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."

Comments

Dammit

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about.

[Hatta]

No, I'm sorry. I don't see dope smoking as a victimless crime. Society is a victim. Self is a victim.

There may be some costs to society. But the costs of prohibition are even higher. Prohibition does not work, and it never did. It only creates a black market ruled by criminals to fill the demand for drugs that will always exist. Drug quality decreases, increasing overdoses and toxic reactions to contaminants. Then there's the huge cost of imprisoning all of those pot smokers who could have been contributing to society just like everyone else. Prohibition is BAD medicine. Like quicksilver for diahrrea, it causes more problems than it cures.

I'm just too tough for you.

[Doc Ruby]

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.

weird stuff

[latroM]

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.

Letter to my senator

[ortholattice]

I wrote a letter to my senator. May I suggest others do the same.

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.

Re:Lots of other [...] crimes to worry about.

[Hatta]

The difference with impared driving caused by recreational drugs is that the user doesn't ususally know about the imparement status - or thinks that it's either okay or possible to get away with.

The foregoing comparisons might be misleading. THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. For example, subjects drive faster after drinking alcohol and slower after smoking marijuana (Hansteen et al., 1976/ Casswell, 1979; Peck et al., 1986; Smiley et al., 1987).. Moreover, the simulator study by Ellingstad et al. (1973) showed that subjects under the influence of marijuana were less likely to engage in overtaking maneuvers, whereas those under the influence of alcohol showed the opposite tendency. Very importantly, our city driving study showed that drivers who drank alcohol over-estimated their performance quality whereas those who smoked marijuana under-estimated it. Perhaps as a consequence, the former invested no special effort for accomplishing the task whereas the latter did, and successfully. This evidence strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.

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?

Re:I remember reading somewhere...

[anethema]

Dont forget edison had very little to do wiht the lightbulb other than its commercial promotion.

I dont think any respected source could claim edison 'invented' the light bulb.

More info HERE