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.
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
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.
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.
In all countries we have Religion = Economics = Politics. You state the obvious and homogenous. Why?
> Could someone tell me what the essential
> difference is between someone violating the
> license terms on a copyrighted work released
> under a GPL license, and someone violating the
> terms under which a CD is released by (for
> example) Sony?
The differenc:
GPL programs don't come with encumbered software that will secretly install itself on your machine to ensure that you keep the GPL, and will post your personal data to the owner of the SourceForge project page, plus any other material that it feels might be related to your breach of the GPL (including any other code that you write, so that the owner can make sure it wasn't derivative of his) and which is capable of shutting down your computer if it determines the GPL has been violated (with no responsibility for it to be *correct* in that determination).
GPL authors don't then, having written that encumbered software, demand legal protection that obliges users to run it on their machine.
GPL authors don't gleefully accept your contribution to a project, and then argue that any code you ever write for the rest of your life must be GPLed because the programming skills you learned while working on the GPL project can only result in code which matches that which is GPLed.
GPL authors don't buy up entire distribution channels, and make exclusive agreements with them, to ensure that you are *forced* to GPL any software you want to write if you ever want it to be noticed, and even then they can still veto anything they don't want published for any reason.
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.
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...
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!
> I respect their right to choose their own
> terms. It's a question of fair play - how
> could I possibly demand protection for my own
> rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that
> same protection to others?
The point I was trying to make is that - as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law. The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA), and b) the corporate slant with which it is being developed and interpreted ("copy protection clubs", submarine patents, machine-gun patents, etc.).
Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.
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
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*
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.
Don't forget the whole 'p2p should be illegal because h4x0rz use it to steal muzak' thing, regardless of whether it has any other uses. Oh, and 'let's allow people to patent trivial software constructs that have been in use for 25 years' too.
.iso format, or in a zip archive must be warez...
Maybe I'm just a bit jaded because in all this crap, nowhere is there a need for 1) responsibility or 2) accountability on the part of the copyright cartels. But of course, we all know that anything shared via bittorrent, or in
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
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.
as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law
/. doing exactly that.
I would question that assertion - there seem to be a lot of "nobodies" here on
The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA)
I have to wonder if the DMCA would stand up to judicial review, if some of its more draconian measures were actually brought to trial. I have the same doubts about the several cases of file traders being sued by the *AA's - every case I've heard about was settled out of court before it could be brought in front of a judge or jury. Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks? Getting a precedent on the books that establishes a more reasonable penalty would be an important step, in my opinion.
machine-gun patents
Great Cthulhu, is that one still valid??? How long has Hiram Maxim been dead now, anyway?
Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.
I can't argue with that. I'm not arguing for or against strong copyright, just consistency; regardless of how strong it is, it should afford equal protection to all copyright holders. But in any case, Hatch is a horrible choice to chair this committee. Destroying the possessions of someone without the giving them the benefit of due process is ridiculous. You'd think someone in his position would have a better understanding of the Constitution than that.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
I think you are missing the point here...
Neither side is right. But when the law becomes an ass, people will disrespect it. That's what it IS.
Law is not morality. Law is usually what the "haves" use against the "have nots." The "have nots" are not a bunch of hooligans, they really will respect reasonable limits and rational morality.
When the law makes sense again, people will be less inclined to disrespect it because it will be seen to serve a public good by having a reasonable purpose.
Copyrights should serve as a protection for natural persons. We natural persons do not currently have lifespans reaching over a hundred years. When we see limits like that being codified we know the beneficiary is a fictitious person - a corporate entity or estate.
We respect the creators of good and useful things; and we also expect wealthy heirs and hangers on and to get jobs and become useful to society and not to just live off of royalties because they paid off the right people in D.C.
The "average slashdotter" you have constructed is made of straw, and your attack on it is nonsensical.
Anyway, being opposed to Orrin Hatch is not the same as being opposed to copyright, and being in favor of limited copyright is not the same as being in favor of unlimited copyright. For all we know, mr. Hatch could very well be proposing new laws that make GPL-style use of copyright illegal (I'm sure some method can be found, and don't think Microsoft et al haven't thought of it).
"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.
To start taking anonymous p2p more seriously...
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?
Yes. Always.
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
It doesnt have to kill you to be a weapon. A weapon is just what is employed to threaten you or your way of life.
