New Content-Delivery Tech Should Be Presumed Illegal, Says Former Copyright Boss

TrueSatan writes "Reminiscent of buggy whip manufacturers taking legal action against auto makers, the former U.S. Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, has given an amicus brief in the Aereo case (PDF) stating that all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal unless and until it is approved by Congress. He adds that providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models."

Comments

Congress

[roman_mir]

Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.

Re:Congress

[tepples]

How does Congress lack this authority? Congress has already banned particular technologies in the purported interest "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".

Re:Congress

[Voogru]

That's called breaking the law.

The Congress also passed bills that allow the government to kill people with no due process of law, doesn't mean it has the authority to do it.

Re:Congress

[Joce640k]

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
of history be stopped, or turned back."

- Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

How does banning technology promote progress? We already knew that Congress was a bunch of hypocrites, but now we know you are one, too.

Re:Congress

[MightyMartian]

Because of the founding legal precept that all that is not explicitly disallowed is allowed. It is a foundational notion of the clComnon Law and indeed of liberty.

Re:Congress

[Zero__Kelvin]

"That's called breaking the law."

So when Albert Hoffman used technology to synthesize a little substance called LSD and they subsequently made the use of that technological breakthrough to manufacture it illegal, they were actually breaking the law?

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The drug war is evil.

Re:Congress

[shaitand]

Having the authority to do something is defined by being able to do it, not by existing laws. It is the Constitution that lacks the authority to hinder congress.

It all started with the courts discovering they had the authority to take the people's power of direct representation via juries away. That meant the people no longer had veto authority on laws on a case by case basis. At that point congress was the only check on the judicial in their appointment blocking capacity. Congress then made funding conditional upon their oversight and renewable. A little bug not seen by the forefathers that pretty much eliminated all power held by the executive branch. The president is supposed to head the executive but instead all executive agencies answer to congressional oversight committees. The president can't even hire people in his branch without congressional approval. That only leaves the president veto authority and congress is given the ability to override that as well.

So who is left to check congress if they decide they have the authority to violate the Constitution?

Re:Congress

[Type44Q]

"Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."

- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Congress lack this authority? Congress has already banned particular technologies in the purported interest "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".

Sigh. Yes, exactly. The scary innovation during our founding father's time was the printing press. It upset the apple cart and those in power tried to suppress it. That's why they added the first amendment. Radio, TV, the VCR, MP3, and now the Internet have all cause similar problems. Luckily the first amendment has largely won. Still, it frustrates me to no end to see both political parties claiming human rights and protecting the bill of rights, then there actions show they believe "Article I, Section 8, Clause 8" is more important than the first amendment.

Re:Congress

[amiga3D]

If these guys had their way we'd still have all music on Vinyl LP's and Movies could only be viewed in a theater or on broadcast television.

Re:Congress

[fast turtle]

It is not the job of the U.S. Constituion to restrict the acts of congress but the People and until the People decide that Congress and the government have overstepped the Limits established by The People, nothing that congress does is ilegal even if it's against the Constitution.

Re:Congress

[J'raxis]

Congress has no Constitutional authority to...

As if that stops them from doing anything they want.

Re:Congress

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Yes. The drug war is evil."

Wrong on the first part; agreed on the second. The fact that the drug war is evil, stupid, in my opinion unconstitutional, and clearly a war against personal freedoms, in no way, shape, or form means that the supreme court has ruled that it is illegal.

Re:Congress

[fustakrakich]

Congress has no Constitutional authority...

It doesn't matter. We gave it to them anyway. Like taking candy from a baby

Re:Congress

[roman_mir]

No, it is Congress that is supposed to be bound by the law as described in the Constitution. The authority that Congress does have is specified in article 1 section 8.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that those 'other nations' were not so fruitful.

Re:Congress

[Shoten]

Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.

Whip up a batch of ricin or sarin at home, then tell Congress you did it. Let me know what prison you end up in so I can come by to verify that you still believe this.

Re:Congress

[redneckmother]

If these guys had their way we'd still have all music on Vinyl LP's and Movies could only be viewed in a theater or on broadcast television.

Ahh! Fond memories! We should be so lucky.

Re:Congress

[fustakrakich]

So who is left to check congress if they decide they have the authority to violate the Constitution?

Your answer is in the mirror. If you keep reelecting them, what incentive is there for them to obey the law?

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that "unconstitutional" is not "illegal"? Then why is there a constitution?

Re:Congress

[green1]

Hardly, they love changes in medium, they can sell everyone the same thing all over again, at a higher price, and with lower amounts going to the artists. the recording industry whole heartedly embraced the CD for that reason. If these guys has their way we'd have a new medium every tuesday. We'd also never have the recording abilities for said medium.

Re:Congress

[sed quid in infernos]

Are you seriously arguing that "all power held by the executive branch" has been eliminated? Even allowing for hyperbole in the word "all," it's hard to make the case that presidential power has lessened in any way. Presidential power is pretty much at its height. Except for maybe two presidential terms,* presidential power has increased since 1933 pretty much continuously, starting with the rise of the regulatory state (which has expanded under both parties) and expanding throughout WWII, the cold war, and its associated armed conflicts (also expanding under both parties).

*There was probably less power at the end of the 1973-77 term (Nixon/Ford) than at the start, due to Watergate, and it's possible presidential power didn't grow under Carter, depending on how you measure it. Even Carter effectively ended the building of nuclear power plants.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

The tenth amendment says -
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since there is no part in the Constitution giving the Congress such authority, they lack such authority. Simple as that.

Re:Congress

[shaitand]

"No, it is Congress that is supposed to be bound by the law"

If you re-read my post I think you'll find I already addressed "supposed to be" vs what actually is. The authority of Congress is defined by what they are able to do in actuality, not what they are they are supposed to be able to do.

Re:Congress

[causality]

"Yes. The drug war is evil."

Wrong on the first part; agreed on the second. The fact that the drug war is evil, stupid, in my opinion unconstitutional, and clearly a war against personal freedoms, in no way, shape, or form means that the supreme court has ruled that it is illegal.

You're depending on the court to settle that matter for you? The same court which approved abusing eminent domain to raise tax revenues?

Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?

I have never seen anyone explain that. Sure, I am certain they can expand the Commerce Clause to mean they can rape your wife anytime they want, because they might buy condoms first, and buying condoms affects interstate commerce .. but c'mon. At some point you have to call the absurd absurd.

Re:Congress

[shaitand]

I didn't elect anybody. If you actually think there is an answer to this dilemma in the voting booth you are dreaming. It has gone far beyond that.

Re:Congress

[causality]

So who is left to check congress if they decide they have the authority to violate the Constitution?

Your answer is in the mirror. If you keep reelecting them, what incentive is there for them to obey the law?

If you had no parties and all candidates ran on public money, that would work.

If you had a multitude of parties, and a single transferrable vote type of system, that would work.

But two parties with a winner-takes-all system, that does not work. You know what colluding duopolies would do to an industry? They do worse when there is both money AND power involved. If you want a far less powerful central government, expressed in terms of $$ and in terms of number of laws on the books, for whom would you vote? Realistically?

Re:Congress

[causality]

Because of the founding legal precept that all that is not explicitly disallowed is allowed. It is a foundational notion of the clComnon Law and indeed of liberty.

Yeah, for you and me. Not for the federal government. They are not supposed to have ANY POWER WHATSOEVER except for those specific powers the Constitution allows.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology used is irrelevant.

Re:Congress

[causality]

If these guys had their way we'd still have all music on Vinyl LP's and Movies could only be viewed in a theater or on broadcast television.

Ahh! Fond memories! We should be so lucky.

So you'll throw away any sound card (or disable any on-board hardware) and speakers attached to your computer, and give up any video capability for a good old green-on-black terminal then, right? And you'll throw away your television and any cable or satellite subscriptions, and throw away any digital TV antenna right? Then you too can be this lucky!

Re:Congress

[lightknight]

Might makes right. Who are you to question the will of the majority?

Re:Congress

[lightknight]

Nonsense. The US has reached the point in its lifecycle when it sacrifices the young to try to save the old, but fails, as every civilization does when it attempts such an injustice. New companies where sacrificed, with that large bailout and quantitative easements, to save older ones; so too now will new technologies be sacrificed to maintain older ones.

Re:Congress

[lightknight]

You give it to them every day that you do not tell them "Enough."

Re:Congress

[shaitand]

"presidential power has increased since 1933 pretty much continuously"

You haven't given a single example of that or refuted any of the supporting examples I gave. If the President has the support of Congress he has a great deal of power. If not, then he does not. Bottom line, if support of Congress decides that, the power belongs to Congress and not the President.

The expanding power under both parties is expanding federal power across the board. I'm talking about the President power vs Congress not the President vs the people.

The President only has four powers. Veto (which congress can bypass), appointment (which congress can reject), direct authority over the executive (which can be blocked by congressional oversight), and pardon (which has been effectively blocked by mass media). He also has no time for form lasting political power. That is the reason congress put in the term limit.

If Congress passed a law George Washington had unilateral authority with regard to it's execution and only a new law, the judicial, or the people via jury nullification could change his actions. Today if he didn't do what a handful of congressmen in an oversight committee wanted checks would bounce the next day. Presidential power vs congress has definitely diminished.

Congress critters always bitch about judges legislating from the bench (as if checking congress isn't the primary function of the judiciary) and the expanding power of the President. The actual result is always the same, more power for the feds across the board and greater centralization of power in Congress. Turns out no matter who is in the white house or if the supreme has more D's or R's, there are always more D's AND R's in congress than elsewhere.

Re:Congress

[Zero__Kelvin]

There isn't anymore. The US Supreme Court nullified it a long time ago.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

He's confusing "authorized power" with "unauthorized power", that's all.

We're far beyond "legal" as a good/bad line in the sand.

Re:Congress

[DragonTHC]

forced ... to prove they don't upset existing business models

What? Congress is supposed to prevent progress?

Upsetting existing business models is part of the American dream.

Re:Congress

[fustakrakich]

Nobody is required to vote for the guy with the most money. That shouldn't be too hard to understand. I sure don't want public money spent on a carnival huckster's advertising campaign. And we should seek out qualified candidates for the job, not wait for a used car salesman to announce with balloons and party hats that they want it. In fact anybody actually wants the job should automatically be disqualified. This is supposed to be a public service occupation, not a lifetime career. And only we can make sure it turns out that way, by voting them out. There is no need for term limits, since that doesn't work anyway when the party has all the power to dictate the candidate's platform. We are the ones to decide who gets on the ballot with petitions and primary elections. I have no concern or sympathy for those who sell their votes to the highest bidder. Nothing will change until we do, no matter how many regulations and patches you put on the process.

Re:Congress

[rolfwind]

It seems to me that "all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal unless and until it is approved by Congress" is both breaking the freedom of speech and due process.

Just because Congress did something doesn't mean it was Constitutional.

Re:Congress

[RKBA]

The Supreme Court erred by ruling certain drugs illegal. Anything abhorrent to the Constitution (regardless of what the Supreme Court may say), is not only illegal it is also null and void. Enforcing that reality is the problem. We the people are the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional or not because we can (at least theoretically) dissolve the Constitution and government if we choose - although it would not likely be done without violence. Here is something Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of...rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?
~ Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn them all to ideas-are-property-hell, these liberties defenders... they denied us our steampunk age!

Re:Congress

[sed quid in infernos]

You haven't given a single example of that or refuted any of the supporting examples I gave.

You didn't actually give any examples. you made a bunch of assertions of general powers Congress has allegedly usurped, but not one example of situations where these alleged usurpations limited presidential power beyond what it used to be. And the examples you've given now are ridiculous:

If Congress passed a law George Washington had unilateral authority with regard to it's execution and only a new law, the judicial, or the people via jury nullification could change his actions.

Simply not true.

Today if he didn't do what a handful of congressmen in an oversight committee wanted checks would bounce the next day.

Also not true. To change funding, Congress would have to either pass a new law, or wait for appropriations to expire and then not re-appropriate funding. And Congress would have to act as a whole. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that Congress cannot authorize subsets of itself to exercise powers delegated to Congress as a whole. See INS v. Chadha for a concrete example.

Further, in your first post that I responded to, you mentioned Congress's making funding renewable as if it were something new. It's not. Most appropriations since the Constitution was enacted have had expiration dates.

Re:Congress

[Zero__Kelvin]

In an ideal world you would be right, but we live in the real world. Violence won't help, because they have the real weapons. I agree with you that they ignored the principles of the Constitution, but that is the whole point. The Constitution has no meaning. Old men in power with an army of fascists to back them up have the power. We don't.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to wait for it to show up, analyze it, then take action.

Passing a law like this would mean that big media could not create / promote blu-chunks encryption changes without getting congressional approval, and any process they use will be the process anyone else uses - ie - they cannot shortcut the system - so go ahead, pass the law - all your encryption will be hacked in a minute or 3, then you'll have to wait 20 years to get new encryption methods approved by congress.

Stoopid mewling quim-like fucktards

Re:Congress

[i.r.id10t]

I'm voting Kang this time!

Re:Congress

[jklovanc]

Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?

It was not necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. They could have done it by passing a law. They probably did it by amendment because it was harder to do at the time and harder to change afterwards. A simple law can be passed and repealed at any time; constitutional amendments are much more difficult. In fact there were many state laws prohibiting alcohol.

Re:Congress

[redneckmother]

If these guys had their way we'd still have all music on Vinyl LP's and Movies could only be viewed in a theater or on broadcast television.

Ahh! Fond memories! We should be so lucky.

So you'll throw away any sound card (or disable any on-board hardware) and speakers attached to your computer, and give up any video capability for a good old green-on-black terminal then, right? And you'll throw away your television and any cable or satellite subscriptions, and throw away any digital TV antenna right? Then you too can be this lucky!

Looks like I failed to put in the "sarcasm" tag. I do get nostalgic about Saturday matinees, though.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

based on the constitution? like thats going to stop anybody?

Re:Congress

[jamstar7]

I'm voting Kang this time!

I'm thinking of Cthulhu this time around. Why fuck around with the lesser evil? After all, Fidel, the ultimate outsider, won't run this year...

Re:Congress

[jamstar7]

The tenth amendment says - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since there is no part in the Constitution giving the Congress such authority, they lack such authority. Simple as that.

Who bells the cat? Who guards the guardians?

Re:Congress

[Registered Coward v2]

Tell me this. Why was it necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to give the government power to prohibit alcohol, which was then repealed... but it is not necessary to apply the exact same process to different substances?

