Slashdot Mirror


Orrin Hatch to Lead Senate Panel on Copyright, Patents

PontifexPrimus writes "Senator Orrin Hatch, (in)famous for his idea of destroying the computers of copyright violators is to head a Senate 'panel, which will have jurisdiction over copyright, trademark and patent law, as well as treaties intended to protect American intellectual property overseas.' Looks like file sharing will finally be erased once and for all. Oh, and this looks like another field day for those who refuse to subsume patent, trademark and copyright law under the heading of 'IP law.'"

534 comments

  1. In other news... by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Osama Bin Laden has been named the new head of the United States' Department of Homeland Security."

    If anyone deserves the name "copyright terrorist", it's Orrin Hatch.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:In other news... by daniil · · Score: 0, Troll

      Obviously, you don't know who or what a terrorist is.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously, you don't know who or what a terrorist is.

      Terrorism: "A radical who employs terror as a political weapon"

      For example, someone who tells you that if we don't give the government the sweeping powers they demand that bad people will destroy our way of life.

  2. I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by CdBee · · Score: 4, Funny

    .."Oh shit"

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by bsartist · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why? Keep in mind that copyright protection is what gives the GPL its teeth. So any legislation from Hatch & Co. will cut both ways - if it can be used as a basis to sue Metallica downloaders, it can also be used as a basis to sue GPL violators.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    2. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a difference between Metallica downloaders and GPL violators - GPL violaters tend to be companies with a substantial amount of cash, far more than the average downloader. GPL violators are trying to make a quick buck off the backs of open source coders, like the makers of CherryOS.

      Most downloaders are willing to pay for MP3s if they get the same deal as they would if they bought CDs or DVDs, but they don't. Many downloaders would also gladly download TV shows with ads in them or pay a small fee to get TV shows. But for most companies it's all about volume, while consumers want quality.

    3. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic is sound but as usual the real world will turn around and bite you in the arse.

      Any new protection WON'T be used to sue GPL violators because, as a rule of thumb, those who are interested in violating the GPL have MONEY, which, as far as Sen. Orrin Hatch is concerned, is grounds enough to make any such protections Go Away.

    4. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Soon that whooshing noise the cops at the door hear will be the sound of your iPod, rather than the drug stash, going down the toilet.

      Not for nothing are those cute flash memory MP3 players shaped like suppositories.

    5. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0, Troll

      So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?

      If that's the case, then we should give the CherryOS guy a free ride, since it's pretty clear that he's just one guy, trying to get something for nothing, much like the majority of downloaders.

      Either you are not thinking clearly, you're not being honest with yourself about your own activities, or a combination of both. Stop making excuses and accept responsibility for your actions.

      Note: I'm not saying to stop downloading. I'm just saying stop bullshitting yourself about it, and by extension, bullshitting others.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    6. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would settle for an appoligy from GPL violaters and a release of the code , Blowing up the computers of the copyright violaters is a bit harsh.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    7. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?

      In the eyes of Orrin Hatch, yes. Linksys and Microsoft should get to use whatever code they want (thanks for your donations!) while the evil commie GPL users should quit hassleing REAL programmers with their stupid lawsuits and threats.

    8. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Otherwise, the FBI would be going after the scriptkiddy that hacks Joe Sixpack's computer just as much as the one that hacks Acme Inc.'s network. Somehow, we'll get the shaft, like we always do.

    9. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your CD comes with a license?

      I own about 200 of them, and not once has one come with anything one would call a "license" beyond the transaction of money for a good.

    10. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by uncoveror · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our parliament of whores does not care about GPL violators. They only want to help their corporate johns get even richer at our expense. They probably think the GPL is a communist plot.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    11. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      It's not as simple as that. Hatch never has done anything to benefit the enduser.

      If there was a way he could snuff out the GPL (like if it a company asked him to) he would do so in a heartbeat.

      We are talking patents/copyright. But don't forget he was Ashcroft's spirit brother with the patriot act I,II/carnivore/FBI wiretapping anything else you can think of.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    12. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A question that distills the issue; it it worse to steal, or to sell what you have stolen? There are plausible justifications for theft, ie immediate survival, which has been claimed far more often than events warrant. To sell that stolen property erases any claim to have needed it for immediate survival, when the urgent need stops, the ethical thing to do is to return it or something of agreed value to the person or people it is stolen from.

      Taking this view, it seems obvious to me. From a profit/loss record, it would seem that they are equally guilty, until you factor in the 'intellectual property equals physical property' idea, which would suggest that every copy of stolen intellectual property sold is a separate offense.

      What do we think?

    13. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by masklinn · · Score: 3, Informative

      1- With your CD, you can do whatever pleases you and are not as such restricted in the destination media (for example i can use my CDs to fill my computer, my iRiver and my car sound system)
      2- You own your CD, i can lend my CDs to my friends, i can't lend my DRM-infected media files
      3- My CD has a very good quality that i can choose to use or degrade on the different medias i use my music from, whereas online music usually uses already crappy codecs (mp3, WMA) with low qualities (~128k?) and can only be degraded even more by transcoding (transcoding my WMAs to OGG gets me both OGG and WMA artifacts... yay).
      They could use lossless codecs (MonkeyAudio, FLAC, Lossless WMA, ...) but they don't...
      Result? the music i buy online is much lower quality than the one i get from CDs
      4- Downloaded files are currently as expensive as CDs versions, while you don't get the rights and you don't even get the physical media...

      Sooo, no, you don't get the same deal when you buy music online as when you buy a CD/DVD.
      as it stands atm, online mp3/WMA/whatever blows. The only advantage it has over CDs is that you don't have to wait or move your lazy ass out of your shack.
      that's all there is to it

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    14. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You seriously see no difference between a) a company/person taking someone else's copyrighted work (GPL'ed code et al.) with the explicit purpose of making (more) money / increasing their profit margin and b) a person downloading/sharing a copyrighted work (a movie, Windows, et al.) without any motives of making money?

      Sure we can identify complementing definitions of profit (profit by obtaining access to more copyrighted works by sharing - the old "ratio ftp" strategy at work) 'til we turn blue, but c'mon for chrissakes, it's a world of difference (money = power and all that..).

    15. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by sepluv · · Score: 1
      Not if he removes copyright law and replaces it entirely with patents on plot and method in works of literature...Muheheeehhhhaaaawww!

      The government can then sell the right to stop others from using a boy-meets-girl plot to the highest bidder and make loads of dosh. It has already happened in the US to software and algorithms. What makes you think they won't extend it to other literary works and then remove copyright law entirely?

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    16. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We could repeal all of the copyright laws passed in the last 30 years and we'd still have perfectly good law and the GPL would still have plenty effective teeth. Hell, we could probably scrap all copyright law passed in the last 200 years and the GPL would get along just fine.

      The laws Hatch wants to pass will do NOTHING to benefit the GPL. Hatch wants laws making it legal blow up people's computers. Hatch wants laws making it illegal to produce any device or software that *could* be used to commit copyright infringment, like VCRs. Hatch wants laws exterminating internet radio. Hatch want a law naming the RIAA and MPAA, and only the RIAA and MPAA, and making them uniquely immune for commiting antitrust violations. Hatch wants laws mandating TVs enforce the broadcast flag. Hatch wants laws to mandate all computers and all "electronic media capable devices" must contain a Trusted Computing enforcement chip.

      On that list the ONLY thing that would conceivable have any application with the GPL would be the right to remotely blow up the computer of a GPL violator. And I hardly think taking advantage of such an option would end up being a net benefit for the GPL.

      Hatch is a psychopath.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    17. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, there's an underlying problem in that there is no way to legally access these materials and pay for them. RIAA and the MPAA refuse to acknowledge the existence of the market of legitimate downloaders, since it would eliminate much of their middle management and executive staffs, and have thus made it artificially difficult to legally obtain these materials.

      For examples of this, see the lawsuits about the libdvdcss software. There was previously no software available for accessing encrypted DVD's for Linux, and the software authors tried to negotiate a way to license the necessary tools. They were repeatedly blown off and told "the tools already exist for Linux", which they absolutely did not.

      So the authors cracked the amazingly poor excuse for copy protection on DVD's, and wound up in court for doing it. This is silly, of course, but is the result of an executive policy ignoring the reality of the marketplace and of the software.

    18. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?"

      I think you missed the point. They're different. It's not a right or wrong issue. The "companies with a substantial amount of cash" can afford to fight lawsuits in court and/or more easily get their version of legislation approved. When a big company violates the copyrights of some nobody coder, it's very tough for the coder to either find out, have the law enforced, or successfully sue the big company. These generally require power, influence, and money. When a nobody downloader violates the copyrights of some big corporation, the corporation can afford to track them down, have influence to have the law enforced, and sue them successfully. Furthermore, a law that outlaws P2P, for example, screws over the downloaders (whether legal or illegal) but does nothing to stop companies from violating the GPL. Who gets affected by the laws will depend on where the law is targeted. Corporations will tend to influence the legislation to target those who "hurt" their business, with minimal to no effect on their ability to hurt other people.

      In short, no, it doesn't cut both ways.

    19. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So the basis of what's right and what's wrong is whether it's a business or an individual that's engaged in the violation?

      "Right" and "Wrong" is a (very complicated) function of "what's best for society". In a stable society, it's just an emergent property that norms that maintain that society are produced.

      I have a serious problem with GPL violations, because I consider the GPL (or, rather, GPLed work) to be a generally a very good thing for society. If people can simply ignore the GPL, it discourages people from producing GPLed work (as is the case with PearPC/CherryOS and mplayer/God knows how many commercial ripoffs). GPLed work serves as an instructional tool for others producing more software. Because it has no per-unit costs, it is much more useful than even low-unit-cost software, as it can be tried out by anyone. Also, it allows other software to be built using it, and is thus an effective solution to the rising economic cost of software packages. It's expensive to produce a Photoshop-like package, for instances. CinePaint (the animation package) wouldn't exist today if it weren't for the GIMP. A GPLed work is an investment in the future (cliched as the term may be); it continues to produce value for years to come.

      There *are* issues with copyright infringement of a CD, but I'm much less concerned with them. First, all that CD copyright provides is an artifical per-unit pricing used to produce sufficient funding to produce more entertainment works. Now, entertainment is good, and I don't think many of us would want to live in a country without any entertainment. But the question is whether the entertainment industry is, today, not receiving enough funding (since, after all, the end goal that the RIAA wants to accomplish is to increase profits). I firmly believe that it is sufficiently funded, and that throwing more money at the entertainment industry is unlikely to improve the quality of the entertainment -- rather, to increase the already staggering marketing overhead.

      Also two of the big three organizations rabidly lobbying to increase penalties and the harshness of the laws involved (the MPAA and the RIAA -- the BSA is an exception) produce entertainment. Entertainment, while good, is not something that is absolutely crucial to push production to the limit on. If we fall behind in basic research, physical infrastructure building (like roads and rail), software development -- these will all have a devastating impact on the ability of our nation to function within a short timeframe, and will be difficult to pull out of. The damage would be so high that it is, perhaps, worth limiting freedoms and granting monopolies to ensure that continued production continues. No such urgency exists for entertainment. If we leave the present state of things for a few years, and entertainment really goes down the tubes -- well, there will be some very lucrative businesses (entertainment marketing companies) that will no longer be operating, but new ones will spring up when we decide to adjust the laws to provide harsher penalties. Thus, I'm much more comfortable experimenting with leaving laws alone when it comes to entertainment.

      That doesn't mean that I think that there should be no copyright on entertaining works. It just means that I'm not going to lose sleep over the worst that can happen -- even if all the RIAA's worst horror stories that they're pitching to Congress and the Senate come true, from a social standpoint, it merely translates to a real-world dip in entertainment production for a couple of years.

      -0x0d0a (still banned from Slashdot -- sigh)

    20. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "The only advantage it has over CDs is that you don't have to wait or move your lazy ass out of your shack. that's all there is to it "

      While I generally agree with everything you've said, this part is slightly wrong. True that the per-song cost is about the same from a download versus a CD, but on a CD you have to pay for all the songs even if you don't want them. In downloading you only pay for the songs you want. So there is some benefit. But, the rest of the things you say are true. The best value for the money is probably a compilation CD, especially one that is customer can define, with most or all songs being ones you want.

    21. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a person downloading/sharing a copyrighted work (a movie, Windows, et al.) without any motives of making money?

      Really? Sure looks to me like there's a financial motive involved in most copyright violations. For example, if I download a song for free that I would otherwise have bought, I just effectively made a couple of bucks...

    22. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Sigh.

      You've managed to troll people into pointing out the moral difference between copying from the MPAA and people writing code in their spare time, and everyone missed the point:

      What Orrin Hatch likes to propose are solutions for illegally copying fromt he big corporations and none at all for the programmer. Programmers do not have money to sue a company who uses their stuff, the MPAA, meanwhile, sends cease and desist orders to everyone, and is writing the law. They've managed to get jackbooted government thugs to enforce their copyrights.

      It doesn't matter if the laws are theoritically identical. Programmers do not want infinite copyright, no, not even Bill Gates. (There's no point.) Programmers does not want huge fines for someone downloading prereleased copies of movies they've made. (That law doesn't even apply to programs.) Any GPL programmers don't even want the absurd EULAs the rest of the industry has moved to.

      GPL programmers, in short, wish to use the original copyright law as it was originally intended: To write work and release it to the public, yet profit from it.

      The MPAA and RIAA, however, do not. They are not only giant soulless corporations which not only doesn't produce anything themselves, instead merely providing funding to actual artists, but they constantly lobby to get laws in their favour and abuse the legal process.

      If you can't see the difference between that, I point to you the difference between a cop who pulls someone over because he's weaving all over the road, and one who claims someone was weaving because the cop wanted to search his car because they know who he is and he's sometimes 'uppity' with the police. Exact same authority, exact same lwws, and one is an abuse of the system.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    23. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      I think you're being unfairly modded as troll, but he GPL is a reaction to copyright, turning it back on itself through licensing. If the intent is to remove barriers to the flow of information would the GPL be relevant if copyright was abolished? Losing doctors isn't a good argument against perfect health for everyone.

    24. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      And this gives you license to download any movie that you want?

      I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to see where your comment fits into the discussion.

      Are you saying, "They screw me over, so I'm going to screw them over"? If you are, fine. You're not operating at a high ethical level, but I'm in no position to judge you and I'm no better than you. I just can't stand it when a person does this and then tries to pass it off as somehow noble. Talk about polishing a turd.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    25. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      No, there's an underlying problem in that there is no way to legally access these materials and pay for them.

      I legally downloaded copyrighted music yesterday, and it only cost me 99c. Quick download, and easy listening. I don't see why you're whining.

    26. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Only if you turn around and sell it. Otherwise, you didn't make anything. You just gained a free good that has no inherent value except as defined by the market. I can give you a free stock. You would claim that you effectively made $50. If the value drops to $0 before you sell it, you effectively made $0.

      I would contend that, because an MP3 cannot be legally sold, its value is $0. Therefore, you effectively made $0, at least based on the value of the product itself.

      If you consider the value of the alternative purchase (which is a bit dicey unless they are truly equivalent...) then at best, you got some entertainment out of the MP3. Would you have purchased that MP3 if you didn't download it for free? Maybe.

      If not, you effectively saved nothing, so you effectively 'made' $0 again. If so, you saved the difference between the price of the CD when you bought it and the selling price when you sell it used. If you never sell it used, then you saved the selling price when your estate sells it. Either way, you did not save the entire cost of the CD or even the entire cost of the song.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    27. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1- With your CD, you can do whatever pleases you and are not as such restricted in the destination media (for example i can use my CDs to fill my computer, my iRiver and my car sound system)
      2- You own your CD, i can lend my CDs to my friends, i can't lend my DRM-infected media files


      Keep in mind that if music is to be treated like software, then your copy can only be played on one player at a time. If you loan the CD to a friend, you can't technically use the MP3 you made on your computer when the CD is lent out.

      This culminates from a variety of court cases, but cheifly results from the ability to make an "archival copy", which the courts have affirmed.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    28. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Point taken, David. The copyright system is broken, and the patent system is worse. And the trend for both is downward, ever downward. The balance of the system is heavily in favor of "giant soulless corporations", as you put it. However, it is copyrights that make the GPL work. This is because, despite the dysfunction of the system, the underlying principle, that a creator has certain rights pertaining to his creation, is sound.

      So to make a moral and ethical distinction between one behavior and another, when they really are the same behavior, is false. It's worse than false, because it is self-deceptive and hypocritical.

      I'm not going to address in depth the other points in your comment, but I have to wonder. Are you against investing? Because some police abuse their authority, that is moral justification for driving recklessly? I don't think you think these things, but maybe you can explain what exactly you do mean.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    29. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I'm saying that because they lie and cheat and do ludicrous restrictions on legitimate usage, that the rise of and support for illegal usage is a direct and predictable result. By loosening their grip and making it reasonable, they can stop frightening people away from legitimate use and driving it underground.

      As their policy currently stands, there is no legal DVD viewing software for Linux. None: all the packages I've been able to find use the libdvdcss package. That library is also built into lots of DVD duplication tools, and it's legal to duplicate a DVD for backup purposes. But they refuse to even ackowledge the existence of the issue and of the need, or of the legality of tools for making "Fair Use" of their copyrighted works for education, review, or analysis. So to do a legal thing, I have to get illegal tools because there is no legal tool.

      This is, of course, insane, but it matches what RIAA and MPAA want from a business point of view. They want you to always buy a new copy, from them, and have you be unable to use even "Fair Use" excerpts of their work for anything else.

      The resulting revolt from free speech advocates is predictable, as is the fairly trivial software decoding of their ludicrously badly done copy protection.

    30. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some music is available this way, true. I was referring more the problems of playing it under Linux, especially DVD's for which there are no legal tools to play or re-burn them. And the vast amount of "public domain" music and video and other documents are not easy to access or release because of the patent issues of formats such as MP3, and the DVD generation and encryption issues of video DVD's.

    31. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by gandy909 · · Score: 1

      YES! I and millions of others around the world can, and do, and have for decades, and will continue to do so, record any movie or song we want when it is on tv or radio or we rent it. Why do you think they make VCR's, DVD/VCR's, and dual cassette and CD/cassette boomboxes? This artificial bullshit of it somehow being 'different' just because it came from the 'internet' is exactly that....bullshit.

      Just feel lucky there isn't any direct memory altering technology available...yet. You can be sure when there is that the RIAA/MPAA and their ilk will try to pass laws to force you to erase your memory of the 'content' of the song/movie after you hear/see it because, you know, you have no right to continue to carry 'their' tune/images/lines around in your head for the rest of your life, since you only paid to see it once!

      Oh, yeah, Hatch is getting pretty old, maybe we'll all get lucky and he'll keel over before he can orchestrate too much damage...unfortunately, Murphy's Law says otherwise... :(

      Call me a troll, see if I care.

      --

      (Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
    32. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Taladar · · Score: 1

      I agree. Enforcing of the license terms is enough. Fining is unnecessary (unless needed to fund the enforcing actions).

    33. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Hatch is a psychopath.

      He's also the *AA's bitch.

    34. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Massively parallel badger arrays are the future

      I like your tagline, but personally, I'd say go for massively-parallel beaver arrays instead.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    35. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On that list the ONLY thing that would conceivable have any application with the GPL would be the right to remotely blow up the computer of a GPL violator. And I hardly think taking advantage of such an option would end up being a net benefit for the GPL.

      Maybe not, but it sure would be fun to blow up,say, Micrsofts computers ;)

    36. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I definitely get what you're saying now. A good comparison would be a control economy, like we saw in Soviet Russia. (I'm avoiding the temptation to make a really dumb joke.) Under the Communist Party, a huge black market developed, a true second economy, that spread into all levels of society.

      So I think you're saying that because a cartel is artificially controlling supply when there is high demand for a product, the p2p black market has developed. Or looking at it another way, people route around the blockage.

      I think the same will happen no matter what laws Orrin Hatch manages to hatch. Someone will figure out a way to route around the damage. This doesn't mean that it's not worth it to oppose such laws, it just means that ultimately the laws and the copy protection schemes won't work.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    37. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up please!

    38. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Plus, those who have legal and legitimate uses for ripping their own DVD's or duplicating or even viewing them under Linux have no legal way to do so. *NONE*, except for buying a Windows software package and using an emulator with it.

    39. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Why would they give up copyright? They could have patents on everything, AND copyrights too, and be totally fucking hypocritical!

    40. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I don't think any two-word post in the history of /. has ever generated that much discussion. Well done.

    41. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      OK, you're a troll. Do you care? =)

      Anyway, good on you. You're not apologetic and you're not trying to clothe your copying as if it were a noble cause (although that's an awfully stylish vintage tinfoil hat you're wearing).

      All I'm saying is that if you're going to make copies, or download copirs or whatever, just go ahead and DO IT, and spare me your platitudes. You, gandy, are righteous because you're not pretending to be righteous, to yourself or anyone else. Thank you for the refreshment.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    42. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, I had a college professor that once defined a psychopath as person that doesn't know right from wrong, and a sociopath as a person that does know, but simply doesn't care. Hatch is probably in that category. But that's not much of an improvement, really.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    43. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Um, no. That's not a princple of copyright law at all, at least not in the US.

      The point of copyright law is to encourage the creation of new works. It's not because creators have any sort of moral right to their works.

      Other countries have the concept of a moral right to a work, but not the US. (Which is interesting, because the US Constitution has quite a few moral rights in it, but not that one.)

      Do I think driving recklessly is a valid response to police abusing their authority? Of course not.

      However, that's because the point of laws against driving recklessly are not to reward the police, but to protect people, whereas copyright laws are to reward people.

      When the people who are getting the rewards start abusing to system to get even more (And, meanwhile, failling to do what they are supposed to be doing in the first place, keeping copyrighted works published so people can purchase them.), do I think it's morally okay to start breaking the law in response to that? Sure, if that's what you're actually doing.

      You can, of course, be sure that's what you're doing if you're following the laws as originally written. The original copyright was 28 years max. Lookie, all Beatles songs are public domain except 'Free as a Bird' and 'Real Love'.

      It didn't stop you from breaking DRM. (Yes, yes, there was no DRM then, but even if there had been, the law wouldn't have stopped you.) Lookie, DeCSS is legal.

      I don't have any problem with copyrights. I do have a problem with companies wielding undue influence over the legislature and retroactively changing the amount of 'incentive' they get to do things. (I think anyone should have a problem with that.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    44. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      You also don't have to move your lazy ass if you order the CD to be shipped by mail, but you do have to wait a little.

      I kind of like getting whole albums still-- if I like one track, it's likely that I'll like more than one, and if the album was put together by the artist (rather than the record company) it's likely that there's some intent behind the structure and flow of the album.

    45. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by alexo · · Score: 1


      > Hatch is a psychopath.

      No, Hatch is an honest politician (at least according to Heinlein's definition of the term).

    46. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Can you play it in an "unapproved" mp3 player? Your car CD player? Linux?

      If not, then it's still too expensive (0c is too expensive for DRM, IMNSHO).

      If you can, than, by the gods, tell me WHERE.

    47. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by jimmydevice · · Score: 0

      I think you meant PIMPS, not johns.

    48. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by sepluv · · Score: 1

      The thing is that if you have copyright and patents in the same field (thanks to extending patents to non-inventions) it causes absolute legal mahem as the people with the copyright sue the patent holders and vice versa....uhhh...actually...which may destroy the industry but it makes loads of money for lawyers..and we all know most senators are lawyers....hmmm...yes...

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
    49. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      "unapproved" mp3 player: I don't have one of those, I own an iPod.

      Car CD player: yes

      Linux: I don't have one of those either.

    50. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would be the same if I downloaded a song, removed the vocal, dubbed my own vocal in, then sold the resulting song as my own. Without giving credit to the oringinal artist. That is how I could make a GPL violator the same as someone who downloads a copywritten song.

    51. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, pimps or johns... The corporations paying our congressmen to turn legislative tricks are definately johns, but the lobbyists who bring corporations and legislators together for a cut of the action, now those are more like pimps. One thing is certain though. Congressmen and Senators are whores!

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    52. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by masklinn · · Score: 1
      Keep in mind that if music is to be treated like software, then your copy can only be played on one player at a time. If you loan the CD to a friend, you can't technically use the MP3 you made on your computer when the CD is lent out.
      While i'll accept that as true (i don't exactly know how it'd work out in Europe right now), while i can lend my CDs to my friends if i don't play my personnal copies (for them to check it out for example) i still can't lend them my DRM-ridden files.
      My point still stands.
      (and as a minor issue, it'd be "legally", not "technically", there is no technical issue in me playing my ripped copies while lending the CDs, there are legal ones)
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    53. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      So it'll let you burn to CD? Where do you get your tunes?

    54. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      There's a difference - to the person violating the copyright. Not to the person whose copyright is violated. It used to appear to be different to the copyright holder, when individual violations were hard, and didn't propagate - so their effects were negligible. But P2P and other Internet tech makes P2P even more damaging to the copyright owner than centralized violators. The motive used to govern how much damage was done. Now the ease of distribution and propagation governs the damage.

      We can argue about whether sharing a copyrighted work is legitimate. It clearly is, among private friends, which doesn't compete with the sustainability of creating copyrightable work - the illegitimate act is the unauthorized copying of the received work. It's not "possessionright", it's "copyright". But the "moral" difference between copying for profit and copying for the other benefits (closer friendships, joy of making something valued popular) is irrelevant to the social control of copyrights. It's just a matter between oneself and one's moral imperative.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    55. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      Legally speaking, you're correct.

      Whoa. I just agreed with Brent...?

    56. Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      (and as a minor issue, it'd be "legally", not "technically", there is no technical issue in me playing my ripped copies while lending the CDs, there are legal ones)

      Well, technically in a legal sense. :)

      You dare to challenge my use of language? You're only going to win on a technicality.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  3. What I don't get... by Saven+Marek · · Score: 0, Troll

    What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands.

    It is the only thing that protects you when you write code and release it as GPL.

    Without it, anyone could steal your code and use it how they wish. Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux and sell it and market it to take over.

    It protects the work you do, and coming down harder on the people who work AGAINST IP just sounds counterproductive.

    1. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right about one thing: you don't get it. There aren't many people that want to destroy intellectual property - that's a fringe position to take.

      What most people do object to is keeping a strangehold on an entire industry and charging prices that are in no way in line with costs or common sense. Do me a favor and watch an episode of MTV's "Cribs" and then tell me how people are stealing from artists. Yeah, I know - not every artist is that successful, but then nobody is copying their music.

    2. Re:What I don't get... by Saven+Marek · · Score: 1

      > charging prices that are in no way in line with costs or
      > common sense

      Then dont buy their music or software or whatever. They made it and they get to set a price. Nobody will force you to buy it. Maybe if you didnt buy it then they would get the idea.

      Obviously they are not charging outrageous prices if they are still selling.

    3. Re:What I don't get... by cgranade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK... I haven't bitten the trollbait in a while, so here goes. Copyright law has some major problems in its current form. Regardless of one's views on the morality of having copyrights at all (something I don't see contested here, anyway), one must realize that with things like the Mickey Mouse Preservation Acts, and the *AA redefining of "for hire," copyright law is broken. Does that mean that I am against having copyrights at all? Hell, no. I want them fixed so that they are once again useful to me. Of all the people I'd trust to fix copyright laws, Hatch comes in pretty close to dead last on my list. He has an incredibly blatent disregard for anything other than the *AA propaganda.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    4. Re:What I don't get... by CdBee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the basic premise is being tired of being screwed over. Most slashdotters were probably born between the 1950s and 1980s, we've seen records replaced by tape, then tape with CD and perhaps now CD with DRM-download

      We supposedly buy a licence to listen to music.. but then when a new format comes out, we're not allowed to "upgrade", you have to buy a whole new licence. If your media is damaged - tough. Buy a new licence.

      We have had to sit and watch the recording industry take legal action to prevent importers from selling music in some countries at a lower retail price gained by buying it in another country... so they can continue to take massive profits in richer societies. This still happens - the EU is investigating iTunes Music Store pricing in the UK as its more expensive than in the euro-zone.

      Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes. Am I sympathetic to an industry which has stolen from me and everyone else for years and now has the tables turned? No fucking way.

      I will start buying music again when I can pay between 40 and 50 pence per track for a file without DRM. Until then, I'll steal.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    5. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post would make sense if 'Intellectual Property' actually meant something. There is no such thing.

      Copyright is what the GPL is built on, not patents or anything else. Microsoft can't take Linux and release a propritery closed version of it because the Linux code is copyrighted. Simple as that.

    6. Re:What I don't get... by TheWormThatFlies · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yup, you don't get it.

      Copyleft was created as a countermeasure which uses copyright law to subvert the traditional copyright system. With viral copyleft licences, content creators who are sick of the way copyright ties up the rights to creative works while shafting the public domain have created a collection of work which is like a protected public domain - derivative works which build on it must be released back into it.

      If copyright law was reasonable, we wouldn't need copyleft. I would gladly sacrifice half of the term for which I am legally able to enforce copyright on my open content licenced work if this meant that the duration of the copyright on conventionally licenced works would also be halved.

      Personally, I would like to see a world completely free of copyright and patent restrictions, since I believe them to be inherently nonsensical and unjust (their ostensibly well-intentioned beginnings notwithstanding). Until such a world exists, however (and I don't have high hopes of seeing it in my lifetime), I will continue to release any creative work I ever produce under copyleft licences, because that is one of the only legal ways of fighting against the system which is open to me.

