Slashdot Mirror
Anti-P2P Law Looms over the Horizon
Adrian Lopez writes "MIT's Technology Review has a piece by Eric Hellweg about pending legislation known as the Intellectual Property Protection Act. According to Hellweg, IPPA could make it illegal to skip past commercials and could 'criminalize the currently legal act of using the sharing capacity of iTunes, Apple's popular music software program.' More information on IPPA is available at the Public Knowledge website."
The internet is international, how will this be enforcable?
Senator John McCain stated his opposition to this bill, and specifically cited the anti-commercial skipping feature: "Americans have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials for 30 years," he said. "Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?"
Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.
Trolling is a art,
We have been fast forwarding through commercials for years. This legislation is a joke. Consumers are not required to read the ads in magazines or newspapers. I really see no difference.
It's articles like this that make me want to say ...
;) ... The Dude
Let's ignore our legislators
Orwell is crying right about now.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
How do they hope to enforce this law?
We are creating the old USSR, right here in America.
We have lost parts of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment. Bush's 2000 win gutted any of 10th that was left.
The police can now search your home and "finincal" records with court oversite with informing you that it even happened and barring all from talking about it.
So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?
ITunes is only shared over a network, and isn't downloaded but viewed - doesn't this mean that the feature could be construed as a viewing to a private audience? This is legal with movies etc, why made illegal for music? Just because music is more commonly transfered makes congressmen antsy over the streaming issue.
...if Edison invents the lightbulb today; there would be atleast huge protests on 7 PM News by candle and gaslight makers union; atleast 3 lawmakers would speak against lightbulb and how it is dangerous due to its explosive nature; 10 states would pass laws banning usage of lightbulbs...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
you americans kill me. you let the big stuff slide but pay attention to nits because some chick with big hair mentions it on the evening news.
Further along the horizon is legislation that will require all citizens to actually buy the products that the see advertised. Being exposed to an advertisement and not purchasing it is a breach of contract, punishable by large fines or death.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
For more information, see here.
We need some kind of bill-watch section. That way when this gets voted on, we can have an article saying which way it went. Most of the bills that are brought up on slashdot are totally forgotten about afterwards and never posted about again.
The gameplan is: Lump some eight laws together in a package. Make one of them outrageous stupid. The stupid one gets all the flak, is pulled from the package and the rest sails straight trough congres.
TCAP-Abort
This is the third article on /. in a week that totally misreads the proposed addition to 17 USC 110.
It does NOT make it illegal to skip commercials.
It just says that this new exemption doesn't apply to skipping commercials. If there is an EXISTING exemption (or if the manner by which the commercials are skipped isn't even prima face infringement) then those still remain in effect just as they do now.
This is little more than a clarification.
That said, it is a bad bill overall, since there are a lot of other provisions attached with this one which suck, such as criminalizing copyright infringement even more than it is now, permitting the government to file civil suits for infringement, further gutting registration formalities, etc.
But this is one of the only halfway decent parts of it -- as it would tend to remove any doubt as to the legality of what Clean Flicks has been doing, and would permit other creative uses of EDLs, such as to edit Jar Jar out of Star Wars movies -- and so it annoys me quite a lot to see people's outrage arising out of a misreading of the bill. Be outraged at the rest of the bill, dammit.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
While I understand Seantor McCain's remarks, I guess I wonder as how legislation would affect my right to disable images in websites and thus ignoring banners, or even using other software that does not render the ads at all? Does this mean I have to load and all website ads, lest I be judged a criminal, and if I scroll past an embedded add in an article does this mean I'm "fast forewarding" that add. This seems incredibly restrictive and amazingly unenforceable. Diq - spelling is no object
Wouldn't this also ban Adblock from Firefox? From the sound of it, it would, and if ads are forcibly viewed, it sounds like they'll forcibly allow adware and spyware soon too.
And include th standard 100 dollar check for reelection campaign, plus 50 dollar checks for key staff members (chief of staff, legislative director, the Legislative Assistant for tech issues). Anything over 50 for a staff member is illegal. Or maybe you could do the unthinkable and contract a spammer to flood congress with emails against the act (and then make sure to sign up the spammer for as many snail-mail advertisements as possible).
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
Ignorance is how we got into this mess in the first place. If people had been busy doing their civic duties (not just voting in the presidential election), then a lot of this wouldn't have happen, because there would have been enough responsible citizens saying "Don't do that". We're as much responsible as the politicians and corporations we lambast. They did their parts, when will we start doing ours?
Jonathan Lamy, spokesperson for the RIAA: "(...) Intellectual property theft is a national security crime."
Soon we'll see P2P users referred to as terrorists ;))
Fascist corporate governments require consumers to consume their prescribed advertising. Every citizen is required to consume propaganda that innoculates against antisocial tendencies, like dissent, conservation, and critical thinking - or any thinking at all.
--
make install -not war
Just wait until this law passes, and gets interpreted by courts (especially the part about not being able to skip commercials). Pretty soon, when you are driving on the freeway, you are thus legally required to completely read every billboard you pass by....
"Every citizen is required to consume propaganda that innoculates against antisocial tendencies, like dissent, conservation, and critical thinking - or any thinking at all."
While you have a good point about forced consumption, the label of "propaganda" points you out as a fascist as well. Those who label something as "propaganda" usually do so as a preliminary to demanding its censorship. "Propaganda" is a meaningless term. It is all just information, like any other information. It does not "innoculate" or "brainwash". It is just information, that is all, entirely protected as free speech (unless you are a fascist, that is!)
... of this type of "law" that I have seen proposed so far are driven by the need to protect commerical intellectual property, they all appear to dismiss the benefitis of sharing intellectual property that is designed to be shared - educational content for example - making it impossible to do either.
One I understand, but the bi-product is too costly on society...
Simple. the RIAA (just because they like to do these kinds of things) will dispatch a legal representative (and secretary [at your expense of course]) to each and every home with a VCR or DVD recorder, then whenever you fast-forward they will have the power to hand you a press-play-and-desist order. Failure to respond to this will result in the immediate seizure of your remote control, whereby the lawyer will tow your VCR to the impound and force you to make an over-inflated out-of-impound settlement.
You don't think they haven't already thought this through?
"So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?"
Freedom to be entertained I suppose. So why not send the clearest message that even the courts haven't taken away? You know the right to vote with your money. Does the "can't skip" law affect those who don't own any kind of entertainment? Does the DMCA affect those who refuse to own any entertainment say what they create with their own minds?
The only reason all these laws affect you is because of the American public's addiction to entertainment. Get rid of that addiction and the drug dealer has no sway over you. Continue to use, and pretend it's some kind of right, and you'll be forever playing by the entertainment dealers rules. Dance, consumer, dance.
Click here or here.
... here in the US we will be paying high prices to cover the creation of the intellectual property (R&D in drug company parlance) while the rest of the world gets to use the product for next to nothing.
In fact, I predict that some countries will eventually start to complain about the cost of the bandwidth needed to enjoy all the free stuff that is out there.
This kind of legislation will only result in further crippling of the failing US economy. A once great economic empire will collapse under the weight of its own fear and paranoia. I say let it happen. It is just a form of Darwinism and it will allow burgeoning empires such as the EU to thrive.
Whoa thar. Time out. Game penalty. Chill.
The sharing of the Anarchist's Cookbook would be a national security issue. IP theft of weapons technology, air defense systems, domestic utility and transportation infrastructuce are national security issues.
But P2P of ENTERTAINMENT is a "national security crime"?!?
That's the most flawed stretch of reasoning I've ever seen. And I don't even engage in P2P.
And if this bill becomes law and my fast forward button is outlawed,
It's a sad day when laws are passed to perpetuate outdated business models.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Well hard dirty capitalist cash, and the fact they TV is a good baby sitter for the masses to stop them plotting to overthrow a corrupt government.
You can still all own a gun right? Think about where you could point that gun and make a real difference.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
In a couple of years we'll get sued for singing a song in the shower or re-enacting a movie scene without paying royalties.
where's all that Karma?
Does this mean I can't change the channel during commercials?
The demise of "The Land of the Free" has begun. Its rotting from the inside, terrorists need not waste any more effort, since they got the ball rolling, the government has played along ever since.
In the end, its the ordinary people that suffer. Once a great nation, is now turning into a land of endless laws governing and enforcing everything that the "citizen" does.
Really sad.
interactive. The biggest losers in the whole TiVo thing have to be scripted pre-recorded shows. News shows quickly lose a lot of their value after they are aired. Aside from a few select games, almost all sports shows lose their value after the game is over, the only shows that don't are shows such as sitcoms etc.