The 18th amendment did not give the government an additional power to regulate a specific product; they could already do that. Many states in fact already outlawed the sale of alcohol; and its regulation and taxation was begun almost immediately after the founding of the US.

What it did do was remove the states ability to regulate alcohol by giving the US Congress the power to establish nation wide laws and preempt state and local laws. The Volstead Act provided the specific law and punishments for violating the law. As with most laws that attempt to legislate one narrow view of "morality" it failed miserably. Repealing the 18th did not make alcohol says legal across the US; it simply returned the regulatory power to the states and localities. As a result, the US has a patchwork of laws; some of which result in odd situations such as Jack Daniels being able to manufacture alcohol but not be able to sell or provide samples at the distillery since it is in a dry county where the sale is illegal but not the manufacturer.

Re:Congress

[guttentag]

Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea.

In other words, no one copied the concept of copyright from England because they feared retaliation for violating England's copyright on the exclusive use of the idea of copyright. How interesting that if the United States had respected England's right to the exclusive use of the idea, we would be permitted to copy whatever we like, but because of the United States' brazenly lawless violation of copyright we are headed toward a state in which one may not copy anything.

Re:Congress

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention this: Just think about how the world would look if he had gotten this passed in say 1972. Well we'd have no DVDs, because DVD was originally a backup medium before it was a movie medium, and of course VCRs would have never existed. Can't have an Internet because people could trade files on it, no PMPs like iPods because of course they can carry and play infringing content, if you were even allowed to have computers and iPads and smartphones they wouldn't be allowed to play any media by law unless it was protected, hell I could go on all day with things we take for granted.

I hate to have to say this but Thank the FSM for the Chinese who don't give a fuck about our IP laws because thanks to douchebags like him we are ALREADY seeing tech that should have taken over by now pushed to the corner. For an example take the media tank, your WDTVs and the like. Those should have taken over by now, because they are exactly the kind of experience folks want, just put everything in one spot where they can just push a button and watch everything instantly anywhere in the house but thanks to pricks like this one even when Real tried to sell a device that KEPT copyright protection assholes like this guy had it blocked. Now there is NO legal way to play movies on a media tank, not if it doesn't stream.

This is why I say until We, The People, get a voice at the negotiating table we should simply ignore all copyrights as the unjust laws they are. do you think Americans would have voted for 150+ year copyrights just so Disney can make another billion off old Mickey Mouse cartoons? not a chance in hell, yet that is the law. Of course these laws aren't compatible with the constitution anymore, since giving dead men 70+ years of copyrights after they die certainly doesn't "promote the sciences and the arts", all it does is promote rich old geezers who have the cash to buy up these copyrights and use them to fuck us.

Jim Sterling at The Escapist used to call pirates "dirty thieves" he made a great video where he apologizes and points out how we are getting fucked, and we are...we're getting fucked. may this douchebag DIAF, the world would be a better place if greedy corporate ball lickers weren't in it.

Re:Congress

[TapeCutter]

The bailout were about the stability of the economic system, sure they didn't deserve to be bailed out but it was either bail or drown for all of us. Unpopular as the opinion may be, both Bush and Obama did the right thing by stopping the bleeding as quickly as practicable. What would be good, (not just for the US but for the entire planet), is if both sides of the US government could work together with similar levels of cooperation to prevent it happening again.

Re:Congress

[fafalone]

The Constitution is one of those quaint historical items, like the Magna Carta. Sure it might have some good ideas, but it's just not applicable to today's society, so we have to treat it more as guidelines than an actual binding document.

At least, that's the impression conveyed by the laws congress passes and the courts uphold. It's a "living document", so if it says "Congress shall make no law...", well, the meaning of that is ambiguous.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Re:Congress

[fafalone]

It couldn't be because at the time, the idea that "interstate commerce" applied to something you grow on your own land for yourself, never sold or moved off your land, wasn't yet the law of the land?

Re:Congress

[Patch86]

That would presumably be "possession of an illegal weapon" or "possession of hazardous materials without a licence which proves that you're competent to do so". Both of which seem basically sensible rules.

Possession of a computer programme that's capable of copying data seems like a rather less pressing problem to us mere plebs.

Re:Congress

[TheGratefulNet]

dvd was not a backup format or media first. where on earth did you get that crazy idea from?

digital versatile disc, which did not mention movies but certainly was NOT burnable for backups until something like 5 years after the pressing style dvd's came out.

audio cd was meant for data and music; that's true. I remember working at DEC when cdrom drives first came out and we had them on vax-stations. but dvd's were for movies first and then were used to burn 'user data' much later.

Re:Congress

[ultranova]

Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

They have no right to ask, but they do have the power to demand, granted by those very same profits. And power trumps right every time.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Oman should be considered a s***n belching socialist enemy of the people and worse, a self designated ex-spurt.
If you can help poor Ralphy see reality, do drop him a line @ roman@law.gwu.edu and let him know he has no business in law, copyright,teaching or anything outside a McDonalds drive up window.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to add this is only a drop in the ocean of lawlessness declared legal by the criminals pretending the king wears clothes.
Seems to follow the existence of our one party Repubmocrat system and their criminal tyranny for more than a century now.
Makes you think, donut?

Re:Congress

[roc97007]

Or, new technologies could only be introduced by the owners of the old technology. When they feel like it.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

It has no authority in the vast majority of the world.
There's companies and individuals in countries out there who don't give a shit what congress thinks.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you haven't been paying attention. Congress' authority to do anything it damn well pleases was made Law-of-the-land with Wickard v Filburn and any question or concern was put to bed with Obama-Care.

The Scope of what the US federal government can do legally is all-encompassing.

All this back-and-forth is fun. But the conclusion is already at hand.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people aren't paying attention, but it is not applicable in this case.

1. The majority opinion is that the mandate is only Constitutional as a tax. The reason for this is that as a fine, this is unconstitutional, because it is an admission of an attempt to legislate by punitive taxation. The other reason is that the opinion also states that the government cannot use the commerce clause to force people to buy something that they are not buying otherwise. Now, there is a legal precedent for an opposite ruling actually, AFAIC regardless of what SCOTUS said in Wickard v. Filburn, that ruling was wrong and allowing the government to force a farmer to buy wheat when he is not interested in buying it is unconstitutional. But then again, so many people are excited about the ruling of 4 to 5 justices this way, though it clearly could have gone the opposite direction. The question of-course is: should there be so much room given to the SCOTUS justices to maneuver that they could rule one way or another basically on a whim and also because of public pressure? Does this really defend the Constitution or does it actually do something completely opposite?

a href="http://slashdot.org/journal/284251/aca-ruling-by-the-scotus"

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm not up to date on the legality of this.
The us government is an oxymoron. First we give companies patents so that they can obtain a monopoly over a technology, then we sue them when they get a monopoly? Now we've given the MPAA and RIAA their dream, that all new technology to deliver content to a consumer is illegal until congress approves it? If invoked by the RIAA then bit-torrent can finally be treated as illegal, (sorry blizzard and the various communities that are using the technology legally.) heck so can the internet (I don't recall congress ever approving it.)

We the people as a whole not in part finally need to take a stand against this sort of abuse of and by government. The only question is how.

(posted anonymously because i actually want to maintain my job...)

Re:Congress

[toriver]

What? Vinyl? Recorded music? Preposterous! It will be the death of live music as we know it.
Movies? Recorded plays? It will be the death of stage theater! And television? It will be the death of cinema!

Or at least that was the going fear mongering at the time. If Oman had been around then I guess we might still not have any of those.

Re:Congress

[roman_mir]

You should read this book, The Road to Serfdom.

It is a discussion the forms of collectivism, such as socialism and fascism as well as a discussion of the issue of central planning, which inevitably leads towards slavery, and that's the system that is being pursued by all Western (and many other) governments around the world today.

Re:Congress

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...Wikipedia and my own experience maybe? Citation here and I'll be the first to correct myself in that they were doing both at the same time and DVD camp went to IBM about using the format for data delivery and storage as well as looking at a video format. But I remember quite well reps coming by and trying to sell us "this great new huge backup format" while VCRs were still the dominant format by a long shot, i even bought one of the first DVD burners, it burnt at an insane for the time 4x and cost me over $300 and the discs were over $2 a pop but when hard drives were 40-80Gb being able to back up so much to a single disc was quite the feat.

But if you were working at tech firms at the time I'm frankly shocked they didn't try selling you on DVD before anybody else had really heard of it. Hell I certainly wasn't working at anyplace as huge in high tech as DEC but we got a tech demo, even got to see one of the first portable burners, it was quite impressive at the time.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not necessary to ratify a new Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol.

The federal government didn't have the power to regulate INTRAstate commerce at that point, so, no, they couldn't have just "passed a law".

Re:Congress

[lightknight]

Yeah, it totally didn't stabilize dick, and I think we can all come out clean about that. It abused the commonality of currency to lift wealth from hidden vaults to pay for the mistakes of others, and nuked the financial savings of the majority.

The way this government (this government meaning this government of more than the past decade) has been running things is surprisingly similar to the way a certain Ukrainian nuclear reactor was run. That is to say, their monetary policy and frequent interventions is the fiscal equivalent of a large, positive void coefficient. The market cycles keep getting longer and deeper, with debt continuously increasing, and 'recoveries' shallower and shorter; an idiot can see a dangerously unstable reaction is taking place here. Someone sane, in a higher place than any of us, needs to remove the madmen from the control room.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I have to buy the White Album again?

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that effectively means ownership of a computer would place you in violation.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

        The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

        The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

        Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

        A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

        No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

Re:Congress

[Cajun Hell]

It's "interstate commerce" and 99% of voters approve of Congress implementing any idea that they wish to, under that power. If people disagreed with this liberal interpretation, surely some of them would vote against the people who do it. But they don't, so it's the law.

Re:Congress

[Cajun Hell]

That was changed with the defacto passing of the 0th amendment, which states:

Congress shall have the power to do whatever it wants. It's not like we'll get mad at them and storm the capitol, or even decide to not re-elect them.

If Congress were getting bitch-slapped for unconstitutional behavior with each election, then it might be worth talking about the limit of their powers. But what I see is that We The People accept whatever they do, decade after decade. We don't act like the constitution means anything to us, so why should they? It is not the law.

Re:Congress

[roman_mir]

It's not a "liberal" interpretation, it's a totalitarian interpretation, which is to say that it is a collectivist interpretation.

Of-course what we know about collectivism is that it stems from the ideas of Marx and we know of a number of specific implementations that have been tried so far, which include socialism and fascism.

Re:Congress

[Muad'Dave]

The President only has four powers. Veto (which congress can bypass), appointment (which congress can reject), direct authority over the executive (which can be blocked by congressional oversight), and pardon (which has been effectively blocked by mass media).

You forgot executive orders, signing letters, the ability to start wars and not get congressional pre-approval or assent, and a whole host of other quasi-legal 'powers' the executive branch has given itself.

Re:Congress

[shaitand]

"direct authority over the executive (which can be blocked by congressional oversight)"

That one covers everything you just mentioned. Executive orders are hardly something the President gave itself. The President has always had the right to directly command all agencies in the executive branch. Everyone talks about changing the law at election time but in reality, bossing around the military and executive branch is the primary function of the President.

Re:Congress

[Muad'Dave]

The President has always had the right to directly command all agencies in the executive branch.

I didn't realize that ISPs and cell phone carriers were 'agencies of the executive branch', since this executive order, section 5.2 says the government can take over any/all 'privately-owned communications resources' as they see fit.

How about immigration law? This article seems to think the President overstepped his authority with this little gem signed by Napolitano.

Re:Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The only power they have over you is that which you give them.

Re:Congress

[causality]

Careful. You are stepping on many toes here with that type of proclamation. Government being bound by the rule of law, which is the Constitution? That's unpossible.

It's possible. It's possible and it's beautiful and it's so shameful that a small number of greedy, ambitious, power-hungry men and women would destroy it for a few years of their own personal gain.

Make no mistake, those people are not merely ignorant and well-meaning. They know exactly what they are doing.

Re:Congress

[causality]

If these guys had their way we'd still have all music on Vinyl LP's and Movies could only be viewed in a theater or on broadcast television.

Ahh! Fond memories! We should be so lucky.

So you'll throw away any sound card (or disable any on-board hardware) and speakers attached to your computer, and give up any video capability for a good old green-on-black terminal then, right? And you'll throw away your television and any cable or satellite subscriptions, and throw away any digital TV antenna right? Then you too can be this lucky!

Looks like I failed to put in the "sarcasm" tag. I do get nostalgic about Saturday matinees, though.

Hehe your sarcasm is what I was questioning. In the sense of "when you actually lived during that time, did you think it was so great?"

While that was graceful of you to say, I think we both could have been more explicit about the intended interpretation.

I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

know how to respond to this.

Re:I don't even

[snsh]

I think the appropriate response is "He appears to have the mindset that the world can owe you a living."

Re:I don't even

[Adriax]

Pray the judge understands that type of setup wouldn't chill online innovation, it would stop it completely with no hope ever.
You couldn't even start to create anything new, because you would be committing a crime by researching how to create an illegal thing. Like someone trying to research new methods to produce meth in their garage...

Dear lord, this guy is so completely off his rocker it's no wonder the US is as fucked up as it is.

Re:I don't even

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Governor Le Petomane: We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!
We must do something about this immediately!
Immediately! Immediately!
Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
Group: Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
Le Petomane: Hey! I didn't get a Harrumph outta that guy!
Hedy (That's Hedly) Lamar: Give the governor a harrumph!

Re:I don't even

[SuperTechnoNerd]

That would make the music and record industries very happy. And that is a part of their grand plan. To stop this dam tech shit that's eating into their profits and taking their control.

Re:I don't even

[amiga3D]

It's a commonly held opinion by a lot of people. They feel they have a right to other people's money. I can kind of understand the poor ramming their hands in my pockets but these rich fuckers are too much.

Re:I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] I can kind of understand the poor ramming their hands in my pockets but these rich fuckers are too much.

You know what the difference is between rich fuckers and poor bastards?

Net worth.

Strip away bank accounts, and titles of legal ownership to real property, and physical possession or access to chattel property, and you have basically the same person, except perhaps air of privilege and entitlement, and a few nights slept involuntarily between the cold, unfeeling stars, and the cold, hard Earth, and much of that is stripped away. You could say they would still have their connections, but that isn't truly a person's possession, it's a status attached to a person in someone else' mind.

