Induce Act Stalled For Now

Today we fight together..tomorrow? by cOdEgUru · 2004-10-07 15:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its commendable that Corporate America and its consumers worked hand in hand to push this bill back where it crawled out of. It was a fair fight and a dumb bill and it needed to be put to rest and now it has, albeit temporarily. I worry how the fight will go down when we are pitched against each other and the fight's fair on our end, but the cash pile is taller on their end? Also in today's world when corporate will can be swayed by a few choice words like "terrorism", "patriotism" lobbed at them by the Govt, do we think they will stand with us when we fight the beaureacracy? Everyone chooses their fight a lot more carefully these days, owing to their allegiances and their master's wishes..

--
Rapid Nirvana

Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by erick99 · 2004-10-07 15:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

We will see next legislative session. I am surprised it died this time. I think that tells us that there are reasonable folks on the side of not passing this and it may not come down to who has the tallest pile of money. At least, I hope it doesn't come down to that. For now, I am encouraged.

--
http://www.busyweather.com/
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by DAldredge · 2004-10-07 16:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, it tells you an election is coming up and they don't want to be asked about this in the last 30 days before people vote.

That is all that has happened, nothing else.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by MBCook · 2004-10-07 16:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, it's worrysome, but there is some stuff on our side.
First is... we controll their cashflow. They can push and push, but one day they'll push so far that the average Joe starts to see it and rebel (already started some with people unable to copy their "CDs" to their iPods). And when they are spending tons on lawyers and it is only driving down their cash flow by pissing off consumers, that's a recipy for their death. Too bad that probably won't happen any time soon.
Second is that with at least the buzzwords of the day don't really apply. I mean, how high do you have to be to think that copying your legal CD to your iPod or watching a movie on your TV (God forbid!) is "terrorism" or that it's "patriotism" to not be allowed to tape a TV show?

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 16:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Providing we can get Utah to be removed from statehood by November it shouldn't be a problem. Hatch is the idiot that keeps introducing this kind of shit, and he needs to be removed from office.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by halowolf · 2004-10-07 17:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a sizable population of people start to affect the cashflow, that its possible that it will be represented by the MPAA and RIAA as the effects of piracy rather than disgruntled consumers. I mean they are shouting about piracy right now, and thats when their members are making more money than ever before.
Of course that kind of spin could only be sustained for so long until the cashflow problem became so acute that there would have to be an admission about what the cause of the problem was so that it can be fixed.
We may control the cashflow but they still have the books. Perhaps a independant third party review of their claims about piracy and the effects on sales volumes and profits should be conducted, just to make sure that the truth is not being misrepresented.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by evronm · 2004-10-07 18:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
No, it tells you an election is coming up and they don't want to be asked about this in the last 30 days before people vote.

That is all that has happened, nothing else.

You're close, but this is actually much more sinister. It's a very common tactic that goes like this:
1. Propose a piece of legislation which is laughably and completely unreasonalby draconian and make a half-hearted attempt at passing it.
2. Sit and watch while people all over the place spend their time and money opposing it until it is defeated.
3. Propose the draconian legislation you really want. By this point, the opposition has already exhausted their funds and energies, and your legislation passes with little opposition.
Steps 1 and 2 have now been accomplished. I'm just waiting for step 3 when more of my few remaining rights have been taken away. It will, as you say, though happen after the election.

*sigh*
--
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by deimtee · 2004-10-07 21:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

you forgot step 4 -
introduce and pass an amendment that takes the milder version back up to the level of the original bill.

(and I guess the obligatory step 5 - Profit!! (for once it's actually appropriate))

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? by cluckshot · 2004-10-08 00:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

You forgot something else: LAME DUCK SESSIONS OF CONGRESS!

For those outside the USA this is a session of congress after an election before the new congress sets. This is when the guys who lost punish the voters for removing them from office! It is also so far from an election that most people forget to pay those who betray them during such sessions in the voting booth.

