Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Law Mashup Moving Through Congress
The Importance of writes "The INDUCE Act may be dead (for now), but that doesn't mean that Congress won't pass any copyright laws this year. Right now, HR 4077, the "Piracy Deterrence in Education" bill pulls together a number of different initiatives to not only get the government involved in civil copyright enforcement, but change fundamental definitions in copyright, and make certain types of home video viewing illegal. The Senate version (brought to you by Sen. Hatch and Leahy) adds even more copyright law changes. According to Public Knowledge, 'The recording industry and Hollywood are making headway! Threatening bills are positioned to move possibly today or tomorrow (yes, even Saturday!) in the Senate and we need your help, now. Not only do they want to rewrite copyright law (again) to lower the standard required for criminal enforcement of copyright infringement; but now they're changing how you watch TV or DVDs in your own home! The bills (H.R. 4077 and H.R. 2391) also are written to make the way you use iTunes and WiFi a crime. '"
$20 says INDUCE gets tagged onto this one before it's voted on... any takers?
-lk
I, for one, welcome our mashup copyright owners. Oh and by the way... nothing for you to see here, move along. (Or a 503 error)
I am getting tired of the government trying to take away our rights. Then again, nothing has changed; it has always been this way. I hate using tired clichés but; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But it does happen
I can stand that they try to make hardware developers criminals (Induce Act vs. PS2-chip makers)... I can stand that they want to ban Kazaa (piracying is illegal)...
but MAKING something that we already do ILLEGAL? Who do they think they are, The Sheriff of Nottingham?
They're bringing doom upon themselves. Soon many (WAY MANY) Robin Hoods from outside the US will crush them and take from them whatever they love the most: Money.
In the discussion about the INDUCE Act stalling, several people predicted that the plan was to have the consumer (copyright) rights proponents expend all their energy and finances on opposing the INDUCE Act and that the real draconian act would sneak by the victory parade. Looks like they were right.
Since when is not waching an advertisement illegal? That seems a constitutional violation - No one has a right to FORCE me to watch/listen to anything.
If the people living in the states of the politicians sponsoring this mess would vote them out, maybe the fascist/socialist elements in our government will finally be 'mashed'.
Why doesn't someone sue Disney, Universal, or the other Major DVD producers? After all their TV ads almost all say OWN on DVD today.
It really isn't yours if you can't skip parts, is it?
"Yet another erosion of traditional copyright law's formal requirements of registration. Registration is an important component of copyright because it puts the public on notice of an author's work. Currently, to have the government enforce a copyright criminally, the copyright must be registered, which is by most artists register their copyright so they can have full force of the law. Under 4077, this incentive to register will disappear."
Actually, copyright is automatic, but you need a way to prove it. If I seal up a copy of my book and mail it to myself, the postmark is good enough to verify copyright in court, once the package is unsealed and verified by the court.
They'll manage to make singing in the shower illegal. But they won't catch me. I'll have a sound-tight bathroom built that can't be detected by federal agents on the outside. It will have special radar and active noise cancelling, along with speakeras projecting white noise (generated live using custom technology to avoid violating anyone's copyrights on white noise) outside. The whole thing will be surrounded in a tin foil shell with a small iris-activated door.
Oh yeah, and I'll move my house to a remote island. Underground. Not in missile silo--they know about all those. It will be my own hole, with recycled air, long-term water and food storage, and thermal power generation.
In your future days of mandatory digital compliance, on some rare night, you may have sweet dreams of someone on a remote island whose voice still echoes through the sprinkling mist.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Seriously, you could argue that the advertising reduces the cost of the product, and therefore users must view them. But where does it end? Would you force people to spend 15 seconds looking at the ad on the side of a bus before they get on?
Bottom line: advertisers should NEVER have the power to force people to look at their ads, lest our lives become a living hell.
If they keep this up it'll be illegal to watch movies or listen to music anywhere other than the theatre!
wifi = re-emitting as electromagnetic radiation,
light = electromagnetic radiation,
therefore your television = broadcast station, same as an AP.
Now if we can just fool them into legislating that you can't watch movies at the theatre, or listen to a home stereo either, we'll have em.
Somebody want to invent / commercialize an ultrasonic WiFi or bluetooth protocol compatable network? That should trigger legislation to kill all audio systems
It seems that government has run out of things worthwhile to legislate, and is pandering to corporate needs and greed needs.
This usually happens before a civil war of some sort.
If I buy music, I should be able to do any damn thing I want with it, short of copying it for friends. I should get an automatic right to use it within my house, on my person or in my car however I want. I should be able to turn one purchase into several different formats for my use, at my own cost. The same goes for videos and DVDs that I've paid for. If I have subscription TV, I should be able to record for keeping the programs that are broadcast normally (not PPV rental-like options though), it has been paid for by me and by the advertisers.
Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. Assert your rights, and make your feelings known.
If the vast majority of clueless people who either use TiVo, or know someone who does, are told that their toy is illegal, hell will be raised, and the pendulum will start swinging the other way...
It'll still suck for the next ten years, I admit.
mitch
I just read the Corante article, with particular attention to the home viewing part. Since this seems to be about copyright in general, the question of printed material comes to mind. Will it be illegal to read a book and skip over the boring parts, like I might with a movie? What about reading a textbook out of order from the authors original intent? This could present a problem with school reading assignments.
I have a hard time imagining that things could become that preposterous with printed material, but media is media, right?
I'd like to think I'm just being silly.
Credo sim. - I think I am.
The fact that such a clause should even be necessary points to the warped mindset of the **AAs, of course.
It could be useful to paint the bill as the "It will make it illegal to fast-forward through commercials!!" to get the word out.
IANAL, so I could very well be wrong.
