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.
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
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"
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.
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
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?
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.