Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 27, 2010 @06:18AM 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."

41 of 264 comments (clear)

Don't worry by Dyinobal · 2010-09-27 06:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Don't worry they are now working on keeping us safe from video games.
1. Re:Don't worry by jusdisgi · 2010-09-27 07:57 · 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.
2. Re:Don't worry by Lehk228 · 2010-09-27 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  that has nothing to do with the internet, that is just FCC broadcast and interference regulations. The FCC doesn't regulate desk fans, but a desk fan that puts out interference is still in violation.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Photocopying machines by grub · 2010-09-27 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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,
1. Re:Photocopying machines by dunezone · 2010-09-27 06:44 · 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.
2. Re:Photocopying machines by grub · 2010-09-27 06:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Not sure how it would work but I hear they're thinking about putting seatbelts on Segways now.
  
  "too soon" be damned...
  
  --
  Trolling is a art,
3. Re:Photocopying machines by noidentity · 2010-09-27 06:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Their thinking was that the secretaries would be swapping recipes via photocopies and not buying cookbooks as a Good Citizen should.
  
  Who would fund the creation of new recipes if everyone shared them freely? Without copyright protection, we'd all be eating gray sludge fortified with nutrients.
4. Re:Photocopying machines by jpapon · 2010-09-27 06:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Not sure how it would work but I hear they're thinking about putting parachutes on Segways now.
  
  Fixed!
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
5. Re:Photocopying machines by Ruie · 2010-09-27 07:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Their thinking was that the secretaries would be swapping recipes via photocopies and not buying cookbooks as a Good Citizen should.
  Who would fund the creation of new recipes if everyone shared them freely? Without copyright protection, we'd all be eating gray sludge fortified with nutrients.
  This is all the body needs.
6. Re:Photocopying machines by sorak · 2010-09-27 07:28 · 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.
7. Re:Photocopying machines by BlueStrat · 2010-09-27 07:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Not sure how it would work but I hear they're thinking about putting "idiot detectors" on Segways now.
  Fixed!
  FTFFY (Fixed that fix for you.)
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
8. Re:Photocopying machines by GlennC · 2010-09-27 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Where do you think they get their ideas?
  
  --
  Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
I wish... by denis-The-menace · 2010-09-27 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:I wish... by bws111 · 2010-09-27 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How does copyright 'guarantee profits' or prevent someone from having a better product? All copyright attempts to do is say 'if you want MY product, you get it from ME, on terms we agree on'. And make no mistake, the 'product' is the song, movie, story, etc, NOT the CD, DVD, or book it is contained on. You are perfectly free to make a 'better' song, movie, or book than me.
2. Re:I wish... by HungryHobo · 2010-09-27 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are perfectly free to make a 'better' song, movie, or book than me.
  unless of course the better one is merely a massively improved version of your song, movie, or book
3. Re:I wish... by Mitchell314 · 2010-09-27 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Let me get this straight . . .
  
  TFA: Tech that would be banned had the Senate had its way to protect against stuff "Dedicated to infringing activities"
  GP: "I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too."
  P: "'I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too.' In no way does copyright law force anyone to buy anything"
  
  ?
  Like, did the gp even say "copyright"? And even if (s)he did, does matter given the context of the article and his/her post?
  
