given the right to copy decades ago and now they want to take that right away so that they can take money for something that was previously free.
    Peronally, I abide by the rules of these companies. If I want or need software and there is no free alternative, I buy it. If I want to watch a movie, I go to the theater, or rent the video. If I REALLY like it, then I buy the VHS or DVD from a used source. If I like a musician or band, I buy the CD and rip it to Ogg Vorbis for my own personal listening. I do not share what is not mine to share. I respect the wishes of these companies. But... wherever there is a free alternative that is legal and does not go against these businesses, I choose the alternative.
    This is why I run free OSes at home with only one machine running Windows XP Pro. This is why if you were to compare my Ogg Vorbis collection with every CD I own, you would see that there is not a single Vorbis file that doesn't have a matching disc. If you look through my library of MPEG files, you would see that I own every VHS they were transferred from or they are from sources on the net that are authorized to freely distribute.
    Our country is in a fucked up state thanks to the greed of the corporate swine. But things will change once Joe and Jane Average see how little they are allowed to do. ONe she sees that she can't listen to her DRM laced audio file on any machine she wants to without having to pay for duplicate licenses... and once he sees that he can only watch the movei he downloaded for five days and needs to pay for another license to watch again... and once they both run into the situation where they can't let their inlaws borrow the new movie over the weekend because it's only authorized to play on their machine. Then, and only then will Joe and Jane Average "get it". Unfortunately for them, it will be too late and there won't be anything they can do about it. Unless they want to unplug and stop watching mainstream stuff. But you and I both know that that will happen when hell freezes over. Instead Joe and Jane will continue to pour THEIR rightfully earned cash into the pockets of uncreative executives who
    know nothing about creativity or artistry. The only thing Joe and Jane will do is gripe about how expensive life has suddenly become because of all the bills they have to pay. The TV bill, the music service bill, the satellite radio bill, the internet bill, the internet movie rental bill, the TiVO bill, etc... And people like me will be shaking our heads thinking, "we told you so".

  42. Re:Actually Beta is quite Popular by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bah, typical of Sony, shipping the Beta product and never issuing the final version... ;)

    I've used Beta a lot though and compared to the other formats available before it became the de-facto standard it indeed was much nicer.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.