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.'"
"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.
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
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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
In all countries we have Religion = Economics = Politics. You state the obvious and homogenous. Why?
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.
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.
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
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!
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
He can't lead anything if he gets voted out, right?
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.
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
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.
I think hes just pissed his parents named him orrin.
They sure must have hated him.
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".
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.
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.
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).
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
This is a perfect example of the wolf guarding the henhouse.
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
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?
They were cockneys and tried to name him "Warren."
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
* And my rhetorics is way more convincing than yours, so i win.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?
Yes. Always.
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.
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.
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!
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
Ron Paul
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That would be how you sell the resulting bill. Make it sound like it is protecting citizens and not raping them.
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