Piracy Deterrence and Education Act Introduced 508
Bootsy Collins writes "Last Thursday in the U.S. Congress,
H.R. 2517
was quietly introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill, authored by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA),
directs the FBI
to develop methods of deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks, including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies. It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad. Berman, you may remember, introduce a bill last year that would give the RIAA and MPAA wide latitude to
crack suspected violators' computers.
" Update: 06/23 17:03 GMT by S : We also covered a variant of this story on Saturday.
Action (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid the FBI go after dangerous criminals
Doncha miss the Hoover years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Our tax dollars at work! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the program? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly qualifies as a "program?"
I know a lot of us are picturing armed FBI raids, computer seizures, kids being drug down the streets in chains for the crime of filesharing and being made into examples. It's possible... hell it's already happening.
However, I'm hoping it's more something like the current drug compaigns. Public awareness on "filesharing" and "piracy" as a crime. Consequences, that type of thing. I also hope that if it becomes obvious enough, people will wake up and Joe Average (tm) will finally realize the type of bullsh*t that corps like the RIAA are trying to pull with the law.
SERIOUSLY, the FBI has no place at all getting involved with copyright issues. There are a lot more things they can do that are a hell of a lot more productive, like preventing 9-11 mark II. We don't need them tapping our internet lines, tracing our IP's, or dragging more people in to court.
I think the USA needs a little bit of seperation between government and corporation - thought by now we all know who is really running the country anyways.
I have written to all my representatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the text of the bill (I can't find the link offhand, but it's out there) -- some of the paragraphs are downright laughable, particularly the one directing the FBI to educate citizens about the dangers of connecting to "unauthorized" P2P services.
Maybe one of these days Congress will stop trying to prop up a failing business model by turning the US into a police state. But I'm not holding my breath...
Re:Next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from some of the comments and attitudes that are prevalent here, I think a lot of people need to be told what copyright is, and what it's supposed to do.
If nothing else, how can you possibly make an informed argument against something if you don't know exactly what you're arguing against? (Or for, for that matter)
Education (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad that education campaign is there, jeez, I didn't know that on my own. It hurts
US cracks down on ILLEGAL activities.. so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people download music they wouldn't buy, sure. Is there legitimate use for p2p, yes. But it also can be used easily to set out your own inexpensive publishing house and give away what others sell for free.
Information has value, especially in the new economy. I sometimes think people get to bent out of shape when people/companies try to protect that value.
And the next step... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is to provide federal funding to run ads against candidates or referenda which would weaken intellectual property laws such as the DMCA, the super-DMCAs, the CDBPTA (did I spell that right?), etc.
Why wouldn't they? They've already started doing it about candidates and referenda that try to legalize medical marijuana.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Law enforcement agencies sharing information and teaching kids about why breaking the law is a bad thing. That honestly sounds like a good idea to me. Kids are taught that drugs are bad, that you don't shoot people - why not also teach them tearing away at the foundation of the economy is also a bad thing. Yes, the way the RIAA and MPAA approach things sucks, their business model is old, and they litigate to save themselves. But that doesn't mean that copyright is a bad thing, per se.
Around here, as much as people argue that open-source is the way for the world to go, every one of us has to admit that it's only our day jobs which allows us to spend our nights cutting code for open-source projects. Copyright is a Very, Very, Very Good Thing (TM). I don't think that fact is lessened by some idiotic laws which these guys have tried to pass in the past.
Re:Action (Score:5, Insightful)
We should at least be writing to our congress-people about the issue. It's one that's not getting substantial media attention, but it's going to become a HUGE issue in a few years.
NOW is the time to put the wheels in motion that are going to save us from government control over all intellectual property.
We need to force some change- we need to show the media empire that it can't hold onto it's current business model, that it's greedy little eyes need to open up a little and see the damage they are causing.
There is a solution to pirating that does not have to involve the government or anyone else erasing hard drives. Apple's on the right track with the iTunes store. We should be making the RIAA look at new solutions that work best for all involved, not just some fat cats.