Worsens Penalties: Requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission to modify its guidelines to significantly increase the criminal infringement sentences
Right. Because there's still a FEW crimes out there that actually have bigger penalties than copyright infringement! I know - I'm as shocked as the rest of you.
In all seriousness, WHY do you suppose copying a copyrighted music file illegally is already a felony in most cases (along with things like murder, kidnapping, and rape), whereas running into a store and swiping the actual CD is just a simple misdemeanor?
For those few who will no doubt comment on this article and say "blah blah, good - people swapping files are criminals and should be punished" I ask you this - does the punishment even come CLOSE to fitting the crime?
And now they want to make the punishment even more harsh?
This is not justice. It's a joke.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm oh-so-glad there's no DMCA in Canada.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Until I discovered that the so called Public Knowledge site had taken over Mozilla, and disabled my menu's for normal browser operations completely. What I was going to do was print the page so that I could make the calls during normal office hours tomorrow.
Then I discovered that even backing out to slashdots main page did not restore them and I had to quite Mozilla and restart it to restore the menus.
When a page does that, then my confidence in what else they might do becomes highly suspect.
I'm with Lawrance Lessig, who states in his new book that its time to redo the law when the literal interpretation of the law by the courts redefines 50 million+ otherwise law abiding citizens as felons. Felons who lose their voting rights and everything else that goes along with that label once it has been applied by a judge or jury.
For those who object to the fact that the likes of our Senators are all on Jack Valanti's payroll in the form of huge campaign contributions to those who vote for the RIAA/MPAA's extremely one sided view of copyright, the real cure is to work to elect senators and representatives who will govern as the people who elected him/her want them to govern. That is, after all is said and done, the premise of this 230 year old experiment in "Democracy" is it not?
OTOH, I agree with a fellow named Ed Howdershelt, whose message is in my sig. Right about now the emphasis is on the ballot box (if we can keep the Diebolds from stuffing it), next is the jury box, hopefully a little harder to stuff, the difficulty there is in secureing the indictment in the first place. And finally, failing that, the ammo box...
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
First I would like to say, everyone comparing fastforwarding through a boring part of a movie or skipping past a boring part of a book as being illegal by this law are just dumb (not trying to flame). Advertising pays for your free television channels or keeps the prices down if you have a pay for service.
With that said, yes, they can not force you to watch these ads and I do not believe there should be laws created to guarantee you can't bypass these commercials. I for one did NOT sign any agreement with any television broadcasting company saying that in exchange for free entertainment I would inturn watch their brain washing commercials.
What happened to our representatives representing the PEOPLE. Though corporations might have some of the same rights as a person (though not being held to their crimes like a person) they do not qualify as a person and should not be represented as one by our politicians.
This government was created by and for the people and I for one do not feel that these types of laws represent the best interest of 99.99% of the population of the United States. Tax payers money should not be spent on educating children on copyright laws. 1) It's ineffective, we've all been to school.... 2) Why not start spending tax payers money of educating kids at school on why product A is better than product B?? Or better yet they can teach us about Jesus!!!
Maybe there should be some laws seperating corporations from state as we do with religion and state. And for the same reasons too....
I'm not sure the parent poster is a complete troll. What's happening is that companies who are used to profiting may no longer be profiting so much, so they get laws passed that in effect say "you WILL watch my advertising." The free market be damned except when it fits their needs. If everything is about privatization and free enterprise don't be surprised when the people with the money do everything they can to get more of it. And no, this isn't some kind of defense of Socialism.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
"In all seriousness, WHY do you suppose copying a copyrighted music file illegally is already a felony in most cases (along with things like murder, kidnapping, and rape), whereas running into a store and swiping the actual CD is just a simple misdemeanor?"
Here's the primary difference. How many CD's can you walk out of the store with? How many digital copies can you distribute over the internet?
"For those few who will no doubt comment on this article and say "blah blah, good - people swapping files are criminals and should be punished" I ask you this - does the punishment even come CLOSE to fitting the crime?"
So how much crime does there have to be, before the punishment does fit the crime, and why is the line drawn so arbitrarily?
"And now they want to make the punishment even more harsh?"
As I've said elsewere piracy (not just now, but piracy in general) has turned this into a war situation. Wars do one thing and one thing only. They escalate, and people get hurt. Ego unfortunately is invested on both sides, and neither side will back down.
"the heavy fire of artillery to saturate an area rather than hit a specific target" [dict.org]
Isn't the frequency of restrictive copyright-related law proposed in US a bit too high?
$20 says INDUCE gets tagged onto this one before it's voted on
Dan Glickman gave some Congressmen $19.50 each to vote for these bills. We can turn the stinginess that makes him such an effective MPAA head ("I don't give a fuck how poor the orphanage is! Full price!" -> more profit) against him! We'll buy each Congressmen back with $20 each! Hell, combined with that vote-thingy we have, that might even be worth $20.05!
According to someone further down the thread, here are the names of the $19.50 richer MPAA chums:
Rep Berman, Howard L.
Rep Bono, Mary
Rep Coble, Howard
Rep Conyers, John, Jr.
Rep Hoyer, Steny H.
Rep Meehan, Martin T.
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch)
He's not a dumbass at all. He's just greedy and corrupt. There is a slight difference.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
If this gets passed, I propose a new grass-roots effort I want to call the anti-ad.
Since this is an attempt to keep ad revenues on a failing delivery system, why not make the proposed 'enforced wathing' irrelevant by boycotting EVERY product advertised on these media.
Of course this means everyone will have to switch to sodas like 'Big Red' or buy cars like Suzuki or Kia, if the advertisers realize their ads actually have a negative revenue generation they will stop placing ads on these media.
