Slashdot Log In
Tennessee's Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Oct 29, 2003 04:28 AM
from the kudzu-of-cluelessness dept.
from the kudzu-of-cluelessness dept.
Tsar writes "Members of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network turned out in force as Tennessee's Super-DMCA Bill, its hour come round at last, slouched back to Nashville's Legislative Plaza. The industry heavyweights made their pitches, but were thwarted by thoughtful, intelligent comments and questions from the newly-formed Joint Committee on Communications Security. My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
When will it end? (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, you have 60 million American felons, on the other hand, you wrestle control away from fat, rich corporations. It seems like a no-brainer.
Re:When will it end? (Score:5, Insightful)
We are now living in a society which is growing increasingly at odds with the original intent of those who created this nation. We are subjugated by the twin pathological powers of corporate special interest cartels and judicial tyranny.
Parent
Re:When will it end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Others in this thread have correctly identified Jefferson as a proponent of a particular limited version of patents. If that is what you had in mind, you should have said so. Because anyone who says "The Founding Fathers believed..." has no knowledge of history. With the possible exception of independence from England, there is no single issue which all of the Founders were of one mind about. They tended to be sharply divid
Founding Fathers (Score:5, Insightful)
But when referring to the Constitution, we assume the "Founding Fathers" were the ones whose ideals were codified. Many of the ones about copyrights orginated with Thomas Jefferson, just like the banking system came from Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were able to find compromises between those who believed free spread of information was important, and those who believed that business would suffer without the monopolies granted by copyright. These compromises are what made our system flexible enough to survive. In this instance, the compromise was that there would be monopolies, they would be granted to the creators (rather than the publishers), and they would exist for a LIMITED time.
Today, we are violating the spirit of this. Big business has wrested control of many of the copyrights from the creators for music, and made a good effort to do the same for books back in the 1970s. And the time limit is almost useless. Rather than 17 years with one possible renewal, it is now life + 50 years and growing. We have also contracted with Europe to defend this practice, so it is unlikely that the U.S. can fix it internally.
Many stories published on the early internet came with copyright notices that allowed the works to become public domain after 120 days. There is little reason for computer books to keep their copyrights beyond a decade, as the technology could be obsolete in 4 years. Creators can limit their own copyrights, and many do. Big business will never relinquish anything unless forced by law. It will probably take another revolution for the public to win back control of ideas.
Technology has changed the need for copyrights. Historically, they were granted to a specific publisher to prevent other publishers from stealing popular works. Then they were granted to the creators, to encourage them to create more. Then the publishers bought them from the creators. But every law assumes that the COPYING takes effort, and that is no longer true. I did not need to publish this as a pamphlet and try to sell them on street corners for a penny each. I wrote it; I published it; you are reading it, and any costs in the process are subsumed in the overhead of having a computer attached to the internet.
---
I would like to use a well-thought license that allows works to enter public domain for most purposes within 20 years, but still allows me to benefit if Disney decides to turn my work into a movie. Of course, this clause in itself would prevent Disney from making a movie from my books, because they only publish material if they can retain all the profits. They wouldn't publish something like Star Wars because Lucas insisted on keeping the associated toy franchise. Why should they make my book into a movie when there are still tons of material already in the public domain from before their efforts to extend copyright into eternity?
Parent
Re:When will it end? (Score:5, Insightful)
What has changed is _not_ only technology, but goal and policy. Our culture is by large not our anymore. Our knowledge is neither.
We the people, need to take back what is our.
Parent
Re:When will it end? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be interesting to trace back to see who got the ball rolling to change copyright laws and so on. I'd bet good money it was the mega companies of the US, and not the citizens. Why would citizens be pushing to get less control over their property? Goes to show who really runs the country. All they (companies, govt) need us for is to fill their pockets with money. Oh, and human interest stories to make them smell rosy after all is said and done.
Parent
Red herring (Score:5, Informative)
Had the framers intended a Diderotian system, they would have implemented one. Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke. But if you want to speculate about Jefferson's mind, why not ask the man himself?
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.... -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
Parent
Re:When will it end? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the problem... we are NOT a democracy, we are an Oligarcy.
if you vote next year you do NOT vote for your president, you vote for a person to vote for president.