If a rich man is denuded of all he has in this world, he'll be shocked to find how truly few friends he has, especially among the rich. I'm not calling the rich a bunch of disloyal opportunistic vultures and parasites feeding off those with more scruples in our little society... well, okay, maybe I am, a little.

Theft is theft, what the fuck do you care how much money the person stealing from you already has? Does knowing you still have more possessions in total or a fatter bank account than the person who stole it make you feel better somehow? People forget that at the end of the day, money is a token that represents work, or the commodities, goods, and/or services for which that work is, through the medium of coin, exchanged. When someone steals, they're disrupting the system by reassigning the tokens (from your pocket to theirs) in such a way as they no longer represent work done BY YOU, they are presumed to represent work done by the thief . In the mean time, they are also enslaving you, in effect, by forcing you to have done work, (or exchanged tokens for C, G, or S as applicable,) without having the freedom to choose either doing it or not, or the option to reap the benefits of the proverbial sweat off your brow.

Re:I don't even

[gl4ss]

so uh.. do rich fuckers go around creating poor bastards?

Re:I don't even

[couchslug]

Google etc should BUY and RULE most of the music and movie industries, relegating them to "internet content providers".

Re:I don't even

[roc97007]

Mod insightful.

Re:I don't even

[Areyoukiddingme]

Yes. Yes they do. Or were you not aware of how economic conditions in this country have changed over the past 60 years? And do you somehow think that the capitalists, i.e. the people with all the capital, had nothing to do with that change? Do you think that wages have been stagnant for the middle class on down for 40 years, while CEO salaries have gone up by two orders of magnitude, by accident? Really? You're that naive?

Re:I don't even

[Ryanrule]

Thats a shit ton easier than creating new wealth.

Re:I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

The bad thing is many of the poor are only so poor because the rich are ramming their hands into their pockets as well as making sure to give them as little as they can get away with to begin with.

We now live in an age where it takes most people working 2 jobs to just barely scrape by if they wish to live without roommates as a single person with no kids.

Working 1 job, I am making about $880 a month take home. So are most of the people where I live at except the people lucky enough to have had the job for at least the past decade before it went to crap. I live in Hope Mills, NC if anyone is wondering. How can you support yourself off that when a crap house in a high crime area will still cost you about $400 a month minimum to live and will have you about 6-10 miles from where you most likely work since you will be on the outskirts of town.

Good example. My dad and his friends worked out at the local Goodyear plant (formerly Kelly Tires) they all retired making around $24 an hour back around 1995-2000. Now, the new guys starting out there has their pay top out at $13 an hour and their production bonus is set so high it is next to impossible to get. Had a guy who worked out there for 35 years retired last year. Said the new guys out there work twice as hard for half the pay now. Also said he was walking on eggshells out there as he was retiring because they were looking for a reason to fire him to avoid paying him it felt like.

Re:I don't even

[Anonymous Coward]

But first, you need to submit all your new music for review...
We can't have you making new music that displaces the classics...

Luddism fallacy - time to remove copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

A perfect example of how these fools have overstayed their welcome, and ought to be shown the door before too long. The fact of the matter is that new technology frees up labor for more productive uses, while the level of productivity stays the same. I personally believe that we need to remove copyrights as a fact of law, but at the same time start to move to a market socialism, so society can help amortize the costs for the vast benefit that it is provided by creative works.

Re:Luddism fallacy - time to remove copyrights

[starworks5]

market socialism would also remove the unemployment incumbency, when disruptive technology affects specific areas of economic activity, by being able to reallocate workers and effort to new markets. Because lets face it the technological singularity is near, and how would capitalism work when vast amounts of work becomes automated, and the labor force which purchases products is largely unemployed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment#New-market_engineering

Re:Luddism fallacy - time to remove copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

Turning his opinion on it's head, more reasonable is that one shouldn't be allowed to copyright or patent a work in a new technology without approval by congress. Certainly that makes more sense because the creative effort changes, and the reasonable period under which the work is protected should vary as well. A flash based push marketing advertizement on Slashdot, has the same protection as the move Star Wars, has the same protection as someones Novel. Does that really make sense?

No.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally, the new thing is unfair to whatever the old thing was.... Consumers should suffer, not the businesses which fail to adapt.

Re:Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[starworks5]

I think you mean workers that fail to adapt, as the technological changes occur too quickly, and causes a vicious boom/bust cycle of "general glut" in the economy.

Re:Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out, you're coming close to a verboten topic on /. Ann Rand, the liberal elites don't like people pointing out that she had good ideas.

Re:Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[Anonymous Coward]

good ideas ?

like sleeping with men 25 years her junior ?

fuck that whore and she personality cult !

Re:Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[toriver]

What, a paranoid Soviet defector who built a cult of personality around her? When did she have good ideas? Handing the reins from elected Government to a rich self-perpetuating elite that preys on the poor is certainly not one.

Re:Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[GameboyRMH]

Parent isn't saying she had good ideas (not even a single one), he's saying the bad guys in her books had at least one bad trait.

Re:Sounds like something from Atlas Shrugged.

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't much of a surprise, given I have heard that Atlas Shrugged was written for the Illuminati as a blueprint for taking over the world.

ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

paid shill much?

Innovation we are against it!

[Dyinobal]

Makes me think of Scribes guild destroying printing presses and making them illegal. Who needs better technology when the stuff we have right now is making us so much money?

\

The inherit short sightedness of a profit driven society is frightening to behold. Over the last dozen years so I understand why so many people believed in the communist society that the original USSR and other such countries had intended. Sadly those don't work nearly as well either.

I think we need to either move towards a socialistic society, or admit that we suck at self government and hurry up and invent AIs that can be our benevolent over lords. Assuming we can keep from programming human faults into them. Which is doubtful.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[Jane Q. Public]

"The inherit short sightedness of a profit driven society is frightening to behold. Over the last dozen years so I understand why so many people believed in the communist society that the original USSR and other such countries had intended. Sadly those don't work nearly as well either."

It has nothing to do with being profit-driven. It has to do with being greed-driven. Contrary to the belief of many, they're not the same things. A free market depends on mutual, voluntary trade. When people try to base it on greed instead, it ceases to work properly.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[ATMAvatar]

With a rational, intelligent species, greed-driven and profit-driven may indeed be independent things. But, let's be honest here. With humanity, they are the same thing. As soon as you inject money into any human-based endeavor, greed perverts the whole thing. Sometimes it takes longer than other times, but it happens without fail.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the real issue here. The fact that such an obviously stupid and immoral thought might actually be considered for more than the 30 seconds of laughter it should induce simply casts doubt on the legal system as well as the system of governance. My hope is that, while practically all forms of government that have been seriously tried have failed or are failing, that new ones are now possible with the internet.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[kubusja]

> Over the last dozen years so I understand why so many people
> believed in the communist society that the original USSR and other
> such countries had intended.

Very few actually believed. Many were forced by opportunism and fear. Most never believed but hid it deep.

In Eastern Europe communism was brought with Red Army and KGB.
Elections were rigged, opposition killed or sent to gulags.
Not a single country but Soviets intended it.

Actually communism was very much like fascism - the only difference
was that fascism killed on the nationality/race basis while communism killed on purely ideological basis. Anyway results were similar - millions dead.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with being profit-driven. It has to do with being greed-driven. Contrary to the belief of many, they're not the same things. A free market depends on mutual, voluntary trade. When people try to base it on greed instead, it ceases to work properly.

No it has not. Greed is not an economic term, it is a psychology/ religious term that does not apply to economics. There is no explicit line that one crosses when making profit that makes him greedy. Describing a political or economical system with terms like "greed", is implying that the problem is that some people are evil. Well, they are, but wishing that they weren't isn't a viable proposal for advancing human societies.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[roc97007]

ok, so... I've always wondered this. In this socialistic society you envision, where is the motivation to create new ideas or build better products? Because the government tells us to?

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[GameboyRMH]

A free market depends on mutual, voluntary trade. When people try to base it on greed instead, it ceases to work properly.

Really? In that case we're a bunch of dumb fucks for ever thinking it could work in the first place. At least the "greed is good" concept allows for greed in theory.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[Jane Q. Public]

"But, let's be honest here. With humanity, they are the same thing."

I am being honest, and no they are not. Apparently I have a bit more faith in humanity than you do.

"As soon as you inject money into any human-based endeavor, greed perverts the whole thing. Sometimes it takes longer than other times, but it happens without fail."

Not "as soon as", but you addressed that yourself. Okay. So the system has become corrupt (I think we can agree on that). What then to do?

It isn't "everybody" who is involved in the corruption. I continue to believe that most people have benevolent (if self-interested) motives.

Reboot? Another revolution? Hard to say. It's taken 200 years to get this bad; Jefferson predicted only 20.

Re:Innovation we are against it!

[ubermiester]

I think we need to either move towards a socialistic society

Yes, we should adopt Socialism because that's much better at adapting to a fast changing technology marketplace. Instead of small companies producing disruptive tech, you have giant institutional monopolies (see cable/phone/car companies, etc) doing whatever they must to maintain "stability" and such.

Much better.

One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[webbiedave]

They sure as hell won't be getting a donation from me this year.

Re:One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Gawd. You are correct. It is right there on the title page of the PDF brief. What a pisser!

Re:One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[Seumas]

Why would you donate to PBS/NPR, anyway? They are supported by advertising. Including pretty egregious companies like Exxon, Siemens, and Monsanto.

(And before you defend them by saying it's "underwriting", note that they even refer to it themselves behind the scenes and in hearings as *advertising*. Not exactly "non-biased", after all, eh?).

Re:One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[smellotron]

Why would you donate to PBS/NPR, anyway? They are supported by advertising. Including pretty egregious companies like Exxon, Siemens, and Monsanto.

If they get enough donations, they have bargaining power against the corporate sponsors/underwriters/whatever-they're-called. They become much more likely to broadcast material with paints a sponsor in a bad light if they predict that sustained (or increased) donations can overcome the loss of the sponsor. Your argument of "they have corporate sponsors, therefore they don't deserve public/popular financial support" is self-fulfilling.

I've also heard the Koch brothers listed as sponsors for some programs. But that certainly didn't stop them from running programs on the Koch "union-busting" shenanigans.

Re:One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[Osgeld]

yea my 20 bucks is really going to make a difference against the sometimes 6 min long listing of funds and corporate sponsors

I dont support them anyway, every beg-a-thon its a week of motivational snake oil salesmen offering me a dvd, then its back to re-runs of this old house

Re:One of the plaintiffs is PBS.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not upset.

This is FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC. They just stated openly that, due to copyright law, any innovation or attempts to build new businesses need to be directly approved by congress.

It's insane... more to the point... it's basically communist centralised planning.

Copyright was never meant to kill innovation and creativity - in fact it was meant to do the exact opposite. It's clearly not fit for purpose any longer as it's just enabling rent-seeking behaviour rather than innovation.

Yup, that'll help the economy

[PhrostyMcByte]

Don't just stifle innovation, but make it outright illegal.

I can see the new /. article now: Linus Begrudgingly Admits Romney Isn't Biggest Idiot After All.

Re:Yup, that'll help the economy

[lightknight]

Frankly I'm surprised this man is still alive. It's not what he has said here, but his wanton display of stolen power, and his willingness to put every day Americans to the sword and shield if it furthers his interests even a fathom is just purely disgusting. He just declared war on the tech sector!

"Have Congress approve each new technology before being put into use" my ass. The technology world moves the fastest, the world of law the slowest. This man would have us all become slaves of those corrupt politicians and lobbyists occupying unearned seats of power; he would have us returned to the world of feudalism, where a vassal had to ask his lord permission whether he could replace his thatched roof with something sturdier. The human race has no need of this type, nothing more than a vestigial appendage of some bygone era. But if this means nothing to you, consider how much poorer we will all become, as Americans, when the Asian and European communities bypass this stumbling block; we will spend the next two hundred years fighting over whether some new found technology changes the way we live to the detriment of entrenched interests, while they will have long adopted it and moved onto the stars. Hahaha, just commercial space projects are finally being approved in the US, and showing some promise, some asshat on an unrelated trajectory moves to destroy its foundation.

Re:Yup, that'll help the economy

[DriedClexler]

But don't you see how it would hurt GDP if people could enjoy the same works but spend less money on them? /s

Re:Yup, that'll help the economy

[Areyoukiddingme]

Frankly I'm surprised this man is still alive.

I'm not. Our crazy people with guns prefer to kill kids in high schools and colleges, and young people in theaters. Even the people we all agree are as insane as they can possibly be believe people like this man are untouchable. Stark staring insane, and still there has been only one attack on a Congressperson. That's how deep the conditioning goes.

If it comes to the point he advocates, technologists in the US will simply leave. To the point where the crazy people who passed the law will feel obliged to close the borders. Be glad that Canadian border is so long and so porous. We may need it.

But it will be quite hard to tell when we need it. Nobody will be fool enough to pass such a law as he advocates all in one go. No, they will boil the frog very very slowly. It will takes decades, but the end result is still boiled frog. Does it feel warm in here?

no new dance steps....

[Roskolnikov]

Wow, to preserve current business models all new thoughts should be reviewed..... yep, clearly representing the people,er, businesses on this one, innovative ideas need not apply, I try not to fan boi this much but imagine if iTunes online music sales had to clear congress first? I imagine those that lobby would have had a lot of fun with that one, clearing congress is a lot harder than convincing one label to sell online, this doesn't protect anyone other than those currently milking the masses..... Please, show this man the door, he has clearly lost his way.

Re:no new dance steps....

[Z34107]

It's insane, but not unprecedented. A quote from the Copyright Act, in the context of how the copyright royalty board should set rates:

To minimize any disruptive impact on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices.

Re:no new dance steps....

[TubeSteak]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Life-Line by Robert A. Heinlein, 1939

Re:no new dance steps....

[JWW]

Yeah and that one simple line is why all the online music streaming companies get charged fucking exorbitant rates for the music they play.

There is such a deadly serious wrongness in this guys thinking.

Playing "mother may I" with all innovation is possibly the worst idea ever. The same Congress that can't pass a fricken budget would be in charge of innovation?!? I wonder what the record for the fastest collapse of a country into total irrelevance is? If we pass a law like this, we will find out.

Re:no new dance steps....

[green1]

Unfortunately this strange doctrine has become supported by both statute and common law.

Re:no new dance steps....

[fustakrakich]

It's insane, but not unprecedented.

The concept isn't new, and goes far beyond copyright

Re:no new dance steps....

[lightknight]

Well, you have to admit that he has appealed to the right people -> the US Congress's response to someone offering them a chance at greater power is frighteningly similar to that of the average goldfish being offered a food pellet. Hell, on the basis of that alone, his chances are 50 / 50.