Use this page to find your senators, then click your way to their homepage and fill out an "email" form with your thoughts about these bills. It's easy. It took me about three or four minutes to email both of my senators.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Took me 1 minute to load!
Choose either Coral or Freecache
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
I am a software industry veteran, and I consider myself an activist for copyright reform. And I can't even keep track of these bills, get up to speed on the issues and be on top of things fast enough before they roll out another one. This is attrition tactics by the media industry - they know that eventually, they'll slip one through right before a big holiday weekend when nobody's paying attention, or when some news story in their favor came out the week before. If they just keep getting their shills to propose these bills, like feces thrown at a wall, eventually something will stick.
I want to find candidates to vote for and promote who have reasonable IP policies that promote a balance between a business' right to make money on its investment and the interest of the commons and the citizenry, but it's pretty hard to find these candidates. I know a lot of us here give money to the EFF, but where is this money going? Besides Rep. Boucher of VA, what friends do we have on Capitol Hill, and how do we make more?
Maybe we need to be approaching people earlier on in their political careers, and running broader grass roots campaigns to bring public attention to copyright issues with issues of broad interest like the attempts to kill your right to tape shows in your own house, or the death of our heritage of freely available songs and characters in the form of a cultural commons, which have fueled the imaginations of artists throughout this century, only to be killed by the businesses built on those artists' work.
I accept that copyright law is never going to be of as immediate concern as health insurance, skyrocketing medical costs, nuclear proliferation, rising unemployment and thousands of people dying in war. But we need to make people realize that this is an issue of interest to all of us and that while we are worrying about those immediate problems facing us, certain industries are cynically trying to slip through legislation against the public interest in the hopes that we are too distracted to take action against them.
You must be kidding.. tell me how you intend to get rid of them by voting.
Don't vote for democrats, vote for republicans. Don't vote for republicans, vote for democrats.
What if they are both stuffed? Duh.....
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped.
With product placement becoming more common in movies, does that mean that if we start running a movie we're required to watch the entire thing? That would be a problem for me because sometimes I'll pop a DVD in and skip to my favorite parts.
That's right, this is actually part of the "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act". Declaring the national tree. How can you even try to enact any reasonable legislation if you can't have a bill be about one single thing?
Do not memorize, recite, reiterate, distribute, give a public performance of, give a private performance of, do not copy, paraphrase, duplicate, replicate, or taunt this intellectual work! You will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, dumbass!
If you attempt to sue An American AC, Inc for this correspondence, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law for violating on An American AC's Intellectual Property!
This insult is meant for you and ONLY you, not for your lawyer or the judge. If you wish to insult them, please purchase "reinsult" licensed from An American AC Inc.
Our sales hotline is 1800-AmericanAC
Thanks for reading, dumb ass!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
I'm glad Canada hasn't started down this road yet.
This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
Yup. a 'dumbass' will change his actions if you teach him.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
The site does no such thing, i just went there and everything works fine.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What is it doing in this article?
I see no implications for WiFi or iTunes in there. It may very well represent some bad patent law, but, it has nothing to do with anything in this article.
--Len
(a) Offense- Whoever, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture theater to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, in a motion picture theater shall--
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
`(c) Authorized Activities- This section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or by a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
Essentially, ANY presentation given by ANY entity (because "copyright is automatic") in the "theater" of a public meeting place that could arguably be called a "motion picture theater" would be protected. That would encompass a great many civic auditoriums, school auditoriums, gymnasiums, and town halls - and it means no political activists allowed! You cannot record this (open company meeting, presentation, play, debate or political party meeting) without our consent or we will send you to jail.
Have you met Mr. Orwell?
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004
ART Act
Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004
[I like how they are playing the "artist's rights" card again. Problem is, this bill benefits the Copyright Cartel 95% of the time, not the artists.]
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/31/2004--Introduced.
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 - Requires the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to: (1) develop a program (including suitable warnings) to deter the public from committing acts of copyright infringement through the Internet; and (2) facilitate the sharing among law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers, and copyright owners of information concerning copyright infringement activities.
[More FBI Warnings before movies! How fun. However, (2) is a bit more scary. It makes me wonder if this "sharing" will become compulsory and secret (AKA PATRIOT Act Style).]
Directs the Attorney General to ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one support agent who has received training in the investigation and enforcement of such crimes.
[Forget terrorism, we have pirates to bust! Great use of resources there. However, the increased emphasis on computer hacking would be welcome.]
Establishes within the Office of the Associate Attorney General an Internet Use Education Program for educating the public about the value of copyrighted works and the effects of their theft.
[More FBI Warnings! However, the only "value of copyrighted work" is given by the government by creating a monopoly on the work. Article I Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution states that copyright's function is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" In this case, the monopoly granted is supposed to help advance the arts and sciences by giving a financial incentive to do so. However, as the current copyright law inhibits the advancement of arts and sciences by allowing copyright holders to continue to reuse and sell old material to the public instead of actually creating something new. Also, if we are going to educate people on how to "use" the Internet, maybe we could include some virus/spyware prevention training.]
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 or ART Act - Amends Federal criminal law to provide criminal penalties for the unauthorized use of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture theater in order to transmit or make a copy of such motion picture or other copyrighted work.
[Now we can have FBI agents with night vision in the local theatre checking everyone just "in case" they might be making an illegal camcorder recording. This personally makes me want to go to the theatre less than I did before.]
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) responsible software developers should be commended for their efforts to protect consumers; (2) illegal and dangerous activity on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services is harmful; and (3) all appropriate measures to protect consumers and children and prevent such illegal activity should be considered.
[This might as well read: "Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) DRM is good; (2) public peer-to-peer copyright infringement is bad; and (3) all appropriate DRM measures should be considered".]
