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.
.."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
Wow, this troll was old in 2003.
http://tinyurl.com/4vxlf
-josh
There's a conflict of interests at work here, senator is just scared that everyone will download his awesome music for free.
> 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.
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
"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.
TruePunk | Games
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
the stuff that they will come up with and push through might make the Europeans to wake up.
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?
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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*
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
"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."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=drthedeep end&PHPSESSID=5a45ea245d366a6482b5cb2688c62720
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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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
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).
"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.
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.
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
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?
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!
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"
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?
* And my rhetorics is way more convincing than yours, so i win.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
To start taking anonymous p2p more seriously...
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
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?
(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".
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.
Yeah, he remembered to not close the source program before pasting. Good for him!
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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
Why exactly can't you send them a cheque?
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes.
/. 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.
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
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?
What is *AA?
Why Vegan? No other food choice has a farther-reaching and more profoundly positive impact on all of life on Earth.
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.
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!
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!
~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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
The *AA is a way of people encompassing both the RIAA & MPAA into one lump organization.
"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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
The *AA are Cartels, pure and simple.
That's the second time today i have said.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
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.
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"
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] 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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"What I don't get is why so many slashdotters are AGAINST the use of IP law as it stands.
h t_Term_Reform/Default
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/Copyrig
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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_
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(;;).
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?
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.
"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?
Isn't it annoying when posters start their comment in
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
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
"(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).
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
This is very true. Well, he now has a much larger collection of right wingers to pander to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"You are either with us or you're with the terrorists." - George W. Bush
Just Kids? That sounds like age discrimination!
Who is John Cabal?
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.
> 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?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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$.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The problem is a little more subtle; your phrasing mistakes a law for The Law. More exactly, the problem is that that when some laws specifically start becoming asinine, it starts eroding respect for the rule of law in general. Unfortunately, short sighted corporate boards don't seem to have the required range of foresight to anticipate major social shifts resulting from their policies.
The life expectancy of a corporation absent the rule of law is minus several seconds.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Actually in this country copyright infringment is usually a CIVIL matter; not a CRIMINAL matter. IT is handled by different courts, governed under different laws, and brought by different parties.
And semantics DO matter within the law - no US law calls it "theft".
Please get your facts right before you post.
(IANAL but I have taken 2 legal classes on the subject and my major in college is the study of the recording industry)
Libertas in infinitum
Yes....I've reached the point where I believe that assasination of Senator Orin Hatch would be in the benefit of the people.
I am a Republican conservative and I believe that Senator Orin Hatch is a danger to the people of the United States of America.
However, I do still believe we have alternatives and I do not believer in murder. But I believe it is reching the point where we need to bring a national platform against Senator Hatch to ensure he is not re-elected.
- The Saj
There's nothing you can do. Democracy has ended. The Supreme Court is no longer protecting the constitution. Skull and Bones has taken over. And I, for one, do not welcome our new goose-stepping overlords.
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Senator "where's the any key" is gonna make key decisions on every thing from whether or not M$ 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion