Stiffer Penalties for Copyright Violations

BitTorrent by RequiemX · 2005-11-13 05:23 · Score: 5, Funny

I use BitTorrent so I KNOW I'm safe...

Re:BitTorrent by krang321 · 2005-11-13 05:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?
Meee...!

But why would I buy legal CD's when you have people like Sony installing illegal software on computers?
Re:BitTorrent by straight_up · 2005-11-13 07:08 · Score: 5, Funny

$sys$torrent would be 100% safe if the RIAA listens to Sony music (and I bet they do)

--
Get your $sys$ camo tees now!
Re:BitTorrent by mogwai7 · 2005-11-13 07:54 · Score: 1

RequiemX:"I use BitTorrent so I KNOW I'm safe..."
TFS:"...who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?"
Someone has already been sent to jail for running a p2p app...and he used BitTorrent.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-13 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's actually touching on the real issue, but I couldn't find any place where it was addressed more directly in the following posts. BitTorrent and related technologies have broken the copyright system, and no number of draconian legal bandaids are going to fix it.
The central notion of copyright is that the act of making copies was difficult, and therefore served as a kind of chokepoint to control distribution and make sure someone got paid. The justification for legal sanction is more complex, though I like the American version, that encouraging creativity is beneficial for the society.
The copyright premise of difficult copying is totally broken. Staying with BitTorrent as an example, it was trival to distribute thousands of 75 MB copies of OpenOffice 2 in a few days. It could have been millions, and it would have made no difference from the usage perspective. When I got my download, it quickly maxed out my connection. More copies simply make it easier to do so.
Since the foundation has crumbled to sand, it doesn't matter what sort of reinforcements they try to use. Gonzales is just being a typical BushCo idiot and is trying to steer by looking backwards. We need to rethink the entire notion of copyright and how to compensate creativity, not focus on "new" ways to keep a dying publishing industry on life support.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by kocsonya · 2005-11-13 08:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

> The justification for legal sanction is more complex, though I like
> the American version, that encouraging creativity is beneficial for the society.

I wonder how much creativity it generates that when you make a T-shirt with Mickey
Mouse on it you have to pay royalty to a corporation because Mickey was drawn by
someone who is dead for more than half a century... I know the zombie theme is in
vogue in the films but somehow I doubt that Walt Disney's skeleton comes back during
the nights to dream up new characters and, of course, to take *his* reward for *his*
creation as opposed to make some fatcat directors and shareholders even richer...
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-13 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative

That is an example of the abuse of copyright. That has come about because the publishing industry has been lobbying for decades to twist the laws that implement the originally good idea. Their motivation is not the public's interests, but merely to maximize their own profits. They have been sadly effective.
Amazingly enough, they can now sue you for derivative works--and even though Mickey Mouse was a derivative work in the first place.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is just so wrong.

Copyright is there because copying is so easy. So copying was easy before the computer? Yes it was!
The problem started with the invention of the printing press. Before the printing press the value of a book was in the physical book, intellectual property was unheard of. Books were hand written and very expensive, so copying was not the problem.

With the invention easy reproduction (of books, you dirty little ...) methods i.e. the printing press the value of a book decreased, but with it came the idea that the value was actually in the contents. Thus the idea of intellectual propert was born. Unlike the phisical book however this kind of property needed protection, because without it anyone could use your property for cheap once it was out there. Enter the copyright, which is exactly that the copyright holder is the onlyone wioth the right to make a copy, unless he licenses this right to someone else.

There you are Copyright was invented because copying was too easy.
Re:BitTorrent by digitalrevolution · 2005-11-13 09:51 · Score: 0

That's exactly right. The foundation has crumbled and the businesses are clinging to an old model for making a profit.
Copyrights are not rights. They're nothing more than a promise from the government that they'll enforce that old business model for you.
But that business model is no longer the only model around. They have other ways to make the same money.
There will be a day when people will look at copyrights as antiquated contracts are today.
DR.
Re:BitTorrent by IamLarryboy · 2005-11-13 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

"BitTorrent and related technologies have broken the copyright system"

No Napster, FastTrack, and now BitTorrent have not broken the copyright system. The problems with the copyright system stem from its moral flaws and not from the fact that technology now exists that can subvert the system. In short the system was always broken Napster and its children mearly exposed it as existing in that state.

For example, imagine that there is a serious flaw in ssh or some other such secure protocal. In that case ssh is broken today. Just because everyone believes it is working correctly does not change the fact that right now it is broken. Now say tommorow a resercher finds and exposes this flaw. Now everyone realises the brokeness of ssh. The fact that it is not realised untill tommorow does not change the fact that it is broken today.

Creative works are, at the heart, nothing more than ideas. Using the barrel of a gun to forcibly control the distribution of ideas is, in my mind, one of the most revolting suggestions immaginable. This is true despite any bennefits claimed, never mind that I strongly dispute such claims. Furthermore, to suggest that a system should exist which can control how, and to whom, ideas may be distributed is to suggest that a system should exist that can control how people think. Peoples thoughts are made up of ideas. If you control the ideas that a person is exposed to you control how they see the world around them and how they behave in it. This is exactly the stuff George Orwell was warning us about in 1948. In the world of 1984, however, 'big brother' used language to control ideas. Today we use copyrights and Patents. The control that comes from a control of ideas is far more powerfull than any other weapon we allow to be used against us. It is not only our right to freely distribute ideas, but if we are to re-create, if we ever had one, a free society it is our duty to do so.

On a side note I find it amusing in the scary kind of way how many good books I read extoling the wonders of the free market and denouncing the evils of state intervention yet they all start with page one "© 2005 Somebody, All rights reserved". Come on guys get your head in the game. Don't you realise actions speak louder than words. Or do you intend to send the message, "Do as I say, not as I do". Really, it is quite revolting.
Re:BitTorrent by shmlco · 2005-11-13 12:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, but I belive you're wrong. Copyright exists to foster the creation of new ideas. It acknowledges that works of art do not just magically appear out of thin air, and that time, effort, training, and dollars go into their creation.
The protections it grants give me, as an author, the potential (not the right) to profit from those creations. If the "free market" you expouse decides my work is successful, and it's well received, those profits allow me the time and opportunity to create new works, thus further contributing to our culture.
It helps ensure that the best and brightest authors, writers, singers, directors, and other artists of our time spend their time doing that which enriches us all, and not spending their time greeting people at WalMart just to pay the rent.
I hear a lot about how the system is "broken", and little to nothing about what should replace it, other than nonsense about how book authors should spend their time giving concerts or consulting. Or that, as in the dark ages, they waste their time wandering about seeking patrons for their works.
People might now, as an example, pay the millions of dollars it would take to continue "Firefly" as a series. But how many of those people would have paid that money up front, before the show even existed, simply on an idea? The studio did. And made the investment.
The "ideas" you'd so blithely distribute often take years, or even decades, to create. And without the people who put words to paper and notes to a score, would not exist in those forms at all.
The founding fathers recognized those facts, and as such provided means and incentives for them to do so. They recognized that truly creative people are few and far between, and are pearls beyond price to a culture and society. In essence, writers and singers and storytellers ARE our culture and society.
Finally, if I may ask a question, why is it you somehow believe you are automatically entitled to the results of other people's work? That their time and efforts are yours for free?
That you can freely consume that which I create, simply because it's easy to do so, and I can not walk into your house, and consume yours?

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:BitTorrent by dfm3 · 2005-11-13 12:32 · Score: 1

Who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

I can guarantee you that they won't be knocking on my door anytime soon.

My neighbor with the open wireless access point, however...
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-13 12:41 · Score: 1

While the problem is usually the other way around with broken legislative solutions to technical problems, you are actually trying to stand it the situation on the head, and it still doesn't work. The technology available and the world itself were quite different when copyright was originally conceived and implemented, and it was quite a good thing. In fact, in those days there would have been very little creative accomplishment at all without the kinds of financial incentives that copyright created, and the ownership of a printing press was a major obstacle to the distribution of creative works.
Perhaps you are trying to make a different argument that *TODAY* we don't need so much creativity, but society would survive well enough on the literary creativity of part-time authors who really want to write or compose music, etc., and who are willing to donate their creations to society. Perhaps so, especially if you consider that we've already created enough entertaining literature and pretty music to fill up entire lives with reading and listening. (And I would even agree that some of the worst writing is done by hacks who are just doing it for the bucks.)
If so, you are really presenting your case poorly, and I had to stretch to imagine you have that much coherence. I hope you program better than you write, because (putting on my editorial hat) if you were one of my authors, I'd weep.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by swillden · 2005-11-13 12:45 · Score: 1

The central notion of copyright is that the act of making copies was difficult, and therefore served as a kind of chokepoint to control distribution and make sure someone got paid.
Not quite right.
The central notion of (original US) copyright is that the act of making copies was difficult and expensive, and therefore some way was needed to compensate people for making and distributing those copies. The creative act that produced the work originally was presumed to be a separate issue, and not one that particularly needed an incentive. What was needed was a way to convince people to go to the expense and effort to get their creations out to a significant portion of the population. As a secondary benefit, it was acknowledged that the financial reward granted by a successful work would allow the creator to produce more of what society apparently already found to be valuable.
When the authors of the constitution debated inclusion of the clause about promotion of the useful arts and sciences there was never any notion that copying and distribution constituted a useful "chokepoint" for control... the lack of copying and distribution was the problem addressed by the clause.
It seems a little contradictory to artificially limit a thing in order to encourage it, but that was precisely the point, and theory proved out in practice.
Given that understanding of the purpose of copyright, it's worth thinking about what copyright laws should or should not say in an environment where distribution is effortless and gratis. I actually think copyright still has an important place, but I think there need to be significant changes to put the law in accord with the "social contract" that theoretically underlies it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 12:52 · Score: 0

Your definition of culture is pretty sad. It used to be that culture was something that everyone participated in, rather than observed.

That aside, just because time, training, effort and money was expended upon an activity does not justify ownership. Someone can expend all those things digging a hole or building a sandcastle upon public land. Should that person then gain ownership of that peace of public property for longer than your childrens lifetime? This may be hard to believe, (especially since you seem to believe that you are precious as a pearl) but no work of art is ever entirely original. It all springs from a common base of previous works.

Not to mention, there is absolutely no distinction made between the amount of "effort" that went into a work and the protection granted.

Modern copyright makes sense to the greedy.
Re:BitTorrent by Levilprivateer · 2005-11-13 13:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, you have that wrong. Lack of copyright law makes sense to the greedy and lazy. Copyright law makes sense to those members of society who value creativity, art, and music. It is not greedy to want something for days, weeks, months, or years worth of effort. It is not revolting to acknowledge an individual's contribution to society by offering a living for thier efforts. What is revolting it the attitude of those who feel entitled to other people's creativity and money.

Me, I have no problem rewarding someone for their efforts to create something that amuses, saddens, enlightens, or entertains. I feel that it fosters growth. There are few limitations on my listening, reading, or viewing material without paying legally, either... I can turn on the radio, check out a CD from the library, borrow a friend's CD, check out a book from the library, borrow a friend's book, borrow a DVD, or go to a free screening.

To use the old line "information must be free" is simply a way to say "I'm lazy and cheap, and value little other than my own personal gratification."
Re:BitTorrent by shmlco · 2005-11-13 13:52 · Score: 1

First line, second paragraph: "The protections it grants give me, as an author, the potential (not the right) to profit from those creations."
As such, the remainder of your analogies regarding ownership and effort bear little relation to fact (as often happens when someone attempts to argue by analogy). Prior to my writing a book, that particular piece of "land" didn't exist at all.
As to originality, some things are, and some things are not. We are, after all, human, and share the same roots. But since, in your worldview, nothing is original, perhaps we should simply stop writing new books and music, as we're seen and heard it all before. Nothing new here. Nothing more to say. Move along.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:BitTorrent by millennial · 2005-11-13 14:09 · Score: 1

It's not an abuse of copyright, technically. It follows current copyright law flawlessly. The law itself is the abuse in this situation.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-13 17:50 · Score: 1

You are correct. I should have worded that as something like "an abuse of the underlying motivation of copyright for social benefit".

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 22:12 · Score: 0

And I can guarantee about 10 minutes after they interrogate your neighbour they WILL come to your door and not only will you be up for copyright infringment you will also be up for theft.
Re:BitTorrent by Richard+W.M.+Jones · 2005-11-13 22:15 · Score: 1

In fact, in those days there would have been very little creative accomplishment at all without the kinds of financial incentives that copyright created, and the ownership of a printing press was a major obstacle to the distribution of creative works.
Well done - you made my jaw drop in amazement.
I guess you've never heard of The Renaissance.
Rich.

--
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Re:BitTorrent by mpe · 2005-11-13 23:02 · Score: 1

That's actually touching on the real issue, but I couldn't find any place where it was addressed more directly in the following posts. BitTorrent and related technologies have broken the copyright system, and no number of draconian legal bandaids are going to fix it.

More that they have shown that it is broken. The actual breakage has been happening for quite a while.

The central notion of copyright is that the act of making copies was difficult, and therefore served as a kind of chokepoint to control distribution and make sure someone got paid.

Making copies had been becoming easier for the last several decades. What is failing is the business model of the third party copier and distributer.

The copyright premise of difficult copying is totally broken. Staying with BitTorrent as an example, it was trival to distribute thousands of 75 MB copies of OpenOffice 2 in a few days. It could have been millions, and it would have made no difference from the usage perspective.

What has happened more recently is that distribution has become easier. With distance ceasing to become a major factor, of either time or cost.
The way in which this affects the RIAA and the MPAA is that they have traditionally chopped up their markets by geography. Something which customers will no longer put up with.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-14 00:56 · Score: 1

Thank you for making my point so effectively: There was very little creative accomplishment. In those days the vast majority of the people were peasant farmers and had effectively zero access to any form of art. There were a few extremely rich patrons, and a small number of artists. It's very nice that a few masterpieces were created.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by mpe · 2005-11-14 01:01 · Score: 1

I hear a lot about how the system is "broken", and little to nothing about what should replace it, other than nonsense about how book authors should spend their time giving concerts or consulting. Or that, as in the dark ages, they waste their time wandering about seeking patrons for their works.

But you are quite happy with the public, including people yet to be born acting as your "patron".

The founding fathers recognized those facts, and as such provided means and incentives for them to do so.

They wanted copyright for a limited time and made it optional.
Re:BitTorrent by mpe · 2005-11-14 01:06 · Score: 1

Lack of copyright law makes sense to the greedy and lazy. Copyright law makes sense to those members of society who value creativity, art, and music.

In which case you wouldn't expect any such societies to have existed prior to the invention of copyright. i.e. societies which value creativity, art, music, etc should only exist in the last few hundred years if the existiance of copyright is essential. Whereas such societies can be found throughout history (and pre-history).
Re:BitTorrent by Richard+W.M.+Jones · 2005-11-14 01:11 · Score: 2

Most people were peasant farmers because society as a whole hadn't gone very far down the path of division of labour and the industrial revolution. That has very little to do with creation of works of art.
Anyway, if copyright is so important for the creation of artworks, how do you propose it should work for people who invest an enormous amount of time in worthy works which have very limited markets (as one example: medical encyclopedias in narrow specialities)? Copyright depends entirely on remuneration based on "market worth", so you get music labels making huge amounts of money selling crap to lots of teenagers, while others write underappreciated works of literature or narrow but worthy works which never make any money. This is a case where patronage of the arts works much better than copyright. Rich.

--
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Re:BitTorrent by mpe · 2005-11-14 01:11 · Score: 1

The technology available and the world itself were quite different when copyright was originally conceived and implemented,

The original idea of copyright was state control of what could (and could not) be printed.
The idea that copyright would encourage publication is more recent. Just so happens that this was the popular view at the time of the US UDI.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-14 01:57 · Score: 1

I agree that it's a difficult problem. I tend to lean toward the notion of tracking usage and compensating for actual value received. Essentially a kickback on value derived. In the case of that kind of non-fiction it's actually easier, where the doctor would owe some compensation to the authors of the books he consulted based on a fraction of his own charges to patients.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-14 01:59 · Score: 1

You're confusing censorship and prosecution with copyright. However, it obviously was risky to publish a book that would offend the religious authorities of those days.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by Levilprivateer · 2005-11-14 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

It has only been in the past few hundred years that duplication of art has become easy. In the past, prevention of theft... or infringement, if you prefer... was simple; few people had the means to duplicate works... whether the limiting factor was a medium to duplicate it on, educational level, or financial. Now, all but the most poor can duplicate a work of art and distribute it worldwide. Different situation entirely.

Less specifically, the world of 1000 A.D. and the world of today are vastly different places. You're attempting to apply modern necessities to an ancient culture, and it just does not work. Using the same general logic, one might say that standards in food and medicine are worthless because obviously people could operate without them in the past.
Re:BitTorrent by Shads · 2005-11-14 03:46 · Score: 1

You know I'd be fine with stiff penalties for copyright infringement, *IF* they were 100% disallowed from using any kind of DRM schemes.

--
Shadus
Re:BitTorrent by The_K4 · 2005-11-14 04:00 · Score: 1

I swear I didn't know that $sys$*.mp3 were even on there! Looks the folder listing doesn't show them!
Re:BitTorrent by kimvette · 2005-11-14 05:58 · Score: 0

Isn't it great that our wonderful attorney general is worrying about dealing with truly serious issues such as p2p enabling easy Fair Use despite DRM, instead of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars cracking down on burglars who actually steal tangible goods like cars and jewelry from homes and stores? Isn't it wonderful that they're focusing on P2P rather than crack houses and meth-amphetamine(-sp?) labs? Good thing that they are seeking to turn copyright infringement into a criminal offense; I don't want dangerous 14-yr-old file sharers walking down the street. It's a damn good thing they're cracking down on dangerous MP3 traders rather than serial rapists, pedophiles, and the like.

Copyright was definitely a wonderful law - when it was first put into place. Now with unlimited extensions it has long ago outlived its usefulness. Copyright was intended to allow the transfer of works to public domain after it was first protected against copying to promote continued creation of useful arts and other works. Thanks to our glorious politicians listening to the almighty dollar rather than our founding fathers' intent, goodwill to citizens, and of course common sense, they're selling us out for soft money campaign contributions. Unfortunately because most of us mis-use (or don't even exercise at all) the right to vote that our Founding Fathers guaranteed for us with their blood, we now have an extremely corrupt system where the right of the people can be damned so long as incumbants can count on those corporate campaign donations.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:BitTorrent by grmoc · 2005-11-14 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Copyright was created to foster the creation of works, so as to create a larger body of works available to the commons..

Currently, 70 years plus life of author is effectively forever as most people would be dead before the copyright expires on anything created today. This is contrary to the original intent. I believe the original intent is laudable, and the current regime of copyright control is draconian, and actually prevents the creation of new and interesting works in many cases-- Remix works, where people look to other works as the instruments on which they play, are something that are a major part of todays creative culture, and yet, these are difficult to create legally.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-14 06:30 · Score: 1

BUSHCO is not a trademarked problem.

The DMCA and other backward thinking solution to problems we have today were created by Clinton and CO. I'm not saying this to start a "who a better politition war rather i think it makes a person think somehow the dems are any better. The reality of this is that most politition do not understand the gravity of the situation and can colect campain money by apeasing the powers to be.

I don't think this is a repub or dem problem. It is a times are changing problem and those leading us do not understand the new stuff. They also understand who signs the checks that gets them elected and campain finance reform ALWAYS benifit one stratigy over another. Large powers won't let anyone take thier powers away but have no problem taking the ability to counter away. This is deeper then a typicle BUSHCO idiot should be given credit for. Don't be fooled by onesidedness on this one. I am positive that "if or when" it is passed, dems as well as republicans (and whoever else is there) will both vote for and against it. This isn't a party line situation
Re:BitTorrent by shmlco · 2005-11-14 11:16 · Score: 1

But you are quite happy with the public, including people yet to be born acting as your "patron".
They have the right to buy it if they believe it has value to them, or do without, if they believe it has none.
And it's easier to find 10,000 people to pay $10 for a paperback, than it is to find a patron to part with $100,000 up front on nothing more than a idea.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-14 13:25 · Score: 0

I would say, first off, that it is extremely arrogant of you to expect to get paid as an artist. Perhaps we have too many problems otherwise to worry about whether or not you, as an author, can live a comfortable life "enriching us". Healthy compensation is not a pre-requisite for great art; you only have to look at recent history to justify that. So I invalidate your seemingly intrinsic claims to be "paid" for your work because it is not necessary. Art is not going to disappear if people stop being paid for it, it will simply become more functional and democratized. If you find it too difficult to live a life working "greeting people at WalMart" (try to be more condescending next time!), well hell, I guess you're not an artist then! I sleep perfectly well KNOWING that someone (including myself) is going to create masterpieces regardless of whether or not they get paid. In fact, the lack of a paycheck for art would filter out the crap from my viewfinder, namely people who create solely to get paid, and instead leave the truly passionate and the communal, the ones that are going to do it for their sanity and the ones that create art to help everyone (like a tribal dance). Your claim that "truly creative people are few and far between" is utter hogwash. Every town and city in the world is crammed with truly creative people who never get their chance, or never got the proper attention to promote their creative side. Or worst yet, are too afraid to express themselves because art has become a business, obsessed with ranking and prestige. Your elitist dichotomy between the real "artists" (the ones with a paycheck), and the little people working at Wal-Mart is disgusting. Perhaps if as a civilization we treated art not as a "commodity" but instead as a right (for creating and enjoying), getting paid for art would be the least of its benefits. So, the problem with copyright is certainly more complicated than you make it. You speak with a certain bias about how "you can freely consume that which I create, simply because it's easy to do so, and I can not walk into your house, and consume yours", but as part of a firm that works to rip people off (i.e. profit), you do "consume mine" by representing that industry. Publishing firms, the MIAA, and the RIAA are all crooks, plain and simple (the only thing that separates them from the pirates they abuse is that they are legal). I would never steal the work of anyone that works outside of these huge institutions, but that's a balanced decision. If you work for the "entertainment industry" however, not only are you asking for it, you deserve it. You ask "why is it you somehow believe you are automatically entitled to the results of other people's work?" My answer is the inverse - Why is it you EXPECT to be able, in a world filled with death and suffering, to get paid for writing? All pirates suggest is that no one can afford the widgets you produce, don't expect to be able to live comfortably doing something as frivolous as art when there are people dying in streets.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-14 13:59 · Score: 1

Thank you for identifying yourself as some sort of Bushevik moron. Blaming the Democrats for legislation passed by the Republicans? I have no use for your profound ignorance or intellectual dishonesty or whatever.
I have only one request for such fools as yourself. Designate me as your foe for the convenience of ignoring you in the future. It's probably within your intellectual capacity to click on the little gray button and select the "foe" option, isn't it?

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by mpe · 2005-11-15 02:02 · Score: 1

You're confusing censorship and prosecution with copyright.

The original purpose of copyright was censorship. The concept wasn't invented for the US Constitution, you know...
Re:BitTorrent by mpe · 2005-11-15 02:25 · Score: 1

It has only been in the past few hundred years that duplication of art has become easy. In the past, prevention of theft... or infringement, if you prefer... was simple

It might help if you understood the difference between theft and copyright infringement. Theft relates to taking something, the most common anti-theft approach with artwork is making it non portable. Both portable and non portable artwork dates from thge neolithic.

few people had the means to duplicate works... whether the limiting factor was a medium to duplicate it on, educational level, or financial. Now, all but the most poor can duplicate a work of art and distribute it worldwide.

Something which previously required skilled (and expensive) human labour can now be done by a machine. However it still requires human skill to create the original.

Less specifically, the world of 1000 A.D. and the world of today are vastly different places.

People from 1,000 years ago would probably question the sanity of the idea of copyright. The idea of restricting the use of technologies which enabled rapid copying and distribution of information would be laughable to peoples such as the Moors.

You're attempting to apply modern necessities to an ancient culture, and it just does not work. Using the same general logic, one might say that standards in food and medicine are worthless because obviously people could operate without them in the past.

Standards of food and medicine are hardly universal now. Nor are they modern ideas. Copyright, however, is something unique to recent history.
Re:BitTorrent by Levilprivateer · 2005-11-15 06:49 · Score: 1

I do understand the difference. Theft involves depriving someone of something, and copyright infringement involves the abuse of someone's right to profit from their work. However, the concept of copyright infringement is understood whether I choose to use the word theft or not, is it not? One wonders how anti-copyright proponents feel about identity infringement... after all, the same concepts apply. Nothing is taken, the identity is still usable by the original holder, and the existence of both is simply a socially constructed idea. Granted, the value of the identity becomes essentially zero if it is distributed and used by all, but that's not the problem of the infringer, if one is using anti-copyright logic.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-15 20:20 · Score: 1

Your truly in for an awakening if you think the dems are any different on this. I would like to clearify a few things though, I can't help but fell pitty for yuo while at the same time feel satisfaction for having the ability to see thru politics and stand you corected.

First point to clear up, I'm not placing anyone on my foes list. I have no enimies that I created by free will and do not intend to mark anyone as one. Your ignorance or hatred for someone or ideoligy has blinded you into thinking i am someoen you dislike. I was only doing a service in replying to your bushco remark to inform that this isn't just a bush/republican problem. This stuff is under attack all around. In fact laws like the DMCA and other that errode our freedoms are one thing that seems to unite the different political parties.

Next, You act as if i was blaming dem ofr passing republican laws. I have know idea were you got that impresion unless you are just ignorant of the article or the DMCA i mentioned. First, this purposed law hasn't even been voted on so this cannot be the law your talking about. That leave the DMCA and maybe the patriot act by proxy because i mentioned other laws. The DMCA was introduced by a republican but 4 of the 9 sponsors were democrates. It clear the house and senate and was signed into law by bill clinton (a dem in case you were wondering). President Clinton hailed it as somethign he backed because it would take us into the new milinium. The total vote was 99 yeas to one no vote in a senate of 100 servants. That means every democrate voted for it and one republican didn't show up. The record in the house is a little harder to find because the senate substituted thier version of the bill hr 2281 with thier version and it was voted for later under a new title.

And in case the patriot act, in 2001 98 senators voted for it. One dem voted against it and one dem decided not to vote. of course it was passed and signed into law by bush. I guess that makes the dems part of BUSHCO too. Well maybe the suplimental voting was different lets look. While it is spread out over several different bills, I apears that it too crossed party lines. The domestic security defense (patriot 2) did recieve bi partisan support.

So in conclusion, I'm not as much "Bushevik moron" as you are a bush hater. It is sad when a well meaning comment is brushed aside because someone either hates a politicla leader so much or they are blinded by differences in political ideolog but don't know enough about it to make a informed statment. I wish you well, or at least better then you deserve. Keep you head in the sand and it won't be hard for my wish to come true.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-15 21:58 · Score: 1

Congrats. I didn't read what you wrote beyond the first few words. All I want from you is that red dot. I don't want to waste *ANY* time on proudly ignorant morons. I'd do it myself, but there are constructive uses for "friend" designations, and unfortunately there is a limit on the total number of "friend" and "foe" settings.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-15 22:32 · Score: 1

It is ironic, your attitude, gullability and blind devotion to the wrong cause contradict you sig.

I guess if you keep saying it long enough, it might become true. Or maybe people will start thinking it is true. Good day :)
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-16 02:02 · Score: 1

Where's the red dot? Can't figure it out?

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-16 14:39 · Score: 1

You ever wonder why people don't do what you tell them to? It is obvious to me :).

Think about it a little if it isn't too hard for you.an't figure it out?
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-16 17:06 · Score: 0, Troll

Look, I have complete and total contempt for you. I think you're a total waste of a human life, assuming you aren't some sort of robotic idiot. Simple ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. It can be cured with a bit of sincere effort. You, on the other hand, are a proudly ignorant jackass. You are a shameful excuse for a human being.
Perhaps that is a false impression created by another one of your typical fuckups. Too bad. You only get one chance to make a good first impression, and you blew it out your ass.
What more do you want from a foe? Now where's the red dot?

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-17 17:51 · Score: 1

Yawn. I told you once, I don't hate anyone so I refuse to mark someoen as a foe. I even feel sorry for you a little so i definatly don't want to mark you as an foe and futher your advancment into this type of behavior.

