Here we have a _golden opportunity_ to change the law to favor the consumer, and argoff here wants us to turn it down and break the law instead! Why? There's no law (no pun intended) that says we have to choose one or the other -- defiance is fine when that's the only route we've got, but refusal to even _try_ to change the law demonstrates only a childish arrogance.
If you support this bill, please do what I just did and write your representative! If you don't, perhaps you should read it more carefully, instead of relying on others' representations about it; I suspect you'd change your mind. There is absolutely nothing objectionable in this bill, if you don't make copy-protected CDs or object to fair use...
Notes:
If you're not sure what to write, you can start with my letter to my congresscritter.
If the bill link above stops working (Thomas doesn't seem to like direct-linking bills), just go to Thomas and enter bill number HR107.
Since Slashdot's summary is not very helpful, as usual, here is a brief summary of my reading of the four bills. IANAL.
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004
This is the so-called PIRATE Act previously Slashdotted. Note that the "related bill" mentioned in that posting does not seem to have materialized yet; it does not seem to be any of the four posted here.
The main thrust of the PIRATE Act is to allow the Attorney General to bring civil actions against copyright violators; before only criminal actions were possible (civil suits had to be filed by the copyright owner). I find it difficult to tell without going and reading Title 18 whether all the money resulting from the suit goes to the copyright owner, but some of it definitely does ("and restitution to the copyright owner"). There's some administrivia in the bill as well, but it seems to do what it claims to.
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003 (ART Act)
The official title of this bill says it all: "A bill to provide criminal penalties for unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility, to provide criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized distribution of commercial prerelease copyrighted works, and for other purposes." There's some weird stuff going on with it on Thomas; the entire bill seems to have been rewritten at some point, but the number retained. I can't tell how many of the changes, if any, were substantive.
The HTML on the revised bill is broken, but reading the original version, it makes use (but not posession) of camcorders, cameras, and other "audiovisual recording device[s]" in a theater illegal, with a penalty of "not more than 3 years" in prison, or 6 years for a second or subsequent offense. It also sets a minimum value for "prerelease" copyrighted works, which includes movies not out of theaters yet; the assumed minimum for P2P'ing such a work is 10 copies and a total retail value of $2500. Note that this bill specifically targets P2P filesharing; it makes reference to "making [the work] available on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to reproduce the work through such access." That last bit seems written to exempt streaming, but I'm sure you'd be ruled against in court if you tried it.
There's also an easy-to-miss bit at the end of the bill which recommends "amend[ing] the Federal sentencing guidelines, as necessary, to provide for increased penalties for offenses involving the illegal reproduction and distribution of works protected under title 17."
United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 2004
This one is straightforward and is as described in the posting; it increases patent fees across the board (I can't tell how much without looking at the stuff it amends.) It also allows "small entities" to get a 75% cost savings if they file electronically, and adds "maintenance fees" at 4, 8, and 12 years from filing to keep the patent from expiring early. Sounds sketchy, but I'm not complaining. There's also some stuff about trademarks, which probably doesn't matter much.
Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004
I don't know why this one was even included. It doesn't really seem relevant to anything; it makes some changes to the definition of "prior art," but it only seems to apply to things developed under a "joint research agreement," so I don't think there's any way it can be other than what it claims, which is "A bill . . . to promote cooperative research involving universities, the public sector, and private enterprises."
Don't get me wrong -- I have a lot of respect for programmers, being one myself. Now knowing who he is, I have a lot more respect for him; but that doesn't excuse the drivel that people are calling an argument.
... but if this article is any indication, I would say he's a cunt.
But let's forget that, just for a second. I could forgive what a cunt he is, if only his article said anything new or different, made any unique or creative arguments against copyright violation, or indeed made ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL. But he fails to do that. Instead, he uses lots of profanity and random, irrelevant analogies, to what purpose my mind cannot fathom. He admits that "there is too much software out there, and yes, a lot of it is shit," and then rather than make a reasoned argument as to why we should be buying all this shitty software anyway, he falls back to another offensive analogy.
His one seemingly sensible argument is against a strawman: people who rebrand software and sell it as their own. Now, I don't know about you, but I have _never_ seen any claim that anyone is doing this in all the software "piracy" arguments I have ever read. It's a non-issue! People just don't DO it! Maybe, maybe they used to. But the issue here is file-swapping, and you know it, and I know it, and he knows it, and anything else is disingenuous.
And in case anybody would still argue in his favor because he is taking the "moral high ground," I recommend you read where he says that file-swapping in violation of copyright is not so bad after all, when MUSIC is being traded; no, it's only software that deserves the protection of the law. Double-standard, anyone?