Hopefully, people will see the insanity of this law and not pass it, which will mean that the distribution methods for scripted shows will either have to evolve or die. I personally hope they evolve into distributing the shows directly to the public via an iTunes like service. That way I no longer have to pay for cable just to see the few shows that I enjoy; I can purchase them directly. The producers of these shows no longer have to be encumbered by the increasingly draconian regulations of the FCC. Just imagine what South Park could do if they weren't worried about being fined.
Monstar L
OK, I'm going to record an MP3 reading of the Intellectual Property Protection Act (all 200,000 pages) and intersperse commercials in support of the bill throughout the MP3. I will share it on my network (there's no place like http://127.0.0.1) and present you with a dilemma. You can stream the reading off my network and break one part of the legislation. Or, you can choose not to listen and thus disregard my commercials and break another part of the legistlation. Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense, unless your IQ is less than the average Hollywood filmmaker.
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
http://www.crimethinc.com/
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
" Fast food and smoking also have very high health costs to 'society' so should they be made illegal too?
"
If you can propose a foolproof way that only the drug users suffer the consequences, then I'm all ears? However as the old saying goes, your rights end were mine starts.
There's a local 25 year old teacher who will no longer teach because someone high on drugs crossed the centerline and hit her head on.
But of course drug use is a victimless crime, right?
Apple must have negotiated that permission from the labels when they created the feature, along with the burning and iPod sync limitations. It may be true, however, that such a feature might become illegal in other products.
how will this affect a p2p system on an educational research network like i2hub?
--Pastor Martin Niemoller
Does it make it illigal to leave the room or mute the sound during commercials? what about if you record a program (on your old VCR) and pause recording during breaks? There has to be some sort of legal limit here, does anyone know what it is? Same goes for P2P, what if you build up a social network through email or instant messaging - I message my friend saying "have you got xyz.mp3?" and if not he will message someone else and ask for me. Where do you draw the line with that? Writing laws is almost the same as writing software, but even Microsoft can write better software than most law-makers can write laws. Law is like a giant software product, some of it is 100 years old and has no use but bloats the rest, market research has been mostly ignored, allot of it is so crap you wouldnt be able to pay peope to use it and the rest is so full of holes that an _entire_ profession has grown up around exploiting it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
...so I can't expect anybody actually went and read the fucking article. Here's the Gooogle cache for the article at Public Knowledge. Take a minute and read it.
Once again, the intellectual property cartels are lobbying thru legislation that seeks to further limit and erode the rights of consumers. We all seem to be laboring under the idiotic assumption that the current system is "just how things are". Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract. This contract is supposed to benefit both parties-- the creators of intellectual property and the People.
Write your Senator. Vote. Make intellectual property a campaign issue for future elections. Tell other people about how their rights are being taken away and encourage them to do the same.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
I remember the former Soviet Union outlawed all sorts of things. Did it stop people? No, it just pissed them off until...well we all know what happened.
I have to chuckle everytime I see a law or technology attempt to suppress the desires of the people. First we had Napster, then Kazaa, now Bittorrent. The geeks will always win.
Now what worries me is the effects of all this in the interim. The message of freedom being spread throughout the world is spoken by those who consistently attempt to pass laws controlling what we can and can't do.
If you're Exxon, you'll get an exemption for pollution. If you're Joe Blow, you'll get put in jail for fast forwarding through a commercial. What's wrong with this picture?
The global multi nationals and domestic corperate giants sure do have our politicians by the balls dont they.
How insulting. It rememds me of clockwork orrange where you're forced to sit and watch.
It has been inaccessable for 2 days for me and i am curious as to why...
and then wake up after the commercials?
AC comments get piped to
The first anonymized P2P applications are here - great ones are http://freenet.sourceforge.net and http://entropy.stop1984.com/en/home.html - and hopefully some talented developers will create more. Let the age of anonymized filesharing begin!
I'm a little concerned that the EFF and other groups like downhillbattle.org are not helping organize opposition to this bill.
It's common knowledge that the government is slow and us internet folk are fast. Yet here we are seeing the opposite, the government is being fast, and freedom organizations of the internet are slow to pick up the fight.
Perhaps this suggests groups like EFF, et al need to re-examine how they react to legistlative bills. Not to sound over-dramatic, but I think they need an "army" of concerned citizens ready to start calling/writing their legistlators within 24 hours notice. Sort of like the minute-men of the American revolutionary war. Perhaps we even need a figuritive watch-tower to monitor congress and catch these bills in the very earliest stages.
In the bigger picture I'm an optimist and I hope to see over the next few years that the internet will help people get organized and bring strong pressure to bear on governments. We see how powerful the open-source model is, I'm waiting to see a similar phenomenom with politics. We see beginings of this with the Dean campaign and things like Groklaw but again I'm hoping this is just the begining.
I just wish there were more I could do personally.
--
I wonder if they will make it illegal to turn off your TV during a commecial.
No, propaganda is more than just "information" - it is information designed to create specific actions, through perpetuation of a specific image of reality, in which the included information is true, and associated with the selected action. The actual accuracy of the information, the appropriateness of the associated reaction, and the consistency of any of the propaganda with the real world, or the rest of the consumer's worldview, is immaterial, except as a design problem to be solved. That is one reason the Spanish word for "advertisements" is "propagandas" - its information delivered as a tool for modifying behavior. The technique is most successful when referencing an encompassing worldview, implicitly or explicitly - whether fascism, communism, consumerism, environmentalism, or any other belief system.
Fascism is corporate government. Usually politically controlling the people through fear, backed by application of force. It also usually includes arbitrary bigotry, to harness mass consciousness in the service of the new worldview behavior mechanisms: "Jews must be destroyed, so Germans must join the army", or "Gays must be cured of their sins, so Americans must elect Bush". Fascism is not just manipulation of information, strong words arguing points of action through connotations. Fascists aren't the only assholes. Fascism is very specific, though fascists are usually skilled as cryptofascists, hiding when it suits them. Fascists are masters of media, and much more insightful in the workings of the mass mind, which is innoculated and brainwashed every day in the mass media, without needing to strap individuals into chairs for psychohypnotic trance therapies and subliminal programming. That's what late-night TV is for.
--
make install -not war
A little outside their jurisdiction.
Juris-my-diction. Watch the US do everything it can get away with under TRIPS and other WTO treaties if it thinks other countries are letting their citizens get away with violating American authors' copyrights.
First let's examine where the Feds think they derive the authority to even debate these issues. It probably comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8,"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."
Note that the language includes "promote the progress". It does not include provisions for deterring competition. Note also that the language includes "authors and inventors" and makes no provision for the corporate empires which manage to back authors and inventors into a financial corner to induce them to sign away all ownership.
As always, without anything in the Constitution to specifically address P2P, fast-forwarding of commercials, or regulation of content and viewing, we must defer to the 10th Amendment,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To preempt those communists in the crowd who would like to interpolate their favorite part of the Constitution to include their pet issue of the week I would like to remind everyone of Amendment 9,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. As always our federal politicians are wasting our taxpayer money debating issues which they have no authority, responsibility, or legal jurisdiction over. As always they will come up with mandates which will tax us further, hamper manufacturers, and prevent the consumers from getting what we pay for.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for any of the current politicians. I also do more than my fair share attempting to educate those who don't have any clue what real freedom or liberty is.
Bring on the trolls.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
There's a local 25 year old teacher who will no longer teach because someone high on drugs crossed the centerline and hit her head on.
Driving impaired is wrong, whether it's due to drugs, fatigue, or talking on a cellphone. You're not suggesting we ban cell phones entirely just becuase they cause some accidents. Why should pot be any different? Keep in mind that a little benadryl impairs driving more than Cannabis.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't get it. Isn't South Park already on cable? Thus, it isn't regulated by the same laws that regulate free over-the-air content?
Why does Comedy Central need to censor at all if they are a cable channel?
Someone enlighten me.
-Z
"In a couple of years we'll get sued for singing a song in the shower or re-enacting a movie scene without paying royalties."
But on the positive side, people could be fined or jailed for Karaoke...
Fascists are masters of media,
Indeed. They are the pigs in Animal Farm.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Members of my family have been killed by drunk drivers, yet I do not blame the drink I blame the person who drank too much then got behind the wheel.
This blaming the tool/object for the actions of humans is completely and totally stupid.
If I could speak in front of the Senate, I would highly warn them against going after iTunes. If they are wanting to help cut P2P of songs over Kazaa, going after iTunes would kill one of the only legal alternatives, forcing many people back to the P2P.
they can try to pry my FF button from my dead cold hands.