Re:What is the program? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but Corporations and copyright holders deserve protection under the law too. If not the FBI then who should be involved with copyright issues? The FBI is not the CIA, or the military, it's the government association responsible for enforcing most federal laws. Stealing copyrighted materials violates a federal law, hence the FBI should get involved. Unless you want to abolish copyrights, or create another law enforcement body to handle this sort of thing, then it is the FBI's business, this law would just make it a higher priority for them .
And you're hoping it's like the drug campaigns? The war on drugs is one of the most enormous failures that hte US government has ever embarked upon. It's caused increased violence, helped to fund terrorism, and not slowed down the drug problem.
The big problem with copyrights is duration (Score:5, Insightful)
In the intervening years, various parties have managed to get the copyright period extended to a ludicrous extent, and it's for *one* reason: Walt Disney corporation can't come up with anything NEW that's any good, so they've gotta keep protecting Mickey and Donald and Goofy and all those other characters that, by rights, would have passed into the public domain decades ago.
Essentially, legislation and litigation are a poor but workable substitute for innovation and invention.
What difference does it really make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the insightful bit:
Since when did the US government guarantee that a corporation will earn money one way or another? I mean instead of letting the companies attempt to crack down on piracy their own way the companies beg and plead that the US government step in and be the daddy. The problem is that the government is not supposed to be involved in such matters. The ONLY thing the governement to supposed to do receive taxes to defend our countries citizens from outside attacks. Not police the world, bend to the will of a common nation governemnt (UN), or be involved in corporate legalities that do not directly affect the us citizens.
Online music piracy (incorrectly identified BTW), is nothing more than an easier way to "tape" a CD. We all know this. They know this. The bottom line is that the corporation needs to address this NOT the fucking government!!!
We OWN the governement. We are the BOSSES! They seemed to forget this. And we citizens find ourselves electing these people to office to only have them incorporate themselves upon entering office and then immediately being hired by a lobbyist firm as a contractor. This is why it's not called bribery. They are getting paid as if they worked there.
But I could be wrong...
Rivendahl
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
I've argued in favour of rational copyrights on
I think that there are some real objections to be brought up here, though: What I can infer about this bill makes it sound like the FBI is pushing for greater powers to subpoena ISPs and get information out of them. What they currently have is far more than enough power to legally track and prosecute people sharing files illegally. I get the uneasy feeling that this is another board in the structure they call(ed) "Total Information Awareness." If you download one file illegally, they'll already have your number in a database, and won't have to bother with starting an investigation. Instead, charges will be laid the next day, at the convenience of your workplace, with the FBI hardly having to do more than pushing a button or two.
Great on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
I know where you're coming from - to disclose, I like the general idea of copyright, and think it would be fine without industry shills. Today, copyright duration is, what, life + 3000 years? And fair use means that copying stuff for home use is only a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
My problem in light of above is, yes, the law sounds great on paper...but only there. Education is fine, but what about the inter-agency info sharing? Again, I would have not problem if it were used to get blatant commercial-mp3-only sharers, but lately it's been used to go after kids who basically build search engines. And I don't like that.
So it's like this - the law sounds good, but do you support a just law if you know for sure that it will be implemented in a monstrously unjust manner? That has to be considered, because a law in a vacuum is nothing. Consider sodomy laws on the books in most states - they are horrendously discriminatory against homosexuals and other people the Christian Coalition considers "deviants" - but I don't really care because they're not enforced at all, and amount to nothing more than a quaint little nuiscance. This law, on the other hand, while it sounds nice, has the potential to take down a lot of people who have the gall to allow people a way of sharing information without policing that information. And I don't like that at all.
Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
These people are all living in fantasyland. The senators keep it quiet because they know there will be a backlash. Berman is already saying "It's not my bill. It's his." The RIAA shows their idoicy by touting this bill that they haven't even read! Looking at his top contributors, [opensecrets.org] I don't see the entertainment industry on there. Maybe he wants to get on their payroll?
I think the stealth with which this bill was put out indicates that the senators know that this type of legislation could damage their careers, but they want to keep the soft money coming in and keep writing up this crap.
Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone creates something, be they a penniless mother of 6 living in a hovel someplace, or a big heartless, greedy corporation, they deserve to profit from it. Why should anyone create anything - programs, music, movies - and get nothing for it?
