Slashdot Mirror
Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks ago, Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the 'Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' (COICA) bill, which was discussed here on Slashdot. The main part of the bill would allow the Justice Department to shut down websites that it deems are 'dedicated to infringing activities,' without a trial (due process is so old fashioned). Of course, in reviewing the bill, it's important to note that pretty much every new technology in the entertainment industry over the last century was deemed 'dedicated to infringing activities,' so here's a list of all of the technologies COICA would have banned in the past, including Hollywood itself, radio, cable television, the photocopier, the iPod and more."
Don't worry they are now working on keeping us safe from video games.
I remember reading a story years ago about cookbook publishers being up in arms when the Xerox machine came out.
Their thinking was that the secretaries would be swapping recipes via photocopies and not buying cookbooks as a Good Citizen should.
.
Trolling is a art,
I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too.
How dare you have a better product/service than me!
Why should I listen to my customers? They have to buy it from me.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
And certainly more useful than a "don't burn the flag" amendment:
Amendment ___ - Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Replace with "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Two Decades to Authors and Inventors the revocable Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
They don't call him "Dick" for nothing.
We have 2 wars, 10-20% unemployment, poverty, bad health care system, etc. But let's deal with copyright infringement for the wealthy. Everything else can be fixed later.
In the end they are just senators it's not like they know anything about law work, oh wait Senator Patrick Leahy got his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and Senator Orrin Hatch got his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh Law School. Well they are both lawyers so I guess we shouldn't question them on this.
when law meets technology, law bends, not technology. sure, the law can do a lot of damage, but technological progress is inevitable. at the very worst, if an insane amount of effort went into keeping society stuck in the past, even if they were somehow practically enforceable, other societies would vault ahead of the usa
the obvious benefits of progress would be seen in the other country and become envy. the threat the technology posed would be seen as sham, and the benefits would be clear: those other societies would be more competitive. if the technological progress is the gun, for example, the other country would win more wars. if the technological progress is a free and unfettered internet, the other country would become more culturally dominant
support for the ridiculous laws would erode. laws can often times conflict with common sense, but not forever, and not glaringly so
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In case anybody might have forgotten, Senator Hatch was a strong supporter of computer built-in self-destruct mechanisms that the music industry could have activated remotely on a whim: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930731/posts
"Dedicated to infringing activities" sounds like it should be the motto of Congress. Bring it on.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
If anyone remembered the legal battles Diamond had to fight against the RIAA to keep the Rio PMP 300 in production, it is a miracle we have MP3 players at all.
After the RIAA vs. Diamond fight, every player out there had some form of DRM [1], at the minimum something to keep people from copying music from the device to the computer. Some players had a proprietary application. Others encrypted the music with a key only that player had when it was copied.
Eventually this was dropped. Creative put out versions of their software that allowed copying music from the player to a computer.
Of course, Apple hammered the final nail in this coffin. Even now, you can copy music from your iPod or iPhone to your computer, although it either takes a third party application in some cases.
Had the RIAA had their way, MP3 players likely would either never be around, or have been forced to have very Draconian DRM technology on them, probably like the early Network Walkmans Sony had where one had to check sounds in and out of a device (as opposed to copy), only three instances of a song could ever be copied, and there was no such thing as backups -- reinstall of a computer meant having to re-rip the complete music collection.
[1]: Anyone remember the SDMI initiative, essentially required DRM on any and all players.
Yet nerds are always heated up about privacy eroding technologies. Not to mention weapons. And drugs. And corruption in the financial industry.
A couple of years from now Senator Hatch will be history. He has been in there far too long, and is flaky on any number of issues such as this one. It is nearly a foregone conclusion that his party members in the state of Utah are going to dump him for somebody new when he is up for re-election in 2012, someone certainly more libertarian in character. Rep. Jason Chaffetz for example.
cable tv?? they where taking a free OTA feed and putting it on the cable line and for some people that was the way to ota as some people did not get a good ota signal and you where paying for the cable systems line and there antenna. Some people where able to get the same stuff for if they put up there own ota antenna at there own cost.
later came the non OTA pay stuff (some area had uhf scrambled tv before areas got cable)
also back then you where about to get C-BAND and get lots of free stuff but you had to pay alot for dish and other stuff.
Leahy is an arse. Like so many politicians he has no concept of the evil he sponsors. He just signs off on the bills. I suspect he has Alzheimer's.
How about banning Government Institutions that hamper the exchange of ideas, commerce, and other items leading to a healthy economy?
All electrically powered devices are meant to infringe copyright! Ban Electricity! But wait, electricity can also be used to execute infringers in the chair, oh what a conundrum...
Maybe they can use this to ban gawd-awful movie knock-offs...
Ibid.
That doesn't make any sense. What is an individual if individuals can not operate collectively to do what that they can legally do individually. An anti-democracy principle makes a lot more sense, that no collective may legally do what its individuals may not.
The ONLY issue with collective power is transparency. For example, if we want to say that if a person is donating more than $X to some cause and in such a case the persons name must go on public record, then if two+ people wanting to make a joint donation of the same amount or greater under a pseudonym / fictitious name must have its members names made publicly available.
On the issue of somebody making a donation on behalf of another without their permission / consent then there there could have been a breach of fiduciary responsibility, but that is something entirely separate.
Unions, PAC's and corporations are collectives, they are groups of people. Just because the people in the groups might be brainless drones that elect stupid greedy people to speak on their behalf doesn't make them non-human. "Special rights and privileges " being granted to groups that are not extended to individuals is a corruption of those institutions as a matter of public policy, not a reflection of its members. In other words, we should not be so critical of greedy people asking for more than they deserve, but critical of our representatives that take what is ours and give it to those that ask for it without earning it (but for possibly the quid pro quo re-election).
Invalidating the power of a group invalidates the power of the individual any time the argument can be made that an individual is a member of a group that is not in favor. To empower the individual, all that is necessary is to ensure that there is no power inflation or deflation by virtue of how a person associates with others or allows themselves to be represented.
So we have this group of people who are charged with making rules for us. They are our designated rulers. Why do we act as if it is somehow surprising that they think it is their job to protect us from ourselves? They (and many of us) think that we are too stupid to govern ourselves. You will even see replies to my post talking about how people cant be trusted with governing ourselves. (So what makes these idiots in the senate any smarter or better than us, huh?)
No, if you dont want your rulers telling you what to do, then the only choice is to overcome the concept of rulers-and-followers. We came up with something similar in the free software movement. Now people are diligently working to make it happen in the realm of all governance. See http://www.metagovernment.org/
I was actually in agreement with you. Cheers, mate!
Just two of the Criminals-In-Congress.
Yours In Ashgabat,
K. Trout
I wouldn't mind if I could think of some way to steal back the Money the corporations stole from the taxpayers in the first place
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
when law meets technology, law bends, not technology. sure, the law can do a lot of damage, but technological progress is inevitable.
There is no such thing as "technological progress". As a technique becomes more effective in the setting that it is in, it inevitably becomes less effective in every other setting, which means that as the external circumstances change, which they inevitably do, the technique becomes defunct.
"The Legal System" is a perfect example. "The Financial System" is another. They're both collaborative technologies, and nothing more. They'll go by the wayside when the changing world renders them obsolete, but it will not be progress, just change.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Let's not forget that Orrin Hatch makes a habit of trying to legislate against technology. This is the same douchebag that a few years ago proposed blowing up all computers that illegally downloaded music.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
I would have cheered any decision that eliminated the possibility of cable TV companies taking OTA signals and charging for them as was done in the 1970s and 1980s. The concept of engaging munipalities in a "franchise contract" that enforced a monopoly position of the cable company is also a somewhat silly idea.