THE NFFA: National Fast Forward Association
Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract.
That I signed when?
Write your Senator.
I have done so, and I get form letters back explaining the alleged importance of expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright.
Vote.
Badnarik lost. Beside the fact that many affected people are ineligible to vote, both major American political parties support expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright (otherwise, why would support for the Bono Act and DMCA have been so nearly unanimous?), and Duverger's Law prevents any third-party candidate from winning in a stable state of politics.
If I had to choose between sharing the road with drunk drivers and stoned drivers, I'd pick stoned. At least most pot users get kind of paranoid when they're high. Drunks are usually overconfident and aggressive.
Is there a Citizens Lobby Group? Or is the EFF all we have?
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
"No, I'm sorry. I don't see dope smoking as a victimless crime. Society is a victim. Self is a victim."
I agree. Pot smoker's neighbor is also a victim since he may have to breath this sh*t putting his own health and, potentially, employment in danger.
A law against murder. Sounds great
A law against burglary. Good idea
A law against smoking pot. Now we are pushing it. If you are going after the DWI aspect of it, sure, otherwise... (Though on a personal morality basis I think it's wrong. I really don't believe I should impose my views in a personal arena like this. Because of course what is to prevent someone else doing the same to me when they are in the majority.)
A law against fast forwarding through commercials. Ok senator, the good people of your state think you need to look for a new line of work
My Weblog
from wipo.int: Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
"Intellectual property theft is a national security crime. It's appropriate that the fed dedicate resources to deter and prosecute IP theft."
Since when were you able to steal "creations of the mind"? I don't like this word game which intends to make copying stuff morally relative to stealing. If you are against corporations tightening the copyright law, don't use the term "intellectual property". The word "property" distorts and oversimplifies the whole idea.
Now, I certainly do not think fastfowarding past commercials should be illegal, but I do wonder how non-cable television will survive if no one watches the ads that pay for the free tv. I have read many comments on /. about product placement. Is that what the future holds? Will network tv fundamentally change how it funds itself? Will the same hold for radio that is not publicly funded? What are everyone's thoughts?>br>
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
People ought to be asking themselves, seriously, a much broader question: Should Congress to be passing laws that the majority of people don't want? A case can be made for such laws in the case of individual rights of minorities. But I don't see that a corporation merits any consideration whatsoever with respect to any law that restricts our freedom.
"This blaming the tool/object for the actions of humans is completely and totally stupid."
We're not talking about "blaming the tool". We're talking about the assurtion that drug use is a "victimless crime". Something it's clearly not.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
Except all the other crap the Western civilization (especially America) pollutes the air with will kill him first, long before that makes any difference.
You're telling me. I took benadryl before work one day for allergies, and I had to stop in a supermarket parking lot during the drive and sleep for fifteen minutes because I almost fell asleep while driving.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
As a Tivo owner I have a special perspective on commercials.
When Im forced to use a "hostile television" I notice a few things:
1. THe SAME commercial gets played over and over. I was watching the Simpsons and Malcolm in the Middle live and saw the same truck commercial five or six times. Same with the rest. So skipping something you've seen is hardly costing anyone money.
2. Commercials have zero information quantity. That is to say they are all emotion and no logic. Whats the MPG of that truck? What is its safety ratings? I dunno, all I know is a busty woman is leaning on it on a backdrop of some colorado mountain scene with a flag somewhere on the screen. Or as Dr. Rappielle says "It appeals to the reptilian brain." I'm not a reptile and I like making informed consumer decisions (usually).
I guess the term "victim" here is what is being debated. A market shift to different modes of operation isn't victimizing its the future! Its why we have free markets. So companies can adapt. The old advertisers will be replaced with the new.
Whats next Deleteing/Filering SPAM will be illegal....
Hehe the funny thing is there is a ad for a email fiterer
"Prohibition does not work, and it never did. "
Maybe we need to ask ourselves why we engage in such useless behaviours, instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying "well we can't do anything about it so it must be OK". That's why humanity hasn't evolved socially for centuries.
It's quite simple - vote with your wallet; get rid of the TV.
The Internet is far more interesting than television anyway.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
They'll also have to outlaw FTP, Windows File Sharing, and the act of putting stuff on floppies, CDs, or DVDs... I guess scp will have to go, too, as will CD/DVD rippers and other Fair Use tools that we use today...
Did you get it free?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
There's a local 25 year old teacher who will no longer teach because someone high on drugs crossed the centerline and hit her head on. But of course drug use is a victimless crime, right?
Please grow up. Nobody is saying that driving under the influence should be legal. Fucking christ, talk about a bullshit arguement. We are talking about the right to sit in your own house and smoke cannabis. Idiot.
From a 1993 DOT report, my emphasis. Besides, many many many people take benadryl without knowing it affects driving as much or more than alcohol. Please note that this is not an endorsement of driving stoned.
In addition, the drugs don't exactly have any real purpose aside from personal recreation
So? In a free country we should be free to persue what ever recreation we want.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
I can see the paralell, but I'd be opposed to a public cigarrette ban too. I can understand banning smoking inside public (government) buildings. But in the open air, and in private (including places of business) buildings I see no possible justification. What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
High pollution level should serve as a stimulus to lower pollutions, not as an excuse to pollute even more.
making t so when people see an advert and dont immediately go and buy it, you can go to jail?
The state of mind of your politician is untenable, and the stench of corporate corruption is overwhelming.
i just hope other countries dont go down this path of insanity, that america seems inevitably will. how long before the mass exodus of americans who actually have a clue happens? like for instance to canada after bush cheated\b\b\b\b\b\b\bwon the election.
its only a matter of time before america needs to be quarantined for the sake of sanity in the rest of the world, and a sad set of affairs it is too
"Since when were you able to steal "creations of the mind"? "
A car is a "creation of the mind", and it can be stolen. However the fact that the creator retains the original isn't the part that's being stolen.
"I don't like this word game which intends to make copying stuff morally relative to stealing."
No it makes illegal copying morally relative to stealing. There's a difference.
"The word "property" distorts and oversimplifies the whole idea."
Only for those who have the most base of understandings about "property".
"...which will mean that the distribution methods for scripted shows will either have to evolve or die. I personally hope they evolve into distributing the shows directly to the public via an iTunes like service."
While an iTMS style system will be good, it isn't feasible until everyone has broadband/cable connections; pay or commercial-subsidised free-to-air will be the primary mode of distribution until internet delivery equals or exceeds the quality of what's available right now, and that will take bandwidth that just doesn't exist. The technology to provide on-demand video has existed for years (Real, QuickTime, even WMP), yet for some reason the networks don't really regard a minority of geeks interested in grainy, blotchy motion in little windows their target audience...
"The producers of these shows no longer have to be encumbered by the increasingly draconian regulations of the FCC."
As soon as the primary distribution channel is the internet, the FCC will demand censorship control, and the politicians will grant it to them. I'd be interested to hear any reason to think this won't happen, given the current trend to over-legislate.
"Just imagine what South Park could do if they weren't worried about being fined."
You've never seen "Orgazmo" or "Cannibal! the Musical" then? Same producers (that little tune over the production company name at the end of South Park is from Cannibal!, BTW).
Compare "Princess" (web only) and "Team America". The former has depictions of oral sex, masturbation, and necrophilia. The latter has depictions of sex, oral sex, more oral sex, Michael Moore as a suicide bomber, and Matt Damon depicted as a moron. If they're going to land in legal hot water, it will be for their libelous depiction of celebrities in Team America (except Matt Damon).
My point here is that they have more to worry about from the celebrities they ridicule than the FCC. Princess doesn't parody anyone, probably because Parker & Stone didn't have Comedy Central's large legal team advising them.
Besides, how much further can those two go? Short of depicting, say, graphic sex between Stan Marsh & Wendy Testaburger (which would get them busted by the FBI, not the FCC), the only real limit they seem to have is bleeping the word "fuck", which I understand they do deliberately anyway.
P2P is actually a "national security crime," if you're willing to follow a bizarre argumentation, which goes like this:
1. Most spam nowadays is being sent from infected Windows machines; so it uses a P2P network to spread.
2. Terrorists can communicate anonymously, by hiding their messages in the flood of spam messages, thus effectively hindering traffic analysis.
Therefore: P2P networks are being used by terrorists and must be banned!
Oh, of course, spam itself is legit, being useful advertisement of great companies that provide kick-backs to congresscritters; therefore you CAN SPAM. Great logic, isn't it?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
This has been an issue for a long time around the world and every single time it is done the powers that be insure us that it will not go out of control.
lucky for the dutch we are several years behind the rest of the world so if we want to see the future we take a ticket to the US of A.