Before I get the "But Open Source" speech, wasn't that Linus I saw driving around in a very expensive Italian sports car? I more than suspect he knew his work would get him a very good paying job. Good for him. Just like a lot of other OS people are now getting paid well because of their work.
I'm a capitalist. People's inventions deserve to be protected, because it encourages them to keep on inventing.
To those of you who still say everything should be free, remember this:
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself. You better hope to God not too many people steal your company's product, or you'll be out looking for work again.
No, People Wrap Greed in Cloak of Bogus Principles (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of the noise surrounding this issue is generated by people attempting to pose as intellectual property revolutionaries, convinced that the Internet makes all previous human experience obsolete. This is bogus, of course. Most of these folks just want free music and free movies. And, I'm sure you've noticed that comments typically and quickly descend into namecalling and slander. (Apparently, not having much useful to sa y about the issue, a lot of posters can only stamp their feet, swear, wave the anti-corporate flag, and call people "evil".)
Meanwhile, SLashdot goes on posting these stories in an effort to drum up business.
Re:Action (Score:2, Insightful)
Most elected officials know that very few people actually vote, no matter how hot and bothered they get about something. Sure, i can read up on the latest here at slashdot, click on over to Lessig's blog and from there, sign [petitiononline.com] the petition to reclaim the public domain, or head off to the EFF's [slashdot.org] web site and send a pre-formatted email or fax... it's too easy. Let your congressfolk know that you get out of bed bright and early on election day if you want their attention.
The NRA has 4.3 million members which isn't really that many in the internet age (i'm guessing slashdot probably has about one third to half as many readers, if we count unregistered people), and they seem to get heard pretty loud and clear.
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what it means is that copyright law no longer serves the purpose that it was supposed to serve. The public has no stake in it anymore. Nothing becomes public domain anymore, and won't for at least another 15 years. Probably longer because they'll just pass their regular 20-year extension again then anyway. Copyright was never supposed to be perpetual. It was supposed to be a bargain between the public and the people creating things that the public likes. We give them a period of time in which they have exclusive rights to distribute and create derivative works, and in return, those works eventually become available to everyone to enjoy or use to create even more works. What Congress has done is completely remove the benefit to the public. If we aren't getting anything out of the deal, then why the hell should we support copyright law in its current state?
They can't arrest us all. (Score:2, Insightful)
On a philosophical note, if the only time you hear a song is when you download it from kazaa is it really piracy? In the strict sense of the word of course it is but think about it. If I hadn't downloaded the song I never would have heard of it so I wouldn't have bought the cd. My music isn't generally played on Clear Channel radio, which is all that is available in most markets, so I coudn't have heard it between dj prattle and metabolife commercials either so where is the harm?
Copyright was never intended to be pushed this far (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes BALANCED copyright is a very good things. UNBALANCED copyright is dangerous as it is drowning those for which it was made to begin with : the public interrest. And I think this is what the posted is protesting against. The law are becoming harsher for breaking a privilege octroyed to a small group than some crime with far more impact (rape, hold up, political corruption) and the middle and ways to fight for the "enforcing" of this privilege are becomming increasingly out of whack.
You know, the difference between a police state and an ultra corporatiste state may not be that big...
Re:Next... (Score:1, Insightful)
> Judging from some of the comments and attitudes that are prevalent here, I think
> a lot of people need to be told what copyright is, and what it's supposed to do.
You appear to be one of them.
Copyright was started to ensure the public gets an artists work, if they choose to copyright that work.
I dont see myself (being the public) getting any of these works.
I see plenty of laws making it illegal for me to better all of humanity by improving on someone elses idea however.
I personally choose to better mankind by ignoring our current form of copyright.
While I do not do this by downloading music, I fully believe that if the artists dont want to play by the rules of copyright, they shouldnt expect us to either. So to all that arnt, more power to you.
The only reason i dont download music for free is because i dont care for the crap that is concidered music these days. But that is my personal opinion, and if I did want this music to enrich my life, i would at this point just take it.
Re:Next... (Score:2, Insightful)
What it's supposed to do, according to the Constitution, is promote the public domain. Can you tell me how the current 100+ year copyright terms, with unlimited retroactive extensions, promote the public domain?