    7. Re:What I don't get... by cgranade · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not at all obvious... the record industry forms a virtual monopoly. If you want mainstream music, then you purchase from a *AA affilliated label. All of these affilliates have similar enough economic interests that they aren't competing primarily on terms of price. Moreover, many people "bite the bullet" for the occasional fulfillment of a vice, to say nothing of teenagers who don't esp. care if they're being ripped off for music. To make a long story short, sales records do nothing to indicate fairness in pricing.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    8. Re:What I don't get... by whovian · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the basic premise is being tired of being screwed over. Most slashdotters were probably born between the 1950s and 1980s, we've seen records replaced by tape, then tape with CD and perhaps now CD with DRM-download

      And to add to the insult and injury, there was both cassette tapes and 8-track tapes.

      Since TFA mentions movies, we might as well point out the various video formats we've seen: VHS/Betamax, laserdisc, DVD, and soon-to-be Blue-Ray.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    9. Re:What I don't get... by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will start buying music again when I can pay between 40 and 50 pence per track for a file without DRM. Until then, I'll steal.

      Ah slashdot self indulgent quasi logic at its best.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    10. Re:What I don't get... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's take it off the internet. Let's make entertainment media useful as a tool for socializing again. I want to meet people of similar interests, bring my portable hard drive with me, and share what's on it with my good friends.

      Personally, I can bring 25,000+ mp3 songs ripped with EAC/LAME from my own CDs and vinyl. I can't be alone. Someone out there has all that classical music I still need. You know, all that music that's hundreds of years old...

    11. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, having IP doesn't prevent companies to steal open source code for their own products.
      I've seen it plenty of times.

    12. Re:What I don't get... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Thanks for not bullshitting us, and throwing out lame excuses or psuedo-philosophical crap about how it's OK for the little guy, but not OK for a big bully corporation to violate copyright.

      You know it's wrong, but you do it anyway. I can respect that. I have no problem with that. You have your reasons, but they're not offered as excuses. I tip my hat to you (or I would if I were wearing a hat).

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    13. Re:What I don't get... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands.

      I guess I'll add my biggest gripe about current copyright law to the others that have responded to you, and that is the lack of a registration requirment. There simply is no easy way to determine whether or not a work is in the public domain, and protection being the default is not the answer because there is no way to ask a dead person if it is okay for everyone to pass his work around.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    14. Re:What I don't get... by BrookHarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes. Am I sympathetic to an industry which has stolen from me and everyone else for years and now has the tables turned? No fucking way.

      Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?

      Either way you answer that shows question more problems with the legal and political system than most people are ready to address. Mindboggling issues that most Americans (or World) are not ready, or not important enough to deal with. I see the p2p issue a larger part of a bigger problem.

    15. Re:What I don't get... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are missing the point here...

      Neither side is right. But when the law becomes an ass, people will disrespect it. That's what it IS.

      Law is not morality. Law is usually what the "haves" use against the "have nots." The "have nots" are not a bunch of hooligans, they really will respect reasonable limits and rational morality.

      When the law makes sense again, people will be less inclined to disrespect it because it will be seen to serve a public good by having a reasonable purpose.

      Copyrights should serve as a protection for natural persons. We natural persons do not currently have lifespans reaching over a hundred years. When we see limits like that being codified we know the beneficiary is a fictitious person - a corporate entity or estate.

      We respect the creators of good and useful things; and we also expect wealthy heirs and hangers on and to get jobs and become useful to society and not to just live off of royalties because they paid off the right people in D.C.

    16. Re:What I don't get... by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Without it, anyone could steal your code and use it how they wish. Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux and sell it and market it to take over."

      No they couldn't, there would be no law to allow them to do so... Think about it.

      all the best,

      drew

      http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drthedeep end&PHPSESSID=5a45ea245d366a6482b5cb2688c62720

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    17. Re:What I don't get... by CdBee · · Score: 1

      Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?

      No. But then I'm not a moral crusader, I'm a thief with a grudge. I believe that the collective refusal of the community to pay the high prices currently charged for music will lead to a shakedown eventually and I'm willing to break laws in order to get there.

      Really, I'd be happier if I didn't have to break the law to get music without getting gouged. Its a shame there's no "honour scheme" to allow people like me to make a payment direct to the bands I like without filling their distributors coffers...

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    18. Re:What I don't get... by netwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?


      Yes. Always.

    19. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Particularly when the statement is so unclear. We of course know he meant that he would accept the product of copyright infringment. He did not say that he would upload, himself, and thus infringe the copyright of others.

      It's a shame more Utah citizens don't vote Sen. Hatch out, since he is so out of step with popular opinion on music sharing. After all, surely the problem is that the will of the people is being frustrated by the capital of the media industry?

      If every Slashdot reader sent Sen. Hatch a cheque for $5, with a promise of $10 more if he'd propose the repeal of the Sonny Bono act that extended copyright, d'ya think he would? If you extended that list of contributors to BitTorrent, Kazaa in its varied forms, the Gnutella and eDonkey user base, and the varied cooler but less visible options? I mean, the problem is that the public wants its legislators to act in their best interests, but it is the corporations that contribute to their war chests. Turn that on its head, and get the Howard-Dean-esque webberati to individually contribute, and you can buy your politicians more effectively than TimeWarner or Disney can hope to.

    20. Re:What I don't get... by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

      Why exactly can't you send them a cheque?

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    21. Re:What I don't get... by verus+vorago · · Score: 1

      Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes.

      What does "wrong" mean in this context? Let alone "technically wrong"? Against certain legal agreements? certainly. Against the law? probably. I don't see that this makes it "wrong" in the (moral) sense that a lot of people use the term.

      This is not a natural justice question - it's certainly not "stealing" as nothing is actually being lost. Steal a car and the person you stole it from no longer has the car, copy a song from someone and no-one has less of anything.

      Copyright is something that "we the people" (most of us on /. live in so called democratic countries) have provided each other for the benefit of all. If it no longer benefits all but only a handful of people then we have every right to take it back.

      If the (vast) majority of people are in favour of it (and they seem to be) then perhaps what we are dealing with is a disconnect between real citizens and "their" government.

      "government of the people, by the people, for the people" right?

    22. Re:What I don't get... by smithtodda · · Score: 1

      What is *AA?

      --
      Why Vegan? No other food choice has a farther-reaching and more profoundly positive impact on all of life on Earth.
    23. Re:What I don't get... by cbr2702 · · Score: 1
      No they couldn't, there would be no law to allow them to do so.

      You don't need a law to allow you to do something. Laws prohibit things or make exceptions to previous prohibitions. Is there a law that says you may run an open-source operating system? There's no law to allow you to do so. Without IP law any released code would be public domain.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    24. Re:What I don't get... by smithtodda · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to my own post, but I figured it out. *AA... as in RIAA, etc. Got it.

      Hey, it's early for me (this being Sunday and all). I better get off this dang computer and go brew some coffee already!

      --
      Why Vegan? No other food choice has a farther-reaching and more profoundly positive impact on all of life on Earth.
    25. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I'll bite - anonymously... RIAA and MPAA you stupid asshole!

    26. Re:What I don't get... by pawnIII · · Score: 1

      The *AA is a way of people encompassing both the RIAA & MPAA into one lump organization.

    27. Re:What I don't get... by zotz · · Score: 1

      "You don't need a law to allow you to do something."

      See the quote:

      "Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux"

      Now, according to common definitions, they would need copyright law to make a proprietary Linux.

      Please explain to us how they would make a proprietary Linux in the absence of copyright law.

      I am not saying they could not take our code and make mods and keep the mods private, but we could at least then copy their binaries all we wanted. I am not saying we would be better off with no copyright on code than with copylefted code though. That is another discussion.

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    28. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?

      Not only a right, but a responsibility.

      As in the stories of Robin Hood, when the priviliged used the law to increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of the population. (not to mention that the very same privileged were usually the biggest lawbreakers in the land and got away scot free)

      These stories and their concept of natural justice (as opposed to law) are a part of what led to the Magna Carta and eventually the American Constitution. Robin Hood reputedly came at a time when the people's sense of right and wrong was offended, and when they were powerless to change the law.

      But if you somehow are naive enough to believe government propaganda that you can somehow change the law in any way that matters, then try it. Try to make or undo a significant law without having to put up with the money machines behind the Republicans or Democrats.

      Malcolm X said, "I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation."

      Eventually, the powers of the land listened (even if only out of fear for their own power) and things did change for the better.

      So root for the Robin Hoods out there. They are galvanizing opinion and preparing the way for bigger clashes to come. They are ones making the people ready to deal with these "mind boggling issues". And ultimately, even if (like most Americans) you only sit on the sidelines, you will benefit.

    29. Re:What I don't get... by Secret+Agent+X23 · · Score: 1
      No. But then I'm not a moral crusader, I'm a thief with a grudge. I believe that the collective refusal of the community to pay the high prices currently charged for music will lead to a shakedown eventually and I'm willing to break laws in order to get there.

      This kind of civil disobedience may be exciting and subversive and stuff, but it's not going to go anywhere. As long as piracy in any form exists at some detectable level, that's their excuse for ever stricter laws.

      What you need to be willing to do is not acquire any music from the mainstream industry through any means, and get as many people as you can to do the same. It might not be as fun as being a "thief with a grudge," but it's the best shot you have at doing something that'll actually make a difference.

    30. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "always" might be going a little far. Of course, chances are you didn't think beyond stealing music and smoking your hippie weed.

      Of course, it's always possible you're a charter member of NAMBLA. Those poor oppressed people just want to fuck little boys. What's wrong with that?

    31. Re:What I don't get... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The *AA are Cartels, pure and simple.

    32. Re:What I don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing. As long as they keep wanting to and never get to.

    33. Re:What I don't get... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      We supposedly buy a licence to listen to music.

      Anyone who says that is lying to you. There is no such thing as a "licence to listen". When you bought your vinyl record or anything else you did not receive any licence at all. By law you do not need one, not unless you're handing out new copies or giving a public performance or something. But I'm repeating myself... jump to my reply to someone else over here.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    34. Re:What I don't get... by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?

      Yes. Always.

      If you're willing to accept the consequences of punishment for breaking that law, true. Then it is Civil Disobedience and hopefully your imprisonment or fines will serve as a rallying point against an unjust law.

      If, on the other hand, you just think you should be able to choose to violate whichever laws you don't like that are a part of the structure of the society in which you're a voluntary member then you're just a self-indulgent ass.

    35. Re:What I don't get... by mjh49746 · · Score: 1
      Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?

      If people went with that train of thought, then slavery would still be legal in the Southern States right now.

      Copyright itself is the bigger problem and it needs to be reformed NOW!

    36. Re:What I don't get... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a reasonable argument, and it's very well put.

      You describe the sorry state of the current system in regards to copyright extensions, and you point out the likely revolting developments, if Hatch has his way (given his track record).

      However, there is something wrong with congratulating yourself for violating a law on one hand, while also relying on that law to protect something you value. It's self-deceptive and hypocritical. I was applauding the original poster for not being a hypocrite, for not trying to wrap his behavior in some sort of pseudo-political rationalization of "fighting the Man". I don't know if this applies, but that's often the same excuse that habitual shoplifters offer as moral justification.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    37. Re:What I don't get... by zotz · · Score: 1

      "What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands.

      It is the only thing that protects you when you write code and release it as GPL."

      As it stands? I don't think so, it could be changed a LOT and made much more sensible and still the GPL would work.

      For instance, get rid of the JAIL threats. I mean, the corporations to violate the GPL can't be sent to jail anyway, why should humans face jail? Unless you like this idea:

      http://slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/101428

      We could probably remove the statutory damages and not hurt the GPL as well.

      We could also reduce the term limits to say 14 years and the GPL would still be fine.

      Hey check this link:

      http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Copyrigh t_Term_Reform/Default

      We could do something like that and still not prevent the GPL from working now couldn't we?

      Do you see how we can oppose copyright "as it now stands" without calling for scraping it completely?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    38. Re:What I don't get... by symbolic · · Score: 1



      AS I've pointed out so many times before, nobody has a right to someone else's property, whether it be music, real estate, or whatever. The *AA hasn't stolen from anyone - people who buy the crap they sell do so willingly. The only stealing going on here is the people who are helping themselves to music that doesn't belong to them. The only real, long-term solution is to pick up your marbles and go play somewhere else. Leave *AA alone...completely. Don't buy it, don't listen to it, and most of all, DON'T TAKE IT. It's not yours. Treat it like any other commodity.

    39. Re:What I don't get... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      You are creating a false contradiction: you are claiming that one can only accept copyrights as a public good if one also accepts the latest time extensions that make it untenable. And to that I must disagree.

      It is PERFECTLY reasonable to think that 14-28 years of time is enough for anyone to milk the intellectual and financial benefit from a protected work before allowing it to enter the public domain and allowing it to possibly serve a further public good as part of the intellectual commons.

      The hipocrisy is not inherent in what I may or may not do, but rather in the pointless time extensions of copyright laws to a point that no longer makes sense. If such time extensions were not already in place, much of what the RIAA does would no longer make any sense.

      Led Zeppelin, for example, would already be in the public domain. Interestingly, if a band is going to build a career on ripping off Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters - weren't they already in the public domain from day one? If not, why not? Why is their theft okay, but your possible theft not okay?

      That's a variant of the whole argument against Disney, BTW. Disney has done nothing but build on the back of fairy tales in the public domain. Now they want all of those works protected in some ridiculous way. Oh yeah, let's not overlook the genius of inventing a cartoon mouse that looked like every other roly-poly, shiny-eyed cartoon animal of its era.

      Yeah, let's protect that nonsense while committing possibly irreparable harm to the commons. Let's shoot ourselves in the common financial foot, while letting just a few elite people and groups gain at the expense of the many.

    40. Re:What I don't get... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      "Then it is Civil Disobedience and hopefully your imprisonment or fines will serve as a rallying point against an unjust law."

      I find it interesting that you write that without presumably batting an eye at the screen as you type it. And all while we are discussing mere copyrights!

      Imprisonment and fines, eh? Once upon a time it would have been a mere civil suit brought by the damaged party. Why are music and films specially protected realms? Why must I defend my own copyright interests in civil court while the music industry gets the free aid of the FBI?

      Think before you talk bullshit...

      Ultimately, this isn't about copyrights - it's about economic warfare. We act in the name of the commons...

      Now who is morally correct? Now who is the criminal? I would think that in a democratic republic the majority would be correct provided they afforded the minority interest at least a little protection - and they have it via civil court.

      We take that which morally belongs to the commons. We are denied the same in the name of elite and moneyed interests. The state aligns itself with the corporations.

      What is left to us but our own moral compass?

    41. Re:What I don't get... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

      You can't endlessly extend copyrights without stealing from the commons. Please get off your moral high-horse.

      We are just trying to decide who wins: the many who favor the commons - and the natural progression of ideas is towards the commons, BTW; or the moneyed elite who are living off the creations of their betters and robbing from the commons.

    42. Re:What I don't get... by alexo · · Score: 1


      I have committed an unforgivale sin of posting to this discussion while still having mod points.

      Therefore I must suffer horrible torment for my inability to mod the parent post "+1 insightful".

      My only hope is that some untainted soul may correct my mistake by taking upon themselves the holy mission of moderating post #11992763 up.

  4. Re:This might save my family. by k8to · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow, this troll was old in 2003.

    http://tinyurl.com/4vxlf

    --
    -josh
  5. Conflict of interests by zecg · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's a conflict of interests at work here, senator is just scared that everyone will download his awesome music for free.

    --
    .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
    1. Re:Conflict of interests by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would love to see an Orrin Hatch cover of "Don't copy that floppy."

    2. Re:Conflict of interests by canuck57 · · Score: 1
      There's a conflict of interests at work here, senator is just scared that everyone will download his awesome music for free.

      Likely copyleft music. But I really got a kick out of reading this:

      The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

      So maybe his web site should be destroyed.

    3. Re:Conflict of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think hes just pissed his parents named him orrin.

      They sure must have hated him.

    4. Re:Conflict of interests by Performaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were cockneys and tried to name him "Warren."

      --

      I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    5. Re:Conflict of interests by eclectro · · Score: 1


      Really, he should quit congress so he can pursue his music career for full time. Do everyone a favor.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    6. Re:Conflict of interests by TCQuad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, I think he's bitter that in the history of P2P, no one has ever pirated his music.

    7. Re:Conflict of interests by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      I was going to suggest the opposite - having listened to the first few seconds of three tracks, don't give up your day job.

      Luckily I had'nt just eaten.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    8. Re:Conflict of interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Don't copy that floppy."

      Floppy? What does Orrin Hatch have to do with Viagra SPAM?,...oh wait...

    9. Re:Conflict of interests by jbridge21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hahahahaha, he's got the MPEG copyright flag turned OFF on those files.

    10. Re:Conflict of interests by inhalentbroom · · Score: 1

      I think that music WOULD blow up my computer if I pirated it (or I would to exorcise that shit off my computer).

    11. Re:Conflict of interests by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      You can be sure he'll never sing the part of the "Bill of Rights" from Schoolhouse Rocks.

  6. Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by blanks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "In addition to piracy and copyright infringement, Leahy hopes to work through the committee to address the new threats of "phishing" and "pharming" -- forms of electronic fraud in which perpetrators impersonate trusted banks, retailers and financial institutions to steal Internet users' personal data, spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said."

    Ok really now, why would a sub committee that is dealing with copyrights also be going after people doing phishing attacks.

    Either I'm totally missing something here, or this committee has other plans that wont be seen on the surface for a while.

    1. Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by cookie_cutter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      why would a sub committee that is dealing with copyrights also be going after people doing phishing attacks

      Because they want to group both sets of violators into the same category. It helps to demonize your opponents if you can say they're in the same category as actual demons.

      Also, presumably they're going to propose legislation that tries do deal with all of these crimes, so you won't be able to reject the new DRM legislation without also rejecting the new anti-phishing legislation. So even legislators how have some reservations about DRM laws will be tempted to jump on board.

    2. Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by northcat · · Score: 1

      Because they want to project a good image of their committee, while screwing people from the behind.

    3. Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      And both copyright violations and phishing give the government a perfect excuse to take control of your computer away from you.

      In the case of phishing, that's a somewhat reasonable idea. If the government could come up with some way to keep people from being able to log into peypal.com, I'm all for that in theory, although it would probably be abused by the government. I really suspect the computer industry would be better equiped to handle that, and the government should just devote more resources to shutting down and tracking ownership of peypal.com, instead. But whatever.

      But, see, this gives them an opening 'People cannot be trusted with doing whatever they want on computers'. So we're going to have to regulate what software they can run, for their own good of course.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know about their agenda, but I could make some educated guesses based on Orin's connections:

      His son is a lawyer representing SCO.

      Who do you think has more opportunities to ply Orin full of IP law ideas, his constituents, or his son? Orin's senate career is a failure, and if he thinks bitch-slapping the American Public will change that, he has everything ass-backwards. As usual.

    5. Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by almightyjustin · · Score: 1

      Phishing using the names of real companies is trademark infringement and the subcommittee is responsible for copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

    6. Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "...why would a sub committee that is dealing with copyrights also be going after people doing phishing attacks.

      That would be how you sell the resulting bill. Make it sound like it is protecting citizens and not raping them.

  7. Re:This might save my family. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's just a fucking troll, stop modding it up please!

  8. Blame Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is the same state that brought us SCO. If these folks find that Orin Hatch best represents them, then I represent that I'm not going to do business with anyone in Utah. Ostracise people who vote like idiots.

    1. Re:Blame Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one have no problem producing a flame bait like rant against neo-cons hoping to produce some kind of defense of them (by one of them) so I can see what they are up to. (like a honey d scenario)

      But come on, we can't boycott Utah. It is unreasonable to have such boycotts and they just make everyone who particapates look foolish.

      There are many wonderful things about Utah.

    2. Re:Blame Utah by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The media cartels have no preference for any particular polition.
      They only picked Orin Hatch because he is the US equivlent of what us australians call a "safe seat".
      He has so much support from the religious conservatives in utah that there is little chance of him being voted out (either by those opposed to his support of the media cartels or for any other reason). This means that they can count on him being around long enough to help get whatever new laws they have bought through Contress.

    3. Re:Blame Utah by Yaa+101 · · Score: 0

      like?

    4. Re:Blame Utah by jimbo3123 · · Score: 1

      Park City
      Snowbird
      Alta
      The Canyons
      Deer Valley

      Prime skiing all around.
      Just because a couple of wankers happen to be from the state doesn't mean that the whole thing is fucked.

      --
      There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
    5. Re:Blame Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I agree. You didn't see my invisible 'sarcasm' tags. The problem is much bigger than Utah, unfortunately.

  9. Re:What I don't get... --- Does this help? by Ada_Rules · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands. It is the only thing that protects you when you write code and release it as GPL. Without it, anyone could steal your code and use it how they wish. Microsoft could make a proprietary Linux and sell it and market it to take over. It protects the work you do, and coming down harder on the people who work AGAINST IP just sounds counterproductive.

    First of all, you (somewhat) make the same mistake that is made about every two days in these threads where you assume that "slashdotters" are a semi-monolithic Uber brain that things with a single thought.

    There are those here that like the GPL and write GPL code. There are those here that hate the GPL and wish we used BSD liceses everywhere. There are those here that pirate music. There are those here that would never pirate anything.

    Granted you did say "so many slashdotters" so to some extent I'll give you a pass on that one. But, to help you understand my problems (sorry, no insight into the Uber brain) with "IP" laws.

    My biggest problem is not with the laws themselves but the methods that certain groups are trying to push to enforce those rules. Things like Digital Rights Management (DRM) really bother me. Do I want to pirate music or software? NO, but I do find the concept of digital rights management offensive. It treats me like a criminal AND it prevents me from making fair and reasonable use of a licensed product in a manner that is consistant with decades of tradition.

    Why stop with Digital Rights Managment? Why not add Oral Rights Management. Sure we all have the right of free speech but there clearly needs to be limits on it. We would not want people screaming fire in a crowded theater. Since we all know people can not be trusted not to do that we better insert microphones in everyone at birth so that there speach can be monitored and any attempts to say the wrong thing can be stopped immediately. Then we will pass a law saying that it is a crime for people to try to remove those mikes.

    Finally, I (and perhaps others) do have a problem with the idea of Software Patents..Although in particular I would say it is not so much SW patents that trouble me but the granting of obvious patents. As an engineer I of course hate the word "obvious" since it really is a subjective term but it has been applied to Patent law for centuries however recently I think the concept of "obvious" has lost its power.

    There are numerous examples of Patents being granted for approaches that would be the first thing you would suggest as a solution to a problem . This is wrong. Granted even here there are gray areas but lets try a few: Problem - "Hey engineers, we are loosing too much business because people get half way through putting stuff in the online cart and stop without completing all of the clicks. What can we do?" - Answer - One Click shopping...Cha Ching Patent...This is wrong.

    --
    --- Liberty in our Lifetime
  10. Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?

    It would seem to me that anyone who demands strict adherence to the GPL should, out of a sense of fairness if nothing else, follow their own strict guidelines. IMNSHO, respect for the licensing terms of copyright holders should cut both ways, however much that may hurt. *Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy.

    --
    Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    1. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by hyphz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Could someone tell me what the essential
      > difference is between someone violating the
      > license terms on a copyrighted work released
      > under a GPL license, and someone violating the
      > terms under which a CD is released by (for
      > example) Sony?

      The differenc:

      GPL programs don't come with encumbered software that will secretly install itself on your machine to ensure that you keep the GPL, and will post your personal data to the owner of the SourceForge project page, plus any other material that it feels might be related to your breach of the GPL (including any other code that you write, so that the owner can make sure it wasn't derivative of his) and which is capable of shutting down your computer if it determines the GPL has been violated (with no responsibility for it to be *correct* in that determination).

      GPL authors don't then, having written that encumbered software, demand legal protection that obliges users to run it on their machine.

      GPL authors don't gleefully accept your contribution to a project, and then argue that any code you ever write for the rest of your life must be GPLed because the programming skills you learned while working on the GPL project can only result in code which matches that which is GPLed.

      GPL authors don't buy up entire distribution channels, and make exclusive agreements with them, to ensure that you are *forced* to GPL any software you want to write if you ever want it to be noticed, and even then they can still veto anything they don't want published for any reason.

    2. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by elmegil · · Score: 1
      GPL programs don't come with encumbered software that will secretly install itself on your machine to ensure that you keep the GPL

      While nowhere near as draconian as this real example from the world of CDs, I think the bitching from the kernel that this is not a GPL module and now the kernel is tainted is in the same category of behavior.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would seem to me that anyone who demands strict adherence to the GPL should, out of a sense of fairness if nothing else, follow their own strict guidelines.

      Most of us do, why would you think otherwise? My experience of file sharers is that the majority run Windows, I realize that certain companies would like to paint us GNU "hippies" as copyright "pirates". They may have some difficulty there however as I don't run proprietry software, refuse to buy region encoded DVD's and don't download music or even copy CD's. Otherwise the hidden assumption was a nice troll.

    4. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      I Don't respect copyright. Not even in the case of the GPL. Copyright is ethically wrong, and the GPL is a workarround. It's not what the members of the Free Software comunity wants, it's just a hack on the copyright law, that let's Free Software exist.
      I'm against software/hardware/arts that limits what people can do with it. If someone enforces the GPL, he's trying to STOP someone else from creating propietary software, and defending our rights to access his creation, and so, it's a good action. If someone tries to enforce a proprietary license, he's trying to forbid us from using his creation freely, he's helping proprietary software/arts/hardware survive, and is killing your freedom.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    5. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      With respect, I think you're missing the point of my question. You've listed a number of *excellent* reasons to avoid using proprietary software whenever possible. I won't argue that point, because I agree with it.

      I'm the author of a GPL'd (well, LGPL'd - it's a library) work myself. I firmly believe in my right to copyright my work and license it as I see fit. And even though I disagree with the terms that Metallica (for example) have chosen, I respect their right to choose their own terms. It's a question of fair play - how could I possibly demand protection for my own rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that same protection to others?

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    6. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The GPL is there to protect the people that made something. The music industry rips people off left right and centre and uses copyright to force you to pay whatever they want whilst giving artists next to nothing. That is the major difference, on one side you've got people protecting their hard work (software) and on the other a company exploiting you!

      Artists get hardly any money from CD sales, they make most of their money from live performances. The only people that are and should be getting screwed are the record companies. Piracy actually premotes the artists music and will probably lead to an increase in revenue from live performances.

    7. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of don't want binary only modules in our OS kernel, it is tainted by their inclusion. Binary modules are not acceptable as a long term solution and if you think otherwise then Longhorn and DRM/TCPA is just the thing for you!

    8. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Feel free to write open source drivers, then. Until then, the only thing that's unacceptable is not being able to USE my equipment on my OS of choice. Hurray for Nvidia for supporting Linux and FreeBSD in the first place!

      Consequently, that's also why I have a Nomad instead of an iPod.

    9. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by hyphz · · Score: 3, Informative

      > I respect their right to choose their own
      > terms. It's a question of fair play - how
      > could I possibly demand protection for my own
      > rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that
      > same protection to others?

      The point I was trying to make is that - as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law. The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA), and b) the corporate slant with which it is being developed and interpreted ("copy protection clubs", submarine patents, machine-gun patents, etc.).

      Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.

    10. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by fruitbane · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, people who shout for enforcement of the GPL demand it be enforced against companies, entities with an embedded power base. Whereas piracy (as we most frequently discuss it here at /.) is generally an individual defying the copyrights of a large corporation, GPL violations are usually cases of large corporations violating groups of individuals.

      Now, if you ask us if we are against piracy, I think most of us will say we are against companies profiting by copying the music of another company illegally. Buying a CD in a store that turns out to be a pirate CD can be a pain in the ass. But as for individuals enacting a measure of protest against the music industry, many of us tend to view that differently.

      So it all boils down to power. GPL violations are bad because those with power are taking advantage of those with less power. Pirating music often embodies the same split. It's about finding some weapon against a powerful entity who's interests have taken priority over the interests of the common citizen in current law.

    11. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The FSF core party line: "Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".

      I'm perfectly happy for you to "violate" the license terms of my GPL work - provided you waive all right to enforce copyright restrictions against me now or in future.

      The GPL is only a problem for people who believe in copyright law. I disagree with copyright law, so I use the GPL to double-bind Infonazis.

      Someone should just put a bullet through Hatch's brain.

    12. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by JudicatorX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't forget the whole 'p2p should be illegal because h4x0rz use it to steal muzak' thing, regardless of whether it has any other uses. Oh, and 'let's allow people to patent trivial software constructs that have been in use for 25 years' too.

      Maybe I'm just a bit jaded because in all this crap, nowhere is there a need for 1) responsibility or 2) accountability on the part of the copyright cartels. But of course, we all know that anything shared via bittorrent, or in .iso format, or in a zip archive must be warez...

      --
      "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
    13. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, people who shout for enforcement of the GPL demand it be enforced against companies, entities with an embedded power base.

      Irrelevant. You just fell into the trap he baited for you. The answer is that the GPL doesn't restrict use, just distribution. The music and movie industry is trying to restrict use.

    14. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law

      I would question that assertion - there seem to be a lot of "nobodies" here on /. doing exactly that.

      The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA)

      I have to wonder if the DMCA would stand up to judicial review, if some of its more draconian measures were actually brought to trial. I have the same doubts about the several cases of file traders being sued by the *AA's - every case I've heard about was settled out of court before it could be brought in front of a judge or jury. Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks? Getting a precedent on the books that establishes a more reasonable penalty would be an important step, in my opinion.

      machine-gun patents

      Great Cthulhu, is that one still valid??? How long has Hiram Maxim been dead now, anyway?

      Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.

      I can't argue with that. I'm not arguing for or against strong copyright, just consistency; regardless of how strong it is, it should afford equal protection to all copyright holders. But in any case, Hatch is a horrible choice to chair this committee. Destroying the possessions of someone without the giving them the benefit of due process is ridiculous. You'd think someone in his position would have a better understanding of the Constitution than that.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    15. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      It's a question of fair play - how could I possibly demand protection for my own rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that same protection to others?

      The rights the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution.

      You don't have to support everything someone regards as a right: you don't accept the right to drink-and-drive, do you? How about the right to torture? There's people who consider both of these to be "rights".

    16. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      > and someone violating the terms under which a CD
      >is released by (for example) Sony?

      and

      >IMNSHO, respect for the
      >licensing terms of copyright holders should cut
      >both ways, however much that may hurt.

      I might miss something what "terms" are you refering to? The only "terms" I can think of is copyright laws and normal (consumer)sale laws. That is about it. You usually have to follow laws.

      Not following the GPL license which is a licnse you can agree to if you want to, for example use the ode of the program, extend it, change it and then reproduce and spread to others. Since that would normally be a copyright violation, you need to get permision, or license to do so, which is what the GPL do. Similary, if you want to take the music on a CD (from Sony for example) and change it, reproduce it and spread those copies, you need to get permision from Sony. That is the largest difference I see.

      Obviously one can argue against copyright from a point of view that one doesn't like the laws as they are, which I believe many here do. One can also dislike the way large media companies tries to twost, add and extend copyright laws constantly to give them more and more rights and put more and more restrictions on general consumers. In addition they loby quite heavily for legal sanctions and procedures not in existance in other areas or other product creators, often wanting to put themselves into a sort of police/court like position.

    17. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing for or against strong copyright, just consistency; regardless of how strong it is, it should afford equal protection to all copyright holders.

      Not all copyright holders are demanding "equal protection". The GPL doesn't demand all the "rights" that the industry does. Don't let them take more than they need, you're not.

    18. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own a NV 6600 GT that I bought just to play doom3, forget for a moment that writing a graphics card driver is non-trivial and consider that allowing binary drivers foreshadows DRM/TCPA. If binary drivers are acceptable then goverment mandated binaries that will need to be modprobed before I can perform online transactions or view a document are acceptable!

      Binary drivers taint the kernel, they make a mockery of the GPL and are a slap in the face of freedom. Even if I do get decent framerates...

    19. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      The rights the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution.

      Yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as it's applied to all copyright holders. If the same rights are given to GPL authors, and DRM is mandated that can enforce the terms of the GPL just as effectively as it can enforce Sony's terms for its movies and CDs, then we have a playing field that's just as level (or perhaps more so) than it would be in the absence of any copyright at all.

      You don't have to support everything someone regards as a right: you don't accept the right to drink-and-drive, do you? How about the right to torture?

      Those are actually good examples of what I'm talking about - fair and equal protection across the board. Drunk driving is a crime, that's true - but it's a crime for *everyone*. There aren't a special class of people for whom it's explicitly allowed. It's consistent.

      You might argue that because of the immunity afforded to foreign diplomats, they're such a class of people, but even in that case there is a level of consistency. Diplomats are immune from any prosecution, and equal protection is provided to any diplomat from any country, large or small. It's consistent.

      I'm not arguing for nor against strong copyright law - I'm arguing for *consistent* copyright law.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    20. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by elledblu · · Score: 1

      It's simple, really. The GPL gives you additional rights that you *don't* normally have under copyright law. Things like EULAs take away rights that you *do* have under copyright law (or at least did before the abomination known as the DMCA).

      The whole idea of "demanding strict adherence to the GPL" is nonsense. The GPL doesn't restrict you in any way whatsoever. Copyright law restricts you, and the GPL merely removes some of those restrictions. In fact, you can *reject* the GPL and still use the software! You just can't redistribute it.

      This seems so obvious and so simple, that I'm beginning to believe that people who ask questions like this are either insincere, or frankly, a bit dim.

    21. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      I really don't care about the justification for the bitching, I'm just saying that asserting that particular difference between GPL and copyright is specious.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    22. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?"

      Either you ask this question/try to make this point a lot, or others are constantly doing so as well.

      I do not mean to be rude or insulting, but it sounds a bit foolish and here is why...

      You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?

      http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html

      You will note this from that link:

      "Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing ``copyright'' into ``copyleft.''"

      So, why should it be odd that people who like the gpl should not like using copyright to take away freedom?

      "*Especially* when it hurts - respecting copyright only when it's convenient is nothing but greed and hypocrisy."

      Generally, there is a reaction when people use copyright as an instrument of greed, or ignore copyright to further their greed. Yes? No?

      Copyleft was created because of the belief that people should have access to code. This was standard operating procedure in the early days of computing from what I have read. When programs began to be copyrighted and code withheld, the idea of copyleft was brought forward to counteract the negative impact of the new practices.

      Now, you may agree or disagree with people who hold these views, but you should be able to see how, from their point of view, they are being consistent. I am not saying the people responsible for creating the idea of copyleft hold these views mind you. I just think some people who like the idea of copyleft feel this way.

      In fact, I often wonder if we are better off with copyleft copyrights on software that we would be if software were not subject to copyright, but that is just a mental excercise. Do you think we will ever be in that situation in your lifetime?

      Please also note, that if people seeking to enforce the GPL were like the **AA or **A crowd, you would be likely to see headlines and stories like this:

      Federal agents raid Cisco headquarters and manufacturing plants today!

      [Federal agents seize all cisco products alleged to contain code in violation of copyrights (GPL code.)

      Cisco also faces fines of up to $(big number) for each device found to contain code in violation of federal copyright laws.

      There is also a possibility of jail time for those found to be responsible for these acts of piracy and theft.]

      Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    23. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by fruitbane · · Score: 1

      I would argue that there's still a parallel. Restricted use, restricted distribution, regardless, there's a limitation with the possibility of constraint. It may have been a baited trap, but there's still a general issue there.

      But you do make a good point that we should all keep in mind.

    24. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      Not all copyright holders are demanding "equal protection".

      Maybe we should be. Maybe instead of fighting things like mandatory DRM, we should be lobbying for forms of it that are just as effective at enforcing our terms as they are at enforcing the *AA's terms. Put a different spin on it - we could portray ourselves as "fighting to help ensure equal protection for the rights of the little guy", instead of "fighting the evil corporations."

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    25. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      The idea is that if someone sends in a bug report, including a print of dmesg, the developers can quickly see that there's a binary only driver involved in which case the bug reports is invalid. Debugging a kernel is hard enough as it is without also catering for parts for which you do not have the source code.
      So, there's an actual reason for the message, 'tainted', meaning unsupported.

    26. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by flossie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution.

      Yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as it's applied to all copyright holders. If the same rights are given to GPL authors, and DRM is mandated that can enforce the terms of the GPL just as effectively as it can enforce Sony's terms for its movies and CDs, then we have a playing field that's just as level (or perhaps more so) than it would be in the absence of any copyright at all.

      The world does not consist entirely of large corporations and GPL software developers. Copyright, etc. exist to serve the purposes of society as a whole, not just content producers. If such laws do not serve consumers as well as producers, the playing field is not level.

      Dentist's don't have the right to tell you how to use teeth that they repair. Mechanics don't have the right to tell you how to drive your car. Pen manufacturers don't have the right to tell your what to write. Similarly, it is not to society's benefit for the entertainment industry to tell you how to be entertained.

    27. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      The point of the GPL License is to keep things free (whatever your definition of free is).

      The point of the Sony license is to keep things from being free, certainly as in 'free beer'.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    28. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by AlinuxNCSU · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference, in fact. The GPL gives you MORE rights than traditional copyright; if you choose to accept it and follow its rules, you are able to do more than you would under the terms of fair use. These include access to source and allowances for complete redistribution.

      With licenses on today's music, as well as laws such as the DMCA, corporations are trying to limit what you can do with music, moreso than is allowed with copyright. This is true of copy-protected CDs and of most DRM'ed music.

      If you decide not to accept the GPL, then your rights go back to regular copyright, which is more limiting. That's why you should respect the GPL--because it gives you a real choice in accepting a contract. "Take it or do what the law tells you."

      Not so with modern music licenses. I don't condone breaking copyright law. However, I do think I should be able to make backup copies of my music. I think that I should be allowed to make a copy to put on my computer, as well as one for the car, one for work, and one for my iPod. I think I should be allowed to give my brother music I think he'll like, and likewise with my girlfriend. I think I should be allowed to make mix CDs for myself and others. Music licenses are trying to prevent all that; I don't think that's fair--give me fair use.

      -Alex

    29. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      You do understand that the GPL is a "copyleft" copyright license, right?

      Of course I understand it - I read it very carefully before choosing it for my own work. Copyright law prohibits unauthorized distribution of a covered work, and allows the legal owner of the copyright to dictate the terms under which authorization may be granted.

      There is a very vocal group on this site - I won't call them "average" or "the majority" because I have no idea what the actual numbers are - that want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to ignore Sony's terms and conditions, while at the same time they're demanding that Sony et al respect the GPLs terms and conditions. It's hypocrisy, nothing else.

      Somehow, the GPL proponents don't seem to use these tactics now do they?

      Given the opportunity and means to do so, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't? I don't.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    30. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      "The rights the entertainment industry is demanding is the right to control the use of their "software", not just the distribution."

      Yes, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, so long as it's applied to all copyright holders.


      Sure it is. Copyright is supposed to be a balance between the rights of people to use their property. And that includes the users as well as the creators.

      I'm arguing for *consistent* copyright law.

      That's why it's a red herring. The GPL isn't about consistent copyright law, it's about fair copyright law.

      Those are actually good examples of what I'm talking about - fair and equal protection across the board. Drunk driving is a crime, that's true - but it's a crime for *everyone*. There aren't a special class of people for whom it's explicitly allowed. It's consistent.

      "The law, in all its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." -- Anatole France.

    31. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      Restricted use, restricted distribution, regardless

      Ther's no regardless there. The distinction between those two concepts is a big chunk of why the GPL reads the way it does.

    32. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      we could portray ourselves as "fighting to help ensure equal protection for the rights of the little guy", instead of "fighting the evil corporations."

      Dude, there are many rights that are of no use to the little guy, and can only be used by big corporations. Consider software patents, for example.

    33. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think the bitching from the kernel that this is not a GPL module and now the kernel is tainted is in the same category of behavior.

      How is that? The kernel doesn't stop you from loading that module. In effect, the message really just means "The kernel developers will not support you if you have a problem with this configuration". That's a perfectly reasonable position for them to take, since they can't debug the code in that module.

      Further, if it really bothers you that much, it's pretty trivial to hack the license-checking code out of the kernel, and it's extremely easy to lie when you post on LKML, editing the kernel tainting messages out of any system logs or lsmod output that you post.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    34. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      Copyright, etc. exist to serve the purposes of society as a whole, not just content producers.

      In the larger sense, yes. But it does so by serving, for a time, the purpose of the content producer. Society as a whole benefits by giving producers the means by which they can be rewarded for what they do.

      But regardless, that's just a red herring. The DRM and other laws the *AA's are promoting aren't about protection from piracy, etc. or the good of society - they're about protecting the *AA members from outside competition. As it stands, the *AA's are the gatekeepers; they decide who gets published and who doesn't. They decide who can make legal DVD players, and who can't. It's their privileged position they're trying to protect, not the rights of the artists or of society.

      If we understand this, we can use the *AA's own legislation against them. Let Hatch & Co. pass stronger copyright laws - so long as they apply equally well to *all* copyright holders, not just a select few members of the *AA. That will give the *AA's what they've asked for, while at the same time denying them what they really want.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    35. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Of course I understand it - I read it very carefully before choosing it for my own work."

      Great, so did I. (This is an honest compliment, not a sarcastic statement. I like to give credit where credit is due.)

      I have also been using CC BY-SA for my "artistic" work:

      http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

      "Given the opportunity and means to do so, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't? I don't."

      Seems thay have the means and the opportunity and choose to follow a different path.

      http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 3/18/0315241&tid=117

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/15/14 39219&tid=117

      I do notice that you chose not to address some of the points I made such as this one:

      "So, why should it be odd that people who like the gpl should not like using copyright to take away freedom?"

      or this one:

      "Generally, there is a reaction when people use copyright as an instrument of greed, or ignore copyright to further their greed. Yes? No?"

      Please note, I am not trying to justify these points of view, just explain or discuss them. Would you care to?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    36. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's a question of fair play - how could I possibly demand protection for my own rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that same protection to others?

      Very reasonable position -- and one I agree with, BTW. However, would you not be just as happy if the protection for your work, and others', provided:

      • A term of 14 years, renewable once
      • Broad fair use rights for criticism, educational use and non-commercial use
      • A digital consumer's bill of rights, allowing time shifting, format shifting and backup
      • No criminal or civil penalties for circumventing copy protection technologies in order to exercise fair use or digital consumption rights

      I think such a copyright regime would provide perfectly adequate protection, a much better deal to society and a greater opportunity for creativity. In my opinion, it would also, being much more fair, create a greater level of respect for copyright among the public and reduce piracy more than the draconian measures being contemplated.

      Somehow, I doubt that Orrin Hatch will see it the same way.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    37. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by swillden · · Score: 1

      So we should fight the massive encroachment of copyright on the public domain by encouraging it? Interesting strategy.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    38. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      The GPL isn't about consistent copyright law, it's about fair copyright law.

      The GPL is about dictating a specific set of terms and conditions that RMS believes is fair. For what it's worth, I agree with him and I've released my own work under the LGPL - but that's not relevant here, other than to demonstrate that I'm in no way a shill for the *AAs.

      However, even the GPL uses the copyright law to give RMSs terms and conditions teeth. And if you defend RMSs right to use the law to protect his own right as a copyright holder, then you have to defend Metallica's same right. Defending one person's right to protection under copyright, while ignoring another person's right to the same, is nothing but hypocrisy.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    39. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      "Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?"

      ...

      They want to ignore Sony's terms and conditions, while at the same time they're demanding that Sony et al respect the GPLs terms and conditions. It's hypocrisy, nothing else.

      I don't believe it's hipocrisy. Copyright, in it's pure form, is about protecting the creative material. A CD is not a "creative" material; the music on it is. To turn the original comparison on it's head, the original quesition is like comparing the box and DVDs that SuSE 9.2 comes in to the performance rights for a particular song. Novell has a right to try and control the terms and conditions of the use of it's manufactured material (for example, using the police force to prevent shoplifting), but it doesn't have the right to change the copyright restrictions (e.g. GPL of the source code that is on the DVDs). Similarly, Sony may try to impose any form of terms and condition on the reuse of a Sony CD, but don't try and defend it under the umbrella of copyright law.

      Anyway, I am most certainly not in the group that defends music piracy, but I am whole-hearted ly in the group that worries about large corporations using priracy as an excuse to take away fair use rights (and don't even get me started on the lifetime + X copyright horizon brought on by the George of the Jungle Copyright Extension Act).

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    40. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I have no problems with ANYBODY downloading and running and installing ANYTHING using the GPL license. I do however have a problem if that code is modified and a derivative is sent out whilst obscuring the GPL.

      I have no problems with ANYBODY downloading and playing and listening to ANYTHING using the Sony license. I do however have a problem if that song is modified and a derivative is sent out whilst obscuring the Sony license (making money for the criminal for instance).

      Copyright is a level, the GPL is flexible enough to protect us AND allow copying and sharing.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    41. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, about a dozen replies, and no one has given the correct answer.

      what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?

      Sure, it is impossible to violate "the licence a CD is released under" because no such licence exists.

      When you buy a CD you get no licence because you need no licence.

      When you buy a book you get no licence because you need no licence.

      Really that's what has so many people confused and why there is so much arguing over copyright issues. It's not much of a simplification to say that copyright really only restricts three things: (1) creating new copies, (2) distributing new copies, and (3) public performance. By law, those are the only three rights available for a copyright holder to licence. If he is not licencing you one or more of those three rights then he is not licencing you anything at all. Copyright does not restrict anything EXCEPT those three things. All other activities are UNRESTRICTED by copyright. You need no licence to to anything OTHER than those three things. If you want to read the law, it's right here. You'll see that law lists 6 things, I lumped together 1 and 2 under 'creating new copies', and I lumped 4 5 and 6 together as 'public performance'.

      You do not need a licence to read a book, it is unrestricted.
      You do not need a licence to play a song, it is unrestricted.
      You do not need a licence to resell a book or CD at a used book store, it is unrestricted.

      There is no such thing as a licence to read, no such thing as a licence to play music, no such thing as a licence to "use".

      If you buy a book or CD you can do essentially anything you like with it for personal use in the privacy of your own home. It is not copyright infringment and you need no licence. The copyright holder sold you that copy and that copy is your property. You just can't start running off more copies and offering them to the public.

      And the same it true of GPL'd software. Once you are given a copy you can do essentially anything you like with it for personal use in the privacy of your own home. You only need the GPL licence if you want to start passing out copies (or derivative copies). THAT is restricted by copyright.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    42. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      "The GPL isn't about consistent copyright law, it's about fair copyright law."

      The GPL is about dictating a specific set of terms and conditions that RMS believes is fair.


      Both of these are true statements. The GPL is about what RMS says it is about. I don't particularly care for the GPL myself, but that doesn't mean I'm going to put words in Stallman's mouth.

      Defending one person's right to protection under copyright, while ignoring another person's right to the same, is nothing but hypocrisy.

      There's the red herring again. One can be opposed to the current expansion of new copyright law without being opposed to Metallica being able to assert their fair rights under traditional copyright law.

    43. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      conflating people who are cognizant of their copyrights with people involved with sypware is just dumb. you deserve +5 moderation about as much as a turd.

    44. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by northcat · · Score: 1

      You can get GPLed programs for free, modify them and redistribute them. You can't do that with music. We don't like and don't support the current copyright system. We want and support a copyright system where we have freedom to do things with the copyrighted material. Therefore we are not sympathetic to the copyright holders of the illegaly downloaded music files. But when GPL is violated, we see that material that is following a copyright system we support is being violated and therefore we cry foul. You are making the assumption that we are universally against copyright infringement. We are not. We think the current laws are wrong and we want a better system. A system similar to the one involving GPL - Copyleft. We don't protest all illegal use of copyrighted material, since we believe that some of it should be made legal. We only protest what we believe are wrong uses of copyrighted material - like GPL violations, which is also illegal under current laws. So don't think that since we are against one type of illegal act, we are also against other types of illegal acts. You are making the assumption that since A is true and since B resembles A in some ways, B should also be true. You are wrong. I'll say it again: We do *not* support copyright law in its current form and we are *not* against copyright infringement in its current definition. We are not against copyright infringement -- we are against the violation of the copyright system we support. When we protest GPL violations, we are not protesting copyright infringement - we are protesting GPL violations, which, under the current system, is a subset of copyright infringement. So we are only against this subset of copyright infringement.

      (When I say 'we', I mean people who share my beliefs about copyright. And sorry for the long post)

    45. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      Seems thay have the means and the opportunity and choose to follow a different path.

      Sure, some do. Just like some large companies (IBM, Apple) choose to follow a relatively benevolent path. Nothing is 100% certain where human nature is concerned, but I believe that humans are mostly selfish by nature. Some are able to overcome that basic nature, and do so for various reasons, but those are the exceptional ones, not the majority.

      I do notice that you chose not to address some of the points I made such as this one:

      I think they're really two sides of the same coin: Some folks support copyright when it suits their own personal agenda to do so, and ignore it when it doesn't. The details of their agenda don't really change the core fact that there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in that.

      What I want people to do is recognize that hypocrisy for what it is, which doesn't preclude the possibility of deciding to view it as the lesser of evils. RMS has done this - he dislikes the GPL's use of copyright to further his agenda, but at the same time he considers the use of it in that manner to be preferable to taking no action at all.

      Like I said though, I don't have much faith in human nature. I don't really believe that most "sharers" have thought things through to the extent that RMS has, and seriously arrived at the conclusion that their actions are individually wrong but justified as a means of promoting the greater good. Most of them aren't indulging in a deliberate, calculated act of civil disobedience, they're just saying "gimme".

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    46. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in heeding bad laws until we can change it, so I am not speaking for myself, but: Some people believe bad laws should be broken. RMS feels that copyright is a bad law, and the GPL is a way of avoiding some of its onerous consequences. To break the GPL in order to profit from the evils of copyright law looks a lot like breaking a law you _do_ believe in, or at the very least trying to have it both ways. So to some people it might be the difference between a moral stand and amoral hypocrisy.

    47. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      Great Cthulhu, is that one still valid??? How long has Hiram Maxim been dead now, anyway?

      Actually, only copyrights last lifetime-plus-something. Patents have far shorter periods of applicability, usually measured in decades or so...

      However, I guess that machine guns are still very much patented. These days, the latest patent is titled "a device and a method for repeatedly shooting a person in face over the Internet."

    48. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Why on earth would someone in the executive or legistilative branches of the government need to understand the Constitution they swore to upheld? I don't know when it suddenly became expected for them to, you know, know the law of the land.

      And you're right. Putting Hatch on this is like asking the mafia to operate the legal system.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    49. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      Free enterprise and capitalism surrender.

    50. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      And, just in case people don't get it, that's why so many people here complain about EULAs, also. We already have the right to use the software, we don't need any extra rights granted to do so, and we certainly don't need to lose rights at the same time.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    51. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Most of them aren't indulging in a deliberate, calculated act of civil disobedience, they're just saying "gimme"."

      I wouldn't want to take odds in opposition to that proposition, however, I will note that I got into GPLing my programs as a way of saying thanks to all those who have given me so much. (Even if they were only scratching their own itches.)

      I am now putting all of my other types of work that I can under CC BY-SA (until I find something better,) also in an attempt to say thanks and as I have thought about this more, as a small attempt to counteract the abuses of the current copyright usage.

      So, I think some of us have thought things through quite a bit if not fully. I am not saying that there is no hypocrisy even in my own views. I try to get rid of it as I find it though. Actually, I just looked up hypocrisy, perhaps a better term would be inconsistent beliefs. Have you looked up hypocrisy lately?

      I also mearly point the apparent total lack of people whose GPL code has been violated who have tried to shake down the violaters for hugh sums of money. Contrast that with the **AA plan that seems to be in play.

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    52. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks?

      If I had enough money to replace all my hard drives (I'm implying something about my current HDs, if you know what I mean), here's what I'd do:

      1. Freshly install all OSes.
      2. Install P2P programs.
      3. Download all the songs THAT I OWN ON CDs.
      4. Download all the movies that I own.
      4. Wait for RIAA threat.
      5. Take it to court.
      6. Counter-sue or something for harassment.
      7. Get EVERYTHING dropped.
      8. Make a mockery of the RIAA/MPAA.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    53. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >And if you defend RMSs right to use the law to protect his own right as a copyright holder, then you have to defend Metallica's same right

      Not really. If copyright didn't exist at all, there would be no need for the GPL. Sure, someone could try to repackage your work and sell it as their own, but you could just copy their changes and use them anyway.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    54. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?

      I spent my money on the CD or DVD. Hundred-year old law says that CD or DVD is now _mine_ and I can lend it, rent it, or sell it. So why does the DVD tell me that's a violation of copyright law? Twenty year old law says I can make a rip of that CD for the car; why should I care that the CD producers don't like that law?

      The GPL, on the other hand, doesn't tell me I can't do anything that that hundred-year old law permits me. It just gives me permission to do what that law forbids.

    55. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bayvult · · Score: 1
      The red herring here is your use of the word "fair" to avoid accepting the principle of copyright. You can't pick and choose.

      Remember that Bill Gates thinks the GPL is "unfair" too - and that the GPL is based on strong copyright law.

    56. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You'd think someone in his position would have a better understanding of the Constitution than that.

      Why? I've had managers of the "VB is object orientated 'cause I grab an object and move it around"-type. Worse yet, I'm sure most of those clowns vote, and vote for the likes of what the rest of us are stuck with.

    57. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by caseih · · Score: 1

      Copyright can never dictate to you how you personally use the copyrighted work. You can read it, scribble on it, destroy it or whatever. But you cannot distribute the work; copyright law grants you no such privilege. The GPL is a license that extends your rights over a work so that you can distribute the work to others. Thus the GPL says nothing about use.

      In the case of digitally restricted audio CDs, the software is attempting to artificially restrict personal fair use using technicalities provided by the DMCA. Because theses mechanisms are declared as "copy protection"--which they arent'--the DMCA then punishes those who circumvent these mechanisms with criminal penalties. Having an unencumbered personal copy of the work is not a crime, though. It's a neat way to sidestep the fair use rights of end users on the part of the copyright holders, though. I think I can say with all sincerity that copyright holders who artificially restrict the use of their work beyond the allowances of normal, sane copyright law are not respecting the nature of copyright or the intent for which such laws exist.

    58. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by bayvult · · Score: 1
      "and is killing your freedom" There are two positions here.
      • It's the creator's moral right to do what they want with it - they created it. It didn't appear out of thin air
      • It's the user's right to do what they want with it.

      The two absolutes are untenable, which is why we have a social contract called copyright, and a social contract called the GPL. You're only seeing one side. But maybe you haven't created anything recently :)

    59. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by hyphz · · Score: 1

      That's another part of the problem: that copyright has been taken out of the hands of the "little guy" by locking down distribution.

      Now, little guys are rolling up to surrender their copyrights, or any commercial interest in the work, just to get attention paid to it.

    60. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      The red herring here is your use of the word "fair" to avoid accepting the principle of copyright.

      Where did I "avoid accepting the principle of copyright"?

      Please document this, I would hate to have inadvertently implied such a thing, and I sure can't recall doing so.

    61. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      1. Freshly install all OSes.
      2. Install P2P programs.
      3. Download all the songs THAT I OWN ON CDs.
      4. Download all the movies that I own.


      Yuo're missing step 2b, "turn off file sharing and go into leech mode", otherwise you're distributing that stuff and they've got you dead to rights.

    62. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by abb3w · · Score: 1
      If you buy a book or CD you can do essentially anything you like with it for personal use in the privacy of your own home.

      ...except rip the song "Blue Moon" off it onto your computer, or put it on your iPod, or mix your own CD of songs with the world "Blue" in the title....

      All of which are personal copies. For that, you need fair use, which is being eroded.

      The GPL is a license for making copies under certain conditions; but book, CD, or GPL software, each gives you the right to put it on a shelf and do nothing but admire it... which seems to be what the corporate masters are aiming for. =)

      The historically inclined may compare the attitude of copyright holders in the late 1700's and early 1800's to the development of public libraries to the present situation if they wish for amusing parallels....

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    63. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by fruitbane · · Score: 1

      The generality to which I refer has little to do with the details. Have you ever had any trouble seeing the forest for the trees? The point I'm trying to make does not concern itself with the semantics of the GPL vs standard copyright (which has been misused to prevent not just copying, but use, something the GPL doesn't restrict, I know).

      The point is that entities with power and influence not only attempt to have the law crafted to favor them, and then wield it against those with little power to secure their base, but they also have a certain disregard for the law because they have power, and when you are violating the little guy, what's he going to do?

      The music and movie industries you have companies wielding laws heavily tilted in their favor as cudgels against the relatively powerless masses. They have the money and influence to not only create laws but to enforce them vigorously. In technology fields you have large companies violating the GPL to distribute products in not-compliant ways, in part because the opposition responsible for attempting to uphold the GPL has far less influence and money to bring against them.

      In summary, my original comments were meant more to be about misuse/abuse of power and not so much about what you seem to think it was about.

    64. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, if I legally own that stuff, you could assume that some of the people legally own what they download from you.

      --
      When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
    65. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      I wasn't disagreeing with your main point, just noting that you were launching it from unsound footing.

    66. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by argent · · Score: 1

      I dunno, if I legally own that stuff, you could assume that some of the people legally own what they download from you.

      No, You're distributing it, even if you verify that every recipient is entitled to a copy you're still boned. That's what killed mp3.com.

    67. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      "However, even the GPL uses the copyright law to give RMSs terms and conditions teeth. And if you defend RMSs right to use the law to protect his own right as a copyright holder, then you have to defend Metallica's same right."

      The GPL is meant to use copyright law's own powers to attack it. If copyright law, or at least copyright law as it pertains to software, were gone, it wouldn't need those "teeth".

    68. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      If binary drivers are acceptable then goverment mandated binaries that will need to be modprobed before I can perform online transactions or view a document are acceptable!

      Hardly. That's one hell of a slippery slope you've got going there.

      Binary drivers taint the kernel, they make a mockery of the GPL

      BFD. Some of us are more interested in being able to USE our equipment the to do what we want to, than we are in k00kish politics.

      and are a slap in the face of freedom.

      Rather than taking the bait and pointing out the rather skewed scope of GNU's defintion of "freedom", I'll simply remind you that you forgot to call me a "Terrorist."

    69. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to write open source drivers

      How about you feel free to right your own proprietary kernel? I guess thats so eaaaasy!

      If only you could write drivers without NVIDIA releasing any of the specs, then I would take it as a valid comment from somebody who knows what and how to solve the problem. But you are incapable of doing so. Try driving long distance without a map.

    70. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      If only you could write drivers without NVIDIA releasing any of the specs, then I would take it as a valid comment from somebody who knows what and how to solve the problem. But you are incapable of doing so.