Far from the cafeteria being run by McD or books on economy being printed by Wall Street the docu saw a far far worse case.
Students were made to watch simple commercials on tv. Don't watch the commercials and you can't attend classes.
So for those worried about ordinary tv forcing you to watch commercials, you are a bit slow. Far worse has already been tried.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I have done so, and I get form letters back explaining the alleged importance of expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright.
Make intellectual property a campaign issue in the next campaign. Tell other people. Endorse a Senatorial candidate that has views more like your own. Get other people fired up about it. Talk to everybody about it. Make an issue of it.
Badnarik lost.
If the only election you care about is the presidential election, then you can expect to be disappointed. Change starts locally and builds momentum.
I have no love of our Republicrat system, but meaningful election of third parties will only happen when third parties are taken seriously by a larger part of the electorate, and that will only happen when third party candidates are elected and allowed to serve. If we want third parties to be taken seriously, we need to electing third party mayors, council members, trustees, state representatives-- and someday U.S. representatives, governors, and *then* we can talk about a presidency.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
Fascism at the Gates and 60M people voted for it, cheered their guts out for it, celebrated it!
How much more can the american people take before they say it's too much? Well let the wheel of history roll and stick around.
It is unpatriotic to skip commercials, unpatriotic and criminal to think out of the box, unpatriotic and criminal to criticize the government.
The day is coming that I'll buy a one way ticket out of here!
Sheeesh, why all young democracies have to slide through fascism before they reach maturity?
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
As currently written the law will make it a felony to willfully avoid a commercial by either "fast-forwarding" or "using other means to avoid recognizing intellectual content". Hence, a bathroom break during a commercial can be taken as evidence that you have violated the law.
Don't worry, as punishment is no more than 5 years in prison and a fine of not more than $500,000.
To insure compliance there are a number of new regulations providing tax breaks in the most recent budget bill for companies which choose to install television cameras into their video products. This will allow companies to monitor whether or not customers are watching the commercials or not. New internal regulations require any company observing non-compliant behavior must by law report the transgression to law enforcement authorities.
Again, don't worry. Sources following the story suggest that insiders close to the legislation are saying there will be an opportunity to avoid prosecution, so long as an appropriate political contribution is made.
Teddy Roosevelt once said: "A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." So, make your letters well-written, well-reasoned arguments combined with impassioned pleas for your senator or representative to listen to logic, instead of a hate-filled diatribe as to why these bills are the root of all evil and they are just part of the machine dragging us further and further downward. Otherwise, we'll all be bystanders as this entire class of legislation is forced upon us.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
That's pretty much the situation in Canada right now. People smoke up in their homes and it's ignored. The cops still go after the big grow operations but I think a big reason behind that is a lot of that pot is destined for the US.
P2P is a tool, like a saw, a hammer or yes, even a gun. Don't blame the tool when some human uses it in a wrong way. Over the years many tools have been used to commit crimes - even the lowly rock can be used to murder.
It seems to me that history would teach us that when a popular activity is outlawed, that activity doesn't go away it moves underground. Look at the roaring 20's and the temperance movement that caused prohibition. Outlawing alcohol didn't make it go away, it just drove it underground and made common criminals wealthy and willing to protect their enterprise with guns and a little enterprise called "Murder Inc."
A similar corelation can be made with illicit drugs today; Crack, crank, heroin, and pot are all available on street corners in every major city! Those gangsters also protect thier illicit interests with guns and murder.
One has to wonder if the drug situation were dealt with a little differently, if things wouldn't be better? Please note I am not being pro-drug here. But I have to wonder if cocaine and other drugs were available to adults in controlled stores if we wouldn't have less crime and about the same number of adicts? If that was the case, wouldn't it be a success? Our prisons would be less crowded and we would probably have less crime.
By now some of you are thinking I'm a lunatic, that P2P software is different from drugs. Please believe me when I say I understand that. But regulation brings with it unanticipated and often disasterous consiquences. It makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and, it puts the country that regulates it at a competitive disadvantage to the countries that don't. All in all, I see this kind of conservitive over regulation as a "bad thing."
Also, FTP can and frequently is used "peer to peer," so are IM programs: Are all of these going to be legislated away because of some short-sighted law? Is this really appropriate legislation - aren't there already plenty of laws that address copyright violations? I can't see how true American's can't agree!
How much does it actually cost to see one 21 min sit-com? As in, how much does the channel get from commercials and other sources. If that is somewhere between $1 and $5 I would rather pay that amount and get quality TV without the commercials and whatnot.
I know which shows I want to watch, I very rarely just "watch TV". I have the internet to burn time on instead...
[Escape From LA]
Announcer: "For everyone's enjoyment, we'd like to remind you of the following rules. No talking. No smoking. No littering. No red meat. No freedom of religion. And remember, all marriages must be approved by the Department of Health. Failure to obey these rules will result in immediate loss of citizenship and deportation to the island of Los Angeles. Enjoy the show."
Snake Plissken: "Your rules are really beginning to annoy me..."
And:
Malloy: "The United States is a non-smoking nation! No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!"
Snake Plissken: "Land of the free."
Kind of scary that one of John Carpenter's weakest films is becoming the most prescient...
You must think in Russian.
I know how much everyone hates them, but I made one anyway. To sign it in opposition to this bill the url is: http://www.petitiononline.com/StopIPPA/petition.ht ml/
This is just one more stupid thing that may or may not be added to the unbelievable Rube Goldbergian catastrophe-waiting-to-happen that is the American legal code. Something's going to give soon. Frankly, there are probably SOOOO many mutually contradictory laws on the books by now that it's virtually impossible to not be a criminal somehow.
The inefficiency, corruption, and general incompetence of the American government is at the moment staggering. And it is happening because we the people have let it happen. Say what you will, this government is still absolutely bound to the will of the people because we can vote it out of office come every two years.
The problem is that the American people are becoming apathetic and uncaring. Nixon irretrievably broke the faith of millions in their government. Even if they hear about these bullshit bills, they have no idea what to do and form their opinion soley around what the magic picture box says.
And do you know what the problem is? We're allowed to escape basic education without even being able to recite our nation's founding documents. Twelve, thirteen years of schooling before high school graduation. We were never required to so much as read the Constutition or the Declaration of Independence.
Personally, I think it's an outrage that the founding documents of our nation aren't required reading in every single high school in the nation. Being able to recite the first two articles of the Declaration, the meaning of the first ten amendments, and being able to enumerate in no unspecific terms the powers of all three branches of Government set forth in the Constitution should be a requirement for high school graduation.
And you can make that possible. Obviously, there are certain politicians don't want you to read material that tells you that it's your duty to rebel against an unjust government and that all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved by the states or the people, but if the people create enough of an outcry and vote out representatives who oppose it, it will happen if only because the remaining representatives will act out of self-preservation. And note that I didn't say ALL politicians. Heck, I've got a copy of the Constitution in front of me that was sent by my representative in the House.
Now stop staring at the screen. Go out there and make a ruckus.
Let's move to Canada!
Besides, how much further can those two go? Short of depicting, say, graphic sex between Stan Marsh & Wendy Testaburger (which would get them busted by the FBI, not the FCC), the only real limit they seem to have is bleeping the word "fuck", which I understand they do deliberately anyway.
When South Park was first broadcast in Canada, it was shown on a local OTA station at 9:30pm on a Thursday night. I believe that lasted for 2 or 3 weeks at which point it was moved to midnight on Friday nights. As far as I can tell, nothing was changed from that version compared to the Comedy Central version. There is a warning that comes on whenever the show comes back from commercials.
Check out the full text of H.R. 4077, the one that says: "To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes." ...in the abstract.
Okay, now: skip all the text, and jump right to the bottom- "TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS." Section 201, the designation of national tree.
"The tree genus Quercus, commonly known as the oak tree, is the national tree."
Can someone more informed in the ways of law tell me what this is all about?
They're going to criminalise P2P, are they? Interesting...Software piracy has been a crime for probably as long as I've been alive, yet I don't see IRC carrying warez movement going anywhere any time soon. The problem for WIPO and the rest of the associated idiots is that such laws are largely unenforceable...possibly 5%-20% of the people involved in such activities are prosecuted, tops.
These laws are utterly futile...and they are futile for several reasons. For one thing, they are completely dehumanising...they are counter to human nature and human desire. For another, because they are largely unenforceable, they rely on the laughable expectation that they will be willingly obeyed.