Until we can tear down the system in place that makes everything so easy to corrupt, you will only get presidents in the white house that are nothing but puppets that tow the party line and ensure that the party's f
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:2)
I just think that this legislation process has gotten all out of whack. No corporation should be able to "buy" senators and bills/laws, but thats what happens every day. Its getting way out of control.
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:2)
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now America's actions on the international scene are simply awful, no question.
If you believe your choice of media (often) protraying the difficulties of living in America (e.g. everyone's mother was a crack whore, crime is terrible), then you're simply missing part of the picture.
The same bias is applied to the Netherlands: many people seem to think that the Netherlands is very liberal, supporting prostitution, soft drugs, etc. when, in fact, the society is quite conservative. The laws governing the "liberal" things are really just (good) ways of dealing with problems. Leagalizing hash and a war-on-drugs are simply different ways of dealing with an unavoidable market.
Parent
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty familiar with both the USA and the Netherlands, and have spent some time in both countries every year for the last ten years or so.
The thing about the USA is that it appears more free if you're an orthodox sort of person that fits in with everyone else around you and doesn't actually want to make any choices that the rest of your culture think are somehow immoral or improper.
What the USA doesn't do very well, in my opinion, is brook difference or dissent -- and to me, a culture that is able to tolerate or embrace those those things is one that meets my idea of a free.
There's no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan in the Netherlands, spewing hate across the airwaves. And if you want to smoke pot or have some kind of unorthodox sex, the state doesn't feel it has any role in policing those areas of private morality.
So while I think your main point is essentially correct -- the Netherlands is a conservative country, and the culture and many of its institutions are also somewhat conservative, but its profound and deep-rooted tolerance for me makes it a much freer environment than the USA could ever be.
That said, what you do have in the USA is a much greater degree of economic freedom -- be that the freedom to make a million, or the freedom to sleep under a bridge because minimum wage jobs don't pay enough to both feed and accomodate you.
Parent
Aren't Buchanan and Limbaugh voices of dissent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hold on a second. First you accuse the USA of being into
Re:Aren't Buchanan and Limbaugh voices of dissent? (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't a boast, it's an observation. I live in the UK. We have our own Pat n' Rush equivalents in people like Richard Littlejohn and Norman Tebbit.
Are you under the impression that those two represent the American mainstream?
Remind me, who is the American president again? George W. Bush, right? Yeah, they don't seem to be too far f
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, my African-American friends say much the same things about the USA, only they aren't recent immigrants but have been there for several generations.
Turks and Marocans aren't very likely to be gunned down in their homes [about.com], or have a broomstick jammed up their arses [about.com] by arresting police officers in the Netherlands either. Are these typical? Of course not, but such incidents do happen with a disturbing regularity in the USA and I can't recall ever hearing of such events in the Netherlands.
Tolerance just to ideas is also lacking. Try critizing the Dutch government in front of them, they'll either 1) tell you how broken American government is in response or 2) tell you you're clueless because you don't know how brilliant the Dutch system is.
Yeah, I think that's right. However, in my experience, they're far less strident than the United States in their defence of 'my country right or wrong', and I can perfectly understand their unwillingness to be lectured on how they should run their government from an American. I certainly don't have the sense that the only way to achieve high political office in the Netherlands is by being in thrall to vested interests. In reference to Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan, did you not hear about Pim Fortuin? He wasn't as hateful as good ole Rush or Pat, but he was pretty radical in views
I don't think Fortuin was comparable for a moment -- and if anything, Fortuin is a pretty good counter-example to the things that you're saying.
Firstly, he was gay. Can you even begin to contemplate a gay Jesse Helms?
Secondly, he was critical of the existing Dutch system -- and gained an immense amount of support from the population for expressing what were effectively heretical views that broke with the longstanding liberal consensus.
Finally, Fortuin wasn't opposed to immigrants simply because they were different -- inferior mongrel races -- but rather, was concerned about the impact that immigrants from certain other cultures were having on the Dutch way of life -- and most particularly, those enlightenment values of tolerance, equality, etc. that the Netherlands has worked so hard to enshrine.
This isn't an issue that's ever likely to arise in the USA because you insist that every immigrant pledge allegiance to the flag, motherhood and apple pie before they ever get citizenship, and the moment you begin to even start perceiving them as a potential threat you start locking them up or expelling them [amnestyusa.org], regardless of the evidence against them.
