The market is based on property rights. When someone violates those rights by theft (in this case, theft of bandwidth) and fraud (show me one spam that does not have one or more of the following: 1)a deceptive subject line, 2)a lying claim that the recipient opted in for it, 3)a bogus "unsubscribe" option, and/or 4)some form of false advertising within the message itself), a crime is committed and punishment is appropriate.
This is simply because consumers can't get what they want -- high quality digital content like movies, music, and video games.
Nonsense -- I can get pretty much all the movies, music, and video games I like in the mall located two blocks down the hill, and get what I can't find there by mail order.
The fact that I can't get them online is as irrelevant as the fact that I don't have cooking recipes on my hard disk (remember when that was The Vision Of The Future[tm]?).
Make sure to refer to its current name, and reference it as "the renamed SSSCA" to cue them in that you aren't fooled by this childish trick. (Optional: slip in something along the lines of "...renamed in an attempt to avoid the widespread hostile public reaction which greeting the original proposal...".)
The best scams hook the victim into doing (or attempting to do) something illegal. That discourages them from calling the cops.
One classic example is the "money duplicator" scam. The pitch revolves around a gadget that can supposedly produce perfect counterfeits, but takes several hours per bill (the scammer is supposedly willing to sell it because he needs a large amount of money right away). The gadget is demonstrated using a concealed real bill. By the time the victim realizes that the machine isn't producing any more money (another reason for the "several hours per bill" bit), the scammer is long gone and the victim has had time to realize that he can't call the cops without admitting his own intent to print and circulate funny money.
Yeah, it sounds too stupid to fool anyone capable of walking upright, but then so does the Nigerian bank scam.
Simple -- because spam forces its costs upon the recipient. If not firmly suppressed, it would quickly proliferate to the point of drowning out all useful communication.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court has found that a farmer growning feed for his own hogs was engaging in interstate commerce (and, no, it wasn't because the farm extended over a state line; it was because the action affected interstate commerce by having an effect, however infinitesimal, on the overall agricultural market).-
Do you have any idea how "fair use" is defined? Is there a specific list of actions and uses that are covered under fair use, so we have a checklist to compare the text of S.2048 against?
The bill evades (deliberately, IMO) the issue of requiring any actual specific fair use requirements.
Even deeper: if CBDTPA had in it that the digital rights technology developed must allow {itemized list of uses and action covered under "fair use"} and that all other digital rights technologies must not impinge on those fair uses, would it be as offensive?
This would make it somewhat less offensive (though the government mandate remains offensive in and of itself) if it the enforcement of fair use rights had teeth. For instance, if the cited $200-$2500 fine were spelled out as the penalty per copy which denied fair use to the purchaser, and the publisher were required to accept the jurisdiction of the court selected by the purchaser (i.e. if you get screwed out of your rights, take the perps to small claims court, where they can't buffalo you with flim-flam and legal bills), that would make the penalty clause meaningful.
But if more high-quality content were available, consumer interest would l ikely increase.
But... but... there is lots of content already available, from the legions of "pirates" who are bleeding the poor artists white! Valenti and Rosen said so their own selves, and it is unheard of them to say the Thing which was not!
It might be different for a dialup user (the end user doesn't pay for bandwidth, they pay a monthly fee for access, the ISP pays for the bandwidth, usually).
Er, where do you think the ISP gets the money to pay for the bandwidth? From the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
You're right -- it is unfair to compare spammers to drug dealers. Drug dealers are selling a product to people who want it; spammers are lowlife scum who harass people.
I know for a fact that when the majority of people go out and buy a CD recorder, they're thinking "I need a place to put my pron, warez, music and video-CDs"
Nonsense. The facts I know say that they're thinking of legal remixes, MP3 compilations of already-purchased albums, etc.
Please people, cut the RIAA/MPAA just a little slack
Once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.
I would appreciate if Congress would grant the right
Ack! It should be protect the right -- this is not asking to ge given something, this is insisting that Congress cease and desist from violating our traditional rights.
What we actually need, generally, is a law like this:
"Any person or company which manufactures a technological device which grants a user access to intellectual property content, must include functionality allowing the user to perform upon that content, any and all actions which may be legal."
You need to rethink this a bit. Your proposal as written would make it illegal to produce a playback device that didn't include a full range of copying and editing functions.
Unfortunately most viral emails are used to spread falsehoods and lies. Nowadays we have truthorfiction.com, etc. to help straighten that out.
That's why the message needs to be well-crafted with just enough sensationalism to catch on but solidly based on truth. That way, anyone sophisticated enough to check with a source like truthorfiction.com would find that the threat was real and learn more details about the issue.
Citation? I'm still looking for evidence that any proposed legislation forces all copyright holders to play the oligarchy's game. Is SCCCA compliance going to be the necessary to prove claim of copyright?
In other words, if I publish my electronic book in an unprotected, freely-distributable form, would I then be breaking some proposed law?
