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
> 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.
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.
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
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
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".
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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?
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.