Slashdot Mirror
Software Firms Lobby for Stronger Copyright Laws
Spy Handler writes "According to an article on CNN, the Business Software Alliance went before the Congress yesterday and lobbied for stronger copyright protection. Their key point: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be required to reveal the names of customers who may be distributing illegal wares on peer-to-peer networks. I guess they feel that the DMCA is too lax for them to be allowed to carry out RIAA-style raids on college students."
In case you hadn't noticed, several ISPs have told them no, they can't have the names, and the courts have backed them up.
Let the "corporations own america" comments begin.
Only on slashdot can Iranian censorship remind you of how evil the US is.
--
The more successful you are, the more people hate you.
The more successful you are at screwing people, the more people hate you.
--
make install -not war
The US needs a Canadian style privacy commissioner who acts on the behalf of the people rather than a government that acts on behalf of big business.
Again.
If this was to be implemented I don't see why it would only affect corporations and business entities. It would provide extra protection for GPL'd software copyright holders in the event of their copyright being infringed amongst others.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
The phone company should be liable for the crimes plotted over their wires, and the credit card fraud charged, too, along with the P2P copyright violations over their DSL. Why stop at the ISPs? Oh, because they're not in the room with the lobbyists to defend themselves.
--
make install -not war
If the giant corps can still afford large teams of high-priced lawyers to file thousands of lawsuits and high-power lobbyists to blow congress, then piracy is obviously doing little to hurt the bottom line.
Yes! Evil rules! Good can suck it! Suck it, good!
And what business would these people have distributing illegal wares on peer-to-peer networks in the first place?
If it's illegal, as the author readily admits, then why should not the law crack down on such activities?
The owls are not what they seem
Actually, the way I would describe it is not censorship, but rather the erosion of our Constitutionally-protected due process rights.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of copyright enforcement (as a GPL user). However, I'm also all in favor of equal rights and equal responsibilities. And it seems like the corporations are trying to gain "more-than-equal" rights here, without accepting the responsibilities. When was the last time you saw a CxO pay the same kind of penalties that a regular person would?
C|N>K
It's not about "Stronger Copyright Laws" but in reducing the rights of the invidividual to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
[snip] go to the source and change the laws, if they do not work for you.
Yes, that's exactly how it's supposed to work.
I think the protections the ISPs are asking to keep (namely to have the BSA or software companies file lawsuits to reduce the number of frivolous information requests) is reasonable. This will make the costs higher to prosecute an individual, but if that individual is found guilty then they pay a higher penalty for having engaged in the illegal activity. I'm fine with that.
Nevertheless, it is completely within reason for the BSA to ask for easier access to information from ISPs; it's up to us to protest any bills that are put forward to allow it if we feel it's an unnecessary proposal or excessively invasive. That's how our government works, and it's how we participate. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that an individual's protections aren't trampled upon by various laws, but at least we have some method of making our thoughts known.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
Businesses lobbying Congress in their own interest isn't exactly news, is it? The Reuters piece at the link isn't useful: What specific legislation is involved, and how? My guess is that CNN chopped the story to fit.
In any case, the key word is "may". I'm a copyright supporter, but don't have much use either for the entertainment industry or folks who argue that copyright doesn't exist. Acquiring the name of someone who's illegally distributing copyrighted material -- on the net or elsewhere -- ought to require a subpoena issued only after presentation of convincing evidence linking a specific, but unidentified, person with specific copyrighted material.
No one should be able to go on a fishing expedition with ISP's, any more than they can go on a fishing expedition with printing press operators.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
All they need to do is make it legally required for any ISP which offers service to residential customers in the US to put all those customers behind a NAT with absolutely no port forwarding of any kind... only communication sessions that are initiated by the home PC will go through, meaning that regular web use can continue uninterrupted (for web sites that are not hosted on residential computers). Sessionless packets like UDP can also be rejected unless they are directed at a port from which the designated computer had recently sent an outgoing packet. This might kill certain services, but none that would be liable to adversely affect the typical residential customer.
Of course, this would mean that residential customers would be unable to use their home PC's as servers of any kind, which I'm sure would tick off more than a few people... people who are highly inconvenienced by the change would have to upgrade their ISP accounts to "corporate" levels, paying a higher fee.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The problem is that they want names of people that *MAY* be trading..
Presumed guilt.. That is a big problem.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You seem to forget that we each need to have a $50000 cheque included with our protests; clearly we don't each have that, but the BSA/**AA do. That's also how things work.