Perhaps that is a false impression created by another one of your typical fuckups. Too bad. You only get one chance to make a good first impression, and you blew it out your ass.
But you see, i wasn't trying to make a first impresion. I was trying to say look out for the other side too. I was adding that It wasn't just Bush or the republicans assaulting these freedoms or imposing fascist laws. You then attemped to incorectly scold me saying somehtign about it was wrong for blaming the dems for laws the republicans passed so i decided to prove were you were wrong so you could see that blindly supporting the other side doesn't neccesarily mean anything in this area is going to change. You continued to be fooled into thinking i'm a bush supporter. Maybe you think that ws the intention of my post. Well in both cases you continued to be wrong. Of course i don't see everythign he has done as bad or evil so i won't spend any time on my political affiliations.

Believe me, i am doing you a favor. You can still vote democrate or independent if you feel. Just don't expect anyhting in these areas to change because of that. This isn't a one sided political issue outside the fact that it appears to unite parties from both sides to support laws like this. I think i even went as far as saying campain finance reform will do nothign but strenthen those wanting to polute your rights and freedoms with threats of jail time for somehting that doesn't deserve it. All it does it shuffle the money from one group to another and gives the ability to hide who is really behind the PACs. This isn't somehtign that going away anytime soon. It will get worse before it gets better but the governemnt usualy doesn't give up what it see as control.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-17 19:33 · Score: 1

Where is the red dot? All I read was that you don't hate me. Fine. In that case you should be more willing to be "helpful". I still think you're a pompous and ignorant dickhead, only more so.
Yeah, it's a little more bother now, but I consider it a long-term investment.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-18 05:27 · Score: 1

I didn't know i wasn't being helpfull. I'l take your condition into consideration if we should ever post into each other thread again. I thought i was being helpful in attemping to point out that we are under attack from all the politition and not just BUSHCO.

Any ways, Best wishes and havea happy thanksgiving.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-18 12:47 · Score: 1

That is the purpose of the red dot, you fucking cretinous moron. If you think a "foe" designation on /. has any greater significance than that, I have to lower my opinion of you even more--if that were only possible.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-18 14:16 · Score: 1

Actualy i was just checking to see if you were actualy reading my replies. It apears you are so i am happy.

Thanks for making my day
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-18 23:25 · Score: 1

As long as you keep it to a few words, I'll see most of it at a glance. Speed reading. What I don't see is a red dot. So as an alternative, why don't you just get a new user name? I suggest "dildo-hurler".

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-20 17:44 · Score: 1

Tell me, Why should i do anyhting you say? I mean the way you blew up over some friendly advice, All the name calling, your general attitude and you want me to do somehtign for you?

Well admit i am right and i might mark you for a while. It goes against my better judgement but i might place the dot there for you.

I still find it ironic with your sig and the way you blew up when i told you the truth.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-20 18:48 · Score: 1

Where's the red dot?

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-21 17:51 · Score: 1

This game is borinng me.

The dot was lost long ago. It was looked for but not found by many so i don't think i can give it to you. Maybe you can find it yourslef? Your in a tunnel. To the left is a ladder that goes down into a dark cavern. Ahead of you is a dimly lit great hall will monuments, pools and altars. You can see some figure of humanlike creatures dressed in black but they definatly are not humans. Suddely the door behind you closes. what do you want to do?
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-21 18:27 · Score: 1

Red dot?

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-22 07:24 · Score: 1

you have to find it silly.

Now one of the creatures in the great hall hears you and starts to come your way. You check you possesions and realize all you have to defend yourself with is a skinning knife, a wizzard's wand, and a small unidentified charm. Whats you next move?
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-22 13:01 · Score: 1

Where's the red dot? I already know you believe in stupid crap that is provably false. That is sufficient reason to ignore you. It would be even better if you were a spammer or Internet drug dealer or both, but I don't actually care.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-23 04:53 · Score: 1

Well, provably false in you make believe world. Nothing i said about my statments on this going both ways with polititions was false and i proved what i said with references and facts. Maybe it is a conspiracy by the cast right wing to make liberals look bad.

You hestitated too long, the creature discovers you. It moves to your location. Grasping the items in your possesion you star at the creature. What do you want to do. Take the ladder down into the cavern? talk to the creature? Display one of your items of defense and warn the creatue? Attack the creature.

Time is running out. You must make a decision before it is too late. If you do not respond, the chances of you being able to control the situation might slip by.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-23 12:33 · Score: 1

Red dot? I don't need anything else from lying assholes such as yourself.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Re:BitTorrent by sumdumass · 2005-11-25 06:55 · Score: 1

Were was the lie? ow ly as in lay or maybe the stuff that soap is made from. Are we lying assholse because the truth doesn't fit into your reality?

--The creature enters the hallway and aproaches you. In apearant fright you don't do anything or make any decisions. This fright encites the creature which then seeing a weeker aponant, attacks. Once you are pretty much incapable of mounting a defense, the creature proceeds to make homosexual love to you. You cannot decide if you like it or not. Either way, your not likley to deviate from what you were told and do anything about it. You keep telling yourself this isn't hapening all the while rooling your eyes into the back of you head. You always joked about being fucked to death but didn't realize it would happen this way.
Re:BitTorrent by shanen · 2005-11-25 12:28 · Score: 1

Where's the red dot? After all some one might make a mistake and think "some dumb ass" is supposed to be a sarcasm handle rather than a simple statement of reality.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.

War against pirates by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:23 · Score: 0, Redundant

It begins.

Now that Osama is in custody . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

. . . the Attorney General has time for the arduous task of protecting the intellectual "property" of their corporate masters^W^W citizens.

Re:Now that Osama is in custody . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:30 · Score: 0

-1, Troll? More like -1, Truth Hurts.
Re:Now that Osama is in custody . . . by CrazyDuke · 2005-11-13 06:02 · Score: 1

I'd just like to point out that the one of the main reasons I did not like, and would not vote for Democrats back in the 90s was because they would bend over backwards to kiss Hollywood's IP lobbyist's asses. (The other was they kept trying to censor the internet in order to woo the Christian Coalition people.)

Meet the new boss. Naw, he's not the same. He's worse.

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:Now that Osama is in custody . . . by Catbeller · 2005-11-13 09:03 · Score: 1

Apparently the War on Terror is over, and we've got the country sewed up and secure. Otherwise, they wouldn't be wasting all this manpower and money to keep people from downloading music.

I feel so safe now.
Re:Now that Osama is in custody . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:42 · Score: 0

Ah yes, the "they are spending all their time and resources only on X, and are ignoring Y, Z, etc", "the war on terror" and "the evil coperations bought out our goverment" troll.

Nice play!

It seems to me ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2005-11-13 05:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

... as a matter of principle, that any time the government wishes to criminalize what was previously a civil offense, it should have to demonstrate an overriding interest in doing so. I mean, this goes way beyond IP law. Basically what they're saying is, "Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for." They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Re:It seems to me ... by canuck57 · 2005-11-13 05:34 · Score: 1

Where the hell does this end?
When everyone is in jail.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:44 · Score: 1, Funny

It seems to me as a matter of principle, that any time the government wishes to criminalize what was previously a civil offense, it should have to demonstrate an overriding interest in doing so. I mean, this goes way beyond IP law. Basically what they're saying is, "Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for." They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?

[cynical]
Welcome to Neo-conservative America. Enjoy your stay (in jail).
[/cynical]
Re:It seems to me ... by h4rm0ny · 2005-11-13 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

No - when everyone can be put in jail as and when needed. Criticising the government or protesting a war may remain legal, but they can go through the list and find something else to arrest you for as and when needed.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:It seems to me ... by jamiethehutt · 2005-11-13 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Where the hell does this end?

About the same point the "donations" do.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

More laws lead to more criminals; more criminals need bigger jails, and government employees to build the jails and catch the criminals. Hiring more government workers requires higher taxes and additional bureaucracy to track and collect the money. Meanwhile, Joe Senator gets re-elected because he delivered the legislation specified by his large corporate donors.

And the people in charge get more powerful. Everybody wins!

I totally can't wait for a world government to make this process even more efficient.
Re:It seems to me ... by toddbu · 2005-11-13 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry, but with the war on drugs our jails are full already. We can build more I guess. Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail.
One thing that I really hate about conservatives (and I am one) is that we get these insane ideas that jail is the right solution for every problem. But this is just really, really stupid. Should we jail people for speeding? It is, after all, a crime. I'd be more than willing to bet (which, by the way, is also illegal where I live) that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading.

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:50 · Score: 1, Informative

They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?

With the world's highest incarceration rate?

Oh wait, we're already there.
Re:It seems to me ... by TheMeuge · 2005-11-13 05:53 · Score: 5, Funny

New criminal offenses in the US coming in the next 3 years

1. Copying CDs
2. Disabling, deleting or avoiding XXAA spyware/zombification tools
3. Informing others or the press about the time you were taken to Turkey to be tortured.
4. Knowing the reason why you were taken to Turkey to be tortured.
5. Abortion
6. Masturbation
7. Using condoms or any other means of birth control
8. Teaching evolution
Re:It seems to me ... by Homology · 2005-11-13 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

... as a matter of principle, that any time the government wishes to criminalize what was previously a civil offense, it should have to demonstrate an overriding interest in doing so.
What they should and what they do are different things. The US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the same one that advocates use of torture, and claims that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete". With an US Attorney General that is all too willing to violate human rights, no one should be surprised that he now propose harsher laws.
From U.S.-Held Prisoners Transferred Abroad Subjected to Torture
Between The Lines: Alberto Gonzalez was just confirmed as the new U.S. attorney general. What message does it send to the world about America's tolerance toward torture and future policies that are liable to come out of the Bush administration regarding torture?
Michael Ratner: Well, it's incredibly distressing. I mean, Alberto Gonzalez not only was the one who penned, authored and was responsible for the memo that called the interrogation practices or protections of the Geneva Conventions "obsolete" and other provisions, "quaint." He was the one who said that Geneva should not apply to people picked up, and the humane provisions of Geneva should not apply. He is the one who was also involved in the famous memo from (Assistant Attorney General Jay S.) Bybee that defined torture so narrowly that everything you saw at Abu Ghraib would not be considered torture. And who still today insists that non-citizens, and I want to stress this, non-citizens held outside the United States are not protected from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- which is our lawyers' word for essentially inhumane treatment, just a shade underneath torture. So that's the man who has been confirmed.
Re:It seems to me ... by TGK · 2005-11-13 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.

Fixed that for you.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:It seems to me ... by Saven+Marek · 2005-11-13 06:08 · Score: 1

> They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?

they're not only erasing it, they're walking up to the line, jumping up and down on it and rubbing it on the dirt and they're keeping on walking.

if you download a single track off a cd you can go to jail for ip infringement

if you steal a cd from a store you get a warning and you're out free.

moral of the story? if you want a track from a cd go steal it from a store.

go figger.
Re:It seems to me ... by makomk · 2005-11-13 06:16 · Score: 1

Mod parent up, "+1, damn I wish he was wrong"!

Well, I suspect there's a third category - people who could get away with almost anything and still not go to jail. Knowing who's in this category (and what might cause them to leave it) is one of the more interesting bits of information on how a country's run.
Re:It seems to me ... by mordors9 · 2005-11-13 06:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Unfortunately since both political parties are the pawns of big business, the only people being prosecuted will be the same crowd that the RIAA/MPAA have been after. Why don't they apply this law to their corporate donors that ignore copyright law when they think they can. Most of them do it. But M$ has shown they can be tough to go after or any other large corporation. So to chalk up those convictions here they come after the teenagers and their parents.
Re:It seems to me ... by Oligonicella · 2005-11-13 06:31 · Score: 0

"... that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading."

Drive through downtown at one hundred miles an hour and see if you don't do time.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:32 · Score: 1, Informative

This may, or may not, be accurate but according to http://www.prisonsucks.com/:
"On December 31, 2004, there were 2,135,901 people in U.S. prisons and jails. The United States incarcerates a greater share of its population, 724 per 100,000 residents, more than any other country on the planet."
Re:It seems to me ... by Antony-Kyre · 2005-11-13 06:35 · Score: 1

Where does this end? Either in two places. One, the fall of the U.S. Empire. Two, a revolution. The government is beyond messed up right now.

Unless stealing results in the physical removal of someone's property, it needs to be a civil case in most situations.

Like stealing someone's software and putting it on your computer should be a civil case. Going to a store and shoplifting that software (like in a box with CD and manual) should be a criminal case.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:39 · Score: 0

"Sorry, but with the war on drugs our jails are full already. We can build more I guess. Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail."

It already is, with figures split sharply across racial lines. And thanks for screwing up the country, incidentally.
Re:It seems to me ... by fluffy99 · 2005-11-13 06:40 · Score: 1

The reality is that the Geneva Convention is outdated and geared towards a particular form of war that went away in WWII. Strict interpretations of the Convention outlaw some non-lethal means of aggression. For example, see the recent article on lasers to "dazzle" (lets just call it "temporarily blind" an assailant. Tasers are technically considered torture under the Convention. Temporary blinding or a good shock still sounds better than getting killed.

Besides, it's not like any of our current enemies honor (or even signed?) the Geneva Convention. It's a law handed down so we can try countries that don't play by our rules. Don't forget, the underhanded dishonorable terrorist tactics the US used against the Brits during the civil war.

Of course the US government thinks it's outdated because it legally prevents us from torturing prisoners, which ironically was one of the primary reasons the convention was authored and agreed upon. by "civilized" nations.
Re:It seems to me ... by Breakfast+Pants · 2005-11-13 06:41 · Score: 1

It doesn't set that precedent at all. You can get sued for stealing something from my shop and smashing it up--and you can also get arrested. The fact that that is true doesn't set the precedent, so why do you think this new proposed law does? (note: I don't like the proposed law or criminalization of small scale copyright infringement. I'm just pointing out that you are wrong or at the least you said a lot of things and didn't explain the "why" on any of them.)

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
That reminds me of a little-noticed change in English law. Until recently, anyone breaking the law, however powerful, could be prosecuted by a citizen bringing a private criminal prosecution.
However, there have been two apparently unrelated changes to the law:
- In the 1980s, the Crown Prosecution Service, headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), became responsible for bringing prosecutions on behalf of the police. They have the power to discontinue any prosecution they are conducting if they consider it not in the public interest.
- The DPP has recently been given the power to take over any private prosecution and start conducting it as a public prosecution.
So, if a British citizen attempted to prosecute Tony Blair for war crimes, say, the DPP could take over the prosecution, then discontinue it as not in the public interest.
Politicians don't like accountability.
Re:It seems to me ... by sd_diamond · 2005-11-13 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.

More accurately:
1. Those in jail
2. Those who build and work in jails
An added benefit of this structure is that it makes it very easy to move an individual from class (2) to class (1). Plus Wal-Mart will have a whole new market to branch out into, and something to add to their Superstores.
Re:It seems to me ... by tsa · 2005-11-13 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

This seems to me scaringly close to reality. Not funny at all...

--
-- Cheers!
Re:It seems to me ... by jamstar7 · 2005-11-13 07:00 · Score: 1

More laws lead to more criminals; more criminals need bigger jails, and government employees to build the jails and catch the criminals. Hiring more government workers requires higher taxes and additional bureaucracy to track and collect the money. Meanwhile, Joe Senator gets re-elected because he delivered the legislation specified by his large corporate donors.

Jails are built by private contractors. My brother in law has built a couple, in between contracts to build other things, like new campuses for the University of California.
Still, methinks George Carlin may have had it right. The biggest growth industry in the US is prisons...

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:It seems to me ... by PacketScan · 2005-11-13 07:02 · Score: 1

I don't Think it will eer end.. Well until everyone moves out of the "police state" we call america. This is getting out of control.
Re:It seems to me ... by davidkv · 2005-11-13 07:02 · Score: 1

To me it seems like they're treating a country like it's a company.
You can shake off bad business most of the time.

Except people tend to die.
Re:It seems to me ... by Vegeta99 · 2005-11-13 07:06 · Score: 1

9. Profit! (if your company has less than 10,000 lawyers)
Re:It seems to me ... by dryeo · 2005-11-13 07:08 · Score: 1

Well this is good for the prison industry. I mean if you were running a prison and selling the prisoners labour,would you want a bunch of hardened criminals or a bunch of geeks in your jail?
Another side benefit is all these new prisoners are disenfranchised and can not vote to change the situation

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:09 · Score: 0

... it's not like any of our current enemies honor (or even signed?) the Geneva Convention,

I seeeee.... well that makes it perfectly ok to fly hijacked planes into tall buildings killing thousands (some of them slowly, some driven to suicide) - provided it's outside the US. If your enemies act like savage beasts - then it's ok for US soldiers to act the same, torturing, raping - My Lai type genocide is back on the agenda, right?

And I'm sure the rest of the world would nod wisely, see it in that light, too.

(Jesus, what happened to simple humanity in the US??)
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:11 · Score: 0, Flamebait

All true, unless we elect the other guy next time we go to the booth. Then the next criminal offenses will be:

1. Selling private health insurance
2. Selling anything for more than the absolute minimum cost of materials that went into producing it
3. Private ownership of property or businesses
4. Operating a blog without registering for a license
5. Going to church (misdemeanor)
6. Inviting somebody else to go with you to church (felony)
7. Starting a church (death sentence)
8. Teaching that scientists aren't omniscient

What's that you say? You mean the other guys DON'T want to pass those laws? You mean I'm putting words into people's mouths? You mean I'm just dragging the discussion into the dirt by saying things that are obviously not true to even the most ignorant, unaware individual just to score cheap points?

I'm very sorry.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:13 · Score: 0

Sorry to say, but your society is already divided into those classes - and since building and running jails is an extremely lucrative business - as is war and homeland "security", this makes perfect sense. This ensures future demand for new jails and security tech to get those copyright criminals behind bars. It's good for the economy :) Seriously, your governments appears to be planning a war against the people.
Re:It seems to me ... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2005-11-13 07:25 · Score: 1

The only one that's real is #8. Besides, candidates that far left have never been able to get on the ballot because they don't have the right connections, so there's nothing for you to worry about.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:26 · Score: 0

Try those in jail and those whose profits from the privatized corporate jail industry. Now that's the kind of welfare system that Republicans can live with.
Re:It seems to me ... by Reziac · 2005-11-13 07:28 · Score: 1

"Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for."

That's a far more frightening insight than you probably intended. Conceptually, it could be extended to any civil action. Upon polishing my tinfoil hat, I had this thought:

Someone obtains a civil judgment against you, and the upshot is that you must pay him a lot of money. But you simply don't have the funds. Now what -- do you get marched off to debtor's prison??

Not possible, you cry? Too farfetched?? Erm...
http://www.fathers.ca/debtors_prison1.htm

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a shame that you couldn't come up with something more amusing... or even closer to reality.

Private health insurance - good call... you were showing promise.

Selling above minimal cost - almost kinda there... but it doesn't really track with any events. This ends up as a miss.

Private ownership... it would seem the 2nd point was the start of the slope and now we're picking up speed as we dash away from reality.

Blogs... oooh... nice.... possible save.

Three points about church... nope, the 4th point was a fluke... we're clearly detatched from reality.

Teaching - nice attempt to recover... would have done better earlier on in the list... but at this point, too little too late.

Like all upset Neocons, your list simply shows how detatched from reality you really are. A shame. There's just so much material you could have worked with and you missed.
Re:It seems to me ... by Reziac · 2005-11-13 07:30 · Score: 1

Simpler yet: just lock everyone inside a Walmart Superstore!

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:33 · Score: 0

let me pretty that up for you:

"There are only two types of people, those who have gone to jail, and those who will."
Re:It seems to me ... by ceoyoyo · 2005-11-13 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the US doesn't want to abide by the Geneva convention then their enemies don't have to either. So the "terrorists" are free to torture as well. Sure they do, but now it's not an outrage because they're just playing by the same rules as the US.

By the way, once they declare war on you, they're not terrorists anymore. Especially not once you declare war on them. "War on terrorism" is an oxymoron. The Geneva convention also covers more than just prisoners of war... it also outlines what you can and can't do to civilians. So if you toss the Geneva conventions the "terrorists" haven't really done anything wrong. They declared war then used a tried and tested (by the US and Britain during WWII) method of attack -- bombing a major population centre.

Since it was November 11th yesterday I think it's a particularly appropriate time to note that people should think for a minute before dismissing as quaint lessons learned the hard way in the worst conflicts in human history.
Re:It seems to me ... by Scarletdown · 2005-11-13 07:34 · Score: 0, Troll

Where the hell does this end?

About the same point the "donations" do.

It ends at around the time the citizens are forced to finally tap that fourth and final box essential to upholding liberty... The ammo box.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:It seems to me ... by anicca · 2005-11-13 07:35 · Score: 1

What I wonder is if the US is going to start extraditing foreigners for copyright infringement? Maybe only the activist ones.!
http://www.canadiancrier.ca/emery/flyer.pdf

--
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:It seems to me ... by ppanon · 2005-11-13 07:36 · Score: 1

And since the population is aging and there aren't enough organ donors around, the next step will be capital punishment for the above crimes, with the body cut up for the organ banks. After all, the young are the most likely to commit the above crimes and they provide the best fresh organs. Yum! Now Nancy Reagan can get that face transplant she's always wanted!

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:36 · Score: 1, Funny

9. Engaging in any sexual activity with anyone other than your government approved opposite sex spouse.
10. Engaging in any sexual activity with the above mentioned spouse for purposes other than procreating.
11. Engaging in foreplay with the above mentioned spouse.
12. Engaging in sodomy** with the above mentioned spouse.

**Sodomy is defined as any sexual activity other than the government pre approved and sanctioned missionary position or any sexual activity lasting longer than 3 minutes.
Re:It seems to me ... by ceoyoyo · 2005-11-13 07:36 · Score: 1

All we need now is the ability to transplant any organ. Who's read Larry Niven's book... um, I think it was "Patchwork Man" or something similar. Organ transplants can allow you to live practically forever so the demand for organs causes more and more offenses to be punishable by death (with forced organ donation of course). Jaywalking is a capital crime....
Re:It seems to me ... by jZnat · 2005-11-13 07:37 · Score: 1

I thought the biggest growth industry was building houses in California? Damn house prices in several orders of magnitude larger than they're actually worth...

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:It seems to me ... by KDR_11k · 2005-11-13 07:38 · Score: 1

You make that sound like there's an actual choice available.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:It seems to me ... by jcr · 2005-11-13 07:39 · Score: 1

I also want to know why Mr. Gonzales thinks he's a legislator now. His job is not to propose laws, that's the job of elected officials.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:It seems to me ... by sd_diamond · 2005-11-13 07:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Simpler yet: just lock everyone inside a Walmart Superstore!

No, that's only for the illegal immigrants.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:40 · Score: 0

Qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment...
Re:It seems to me ... by MrNougat · 2005-11-13 07:41 · Score: 0

There really needs to be a third category, else none of this makes sense: 3. Those who put other people in jail (also, 'those who should be in jail instead').

--
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Re:It seems to me ... by Reziac · 2005-11-13 07:45 · Score: 1

Hmm... well, perhaps so. Certainly would seem the case here in SoCal!

Tho as an AC also replied to me...

"Qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment..."

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:It seems to me ... by cynyr · 2005-11-13 07:47 · Score: 1

last i knew #7 is already true...

--
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Re:It seems to me ... by shine-shine · 2005-11-13 07:47 · Score: 1

I'd be more than willing to bet [...] that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading.

I agree, but it feels as if you assume that those in charge value human life over money, which is blantly false.
Re:It seems to me ... by roystgnr · 2005-11-13 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Where the hell does this end?

About the same point the "donations" do.

Put an end to the "pass our evil laws and we'll give you money for campaign advertisements" status quo, and it'll just be replaced with "pass our evil laws and we'll publish our own advertisements for your campaign" - same effect, except that anyone who can't afford to buy a whole TV commercial will be out of the loop. Put an end to that, and it'll be replaced with "pass our evil laws and we'll publish 'news' stories that might as well be advertisements for your campaign" - same effect, except that anyone without a media empire will be out of the loop.

Legalized political bribery doesn't work because companies get away with giving politicians money for support, it works because they give politicians votes for support, and that works because they can get our votes for advertising money. That'll stop as soon as voters are informed enough to do their own research and make opinions without regard to ads... which is to say, not in my lifetime.
Re:It seems to me ... by lordofthechia · 2005-11-13 07:54 · Score: 1

"Those who build and work in jails"

Yes, won't someone please think of the jobs this would create? Heck I can see it now, I'll be adding a new bullet point to my resume - "Available immediately (not in jail)"

--
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Re:It seems to me ... by sd_diamond · 2005-11-13 07:55 · Score: 1

Yes, won't someone please think of the jobs this would create? Heck I can see it now, I'll be adding a new bullet point to my resume - "Available immediately (not in jail)"

The increases in efficiency will be staggering once all resumes can be reduced to a single bit.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:02 · Score: 0

You are wrong. Going to, invite to and even starting a church is perfectly fine, as long as the church show the proper tolerace*. (Of courcse, if they don't, all this applyes)

* Hold the correct wievs on any issue the goverment wants. Currently that would be approving gay marrige, pre marrige sex, divorce, abortion and the non existance of hell
Re:It seems to me ... by be-fan · 2005-11-13 08:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

You realize that there is no prominent movement on the left to do any of the things you stated. There are very prominent movements on the right to do the things the parent stated. What legitimate leftist organization wants to criminalize going to church? How many legitimate rightist organizations want to criminalize abortion?

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:It seems to me ... by superflyguy · 2005-11-13 08:26 · Score: 1

It ends at around the time the citizens are forced to finally tap that fourth and final box essential to upholding liberty... The ammo box.

Inmates are not permitted to possess boxes of ammo. Any person or persons attempting to provide prisoners with either boxes or amunition shall henceforth be arrested and tried for treason. Attempting to provide prisoners with the aforementioned materials shall be defined as follows: the transport of boxes or amunition into a building in which prisoners are present, or approaching to within 500 ft of a prisoner. All containers shall be considered boxes for the purposes of this legislation. Any flamable or explosive materials, including but not limited to clothing, shall be considered amunition. Law enforcement officers shall be required to enact the aforementioned measures by conducting a cell-to-cell search while bearing firearms. All other free citizens shall be required to bring boxes of cereal to the nearest jail in order to provide for the wellbeing of the aforementioned law enforcement officers.
Re:It seems to me ... by ultranova · 2005-11-13 08:27 · Score: 1

Should we jail people for speeding? It is, after all, a crime. I'd be more than willing to bet (which, by the way, is also illegal where I live) that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading.

Yes, but if you download something, it might, in theory, lessen, by some unmeasurable amount, the hypothetical profits some corporation might have made if you had not downloaded it. On the other hand, when someone gets killed by speeding, it's just a human life that's lost. You have to have some sense of priority - just like your government and its corporate overlords do.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is that not even the extremists on the the atheist left have proposed the death penalty for starting a church.

The extremists on the fundamentalis right have proposed the death penalty for abortion.

So, uh, no, I do think you're being unfair there. Sorry.
Re:It seems to me ... by Seumas · 2005-11-13 08:32 · Score: 1

So what? As long as people can still shop at walmart, hang out at the mall and watch Sex in the City or Friends and get cable television piped into their house, does any of this really matter?

Until you take people's religion (Christianity, at least), television or shopping away, nobody will much care about anything. Entertainment is the opiate that quiets the masses and keeps them from feeling too radical about any other rights or liberties being eroded.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:38 · Score: 0

No, it really produces even more pork for Joe Senator than that. Government construction is done by private contractors paid with your tax money. And more and more private prisons are being built (it's big business) and filled with prisoners which the government pays (with your tax dollars) the private prison owner to lock up. Now if we can just find a way to privatize the police force and the courts . . . .
Re:It seems to me ... by flyingsquid · 2005-11-13 09:23 · Score: 2, Funny

"On December 31, 2004, there were 2,135,901 people in U.S. prisons and jails. The United States incarcerates a greater share of its population, 724 per 100,000 residents, more than any other country on the planet."
Yes, but because of that, we also have the safest country on the planet, with the lowest rates of murder, drug use, theft and violent crime.
Wait a minute, we don't? Never mind.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:26 · Score: 0

Simple Solution -- THE FINAL SOLUTION -- Using Capital Punishment liberally, prune the population of the undesirables.... so eventually companies will be able to kill those who cost them too much
Re:It seems to me ... by Dare+nMc · 2005-11-13 09:28 · Score: 1

> Should we jail people for speeding? It is, after all, a crime.

try not signing that speeding ticket, and see what happens.
Re:It seems to me ... by Catbeller · 2005-11-13 09:30 · Score: 1

Well, why pass the "you can't go bankrupt" laws for poor schmucks? Because it makes debtors into permanent slaves of the debt holders. Lovely.