But sure, for the sake of the argument, let us say it does have to be lethal to be counted as a weapon - Terror has a higher chance of killing people than for instance a paintball gun, yet it is classified as a weapon. So is a slingshot, technically, and a nailfile if you try to get through airport security.
So his weapon is terror - that is to scare the crapola out of people in order to make them jump through hoops that he hold up.
ergo, he is per definition a terrorist.
Then again, by wielding the same arguments, so is Bush, and any other president and leader of nations out there. They just prefer to call it by nicer words. Cause words make all the difference.
I, the mighty codefungus, predict that we will be seeing the whole prohibition deal all over again. They are gonna end up outlawing something rediculous (like P2P apps), then everyone will start breaking the law and it will become obvious how ludicrous (speed!) it is and we will be back to square one.
Stupid jackasses...republicans are selfish, money hungry bastards...that or just religious sheep of the administration.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
In a reply to someone saying that copying music wasn't stealing but a copyright violation, someone said, "well I guess making a copy of a bank database isn't stealing, as it didn't deprive the bank of the use of its own database."
The difference I see, is that almost every single person I know has violated a copyright where music is concerned, yet I don't personally know a single person who has ever illegally copied a bank data base.
I'm not saying criminal activity on a large scale justifies said criminal activity...but when every single person you know "steals" music, then maybe the law that makes this a crime should be examined. And if nothing else, maybe the penalties for breaking this law need to examined and put more in line with reality.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Dentist's don't have the right to tell you how to use teeth that they repair. Mechanics don't have the right to tell you how to drive your car. Pen manufacturers don't have the right to tell your what to write. Similarly, it is not to society's benefit for the entertainment industry to tell you how to be entertained.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
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.
First of all, you're taking what was intended to be humorous far too seriously. But I'll bite.
Anyone that says that your computer (which is your property) should be destroyed because of his radical agenda (which is on the extreme side of copyright holders) is a terrorist.
You may use your computer solely for playing games and futzing around on the Internet but many people use their computer for their livelihood or to maintain their quality of life. Some people even use their computer to buy medicines at a price they can afford. Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.
I'm a big tall mofo.
If an islamist computer scientist could destroy computers in the US at a distance, I bet few people in the US would mind calling him a terrorist.
The word terrorist has been so depleted of its content thanks to the Bush adminsitration that it won't hurt anybody to call senator Hatch an IP terrorist.
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
Unfortunately, we have only a two party system.
One local politician in the last election cycle told everybody that they could not be a good mormon and vote for a Democrat.
That leaves just lil' ol' Orrin the republican.
This was before the gay marriage bruhaha. Needless to say now, it's bleak if you are a Democrat running for major office in Utah.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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?
This is getting childish guys. It was an analogy, it was even in quotes ("copyright terrorist"). Going into detailed semantics on strict definitions misses the point of an analogy. The point is that Senator Hatch is using extreme tactics, including the use of fear, to force people to conform to an ideal that they disagree with but that he believes in strongly. There is an analogy to terrorism in there, but of course it does not fit a strict definition of the meaning. Just like the Monte Carlo method has nothing to do with the city, a seahorse is not related to a horse, and neural networks don't actually use neurons.
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.
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
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.
Voting third party is really the same as throwing away your vote with the current electoral system. The addition of a third party could potentially result in a non-majority electoral winner. This would result in the house of representatives electing the president. Which means, with the current process, the big 2 parties would likely stay in power. Even if all the states switch to a process where their electoral votes are split amongst the candidates, it would potentially result in the same process above (a non-majority winner).
Without a constitutional ammendment fixing our election process (run-off voting or something else) voting third party is, for all intents and purposes, useless. The problem is, the big 2 are currently in power. They have absolutely no reason to want to "fix" the system, since both shortterm and longterm effects will be negative on the two big parties. Even if we managed to get some third party candidates into the legislature to help change the system, just by the sheer number of absolutely ignorant uneducated voters we have, we'll still have the big 2 with control of the vast majority of congress. (2004 is a good example. more poor, uneducated masses voted for bush, being brought out to vote on moral values issues, which the federal government really should have no responsibility over, instead of voting for kerry, who's party has had a stronger tradition of protecting the poor and uneducated, although admittedly, they're only marginally better than the modern republicans) Good luck getting a constitutional ammendment passed to make voting for a third party even remotely viable in the US.