No; you'd just be wasting your time because no device legally on sale would be able to read it -- it would look exactly like a copy-protected file that had had its copy protection hacked away.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope -- see the Straight Dope column answering that question.
The market is based on property rights. When someone violates those rights by theft (in this case, theft of bandwidth) and fraud (show me one spam that does not have one or more of the following: 1)a deceptive subject line, 2)a lying claim that the recipient opted in for it, 3)a bogus "unsubscribe" option, and/or 4)some form of false advertising within the message itself), a crime is committed and punishment is appropriate.
My allergies are bad enough as it is this time of year. Please remove your straw man.
Nonsense -- I can get pretty much all the movies, music, and video games I like in the mall located two blocks down the hill, and get what I can't find there by mail order.
The fact that I can't get them online is as irrelevant as the fact that I don't have cooking recipes on my hard disk (remember when that was The Vision Of The Future[tm]?).
"Dammit, we want that recession back, and we want it back by November!"
Make sure to refer to its current name, and reference it as "the renamed SSSCA" to cue them in that you aren't fooled by this childish trick. (Optional: slip in something along the lines of "...renamed in an attempt to avoid the widespread hostile public reaction which greeting the original proposal...".)
One classic example is the "money duplicator" scam. The pitch revolves around a gadget that can supposedly produce perfect counterfeits, but takes several hours per bill (the scammer is supposedly willing to sell it because he needs a large amount of money right away). The gadget is demonstrated using a concealed real bill. By the time the victim realizes that the machine isn't producing any more money (another reason for the "several hours per bill" bit), the scammer is long gone and the victim has had time to realize that he can't call the cops without admitting his own intent to print and circulate funny money.
Yeah, it sounds too stupid to fool anyone capable of walking upright, but then so does the Nigerian bank scam.
Simple -- because spam forces its costs upon the recipient. If not firmly suppressed, it would quickly proliferate to the point of drowning out all useful communication.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court has found that a farmer growning feed for his own hogs was engaging in interstate commerce (and, no, it wasn't because the farm extended over a state line; it was because the action affected interstate commerce by having an effect, however infinitesimal, on the overall agricultural market).-
The bill evades (deliberately, IMO) the issue of requiring any actual specific fair use requirements.
Even deeper: if CBDTPA had in it that the digital rights technology developed must allow {itemized list of uses and action covered under "fair use"} and that all other digital rights technologies must not impinge on those fair uses, would it be as offensive?
This would make it somewhat less offensive (though the government mandate remains offensive in and of itself) if it the enforcement of fair use rights had teeth. For instance, if the cited $200-$2500 fine were spelled out as the penalty per copy which denied fair use to the purchaser, and the publisher were required to accept the jurisdiction of the court selected by the purchaser (i.e. if you get screwed out of your rights, take the perps to small claims court, where they can't buffalo you with flim-flam and legal bills), that would make the penalty clause meaningful.
The phrase "to the extent practicable" is an open-ended bit of weasel wording.
Hell, I wish my cat was in the Senate instead of Hollings.
Aide, shmaid. Given that he committed the crime for Feinstein's dog-and-pony show, Feinstein herself should also go to prison.
But... but... there is lots of content already available, from the legions of "pirates" who are bleeding the poor artists white! Valenti and Rosen said so their own selves, and it is unheard of them to say the Thing which was not!
Er, where do you think the ISP gets the money to pay for the bandwidth? From the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?
Maybe she's related to Hen3ry. (The "3" was silent, you see....)
You're right -- it is unfair to compare spammers to drug dealers. Drug dealers are selling a product to people who want it; spammers are lowlife scum who harass people.
Well, then, the other 90% of the population will have to suffice.
Nonsense. The facts I know say that they're thinking of legal remixes, MP3 compilations of already-purchased albums, etc.
Please people, cut the RIAA/MPAA just a little slack
Once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.
Archos sells a 6 GB portable MP3 recorder.
Ack! It should be protect the right -- this is not asking to ge given something, this is insisting that Congress cease and desist from violating our traditional rights.
"Any person or company which manufactures a technological device which grants a user access to intellectual property content, must include functionality allowing the user to perform upon that content, any and all actions which may be legal."
You need to rethink this a bit. Your proposal as written would make it illegal to produce a playback device that didn't include a full range of copying and editing functions.
That's why the message needs to be well-crafted with just enough sensationalism to catch on but solidly based on truth. That way, anyone sophisticated enough to check with a source like truthorfiction.com would find that the threat was real and learn more details about the issue.
In other words, if I publish my electronic book in an unprotected, freely-distributable form, would I then be breaking some proposed law?
No; you'd just be wasting your time because no device legally on sale would be able to read it -- it would look exactly like a copy-protected file that had had its copy protection hacked away.
Whatever floats your boat when it comes to the bondage thing, but the part about food in your shoes is definitely TMI.