I don't see debtors prisons coming back. I think they'd just throw poor people who owe money into real prison. OR: I forsee the return of indentured servitude, in one form or another. Bonded labor until you pay off your debt, with all terms of salary, repayment terms, and interest determined by the debt holders.

Hillary Clinton, not one for the bon mot, actually nailed one to the wall when she said that the Republicans are repealing the twentieth century.

When you can buy the laws you like, anything can happen.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:37 · Score: 1

You realize that there is no prominent movement on the left to do any of the things you stated.

You realize that up until recently, it was illegal to sell private health insurance in Canada? (The Canadian high court overturned the law making it illegal just a few months ago.) You realize that the Clinton health-care plan, which thankfully never got past the talking stages, was going to be based on a single-payer plan system modeled after the Canadian system?

You realize that one of the most prominent left-leaning advocacy groups is called "Socialist Alternative" and that it calls for the seizure of the 500 biggest American companies and the replacement of their owners and management with committees of citizens? You realize that this prominent group calls for making the taking of "excessive profit" a crime, and that their leaders have been running editorials in the nation's opinion pages for years now?

You realize that it is technically ALREADY illegal to operate a blog without a license, thanks to McCain-Feingold?

You realize that the GP intended to make his point by mixing in things that are outrageous with things that seem outrageous but are pretty damn close to the truth?

You realize that he apparently succeeded?

There are very prominent movements on the right to do the things the parent stated.

Name one. Seriously. Name one. I've given you concrete examples. Name one.

What legitimate leftist organization wants to criminalize going to church?

I suspect we'd disagree on the definition of "legitimate," but just to be civil, I'll say none. That's because I'm excluding the more radical groups like the Workers World Party and United for Peace and Justice. You, I would suspect, would call them legitimate, but before you do, look very closely at their platforms. You'll be shocked.

How many legitimate rightist organizations want to criminalize abortion?

Absolutely not a single one. Seriously. Do you know the difference between overturning Roe and criminalizing abortion? I can't think of a single person, prominent or otherwise, who thinks that abortion should ALWAYS be illegal without any exceptions at all. But there are a lot of people who think that Roe is bad law, and that legislating from the bench the way Blackmun did is a very bad idea. This conservative blogger did a really good job of explaining his take on the issue. Read it before spouting off your mouth about criminalization.
Re:It seems to me ... by fireweaver · 2005-11-13 10:09 · Score: 1

Let's add some more:

13. (appropriately enough) Believing in any religion other the official government-sanctioned and approved one.
14. Not believing in religion or god at all.
15. Speaking out against religion, religious figures, religious leaders, deities, concepts, practices, etc.
16. Not attending the state-sponsored / approved church when instructed to.
17. Doing business on Sunday.
18. Teaching any kind of critical thought process.

This would be a jeezoid's most secret wet-dream come true.
Re:It seems to me ... by TheMeuge · 2005-11-13 10:16 · Score: 1

I wasn't summarizing leftist intent. Actually, if you search through my posts on Slashdot, I doubt you'd find a reference to anything "leftist".

That being said, I see as much danger to American society from the left, as I see from the right. It just so happens that the right is stronger now, and thus the danger is more imminent.
Re:It seems to me ... by Omestes · 2005-11-13 10:17 · Score: 1

Sadly, padding your CV will be a crime.
To jail with you!

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:It seems to me ... by StikyPad · 2005-11-13 10:44 · Score: 1

Excessive speed doesn't kill people.. it's the sudden stop.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:It seems to me ... by GhaleonStrife · 2005-11-13 10:49 · Score: 0

9. Wearing a color above your clearance. Since America is fairly backwards, we'll reverse the Paranoia clearance system so that Ultraviolet is on the bottom. Those government agents love their black suits.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 11:01 · Score: 0

New criminal offenses in the US coming in the next 3 years
...
6. Masturbation
...

They'll have to pry my penis from my cold, dead hand!
Re:It seems to me ... by crucini · 2005-11-13 11:13 · Score: 1

I'd be more than willing to bet (which, by the way, is also illegal where I live) that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading.

OK, so let's legalize everything that doesn't kill as many people per year as speeding. Shoplifting, fraud, embezzlement, larceny. Maybe even murder.

Or recognize that your test makes no sense, much like the opinion (expressed several times) that the US shouldn't crack down on copyright infringement until it catches Osama. We're capable of pursuing more than one objective at a time.
Re:It seems to me ... by crucini · 2005-11-13 11:18 · Score: 1

On what do you base this claim besides your masochistic fantasies? There's certainly no shortage of "Criticising the government or protesting a war" - where are the unjust prosecutions of these critics and protesters?
Re:It seems to me ... by be-fan · 2005-11-13 11:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

You realize that up until recently, it was illegal to sell private health insurance in Canada? (The Canadian high court overturned the law making it illegal just a few months ago.)

Are we talking about Canada or the United States?

You realize that the Clinton health-care plan, which thankfully never got past the talking stages, was going to be based on a single-payer plan system modeled after the Canadian system?

The Canadian plan also results in lower healthcare costs and better healthcare, so modeling ours on theirs is probably a good idea. That doesn't mean that we have to outlaw private health insurance along with it! You understand what "modeling" means, do you not?

You realize that one of the most prominent left-leaning advocacy groups is called "Socialist Alternative" and that it calls for the seizure of the 500 biggest American companies and the replacement of their owners and management with committees of citizens?

Prominent by whose definition? You do understand that when one says "left" in the United States, we're talking about leftist relative to the American mainstream, not what would be considered leftist internationally. In the US, the proper term for groups like "socialist alternative" would be "socialist". We aren't talking about socialists here.

You realize that this prominent group calls for making the taking of "excessive profit" a crime, and that their leaders have been running editorials in the nation's opinion pages for years now?

Again, prominent by whose definition?

Name one. Seriously. Name one. I've given you concrete examples. Name one.

The Human Life Amendment. And don't give me any crap about it being intended to merely allow states to criminalize abortion, not force them to. Criminalization of abortion is precisely what they want. See also Operation Rescue/Operation Save America.

Do you know the difference between overturning Roe and criminalizing abortion?

There is a reasonable argument that Roe v. Wade is a bad precedent not on the basis of the abortion debate, but on the merits on which it was argued. With some caveats, I actually buy this argument. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people working towards overturning. Roe v. Wade are not working in favor of reason in law, but because they want to see the criminalization of abortion. There is a war in this country between those who support abortion and those who want to see it become illegal. Roe v. Wade is an icon in that war. Those who oppose Roe v. Wade on principle, but not abortion per se, are simply find themselves on the wrong side of a debate that only has two sides.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:It seems to me ... by crucini · 2005-11-13 11:36 · Score: 2

Why don't they apply this law to their corporate donors that ignore copyright law when they think they can. Most of them do it

Why does this bullshit get modded up? Give me some examples of these corporate donors "ignoring" copyright law - by which I assume you mean infringing.
Re:It seems to me ... by Solder+Fumes · 2005-11-13 11:58 · Score: 1

How about this: everyone starts off in jail, and when they've demonstrated useful behavior they are released.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 12:11 · Score: 0

That doesn't mean that we have to outlaw private health insurance along with it!

Actually, it does. See, single-payer health insurance can't work in an opt-out system. There's not enough coming in (in health care taxes) to cover what goes out (in payments). The only way it can work is if everybody in the country participates in the program. That's exactly why single-payer systems ban private health care.

You're not really very educated on this topic, are you?

Prominent by whose definition?

I didn't haul out the word "prominent," and in fact that's my whole point. When some idiot Slashdotter says that conservatives want to make abortion illegal, he gets modded up to +5. When some other idiot Slashdotter says that liberals want to abolish private property, he gets modded down to -1. Both Slashdotters are equally right and both are equally wrong. There are (conservatives|liberals) who want to make (abortion|private property) illegal. They are wacko fringers and not representative of the mainstream.

But still, out comes the broad brush.

In the US, the proper term for groups like "socialist alternative" would be "socialist". We aren't talking about socialists here.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

The Human Life Amendment.

Have you read it? Do you understand that the HLA actually embodies the legal argument that Blackmun advanced in Roe, i.e., that the liberty of the mother is not absolute and has to be balanced against the inherent right to life of the child?

And don't give me any crap about it being intended to merely allow states to criminalize abortion, not force them to.

"Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."

Criminalization of abortion is precisely what they want.

Abolition of private property is precisely what they want. Oh, wait. We decided that it's unfair to characterize whole groups by the fringe views of a few radicals way outside the mainstream, didn't we?

the vast majority of people working towards overturning. Roe v. Wade are not working in favor of reason in law, but because they want to see the criminalization of abortion

You keep saying that. It's still not true.

Now, we DO know that the majority of Americans believe that abortion is wrong. We know that from polling data. (It consistently comes out to about a 66/33 margin.) But we also know that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in some cases and legal in others. So this "they want to criminalize it!" assertion of yours is quite simply wrong. Like factually, provably wrong.

You know, we're never going to get anywhere as long as you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA" rather than actually paying attention to what the people with whom you disagree are saying.
Re:It seems to me ... by ozmanjusri · 2005-11-13 12:18 · Score: 1

I'd be more than willing to bet (which, by the way, is also illegal where I live) that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading.

If you're right, then that's clearly an unjust situation, and it is equally clear that it's the govenment's responsibility to ensure there is balance in the consequences of illegal actions. If society is to remain fair, we will have to have mandatory capital punishment for illegal downloading of copyrighted material.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 12:24 · Score: 0

In moest states going over 20 MPH of the speed limit is considered reckless driving. Now that can land you in jail, per the officers discresion. So yes you can go to jail for speeding, you won't end up in prison however.
Re:It seems to me ... by ozmanjusri · 2005-11-13 12:37 · Score: 1

Who's read Larry Niven's book... um, I think it was "Patchwork Man" or something similar.

"The Jigsaw Man" was the first, but there were others, notably the "Flatlander" collection.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:It seems to me ... by ozmanjusri · 2005-11-13 12:43 · Score: 1

All true, unless we elect the other guy next time we go to the booth. Then the next criminal offenses will be:

No, if you elect the other guy next time, the criminal offences will be:
1. Copying CDs
2. Disabling, deleting or avoiding XXAA spyware/zombification tools
3. Informing others or the press about the time you were taken to Turkey to be tortured.
4. Knowing the reason why you were taken to Turkey to be tortured.
5. Abortion
6. Masturbation
7. Using condoms or any other means of birth control
8. Teaching evolution

Why would you think otherwise?

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:It seems to me ... by toddbu · 2005-11-13 12:58 · Score: 1

And we start with everyone named "Anonymous Coward". That'll get at least 1/2 the population.

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 13:38 · Score: 0

6. Masturbation

You'll have to take my penis from my cold, dead hands.
Re:It seems to me ... by jp10558 · 2005-11-13 14:23 · Score: 1

For some reason, recently moderates have gone out of style. Probably because their views don't make as compelling slogans or Crossfire episodes...

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:It seems to me ... by R3d+M3rcury · 2005-11-13 15:22 · Score: 1

Well, "unjust" is debatable, in this case, but I'll try one on for size.

Go back to 1999 here in Westminster, CA. A guy, Truong Van Tran, hung a picture of Ho Chi Minh and a North Vietnamese flag in his video store. This caused about two months of protests by the Vietnamese community. In the end, the police found a way to bust him: Some of the videos he was selling in his story were pirated. He was arrested and sentenced to 90 days in jail.

Essentially, the community was looking for some way to get rid of this malcontent. Fortunately, the "video piracy" laws were on the books and they could bust him on that. The Judge was more than willing to give him the maximum sentence not because video piracy is such a heinous offense and the community was adamant that the laws concerning intellectual property must be observed, but because he had offended the community by displaying support for the hated North Vietnamese regime.
Re:It seems to me ... by be-fan · 2005-11-13 15:31 · Score: 1

Actually, it does. See, single-payer health insurance can't work in an opt-out system.

Who said anything about opt-out? We're talking about banning private healthcare. There is no need for a single-payer system to ban private healthcare, the only requirement is that everyone pay the taxes that go into the system. It would be like the public school system --- even if you send your kids to a private school, you still have to pay the property taxes that go towards funding public eduction.

I didn't haul out the word "prominent," and in fact that's my whole point. When some idiot Slashdotter says that conservatives want to make abortion illegal, he gets modded up to +5.

A Pew poll in 2005 asked people: "Which comes closer to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now. Abortion should be against the law except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman's life. Abortion should not be permitted at all."

31% of people (presumably conservative) answered that abortion should be against the law except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the woman's life. An additional 9% of people said that abortion should be illegal in all cases. There is no spinning this statistic --- conservatives want to outlaw general abortion, and a significant portion want to outlaw it entirely. Or do you think there is another way to interpret "should be against the law" other than "is illegal"?

When some other idiot Slashdotter says that liberals want to abolish private property, he gets modded down to -1.

I don't think such a poll has been conducted, but let's use our heads. If Pew phrased a poll asking: "Which comes closer to your view? Private property should be allowed in all cases. Private property should be allowed to anyone without a criminal record. Private property should be allowed in cases where the person can demonstrate a legitimate need. Private property should be against the law in all cases." How many liberals do you honestly think would answer "yes" to the latter two?

They are wacko fringers and not representative of the mainstream.

The statistics suggest otherwise.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

There is no wiggling involved here. To be on the left in the United States generally means that one is a liberal. Not a a socialist. To be on the right means that one is a conservative. Not a Nazi. Yes, socialists are on the left, and Nazis are on the right. However, nobody actually uses "left" and "right" in that way in everyday conversation.

"Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."

What facts? Did you read the page I linked to? I quote:

"How would the Human Life Amendment affect legal abortion?

If adopted, it would permit states to enact and enforce laws to prohibit abortion. It would also permit Congress to adopt laws that protect the preborn."

How else can you interpret this statement other than that these people want laws promulgated to ban abortion? I'm not exactly taking a logical leap here!

We decided that it's unfair to characterize whole groups by the fringe views of a few radicals way outside the mainstream, didn't we?

You know what? The people who oppose Roe v. Wade on legalistic grounds seem to be the fringe radicals way outside the mainstream. The mainstream, judging by the polls, just seems to want teenage mothers from killing "unborn" children.

You keep saying that. It's still not true.

Again, the statistics suggest that you're wrong.

Now, we DO know that the majority of Americans believe that abortion is wrong. We know that from polling data. (It consistently comes out to about a 66/33 margin.) But we also know that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in some cases and legal in others. So this "they want to criminalize it!" assertion of yours is quite simply wrong.

First, the

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:It seems to me ... by poopdeville · 2005-11-13 15:50 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? There are plenty of examples of small communities ostracizing protestors through legal and illegal means. City dwellers are more-or-less immune to such phenomena since the local police force represents a broad cross section of the city's diverse population. Basically, the more a group of people agrees, the harder they'll fight dissidents.
On a national scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 15:53 · Score: 0

How about this: everyone starts off in jail, and when they've demonstrated useful behavior they are released.

We have that now, it's called the Public School System. They even have gladiators in the arena on Friday nights. The really good ones end up as professional gladiators after their release.
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 16:10 · Score: 0

So, anyone got a factory that can crank out a couple of million electric chairs quickly?
In other news, 3rd year High School English classes in Sonoma have 33% less students this year than last, after Timmy Smith was the 13th student executed for downloading a Good Charlotte album this week....
Re:It seems to me ... by Joel+from+Sydney · 2005-11-13 16:27 · Score: 1

3. Informing others or the press about the time you were taken to Turkey to be tortured.
4. Knowing the reason why you were taken to Turkey to be tortured.

Guess what? The anti-terror laws currently being debated in the Australian parliament (like Congress, but rowdier) include almost precisely these clauses. If you get arrested on suspicion of terrorist offences, you are allowed *one* phone call to a family member to indicate that you are safe. You're not allowed to tell them where you are, what you've been charged with, or even what you've done wrong (as the law also allows the police throw people in jail for up to two weeks without charge or due process). Further, if your family member happens to mention to anyone else (including the media) that you've been arrested for terrorist offences, they can go to jail for up to five years!! Same goes for the journalist who publishes your story, five years jail!

Welcome to the brave new world :-/
Re:It seems to me ... by TheMeuge · 2005-11-13 16:48 · Score: 1

That's exactly why I posted that. See you on the Darknet.
Re:It seems to me ... by einhverfr · 2005-11-13 17:15 · Score: 1

One thing that I really hate about conservatives (and I am one) is that we get these insane ideas that jail is the right solution for every problem.

Personally I think that the role of a jail should ultimately be the rehabilitation of criminals so that they can contribute meaningfully to society (if we didn't believe that, wouldn't all jailable crimes carry with them terms of life in prison without parole?). And I consider myself to be generally conservative in my approach to things but somewhat left of center in my results. Does that make me a left-wing conservative? (Conservative is not the oposite of liberal, but the oposite of progressive IMO, and most "conservatives" and especially the neocons are a sort of twisted progressive rather than a conservative in the sense that the term is used anywhere outside politics.)

Anyway.... The issue is that a balanced punishment is often the necessary first step to rehabilitation. The punishment has two purposes. First, it is an attempt to provide a sort of penance that the person can do to get some forgiveness from society (and hence help the person move on and away from the cycle of crime) and the second is that it is often a help to push a person out of the patterns that led to the crime being committed. Punish too lightly and the cycle will be reinforced, but punish too harshly and you merely harden criminals.

This leads me back to what troubles me about this legislation. Our society (the US) has a prison system that doesn't work largely because we have people in charge who think that punishment is the answer. So when we stick people in prison for, say, drug offenses, often times, they come out of prison less able to handle life, less employable, and more importantly more bitter towards society for their experience in prison. I greatly fear that we are treading down the same path with copyright infringement. And while I certainly don't favor copyright infringement because it reinforces these patterns in our society, this approach of more and harsher punishment is not right and not wise. While I hope that better sense prevails I am not hopeful at this time.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:It seems to me ... by einhverfr · 2005-11-13 17:54 · Score: 1

This may be modded off-topic unless people read the whole post.

The Canadian plan also results in lower healthcare costs and better healthcare, so modeling ours on theirs is probably a good idea. That doesn't mean that we have to outlaw private health insurance along with it! You understand what "modeling" means, do you not?

As someone who has seen the health-care system from many different sides, I am not sure I like any of the socialized plans I have seen. I would, however, shumbly suggest that the government not be in the business of competing with full health care plans offered by major insurance providers. This being said, the problems that centralized health care aims to solve are very real and need to be addressed somehow. What I would support would be a very basic routine care insurance, and then allow private companies to sell additional insurance including catastrophic care, etc. The goal here is to get otherwise people to see a doctor often and not use the emergency room as their primary source of medical care. As for more expensive treatments, everyone does have at least one form of insurance--- it is called bankrupcy protection so all your health insurance does is protect your assets in this scenario.

There is a reasonable argument that Roe v. Wade is a bad precedent not on the basis of the abortion debate, but on the merits on which it was argued. With some caveats, I actually buy this argument.

Well.... I suspect that it is quite possible to see the legal and public policy aspects of abortion as entirely separate, and even support Roe even if one is otherwise opposed to abortion on the grounds that one doesn't want the government being that intrusive in one's life too..... The real problem with the debate though really is that too many people see the legal and public policy aspects of the issue as being homogeneous and fail to distinguish between them. (IANAL, etc.)

Personally, the issue of 4th and 14th amendment protections of privacy are incredibly murkey and it is an area of the law (IANAL again) that seems so case-by-case and so issue-by-issue that it is hard to know what the courts will do in a specific case in general.

My concern both regarding the issue of abortion and the topic of this forum is that there appears to be a general trend towards criminalizing everything on the part of both parties. The situation is very far out of balance, but it seems that the fact that we are creating real criminals through this process only reinforces the trend.

While I don't think that there is any chance that abortion will be outlawed anytime in the near future because simply most Americans think that at least through the first trimester, it should be legal, so even if Roe, Casey, et. al. were to fall (which they won't because lawyers and judges understand the need for stability in the law, but IANAL). (As a side note, if we didn't have Roe, given the prevailing interpretation of the Commerce clause, I would assume that Congress could outlaw the right to travel to another state for the purpose of having an abortion and that is quite a scary thought.)

Copyright law, however, appears to be going through the same sort of mandate bloat that interstate commerce regulation saw. This is very troubling to many of us because unlike the Commerce clause, the copyright clause would give our rights to private persons, natural or otherwise. In essence, we risk being turned into a nation where the people are subjected not to a fascist government, but where the people and the government are controlled by fascist corporations. Like abortion, the question is the question of very liberty involving very personal aspects of our lives, who should be able to place restrictions on that liberty, and what restrictions are reasonable. Without a careful effort to work backward to balance in these matters, we will continue down a very slippery slope, and I fear very much where this will lead.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 20:38 · Score: 0

Somehow, I doubt that Osama and the crew are going to stop torturing any captured prisoners they have because of the Geneva Convention.
Re:It seems to me ... by ceoyoyo · 2005-11-13 20:45 · Score: 1

No, but if the US wants to toss out the convention they lose the moral high ground. As well as the right to try Osama and friends for war crimes.

The US and UK make a big deal about how bad the terrorists are, and how the US and UK are the defenders of freedom... but if you stoop to their level....
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 22:24 · Score: 0

The lot of us who don't have a problem with driving 85mph on the freeway aren't forming groups to lobby congress to raise the speed limits and passing them dirty money.

The entertainment industry does.

$$$MONEY$$$

Please, go take a look at the picture of the guy who is promoting this. He's a chump. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html

I mean, look at the website. It looks like it was designed by Judge Judy. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a gameshow?
Re:It seems to me ... by dswan69 · 2005-11-13 22:50 · Score: 1

"that more people are killed each year by excessive speed"

Excessive perhaps, but what is excessive speed? Exceeding the speed limit? How was it determined? What if I am a better driver or have a better vehicle? What if your vehicle weighs three times what mine does? Speed limits are basically arbitrary. And lower limits don't equal safer roads, even if people adhere to those lower limits.
Re:It seems to me ... by dswan69 · 2005-11-13 23:01 · Score: 1

And they were wrong. Just because he offended the community is no justification for harassment. What you're saying is the judge was happy to help the community harass this guy for having opinions they didn't like.

Now if that guy should come back, make sure there are no further crimes on which they can bust him, then put the flag etc. up to give the community the finger.

Funny how the community is willing to use police state tactics to suppress and opinion they don't like.
Re:It seems to me ... by pla · 2005-11-14 00:46 · Score: 1

The only one that's real is #8.

Bzzzt.

Except for #6 and partially #7, those all describe real laws pending in various "civilized" nations around the globe (mostly the US, UK, and AU).

And it really wouldn't surprise me to learn that some (non-sharia, which fails the above qualification of "civilized") country currently has 6 and 7 on the table, since I suspect that the GP deliberately mentioned each of those as all-too-real legislation currently under consideration.
Re:It seems to me ... by mpe · 2005-11-14 01:18 · Score: 1

Basically what they're saying is, "Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for." They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?

With an amount of blood proportional to the length of time it goes on for.
Re:It seems to me ... by mpe · 2005-11-14 01:23 · Score: 1

Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.

There is also class three. "Those who really should be in jail, but are more or less immune from winding up there".
Re:It seems to me ... by mpe · 2005-11-14 01:30 · Score: 1

The lot of us who don't have a problem with driving 85mph on the freeway aren't forming groups to lobby congress to raise the speed limits and passing them dirty money.

Probably because most of these people actually have lives and don't have spare cash to throw around.

Please, go take a look at the picture of the guy who is promoting this. He's a chump. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/aggonzalesbio.html I mean, look at the website. It looks like it was designed by Judge Judy. Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a gameshow?

Maybe the MPAA and RIAA should appear on Judge Judy. At least they'd be providing entertainment in the process :)
Re:It seems to me ... by yndrd1984 · 2005-11-14 01:39 · Score: 1

On private property: "How many liberals do you honestly think would answer "yes" to the latter two?"
Well, none. On the other hand, many liberal think that people other than the owner can have a very large say in how your property is used. The Supreme Court (USA) decided that if someone might pay more in property taxes to a city than you do, you can be forced to sell to them, and this was fairly straight 5-4 liberal vs conservative opinion. And let's not get into the whole "stakeholder" idea. Most people on the left aren't against owning property, it's the "private" part that some of them want to dilute.
"Private property should be allowed in all cases." ... How many liberals do you honestly think would answer "yes" to the latter two?
If they were honest, all of them. Even conservatives would. Find me one person that says privately owned nuclear weapons should be legal without restriction. This is where a lot of my moderate friends have a point - most liberal people say you have a right to play music (but no so loud that it keeps the neighbors up), the right to drive (but not too fast), the right to smoke (but not in a hospital), the right to generate and sell power (within pollution guidelines) and the right to abortion (at all times). Why should abortion be so different?
Criminalize does not mean "ban entirely".
Yes, but saying that I want to "criminalize driving" because I want drunk driving banned is kind of inflammatory and takes away from the discussion.
The people who oppose Roe v. Wade on legalistic grounds seem to be the fringe radicals way outside the mainstream. ... just seems to want teenage mothers from killing "unborn" children.
Well, I am outside the mainstream, but not the way you describe. I do think that abortion should be legal in almost every case (meaning under restrictions similar to every other human activity), but I want it strongly supported by well-reasoned legal arguments, not BS.
More importantly, if you make the law "flexible" so you can bend it the way you want, even with good intentions, what do you do when someone else bends it in a different way that you don't want? If you're willing to cheat in order to win, you give up the right to cry foul when someone else does it.
Re:It seems to me ... by JediTrainer · 2005-11-14 01:51 · Score: 1

You realize that up until recently, it was illegal to sell private health insurance in Canada? (The Canadian high court overturned the law making it illegal just a few months ago.) You realize that the Clinton health-care plan, which thankfully never got past the talking stages, was going to be based on a single-payer plan system modeled after the Canadian system?

You realize you're wrong? A simple Google search would yield you any number of articles that would tell you that the Supreme Court struck down a law in Quebec to that effect. It was a provincial law, not federal, and everyone already knows that Quebec's laws are much different from the rest of the country. This is why, for example, so many contests and lotteries would say you can enter if you live anywhere in Canada except Quebec.

As a resident of Ontario, I've had private health insurance coverage for years! This is because OHIP (Ontario's public health insurance) doesn't cover everything; you really need to supplement it with something else. For example, my dental surgery last year wasn't covered by the government plan. Good thing I had private insurance for that. Saved me a couple grand.

--

You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Re:It seems to me ... by Maxo-Texas · 2005-11-14 04:22 · Score: 1

There is a war in this country between those who support abortion and those who want to see it become illegal. Roe v. Wade is an icon in that war. Those who oppose Roe v. Wade on principle, but not abortion per se, are simply find themselves on the wrong side of a debate that only has two sides.

And I am beginning to think the only way to defeat them is to let them win. Once they win they will lose the diamond like focus that this issue provides them. Once they win, a lot of young idiots will finally get what it means, lose their complacency, and become galvanized for abortion. It may take women (esp daughters) dying in droves again to make people understand the cost of this policy. They are currently deluded to thinking that if only it was illegal young girls are going to stop getting pregnant or they are evil enough to believe those girls deserve to die.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:It seems to me ... by iainl · 2005-11-14 04:57 · Score: 1

No, the grandparent was referring to the modded-down troll response here. You're right about the original list, obviously.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Re:It seems to me ... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-14 05:32 · Score: 0

You realize that you just proved his point? Single-payer health care doesn't work and is illegal under the Canadian constitution. You only have good health care because you have private insurance.

But the American liberals who call for single-payer health care are also calling for the prohibition of private insurance, on the Canadian model which was recently struck down.

He wasn't wrong. He was absolutely right, and you backed him up with your own anecdotal evidence.
Re:It seems to me ... by pla · 2005-11-14 06:00 · Score: 1

Ah... Oops, my bad.

My sincere apologies to the... Um... Now great-grand-parent. :)

Gotta remember to hit the "parent" link before responding to anything seemingly out of place. Or browse at -1, but the four-letters-whose-utterance-leads-to-bannination make that ever such a pain to wade through the crap.
Re:It seems to me ... by HTH+NE1 · 2005-11-14 06:46 · Score: 1

The difference is that not even the extremists on the the atheist left have proposed the death penalty for starting a church.

I'd think extremists on the fundamentalist right would feel that to be a prerequisite.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:It seems to me ... by h4rm0ny · 2005-11-14 07:45 · Score: 1

On what do you base this claim besides your masochistic fantasies?

Logic.

People in power don't like those who threaten or criticize or deny that power. Therefore there is a motive for punishment. The rapid creation of new laws that turn previously innocent people into criminals provides a means. All that is required is that it should be possible for the punishments to be applied selectively. Oh look - it is.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:It seems to me ... by zeke2.0 · 2005-11-14 08:37 · Score: 1

You are right in one sense. They are perfectly willing to let women die, since they believe that abortion is murder and the mother deserves to die for it. They also realize that only the poor will be forced to live like this since women with money will simply go somewhere where abortions are legal. Which will lead to excuses to corrupt our civil rights to protect unborn children. Remember these same anti abortion foes are for the most part anti birth control of just about any means (even for married people with lots of kids). There is no explicit protection of privacy in the constitution, and the Senate just nominated a judge who also doesn't believe in our right to privacy. Think about that if the abortion foes win. This goes way beyond abortion folks. BTW I talked to a person who is anti abortion. She said it will make us a more Godly nation, just like prohibition did (she ignored the fact that prohibition created modern organized crime syndicates and a nation of scofflaws)When I told her that if abortion was outlawed, it would discriminate against poor women. She said she could live with that. I said it really wouldn't stop abortions (she forgets that the reason we had roe v wade was because they were going on in the first place) she said steps would be taken to prevent them. what ever happens, the rich will continue to get what they want and the poor will suffer. No abortions, no condems, no life, just oppression by facists. ON the other hand, the pro choice folks are almost as guilty for not informing women of the possibilities of severe psychological problems, steming from guilt. Thats one of the little ugly things that gets swept under the rug in this debate. I'm personally pro choice, but think a fetus should be granted civil rights the moment it is able to survive outside the womb (8 months or later?) without unreasonable efferts to keep it alive. but thats just me.

Why? by JoeShmoe950 · 2005-11-13 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am against illegal P2P, and I think that downloading songs is wrong, but why is it considered such a terrible crime. Lighten the penalties, and maybe people will buy from you!

--
Help Fight SPAM today!

Re:Why? by ITchix0r · 2005-11-13 05:32 · Score: 1

It's not about lightening the penalties. People will still continue to pirate as they please. Naturally, they will just go farther underground to the depths of the internet, or do it old school and borrow/rent (insert media name) and make a copy of it circumventing any copy protection software. I don't like the idea also that they are potentially making the casual copier who wants to make a mix cd or something in the same league as an arsonist (I'm exaggerating) or something.
Re:Why? by Liam+Slider · 2005-11-13 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Downloading songs is wrong? Sorry, I was under the impression that under copyright law the user also has rights, not just the producer of media. I have a right to go and download a copy of a song I already own, as backup copies for personal use are fine. Also, fine are songs that are given away free by the artists themselves. Not all free downloading of music is wrong, regardless of what RIAA says.
Re:Why? by rdoger6424 · 2005-11-13 07:02 · Score: 1

Dude, the grandparent just made the best anti p2p argument out there. Don't alienate him.

--
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Re:Why? by Reziac · 2005-11-13 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Something I've noticed among people I know well enough to judge: content producers (writers, music artists, whatever) who believe that they are *entitled* to an income from their work (whether it's liked by anyone or not) are the same ones who believe that ALL filesharing is evil.

Conversely, artists who are thrilled to have fans at all seem to take the opposite tack, and don't mind harmless sharing; indeed, they recognise that exposure is cheap advertising and ultimately leads to a larger paying fanbase.

In short, the root of the problem seems to be a sense of entitlement: I own this content, and by damn you are all going to pay me if you so much as glance at it, whether you liked my content or not!!

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Why? by mrchaotica · 2005-11-13 11:40 · Score: 1

Not all free downloading of music is wrong, regardless of what RIAA says.
And some of us would say that not any free downloading of music is wrong.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Why? by drsquare · 2005-11-13 13:49 · Score: 1

Lighten the penalties, and maybe people will buy from you!

No, lighten the penalties and MORE people will turn to piracy. Increase the penalties (and the chances of being caught), and more people will turn to legal means.

I have a right to go and download a copy of a song I already own, as backup copies for personal use are fine.

Of course, bittorrent is full of people downloading songs they've already bought, or backup copies, or free songs. It's not like 99.99% of it is piracy.

Anyway, these penalties wouldn't apply to people who aren't violating copyright, so what are you posting for?
Re:Why? by drsquare · 2005-11-13 13:53 · Score: 1

No, they think they're entitled to NOT have people pirating their works. They think you can either buy it legally, or do without. I think they're entirely reasonable in expecting that, don't you agree?

Slashdot is always saying that p2p systems are full of people legally sharing files which the artists have allowed them to share, so these stiffer penalties won't apply to them.

The only reason this article would be an issue to Slashdot was if Slashdotters were pirating, so what's the problem?

During the Napster era, Slashdotters were saying that they should go after the pirates and not Napster, as a lot of people were sharing legal files on Napster. Now they're going after the pirates, and Slashdot is still complaining. This is called 'moving the goalposts'.
Re:Why? by Reziac · 2005-11-13 18:58 · Score: 1

Re this sense of entitlement, I'm not talking about wanting to be being fairly paid for what folks use. I'm talking about the type who thinks that because they made it, you should buy it, and if you don't, you must be stealing it, so they ought to be paid anyway. I do actually know some people who think that way; unfortunately, it seems that the **AA mentality is much the same.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Why? by Cally · 2005-11-15 10:41 · Score: 1

I have a right to go and download a copy of a song I already own, as backup copies for personal use are fine.

Er, no, no you don't. Not at all. Really. Perhaps you should have that right, but inasmuch as rights derive from laws (and like politics, are the art of the possible) but you don't have any such right at present.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:Why? by Liam+Slider · 2005-11-15 12:05 · Score: 1

inasmuch as rights derive from laws (and like politics, are the art of the possible) but you don't have any such right at present.
You obviously have no idea what a "right" is. Rights are inherent, we establish Constitutional protections for certain rights, but the fact remains that others exist. We merely choose whether or not to give them away. The government doesn't give you rights through law, it can only protect them, or take them away.
Re:Why? by Cally · 2005-11-16 00:47 · Score: 1

inasmuch as rights derive from laws (and like politics, are the art of the possible) but you don't have any such right at present.

You obviously have no idea what a "right" is.
And you obviously have no idea what the term 'semantics' signifies ;p I refute that definition of 'rights'. For instance, according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to free speech, life and (I dunno exactly what else) a bunch of other Good Stuff. However quite clearly lots of people are losing their lives prematurely, every day. What good is the right to be alive when you've been murdered, died in a civil war or a terrorist attack? Your so-called 'inalienable' rights are bollocks, a legal fiction, a statement of intent or aspiration, perhaps - but nothing more.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:Why? by Liam+Slider · 2005-11-16 15:40 · Score: 1

Just because you have a right, doesn't alone prevent others from violating them. The fact that evil people violate other people's rights....doesn't mean you don't have any.
Re:Why? by Cally · 2005-11-19 21:14 · Score: 1

I profoundly disagree. A right that you are unable to exercise is a tautology.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:Why? by Liam+Slider · 2005-11-20 02:47 · Score: 1

I can come over to your house and steal everything you have, doesn't mean you have no right to your property. I can murder you in your sleep, it doesn't mean you have no right to life. I could cut you open and take your kidneys, doesn't mean you have no right to your body.

A right isn't an assurance that something with never happen. It's merely a thing to which you are entitled due to the fact you are a human being. In the United States, rights are derived out of a view that they are simply natural, and from the people themselves being sovereign. We limit and define the government, rather than the government limiting and defining us. We limit our own sovereignty....but keep certain rights and privilages to ourselves.

If someone kills you, that doesn't mean you didn't deserve to live. That's all a right to life is. Have a nice day.
Re:Why? by Cally · 2005-11-22 15:42 · Score: 1

I can come over to your house and steal everything you have, doesn't mean you have no right to your property.
No, because there are laws (and social institutions such as the police) to enforce that right. That's what makes it a right.
I think we're arguing definitions, TBH.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:Why? by Liam+Slider · 2005-11-23 02:10 · Score: 1

So if you lived all alone on an island, no other human being at all on that island, which nobody new about and nobody was coming to...then you would have no rights? No, of course not. You have rights as defined and enforced by yourself, just as you do anywhere else. Only difference is, in the company of other people, you generally find ways to restrict your rights by agreement, or others violate them by force.

And if you think that the police exist to enforce your rights, you are an idiot. The only one who can enforce your rights is you. If anyone else comes in on your side it's out of protection and enforcement of their own rights, not out of concern for yours.
Re:Why? by Cally · 2005-11-24 08:21 · Score: 1

So if you lived all alone on an island, no other human being at all on that island, which nobody new about and nobody was coming to...then you would have no rights? No, of course not. You have rights as defined and enforced by yourself, just as you do anywhere else. Only difference is, in the company of other people, you generally find ways to restrict your rights by agreement, or others violate them by force.

Heh, great thought experiment. Actually (IMO) it rather proves my point. Where I live I have the right to vote in various elections. Were I on the desert island, although the 'inalienable' part of that right still exists (in that the laws in my country haven't changed, or we don't have a military dictatorship etc) - *if* I was back in my country. On the island, I have no right to vote in any meaningful sense. (Of course I could enact an election myself, which I'd win by a landslide.)
And if you think that the police exist to enforce your rights, you are an idiot.
A now sadly-deceased old Irish man I used to know had a saying: "I may be an idiot, but I'm not stupid!". I'm definitely an idiot, but I don't think the police exist purely to enforce my rights, or to enable me to exercise them, although they do help me to do so.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:Why? by Liam+Slider · 2005-11-24 15:33 · Score: 1

Heh, great thought experiment. Actually (IMO) it rather proves my point. Where I live I have the right to vote in various elections. Were I on the desert island, although the 'inalienable' part of that right still exists (in that the laws in my country haven't changed, or we don't have a military dictatorship etc) - *if* I was back in my country. On the island, I have no right to vote in any meaningful sense. (Of course I could enact an election myself, which I'd win by a landslide.)
Ah, but what must look at what voting is in a society. It is the expression of your individual sovereignty...amongst a society of other sovereigns. Because the people are all equally sovereign, they all have an equal say in the government of that society. In a society of one....such as the imaginary island mentioned before, the expression of sovereignty comes down to the simple will of a single individual. It's the same right, expressed differently under different circumstances. All men are Kings, all women are Queens, in a peaceful society of kings and queens...they vote.
I'm definitely an idiot, but I don't think the police exist purely to enforce my rights, or to enable me to exercise them, although they do help me to do so.

I've never met a police officer willing to enforce my right to speak freely without government censor or punishment...that's my job to do. I've never known the police to enforce the right to publish what I wish without government censor or punishment. I've known the police to specifically refuse to protect a person from another who has threatened bodily harm, even their lives...they said basically to call them when someone's dead. And I've heard of them refusing to even enforce the law in certain communities...saying they were too dangerous to do so. Doesn't sound like enforcing the right to live to me. The police certainly don't enforce my right to property...I can call them after something's been stolen, but they won't protect it in the first place nor ensure it's return or that they'll even investigate seriously. They may even simply shug their shoulders and go away, particularly if I'm not someone important in any way. Police have been known to beat people, plant evidence of crimes, conduct searches without warrant, and do other nasty things...none of which have anything to do with protecting people's rights. Police are there to keep order, sometimes they almost do a halfway decent job.

I protect my rights to my property, by force. I protect my right to life, by force. I protect my right to speak freely, by force. I protect my right to publish freely, by force. I protect all my rights, by force. Just as I expect other truely free people to do.

Hmm.. no one? by evilneko · 2005-11-13 05:26 · Score: 1

Gee, I guess we know someone is in **A's pockets. Still, most (all) of these lawsuits are settled out of court. The victims will get screwed harder, but will most likely not be going to jail.

--
Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll

Re:Hmm.. no one? by CrazyDuke · 2005-11-13 06:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's a racket. One way to stop all these impertinent consumers from getting all uppity and actually challenging it in court is to make it so the penalties are much worse. Egads, these peons actually think they are still citizens and actually have something called rights! How dare they!

That way, you'll be glad to give that $20,000 settlement and swear fealty to your corporate masters rather than risk going to prison, even if you are innocent.

God help America...

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

Is it time yet? by suso · 2005-11-13 05:26 · Score: 3, Funny

To jump ship? Someone tell me when.

Re:Is it time yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:37 · Score: 0

About 5 years ago.
Re:Is it time yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:01 · Score: 0

What's the best way for a US Citizen to move to, and obtain work in British Columbia?

Do they even want us there?
Re:Is it time yet? by atokata · 2005-11-13 06:19 · Score: 1

You're a touch late. The optimal time to jump ship was 9-10-2001. After all, IP theft finances terrorism, just like smoking pot, and not shopping at Wal-Mart.
Re:Is it time yet? by CrazyDuke · 2005-11-13 06:22 · Score: 1

From what I read of the Canadian Government's immigration website, you are basically scored on your worth as a speciallized worker. So basically you need either a lot of work experience, have a graduate degree, or already have a job promised to you if you move there. Knowing French is a plus, but not required.

Here is a link to a test to give you an idea at what you are looking at.

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:26 · Score: 0

Who will be the first to go to jail for running a web for FTP server? Or downloading from usenet?

Circus act by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:27 · Score: 0

Bait, vote, repeat. What ever changes? Absolutely nothing.

Just another stupid issue-of-the-day that will go away. It's best to live one's life and ignore this crap.

Guessing by josephdrivein · 2005-11-13 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny

who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

I hope it will be US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's daughter. THAT would be real fun.

Re:Guessing by evil+agent · 2005-11-13 05:47 · Score: 1

who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?
I hope it will be US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's daughter. THAT would be real fun.
Nah, more likely it'll be an 80 year old grandmother...

--
End transmission.
Re:Guessing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:58 · Score: 0

We go to jail, they don't.
Re:Guessing by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:20 · Score: 0

I hope it will be US Attorney Generalissimo Alberto Gonzales's daughter. THAT would be real fun.
There, I've corrected that for you.
Re:Guessing by William-Ely · 2005-11-13 07:00 · Score: 2, Funny

It won't be me! I use PeerGuardian.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Guessing by giorgiofr · 2005-11-13 07:08 · Score: 0

Excuse me. That makes her less guilty then me or you in WHAT way exactly? Funny how advocating the same treatment for everyone is conveniently forgot when it suits your own interests... Reminds me of the way concentation camps were bad bad bad but gulags were a-OK!

--
Global warming is a cube.
Re:Guessing by Arslan+ibn+Da'ud · 2005-11-13 07:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

I hope it will be US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's daughter. THAT would be real fun.

I want to know why this HASN'T happened yet! In Sept 2003 when the RIAA started sueing people, they were immediately lambasted by the press for the people they sued...grandmonthers running Macs and 12-year-olds in the projects.

Since then, despite the thousands of people they've sued, they haven't sued someone able to make a major stink by who they are. I always assumed the RIAA were carefully screening out VIPs from their suit list.

But then in Dec 2004 Verizon won a court ruling against the RIAA that essentially said that the RIAA could not know whom they were suing...they had to make 'John Doe' lawsuits, only after sueing could they find out the identities of their victims.

I assumed that after that that they could not filter 'unsuable' people off their list. Yet no one prominent has gotten sued and told the press. So what happened? Or will it happen RSN?

--
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
Re:Guessing by failure-man · 2005-11-13 08:56 · Score: 1

Easy. Most of the population isn't famous, rich, or powerful. Odds are against hitting one. I assume they will eventually though, and promptly drop the suit with as little fanfare as possible.
Re:Guessing by Boronx · 2005-11-13 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. Number of famous people is small compaired to general population.

and

2. If you're famous, maybe you settle out of court. RIAA will be happy to settle, cause they can just take that money and use it to make an example of someone else who won't.

--
Play Command HQ online
Re:Guessing by bbc · 2005-11-13 11:28 · Score: 1

"--who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?"

"I hope it will be US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's daughter. THAT would be real fun."

Since Lady Justice is supposed to blind (or at least sufficiently blindfolded) and since almost everybody uses P2P (think: e-mail), that SHOULD be likely.

Of course, that text she quoted from daddy's e-mail message is probably fair use, but fair use is a legal defense; arrest her first, and let the judge sort it out.
Re:Guessing by TheoMurpse · 2005-11-13 21:26 · Score: 1

Do you think those who could make a stink use P2P? No, they probably just get Jenkins to buy the CD for them (even if it is off iTunes). To them, downloading off P2P is more of a hassle than having it purchased for them.
Re:Guessing by hotdiggitydawg · 2005-11-14 01:27 · Score: 1

who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

Personally, my money's on Britanny Chan...

Good bye civil liberties! by Spy+der+Mann · 2005-11-13 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Welcome, darknets!

Re:Good bye civil liberties! by drsquare · 2005-11-13 13:46 · Score: 1

Piracy was never a civil liberty, never will be. Get off your high horses: piracy is illegal and wrong.

Maybe if you worked out how to obey the law, they wouldn't need to increase the severity of the punishment.
Re:Good bye civil liberties! by Baricom · 2005-11-13 16:53 · Score: 1

Get off your high horses: piracy is illegal and wrong.

True, but the trick is fairly defining "piracy." I, for one, think that the current normal behavior among copyright owners is unacceptable. If they are getting the benefit of a monopoly, they need to hold up their end of the bargain and ensure the works become freely available when copyright expires. If the public doesn't benefit from contributions to the public domain after a reasonable time, then it is the content providers who are pirates.

Copyslaughter by truthsolo · 2005-11-13 05:30 · Score: 5, Funny

You are under arrest for the copyslaughter of [insert artist name/software title here].

--
MTSBWY

Re:Copyslaughter by gartogg · 2005-11-13 07:59 · Score: 1

It's funny, because you can't spell slaughter without laughter.

--
I'm a concientious .sig objector.
Re:Copyslaughter by cgenman · 2005-11-13 09:15 · Score: 1

You are under arrest for the copyslaughter of [insert artist name/software title here].

They're arresting producers now?

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Copyslaughter by Archades · 2005-11-13 22:34 · Score: 0

don't laugh, because of downloading all the great artists are now starving on the streets, selling off their copious amount's of material objects just to feed themselves....

Stupid RIAA by Aundy · 2005-11-13 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think copywrite laws are terrible, the only thing the do is punish teenagers who use the computer to get free songs. The artists who write them already have more money than they know what to do with.

--
Visit Tevlog

Re:Stupid RIAA by Entropius · 2005-11-13 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Correction: the corporate masters of the artists who write them, and some of the pretty faces and breast implants that jiggle while they sing them, already have more money than they know what to do with.

The actual artists aren't so lucky.
Re:Stupid RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:43 · Score: 0

It's copyright, not copywrite, thanks for playing...
Re:Stupid RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:10 · Score: 0

Copyright does a whole lot more than "punish teenagers". Copyright is a good thing. There would be a lot fewer creative things for us to enjoy if copyright law didn't exist -- and don't pretend that there would be just as much good free stuff. That's bullshit.

These poor teenagers to whom you refer are doing something wrong. Just because you don't like copyright doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Just because music isn't a physical product doesn't mean it's somehow OK to make copies instead of buying it.

The problem is that the RIAA takes things way too far. I stopped purchasing new CDs years ago. I buy used now so the RIAA doesn't get my money. But I don't pretend that downloading music is OK, even if the purveyors are pure evil.
Re:Stupid RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:34 · Score: 0

But I don't pretend that downloading music is OK, even if the purveyors are pure evil.

If the majority want to be able to download music, the law should change. The outcome might be bad from our point of view, but society should go in the direction it wants to, for better or worse.
Re:Stupid RIAA by Oligonicella · 2005-11-13 06:37 · Score: 1

Yes. Of course. Just like if the majority wanted inter-racial marriage illegal.
Re:Stupid RIAA by rdoger6424 · 2005-11-13 07:11 · Score: 1

P2P is rough on the little guy. Luckily, the little guys are too below the radar to register on Bittorrent. So, just download that 50 cent album and I won't care. I have qualms about pirating small stuff like animusic.

--
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Re:Stupid RIAA by Travelsonic · 2005-11-13 07:33 · Score: 1

But I don't pretend that downloading music is OK

And why isn't it ok? If you have permission to share the music in question, or the music is in public domain/creative commons licensing? It's still downloading musc, so you were saying?

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Re:Stupid RIAA by Travelsonic · 2005-11-13 08:37 · Score: 1

Really? Tell me then, where does it say anything *other* than downloading/sharing songs that you don't have permission to share (*as opposed to those you do) as being ilelgal?

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Re:Stupid RIAA by mpe · 2005-11-14 05:09 · Score: 1

Copyright does a whole lot more than "punish teenagers". Copyright is a good thing. There would be a lot fewer creative things for us to enjoy if copyright law didn't exist -- and don't pretend that there would be just as much good free stuff.

Actually we have little way of knowing what effect reducing, even abolishing, copyright would do. It isn't simply a case that the only alternative to the status quo is no copyright. Certainly it does appear to be the case that current copyright laws are actually harmful to the creativity they are ment to produce.
Other alternatives include drastically shorter copyright terms, having to pay a fee to keep something in copyright, starting "the clock" at first publication, allowing "derived works", legally separating content and media...

We can relax now by bucephalis · 2005-11-13 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

It seems all the important crimes have been stamped out.

What now by FidelCatsro · 2005-11-13 05:31 · Score: 4, Funny

Embezzlement of countless billions : 5 years
Stealing a slice of Pizza : life
Murder : life or death penalty
Copyright infringement : Life , then the death penalty , then your family are sold into slavery

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though

Re:What now by coolcold · 2005-11-13 05:37 · Score: 1

So when I am caught copyright infringement, it is better off killing all the *AA and lawyer than being sue? Bear in mind I only get life/death penalty for murder

--
I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
Re:What now by xstonedogx · 2005-11-13 05:43 · Score: 1

I suspect this is just a ploy by the *AA to have the police go after children and grandmothers so they don't get the bad PR when they do it themselves.

Next will be charging the parents when this "crime" is committed by their children. That way they can go after children without going after the children.
Re:What now by Linker3000 · 2005-11-13 05:48 · Score: 1

It's getting too hot around here now - I'm going to shift to other 'hobbies' like child molestation or drunk driving as the penalties are lower.

--
AT&ROFLMAO
Re:What now by RAMMS+EIN · 2005-11-13 06:04 · Score: 1

``So when I am caught copyright infringement, it is better off killing all the *AA and lawyer than being sue? Bear in mind I only get life/death penalty for murder''

and you have the right to bear arms, so go ahead!

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:What now by future+assassin · 2005-11-13 06:18 · Score: 1

Embezzlement of countless billions : 5 years Stealing a slice of Pizza : life Murder : life or death penalty Copyright infringement : Life , then the death penalty , then your family are sold into slavery
In Canada
Embezzlement of countless billions : Politicians get re-elected to embezzle some more
Stealing a slice of Pizza : Couldnt make it to the pizza joint as I was begged by bums for all my cash on the way there in downtown Van.
Murder : 3 years and get out after 6 months for good behavior.
Copyright infringement : ????????????

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Re:What now by Shano · 2005-11-13 06:35 · Score: 1

Murder : 3 years and get out after 6 months for good behavior.

Copyright infringement : ????????????

Looking at the judge in a funny way: profit?
Re:What now by jamstar7 · 2005-11-13 07:12 · Score: 1

Embezzlement of countless billions : 5 years
Stealing a slice of Pizza : life
Murder : life or death penalty
Copyright infringement : Life , then the death penalty , then your family are sold into slavery

Calling a politician an idiot: Life imprisonment in an offshore 'facility' for revealing state secrets.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:What now by jez9999 · 2005-11-13 09:51 · Score: 1

You forgot being hung, drawn and quartered.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:What now by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 10:38 · Score: 0

>Embezzlement of countless billions : 5 years

Fortunately they're working on that right now. 5 years seems awfully harsh don't you agree?
Re:What now by FidelCatsro · 2005-11-13 11:38 · Score: 1

Actually I had it originally but then I thought this was only copyright infringement not breaking an NDA

--
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Re:What now by OmgTEHMATRICKS · 2005-11-13 12:28 · Score: 1

Information: Priceless.
Re:What now by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 16:35 · Score: 0

Not sure the police would want to get involved. They have always been one of the biggest group of downloaders and acquirers of dodgy material, porn, etc., out there! :)
Re:What now by KiloByte · 2005-11-13 20:08 · Score: 1

If you embezzle those billions and are too damn greedy to spare some for the lawyers, you deserve to rot those 5 years in prison.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

I'm against piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:31 · Score: 0

Please don't sink any ships...

And in tomorrow's news... by ThatGeek · 2005-11-13 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

And in tomorrow's news...

President Bush is pleased to introduce the Protect Democracy Act which would ensure the death penalty and forfeiture of all assets for singing a song written in the past 500 years without written permission from the copyright holder.

The nation's test case is already in the pipeline, with an entire boy scout troop under indictment for singing The Star Spangled Banner before playing a game of wiffle ball.

It is hoped that these new regulations make the world safe, in our continuing war on terror.

--
What are you eating? isItVeg?.

Re:And in tomorrow's news... by Entropius · 2005-11-13 05:34 · Score: 1

I'm safe, at least partially!

http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/josquin.html
Re:And in tomorrow's news... by noiseusse · 2005-11-13 07:05 · Score: 1

You are being too soft on those despicable infringalators. We won't be safe until we jail anyone that says, writes, sings or otherwise does something that's been said, written, sang or done before.
Re:And in tomorrow's news... by ZachPruckowski · 2005-11-13 08:13 · Score: 1

But what about American Idol??? We couldn't live without crappy reality TV!!!
Re:And in tomorrow's news... by bobdotorg · 2005-11-13 09:44 · Score: 1

And in tomorrow's news...

President Bush is pleased to introduce the Protect Democracy Act which would ensure the death penalty and forfeiture of all assets for singing a song written in the past 500 years without written permission from the copyright holder.

Hey - if this can get them to stop singing 'God Bless America' at Cubs games, then I'm all for it.

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Re:And in tomorrow's news... by good-n-nappy · 2005-11-13 18:08 · Score: 1

I'm no Bush fan but it is the democrats who are usually in the pocket of the ??AA. Not that it matters really since the US two party system is a joke anyway.

--
Never underestimate the power of fiber.
Re:And in tomorrow's news... by strikethree · 2005-11-14 08:19 · Score: 1

ok. This is scaring me now. I read your comment and started to scroll down to the next comment while assuming that you got a +5 funny... but I thought that your comment was somewhat insightful (inciteful?) so I scrolled back up and checked the moderation... +5 insightful. Downright fucking scary.

strike

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by anandpur · 2005-11-13 05:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

The spyware that Sony installs on the computers of music fans does not even seem to be correct in terms of copyright law.
It turns out that the rootkit contains pieces of code that are identical to LAME, an open source mp3-encoder, and thereby breach the license

http://dewinter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=art icle&sid=215.

