Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

Posted by Soulskill on from the electricity-is-the-real-culprit dept.

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."

8 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. An amendment would fix this by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:An amendment would fix this by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...they'd be phasing copyright out instead of extending it.

      I disagree. I think putting Copyright back to its original terms would be perfect:

      The first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright for a term of "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term

      Source.

      It's plenty of time for one to reap the rewards of their time and effort.

      There are some people who make their living (some very good livings) from creating and I wouldn't want them to get corporate jobs:

      David Attenborough, David McCullough, Ken Burns, Malcolm Gladwell, Dave Chapelle, most of the authors for the New Yorker, and it goes on.....

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:An amendment would fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then you won't mind if we get rid of this little wrinkle to help bring rights back into a more normal alignment.

    3. Re:An amendment would fix this by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many of those works are still making a significant profit for their creators after 14 years? 28? With the exception of novels, and possibly painting reproductions, a creative work has a shelf life of single-digit years. And even in those two cases, the average shelf life is pretty short; the ones that continue to turn a profit for decades are few and far between. Yet we deprive the public domain of these works that might otherwise see a resurgence in popularity under the false assumption that they might see a resurgence in popularity anyway. I think 28 years is way too long in the digital age, given the amount of content that is being created every day.

      I think that copyright should be defined based on both time and profit. Once the work has brought in a certain reasonable baseline income, defined based on the nature of the work, and regularly adjusted for inflation, then the work should be protected for ten years, period, with no possibility for renewal. This would mean that lesser-known works would have the opportunity to take a while to build up in popularity and eventually pay back their creator for the time invested, but would also mean that a highly popular work would fall into the public domain about the time that its sales cease to be significant.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Re:Photocopying machines by dunezone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every industry has made a fuss about something that might potentially hurt the bottom line. The best one I heard was the car industry refusing seat belts early on because they argued it would give the perception that their automobiles were not safe.

  3. Re:Photocopying machines by sorak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As someone who likes to cook, I am surprised that so many recipe books continue to get published. There are just so many free resources on the internet, but, somehow, Rachael Ray and Paula Deene keep cranking them out.

  4. Re:Don't worry by jusdisgi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I never thought I'd see the day when a tech law would get better, more accurate coverage in the political press than the technical press, but COICA seems to have managed just that. See here. Short story: this legislation replaces the existing federal authority granted in the 1934 Communications Act with a much narrower and better controlled authority. As such, it would pretty dramatically restrict the government's ability to shut down websites, not expand it. But hey...that's no reason to refrain from bashing the administration for being fascists, right?

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  5. Re:I wish... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which is infringing on The Burning Bush.

    Prometheus is waiting for his licensing check ... and if he ever gets it, Zeus will promptly sue him.