  --
  I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
4. Re:I wish... by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · 2010-09-27 07:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except for when overly broad copyright means you are potentially infringing regardless of what you create.
  If three notes are enough to infringe upon a song, it is functionally impossible to make new, non-infringing songs. Similar arguments can be made about other fields.
5. Re:I wish... by bws111 · 2010-09-27 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So is my contribution to your new work vital or not? If it is, is there any reason you should not get my permission to use it? If my contribution is not vital to your new work, remove it and you owe me nothing.
6. Re:I wish... by LWATCDR · 2010-09-27 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I am sure you do.
  Why should I have to pay for food. It grows on trees.
  Really I do not like DRM at all but this fantasy that the cost to produce software, music, movies, tv shows, and books is pure fantasy.
  The cost to duplicate them is pretty low but the actual cost to produce them is significant.
  And you do not have to buy the content from them. You will not die without it. You are just not free to take it.
  Don't get me wrong. The cost of DVDs, CDs, and EBooks is way too high.
  But they also do not have to be free.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
7. Re:I wish... by denis-The-menace · 2010-09-27 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The problem is not the people "Creating" the stuff.
  Its the people making money from it for money's sake.
  -They get laws written to extension a monopoly beyond reasonable terms. (Copyright extension act)
  -They use "Hollywood accounting" to defraud people who helped to create the "work"
  -They kill 1st-sale-doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)with DRM and time limited ownership.
  -They get the "work" broadcasted and expect everybody to drop everything to listen/watch the broadcast. We could record TV and radio 30+ years ago. Today we can even find someone else to do it for us for free and the MiddleMen freak out.
  **If they would offer free DLs *WITH COMMERCIALS* I would rather DL that then PB versions.**
  Instead I must:
  -PAY for iTune$/Netflick$/etc
  -WAIT and PAY for DVDs with DRM and root kits.
  -WAIT and HOPE it plays again
  Remember, they already broadcasted it for *FREE* so why should I pay to watch/listen to it, especially if I missed it?
  If it's good:
  -I will want a REAL stamped copy of a CD/DVD.
  -I will want to see their concert (Oops, middlemen don't do concerts!)
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
8. Re:I wish... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2010-09-27 10:12 · 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.
An amendment would fix this by commodore64_love · 2010-09-27 06:25 · 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 airfoobar · 2010-09-27 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Alas, that clause is already optional in the constitution. Congress has the power to scale down or revoke that privilege, if they think it no longer serves its intended purpose. If Congress really cared about the welfare of the people rather than filling their pockets with lobbyist money, they'd be phasing copyright out instead of extending it.
2. Re:An amendment would fix this by airfoobar · 2010-09-27 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The individuals that comprise those organisations have rights. Corporations, unions, lobby groups, organisations etc etc don't and shouldn't have rights.
3. Re:An amendment would fix this by Amouth · 2010-09-27 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
  i think they are treated differently and there for are different.
  the individuals in the group would have the same rights as any individual - but the company wouldn't.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
4. Re:An amendment would fix this by Bartab · 2010-09-27 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
  Err. No.
  Corporations and other such organizations cannot be charged with a crime, such charges are applied to people. The actors of the crime. If you commit a non crime killing, you'll be subject to civil charges, not criminal charges. As fines associated with civil charges are generally scaled to your wealth, the fine itself would be a lot loss.
  The thing crazy people like to forget is that "imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist. Thus actions are always the acts of people. If a crime occurs, it's a person engaging in them. If a right is being exercised, it's a person engaging in them. Corporations in particular, and similarly but differently for PACs and Unions, the organizations exist as a formalized organizational structure to assist investment and decision making. When that decision making leads to illegal activity, the decision makers and actors are both vulnerable to criminal charges. In addition, the people involved -and- the corporation itself is vulnerable to civil charges.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
5. Re:An amendment would fix this by AnonymousClown · 2010-09-27 06:50 · 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
6. Re:An amendment would fix this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:57 · 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.
7. Re:An amendment would fix this by commodore64_love · 2010-09-27 07:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >>>"imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist.
  Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?
  Nothing except fine the company while the specific individuals that made the decision take golden parachutes and escape without punishment for their crime. The corporation should be treated as an object and nothing more. The company can keep its immunity but it shall have no rights; only privileges which can be revoked at anytime with a mere act of Congress.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
8. Re:An amendment would fix this by dgatwood · 2010-09-27 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except that they can't. A corporation isn't a large group of individuals that decided to get together. It is an organization of a company that is typically owned by a small number of individuals (as few as one) for the purposes of protecting the assets of the proprietors if the company fails and to protect the proprietors from legal responsibility if the company does something in appropriate (usually). There is no good reason for a corporation to be treated as a person, as the sole purpose of a corporation is to prevent the individuals that make it up from having liability. Granting those people rights without liability attached is fundamentally unjust.
  Corporate contributions to political campaigns, for example, means that someone in a position to dictate policy for a corporation is able to spend the money of other people without them really having any say in the matter. I mean sure, they could ostensibly sell their shares, but that just means that a different group of people are getting screwed. More to the point, that wealth was acquired because of the workers that make up the corporation, yet they have no real say whatsoever in how the money is spent except insofar as some of them may also be minority shareholders. In effect, this means that the voices of a few are amplified unfairly due solely to their being in charge of a corporation. In addition to these people casting one vote through their personal financial contributions, they are able to cast a second vote through corporate contributions, whereas the average citizen cannot realistically do the same. This promotes inequality in which the people with the most money and power are able to exert undue influence, thus increasing their money and power, in a sort of perverse feedback loop. This is exactly contrary to the founding principle of democracy---the notion that all are created equal abd should have equal rights under the law.
  Unions are only slightly better. In principle, people have the right to refuse to join a union and can merely pay their "fair share" dues---the collective bargaining portion of the union dues without the political portion. In practice, however, the unions stand for many things, and there is no practical way for a union member to say that they will allow their dues to be spent on some, but not all of its political goals. As such, because it is a "take it or leave it" proposition and because contributions from a union represent substantially greater weight than individual contributions, members are unlikely to deny everything merely because they disagree with some of the union's positions. This again means that the decision-making process is taken out of the hands of its members and given to its elected leaders, again unfairly exaggerating the voice of a few on many issues.
  I'd be fine with all the corporate and union contributions if I could say on an individual basis that their contribution must be reduced by 0.002% to account for me withholding my portion thereof. As long as this is not the case---as long as I don't have a vote on each individual issue---then corporations and unions do not accurately reflect the will of the people who comprise them, and as such, those contributions are a fundamental usurpation of power, denying us our rights as shareholders, union members, and workers in those corporations.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
9. Re:An amendment would fix this by dgatwood · 2010-09-27 07:40 · 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.
10. Re:An amendment would fix this by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2010-09-27 08:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?
  Point out that in the case in question, the pinto had a missing gas cap and was hit at 55 mph by a van with a plank for a front bumper. It's unreasonable to expect a pijnto to survive that. The fact that they estimate a $11/unit design change would save 180 lives is offensive, but probably not relevant to the specific case.
  You can argue both sides of this - cheaping out on something that makes a car safer causes an emotional response, but requiring a company to implement whatever it can to improve safety makes it impossible to produce cheap cars in the grey zone between dangerous and Volvo. Never mind that there's a very real potential for people to be more careless when more safety equipment is added, leading to the same level of risk.
  