Sony rootkit violating GPL?, Seems to include parts of LAME?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?show topic=38700

Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:08 · Score: 0

It is alleged that the player (not the rootkit) Sony installs uses LAME code that is LGPLed; this would be in breach of the license *if* they don't supply the licence, the source and the makefile. Wouldn't it be neat if a Sony executive were jailed for this!
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:10 · Score: 0

Oh noes!!! Of the 5 strings that are listed in that article, 3 can instantly be thrown out for being too generic. I mean, crying foul because they found "0.90", "3.95", and "3.95 " is being a bit paranoid. The others are a URL and "LAME3.95", which may or may not be anything. As for the largetbl array from the libmp3lame module, I'll let someone more experienced comment on how important that is.
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by zerocool^ · 2005-11-13 06:33 · Score: 1

Jesus Christ, let's put this one to rest ONCE AND FOR ALL so that we all stop seeing this in every thread slashdot has, wheher it's related to Sony or not!!

Sony is evil. Their rootkit is evil. It's probably illegal, it's definately immoral.

BUT it's ENTIRE PURPOSE is to prohibit you from ripping and encoding and sharing the music contained therein. THAT'S WHAT IT'S BUILT FOR. In furtherance of this goal, it looks for common programs that are used to rip and encode CDs so that it can prevent you from using them.

IT HAS "LAME" in the code because it's looking for LAME on your computer in order to PREVENT YOU FROM USING IT. The static strings are probably compiled into the program in order that the program can compare the strings against other programs on your computer to determine if said programs are, in fact, ripping/encoding software that use LAME!

Sony would have nothing to gain by putting any part of an MP3 ENCODER (!!!) on a CD which they're trying to prevent you from encoding, it just doesn't make sense. Please STOP SEEING CONSPIRACIES around every corner, and think for yourselves. cat /dev/ram | strings | grep -i llama doesn't mean that there are llamas in your memory, does it?

Thank you, now let's NEVER see this stupid idea again!

~Will

--
sig?
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:55 · Score: 0, Insightful

Do you read your posts? You've explained 'why', the grandparent explained 'that'. What are you saying, Sony has the right to disregard the GPL licensing to enforce copyright? Who gives a rat fuck if they need code from LAME to accomplish this? If in doing so they break the GPL, they break copyright and are as culpable and hypocritical as the grandparent maintains. They do IN FACT GAIN (caps for your benefit) by including GPL code, by your own words Sony can't detect the software without. Do you have any clue what you're WRITING ABOUT?
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by BushCheney08 · 2005-11-13 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ummm, so it's a GPL violation to even list the name of a GPL'd program? That's all has been shown to be at this point -- a string of letters. Not code, but a fucking name. Do you have any clue what you're writing about?

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by jZnat · 2005-11-13 07:46 · Score: 1

Or maybe the rootkit uses LAME to encode CDs you rip afterwards? It's probable that they just add DRM to it and sell it as "ATRAC2" or something...

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by jelle · 2005-11-13 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I call your bull. Please explain why it also includes the "largetbl" table from lame?

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by KDR_11k · 2005-11-13 08:12 · Score: 1

They did copy parts of the LAME code for that detection, though. They'd have to claim "Fair Use" for that. Is "using parts to impair the functionality of a competing product" fair use?

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by zerocool^ · 2005-11-13 14:38 · Score: 1

My reasoning is: If it contains any string from LAME it is used for comparason in order to find lame on your system. I assume, based on logic, that there is no reason an MP3 encoder, or any part thereof, would be included on a CD designed not to be ripped and/or encoded.

Your reasoning is: There must be a conspiracy. Why is X, Y, or Z there?

I've already answered your question, but you continue to try to find evidence to support your conspiracy theory. Round and round we go.

--
sig?
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by jelle · 2005-11-13 15:03 · Score: 1

"but you continue to try to"...

This is my second reply to you. What are you talking about.

"Your reasoning is: There must be a conspiracy."

I have never said that. Who are you confusing me with?

My reasoning is: A quick inspection shows the rootkit has a symbol from lame with a nontrivial name, hence it quite likely has lame in it.

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by zerocool^ · 2005-11-13 16:15 · Score: 1

Does an omlette have a chicken inside of it? Well, it's got eggs; therefore it must have a chicken in it.

Look, I'm not defending sony's rootkit. All I'm saying is that finding a satic compiled string in the binary just proves that there's a static string in the binary. If it has a symbol from lame in the binary, likely that symbol is there to compare against programs that you may run on your computer to make sure you're not firing up an MP3 ripper/encoder. Again, there's no logical reason for lame-the-encoding-program to be in the rootkit. Lame is the kind of thing sony is trying to prevent you from running.

~Will

--
sig?
Re:Spyware Sony seems to breach copyright by jelle · 2005-11-15 18:17 · Score: 1

Ok, well from here:

"Go and check it yourself, and compare to lame sources. The data from tables.c is included in the executable in identical form (several large tables), also all the version strings are included, which the DRM system doesn't check."

It walks like a chicken.

--
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.

Priorities by WarwickRyan · 2005-11-13 05:36 · Score: 1

Surely they should be getting their priorities right - they should be increasing the penalties for Computer Crimes, so that the terrorists can't go around installing rootkits.......................

Publish something and waive copyright by cryfreedomlove · 2005-11-13 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Attention all folks who are against copyright protection! There is something I would like you to do.

Please write a book that will become wildly popular. Then publish that book and waive all copyright protections. It might take a year to write that book with no income coming in but that would be a small price to pay to make your point.

You see friends, we already live in a world where copyright is a matter of choice. You don't have to participate in the universe of copyright protection. As a consumer you don't have to consume copyrighted works. As a publisher you are free today to publish something and waive copyright protection.

Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:53 · Score: 0

That's like saying massive air pollution is acceptable because you can always choose not to breathe. (No, I'm not exaggerating. Try not to consume copyrighted works for a week and you'll see what I mean.)
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by temcat · 2005-11-13 06:03 · Score: 1

Please write a book that will become wildly popular.

Could you please describe hiw to do this in more detail?
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Maxo-Texas · 2005-11-13 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're right.

I think we SHOULD still be paying john lennon and many other dead artists royalties despite the fact that when they recorded the songs the copyright limits were much shorter. Because I agree that all artists need to know that they will be compensated 20 or more years -after they are dead- in order to encourage them to write a song, paint a movie, or write a book.

---
Heard the latest? they are now going after royalties on resales of USED books.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by cryfreedomlove · 2005-11-13 06:25 · Score: 1

That's my point. Creating popular art is hard. The artist deserves to decide how to be compensated.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Oligonicella · 2005-11-13 06:51 · Score: 1

No, it's not like saying that at all, and yes, you are exagerating. Simply buy nothing for said week.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Vegeta99 · 2005-11-13 07:02 · Score: 1

Something tells me the artist doesnt have much say in that, but that giant looming tower of lawyers does.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:13 · Score: 0

Indeed - heck, if I was guaranteed an income for life from a single act of creation, I'd just sit around drinking Martini's around my pool with all my ho's for the rest of my life. Fuck doing any more work, man!
Heard the latest? they are now going after royalties on resales of USED books.
Seriously? Do you have a link for this?
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Floody · 2005-11-13 07:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's my point. Creating popular art is hard. The artist deserves to decide how to be compensated.

No. It is not hard. At least not in the way you imply. Artists (true artists, not product placement fabrications) create because they are driven to by whatever force it is that gives most of us some small measure of creativity and a select few an over-abundance. I'm nothing saying that its effortless, but they certainly don't view it as work . The artist is compelled to create, it is his or her raison d'être, and they will do so whether they are wealthy beyond measure or indigent and incarcerated. The original idea behind copyright was that society could both show appreciation and help enable those who are so fortunate (or mis-fortunate, depending on your perspective) by protecting them from being taken advantage of. In doing so, a society recognizes that there is intrinsic value in art which a mere pricetag can never match; and that is what fosters creativity.

The modern thought process which so easily equates creation with a monetary value is a nightmarish twisted version of this intention, and does far more to damage the arts than any lack-of-copyright ever could. It is the ultimate devaluation.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:14 · Score: 0

You miss the point of copyright. It was to protect publishers from other publishers, in other words from others selling your works. Michael Moore for example holds to those principles and has gone on public record as endorsing P2P sharing of his movies. He wants his isdeas to be shared and heard. Last I saw he wasn't applying for public housing, so in both principle and practically, you're wrong.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by _Sprocket_ · 2005-11-13 07:43 · Score: 1

You don't suppose someone could be FOR copyright but AGAINST draconian laws used to enforce copyright or the constant re-definition of copyright to support the interests of a relative few and against the interests of the public for which copyright was supposed to serve, do you? I know that makes things appear a little more complex. And it's kind of hard to make a pithy little post out of complex issues. But do me a favor and think about it a bit. Or... heck... actually READ about the issues involved. That is, beyond the press releases coming from those relative few.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by MunchMunch · 2005-11-13 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

" Attention all folks who are against copyright protection!"
Just so you know, there are maybe 3 people whose attention you've just reached. The rest of us believe in limited and reasonable copyright protection, for a finite, purely innovation-driving amount of time--which, if you notice, is just what the Constitution calls for. Our current system of copyright is nowhere near this.
Honestly, very very few of us would dream of pronouncing that we are 'against copyright.' While it might be easy to respond to some sort of anarchist straw man, please take a little more time and thought to respond to the much more complicated reality. As it is, you're wasting everyone's time.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by KDR_11k · 2005-11-13 08:20 · Score: 1

Artists also recognize that by making money from their art they can both dedicate more time to it and keep their family fed or have some cash to get drunk or what they choose to do today.

And an artist does consider making art "work" because it's hard. That doesn't mean it's not fun, work can be quite fun but you work on art.

Of course, if you consider only art that was done for art's sake as real art then the output falls but is there really a difference between an artwork that was made for money and one that was done for love, provided the artist put the same amount of effort into it?

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by raoul666 · 2005-11-13 08:46 · Score: 1

he rest of us believe in limited and reasonable copyright protection, for a finite, purely innovation-driving amount of time

I may be new here, but based on the number of comments and the number of mod points they receive, I think there are a lot of people here who honestly believe there should be no patents or copyrights at all.

--
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by etymxris · 2005-11-13 09:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well I'm one of those "strawmen" I guess, but I still see no weight in the original poster's argument. Why should I have to create popular works to have a valid position against copyright? Part of the reason I don't spend countless hours creating a tomb of words is because I don't believe in copyright protection. Even if I did create something of worth, I could not sleep well at night if I made my living off of royalties.

The original poster is trying to twist this debate around into a false dichotomy between forcing authors to collect royalties against their will, and allowing them to do so if they choose. The third and correct choice is to eliminate copyright.

Why would I be against copyright (and patents)? There are many reasons, I'll name a few. It goes against the spirit of capitalism, allowing corporations to put barriers around competition. It inflates the value of items beyond what they need be. It's unnecessary. If copyright ceased to exist society would still function just fine. The artists are already getting screwed. Most artists chase dreams of becoming rich, but very few even make enough to live off of. For the vast majority of artists, then, nothing would change. As someone else pointed out in this thread, there is a surfeit of works being created.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Kjella · 2005-11-13 12:36 · Score: 1

Because I agree that all artists need to know that they will be compensated 20 or more years -after they are dead- in order to encourage them to write a song, paint a movie, or write a book.

Now I'm not saying this is a smart way of doing it but it does encourage them. Why? Because whoever is purchasing the rights will be taking that into account when they calculate the NPV of the right. If I can sell the rights to my book for $105,000 instead of $100,000$ because some IP company think they'll recover $5,000 between 2100 and 2150, well that's $5,000 more that'll encourage me to "promote the science and arts". Now letting the work enter the public domain could "promote the science and arts" more, but it is not as if one contributes and the other does not.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Maxo-Texas · 2005-11-13 16:42 · Score: 1

No but pretty sure it was talked about it here on slashdot in the past 4 weeks.

It's a combination of writers and publishers and it mentioned Amazon (because amazon had created such an efficient used market that it was affecting new sales). You might find it by searching along those lines.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by Maxo-Texas · 2005-11-13 16:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Three points...
1) You have a valid point.

2) It didn't apply to any artist before today. Already dead artists got nothing extra when the walt disney protection act was passed and extended copyright. And most if not all living artists got nothing extra- it was just gravy for the corporations.

3) If we extend the copyright forward over all time, the amount of money would be infinite, so clearly there is some copyright time limit for which the original artists would not be compensated.

And finally,as others have said, there are millions of artists producing materials- does there appear to be much correlation between extending the copyright law an extra 50 years and an increase in materials (and as some have said, if you are really set for life on the basis of one book or song, you are likely to produce less new work because you are not hungry any more).

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by albanac · 2005-11-14 01:09 · Score: 1

I'm nothing saying that its effortless, but they certainly don't view it as work .

I disagree, actually. IME the main difference between the artists I know, visual, computer, musical and literary who make a living off their work, have audiences, readerships, fans; who are, in short, professionals in their craft, and the fan-fiction net-weenies is that they *do* see what they do as work. They *also* tend to see it as craft, art, vocation and lifestyle, but in there is the "I work at this really hard, both improving my technique and ensuring that no work leaves my hands which is not the best I can create".

Look at interviews with people like Isaac Asimov or Ian M. Banks, or at JMS's The Complete Book of Scriptwriting, or look at what Joss Whedon or Peter Jackson say when they speak about their work. Take a look at the comments of people like Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio when they're speaking to or writing for up-coming professionals within their own art (screenwriting). Creative art is work. The thing is, it's work as well, rather than being just work.

Professional attitude. It's just as valuable to creative artists as it is to surgeons and rocket scientists.

Btw, I snipped the rest of your article because, in the main, I agree with the point you're making: modern Intellectual Property attitudes are a complete perversion of the Enlightenment philosophic concept of govenmentally-guaranteed copyright.
~cHris
Re:Publish something and waive copyright by mpe · 2005-11-14 05:21 · Score: 1

Attention all folks who are against copyright protection! There is something I would like you to do.
Please write a book that will become wildly popular.

How exactly do you do this?

Then publish that book and waive all copyright protections. It might take a year to write that book with no income coming in but that would be a small price to pay to make your point.

Poor people have written books which have become best sellers. One of the biggest problems they can encounter is getting published in the first place. For every JK Rowling there are probably uncounted authors who never get published at all.

need more slave labor by Barbarian · 2005-11-13 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well I guess this is part of the quest for cheap labor. Pretty much everyone that could be locked up for drugs is, so now it's time to fill the prisons will evil p2p downloaders who will get paid $1 an hour answering phones or making license plates.

Re:need more slave labor by dryeo · 2005-11-13 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also has the benefit of making sure those evil pirates can never vote.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Throughout history... by Ckwop · 2005-11-13 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Throughout history, this has always been the way. Can't stop people stealing in droves? Make stealing punishable by death. Can't stop people blasphemy? Mak the crime punishable by death!

It is a natural reaction to make the laws tougher when people start to defy the law in droves but I urge people to ignore that reflex because often it is more instructive to look at root causes. Why do people pirate? Because the CDs are overpriced. Your average individual actually prefers the boxed CD to an MP3 but is not prepared to spend &pound15 on it. If you priced your CDs to reflect this desire then you could reverse the decline in CD sales.

Often, real change does not come from politics but from the sound of a million feet. Politicans still believe that people want the artist to be compensated to the tune of £15 for a crappy manufactured album. The people do not. In the end the people will win; they always do. The question is how much political capital are they willing to spend fighting this change?

The Internet has changed everything. I was working a project for a band a fairly high profile band in the UK who have totally ditched their record label in favour of a web-based approach. I can't blame them! Why get 1% of the CD record sales when I can get 100% and make more money than the labels were are paying?

Another thing, They REFUSED to use DRM. Saying that DRM protects the artist is rubbish. It protects the label's reveune stream, that's all. This band understands the internet. They're saying they want you to copy because it's a bonus to them just to get heard by that one new fan. That one new fan might spend £50 on a ticket to see you at a concert. They may even by the tracks off the site just to support you. It builds loyalty when you trust your fans rather than hold them in contempt.

The future is just getting started and we're about to see the big labels get their wing clipped.

Simon.

Re:Throughout history... by Shelled · 2005-11-13 05:50 · Score: 1

Mod this up! Your band 'gets it'. Those seeking fame and who want their music heard understand P2P can provide them that exposure on their terms, without selling their souls, artistic sensibilities and financial futures to lawyers and accounts maquerading as music people. The main people who benefit from these laws are record companies stockholders and big established artists, most living off their back catalogue. Copyright was established to benefit society at large, not a tiny subset of its members.
Re:Throughout history... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not abusing Slashdot as an advertising medium for the band you worked for is appreciated, but I, for one, would like to know which band this is, so that if they're any good, I can support them (compared to the normal record labels, from which I simply don't buy music at all).

(On a side note, Slashdot made me type in "condom" as the captcha for this post. Hee hee :) )
Re:Throughout history... by hattig · 2005-11-13 06:19 · Score: 1

I can't remember the last time I paid £15 for an album, but people clearly do otherwise the rip-off high street shops like HMV wouldn't be around.

I will pay £10 for an album for example. It has to be an excellent album however - not you average run of the mill album. I'll pay £7 and £5 for those (thank you Fopp). I've been getting into the habit of buying £3 albums recently (again, thank you Fopp, and to a lesser extent Tesco for their dodgy £2.97 CDs) and if I like a couple of songs it is a good purchase.

The CD single market is still overpriced. I see them at £1.99 (chav shit) and £2.99 (better shit). Usually close to the 97p DVDs. If they can sell DVDs for 97p, then someone can sell singles for 99p - £1.49. Hell, I bet a 99p single that wasn't shit would get to number one simple because it was 99p. Especially if it included the music video.

Anyway, I support stiffer penalties for copyright violators if they are mass-market pirating operations. But not for sharing files over P2P or copying a CD for your mate. Just because you think that CDs are overpriced doesn't mean you should pirate them - you simply don't buy them, or you record off of the radio, or watch one of the 103848 music television channels (I quite like the asian/indian music channels on FreeSat).
Re:Throughout history... by Oligonicella · 2005-11-13 06:58 · Score: 1

"But not for sharing files over P2P..."

Please explain how this is not a massive pirating effort. Or do you only feel those doing it to make money should be culpable, not someone putting something P2P in order to screw over the author?
Re:Throughout history... by Scudsucker · 2005-11-13 07:25 · Score: 1

Throughout history, this has always been the way. Can't stop people stealing in droves? Make stealing punishable by death. Can't stop people blasphemy? Mak the crime punishable by death!

My history teacher in high school had a story about this, when some European country made pick pocketing an offence punishable by hanging. But where did they end up catching most of the pickpockets? At public hangings! Curious as to why their deterrent wasn't working, one pick pocket was asked why he was pickpocketing at the trial of a pickpocket. He said it was because that's where the people are at.
Re:Throughout history... by Halvy · 2005-11-13 07:37 · Score: 0

..someone putting something P2P in order to screw over the author?
It's not anyones wishes to 'screw over' the authers.
Quite the opposite, it is a 'compliment' and a proven fact that this so called 'piracy' is not hurting anyone, infact it helps the authors-- because it helps sales.
Regardless it is not ANYONES responsiblity to make sure ANYONE makes any money for the authors, or their hench man at the Riaa's of the world!
--SlashDots Moderation System is NOT broke. It is 'Fixed'.

--
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Re:Throughout history... by Reziac · 2005-11-13 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Exactly so.

Here's an example from my own life: a few years ago I tripped over an artist on the old mp3.com, liked the first download, pulled a few more MP3s, liked those even better, so I downloaded the entire set.

Since then I've been in contact with the artist, and he's even emailed me one of his new MP3s.

Now he's got a CD for sale on cdbaby.com, and even tho it's priced at the high end ($17) and doesn't include most of my favourites, I'm going to buy a copy, because not only do I like his music, he's earned it by his own generosity toward his fans.

And I know exactly what I'm getting. I've already heard every song on the CD, as many times as I wanted. What the labels don't seem to realise (tho they should, given that radio play requests are tracked!) is that familiarity and addiction lead to sales, especially if we can gratify the whim while the urge is at its peak.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Throughout history... by jZnat · 2005-11-13 07:53 · Score: 1

Real pirating involves the theft of a tangible object and reselling them for profit, just like the old pirates on ships and whatnot did back in the day. "Pirating" music involves neither stealing nor selling stolen goods for profit, so it really shouldn't be a crime. The real crime is what companies involved in the RIAA do to their artists. Do you really think that by not allowing an artist to collect $0.04 in royalty by downloading their album is going to fuck them over? Artists under the RIAA make next to nothing anyhow from album sales, and those that do only get royalties because they decided to go to an independent record company to publish their albums; one that actually pays the damn artists and delivers quality content.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:Throughout history... by Crag · 2005-11-13 08:05 · Score: 1

It's not the same band, but Harvey Danger is doing this with their new album. It's a good album, too.
Re:Throughout history... by AlphaLop · 2005-11-13 08:24 · Score: 1

I long for the death of the recording industry.

Sure, Consumers will have to search for really good music and not be able to sit back and accept whatever "Factory Generated" garbage the recording industry spoon feeds them, but I am sure most people will be willing to do that.

I am guessing that we will see the end of the Mega-Band that makes crazy money (not that some are not good bands)and instead see more small bands and independant musicians that are able to make an upper middle class level income by creating new and fresh music which would vastly increase the number of great pieces out there.

The actions of this one band at least give me the hope of such a future.

Or maybe I am wrong. It could be the Scotch talking.

--
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
Re:Throughout history... by ZachPruckowski · 2005-11-13 09:00 · Score: 1

I long for the death of the recording industry.

Would it be legal to put that on a t-shirt?

nstead see more small bands and independant musicians that are able to make an upper middle class level income by creating new and fresh music which would vastly increase the number of great pieces out there.

In my mind, this is the ideal situation. Members of a band can still make enough money to easily get by (upper middle class life is pretty nice) and we get more good works to pick from. And more importantly, we eliminate the multi-billion dollar industry of what, pressing the CDs and advertising for them?
Re:Throughout history... by slavemowgli · 2005-11-13 09:43 · Score: 1

I've got to second that as well. I browsed mp3.com quite a bit in its old days, and there is one band now which I'm really hooked on who first published some mp3s on there before their first album came out. Nowadays, I own all of their CDs, have attended all the concerts I could, and also bought a couple of other paraphernalia, such as posters, t-shirts, and so on.

So I can definitely say from first-hand experience that the internet *is* beneficial for bands as well. What's more, it shows that a band actually cares about its music and its fans, first and foremost; I'm certainly much more willing to spend money on a CD when I know that the artist is actually creating music because out of a passion, rather than just because they want to get rich cheap.

Still, it's easy to see why the big media companies like Sony etc. are concerned - they can make more money if everyone's just buying a few overhyped, overpriced CDs instead of listening to a wide variety of stuff. Bitchney Spears exists for a reason - if a company can sell the same amount of CDs when it offers 20 CDs by 5 "artists" as it would if it offered 10000 CDs by 1000 *real* artists, then they're gonna go for the former choice, as that will mean there's less costs involved and their own winnings will be bigger.

And while there's nothing wrong with trying to make money in principle, it *is* wrong to burn artistic integrity on the altar of capitalism.

The real problem, though, is that it's not clear what individual music lovers can do to remedy all this. Sure, you can say "I'm not gonna buy CDs from the major labels anymore, at least not if it's Bitchney Spears or Jennifer Lopez or similar crap", but that's just giving them ammunition against P2P and other distribution methods used by independent artists - which is what they really care about. I don't think the major labels actually mind you trading Bitchney Spears mp3s *that* much (most people who really actually like that kind of crap will still buy the CDs); what they fear is the proliferation of a means of distribution that would threaten their monopoly. It's just like with Microsoft - M$ has actually profited from copyright infringement quite a bit in the past, and owes much of its current monopoly to the rampant copying of DOS and Windows, and I think it is not their biggest concern these days, either. If they had to choose between a world where copyright infringement happens but where they have a monopoly and a world where there'd be no copyright infringement but no monopoly for them, either, they would choose the former, and the record labels are similar: P2P isn't a threat because it can be used to commit copyright infringement, but because it could completely overthrow the traditional distribution channels - which they control with an iron grip.

If you've ever wondered why the *AA has gone after Napster and Kazaa and Grokster, but not after the more "traditional" methods of copyright infringement - or, for that matter, after the people who sell bootleg copies on the streets -, that's why.

The only real answer to all this is that we need to stand up against the FUD - we need to speak out and make it known that we're not buying Bitchney Spears CDs because we've already got them as mp3s, but because we're seriously not interested in them; and we need to speak out for P2P and make sure the politicians understand that it's not only not a copyright infringement tool, but rather an important part of what our digital future will look like.

Gun makers aren't sued when people are shot, and crowbar manufacturers aren't sued when houses are broken into. Why should P2P software makers be sued when their software is used for illegal purposes?

Of course, considering that the whole ideal of democracy is just a farce in this country today, where it's not the voters' will that counts but rather the money that politicians are bribed with in the name of free speech (how can campaign donations be free speech, anyway? they're not even *speech* of *any* kind, for goodness' sake!), we may not be 100% successful. But I think we can make sure that distribution channels for independent artists will remain somewhat open, at least, and that's better than nothing.

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:Throughout history... by AlphaLop · 2005-11-13 19:11 · Score: 1

Would it be legal to put that on a t-shirt?

Judging from the shirts on T-shirt Hell everything is legal on a t-shirt :)

--
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
Re:Throughout history... by Reziac · 2005-11-13 20:09 · Score: 1

Yep, you about covered it from end to end.

About the only point to add is that gun makers *have* been sued after people were shot, tho I don't recall how that came out. Absurd regardless. But we're in an age of blame the tool and shoot the messenger. :(

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Throughout history... by Grishnakh · 2005-11-14 05:47 · Score: 1

Except the source code for deCSS.

Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as the argument keeps getting framed as a battle of pirates cheating honest American companies out of their God-given profits, we will continue to see a push for harsh penalties. But frankly, this creation of a whole new class of criminals is not a world that I want to live in. So how can we convey to people that the bulk of IP violations don't deserve to be criminalized?

* Tape a TV show for a friend
* Play the new White Stripes CD at your office party
* Forward an interesting email rumor
* Make a cool picture you found on the web into your desktop background image

These are all things that people frequently do without any sense of transgression. Are we as a society going to start sending grandmothers, middle school students and so on to jail? Are we prepared to start using web browsers without "save" functions, email programs without "forward" functions, software that reports on us if we're doing anything possibly illegal? The illegalization of non-DRM'ed mpg, avi, txt and mp3 files? Because that is where we're heading unless we put a stop to it.

Re:Sigh... by Shelled · 2005-11-13 07:00 · Score: 1

Sony is American? A good indicator of how successful their PR campaign has been.
Re:Sigh... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2005-11-13 07:32 · Score: 1

That is not the way things are headed, because we're here and we aren't buying into the bullshit. The world will not go to hell as long as some minority of people continue to strive for and support freedom.

Keep up the good work.
Re:Sigh... by Reziac · 2005-11-13 07:50 · Score: 1

That's a scary point... indeed, putting a "save as" function in software could be (if suitably stretched by DRM/**AA interests) defined as circumvention of copyright. The programmer gets in trouble for implementing it, and the user gets in trouble for using it.

Nasty thought: future PCs where by law, only certain approved software is in permanent storage. Everything else is in volatile storage, to prevent "unauthorised copying". Welcome back to the world of the diskless workstation.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Sigh... by miffo.swe · 2005-11-13 08:20 · Score: 1

Sad thing is you can get punished for copyright infringement by painting a building, a landmark or other things. In theory you can with this law get thrown into jail for having done your class assignment of drawing a picture of the Golden gate bridge.

As a side note, building an economy on fictional values with no coupling to the real world whatsoever will make a very unstable and dangerous market indeed. The house of cards will come tumbling down hard and ferocious.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

A dual edged sword by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2005-11-13 05:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Remember - the law is a neutral weapon - much like a landmind. It can be used against friend and foe alike. The key is to see how a law can help your cause - even if taht was not the original intent.

The proposed law adds a new weapon against someone who violate Linux' EULA - and now makes it a criminal action to even try to violate it.

Think of the law a giant real world RPG - you need to understand teh rules and bend them to your ends.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.

