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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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".
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).
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.
Yeah, well Prohibition was in effect from 1919 until 1933 and it did QUITE a lot of damage before it became "obvious how ludicrous it was." Bootleggers and mobsters made fortunes and criminals become public idols.
Don't think something like this couldn't happen again.
By the way, forget region codes... can anyone tell me a brand of DVD that will let me skip over the various warning notices at the start of the DVD? I have to sit through as much as a minute and a half of that on some disks...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.