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.
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!
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".
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?