Re:A dual edged sword by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · 2005-11-13 05:55 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter if it can be used against the "enemy," e.g. Sony. Sony and their ilk will never be prosecuted under this kind of law, because they can 1) fight back and 2) provide large "donations" to those in power.

--
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Re:A dual edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:57 · Score: 0

Very well. I propose the following law:

Any person posting on slashdot as "Registered Coward v2" (id # 447531) shall be publically burned at the stake.

Aside from great BBQ, please tell me the upshot?
Re:A dual edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:23 · Score: 1, Informative

The proposed law adds a new weapon against someone who violate Linux' EULA - and now makes it a criminal action to even try to violate it.

Linux's what? Linux doesn't have an EULA. Linux has an optional license, the GPL, that you may use if you want to copy it for others, but it doesn't require a license to use it.
Re:A dual edged sword by aj50 · 2005-11-13 07:30 · Score: 1

you need to understand teh rules and bend them to your ends.
You're suggesting we should all become lawyers?

--
I wish to remain anomalous
Re:A dual edged sword by raoul666 · 2005-11-13 08:49 · Score: 1

I like how you compare the law to a weapon that has maimed and killed a ridiculous amount of children and adults, mostly civilian, all over the world.

--
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
Re:A dual edged sword by MobileC · 2005-11-13 09:17 · Score: 1

Think of the law a giant real world RPG

Rocket Propelled Grenade?

Makes sense to me.

--
Fran
:):):)
1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
Re:A dual edged sword by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2005-11-13 12:22 · Score: 0, Troll

The proposed law adds a new weapon against someone who violate Linux' EULA - and now makes it a criminal action to even try to violate it.

Linux's what? Linux doesn't have an EULA. Linux has an optional license, the GPL, that you may use if you want to copy it for others, but it doesn't require a license to use it.

No matter what you call it, the GPL imposes certain restrictions on the user (and as such is the same as an EULA) - it's just that none o those are of any conswquencew unless you redistribute it.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:A dual edged sword by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 13:15 · Score: 0

No matter what you call it, the GPL imposes certain restrictions on the user

No, it doesn't. Go and read it. Copyright imposes restrictions, the GPL lifts those restrictions in certain circumstances.

End-users don't have to have those restrictions lifted, therefore the GPL is not for end-users, therefore the GPL is not an End-User License Agreement (EULA).

You really shouldn't comment on something that you haven't read.
Re:A dual edged sword by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2005-11-13 13:40 · Score: 1

Very well. I propose the following law:

Any person posting on slashdot as "Registered Coward v2" (id # 447531) shall be publically burned at the stake.

Aside from great BBQ, please tell me the upshot?

Once I get you (or convince those with teh stake and matches you are RC v2)to post as RC v2 you get to be burnt as well.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:A dual edged sword by theLOUDroom · 2005-11-13 15:54 · Score: 1

Remember - the law is a neutral weapon - much like a landmind. It can be used against friend and foe alike. The key is to see how a law can help your cause - even if taht was not the original intent.

This makes the very poor assumpotion that all laws can bent bent in your direction and at least as much so as the other direction.

This is obviously silly. For example, a law that says "black people can't vote" simply fucks over black people.

You could either admit that the law is obviously biased towards the people who have monopolized 100 years of our american cultural history, or you can desperately seach for a hypothetical situation where it might help your side.
The FOSS angle is interesting, but it pales in comparison to throwing someone in jail for copying "Steamboat Willie". The damage to society is much greater than the benefit.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:A dual edged sword by mpe · 2005-11-14 04:43 · Score: 1

Remember - the law is a neutral weapon - much like a landmind.

Landmine victims are hardly a random group

It can be used against friend and foe alike.

Just because a law is neutral on paper dosn't mean it's application will be in any way neutral.

The proposed law adds a new weapon against someone who violate Linux' EULA - and now makes it a criminal action to even try to violate it.

Except that Linux dosn't have an EULA.
Assuming you mean "copyright infringement" how will having criminal penalties help against the likes of SCO. Corporate "people" tend to have even less to fear from criminal law than civil law. When was the last time you saw the police sticking a corporation in the cells?
Re:A dual edged sword by mpe · 2005-11-14 04:46 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter if it can be used against the "enemy," e.g. Sony. Sony and their ilk will never be prosecuted under this kind of law, because they can 1) fight back and 2) provide large "donations" to those in power.

More to the point the fiction of a corporation being a "person" completly breaks down when it comes to criminal law. Whereas a real person can be held in custody awaiting trial and has to appear in court in person. A corporation can carry on "business as usual" even whilst their trial is pending or ongoing.

Back to the basics by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 05:42 · Score: 0

It seems I should drop all things P2P related and start doing regular burglary instead: the risk of getting caught is WAY lower, you get money out of it and the penalties are miniscule compared to what you get for sharing the latest britney spears single...

Loaded Gun by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · 2005-11-13 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

It seems to me that if the government goes further down this path then even possessing works that aren't redistributable is going to be like playing with a loaded gun. One false move and the consequences are severe, even if there wasn't the intent to infringe. Is there a point where the potential consequences will be so severe that consumers might just start avoiding anything that has this risk?

Re:Loaded Gun by Tlosk · 2005-11-13 06:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The thought actually crossed my mind. Each year it becomes more and more troublesome to own a large, legally obtained media collection and use it the way you want. I'm seriously tempted to just chuck it all and be done with it. Already I've stopped buying new stuff for the most part, each DVD or CD is now a potential landmine that can screw up your computer. Makes me so mad.
Re:Loaded Gun by Reziac · 2005-11-13 07:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

I had exactly the same thought as the parent post -- the day is fast arriving when even possessing non-redistributable content is too risky.

I can see this being extended to a form of unreasonable search and seizure: Wandering the net, you find yourself on a filesharing site. You nose around a bit, then leave without downloading anything. A week later, the copyright nazis arrive at your door (armed with a warrant) and inform you that since your IP address was seen on a P2P site, you are automatically a suspect. They arrest you, confiscate your computer, and march the lot off to detention. Now it's up to you to prove your innocence.

But... you've got a few ripped MP3s on your computer, from a CD you legally "own" (well, that you licensed from the record label) which in itself goes to show intent to distribute, as does possession of the tools to rip said MP3s.

Now you're in REAL shit.

Oh, and if you're a resident of a country where the DRM laws prohibit even discussing circumvention (frex, Finland if a current bill passes) you can't complain to anyone about this treatment, not even your lawyer.

Yeah, right now this scenario seems an hallucination induced by a too-snug tinfoil hat. But it's certainly the direction things are headed.

And given all that, out of sheer self-preservation it would behoove folk to buy ONLY those materials produced by bands and studios that specifically ALLOW free redistribution of ripped copies. (Or cloned copies if the artist so allows.)

Note that I specified "ripped copies" and "free redistribution", NOT unauthorized hardcopies (ie. counterfeits intended for sale without payment to the artist), and NOT pay-to-download without paying the artists (PTD with micropayments to the artist should naturally be encouraged). Those activities should indeed be prosecuted, as they would be for any other counterfeit goods.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

soon... by jp_fielding · 2005-11-13 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

it will be cheaper to simply murder all the witnesses.

Re:soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:09 · Score: 0

As long as you don't use google to lookup how to do it. :p

How about more of the same ... by IPFreely · 2005-11-13 05:45 · Score: 1

As it says, it doesn't change the law. It only makes investigating easier and punishment more severe.

As long as they are on a roll, I'd like to see them do the same with corporate and political corruption. Let's see some political investigations actually get off the ground for a change. Let's see the corporations investigated rather than ignored. Make hightened security something for everyone, not just the rich and/or powerfull.

--
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.

Re:How about more of the same ... by Seumas · 2005-11-13 09:07 · Score: 1

As it says, it doesn't change the law. It only makes investigating easier and punishment more severe.

That sounds like changing the law, to me.

PDF Warning! by shpoffo · 2005-11-13 05:46 · Score: 1

Alert! Alert! PDF off the starboard socket! Load the drivers! Batten down your psyches! Warning! WARNING!!

...... couldn't have just printed [PDF] as an added curteousy for those that don't regularly check the status bar before clicking links. I might have put a similar suggestion there for a baby-boomer that is afraid of breaking their computer hardware through mis-use of a software program ... but come on,this is /.

.
-shpoffo

Re:PDF Warning! by Vegeta99 · 2005-11-13 06:51 · Score: 1

Couldn't have just put a stop sign up at the intersection for those of us who just barrel through the intersection when the light is unpowered.
Re:PDF Warning! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:13 · Score: 0

What are you, stupid? If you don't like PDF, remove your PDF reader. If you have removed your PDF reader, why the hell do you care if there's a link to a PDF? If you haven't removed your PDF reader, that's your own goddamn fool problem.
Re:PDF Warning! by shpoffo · 2005-11-23 09:08 · Score: 1

You seem to have missed the subtelcommunication....

More Jail for All by Hellraisr · 2005-11-13 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's just throw everybody in jail for everything. That will solve all of the world's economic and social problems, right?

Re:More Jail for All by anicca · 2005-11-13 07:46 · Score: 1

Someone said "The only power the governments have is to punish" so they are expanding their power. Big surprise there.

--
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower

Stiffer penalties won't change a thing by shadowj · 2005-11-13 05:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stiffer penalties for copyright infringement won't change things much. If the public believes that they're not actually doing anything wrong, and that the chances of being caught are slim, they'll keep on doing it. Consider marijauna, for instance; today's drug laws are truly draconian, but there hasn't been much of a dent in pot smoking, has there?

Now that attempting the crime has such severe consequences, who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

The consequences haven't changed at all -- yet. There's a long way to go from a proposal from the attorney-general to the signing of a law.

--

--Larry

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

Re:Stiffer penalties won't change a thing by werewolf1031 · 2005-11-13 06:29 · Score: 1

The consequences haven't changed at all -- yet. There's a long way to go from a proposal from the attorney-general to the signing of a law.

Ah, but this is a proposal from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, hand-picked to be nominated by G.W.Bush. Gonzales also served with Bush in Texas during his governorship, the two are pretty tight. And with a Republican majority in power right now, I'm willing to bet odds in favor of this getting passed, all Gonzales has to do at this point is ask 'pretty please' and poof! it's law. And we are screwed.

And by "we" I don't mean pirates, I mean even trading/sharing of non-copyrighted or GPL'd works as well. Fair use is pretty much a dead duck at this point, you're not even allowed to make a friggin' backup of something you legally purchased and legally own. The copyright laws themselves aren't changing much if at all here (compared to changes from DMCA etc.), but this will raise penalties through the roof.

Yes, this proposed legislature will get passed. And things will start to suck so badly that the core of our galaxy will go "WTF?!".
Re:Stiffer penalties won't change a thing by Speare · 2005-11-13 12:51 · Score: 1

There's a long way to go from a proposal from the attorney-general to the signing of a law.
Unless it's USAPATRIOT. The AG's photocopy toner hadn't even had time to cool before it was through Congress and smeared onto the grinning President's hands.

--
[ .sig file not found ]

It's Time For Yanks to Move to Canada ;) by cannuck · 2005-11-13 05:51 · Score: 0

As the U.S.A. brings in more and more Draconian laws (1984 .... anyone?) - it may be time for Yanks to relocate to Canada. According to Dr. Richard Florida - the experts...... expert on what makes for a healthy economy - anyone who has " creative brains and as well as balls" is leaving the U.S.A. http://www.creativeclass.org/

By the way, Canadians are Americans too - America is made up of Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela.... and the U.S.A. ;)

They need to make up their mind by NVP_Radical_Dreamer · 2005-11-13 05:51 · Score: 1

If they want to call it stealing then it should have the same penalties as stealing, but it seems that they want harsher penalties since the "theft" is digital. Somehow this just doesnt make sense.

--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

- Winston Churchill

Re:They need to make up their mind by Chubby_C · 2005-11-13 06:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

thats my question, are the penalties going to be more severe if you download an album than if you were to actually go into the store and steal a physical copy of the album?
The financial penalties already are, as they can sue you for downloading a copy, but I'm relatively sure they haven't sued anyone for stealing a cd.

--
- My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
Re:They need to make up their mind by geert · 2005-11-13 07:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Of course, unlike analog theft, digital theft is perfect!
So the punishment should be perfect as well...

Good I say.. by adpe · 2005-11-13 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe Sony will get what it deseves then.

Re:Good I say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:33 · Score: 0

LGPL does NOT require you distribute the sources with the binary versions, hence the "lesser". Please educate yourself before spreading such stupidity.

Hmm.. by Surye · 2005-11-13 05:53 · Score: 1

I could have swore I read somewhere they have authorized the use of Sonic Weapons to combat copyright violations. Damn pirates! (Heh. ;)

Re:Hmm.. by BandwidthHog · 2005-11-13 06:28 · Score: 1

...the use of Sonic Weapons to combat copyright violations

Kind of a “live by the sword, die by the sword” sort of thing?

--

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Soooouuuuu by psavo · 2005-11-13 05:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is there any hard, researched, evidence that harder punishments decrease rate of whatever they're punishing?

--
fucktard is a tenderhearted description

Re:Soooouuuuu by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:49 · Score: 0

There is alot of controversy over it in the field of Criminology, however most of the studys are done on reoffender rates in violent crimes. It would be hard to generalise between a study done of robbery etc and that of downloading songs.

In violent crime (not considering crimes of passion - which cant be controlled), the ability to discourage future crime by raising penalties is only marginally effective. This was found in the use of mandatory sentencing where the sentence increases with each offence. But Once you got to a stage that a harsh penalty was already going to apply there was no 'extra' penalty for taking the next leap, eg. if you already going to be sentenced to the death penalty why would you care how many people you killed after the first one? It is not like they can kill you again, and chances are you will receive a social benefit of becoming a criminal celebrity (as horrible as that is). However these studies are often related to genetic predispositions in crime (Genetic Trait theory), so the results may be slightly cloudy.

These laws are targeted at 'pirates', now right or wrong, most of them believe they are annonymous. Lets say the actual rate of identification and conviction is only 10% (hell drug dealing is probably less), that means that 90% of people get away with it. If you have already commited the first offence prior to the law, why would you be discouraged from commiting further ones now the law is in place, they didnt catch you before, why would they catch you now? And even if they did, the penalty is soo disproportionate with the crime that most downloaders would not even consider themselves on the same level as other more violent crimes with the same penalty (weak argument i admit .. but meh).

Eitherway it would be interesting to see someone caught by this and pulled through the legal system, im sure the Supreme Courts would have a field day (or did Bush and his sponsors not intend it to ever get that high?). Remember the highest power in America is actually the courts, it is their responsibility to keep the laws in check - NOT POLITICIANS (constitution anyone?). Although i wish the politicians could atleast hide their corruption ... seriously are you ment to actually accept that?!?!

Sorry for the lack of quotations, but honestly this is /., and if you are really interested go find a book called "The Oxford Handbook of Criminology" by Marguire, M., Morgan, R., and Reiner, R., ISBN:0-19-826297-3. That is the basics of Criminology and i am almost certain it will answer all your questions, if not it will direct you on a better place to look. If you dont want to borrow/buy the book then see if you can get access to a university library and access their online journal databases(they generally provide them free to students) - but be careful not to breach copyright :P.

Hate to burst your bubble by commodoresloat · 2005-11-13 05:56 · Score: 4, Informative

But unfortunately copyright is already criminal law. This doesn't call for such a fundamental change; it just calls for harsher penalties.

WTF is wrong with you? by PhreakOfTime · 2005-11-13 05:56 · Score: 1

ScuttleMonkey. What is wrong with you? Do you get paid to take the facts and re-write them?

Please look up the definition of the word PROPOSED in the dictionary. I do not think that word means what you think it does.

You cant then go on and say that now that the penalties ARE more severe, who will be the first one to go to jail.

Please mod up if you believe this editor needs to go! At least someone get him an internship with his intellectual peers. Perhaps at the Rush Limbaugh show?

Typical Slashdot by NaCh0 · 2005-11-13 05:57 · Score: 0

who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

Nice job confusing the use of a P2P client and infringing on copyrights. P2P is fine as long as the material has been declared free to share. (i.e. most linux distros)

Re:Typical Slashdot by millennial · 2005-11-13 13:49 · Score: 1

True, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim that the majority of the content on P2P networks has been so declared.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.

Where does it end? by Max+Threshold · 2005-11-13 05:58 · Score: 1

Probably in a concentration camp somewhere.

For the most part I've stopped watching US stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:02 · Score: 0

Lately I've taken to "pirating" many European TV shows and movies... Downloading is pretty much my ownly viable option, since shipping DVDs across the Atlantic costs more than the DVD itself, making costs unreasonably high, and even then, they are all region 2.

So fortunately for me the Europeans haven't started suing people... yet.

Does this include Sony? by canuck57 · 2005-11-13 06:02 · Score: 1, Troll

... law but does allow more leeway for the police when investigating suspected crimes...

So does this include going into Sony/BMG offices and confiscate their mail servers and backup tapes to find out who authorized the alteration of the Windows operating system in obvious violation of the copyright that does not give anyone but Microsoft the authority to do so? Or perhaps to enforce the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act section 1030?

Or is just to extend the "To Serve and Collect" mentality?

Re:Does this include Sony? by interiot · 2005-11-13 06:40 · Score: 1

Patching the kernel != copyright infingement.
Re:Does this include Sony? by Halfbaked+Plan · 2005-11-13 07:08 · Score: 1

It could, if your patch is designed specifically to omit all copyright notices in the kernel.

--
resigned

Government of the people... by payndz · 2005-11-13 06:04 · Score: 1

...by the wealthy, for the corporations. Yay capitalism!

--
You must think in Russian.

Re:Government of the people... by linguae · 2005-11-13 08:08 · Score: 1

This isn't representative of capitalism. This is corporatism.

As an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, please make it very clear that capitalism != rule by corporations. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production is privately owned, and when prices are determined by the market, not the state. Never mix corporatism with capitalism.

Woopidy Do... by binaryspiral · 2005-11-13 06:05 · Score: 1

Sheriff, do the letters F.O., mean anything to you?
-Bandit, Smokey and the Bandit

Corrupt System by max+born · 2005-11-13 06:06 · Score: 4, Informative

I could almost support this bill if it wan't that the entertainment industry openly bribes the senators who'll vote on this legislation, example, Orin Hatch, entertainment contributions for the 2004 cycle were $180,000+.

If you follow the trail it looks like most of this kind of legislation is bought and paid for by the very people it benefits.

Re:Corrupt System by Councilor+Hart · 2005-11-13 07:12 · Score: 1

So, why isn't there a reform on contributions?
Make it an election topic.
Re:Corrupt System by ScrewMaster · 2005-11-13 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, if all the Slashdotters out there would simply send me ten dollars each, I would be happy to buy the Congressman of your choice. Minus a small handling charge, of course.

What would happen if each of us made a personal contribution to our elected representatives, along with a letter explaining that if they vote intelligently on certain important issues, there will be more where that came from. Maybe if four or five hundred thousand technjocks start putting their money where their mouth is, we could eliminate the entertainment industry influence entirely. Sure, I know about campaign finance laws, but if a given representative or senator got all he could legally receive directly from his constituents before the first RIAA lobbyist showed up at his door, it would go a long way to restoring a little balance.

And even if he has to give it back, the sight of a half-million small white envelopes, each containing ten or twenty dollars of actual cash might make him think a little. I mean things such as logic, reason, "doing the right thing", Truth, Justice and/or the American Way just doesn't seem to be enough anymore. So maybe we need to provide a little incentive.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Corrupt System by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-15 06:33 · Score: 0

This is the most interesting suggestion I have heard in this whole debate. Count me in!

One thing is sure by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:07 · Score: 0

who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?"

Hard to say. But, like all witch hunts, we can bet one of the last will be a Congressman's child.

ass is right by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:08 · Score: 0

Haha. They referred to them as the "Recording Industry Ass. of America" (RIAA)
They sure got the ass part right. RIAA is all up inside our governments ass and this proves it.

Getting tough doesn't work by HangingChad · 2005-11-13 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

So get tougher! Typical Republican mentality: If beating on it doesn't work, try beating it harder.

Never mind terrorism, the war on drugs, and corporate theft. Let's divert federal resources to go after those pornographers and college kids trading music! They've either got their priorities totally hosed up or they have WAY more people than they need and this is Justice Department busy work.

Ignorance and incompetence rivaled only by those who continue to support a corrupt, ineffective and incompetent administration. Usually justifying their misplaced and hypocritical loyalty by whining that the Democrats aren't any better. Well, it's time to face the facts: The Democrats ARE better. They may not be the ideal but the worst of them could do better than this bunch of corrupt losers.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Re:Getting tough doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:33 · Score: 0

The Democrats are better? Think again.

A Democrat (Clinton) signed the DMCA into law. His VP, Gore (another Democrat), was the guy who proposed making SCMS copy protection mandatory for DAT recorders and similar standalone digital audio recorders.

A Democrat (Hollings) proposed the SSSCA (bill to force policeware into every computerized device capable of carrying free speech). The same Democrat proposed the CBDTPA (revised version of same) and four other Democratic Senators hopped on as co-sponsors.
Re:Getting tough doesn't work by linguae · 2005-11-13 08:22 · Score: 1

The Democrats ARE better. They may not be the ideal but the worst of them could do better than this bunch of corrupt losers.

Ha! I'm rolling on the floor laughing.

Ha! The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans now. Who do you think voted for the DMCA? The DMCA was passed unanimously by the Senate and was signed into law by...Bill Clinton. Last time I checked, Democrats were in the Senate that year, and Bill Clinton is a Democrat. And what about the War on Drugs? There are many Democrats who support that. And don't get me started on Hillary Clinton and her policies....

It doesn't matter whether Congress people are Democrats or Republicans; they are still corrupt. They are ignorant about technical issues and can be bought and sold by corporations. Republicans and Democrats typically don't give a flying hoot about your personal freedoms. They both advocate big, all-encompassing government that controls many parts of your life.

Don't let the Democrats fool you, just because they aren't on the front stage. They have supported evil legislation, and they are no less immune to corruption and corporatism as the Republicans are.

Note: I'm not a Republican, so don't think that I'm a Republican apologizer.
Re:Getting tough doesn't work by Andy+Gardner · 2005-11-13 10:33 · Score: 1

Nothing to see here, the bureaucracy is just expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
Re:Getting tough doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 13:00 · Score: 0

"I'm not a Republican, so don't think that I'm a Republican apologizer."

Thats good. The War on Drugs was started by the cowboy Ronald Reagan after Nancy gave him the bright idea as he was a dumb bastard as well. Although he was SINCERE as a human being and had some good qualities unlike the current trash. And anybody who voted for Bush TWICE is a fucking idiot (not saying parent did...just pointing out the facts). Those of you guilty of this offense put on your dunce caps now and wear them in public tomorrow.

Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by cpu_fusion · 2005-11-13 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

The best quote is here and in a few other articles ...

Gonzales said the new laws are needed because evolving technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft." He added that proceeds from copyright piracy is used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities." [Emphasis added]

There you have it folks. The US Attorney General says that this technology is funding terrorism, presumably with zero-dollar bills. I don't know about you, but I'd say 99% of the intellectual property "theft" (his words, not mine) are going on TOTALLY FOR FREE.

In fact, if they did succeed in shutting down these new technologies for the common man, you can bet that would be the only time the criminals started making massive money on this. Gonzales's plans will actually encourage criminal profits and, therefore by his logic, encourage terrorism. Gonzales is actually taking steps to put the money into this for terrorism and crime lords, not the other way around!

So if you ever wanted damning evidence that our AG both doesn't understand the issues, and is in the back pocket of the content corporations (RIAA, etc.), and that he wants to play the "terrorism" card (like they did about Drugs)... there you go.

Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by legirons · 2005-11-13 07:43 · Score: 1

Gonzales said the new laws are needed because evolving technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft."

How can you become Attorney General without understanding law? Don't lawyers get disbarred for making legal statements like that which are blatantly false?
Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by BillyBlaze · 2005-11-13 07:43 · Score: 1

Maybe the logic is that people who infringe copyright are cyberterrorists. Any money they save by not buying CDs, which they then use to engage in activities, such as buying food, is funding terrorist activities.
Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by This+is+outrageous! · 2005-11-13 09:09 · Score: 1

[Gonzales] added that proceeds from copyright piracy is used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."
Man... I thought your link was a satire site, but on looking this up it's also right there on reputable <g> c|net. What's up with this?!

--
This is...
O U T R A G E O U S !
Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by Builder · 2005-11-13 09:30 · Score: 1

Ok, so here's a challenge for anyone living in the US of A right now (and I'm about to do exactly this in the UK).

File a Freedom of Information Act request asking for the number of convictions for copyright infringements where terrorism was involved. I've not worked out quite how to word this yet, but I'm still working on it and I hope you get the drift.

Then write to your local paper with the answer. If this is bullshit (and I can't believe what else it would be), the results should be interesting.

Of course, the cynic within me tells me that they won't release the information citing national security concerns. But I'm going to try anyway.
Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by aero6dof · 2005-11-13 10:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmmm, I don't like the drift of this...

1. Copyright infringement == terroist support
2. Jail time for copyright infringement
3. Enemy combatants (terroists) == no due process
4. Torture == Ok for terroists

Obviously, the next steps are:
5. ?? == Torture copyright infringers
6. Profit!
Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by leabre · 2005-11-13 10:20 · Score: 1

Actuall, I'd agree. The fact the people are using p2p illegally is being used as an excuse for the **AA's to commit internal terrorism against the people of this country (USA) and the world. So he's got it right, he's just misinformed (or paid too much) to understand who the real terrorists are.

Thanks,
Leabre
Re:Gonzales says its about "terrorism" by mpe · 2005-11-14 04:51 · Score: 1

How can you become Attorney General without understanding law? Don't lawyers get disbarred for making legal statements like that which are blatantly false?

Lawyers may do. But this man is a politican, here telling lies appears to be part of the job description.

Directors Cuts by Doc+Ruby · 2005-11-13 06:19 · Score: 1

What else would we expect from Grand Inquisitor Gonzales? He's the authorizer of America's torture system. Just wait until Bush, his boss/client, drops below 30% approval ratings. The policy factory will follow their smashing "Saddam = bin Laden" success with "Grokster = Qaeda". Terrorists will finally get their due in copyright violation "chatrooms" hidden among our medieval "allies" around the world. Bring 'em on!

--

--
make install -not war

I am going to jail by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:22 · Score: 0

If I get pulled over and the cops see my MP3 player sitting on the console of my car am I going to get arrested and have to prove I purchased all of the songs legally?

...get sued for, we can also put you in jail by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:23 · Score: 0

Of course, how do you put a civil-violator(soon to be criminal-violator) corporate entity (often the holder of 'IP') into jail? You can still sue a corporation but you can only put leaders or scapegoats into jail - the corporation is till out and free. Just doesn't seem very fair now, doesn't it...

Downloading does kill people! by mangu · 2005-11-13 06:26 · Score: 4, Funny

more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading

You are wrong. Considering that downloaders are nothing but communists, and communism killed 170 million people, downloading is a far more dangerous crime than speeding.

Re:Downloading does kill people! by BillyBlaze · 2005-11-13 07:23 · Score: 1

Yeah right - downloaders are freeloaders, like every red-blooded American!

In other news by alexwcovington · 2005-11-13 06:30 · Score: 0, Troll

The government has announced stiff penalties for adultery, not coming to complete stops at county road intersections, and underage drinking.

--
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)

Re:In other news by mpe · 2005-11-14 04:54 · Score: 1

The Attorney General was arrested today. According to the FBI, he is alleged to have donated to terrorists amounts the same size as filesharers ($0). A high-ranking official in the FBI was quoted as saying "Yeah, well, he donated as much as people he accused, and there's just this really nice feeling involved in arresting your boss."

Just hope noone asks "So when are you going to round up Congress?"

the doj caught all the murders and rapists! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 06:35 · Score: 0

they even got the CEO's stealing millions from coporate welfare while firing usa workers and building factories in mexico.

now for those dirty college kids trading music!

Alberto Gonzales vs. Porn by werewolf1031 · 2005-11-13 06:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Let's not also forget Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' hardline stance against porn depicting consenting adults as well. This is someone who is clearly the most dangerous man for the job.