Amends Federal copyright law to provide criminal penalties, as well as civil remedies in damages, for the willful infringement of copyrighted works, including illegal distribution to the public by electronic means.
[Again, we can now have the FBI busting people for copyright infringement rather than hunting down real criminals (like terrorists). Welcome to the Second Drug War.]
Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend its s
-Valen
This motion picture has been altered from the performance intended by the director and producers of the motion picture. The studio caved to focus tests and removed the sad, emotionally gripping ending. The ending now includes bunnies. Furthermore thanks to pressure from financial investors the prison warden no longer arbitrarily kills prisoners and blames it on the main character, but removes them to a humanely managed rehabilitation facility owned and operated by Haliburton(TM). The main character has been altered from a potentially offensive trash talking chicano gangster to a more palatable richeously indignant black man with a heart of gold who now eats M&M's instead of Reeses Pieces. Because she lent her name to the project, Drew Barrymore now has a cameo.
Furthermore, you fast forwarded through the violent parts and destroyed the purity of our art. You evil bastard.
The ______ Agenda
We need to keep repeating this to everyone we can. Its a truth that needs 100 million repetitions.
-I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Then there's the DMCA, also known as the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act". Well hell, it's got digital and millenium in it, so it must be good, right? INDUCE - oh well that one actually sounds a bit scary, but I guess that's because those dangerous VCR manufacturers just won't stop "inducing" us all to violate copyright.
This this winner has something called the CREATE Act (what do you bet this doesn't have anything to do with reforming copyright legislation to encourage actual creativity, and rather protects the vested interests of large media conglomerates). And the PDEA, aka "Pirace Deterrence and Education Act (Pirates bad, Education good, must be a good bill), and the PIRATE Act (Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act) - well, it's pretty clear that anybody who opposes this must be a pirate, since the bill tells you so right there.
Notice how it was the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" (well, it must be for the benefit of nice artists if it's got Sonny Bono's name on it), not the "Eliminate the Commons Constitutional Vandalism Act". It's sad that this stuff gets packaged and marketed this way.
Then when something actually in the public interest comes around, like getting rid of spyware, it's just the "Internet Spyware Prevention Act", no slick marketing labels, no crazy acronyms, there's really not much to say because it actually speaks for itself, and deals with one specific issue that is actually in our interest to deal with.
Add 1 line to the bill that is completely nonrelated:
n al .tree.ap/
Title III designates the national tree as the oak tree.
Instruct our "free" media to tell everyone about the bill:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/natio
It's good to know we can trust the media in this free country, eh?
...they live in washington DC, which if you think on it, is THE most "welfare" run city in the world. Virtually every penny that gets spent and respent there has been forceably TAKEN from someone else originally. And I say "welfare" because they don't produce anything, the politicians and bureaucrats just take it! So of course they think weirdly about things. It's artifically an expensive city to live in, but, the people making the decision don't have to sweat a roof or meals or a limo ride, it's all free stuff, and when they aren't getting it by the bucket load from the public trough, bigco,inc. is lining up to give them more! Thou$ands just to go speak at some luncheon? Huh? That's employment, but I wouldn't call it "work". They lose touch with what things cost, what it really means to be joe average. To them, 20 buck CDs are chump change, they wouldn't stoop to grab a jackson if it fell out of their wallets and was blowing away in the wind. A ten dollar movie? eh, less than what they tip for a few drinks. And the big hollywood and music guys are the same way, they just don't get it on predatory pricing and how much they are charging for in essence a dimes worth of copy. Or, maybe they do and just want to keep it that way.
THEY want everything that modern advanced technology can bring THEM, they just don't want you or me to have the same deal. That's the real bottom line in this thing, monopolization of technology,the good stuff only for the "elites", none or very limited for the proles and serfs.
Why sit and bitch about it? "Oh, duh! This is /.!"/ senators_cfm.cfm
Promptly pick up the phone and call your Senator. I did. Took all of 2 minutes and I footed the bill for the call, elapsed time 1:11. Seriously, If your Senator read Slash, we'd never have these problems, but they more than likely do not do so, so exercise something other than your modems and make the effort, the same time it takes to type a reply to my message is more then enough for 99% of you to Google, your Senator http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information
and making the needed call. It may do some good, and it may not but the one thing you will be able to say is that you made the call. If ya don't then STFU, and bitch to someone else. I do not listen to Non Participants. If your not old enough, then make your voice heard to your parents, participation comes in many forms, but bitching is just a waste of time, and has led us to the point we are at now.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
I think it is amazing how the smallest section of the bill got the greatest amount of publicity. However, you can tell they are avoiding mentioning the copyright act by using language such as "The oak bill was passed as part of another bill that was approved by voice vote." I am thinking that the politicians are afraid of the outcry caused by such a bill. If that is true and this activity does hit mass media, it could gain enough mass to make a difference.
-Valen
Well one person recieves a copy, and that person sends to two people, and they each send to two people. Now compare that to the one on one transfer that the physical medium imposes
The main flaw with that reasoning is this: since when do we prosecute people based on how bad their crime MIGHT be? If someone is pulled over for speeding, do we say "I caught you at 80 MPH, but you had the potential to be going 100 MPH, so I'm doubling your fine." or "Well, since you were speeding here, you'll probably be speeding every other time you drive - maybe even inducing others to speed! And you'll probably drive 300 times this year, so therefore your fine is increased by 300. You are hearby fined $20,000 for speeding."
No, of course we don't. Why should that be the case here? Just because copyright infringement is considered an "easy" crime? So is speeding. Sure someone MIGHT share a file with 1,000 people - then again, it might just sit there out in the open and be downloaded by no one at all.
So far the evidence presented for this argument is as circumstantial as your claim that there's no one to one relationship between song and revenue.
Well logically, there CAN'T be a one to one relationship. For the simple fact that many people will go out and download a number of songs so massive that they could not possibly afford to go out and buy a CD of each and every one.
That said, I have no idea how many songs lead to gained revenue (i.e. buying a CD after hearing something new) as opposed to how many songs are used as a substitute for buying one. But the point is that all of these cases happen, so it's not really right to treat every shared file so harshly.
Copyright has always been pretty clear about what was, and wasn't OK. People have been ignoring the law for several decades. The main difference is that technology makes it easier to break the law.
You're right, and I guarantee you that people aren't going to stop, and it's going to get even easier. It's civil disobedience on an increasingly large scale. People want the product, but want more freedom in how they can get it and what they can do with it. New distribution models have to be created, because it's already apparent that sueing everyone is accomplishing next to nothing, other than further alienating/angering their customers. They need to forget about laws like these and instead use their resources to bring music (and other entertainment) to people in new ways.
If your analogy was what you think it was, then you'll acknowledge that all the other things listed as felonies are also equal to murder and rape.
Well, I don't know every single felony offhand, but I think most of the ones I can think of (kidnapping and hijacking for example) are indeed in the same LEAGUE as murder and rape. It's not accurate to say they are equal, but they belong in the same severe category. There may be other felonies that are debatable; like I said, I don't have them all in front of me. Copyright infringement isn't even close, though. IMO, it should be a misdemeanor. Hell, they mistakenly label infringement as "stealing" all the time - and things like burgularly and shoplifting, which ARE stealing, are only misdemeanors!
HA! I knew this was their plan! "Let's pretend our new copyright bill is really about the oak tree."
Misleading others to promote your opinion is not useful. It is actually quite damaging. Most people don't appreciate being lied to. If you lie about one part, all other parts of your argument will loose force when the lie is discovered. You're right though... It doesn't appear to make skipping commercials illegal, as long as you don't save a copy with the commercials clipped. If you do, well reading this...
- (B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible that is authorized under subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor
- ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture.
Great, so we have to rewrite QuickTime and Windows Media frameworks for the movie industry? Oh, and we have a whole 180 days to 'make it so'? Well isn't that generous of them? Where are the tech industry tax breaks to pay for this crap? Not only that, but this sounds like a really REALLY hard programming problem. So, umm, yeah, how? I suppose you have designed some kind of open, industry standard, fast and accurate a/v fingerprinting technology that thousands of brilliant programmers have been unable to produce in several decades time? I further suppose you boys in the Senate already have audio/video fingerprints for every copyrighted work on planet Earth on file and served up on a webserver, right? Oh you don't? Then how the fsck is my multimedia framework supposed to just know if this particular piece of media is copyrighted by XYZ corp or just a video of Joe Public's birthday party? This is the same kind of vague impossible task that courts handed Napster, except this time, it will be the whole industry having their ass handed to them. You can kiss iLife goodbye. Adios filmGIMP. What the hell are these people thinking? Good job boys, you just criminalized all home audio/visual editing software. If this should pass, I hope the tech industry discontinues ALL a/v products in retaliation. Kick Hollywood back into the a/v stone age for biting the hand that feeds it.>Well one person recieves a copy, and that person sends to two people, and they each send to two people. Now compare that to the one on one transfer that the physical medium imposes.
Irrelevant. We are talking per single crime committed, not multiple.
Besides, if you are able to steal a CD from a store, and you let others know how you did it, your slippery slope analogy is easily retrofitted to the real world.
>So far the evidence presented for this argument is as circumstantial as your claim that there's no one to one relationship between song and revenue.
True. However, the maximum monetary damage caused is clearly the maximum value of the item. From my experience, the maximum monetary damage of the loss of a single song is around $0.99, as this is what the RIAA generally charge per track.
From my experience in having seen petty shoplifting cases being prosecuted in court [ask me why if you want to hear a VERY long and pointless story], someone without a record will receive restitution and either a peace bond, a fine (I have not seen a fine as a result myself, although it is possible, and most places seem to place the maximum dollar figure of such a fine at about $250), or about 30 hours of community service. If you go by the fine, on a CD single (about the lowest value item you can shoplift from a CD store) you could end up with about 50x punishment as compared to the crime. The maximum monetary penalty for shoplifting seems to be about $5,000. That's about 1000x punishment.
Copyright infringement cases generally settle at about $2,000. It is expected, nay, obvious that an out of court settlement is going to be far less than the punishment the court is liklely to hand out. Assuming, however, that $2,000 is, in fact, the punishment the court would hand out (unlikely), on that same single CD we are at 400x punishment. The maximum monetary penalty, if my video tapes are correct, is $250,000. That's 50,000 times punishment.
I still cannot see what justifies 8 - 50 times more punishment for a crime, which, in respect of actual maximum losses, is identical.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Iam tired of all this raids against our fundamental rights by single-digit IQ politicians.
Iam migrating to a country like New Zealand or even Vanuatu...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Congress is ruled by the right-wing. Socialists
are left-wing. Also, socialists are, well, social.
It seems increasingly clear that Congress is
anti-social.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is why any talk of John Kerry flip-flopping is nonsense. Regardless of which candidate you support, you should be aware that voting for or against a bill on a certain subject, say taxes, does not mean what it would seem.
A senator or congressman may vote to raise taxes because the tax raise is minor and one of the riders is really important. He may vote against gun control because the bill has a loathesome rider.
Any representative who was honestly and intelligently representing his consituents *would* flip-flop, rather than voting on the hot button name of the bill. The result is a voting record that's speckled and looks inconsistent.