Re:What is the program? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. My biggest problem with this is that violating a copyright, at least right now, in the United States, is not a 'crime' per se; it is a civil offense. The copyright holder is responsible for dragging you into court and extracting damages. What this bill proposes is that the FBI now take on that role, at taxpayers expense. Why should the FBI be involved in what is inherently a civil matter?
Re:Next... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Action (Score:5, Insightful)
(7) In light of these considerations, it is important that Federal law enforcement agencies actively pursue criminals who steal the copyrighted works of others, and prevent such activity through enforcement and awareness. It is also important that the public be educated about the security and privacy risks associated with being connected to an unauthorized peer-to-peer network.
(a) DESIGNATION OF AGENTS IN CHIPS UNITS- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.
(1) educate the general public concerning the value of copyrighted works and the effects of the theft of such works on those who create them;
Copyright infringement is not, and has not yet been placed, in the same legal category as theft. Passage of this bill would give the RIAA, MPAA, and Congress the precedent to redefine the crime from infringement to theft, a much more serious crime with harsher punishments. As I am sure you are aware from your interaction with Mr. Wexler, precise legal phrasing is a potent and manipulable tool of politics.
While I agree that the gist of the bill appears harmless, the use and insertion of the word theft into the bill could very well be a 'backdoor bill' attempt. Educating the public is a good and noble goal, and well worth while. But I am wary after so many times things have been slipped into bills to allow another bill in that redefines the laws in such a way.
Re:Action (Score:3, Insightful)
so what else have you done? how much have you informed your friends and family? how many letters have they written?
Geeks writing an email is a Bullcrap cop-out. if we want to do anything but sound like whiney kids, we need to write letters to the editor in all local newspapers, educate friends, relatives, neigbhbors, encourage them to write a letter and pay the $$$ to mail it. create public outrage through education.
anything less is rolling over and asking for it to be passed.
and unfortunately americans in general are lazy sheep that happily let their rich overlords do whatever they want for the "good" of the people...
Congress has more Multi-millionares in it now that any other time in history, they are 100% out of touch with reality and the other 90% of the country. expecting them to propose and pass laws that do anything but help the corperations or other ultra-rich without hearing from enough voters that they feel threatened is just plain silly.
The only thing that congress critters understand is a mass of physical letters stating that if they vote for it, they wont have another term....
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you also in favor of paying their salaries?
In all honesty, I doubt things would change that much if we have 8300 representatives vs. 435. It's not just a matter of having too many constituents that makes them unresponsive, it also has something to do with all of those campaign contributions and their own private dealings.
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Action (Score:1, Insightful)
Or maybe it's time for a new political party. If the Green Party exists, why not the Cyber party?
I've been voting for over a decade but each election has presented me with a "lesser of two evils" vote. What kind of choice is that?
Maybe it's time to stop hacking the systems and start hacking the System.
Copyright infringement is a crime (Score:2, Insightful)
that violating a copyright, at least right now, in the United States, is not a 'crime' per se
Have you read Title 17, United States Code, section 506 [cornell.edu]? Pay attention as well to the definition of "financial gain" in section 101 [cornell.edu].
Sooo, what about the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, if I traded through, say, freenet - and they cracked/reverse engineered freenet (assuming they could, technically), does that mean the creators of freenet can sue based on DMCA violations? After all, they would have to reverse engineer the encrypted datastream to first see what was actually being traded - and as I recall, cracking encryption was at the very heart of the DMCA.
Re:Not such an issue for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Oh yeah, he's not. DAMMIT, THIS IS NOT A PARTY ISSUE!!! If you want a political party to save you from this, vote Libertarian. Or if you want a political party to save you from this _and_ make SUVs illegal, vote Green (not my preference though).
Re:No, People Wrap Greed in Cloak of Bogus Princip (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup. I got that part.
Stop right there, pardner...
This is exactly what the reasonable slashdotter is railing against. Let's pause for a moment, catch our breath, then repeat after me:
There is nothing illegal about sharing files. Even if it's done it on-line. Even if it's done using p2p. Even if it's done in a large-scale operation.