But yes, if a meteor is to strike the earth tonight, let it hit him.

Re:no new dance steps....

[rossdee]

The quote was from 73 years ago, and an alternate universe (Future History) at that.

Except...

[SDcard]

...if we went by what this guy said, we should have sued Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the internet, or Bill Gates, Woz or Steve Jobs for home computing....because they certainly upset existing business models! Except that's called progress....

History repeats itself

[Anonymous Coward]

"Red flag locomotive act 1865" all over again?

Re:History repeats itself

[green1]

Thank you for pointing this out, I just had a very good read because I'd never heard of that act before. It did make me weep for the future of humanity though...

Forbid all innovation!

[gweihir]

Some money-grubbing conservatives may get scared otherwise. Some ancient money-making schemes may stop to work. That is completely unacceptable. I strongly suggest we all move back into caves.

Re:Forbid all innovation!

[yacc143]

Cool idea, that would put the US on the way to a planned economy (see USSR), a decade or two, and the USA is history.

Re:Forbid all innovation!

[Zordak]

Some money-grubbing conservatives may get scared otherwise. Some ancient money-making schemes may stop to work. That is completely unacceptable. I strongly suggest we all move back into caves.

Um, you realize that it's primarily the Democrats the entertainment industry has in their pockets, don't you? I mean, sure, there are plenty of corrupt Republicans kowtowing to their corporate overlords, but don't let your blind partisan hatred lead you to believe your guys are a bunch of virtuous heroes.

Re:Forbid all innovation!

[smellotron]

money-grubbing conservatives

it's primarily the Democrats the entertainment industry has in their pockets

These two statements are consistent. There are certainly some Democrat-driven initiatives (continuation/escalation of the War on Drugs, support of a surveillance society, etc.) which sound conservative. Not "Conservative" i.e. Republican, but "conservative" i.e. "favoring the status quo".

Re:Forbid all innovation!

[EuclideanSilence]

I also prefer when people use the word conservative to mean "favoring the status quo" as it originally meant, instead of trying to signify some sort of political philosophy that is too vague to be meaningful.

Re:Forbid all innovation!

[gweihir]

The problem with the US is that the so-called "Democrats" are almost as conservative as the Republicans. When you see what non-conservative actually means (by living in a country where there are significant differences between the political parties), it becomes glaringly obvious. Here, the US Democrats would count as backwards very right-wing conservatives.

So, no, this was not a "republicans are conservative and anti-innovation, while Democrats do not do this" posting. This was an observation about Democrats and Republicans both.

Re:Forbid all innovation!

[gweihir]

I also prefer when people use the word conservative to mean "favoring the status quo" as it originally meant, instead of trying to signify some sort of political philosophy that is too vague to be meaningful.

That was my intention. Seems I have to be more clear. The relevant research says conservatives (in the original meaning) are scared of change and have trouble dealing with change, whether good or bad, i.e. it is not a choice, but a phobia.

Nothing on whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or not even US citizens and hence in a different political system. To me, both US Democrats and US Republicans look like splinter groups of a very right wing conservative party. There are no liberals or left-wing parties with any kind of power left in the US.

What an idiot

[msobkow]

So if you have a new and potentially disruptive technology, you shouldn't be allowed to go into business because you'll hurt the existing providers?

Tough shit! That's something called "progress" and "innovation."

Suck it up, cupcake -- you're a dinosaur!

Re:What an idiot

[shutdown -p now]

It's not just that, read the full text of the amicus. It has some pretty insane stuff of its own, like when he gets to examples of "wrong things".

In the Copyright Act that followed these decisions, Congress dealt
decisively, in a technologically-neutral way, with retransmissions using
community antenna technology. It determined that a CATV company—
which built an antenna on the top of a mountain in rural areas to intercept
and retransmit, over a cable wire to its customers in the valley below, the
copyrighted over-the-air broadcasts of television programs—was publicly
performing that programming. See S. REP. NO. 94-473 at 78-82 (1975)
(discussing how community antenna or cable providers that do not comply
with the compulsory license created by the Copyright Act infringe
broadcaster’s rights of public performance); REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS,
SUPPLEMENTARY REG.’S REPORT ON THE GEN. REVISION OF THE U.S.
COPYRIGHT LAW, at 42 (H. Comm. Print 1965) (“[W]e believe that what
community antenna operators are doing represents a performance to the
public of the copyright owner’s work.”); H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 89
(1976) (“[C]able systems are commercial enterprises whose basic
retransmission operations are based on the carriage of copyrighted program
material and . . . copyright royalties should be paid by cable operators to the
creators of such programs.”). Had the technology at the time required the
CATV company to install an individual antenna for every customer in the
valley below or even retransmit through a single copy made for each
individual, rather than using a single antenna serving the entire community
or a single “master” copy, it is inconceivable Congress still would not have
viewed that retransmission business to be making a public performance.
Indeed, that it defined performances to include any device or process means
that it actually anticipated such variations in transmission technology and
included them as performances to the public. To be plain, it was not the
means of retransmission but rather the retransmission itself that Congress
cared about. That is what caused the harm to copyright owners.

In other words, if you take a publicly broadcast signal, and rebroadcast it to someone who cannot otherwise receive it because of interference from the terrain (not even because the person behind the broadcast wanted to deliberately exclude that region!), it "causes harm to copyright owners" - and this guy thinks that it's a great idea to ban such nasty things.

Re:What an idiot

[lightknight]

It will be particularly touching when he claims that this farce is somehow connected to capitalism and the American way. I might even shed a tear (of laughter) while listening to it; the man truly has no shame.

Turn of the 20th Centry Auto Legislation...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in New Hampshire, I believe, required operators of auto-mobiles to stop and fire off a rocket every 15 minutes, so folk on sane modes of transportation would have some warning.

Yeah, it's annoying. But just the same as before, this too shall pass.

Re:Turn of the 20th Centry Auto Legislation...

[lightknight]

Where would the human race be if not for the Dark Ages? Where would space technology be, if its research and design had not been all but forbidden to the general public for many years?

See, the problem here is, it's my time, and my life. And they're affecting it, destroying my chances at a happier future, a better life, and enjoyment of the things I care about. To this end, it has become a personal war against myself, and my kind. Let them be wiped from the face of the earth, and forgotten.

The man who wore his ass for a hat

[djl4570]

This jackass is wearing his ass for a hat. Such fuckwittery would have prevented deployment of the transistor. Except for a few niches, the transistor rendered the vacuum tube obsolete in about twenty years. It would have prevented deployment of the turbine engine because they rendered radial engines obsolete. If he were left in charge we would all be using SNA because Ethernet would not be permitted.

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't invent any of the things making him money now. He only wants a free ride, and only knows how to throw temper tantrums and bluster like a 5 year old when things don't go his way. And he's only one of many like him.

Seriously, when you're so pathetic that you make the "pirates" look like freedom fighters, you should probably shut your fool mouth and pay the grown ups to handle your problems for you.

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[Type44Q]

If he were left in charge we would all be using SNA because Ethernet would not be permitted.

After The Collapse, you'll be using two coconut shells and some catgut... and you'll like it. :p

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[Anonymous Coward]

No better then the human body digests corn, then the sewage pipes leaving the residences and workplaces of the supporters of such nonsense should be shut off as to prevent any patented technology escaping from under their "hats".

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[stephanruby]

He adds that providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models.

Also, don't you love his thinking. He's asking that new tech companies be required to prove a negative.

With that kind of thinking: the iPhone, the iPod, the internet, the photocopy machine, the phonograph, the telegraph, the telephone, the television, the radio, penicillin, aspirin, etc. could never have seen the light of day (or all those technologies would just have become black market technology, and that policy would just have turned all of us into criminals for even using them).

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the real point. To all the people who usually post to copyright threads claiming that everyone sharing files is just a thief and a scoundrel - Suppose I agree 100% with that sentiment, and add that most resistance movements tend to get a share of thieves and scoundrels, but some of those thieves and scoundrels still eventually put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour on the line fighting tyrants. This man is a tyrant, he wants to rule your mind, and if the worst things you can say about the uploaders and torrenters are all true, they are still a better class of criminal than he is.

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[lightknight]

Indeed. I imagine that Apple is taking particular note of this tonight -> that's their bread and butter he's talking about f*cking with.

While I am not a fan of Steve Jobs, I did relish his understanding of the entertainment industry: it's run by the mafia, and the only thing they understand is force. To that end, his persuasion of the various music companies to sign onto his service, at fixed prices, is nothing short of a miracle.

We will see if this new CEO understands that if he folds, gives even the appearance of folding, they will end up making him work for them.

Re:The man who wore his ass for a hat

[Anonymous Coward]

whoa whoa whoa, lets not get ahead of ourselves. This guy has great ideas! He just hasn't carried them quite far enough. All we need to do is first require any current industry that desires this protection to first submit to the same inquisition. I mean.. that's fair, right? Why should some peaceful business model be left helpless before the crushing might of some rampaging new business model?

No, that's not what he said

[russotto]

He argues that copyright protection holds regardless of the technological means used to engage in an action which constitutes infringement, which is true as far as it goes. He further argues that Aereo is committing infringement and claiming it's not because of mere technological details, and there he's on shakier ground.

But actually his argument fell apart a bit earlier than his discussion of Aereo, when he disputes the Cablevision decision:

To be consistent with that entirely correct analysis, if, instead of a subscriber sending an electronic instruction to Cablevision or Aereo to make a copy by pressing a âoerecordâ button, the customer had sent an email to one of their employees with instructions to make a copy and transmit a performance, there would be no question as to the direct liability of Cablevision or Aereo. Copyright liability should not turn on minor technical features as to whether âoerecordâ instructions are communicated by verbal commands, pressing a button, sending an email or as a result of automated functions.

I am sorry, Mr. Oman, but that is not a "minor technical feature". My giving instructions to a machine and my giving instructions to a human being are a very different thing. The human being can make a choice, he can say "Mr. Russotto, to make that copy would be an infringement of copyright and I will not do so". The machine is a machine, it does what it's told, and direct liability is rightly placed on the person who told it to do something.

Best I can tell, Aereo is claiming its retransmissions do not amount to public performance because each individual is getting his own transmission. That is, it's not one public performance but many private ones. This is indeed splitting hairs, but since when has the law been opposed to splitting hairs?

17 USC 101 is quite clear that it does not matter "whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times." However, it does matter whether there is one performance or many; if I set up a booth where one person can view a DVD, it's not a public performance if 100 people view the same DVD in sequence; it's 100 private performances. Similarly, if I have 100 such booths with 100 such (identical) DVDs and everyone watches them at once, it's still 100 private performances. However, if I rig up one DVD player to play one DVD to all those booths, it's a public performance.

Re:No, that's not what he said

[Mitreya]

He argues that copyright protection holds regardless of the technological means used to engage in an action which constitutes infringement, which is true as far as it goes.

Interestingly, I don't see anyone lining up to argue that the reverse is also true. That is, that the technological means used to enforce copyright protection _must_ be disabled as soon as copyright protection expires

Oddly enough, no one seems concerned that DRM never expires (while copyright theoretically does).

Re:No, that's not what he said

[green1]

Basically Aereo invented the VCR on the internet (nothing new to see here)
But that's ok, because the media industry has invented lawsuits about the internet which is truly novel...

What difference does it make if I press record and it lands on a tape in my living room, or a server accessible from my living room. it's the same thing!

On a side note, this exact technical ridiculousness caused the company I work for to delay launch of a PVR service for several years and eventually forced us to get new hardware and put a physical PVR in each customer's house instead of using our existing set top boxes with a software tweak and a server on our end. The network version had all sorts of advantages going for it, but archaic laws forced the other version instead.

Re:No, that's not what he said

[shutdown -p now]

The guy makes it perfectly clear which side of the fence he stands on:

It is contrary to what I have spent my career
trying to prevent, by advocating for the system that Congress enacted—
broad copyrights that protect authors and incentivize creative activities with
narrow exceptions to account for competing public interests.

You have to give the guy credit

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he's upfront and honest about his bullshit, unlike the RIAA and MPAA who claim piracy is why we would stop all this stuff.

USA seeks to outlaw technology

[realitycheckplease]

So he wants to tie up technology development in the USA while the rest of the world leaps ahead? Sounds like a brilliant plan to me, seeing as I'm not in the USA. ;) I guess at least it stops patent wars if it's illegal to invent new technology. Sounds like another payday for the lawyers though. And whoever said "existing business models" are legally immune to future changes. Slave traders had an "existing business model" once upon a time. Lots of shop floors got automated. Business models change, technology advances, adapt and survive, or die like the dinosaur you aspire to be!

RFC 1149

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesserie, time to dust off the carrier pigeons.

Re:RFC 1149

[lightknight]

In cases such as these, I'd prefer a shotgun. There are just some things that the human race has gone through one too many times, and will not tolerate again.

The south New Jersey turnpike is rather long, enough room for everyone involved in this sordid business. Because being a good person means never having to say "I wonder why that man and a few thousand of his friends are walking towards me, with torches and pitchforks in hand...does someone smell gasoline?"

Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[bzipitidoo]

How is copyright to be killed off? Give guys like this a megaphone.

What words could possibly be more damaging to copyright than this proposal to turn it into a blatant fascist tyranny? Plus, making everyone wonder if all supporters of copyright are just as stupid also hurts it. Such proposals do more to kill off copyright than any words Lessig, the EFF, or any other pro technology boffins could say. Go, Ralph, go!

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[J'raxis]

How is copyright to be killed off? Give guys like this a megaphone.

Careful what you wish for. Virtually every useful product that one might want to make and sell nowadays is presumed illegal until it's approved by some regulatory agency or another. Give this guy a bullhorn and the ignorant general public might agree with him, just like they have again and again in the past with those examples I cited.

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this.. what a sabotage of their cause a man on the inside could not have done better.. we should all be grateful.

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[the eric conspiracy]

Sorry you are rather wrong. Very FEW products are approved by government agencies.

Yes there are a lot of regulations that have to be met, but that is different. You don't need to submit the product so long as it meets those regulations.

I used to work in the chemical industry. The *only* new products we had to submit for regulatory approval were those that involved an entirely new chemical which had never been sold previously. Everything other product that was new just had to adhere to existing regulations. Since there are hundreds of thousands of known compounds the need for something really new is pretty rare.

Similar logic applies to foods. If you want to introduce a new type of food into the market, you can do so so long as it follows the existing guidelines on what additives etc. are allowed. Only if you use a new additive do you need FDA approval.