Legislation doesn't tabulate that way.
does this mean that they could put some sort of chip in my remote that will tell these companies when i fast forward thru the advertisements when i tape something? What about the Mute?!
Did you actually read the fucking bill? It sure didn't say "it must actually BE a movie theatre" under the section labeled "definitions." I'm amazed you would spend all that time writing something so easily disproven and so utterly wrong. You don't, perhaps, work for the whitehouse?
A rather ironic example, don't you think ?
There is a push to have government automatically prosecute perceived and presumed
copyright violations without the copyrights holder's request and perhaps even without his knowledge.
This seems to take away control of a copyrighted work from it's holder.
How bad is this going to get?
I think you may have misunderstood me. In fact, I'm on board with everything you wrote. In my own inept way I was trying to point out that your post was not really a troll at all. Great post, by the way. Welcome to my friends list.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Pulled the plug on the cable box today, back to the airwaves. Too much ($700 pa) for too little interesting. Save a fortune with PBS, Fox, CBS, NBC,ABC local broadcasters or cable modem. It was mostly drivel on the other channels too. I'll miss Discovery. We can talk when the price model and customer service become more reasonable or I move some place less extortionate. F*** the monopolists, politicos, etc, vote with your feet! I have already left the building.
If they're passing laws to support it then there's nothing about free enterprise involved... it's just Monopoly Socialism at its best.
There's no rule that says everything a company or rich individual does is the result of "free enterprise". Free enterprise, laissez-faire capitalism, has nothing to do with this corporate welfare, and rich people are just as complex, contradictory, and confused as anyone else.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"; said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
If however you so much as dared to skip the ads in magazines, you would be in trouble. Embedded chips in the pages would detect your violation of the publisher's intentions. They would signal your internet enabled fridge, which would contact the cops to come beat your sorry ass (because God knows, internet enabled fridges have got to do something right?).
To avoid this coming to pass, be sure to look at paper ads for at least 15 seconds before turning the page (and focus! we track the movement of your iris and your pupil dilation)
Also along more physically probable lines, if I were to accelerate myself to relativistic speeds in order to "fast-foward" (from my perspective) ads, would I be guilty of infringing on the mighty will of the broadcaster, or will this be treated similarly to getting a beer from the fridge (making the sentence merely a public flogging as opposed to death)?
The temporal prime directive is here, and it's labelled HR 4077.
always nice to see a group of people who are among those who know the least about technology writing the laws that will dictate how it will progress.
All the torrents you could want.
Wish I had mod points. All the more impressive considering the rather snarky comment it was replying to.
A few random observations:
- I don't think the "treatment of fame" issue is unique to politicians in the US; it seems to apply to business and media celebrities as well. I suspect it's a side-effect of the "Land of Opportunity" myth that's so pervasive in the US; if success is achieved (only) through talent and hard work, anybody with wealth/influence must automatically deserve it. (And, conversely, anybody without wealth or influence is either stupid or lazy and hence not worth bothering about.)
- I *do* worry that the problems seen in the US are at least partly a result of the concentration of power there relative to the size of the economy. Assuming for the sake of argument that all politicians everywhere are equally corrupt, a dollar spent bribing a US Congressman to pass a pro-corporate law will have a far greater payoff than the same dollar spent bribing a Dutch representative, so it stands to reason that corporations would invest a lot more time and money on manipulating the US. I'm generally in favour of European integration, but this issue does bother me. The EC's combined economy is bigger than the USA's; if policymaking becomes similarly concentrated, we can expect to see similar levels of lobbying. Look at the recent pressure on software patents, for example.
- I think you could have made more of the freedom of the press. The Reporters Without Borders 2003 report makes for interesting reading. The Netherlands are joint first for press freedom; the USA is at 31.
Incidentally, I live in the United Kingdom. Politically and socially we're somewhere in between the US and the Netherlands, but from here the Dutch extreme looks vastly more appealing.
So we have massive industry representation by the RIAA and MPAA (who might as well be the same thing) and they are represented in congress by a number of senators. So where the fuck are the people represented? Wheres the massive public backed union who says "fuck that, you stay out of my house"? the EFF? the ACLU? somehow I don't think the balance is very fair considering how senators work - money = influence. Its either time for a big public group or time to change the way politics works and move towards some sort of democratic system. (remember folks, democracy = '1 person 1 vote', not '1 dollar 1 vote')
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
They have the money, the power, and the paitence..
Its just a matter of time before they have total control over all content, and get copyright laws moved into the criminal arena..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The problem with DRM When I was reading 1984 I always wondered how they could instantly change all the newspapers and constantly rewrite history and make it up to date. Since all the newspapers would have already been distributed. There would be traces left. A combined Hardware and software DRM seems to allow this. Since you are giving material to people without actually giving it to them, you can always change it. And distribution systems will definitely favor DRM instead of physical media because it is so much more 'convenient'. If a license to temporarily view something with various restrictions becomes the dominant form of ownership, freedom is definitely going down the tubes. It wouldnt be so much a dictatorship but the replacement of personal artifacts and memory by a culturally/centrally owned artifacts and memories. We wouldnt have a license to remember what we forgot. Pretty isn't it? "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever." 1984
We have these giant bills that cover many unrelated topic and then in the campaign adds you here "My goodness, candidate X wouldn't even support the Oak Trees".
I am not sure how any bill can ever get passed.
That's actually something Kerry was doing at the beginning. Didn't work so well... the explanations were far too long and complex to work on TV. Many of them simply couldn't be explained to an ordinary voter at all.
:)
I'm no supporter of the "philosopher king" model of protecting "stupid" voters, but many voters do not want to wade through the intricacies of federal legislation. They want someone they can trust to do that for them. Bush seems like such a man to many... he won't bother you with the details. He'll take care of it. Don't worry.