HEADS UP INCOMMING!

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-10-07 15:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Bias? by SkyWalk423 · 2004-10-07 15:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article:

...aimed at manufacturers of file-sharing software commonly used to steal electronic copies of music, movies and computer programs...

Wasn't there a more, how shall I put this... unbiased way to word the intro to this article??

Re:Bias? by Chrax · 2004-10-07 15:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why would they need to? What's being done is stealing. The point is that it's not the hardware or software that's doing it, it's the person using them. That's why everybody's against this act, because it would prevent us from using our stuff legally. If you choose to use it illegally, you are stealing, and we don't need an unbiased word, we need an accurate word.

Good. by Breakfast+Pants · 2004-10-07 15:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good. The induce act was unnecessary as the napster case already showed.

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?

Re:Makes me think by hunterx11 · 2004-10-07 16:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

For the same reason (hopefully) that this didn't fly--because America is at least supposed to be a free country.

--
English is easier said than done.

It ain't dead yet! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 16:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look, folks, this bill isn't dead yet. It's true that its scheduled committee vote was canceled, but Congress will reconvene briefly in November to pass several appropriations bills. Watch for the bill's supporters to try to tack it onto one of these big bills. If they can do that, it can easily sail through Congress as the end of the legislative session draws near, and Congress rushes to get necessary budget bills passed. This is a common tactic, and it often works.

So don't even think of celebrating until Congress adjourns for the year.

Re:Request for Utah... by Xebikr · 2004-10-07 16:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

He didn't start out in Hollywood's pocket. As long as we continue allow campaign contributions by corporations, anyone we elect, Utah and elsewhere, is going to end up serving some or several corporate interests over their constituents'.

Not just kids by _Hellfire_ · 2004-10-07 16:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the Newsday Article:

"So long as illegitimate peer-to-peer services hijack a positive technology and intentionally offload their legal liability to America's kids, legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said.

I know plenty of "grown-ups" (40 and 50 year olds) who ride the mule all the time.

Of course these young-uns don't know any better and don't know that "stealing" music and movies is wrong.

--
"And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."

Re:Not just kids by Patrik_AKA_RedX · 2004-10-07 17:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said.
I didn't know lobbying was a creative occupation. If we can't buy next generation burners in the US, we'll buy them from China. No matter how much noise they make or how oppresive their laws become, there will always be ways around their "protection" to get free music/movies. However the collateral damage of these laws will soon enough hit a critical level and backfire on the lobbyists.
Let see if those who lose their jobs in the hardware industry will be as understanding about the **AA's need for "protection".

What did we lose? by macz · 2004-10-07 16:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Whenever you pull your hand back out of this particular legal cookie jar and think you won, count your fingers... I am wondering what we lost in this fight. Surely the fat cats like Hatch who suckle at the teat of big Entertainment will simply re-introduce this and attach it to a "Free Day Care for Handicapped Children" bill or some such pablum.

Can anyone say tactical retreat?

Check out http://www.ipaction.org/ if you want to fight the power with the weapon of choice in this particular melee. Cold hard cash.

--
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!

Re:Makes me think by JJahn · 2004-10-07 16:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

By free in the context I'll assume you are talking about the economy. The U.S. is not a fully capitalist economy (free, using a general term). There are tons of laws on the books, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act, laws against price fixing, and so on. These laws restrict the free marketplace, and therefore there is no basis for considering the United States a "free" country, especially in the case of the economy. I'm not going to touch the issue of civil rights and freedom.

We never fought together, we never should by zaxios · 2004-10-07 17:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its commendable that Corporate America and its consumers worked hand in hand to push this bill back where it crawled out of.

While some technology companies did oppose the Act, it is totally unreasonable to say that "Corporate America" opposed it. The INDUCE Act was lobbied for by the RIAA and MPAA and supported by Microsoft, among others. It is the ability of Corporate America to push bills into Congress with thick wads of bills in envelopes that resulted in the DMCA and the introduction of this Act.