As I've said earlier, we keep getting more and more evidence that we are now genuinely in the Aquarian era, and it ain't going to be how the song from that stupid musical Hair described it. Initially anyway, we are in for a period of truly mammoth conflict. Uranus and Saturn, or to use imagery which people are more familiar with...the elderly vs the young and the new...Science, intellectualism, altruism, and the desire for genuine freedom colliding with tyranny, willful ignorance and stupidity, commercialism and fear...Smith vs Neo.
Unfortunately for Ashcroft, Hatch, Vilenti and the other Smith wannabes of the world however, although they may do some damage in the short term, long term they don't have a prayer of getting anywhere with their ambitions. They're too stupid, too greedy, too fearful, and therefore largely self-defeating. At times I pity them, because if they could learn to change their own mindset and behaviour they also could benefit from the future that the rest of us are busy creating.
If you step in chewing gum, it will cause your shoes to stick to the ground to a minor degree, but not ultimately enough to cause you anything more than inconvenience. Also, despite how tenacious said chewing gum may be in remaining on the soles of your shoes, it can and will be eventually scraped off...and then you continue walking. Humanity is still going to ultimately get where it wants to go...Bush and his friends might try and set up roadblocks, as have other such individuals throughout history...but ultimately all they amount to are potholes.
"I can see the paralell, but I'd be opposed to a public cigarrette ban too. I can understand banning smoking inside public (government) buildings. But in the open air, and in private (including places of business) buildings I see no possible justification. What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?"
I don't think the grandparent meant it as such. Let's take an example: I get some severe reactions from cigarette smoke. It is VERY unpleasant. Now I'm waiting in line for the bus, and the person in front of me, and behind me are both blowing their smoke in my face, with no respect whatsoever for my well-being (airway seizure, turning blue, for example). That could be considered justification.
Now on the other hand, some people are considerate enough to blow their smoke UPWARDS, so it doesn't have to be that bad. But in general, smokers seem to believe that since they smoke, EVERYONE should. After all, why should they be the only ones dying from lung cancer? </RANT>
"I will share it on my network and present you with a dilemma. You can stream the reading off my network and break one part of the legislation. Or, you can choose not to listen and thus disregard my commercials and break another part of the legistlation."
Wrong. Since you are the person who commissioned the recording, and therefore the copyright holder of the recording, you may distribute that recording in any manner you wish, so streaming it wouldn't be illegal for you or your listeners. If you choose to let people download it in its entirety with no DRM (ie in a format that is designed to allow fast-forwarding), then skipping the commercials wouldn't be illegal. On the other hand, someone ripping the streaming version to avoid the commercials would be illegal. Simple and understandable enough?
Say, isn't this how QuickTime Streaming, RealMedia streams, and DRM'd WMP files work right now? So isn't this, in effect, legislation following technology? I thought that was supposed to be a good thing...(oh, right, not where it involves you being denied getting something for free, and of course DRM IS EVIL!!!!1).
Also, you missed the part of the bill that allows skipping objectionable material. Well, say I'm Muslim, all those ads featuring scantily clad women are offensive to my religious standards, therefore I may skip them (in reality they are an insult to my intelligence, but I'm not sure that constitutes a valid reason).
Put simply: its about respecting the distribution method chosen by the copyright holder. Read the bill and get a clue.
"Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense, unless your IQ is less than the average Hollywood filmmaker."
Its your logic, it seems to make sense to you, therefore your IQ is...
Ok, I can comment on this... Sitting here waiting on a half of some good herb.
I never drink and drive. I promised myself that when I got my drivers license in 1977 and have kept that promise. Driving while stoned is totally different, you don't take chances, you are very careful when you drive and you tend to drive slower, not slow, but slower than when you are not stoned. I have no problems driving a car stoned, but I would never dream of driving one after drinking.
The problem with understanding this, is that you need to have been stoned and drunk in order to do so. That is when you realize the diffference in state of mind between beeing drunk and beeing stoned. I can do my job stoned, no problems, but after a couple of beers, there is no way in hell I could do it.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
First of all, I wonder if it would in a sense be illegal to get up and go to the bathroom during commercials.
:26 and :56 minute mark, that'd solve some problems, but not all.
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim format is nice. 26 minutes for the program, which has like one break in the middle for a few minutes of commercials. At the end of the show, a four minute period of non-stop commercials. They seem to care more about the viewers than the sponsors in my opinion.
If all networks could agree to show four minutes of commercials at the
In my opinion, the next big thing to hit t.v. will be Internet television. Something as simple as plugging in a website with specific port number, and being able to watch t.v. on one's computer, then relaying it to the t.v. set.
About the article, fast-forwarding through commercials is not the point. The point is they are losing revenue. If they want to make up the loss revenue, perhaps we should be charged more for cable access, which in turn, may spark the Internet t.v. revolution. And how much money do they need? How much greed is involved? And can something be done like with the music business? If you can buy music online for 50 cents instead of paying $20 for the whole album, something like this needs to be done concerning television.
Had she been hit by someone who crossed the centerline for any other reason (tiredness, squabbling kids, plain old stupidity), she'd be perfectly fine though, right?
At the bottom of the
How is this going to be enforced? They can always require manufacturers to build in some sort of commercial skipping protection in appliances sold in the US but the rest of the world does not have to have the same rules as US has (I know, it sucks, but that is the reality ;-)
Now, this will create the same situation as with DVD zone locks... with a few clicks with the remote and you have disabled this 'consumer requested feature' that we all need to have!
Why create laws that are not enforcable and that the citicens laugh at?
--
This space 4 rent!
It's good that some politicians are against it. Plus, if something like that happened, it could backfire. It's called, "Oh, you make commercial skipping illegal? Well, I may not need to get up everytime during commercials, so the times I do see them, I'll make note, boycott the product, and encourage everyone else to do the same."
Generaly except the argument missatributes the cause of the death. It wasn't the drugs that killed the other person, it was the rash actions of the intoxicated driver, already a seperate crime.
By that reasoning buying a car is why the teacher got hurt therefore lets outlaw buying cars.
It's a well known form of faulty reasoning used to by people when they don't have a real argument. and pretty much discredited.
Mycroft.
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
I see your point, and it is quite valid. However, I would contend that people who tend to abuse substances remain to blame because they chose the behavior. I drink, yet have never gotten behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, which is a reasonable behavior. From a legal perspective, the person who drinks and drives failes a reasonable person standard and is therefore negligent. There are also statutes that underscore that negligence.
However, courts also have a strict liability standard for when the risk is serious enough to hold one liable regardless of their reasonable behavior. If you accidently shoot somebody deer hunting, you may not be negligent, but you could still be strictly liable because of the potential lethality. (Conversely, driving a car carries an obviously high risk, but because of the social utility it does not carry strict liability.)
I suppose criminality of "victimless crimes" is a social cost issue. What if everybody smoked pot? What is the effect on society as a whole? I opine it would carry a significant social burden to include medical costs (e.g. tobacco use), but also in lost productivity.
Some drugs are illegal because of their overwhelming addictivity and negative impact on the user (e.g. crack). Decriminalizing drugs may reduce the cost per use, but I opine the total cost to society would still be significantly higher.
Which brings me to a point I raised near the top of this tread: there are no victimless crimes. There is an aggregate social cost that exceeds the benefit conferred by the practice. This may be true for several other currently accepted practices. However, just because one item is not criminalized does not mean a like thing should not be. Our society has spoken by illegalizing it--albeit in the legislature.
There are some laws that protect a class of people. Statutory rape involves sex between a minor and an adult, even consentual. Legally, one cannot consent when you belong to a protected class. Why is sex with a minor illegal? Likely because of the lack of maturity of the protected class. Perhaps "victimless" crimes protect a larger class of victims?
The problem comes when we imprison users. The social cost there is quite high due to incarceration and the impact on the user and family. But, because it is illegal, we cannot determine the total social cost in the US. I opine that any study is de facto speculative. But, I'm more inclined to a significantly more aggressive campaign to erradicate the producer and supply line with extreme prejudice.
But, more importantly, I like that my first post that led to this discussion was cited as flamebait--on a political discussion. I responded to what I would personally characterize as flamebait, yet it holds a high insightful rating now. I figure that is because I don't hold the view that illegal substances should be legalized.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Well, OK, it shouldn't, but I'm hoping that it does, with all of the most absurd and excessive provisions retained.
A deplorably large portion of the public is oblivious to what's been happening in the IP wars.
It's about time that something happens to wake them up, to get them to take these issues personally.
I think that passage of this law would have the beneficial effect of causing wide-spread public disregard and contempt of such laws (and their promoters), as happened with the 1920s Prohibition-era attempt to ban alcoholic beverages.