And I'm speaking as a moderate conservative. This guy scares the shit outa me.

Re:Alberto Gonzales vs. Porn by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 14:03 · Score: 0

Frankly, I think it's all of this pornogrophy that keeps Alberto Gonzales up at night!
Re:Alberto Gonzales vs. Porn by rock_climbing_guy · 2005-11-13 19:40 · Score: 1

Um, hello there?
I just read the article that you linked to and it's about someone else who wants to prosecute porn. Either you mistakenly thought it was about Alberto Gonzales, or you linked to the wrong article. Please check again.

--
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Re:Alberto Gonzales vs. Porn by werewolf1031 · 2005-11-13 21:33 · Score: 1

I just read the article that you linked to and it's about someone else who wants to prosecute porn. Either you mistakenly thought it was about Alberto Gonzales, or you linked to the wrong article. Please check again.

Try actually reading the entire linked article next time. Here are some choice quotes from said article, which I revisited through the link I supplied earlier on this topic:

But the social conservatives have gained traction with new Attorney General Gonzales, a close associate of President Bush who is considered a strong contender for a U.S. Supreme Court nomination. In May, Gonzales established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force under the office's criminal division.

And here:
Sources say Acosta was told by the FBI officials during last month's meeting that obscenity prosecution would have to be handled by the crimes against children unit. But that unit is already overworked and would have to take agents off cases of child endangerment to work on adult porn cases. Acosta replied that this was Attorney General Gonzales' mandate.

Emphasis mine.

What part of that has absolutely nothing to do with Attorny Gen. Alberto Gonzales? He didn't start the anti-porn crusade that was begun by former A.G. Alex Acosta, but he's happily continuing/expanding it.

Re: It's Time For Yanks to Move to Canada ;) by sedmonds · 2005-11-13 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, Columbia, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uraguay.

Great! by NardofDoom · 2005-11-13 06:43 · Score: 1

I look forward to seeing Mr. Gonzalez prosecute the leaders of the huge piracy rings in the Far East. It will be good to stop their wholesale theft of intellectual property...

Wait a minute... he's going to be prosecuting who?

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!

Compromise! by dada21 · 2005-11-13 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'll accept any law as long as I get back the following:

1. Every jury is composed of a truly random selection of my peers -- people from my community who know me and can judge if I am a criminal

2. Every jury is notified of their right to jury nullification. They can judge not only the defendant, but the law.

3. Every arrest is preceded by the charge of two witnesses, and the idea of "the People versus" goes away.

4. The penalties for any crimes are tripled for any employee of any government branch.

Re:Compromise! by harlows_monkeys · 2005-11-13 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll accept any law as long as I get back the following:
2. Every jury is notified of their right to jury nullification. They can judge not only the defendant, but the law.
The problem with this is that it would lead to many more cases of the jury judging the victim, rather than the defendant or the law. We've had this happen before, such as when white juries would acquit white people accused of crimes against black people in the South, because the victim was black.
Do you really want a system where people who are not white, or not straight, or not Christian, or who are too ugly or too good looking, can be more easily victimized?
Like every other power in our system, nullification needs checks and balances. Not telling the jury they have that power is the only check and balance anyone has been able to come up with for it, and that works well in practice.
Re:Compromise! by Eli+Gottlieb · 2005-11-13 07:38 · Score: 1

OK, needing two witnesses to make an arrest (excluding, of course, the case in which the law officer witnesses the event themself) isn't really a good idea. Probable Cause is a good standard.

The rest, however, are brilliant ideas.
Re:Compromise! by argoff · 2005-11-13 08:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem with this is that it would lead to many more cases of the jury judging the victim, rather than the defendant or the law. We've had this happen before, such as when white juries would acquit white people accused of crimes against black people in the South, because the victim was black.

The solution to that would be to find less baised jurors, not to deny jury nullification. Besides it goes both ways, without jurry nullification, jurors may be compelled to uphold and enforce racist laws. One of the reasons why they stopped telling jurors of jury nullification was that too many people were refusing to convict runnaway slaves.

Who will be the first? by Captain+Scurvy · 2005-11-13 06:54 · Score: 1

Now that attempting the crime has such severe consequences, who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?

My grandmother.

Re:Who will be the first? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:31 · Score: 0

And you wouldn't lift a finger to save her without orders signed in triplicate, lost, found again, and then buried in soft peat for three months before being dug up and recycled as firelighters.

P2P Downloaders Aren't... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:03 · Score: 0

P2P downloaders and uploaders probably aren't very disproportionately black or affiliated with the opposition party. Given as much, I'm cautiously optimistic this won't gain much traction. The war on drugs was largely an excuse to put black people in prison. Doing so removed them from society, and in many states took from them their privilege to vote (note: I aspire to someday live in a society where voting is a right, not a privilege). This disenfranchisement was a useful political tool: it made it easier for right-wing candidates to get elected by reducing the number of possible opposition voters, and it appealed to an (often) Southern, racist, core constituency. It also dramatically swelled the prison population, which facilitated a transfer of taxpayer dollars from government (especially diverting dollars from "communist" social assistance programs, schools where children might have otherwise learned to think critically, etc...) to the enormous American private prison industry. Prisons are, afterall, as much about money as anything else in American society. So the war on drugs boiled down to a convenient excuse to legally reinforce the old race/class structure, without running afoul of those pesky new civil rights laws, while making a few people very wealthy.

In this context, it's hard to see how jailing P2P users is comparable to the war on drugs, except for maybe increasing the prison population -- and there are easier ways to get more prisoners. I really doubt there's a core constituency in either dominant party that strongly believes this is a great idea, or that would be well served by it. As an extension of that doubt, I really don't believe that throwing P2P users in jail will disenfranchise enough of the other party to make a useful political difference.

This is just a dumb idea. Maybe it's the product of a political system that longer has adequate feedback mechanisms, or maybe it's due to a political process subverted by corporate money. Irrespective of how system that let it get this far, it's unfortunate, inappropriate, and a bad idea -- but not in, my opinion, analogous to the War on Drugs.

ummm... by firepacket · 2005-11-13 07:05 · Score: 1

wtf?
+3 Insightful?

I think it really is time to jump ship...

Re: It's Time For Yanks to Move to Canada ;) by cannuck · 2005-11-13 07:19 · Score: 0

Hmm lets see how many points deducted for not spelling Colombia correctly (versus Columbia) - and how many points off for missing Peru, El Salvador and Belize!! 8^) Imagine all these people are Americans - actually the original Americans. Eh! As they say in Canada.

This is nuts by nurb432 · 2005-11-13 07:20 · Score: 1

1 - Copyright violations should be a civil issue, not criminal ( yes, i know its been made criminal now, but not my point )

2 - Dont we have better things to do with our police forces? Last i heard violent crime was going up, we are still at war, etc. I really think our safety is worth a bit more then some silly copy of a cd..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:This is nuts by anicca · 2005-11-13 07:56 · Score: 1

Oh you said violent crime. With an attorney general like that, is it any wonder crime is on the upswing? Everything is illegal!

--
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower

The really scary thing is by CaptainZapp · 2005-11-13 07:22 · Score: 1

that you are rated funny.

I'd wager an "insightful", had I mod-points...

--
ich bin der musikant

mit taschenrechner in der hand

kraftwerk

Orgnbanks by Crashmarik · 2005-11-13 07:23 · Score: 1

Jail is just to wastefull and inefficient we need organbanks.

Looks like? by nurb432 · 2005-11-13 07:28 · Score: 1

No, it doesnt 'look like it'.. It really is how it works.

This is how our political system works now.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

extrapolate from mp3.com by twitter · 2005-11-13 07:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems to me that if the government goes further down this path then even possessing works that aren't redistributable is going to be like playing with a loaded gun.

At the very least, it makes putting a copyright file on a network riskier, even if you have no intention of letting anyone else know about it. An easy and common example would be sharing music with yourself by sftp. They could claim it's an attempt to share with others.

The real endgame is to make the internet look like broadcast TV. Only a few will have the power to share anything. Running a server is already forbidden by your ISP, despite the fact that many commercial applications do just that and would not work otherwise. The big publishers are closer to getting their way every day and it makes me sick. So much for free press in this country.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:extrapolate from mp3.com by Jafafa+Hots · 2005-11-13 16:36 · Score: 1

Actually, the objective is to make the internet look like PAY TV, not broadcast. A rep for the RIAA actually admitted a few years ago that the objective is "pay-per-play."

--
This space available.

Double Edged Sword by adius · 2005-11-13 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unlike civil lawsuits, the standards of evidence are much more strict in criminal cases and you have a right to representation. The prosecution also has a greater burden of proving their accusations.

Its time to kill them all by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:33 · Score: 0

No, im not kidding. The time has come to remove these people from the face of the earth.

I dont care how low, or high it goes. They need to be dead. Peaceful Protests, and complaints are getting us nowhere and its time for real action.

( Posting anonymously for obvious reasons )

Re:Its time to kill them all by Halvy · 2005-11-13 09:47 · Score: 0

No worries mahhn.
These are spineless criminals of the lowest degree, as are all who support them.
They are afraid of someone like you or me that will hunt them down and stop them someday.
Other than them 'blustering' and 'bullying', they will contain their EXTREMELY limited powers to scaring kids and people who can't afford to protect themselves.
--SlashDots Moderation System is not broken. It is Fixed.

--
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..

The $$AA are not protecting their content by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:35 · Score: 0

Personally, I'd rather see a compatibility break from PC's. After all the onus on the entertainment industries.

There is beyond a shadow of a doubt demand and consumption under the existing systems. Moves done by the entertainment industry have little to do with protecting their content and have everything to do with preemptively stifling new markets that already have established supply and demand revenues. Compromises made by the tech industry have already implicated themselves as participants in a racketeering scheme coordinated by the entertainment industry as sole providers of content.

It's their responsibility to protect their content, not the governments, not yours or mine and not other industries. They can easily do so by breaking compatibility with PC driven products (which is a hell of a lot better then breaking PC's)

Fuck the morally, emotionally, intellectually corrupt bastards. Fuck 'em.

This only shows by no-body · 2005-11-13 07:37 · Score: 1

how disconnected those jerks on top are.

Example: Article in a Magazine published 1970, of historical interest for a narrow group of peers. To share this document legally on the Internet, one needs permission by the copyright owner. Just finding the company is a task by itself. The Company has been sold to somebody else, who is the copyright owner now?

In this case, the original copyright of 28 years was automatically renewed by law for 67 years, so the copyright lasts from 1970 + 28 + 67 = 2065! (CR info)

Now Copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author.

Now is this kind of copyright stuff helpful in any way? It just creates uncertainty, obstacles and discouragement.

Eff those jerks!

Re:This only shows by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:53 · Score: 1, Informative

Indeed. This is explored in-depth in Lessig's excellent Free Culture, available as a free download from:
http://www.free-culture.cc/
If it were up to me, this would be required reading for anyone who wishes to participate in a debate about copyright. Seriously, everyone - download (or better yet, buy!) a copy and read it cover to cover.

the problem with conservatvies and crime... by Scudsucker · 2005-11-13 07:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

...is that they'd rather be tough than effective. It has been demonstrated time and time again that addressing the root causes of crime leads to a far greater reduction than spending the same amount of money on law enforcement alone. But that means some form of social spending, and we can't have that, can we?

Re:the problem with conservatvies and crime... by Scudsucker · 2005-11-13 16:00 · Score: 1

Salon just had a nice article on the subject of rehabilitation vs punishment. Most of the meat of the article is on the second page.

Guns kill people by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 07:50 · Score: 0

People can use guns to kill other people, lets ban that! Cars can be used to speed, lets spend 5 trillion dollars outfitting speed limiters on cars. People could cut other people off, lets ban cars all together! Oh yeah, hammers can be used to steal a movie from blockbuster!

Crime by Mark_MF-WN · 2005-11-13 07:54 · Score: 2, Informative

You can't settle a criminal suit out of court.

Sueing their customers by freidog · 2005-11-13 07:57 · Score: 2, Funny

didn't stop prolific copyright violations...

So myabe putting them in jail will, that'll be sure to make everyone buy more CDs!

I'd expect this from The Onion or the Daily Show, not the US Atorney General's office... *sigh*

Yes, copyright IS BAD. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:01 · Score: 0

First, you're most likely aware that you're just verging on being a troll which is why you're posting AC, so I'll reply in-kind.

Copyright is not good. Copyright is all fucked up and so is the patent system. Both of these systems have grown way, way out of control. The whole notion of intellectual property is bankrupt.
While there may have been some merits to copyrights and patents in the nineteenth century, the original intentions of enhancing and growing the public domain has long since been lost.
It is a simple historical fact that the Great Depression in the 1930s was in large part a result of overly protective patents and copyrights. If you doubt it look into the history of the aviation industry in the US.
In order to prevent such a danger to the public domain, the real source of public wealth, stringent restraints were places upon both copyrights and patents after the Depression.
In the 1980s, within weeks of taking office, the Reagan administration re-shuffled the federal court system creating a completely new federal court system, the CAFC, specifically for the purpose of returning the US to pre-Depression system.
Within a few years of this coup, copyright was similarly perverted but this time it wasn't just to turn back the clock but to take things to absurd limits that had never been known in the history of the United States. In expecially perverted new language, non commercial exchange of information is specifically criminalized.
Now, the Attorney General appointed by a president, who happens to be the son of Reagan's Vice President, that supports torture and speaks casually in public of disdain for the Geneva Convention had announced that he intends to pursue severe penalties for these utterly unjust laws.
Yes, copyright is BAD.
Clearly as the pace of innovation leapfrogged along with the access to information that exploded along with advances in media technology, the

, copyrights and patents should have been reduced and limited as information technology developed through the course of the twentieth century. Instead, the opposite happened.

Re:Yes, copyright IS BAD. by mpe · 2005-11-14 05:13 · Score: 1

Copyright is not good. Copyright is all fucked up and so is the patent system. Both of these systems have grown way, way out of control. The whole notion of intellectual property is bankrupt.

The third form of "IP, that of "trademarks" has also been broken.

While there may have been some merits to copyrights and patents in the nineteenth century, the original intentions of enhancing and growing the public domain has long since been lost.

Most critial the current way these are applied is actually getting in the way of innovation.
Maybe what is needed is a "back to basics" approach.

Not realy... by DeadDecoy · 2005-11-13 08:02 · Score: 1

Think of all the paperwork.

Stiffer what? by ScrewMaster · 2005-11-13 08:07 · Score: 1

Stiffer penalties for copyright violations

Sure. Good idea, bonehead. Too bad you aren't an elected official. How about rounding that out with some stiffer penalties for privacy violations? How about taking the RIAA to court and punishing them for all of their abuses of the law (and their customers?) Hell, if I, as a software vendor, can now be sued for merely "facilitating" copyright infringement, how about Sony which believes that leaving thousands of computer systems open to remote exploitation, stability problems and data loss in order to "protect their intellectual property" is a legitimate business tactic? A formal apology to their customers should be forthcoming at the very least. Remember when Intuit Corporation had the decency to apologize after their copy protection debacle? It still cost them dearly but at least they admitted their mistake. What is Sony's response in a similar situation? "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is so what's the problem?", that's what.

After all this, I've come to the conclusion that the people running major corporations may or may not be actually stupid, but they do seem incapable of learning from others' very obvious, public screwups.

I'd really be more impressed with this guy if he was going after the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Sony for putting a goddamned ROOTKIT on legitimate buyer's computer systems. Once again, people whose only crime was giving a record company money are penalized for their support. Incredible, really.

Psst! Mr. Alvarez or Gonzalez or whoever you are ... your corporatism is showing.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Crime=Death. since when did this actually happen? by __aarmfm8627 · 2005-11-13 08:09 · Score: 1

You now have the laws or leeway within the current laws to jail people who download, copy, bypass, or do anything the ruleing corparte majority says you can't do. If not just for personal use, or to bypass a crappy system that only tries to protect something and in doing do makes the end product hard to use if not unuseable with it enabled. It's like the so called "Missle Shield" that has been in development since the early to late 70's. Sure you can make a copy protection\missle defence system thats unbreakable\inpenteratable today and maybe next week\year, but thats if you put hundreds of millions\billions(trillions?) of dollars into it and then pass that cost down to the consumer\taxpayer. Eventurtaly someone breaks it(quickly)\builds a better missle to pass through it and you have to start from scrach again to defend against that form of attack. And now we the US who signed a Treaty to limit this oneupmanship some time ago limiting both sides to one(or two?)sites to protect with an early system that used nukes to stop nukes(hell of a way to stop fallout a major killer after a bomb when your making it to defend against the bombs). It also halted any development of new systems. But now our current goverment is openly breaking this treaty to make it to try to make everyone feel safe, just like the first and second systems did. Its only a political, not really a millitary prioraty to have such a system. It does make the military have lots of funding in the years without the Cold War, or any really big war to fight. So too the battle over media rights and downloading for personal use. Its the violation of the freedoms we have frought for and have made such systems in good faith to defend it phyically from abroad, now we face it legally\politically from within.

Like some have said the new laws and loosing of laws make the "criminal" population rise within already crowded jails. Some of the wasted space is the so called "Death Row" which in most cases you die from old age or natural causes before you face the few forms of excution still legal/avaible to the few states that say they still have the Death penataly. It would be an idea to do a Hollywood and setup an island dention facilty. "No fences, no guard towers, no cells" or so it was quoted in a movie or two. A place where you don't want out because its worse outside the island than within. Or something like that.

Execute These People Who Threaten Us. by Halvy · 2005-11-13 08:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's that simple.

Or we could just wait for them to continue to terrorize and ruin the lives of us and our children over a so-called money issues.

The leaders behind these fiasco-crimes, whether they be high government officials, or the homosexual leaders of the Riaa's, have proven themselve to be a detriment to society, who need to be shown 'justice', via any means possible.

You can do your part by documenting the Riaa, the Ceo's of the recording label industry and Felons like our current Attorney General, so that when justice is finally given to these criminals, the evidence will show how once again 'THE PEOPLE' have decided their future, instead of a hand full of Jewish-Mafia members.

--SlashDots Moderation System is NOT broke. It is 'FIXED'.

--
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..

First one in jail? Not me! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:17 · Score: 0

I'm completely safe as I only run $sys$emule.exe as my P2P client.

Amend the constitution? by Xarius · 2005-11-13 08:17 · Score: 1

IANAA (I am not an American)

I hear a lot of people saying that things like this are due to corporate sponsorship of senators and such. Why don't they amend the constitution to ban corporations funding senators and presidents and such, effectively stopping the corporations from steering the country in their best interests?

Surely they don't need thousands and thousands of dollars to pay for campaigns etc. Don't they have enough tax dollars for this? Or would they have enough tax dollars if they weren't waging meaningless wars on the other side of the planet?

Surely the entire system is fundamentally flawed?

--
C17H21NO4

Re:Amend the constitution? by mtrisk · 2005-11-13 08:59 · Score: 1

Because in order to amend the constitution, two thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate has to vote for the amendment. With virtually most of Congress already in their pockets, what member would vote to stop their own flow of funds? It's pretty much impossible.

--

Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
Re:Amend the constitution? by dtfinch · 2005-11-13 18:56 · Score: 1

There are already a lot of laws like that. Corporations find ways around them. They get their employees to each make the maximum allowed personal donation, to the maximum number of senators, representatives, etc., effectively overcoming any caps intended to prevent corporations from buying politicians. Then, they contribute by other indirect means. Maybe they'll run free campaign ads, film documentaries on how great the politician is, give gifts to their family members, etc.

Yeah RIght by Mark_MF-WN · 2005-11-13 08:20 · Score: 1

Yeah Right. The democrats are no better -- they're in the pockets of exactly the same people. As long as Americans are stupid enough to buy the crap about it being a two-party system, they'll never have anything more than a facsimile of democracy.

Only a fool would vote for a party that they already know is corrupt and incompetent. So why do the the republican and democratic parties even exist anymore? Could it be that Americans are fools? Lots of other countries don't have to put up with this crap; although, to be fair, those countries usually ensure that their citizens are literate enough to actually READ a ballot.

Actually copyrights promote terrorisim by argoff · 2005-11-13 08:25 · Score: 1

The terrorists bomb things and kill people even though their targets have no strategic value. This is because they know full well that it will get the mass media readction they want.

And why does the media react that way, because they are competing over copyrighted content for the most publicity. Get rid of copyrights and the sensationalisim will go away overnight, and the effectiveness of terrorisim will dwindle as well.

Gonzales' point man on IP worked for Hatch too... by BocaJuniors · 2005-11-13 08:27 · Score: 1

This news shouldn't surprise anyone I suppose, but...

Back in March of this year Gonzales "renewed his commitment" to the Justice Departament's Intellectual Property Task Force by appointing his then Deputy Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson as the new chairman. Official announcement.

Well, Sampson isn't new to the game of IP, politics, and the law. He was the one advising Senator Orrin "I Will Destroy Your Computer" Hatch from 1999-2001 on tech issues. Full bio

Kind of creepy...

Isn't the whole point of law... by Just-some-person · 2005-11-13 08:34 · Score: 1

...to protect the innocent? How is jailing for copyright infrigment protecting the innocent?

Re:Isn't the whole point of law... by fishbowl · 2005-11-13 13:38 · Score: 1

If you can go to jail for violating their copyright, they can go to jail for violating yours.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Harsher punishement by aepervius · 2005-11-13 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I propose harsher punishement for CEO breaking law, and corrupt politician. At the first offense they should get prison for life. After all when they break the law, their action impact negatively of a LOT of people, so they should get cumulative punishment for the amount of people influenced by their action. Small CEO, 10 people : X Year of prison without parol. Medium CEO 100 people, 10*X Year without parol. Big CEO 3500 persons, 350*X year of prison without parol. Same ofr plitics. Break the law in a town of 100 : 1 week of prison per people. Do it in new york...

Think this is stupid ? Well compare the crimes above with copyright infrigement, and compare their negative impact on the citizen... And ince copyright infrigement cam be made worst by the number of copy shared , why not the crime above ?

Yes I am fantasming here. Actualy maybe make the crime for copyrighrt infrigement worst. First offense cut a hand. Second offense : cut second hand. etc... Maybe "citizen" will tehn start reacting.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Silly / Pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:38 · Score: 0

Something is very wrong in the US government when music downloading gets stiffer penalties than ever, more so than some violent crimes and the claim of "we need it to protect IP" is also a bit lame. Paid for downloads are doing REALLY well (just ask itunes) and DVD and CD sales are no longer in decline. All in all this move is not at all needed.

The problem is not campaign finance. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:39 · Score: 0

Campaign reform laws are worse than useless, because they are impossible to enforce, and in many cases criminalize real speech (not just transfers of money). You may as well pass a law requiring everybody to be honest; sounds great, but it's wishful thinking.

Corporations contribute to political campaigns for one reason and one reason only: the politicians have enough power to "steer the country" in ways tremendously beneficial to those corporations. The federal government is several orders of magnitude larger than it needs to be, and we've decided to start ignoring the Constitution over the past several decades as well (regulation of interstate commerce justifies drug laws? WTF?). Fix those root causes, and the government's scope of power is vastly reduced and constrained to the point that influencing elections is less worthwhile than it is today.

Not that this will ever happen, but that's the issue in a nutshell.

The New Drug War by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Don't you guys get it. This is the new Drug War. They have all but run out of political capital on that so now we have this. Pretty soon we will see propganda like P2P madness and other stupid crap to pollute our young peoples' minds into believing this milarky.

Re:It seems to me ...Problem Solved by vettemph · 2005-11-13 08:49 · Score: 1

Actually, This is cool. It strengthens our position. You see, there creates two camps.

Camp 1) Only buy proprietary solutions from large corporations. Never share for fear of criminal prosecution.

Camp 2) Only use (cc) (copyleft) and GPL. Share with friends, share often.

The Assholes in power, while attempting to strengthen thier own position, push more people into camp number 2 every day. We win.

What we really need is an internet utility or domain that is only for sharable material so that we can aviod getting caught up in the proprietary mess. For instance, a P2P with voting and meta voting (AKA eDonkey meets slashdot) so that we can fill it with free items and kick out the accidental proprietary items that enter. The sytem could be catagorized like bittorrent searches so that you could search for various styles of music , etc...
Voting could make musicians popular. Concerts make musicians money.
I'm sure variations of this exist, we just need a better and fool proof one along with more advocation/advertising.

--
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.

to encourage people to write books. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

so ya suppose there's a big shortage of books out there huh? Something tells me you've never submitted a manuscript to a publisher.
Let me tell ya kiddo, we don't need copyright because there's a lack of books. Perhaps in the eighteenth century that was true to a degree, although I suspect even then it was more about lack of distribution to readers than lack of authors, but it sure aint our problem now. Not a problem at all. You know just about every third year MFA student in the country publishes a novel that will never get read and that enormous mountain of unread, unpublishes novels just keeps piling up year after year. Let's not even get into thesis and dissertations.
There is no lack of authorship. The relationship between the quantity of authors and the strength of copyright is small enough to be insignificant. There is no real relationship between the two because what you think about when you consider popular fiction authors is a statistically insignificant fringe minority of the total number of writers out there and yet those are the only ones really concerned with copyright. How many authors can you name if you thought about it for a week? A few thousand? A few hundred? There are millions of writers you couldn't a flying fuck about it and it's about time you faced that fact and admit it instead of pretending to be some kind of knight in shining armor coming to rescue the poor distressed authors.
And those authors that you don't even want to know, those authors don't write because of copyright. Those millions of authors you never will bother to know anything about in your tiny little self righteous lifetime --those authors write because they simply have a desire to write.
You could obviously never understand that but I thank you for the opportunity to spank your dumb ass in public.

How why? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 08:57 · Score: 0

I would greatly appreciate any insight that anyone could give that would explain howw and when the fuck copying a song became something that Physically Harmed someone.. to the equivilant of hitting them with an anvil or hammer ?? I understand Intellectualy proper and Yes i want my proper compensation butttt, the thing no one is getting that the old IP and Patent laws were designed for time with lack of information and communication.. for an era when joe smobody could be on vacation in hallabalu and see some dilldally gadget and re-sell it back in hicksville nowhere , where no one knows that some lil kid in hallabalu actually was the inventor... This is the 21st century.... information age has come n gone ,.. its the age of communication..if someone invents something its auto published and noted whom the inventor was and they get props for it.. Singing isnt an invention its a $$ valued talent/asset ..inflated by beauty. or breasts or physical prowress a song is intaginable and no one else is gonna profit by saying the "bigbreasted singers song of the week" is his/hers in some hick town.. thank you MTV ... (whoops IP vio) Everyone do a favor and have your senator strike these ridiculous laws from our memory and make america Free and legendary once again.. i dont want a Corporatized Intellectual Though Police State .as my country.. other wise im leaving and when i have kids .. i'll tell em of the rise and fall of americaq (on purpose typo) the heros of old and villians at the end.. how they were so free.. only to be imprisioned at the end... the entire structure needs to be revamped.. it should be law every 25yrs to total restructure the system...soo that new sociatal ideals can be reflected .. and technologies.. too these old men tthat run things dont understand the people cause they CANT understand the Tech , how are they Capable to Lead us when the jos schmo down the road in a mobile home built in the 50's is 1000x more intelligent than someone "Elected " to office.. i use that term loosely cause its not true election cause they dont count everyyyyy single vote.. which is what i'd want done.. also curious who'd u rather be doing fast food at 20 .. the schmo pothead down the road ... or the kid that should be in school finding a cure for cancer?

Re:How why? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:07 · Score: 0

Corporatized Intellectual Thought* Police State

it is time by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:01 · Score: 0

It is now time to shoot the bastards. I am really fed up with government bought by Hollywood, Microsoft and RIAA criminalizing everyone if they dare begin to use technology creatively in ways different than these players antiquated business models. Enough already!

Sony Rootkit and the Terrified Masses by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 09:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

Do you all realize this act would make research into copyright protections and testing of them illegal as this might involve breaking them. It would make removing the rootkit even more illegal than it is now. I would make attempting to drag and drop a music file into your IPod in some cases a criminal act. It is simply insane.