Don't get me wrong. The USA has many great qualities and I love the place as much -- perhaps even more -- than I love the Netherlands. But freedom and tolerance just aren't the first things that spring to mind when I think about the place and I often have to struggle to reconcile the good things I like about the political system there (such as the very spirited defence of freedoms of speech and expression, the constitution, etc.) with the reality of how that system actually operates.
Parent
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Small mistake. USA has approx 12% of its population living below the poverty line. That is absolutely unheard of in western europe for example.
Ah, I see - the world consists of Western Europe and North America, and the rest of the world doesn't count. My bad.
But I didn't mention poverty level, did I? I mentioned death by starvation. According to the World Health Organization [who.int], Protein-Energy Malnutrition (PEM), the most lethal form of malnutrition, affects 1 out of every 4 children worldwide. "...more than 70% of PEM children live in Asia, 26% in Africa and 4% in Latin America and the Caribbean." The United States isn't mentioned. Neither is Europe. If I were a child, I'd rather live in the US or Europe than, say, Asia or Africa - nevermind the climate, I'd like to eat on a regular basis!
Now let's take a look at that 12% figure. If you'll reread my previous post, you'll notice that I said that even the poor of America might be considered wealthy by the standards of many other nations. According to the US Census Bureau, 12.6% of all Americans over the age of 15 earn less than or equal to the dollar amount which it says defines the "poverty level" income of an individual. This excludes government aid payments, and every person is counted - including non-working teens aged 15-18 who live with their parents (even if those parents are wealthy), people who need not work because their spouses make money by the bushel, retired people who live on pensions, savings, and Social Security retirement benefits, permanently and temporarily disabled people who live on Social Security disability benefits and private disability insurance, and those whose wages are paid "under the table" and do not report or pay taxes on their income.
"Poverty level" is defined by the US Census Bureau strictly by individual income per year, and doesn't take into account the income of other family members, government aid income, or "allowances" such as the $5,000/month Little Rich Johnny gets from his parents every month while he attends college out of town.
Note that I didn't say that American poor were wealthy by the standards of the United Kingdom, or France, or Sweden - I said "many nations". Places like Ethiopia, Somalia, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, Malawi, Haiti, and so forth. Places where you're likely to see Sally Struthers pitching another Save The Children fund-raising campaign.
Now, let's take a look at someone who is part of that 12.6% who's under the poverty level - me. My income put me below the "poverty level" last year, as well as 2001, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1994, and every year from 1988-1993. I will probably just barely clear the poverty level this year, but only if the Dow Jones doesn't close out for the year any lower than its level as of last Friday (capital losses due to drops in stock prices deduct from your Adjusted Gross Income dollar-per-dollar). I own a modest but nice 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom house with a mixture of new hardwood floors and new carpet, on a 1/2-acre level lot, in a good neighborhood. I own it outright - no mortgage. I own a 1996 Ford full-sized pickup truck outright, no payments. I have 4 computers, a cellular phone, thousands of dollars worth of books, cable television with 300 or so channels, high-bandwidth internet access, a refrigerator full of food, a Ridgeway grandfather clock/curio cabinet made from cherry wood, and about $9500 in savings. But according to the US Census Bureau, I've been hovering right around the poverty level since I became old enough to be included in the statistics, with the exception of 2 years when I lucked out and made a "middle-class" income. According to the rhetoric spewed forth by the liberals, I've been screwed over by the rich, and should be getting big fat checks every month, financed by the "wealthiest 10%" - which, BTW, means those making about $65,000 a year or more.
Don't be so ready to accept statistics blindly. Sir Benjamin Disreali was right - there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Parent
Re:what freedom do u guys actually have? (Score:5, Insightful)
If by that you mean we have a royal family (which we share with Canada and a whole lot of other countries too, by the way), then you're right.
But I hardly see how that's relevant. In the UK, our head of state is the Queen, who in many ways has fewer rights than the average citizen (for one thing, she can't vote), and has only a minor consitutional role - she has no say in how the country is governed, in deciding the law, etc.
In fact, for all practical purposes, the Queen is just a glorified ambassador, which is all I want from my head of state. The real power lies with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, all elected officials.
There's arguably more of a class system in America than in Britain. In the US, if you're poor and need expensive medical treatment then you're probably shit out of luck. But in Britain, or almost anywhere else in Europe, you'll get it (perhaps not straight away, but you will get it).