I'd love to string-up those selfish miscreants who share infringing music on-line, and it's not just because they are using up all the bandwidth or getting something for free that I would have to pay to get (obviously different moral standards). But I see even more danger in people who would use the "disallow all file sharing" cure to solve the "some childish thieves" problem.
The Internet, as we know it, is about peer-to-peer sharing. All of the greatest features of the Internet (USENET, email, WWW, IRC, etc) were originally peer-to-peer, at least until the abuses forced us to CancelMoose, Spamblock, Filter, or Botban the functionality to useless castration. We need to ask ourselves if p2p is worth anything, because our elected officials are clearly already asking those questions. We need to be prepared to answer those questions. If we had to give-up sharing of infringing material, would we still want the Internet? Statements like "large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use" reinforce the idea that the Internet is just a copyright-infringment-orgy with no other use than facilitating copyright infringment. If that belief is allowed to hold sway, then the heavily taxed, heavily regulated, privacy-free and totally useless Internet will surely follow.
They're only going to let us make the same mistake so many times before they reach the conclusion nobody important actually uses that stuff anymore.
In my opinion, if we are opposed to legislation such as the proposed, then we have an obligation to a) share files like there's no tomorrow, b) avoid sharing any sort of copyright-infringing material, and c) shun with utmost prejudice anyone attempting to destroy the community we love by wasting the precious resources on their own childish quest to avoid paying their own fair share.
We've already tried writing our congressmen (or we've decided it wasn't worth wasting a stamp on trying) why not try a new tactic; one we're already familiar with, one right up our alley, one that's both totally legal and totally moral, one that's sure to make the xxAA freak; boycott on-line copyright-infringing material and promote the sharing of legitimate material instead.
Back the downloaders, but smack the freeloaders.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the RIAA backpedals once the on-line community equates anything Brittany with being an Internet freeloader.
The Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need is a movement like Open Source but for music: a legal and unstoppable alternative to the corrupt monopolies that exist.
Big Media's Achilles: cheap petabyte drives. (Score:3, Insightful)
At that point, the protectionism will become impossibly difficult to defend. When each person could be be given a copy of the Archive of Human Knowledge for the equivalent of 1 week's wage, the issue will resolve. There will be those societies who become enlightened, and those who wither in the greatest of dark ages.
Re:Action (Score:2, Insightful)
An electable libertarian.. sounds like something out of fiction
-M- (Libertarian)
Re:Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Come Back To Reality (Rant time) (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened to the U.S. government actually addressing serious issues in the world. We have a internal economy that is in shambles because the government can't enforce accounting regulations that (get this) ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. The U.S. is in the mist of a international nightmare with two countries (Afganistan... remember them, and Iraq) waiting on us to clean up the messes we made flexing our stockpiled military hardware, and a global reputation as an angry child with a big stick.
And these Congressmen think some sort of priority should be set on protecting an ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
Please... I understand the law should be enforced but do you think a cop is going to write out parking ticket in the middle of a murder arrest. When the FBI can tell me that organized crime has been eliminated, all escaped fellons have been captured, all murders have been prevented and all the missing children have been found. Then maybe we should let them look at the music industries small copyright issues. (and I mean small... I don't believe the industry is suffering one bit, we made only XXX billions instead of XXXX billions.. BOOO HOOOO.)
Re:Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a looney doesn't make you a terrorist. Is he blowing up buildings or picking off people with a sniper rifle? If all he's doing is tax evasion and telling the government that, "God's gonna get ya fer that!" (which is all you've given us), he's not a terrorist.
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Much like the internet. It was built not by one government but by the efforts of millions of people working together to ensure that a packet of data can travel from one end to the other without paying tolls or being blocked along the way.
Its amazing we have the internet in its current form today when we insist on being so die-hard capitalist about even the little things that don't really matter. But I guess it'll take something like the GPL and a bunch of stubborn geeks to bring about evolution on a social scale. Markets must crash, economists and tired old assumptions must be proven wrong, and then maybe, possibly we'll get a little cooperation.
But I won't count on it.