      Then again, I'm not the one bitching about the way Nvidia is doing things, am I? I'm more than capable of the minor patch to the kernel to take out that irritating "Taint" warning, which serves my purposes just fine.

      Try driving long distance without a map.

      That's not very difficult. I've gone from Hempstead, NY->Fort Myers, Fl and vise versa without a map and didn't have a lick of trouble, save for some irritation in that clusterfsck around D.C.

    71. Re:Refresh my memory, please? by westlake · · Score: 1
      I have the same doubts about the several cases of file traders being sued by the *AA's - every case I've heard about was settled out of court before it could be brought in front of a judge or jury. Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks?

      Uploaders have been the rights agencies primary target.
      Without a license to distribute you are dead in the water, there is little or nothing left for a jury to decide, all that remains is the question of damages, which will be determined by the judge as a matter of law.

  11. File Sharing personal information by hugesmile · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Off Topic, I know, but while we're on File Sharing...

    It's tax time - time to run the annual check to see who is sharing their .tax files (and "Tax Return.pdf") with the world.

    Good old P2P. You think it's cute that your kid saves a few bucks by downloading music for free. Instead, you set yourself up for identity theft by publishing your complete tax return on the Intarweb.

    Gnucleus (or substitute BearShare, Kazaa, or the P2P program of your choice) shows handfuls of people sharing .tax files. But don't try to be a Good Samaritan and tell them! They may shoot the messenger if you let Dad know that Daughter has opened up the confidential files to the world!

    It's like telling someone that their zipper's down, and they punch you because you peeked.

    1. Re:File Sharing personal information by NimNar · · Score: 0

      Yes, I found such files. It's frightening. I won't download, but if anyone does, I suggest you do tell them--they'll thank you. Of course, some of these "Tax Return 2004.pdf" files are just FBI honeypots.

    2. Re:File Sharing personal information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, I tried to alert someone, and they just chewed me out!

      I'm like "hey lady, don't shoot the messenger!"

      She wanted to know what guaranty I would provide that *I* wouldn't steal her identity. Yeah, like I'd CALL YOU prior to stealing your identity. Yeah right! Your privacy was gone when you shared the information with the WORLD. Just because I used your PHONE NUMBER to notify you, doesn't mean I'll even LOOK at the part that has your income, social security number, list of banks, etc.

    3. Re:File Sharing personal information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's like telling someone that their zipper's down, and they punch you because you peeked.

      No, it's more like you walking up to a guy with his zipper down, and reaching in, grabing his private parts, measuring them, and telling him how he's endowed.

      I'd punch you too!

      Mind your own business. If you see my tax file out there, leave it alone!

    4. Re:File Sharing personal information by northcat · · Score: 1

      If you see my tax file out there, leave it alone!

      It's like saying, if you see my dick hanging out, don't look at it, close your eyes. And if you inform me of the same, I'll punch you. Come on, dude, your dick is hanging out, PUT IT BACK IN!!

    5. Re:File Sharing personal information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's a good thing nobody in the US uses social security numbers for identification purposes anymore, or else you would be accused (and automatically found guilty, btw) of identity theft.

      /sarcasm
      /?

    6. Re:File Sharing personal information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I like walking around with my dick hanging out!

      8==========D

  12. They want the government to pay for their new syst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Very simple answer to your question about what they really want to do.

    The banking and finance industry left us with a shamefully bad system of doing checks and credit cards. They abandoned all of their work on this for twenty years and let it ride until the year 2000 scam. And now they see that their system is so flawed that it can not work any more.

    The result? People are increasingly opting out of credit cards as much as they can.

    The system of banking is broken and they don't wnat to spend the money to fix it.

    So what to do if you are a drug addled trust fund brat who doesn't ever spend any of his/her own money to do anything and lives off of the public nickel on some yaught up in Camden Maine?

    Create the persception that your own insecure system of doing transactions is such a large problem that the government should pay to develop a new system.

    That is what it comes right down to, people, the large banking and finance interests don't want to spend their own money making their system secure so they are going to get the government to pay to do it.

    I may be wrong about this, I can be wrong about a lot of things. But this is the only thing that makes sense to me. They know that the system is broken and true to the trust fund classes way of treating the rest of us like slaves they will try to get the rest of us to fund their retooling.

    This is probably a good thing for the engineers in Bangalore and China.

  13. Due process? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean automatically destroy the computer when running the copyrighted material? Whatever happened to due process? That's punishment/sentencing before even being found guilty.

    1. Re:Due process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some countries it would also be seen as a criminal act or against local laws.

  14. Re:Thank you USA by dahamsta · · Score: 0

    More like Economy = Religion = Politics at the moment.

  15. Re:Thank you USA by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In all countries we have Religion = Economics = Politics. You state the obvious and homogenous. Why?

  16. I don't think we are in Canada anymore, Toto. by Black_Macrame · · Score: 1

    Christ, it just keeps getting better and better in the "Land of the Free(TM)." Would someone just nuke us now and put us out of everyone's misery. Oh Shit! Patriot Act Flag! Better shut my pie-hole.

    1. Re:I don't think we are in Canada anymore, Toto. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 0

      Better shut my pie-hole.

      Damn straight. They don't serve pie to captives^Wdetainees at Gitmo.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:I don't think we are in Canada anymore, Toto. by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      It's been proposed, read The Sheeps Look Up John Brunner.
      But then I'm against the death penalty :-)

  17. subcommittee on intellectual property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  18. Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is why i stopped feeding the beast by not buying or procuring any music produced by the music industry for at least 4 years now.

    but I am at a point in my life where other people's music doesn't move me like it used to.

    I agree, let's all stop buying the copyrighted works of giant mega-corporations.

  19. wanted: can I run emule on your machine in Russia? by NimNar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Help!! I am a citizen of the USA who would like to run emule and download things Orrin Hatch says I can't.

    Do you live in a copyright free country? I will pay you monthly via paypal for the ability to run eMule on your machine (say $3 a GB) and the ability to sftp downloaded files my computer. I want to watch classic films and mickey mouse cartoons and hard to find rare video footage without the Senate subcommittee on mind control and groupthought ordering my arrest and imprisonment.

  20. for (i=1;i++;) by tmasky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Potential flamebait, but I'm damned curious.
    Why are you Americans putting up with this crap? Governments have been violently overthrown for less than what the current administration has done.

    Common answer: "Because corporations have a stranglehold on our government. It doesn't really matter who gets elected."

    Yes, but you still have some kind of pseudo-democracy.

    Why do I not hear of any collective group being formed to help inform Joe Public and try and rally some support? Power in numbers! Don't stand for what is currently being dished out to you. It's insulting.

    Hell. There's at least a couple of hundred thousand Americans who read slashdot every day. There's a start.

    And I'm not talking about something which just called for a change in administration.. like moveon.org

    1. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Black_Macrame · · Score: 0, Troll
      "Yes, but you still have some kind of pseudo-democracy."

      You Got It, thats what we have. Willful Ignorance is the law of the land nowadays. Americans have to have a hard series of Bitch Slaps to get anything. Fuck, we have had two fraudulent elections in a row and we still don't have paper trails or standardized voting machines. No wonder they are always saying "God Bless America", we probably need it more than the rest of the world. But I think "God give us a Freaking Clue." would be more useful

    2. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's even worse than that.

      Now they want to put their worst citizens at the head of international organizations, like Paul Wolfowitz at the Wold Bank.

      With these guys ruling, welcome to a s.h.i.t world.

    3. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by jonwil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If every US slashdotter donated 20 bucks to their local member with a nice letter attached opposing the rediculious copyright, patent and trademark system in america and calling for real reform of the system to benifit everyone (not just greedy dinosaur corperations who wont wake up and embrace the 21st centuary and the new technology), it might actually get the politions to sit up and take notice.
      Also, in the letter people should state state that they will vote for whichever polition does the most towards true reform of copyrights, trademarks and patents.

      Although, naturally, the more money you include, the more likely the politions are to listen to you.

      Heck, if small churches in small towns no-one has heard of are able to muster up votes and support for the politions who support their conservative religious views, surely a popular site like Slashdot could muster up a latter writing campaign pledging votes to any and all politions who support true reforn of the patent, copyright and trademark laws to the benifit of everyone.

      The other thing that people here need to stop doing is being hypocritical.
      Everyone here says "The GPL is great, anyone who violates it should be sued for everything they own" yet those same people willingly admit to violating the copyright of the big corperations (which is just as valid and legally binding as the copyright on software under the GPL).
      If Slashdotters (and "geeks" generally) stopped the whole "it is ok to violate copyright as long as its a big corperation who is affected and not a small programmer" thing, mabie people would be more likely to listen.

    4. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Joey7F · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yes, but you still have some kind of pseudo-democracy.


      Yeah we call it a republic though.

      Why do I not hear of any collective group being formed to help inform Joe Public and try and rally some support? Power in numbers! Don't stand for what is currently being dished out to you. It's insulting.


      An issue like copyright laws are not going to be at the top of anyone's agenda. Plus, it is somewhat complicated, everytime I explain stuff to my friends they zone out. I chalk it up to me being a boring guy, but I also blame it on the fact that people just don't care.

      I will also assume you are European, in which case I should ask you why Europeans aren't jumping up and down to lower taxes and remove bans on certain speech (such as the ban on Nazi material). Because people in Europe don't care. There is no burning desire to draw up swastikas, nor is there a really yearning to remove government from your lives. You all are happy, much like we are.

      Hell. There's at least a couple of hundred thousand Americans who read slashdot every day. There's a start. And I'm not talking about something which just called for a change in administration.. like moveon.org


      We have lots of guns in America. If 100k tried to overthrow the government against the will of the rest of the country, it would be the quickest crushing of a coup...ever! There is no need for a revolution...yet. There certainly is no need for a violent one.

      --Joey
    5. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by tmasky · · Score: 2

      Damn guys. I mention that governments have been overthrown in the past and then immediately people start talking about logistics of killing people tomorrow and how bad it would be =) woah..

    6. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been fraud in the past two elections, but the "Democratic" party has been the one that is committing most of the fraud. I am not saying the Repulicans are any better. They both want to control all aspects of your life, they just have different excuses. The D's think the people are stupid and need the benevolent government of enlightened people to tell them what to do. The R's think the people are immoral and want the government to force you to act within their approved guidelines. There is really no difference between them.

    7. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because many southerners are retarded, and there's a lot of them.

    8. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely - but if there's to be a letter writing campaign I strongly advise you to run a spell checker over the letter before you send it out.

    9. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Exatron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Nice red herring with the GPL violations thing.

      What Slashdotters are complaining about is that certain parties, the music industry for example, have overstepped the bounds of copyright law, and now wish to extend the law to cover even more.

      The megacorporations have gone too far in their attempts to protect their "property rights". They assume that everyone is a criminal, attempt to eliminate fair use because they might be able to squeeze a few more pennies out of customers, are trying to shut down filesharing networks because they are a threat to their business model, and they have bought laws that make it illegal for people to actually make use of the rights they have.

      None of that has anything to do with the GPL.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    10. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by CCRancor · · Score: 1

      One of the major reasons why Bush won the 2004 election is actually technological. The republican volunteers used PDAs to keep track of which registered republicans hadn't shown up to vote yet.
      This sounds exacly like the kind of thing slashdotters should be doing - go out and find a candidate you like and use all the modern technology you can muster to make people vote, preferably for "your" candidate of course..

      --
      Open source is the art of letting other people write your bad code.
    11. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAmerican: First of all this is not the kind of issue that people go into bloody battles for, secondly, you should read some of what Lenin wrote about Stolypin reforms. Basically if people are given more opportunity for financial independence, it is [almost?] impossible to get them to participate in a revolution and overthrow the current government.

    12. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Ghostx13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

      The difference between nobel men like Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington and the like is simple: most Americans today prefer comfort to freedom. As a whole we prefer lethargy to action, ignorance to knowlege, and the status quo so that we can catch the latest reality show.

      The time of America being a bastion of freedom and democracy is over, thanks in large part to our success. We've grow fat and lazy, both literally and figuratively.

      Whats more, we're never going to change. We've well passed the point of no return. Government will continue to grow un-abated. Taxes will continue to climb. We'll become more and more of a consumer society as opposed to a production society. And eventally we'll either become a totallitarian state, or we'll be taken over by the corporate world sort of like the government in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.

      The citizenry will never ever rise up. We're too far removed from revolution. Not only that, but we have whackos who continue to think that giving up our right to bear arms is a good idea. What are we supposed to overthrow anyone with? Rocks and sharp sticks? What do we have to defend our own homes with? Oh yea, thats right, we prefer comfort rather than confrontation. Call the police, that armed robber will only have time to shoot 2 or 3 people before they can get here... Never mind that criminals don't care if guns are illegal being that their criminals. But of course I can't have a gun to defend my family because I obey the law. Stick a fork in us. We're done.

    13. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by hugesmile · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The only thing I have seen that is close to this is The Free State Project, where a Yale guy worked out the math that if 20,000 like-minded Americans move to a less populated state, they could form a voting block that could return Freedoms.

      Get one state, then then work on the federal government. Show how one state's freedom increases the quality of life and others will follow. etc.

      He's up to about 6500 people who have pledged that they will move to New Hampshire once they reach the 20,000 number. I'd love to see this succeed!

    14. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by demachina · · Score: 1

      "This sounds exacly like the kind of thing slashdotters should be doing - go out and find a candidate you like"

      I think you answered your own question. There are no candidates to like, who have even a remote chance of getting elected. Ralph Nader is the closest I've seen lately, he has no chance. John McCain might work or might be a complete disaster, but he wont abandon the Republican party and they will never nominate him, he is not rabid right wing enough.

      Thats why Democrats, liberals, progressive are getting their asses kicked. They can't stand their own candidates.

      Another problem with the left, in the U.S. at least, is they are prone to think for themselves and are all over the map on issues and candidates. The right tends to think what FOX News and talk radio, and their churches tell them to think. They also have a very standard set of wedge issues that causes them to vote as a unified block, gays, guns and abortion. The left is mostly pro choice but not completely, some on the left support gays rights, others are as homophobic as the right. The left is all over the map on guns.

      --
      @de_machina
    15. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell. There's at least a couple of hundred thousand Americans who read slashdot every day. There's a start.

      The geeks shall inherit the earth

    16. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why are you Americans putting up with this crap?

      Because ClearChannel doesn't cover it so it must be irrelevant.

      ClearChannel has taught me:
      * We must all obey the president mindlessly because either you are with Bush or you are with the Terrorists
      * Osama worked for Hussein
      * Iraq had WMD
      * Kerry was a coward and Osama wanted him in charge
      * Iraq is now a peaceful democracy. People have welcomed us with flowers and bunnies.
      * Terrorists are lurking outside this country
      * The whole world, except for evil France is behind us in the war on terror
      * Copyright violators are hackers and terrorists who threaten the foundation of our economy.

      Seriously, there is way too much media concentration in the US. It's just too easy to control and since most people get their information about the world from these few media barons, the people of the U.S. are making decisions based on.

      Until the international internet becomes the primary news source (and not just the controlled blogs of the media barons), yanks will be sheep. It happened in 1930's Germany, it happened in Stalinist Russia, it happens in every dictatorship where the media is controlled.

      People are people the whole world apart. Holier than thou attitudes don't help.

    17. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by teslatug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's so hard to understand??? Most Americans don't think there is anything bad going on in the US. You may disagree, you may think that they are not well informed or just plain stupid, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration was reelected. Other governments may have been overthrown for less, but I'm pretty sure that a good size of that populace must have been pretty mad. I don't like what's going on, I voted accordingly, and I write letters to my representatives, but all that is moot if I am in the minority.

    18. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Not only that, but we have whackos who continue to think that giving up our right to bear arms is a good idea. What are we supposed to overthrow anyone with? Rocks and sharp sticks?"

      Chances are slim to none you are going to overthrow the U.S. government using guns. In fact its seldom a good way to effect change any place. You are more likely to end up with one group of armed thugs toppling the existing group of armed thugs, and ruling as armed thugs.

      You start shooting at people you are going to be instantly be branded as terrorists, criminals and wackos by the state, the media and most people and they will just hunt you down.

      When governments are toppled by the will of the people and with minimal violence hold a moral high ground that strengthens their support and power after the peaceful revolution. In fact you really want the state to use violence to put down strikes and peaceful protests. When they do they almost always lose all their popular support and hasten their fall.

      Get some books on Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Nonviolent strategies are way more likely to work, the problem is you have to have enough people who want change, preferably a majority. If you have a enough people strikes, peaceful protest and attacking the status quo at the ballot box will work better than killing people. Problem is most Americans like the status quo. Most Americans are fat, dumb and happy. It really isn't likely you will see real unrest for another 10-20 years. By then America's wealth will have been largely erased by trillion dollar annual trade deficits and budget deficits, there will be no jobs, the dollar will have collapsed and been abandoned as the global reserve currency in favor of the Euro, gasoline will be prohibitively expensive in part due to the dollars collapse and the OPEC moving to the Euro.

      When America has completed its transition to a real 3rd world country, with 5% being filthy rich and 95% of its people in grinding poverty, then you will have the critical mass to topple the status quo. When Americans can't afford to drive their cars you will have their attention.

      Unfortunately it would be better if Americans were a thinking people and toppled a government(both parties), that is currently driving them down a road to the ruin, largely at the direction of a corporate plutocracy whose only allegiance is to wealth and power and will sell America down a river in a heart beat, if thats what it takes stay rich and get richer.

      The one flash point you might see in the near term is the Republican's may attempt to seize complete control of the government by exercising the "nuclear option" in the senate and changing the closure rule so a simple majority can end a filibuster. At that point the Democrats will be in powerless in the Senate as they already are in the House. The Republicans will have effectively seized power and we are in a defacto one party state assuming they can hold their majority in 2006 and 2008. An enlightened population would be given pause by such a power grab, you would hope Americans would react, sadly I doubt they will.

      --
      @de_machina
    19. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by hazah · · Score: 1
      The other thing that people here need to stop doing is being hypocritical. Everyone here says "The GPL is great, anyone who violates it should be sued for everything they own" yet those same people willingly admit to violating the copyright of the big corperations (which is just as valid and legally binding as the copyright on software under the GPL).

      When you support the GPL, it's not about money. When you copy music, it's not about money. One of the reasons the GPL is around is because of the copyright system, under which the stolen music is being distributed. So this isn't all that hypocritical. This is only happening because we are legaly bound, and corporations seem to be not. Screw that.

    20. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by hazah · · Score: 1
      Doesn't mean he was right. Financial freedom is only one aspect of one's life. What the person thinks he should or will be doing with his time is left entierly up to them at that point. And if there's no incentive to keep getting richer (ie, it's getting old, what else is there to do). Might not be true for everyone, but given enough time, this won't really matter, as it's a question of numbers. So far we're progressing.

      Also, don't you think that the current government will become much less of a necessity under these conditions, and will be essentially pointless? You can't just over look all the other pretty variables that will play their roles.

    21. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by mjh49746 · · Score: 1

      Because people here are fat, complacent, and lazy sheep that only care about being spoonfed the garbage and '**AA approved opinions' on TV. You could have a fascist dictator at the helm and as long as he's waving the flag and talking out of his ass about the great American Dream and other 'patriotic' bullshit, the sheep will remain happy, safe, and 'secure'. Freedom? All they know of freedom is: French Fries or Onion Rings?

    22. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by hyfe · · Score: 1
      I will also assume you are European, in which case I should ask you why Europeans aren't jumping up and down to lower taxes and remove bans on certain speech (such as the ban on Nazi material).


      Because the wast majority in Europe believe banning Nazism and having high taxes are good things.


      The problem is that there will always be rebellious youth, and very of them really manage to comprehend the massive scale of WW2. We don't want Nazisms to be 'just another form to rebell against your parents'. We want it dead and gone, and we want the people claiming they are nazis to be shown for what they are.

      Regarding taxes, the pushes for tax-cuts seems to come from the elite-right, and most the mass demonstration from the common man concern protecting rights like healthcare, pensions and labour laws etc. If anything, I'd say there is a far greater likelyhood of a rebellion concerned with increasing taxes than lowering them :)

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    23. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by NetNifty · · Score: 1

      "I will also assume you are European, in which case I should ask you why Europeans aren't jumping up and down to lower taxes and remove bans on certain speech (such as the ban on Nazi material). "

      I'm British so not subject to the ban on nazi materials (well, yet anyway I think) although IIRC there have been a few protests/marches against the Nazi material bans, unfortunatly with the people involved being labelled as neo-nazis.

      On the subject of taxes, us British don't mind taxes which get stuff done (not that raising taxes would be a vote winner on a politicians manifesto, although increasing NHS funding for example might be), but a fairly large protest against fuel taxation took place only 5 years ago, leaving one third of all pumps dry in the country, so we're maybe not as apathetic as you think ;)

    24. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, the man actually setup a revolution, so he must have been right somewhere there. I personally think he was right. People don't 'rock the boat' unless they have really nothing to lose, and people who feel that in there current environment they have financial opportunities feel that by 'rocking the boat' they will have something to lose.

      Besides, if you are busy with your business, and you are at least somewhat successfull, you will not participate in an anti-regime movement. UNLESS you are extremely well versed in politics and actually care. Honestly, how many people care that much?

      Will the current american government become less of a necessity? Is it a necessity even now? Those are not the kinds of questions that will inspire a revolution.

    25. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by hazah · · Score: 1

      I wasn't thinking in terms of revolution. I merely think it will be ignorable eventually.

    26. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by isolation · · Score: 0

      I'll bite on this one. I vote LP and here is why.

      The left is all over the map depending on who gives the money. At least the right has some "core values" that the politcos cannot take away such as school choice, limiting abortion and anti-gun control.

      Issues such as gay marriage, c/states//civil rights, balenced budgets and drug law shows how much of a mess the right is in as well.

      What is a "liberal or progressive"? Most on the right want school choice which sounds like a "liberal" idea to me.

      Heres a "progressive" idea for you, how about that state not being involved in marriage at all? My union with my wife was a act of God and it sickens me to have the state have any sort of legal authority over it. There is something like 500 extra contract and tax right that being married gives you in this country. The notion of granting more rights to someone that is married as opposed to someone that is single should be ruled unconstitutional. Try getting the state out of marriage rather than keeping this insane unequal application of the law that is marriage going. Whats next? Why can't a marriage be three people? Should all three not have the same rights? The state being involved in my marriage which is a union before God is on part with a 1st amendment violation of the establishment clause.

      --
      Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
    27. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they are libertarians. Libertarians don't seem to understand that in order to have a free society there have to be laws and regulations that maintain that freedom. You can't just let corperations and individuals to run amok. The "free market" had its chance; it was dominated by monopolies and feifdoms that abused their workers (to the point of death by starvation!), customers, and society in general. The final overthrow of this broken system was one of the most violent periods of the last century.

      Liberty requires justice. Justice requires regulation. In order to maintain freedom the people who have the ability and will to take those freedoms away must be contained. Libertarians would have all laws that regulate corperate and individual behavior removed and trust that society can protect itself by just not buying products from companies it deems abusive. This has NEVER worked and it had its chance through most of human history. I do NOT want to go back to seing 7 year old children working the mines for a dime a day! Removing these regulations would turn us into a third world country ruled only by corruption and greed in which there is no middle class, only the very rich and the very poor.

      Libertarians want to replace rulership by government with rulership by coorperations. Granted that we are very close to that right now, but regardless...I would much rather be ruled by a government that at least has to pretend to be answerable to the society it governs than a corperation that by current ethical standards (responsibility to shareholders' profits only) is required not to give a shit.

      We do need the government to stop being so intrusive, this is true. But the libertarians want to take this to an extreem that is unsafe and results in LESS freedoms than we currently have, not more. So quite plainly I hope their plan does NOT succeed. We need liberty, not chaos.

    28. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Why are you Americans putting up with this crap? Governments have been violently overthrown for less than what the current administration has done.

      The problems in American government are not only endemic to the US but exist in other nations as well. The decline is just more apparent here because the US has been at the forefront of national power, both economic and military, for so long.

      Everybody stands to gain if things were fixed but only those who move to change things pay the price. It is a prisoner's dilemma on a large scale.

      Common answer: "Because corporations have a stranglehold on our government. It doesn't really matter who gets elected."
      Yes, but you still have some kind of pseudo-democracy.


      Consider our election process: for the most part we vote using plurality which is known to be a very poor system for either generating consensus or selecting among candidates compared to other systems like approval voting. One of the results is that individual votes are actually worth less then otherwise because the candidates you may vote for are chosen ahead of time either directly or because of strategic voting. The votes being worth less make the initial selection of candidates worth more and this is were large interests use their influence. It does not matter substantively which of the two parties is voted into office as long as no other party is.

    29. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Ghostx13 · · Score: 1

      Nice reply. I agree that both Ghandi and MLK were successful in using non-violent means to secure their goals. However, I would argue that non-violent strategies bring more of an evolution rather than a revolution.

      In the case of Dr. King, a large portion of the US already knew that racism was wrong. Lots of people in the south knew it was wrong, but it was so ingraned that it took an outside catalist to evolve the thinking of the youth. However, the divide between black and white in the US is still as alive in 2005 as it was 40 years ago. True, overt discrimination is illegal, but the hate -of both groups- tword the other is still very alive.

      While Ghandi certainly promoted peaceful civil disobediance I believe the straw that broke the camels back was his Quit India proclamation. This resulted in quite a bit of violence. Further the British had to worry about the Japanese coming to the aide of India against the British. All in all the fight for Indian independance took nearly 100 years. A strong case could be made stating that it would have continued if not for the violence of the Quit India movement and the fear of having to fight the Japanese.

      Contrast both of these to our own revolution. Just because a revolution is violent does not mean it does not hold the high ground. Nor does it mean that a group of thugs will rule once the revolution is through.

      As a counter to your argument, I'd say that a group of thugs have come to power in the black community after the tragic death of Dr. King. While Dr. King preached unity, it seems his friends like Jesse Jackson enjoy the emnity between the races. Its provided him a job for the past 40 some odd years. Why would he want there to be an amecable resolution?

      Social evolution takes the will of the masses. Do you think Americans currently have enough will to put down the remote and Big Mac and say "enough is enough!"? I don't. Not anymore. We've for the most part, given up our means of violent revolution. Currently we're being bled of our means of non-violent revolution. Maybe abject, 3rd world poverity will shock Americans enough to do something. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.

    30. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are in New Hampshire, I don't see why you wouldn't want to see this succeed. If they mess up New Hampshire, so what. But if they show us what a truly Free state looks like, that can only be good. Either other states will look at it and like it, or other states will look at it like you suggest, and hate it. Either way, you removed a bunch of Libertarians from your state - which presumably you would like!

    31. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder our state is going to hell. Please move back thanks.

    32. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted accordingly, and I write letters to my representatives, but all that is moot if I am in the minority.

      Or worse, if you are in the silent majority.

    33. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by dghcasp · · Score: 1
      Because it's hard to motivate Joe Public to care about anything that doesn't "directly" affect them. It's even harder to motivate them to do anything about it.

      Remember, the american dream is based on the idea of becomming one of the rich and powerful people. I don't think many people in the u.s. are really of the mindset of sacrificing for the good of the community, especially if it might impede their possible rise to the top.

    34. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 1
      There is no burning desire to draw up swastikas, nor is there a really yearning to remove government from your lives. You all are happy, much like we are.

      Are we, now? At least half of us voted against this administration in the last election. Our legal representation was stolen from us in the 2000 presidential election, and they managed to fix the 2004 election -- big surprise.

      And let's be really clear about this, Slashdot Republicans:

      Bush will never be a succesful Nazi, he and all the people he surrounds himself with are far too incompetent. But he has opened the door for the next round of true evil. The next administration will have an excellent idea of what they can get away with. Nobody thought it could happen here, but it will -- Bush's anti-anal-sex crusade and hands-off GOP-based fixing of Ohio in the last election has guaranteed it.

      Who knew all it would take for perhaps otherwise sane people was inflaming incipient homophobia in the incest states? I would never have guessed.

    35. Re:for (i=1;i++;) by demachina · · Score: 1

      The problem with voting Libertarian is, if you were to actually implement it is it would let corporations run amuck too. Of course maybe it would be better than the status quo where they are buying the government wholesale and using it to loot money out of the pockets of tax payers.

      One thing we do actually need and want from government is to put checks on the monopolists, the stock swindlers, etc, though the government we have is really bad at checking them.

      --
      @de_machina
  21. Patentin' stuff by msormune · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By now, even the most dense slashdotters MAY have figured out that the whole patent circus in the U.S is about protecting U.S companies and giving them an advantage over companies from based in other countries. This is also used to protect U.S markets against foreign competitors. So in essence, the U.S government is doing its best indirectly to help these companies by allowing the patent show to go on. The most important thing is it's a U.S company holding the patents.

    1. Re:Patentin' stuff by northcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is partly due to a misunderstanding of capitalism among Americans. It looks like most Americans think capitalism == giving top priority to companies. Just like they think that communism == censorship and oppresion of people. They seem to equate the implementation of these ideologies in some countries to the actual theory itself. (and also some misunderstanding about these implementations, including thinking that things are more extreme than they actually are and some completely false beliefs)

    2. Re:Patentin' stuff by uujjj · · Score: 1

      We wish. US trade policies have been screwing American workers and companies for 3 decades now.

    3. Re:Patentin' stuff by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      It's about protecting big established US companies from US small fry as much as it is about anythign foreign. After all, the laws apply to the USA a whole lot more than they do to anywhere else (for now).