Also, further education is more attainable in Britain than it is in the US. It might not be as free as it once was, but British students don't need six figure bank balances to get there degrees. If you're from a poor background but smart, where would you rather be? A country that wants to see your green before it lets you realise your potential or one that is happy to help you attain it?
Want to attain office? Well, better hope that daddy and his friends have deep pockets. The fathers of our last three Prime Ministers were a shopkeeper, a circus performer and a university lecturer. A humble start in life doesn't stop you from running the country over here but can you say the same in the US? Heck, if you don't have millions of dollars to your name you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even running for Congress, let alone be elected!
There are other examples but I'll only bore you further. Suffice to say class (or, to give it it's proper name, wealth) is more of a barrier in the US as it is in UK or elsewhere.
Parent
Don't you dare comment! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!
Some more info, while I'm at it (Score:2, Informative)
SB213/HB457 is the Tennessee version of the "Super-DMCA" bill, which is backed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly in the 2003 session, versions of this bill have already been passed in eight states (and counting). This legislation negatively impacts citizens' freedom of speech, access to secure communications, and use of many networking technologies. It gives Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what t
Re:Some more info, while I'm at it (Score:4, Informative)
I will have to check with him again when I get home, but it looks like (for now) they are doing a good job in grilling the lobbyists again.
Norris seems like a good guy. He had pretty good grasp of the issues and understood why the bill was bad as written.
Parent
Re:Don't you dare comment! (Score:2)
Excuse me sir,
If you take the same amount of time to post a comment on /. and to write a "one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators", I regret to tell you that you take slashdot way too seriously. I would advise going out and taking a breath of fresh air :)
This bill is for the state of Tennessee (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Don't you dare comment! (Score:4, Insightful)
I really thought I had stumbled onto a piece of horror sci-fi when I saw the full extent what the DMCA was about to criminalise. If I own a DVD, IMHO I have paid for the right to watch the content on that DVD. All means to the same end are equally valid - nobody {except the irreversible laws of Nature; and she's reckoned to be a deity precisely because it doesn't do mortals any good arguing with her} can dictate to me how I may watch that DVD. Only in a fascist police state would it be considered "theft" to use software received as a gift with the blessing of the author, to watch a paid-for DVD, on equipment you already own. The only thing you haven't done is paid money to some DVD player manufacturer, but as you haven't made any use of their goods or services, you don't owe them anything. That would be like a consortium of bra manufacturers calling Charlie Dimmock [google.co.uk] a thief!
And, of course, it's totally unenforceable - unless you actually spend more money on enforcing a stupid law than you would have lost through it getting broken in the first place. But you do get to blame it on "criminals", even although it was only your law that made them criminals in the first place.
And then, of course, you have to remember that it could be the thin end of the wedge. How long till the Bakery Products Association of America start busting bread machine users?
Parent
Slashdotted (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh oh... (Score:4, Funny)
> Security...
It seems that whenever the term "security" is part of the name of a government body in the US, something bad is about to happen.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uh oh... (Score:2)
The "sheriff of Asia" still has to go down this particular stupid path.
Firs Amendment advocates.... (Score:5, Funny)
With Advocates like you, who needs adversaries?
Advocates? (Score:2)
Why black out? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure they spend millions trying to fight our attempts to freely use the stuff we have bought. However they spend billions producing junk^M^M^M^M^art that aught to be sensord for the preservation of what little intellect remains on this planet.
Re:Why black out? (Score:3, Insightful)
They block attempts by the GOVERNMENT to censor what artists can say, but they willfully censor artists themselves. With the vast majority of the movie theaters in this nation controlled by the MPAA and its standards, any attempt to freely reach an audience requires that you jump through hoops by
we like the 1st amandment.. (Score:2, Funny)
and by the way, that korean manual on your vcr is a 'copyprotection device', so don't press that button with a red circle.
-
Your Typical Tin-Foil Hat Rant (Score:3, Insightful)
On a side note, the -IAA crowd couldn't buy off Congress all at once to get their way, so they're purchasing state legislatures one-at-a-time now? Why don't they just save up for a few months or years or whatever to get what they want? It's what the rest of us have to do!
DMCA could be bad news for Debian/apt-get (Score:4, Informative)
The thing with the DMCA is that it's all about trying to thwart people from cracking copy protection mechanisms. And a key step in the process of breaking protection is its eventual transmission from its original source to its eventual destination. IANAL, but from my readings, the DMCA will be coming down as hard on mechanisms which facilitate the transmission of protected materials as much as the mechanisms which are used to circumvent that protection in the first place. Now, let me describe to you the perfect DMCA-circumvention transport tool. It's simple to use. It moves data (software especially) with a minimum of fuss. It can check for differences between the source and the sink, and make appropriate changes to what's being grabbed. And you can use it to upgrade Debian.
Yep, it's apt-get I'm talking about. This is something which has started to get some serious consideration on the Debian mailing lists. What if apt-get is in contravention of the DMCA? What is apt-get is considered to be a tool for the transmission, installing and dist upgrading of pirated/cracked data protected under the DMCA? It's something which is keeping people like Ian Murdoch, Bruce Perens and Joel 'Espy' Klecker up late at night talking with their lawyers just in case the worst does happen.
So fellow apt-get users...please take a moment to consider the precarious position we are all in as a result of this DMCA madness. Write your local congressman. They need to know how evil the DMCA is. And send them a Debian CD-ROM while you're at it...maybe we can win over some Windows users in the process!
apt-get peace out, comrades!
Re:DMCA could be bad news for Debian/apt-get (Score:2)
Re:DMCA could be bad news for Debian/apt-get (Score:4, Insightful)
- would certianaly destroy the entirety of what we now know as the Internet.
Exactly. Don't you think the AAs would be happy to see the internet dissapear?Parent
Excuse me???? (Score:3, Interesting)
She then introduced the next two speakers, who she said "speak around the country on this specific piece of legislation." Senator Trail asked her why we needed this legislation at all since we already had laws that made cable theft illegal. She stated that the existing law only covers analog, not digital cable theft--giving the impression that, without this new bill, digital cable theft is legal. In responding to Senator Trail's continuing questions about this, she also admitted that the primary goal of the new legislation was getting stronger civil penalties.
Are they actually claiming that it's legal to steal cable TV if the cable is digital?????? WTF???????
Well these things happen. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well these things happen. (Score:2)
Wrong.
However, even if your fantasy were true, think what things would be like with algore as Supreme Leader. I'm sure he'd be fighting the DMCA, MPAA and RIAA tooth and nail, right? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No, in fact he'd be fighting for them, because just like the Republicans, the Democrats receive millions of dollars from the media big dogs. The rights of regular Americans and the public good mean nothing by comparison.
That is the reason
Wrong Statement (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but this have nothing to do with the president (we all know who we are all talking about). This is about the faillings of this so called democratic govenment.
In a democratic government we have people electing their representatives so they can have their interests defended and laws supporting their needs and opinions. The way US government is organized it just doesn't happen this way.
The legislative is mostly supported by huge corporations that use their power and money to buy the ones that was supposed to defend the people interests.
And what happens then? Then we have draconian laws that protect most corporations, harming just a few of them, aproved, even if them simply don't bring any good to the people. That's the case of DMCA, for examplo.
What can be done? We can try changing the way we vote, and the way we participate, avoiding being confused and manipulated by huge organizations and voting in politicians that really represent us.
IMO we need even more. Politicians should not be allowed to be paid by corporations. Corporations should not even participate in politcs decisions. Politics campains should be maid on the streets, squares, not on TV. We should be able to contact in person our representatives.
Will that be true someday?
Parent
Proving Damages and Loss (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue becomes blurrier in the case where - at the end of their season - the onion company ends up with a lot of rotten onions that they can't sell. They cannot claim unequivocally that the individual onion thief caused them any damage. They would have to know whether the onion thief would have bought the onions he stole, or whether those seven onions would have rotted with the rest.
In the case of cable tv or music downloads, it seems to me that a company has to be able to show that a given individual thief would have bought the item in question.
In other words, a million dollars in "theft" probably only amounts to a thousand dollars in actual damages. And that's a generous estimate.
Obviously companies have to sustain themselves somehow. However, it ought to be done in ways that make creative use of the newest technologies. It ought to be done through adaptation, not through shortsighted legal scheming.
If I were the President of Show Business I'd tell the music and movie folks to suck it up and send the lawyers home. The present may seem scary, but there's no need to panic and start making kooky demands. In the longer view this is just a little bump in the road.