The problem is that they are basing that trust on a flawed metric of voting consistency. Far better to see what the candidate has himself done... has he stolen or put others lives at risk through his partying? Has he put corporate interests above those of the common good when not a politician? Did he turn on his comrades when let out of the army by denouncing them as rapists and murderers? (A little against both sides.
The mud-slinging everyone denounces isn't really that bad. It may be a cheap and vicious way to get at a candidate, but it's at least arguing about the merits of a man that an ordinary person can understand.
Quotes from house discussions of bills are also pretty good. They may be out of context, but are not so hideously malformed as a voting record.
An awful lot of house vote trading is done after everyone is sure which way a bill's going to go anyway... if your representative sees that a very good bill is going to pass no matter what, it may be worth voting against that bill as a favour to some group so you can get a quid pro quo on something else that's important.
Only a stupid representative would vote entirely on the merits of the main point of any bill everytime. The smarter the representative is, the more effective he is, the more likely his record is to be speckled. It's the representatives who've sold out you can rely on... there's no higher bidder competing with the tobacco lobby, there'll be no switching horses in midstream on something like that.
These subtleties are hard to explain to someone who isn't an avid political amateur, but this part is easy: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." You have to be willing to adjust to circumstances.
:)
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
But yes, it is fucked that just being a constituent doesn't give you as much voice as somebody who gives lots of money in campaign contributions, but that's the way it is.
A new political action committee called IPac ("defending the public interest where culture and technology meet") has just compiled a list of six congressional candidates whom they believe to have good records on IP issues. If you're looking for a quick list of people to throw your support behind, here it is:
http://ipaction.org/candidates.html
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
What if you are a Hindu? Or some other polytheist (like, say, a practitioner of Santaria?
The problem I see with the Pledge, the "In God We Trust" etc on our currency is that it endorses a specific set of religions-- Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and other derivatives of Judaism) at the expense of most others as if they are not valid religions.
Yeah, we are a Christian Nation..... That is why our Capitol building has a statue of a Greek Goddess (Liberty) on it, and why it is indeed named after the Roman Temple of Jupiter....
The Founding Fathers may have been Christian but they greatly valued the contributions of our Greek, Anglo-Saxon, and Roman forbearers, all of which contributed values which are more in line with Hinduism than with Christianity (or rather those which are in line were borrowed from the Greeks later...)
The very idea of separation of church and state is at odds with the fundamental assumption of "definite monotheism" where one believes that one can describe a supreme being and hence there is a singular true religion. This assumption leads inescapably to the notion that religion and religious leaders must be deeply involved in government and law. This is why theocracy has always been deeply entrenched in the Islamic world, and this is less contradictory than the idea that we have a separation of church and state and that we are a Christian nation.
The truth is that we are *not* a Christian nation. If we were, we would be a theocracy not unlike Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and others. Or at least a state like Israel where religious observances are written into the laws. Indeed we are primarily a nation which draws on ancient pre-christian ideas (Greek philosophers, who as Georges Dumezil points out in many cases were expressing cultural values also expressed in Indo-European myth). It is from this Indo-European base that the separation of church (priest) and state (king) comes from. This separation is echoed in the Vedic Hymns to Mitra and Varuna, and appear in many other Indo-European traditions as well. As a basic primer, I would recommend "Gods of the Ancient Northmen" by Georges Dumezil...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The technology will outpace the current copyright law soon. There is no reason to have physical original copies of music or movies when any entertainment that can be digitized can be offered from satellites in space. Howard Stern is so far out in front of people on this, he's probably very dangerous. People with bizarre tastes in movies or music can be presented with anything they want to see or hear. The key is to understand that the price for this can be laughably small. Obscure artists who make NO money presently can be offered for their fan's enjoyment. Sadly, this model offers very little recompense for the RIAA enforcers. Too bad. Get out of the road if you want to grow old!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Just that small correction. Catholics are Christian. You may have meant Christians (including catholics)
What if you are a Hindu? Or some other polytheist (like, say, a practitioner of Santaria?
So what. Out government is supposed to be based on the MAJORITY, not the minority. Historically, our government has become more and more hosed by catering to the minority rather than majority. I'm not saying that minority positions should be swept under the rug, but let's face it, you will NEVER make EVERYONE happy. Period.
The very idea of separation of church and state is at odds with the fundamental assumption of "definite monotheism" where one believes that one can describe a supreme being and hence there is a singular true religion.
Well, yes and not. Logically, I think you stand on solid ground, but, philosophically, which is what we're talking about in the end, I think your position is greatly weakened. Philosophically, I don't think it matters if it says, "god" or "gods", from a monotheistic or polytheistic position. A majority says it's "god", while a minority says it's "gods". Beyond that, we're talking about such a minor (numerically) portion of what was 40% of the US population, I'm forced to say, who cares. After all, majority is what is SUPPOSED to rule here.
The truth is that we are *not* a Christian nation.
Statistically, you would be incorrect. Ideaologically, the US is. Now then, that does not mean that our government is run as a theocracy. Which supports that we have successful seporation of church and state.
So what. Out government is supposed to be based on the MAJORITY, not the minority. Historically, our government has become more and more hosed by catering to the minority rather than majority. I'm not saying that minority positions should be swept under the rug, but let's face it, you will NEVER make EVERYONE happy. Period.
Of course not. Therefore we have a set of rules which exist to allow the majority to have reasonable governing power while protecting the rights of the minority. This is one of the functions of the constitutional protections. For exxample, freedom of expression is far more protective of the minority than of the majority. Hence flag burning is protected speech.
By your logic, the first ammendment should not prevent the majority from outlawing, say Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism.