  22. Simple by trezor · · Score: 1

    It's all on the Internet, and thus CyberTerrorism(TM), which is to be dealt by with RIAA/MPAA's Cuban Department.

    What? Me, trolling?

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  23. Hopefully, by kocsonya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the stuff that they will come up with and push through might make the Europeans to wake up.

    1. Re:Hopefully, by acb · · Score: 1

      It won't help Australia, though, which is bound by treaty to keep its IP laws harmonised with Head Office (i.e., the U.S.).

      As soon as the U.S. passes legislation outlawing peer-to-peer internet connections (i.e., mandating a server-licensing regime of some sort) or criminalising the possession of copyrighted content without legitimate DRM, Australia will be bound to pass the same law. And given that the conservatives won by a landslide in the last election, there is little chance of the politicians worrying about the people having a problem with that.

  24. scary boss by octalgirl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know how this guy does it, who he knows, or how he keeps managing to BS his way into all of these things. Every bill he has attempted to pass has been so infantile in tech knowledge, so utterly chilling, and yet he just manages to do it again and again. And he doesn't even bother to learn, he just twists the words until they meet his agenda. He is like some scary Dilbert boss of the entertainment world, carelessly waving his laser pointer in everyone's eye. But for as much as he screws up (in the tech view anyway) he just keeps rising to the top!

    This man is just exhausting already, and I wonder if that it the point. To take all of us who battle this now and just wear us out until we give up. As the years march by, it will simply become a way of life. Isn't there a word for that?

    1. Re:scary boss by yodhe · · Score: 1

      IANAUSC (I am not a US citizen) so I'm not completely au fait with US politics, but couldn't that description be applied to the entirety of the current administration (substituting adjectives/pronouns where applicable)?

      --
      Life is a continual education in the triumph of application over ability.
    2. Re:scary boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US does not have a monopoly on corrupt and incompetent government. Many countries are way ahead of us in that market.

    3. Re:scary boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite clear how he does it; there's no "techies" in power who can stand against him...

  25. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a statement, Hatch ... highlighted the issue of patent reform, saying, "We need strong patent protection to give incentives for innovation and economic growth."

    Translation: "Now it's not just Disney and Time/Warner/AOL/Whatever who are buying be hookers - it's Microsoft too!"

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To properly translate it, you need to back it through several cycles of PHB borken-telephone.
      In the beginning was the DEMO Project. And the Project was without form. And darkness was upon the staff members thereof. So they spake unto their Division Head, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinks."

      And the Division Head spake unto his Department Head, saying, "It is a crock of excrement and none may abide the odor thereof." Now, the Department Head spake unto his Directorate Head, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and is very strong, such that none may abide before it." And it came to pass that the Directorate Head spake unto the Assistant Technical Director, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide by its strength."

      And the assistant Technical Director spake thus unto the Technical Director, saying, "It containeth that which aids growth and it is very strong." And, Lo, the Technical Director spake then unto the Captain, saying, "The powerful new Project will help promote the growth of the Laboratories."

      And the Captain looked down upon the Project, and He saw that it was Good!

      So it probably started with something like: "We need better nose plugs! This crock of shit stinks worse than anything before!"
  26. Re:This might save my family. by also+aswell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe you should have invested in a local prison or not bought a location so close to a Walmart?

    --
    "Where did this apple come from?"
    --Alan Turing
  27. Don't be so stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are advocating an international conspiracy so you can get free movies?

    And you aren't even doing in Anonymously.

    Don't be so stupid because if you are kidding I am sure that there are people who will insist that you are not as they take away your freedom and your life to protect the copyright holders of mega corporations.

    1. Re:Don't be so stupid by NimNar · · Score: 0

      You are completely right! I am only joking, JOKING!!! JOKING!! Yikes...someone's at the door...aaaaah

  28. Wolf hired to guard sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But these sheep are not ordinary, they WILL kick the wolf's ass.

  29. Whats more important? by bostonsoxfan · · Score: 1

    Does Congress have nothing better to do than promote the interests of their major political contributers. When will Congress do something sensible like repeal the Patriot Act or even No Child Left Behind. These are some real concerns of the people. By people I do not mean large international corporations.

  30. Hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kernel is the kernel. It is under the GPL.

    If you want to do something else write a module and load it after the kernel loads (ldmod)

    And you can do whatever you want.

  31. Re:fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is America's future not in IP, but in it's population?

    Something like popping the cork off this population bottle?

  32. Re:This might save my family. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well shit, what do you know, copy and paste is getting easier and more consistent under linux.

  33. Why not do what you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The answer is simple, fool.
    Our system is being run by a bunch of facists loosers who drive the car or American government.

    They are the drivers of the car. They are not the car. The car works and runs fine.

    Our system of government is still better than most others.

    The revolution thing was tried in the 1860's.

    Go to Gettysburg and weep at the graves before you go telling other people to go and kill someone to fulfil your dreams of what's next.

    John Lennon said it best:

    "you say you want a revolution. What I want is to change your head".

    My fond wish is to open up the minds of fools who support the current administration. I would hope thta these people will learn and grow and be better people.
    Violence and revolution are last resorts.
    The best change of government is through non-violence.

    American Demcracy is having problems in that our leaders no longer seem to believe in or care about democracy.

    That isn't saying that we should kill them. Hell no!
    We need them to understand how they have become undemocratic and elitest and get them to be more like their forefathers who choose not to be like them.

    The neocons betray not just us, but their ancestors. They betray the founding fathers, the soldiers who died in war for democracy.

    Their sentance should be that they should grow and learn and become better democrats (small d).

    Change the government by enlightening the people who are in government. Change the president by educating him.

    I don't like a lot about our current President but if I knew of anything that was a plot against him then I would turn in anyone who would harm him.

    If you advocate violence, then you must be prepared to have your own sentance dropped upon your own head. Look what happened to Ropspierre (did I spell that right?).

    Non-violence is the answer, people.

  34. On a slightly related note: by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is changing, a lot and not for the best. At first I was mad at americans for letting their country and values drift like that, I was mad when I saw them use left to promote right, how many evil in this country are being perpetuated because of some holy or pseudo-moral reasons, I was mad at seeing them call who's good and who's evil on the planet when no country on earth come even close to them on bodycount.

    But then I started to pity them cause I realized they just, as an average, don't have the right level of education and willpower to actually fight those abuse so all they can do is witness them and rant on them but they are forbid to act and actually just don't feel the need for it.

    This is another step toward an accepted and democratized dictatorship, think of it, soon the US will be the only place on earth where people will elect their dictator... isn't democracy great!

    1. Re:On a slightly related note: by garcia · · Score: 1

      This is another step toward an accepted and democratized dictatorship, think of it, soon the US will be the only place on earth where people will elect their dictator... isn't democracy great!

      There are plenty of other places where people "elect" their dictator. Here we were happy to elect someone who has put people in positions of power that errode our freedoms.

      People don't consider the President and his cabinet to be doing anything wrong. They want to be told what to do and how to do it. Freedom is them being able to change the channel on conglomorate controlled cable and go to a restaurant that serves an identical menu to the one next door but has different names for the entres.

      Democracy *IS* great. Fascism, facilitated and welcomed by the willing public, is not so great.

    2. Re:On a slightly related note: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then I started to pity them cause I realized they just, as an average, don't have the right level of education and willpower to actually fight those abuse...

      Geezzz, not feeling superior much, aren't we?

      Let me guess -- you feel the world would be a much better place if we let "enlightened elites" decide what's best for the masses, right?

      And, of course, you'd be one of those elite, right?

    3. Re:On a slightly related note: by wronski · · Score: 1

      I am by no means a fan of GWB, but bodycount?! Millions (litteraly) died and are still dying in North Korea, and DR Congo, and Sudan. The problem is that half the world seems to care only when the dead are american, and the other half cares only when they were killed by americans.

    4. Re:On a slightly related note: by o'reor · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually I think the parent might prefer the "enlightened masses" to decide of their own future. This requires massive efforts at "enlightenment of the masses", which might include :
      • weaning them from stupid TV programs
      • teaching them to get their news from various sources and exercise a critical look on them (i.e. not relying solely on Fox News)
      • rather than dismissing all proposals from politicians as "technocratic" or "too complicated", have those politicians actually explain what they are up to, take a role in public protests when necessary: reclaim a decent, vivid political life.
      That list could contain many more items, of course...
      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  35. Just because I think Orin Hatch is a bad choice... by rben · · Score: 4, Insightful
    for leading any committee that has anything to do with copyright, doesn't mean that I don't respect copyright myself. Read the posts! While there are people that post here that steal music and software, I'm not one of them. That probably goes for at least half the people who read slashdot.

    There are lots of things in this country that deperately need fixing. The bottom line of the music and motion picture industries is not one of them. Both industries are doing booming business at a time when many people have given up looking for work. Senator Hatch might make better use of his time trying to find ways to keep jobs in the U.S.

    At a time when the economy has been in an extended slump, it's not surprising that CD stores, especially small ones, are having hard times. All small retailors suffer during bad economic times. (And don't talk to me about recovery until the jobs being created aren't all at McDonald's.) The success of huge discount retailors like Walmart also plays a role in the decline of CD stores. It's hard to compete with a company that gets huge volume discounts. While we're at it, look at all the other new venues at which you can purchase CDs, including the Internet, bookstores, and even groceries.

    In fact, when you look at how broad the retailing of CDs has become, it's hard to believe that piracy is really playing such a large role. More than one study has shown that he people that are most heavily involved in pirating music, are also the ones who buy the most music. So, go ahead *IAA, prosecute your best customers!

    The reason I oppose the appointment of someone like Senator Hatch to head anything that has to do with copyright and patent law is that he has never shown any inclination to listen to anyone other than the billionaires who are trying to increase their profits. Hatch reacts with outrage at the actions of file sharers, but can't seem to see that the actions of the *IAA are just as bad. Fair Use is part of the law, too. Taking away our Fair Use rights arguably has a much larger impact on the public than any amount of file sharing does on the *IAA companies.

    Fair Use doctrine says that I should be able to make copies of copywritten material for my own personal use. The *IAA want to make it impossible for me to do so, ostensibly to protect them from evil file sharers. Most people don't share files, but many of them want to make up CD compilations of their favorite songs. All media has a limited lifespan. I should be able to make backups so that if my CD gets left in the sun, I can still listen to the music that I've licensed. The *IAA wants to force me to buy a new copy anytime my copy is ruined. If the DRM nonsense goes the way it looks like it will go, I'd have to replace my entire music collection if I got a new computer or if my hard drive went bad. This isn't about protection against piracy. It's about forcing the consumer to repurchase the same product over and over again.

    The big crooks here are the *IAA and the people behind them, not the file sharers. That doesn't make file sharing legal, right, or reasonable, but we do need to keep things in perspective.

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

  36. Re:Thank you USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US, we have Economy = Religion = Politics = War

  37. Just a Senator by whoda · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He can't lead anything if he gets voted out, right?

    1. Re:Just a Senator by True_Requiem · · Score: 1

      Sadly voting amounts to about... less than nothing in this country these days. Out poltical system has spiraled out of control and crawled into bed with about every nasty corporate hooker it could find. (I also mean jesus. ;)) I'm pretty sure he's gotten where he is by the green greese of the special interests that liked what they heard in his computer destroying rant.

    2. Re:Just a Senator by eclectro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, we have only a two party system.

      One local politician in the last election cycle told everybody that they could not be a good mormon and vote for a Democrat.

      That leaves just lil' ol' Orrin the republican.

      This was before the gay marriage bruhaha. Needless to say now, it's bleak if you are a Democrat running for major office in Utah.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:Just a Senator by tardigrades · · Score: 1

      Utah is pretty much 100% conservative. As long as he keeps running he'll win. Even the liberals in utah are fairly conservative.

      --
      really bored? My blog
    4. Re:Just a Senator by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If he get voted out, the gays will come and seduce your children!

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  38. Paying Orr$n to sing by rmpotter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Good old ornery Orrin. Remember when he took money from Novell, Sun, Oracle and AOL to fight Microsoft in the late 90's. Back then, many in the OSS community cheered him on for his integrity and forthrightness in taking on Microsoft. I guess cheering him on can't buy as much "integrity" as cold hard cash and the use of a corporate jet for his campaign.

    --
    Is this sig nificant?
    1. Re:Paying Orr$n to sing by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      I guess Orrin is an honest politician - he stays bought.

  39. National Treasure.. by One_6453 · · Score: 3, Funny

    From TFA The mounting dangers that piracy poses to the U.S. economy helped spur the move, Specter said after the announcement. "It's a big, tough subject. We lose billions each year. We have a national treasure named Orrin Hatch who is happy to take over the subcommittee, and I was happy to establish it," Specter said.

    Lets treat him like treasure and bury him *DUCKS*

    1. Re:National Treasure.. by serutan · · Score: 1

      and I was happy to establish it," Specter said.

      Specter "established" a Senate subcommittee?
      Is this:

      a) just typical "it's all about me" music industry executive ego talking.

      b) a sign of what a show-business lapdog Hatch actually is.

    2. Re:National Treasure.. by One_6453 · · Score: 1

      That brings out an intresting question.Who establishes committees/subcommittees? The best I could find is this http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common /briefing/Committees.htm/. Is there any one here who knows? That should be the first step in answering your question..

      Before anyone flames me for not knowing "my" constitution, note that I am Canadian

  40. Re:This might save my family. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    It's still a funny troll. I really like this one line:

    It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them.

    =)

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  41. Another horror brought to you by Orrin Hatch.. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DMCA! Yes that one! It was co-authored by that idiot and this only portends for worse things.

    A better choice would have been Boucher, at least he understands technology although I'm sure for some reason he isn't eligible....pity

    This is yet one more step in the ongoing fscking of the United States.

    1. Re:Another horror brought to you by Orrin Hatch.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boucher (that's Rick Boucher, the tech-savvy legislator, not Richard Boucher, the White House press guy), despite being one of the most technology-competent legislators around, is sadly just a Congressman -- not a Senator, as Orrin Hatch is. This is probably a Senate committee.

  42. Red Herring! Red Herring! by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could someone tell me what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?

    This is a complete red herring. What the industry is trying to stop with their heavy-handed digital right management and anti-reverse-engineering laws is not activity they are authorised to prevent, and it's not analogous to any activity the GPL prevents.

    When I take a GPLed program and modify it and keep my modifications secret I'm not violating the GPL unless I distribute the binary to someone without gicing them the source. Copyright controls distribution, not use.

    When I rip a CD so I can play it on my computer or mp3 player I'm not violating the terms under which a CD is released by Sony. If I give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD I am, but that's not what the indusry is trying to prevent... they're trying to prevent me from playing the music, not distributing it.

    So the answer to your red herring is "none, and it's irrelevant".

    By the way, I like your handle, "B.S.Artist".

    1. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      "When I rip a CD so I can play it on my computer or mp3 player I'm not violating the terms under which a CD is released by Sony. If I give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD I am"

      Cool, what if I keep the files after someone steals my original CD or LP, or if they are destroyed in a hurricane?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    2. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the kind of situation that calls for a Fair Use backup copy to me, doesn't it?

    3. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      " Sounds like the kind of situation that calls for a Fair Use backup copy to me, doesn't it?"

      Sure, but how am I to prove my fair use in the face of an accusation that could put me in jail?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    4. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by argent · · Score: 1

      Cool, what if I keep the files after someone steals my original CD or LP, or if they are destroyed in a hurricane?

      Are you really unable to generalise from "give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD", or are you just astroturfing?

    5. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Are you really unable to generalise from "give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD", or are you just astroturfing?"

      I am asking an honest question.

      Note the "Cool, ..." that was to indicate that I was not argueing with what was stated in the quote I was replying to.

      I know that the situation is/should be different in the case where I intentionally sell the original and keep the copy versus where I have the original stolen or destroyed and keep the copy. BUT, is it treated any differently under the law? If you are found with large numbers of albums ripped on your laptop and cannot produce the CDs, will they accept your honest statement that the CDs were stolen? Destroyed? What would you need to produce to prove this if they were willing to entertain this as a defence?

      Could you provice the generalisation for us all though? Just to be clear...

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    6. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, I got you mixed up with bsartist.

      If you are found with large numbers of albums ripped on your laptop and cannot produce the CDs, will they accept your honest statement that the CDs were stolen?

      Under traditional copyright law if you don't distribute those songs from your laptop you're not guilty of anything. It doesn't matter how you got them, you could have recorded them from the radio (legal), from a TV broadcast or simulcast (legal).

      I do have a couple of trashed CDs I keep as the no-longer-readable originals, but that's because I'm compulsive, not because I legally have to. :)

      Under the copyright regime the industry wants, you might well be liable for something just because you have a lot of MP3s on your computer... but I don't believe we're there yet. They have scared people who have downloaded songs over p2p into paying fines and fees, but if they were leeching (not redistributing the music) they should be free and clear.

      If they find the songs on your laptop over a share or over a P2P application, well, you're boned no matter where you got them from.

    7. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      "Under the copyright regime the industry wants, you might well be liable for something just because you have a lot of MP3s on your computer... but I don't believe we're there yet."

      Great! (I mean that we aren't there yet, not that that is what they probably want.) If this is indeed the case and not just wishful thinking. Are you a lawyer? Would a lawyer care to comment. I know you will not give us legal advice. ~;-)

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    8. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by argent · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if they've managed to make posession of music without a license illegal yet, but I don't believe they have.

      Certainly there's case law against it in many countries, such as the recent decision in France. I'm not at all sure that the artists suposedly being protected by the various proposed extensions to copyright law would actually approve of so rigid a regime, especially stated in such bald terms.

    9. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I'll comment, though I'm not a lawyer, I can read the law.

      The only thing copyright law forbids is making copies. (And public performances.) Anything else is legal. That includes being in possession of a copy that was not made legally.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I rip a CD so I can play it on my computer or mp3 player I'm not violating the terms under which a CD is released by Sony

      Maybe not when you play it on your computer, but you're only allowed to make one backup copy. Having the track on your MP3 player as well means you're exceeding this, and so technically breaking the law.

    11. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      "The only thing copyright law forbids is making copies. (And public performances.) Anything else is legal. That includes being in possession of a copy that was not made legally."

      If only it were this simple. At one time in my country the government entiry charged with enforcing copyright was customs. I guess the thought was that if someone was going to violate your copyrights, the books would be printed overseas and imported. I guess you were supposed to go to customs and have the books confiscated when they were being shipped in.

      Note, this would make importing of "knock offs" illegal even if you had bought them and were not the person who made the copies.

      You think these type laws are not on the books? I microsoft can show that a store has violating CDs on the shelf, you don't think they can have them confiscated?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    12. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by phiwum · · Score: 1

      "Sure, but how am I to prove my fair use in the face of an accusation that could put me in jail?"

      I'm not sure that one could go to jail for having a reasonably sized mp3 collection and no evidence that he's been trading it. I'm also a bit dubious that in your example (CDs stolen or lost in fire, backup copies kept), the jury would be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that you had stolen all those goods.

      But if you wanted to be safe, you would of course file a report with the police and/or insurance company listing the lost CDs. This wouldn't be a problem, since you have the backups and so know what you lost.

      It's not really that hard a hypothetical to answer, you know.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    13. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      "But if you wanted to be safe, you would of course file a report with the police and/or insurance company listing the lost CDs. This wouldn't be a problem, since you have the backups and so know what you lost.

      It's not really that hard a hypothetical to answer, you know."

      Unfortunately, it is not a hypothetical question. I did lose a lot of CDs and LPs in a hurricane several years back. I don't have a record of what I lost. When you are dealing with the after effects of a hurricane that has forced you out of your home, making lists of CDs and LPs lost is not at the top of the list. So, now I have files on my HD with non-provable provenance.

      So, do I run the risk of jail for posessing illegal CDs? (I do not live in the US.)

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    14. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by BagMan2 · · Score: 1

      As much as copyright holders would love you to buy multiple copies of their product for use in the home, car and mp3-player, all their crying about copyright infringement really has little to do with that aspect of it.

      Virtually every DRM scheme people are toying around with has provisions for making personal copies such as use in an MP3 player. The primary concern of people like the RIAA is the people who never pay a penny for the content in the first place.

      Everybody knows that 95+% of the MP3's being traded on the internet are probably blatant copyright violations. Sure, you can come up with examples where this is not the case, but you are a fool if you think that tiny fraction is what the RIAA is really worried about.

      Unfortunately, given the current state of technology, it's virtually impossible to let you freely copy things within fair-use law, without also making it possible for the content to be mass-distributed in violation of copyright laws.

      So what ends up happening is the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. If you were really concerned about this issue, you would try to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

      Start by supporting some DRM scheme, instead of a knee-jerk reaction that any sort of limits are a violation of your rights. The content-owners have rights too, and DRM schemes are a reasonable compromise between protecting their rights, as well as yours.

      Seems to me the ones being the most unreasonable here are the ones with the least vested interest. Forgive me if I am not sympathetic to your cry.

    15. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by phiwum · · Score: 1

      I did lose a lot of CDs and LPs in a hurricane several years back. I don't have a record of what I lost.

      But you said you were worried about the fact that your legally-made backups would be considered pirated copies. If you have the backups, then you do indeed have a record of what you lost. If you don't have the backups, then you certainly couldn't be considered a pirate.

      All you have to do is report the loss some time after the hurricane and before the MPAA claims that you are a pirate. I don't see the problem.

      (Would it be suspicious to report it months or years after the event? Perhaps, but it would still give plenty of reasonable doubt as long as you don't report new losses every month or two.)

      Do you run the risk of jail? I doubt it, but why get legal advice from know-nothing slashdot posters like me?

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    16. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by argent · · Score: 1

      As much as copyright holders would love you to buy multiple copies of their product for use in the home, car and mp3-player, all their crying about copyright infringement really has little to do with that aspect of it.

      Virtually every DRM scheme people are toying around with has provisions for making personal copies such as use in an MP3 player.


      It really doesn't matter what their intent is, the result of strong legally-enforced DRM is the same as if their goal was to force music and video to "wear out", to take control of people's own computers away from them, to prevent vital and critical and utterly legal activities, and for that matter to destroy much of the intent of copyright law in the first place.

      Start by supporting some DRM scheme

      Why? Strong DRM is inherently unworkable. This is fundamental to the discussion... you can not build a strong DRM scheme without taking away people's rights, and yet you can't build a DRM scheme that's strong enough to stop me from connecting a recorder to the audio-out of my computer.

      On top of that... the medium that the industry is complaining about losing sales of... CDs... have no DRM protection at all. If they really want DRM, they'd be better off letting CDs fall off the applecart altogether.

      Seems to me the ones being the most unreasonable here are the ones with the least vested interest.

      I would agree. The ones with the most interest in a DRM-free environment are every law-abiding computer user and music listener in the world. And the vast majority aren't ripping off artists and sharing their whole music collection online, but you want to punish them just as if they were.

    17. Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! by zotz · · Score: 1

      "But you said you were worried about the fact that your legally-made backups would be considered pirated copies. If you have the backups..."

      You know, I may have erred in stating a simplified version of how things went for the sake of discussion.

      In some cases, I have a copy on casette, in some cases, on a cd, in some cases, files on disk. BUT, I also have songs from the heyday of MP3.com, songs from irate radio, etc.

      I am FAR from an organized person. I cannot go from what I have now to a list of what I lost in the hurricane. So, with the threat of jail for what was advertised in the paper as posession of illegal CDs/DVDs, can I run the risk of keeping anything.

      Do you run the risk of jail? I may not, but the ad in the paper certainly wants me to think I do. And with (4 or 5) years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine per illegal disk, that is a hugh chance to take. You know, I need to call a lawyer today. It is that serious.

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  43. Thanks Utah by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Funny

    You try to tell them don't have sex with your cousin. But do they listen?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Thanks Utah by Kozaru · · Score: 1

      Not all of his wives are relatives.

  44. because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The people in general dont care about REAL issues.

    They'd rather rally for stupid crap like gay rights and other stuff that should be a non-issue/none of anyones business.

    And really the only ones who CAN change things (all the rich bastards) Don't care about anything but getting more rich. And hey. Those are the people screwing everything up!

    We're just screwed. And if you even think about violent change. Well. the patriot act. You're a terrorist. in jail you go.

    Isnt the status quo great!

  45. this is complete stupidity by raver31 · · Score: 1

    in fact visit http://donley.tk and fill out the poll we need to keep this stupid patent laws out of the EU Europe are not just more states for the US

  46. The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Another sucker falls for the Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy. Slashdot has hundreds of thousands of readers. Some of these strictly adhere to the GPL, others copy music. There is probably some overlap in there, but you have no way of telling.

    The "average slashdotter" you have constructed is made of straw, and your attack on it is nonsensical.

    Anyway, being opposed to Orrin Hatch is not the same as being opposed to copyright, and being in favor of limited copyright is not the same as being in favor of unlimited copyright. For all we know, mr. Hatch could very well be proposing new laws that make GPL-style use of copyright illegal (I'm sure some method can be found, and don't think Microsoft et al haven't thought of it).

    1. Re:The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another sucker falls for the We Are All Individuals Honest Guv Fallacy. Face it, out of any group of like-minded people, you can make general informed assumptions and be (mostly) correct.

    2. Re:The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Hatch could very well be proposing new laws that make GPL-style use of copyright illegal

      That wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility, with the Supreme court essentially saying in Eldridge vs. Ashcroft (CTEA) that congress could do anything with copyright, no matter how bad the idea/law.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      His mp3s on his music website are encoded using LAME, which uses the LGPL license.

    4. Re:The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it, out of any group of like-minded people, you can make general informed assumptions and be (mostly) correct.

      But the Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy relies on picking areas in which people aren't like minded and then insisting that they should be e.g. you disagreed with the post you replied to: how fucking hypocriticial you Slashdotters want to have it both way, one moment you say it is a fallacy and the next you say there isn't. See how it works?

    5. Re:The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a number of posters on slashdot who do take both sides. I would call them hypocrites, you may call them individuals. Pick a random slashdot member and look at their collective history of posts. I have not looked at all of them, but from a sample of about 250 members, I saw approximately 70% who fall in that category. This is mostly seen in any outsourcing article. A little perspective would go a long way. The entire IT industry in India emplpoys about 1 million people. If someone has not developed enough job skills that their job was lost, too bad. It is their own damn fault. I have been laid off a couple of times. It sucks. You may have to do a job or two that is beneath you to pay the mortgage until you find a better job.

    6. Re:The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a number of posters on slashdot who do take both sides. I would call them hypocrites,

      Sounds reasonable, but sensibly you need to address your comments to them, not to random passersby. You checked 250 users, but did you comment to one of them or to someone else? If to one of them then you can point out where they were being hypocritical. They might even have an explanation.

  47. Re:Field day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "field day" is an american cultural refrence anymore.

    A field day was the day all the kids ran around outside and acted like total morons and got medals and awards for doing it.

    And in this case. Field day fits perfect.

  48. Yup by CdBee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, I wouldn't deny it. Free markets are defined by a meeting at the place where seller and buyer can agree a price.

    The music industry's never been a free market really due mainly to the existence of industry bodies and accepted price-points, but now it has the problem that people can obtain the goods without paying at all, it's going to have to start listening eventually

    I believe my best contrinution to the debate is
    A) not to support them by paying extortionate prices for media and
    B) to state the conditions under which I uninstall eMule and BitTorrent, and stay legal in future.

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      B) to state the conditions under which I uninstall eMule and BitTorrent, and stay legal in future.
      Please do not equate BitTorrent with 'stealing' copyrighted media.
  49. Fools by Performaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a perfect example of the wolf guarding the henhouse.

    --

    I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
    1. Re:Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Mr Hatch helping the Chinese increase America's trade deficit? That is the likely outcome.

      Because he should note that China is playing the game now, and in about the last 18 months have set up their own little patent comfort blanket. Check out all the new .CN patents - they seem to prefer euro patents currently. No surprise they rubber stamp their own too.

      One scenario, is that all fair traders will get trade barrier'ed out, but the Chinese made stuff allowed in - because they have the 'grunt' and the manpower to barge in anyway. Part of the plan was to dissallow patents in foreign languages, or obscure. Nice if it works.

      The US game plan of trade protection through patent/IP is doomed. China, by 'adapting' all the new patents is signalling this bullshit wont fly.
      China does not need oil to outpatent and outpublish everyone else.

      Be careful what you wish for.

  50. Vote Green by nicklott · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I can see all you mericans hate the way things are going with copyrights, patents, licensing etc, and in fact the rest of the World hates it too, because you become the lowest common denominator.

    However, y'all never tire of telling us how you live in the greatest democracy on earth, so, why do you all vote republicrat? or not vote at all?

    Exercise your rights; petition your representatives, Vote Green, or Vote Perot for all I care, but stop voting these facists into power. Please?

    1. Re:Vote Green by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Whoever told you we're a Democracy was mistaken.

    2. Re:Vote Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That cinches it - I'm going to Euro-troll for karma from here on out. I've resisted for years, but it's so goddam easy to spout some ridiculously uninformed anti-American opinion and get an insightful mod I can no longer stay away.

      I just must rememeber using stilted phrases and creative unspellings while I tell people what to do. Also have to remember the elitist superior attitude.

    3. Re:Vote Green by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      I voted Libertarian in the last election. If you actually want things to change you can't keep electing people who are only a couple steps away from the middle of the road. You need people who are so far out that when you average their contribution it actually makes a significant move away from the middle of the road. Of course most third parties don't really fall in the left right scheme of things, it's really more of a different quadrant. The thing third parties really would add to politics is an extra dimension.