  --
  "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Nothing else going on, apparently by DaveM753 · 2010-09-27 06:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Nothing else going on, apparently by KillaGouge · 2010-09-27 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  unforutinetly the wealthy are the ones lining Congress' pockets, so of course Congress is going to do what they want. As bad as it sounds, they don't much care about unemployment because the unemployed don't contribute to their lifestyles.
  
  --
  GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
2. Re:Nothing else going on, apparently by trapnest · 2010-09-27 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But if those unemployed had jobs they'd be paying more taxes...
Engaging self-destruct in 5... by Drakkenmensch · 2010-09-27 06:34 · Score: 5, Informative

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
1. Re:Engaging self-destruct in 5... by croddy · 2010-09-27 06:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Orrin Hatch is one of the most deeply corrupt enemies of copyright reform in the history of copyright. Thankfully he has not been able to obtain a level of power sufficient to fully support his comically evil campaign of unconstitutional kickbacks to big media.
Another ban item to consider by The+Assistant · 2010-09-27 06:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

How about banning Government Institutions that hamper the exchange of ideas, commerce, and other items leading to a healthy economy?
How will they know without a trial by samjam · 2010-09-27 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Sad reality by roman_mir · 2010-09-27 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
QUICK someone ban the HUMAN BRAIN! by SirAstral · 2010-09-27 10:50 · Score: 3, Funny

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!