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?
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.
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?
...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
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.
OK, so I think that the entire idea is ridiculous, and spoke out against it. BUT: bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it. I mean, it's fine to point out that the revenue model is outdated and will no longer work, or say that the advertisements should be moved to placements in the shows, but calling it victimless and comparing it to smoking pot is, well...
I guess you could say it's typical of thinking on Slashdot. Never mind.
I'm a concientious
Fast food and smoking also have very high health costs to 'society' so should they be made illegal too?
Stupidity harms society. I'm not seeing anyone making that illegal.
stuff
bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it.
And damn you if you don't read every ad in your newspaper. If people did, the paper would get paid more for them. You selfish bastards.
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
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.
--
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!
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.
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!
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.
It's a lot easier to add a rider to an existing bill you think will pass, than to write a new one.
It also creates all sorts of back-room deal making. Basically, "I'll vote for your bill if you add this pork for my local constituancy". It'a also why attack ads can say "So and so voted against mothers and apple pie!". What they really voted against was some other thing the bill, the "mom and applie pie" was added on.
It's really really stupid, and it's very American.