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."

19 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry they are now working on keeping us safe from video games.

    1. 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.
  2. Photocopying machines by grub · · 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 grub · · 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,
    2. Re:Photocopying machines by noidentity · · 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.

    3. Re:Photocopying machines by jpapon · · 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
    4. Re:Photocopying machines by GlennC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where do you think they get their ideas?

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
  3. I wish... by denis-The-menace · · 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 · · 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 · · 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

  4. Nothing else going on, apparently by DaveM753 · · 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 trapnest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if those unemployed had jobs they'd be paying more taxes...

  5. Engaging self-destruct in 5... by Drakkenmensch · · 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 · · 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.

  6. Re:An amendment would fix this by airfoobar · · 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.

  7. Re:An amendment would fix this by Bartab · · 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.
  8. Re:An amendment would fix this by commodore64_love · · 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
  9. How will they know without a trial by samjam · · 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.

  10. Sad reality by roman_mir · · 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.