Your statement about the FCC is also in error. Devices that are not intentional RF radiators only need testing by a certified lab and certification by the lab before they can be sold. They don't need specific approval by a government agency. Only devices that intentionally emit RF need explicit regulatory approval. This is only a small minority of such devices.

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[ShakaUVM]

>Very FEW products are approved by government agencies

They're subject to regulation by these agencies, and they can be yanked off shelves by consumer protection agencies (look at the zen magnet controversy) even if they have not been demonstrated to be dangerous or poorly made.

And for counterexamples to your claim, just look at your own post:

1) New chemicals need to be approved before they can be sold.

2) New food additives need to be approved before they can be sold.

3) New electronic devices need to be tested before they can be sold, and RF emitters need to be approved to be sold.

While I don't think all regulations are bad, we are erring too far on the safety side of things right now, in part due to our diseased legal system.

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[BlueStrat]

New electronic devices need to be tested before they can be sold...

Tell that to the guys building and selling "boutique" vacuum-tube guitar amplifiers. Two examples:

http://www.grangeramp.com/

http://www.firebellyamps.com/

Lots of guys are also building and selling other musical electronics gadgets that are not government-tested or approved. Guitar effects pedals spring to mind.

It just removes a layer of legal protection for the maker/seller from civil liability for any harm caused in part or whole by their products.

You can even fabricate your own semi-auto firearms in a home machine shop without any license or permit necessary if you don't sell or transfer ownership of the firearms to anyone else, and as long as the firearm is otherwise legal for you to own where you are.

Strat

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's very different. Just because an electronic device requires FCC approval does not mean it's presumed illegal any more than your house is presumed illegal because it needs to be approved by a housing inspector. All that means is that you must pass an inspection before selling it to the public.

Nobody has to make a law to allow your electronic device to be sold unless you intend to transmit above a certain power on certain frequencies, and that's just to make sure that it doesn't interfere with anybody else's devices.

dom

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[J'raxis]

Your statement about the FCC is also in error. Devices that are not intentional RF radiators only need testing by a certified lab and certification by the lab before they can be sold.

Well, isn't that clever of them. Instead of the government doing the approval themselves, they mandate that you get approval from a "private" laboratory. (I wonder how much these private labs paid to earn that privilege.)

Sort of like how Obamacare mandates people buy private health insurance rather than creates an actual socialist universal health care system. I guess this is the "American Way" of doing things, so we can still pretend we're "capitalist" and "free."

Re:Thanks for making copyright look even worse

[J'raxis]

No, that's very different. Just because an electronic device requires FCC approval does not mean it's presumed illegal any more than your house is presumed illegal because it needs to be approved by a housing inspector. All that means is that you must pass an inspection before selling it to the public.

Semantics.

If you try to sell that unapproved product, they'll either fine you and/or order the product off the market, correct? And if you move into that house before you get that approval, they'll fine you and/or order to leave, correct? Thus, it's illegal, no matter what sort of lexicographical gymnastics you want to perform.

Well since it's all illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well since it's all illegal anyway, we might as well convey our disatisfaction with a note tied to a brick.

At least he's being honest

[gman003]

It's not like this isn't what all the established media companies are thinking. They all want this. At least he has the (courage|stupidity|ego) to stand up and say "we're against anything new because it might stop us making money".

Plus, it makes it ridiculously easy to argue against his point. This is a man who just weakened his entire team's position, because he spoke, on the record and in an official capacity. We should make sure this guy never gets fired, because he's actually *helping* our side by being so blatantly wrong.

Re:At least he's being honest

[lightknight]

Yes, but the tech sector will not have any of it. They're basically trying to make file-sharing illegal, which any tech of any worth knows isn't even on the negotiation table; instead, the mere mention of attempting to make it illegal is likely to summon the technological equivalent of the Kraken from the virtual realm to drag the unfortunate individual, or group of individuals, to that dark place that exists only in the corner of your eye.

Re:At least he's being honest

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the mistake of thinking that his being absolutely, ludicrously stupid and wrong will cause him to fail.

If recent history has taught me one thing, it's that absolutely, ludicrously stupid and wrong ideas have a tendancy to be pushed through regardless. Especially so if large corporations have money riding on it.

In fact, I will honestly be surprised if such a law as what's being proposed DOESN'T go through.

Just outlaw typewriters like Stalin did

[gelfling]

That works. And if a few slip through, kill the people who have them. Again, that worked fine for the CCCP.

Re:Just outlaw typewriters like Stalin did

[shutdown -p now]

Stalin never outlawed typewriters. No idea where you've got that from.

Re:Just outlaw typewriters like Stalin did

[Anonymous Coward]

Typewriters, printing presses and copiers were not illegal - that would have prevented Soviet bureaucracy from operating at all. Those needed a license. Of course, getting a license was essentially impossible to those that didn't clearly support and advance goals of the Party leadership.

This guy gets added to my list...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that was exclusive to Bill O'Rielly originally..., that I wouldn't mind if someone tried to kill them.

Re:This guy gets added to my list...

[reboot246]

If you're going to hate somebody that much, at least get their name right. It's Bill O'Reilly.

Don't Upset What?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Existing business models need to die - sooner rather than later.

License Printing Presses?

[MarkvW]

How is this any different from attempts to license printing presses?

Sons of bitches.

This is a line that the bastards should never cross.

this isn't capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is fucking bullshit.

Re:this isn't capitalism.

[lightknight]

Shhhhhh! We all know that, we're just waiting to see who joins this man in his follies. It will make the cleansing process easier if we get them all in one go.

Re:this isn't capitalism.

[toriver]

Copyright is not capitalism because it is a monopoly granted by the Government. It is more akin to the guild system that Adam Smith attacked.

Just curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they prove that the CURRENT delivery models were approved by Congress? How many years are they liable for subverting the previous deliver models and business methods?

Capitalism ?

[morcego]

Humm, in my book, upsetting existing business models is the essence of capitalism. And that is a very good thing.

Ironic

[mostlyDigital]

Radio would have kept TV off the air. Movies would have kept TV off the air. No cable... Forget satellite. Toss that ebook reader.

You forgot the IANAL

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might have heard of something called interstate commerce? Take the word technology out of the equation because it is a red herring. Or, to reframe it another way to help your mind grasp it if you find that objectionable, hold in mind the reality that the railroad was nothing less than bleeding edge technology at the time it was enacted. If they don't have the ability to regulate interstate commerce, nobody has told them in the last 130+ years.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Skarecrow77]

I'm pretty sure that putting limits on the interstate commerce clause is exactly what Chief Justice did in the recent affordable care act case.

read up on it. in the furor over "omg he betrayed conservatives everywhere he's a villain! lynch him!" hysteria, the true legacy of his phrasing of the majority decision was pretty much overlooked.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Zero__Kelvin]

Well then you need to read this again: "Basically, the court ruled that Congress can regulate existing interstate commercial activity, but it can’t directly force people to enter into a market" - [emphasis added]

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Skarecrow77]

yes.
that's a limitation on the clause.
which is exactly what I said.
look, it's not exactly rocket science here.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[roman_mir]

Yes, and what does the story say? Does it say: commerce should be illegal in case it uses new content-delivery tech, or does it say: new content-delivery tech should be presumed illegal?

Commerce didn't even enter the equation here yet and you are already talking about it. Maybe you should rethink that.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Zero__Kelvin]

Then why can't you understand it?

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Zero__Kelvin]

I couldn't help but notice that you post at zero. That is probably because you don't read what is written as well as the reply and then think about it before you post.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[sed quid in infernos]

Yes, the chief justice's portion of the opinion (which no other justice joined) limited the commerce clause. It's unclear whether that part of the opinion will be viewed as dicta or binding precedent by the courts; strong arguments have been made both ways. But it doesn't really matter in a practical sense, because the clearly binding portion of the opinion of the court gave Congress a blueprint on how to enact commerce mandates within the bounds of the constitution. And because that power was derived from the taxing power, it's actually not just limited to interstate commerce.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress also can't make you snort ice cream but that's not really limitation of the commerce clause.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[onemorechip]

Interestingly, that opinion went against this precedent. It was quite the activist ruling.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you are wrong twice in the same thread.

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." I think this quote is appropriate now.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes roman_mir, you are right. I was wrong. Now that I have followed your link to your page, which you posted as an AC, I can clearly see that you do read the posts and think before you reply. The actual problem turns out to be that you are a simpleton who thinks you are a genius.

Re:You forgot the IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is overlooked.

stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

of course the guy is a fuckwit. this is besides the point

you cannot and would not be able to stay stupid things and represent the people if in fact you were actually representing the people. however, our democracy is becoming plutocracy: you can't get elected unless you get a lot of money, and you can't get a lot of money until you kiss the feet of the moneyed aristocracy

i like democracy. i like my country. i recognize that it won't be easy. but somehow, we the people must win back our own country from financial interests. i said: it won't be easy. you basically want the guys strung out on the heroin of wealthy donors to pass laws against wealthy donors. good luck to us, we'll need it

it is however, the most valid fight before us as a people and a nation, and something the left and the right can join in together and find common cause in. that is in spite of those on the left and the right who swallow the corporate propaganda that keeps us divided against each other at both of our losses

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

...somehow, we the people must win back our own country from financial interests.

So... How far are you willing to go for the win? All the way?

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

through any rhetorical and organizational means possible. the vote

no violent means, you ignorant gun loving assholes

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

So when somebody puts a gun to your head, I should just let him pull the trigger, and say 'better luck next time'? In your case, no problem, but try to remember that somebody's gun is protecting you and your rights right now.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill him. In a brand new way. That ought to cause some deep thoughts.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[Anonymous Coward]

however, our democracy is becoming plutocracy: you can't get elected unless you get a lot of money

How do you mean, "becoming"? It has been this way for a while, you could not get elected without large amounts of money. The exceptions were in single digits even a century ago.

The current transition is just getting us to the point where the president is going to have to spend 3-3.5 years campaigning for money (instead of current 1-1.5 years). Maybe we need 1-term limits, so that the current president doesn't have to spend all of his/her time first term looking for money to be reelected.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[green1]

And many many more guns are oppressing you right now. Advocating armed rebellion against the united states military is a stupid idea. They are very good at following orders, and they are better armed, better trained, and more numerous than any start to a grassroots revolution.

You may have the right to bear (certain) arms, but they will do you absolutely no good in a fight with a modern government.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[the eric conspiracy]

The US military would go up in a puff of smoke if it came down to fighting it's own population.

It's a volunteer force with no cultural difference whatsoever from the general population.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

you want an armed revolution... over intellectual property issues?

i am no friend of intellectual property, but at least i have enough functional neurons to know what's important in this world. revolutions are ugly beyond belief. look at syria. and no one, absolutely no one controls what comes out on the other end. it could be far less liberties

but losers like you are just looking for an excuse to start shooting people. you're no friend of freedom, liberty, or any of the principles of the founding fathers. you're just a dumb goon, whose masturbatorial fantasy life centers around gunsteel

in fact, you're eagerness, your itchy trigger finger, is fodder for the demagogues in this world. you're future fascist goon squad, and you don't even know. just manipulate a few easily located prejudices of yours, and out comes the guns. you're an embryonic stormtrooper, you fucking asshole. you're the enemy of this country and what it stands for. really

no one, no one interested in what is good and right in this world is so eager for violence. grow a fucking brain, you fucking cro magnon thug

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

Read up on the 'war twixt the states'. The most deadly American war ever.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

kill his name, kill his reputation, kill his standing in the community. yes

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

agreed. but january 2010 and the citizens united decision is a new acceleration in the direction of outrageous. at least before it was unbecoming and backroom manipulation. now they don't even bother pretending anymore. the american people better fucking wake up

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

you want an armed revolution... over intellectual property issues?...it is your moral duty to ignore it or actively wage war on it

I'm sorry, what?

bla bla bla...but losers like you... bla bla bla...you're future fascist goon squad... bla bla bla...you fucking asshole... bla bla bla...you fucking cro magnon thug...

You're the greatest.. Rage on brotha!

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

yes, i will. my weapons are words, because i am a man, secure in my self

you could say something different about the insecurities of a manchild who goes so easily to violence

save yourself: those who go easily to violence, there is a word for such hotheads amongst the demagogues who collect easily manipulated goons

cannon fodder

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

...the citizens united decision is a new acceleration in the direction of outrageous...

Freedom.. horrible horrible freedom..

Generalissimo Francisco Franco lives!

I guess the concept of voting for someone with little money is completely foreign to you. Nevertheless the best thing to do is to wake everybody up to that little fact, instead of being a control freak and using censorship to limit who can say what, where, when and how.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[circletimessquare]

you're not very bright are you?

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

Your words mean squat when nobody listens. You really know nothing... And if you're voting for the party with your 'lessor of two evils' bullshit, then your words mean even less than nothing.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[fustakrakich]

C'mon man, I expected better than that. "We're all bozos on this bus", and "I can honestly say, having spent these marvelous moments with you, you ain't better than anybody"

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[green1]

If you're right, you won't need your own weapons.
If you're wrong, your own weapons won't help.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[mister_playboy]

you want an armed revolution... over intellectual property issues?

Seems you have a problem with projecting your own tendency to wildly overreact onto others, considering what garbage follows this sentence.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[colinrichardday]

And if you're voting for the party with your 'lessor of two evils' bullshit

Yeah, it's hard enough to get tenants for one evil, let alone two.

Re:stop attacking the thinking, attack the source

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned how to write a sentence properly in first grade. You're retarded and should stop writing, period.

Laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we sure that this isn't another slip up similar to Iran's latest? This sounds like something straight from The Onion.

Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[tepples]

That's called breaking the law.

If so, could you give an outline of how someone might challenge the constitutionality of the device provisions of Title 17, United States Code, section 1201?

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you'd present the case that the DMCA exceeds the powers Congress has under Article 1, and then you'll get fucking laughed out of the courtroom because between the fairly explicit copyright clause and the increasingly broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, you don't have a hope in hell of winning.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I share many of your objections, but I want to point something out:

The economy is the one and only engine by which we -- all of us -- get paid, therefore eat, maintain housing, etc. So it's not just about greed. It's about necessity.

When you formulate your objections to the current fucked up situation, you can't just slam it without coming up with a viable replacement mechanism, not if you want to be taken seriously.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's nonsense. If a system is unjust, then it is unjust. Some things are more important than money, and one of those things is freedom. Should we hold back automation so people can keep their jobs? Think of the numerous people in the past who lost their jobs thanks to technology; tough luck. Move on or die.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Austerity Empowers]

Just because it upsets a business model, does not make it bad for the economy or the citizens of the country. It makes it bad for those whose business models it upsets, but they also have the choice to change with the times or lose their money.