For a quite a while, I've harbored a fantasy of organizing a mass demonstration in Washington, during which the participants stand in front of the Capitol and Justice buildings (and IP lobbyists' offices), collectively engaging in open violation of IP laws which are enforceable only by massive and embarassing government over-reaction --
e.g., playing hand-held PVRs and skipping the commercials, using encrypted WiFi to exchange files bearing names of copyrighted works, etc. --
i.e., massive civil disobedience.
I'm hopeful that this law would also have the effect of opening the eyes of the masses to corporatist corruption of the legislators who support such bills.
It won't be too difficult. The standard thing that the US does in this situation is to say "implement our laws or we won't trade with you, we'll tell everyone else not to trade with you, and we'll make it even more difficult for your citizens to travel via or into the US".
It's surprisingly effective, because they only need to actually have it enforced in western countries, and such countries typically rely on trade with the US either directly or indirectly.
It's really not so surprising that corporates (most obviously Microsoft) get away with what they do in the US, because the Federal Government leads by example. The essential foreign policy of the United States is to use its power/monopoly in one region to lock everyone else out of another region.
Having said this, I come from a smaller nation (New Zealand) that has decided to not support the US on several occasions, including various nuclear issues and the Iraq invasion. The result is that our government is now pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with China, because the US won't speak to us. I'm not sure which is worse.
We are comparitively lucky in many ways out here, though. I won't forget that.
"When South Park was first broadcast in Canada, it was shown on a local OTA station at 9:30pm on a Thursday night. I believe that lasted for 2 or 3 weeks at which point it was moved to midnight on Friday nights."
This probably has more to do with complaints by viewers (or possibly advertisers) than broadcast regulations.
How long until they strap us to electric chairs and pry our eyes open and zap us if we blink during a commercial? Or levy taxes if we use the restroom during a commercial to recover "lost revenues"?
This is rediculous. Nonetheless, I've done my part, I don't watch public telivision, I don't subscribe to any entertainment at all. At the most, I'll choose what movie to watch when it is in the theatre, whether I'll rent it, and that's about it.
Thanks,
Leabre
"What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?"
Are you serious? What could be MORE harmful?
By lying by a river you are engaging in sloth, which is not just a deadly sin, but more importantly means you are not contibuting to the economy. You live to work, dammit!
By smoking a joint you are altering your perception of reality, you are opening yourself to alternate ways of thinking which could be at odds with the status quo. Free thought leads to dissent, dissent leads to revolution, revolution leads to communism. You aren't a communist, are you?
By reading a book you risk being exposed to "radical" thinking - the kind of thinking that suggests lying by a river puffing a joint and reading a book might be more enjoyable than working, for example. What if everyone did that? The economy would collapse.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Labour Unit KK61040G
No no no no no... They should call this the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FREEDOM ACT. It will make it ILLEGAL to create, possess, use, traffic in, or otherwise have anything to do with intellectual property in any form. It will be the LAW that every intellectual property in existance must be DESTROYED. Books will be burned in huge bonfires. Same thing with paintings, music and movie recordings, film, software, documentation, and even people, because their brains contain intellectual property. When there is NO intellectual property in existance, there will no longer be any piracy, and then the problem will be SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111
As someone who doesn't own a TV I have a special perspective.
When I'm forced to use a "television" I notice a few things:
1. The SAME programming gets played over and over. I've only seen Malcolm in the Middle three times. Every time it was the same episode.
2. TV has negligible information quantity. Even if you watch a relatively information-dense show like "Good Eats", the total amount of information transmitted could be summarized on the back on an envelope.
You'll almost always learn more by reading a book for two minutes than by watching TV for half an hour.
The truth is, everyone who watches TV is a victim. If this bill gets people to tear their eyes from the boob tube out of sheer disgust, I'm all for it.
My country has so many problems, so many terrible problems that really deserve attention from legislators. Is the fact that some people skip commercials while watching TV one of those problems?
Request your free CD of my piano music.
a few years ago i overdosed on advertising, and *literally* threw my tv out the living room window.
Ever since then i cannot withstand advertising of any kind. The more the busty woman tries to sell me that stupid truck, the more i hate pickup trucks.
As a result, i cannot listen to commercial radio, or watch tv anymore, i would like to partake in the entertainment, and would pay for ad-free entertainment if it existed.
I've found that whenever im in a situation where i am basically *forced* to listen to commercial radio, i cant even hear the music anymore, all i hear is the ads, or maybe they just dont play music anymore.
so, now i just read lotsa books instead, maybe its not such a bad thing being a advertising-phobiac.
going to get it over with and simply repeal the Bill of Rights?!
Answer: After Ashcroft gets on the US Supreme Court.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
We could always go back to the glory days of private BBSs! Sure, you could still get on the 'net for your daily fix of pop-up ads, but for swapping files you could use the BBS. It would make it that much harder for the gov to find you.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
So, do they plan to force people to watch all 500 channels that they subscribed to, all at the same time 24 hours a day?
...and will the FDA bust down your door to see what you are watching and not flipping channels?
Stupid idiots...
Oh well, what the hell...
Not only is P2P not bad, it is the ONLY way to get the Fedora Core 3 release, which came out a couple of weeks ago.
The servers and mirrors are ALL plugged, folks. One simply can't get the release via ftp or http. The best I was able to do was to get 150 MB of the first release before the various mirror sites would crap out.
And I tried the majority of them in the US. I even tried some of the ones overseas. Absolutely no luck during the first 10 days.
So, I finally went through the hassles of setting up bittorrent. To my pleasant surprise, it wasn't so bad. In fact, it's the ONLY way I'll be doing things from now on.
This is a superb example of the usefulness of legal P2P. Without it, the apparent wild popularity of Fedora Linux wouldn't be nearly so great.
Well I made a couple suggestions awhile back. One markup the bills XML style. Two use RSS to let people know that a new bill is coming up.
And last since this is a copyright story. Here's a book to read.
Patent, Copyright, & Trademark: An Intellectual Property* Desk Reference by Attorneys Stephen Elias and Richard Stim. 7th edition.
*Note to audiance, two attorneys using the term "property". Read and find out why.
If this passes it will only be a matter of time before commercials are inserted into DVD (or whatever media comes about) movies.
The people have ALREADY REJECTED the current system.
Now, they arnt exactly being intellectual about it, but ultimatly, "illegal" p2p is the people saying "you know something, we want this, and fuck ya'll for trying to prevent us. We'll do it anyways."
The idea that this government works for the people (Which has already, demonstrativly, said they dont like the current copyright system) is a fucking joke. Its not a social contract anymore. Its a means of control.
The people have already rejected it. What more should they do?
Btw, your senator doesnt care.
Driving under the influence is already a crime.
Making just using drugs a crime because of something they MIGHT possibly do has nothing to do with DUI and everything to do with you trying to criminalize behavior because you oppose the law itself. Look up the straw man logical falacy.
I could get mad and use a car to run over someone I don't like. Should we now ban all cars or require drivers for everyone because people can't be trusted to do the right thing? Of course not, people should be allowed to drive cars until they use that car as a weapon, and when they do, then they are punished for breaking the law.
I propose the police use road blocks on all the roads in a different area every night and haul in a lot of drunk, drugged or tired drivers. Actually get the few people who are actually breaking the law that you _claim_ you care about.
I propose we sell the drugs in the state store at low cost with known good quality and standard doses and tax it to pay for drug rehabilitation. In order to buy the drugs you have to register as a drug user so that employers can know to not let you fly an airplane, be a cop or a public official, or drive a bus. The drugs can have huge clear warnings to only use it a private residence with the consequeces clearly spelled out if they violate those laws.
And just so you know, I have never done drugs, I am just discusted how the war on drugs is a way to funnel tax dollars to rich people while suppressing the vote for minorities. If the war on drugs was effective then the people in jail wouldn't be able to get drugs. They can. If the war on drugs was effective then our 12 year olds in public schools wouldn't be able to get drugs. They can. It is much easier for a 14 year old kid to get marajana than it is for them to get a bottle of vodka. My plan addresses this and would actually be effective in keeping drugs away from kids. Your plan has proven to be a failure over the past 5 decades, year after year, not once working. They say that doing the same thing again and again expecting a different outcome is a sign of insanity.
And yes, I am white, not a minority, although I really never think of myself as being "white" when I decide on any issues.
I am a republican that believes in small government and states rights. I think that the federal government needs to get the hell out of our day to day lives and not have such puritan interests in what people consume or what goes on between the sheets in a private residence. I oppose the IRS which keeps records on every american and instead support a national sales tax on everything bought or sold. I don't believe that the government keeping secrets from the population is a good thing in a democracy. How can people vote effectively if they don't have all the information. I support regulations on businesses.