The companies and political figure behind this just want money and power with no care to the human consequences of their actions because they are immoral. When are the people who support these Neo Fascists going to start realizing they are being used and treated like slaves? They do not care about the average conservative's agenda they simply want to use these persons' fears and desires to fuel their own dark political passions. They want money, power, and most of all control and anyone that will provide any part of that is all they care about. How many poor conservatives and liberals alike will suffer because of these horrid laws? How man innovators will be squashed? How many children will go to jail? These are the royalty of the past who have learned a new way to gain and hold on to power. What makes it worse is that people hand control to them because they spot the right message and give little tidbits to the terrified masses, while taking so much more. America wake up you are being made into slaves to a dark force worst than any you might imagine.

But will you remember this when it counts? by jbn-o · 2005-11-13 09:13 · Score: 1

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the RIAA and MPAA members will back stiffer penalties wholeheartedly. Yeah, I'm a real soothsayer. But I have a hard time believing that /. readers and moderators will keep this in mind when the next Buffy/Star Wars/Firefly or other corporate-backed fantasy or sci-fi media comes along.

I choose not to do business with them. I try to surround myself with media I can share. I've stopped listening to the corporate-backed stuff in part because of the restrictions which put me in an ethical dilemma when my friends want a copy of something I've got: Do I do the ethically correct thing and infringe upon some organization's copyright by making and distributing illicit copies with my friends (who have done me no harm, and therefore I have no reason to treat them badly)? Or do I obey the law and treat my friends badly by rejecting their request? I've chosen to get out of this quandry by working toward surrounding myself with media I can share, whether I have to buy it or not.

--
Digital Citizen

Doesn't the White House have anything better to do by flyingsquid · 2005-11-13 09:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

I mean, aren't we at war in Iraq, and isn't that country threatening to break up and devolve into civil war? Maybe they could actually come up with, like, a plan for that? Not to mention there's New Orleans to rebuild and a budget to balance. And what about that Bin Laden guy? You know, the one who blew up the World Trade Center four years ago? Who the White House has still failed to capture or kill?

Re:Doesn't the White House have anything better to by shanen · 2005-11-13 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're getting off topic. However, I don't think you should regard this action as purely a distraction, but rather a "bid" for more campaign donations. In that sense it is relevant in that BushCo's version of "conservativism" simply means "compassion" for the people who have lots of money, and doing everything they can to help them keep as much as possible (so that they can conveniently and without stress afford to donate more to Dubya's campaigns). Of course the BIG problem there is that time waits for no man. Change is coming, and your actual choices are lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Propping up dying copyright laws is just another form of getting in the way.

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.

Startling trend in modern America by Lost+Found · 2005-11-13 09:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

To me, this speaks to a much bigger problem than so-called "intellectual property" (quoted because I agree with Stallman that the term is absolute propoganda BS).

Recently, Denver became the first city to pass legislation that totally legalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 years and older. This happened because anti-WoD organizations got the bill up for public consideration, and finally, the citizens voted in favor of it.

Of course, possession is still illegal in the state, and also on the federal law, so it's still not really 'legal'. What bothered me so much about the news is the psychotic response from the government, saying "We will still jail you under state law!" in a very draconian tone.

The big point here is that this is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people.

The people have fucking spoken, and you've openly told them that you're going to ignore their will?

Anyone have any statistics on this so-called P2P epedemic? It seems to me that with the excessively large number of Americans (hell, people WORLD WIDE) that actively participate in P2P, it's the system of content distribution that needs to change -- not the further criminalization of the practice!

Re:Startling trend in modern America by Kjella · 2005-11-13 19:09 · Score: 1

The big point here is that this is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people.

The people have fucking spoken, and you've openly told them that you're going to ignore their will?

That depends on who is "the people". At any given time you can always find a "majority" being overruled by choosing the appropriate area. Going up, why should the state listen to the federal government? The people have spoken. Going down, why should the city overrule my neighbourhood? The people have spoken. There's a lot of ideology involved here about what level of authority should decide the law. Is this an area where Detroit should be able to determine this themselves, based on local "community standards"? I'm not a legal expert on that, but it's not as clear-cut as you say. To listen to one majority is to ignore another that has outlawed it, only at a different level.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Startling trend in modern America by Lost+Found · 2005-11-13 19:58 · Score: 1

The Denver Police serve the people of Denver, so when there is a Denver-level vote on the issue of marijuana prohibition, the Denver Police should listen to the Denver citizens about policing Denver.

Similarly, if a large amount of American citizens participate in P2P, then the American government should make note of this and not kneejerk to 'throw them all in jail'.
Re:Startling trend in modern America by iainl · 2005-11-14 05:15 · Score: 1

Good point. Every single adult in my household thinks that borrowing CDs off a friend is a reasonable thing to do. The People Have Spoken!

Both of them.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

OT Broken sig by Omestes · 2005-11-13 10:09 · Score: 1

Completely OT, your sig is broken, you seem to be missing all the fun stuff that most browsers rely on to know its a site. Like the www and the .com.

Unless that was part of the Zen. (grab the locator from my hand butterfly!)

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey

You are all guilty. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 10:10 · Score: 0

Judgement forthcoming;

I hereby pronounce sentence for each and every one of you.

1: You are hereby required to be incarcerated at your residence for a period not to exceed 25 years. You must have no contact with others (this includes spouses, offspring and siblings). One meal per day will be alotted to you and brought to your door at a time deemed approprate by the authorities.

2: No communications of any kind will be allowed from your assigned dwelling for the duration of your incarceration. You will forfeit any and all electronic devices to the government officials at the time of your surrender.

3: All forms of electronic entertainment are forbidden and must be surrendered to government officials upon your serrender for sentence. These include and are not limited to; Televisons, Radios, Tape recorders/players, VCRs, DVDs iPods, anything MP3, Computers, printing equipment, musical instruments.

4: You will be given copies of Readers Digest magazines; circa 1965 with which to entertain yourselves during your incarceration. ... :-)

Re:For the most part I've stopped watching US stuf by speculatrix · 2005-11-13 10:20 · Score: 1

so fortunately for me the Europeans haven't started suing people... yet.

you sure about that?

Who will be first by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 10:34 · Score: 0

"...who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?"

Sony

Re:Doesn't the White House have anything better to by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 10:37 · Score: 0

Is anarchy a good choice to put on the ballot?

Next up... Debtor's Prison by illumnatLA · 2005-11-13 10:54 · Score: 1

Well, let's see... jail time for copyright infringement. Next on the list... The return of debtor's prison! (I bet "they" really would've liked to get that attached to the "reformed" bankruptcy laws. Let's make things easier for corporations, harder for individuals.)

--
Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost

History check by HangingChad · 2005-11-13 11:06 · Score: 1

The DMCA was signed by Clinton, but the passage was by a Republican controlled House and Senate. Republicans gained control in both houses in 1994. I believe the DMCA was passed in 1998, which made it one of their top legislative priorities. Don't know how the voting went, but it certainly wasn't unanimous and if memory serves it was attached to something else...it was a long time ago.

I agree the whole nest is corrupt to a greater or lesser degree. Hillary Clinton rides on the same corporate jets to corporate fund raising events. I'll bet you can count the number of her constituents who get to meet her directly on one hand unless they've donated more than $20,000.00.

I'd still maintain the current Republican administration and Congress have taken corruption and selling out the American people to a whole new level. If Clinton would have been giving out no bid government contracts to a company he used to run, the extreme right would have been calling for an armed revolution. When their guys do it, not a word. We had a budget surplus when Clinton was in office, we are trillions in debt today. Token efforts to cut spending by looting food programs. Clinton lies about getting head and there are calls for impeachment. This administration lies about the reasons for starting a WAR and not a peep out of the right.

I'll stand by my position that the Republicans are far more corrupt on the whole than Democrats. Both are corrupt to some extent, both are capable of massive evil, but nothing you said changed my mind on that. It may be the lesser of two evils, but it's obviously lesser.

For the record I'm a Republican and an old style conservative. Or was until the 2000 election. Since then most of my money has gone to Democratic candidates, though not exclusively. I would have backed McCain in 1999 but not now. He's stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush, supported his failed policies, voted for the Patriot Act and Iraq war. He's not going to wash that stink off over a tiff about prisoner torture. I have a lot of respect for what he did in Viet Nam, just disappointed he didn't carry that same courage into the political arena.

Give me a third party option that has a chance and I'll get behind them instead. I'm ready for it, sounds like you are, too. Let's do it.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Priorities? by Matti-han · 2005-11-13 11:33 · Score: 1

So, I'll be be eligble for an extended stay at a nice federal penetatiary for downloading some music or a movie, and Sony releases a rootkit that endangers the security of thousands of computers, and they get...a lawsuit?

Can we get the Florida judge whom declared spyware a type of trespass on the supreme court? Please?

You confuse writing with publishing. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 12:02 · Score: 0

The undeniable fact is, you don't just sit down and write something that becomes widely published. If you think that's how the publishing industry works, you're remarkably naive. Where do you think the RIAA/MPAA learned their tricks? Those organizations are hardly creative enough to have come up with their scam from scratch. They're basically just a diminutive form of the book publishing and distribution monopolies that have existed for centuries. Book publishing is where it all started.
That "wildly popular" you mention is the product of this thing we call marketing. It has next to nothing to do with any essence or underlying quality of natural superiority you might want to believe in. Those things, if they can be said to exist at all, certainly don't exist until a book has stood the test of time. Most books that become classics are poorly recieved in their own time and certainly do not become "best sellers". The best seller is created through marketing. You get it: seller marketing. Simple equation.
So, yeah, no problem. I'll be glad to write you a top notch novel and waive the rights if you are going to market it into a wildly popular bestseller. That's where bestsellers come from, not from pens, but from marketing hype. Sort of like "democratic" elections. If you provide the hype I will happily provide the novel. Authors, like musicians, make more off of live appearances than they ever will off of published materials. And believe me, every writer who isn't independently wealthy does indeed give away their copyright. The people they are forced to give it to are the ones who keep the profits from the work and they earn it through their marketing efforts. That's how the game is played.
Publishing is a business in the worst sense of the word. Publishers make used car salesmen look good. Writers, generally speaking, are talented and interesting if not all-too-often tortured souls. Do not make the mistake of confusing authors for publishers. The two are in start contrast. It's like comparing one of Reagan's undercover CIA coke salesman selling dope on the streets of LA to a strung out rapper writing lyrics while dragging off the crack pipe. They're in the same game, but they're on the opposite sides.

In the 1960s... (Parallel to the drug war) by Paul+Fernhout · 2005-11-13 12:51 · Score: 1

In the 1960s, imprisoning a half million people for smoking pot in the USA would have seemed laughable. Forty years later, that is roughly the number of people in prison for non-violent drug offenses, many of them for marijuana.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/409/toohigh.sh tml

Many other prisoners are also there for things like theft related to a drug habit (despite that addiction is often more a medical problem, or sometimes also from an economic problem leading to depression which our society refuses to deal with).

One major reason pot was pushed to be illegal is because hemp is such a versatile product and threatened timber and paper monopolies (although there were other factors as well).
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/ whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
http://www.cannabis.com/faqs/hemp2.shtml
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/002065.php

So, will it be any surprise if copyright laws go the same way -- towards Richard Stallman's "Right to Read" cautionary tale?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Will there be a half million kids in prison for using file sharing software in a couple of decades? Or just even using GNU/Linux? :-)

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.

...and funds Terrorists!!! (OMG, WTF, etc.) by griffjon · 2005-11-13 13:06 · Score: 1

http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.j sp?vnu_content_id=1001477589 has this quote from Albert:

"I think legislation is absolutely necessary as we are at a critical point as the technology is changing so quickly. Because of the changes in technology, it's so much easier (to pirate) now. What that's doing is encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual property theft, and that involvement is used, quite frankly, to fund terrorist activities. It is a great concern to the Department of Justice and the administration."

Tomorrow: file-traders are non-legal enemy combatants, and can be jailed offshore and tortured?

--
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer

Missing the point by einhverfr · 2005-11-13 13:28 · Score: 1

The US copyright system in this country is broken, but not by technology.

The central notion of copyright is that the act of making copies was difficult, and therefore served as a kind of chokepoint to control distribution and make sure someone got paid.

Not really. Mass production did require some equipment (movable type press and all that) but then as now, the difference between making the first copy and making the second copy was really pretty substantial. This is still the way it is with any mass distribution media with the possible exception of P2P (which often lacks quality controls and therefore makes the idea fundamentally vulnerable to attack by hostile parties). The difference now, however, is that making a few copies is now quite a bit easier. So instead of just having to deal with one person making a thousand copies, now you also have to deal with another two hundred people making five copies each. This is what the content industry uses to frighten lawmakers into proposing these draconian measures.

The problem is, however, that the content industry has broken our copyright system. Copyright is supposed to be an exchange of benefits, where the content producer gets a temporary monopoly on the work, and after that time is up, the public takes ownership of it (with the exception, I think of moral rights, but IANAL and I don't think moral rights can be inherited-- i.e. plagerizing a Hieronymous Bosh painting might be ethically problematic but I doubt that the Bosh estate would have grounds to come after you, but again IANAL. Moral rights may differ from country to country too). What has developed, however, is an idea by the content providers that they should have what would essentially be a larger and larger monopoly around the content which should never expire. As the public, therefore we are getting cheated out of our heritage. I.e. the first Mickey Mouse movie really ought to be public domain now. But it is not because we are being tricked into selling our heritage in exchange for some idea that somehow we will get some sort of pie in the sky economic return on this investment.

I think that it is the essence of democracy that the people take action to recover what was wrongfully taken from them by the corporations with the blessing of the government which was supposed to act on their best interests. After all, one really can see the Boston Tea Party as such an action. However, I do not think that copyright infringement is the way to do this. Unfortunately, copyright infringement actually reinforces the content industry's hold on our cultural heritage either by helping to block out alternative systems or by helping raise pressure to increase those draconian measures that are being placed on us today. Free Software started as an attempt to rectify this situation in the software world, and while I might think that RMS is silly in a great many respects I think he has sometimes been able to help remind people of this point and for that I am grateful.

We need Free Content as well. We need to help advocate that musicians release their music under Free Content licenses. We need authors to release articles and books under Free Content licenses. We need to form companies to help make this happen. I challenge as many readers as can to start online record lables, online magazines, and the like devoted to Free Content as the best chance we have to break these chains that the copyright industry is placing on us.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:Missing the point by shanen · 2005-11-13 17:48 · Score: 1

Just note that I agree that copyright law is badly broken, and that the causes are almost entirely the sustained lobbying efforts of the publishing industry.
However, I think you are completely misrepresenting the costs of publishing when the original legislation was produced. You are talking about the marginal cost of the additional copies, and it is true that the low marginal costs made it possible to mass produce books in the first place. However the costs of setting up to do so were extremely substantial. Printing presses themselves were large and expensive, but you also needed paper and lots of ink, and a warehouse to store the paper before and after printing. Add in collating and binding, too. Altogether a more-than-minor enterprise, and the capital costs only declined gradually until about 40 years ago...
...when the bottom started completely dropping out of the market. Initially it was just photocopying technologoy, but nowadays technologies like BitTorrent can make thousands (or millions) of digital copies almost immediately. Yes, the marginal costs are still low, but the capital investments are also negligible. (Minor assumption that people buy computers primarily for other purposes, but even if they didn't, the total cost of a computer and a network connection is trivial compared to the cost of setting up a printshop.)

--
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.

P2P? by fishbowl · 2005-11-13 13:35 · Score: 1

Who will be the first to go to jail for a GPL violation?
Anything you do to copyright law, sharpens or dulls a sword that cuts both ways.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

In other news by ZachPruckowski · 2005-11-13 13:49 · Score: 1

The Attorney General was arrested today. According to the FBI, he is alleged to have donated to terrorists amounts the same size as filesharers ($0). A high-ranking official in the FBI was quoted as saying "Yeah, well, he donated as much as people he accused, and there's just this really nice feeling involved in arresting your boss."

Stiffer violations? by yeremein · 2005-11-13 14:08 · Score: 1

The **AA are already intimidating their customers to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in statutory damages for sharing a couple of albums online. That's already four orders of magnitude higher than it should be. Now that's not enough?

Creative Commons by rtb61 · 2005-11-13 14:18 · Score: 1

I believe in the creative commons. Copyright laws should be stiffened up and extended prison terms should be threatened upon any individual or corporation who dabbles in any of the copyrighted products of the pigopolists. Once we have created a flood of creative commons work, to cover any type of creative work, it will be used with malice and fore thought to ensure that the entire management team of the pigopolist empires and their supporting pretend "artists" and imprisoned for a very long time for attempting to steal our creative commons works. We shall eliminate them from existence with their own laws (now watch the try to twist the legislation so they can use it with out it being used against them ;-)).

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen

Misunderstanding the Republicans by Simonetta · 2005-11-13 14:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

You all are misunderstanding the Republicans. The goal is not to discourage copying and file sharing. The goal is to find a new way to put millions of young people in prison. Private prisons are big business in the USA and the private prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and Wackenhut are big campaign contributors to Republicans. They get $30,000 per year from the government for every person that they hold in their private prisons. More prisoners means more profits for them, so they strongly encourage the criminalization of activities that are currently not considered by any civilized people to be incarceration crimes.

Rest assured that if this law permitting wholesale incarceration for copyright actually goes into effect that it won't be rich white boys going to jail for downloading music that is made by poor blacks yelling about how they are going to kill some other poor black guy for wearing the wrong color sneakers. Hell, this is America that we're talking about. The people who are going to jail for downloading files are black people who download copies of Dr. Martin Luther King's copyrighted speeches. Don't have any illusions about what this law is actually about.

Basically this a new form of American slave trading. Or maybe it's not so new, just the same old slave trading in a different form. Let's see, we got rich white people hiding behind 'corporate person-hood' status making $30000 a year for each person (mostly black in the USA) that is held in bondage for non-crimes like getting high instead of getting drunk. This is already responsible for over half of the people being held in slavery in American corporate prisons. Now they've come up with a new idea to put millions of more people into slavery for nothing.
Remember, this has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is just an excuse this time to vastly increase the American slave trade. Copyright is the excuse this time just like drugs was the excuse last time. So what's it going to be next time?

Let me get this straight...... by pottymouth · 2005-11-13 15:47 · Score: 1

So now music downloaders are in the same catagory as rapists and murderers?

Is "Justice Department" really the right name for this organization.....

a fix? by taylorc209 · 2005-11-13 16:50 · Score: 1

so if someone(s) were to set up a server to host files that users place on it to be retreived only by the user that posted said files, and said files must be say .mp3 and there is no password, i.e. anyone can log on as anyone else adn all data sent encrypted, and a list of all files and there associated users was posted on a website, besides bandwidth problems why wouldn't this work especially if the someone(s) charged say a one time fee of $5 for access to "store your files" as a safe backup. also a program to keep duplicate "files" (tracks) would be needed so there aren't 12 copies of "thriller" on the server.

this is similar to what .mac is, the backing up data on third party servers part, so theoretically it should be legal, IANAL and wouldn't konw how to set this up but shouldn't it be legal for me to do, hard to punish users of and effectively allow all the same p2p music sharing anyone wants? without worry of problems, also should cut down on malware in system since only one copy would be retained, validating a single copy of all songs is much easeir then keeping malware out of say limewire

Torture only occurs Offshore? by Excen · 2005-11-13 17:50 · Score: 1

Tomorrow: file-traders are non-legal enemy combatants, and can be jailed offshore and tortured?

So, you are saying that torture isn't occuring now? I consider teh buttsecks from Bubba the 300 lb cellmate to be torture, but that's just me.

--
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad

I can't believe a politician would speak out. by insomniac8400 · 2005-11-13 20:49 · Score: 1

How can anyone recommend jail time when a lot of the situations of copyright violations are young kids using an internet connection paid for by their parents or grandparents. Its bad enough that they fine these people, but jail time is absured. As long as the typical copyright violator is a regular person or child that doesn't know better, its wrong to do anything to them. I wish politicians would worry more about the people who steal the material, or host it through more technical sharing programs than those that host it on programs a 6 year old can use. You shut down one easily used sharing program and two more popup in its place. The real culprits are people on IRC and newsgroups, as these people know full well what they are doing is supposedly wrong, especially when they take something they got through irc or a newsgroup and post it on a bittorrent site or another sharing app. Basically what I am saying is go after the providers of the illegal content, not the downloaders. Yes bittorrent uploads when you download, but somewhere along the line there is someone who didn't download it, but just uploaded and that person is the violator.

Police investigating GPL violations by bug1 · 2005-11-13 21:11 · Score: 1

Maybe one day we could see police investigating the majority of companies who willfully violate the GPL.

Actually no, Copyright LAws are made to PROTECT companies, so the police would never do that.

Film file-sharer sent to prison in Hong Kong by elgoog · 2005-11-13 22:00 · Score: 1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4413540.stm

Re:It seems to me ... Slashdotters are INSANE!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-13 22:12 · Score: 0

When was the last time you saw a true believer in 'open society' or western liberal democracy (representative govt, trial by a jury of your peers, you know American ideals) fly a hijacked airplane into a building full of innocent people to promote their ideological platform (and be celebrated for doing so)? If such an attack did exist, do you really think Americans would rally in the streets and celebrate an attack like September 11? Of course not, every American and their kids would be out there in protest and loudly voicing disgust.. you know this.

One question, if you had a choice between these tortures you call equivalent, which would you choose? Would you go with the new American 'torture' (underwear on your head), or Al Qaeda style (beheading)?

It's all the same right? Slashdot's sense of moral equivalence is brilliant.

This is one of the few communities where you can talk about the September 11 terrorists like they were justified, putting the word "terrorists" in quotes so as to suggest that this is just a label or word that American government has applied to people carrying out morally equivalent actions, and you get modded up as insightful!!

That really says something about the Slashdot community.

whee, mods on crack. by earthbound+kid · 2005-11-13 22:48 · Score: 1

This isn't flamebait at all, and it's a shame that the mods can't see that. The fact is, the grandparent is full of crap, and even the hard religious right isn't interested in outlawing masturbation, condoms, etc. But whatever, it's totally easier to fight an enemy that you don't understand, right? Sheez, and people wonder why they keep losing elections.

come to think of it by xmodem_and_rommon · 2005-11-13 23:22 · Score: 1

I would be interested to see how well that defense would do in court - I didn't want to buy the CD, cause I didn't want to risk having my computer's security compromised.

Re:come to think of it by rufty_tufty · 2005-11-14 03:24 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the courts equate that defense to a burgler saying "I broke into his house to steal his stuff because he was threatening to shit in my front room". Violating the law would still be a concious decision on your part - regardless of your reason for doing so.

Yes I know violation of copyright is not theft, but the brainwashing campaign by FACT seems to be working.

Hence my logic that FACT can have no argument with me, because I have not stolen any copyright ever. I have also not melted a gas either.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -

proove it by xmodem_and_rommon · 2005-11-13 23:25 · Score: 1

while I suspect he's joking, assuming he isn't, what evidence do you predict they will use against him? it's awfully easy to fake MAC addresses and such so as to leave no evidence

Apparently, Left is middle... by Thedalek · 2005-11-13 23:25 · Score: 1

... And right is crazy. Or so you would think reading /.

Seriously, this got modded +4 insightful.

--
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.

In other news... by Quixadhal · 2005-11-14 00:58 · Score: 1

Monks in Europe being brought in for questioning. It turns out the copyright holder on materials believed lost during the "Dark Ages" wants compensation for the potential profit their order *might* have made, if other monastic orders hadn't duplicated all those books and scrolls.

"DRM should work to prevent any such violations in the future, but we want our fair share.", said an RIAA spokesperson. "I mean, just look at all the things we use, every day, that use arabic numbers. Those would have been ours to sell, if the monks hadn't copied them."

Asked about the prospect of another "Dark Age", the spokesperson replied, "Well, in the event of a world-wide return to barbarism, I think it's safe to say that the RIAA will be seen as the new Guardians of Knowledge... and once the world economy starts to stabilize, I'm sure we can return that knowledge to the people for a price they'll be happy to pay."

Prisons Make Room by quibbs0 · 2005-11-14 02:40 · Score: 1

Now that we are going to have "copyright infringers" going to jail, what are we going to do with all those criminals that smoked pot? Lord knows we need them to be kept in jail. They were all just waiting to murder someone.

I've got an alternative? How about a reality show called "Copyright Island". See what happens when 10 copyright criminals are put together on their very own island, without internet access and an unlimited stack of CD-R's.... Watch the insanity every Tuesday at 8:00 PM. Patent pending.

From a Social View Point. by LifesABeach · 2005-11-14 04:54 · Score: 1

Lets see. Use a CD, go to jail. There will always be loud passionate voice out there to say, "Priates are Priates, Hang Them All." But IS there a violation of copy write? Is the original reason for copy write being ignored? Who are the ones profiting from this ultra conservitive definition of the law? Are the ones who benefit really the ones who made the copy writted material. Should copy writes be assignable? Is the impact of copy write becoming a negative to Joe Average Six-Pack? Are the real copy write victums the ones being sued?

Re:It seems to me ... Slashdotters are INSANE!! by ceoyoyo · 2005-11-14 06:41 · Score: 1

Okay, how about this: Firebombing of Hamburg (50,000 dead)
Firebombing of Dresden (about 30,000 dead)
Bombing of Tokyo (killed more people than the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
Bombing of Kobe (destroyed the homes of 650,000 people)

During the Vietnam war the US sprayed herbicide across at least 750,000 hectares of crop land, an action condemned by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal. The tribunal also condemned the use of fragmentary munitions, including those with delayed detonation as they are primarily useful against civilian populations.

A quote from one of the articles about the effect of firebombing:

The fire-bombing consisted of by-then standard methods; dropping large amounts of high-explosive to blow off the roofs to expose the timbers within buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire-sticks) to ignite them and then more high-explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. This eventually created a self-sustaining firestorm with temperatures peaking at over 1500 C. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area became extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

The reason the September 11 attacks were so horrendous is that most of the world decided, after seeing the horrors of World War II, that we would not fight total war any more. The Geneva Conventions, among other agreements were signed. Whether or not the actual September 11 attacks were terrorist actions, once the US declared war on Al Qaeda they were no longer terrorists -- they were a legitimate enemy. You don't (in fact, can't) declare war on terrorists. You send police to arrest them (a la Timothy McVeigh or the first set of WTC bombers).

Anyway, the point was that the September 11 attack is condemned because it was attack on a purely civilian population. That sort of attack was perfectly acceptable strategy before the end of WWII. So if you toss the Geneva Convention as being quaint, you are ACTUALLY legitimizing September 11th.

You should put your righteous anger on hold for a minute and realize that just because the US is the most powerful nation in the world doesn't mean it should be judged any differently. I suspect your attorney general has much the same attitude -- look at how we were wronged! How about we get rid of this pesky no torture thing because it's inconvenient for us in our righteous quest to bring the wrongdoers to justice! And no, instead of masses of Americans in the streets voicing their disgust and opposition (like in Vietnam) I see many people like you, rationalizing absolutely anything that's done in the "War on Terror." It's just "underwear on your head!" What's wrong with that? When does the payback end? The news says Bush is looking at invading Syria now.

Doesn't "shock and awe" sound suspiciously like "inspiring terror," the primary tool of terrorists?

PS - beheading is considerably more humane than hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair and possibly lethal injection (as practiced), all legal execution methods in various parts of the US.

Re:Doesn't the White House have anything better to by mink · 2005-11-14 09:13 · Score: 1

Dont forget the Anthrax letters with the stuff from one of our military research centers. Rumor is the CIA sent the anthrax to Democrats (and a token republican or two) to try to kill them all!

I was only wearing half a tinfoil hat for that. You should be able to figure out what half.

--
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.

Jail Time????!!!!!!!! by VoiceOfDoom · 2005-11-15 04:56 · Score: 1

Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but:

Jail time?

As I understand it, copyright infringement is a *civil* matter, not criminal.
Where does jail fit into that?

--
"Life is pain Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something"

Westly, The Princess Bride

Slashdot Mirror

Stiffer Penalties for Copyright Violations

502 comments