There are a few places where we desperately need some business models being upset, curtailed or destroyed for the benefit of the citzens: telecom carriers, cable carriers, IP holders in general and a few overgrown gorillas who have become oppressive. It's best that the government itself stays out of this as much as possible, or at least just acts as a facilitator (i.e. pork money thrown to enemies of these beasts).

An example of something that worked well: for a few years the government gave independent service providers cheap access to "the last mile" customers. Consumers got cheap, highly functioning, unlimited broadband, with excellent service and a selection of options that served our needs. For a few years our telecom system wasn't an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the government reversed itself, and those advantages have been slowly sucked away, or "unlimited" redefined to mean something that doesn't mean unlimited, virtually no competition and basically a selection of the same shitty service served the same way. I can't argue that what the government did isn't a little scary and vaguely communist, but it absolutely was positive change while it lasted.

If the same scenarios can be created without government involvement (i.e. a new, natural competitor that disrupts the status quo), we have the actual ideal of a capitalist economy that works. Unfortunately IP law being what it is, does not allow competition by definition. The purpose of the law makes sense, but the government needs to spend less time and energy policing it. Basically if you are a pirate, you could go to jail if the government chases you. But the government won't be funded to chase all but the worst offenders. The way to regulate this is market based pricing: as long as media companies can get away with charging us $20 for what costs $1 in China, we are overpolicing our IP. As long as region locks exists, we are overpolicing our IP.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll find that abstract freedoms become rather less of an issue when your children are starving. But hey, feel free to vent your righteous outrage in the meantime. Just keep in mind that if you do anything that messes with my ability to feed my kids, my own outrage will be focused upon you.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I have no problem with business models changing. My concern is with the economy being upended.

They're not at all the same thing.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Genda]

Aye, there's the rub, when you have a majority on your highest court, hand picked to be suckling the same teat as your legislature, then any law they pass is constitutional by definition... i.e. because the Supreme Court says so. If this were a chess game, it would be mate in 6 moves.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[cheekyjohnson]

It's not surprising that someone would be opposed to something that could cost them their job, but I'd say they're the people we should be listening to, anyway. They'll simply have to find another way to make money rather than try to stifle innovation.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[sumdumass]

I doubt he would get laughed out of court. Because not only would he argue article 1, he would argue 9th amendment as in it limits the copyright clause and the interstate commerce clause and that because the DMCA authorizes the library of congress to designate what technology can be circumvented but creates a situation where it cannot legally be circumvented by the lay person.

He would also have to argue that the WPPT and WTC WIPO treaties as ratified are unconstitutional too seeing how the DMCA is a product to comply with them. But if the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA is granted then the supremacy clause would also kick in because regardless the content of a treaty, it has to be made pursuant to and in line with the constitution.

Either way, those are some legitimate questions that would need to be answered if brought up. Laughing wouldn't really be on the table. On the other hand, he would have to show cause in order to get the case heard which is highly unlikely to happen without being in jeopardy of the punishment of the laws. It would cost lots of money.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[hawkinspeter]

So, we're only allowed to have freedom and human rights if your children are getting fattened up? Doesn't make you sound like a complete asshat at all.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[ewanm89]

Not to mention the copyright mob will allow you off and find some way to "settle" before you can appeal all the way to the supreme court anyway.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Austerity Empowers]

Which is why it needs to be done slowly, preferably by directing market forces rather than fiat. If the government said "patents do not exist, copyright" does not exist, the economy would explode, at least in the short run (where short may be 5 years). But if the government simply took wind out of the sails over a period of years, the economy wouldn't necessarily tank.

Economics is mostly a fraud, appearances matter more than business fundamentals (at least in the short term). You can't SAY you're devaluing IP, people would freak, you simply let it devalue.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Again: I'm talking about the economy. That was the original context, and that's what my comments refer to. I agree, there's no right to a particular job, etc. But to bring down the entire economy is a mistake, and that's what the Gp or GGP or whatever was putting forth.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[fyngyrz]

But if the government simply took wind out of the sails over a period of years,

How?

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Local ID10T]

Yes. I have no problem with business models changing. My concern is with the economy being upended.

They're not at all the same thing.

The economy is fucked already -look around at all the people struggling to feed/shelter their families.

Disruptive technologies causing a paradigm shift in outdated business models is the only chance for our future.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt he would get laughed out of court. Because not only would he argue article 1, he would argue 9th amendment as in it limits the copyright clause and the interstate commerce clause and that because the DMCA authorizes the library of congress to designate what technology can be circumvented but creates a situation where it cannot legally be circumvented by the lay person.

He would also have to argue that the WPPT and WTC WIPO treaties as ratified are unconstitutional too seeing how the DMCA is a product to comply with them. But if the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA is granted then the supremacy clause would also kick in because regardless the content of a treaty, it has to be made pursuant to and in line with the constitution.

Either way, those are some legitimate questions that would need to be answered if brought up. Laughing wouldn't really be on the table. On the other hand, he would have to show cause in order to get the case heard which is highly unlikely to happen without being in jeopardy of the punishment of the laws. It would cost lots of money.

Gee, from the way it is heading, I get the feeling that there is more freedom in Iran for non dmca web use, then there is in the USA. Same for some parts of Africa.

Re:Constitutional challenge to the DMCA

[bsercombe72]

Easy. Release your wildly successful product in a country in which congress has no jurisdiction. Laugh maniacally as the US government forgoes millions or billions in taxes.

Entitlement

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican-style.

Re:Entitlement

[AHuxley]

The poor in the USA get a free Obama phone.*
The rich in the USA get a free bilateral trade deal with a TPP copyright enforcement side letter.
*http://www.salon.com/2012/09/29/conservatives_obama_phone_flip_out/

Contributory infringement

[tepples]

As far as I can tell, contributorily infringing a copyright is either explicitly disallowed or so entrenched in case law that it might as well be.

Re:Contributory infringement

[MightyMartian]

That may be so, but I do not remember the developers of torrent P2P protocols being hauled into court.

no more developers wanted sign

[Anonymous Coward]

origin : USA

Meanwhile, In India.........

[mormop]

A couple of students, backed with money from a Chinese bank, come up with a distribution mechanism that is so brilliant in its simplicity that it becomes a worldwide hit in everywhere except the US where Congress is so busy farting around trying to please their corporate sponsors that they get left several years behind.

Three years later In America, when congress realises that the rest of the world doesn't give a shit what they think and has progressed onto different and more profitable business model, everyone realises that Ralph Oman had been a complete and utter twat but by then it too late. Well done Ralph Oman, well done......

Re:Meanwhile, In India.........

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree. At the three to five year mark, the US will be a third world non-player on the world stage. and Ralph Oman will be asking for handouts along with everyone he sought to keep from suceeding with new ideas.

Re:Meanwhile, In India.........

[green1]

Oh don't be silly, that would never happen. You make it sound like the USA would be alone, we all know Canada, the UK, Australlia, and several other countries would all be right there with the USA stuck in the third world.

Re:Meanwhile, In India.........

[Anonymous Coward]

USA stuck in the third world? Actually, by definition it's part of the first world....

Re:Meanwhile, In India.........

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound like the USA would be alone ..

Because Australia is technically an oligopoly, their laws prevent discriminatory trade via copyright laws. Eg Region-locking is disallowed and trans-coding to a new media device is allowed. To date it has a been a fine line and citizens will need to watch the effect of current white-papers for data-surveillance and copyright legislation.

Re:Meanwhile, In India.........

[Anonymous Coward]

USA stuck in the third world? Actually, by my, now out-dated, definition it's part of the first world....

FTFY

Re:Meanwhile, In India.........

[Anonymous Coward]

Five weeks after the US realizes Ralph Oman was a twat, he turns up in China under his real name, and giggles as he carts the wheelbarrow of money to bank while his newly awarded Hero of the Chinese People medals jangle... :D

Uh huh. And...

[Type44Q]

New Content-Delivery Tech Should Be Presumed Illegal, Says Former Copyright Boss

...lining that fucker up against the wall can almost certainly be presumed illegal... but I'm not going to suggest that it would actually be wrong. :)

Re:Uh huh. And...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I dunno it's an existing tried and tested business practice for dictators!

New tricks, old dog

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it nice when the world advanced full snail speed ahead? When you'd get like two-three ... let's call it ten inventions per century... This guy misses those times and wants them reinstated. The world is moving way too fast, advancing in a single century more than it did in several thousand years put together. I say find him a Weeping Angel (see Doctor Who) who can send him exactly to that time, so he stops longing for it.

so...he'd like to overthrow our legal system

[ThorGod]

See, in the US, something is considered legal until it is outlawed. Contrast this with the Spanish system, where everything is outlawed until it is legalized.

And apparently this guy was part of the US government at some point? "former U.S. Register of Copyrights"

Re:so...he'd like to overthrow our legal system

[J'raxis]

Really. See this post I just made. Virtually every product someone might try to make and sell nowadays in the U.S. is presumed illegal until it's approved by some regulatory body.

What this bureaucrat is proposing is far from ground-breaking. It's just a tiny, incremental increase in the power the government in this supposedly "free" country already has.

SOCIALISM! FREE MARKET! BLOOBLAHBLOO

[TinyPterosaur]

Cause this is the kind of market regulation the US needs, and not single-payer health care. At least these kinds of people are consistent on killing. Killing progress, and people, all while making a killing.

Re:SOCIALISM! FREE MARKET! BLOOBLAHBLOO

[AHuxley]

Register of Copyrights in 1985 - i.e. under Ronald Reagan (R).
Very consistent in keeping movie, telco, health care cartels, duopolies and protecting the US for the evils of a hi tech hardware and software exporting Japan.

These people are starting to seem evil

[Karmashock]

First, let me say I'm generally in agreement with the copyright holders in that "it's their stuff and people are stealing"... it is their stuff and people are stealing it. That said, they really have no right to control general content delivery systems. The attempt to make the VCR illegal for example was one of the many things they've done over the years that is just wrong.

Do people have a right to rip them off? No. But they don't have a right to dictate the evolution of our technology either.

What's the balance here? I really think they need to adjust their business model to assume they don't have dictatorial control over these systems. Not only will that deal with third world piracy which is far worse then first world piracy. But it will also free them from caring about these content delivery systems. There are going to be pirates. GET OVER IT. Adjust your business model accordingly.

Re:These people are starting to seem evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people have a right to rip them off? No.

I disagree. The People have a right, actually, an obligation, to make the laws work to the benefit of the many. So the copyright holders are entitled to their privilege only as long as Congress considers it a good deal for the nation.

I think the benefits of the copyright to the general public are no longer there. The copyright should be abolished. It could be done incrementally. For example, Congress could set the year 2100 as the year beyond which everything will fall into public domain. If adverse effects are felt, there will be plenty of time for corrective legislation.

Adjust your business model accordingly.

In other words, get a job.

Re:These people are starting to seem evil

[Anonymous Coward]

it is their stuff and people are stealing it.

No, they're copying it. It's called copyright infringement.

Stealing has a very specific legal definition, and so does copyright infringement. To conflate the two (which are both technically against the law) will surely confuse people who are ignorant of what copyright infringement actually is.

Re:These people are starting to seem evil

[Ash-Fox]

Nah. I agree more with this man's concept of getting congress to approve of stuff. So much so, that I don't believe new creative systems like content-delivery should not be the only thing that congress approves, but even newly created content that has a chance of causing competition. Such as new movies, new music, new art, new software etc. They should all be approved by congress first!

Before you act shocked...

[J'raxis]

Before you act shocked about this, exactly how is this different than any other products sold nowadays?

It's illegal to make and sell electronic hardware without approval from the FCC. It's illegal to make and sell most any food products without approval from a state-level health agency. It's illegal to make and sell any medical products without approval from the FDA. It's illegal to make and sell any motorized vehicles without approval from multiple safety bodies. So now, we can simply add "content delivery technology" to the list of things the government presumes is guilty of... whatever, until you prove it's not.

Isn't it great to live in a "free" country? Aren't you glad you're free?

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

The main difference being in that all of those cases there could be serious hazardous side-effects if done wrong (potentially fatal).

Re:Before you act shocked...

[AHuxley]

As the AC noted, most of that falls under “tombstone technology” - enough rich and middle class people died quickly or slowly and US laws where changed after the press showed premeditated design issues.
or their TV or radio enjoyment was been interfered with.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[luther349]

its not illagle to sell any of those things without approval from fcc fda etc. but it has to be branded it is not approved by said agency's.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[the eric conspiracy]

There is a very large difference. The examples you've cited are all technical requirements. XYZ must do something that has a technical definition to be accepted.

This is not a technical requirement.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[luther349]

you mean like dells fcc approved exploding laptops. or fda approved drugs that kill people. those agency's don't mean crap its just a way to grab extra money for the ritch,

Re:Before you act shocked...

[J'raxis]

So, all this guy has to do is find some "safety" excuse and people will line up to support him. He could cite how Wikileaks' release of those diplomatic cables "puts American lives in danger" or how The Innocence of Muslims is causing worldwide riots (which has resulted in deaths), as just two examples.

In virtually all cases of new regulations or bans, such legislation is pushed by self-serving entities who will selfishly benefit from putting competitors out of business. Naturally the people or corporations pushing those laws look for justifications that the public will support, and "safety" is always easy to spoon-feed to the public. It's worthwhile to ask in response to every new legislative proposal, "Cui bono? Who benefits?" And indeed you'll most always find someone who does, usually quite handsomely, and at everyone else's expense.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for an electronics company and FCC has nothing to do with it as its a subsystem

I grow my own food, and buy it from local farmers, no FDA

and vehicles are approved by industry bodies, not all government (outside of DOT)

put down the pitch fork and tinfoil

Re:Before you act shocked...

[onemorechip]

What do any of the regulations you cite have to do with protecting "existing business models"?

Nothing? Maybe that is where the difference lies?

Re:Before you act shocked...

[sumdumass]

You only need approval on motorized vehicles if they are going to be used on the public streets.

I've built go carts, 4 wheel drive ATVs, zero turn lawn mowers and numerous other motorized vehicles like off road mud trucks and even a boat once. I've sold some of these, destroyed some and sold the remains. I have no fear of selling my next project as they are all to be used off road. Although, the mudding trucks could technically be licensed with little modification and driven on the public streets. You can still create pipe buggies an even license them to be driven on the road if you meet the requirements.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Pecisk]

Before you turn all this into "anti big government" Tea Party line jest, exactly why these rules we have here?