When I said that we were not a Christian nation, you replied:
Statistically, you would be incorrect. Ideaologically, the US is. Now then, that does not mean that our government is run as a theocracy. Which supports that we have successful seporation of church and state.
The very fact that we are not a theocracy means that our nation is not associated with one religious ideology or even a group of them (note that Iran's parliament contains representatives of religious groups rather than of political parties). Our government is supposed to be completely removed from endorsing or banning specific religious groups.
As to our ideology-- often I think that the writings of Plato and Aristotle have had more of an impact on our cultural identity than the Bible. They certainly have had a greater impact on our concept of the role of law and of the government, but in these areas, their views were fundamentally pagan.
For example, if you look at the Middle East-- a region which gave birth not only to Christianity, but to its closest sibling religion and its mother (Judaism), you see a place where religion is institutionalized in law in a way in which it is not in the US. This is true whether you look at Israel or Iran, Lebanon or Egypt. The weakest of these cases is to be made for Turkey but they were Indo-European-speaking for the most part up until the Turkic invasions.
If we are a Christian country as opposed to merely a country of Christians, perhaps you can explain why our national monuments are primarily of a pagan nature? We have a giant statue of a Graco-Roman goddess (our national patron?) in New York Harbor and on the top of our Capitol building (and the Capitol was historically the Roman temple to Jupiter). Even the Washington Monument is nothing more than a giant Egyptian obilisk....
Or are you suggesting that these are all Christian symbols?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If we are a Christian country as opposed to merely a country of Christians, perhaps you can explain why our national monuments are primarily of a pagan nature?
I think you're pedantically playing semantics here. While you appear to be making such a distinction of Christian country versus a country of Christians, I was using the two synonymously. Meaning, I think of the US as being a country of Christians (~60%), whereby, I can refer to it as a Christian country, by majority.
I'm a little rushed right now, but I'll read and think more about your posts sometime in the near future.
By your logic, the first ammendment should not prevent the majority from outlawing, say Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism.
What? I think you misread what I typed or you replied to the wrong person? I never said anything which could come to mean anything of the nature. According to "my logic", the constitution PREVENTS the majority from outlawing Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism. According to "my logic", you're out in left field.
The very fact that we are not a theocracy means that our nation is not associated with one religious ideology or even a group of them (note that Iran's parliament contains representatives of religious groups rather than of political parties).
The US is not a theocracy. This, we seem to agree. Just the same, clearly the US IS heavily influenced by our Christian heritage. And since the majority is still Christian, you will find laws following the majority's ideology. No bones about it. So, while most religions are well tolorated in the US, that does not mean there is zero sociological impact. Having said, the impact and influence is indirect, which is why we are not a theocracy. Having said that, it's still fair to say, the US is mostly a country of Christians.
As for the rest of your comments, you're all over the map. You seem to be commenting on things which I never stated.
I think perhaps we have different definitions of Christian ideology and what is a Christian nation. So perhaps we don't disagree with eachother as much as we think...
When I say we are not a Christian nation, I do not mean that we are not a nation of Christians or that Christianity has not has a substantial impact. Instead I am saying that our nation is neither organized on nor operated in accordance with principles which can be derived even through substantial leaps of logic from the bible. This represents at least a substantial distance between our national structure (and perhaps soul) and the predominant religion of the country.
Also, have thought about the question about what exactly is a Christian culture. I think that there used to be a strong Christian culture in this country, but that at the moment, this has actually waned substantially.
At the same time, our cultural and governmental foundations seem to be more in line with those of our classical forebearers than that of any Christian church. Indeed our government has a long history of building our government on what can only be called pagan symbolism. The building in which Congress meets is built to be a great Cathederal to Lady Liberty (a Greco-Roman goddess whose statue stands in New York Harbour).
This is one of the great contradictions in our culture-- that we are a nation of Christians but still our nation's structure and monuments have deeply (and predominantly) pagan roots. That many things which might be immoral from a Christian perspective are our protected rights (abortion, blasphemy, etc), yet we are a nation predominantly populated by Christians....
I have said elsewhere that the *only* form of government philosophically in line with the idea of a single true religion (which most Christians think that Christianity is) is a theocracy. This is why theocracy is so common in Middle Eastern cultures.
Instead we have opted to go an older set of values. This includes a separation of sovereignty between the priests and heads of state, a concept that the structure of society is more important than the idea that the structure and/or legal tradition is somehow in line with the will of a singular supreme being. This set of ideals has derived from the cultural systems which arose with the Indo-European culturo-linguistic group approx. 4000 years ago, and it is not in line with the Afroasiatic ideals (those of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, and Israel).
While one can argue that Christianity arose from the fusion of the Jewish (Afroasiatic) and Greek (Indo-European) ways of thinking, the Bible itself does not support Indo-European social and cultural ideals-- these are nearly completely taken from the Afroasiatic world.
So it seems interesting that we have such phrases as "In God We trust" yet what are perhaps our greatest monuments (Statue of Liberty, Capitol Building) are seemingly dedicated to a pagan goddess.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I think perhaps we have different definitions of Christian ideology and what is a Christian nation. So perhaps we don't disagree with eachother as much as we think...
:)
:)
That's what I said. LOL.
For the most part, I didn't have a problem with your commentary. Rather, the pushback came from misinterpreations of my statements.
I think you make some excellent points! Especially about the sociological duality of our nation, as it relates to religios ethos, in light of the fact that the US, statistically, is a "Christian nation." (Hmmm...wonder if I could make a sentence that sounds even more like mumbo-jumbo-BS...hehe).
When I have more time, I'll have to come back and re-read your post. I think you're got some interesting and insightful tidbits hidden with.
Thanks. Cheers.