AC comments get piped to
So. I guess the subversion of the Original Copyright Intentions, by biased legislators and coporate America, are fair as well? Or how about having a digital flag attached to your hardware, and then to your legally recorded media content is flagged because a corporate entity wants it that way. These things brought about by corporate lobbyist. Rights are for Sale, whether you like it or not, or admit it.
Benjamin Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety...
Also "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"Sell not...liberty to purchase power.
Here is one of his key qoutes.
"History affords us many instances of the ruin of states...the ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy...An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy...
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
I disagree. I don't think it's reasonable for the BSA to lobby for certain laws. In fact, I don't think that groups like the BSA and the RIAA shoud ever exist.
They are monopolistic by nature. Capitalism is predicated on competition. If every major company in a given industry gets together and forms an organization like the BSA and then the that organization lobbies for all those companies it effectively creates a trade cartel.
This is another example of how we no longer have anything resembling an open capitalist economy. It's decayed into an oligarchic form of crony capatalism. All the chummy companies get together and form the chummy trade group which then lobbies the appropriately chummy committee of congress where someday the chummy congress scumbags hope to get rich in the chummy industry that they supposedly regulate.
Under this system if you aren't one of the chummy in-crowd (meaning all of us) you are screwed.
Actually, the way I would describe it is not censorship, but rather the erosion of our Constitutionally-protected due process rights.
Discovering the names of people possibly involved in a crime is part of due process.
Actually, there is an element of censorship there. You know that just because company XYZ says that someone is trading "illegal" material does not automatically make it so. You'll remember MPAA's automated messages accusing some universities and other mirrors of copyright violations because the GPL software package name they hosted somewhat resembled some of their movie titles - those were DMCA takedown notices. Any government-mandated removal of content which constitutes expression and speech is indirectly censoring those expressions.
If you continue with this line of thinking - most copyright violations are civil matters. I am guessing the way ISPs would remove content from their customers' hardware is by shutting of their service. How would you like your friend to notify your bank that he believes you owe him $50 and your bank was obligated to freeze all your accounts?
Even in criminal cases this is impossible. Even if someone accuses you of stealing $1000 from them, they cannot go to your bank and have your accounts closed without going to the courts first.
And don't believe what your parent post says about "equal protection" for little guys because that's bullshit. Most large ISPs have different contacts for corporate lawyers and for regular Joes. i.e. if Adobe believes someone is distributing Photoshop from AOL you can be sure they are not writing to abuse@aol.net level one support technician. Some ISPs (I don't remember which ones) openly post their corporate contact e-mail addresses in their whois records but warn that those are for corporate DMCA/copyright use only and any private messages will be disregarded. I wonder why.
Maybe where we do need censorship is for some "industry groups" like BSA and cartels like MPAA and RIAA to be unable to bribe lawmakers into passing unfair, unconstitutional, and mostly bad laws against the people.
The biggest enemy today of American people is non other than their own apathy and their own absurdity.
If 100,000 Americans spend $100 and 100 hours each every year to represent the whole of American people in congress, then congress wouldn't have any other choice but to listen to the American people.
There is a fundamental difference between how the coporations and how the people participate in government. Every once in a while the people get rilled up about something, but once whatever it is is accomplished their intrest dies off, and they move on. Corporations on the other hand do not relent. They are always there reguardless of their current myopic focus. When they accomplish something, they set new goals.
In the end, it really is non other than the American people's own fault for not controlling their own government.
Corporations cannot vote. Remind your Representatives/Senators of that in your personally written letters to them on topics which concern you. Even a single letter can get them wondering how many other voters think the same way.
We still get to decide whether they keep their power or not.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Um, I don't know where you come from but the only people you are stealing from when you download movies, programs, or music is shareholders and CEOs. And I've got NO moral qualms about that.
HOW, you ask?
No, Why, I ask. But we'll let that slide.
It is simple, content creators are usually paid a flat fee for their work, for programmers it is their salary, for movie makers it is what the movie studip pays them, and for musicians it is 0.
Hmmm... while I can think of individual cases where this is true, I can think of plenty where it's not.
For example, the company I now work for gives all of its employees a percentage of the company profits. It's a software company. So, no, the programmers there don't get paid a flat fee.
So no, content creators aren't always paid on a work-for-hire basis. And you appear to have this idea that if you're a company, you don't deserve to have money. Clue for you: Companies are made up of people like you and me. I have a company. I'm the CEO. It has precisely ONE official employee - me. But it's still a company.