      --
      what sig?
    4. Re:Vote Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'all out there in the other can't tell me who to vote for. Since so many people didn't like Bush, esp in the foreign countries, I just had to pull the lever for him. Told a bunch of friends in Ohio to do the same. Hope you understand y'all.

    5. Re:Vote Green by wangmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Voting third party is really the same as throwing away your vote with the current electoral system. The addition of a third party could potentially result in a non-majority electoral winner. This would result in the house of representatives electing the president. Which means, with the current process, the big 2 parties would likely stay in power. Even if all the states switch to a process where their electoral votes are split amongst the candidates, it would potentially result in the same process above (a non-majority winner).

      Without a constitutional ammendment fixing our election process (run-off voting or something else) voting third party is, for all intents and purposes, useless. The problem is, the big 2 are currently in power. They have absolutely no reason to want to "fix" the system, since both shortterm and longterm effects will be negative on the two big parties. Even if we managed to get some third party candidates into the legislature to help change the system, just by the sheer number of absolutely ignorant uneducated voters we have, we'll still have the big 2 with control of the vast majority of congress. (2004 is a good example. more poor, uneducated masses voted for bush, being brought out to vote on moral values issues, which the federal government really should have no responsibility over, instead of voting for kerry, who's party has had a stronger tradition of protecting the poor and uneducated, although admittedly, they're only marginally better than the modern republicans) Good luck getting a constitutional ammendment passed to make voting for a third party even remotely viable in the US.

      Me, I'm trying to find a good nation to move to. Unfortunately, they all seem to be just as bad as the US in one form or another.

    6. Re:Vote Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our voting system is designed such that in a reasonably stable environment (what we have now), voting for a third candidate simply disenfranchises you.

      It would take two very unpopular main candidates or one unpopular candidate and a very severe scandal to let a third party get in.

      And by pushing voting for a third party, you are effectively silencing those who might go along with you.

      Vote reform is necessary first.

      Voting for a third candidate in local elections is more reasonable, but it's not going to succeed for a President or for a Senator in the near future.

    7. Re:Vote Green by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

      Voting for a candidate who is the lesser of 2 evils is the only way to true way to throw away your vote. The first event that will trigger a change of the electoral system is a third party presidential candidate getting 5% of the vote, as this qualifies that party for federal campaign funding in the next election. Then that third party would get an even higher percentage in the next election. Say this were the green party, who primarily get votes from people who have voted for democrats in the past. At this point it would get harder for democrats to win the presidency, and they would actually have motivation to change the electoral system.

      --
      what sig?
    8. Re:Vote Green by whitis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, y'all never tire of telling us how you live in the greatest democracy on earth, so, why do you all vote republicrat? or not vote at all?

      The people here who object to these kinds of stupid laws probably aren't the same people who claim the US is the greatest democracy on earth; a substantial number would even point out that we don't live in a democracy at all.

      I don't know about the congressional elections but in the last two presidential elections the public has NOT elected the Bush regime. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by 543987 votes, not even counting vote tampering, yet won the electoral vote. In the 2004 election, there is considerable evidence of tampering and exit polls show that kerry was the real winner of the election.

      As much as I would prefer to vote for an independent candidate, such votes are unfortunately entirely thrown away except in elections that are not remotely close. In the 2000 election, Gore would probably have had enough electoral votes to win if those people who voted for Nader (all of who would have prefered Gore over Bush) had not wasted their votes on Nader or if we had a statistically valid method of voting such as instant runoff voting . Our existing method of counting votes (even when the votes are actually counted in compliance with the law and without the electoral college fiasco) is inherently inaccurate when there are more than two parties.

      Before I knew about instant runoff elections, I had a different proposal that was better than the current system but not as good as instant runoff. Instead of giving each person a single vote for a candidate, give them one vote for or against. I.E. Instead of voting for Kerry, you could vote against Bush. Which far more accurately reflects what many people are trying to do in the voting booths - we vote against the most evil candidate not for the best one. This system, however, does have the possibility of electing spurious independent candidates. Imagine Dubya getting negative ten million votes, Kerry getting negative 5 million votes, the green party getting negative 1 million votes, and write in candidate Bob Nobody winning the election with positive 3 votes. The book Archimedes' Revenge has an interesting chapter on game theory and voting as well as the Alabama Paradox .

      What we need in this country for the presidential elections is

      • Instant runoff elections
      • It most be provable whether or not votes are counted correctly. Electronic voting machines that give a receipt for every vote. Each receipt would have a unique (but not sequential or tied to voter identity) serial number. When the election results are tallied, the serial numbers of every vote counted would be listed in a file availible for public download. Watchdog organizations would let people log into their websites and check that their vote was counted. Ideally, the receipt would be printed in triplicate (with the ability to identify which copy was which) in human and machine readable form. The first copy stays on a roll inside the voting machine for recounts. The voter takes home the second copy. And the voter takes the third copy and drops it anonymously in the box maintained outside the polling place by the Watchdog group of their choice. If voters are worried about being accosted by thugs outside the poling place, they can discard both of their receipts into the trash or watchdog bins. David Chaum's cryptographically obfuscated receipt system provides more security against people seeing your receipt but is more confusing overall.
      • Eliminate the electoral college.

      As for co

    9. Re:Vote Green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Jack, looks like you're outnumbered here; all the other responses were reasonable and intelligent...

  51. Re:Thank you USA by a+whoabot · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey, you're just an atheist, nihilist, anti-christain, anti-semite!

    You're just out to destroy the divine project of all those who are holy! The US and Israel and all their courageous militarymen, gracious transnational financiers and conservatives in general will achieve Zion in the Holy Lands! It will happen, but God needs us, and our nations, to make it happen! He needs us because he's weak and needs our hel-NO, wait I mean! He's strong! I mean eht! ghcht! Gah!

  52. Don't forget CTEA/Sonny Bono by eclectro · · Score: 1


    Not to mention his office made up a bill to extend some drug patents because he was using their jet during his run for president.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  53. As much as I like to violate copyright... by agraupe · · Score: 1
    ...and I do, I cannot pretend that it is legal, and if they come up with new laws to enforce it, there's really fuck all I can do about it. Since I've discovered F/OSS I haven't engaged in software piracy, but my music piracy is still going strong (well, allofmp3.com... that's a debate for another time), even though I do buy some CDs if I want the whole CD, and I have become recently addicted to BT for shows I can't get here. I would gladly pay for HBO, but due to Canada's stupid laws, they won't let me.

    So, my point: often, given the option, I will do the right thing and pay for whatever it is that I'm using. If HBO had a pay-per-download collection, I would use that to get "Real Time" instead of BitTorrent. But I don't. The responsibility falls equally on those that want something for nothing (and I'm one of those on occasion, I'll admit) and those that make it hard to get something that people want (for example, the CRTC, which is the FCC's Canadian counterpart). Is Orrin Hatch the best man to lead the committe? No, he's old and senile, and doesn't have the slightest concept about technology. But I can see why they're doing it, and, surprisingly, I don't find the enforcements of copyrights to be that objectionable. Is it any different when we on /. complain about CherryOS, to when **AA whine about us?

  54. Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I, too, can play the definition game and i can't see how any of what you said applies to Orrin Hatch. He's a radical? He's employing terror as a weapon? What this amounts to is, you're trying to tell me, that you'll die if you can't download movies off the Internet*. And i say that it's a load of rubbish.

    * And my rhetorics is way more convincing than yours, so i win.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    1. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What this amounts to is, you're trying to tell me, that you'll die if you can't download movies off the Internet*

      No. I didn't mention people dying and none of your links mention people dying. That's something you dreamed up for yourself.

    2. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Yes, he sure appears to be a radical to anybody living in a state that is adjacent to water; yes, past history shows he'll stop at nothing to protect IP, and yes - death in prison happens.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    3. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Havenwar · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesnt have to kill you to be a weapon. A weapon is just what is employed to threaten you or your way of life.

      But sure, for the sake of the argument, let us say it does have to be lethal to be counted as a weapon - Terror has a higher chance of killing people than for instance a paintball gun, yet it is classified as a weapon. So is a slingshot, technically, and a nailfile if you try to get through airport security.

      So his weapon is terror - that is to scare the crapola out of people in order to make them jump through hoops that he hold up.

      ergo, he is per definition a terrorist.

      Then again, by wielding the same arguments, so is Bush, and any other president and leader of nations out there. They just prefer to call it by nicer words. Cause words make all the difference.

    4. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 1

      From the second link: "Terror: an intense fear of physical injury or death ; also : the infliction of such fear "

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    5. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if he kills me phisically it's not ok but if he kills my ideas and my fair rights it's OK because i still live and can fart?

    6. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 1

      Nowhere did i say that i agree with everything this man stands for. I just said that he's not a terrorist.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    7. Re:Ooh, i love this game by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, you're taking what was intended to be humorous far too seriously. But I'll bite.

      Anyone that says that your computer (which is your property) should be destroyed because of his radical agenda (which is on the extreme side of copyright holders) is a terrorist.

      You may use your computer solely for playing games and futzing around on the Internet but many people use their computer for their livelihood or to maintain their quality of life. Some people even use their computer to buy medicines at a price they can afford. Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.

      --
      I'm a big tall mofo.
    8. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been to federal prison? think you might have fear of pain and/or death in there?

    9. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If an islamist computer scientist could destroy computers in the US at a distance, I bet few people in the US would mind calling him a terrorist.

      The word terrorist has been so depleted of its content thanks to the Bush adminsitration that it won't hurt anybody to call senator Hatch an IP terrorist.

    10. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 1

      It will hurt the person calling him one: if you overuse the word in this way, other people will stop taking you seriously.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    11. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 0, Troll
      First of all, you're taking what was intended to be humorous far too seriously.

      No, i'm not. See, i just called this thing we're doing here a 'game' -- meaning that i don't take it seriously at all.

      Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.

      In that case, i suggest you ask for a refund on that book, as it's a shitty one. Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist (or a fascist/communist/$evilincarnateoftheday).

      Note that none of this means that i agree with him.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    12. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "* And my rhetorics is way more convincing than yours, so i win."

      "Arguing on the internet is like running the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
      -unknown

    13. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "I just said that he's not a terrorist."

      This is getting childish guys. It was an analogy, it was even in quotes ("copyright terrorist"). Going into detailed semantics on strict definitions misses the point of an analogy. The point is that Senator Hatch is using extreme tactics, including the use of fear, to force people to conform to an ideal that they disagree with but that he believes in strongly. There is an analogy to terrorism in there, but of course it does not fit a strict definition of the meaning. Just like the Monte Carlo method has nothing to do with the city, a seahorse is not related to a horse, and neural networks don't actually use neurons.

    14. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      a seahorse is not related to a horse

      I like the way you slipped your creationist propoganda into this thread.

    15. Re:Ooh, i love this game by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      I agree with the parent, 'terrorist' is the wrong term. The arrangement between companies and government, lead by politicians who've unabashedly abdicated any responsibility to their constituents in favour of their benefactors, more closely mirrors the times before the seperation of church and state. From the collusion to regulate or stop the flow of information, the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising. Osama, no. Torquemada maybe.

    16. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wouldn't say that it's getting childish. This whole thread's been childish ever since the second post or so. Yes, i'm aware that it (ie the post calling Hatch a "copyright terrorist") was an analogy, and i don't think it's a good one. One of the reasons for this being that, given that the word "terrorism" obviously* doesn't have a good definition (unlike Monte-Carlo, seahorse, or neuron), it's hard to say what a "copyright terrorist" is analogous to. Meaning that it misses the point of making an analogy, ie making things more clear or easier to understand. While "copyright terrorist" is definitely good propaganda-wise, invoking certain feelings in people reading/hearing it, it doesn't really describe what Hatch is doing. "State terrorism" might strike a bit closer to home, but i'd refrain from using that as well.

      * Take this whole thread, for example.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    17. Re:Ooh, i love this game by zotz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising."

      If you don't think those inhuman penalties are intended to strike fear and terror in the hearts of citizens, what do you think they are intended to do?

      Now, I don't want to get into calling people terrorists at this point, I will restrict myself to commenting on what I think the results of the penalties are.

      In my country recently, some "Copyright Control Coalition" (I don't actually remember what they called themselves) has begun putting ads in one of our national papers.

      From memory, this gist of it is if you are selling or simply posess what are termed illegal DVDs /CDs you can face 4 years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine for each DVD or CD.

      What do you think an ad like this is intended to do it not strike fear and terror into the hearts of the citizens?

      Please note, they have made no actual effort to educate the public as to how this actually works. Like, can a person who went to a store in a major shopping center/mall and bought what they thought was a legitimate CD and now has it in their home, go to jail and have to pay $50,000.00 for having this CD in their home?

      You see, if that is really the case, which is what I think the ad wants us to believe, I need to destroy all of my legitimate CDs as well as all of my possibly questionable ones that I bought in good faith. I just can't afford to run the risk.

      Also, if these are the effects of the laws that the big boys have managed to have passed, no more money from my family is going to go to them. No movies in the theatre, no more buying CDs and DVDs, nothing. I don't know what I am going to do without books and magazines. Hey can I afford to take the risk of buying a newspaper? Is this a back door way to curtail the freedom of the press? (That's a joke.) I do notice that they only mention illegal CDs/DVDs and not books or other items which might be a violation of copyright.

      They also make no effort to educate the public as to what makes a CD or a DVD illegal. From their name though, it must concern some sort of violation of copyrights. Would a CD with a lifted and non-cleared sample in a song released by a major label be considered an illegal CD and subject the purchaser to the same penalties?

      Would a person convicted under such circumstances be able to sue the major label? If so, I can see a new money making industry for these once piratical islands. (The Bahamas: - a histroy of piracy, wrecking, running - guns, rum, drugs.) (That's a joke too.)

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    18. Re:Ooh, i love this game by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist (or a fascist/communist/$evilincarnateoftheday).

      And, contrary to your belief, the cause does not have to be important (or even valid) and the terror does not need to be extreme or widespread for the actions to be terroristic.

      Actual loss of money/liberty seemingly randomly is occurring for those suspected of copryight infringement. Those that are trying to lock down IP are doing so by purposefully using fear as a tool.

      Yeah, people aren't dying. But there is a group that is "attacking" a supposed enemy with broad strokes, often hitting innocent bystanders, and purposefully employing fear as a tactic. You may have a different implication of "terrorist," but it appears that this fits easily into the definition of "terrorist."

    19. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Taladar · · Score: 1

      Worked with the word "pirates" for the other side.

    20. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 1
      And, contrary to your belief, the cause does not have to be important (or even valid) and the terror does not need to be extreme or widespread for the actions to be terroristic.

      I never said this.

      Actual loss of money/liberty seemingly randomly is occurring for those suspected of copryight infringement. Those that are trying to lock down IP are doing so by purposefully using fear as a tool.

      I find this hard to belive. What happened to due process?

      But there is a group that is "attacking" a supposed enemy with broad strokes, often hitting innocent bystanders, and purposefully employing fear as a tactic. You may have a different implication of "terrorist," but it appears that this fits easily into the definition of "terrorist."

      As long as they aren't defenceless, as long as these people can use the law (in general) to defend themselves against the law (this particular one), i wouldn't call it "terrorist."

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    21. Re:Ooh, i love this game by daniil · · Score: 1

      Just because they managed to attach a negative label to the opposite side, it doesn't make them more right. It does make the opposition less popular, though.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    22. Re:Ooh, i love this game by jafac · · Score: 1

      Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book

      Agreed.

      And a barbarian.

      And a naughty boy. In need of a spanking.

      And all of his freinds and associates as well.

      Not to mention, his entire political party. Including their compliant media operatives at various AM talkradio stations around the country. They're all terrorists and traitors.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    23. Re:Ooh, i love this game by yoder · · Score: 1



      "you're trying to tell me, that you'll die if you can't download movies
      off the Internet*"

      You have to be able to extrapolate,
      to recognize patterns and see in what direction we are and will be
      going. You are not doing that, either because you do not wish to
      or because you are not able to, and so you see what is going on right
      now and not where it will lead. You ridicule the immediate issue
      because you cannot comprehend the long term effects.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    24. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due process is being taken away. Especially if your a "terrorist" you can be held without reason, because that reason could be a matter of national security. They've blurred the lines so that they can pick whoever they _dont like_ and get rid of them. People have been doing it for centuries... Doesn't mean its fair.

    25. Re:Ooh, i love this game by yoder · · Score: 1

      No, if the right continues using the word to describe everyone not like them then it will eventually lose its shock affect. They will then have to find another word to abuse in order to malign those who dissent. We are just helping that process along.

      I'm a terrorist, you're a terrorist, he's a terrorist, she's a terrorist, wouldn't you like to be a terrorist too? Be a terrorist, drink Dr. Terrorist.........

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    26. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      "I like the way you slipped your creationist propoganda into this thread."

      Cute. It took me a minute to figure out what you're talking about.

    27. Re:Ooh, i love this game by mitchshrader · · Score: 1

      so you think Orrin Hatch believes in 'intellectual property' strongly enough to be the RIAA's legislator of choice (point man) WITHOUT their considerable economic support? Oddly enough, I happen to think he's bought, or at least rented. I guess we'll just have to differ.

    28. Re:Ooh, i love this game by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You just keep pulling the democrat lever in the voting booth and wishing that they will not blow our fair use rights to hell.

      There are bought politicians on both sides of the aisle on this one. Although Hatch has proposed some pretty idiotic enforcement for "IP" violations. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat, has instead of draconian enforcement, tried mandating the capabilities (or lack thereof) of consumer electronics.

      Draw the party lines all you want, and then prepare to be betrayed.

      The only thing that will save us is the uproar of the citizenry when they finally go too far. I believe we will reach a point where almost every TV viewer will be mad as hell (music just ain't going to get to the boiling point), or where almost every citizen is willingly violating IP law and enforcement will be absolutely impossible (not just almost impossible like the RIAA is facing now). Then every politician will have to listen or risk the loss of their political career.

      Oh, BTW, if Hollings or Hatch is your senator, let them know what you think. My former senator co-sponsored Fritz's ridiculous bill last year and now hes gone, the next step for me is to make sure that I let his replacement know how I feel he should vote.

    29. Re:Ooh, i love this game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist (or a fascist/communist/$evilincarnateoftheday).

      How long have you been watching me? How did you get the list of everyone I dislike and how did you find out whether they're terrorists? Are you NSA or something?

    30. Re:Ooh, i love this game by jafac · · Score: 1

      Don't let my republican-bashing fool you. I'm well aware of complicity by democrats as well. I never forgave Clinton for signing the DMCA.

      Me? I voted with my dollars. I don't have cable/satellite, nor do I buy music CDs. I haven't totally unplugged from popular culture, but I'm far from a "model customer".

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    31. Re:Ooh, i love this game by JWW · · Score: 1

      Me? I voted with my dollars. I don't have cable/satellite, nor do I buy music CDs. I haven't totally unplugged from popular culture, but I'm far from a "model customer".

      Sadly, in the end that may be the only vote that counts. But, it is one that for sure WILL count.

      I am with you in not buying CDs, and the actions of the MPAA will determine if I continue to spend hundreds of dollars a year on DVDs or not.

    32. Re:Ooh, i love this game by PurPaBOO · · Score: 1

      "Just like the Monte Carlo method has nothing to do with the city"

      Apart from being named after Monte Carlo, due to the association with roulette.

      --
      If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
    33. Re:Ooh, i love this game by zotz · · Score: 1

      "I find this hard to belive. What happened to due process?"

      With possible jail time, (loss of right to vote if convicted?) and hugh statutory damages, most cannot afford the risk of fighting.

      "As long as they aren't defenceless, as long as these people can use the law (in general) to defend themselves against the law (this particular one), i wouldn't call it "terrorist.""

      Not saying terrorist should apply, but why not? They seem to think pirate and thief apply.

      However, what is defenceless? Totally defenceless? Who is? Everyone has some means of defence to try, however foolish and ultimately ineffective. If this were a true test, there could be no terrorists ever. Right? Whone?

      all the best,

      drew

      Money where my mouth is link:

      http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=dragirl

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  55. It's time... by PenguiN42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To start taking anonymous p2p more seriously...

    --
    The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
    1. Re:It's time... by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      I'd run it in a heartbeat it it wasn't in java...
      Seriously, I've tried, and the installation failed.
      Please, please please please give me a C or python client. I'd have it running on at 3+ machines with 100mbs connections.

  56. one problem by danielk1982 · · Score: 1


    Am I sympathetic to an industry which has stolen from me and everyone else for years and now has the tables turned


    You don't really understand the concept of 'theft'.

    Its not stealing if you give your money willingly.


    I will start buying music again when I can pay between 40 and 50 pence per track for a file without DRM.


    Oh come on. I know you don't really believe that. Why the farce?

  57. Destroying computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    (in)famous for his idea of destroying the computers of copyright violators

    If I had Windows XP, I'd be concerned - a destroyed computer means calling up Microsoft and being on hold for hours, trying to explain that this dude named Orin (who'd think?) destroyed my old computer, and that now I'm going to put my legal copy of XP on a new machine.

    It doesn't sound promising. The Microsoft call center will have to have a special option in their system: "Computer destroyed by Orin Hatch".

  58. The /. Government Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everytime a slashdot article is posted regarding government intervention in something like filesharing or spam, the responses are typically along the following lines:

    1) The government is entirely incapable of handling this

    2) The government is too incompetent to handle this

    3) What the government is proposing is impossible to accomplish

    However, one man's proposal, taken entirely out of context, is enough to make all of the slashdoters out there suddenly fear this previously incompetent and powerless government?

    Please.

    For a slightly more balanced review on the subject:
    http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2003/06/18.asp

    1. Re:The /. Government Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're changing the focus. On one hand, we're talking about the government as a whole. On the other, we're talking about one person on a crusade. Read what you just wrote. Even you shift the focus to make your "point." (You say "the governement" then you change to "one man's proposal....")

      The government, as a whole, is generally to incompetent and incapable of understanding and dealing with the nuances of many of these issues and is too geared to bending to the will of big money interests. That's been shown to be the case time and time again. In that setting, one man with enough power and enough knowledge and enough disinterest in truly representing the best interests of his constituents can cause huge problems.

      That's not obvious to you.

      Please.

  59. Re:This might save my family. by Zorilla · · Score: 1

    Yeah, he remembered to not close the source program before pasting. Good for him!

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  60. Hatch watch? by also+aswell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe Sen. Hatch should watch the tech companies that are using techs to train their replacments so they can send the jobs overseas if he wants to protect American innovation and economic growth.

    In a statement, Hatch declared that the panel would have an "aggressive agenda" and highlighted the issue of patent reform, saying, "We need strong patent protection to give incentives for innovation and economic growth."

    Senator Hatch Introduces Bill to Burn People's Eyes Out Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced legislation authorizing the use of high-powered microwave lasers to burn out the eyes of non-paying viewers of copyrighted material. "If we could develop technology which just burned out the parts of their brains where the illegal memories are stored, that'd be fine with me--but we can burn their eyes out right now!" said Hatch, while introducing the Hatch/Hollywood Eyeball Evisceration Act.

    Bookburning on the Internet If you say "If you must smoke marijuana, filter the smoke with a water pipe and don't even think of driving afterwards." or "...don't use dirty needles. Clean them with bleach or find a syringe exchange program."

    I think these statements are good advice. But if U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein have their way, it will soon be a felony to publish these statements in any book, newspaper, magazine, web site, or even to utter them or link to a web site containing them. The Hatch/Feinstein Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 makes these statements illegal because they "pertain" to an act that violates federal controlled-substance laws

    Nobel Laureates Denounce Hatch's Patent Bill

    Orrin Hatch's Glass House Has Bin Laden's Name on It Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch told Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. It was worth it, he said.

    Hatch support for converting our interstate highways into toll roads.

    Collections of Information Antipiracy Act This bill makes it legal to get the goods on you.
    American database providers render an invaluable service by collecting, organizing, and disseminating billions of bits of information from myriad sources of every possible sector of our economy.

    I could do a bit more research on the good Senator, but then I'd be post 387 and no one would ever read this.

    --
    "Where did this apple come from?"
    --Alan Turing
    1. Re:Hatch watch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, satire.

  61. History repeating itself by codefungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I, the mighty codefungus, predict that we will be seeing the whole prohibition deal all over again. They are gonna end up outlawing something rediculous (like P2P apps), then everyone will start breaking the law and it will become obvious how ludicrous (speed!) it is and we will be back to square one.

    Stupid jackasses...republicans are selfish, money hungry bastards...that or just religious sheep of the administration.

    --
    -- A cat is no trade for integrity!
    1. Re:History repeating itself by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, well Prohibition was in effect from 1919 until 1933 and it did QUITE a lot of damage before it became "obvious how ludicrous it was." Bootleggers and mobsters made fortunes and criminals become public idols.

      Don't think something like this couldn't happen again.

      By the way, forget region codes... can anyone tell me a brand of DVD that will let me skip over the various warning notices at the start of the DVD? I have to sit through as much as a minute and a half of that on some disks...

    2. Re:History repeating itself by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      By the way, forget region codes... can anyone tell me a brand of DVD that will let me skip over the various warning notices at the start of the DVD? I have to sit through as much as a minute and a half of that on some disks...

      Yeah, use mplayer (while you still can). I haven't seen a single warning screen since I started using it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:History repeating itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xine seems to do a great job of jumping right over them, if you tell it to.

    4. Re:History repeating itself by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Democrat "Fritz" Hollings is just as bad.

      This is not a political party issue. This is an issue of corrupt polititions that need to be kicked out of office. Politician are elected to serve the citizens. If they fail to do that, they MUST be FIRED!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  62. Orin Hatch is the right guy. by GMill · · Score: 1

    Orin Hatch is the perfect choice as he is emblematic of a congress that is dysfunctional in the realm of copyright law.

    As slashdotters are well aware, we now have effectively copyright in perpetuity as congress keeps extending the term of copyright. Nothing ever passes into the public domain anymore. If this state of affaires had existed when Walt Disney was building up his company, he could not have made any of the feature film cartoons of public domain stories, e.g Snow White, Cinderella.

    Free Steamboat Willy!

    ~
  63. Re: "stealing" music by usurper_ii · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In a reply to someone saying that copying music wasn't stealing but a copyright violation, someone said, "well I guess making a copy of a bank database isn't stealing, as it didn't deprive the bank of the use of its own database."

    The difference I see, is that almost every single person I know has violated a copyright where music is concerned, yet I don't personally know a single person who has ever illegally copied a bank data base.

    I'm not saying criminal activity on a large scale justifies said criminal activity...but when every single person you know "steals" music, then maybe the law that makes this a crime should be examined. And if nothing else, maybe the penalties for breaking this law need to examined and put more in line with reality.

    Usurper_ii

  64. Without copyright, the GPL would be... by cbr2702 · · Score: 1
    The FSF core party line: "Without copyright, the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".

    That's more like what a BSD-liscenser would say. The GPL makes it so if MS ever wanted to sell their own version of Linux, they would have to release their modified code. Without copyright, there would be nothing keeping them from distributing their product without source code. So we need the GPL or we need a law that gives GPL-like rights to authors.

    --


    This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    1. Re:Without copyright, the GPL would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without copyright, binary-only programs would be competing in a free market against open-source, and reverse-engineering the binary-only programs wouldn't be so difficult as clean-room techniques wouldn't be so necessary.

      Basically, in a free market (i.e. without copyright or patent government monopoly grants), I'd predict open source would kick binary-only's butt. But that's just my opinion.

    2. Re:Without copyright, the GPL would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without copyrght (and excluding patents), Microsoft's (hypothetical) Linux would be freely distributable, and fully reverse enginereable.

      Ergo in that case some of the benifit of the GPL, in enforcing source distribution, would be lost.

      But look again at the FSF's four freedoms, and note that two of them automatically exist for all software, in the absence of copyright, and the first part of the other two also exist. Only the lack of availabe of source would intrude on users freedom.

      That situation would probably not be ideal from the FSF's position since they would lose their ability to enforce distribution of the source, which depends on copyright, but I'm pretty sure they could live with it and simply develope better reverse engineering tools.

      In other words I doubt the FSF's view of the best possible outcome is complete software anarchy, but I doubt they view that as the worst possible outcome either.

      Certainly I would prefer an interpretation of copyright that enforced the copyright bargin more stringently, such that to retain copyright on a binary, it needed to be accompanied by its source in plaintext, so that when the copyright (eventually) expired, what entered the public domain was at least a meaningful expression of the original protected item. And incedentally, since source would be inspectable prior to copyright expiry, it would be much harder to hide questionable operations in the binary.

      Shoka

  65. Send a Respectful Email by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Send his office some email detailing your concerns. Be respectful. Try to use facts. If enough of us did that, we might even have an impact.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:Send a Respectful Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Send his office some email. Try to use facts.

      Better yet, send money. Lots of money.

      That's what usually has the deciding influence on the US government's decision-making.

    2. Re:Send a Respectful Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer .308 coupled with strict gun control.

    3. Re:Send a Respectful Email by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      One man's special interest group is another's pet cause.

      I generally think campaign contributions fall in two categories contrary to your description:
      1) money given to those who already agree with them. Sierra Club giving money to a pro-environment lawmaker or the NRA giving money to a pro-gun rights person. They give the money because they want those to agree with them to do well.
      2) Shakedowns. If you don't give lawmakers money, they won't look out for you or they will get you. Microsoft was a prime example of this. And for the record, I don't like Microsoft.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  66. MOD PARENT UP; Valid opinion by r6144 · · Score: 1
    The parent is a valid and consistent opinion, even though many people may disagree. Personally, I think I would want academic standards of copyright protection, i.e. no outright plagiarism and give due credit when it is convenient to do so (unlike the old BSD license), unless the author gives permission to do otherwise. Higher levels of protection (e.g. no bootlegged CDs even when the buyer knows it is bootlegged, no unauthorized online distribution of Windows) might be okay with me, but I don't think I really need that.