No, not only does this Minter guy have nothing useful or intelligent to say, he's also a hyprocrite. In short, a cunt of the worst kind.
Not companies with histories of evil behavior, necessarily; rather big companies with future potential for same. Google started small, but it's definitely well on its way to being a "big company," and that has people very rightly worried.
I maintain that it is dangerous for one company to have access to so much information, regardless of their policy on evil; after all, they are ultimately only responsible to the owners, and after an IPO they will be responsible only to the stockholders. Google as a company will only remain evil-free as long as the owners do -- what happens when, in 2015, Google has a database of all the web, and everyone's email, and gets bought by Microsoft?
Ultimately, as much as we may all like Google, and even be rooting for them, it's _always_ important to exercise our paranoia. Better to be vigilant and wrong than to be taken by surprise.
Here's a copy packaged off the CVS about a week ago, around the time of the Sourceforge takedown. I make no assertions about functionality; I don't have a recent enough version of autoconf to build it, and have no use for it anyway. Put it up on Freenet if you like, or grab it while you can. I will take it down if I get a DMCA notice, and probably before then.
... but I thought the whole reason to move the project to Sarovar was the fact that it was legal in India? It looks like Apple is just throwing empty threats around, doesn't it? Personally, I think we should encourage them to put Playfair back up until Apple actually cites a violation of Indian law, instead of threatening unspecified potential legal action.
Just remember, the reason Micro$osft was able to become our evil overlord is because we let them. We bought their software, we gave them our money, and we said "Here Bill, we trust you not to abuse us."
Just because we all love Google doesn't mean we should allow power to be concentrated like that... we've already made that mistake once.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- attributed to Lord Acton, 1887
False... the CVS is still up. See comment above. I'm contemplating building a source tarball and putting it up myself, but I'm a little concerned about legal ramifications if I post on University space.
They're already in this thread somewhere. I'm informed that this http://www.coed.org/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=3 334 is one. It might actually have been slashdotted before, but it should be fine now, since nobody reads yesterday's comments.:-)
All of our submissions, with all the bandwidth of CMU's Andrew system behind them (and with pictures that nobody's getting to see!), were rejected. In fact, serveral were. Some band somewhere finally got it through, and immediately got slashdotted... I think some editors were asleep at the switch. But I'm not bitter.
Slashdot Mirror
Here we have a _golden opportunity_ to change the law to favor the consumer, and argoff here wants us to turn it down and break the law instead! Why? There's no law (no pun intended) that says we have to choose one or the other -- defiance is fine when that's the only route we've got, but refusal to even _try_ to change the law demonstrates only a childish arrogance.
Notes:
If you're not sure what to write, you can start with my letter to my congresscritter.
If the bill link above stops working (Thomas doesn't seem to like direct-linking bills), just go to Thomas and enter bill number HR107.
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004
This is the so-called PIRATE Act previously Slashdotted. Note that the "related bill" mentioned in that posting does not seem to have materialized yet; it does not seem to be any of the four posted here.
The main thrust of the PIRATE Act is to allow the Attorney General to bring civil actions against copyright violators; before only criminal actions were possible (civil suits had to be filed by the copyright owner). I find it difficult to tell without going and reading Title 18 whether all the money resulting from the suit goes to the copyright owner, but some of it definitely does ("and restitution to the copyright owner"). There's some administrivia in the bill as well, but it seems to do what it claims to.
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003 (ART Act)
The official title of this bill says it all: "A bill to provide criminal penalties for unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility, to provide criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized distribution of commercial prerelease copyrighted works, and for other purposes." There's some weird stuff going on with it on Thomas; the entire bill seems to have been rewritten at some point, but the number retained. I can't tell how many of the changes, if any, were substantive.
The HTML on the revised bill is broken, but reading the original version, it makes use (but not posession) of camcorders, cameras, and other "audiovisual recording device[s]" in a theater illegal, with a penalty of "not more than 3 years" in prison, or 6 years for a second or subsequent offense. It also sets a minimum value for "prerelease" copyrighted works, which includes movies not out of theaters yet; the assumed minimum for P2P'ing such a work is 10 copies and a total retail value of $2500. Note that this bill specifically targets P2P filesharing; it makes reference to "making [the work] available on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to reproduce the work through such access." That last bit seems written to exempt streaming, but I'm sure you'd be ruled against in court if you tried it.
There's also an easy-to-miss bit at the end of the bill which recommends "amend[ing] the Federal sentencing guidelines, as necessary, to provide for increased penalties for offenses involving the illegal reproduction and distribution of works protected under title 17."