Me, I'm trying to find a good nation to move to. Unfortunately, they all seem to be just as bad as the US in one form or another.
* Take this whole thread, for example.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
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.
"the compete lack of proven harm for the 'crime', the insane and inhuman penalties, with protecting a revenue stream a primary motive, the parallels are surprising."
/CDs you can face 4 years in jail and a $50,000.00 fine for each DVD or CD.
If you don't think those inhuman penalties are intended to strike fear and terror in the hearts of citizens, what do you think they are intended to do?
Now, I don't want to get into calling people terrorists at this point, I will restrict myself to commenting on what I think the results of the penalties are.
In my country recently, some "Copyright Control Coalition" (I don't actually remember what they called themselves) has begun putting ads in one of our national papers.
From memory, this gist of it is if you are selling or simply posess what are termed illegal DVDs
What do you think an ad like this is intended to do it not strike fear and terror into the hearts of the citizens?
Please note, they have made no actual effort to educate the public as to how this actually works. Like, can a person who went to a store in a major shopping center/mall and bought what they thought was a legitimate CD and now has it in their home, go to jail and have to pay $50,000.00 for having this CD in their home?
You see, if that is really the case, which is what I think the ad wants us to believe, I need to destroy all of my legitimate CDs as well as all of my possibly questionable ones that I bought in good faith. I just can't afford to run the risk.
Also, if these are the effects of the laws that the big boys have managed to have passed, no more money from my family is going to go to them. No movies in the theatre, no more buying CDs and DVDs, nothing. I don't know what I am going to do without books and magazines. Hey can I afford to take the risk of buying a newspaper? Is this a back door way to curtail the freedom of the press? (That's a joke.) I do notice that they only mention illegal CDs/DVDs and not books or other items which might be a violation of copyright.
They also make no effort to educate the public as to what makes a CD or a DVD illegal. From their name though, it must concern some sort of violation of copyrights. Would a CD with a lifted and non-cleared sample in a song released by a major label be considered an illegal CD and subject the purchaser to the same penalties?
Would a person convicted under such circumstances be able to sue the major label? If so, I can see a new money making industry for these once piratical islands. (The Bahamas: - a histroy of piracy, wrecking, running - guns, rum, drugs.) (That's a joke too.)
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist (or a fascist/communist/$evilincarnateoftheday).
And, contrary to your belief, the cause does not have to be important (or even valid) and the terror does not need to be extreme or widespread for the actions to be terroristic.
Actual loss of money/liberty seemingly randomly is occurring for those suspected of copryight infringement. Those that are trying to lock down IP are doing so by purposefully using fear as a tool.
Yeah, people aren't dying. But there is a group that is "attacking" a supposed enemy with broad strokes, often hitting innocent bystanders, and purposefully employing fear as a tactic. You may have a different implication of "terrorist," but it appears that this fits easily into the definition of "terrorist."
Learn to love Alaska
However, y'all never tire of telling us how you live in the greatest democracy on earth, so, why do you all vote republicrat? or not vote at all?
The people here who object to these kinds of stupid laws probably aren't the same people who claim the US is the greatest democracy on earth; a substantial number would even point out that we don't live in a democracy at all.
I don't know about the congressional elections but in the last two presidential elections the public has NOT elected the Bush regime. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote by 543987 votes, not even counting vote tampering, yet won the electoral vote. In the 2004 election, there is considerable evidence of tampering and exit polls show that kerry was the real winner of the election.
As much as I would prefer to vote for an independent candidate, such votes are unfortunately entirely thrown away except in elections that are not remotely close. In the 2000 election, Gore would probably have had enough electoral votes to win if those people who voted for Nader (all of who would have prefered Gore over Bush) had not wasted their votes on Nader or if we had a statistically valid method of voting such as instant runoff voting . Our existing method of counting votes (even when the votes are actually counted in compliance with the law and without the electoral college fiasco) is inherently inaccurate when there are more than two parties.
Before I knew about instant runoff elections, I had a different proposal that was better than the current system but not as good as instant runoff. Instead of giving each person a single vote for a candidate, give them one vote for or against. I.E. Instead of voting for Kerry, you could vote against Bush. Which far more accurately reflects what many people are trying to do in the voting booths - we vote against the most evil candidate not for the best one. This system, however, does have the possibility of electing spurious independent candidates. Imagine Dubya getting negative ten million votes, Kerry getting negative 5 million votes, the green party getting negative 1 million votes, and write in candidate Bob Nobody winning the election with positive 3 votes. The book Archimedes' Revenge has an interesting chapter on game theory and voting as well as the Alabama Paradox .
What we need in this country for the presidential elections is
As for co
What iTunes does is give you some of the benefits (previews, convenience), but at a price only very slightly less (or the same, sometimes even more expensive) than the in-store counterpart. Why is this bad? Because they rob you of fair-use in exchange for that convenience. In doing so, it is no longer the same product.
- They are charging too much considering that the "new" technology should allow it all to be much cheaper
- They are replacing a lossless product (in store purchase) with a lossy product, which is, therefore, inferior
- They employ DRM that restricts my fair use
- A side effect of their DRM is that I can only use their service from a commercial OS that I dislike and frankly, believe endangers my network and hardware, or from their OS, only availbable if I buy their hardware
- Another effect of their lousy DRM is that I can only listen to the music on their player, again, forcing me to buy hardware from them
Contrast all this with a service like Magnatune, which offers full, lossless downloads, as well as downloads in "alternative" formats, like Ogg (which I happen to use exclusively along with FLAC for live shows), requiring no restrictive client-side software, no limitations on what players can play the music, or what operating systems can access the content.This is why I ignore iTunes when we talk about legal downloads. It isn't really a product in the same class as people are visualizing. Sure, it may technically be a "legal download", but it takes away so much from what legal downloading should be (and what makes it a worthwhile enterprise), that it doesn't even qualify.
Let make one final point: technology should always be moving us forward, both for the customer and for the business. That is how money gets made; BOTH sides have to feel like they're getting a good deal. But what is happening online with iTunes is NOT a good deal. Perhaps it is for some, but not for most. Imagine if when CDs came out, Sony CDs would only play on a Sony CD player, and Universal CDs would only play on a Universal CD player. To listen to your collection, you'd need to carry 5 CD players with you. Suffice it to say that it would have never gotten off the ground. Maybe a few people would have lauded it as "the wave of the future" with the high quality digital music encoding on the shiny plastic discs. But really, it would have been a dead end.
So it is with iTunes. iTunes is merely interesting because it was the first commercial attempt to create a legal music download service. But it is only interesting, and by no means an example to follow - it will not be long lived because it doesn't really improve customer experience for the vast majority of its potential market. Wait around for the next service that does, or perhaps until iTunes changes their tune.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.
Should this one sentence be true, despite being a Senator, this man has a very narrow-minded and dark view of technology. And obvioulsy so do many others of his ilk.
Anyone downloading a copyrighted piece of work must have down so illicitly.
People only want media and software for free and will do anything to keep from paying for them.
Anything to do with p2p or torrents are mostly only used for illicit or illegal activities and should punished to a large extent with jail time and huge fines.
Why are we still belaboring these points when we know that they are not true? Why do we continue to put up with idiots like Hatch who goose-step in line with DMCA rhetoric without truly understanding what they are condemning?
Instead of having the endless debate we've had on this type stuff before, let's answer a question: What are we going to take our government back? What can I do personally to make sure that idiots like this guy are not held in responsible office?
I want the people in office to actually hear my voice and represent my view. Your view. I'm tired of debating and I'm ready to put my time and money where my mouth is.
What do I do next?
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
You just keep pulling the democrat lever in the voting booth and wishing that they will not blow our fair use rights to hell.
There are bought politicians on both sides of the aisle on this one. Although Hatch has proposed some pretty idiotic enforcement for "IP" violations. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat, has instead of draconian enforcement, tried mandating the capabilities (or lack thereof) of consumer electronics.
Draw the party lines all you want, and then prepare to be betrayed.
The only thing that will save us is the uproar of the citizenry when they finally go too far. I believe we will reach a point where almost every TV viewer will be mad as hell (music just ain't going to get to the boiling point), or where almost every citizen is willingly violating IP law and enforcement will be absolutely impossible (not just almost impossible like the RIAA is facing now). Then every politician will have to listen or risk the loss of their political career.
Oh, BTW, if Hollings or Hatch is your senator, let them know what you think. My former senator co-sponsored Fritz's ridiculous bill last year and now hes gone, the next step for me is to make sure that I let his replacement know how I feel he should vote.