    AFAIK many of the widely-known GPL violations involve plagiarism in that they copied GPL code and claimed that all the code are written by themselves. Other cases (such as some binary drivers) are considerably more controversial, and I don't think the free software community would lose much if such behavior is legalized.

  67. Re:Field day? by drakkos · · Score: 1

    Or perhaps that they are having a time of great pleasure, which seems perfectly accurate, and valid under the informal definition you posted of field day.

    Indiscriminate pedantry is all well and good (read 'annoying as fuck'), but if you don't actually read your own post it just makes you come across as a twit.

    (P.S. I think you mean 'open season' not 'field day', unless you meant to say that it was a period during which it was legal to hunt or catch game or fish... ?)

    --
    You are young... Life has been kind to you. You will learn...
  68. The GPL is a Distribution Contract! by Cadallin · · Score: 1
    Calling it a liscense is really misleading because it causes this confusion.

    The GPL is a distribution contract, which says in effect, you may distribute program X, given some provisions, which include (among others) credit to the original authors, and that the source code to the program be made available to anyone you distribute the program to.

    This is very different from a EULA, which allows you to USE a product under certain conditions, (which often include, illegally, a waiving of legal rights to sue)

    The two are as different as night and day. The GPL being a distribution liscence has the full force of contract and copyright law behind it. Note that the GPL places no burden on end users what so ever. Only distributers have to abide by anything.

    The doctrine of liscensing music and programs to End Users derives from the very shaky argument that installing a program or listening to music is distribution. Copyright holders SELL copies of their work, not liscence them to end users.

    Slashdot have developed a large population of Anti-GPL, Pro-Big Business trolls in the last couple of years.

    1. Re:The GPL is a Distribution Contract! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot have developed a large population of Anti-GPL, Pro-Big Business trolls in the last couple of years.

      To be fair, I haven't gone to college yet. I bet when I do, I'll understand why business is bad.

  69. Just say no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and the rest of the founding fathers were ordinary people. They knew when to say no, this government does not represent us.

    So, why don't we?

  70. WOAH, WOAH WAIT A SEC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In addition to piracy and copyright infringement, *SNIP*


    "In addition to piracy and copyright infringement"

    ISN'T PIRACY Copyright infringement? Or did they suddenly reconize copyright infringement of other sorts as something different from that of illegal music downloading, and started calling it piracy?
  71. Re:Field day? by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 1

    Okaaaay.

    Lets look at the sentence and context again - for the benefit of the hard of understanding among us (read 'fuckwitted'):

    "as well as treaties intended to protect American intellectual property overseas.' Looks like file sharing will finally be erased once and for all. Oh, and this looks like another field day for those who refuse to subsume patent, trademark and copyright law under the heading of 'IP law.'"

    And lets substitute the phrase "field day" for "a time of great pleasure and opportunity" and see if it works:

    "as well as treaties intended to protect American intellectual property overseas.' Looks like file sharing will finally be erased once and for all. Oh, and this looks like another time of great pleasure and opportunity for those who refuse to subsume patent, trademark and copyright law under the heading of 'IP law.'"

    Hmmm. Now that doesn't actually make sense, because the people "refusing to subsume to the heading of IP Law" are in for a difficult period, not a time of great pleasure and opportunity. Still with me? Take a breather if you're confused ...

    OK. Let's try my suggestion:

    "as well as treaties intended to protect American intellectual property overseas.' Looks like file sharing will finally be erased once and for all. Oh, and this looks like a time of unrestrained attack and harassment for those who refuse to subsume patent, trademark and copyright law under the heading of 'IP law.'"

    Oooooooh. That works, because it makes sense.

    I'm very tempted to submit this to the Eggcorn database just because of the sheer conviction with which it is used in error. Either you're not a native English speaker, your English teacher was asleep during class, you were asleep during English class or you have a genuine learning difficulty.

    --
    "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
  72. Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by sgant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like file sharing will finally be erased once and for all

    In case people don't understand sarcasm on the net, he was being sarcastic.

    I mean, let's say Hatch outlaws file sharing...even say outlawing Bittorrent and things of that nature...will that change anything? The ONLY way to totally 100% stop piracy and file sharing over the Internet is to totally turn off the Internet. That's right, turn the entire thing off.

    And trust me, it's only a matter of time before some idiot gets up there and proposes that.

    And they're too busy with putting 500,000 dollar fines on radio people that may say "fuck" and having hearings on Baseball. I mean, what the FUCK are these idiots doing up there in Washington? Baseball?!?! WHO THE FUCK CARES! Tax dollars at work folks.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by aralin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There were numerous hearings on Colliseum in the senate of the Ancient Roman Empire. Even then they understood that the two things you need to give to a nation in order to rule it are Bread and Games. Baseball is one of the most popular sports in US and the modern replacement for gladiator fights. Basically, the Greek version of 'Games'. If the games are at stake, their own bread is at stake here and so they act. Its as simple as that.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    2. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by letchhausen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought football was the modern replacement of Gladiator games as well as being the most popular sport. It's the most watched on TV. Baseball is number two. The closest baseball gets to Gladiator Games is when a pitcher brushes back a batter and hits him. Boring. However the Senate and the House should be turned into Gladiator Games, give Orrin Hatch a sword and let him fight out with some pro-file sharing guy for top dog.....

      --
      Hey, you think your house is cool?
    3. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the bread, aka Social Security and Welfare...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      However the Senate and the House should be turned into Gladiator Games, give Orrin Hatch a sword and let him fight out with some pro-file sharing guy for top dog.....

      I'm all for that since the Democrats would probably win. I mean think about it, sure a lot of us have reputations as wimps or liberal pansy's. But I don't see nearly as many Chickenhawks among Democrats as I do among Republicans. Hell, the only thing the Republicans would have going for them is a certain senator from Arizona.... aww shit, maybe this isn't such a good idea after all.....

      (Ah, I live to walk on the fine line between funny and flamebait...)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by Krakhan · · Score: 1

      I mean, let's say Hatch outlaws file sharing...even say outlawing Bittorrent and things of that nature...will that change anything? The ONLY way to totally 100% stop piracy and file sharing over the Internet is to totally turn off the Internet. That's right, turn the entire thing off.

      Either that or they somehow force isps to lower the bandwidth offered to make it seem completely unfeasable.. While still charging the same amount.

    6. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      Under what circumstances could we consider file sharing "outlawed" though? Copyright law already covers unauthorized distribution, and it'd be foolish to think that he'd try to outlaw any software/protocol by which one can share files with another computer.

      Or am I being naive? Could they really start banning protocols like Bittorrent despite being used quite legitimately?

    7. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Well, I care about baseball.... but I also agree that the Senate should not.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    8. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Lots of steroid use by baseball players, lots of kids idolize baseball players, therefore lots of kids using steroids.

      Won't somebody think of the children!!!

    9. Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Hell, the only thing the Republicans would have going for them is a certain senator from Arizona.... "

      Don't for get Caleefourkneeahhhh

      He will terminate all the democrats!!! oh noes1!

  73. And all I want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all I want is for the trains to run on time, or in the US case, actually run at all.

  74. LAME encoder by afxgrin · · Score: 1

    Well, the mp3 sample files were encoded with LAME, at least the Everyday.mp3 track.

    Just go with a hexeditor to the bottom of the file and you'll see LAME 3.93 everywhere in the file.

    Doesn't LAME use the LGPL license? Someone should point out to him how important free open source software is to the continued development of the internet.

    1. Re:LAME encoder by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Doesn't he also need to purchase a separate license from the MP3 patent holders in order to legally use LAME?

      Maybe someone should ask to see a copy of his license.

  75. OT: Orrin Hatch on Lonely Planet by eFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure, this is OT, but it shows how OH thinks. Did anyone see the Lonely Planet program with Justine Shapiro that covered DC? She was given a guided tour of the Capitol by Orrin Hatch. At one point he said to her "You are in the center of the capital of the world". With LP not being an American publication, I'm interested to know if this comment was sensored/corrected for non-American viewers. Or did LP just allow the rest of the world to confirm their opinion of us?

    1. Re:OT: Orrin Hatch on Lonely Planet by serutan · · Score: 1

      Hatch doesn't really believe the capital of the world is DC. He thinks it's Hollywood.

  76. Proprietary linux by cbr2702 · · Score: 1
    Please explain to us how they would make a proprietary Linux in the absence of copyright law.

    I took "proprietary" in the sense of "Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."[1], with the emphasis on the lack of source. The presence of source is really important, as without it all of the things MS does that are harmful can continue. Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much.

    --


    This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    1. Re:Proprietary linux by zotz · · Score: 1

      "I took "proprietary" in the sense of "Synonym for closed-source, e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."[1], with the emphasis on the lack of source. The presence of source is really important, as without it all of the things MS does that are harmful can continue. Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much."

      You are right in this and I agreed in the post as per this quote:

      "I am not saying they could not take our code and make mods and keep the mods private, but we could at least then copy their binaries all we wanted. I am not saying we would be better off with no copyright on code than with copylefted code though. That is another discussion."

      "Being able to pass around closed source binaries doesn't really help us much."

      You are probably right here too except that it may cut into their profits and thus keep them from buying the situation worse.

      Also:

      "e.g. software issued in binary without source and under a restructive license."

      what license?

      Are they going to somehow give up retail sales and have everyone negotiate and sign a license before transferring a binary?

      Click through?

      Without copyright law, wouldn't someone just go in and remove the copyright notice/click through from the binary?

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  77. IAWTP by daniil · · Score: 1

    That's the second time today i have said.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    1. Re:IAWTP by daniil · · Score: 1
      Aargh. Wrong button. That's the second time i've said this (ie "IAWTP") today.

      Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    2. Re:IAWTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the second time i've said this (ie "IAWTP") today.

      Uh.. well done!

  78. Sic FhG's legal department on his ass by tepples · · Score: 1

    His mp3s on his music website are encoded using LAME, which uses the LGPL license.

    But is LAME licensed under Fraunhofer's patents? Three words: Smo King Gun.

  79. An ugly side of American politics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is all about protecting Hatch's interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

    If Slashdotters could show Hatch how it was in HIS best interest to take the side of GPL he would gladly pass some assinine bill to pad his pocket.

    Hatch is the classic schoolyard bully. He picks on those he is confident that won't or can't fight back.

    Slashdotters need a lobby or huge slush fund that can help get Hatch into office again. He will then blindly take on your cause, right or wrong.

    1. Re:An ugly side of American politics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh right.

      I am from Utah (although I have not lived there in a decade) but I am aware of the issues. Hatch is placed into office by the voters in Utah not because of his stance on copyright but because in their opinion he is "doing them good". I would guess that aside from a very few people, the voters could care less about this issue. They see him as a powerfull advocate for their state (which he is) and his ability to bring federal dollars to their state (which he does). The politics of Utah is obviously conservative and orin will be placed into office without opposition regardless of what some "slush fund" or liberal "lobby" does.

      I am in full agreement with most of the posts here but to get him out of office you would need to completely revamp the political views of the voters of Utah. Good luck... my donation is in the mail

  80. Footnote by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

    [1] From the jargon file: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/proprietary .html

    --


    This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
  81. What we really need.. by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

    What we really need is a panel on the future. The government needs to take a good hard look at how things are going to change in the future, and start laying down some laws to help guide things in a positive direction. I think a good place to start would be a law gradually phasing out copyrights and patents over the next 40 years. As we convert to a society that is more and more based on information, we need to ensure that that information is kept freely available to everybody. Of course I hardly trust the current administration to make such changes.

    --
    what sig?
    1. Re:What we really need.. by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Um... so instead of screwing up the present and the immediate future, you want the government to screw up more thing EVEN more farther down the road?

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:What we really need.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? More laws? What we need are lawmakers who take their responsibility seriously enough to not make more laws unless absolutely necessary. The law is supposed to protect our freedoms, not take it away. The law is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people; not a tool for this or that empowered interest to use to promote their agenda. Or as you put it, to promote someone's notion about what the future should look like. The future will figure itself out quite well enough without a bunch of meddling do-gooders who not-so-ironically almost always do more harm than good. I don't want congress to decide what the future should look like. I want the entire population of the United States to work on that.

  82. Capitalism by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    destroy what you dont like by forming your own, better system. Remember that it will never be illegal to download and share files legally. If you can make a successful business by selling licenses and allowing people to download and share, as opposed to selling something which doesnt do what customers want and then complaining when they find ways to get things that do what they want- do it.

    Capitalism works by people not just saying "this sucks!", but by saying "this sucks, and I can make a lot of money by making it not suck". Right?

    Go make a lot of money.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is but one tool to employ in the production of a just society. Unrestrained capitalism inevitably leads to gross imbalances of power and social injustice. Fortunately, Ann Rand was not a founding father. Mother? Well, that's a whole 'nuther interesting discussion, isn't it?...

    2. Re:Capitalism by MadAhab · · Score: 1
      You are naive.

      There is nothing capitalistic in the extremes to which IP enforcement has gone. In fact, quite the opposite. Excessive IP enforcement is anti-capitalist and in fact destroys the very possibility of competition. That is because "Intellectual Property" is not, in fact, about property at all: it concerns government-created monopolies (and I hate to break it to you Alex Keatons out there, but just because it may involve large amounts of money doesn't make it capitalist).

      When anti-capitalist corporations (e.g. Disney) change the rules of the game to favor the established players, you can't say "this sucks, but I'll make money making it suck less", because the rules have been rigged to make you into a criminal for making things less sucky.

      Just ask, say, 321 studios.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    3. Re:Capitalism by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      okay, do you need to hold my post up to a mirror or read it backwards or just add its binary value to a random number generator in order to get your interpretation out of it?

      IP law as it is is not a good thing. Fucking duh. It is anti-capitalist. Fucking duh. You seem to have missed the point: These laws are being made to favor corporations instead of citizens- I propose you incorporate.

      There cannot be anything illegal about selling license to use things without selling physical media- because that ability is the basis of all copy-protection.

      There cannot be anything illegal about distributing files which you own the rights to.

      Act quickly and become a player before the game is over. That is the point. Yes, laws can be passed which would make it illegal to create a business which distributes content like this- but it has not happened yet. The only way to prevent it is to do the capitalist thing. If the government is only going to look at people who make money, Make some money.

      321 studios is in no way related to what I proposed. They were doing pretty much the exact opposite of what I just said. 321 Studios would not be in competition with Disney when their product was used as intended. That's pretty much as unrelated as you can get.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  83. Get a clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Treat monopolist tools like the scum they are. "Respectful Email" ... get a fucking clue. You can respectfully expect to have as much impact as a dust mite. Velvet revolution and put the assholes out of work.

  84. just remember who orrin hatch REALLY is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    this is the guy who was on tv blaming clinton for 9/11 not two hours after the wtc towers had fallen. i don't care what your political biases are or what your religious or philosophical viewpoint is, everyone--republicans, democrats, and independents alike--should have no trust for someone who's so willing to go on the attack against other citizens at a time when we were all so vulnerable, confused and hurt. to me, there's no better definition of someone who (to use a phrase that has been kicked around a little too much since 9/11) "hates america." this guy shouldn't be in any position of power as his judgment is clearly abhorrently bad. if anyone reading this actually supports this guy or has voted for him in the past... SHAME ON YOU.

  85. Re:Just because I think Orin Hatch is a bad choice by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    Fair Use doctrine says that I should be able to make copies of copywritten material for my own personal use.

    The word you want is 'copyrighted,' and no, fair use doesn't say anything of the sort. It leaves open the potential, but that's all.

    All media has a limited lifespan. I should be able to make backups so that if my CD gets left in the sun, I can still listen to the music that I've licensed. The *IAA wants to force me to buy a new copy anytime my copy is ruined.

    You didn't license it, you bought the CD, and that's sufficient. But since reproduction is generally prohibited, yes, you might have to buy a new copy.

    --
    -- 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.
  86. Orrin Hatch's voting record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tidbits from Orrin Hatch's voting record:

    Voted for S.2845:
    (4) The current system, in which each intelligence agency has its own security practices, requires a demonstrated `need to know' before sharing.

    (5) The National Intelligence Director should pursue setting an executable government-wide security mode policy of `right-to-share,'...


    Voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment (making it unconstitutional for states to allow gay and lesbian marriages within their borders).

    Has a long tradition of pushing very extreme copyright enforcement law (notably, the infamous "computers of copyright infringers should be automatically remotely destroyable" stance, whereafter a sysadmin pointed out that the Hatch website was running on a pirated copy of some web software).

    He just sponsored the "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005", which:

    * Makes recording a movie in a movie theater a federal crime (punishable by three years in federal prison on the first offense). Yes, Junior can get a three year prison sentence for showing his friend what's going on in a movie with his camera video phone

    * Allows the destruction of any equipment associated with the crime (remember the fun abuses we've had with confiscation with drug laws? No problems there...)

    * Grants movie theaters the legal right to hold people they suspect of copyright infringement, and makes them immune to any legal recourse from those so held. Zit-faced Jimmy down at the cinema now has greater legal security to hold someone than does a police officer.

    * Forces Congress to review and potentially increase filesharing penalties: ...determine whether the scope of `uploading' set forth in application note 3 of section 2B5.3 of the Federal sentencing guidelines is adequate to address the loss attributable to people who, without authorization, broadly distribute copyrighted works over the Internet...


    Finally, I don't think I need to express the concerns many of us have about patent abuse, and what is likely to happen with an unchecked Hatch running the show.

    The man is your paid representative, if you live in Utah. He works for you to promote your interests. If this is what you want him doing, great. If not, you need to write a letter and tell him that he's not doing what you, his employer, want him to do, and what *your* interests are.

    1. Re:Orrin Hatch's voting record by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I should think it's rather obvious to Orrin Hatch that he isn't doing what his (or anyone else's) constituents want him to do. Hell, I live in Illinois and I've written him letters. Not that it matters, since it is equally obvious that he simply doesn't care.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  87. MOD PARENT UP by northcat · · Score: 1

    This is pretty much what RMS says. I think I've heard RMS say that once all software is free and the laws support it, we won't need licenses at all (Or something like that, I can't remember).

  88. If this is true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone who can say for sure that LAME users technically need to license a patent should absolutely drop off a news tip to their news agent of choice.

    Last time Hatch took a hyper-copyright stance (pushing for the destruction of the computers of infringers), he was shot down by a story that made national news -- his own website was running on pirated software. Senators live and die on publicity. It would be a *very good thing* to point this out, if true.

  89. Intellectual Property Address by waldoj · · Score: 2, Funny

    In July of 2000, IIRC, Orrin Hatch provided a moment of political awakening for many Slashdotters. During the Napster hearings, ol' Orrin stood up and asked if Napster couldn't just "track people by their intellectual property address"?

    I think of it as "the collective face-slap heard round the world."

    -Waldo Jaquith

  90. Re: "stealing" music by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    Besides your rationalization, making an illegal copy of a bank database genuinely isn't stealing, simply because it's only a tool towards such an end instead. In the same way, tresspassing isn't stealing, it's just a step along the way towards stealing or other crimes *. Carrying a gun isn't stealing until you use it to rob somebody. It can still be illegal, but it's not yet theft. While we're at it, kidnapping is not murder unless the hostage dies, and you can't commit prostitution by just offering sex, until money or valuables are asked for in exchange. Why do we have to keep explaining such things to people who don't seem to get them?
    This is one of the problems I have with IP law theory as it stands. It's Orwellian - "All property is equal, but some properties are more equal than others". Physically rob a bank, and you have committed one theft. By the way some people treat IP, crack a database and use the information to transfer one person's money out of one account, and you have committed two thefts. IP doctrine doesn't make intellectual property the equal of real property, it makes it superior.
    Another example of this is the 5 to 1 ratio for damages when infringement is shown to be "willful", while real property enjoys only triple damage rules in civil court at best, and even there, you have to prove a much tougher standard, i.e. criminal neglegence. IP is being treated as better than real property.
    If the record company is entitled to 5 times damage for willful infringment, then I want 5 times damage from the guy who got drunk and plowed into my work van. I want it because he willfully drank before driving, and I don't want to have to spend extra time effort and money proving he drank so much he was criminally neglegent - that's fair. Absent this, the law as it stands creates a privledged class.

    * Note, I live in a state where to commit trespass, you have to have some form of malicious intent or action. Walking across someone's lawn isn't trespass until you are shown to be damaging their property by doing so, or trying to commit some other crime like being a peeping tom or a thief. Your state or nation may define trespass more broadly.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  91. If you didn't vote straight Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you ASKED FOR THIS! Remember, a vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the constitution itself.

    1. Re:If you didn't vote straight Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you're a horse's ass.

      anyone who honestly believes that it's appropriate to vote straight down the line for one political party or one political agenda is simply looking for an easy way out. you're no better than those brain-dead fucks in the red states who voted for a worm like bush because he matched their thinking on abortion and gay marriage, and who are now paying the price as it's the red states who are going to feel the most pain from bush's horrific budget proposals. you need to read, think, educate yourself and understand how it all fits into bigger issues before casting any vote. if you genuinely think any single party is the best in all cases, then you're nothing but an ideologue and fit the stereotype of the typical libertarian voter. And trust me, that ain't good.

    2. Re:If you didn't vote straight Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really, and all this time I thought the people that voted Republican or Democrat was really voting for the same party, commonly known as the "Republicrat" party.

      It's the Republicrats that caused all sorts of problems in this country from unconstitutional programs and laws. How do you think we got into the great depression? FDR then created unconstitutional programs like crazy and the Republicrat congress voted for it. The Republicrats created other unconstitutional programs to supposedly "help the poor". The same "Won't somebody please think of the children" mentality also brought censorship that still exists today, which violates the first amendment of the constitution. It was also the Republicrats that voted for the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT act using the same mentality.

      The Republicrats also are in favor of city wide and state wide "Smoking Bans", instead of allowing businesses to decide whether or not to allow smoking.

      Since the Republicrats have historically violated the ninth and tenth amendments, they are now starting to violate other amendments, sure the Republicans claim they support the second amendment. What's to say that they wont go after someone under the PATRIOT act because they carry "too many guns"?

      The Libertarian party is the Party of Principal. They will not support a 1% food and beverage tax to fund a convention center, they would let the free market fund it.

      The Libertarian Party is the only party that will get this country back on track because they will use only the constitution as their guide. Can the Republicrats claim the same?

      ________________________________________________ __ _________________
      A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the constitution itself

  92. This is not a troll by xeno-cat · · Score: 0, Troll

    Someone modded this as a Troll. It is clearly not a troll. If you disagree with someone, reply! Don't be a coward and hide behind the moderation system.

    I hope this "moderator" gets smacked in meta mod.

    Kind Regards

    --
    "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
    1. Re:This is not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, he has.

  93. his mp3s are encoded with LAME by afxgrin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Senator Hatch has a website that hosts his music, which was pointed on another thread for this article.

    So I decided to take a hexeditor to his mp3 files, just to see LAME 3.93 all over the files at the end. LAME is licensed under the LGPL, and is in violation of certain patents to my understanding.

  94. Arrest is a peaceful option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would advocate a Martin Luther King Jr approach rather than a Malcolm X "by any means necessary" approach. At least for now.

    But I don't see this issue alone as the one that motivates regime change at home. The incompetently managed (at the leadership level, not the theater level) war in Iraq has resulted in the preventable death of U.S. servicepeople and allies, civilians, and even the looting of world treasures which was actually defended by people like Rumsfield. The impact to the deficit is enormous, thereby risking the U.S. economy. If this were a chess match it would be like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Rice traded our queen for a pawn. That this was done without justification is in my view a serious criminal act. Without justification because there was no clear and present danger - the evidence for a nexus of weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorists was not credible. In order to preserve the tradition of justice in America and intolerance for corruption, we should consider the arrest of this administration. If the FBI doesn't have the will to do it (and congress is obviously not going to do it), then the citizens should!

  95. anonymous encrypted filesharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what I am using:

    http://freenet.sourceforge.net
    http://freehaven .net

    Its time for anonymous encrypted filesharing, folks...

  96. If you voted Republican, you voted for this by whitroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Dems, at least, aren't in lockstep. The Reptilians, however, overwhelmingly vote party line...and that's whatever DeLay says it is.

    You voted for them, you're getting what you voted for. Enjoy.

    mark

    1. Re:If you voted Republican, you voted for this by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1
      OK, I'll bite. So you're saying the WHOLE Republican Party is going with Orrin Hatch? An otherwise obscure idiot from Utah? Saying "I told you so" or "you're getting what you voted for" is fun even though you're dead wrong. I note that his main partner is a Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

      Now, what about this champion of webcasters and enemy fo the RIAA who happens to be a lifelong Republican? Guess you don't read Slashdot that much...

      What about this Republican? Just in case you read PCWorld....

      Here's a few Republicans against the RIAA. Wow. Must not use Google much, huh whitroth?

      How about this Republican taking a swing at the RIAA?

      And finally.... One of the RIAA's main champions is.....DEMOCRAT!

      God, I hate smug bastards. Especially ones who use cute little terms like "Reptilians" and don't even know a Rpeublican is spearheading an investigation into the RIAA. Google Search for those who can't do it themselves.

    2. Re:If you voted Republican, you voted for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > God, I hate smug bastards.

      And yet, your smuggness is struggling to exceed who you're replying to. Attaboy!

  97. Why Sen Hatch is still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shame more Utah citizens don't vote Sen. Hatch out, since he is so out of step with popular opinion on music sharing. After all, surely the problem is that the will of the people is being frustrated by the capital of the media industry?

    Hatch isn't going *anywhere* (and is, in fact, used to introduce "risky" right-wing bills by the Republicans) because he's extremely conservative, and Utah is probably the most conservative of the states. He always wins the vote there.

  98. Close enough for government work! by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Terrorist" may be an extreme term to apply to Hatch, mostly because it places him in such extreme company, but it is not an entirely inaccurate word to describe him. After all, he does want to employ the fear of extreme reactionary measures to coerce people into complying with his agenda.

    There are a lot of words that could be used to describe Senator Hatch, and though "terrorist" may not be incredibly accurate, it's not all that far off the mark.

  99. Only electable in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to live in Salt Lake City, so I know a bit about Mormons and how they think. This idiot Orrin Hatch is only electable in a state where religious segregation is practiced in the open. If you ain't a Mormon, you ain't part of the crew...

  100. You do not speak for all of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We at the RIAA are saying "Oh yeah!"

  101. FileSharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the filesharing of illegal stuff, like music only hurts bittorrent. It's the only reliable way to get linux distros or ANYTHING posted on slashdot, in fact, it accelerates content that is in demand.

    If p2p was outlawed, it would only hurt everyone. And whats up with copywrites today? It seems they only further the excess wealth of the publisher, when does the actaual artist actualy get much?

    Scrap copywrites, start over. It was origionaly meant to protect. This is a nation by the people, for the people. Shouldn't the people not the corperation's puppets decide?

  102. Do you have a right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you don't have a right.
    You have a moral responsibility.
    You must break a law you don't agree with.
    This is a moral obligation.
    You must!

  103. Re:It's time... : There's also GNUnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also gnunet
    It's not totally made up yet, but it could always grow.
    Go to http://gnunet.org/

  104. Um.....iTunes? by bonch · · Score: 1
    RIAA and the MPAA refuse to acknowledge the existence of the market of legitimate downloaders, since it would eliminate much of their middle management and executive staffs, and have thus made it artificially difficult to legally obtain these materials.


    I keep hearing how the RIAA is afraid of legal downloading and wonder why people keep ignoring iTunes. Hell, people on Slashdot seem to be doing everything in their power to fuck up legal downloading by cracking the DRM.
    1. Re:Um.....iTunes? by rpdillon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because iTunes is a way to screw the customer over using artificially crippled technology. By nature, the customer experience of downloading on the internet is superior to going to a store - it easy, convenient, you can preview the music, and you can transfer it to whatever medium you like once you download it, and you wouldn't have to pay for physical distribution (shipment) and production of the plastic disc it is delivered on. It is also lossless (if they offered flac downloads, for example).

      What iTunes does is give you some of the benefits (previews, convenience), but at a price only very slightly less (or the same, sometimes even more expensive) than the in-store counterpart. Why is this bad? Because they rob you of fair-use in exchange for that convenience. In doing so, it is no longer the same product.

      • They are charging too much considering that the "new" technology should allow it all to be much cheaper
      • They are replacing a lossless product (in store purchase) with a lossy product, which is, therefore, inferior
      • They employ DRM that restricts my fair use
      • A side effect of their DRM is that I can only use their service from a commercial OS that I dislike and frankly, believe endangers my network and hardware, or from their OS, only availbable if I buy their hardware
      • Another effect of their lousy DRM is that I can only listen to the music on their player, again, forcing me to buy hardware from them
      Contrast all this with a service like Magnatune, which offers full, lossless downloads, as well as downloads in "alternative" formats, like Ogg (which I happen to use exclusively along with FLAC for live shows), requiring no restrictive client-side software, no limitations on what players can play the music, or what operating systems can access the content.

      This is why I ignore iTunes when we talk about legal downloads. It isn't really a product in the same class as people are visualizing. Sure, it may technically be a "legal download", but it takes away so much from what legal downloading should be (and what makes it a worthwhile enterprise), that it doesn't even qualify.

      Let make one final point: technology should always be moving us forward, both for the customer and for the business. That is how money gets made; BOTH sides have to feel like they're getting a good deal. But what is happening online with iTunes is NOT a good deal. Perhaps it is for some, but not for most. Imagine if when CDs came out, Sony CDs would only play on a Sony CD player, and Universal CDs would only play on a Universal CD player. To listen to your collection, you'd need to carry 5 CD players with you. Suffice it to say that it would have never gotten off the ground. Maybe a few people would have lauded it as "the wave of the future" with the high quality digital music encoding on the shiny plastic discs. But really, it would have been a dead end.

      So it is with iTunes. iTunes is merely interesting because it was the first commercial attempt to create a legal music download service. But it is only interesting, and by no means an example to follow - it will not be long lived because it doesn't really improve customer experience for the vast majority of its potential market. Wait around for the next service that does, or perhaps until iTunes changes their tune.

  105. Orrin Hatch...is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my FC2 machine and RealPlayer 10, I just downloaded one of his songs. The error message was "The content you're trying to play uses an audio codec which is obsolete and no longer supported."

    Giving rise to my subject heading of Orrin Hatch's music is obsolete.

    He's part of the problem, not the solution. Evil. Zealot. Extreme. And OBSOLETE.

    God have mercy on his hypocritical soul! +

  106. Orin Hatch - liar and coverup artist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Orin Hatch is also chair of the Senate Jucidiary Committee - responsible for congress' oversight of the FBI. He stopped all investigation into misdeeds of 9-11 (not just incompetence).

    Declassified version of Ashcroft's report into Sibel Edmonds (from the doj website - released on a friday at 5pm before a long weekend) (long, worth reading): http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0501/final.pdf Here is a letter that was retroactively classified by, and then finally unclassified: ""...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public's interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight."

    U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft http://justacitizen.com/articles_documents/Leahy_G rassley_Letter_to_Ashcroft_7-9-04.pdf Republican member of the judiciary committee, Grassley, interviewed on 60 minutes believes Edmonds testimony is credible.

    she didn't just alledge incompetence on transcribing the 9-11 tapes, she alleges espionage, and intentional blindness. To date this has still not been investigated according to Ashcroft's DOJ Report which noted that Edmonds was unfairly fired because of her whistleblowing.

  107. Orrin Hatch's son and SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hatch's son served as an attorney for the SCO case.

    1. Re:Orrin Hatch's son and SCO by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Yep, and you if read some of the trascripts where they let Hatch's kid actually speak during a hearing; it will be immediately obvious that hatch's kid wasn't hired for his lawyering ability.

      And anyway, scoxe has already hired the famous Boise law firm, for some $31MM, so why would scoxe need a third rate lawyer like hatch's kid?

      Don't forget senator hatch is also on the judicial commitee - he chaired it until very recently. That means that the Utah judges trying the case can't get promoted without senator hatch saying so.

  108. Personal responsibility by bonch · · Score: 1
    Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes. Am I sympathetic to an industry which has stolen from me and everyone else for years and now has the tables turned? No fucking way.


    Then don't piss and moan when the GPL gets violated. It makes you and other Slashdotters look hypocritcal to give these rallying cries over ripping off artists (face it, that's all you're doing...a group of real people rented out a studio and spent months making music in order to make a living, and you're not paying them for it...congratulations on that "movement"), and then bitch and moan when a company uses GPL code.

    The industry didn't steal from you. A bunch of execs didn't show up to your door and hold a gun to your head to force you to buy their overpriced CDs. You willingly gave your money to the store. You didn't have to do it. It's easier to play victim, however, and pretend the big, evil RIAA is the bad guy, and you're just some freedom fighter sticking it to them. In reality, you're just another guy who doesn't want to have to pay money for something.

    I think that's the thing that strikes me most about these discussions. So many people try to portray themselves as battle-ridden freedom fighters leading a culture movement against some corporate-controlled society. In reality, you're nothing more than one more person sitting on P2P getting music for free so you don't have to actually shell out money for it. The motive is totally selfish, but justifications have been invented so that you don't feel guilty over it.

    It doesn't matter if the RIAA overprices products. That means you...gasp...don't buy them. The only logical conclusion is that you feel you have some sort of inherent right to someone's produced media content, which is completely silly. Does that mean I have an inherent right to use any GPL code I want in any way I want?

    I will start buying music again when I can pay between 40 and 50 pence per track for a file without DRM. Until then, I'll steal.


    Then go on stealing. The rest of us will note that you have absolutely zero moral ground to stand on as a result. I'm a musician, and fuck you if you're stealing my music too.

    Oh, I forgot, the actual human beings behind the music being taken never get mentioned in these discussions. It's always the evil RIAA who gets painted as bad guy in order to shift blame away from downloaders. Lame.

    By the way, how can you demand DRM-less music with no restrictions in one breath, and then demand everyone follow the license of the GPL in another? If nobody wants the usage limitations DRM, then why should we have to follow the usage limitations of the GPL?

    This juvenile sort of thinking is really holding actual progress back on creating a legal online music market. At the end of the day, it's time to realize a lot of people--many of them posters on Slashdot--don't care about legal online music downloading. They are only in it for one thing. Freeloading. Not free speech.
    1. Re:Personal responsibility by mitchshrader · · Score: 1

      aight, a tangle of issues. first, No I don't respect the RIAA and think current copyright law is inequitable. Second, lots of musicians gain popular attention BECAUSE of 'free' (sometimes pirated, not always) distribution of mp3s. Third, Big distribution companies have built a system that supports legislation (and legislators) who support them, to the detriment of fair use. Fourth, ALL the 'legal' enforcement of 'anti-piracy' legislation and enforcement by the RIAA companies comes OUT OF THE POCKETS OF ARTISTS. Not the salaries of executives. Artists are paid by royalties (after expenses) and executives aren't. One wonders just what the lawyers who file these cases charge, and how many artists that might support.

      And .. just for hypothetical.. did an artist (under exclusive contract) EVER bootleg a few CD's at a show and fail to inform his distributor? Hmm? I don't think artists are immune from such behavior, just guessing.

      Bottom line, it's a tangled mass of issues, but as far as 'who started it' and 'whose fault it is' that depends where you stand and when you start counting. Fairly well known fact that organized crime and media distribution have been entangled for decades, and I certainly didn't see any headlines they've gotten out of that business.

      Fair use would allow copying to any format, fair business practice would allow dormant copyrights to lapse some reasonable time after the artists death (10 years? unless a nominal transfer fee paid) .. and no criminal prosecution for distribution that had no monetary gain involved.

      If you want laws to be respected, make them worth respect. If you want to make theft unpopular, make equity obvious. Lacking that, it takes very little effort to ignore them, and that rapidly becomes a habit.

  109. There has to be money to be made here by smchris · · Score: 1


    If we could set up an off-shore gambling site where the house always assumes that government will do the backward and stupid thing, we could rake it in.

  110. These issues are off of the average voters radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that these issues are of concern to many computer geeks and not most average people. The average voter does not know or care enough about computer software and hardware to give the matter much thought.

    One small group that does care passionately is the many of the Linux users who might not be allowed to continue playing the DVDs they purchased any longer on their computers. We are also concerned that Microsoft could use stronger software patent and copyright laws block interoperability with non-Microsoft products and possibly destroy what little remaining competition they have. Unfortunately, most voters do not even know about these issues. In cases like that it is only the entertainment industry lobbyists who get noticed by congress.

    I am building my own computer which I will use as a personal video recorder for broadcast high definition high definition televison signals (the HDTV signals received by antenna not cable). It will use the Linux based MythTV software and an HDTV video capture card. After July 1, 2005 the manufacture or sale of the HDTV video capture cards will be banned by the FCC. The Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF)" has been fighting them in court on that issue. Fortunately, it will still be legal to continue using the card that I purchased before the deadline. Over 90 percent of Americans use cable TV or satellite TV instead of what they receive by antenna, so once again, I am a small passionate minority that does not have a lot of politcal clout

    I have contributed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and have written several letters to my elected representaives. I do not watch much TV but am building my own Linux based personal video recorder mostly as a act of protest to what I feel is an unfair restriction of what I can do at home.

    I am also a licensed ham radio operator and most hams in this country have been unsuccessfully fighting something else that the FCC has been doing. We strongly oppose the FFC plan to allow the power companies plan to use BPL to send high speed Internet data over unshielded power lines. That would cause large amouts of noise to be radiated from the unsheilded power lines onto the ham radio bands. The ham radio bands might become nearly useless. There are large numbers of angry ham radio operators who are dues paying members of the Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL). I was one of many ARRL members who made contributions to a special ARRL fund to fight the plan but so far president Bush and the FCC seem to be ignoring us. Apparently, several million angry ham radio operators were not enough to stop a small number of power company lobbyists. It seems to be much the same situatation between computer users and the entertainment industry. On both of these issues, the industry lobbyists frequently seem to have more polical clout than small groups of passionate voters.

  111. No. by daniil · · Score: 1
    You ridicule the immediate issue because you cannot comprehend the long term effects.

    No. I ridiculed it a) for fun, and b) because i think calling Hatch a "terrorist" is silly.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    1. Re:No. by yoder · · Score: 1

      Calling him a terrorist is silly? Depending upon your perspective I can see it being anything from an overstatement to "spot on", but silly...nah.

      He is an elected representative and has been entrusted with the power and privilege commensurate with that position. What he has instead done is take that power and privilege and use it against the people who voted him in.

      Members of our government have called its own constituents terrorists just for disagreeing with them on issues they feel need not be discussed. The Wingnutteria consistently call those on the left terrorists because the left is a scary place to them. With all of the terrorist labels being bandied about by those on the right when describing those on the left, I certainly don't see that label as being any more inappropriate when describing someone who wanted to let the Recording Industry remotely destroy private computers with impunity.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    2. Re:No. by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      Considering that over 90% of the US representative elected are the incumbent, there are NO representative in the US.
      Just like in the Soviet Union there are only appointed delegate.
      who are then voted in with some satisfying number of votes.
      The only difference is the the central party in the US has two branches and therefore can keep the public amused longer.
      So Mr Hatch has been appointed by its administration, and is using the power and priviledge to squeeze money out of the plebs, as requested from him.
      He is just a standard member of your aristocracy.
      Do not blame him, blame your constitution.

  112. I plan to play my DVD with MythTV under Linux too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I almost forgot to mention that I plan to play my DVDs under Linux on the Linux based multi-media PC that I am building. I am not really sure if that is still legal in the USA or not. From what I remember hearing, the problem seems to be that any free open source operating systems such as Linux, by nature, do not prevent the computer owners from altering what the source code can do. I resent the suggestion that it is probably legal for Windows users to play DVDs but perhaps not Linux or BSD users. But anyway, unless someone clearly tells me that I can't play my collection of DVDs under MythTV I will continue to do so. Over the years I have perchased nearly 100 DVDs and plan to continue playing them from my Linux computer.

  113. US will not be the only place on earth by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Where people will elect their dictator. Sadly, it happens all over the world.

    But I somewhat agree with your main point. The USA is voting away it's own freedom.

  114. OT (C for loops) Re:for (i=1;i++;) by lakeland · · Score: 1

    The syntax is for (init; terminate; iterate)

    so for (i = 1; j > 0; i++) will get you your infinite loop. You can't have i > 0 since at 2^32 it will flip around again. Oh, and you can shortcut it with for(;;).

    1. Re:OT (C for loops) Re:for (i=1;i++;) by tmasky · · Score: 1
      Aww. You were the only one who came close to getting my subtle humor.

      heh.c:
      #include <stdio.h>

      int main(void) {
      int i;
      for (i=1;i++;) {
      printf("Sort of works via a broken method\n");
      }
      }
      gcc -o heh heh.c

      As you might have guessed, it works*.. but via a broken method. =D

      *because everyone uses gcc3
  115. More tax waste by EvilStein · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Bush is flying back to Washington to help push through some right-to-life legislation to try and help a brain dead vegetable in Florida.

    Nice.

    1. Re:More tax waste by qurk · · Score: 1
      I have a extreme personal antipathy toward Bush, but I have to tip my hat at this gesture. Your brain-dead vegetable has been abused by her husband ever since he lied his way through court - "I lover her so much and I need so much money to keep her alive so we can be together for the rest of our lives."

      As soon as he got the money, he went back to court - "We were watching this movie about a lady in a coma on a ventilator and she said she wouldn't ever want to live that way." His wife is not on a ventilator, she can breathe fine. He has denied her any television or radio, as well as disallowed anyone from even brushing her teeth. He is now fighting to have her starved to death.

      Don't believe everything you read in the media. I hate to sound like a retarded republican, but in this case the articles in the newspapers and online are way slanted and leave out many relevant facts.

      Is it right for the legislative and executive branches to intervene in the judicial branches business like this? Probably not....but her husband is a sleazebag, and is playing the courts in Florida in an extraordinary way.

    2. Re:More tax waste by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If he's playing the courts, he's doing so better than anyone else in US history.

      Terry Schiavo received therapy for at least a few years after the incident which produced no discernable results, and it wasn't until 1998 -- five years after the jury verdict that provided $750K to Terry and $300,000 to Michael -- that Michael asked the court to decide whether to remove the feeding tube, since he believed that she wouldn't want to live like that and her parents believed that she would want to live. Since 2000, the parents' only victories have been extensions when new evidence was reconsidered, or when stays were ordered pending new trials or appeals. It has been in the courtroom for more than six years, has survived appeals to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, the Florida Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court. Three judges have dealt with it at the trial level, meaning that six courts have either found that Terry would not have chosen to be this way, or have found that lower courts did not err in their judgements sufficiently to turn the whole thing over.

      I have read in a few places that the actual decision to end life support for Terry was made by the court, and not (explicitly) by Michael, so he technically may not have the power to reverse it. He does believe that she wouldn't want to live this way, and the courts have sided with him on multiple occasions (he's not the only one to have come forward to claim that Terry had said words to that effect before her heart attack).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    3. Re:More tax waste by qurk · · Score: 1
      I'm not ready to let Michael Shiavo off the ball so quickly. I don't know if the court appearances he had across the country where he was saying how much he loved her and was willing to spend the rest of his life with her, were even part of the Florida courts rulings, or the Federal Judge's ruling who said that the appeal offered nothing new. The fact is Michael Shiavo said some things in court in California, then turned around and said the opposite in Florida.

      I believe Michael Shiavo is a con man and is winning this battle to murder his wife, now that he has his pay off. The media is abetting him, which is great for him. I'm not political and this isn't a political thing, I just wonder why this woman's custody can't be turned over to people who obviously care about her, compared to the custody of her husband, who doesn't care about her. He obviously cares about his new wife and kids, and is enjoying the money he got to nominally care for her. I believe he is a con artist though :( It makes me so sick inside to know today, Tuesday, that his wife has been starving to death since Friday and he is happy since he already has all the millions he begged for to keep her alive with him for the rest of his life.

    4. Re:More tax waste by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Your "facts" are way off.

      When they were in California (November 1990 to January 1991), it was to see if some then-new experimental therapies would work to improve her condition. When they didn't work, she was returned to Florida, where she underwent further therapy until 1992 or 1993. Michael's petition to remove the feeding tube didn't come until 1998, and was filed in -- and never left until the federal filings were allowed -- Florida courts.

      Nine courtrooms encompassing nearly three dozen judges have determined that Terri Schiavo's wishes would be that she would not want to live this way. Two of the Florida lower court judges were assisted by court-appointed guardians at litem, who took temporary guardianship of Terri for the durations of the trials and assisted the courts in determining her wishes.

      As for why Michael is following through on this, maybe it's because he does love her and is trying to respect her wishes, whereas her family's love for her is not allowing them to respect her wishes. There is little or no money left from the malpractice awards (which totaled a little over a million dollars, not "millions"), because it's been spent on her therapy, hospice, and legal costs. Michael spends a great deal of time at her side even now, with the attorneys handling courtroom appearances for the most part.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  116. Since we've had this debate 100 times before ... by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.

    Should this one sentence be true, despite being a Senator, this man has a very narrow-minded and dark view of technology. And obvioulsy so do many others of his ilk.

    Anyone downloading a copyrighted piece of work must have down so illicitly.

    People only want media and software for free and will do anything to keep from paying for them.

    Anything to do with p2p or torrents are mostly only used for illicit or illegal activities and should punished to a large extent with jail time and huge fines.

    Why are we still belaboring these points when we know that they are not true? Why do we continue to put up with idiots like Hatch who goose-step in line with DMCA rhetoric without truly understanding what they are condemning?

    Instead of having the endless debate we've had on this type stuff before, let's answer a question: What are we going to take our government back? What can I do personally to make sure that idiots like this guy are not held in responsible office?

    I want the people in office to actually hear my voice and represent my view. Your view. I'm tired of debating and I'm ready to put my time and money where my mouth is.

    What do I do next?

  117. Re: "stealing" music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "* Note, I live in a state where to commit trespass, you have to have some form of malicious intent or action. Walking across someone's lawn isn't trespass until you are shown to be damaging their property by doing so, or trying to commit some other crime like being a peeping tom or a thief. Your state or nation may define trespass more broadly."

    I shoot kids who walk across my lawn.

  118. Practicality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay. Let me ask: how would this destruction of a computer take place? Mind you, this is a remote, send-a-packet-over-the-net thing. So, a lot goes away.

    First, what if there is software enforcement. But how do you run it? Getting everyone in the US of A to run some program on their computer is one large issue, and what's to say there aren't so many capable of defeating it?

    And what of other OSes? If it's mandated, what of those operating systems incompatible? If it were built into the OS, even worse, as I somehow doubt those leading the Linux kernel and major distributions would be willing.

    And, I ask again, what if some bguy goes and hacks? Worse than the disabling of all protections on his computer, he/she may be tempted to *gasp* fry my computer.

    And fry? Fry how?

    "format c:" and/or "fdisk c:" isn't too bad. And overwriting my c: drive with psuedorandom data? Well, my hardware's intact, and what bits and bytes I had can be regotten.

    Hardware damage? Well, that script kiddie next door has suddenly become quite powerful, then. What if the *AA decides to abuse its power?

    Let me make it clear, the entire *AA doesn't need to be corrupt for this to happen, though some here may believe that's already happened. All you need is one guy with tech security clearance and countless computers get destroyed.

    And damage how? I know of nothing that done remotely will work. Anything new implanted on the hardware will (for "national security") render all existing computers useless.

    What would be added? Heat and physical force are the two things I can think of right now. That is, explosives (minor) or overheating (AHHH! It's on fire!! Help!). Temperatures enough to melt some components may well set aflame the computer, then the desk, then the room, then the house, etc. until we get the next great fire of London, Chicago, whatever.

    I could go on longer, but my train of thought ran out.

    Anonyomous because I last used my password a year ago and have the short term memory of a gerbil.

  119. The Trusted Platform Module (TPM) in new computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new "Trusted Computing" hardware that is starting to appear on some new computers is yet another threat to computer users rights. Support for "trusted computing" will be in the next version of Windows. Here is a BBC article about "Trusted Computing":

    What price for 'trusted PC security'?

    From what I can tell, the term "Trusted Computing" basicaly seems to mean that the owner of the computer is not trusted to decide what software can be run on her computer. In trusted computing "big brother" will have a firm control of what software, files and media can be used.

  120. Texas Futile Care Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as governor of Texas, he signed a law in 1999 giving hospitals the right to remove life support based on inability to pay.

    It's only a "culture of life" when everyone is watching, I guess. Is it just me or has the hypocrisy been getting really bad this year?

    1. Re:Texas Futile Care Law by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      This is very true. Well, he now has a much larger collection of right wingers to pander to.

  121. the Subject and continue it in the message body? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Isn't it annoying when posters start their comment in

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  122. whether or not it's for profit by geekee · · Score: 1

    From reading /. comments, the general opinion seems to be that violating copyright is ok as long as it's not for profit. This is not my personal opinion.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  123. Hammurabbi Code by Jadaro · · Score: 1

    "(in)famous for his idea of destroying the computers of copyright violators" ... Hmm, this is no different from the policies surround the contraband of Marijuana. The police in the US have the power to destroy any vehichle, or part of a vehicle, if they have probable cuase for it, as well as confiscate houses, cars, paraphenalia..etc. involved with any similar activity. I wouldn't be surprised than if (when) this happens, that they'll also take the libery of seizing the file sharer's external modem, phone lines that are running through the house, software, and software liscenses used (Such as that of windows, for running the file sharing program.) ... It's only a matter of time ( if this tactic quoted above is of serious consideration).

  124. Your day will come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On behalf of the Inquisition and the Jesuits, it pleases me to announce that you have qualified for a place in our beater-testing program. Don't contact us, we'll contact you - at around 2AM one morning after you annoy one of your neighbours and they anonymously denounce you for heresy. Please have your worldly chattels, family members, pets etc prepared for auction.

    J "Pain Threshold" Ratzinger,
    Cardinal, Pope-in-waiting

  125. democracy is action by microbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not saying criminal activity on a large scale justifies said criminal activity

    In theory a democracy would never have a law that would make most of it's voters into criminals. It would be quite disfunctional...

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  126. Cogito, ergo svm by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    slashdot's hivemind is not a fallacy.

    There is merely different layers of subconsious thought active. The rating system is one interpretation; one exposure to the output of the mind.

    Are you telling me that your mind works in such a way that you've never held two opinions that conflict directly with eachother? Or that you've never held one opinion in consious thought, and one in subconsious(mabye you want to fuck your mother)? Or that you've never held two opinions in two different contexts that you never linked together that when linked together prove contradictory?
    It is the process of reason that happens when two contradictory opinions are found; and when found one of the following happens
    a) one is chosen over the other
    b) a third opinion is brought in that legitimizes the split; perhaps for example quantum physics and einstein's relativity are not both true; but in the day to day experience the two along with newtonian physics are *good enough* most of the time.
    c) one or both of the opinions are modified so they do not conflict
    d) both ideas are dropped as absurd
    etc
    To an extent all of the above are happening and if you want to help slashdot you do not say that 'slashdot doesn't exist'(which is false), but rather attempt to make comprimise and legitemate debate. Or you could join the penisbird trolls, I suppose, which is really what chosing to ignore the slashdot hivemind amounts to. The ONLY way opinions change is that for at least a limited time two beleifs are held simultaneously, and that they vie competitively for mindshare. The fact that the "filesharing is ok" and "gpl is good" opinions are held simultaneously are indicators that there is uncertainty in the matter; while *I* may believe that the gpl is a Good Thing, and that filesharing is OK under certain circumstances(ie, works that were bootlegs, works that were never sold and can never be sold and never will be sold, and for educational purposes, and for a future means of distrobution of creative commons artists), does not mean that slashdot agrees with me. I am merely one small speck of the slashdot hivemind; my strongest words are but fickle ideas in it's imagination. Slashdot it seems is *undecided* on the matter for the time being, and awaiting a solution or something that will convince it either way whether to support or not support filesharers or the pro gpl/copyright crowd, if either is to be supported.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  127. Oh holy crap not him again by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Orrin Hatch is in his seventies. I remenber reading an article some while ago that he'd (finally) retired, which made my whole day.

    Why would anyone want to dig up this old fossil again, let alone put him in charge of anything, as he's obviously an incontin^m^mpetent fool.

  128. copyright enfringement is not theft or stealing! by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1
    Don't blur your terms, it makes you look like an idiot.

    You are correct, he does not have the moral highground in this case; he must make some sort of a compromise in regards to GPL violations. however, using the terms 'stealing' is blurring the lines of argument in such a way to bias the argument towards your favour. Use reason, not deceipt, to forward your position, lest your position go unaccepted not due to it's falsity, but that you tried to push it forward in a way that is against rational discourse.

    As to the rest of your post the industry did, in fact, steal from me, when they forced my government to put a tax on writable media. And don't think that just because you may not live in my country that you're excempt from this; if they would seek to do it to me, they would do it to you. Money that should have stayed with me when I purchased data and backup CDs went to the CRIA, and so on.

    Money is going from my pocket into ISP black-box surveillance systems to track down my packets, whether or not I pirate.

    So many people try to portray themselves as battle-ridden freedom fighters leading a culture movement against some corporate-controlled society.

    My roommate is closed to getting removed from his apartment for his activities. I am a *terrorist* by law and thus can go to jail or be exterminated without trial. If you don't think that the society is controlled by corporate interests, that's for you to conclude, but when the rest of us are risking life in prison or fines upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars for altruist motives, I'd say we qualify as taking part in some form of culture movement. Some of us are more violent then others, of course, and not everywhere is a battleground. Yet.

    "It doesn't matter if the RIAA overprices products. That means you...gasp...don't buy them."

    What if you are a capitalist, and believe that a free market is the most efficient and best way of organizing human affairs? Wouldn't you see the p2p nets as a market, where music is sold for the cost of connection time(ie practically nil?)? If you think the RIAA overprices products, in that case you wouldn't buy those products from the RIAA, you'd get them from other sources. For some, this means buying from used cd stores and pawn shops. For others, this means creating you own music, and for others still, this means buying them from someone who offers it free(as in beer).

    If you want to use any sort of capitalist argument against filesharing, be prepared to face the force of the market; which in this case is saying quite clearly that the price of music, when quality and corruption are not issues, is somewhere in the vicinity of 0.00$.

    "Oh, I forgot, the actual human beings behind the music being taken never get mentioned in these discussions."

    That's because it's actual human beings who partake in these discussions. The premis "there are real human beings involved" goes without saying. If you quit assuming that everyone is just some sort of a music consumer and start thinking that people generally are musicians but more importantly producers, the shade of argument tends to change; We as producers need to find a way to produce and distribute more effectively, and this way will inevidably utilize filesharing's methods in the future.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  129. Contrary to popular belief... by MacDork · · Score: 1
    Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist

    "You are either with us or you're with the terrorists." - George W. Bush

  130. Re: "stealing" music by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    Just Kids? That sounds like age discrimination!

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  131. Orrin Hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orrin Hatch is a fag!

  132. So much for theory by alexo · · Score: 1


    > In theory a democracy would never have a law that would make most of it's voters into criminals.
    > It would be quite disfunctional...


    Speeding?

  133. Another crackpot idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...out of a crackpot senator from a crackpot state.

  134. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  135. He is an honest politician by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    Of couse the definition comes from that great arm twister himself, Lyndon Johnson:

    An honest politician, once he's bought, he stays bought.

    O. Hatch, a wholely owned subsidiary of M$.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  136. You're still missing a piece... by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Neither side is right. But when the law becomes an ass, people will disrespect it. That's what it IS.

    The problem is a little more subtle; your phrasing mistakes a law for The Law. More exactly, the problem is that that when some laws specifically start becoming asinine, it starts eroding respect for the rule of law in general. Unfortunately, short sighted corporate boards don't seem to have the required range of foresight to anticipate major social shifts resulting from their policies.

    The life expectancy of a corporation absent the rule of law is minus several seconds.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  137. Re: "stealing" music by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Actually in this country copyright infringment is usually a CIVIL matter; not a CRIMINAL matter. IT is handled by different courts, governed under different laws, and brought by different parties.

    And semantics DO matter within the law - no US law calls it "theft".

    Please get your facts right before you post.

    (IANAL but I have taken 2 legal classes on the subject and my major in college is the study of the recording industry)

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  138. Assasination... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Yes....I've reached the point where I believe that assasination of Senator Orin Hatch would be in the benefit of the people.

    I am a Republican conservative and I believe that Senator Orin Hatch is a danger to the people of the United States of America.

    However, I do still believe we have alternatives and I do not believer in murder. But I believe it is reching the point where we need to bring a national platform against Senator Hatch to ensure he is not re-elected.

    - The Saj

  139. Re:Since we've had this debate 100 times before .. by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

    There's nothing you can do. Democracy has ended. The Supreme Court is no longer protecting the constitution. Skull and Bones has taken over. And I, for one, do not welcome our new goose-stepping overlords.

    --
    Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  140. Oh Great! by crusher-1 · · Score: 1

    Senator "where's the any key" is gonna make key decisions on every thing from whether or not M$ is going to get patents on the escape key and copyrights to anything I code on a windows boxen.

    Maybe it's time to go back to using the abacus! Wait - didn't M$ just apply for that patent as well?

    I feel a headache starting to come on. pfft!

  141. Re:Since we've had this debate 100 times before .. by swiftstream · · Score: 1

    It's true, alright. From Wikipedia

    Hatch caused an overnight controversy June 17, 2003 by proposing that copyright owners should be able to destroy the computer equipment and information of those suspected of copyright infringement, including file sharing. In the face of criticism, especially from technology and privacy advocates, Hatch withdrew his suggestion days later. One year later, he proposed a controversial INDUCE Act that attempted to make illegal all tools that may be used for copyright infringement. According to many critics, this act would effectively outlaw the internet and personal computers, giving unprecedented legal leverage to media companies.

    I'm ashamed to say that he's my senator...

    All I can say, is that thankfully I'm still too young to vote, and I therefore refuse to take any blame for his actions.

    --
    Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  142. Re: "stealing" music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another difference could be that the Bank doesn't sell copies of that database...

  143. Re:I am so confused by you people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bzzzzzt.

    I walk by your Mercedes, raise my wand, say "Duplicatus!" and poof! there's a second identical Mercedes. I get in it and drive away (as my Nimbus 2000 has a malfunction).

    Daimler-Chrysler can now sue me as I didn't pay them for the design rights and copyrights.

    - Harry

  144. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion