The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of 630
AWhiteFlame writes "IPAction.org is reporting on a section of the Reform Act of 2006 that's very shocking and surprisingly not that publicized. From the article: 'This will be a busy week in the House -- Congress goes into summer recess Friday, but not before considering the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA). Never heard of SIRA? That's the way Big Copyright and their lackey's want it, and it's bad news for you. Simply put, SIRA fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license.'"
Yet another reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
How are they planning to enforce this on existing setups? Oh wait... they can't!
Shame....
I could dance around about how im running linux etc, but the fact of the matter is even people running windows XP can avoid this, by : Yes thats right, NOT patching. I mean how do they expect to force anything on anyone using a computer?
One day they might learn, but it seems it will be no time soon...
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Funny)
What, the "I'm too cheap to pay for it and I should be able to decide whether it's worth it before I buy it even though I wouldn't have bought it anyway because it's all commercialized overpriced unoriginal crap for which the artists aren't getting paid enough anyhow and it doesn't cost them anything when it's in digital form and besides information wants to be free as in beer and it's my right to be entertained for free because the evil greedy corporations are abusing copyrights in the US and so I'm standing up for my civil rights just like people did back in the 60's by sticking it to The Man" rationalization doesn't work for you?
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot needs a "+1, Flamebait, But Not Wrong" mod, just for posts like yours.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
David M. Israelite
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA)
Jonathan Potter
Executive Director, Digital Media Association (DiMA)
Rick Carnes
President, Songwriter's Guild
Cary H. Sherman
Pr
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Things have gotten so bad, that me and others like me feel less like a criminal by "stealing" software and music vs buying it.
I had to call tech support one time because some software was not working via the license manager, and do you know why? We paid too much for it. My user had a single user license, and then my company bought a site license, which made the individual license not work.
The now infamous Ernie Ball being raided by the BSA incident and the removal of all Microsoft products in 6 months is another example. The guy was completely legit, and he had to pay something like $20-30k in extortion to make sure that he was really paying enough for software.
Its safer to pirate and download music now vs being rootkitted by buying it.
I have over $1k in software at home that I am _terrified_ to touch because of all of the dongles and online registration and whatnot. Aside from the quality of the software not being that good, the crap that I have to go through just to make it work has really made me decide that I'm not going to buy software any more. I felt the same way when I bought my first C/C++ compiler. I paid something like $140 for it, and on the same computer gcc generated code that was 2-4x faster!
So, the media companies have really convinced me and others that free media is better. Their loss, not mine.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've removed Microsoft software from production at my office because a) I am not about to pay for exchanged AGAIN when we expand and Exchange 2000 CALs are no longer available b) maintenance can be fully automated on Linux without having to resort to insecure vbscripts and c) No worries about Windows Update patches breaking the info store service ever again (yes this happened last year, M$'s solution was "reformat, reinstall, and restore the IS then reconnect the mailboxes to the user accounts" - Uh, no thanks. I worked on it for about 20 hours and managed to get the IS mounted again, and immediately started evaluating Linux groupware solutions, eventually settling on free-as-in-beer Scalix). Now all we use is our MSDN licenses for development/staging, no more Microsoft products in production. I'd put the old licenses up on feeBay, only Microsoft has a habit of suing customers for reselling unused or retired licenses [applelinks.com] despite the fact that boxed software sold over the counter is actually SOLD and not licensed, as established in many prior court cases.
Of course, I expect some Microsoft fanboy to mod my post down. Go right ahead, you know you want to. I used to really like Microsoft until they instituted anti-customer policies when they saw Linux looming on the horizon.
You can't go wrong choosing open-source and free-as-in-beer solutions. The up-front setup time may be a little bit higher, but you can rest assured that:
* you will always be able to access your data
* There is a much higher chance you can fully automate maintenance
* if the BSA comes knocking on your door, you can point them at the GPL and BSD licenses and say "here's all the info you need. Thanks, you can leave now. Don't let the door hit you in the ass."