1) It's illegal to make and sell electronic hardware without approval from the FCC - first of all, it's illegal to *sell*, not to make. You can make your own computer at home if you want. Ok, you can't make your own mobile phone, to mess with wireless, you will need permits for that; That's again to protect air waves from polluting for others;
So, no artificial monopoly here, just to make sure things work for everyone;
2) About food - the same. If you want true example - in Europe there have been several times when something produced in China turned out poisonous. Only because of such health agencies disasters like tens of children in hospitals are averted;
3) I don't even get started about FDA and meds - seriously;
4) Wow, because well, if you drive alone in the desert - go ahead, but if you participate in traffic - it would be nice to know that your brakes works as they suppose to;

This, again, is virtual technology. It's been used for very long time and it's showing that it doesn't need any kind of technical regulation. Business model regulation - well, but world doesn't know such rules....except for IPR. So guy talking this big because he is used to - he thinks that everyone must accept it that IPR as industry is above everyone else.

So, nice try to spin this into big government criticism. Sorry, but we need government. Maybe you don't. Then maybe go to Somalia or somewhere else where true anarchy resides - and we will see how long you'll survive.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that all those regulatory bodies like the FCC, the FDA, and whoever regulates motor vehicles are essentially blacklists. They forbid unsafe behavior or interference, and just mandate a few safety features (like indicators or brake lights, fuses, electrical isolation, child-proof bottles and minimum labeling). This new law wants a whtelist that forbids anything that is not explicitly allowed.

with this law, does one need congressional approval for h265? For the next generation of WiFi? For sending video over UDPv6?

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for starters, those are all "hardware" and this would apply to "software".

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how you couldn't be bothered to figure out the rather obvious answer to that question before copying it, er, I mean posing it.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[L. J. Beauregard]

It's illegal to make and sell any medical products without approval from the FDA.

No, it isn't. Just slap a Quack Miranda Warning on it -- "we haven't actually proved this does what we say it'll do" -- and you're good to go.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[J'raxis]

Maybe not business models, but most of these can be traced to protecting individual businesses. All you have to do is look at who lobbies for these things (or lobbies against eliminating them) to see what I mean. I can dig up citations if you'd like.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[J'raxis]

They are not blacklists, they are whitelists. In all the examples I cited, the products are presumed unsafe and thus illegal to sell until they've been approved as safe.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because none of those restrictions have to do with 'preserving business models'. All of the ones you listed are, in fact, purely safety-standards. They may get stretched a bit far, but, there's a limit to the stretching you can manage under the umbrella of 'safety'.

A VHS tape player can be certified to not burn my house down and I'm fine with that. It shouldn't be certified to not cause ANYONE loss of profit margins.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[onemorechip]

I'd not be surprised if there we such side effects, but the regulations you listed did not originate from an intent to protect sellers in the markets being regulated.

Re:Before you act shocked...

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm not a US resident or citizen, but from what I understand, only electronic devices with radio transmitters or receivers are FCC controlled. Digital cameras, computers without WiFi, electronic children's toys, and dozens of other devices require no such approval.
Food products require state level health agency approval? Really? So farmer's markets are illegal in the US?
Medical devices? Well..I really know nothing about that area, so I'm going to leave that alone. Besides, it's one thing I think some kind of government oversight is really a good idea, anyway. Sure, there are useful things that aren't approved as soon as they could be, or at all, but consider the bunch of shysters you've/we've got running the corporate world right now, and how many quick money-making frauds they would perpetrate on a population with little to no knowledge about the medical field. Some of them would have no effects, but some would be downright dangerous.
Motorized vehicles are perfectly legal to build and sell without any safety approvals. Dune buggies, dirt bikes, virtually any offroad vehicle, etc. The only thing you need safety approval for is to license and drive a car on a public road. Again, like medical device shenanigans, someone else's stupidity could kill you if this were not the case. Maybe you think this is a good idea, and you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. I happen to disagree with you.

I guess it is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

That he is the former and not the present.

What an absolute moron.

That is just ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Innovation will always disrupt existing models. So According to Oman, the government and existing corporations exploiting a market should decide whether we have a right to innovate and profit from it. How far is that from economic and technological enslavement.

Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK
YOU

Re:Two words

[toriver]

Sorry, but those are in the lyrics of a song by Lily Allen. The Copy-Cops will be around shortly to hand you your fine.

(As an aside, I just noticed that Spotify have added the uncensored version of the song, while keeping the funny censored version around. *clap clap*)

Why stop with new technology?

[TFAFalcon]

So why not extend this to all creative works? Every new work should be submitted to congress for approval before it can be published. After all it might upset someone or compete with the works already available on the market!

Where is your ...

[PPH]

... Congressional certification that Blu-ray won't interfere with HD DVD business models?

Re:Where is your ...

[luther349]

hd-dvd vs blue-ray was just who had the most money to win. and sony used that to make lots of bribes to film makers not to support hd-dvd. years later i still don't own a single blue-ray disk because dvd is good enough.

Re:Where is your ...

[toriver]

Ah yes, it must have been Sony's fault, after all, Toshiba had mighty Microsoft on its side. Sony had just... well, most other manufacturers actually... on their side. Pioneer made a HD-DVD player too, but they bet on both horses in the race.

Face it, the right technology won that war. But because of the "war" we had to suffer a period of really expensive disks when both platforms were supported.

Wow, just wow

[Ramley]

I mean... really?!?

Still aghast that this could be coming from someone in such an influential position.

The kicker is that this could actually happen. After what's gone on over the last 11 years, not much surprises me anymore.

Ralph Oman is an irrelevant worthless turd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Congress proves otherwise.

Who the fuck does this douche bag think he is ?

Shoot them

[future assassin]

Seriously these people should be tried, convicted and shot for of trying to keep humanity from moving forward. This is how fucking retarded media companies are http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/

death if technological innovation

[l3v1]

"to prove they don't upset existing business models"

Which means any disruptive new tech - which would be everything really good - would be dead at birth. Such smarta** politicians should be all fired on spot and never again allowed to practice politics. Ignorance and influence are a very dangerous mix, as you all know all too well...

Why haven't you noticed that we're already there?

[Kohath]

Content delivery presumed illegal unless you get a specific license? What's next, requiring a specific license to drive your own car on public roads? Being forced to get a certification before you can become a barber or an interior decorator? Having to get a permit before you can sell cookies you baked yourself?

What's the world coming to?

Why haven't you noticed that we're already there?

They can do that

[jonfr]

They can do that and at the same time fall of the map as country with any technological development what so ever. The recession of that would be so bad that U.S would be cut off from the rest of the world. How in return would just mind his own business after few hard years.

Already ruled illegal

[recoiledsnake]

Streaming 100 different DVDs to 100 different people was already ruled illegal.

http://news.yahoo.com/zediva-permanently-shut-down-forced-pay-mpaa-nearly-042405420.html
http://www.wired.com/business/2011/08/zediva-shuts-down/

Re:Already ruled illegal

[shutdown -p now]

Was it ruled illegal because it was considered a public performance, or for some other reason?

Re:Already ruled illegal

[RatherBeAnonymous]

There is a difference. Zediva was acquiring all sorts of content at retail prices and rebroadcasting it without any kind of licensing agreements. Aereo is recording and streaming content broadcast on public airwaves and they are acting as an agent for their customers to maintain an antenna and a DVR. It that regard, they claim they are protected by the broadcasters' public performance licensing. They even require customers to be in New York City, so they aren't placeshifting. Aero is like an outsourced VCR service. The legality of VCRs was established in 1984 with Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp provided that it is not used to deprive the content owners of revenue. In this case, the service is making broadcast TV easier for New Yorkers to watch, and probably increasing viewership and revenues for the broadcasters. Because they maintain a separate antenna for each customer, Aereo is even less shady than the cable companies that record everything and let customers watch programming on demand.

Re:Already ruled illegal

[russotto]

Was it ruled illegal because it was considered a public performance, or for some other reason?

Public performance -- but it was a single district judge from Hollywood's home district. I don't think his decision is reconcilable with the Cablevision decision, but that was a different circuit.

just being a paid hack doesn't explain it

[swschrad]

this guy Oman also has to start out with a stupefying level of moron, one that cannot be bought or learned, but which comes from birth. or whatever they call it on his home planet.

Well Played

[Anonymous Coward]

Well played, Romney's campaign office, well played.

Welcome to the land of the Sheeple

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You're depending on the court to settle that matter for you? The same court which approved abusing eminent domain to raise tax revenues? "

No. I am not. I am saying I have no power. They will decide it for me regardless if I depend upon them or not.

" At some point you have to call the absurd absurd."

Reread what I wrote and you quoted. I didn't come close to saying it wasn't absurd. The whole thing is absurd. We agree on that. I am merely pointing that the law and absurdity often go hand in hand. There is no government of the people, for the people, by the people anymore (if there ever was.)

Re:Welcome to the land of the Sheeple

[BenJCarter]

They will decide it for me regardless if I depend upon them or not.

There is no government of the people, for the people, by the people anymore (if there ever was.)

Hopefully we can still talk freely (unless it violates parole).

I can't tell you who to vote for, that's your decision. I'll just say vote or STFU. The party supporting election integrity isn't a bad place to start if you want to push towards empowering those of us that still believe the Government works for us.

Re:Welcome to the land of the Sheeple

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Hopefully we can still talk freely (unless it violates parole). "

I don't know. I'd have to review your parole conditions.

"I can't tell you who to vote for, that's your decision. I'll just say vote or STFU."

ROTFLMAO. Which part of what I wrote don't you understand? All of it, it would seem.

"The party supporting election integrity isn't a bad place to start if you want to push towards empowering those of us that still believe the Government works for us."

There is no such party, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Santa Clause doesn't really exist.

Re:Welcome to the land of the Sheeple

[iamnobody2]

oh please, the party supporting election integrity? they're just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote. both parties are hopeless criminals, the country was bought and sold long ago and the shit they shuffle around every four years means dick.

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next, requiring a specific license to drive your own car on public roads?

This proves you have at least a modicum of understanding on how to safely operate multiple thousands of pounds of steel at high speeds and not kill anyone. Content delivery will not run your children over.

Being forced to get a certification before you can become a barber or an interior decorator?

Being certified means you have the knowledge (if only on paper) to maintain sanitary conditions with sharp objects and not slice someone's face open with said sharp objects. For interior design, it means you have been trained to not screw up someone's home by doing something as stupid as making a fireplace out of drywall or hanging heavy objects near where people sleep without using proper anchors. Content delivery will not cut your face open or drop a mirror on your head.

Having to get a permit before you can sell cookies you baked yourself?

The permit says that you have been trained in proper food handling to avoid foodborne illnesses. Content delivery will not send you to the ER with salmonella.

Just because we accept some regulations to ensure safety, does not make regulation to ensure profit in any way right. What about that concept is so hard for you to understand?

Tranz-Send v. BitTorrent

[tepples]

I do not remember the developers of torrent P2P protocols being hauled into court.

Google utorrent lawsuit tells me they were, albeit on patent charges, not copyright charges. The suit was filed then dropped.

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[cheekyjohnson]

The permit says that you have been trained in proper food handling to avoid foodborne illnesses

Wait... that really exists? Why haven't they outlawed home cooking meals for anyone that doesn't have a license yet?

Just because we accept some regulations to ensure safety

Safety, safety, safety. That's why we have the TSA. I just love exchanging freedom for safety!

Necessary and proper

[tepples]

Since there is no part in the Constitution giving the Congress such authority

Other than Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress power to do what is "necessary and proper" toward "securing for limited times to authors [...] the exclusive right to their respective writings"?

Majority vote for whomever they see on TV

[tepples]

If you keep reelecting them

Unfortunately, I am outvoted by the majority, who out of apathy vote for whomever they see on TV news. And TV news channels are known to have a conflict of interest with their co-owned movie studios.

Re:Majority vote for whomever they see on TV

[fustakrakich]

None of that means you have to sacrifice principle simply to 'keep the wrong lizard from getting in'. Regardless of what the majority does, if you vote for regular party members, you are part of the problem, in the same boat with that majority.

Re:Majority vote for whomever they see on TV

[tepples]

if you vote for regular party members, you are part of the problem

I voted against the Republicans and Democrats, yet the Republicans and Democrats ended up winning. What should I have done to become not part of the problem?

Re:Majority vote for whomever they see on TV

[fustakrakich]

Nope, you did right by voting for a candidate worth voting for (I assume). Just encourage the people to vote their conscious. It's the same ol' "you can lead a horse to water" thing. My real point is, don't blame the media/government for people making the wrong decisions. The problem is psychological, all very well documented. To paraphrase Homer, we are both the cause and solution to all our problems.

All note that you point out a fatal flaw of majority rule, where your rights can be voted away by the irrational, maddening crowd, and there might be a time where things have to be taken to the next level, as unpleasant as that may seem. It all depends how badly you want it.

Re:Fuck this guy with a big rubber dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

LIKE A BOSS.

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[Anonymous Coward]

The permit says that you have been trained in proper food handling to avoid foodborne illnesses

Wait... that really exists? Why haven't they outlawed home cooking meals for anyone that doesn't have a license yet?

Just because we accept some regulations to ensure safety

Safety, safety, safety. That's why we have the TSA. I just love exchanging freedom for safety!

Or you could take your tinfoil hat off for five seconds and realize the point I was trying to make. Cooking your own meals is fine. SELLING something you cooked is regulated by that strange desire people have to not be poisoned by something they buy to eat. And that's the bases for all the other regulations I mentioned, i.e. "proving you are competent enough to charge money for a service and not harm others in doing so" or "operating a rolling death machine without flattening someone." But let me guess, you think that anyone should be able to hop behind the wheel of a car without proving they know what they're doing, or charge money to do dangerous things with no assurance to their clientel that they know what they're doing? You're more than free to visit unlicensed people for any of those services, but you get what you get. Despite your hand-waving, this is NOT the same thing as being irradiated in order to board an airplane. So how about you take your ritalin, and realize that not everyone is out to get you?

Oh wait. This is Slashdot, where the self-diagnosed Aspbergers cases run wild and think they're the embodiment of Dwight Schrute or something...

Re: blatant

[TaoPhoenix]

Be careful, if you become sufficiently wrong it turns into a twisted kind of "Right" and gets passed.