I would slowly release everyone in prison for a non violence related crime over a 4 year period. Instead of giving parole for good behavior for the remaining real criminals, everyone would have to serve their full sentence. The judge would be allowed to sentence with no sentencing guidelines, except for maximums. Any year they misbehave even once doesn't count as served. Once they get out of prison I would fully restore all rights to them.
And finally I would give the death penalty for treason for anyone caught in vote fraud or suppressing the vote.
Itunes music sharing is not set up to stream music with computers outside the subnet. There are hacks that allow the saving of music files but the software itself dosen't break any of these silly rules.
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Perhaps the internet was the beginning of the end.
They don't like people having all this access to information.
Now legislation created BECAUSE of the internet is leaking over into real life (can't ff commercials).
Please.
This country is fucked, and so are the people in it.
They expect me to respect copyright laws when they turn around and create this bullshit? Hahaha no. Sorry, doesn't work like that. Stuff like this makes me download even MORE.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
SEC. 204. DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF AGENTS IN COMPUTER HACKING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNITS.
(a) Designation of Agents in CHIPs Units- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.
(b) Training- The Attorney General shall ensure that each agent assigned under subsection (a) has received training in the investigation and enforcement of intellectual property crimes.
Alright, government sponsored hacking!
Try replacing "smoked pot" with "drank beer" or "had sex all the time" or "ate pizza and hamburgers" and you see the problem. Does smoking pot have its costs on society? Sure. But so does almost any behavior. Stoners may harm their lungs and not get a lot of work done. But it's arguably better than alcohol. I'm not saying better, I don't know, just that the point is definitely arguable.
I mean, you hear about fathers coming home, getting drunk, and beating on the wife and kids. Ever hear of a pothead doing that after a joint? Ever hear of a child killed because someone was "drinking and toking"? I'm not saying these things have never happened, but clearly pot doesn't contribute as much as alcohol, and if you were going to legislate on the basis of social cost, you'd probably outlaw alcohol. Of course, we tried that.
Likewise, you could argue that pizza and the Big Mac are "victimless crimes". Think of all the lost productivity and health costs due to Americans being flabby and out of shape. Think of the grief it causes families when a family member dies of a heart attack.
I'm not sure what the answer is. But the anti-drug movement is clearly too simplistic to deal with the issue in the terms it needs to be dealt with.
In the beginning, the industry sold music and movies to the people and it was good. Then they wanted to make more money and tried to sell hypes, people didn't want them and began sharing the good old stuff instead. Industry was not happy and abused their money to make this illegal. Now we develop and use secure anonymizing P2P systems to avoid getting sued, even if this means that these systems can be abused to distribute child pornography and terrorist information. These repressive governments won't win the war on neither terrorism nor copyright, we are just all going to loose.
3 letters: WTO.... Its all about 'free trade'.. They will try to enforce it, via sanctions against countries that wont play ball properly.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IP = Copyrights + Patents.
Violating copyright laws = copyright infringement.
Violating patent laws = patent infringement.
Infringement != Theft.
You steal my car, I'm mad because I can't use it anymore.
You cannot "steal" my music. You can only copy it without my permission.
No, that's not a difference. People who drive when they're impaired (or distracted) for any reason do so precisely for the reasons you state.
Besides, I don't think anyone wants to say it should be okay to drive when you're high. It's drug use at home that's harmless.
I hope you reconsider the idea that you have no problems driving stoned. It's true that it tends to make people drive more carefully, but it also slows your reaction time considerably. If someone runs a red light, or if a child runs out in front of your car, you could suddenly find yourself with a very big problem.
If skipping the commercials becomes illegal, I may need to wade through l33t5p34K to find the required hardware or software to do so. I try to ignore commercials anyway, and I'm more often negatively influenced than positively. On a somewhat related note, I fully intend to rip (legally purchased) CDs, DVDs, etc. to a hard drive for my own convenience--legal or not (I just need the cash to build the system...). In the interest of complete honesty, I *would* consider it in one case: when hell freezes over! :-)
While the murderer of 3000 New Yorkers roams free. The US Gov spends it's time catching the real criminals 14 year olds doing what they can to get the latest heart throbs song.
"Labour Unit KK61040G"?
What are you, some kind of dirty commie, or even worse liberal?
It's Consumer Unit KK61040G unless you're some kind of fucking traitor who hates freedom (fries).
Do nothing. Complain.
I want to do something; I'm just not sure what. In fact, I am doing something by referring people to losingnemo.com, which now links to your essay. I just wonder what else I could do between now and when I have more resources to work with.
Compare me to somebody reprehensible, like Jack Chick.
Heck no, I didn't mean that that. I only asked any Slashdot user reading grandparent (including people other than you) if there exist any tracts to explain recent anti-public changes to copyright law, just as fundamentalist Christians have Chick tracts to explain their views conveniently.
Here's what I want to know: Does this mean that dealing in used prerecorded media would be illegal? I mean, it's kinda hard for me to escape that implication. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Who cares about the productivity of society though? Mega-rich financiers? Megalomaniacs in general?
What if we could take everyone's brains out of their human bodies and put them into cyborg bodies? WE could then couple them with a control computer which tells them what to do. The control computer is in charge and just makes use of the memory and cognitive abilities of the human brain. These cyborgs could be hugely productive! They could all be programmed to work together with no strife and to work almost constantly! If laws are designed to maxmize the productivity of society, than if we came to a time where something like this was possible, shouldn't it be law to force its implementation?
What about Lawrence Lessig's comments? He's not the type of person to misinterpret a law, and yet he says that "I reported a hold [McCain] had placed on H.R. 4077 because of valid concerns about whether the freedoms it granted (to enable parents to filter "smut" from films) would be read to deny fair use in other cases."
In other words, the bill does not prohibit commercial skipping but could, conceivably, be interpreted as such in light of other laws that interact with it.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Congress shall make no law exceeding in length the United States Constitution (exclusive of amendments).
Try getting the pork into a bill that short. Try defending a voting record when there can be no omnibus bills.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Well assuming you're actually serious about change.
r eshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=103&tid=226&tid=17&mod e=thread&pid=10874895
d =10874993
d =10874920
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130347&th
You can't educate others unless you're educated first. The Indiana public library should have this (amoungst other material) in their collection.
Second I don't know about your district, but mine had a couple libertarians for local positions, on up to president. The main problem I had with them is their lack of experience, but that can be rectified by voting them into local offices and let the seed grow.
Third, I think you need some perspective on the issue.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130347&ci
There's enough people "raving" for the publics attention. You need to calm down and see how things in the world really are structured. It doesn't change the abuse, but it does allow you to focus your limited resources.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130347&ci
And last, be humble and understand that we all played a role in the present situation.
IPPA could make it illegal to skip past commercials
Congress got back the numbers on viewership, I see.
People now allowed to fart once a day.
At this rate, in another two years it will be illegal to get up to take a leak during a commercial break....
:q!
p2p is in some ways vital for some companys, alot of people starting out cant truly afford to pay for big servers with unmetered bandwith, they can rely on p2p to spread their files(open source things, free games, game mods, etc)p2p could almost be considered sending a photo to a friend over an im file couldnt it?
It's nice to bask in the right to express oneself freely, but those who want to enjoy free works of art should either contribute high quality art for free or buy the copyrights.
Clearly technology will make copying easier. Technology will hamper the ability of people to profit from their own creativity. The time will come when computers produce better compilations of knowledge and art than people. At this point information may as well be free because I can click on the button labelled "Create" and receive a dump of information that I can enjoy.
I suggest that we stop using P2P for mere sharing of files that "someone has copied/ripped from somewhere" - especially data that was originally sold rather than freely distributed. P2P is somewhat corrupting, leading to laziness. Instead, consider the success of the free software movement where cooperation produces quality material available at no charge. The time has come for technology to assist us in the production of free art. Look at the incredible special effects done in movies by computers. Well, we can apply worldwide grid computing to rendering free movies, as well as other noble applications such as scientific calculations.
You can bet that prices for data will drop in the years to come. P2P is a bizarre phenomenon meant for surreptitious file copying - if information was to be made available with no qualms, it would be on a website. Valuable information with heavy traffic is mirrored legitimately. If you have the right to freedom of speech, put your money where your mouth is, and output some free stuff for us.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
"It includes a number of things to strengthen the hand of law enforcement to combat piracy. Intellectual property theft is a national security crime. It's appropriate that the fed dedicate resources to deter and prosecute IP theft." National Security crime? How, exactly?