We are now in a situation because of this where after the digital TV conversion it is impossible to receive decent signals in many rural and semi-rural places in the US. Your only choices are satellite and the local cable monopoly. They have a pretty solid lock on Internet access as well.
I live in Utah. I have for most of my life. I have never...ever...voted for Orrin Hatch. The man is an idiot. It's gray haired straight part ticket republicans that are keeping him in office. No one under 40 wants him to be reelected yet it keeps happening. He doesn't represent my interests, or the interests of most of his constituency any more. He's bought and paid for by the RIAA/MPAA.
This space for rent...
the trial is the process by which they discover if the website 'dedicated to infringing activities' and not just the subject of whining or attack by commercial rivals.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
It's amazing, every second story on /. is about how the government is trying to take away more and more Liberties and Freedoms that are intrinsic to the people and even those that are granted by amendments in a more specific way and I argue that this is what is wrong with the governments but over and over people fight me on this here, completely missing the point that they are less Free with every bill that the government passes, they are staring right at it and cannot see it, I do not understand this, but I understand that if even on /. this is the general attitude, then in the rest of the population this has to be even more pronounced, so basically nothing will change, people want to be controlled and punished and ruled by tyrants. People have decided this is what they need, it's sad.
You can't handle the truth.
Nerds are always heated up about weapons? I must have missed the memo on that one. Now if you meant we're annoyed at how difficult it is to legally purchase a firearm in certain states then I would certainly agree...
So.... as long as I -dedicate- my site to "web search" and Elvis, and my infringing activities are ancillary, it is ok?
For instance, google could run bit-torrent, as long as their search activities were the "majority" of their activity?
I asked this question in another thread a while back and got modded a troll, but what the hell, I'm a sucker for punishment and I'll ask it again.
What about voting?
Why does the conservative right in the USA pander to evangelicals who think stem cells are people, Fred Flintstone lived alongside T-Rex and that it's just coincidental that chimps and humans share DNA? Because those evangelicals VOTE and vote strongly in numbers... Does campaign financing count for a lot? Sure - But ultimately it comes down to voters, and your representatives pander to those people who go out and put an "X" in the box next to their name.
I meant laws banning/controlling/regarding weapons.
Why is there still no "-1: Terribly written"?
...and even I think Hatch is a Gestapo control freak who needs to be kicked out of office.
Oh look, almost all of them are Democrats.
Don't you mean will? This is their second chance.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
one day we used swords, the next day we used guns
one day we rode horses, the next day we rode cars
one day we listened to radio, the next day we watched television
technological progress dude
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it was deemd nonuesful becuasw this /., so all posts would all desserve it.
laws can often times conflict with common sense, but not forever, and not glaringly so
Meanwhile the War on Drugs is 40 years old with no real end in sight.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
As it turns out in a recent study the human brain can be used with the assistance of Vision, Touch, Auditory, Olfactory, and Taste organs to duplicate all manor of infringing copyrighted/patented technologies!
We should JUST BAN THE BRAIN!
O wait... congress has apparently already done that!
but I'll bet they can find it.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
moncleroutlet Moncler is a unified fashion brand, personality rather than obvious.Simple Moncler Jackets and Moncler Coats bring infinite taste and connotation.Elastic band sleeve cuffs with snap button closure. Rib knit waistband inside.New Moncler Jacket design in 2010, whether from the fabric choice or design, every detail has a new sense. Discount Moncler Outlet is free shipping and great discount online now. http://www.moncleroutlets-us.com/
They need to rename this the Combatting Online Infringement To Uplift Shareholders (COITUS) Act. As the Senators point out, we should just "bend over and take it."
Ah, fair enough. I'll freely admit I get pretty fired up about lawmakers trying to ban them.
To argue that there is no such thing as technological progress puts you at odds with thousands of people who argue (and have proven) that there is such a thing. Furthermore, the legal system is not a collaborative technology, nor is the financial system--they are systems within which technology exists. I would suggest that if you don't know what you're talking about, don't post, otherwise, you might come across like an ignoramus.