"new technology"

[chrismcb]

Just what is "new technology?"
What qualifies as new technology? Does that mean ANY patent?
And what if you upset the existing business model with old technology?
Congress doesn't exist to keep the status quo.

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[Kohath]

Content delivery will not send you to the ER with salmonella.

It could infect your PC with malware though. And then the malware will empty out your bank account. There's your safety angle. Also, doctors use computers. Your content delivery system could install malware on doctors' computers and change drug prescriptions. It could kill hundreds of people.

You already surrendered when you decided that anything involving "safety" meant you have to beg the government for special permission to act. It's trivially easy to imagine a fanciful safety-related reason to prohibit anything. You've shown that with your justification of barber licenses.

Hmm. A suitable response...

[Chas]

What's politician for "Go die in a fire while being sodomized by a nail-spiked telephone pole"?

Eh. NO. You are STILL NOT GETTING IT

[SmallFurryCreature]

Every tech hurt someone. Recorded music and performances, which is what LP's and Movies are, put live productions out of business. A very simple example already exists with just movies and LP's. The first movies had no sound track and were accompiened instead by life music, each movie theather employed at least one musician who played during the presentation. LP's were then used to first replace this life music with recorded music, putting someone out of a job, quite a lot of someone's and then used to add sound to the movies. (Movie and LP playing in sync).

But when movie was introduced, vaudeville died.

For that matter, vaudeville killed the circus. It takes a lot less people to move a theather group around, then to move a circus consisting of artists and a moveable theather around.

If you intended never to upset an existing business model, you never get anywhere. You would never have Lp's or broadcast television to begin with, the clock would have had to have stopped millenia ago.

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[cheekyjohnson]

Or you could take your tinfoil hat

I believe few allegations about government abuse are truly crazy. We have an entire history to back up the fact that people given power can and will abuse it. Personally, I'd say that applies less so in this case than others, though.

Cooking your own meals is fine.

But the children could get hurt! If it wouldn't result in severe backlash, I honestly would be surprised if they didn't try to make everyone buy a permit.

Despite your hand-waving, this is NOT the same thing as being irradiated in order to board an airplane.

The end result is the same: less freedom in exchange for safety. I just found that particular regulation utterly ridiculous in that specific context.

and realize that not everyone is out to get you?

Straw man.

Re:Hmm. A suitable response...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wednesday

Samizdat aka Outlaw typewriters like Stalin

[Randym]

Stalin never outlawed typewriters. No idea where you've got that from.

Perhaps here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat.

The term was coined as a pun by Russian poet Nikolai Glazkov in the 1940s, who typed copies of his poems indicating Samsebyaizdat (, “Myself by Myself Publishers”) on the front page. Before glasnost, the practice was dangerous, because copy machines, printing presses, and even typewriters in offices were under control of the First Departments (KGB outposts): reference printouts for all of them were stored for identification purposes.

Insanity`

[G_of_the_J]

The man is obviously insane!

Who is John Galt?

[xombo]

It's the Equalization of Opportunity Act!!!

Even more order is needed...

[kubusja]

Nothing can be used if not approved by the Emperor... errr.. Congress...

Son should do the same work as father... You can be only CEO if your father is a CEO.

For each industry we should build Guilds that will control who can do this industry...

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[Kohath]

No one ever got food poisoning from a properly licensed food preparer, right? Also, licensed drivers never crash.

This safety we traded our freedom for is great. We'll all live long obedient lives, until the government decides our health care will cost them a higher amount than the value they assign to our remaining years of life.

That guy...

[jimmydigital]

Must carry his around in a wheel barrow. I don't know how he finds pants that fit to make a serious and public proposal like that.

Hey Ralph Omasshole...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States of America, ALL THINGS NOT EXPLICITLY ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW, ARE LEGAL AS FAR AS FEDERAL LAW IS CONCERNED, BITCH! If you have any question about that, see the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. (Ahem...)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"The powers" mean the ability to do anything we want. Obviously the founders weren't talking about levitation or telekinesis, or the ability to see through women's clothes discretely and at arbitrary distance without regard to intermediary non-transparent objects, they were referring to the ability to engage in any activity or behavior, not specifically proscribed by legally competent authority, that they should so chose, without fear of any kind of governmental retribution, fine, fee or penalty, WHATSOEVER.

Requiring people to "clear" ANYTHING with the Congress, or any body, panel, etc., answerable to them or to anyone else in the US government, for that matter, would be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT.

To sum up, FUCK YOU, Ralph Oman, you Luddite piece of pig shit!

Re: blatant

[mister_playboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_in_the_face

Make a big absurd request they will reject, and then "compromise" on a lesser one.

Arkell vs Pressdam, 1971

[Arancaytar]

He should look that up.

Re:Arkell vs Pressdam, 1971

[Anonymous Coward]

You could try using this in its correct context in future.

Which is when someone threatens to sue you (in your view on a ridiculous premise).

It doesn't really work when someone is proposing ridiculous legislation.

presumed illegal until proven/certified otherwise!

[girlinatrainingbra]

"...all new content-delivery technology should be presumed illegal..."

I was going to make a satiric response to that absurd statement by saying that the government shall soon decree

... all new human beings should be presumed illegal ... ... until approved by the government."

And then I realized that in the USA, if you don't have a social security number, you are for all intents and purposes an "illegal". Your parents can't even deduct you as a dependent unless you have a social security number, which is often assigned at birth. My mom didn't get her SSN until just before college, and dad didn't get his until he was sixteen and getting a driver's license.

Swift and his Modest Proposal were too subtle for most people.

Not quite the same thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

All the things you quote are bureaucratic processes; you pay your fee, submit samples and get permission to import/produce/distribute. At that level there's no political interference, just technical hoops to jump through, depending on the product. In fact, given todays horridly litigious world, they act in your protection!

If you want a warning about unregulated food (for example), just have a look at any Victorian household manual, there will be pages of information on how to detect adulterated foodstuffs. One of my favourites is the advice to stick a hot knife into a loaf of bread to detect the presence of alum (evidently it melts and sticks to the blade), or the advice to mash some bread up in water and sniff, to detect the use of farinaceous material to bulk out the wheat. I'll have to try that and see if soya beans (ever looked at the ingredients list of common bread lately?) can be detected in that manner.....

No, those regulatory bodies are there to protect the public, not to restrict access to technology. Its all a red herring.

Its about time that Micky Mouse is set free (or at least humanely dispatched). Lets institute to a sane copyright period that allows the original creator, or their assignees a reasonable length of time (say 10 to 20 years?) to enjoy the fruits of their creativity, and no longer. If death or dissolution intervenes then copyright should extend no longer than the balance of the original period. Directly derived works would become public once the original ceased to be protected (this solves the "extra thumb/colour/media change" problem). This should curb the greed and rapacity of soulless corporations and stop copyright works being seen as an alternative pension plan for lazy creators and as a legacy for their descendants.

That sounds like comunsium.

[CmdrMcGriddle]

That sounds like comunsium. "not upseting current models". Isnt upsetting the status quo what capitalism all about?

Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm beginning to think that these copyright maximimalists are all trolls. The things that folks like this guy and the *IAA people say are so dumb, that if you saw these statements on Reddit or /. you would figure they were just trying to get a rise out of the crowd. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll go away if we ignore them.

And you trust congress?

[Anonymous Coward]

With their big money lobbyists paying them all off, and their own interests at stake because congressmen are 'above the law' - you want them to decide what is legal and illegal? That is the domain of the judiciary branch of government, not the legislative. Obviously, this guy never took civics.

I can only imagine how crazy it would get...

[mark-t]

This could be extremely interesting when somebody invents ways to transfer information or data between human minds and computers.

Oman DUI or rather WUI

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Oman is Writing Under the Influence of drugs or something strong. Either that or his innate stupidity has surfaced.

fucker

[Tom]

providers of new technology should be forced to apply to Congress to prove they don't upset existing business models.

(emphasis mine)

There's your problem. If it were about proving that they don't break existing laws, I would've considered the point worthy of discussion.

Not upsetting existing business models? Please crawl into a corner and die.

Ralph Oman

[GameboyRMH]

New content delivery tech will be made and is being made all the time, and do you know what you have the power to do about it, you smalldick, authoritarian shitsack? You can go fuck yourself. Forever.

The courts have never defined "progress"

[tepples]

How does banning technology promote progress?

The U.S. Supreme Court appears to have never set a precise measure for "progress" within the meaning of the copyright clause, instead deferring to Congress as to what constitutes "progress".

We already knew that Congress was a bunch of hypocrites, but now we know you are one, too.

No ad hominem attacks please.

Refugees

[tepples]

There's companies and individuals in countries out there who don't give a shit what congress thinks.

But do those countries have enough work visas to absorb millions of refugees from the United States copyright regime?

Ha ha! Good one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha! I was very nearly taken in by this story before I realised what day it is tomorrow!

Shame it was published early.

Happy November Fools Day, everybody!

Sarcastaball...

[nbritton]

Maybe he's a south park fan.

Is this really US of A?

[dadman]

It sounds more and more like China, where when you get accused, you are presumed illegal until you prove it otherwise. Ha ha, it is funny to see this happen in the US of A :) :)

Sing happy birthday in public, get fined $200..

[h8sg8s]

Actually, it makes much more sense to block or remove copyright after 15 years than it does to attempt prior-restraint on innovation. The copyright Nazis would like to make everyone believe that copyright is *forever* but it was originally good for only 50 years or the life of the artist in the US. Since revision, it's been extended to 70, 95 or 120 years, depending. At some point, the Public Domain must be allowed to dominate content. It's worth mentioning that the printing press was viewed as one such technology in need of draconian control by the British Crown, and only those out of reach of the Crown in the Colonies could hope to print freely. We all know how badly *that* worked out..

Here's my proposal

[viperidaenz]

Ralph Oman should have to apply to Congress to determine whether or not he is an oxygen thief. Until then, his oxygen consumption privileges should be terminated pending the outcome of Congress.

That would be the Congress (Party) of India?

[RockDoctor]

After all, that is where there is bout a 25% chance of the next content delivery system being developed and patented. Another 25% for China. Another 25% for the USA. And the balance for Europe and the rest of the world. Allow around 10% uncertainty in those figures (predictions are difficult, particularly involving the future).

So . . . the influence of the US Congress on these other nuclear powers is ... ?

Jurisdictional challenge requires visa

[tepples]

Release your wildly successful product in a country in which congress has no jurisdiction.

First I'd have to find such a country that would grant me a resident visa. Otherwise, I'd be breaking the law by operating from the United States even if I don't sell the product in the United States.

Re:Jurisdictional challenge requires visa

[bsercombe72]

Seems Weird. How do millions of app devs do it then?

Re:Jurisdictional challenge requires visa

[tepples]

You appear to claim that millions of mobile phone application developers operate in the United States but sell a product that isn't allowed to be sold in the United States by blocking buyers in the United States, and they get away with it. I wasn't aware of that. Could you give me some examples? Or what did I misunderstand?

The Eldred Bill in a nutshell

[tepples]

One way to take the wind out of the copyright's sails would be to have the IRS collect a periodic token "intellectual property tax" on subsisting copyrights in works published more than 50 years ago. Under this Eldred tax scheme, copyright could not be enforced on works in arrears.

bollocks

[spongman]

does this mean it would be illegal for me to carry a book while riding my home-made 13-handled left-handed doobry-furkin (somewhat similar to a bicycle), unless I ask Congress first?

what a load of horse hooey.

The American Way

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my understanding that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness includes the right to invent a clever product, and if it is popular that is how you make a living and support your family. Inventing disruptive technology is the only hope we have to be more than cogs in the machine of existing business. For instance, in America we have an existing problem regarding broadband because we lack a workable last mile technology that is convenient, inexpensive, and deployable. If this technology existed, Americans would have the ability to compete in the information age on an equal footing worth people in other countries who have excellent Internet access. I have heard it said that we need high speed internet because information age products in the future are built on top of such infrastructure. This is absolutely correct, and the situation in America where the definition of broadband has been lowered so we can claim broadband is being supplied, is a major joke that is not funny.

New content

[nischal360]

New content delivery

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, they are trying to give priority to business. making it more difficult for an individual to get copyright.

Why Congress?

[Secret Agent X23]

The objections already raised here are valid, but there's one more idea I haven't see anyone mention yet (apologies to whoever posted it if I missed it):

What makes this guy think Congress is in any way qualified to make such a determination? We're talking about the very same group of people who sat around chuckling in amusement at the SOPA hearings as they proudly proclaimed themselves not to understand any of the technical issues because they weren't nerds. It's highly doubtful that any of these buffoons would be able to enter someone's number into their cell phone contacts, yet someone's proposing they should decide whether a new technology would be disruptive?

But then again, what difference would it make? I think we all know who would be doing the actual deciding anyway.

liberal

[Cajun Hell]

Didn't mean to get anyone's panties in a bunch with my usage of that word. I didn't mean "liberal" as in "progressive" or left; I mean liberal as in interpreting it very broadly and loosely. Sort of like "be conservative in what you transmit and liberal in what you accept." That rule of thumb for people trying to conform to interface standards, is not actually saying something political. ;-)

Re:liberal

[roman_mir]

I didn't mean "liberal" as in "progressive" or left;

- as far as I took your 'interpretation', I understood the word 'liberal' as a classic liberal, which in today's USA is known as libertarian.

Classic liberal is the opposite of a socialist or a fascist or a nazist or any type of collectivist. Classic liberal actually means an individualist, a humanist, a capitalist, an anti-collectivist that is not driven by the desire to rule anybody but on the contrary, wants everybody to have maximum individual liberties - freedoms.

Re:liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

- as far as I took your 'interpretation', I understood the word 'liberal' as a classic liberal, which in today's USA is known as a libertarian.

Nah, in today's USA, a person who is "an individualist, a humanist, a capitalist, an anti-collectivist that is not driven by the desire to rule anybody but on the contrary, wants everybody to have maximum individual liberties - freedoms" is called the rich job creators, who ask government to regulate and tax them less.

These people are not the same as "libertarians" in the US, because libertarians in the US are all about wanting to rule over other people. They want THEIR guy (Ron Paul or Gary Johnson) to win, and they want their guy to basically become a dictator, overpowering/ignoring what Congress says and push through the changes libertarians want

Re:Why haven't you noticed that we're already ther

[Shadow99_1]

Actually I have heard some people complain that 'home cooked' food is making kids fat... And they were serious about insisting on legeslation.... So maybe someday... I rather hope I'm dead before such stupidity...