They get paid regardless of how much their product sells.
Theoretically, yes. Assuming your argument to be correct... how much any given product sells determines whether or not more products are made, which determines whether or not they continue to make a salary.
If they lose money on a product, the team that makes that product will be laid off, and no more of those products will be made.
Anyone who gets paid in points is an idiot and deserves to be taken advantage of.
There you go, stealing IP is not only moral, it's morally RIGHT!
No, it's not morally right. You've just given examples of people who work in the content industry, made a handwaving argument with no basis in actual reality about how people in that industry are paid and compensated, and you have NO link in your conclusion which takes that information and makes a moral determination one way or another.
Try again, but this time, put some thought into your argument.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Since when did being an "artist" mean you were owed wealth? An "artiste" is NOT owed anything other than an appreciative public is willing to toss in your frickin' hat. Always been that way and that is the way it should remain. You aren't curing diseases here, doing corrective surgery, putting out devestating brushfires, you're prancing around screaming "love me!".
No. But if I like the painting you whipped up, I'll pay for it and then it is MINE to do with as I see fit (even wipe my ass with it when I get tired of it).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Don't you think one of the reasons why Windows is so popular is that many people can get a free illegal copy of it without any consequences ?
If Windows users really had to pay for Windows, maybe more people would think more about real free solutions for home computing.
Please, you and all those that argue the same point, do some reading on the subject. Also, do not get all your information on the subject from mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled for the most part by the wealthy.
Ideas are part of life. We continually produce new ideas that drive progress. The idea of an idea monopoly is about as absurd in capitalism as a monopoly on a particular area of business. It all comes down to control. Our society has grown up with intellectual property laws and therefore, many people rely on this system for a living. Those that argue that the system is corrupt, broken, a failure, anti-capitalistic, etc. are almost guaranteed resistance from those that benefit from it. Control is everything. If an industry, business, institution, etc. loses control of the market, people, etc., something will take its place.
The problem is that the intellectual property system is very artificial. It goes against what comes natural. When a person finds a better way of doing something, then others may or may not copy it. It is far more efficient for society to replicate what works best. When the idea that allows for progress is in control of a specific person, etc. then it creates an artificial barrier. This barrier is supported by various means, most being legal.
Now back to the argument of compensation. If a person, institution, etc. finds a particular area of interest in pursuing, they will. It the cost is too high, then it won't be pursued. Some will argue that because of the high costs of particular endevours, we will not progress without compensation. The same people seem to forget or undermine the important of organizations life the Science Foundation. Although the size of these institutions may be small now, they would likely be larger and more efficient without intellectual property law barriers.
Unfortunately, our society has relied on this system for quite a few generations and any drastic change will produce consequences of many sorts for particular groups of people around the world. To say that we should immediately give up the intellectual property system sounds crazy and in many ways is.
So what do we do? Do we allow these large institutions to strengthen the laws? Do we allow them to broaden these laws? In my opinion, the idea of intellectual property is one destined to fail. Whether or not it had benefitted us in the past is of no concern to me anymore. The question we must ask; what do we do to fix this?
So please, those that argue for copyrights, just stop. If you have an idea that will help ease us off this corrupt system, speak up. But there have been far too many reptitive statements on this subject, both for and against. Occasionally someone will post something worth reading. For the most part though, the posts on slashdot are crap.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if that is true, I'd like to see some actual argument. Comments like "how would you feel if people stole your work?" ado little to progress the discussion on this extremely important topic.
Question everything.
Taken by itself, the request for additional copyright protection may seem like a reasonable request. However, when you consider that the copyright period has been extended to life+infinity, this is clearly an attempt to enhance the strangle hold that's already being imposed. This has nothing to do with "enforcing copyright." It's about "enforcing consumer behavior." When they start forcing content down your throat, you won't like the term "consumer."
The BSA is one of the worst offenders where "presumption of guilt" exists. If you start a new business, as soon as you get your state license you can expect a postcard from the BSA offering to "help" you make sure there's no improperly licensed software on your corporate lan. They'll even install software to periodically check. The BSA may lick my left nut. The sheriff doesn't come in without a warrant. Why would I let these self-appointed asshats in?
You seem to forget that most of the people the big media corps have been going after lately have been breaking the law, often on a massive scale for an individual, and relying on the fact that the law could not be effectively enforced to get away with it. The personal losses now being suffered by everyone as a result of changes in the law were motivated by the personal greed of people who didn't follow the rules that were there already.
I certainly don't agree with the frivolous lawsuits where people are intimidated into settlements even when innocent. In more civilised legal systems, that sort of barratry is effectively prevented. Apparently the US system, where winner pays and endless battles using legal technicalities as weapons are not treated with contempt by the courts, is not as forgiving. Too bad for that legal system. The same authorities also seem unwilling to enforce the law where monopoly abuse and price fixing are concerned. Again, too bad for that legal system. Clearly there is a lot of corruption in the system and how it's applied today, but I'm not yet convinced that this particular case falls under that heading.
Many of the arguments we see around here are from people who were genuinely breaking reasonable law, and then trying to hide behind some sort of person liberty argument to argue against changes in the law that would all them to be caught. They brought it upon themselves (and, sadly, the rest of us), so screw 'em. No-one's personal rights and liberties extend to violating laws established using due process for benefit of everyone.
As other posters here have noted, this particular case is an example of exactly how the system should work: if someone's not happy, they should lobby for changes in the law; anyone opposed can make their arguments in return; and then the lawmakers will change the law if they deem it appropriate. There are financial arguments in favour of politicians seeking corporate backing, but ultimately, those lawmakers aren't accountable to corporations, as corporations don't have a vote. If you as citizens want to change the system, you have more power between you than all the corporations in the world to influence a politician, if you choose to use it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
>Discovering the names of people possibly involved
>in a crime is part of due process.
So, isn't that allready possible with todays laws? File with the police and they can investigate if there is reasonable suspicion. Appearantly BSA seems to argue that THEY should be able to act police and directly go to ISP and demand infromation. That is hardly how it should be. Similary, just because I suspect someone might have commited a crime, I can't simply demand infromation on them from the bank, ISP or whatever, should I? Or perhaps I should even be allowed to search a companies office if I suspect they might have done something illegal to me? Would that be OK?
complete bullshit.
I make video agmes for a living. If people like you go around copying the products I make and giving them to your friends for free, I sell a LOT less copies. Likely result is that people who would have bought from me don't, and I go out of business.
End result, Im on welfare and there are no new games made.
Is that what you want?
Its time pro-piracy people realsied that not everything they copy is made by some evil corporation. A lot of digital content is made by hard working self-employed guys just like you.
What have I done to you that makes you want to wreck MY livelihood?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Here's where your reasoning falls apart. Yes, the (U.S.) law is being broken and quite often, and existing laws make it difficult to prosecute. There are several responses to this:
(a) Make it easier to enforce the law, which generally requires a reduction in freedoms or protections for the public.
(b) Modify the laws that are being broken so that the activity isn't illegal anymore, which generally requires a reduction in protection or control for the businesses.
(c) Modify the products or services such that people are more likely to obtain them through legal channels.
You say that the laws are reasonable, implying (b) is an inappropriate response. Many would disagree. IP laws don't exist as inherent rights, they exist as a balance and they have tilted too far one way and are being used in ways never intended.
Lobbying for changing laws is certainly a valid method and there are certainly a number of groups trying to do that in favour of more sane IP laws. But it isn't the only valid method. There is no faster way to instigate change than to force the issue by large scale violation of a law. It may be risky in that it (a) leaves people open to prosecution, and (b) may drive those with a "there's no excuse for violating the law" attitude towards the other side, particularly those who make the laws. But it forces the issues into the open and if the lawmakers are reasonable, they will look at both sides and find a compromise. It also provides a clear example of what can happen if the people aren't happy with the law they end up producing -- people will just violate it anyway. Either the law will have to become reasonable or it will have to become more of a police state to enforce them.
This is ultimately what is wrong with copyright law. There are large, monied interests with large, monied incentives to see law swing against public domain, but the public domain has no one to defend it.
Contrast this state of affairs with patent law, where the public domain has generic drug makers fighting for it, and note the difference in term limits. (copyrights last 70+ years today; patents last twenty-something.)
I don't know what is to be done about it, but that is the problem.
That's not the way things work, or at least that's not the way things are supposed to work.
You're assuming that the politicians involved are crooked, and that's not really fair. There certainly are crooked politicians. In any organization as large as governments, there's some level of corruption. However, most politicians try to be honest and do what's best for their constituents, or at the very least enough to keep their position come election time.