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it - they PAID someone to write code to make your software NOT WORK. Hmmm. Now, where did they get the money to pay this guy? Oh, from YOU!
Now, think what software companies could do if they could get beyond all this paranoia and concentrated just on MAKING THE SOFTWARE WORK.
Now, I'd PAY for that!
If you're angry enough to pirate... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that hard. In afternoon you can obtain 20-30 CDs' worth of music. Give it a listen. Any of it that floats your boat, let someone know.
Nothing would please the free culture movement more than to see "piracy" and RIAA record sales both plummet to zero. Now.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bono Act of 1998 not only
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Informative)
None of this justifies the extension, and quite honestly I wouldn't mind a huge contraction of the number of years. Quite honestly, though, the way this country is going, it'll take more than just voting out some politicians to change things.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. There are special "Audio CD-Rs" that do include the fee. If you own a dedicated audio CD recording device (something designed to sit in your stereo cabinet, not a computer), they're built to require these Audio CD-Rs for exactly this reason. however, the plain old cheap CD-R you buy to stick into your computer aren't charged this fee. The reality is that almost no one purchased these special CDs; most people burning audio CDs are just buying the non-compensated data CDs and burning them on their computer.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose it is, like most copyright legislation in the digital age, funadamentally unenforceable against those with savvy or those who are crafty enough to learn from those who are savvy. However, the fact remains that those two groups are a vanishingly small minority; seriously, how many XP users even think about updates? (How many just have it set to go automatically; I'm willing to bet a majority.) The danger of legislation should not be measured against those with the expertise and will to foil its provisions; a true test of the legitimacy of this legislation would be what effect it would have on those who take no special precautions or go out of their way to circumvent it. And on that standard, this legislation is very poor indeed.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:4, Informative)
But you are correct. We Americans don't live in a democracy. In fact, we never have. We live in a sort of Federal Republic that has evolved into a more direct Republic. Some have called it a "representative democracy" but that really just describes a kind of republic in which the delegates are elected.
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
but our system actually works, at least most of the time, due to the whole fact we have more than 2 "real" parties. we have 4 seat-holding parties in the house of commons, as opposed to the 2 seat-holding parties in the government in the US.
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but not in the way you think. The pre-Constitutional Colonial Congress (issued the Declaration of Independence, started the revolution, et al) elected its own President, which was the first time Washington got the job. And the Articles-of-Confederation Congress elected its own executve, who wasn't even called "President."
But the strong Article 2 executive we have as the President was never elected primarily by the House. Only in the event of an indecision by the Electoral College does something like that happen -- such as what should have happened in 2000.
FWIW, when you vote for president you vote for an elector in your state, and essentially all states have a "winner take all" implementation of the election law. Your state has the same number of electors as members of Congress -- at least 3, one for each senator and one for the House representative.
Oh, and there are states that want to have either a different voting system for their electors, or that want to split their electors. The biggest argument against this is that it would let national campaigns marginalize low-population areas. Which, somehow, is better than marginalizing citizens who live in high-population areas.
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a direct result of our two Senators no matter what the population congress. The lower population states, usually but not always Republican states, get most of the pork, earning far more Federal dollars than they pay in taxes, while the high population states almost always pay far more in taxes than they tak
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Informative)
The imbalance in power that the Electoral college should create by assigning electoral votes based on number of members of Congress is statistically significant, but not really all that bad. The imbala
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anarchy ensure freedom for the strong.
Capitalism ensures freedom for the rich.
Democracy ensures freedom for the majority.
Republics ensure freedom for their constituents.
All forms of government ensure freedom for those who are in power.
No mechanism or form of government ensures freedom for all - the only way this is ever possible is if those in power choose to cede their capability to exploit those that are not. The great philosophers of democracy as well as the founding fathers of the US had no delusions about this. It was always understood by them that freedom for all is only obtained only by the enlightened self-interest of the law-makers, and preserved only by the eternal vigilance of the people. However, far too many members of our populace no longer understand this.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
People trotting out that line all the time are part of the problem. They are the people that are resistant to attempts to improve the situation because they think this is as good as it can get. If this is as good as it gets, we're screwed. Some of us don't want to take that lying down.. or bending over as the case may be. We want to come up with better ways of doing things, and I'm sure that there must be better ways. We need serious reform of our election system, first and foremost. Until then, we are stuck in a corrupt system that feeds off the cash of special interests and puts up walls to prevent the non-corrupt from getting in.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the "Flaminess" of your post, I will still respond.
1 - I am not resistant to improving the situation. I know the US isnt great right now. I live here, work here, and vote here. Regardless of what you may think, its still one of the best places (speaking with regards to government and voting exclusively) to live, work, or vote. This was the meaning of my post. It sucks. But its better than many other things.
2 - "Some of us don't want to take that lying down.. or bending over as the case may be. " Good. Does that also mean that you must have an irrational view of the world? Do you really think that your government form sucks that much? Its very easy to point out what sucks, but everyone quickly forgets the good tenants of the US democratic system.
3 - "We want to come up with better ways of doing things, and I'm sure that there must be better ways. We need serious reform of our election system, first and foremost." That all sounds grand. Would you like to propose some actual solutions, or just bitch about how the current ones suck. Try being proactive. When you do, you will learn how difficult it is to create a perfectly balanced system that lasts over hundreds of years. Again, our current system isnt great, in fact its probably bad, but that doesnt mean we should throw it away overnight. There are good things here.
4 - "Until then, we are stuck in a corrupt system that feeds off the cash of special interests and puts up walls to prevent the non-corrupt from getting in." And explain to me how this is different from ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. This is government, Get used to it. Improve it, Regulate it, Reform it, But you wont remove corruption from government. Where the power is, the corrupt go. Again, I am not trying to belittle your viewpoint, and I would tend to agree that it needs work, but I would rather see you propose solutions that just BITCH.
Thanks.
Re:"Actual solutions" (Score:4, Insightful)
" We need shorter work weeks, stronger labor unions, worker-owned or directed firms, less debt and more respect for the environment."
Shorter work weeks would nice if it worked but in a globalized world its kind of a strategy for failure. Like it or not there are countries where people work a lot more than Americans, and pretty much everyone works more than Western Europeans. You simply wont compete with 30 hour weeks unless you actually pay people for 30 hours work and you are proposing cutting their annual incomes by a quarter which I don't think was the idea.
I'd like to believe labor unions would make things better, but at least in the U.S., they started out good and then turned in to a force as malignant as corporations if not more so. First off they were taken over by power hungry corrupt people just like corporations and governments. You see union heads have power so they got corrupted just like all the other power centers. Even worse many unions fell under the control of organized crime. Second of all the have created environments where workers don't have to work. They can hide behind a blizzard of union rules that completely obstruct companies from getting the job done, managers managing or turning a profit. One of the strongest unions America has left is the United Auto Workers, and the fact that Ford and GM are at the mercy of their unions is insuring they are going to land in bankruptcy. They simply can't compete against Asian competitors who are operating without unions. Third unions suffer blatant cronyism, where you have to know the right people to get in to the union and then get a job, resulting in hiring of incompetent people with connections over the best qualified.
Now maybe if you could unionize the entire planet so it was a level playing field it might work, but unilateral unionization of only American workers would just accelerate off shoring and the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Less debt is unarguably good.
Can't say if worker owned and directed firms would be good or bad. I'm guessing it would vary wildly from situation to situation. In some cases workers would be highly motivated by it and produce great results. In others worker would twist in to getting the most benefits for the least work, and would do strategically stupid things because it was in their self interest. Some executives do the same thing. My take is throwing this out like its the be all and end all solution is wrong, sometimes it would work and sometimes it wouldn't.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, tell this to the average user, who buys computers with preinstalled Vista, OSX, etc. and has "automatic update" activ, because of all these virii. Or you may need a new driver (previous one stopped working, was only temp)...but you can access the driver page only after you installed a certain DRM-patch...
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2)
Excuse me but I am genuinely intrigued, how can a driver be "temp"?
No, really, how is that? is that an OSX or Vista feature ? usually after I install a driver (Windows XP or Linux for me) it "drives" the hardware forever and ever. Are they making Shareware or 30-day-Demo drivers or something?
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
"How are they planning to enforce this on existing setups? "
Well maybe I'm just paranoid, but maybe that is an implicit purpose of this provision. It would take something like Microsoft's "protected content path" in Vista to monitor all the copies made. And there's nothing the MP/RI Ass. of America would like better than a comprehensive DRM system required by law. And it's entirely typical of interest groups to use one bad policy as a pretext for another.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2)
and it would be a dream outcome for Microsoft... to get Linux outlawed...
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2)
... like i needed another reason beyond "it still works" ... ;)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to stop this crap is fighting it now. Get out and tell lots of people about this bill and that they need to call XXX-XXX-XXXX today to voice their concer to their senator/house rep/etc... you need to get the numbers for people and print out papers for them because if your friends and relatives and co-workers get distracted by a shiney object they will forget all about it. (Wonder why bush is asking for a no gay marriage amendment? it's nothing but a distraction for crap like this.)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Interesting)
I see that the Swedes resorted to street manifestations [theregister.co.uk] to show their support for Pirate Bay and freedom to download for personal use:
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially since lots of code is still written by people who don't live in the US, and in countries where (so far!) the laws are not made by corporate interests?
And if the worst thing that happens to my computing experience is that I run FC5 forever
And if the worst thing that happens to my entertainment choices is that I stick with cc-licensed works, again, so be it.
Phone bill? (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait until you see my phone bill!
Re:Phone bill? (Score:4, Funny)
Now that I've heard of it (Score:5, Funny)
THE CAT IS DEAD (Score:5, Funny)
The question I can't help but ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The question I can't help but ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The question I can't help but ask (Score:3, Informative)
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Meaning that if a law is passed today making a certain activity illegal, one cannot be retroactively prosecuted under that law.
Insightful? Com'on folks, high school civics.
distraction (Score:3, Interesting)
What will ISPs do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another example of people making laws about things they don't have the foggiest idea about. And another example how the content industry wants to make money out of thin air. Quite literally.
Re:What will ISPs do? (Score:2)
Two birds. Ensures that they can say, "But we tried that. The pirates just won't stop! Even when given a reasonable alternative" and they can fuel their outdated business model a while longer.
The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, I think you guys should get together and do it.
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:2)
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:2)
it would have to get in front of a jury in the first place... the entire methodology of RIAA/MPAA lawsuits is to drag it out and make it expensive so that the other party surrenders before it gets to a jury... they know full well that any jury would throw it right out...
Mind you, jury selection could be fun... could you ever get 12 people selected who weren't guilty of the
Vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether they would be replaced by new assholes, though, remains to be seen.
Re:Vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that there are assholes on both sides of the aisle. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney^H^H^H^H^H^HSouth Carolina) sponsored the SSSCA [wired.com], which tried to introduce some pretty extreme copyright enforcement provisions itself. Both the parties are so close together on so many issues like this, I'm not sure it matters who is in office.
Re:Vote. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real political spectrum to worry about is "libertarian" vs. "totalitarian," and right now we're entirely represented by the latter!
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:2)
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, duh they're illegal. Why do you think such a thing would be necessary in the first place? That doesn't mean they're always wrong. Worked for us in 1776.
And you're committing an error by lumping revolution in with terrorism - the two are most certainly not the same, though they are all too often good fellows.
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
GW and his puppeteers have defined Terrorism as anything that is done by anyone that is not the United states or it's allies.
so, if you are a smaller force trying to attack a larger force, you are terrorists. if you are against anything that GWB is then you are a terrorist. if they want to label you a terrorist, then you are a terrorist.
That is the greatest abomination of the patriot act, it allows you to violate all human rights by simply slapping a "terrorist" sticker on the intended victim.
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:3, Funny)
Report them now! It's your duty as a citizen to help protect us from the witches!
Don't worry about a thing. DHS takes care of capturing and removing the suspected witch and ensuring (using state of the art hydro-submersion techniques) that the suspect is a witch.
Punishment for those found guilty will be quick, and you can live out your life in safety, knowing that you are secure from the evils of the world.
What do you mean 'one tyrant for
Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bah! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bah! (Score:2, Informative)
A republic is mutually exclusive with democracy. In one version the people vote on laws, in the other they vote on representatives. You can't have it both ways.
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Informative)
There are hybrid systems that allow parallel legislative paths, which include both legislative representatives and direct democracy. Witness, for example, the binding referendum, which is a direct democracy tool in many (mostly mid-western) American states. Now, whether their existence is a good idea or not, that's another thing entirely.
Re:Bah! (Score:4, Informative)
The term "republic" is simply a term that arose historically to signify that a nation was not a monarchy or dictatorship. Far from being mutually exclusive, all democracies actually are republics. Democracies in which the people vote on representatives are called "representative democracies"; most democracies are of that form these days because nothing else is really practical.
The US used to be a republic (no monarch) but probably shouldn't be considered a democracy during its first century or so (too limited representation). These days, the US is a representative democracy, not much different from European democracies.
Contrary to what that article says, democracy is not tyranny of the majority; protecting minority rights is an essentical part of democratic government (but not of all republican government, in which historically large parts of the population weren't represented at all).
Re:Bah! (Score:2)
"Democracy" in turn means "rule by the people".
They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, every democracy has to be a republic, as the people cannot rule a thing that is not their own.
It's time to leave behind the 5th-grade civics textbook that incorrectly put repbulics and democracies in opposition just because it se
Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Occasionally a third-party candidate with a brain comes along, and the two major parties make sure they never see the light of day. Partisan politics make sure that no one cares about actual issues. The only thing that matters in DC is making the other party look bad, and swearing blind allegiances to party lines, even if you don't know what the line is, or why the line was formed the way it was.
That'll show-em (Score:5, Funny)
This one should really put the kiabosh on those piracy shennanigans. Just you watch!
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Goodlatte, why am I not surprised... (Score:2)
How about a political system that allows politics ?
The one-man districts don't allow this. They're geographical representation, not political.
Put simply, a geographical group that is (very) popular in 10% of the USA, while being unpopular elsewhere gets about their fair representaiton, they get about 10% of the representatives. Fine.
But a *political* group, that focuses on actual policy rather than geography, fares much worse. If they're really
Isn't that the theory behind EULAs? (Score:2)
(Note that I'm not saying that it's right, or that even if it is required it justifies some of the terms that end up in EULAs, just that that's the justification I've always seen used)
RIAA/radio "settlement" talks (Score:4, Funny)
Internet Radio: We're, um, broadcasters? You know, that
whole "streaming" technology? UDP?
RIAA:
Internet Radio: That we don't keep track of this sort of thing?
RIAA: *Mr. Burns voice* Excellent...er...oh, not to worry my good fellow. We'll just use a conservative estimate. Smithers, gather up the census data for the number of Internet users on any given day! The rest of you, begin our next "negotiation"!
Satellite Radio: *gulp* Umm...mommy?
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Enforce it, if you can (Score:2)
And how many taxpayers are they willing to alienate by enforcing this bill ?
Re:Enforce it, if you can (Score:2)
Re:Enforce it, if you can (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd love to see the two dominant parties become the Libertarians and the Greens -- at least they still have platforms based on ideology, instead of just pandering to whoever bribes them the most like the Democrats and Republicans do.
Worst Bill (Score:2)
FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a much more thorough discussion of the bill:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html [copyright.gov]
This article counters a number of the rants on the extremely biased link slashdot provided.
For instance, the slashdot political link claims "It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory..."
However, the link above specifically says:
"the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."
I'm not arguing that it's a good bill (and I'm pretty sure it sucks), only that the initial link is so blatantly political that it's hardly an objective source for ANY information and is easily proven wrong by a casual read at the facts. Shame on you slashdot for posting such biased and political crap soley to incite a flamewar.
Re:FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (Score:2)
They'd target the ISPs first. Then, who knows?
Re:FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
From that article, it really sounds like from the Copyright Office's point-of-view (which granted, has its own bias), this is a simplification. They in fact claim that separate copies currently require separate licensing to be accounted for -- this will remove that need by allowing distributors/streamers to be covered for all transitory copies (caching/whatnot in distribution) or stream fragments. Put that way, the bill makes a lot of sense to me.
What's much more interesting is the section on Designated Agents. If this doesn't scream "lock the RIAA into their position via legal means", I don't know what does. Agents get to use royalties collected for tangential purposes such as legislation and "industry negotiations".. sheesh guys -- why not just add in "Designated Agents will receive services from suitably nubile copyright holders at will" while you're at it. Oh and the "Agent is the sole judge of auditing whether a liscencee has underpaid an agent" is really cute too... I appreciate the Copyright Office calling these jokers out on this... let's hope Congress pays attention to them.
One thing the summary glosses over that bugs me, though:
Does that read to anyone else as locking those agents with "significant marketshare" as the only gatekeepers of said blanket licensing (previously established as needed for distribution in this revised model)... which makes me wonder how individual independant artists (those who don't wish to be affiliated with a General Designated Agent) would go about licensing their work to iTunes or whatnot. If they're now effectively represented by a GDA (read RIAA and the like) whether they want to be or not... then I have to read this as a powergrab by the RIAA to ensure they maintain their position as the gatekeepers of distribution (now in the digital age), with all artists having to sign with them. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical..
Re:FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
From the link, 9th paragraph, lines 14-16:
It would seem that some interested parties would like to include streaming media in the definition of a physical, reproduceable copy of media. I'm sure most of us are aware, however, that streams are not entirely impervious to recording, but the Copyright Office would seem to know this as well, and they take a much more logical stance (par. 9, 4-8):
From what I gather, the Copyright Office is of the belief that streaming media over the Internet is the equivalent of yesteryear's radio (I'm dating myself, I know). This, the opinion of the Copyright Office, is just exactly the kind of unbiased view we need. Now while I'm sure they are indeed biased in some form or another (we all are), this Statement that they have issued would seem to take an objective view on this matter.
money == access (Score:2)
Just a reminder, it doesn't do any good to write your congressman about anything. Congress shows pure contempt for it's constituencies. If you're not generating campaign contributions, then you're not worth anything. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder.
If you really want to make a difference -- and it's way too late here -- you'll need a lobby. Give money to the lobbyist, pay for access, get the ear of the senator, and then you can make a difference.
Action to take (Score:5, Informative)
"Don't let Big Copyright legalize double dipping. Fight SIRA today.
The House is going into recess for the summer at the end of this week, so you have a unique opportunity to kill this legislation. If we can stall SIRA now it would effectively kill it for the reminder of the year, giving us more time to prepare an offensive.
Please call the Members of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property and voice your opposition to this legislation.
Republicans:
Honorable Lamar S. Smith, 2184 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-4236
Honorable Henry J. Hyde, 2110 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-4561
Honorable Elton Gallegly, 2427 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-0523, (202) 225-5811
Honorable Bob Goodlatte, 2240 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-5431
Honorable William L. Jenkins, 1207 Longworth Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6356
Honorable Spencer Bachus, 442 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202 225-4921
Hon. Robert Inglis, 330 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6030
Honorable Ric Keller, 419 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-2176
Hon. Darrell Issa, 211 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Honorable Chris Cannon, 2436 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-7751
Honorable Mike Pence, 426 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3021
Honorable J. Randy Forbes, 307 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6365
Democrats:
Honorable Howard L. Berman, 2221 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, (202) 225-4695
Honorable John Conyers, Jr., 2426 Rayburn Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-5126
Honorable Rick Boucher, 2187 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3861
Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 102 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3072
Honorable Maxine Waters, 2344 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-2201
Honorable Martin T. Meehan, 2229 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3411
Honorable Robert Wexler, 213 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3001
Honorable Anthony Weiner, 1122 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515, (202) 225-6616
Honorable Adam Schiff, 326 Cannon House Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515, (202) 225-4176
Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, 1007 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6676"
5th grade grammar (Score:3, Insightful)
Lackey's?
Oh come on people. This is 5th grade grammar. The proper spelling is lackeys. There is no apostrophe on a non possessive plural.
If you can program, you should at least know how to spell.
As a point of reference, yesterday, I counted three spelling mistakes in an important email from our legal department to a business partner. 1) the email address was misspelled, 2) the person's name was misspelled and the plural of "technologies" was spelled as "technology's".
Simply put, when you are a professional and you screw up on a 5th grade level, you look like a fool.
Submission Has It Wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
That said, I took a look, and this Act doesn't read to me the same way the submission is characterizing it. The link is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html [copyright.gov]
I could be wrong, but from what I've read, the Act actually tries to do the opposite of what is claimed in the article submission, as to the seperate licensing of cached/buffered/etc copies of content.
Here is an excerpt from the linked page above:
"First, by simply filing one license application--or in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses, a limited number of applications--a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally, we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright owners and licensees.
Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently, there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues, the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies involve additional intermediate copies or not.
Based on the foregoing and our involvement in discussions on these issues over the past several years, we anticipate that the blanket licensing approach would be welcomed by, or at least be acceptable to, the various interested parties. Furthermore, we note that blanket licensing has proven successful with respect to the section 114 compulsory license for sound recordings, and would expect it to function similarly in the section 115 context.
However, the Copyright Office strongly urges that the SIRA not characterize streaming as a distribution or as a form of "digital phonorecord delivery," or DPD. A stream, whether interactive or noninteractive, is predominantly a public performance, although the various reproductions such a transmission requires makes it appropriate to address in section 115. A stream does not, however, constitute a "distribution," the object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient; the buffer and other intermediate copies or portions of copies that may temporarily exist on a recipient's computer to facilitate the stream and are for all practical purposes useless (apart from their role in facilitating the single performance) and most likely unknown to the recipient simply do not qualify. Similarly, a stream should not be considered a DPD as that term is presently defined by 17 U.S.C. 115(d), because it most likely does not result in "a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord." The Office recognizes that the SIRA proposes to amend the definition of DPD to specif
Re:Submission Has It Wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sets a bad precident. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off is the matter of incidental copies. As you mentioned, incidental copies created during the delivery of digital files are considered by some to be in a legal grey area. This law clarifies the position by stating that these copies are covered by the compulsary license. However, this is very dangerous wording as it legitimizes the concept that a license is needed for the copies. Furthermore, as the compulsary license only applies to "nondramatic musical works", this opens the door for others (MPAA, BSA, etc) to insist that licenses are required incidental copies of thier works. Most likely this would come in the form of worsening C&D actions which are too costly to defend against regardless of the eventual legality. The area becomes even shadier in the case of p2p distribution methods (when used legally - distributing copyrighted work without permission is undoubtedly illegal).
This "grey area" does need to be clarified, and the intention of the section is good, however is needs to be worded in a way that debunks rather than supports the idea that incidental copies may need licenses. Something along the line of this:
IANAL, so I am sure that this could be worded better.
Furthermore, as the copyright office is quoted in your post, streaming is not the same as distribution and the current poor wording of the bill that would strengthen those trying to treat streaming as distribution (like cd) rather than performance (like radio).
All in all, the intent - to clarify the law and close legal traps for online music stores - is a good one, but the way it is written creates many more traps in the process.
Run for Federal Office (Score:2)
Federal Election Commission [fec.gov]
Is this really the worst? (Score:2, Insightful)
Worse than http://akaka.senate.gov/akakabill-b.html [senate.gov]
I think the title is a bit melodramatic. There are tons of truly wretched bills that get passed every day. As it stands, downloading music that you didn't pay for is considered illegal in this country anyway. This new bill only clarifies the existing position by making you have licenses for every version of a song you have. I think it is silly. I don't think it is the worst thing Congress has done.
Link to EFF's take on this (Score:5, Informative)
My message to fred at eff.org (Score:3, Informative)
Subject: Incorrect information about SIRA?
Date: June 6, 2006 8:21:46 AM CDT
To: fred at eff.org
Security: Signed
In your post [eff.org] you say:
SIRA's main aim is clearing the way for online music services by revising the current mechanical compulsory license set out in Section 115 of the Copyright Act to accommodate "full downloads, limited downloads, and interactive streams." So far so good, but the devil is in the details. This license specifically includes and treats as licen
Love letter (Score:5, Funny)
Go fuck your mother.
Love
Jeff
Just like fall of the roman empire (Score:4, Interesting)
That is, when senato has become a hive of corrupt senators that exceedingly cater to the needs of wealthy elite, be it their family be it a bribing party, ignoring and debasing the public, despite many laws that are passed to calm the public down.
Public was too annoyed with this, there was much discontent. Senato and public were at discord.
Time and again grandeur/power-hungry prominent men tried to exploit this discontent to their ends, and one of them, julius caesar had succeeded.
He didnt single handedly destroy the republic, he just became the instrument. Republic was already destroyed by corrupt senators.
Well, in much resemblance to the situation at hand eh ? Just, we are at the stage of corrupt senators now.
Re:Just like fall of the roman empire (Score:4, Funny)
Crap. So you're saying that Bush probably won't get stabbed by some senators?
"I do not think it means what you think it means." (Score:4, Informative)
I read the Copyright Office comments and the bill as posted on the discussion draft link, and I'd appreciate some help in understanding where you're coming from.
As I understand it, the bill deals with the relationship between Digital Music Providers and Copyright owners. It does not deal with the relationship between Digital Music Provider and end users (other than to define a DMP as an entity that provides digital music to end users).
The basic purpose of the bill is to create a compulsory licensing scheme for digital music, so that digital music providers can buy a single license (in the way that ASCAP and BMI license their portfolios today on behalf of the content producers). The compulsory licensing scheme enables digital music providers to avoid seeking out individual copyright owners and getting a license from each of them, and prevents copyright owners from refusing to license their works.
The bill appears to include caches and other incidental copies to prevent copyright owners from claiming that those are separate copies requiring a separate license. The bill specifically includes those incidental copies in the compulsory license granted to the DMP.
The retroactivity provision enables DMPs that have been providing digital music without the appropriate license to pay for their use dating back to 2001 (or whatever the date was in the bill) and thereby escape any claim that they violated the copyright owner's rights. This protects the DMP from liability.
So, if anyone has a reason to object to this bill, it's the copyright owners, not the end users.
While this is all based on a quick skim of the bill and the Copyright Office's comments, I'm really not sure how this bill creates the slew of horrors that have been posted on this page.
For the record, and in the interest of avoiding some of the low s/n ad hominim attacks that I've alrady seen launched in some of these comments, I don't work for the music industry, any entity associated with the music industry, and the comments are entirely my own. I distrust and generally despise the RIAA and MPAA, but I just don't see the harm to end users here. Perhaps that's ignorance on my part, so I'd appreciate it if someone could actually explain (preferably with references to the actual text of the bill) how this bill causes the problems y'all are fearing.
John
One Step Further (Score:3, Funny)
It totally screws the copyright holder too... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the text of the bill:
So if an artist for whatever reason happens to decide he doesn't want to grant permission to people to reproduce his works, he can be completely screwed over if they go over his head and get this so-called "global" license that applies to an unlimited number of digital works (and do you think that the artists are going to be fairly compensated for this? Fat chance)This bill offers do destroy the very foundations of Copyright if it passes, that is, the *EXCLUSIVE* rights of the copyright holder to grant permission to copy his or her works.
Re:Does that include MP3 players (Score:2)
Re:Does that include MP3 players (Score:2)
Re:Does that include MP3 players (Score:2)
It all adds up... (Score:5, Funny)
Mercifully Apple have been able to retain the 99c flat rate, so you're only 8 dollars in the hole so far.
Cease and Desist (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, for pity's sake. (Score:2)