I worry how the fight will go down when we are pitched against each other and the fight's fair on our end, but the cash pile is taller on their end?

i.e., now.

Also in today's world when corporate will can be swayed by a few choice words like "terrorism", "patriotism" lobbed at them by the Govt,

Businesses act in self-interest, so abstract, not-directly-profitable ideas like patriotism mean nothing. Meanwhile, terrorism means contracts from the U.S. goverment. These things are designed to scare the citizenry into line, not companies.

do we think they will stand with us when we fight the beaureacracy?

Okay, you are off the planet. Corporate America arm in arm with the Government has borne bureaucracy at its foulest. Corporate America does not fight democracy-choking bureaucracy. They fight for it. The more complex and indirect the Government's sovereignty it is, the less obvious and inescapable its accountability to its citizens. Bureaucracy affords corporate America far more ways to, for example, shove through acts like the DMCA or shoot down acts that would interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's profit margin, and importantly, keep the interests of the consumer and the people away from their government.

(This time, BSA (with its tech company members) opposed the INDUCE Act because it would hurt technology. Pure business pragmatism. Meanwhile, companies with an interest in maintaining control of digital content companies, lobbied for the Act. Again, pure business pragmatism.)

We never fought together; we never should. Our causes sometimes overlap. More often than not they don't. But this never changes: members of any "free market" should have no power in changing the rules of the market itself.

The Government should represent the people only, each person weighed equally, not proportionate to their access to capital. The government's power and authority is granted by every single person, from nowhere else, and it would do well to remember that if eventually we all grow sick enough of its corruption.

Re:Request for Utah... by jcr · 2004-10-07 18:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I always liked Ross Perot's idea: if you can't vote, you can't contribute. Restrict all campaign contributions from anyone who's not a registered voter for the election in question.

Sure would improve the signal/noise ratio on network television..

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

I hope you replied: by IBitOBear · 2004-10-07 19:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Senator, those friends "losses" are based on two peculiar propositions; the first is that nobody has ever bought music after hearing it for free; the second is that everybody who downloaded a song would have bought it if it weren't available on the net. I think you will agree that both of these propositions are laughable...

That's the whole debunking in 15 seconds.

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

Always ask yourself: by shoolz · 2004-10-07 19:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who stands to benifit? (If passed into law)

Network TV won't
RIAA won't
Public won't
Hollywood won't
Etc...

So who will? The political forces that are pretending to support this outrageous and hokey cause?

Am I insane, or am I so sane I just blew your mind?

Wanted this to pass by dieatom · 2004-10-07 22:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Darn I was really hoping that this would pass. It opens up so many more doors for us. I for one think that I should be able to sue GM, Chryslar-Daimler, BMW and the rest for producing cars that go more then 65mph thus inducing me to speed. Those speeding tickets weren't y fault sir I was induced to speed. Let's not forget to sue fast food for inducing us to splurge and fatten ourselves due to their biggy size's. Gone is the age of individual responsibility /cheer. Let's not hold users accountable for their actions no no it is the saftware writers fault damn you naughty naughty geeks. This type of bill is why we get Redhat linux distro's unable to play mp3's and why SuSE pro 9.1 will not play a DVD right out of the box. This alone and well maybe the DMCA will do more to stifle innovation then any band of world war 2 germans.

In Soviet Russia by $RANDOMLUSER · 2004-10-07 22:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

In Soviet Russia, Induce Act...

Oh. Wait.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

Re:Senator Geek by MustardMan · 2004-10-08 02:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

WOW! He shares one opinion with libertarians! He must be one!

Maybe, just maybe... he has an opinion on something as a solution to a problem. Does every fucking person have to define himself by a party affiliation and follow the same exact belief structure as said party?

What party am I? NONE. I form my own damn opinions.

27 of 162 comments (clear)