It's all about lobbying. The mythical 50K (or whatever amount) cheque that many assume is one big bribe isn't. It pays for lawyers, and huge spam campaigns (flyers, TV ads, annoying people bugging staffers) to get the notice of these politicians.
Once you get yourself heard, it's just a matter of showing the politician that what you're proposing is in the best interests of his constituents. The MPAA/RIAA/BSA/etc are going to pitch that P2P trading and piracy in general means lost revenues, lost jobs, and lost taxes (resulting in less money he/she can use to keep the masses happy). They're going to downplay the part where people's civil rights are going to get trashed in the process.
It's possible to fight stuff like this but you have to take off the tinfoil hat and learn how the game is really played. As it is, you've already surrendered without a fight and are looking for excuses for why you forfeited the game. There are already lots of lobby groups out there that started with nothing but now have enough votes and a big enough war chest from member donations to put up a credible fight.
I think you need to read his post more carefully. In fact he quoted the copyright clause of the constitution, and I'd say he cited it as an authoritative and legitimate thing. I'd say he cited it in a positive light.
If I may presume to speak for him, I'd say what he was militantly rebelling against was the malignant expanding cancer our copyright laws have become. The Audio Home Recording Act mandating crippled products, and exterminating essentially all progress in personal audio products for an entire decade (The iPod and other MP3 players only exist because of a loophole in the AHRA). The Sonny Bono copyright act and other extentions, with copyright often lasting well over 100 years. The NET act, which if actually enforced would place some twenty or thirty-odd percent of the entire population in felony prison (at which point the entire country would collapse). The DMCA, with probably a half dozzen insane clauses, not the lest of which are the circumvention privisions which criminalize inocent and non-infringing people for doing math, or for teaching that math to others.
As he pointed out, under our constitutional foundation all "information" works actually lie in the public domain. Copyright exists for a purpose - it temporarily removes such works from partially the public domain and it does so to encourage the creation and distribution of such works. Only certian uses are removed from the public domain, and only for the purpose of the public benefit. And then the copyright expires and the work returns to whence it came - the public domain.
Copyright was created for a good purpose, but copyright law has been expanding like a cancer. It has become malignant.
When the law turns malignant, people lose respect for the law. The RIAA/MPAA/BSA's "solution" is to simply keep lobbying for more, and more oprressive, self-serving laws at the public's expense.
I say we keep good old traditional copyright, just throw out all of the crap laws passed after 1975. It's not a magic fix to solve everything, but I think it would be a damn good start. Of course the publishing industry would be up-in-arms screaming that that would somehow equate to eliminating copyright itself, lol.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Well, at the very least, the "speeders" beat out the safety nazis in the 1980's in the US. It became obvious that on highways the speed distributions were not fundamentally any different with 55 mph as the uniform standard. Enough political pressure was eventually brought to bear, and the "double-nickel" was repealed.
Maybe, *MAYBE* something like that will eventually happen.
But maybe the BSA will go too far (i.e., effectively outlawing development, publishing and distribution of "open source" software), and eventually someone will bring a suit that brings ALL of what the BSA has put in place, because it is a fundamental right for people to do things on their own for themselves, and make it available for others.
Just like it is legal for someone to pay parking meters for parkers (thus denying the city parking ticket revenue), it is legal for a farmer to keep seed harvested to plant for next year (and should be made legal, in spite of Monsanto's best efforts), and it should be legal for me to have a really big vegetable garden and give away my excess production, for a price that *I* deem right, not Albertson's or ADM.
I've got my little home server that provides wired ethernet access to three others in our house. Am I an ISP? After all, I do provide internet service to those computers.
Now suppose I were to run cat5 to my neighbors (some of whom have DSL too), and specify their IPs as alternate routing addresses to my own gateway. Using IP6, we all give ourselves internal static addresses and have servers that act as external gateways. Are we all now ISP's? Suppose our little private network continues to expand, with people on the periphery plugging in and adding new external links, more bandwidth, etc. Eventually, we end up with an actual mesh network like the internet was meant to be!
(Also suppose, out of curiosity, that no unneeded ports are opened, that all known RIAA/MPAA/BSA IPs are blacklisted, and that the servers don't keep logs of any kind. If they want info, they can't get here and there's nothing to get ANYWAY)
...relying on the fact that the law could not be effectively enforced to get away with it
If the law cannot be effectively enforced, then what business did the legislature have making the law?