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are very harmful things in the hands of capitalists. Just look at Microsoft. Just look at SCO. Just look at IBM. Look at how we use these things? Is that what you call progress? GNU is what I call progress. The GPL is a perfect algorithm for maintaining control and avoiding economic interests in a capitalist society where corporations love to buy out other corporations and take control of the IP. You can't take control of GNU IP, the community and the license don't allow that sort of thing to happen. You can direct a small part of the IP for a time, but if the community does not approve of the direction your IP becomes worthless to them.
If you are working to make money then you can get creative and use the GPL, but its probably better if you went to work for Microsoft or SCO. They'll give you a good salery and make you happy. Just watch out for those rounds of layoffs. That can be a bitch.
See, that's why I'm not greedy anymore. After watching those rounds of layoffs I came to the conclusion that my time is worth more money than I'll ever make in my life. When I agree to work for a company I agree to give them some of my time in exchange for money. But I'm happy to quit or leave whenever they want. And I don't really care about making a profit for them. They certainly won't give me any of that profit, unless I buy a bunch of their stock, etc. Nobody really "cares" about anyone else. They just pretend that there's this type of honor and duty to work for the man. And some of them get to retire and ripe old age. The rest probably don't live that long.
Re:Not such an issue for me (Score:2, Insightful)
Fucking mod parent up. If you buy into the two party system, you've already bought into the bullshit, no matter which one you choose.
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
yea, but can you image bribing 4151 representatives? I think even companies would be hard pressed to make a dent...
Re:No, People Wrap Greed in Cloak of Bogus Princip (Score:2, Insightful)
The term we need to use here is copyright infringment, and despite what geeks and lawmakers alike would love to believe, there is no way to codify the concept of copyright infringment in a way that a computer program or delusional person can always understand.
I have nothing againt an individual sharing copyrighted material, so long as he is authorized to do so. If somebody wants to share public domain stuff, that's okay. If somebody wants to share his own copyrighted material, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material with my explicit permission, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material without my explicit permission, but within the bounds of "fair use", I may not like it, but because we both live in this society and we've agreed that a concept of Fair Use is a good thing (and we're created laws specifically for that), that's okay, too.
But anyone sharing my copyrighted material against my wishes and for their own private gain (or to avoid their expense) is acting in a fashion which is illegal, selfish, and stupid. And it doesn't matter how corrupt our politicians are, or how evil the RIAA is, or how unreasonable copyright term is, or how many other people are doing it, or how slim their chance of getting caught is, or whether or not they would have paid for it otherwise, or how outdated the current business model is, or whether the author/artist would be "richer" or "better off" if he'd change his mind and allowed it to be shared, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, those are just the lame rationalizing of a delusional mind which has already admitted it is infringing someone elses copyright, but has decided to do it anyway for its own selfish reasons.
This is one of those things we can't really leave up to our computers or our lawmakers to decide. We have to decide for ourselves if we would rather live in a world where we have free access to all of the content produced by the RIAA and kin back when they existed, but nothing at any price since we killed them, or whether it's better off for us to respect the wishes of our valued authors and artists and acknowledge a right we know they can't well enforce in exchange for the things we will lose if we force them to enforce it poorly.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Re:Action (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Action (Score:5, Insightful)
This was made clear in the lawsuit against mp3.com back during it's mymp3.com release. (If you don't remember, they ripped & encoded about 60,000 albums onto their servers, and then all you had to do was pop in your ORIGINAL cd and it scanned it to make sure it was real. Then, suddenly you had that album available online, anwhere, streamable. --you didn't have to upload it)
They lost, and with a fight. (Lawyers + money)
Re:Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry to say, but illegal copying is one of the few things that the federal government actually has the constitutional right to do something about.
Re:Action (Score:1, Insightful)
Those exist?
Re:Not such an issue for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, vote Libertarian as in end the drug war, legalize marijuana, and strike every law off the books that has anything to do with opening up a strip joint next to your neighborhood.
What were you saying about conservative Republican? If you find yourself at a loss for words, let me see if I can help you out. Freedom has a price. If you choose to live free and you are a liberal, you must come to terms with the idea that government can't solve social problems. If you choose to live free and you are a conservative, you must come to terms with the fact that the government can't legislate morality.
If you can't pay the cost for freedom, then I'll readily admit that you can't support it. Please understand, however, that I will hold you in the highest disdain.