>What could be less harmful to society than me lying >by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and >reading a book?
It won't harm society at all, but it might harm you less if you read said book *without* said joint.
Don't get me wrong...I've smoked weed myself and thus am not going to be one of the idiots who tries to prevent anyone from smoking it...if you want to cause your brain to decompose inside your head, that's your business. I gave it up because despite enjoying smoking it, I also value my neurological health.
I'm for the right to choose whether or not to smoke as much as anyone...but what I *do* wish stoners would stop doing is trying to claim that marijuana isn't neurologically harmful purely because they want to smoke it themselves. If you want to smoke, smoke...but don't mislead other people by trying to claim that weed is harmless, or worse yet, actually beneficial...because it is neither.
Sure, I'll be careful, it's not like I am not careful. I've had my drivers license since 1977 and have been driving stoned sporadically all these years. That is probably since before you were born.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
making p2p illegal is like making the internet illegal? i mean the internet now does transfer files to one another whether be it html, gif, jpg, mp3, wmv, etc. my question would be what is the differentiating factor for this case?
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
"I gave it up because despite enjoying smoking it, I also value my neurological health."
You know, for a roomful of geeks. You'd think this would be justification enough not to smoke pot.
"If you want to smoke, smoke...but don't mislead other people by trying to claim that weed is harmless, or worse yet, actually beneficial...because it is neither."
You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" (or any other drug for that matter) gene if it was really as useful as people think.
Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
I want to do something; I'm just not sure what. In fact, I am doing something by referring people to losingnemo.com, which now links to your essay.
I would agree-- I think you are doing something. I found your site to be very well composed and insightful. I've included a link to you in my essay, as well.
Apparently the American Library Association is planning to do something. It's going to be interesting to see what comes of it.
Heck no, I didn't mean that that.
Fair enough-- no offense taken.
You know-- that's actually a pretty interesting idea. It would be really interesting to pick a scenario describing how some "everyday life" type activity is going to be changed by new "protections" afforded to "intellectual property owners", storyboard it out, and get a comic out of it. Perhaps something "broadcast flag"-related. I've always felt like, once analogue VCR's start becoming uncommon, and people start realizing that their DVD-recorder-based recordings of telvision shows aren't going to be "lendable" or, potentially, even playable after a set period of time, that some people might begin waking up-- albeit much too late.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
I got my license five years before you did.
And when I talk about driving stoned, I know whereof I speak. I did quite a bit of it when I was young and stupid.
Now, give it a bit of thought. You know why being high makes people more careful when they drive? Because they know they're impaired.
I don't have a tragic story to tell about someone getting killed. All it took to drive the point home for me was a minor, no-injury fender bender, and realizing I could have avoided it if I hadn't been high.
C'mon, we arrested Noreiga out of Panama. All we had to use was a local judges warrant from Miami. We simply use the army to enforce it or undercover FBI. Awwww the FBI was supposed to be domestic....not no more. As long as we have a ready supply of volunteers to die for Bill Gates, we will continue to do this. Our politicos think that they are the Borg from Star Trek...'resistance is futile'. Suppose the North Koreans get it into their head to start 'piracy' in a really big way. How many millions of Americans want to really die in how many brutal ways in order to satiate Bill Gate's lust for their money.
You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" (or any other drug for that matter) gene if it was really as useful as people think.
And evolution would have given us fur if it was useful to stay warm.
Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
Evolution has no intentions. The product of evolution is an ad hoc mix of genes that happen to be good enough to get by. And there are lots of compromises too. It may not be evolutionarily advantageous to have endorphins running through your system all the time, but damn when you need sugery it's nice to have something to stimulate your opiate receptors.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Don't get me wrong...I've smoked weed myself and thus am not going to be one of the idiots who tries to prevent anyone from smoking it...if you want to cause your brain to decompose inside your head, that's your business. I gave it up because despite enjoying smoking it, I also value my neurological health.
Where's the evidence? I mean gee, if THC was so bad for you, would a federal judge appointed by Nixon of all people have called it "One of the safest thereputically active substances known to man"? If you look at the literature, there's more evidence to support neuroprotective activity of THC than neurotoxicity.
Now, I'm not going to claim that staying high all the time is good for you. But when luminaries like Steven Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and Richard Feynman were all pot smokers, claims of neurological harm ring hollow. Personally, I find it easier to just sit and think when I have a little extra THC in my system. It helps me deal better with stress, and I'm generally just a happier and saner person when I've had some pot in the past couple days. By no stretch of the imagination does it make me stupid, only marginally more forgetful. These are my observations after 2 months of abstinence last semester. Of course, YMMV.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This story is completely outdated, and the author is obviously out of touch with what's going on. Congress just passed the bill and has taken the commercial skipping out.
bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it.
They only loss money if you are a Nelson viewer. otherwise, no one ever knows what you watched or didn't watch.
if you want to cause your brain to decompose inside your head, that's your business
and what actual medical texts can you reference that mention this. You are fronting my friend. you never smoked.
You have my vote!
Stop debating about it here. DO SOMETHING. Write your congressman. NOW.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Well, I've had some fender benders while driving sober and none when driving stoned. By using your logic, I should always drive stoned....
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
oh, that's freakin' brilliant dude.
Of course you seem to have left out the trivial detail that most Chinese people understand at least a bit of English. Is that going to work going the other way? Ni hao ma?
But before you answer that question using your finest, properly intoned Mandarin, consider this even more important point: Chinese people prefer subtitles even when they are watching films in Chinese! Even the nightly news is subtitled in China. Fer reals. It's a cultural thing. You see, the fact is that there is not a single spoken language in China. There are literally dozens of distinct dialects that differ far more than say Spanish and English. Chinese is a huge language family, not a single language.
And so going the other way, I suppose you are expecting the average American consumer to get by in Mandarin and Cantonese as well as Shanghai dialect and Nanjing. But of course that's just what Americans call Chinese. Actually, the films from Asia and consumed in China are often from Japan or Korea as well. You'd need a working knowledge of about a dozen languages to appreciate audio of these Chinese films and videos you speak of.
See, you starting to grasp why people in China always use subtitles? In fact, most people in China watch TV with the sound turned down very low or even completely off because they're reading the subtitles.
Now you really think this totally, absolutely foreign method of consuming thatrical performances with the volume off and simply reading the subtitles is going to sweep the US in the near term and drastically re-write the economics of the Chinese movie industry suddenly bringing the yellow savages to their senses as they savor the coveted joys of western avarice.
Hah!
Think again.
That will be the day that karaoke becomes the hip new trend on US college campuses. Not in your lifetime buddy.
No, now listen up because I'm gonna set you straight --this is how things are gonna go see. The people in the US, their own worst enemies, are just going to fuck each other over and call each other thieves and get all up on their moral crusades and throw each other in jail over their righteous kick that is really nothing but a bad case of blue balls from not getting any pussy since they're so fucking uptight.
Meanwhile, people in places like China are just going to watch the whole damn thing in compressed, subtitled high definition video streamed over their ultra-fast Net connections and snicker at the dumb hairy monkeys throwing feces at each other.
That's how it is already going buddy.
Nah. My logic says you should be more careful when driving sober.
> I can do my job stoned, no problems
As long as your job isn't using a meat slicer. The only time in my life I was ever high at work. Didn't hurt myself, but I was scared as s#!t that I would. Even now, when I work with computers and not dangerous equipment, I would never do that again. Every night when I get home, however...
> but it might harm you less if you read said book *without* said joint.
The possible harm is so close to nil...
What if he came up with a brilliant new idea to save humanity because he was high while reading that particular book? It's not likely, but about as likely as that joint causing any real problem.
> You'd think that evolution would have given us the "pot" [...] gene
What, like Seratonin-creating cells?
Marijuana has been used a LOOOONG time. If there was something bad about it, you would think evolution would have given us an anti-pot gene to compensate. No? It's just as likely as a pro-pot gene.
> Except all drug use is us abusing receptors from their original intentions.
Like Aspirin? Most pharmaceutical chemicals (AKA Drugs) cause more "harm" than Marijuana.
Do you seriously claim to know exactly what all "receptors" in the body are "intended" for? That's assuming there is any intention involved to begin with. What if we have those receptors specifically FOR using psychoactive chemicals?
As soon as someone claims to have special knowledge of the body's "intention" in its complex design, they lose a whole lot of credibility. Sure, some things are obvious... The mouth is intended for eating & breathing, but we can also inflate balloons with it, cut small pieces of plastic, kiss another, kiss another's ass, y'know, whatever.