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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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?

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

To jump ship? Someone tell me when.

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 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 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 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

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

Welcome, darknets!

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

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.

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

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?.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Good I say.. by adpe · 2005-11-13 05:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe Sony will get what it deseves then.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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 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!

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: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? -

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: 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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*

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...

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

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.

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!

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?

Slashdot Mirror

Stiffer Penalties for Copyright Violations

94 of 502 comments (clear)