United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003 2004
This one is straightforward and is as described in the posting; it increases patent fees across the board (I can't tell how much without looking at the stuff it amends.) It also allows "small entities" to get a 75% cost savings if they file electronically, and adds "maintenance fees" at 4, 8, and 12 years from filing to keep the patent from expiring early. Sounds sketchy, but I'm not complaining. There's also some stuff about trademarks, which probably doesn't matter much.
Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004
I don't know why this one was even included. It doesn't really seem relevant to anything; it makes some changes to the definition of "prior art," but it only seems to apply to things developed under a "joint research agreement," so I don't think there's any way it can be other than what it claims, which is "A bill . . . to promote cooperative research involving universities, the public sector, and private enterprises."
Don't get me wrong -- I have a lot of respect for programmers, being one myself. Now knowing who he is, I have a lot more respect for him; but that doesn't excuse the drivel that people are calling an argument.
... but if this article is any indication, I would say he's a cunt.
But let's forget that, just for a second. I could forgive what a cunt he is, if only his article said anything new or different, made any unique or creative arguments against copyright violation, or indeed made ANY ARGUMENT AT ALL. But he fails to do that. Instead, he uses lots of profanity and random, irrelevant analogies, to what purpose my mind cannot fathom. He admits that "there is too much software out there, and yes, a lot of it is shit," and then rather than make a reasoned argument as to why we should be buying all this shitty software anyway, he falls back to another offensive analogy.
His one seemingly sensible argument is against a strawman: people who rebrand software and sell it as their own. Now, I don't know about you, but I have _never_ seen any claim that anyone is doing this in all the software "piracy" arguments I have ever read. It's a non-issue! People just don't DO it! Maybe, maybe they used to. But the issue here is file-swapping, and you know it, and I know it, and he knows it, and anything else is disingenuous.
And in case anybody would still argue in his favor because he is taking the "moral high ground," I recommend you read where he says that file-swapping in violation of copyright is not so bad after all, when MUSIC is being traded; no, it's only software that deserves the protection of the law. Double-standard, anyone?
No, not only does this Minter guy have nothing useful or intelligent to say, he's also a hyprocrite. In short, a cunt of the worst kind.
I maintain that it is dangerous for one company to have access to so much information, regardless of their policy on evil; after all, they are ultimately only responsible to the owners, and after an IPO they will be responsible only to the stockholders. Google as a company will only remain evil-free as long as the owners do -- what happens when, in 2015, Google has a database of all the web, and everyone's email, and gets bought by Microsoft?
Ultimately, as much as we may all like Google, and even be rooting for them, it's _always_ important to exercise our paranoia. Better to be vigilant and wrong than to be taken by surprise.
Here's a copy packaged off the CVS about a week ago, around the time of the Sourceforge takedown. I make no assertions about functionality; I don't have a recent enough version of autoconf to build it, and have no use for it anyway. Put it up on Freenet if you like, or grab it while you can. I will take it down if I get a DMCA notice, and probably before then.
0 405.tar.gz
http://vyrus.nerdnet.org/playfair-unofficial-2004
... but I thought the whole reason to move the project to Sarovar was the fact that it was legal in India? It looks like Apple is just throwing empty threats around, doesn't it? Personally, I think we should encourage them to put Playfair back up until Apple actually cites a violation of Indian law, instead of threatening unspecified potential legal action.
Just remember, the reason Micro$osft was able to become our evil overlord is because we let them. We bought their software, we gave them our money, and we said "Here Bill, we trust you not to abuse us." Just because we all love Google doesn't mean we should allow power to be concentrated like that... we've already made that mistake once. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- attributed to Lord Acton, 1887
Software patents considered harmful
Why Patents are Bad for Software
Knuth's letter to the Patent Office
False... the CVS is still up. See comment above. I'm contemplating building a source tarball and putting it up myself, but I'm a little concerned about legal ramifications if I post on University space.
Dangit, it won't let me fix the URL. Slashdot is munging it -- remove the space in "3334".
They're already in this thread somewhere. I'm informed that this http://www.coed.org/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=3 334 is one. It might actually have been slashdotted before, but it should be fine now, since nobody reads yesterday's comments. :-)
All of our submissions, with all the bandwidth of CMU's Andrew system behind them (and with pictures that nobody's getting to see!), were rejected. In fact, serveral were. Some band somewhere finally got it through, and immediately got slashdotted... I think some editors were asleep at the switch. But I'm not bitter.
Is that so hard to believe? :-)
Note: that was before I switched to Qmail.