Flat-rate charging the culprit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, residential customers really like flat rate plans because they know exactly how much they'll spend every month. But they have a Faustian downside: they give the carriers an excuse to severely limit and control how you use the service. Just as all-you-can-eat cafeterias have rules that regular restaurants do not (e.g., against sharing food or taking it home) most flat-rate broadband plans prohibit connection sharing, business use, running servers, etc.
If the carriers instead charged by usage for the shared part of their network, then they would have far less of an arguable case (i.e., none whatsoever) for claiming that a NAT box, even if you use it to provide service to your neighbor, constitutes "theft of service". If you pay for those bits, they're clearly yours to give away.
I know it's unpopular to argue for usage-based billing. But if I'm forced to choose (and I think I will be) between flat rate plans with lots of heavy-handed restrictions and a pay-as-you-go plan with no restrictions at all, I know what I'd do.
Groups like those opposing the Tennessee bill should educate their lawmakers that it's simply not their job to protect unsustainable business models. Although broadband service is frequently provided over cable TV facilities, it is nothing like cable TV. With usage-based billing, even your average legislator might see how analogies between NAT boxes, which support a two-way telecommunications service, and illegal cable descramblers, which gain access to a one-way broadcast service, simply don't apply.
Imagine also the public outrage that would finally be directed against Microsoft when end-users have to pay for all the traffic generated by their worm-infested machines. Not only might that create an incentive to get such machines quickly off the net, we just might see a lot of ordinary Joes defenestrating their copies of Windows. Clearly a good thing.
Even the MPAA and RIAA couldn't complain, since usage-sensitive billing would discourage file sharing. (We don't have to tell them that everyone would simply revert to the way music was widely pirated long before the Internet: by exchanging physical media.)
Oh, and the spammers would have to pay more, too. Wouldn't that alone make it worthwhile?
Re:Flat-rate charging the culprit? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm confused. This must be some strange new meaning of the term 'flat rate' with which I was previously unfamiliar. :-)
I've already said it (Score:5, Insightful)
the important question here is... (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, does the "communications service" end at your cable/DSL/dialup modem?
Or does it end at your web-browser?
Or what?
If we cant get these new bills overturned completly, we should push for clear definitions of just what a "communications service" is to be enshrined into the bills. That way, they can only be applied in the ways that the law-makers intend.
My take on why these bills are being pushed for:
1.to enable companies providing "communications services" (e.g. cable providers, telcos etc) to go after people who are stealing service (e.g. cable pirates, phone phreakers etc)
2.to enable those same providers to have greater controlls over the networks (for example, cable companies can make it illegal to plug digital recorders into their networks and record stuff)
Incredulous Assertions==Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is a population/household stat on Memphis. [areaconnect.com]
Memphis Population: 650100
Male Population: 307643
Female Population: 342457
Households: 250721
Median Age: 32
Average Household Size: 2.52
Taking this information: 60,000 illegal cable user is roughly 25% of households and therefor the cable company is claiming that when you drive down the street every 4th house is stealing cable services.
Do you believe that?
Re:Incredulous Assertions==Lies (Score:3, Interesting)
I did find these numbers. [gomemphis.com] "Time Warner Cable has about 124,000 customers in Memphis, about 10,000 in Germantown, about 8,500 Bartlett, and about 9,000 in the West Memphis system, which includes Sunset and M
Re:Someone clue me in... (Score:5, Insightful)
(B) sounds an awful lot like it would be illegal for me to spoof an email header, browse the web through a proxy server, or perhaps even use Freenet.
Note that the language of this bill specifies a "device," but does not require that the device must be hardware. "Device" is defined later in the bill as "any type of electronic mechanism, transmission lines or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, drive, machine, equipment, technology, or software." Freenet is, by its very nature, a "device" which attempts to "conceal the place of origin or destination of [a] communication."
The major problem with this bill is that the language is too broad - apparently by design: The bill allows for felony charges for violations, and allows for $1,500 - $10,000 fines per device. The bill stipulates that counts and fines shall be imposed per day, that is, if you use 2 unauthorized "communications devices" for a week, you're guilty of 14 violations of this bill (well beyond the qualification for a felony charge) and you're liable for anywhere from $21,000 to $140,000 in fines.
This bill needs to die, or to have its language strictly clarified. If neither of these things happen, don't be surprised when you see "TN Resident Gets 15 Year Sentence for Open WAP" in the YRO section.
Parent