PIRATE Act Introduced in Congress 1049
certron writes "Xeni Jardin has written a story for Wired about the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" aka the PIRATE Act. It and another related bill are designed to criminalize P2P filesharing by lowering the burden of proof for law enforcement and proposing jail terms of up to 10 years. The bill was introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, both of whom received large contributions from the entertainment industries. Under the bill, even sharing a single file (if a judge decides the value is over $10,000) could land a user in jail. Read the full text of Orrin Hatch's remarks."
alright the acronym is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
come on now.
So what is this going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same coin, different sides (Score:5, Insightful)
This is from Hatch's own site . . .
- Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) in introducing the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act" (the "PIRATE Act") to allow the Department of Justice to exercise its existing enforcement powers through a civil, rather than criminal, enforcement proceeding.Does anyone need more proof that the Republicans and Dems have become just two sides of the same coin? After this, I don't trust them to do much of anything right. *sigh*
Couldn't help but notice... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be damned if that doesn't sound just a bit like SCO.
Yet another gun control law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws like this make me proud to live in a backwards country such as Canada.
Tom
Bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tho, I guess after the War on Drugs put a generation of poor & minority youth in prision, they have to do something that has the same effect on whites & the middle class, lest they look racist (not an easy trick for a Republican from Utah to pull off).
Re:Ways around this (Score:4, Insightful)
We all know this is unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will need broadband if this passes :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully the Japanese companies don't go after the fansubbers if this happens.
"Enshrined in our Constitution." (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. I'll feel guilty about it, when the fed actually proves that copyrights exist in order to [wikipedia.org] "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
It sure doesn't feel like limited times.
You've heard it before. And you'll hear it many times over again.
Regarding the issue of control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in some sense they always will be. We're consumers, the objects of our consumption need an origin, and corporations are that origin. How they choose to design products, manufacture products, market products, and lobby for legislation regarding products will always exert an incredible level of completely transparent control over our lives.
It's up to individual consumers to render that control opaque -- but total opacity is very, very, very difficult.
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:2, Insightful)
Definately the wrong answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes, but under what odd twisting of logic can it be worse than shoplifting the CD?
We are seeing the music industry going steadily more insane every day, and when something with that much money goes mad life gets interesting. Piracy isn't right, but it is inevitable during the transition between the RIAA and whatever distribution/compensation model we invent to replace it. Draconian laws with punishments as inappropriate as this one wants are definately not the solution to theft of music.
I find it especially ironic that the same congress that can't seem to punish the aristocrats who steal millions from their employees wants to send people to jail for up to ten years for stealing a little music...
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.
Oh, well.
boy, they have balls... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is HILARIOUS! They're accusing P2P "companies" of trying to get a monopoly on music distribution? Isn't that a little like Napoleon accusing Hitler of being a dictator? Holy tamoly, these guys got balls.
Secondly... the fact that they use "companies" shows once again that they don't get it. Computer networks don't have to be sponsored by companies! These lawmakers are so deluded that they not only do they allow corporations to overrun the country, they refuse to acknowledge that indviduals even exist anymore.
It gets worse every day...
Re:Good Thing DVD's are less than $30 each (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best legal system money can buy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:5, Insightful)
think of all the current examples of the huge media conglomerates which are doing things to screw the consumer. what is stopping them... nothing. consumer backlash no longer means anything.
"priracy" "children" "human shields" "pornography" (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems that he'd like us to believe that we must have this bill to protect children from pornography - although no place does he suggest protecting the IP rights of pornographers from file sharing children. I wonder why not?
Read carefully the paragraph where he justifies government intervention if 1) the level of file sharing becomes particularly egregious; or, 2) public health and safety are put at risk; or, 3) private civil remedies fail to deter illegal conduct. Pay particular attention to each of these - any one of which he claims justifies government action.
"Particularly egregious"? Legally defined as exactly what level of file sharing?
"Public health and safety"? The public well being is threatened by sharing music how?
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
From Sen. Hatch's comments: (emphasis mine)
I'm not going to use the T word (theft), but let me just say that the casual breech of copyright is getting out of hand, and getting more and more government attention. Shouldn't we (American) Slashdotters be glad that Congress is discussing a law that increases civil penalties instead of making copyright infringement a criminal offense? With the MPAA and RIAA's tactics increasingly blurring that line between civil and criminal offense, I find that this law actually makes a sane and calm attempt to address the problem.
Re:one solution.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from armed rebellion, voting is the only meaningful feedback mechanism you have, and is considerably less messy, so I suggest you use it.
The press has been bought off. Shame is obsolete. Overt corruption has somehow morphed into an asset. Bald-faced lying to the public no longer surprises anyone, much less gets anyone in hot water. And, if you're not careful, voting will become just another CBS/Gallump/Diebold opinion poll, with every bit as much scientific and moral validity.
Don't give up the last lever you have.
Schwab
Re:Best legal system money can buy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
amazing,, (Score:5, Insightful)
When jobs are oursourced overseas or we bring people in with H1 visas they tell us "let the free market decide" and that we shouldn't be "protectionist."
But when one of their corporate buddies starts to have a problem, they pull out the guns. It goes for music as well as drug companies (not allowing us to reimport drugs from Canada is definitely protectionist).
Boy... how long can any of us hold out faith in our government?
Re:Definately the wrong answer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the record companies would like it if everyone thought that way, so they attempt to make a simplistic analogy between information and physical objects. Our intuitions and ideas about whether it is wrong to take an object away from someone else don't directly apply to merely making a copy of something. There's a good reason we have separate laws for theft and copyright infringment. I strongly urge you not to fall into the habit of treating them as the same thing.
Anyway, the REASON they hate copying more than simply walking into a store and taking a cd out with you is that they can can control the latter, not the former. Control is their game, and they're dead scared their "business model" will go the way of the dodo at any moment. Instead of adapting to the market they are treating millions of good Americans like criminals.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it go after the big time pirates?
No, because those big time pirates are in other countries.
This bill will enable companies to destroy families by throwing the 16 year old kid in jail for sharing expensive applications.
What harm are file sharers doing to society? Why does their action warrant time in court and/or prison?
I fail to see how this will even help corporations who see piracy as a problem. Often the reason people download expensive software is because they can't afford the price. Sure, that's no excuse, BUT will those companies see increased revenue as result of these actions?
So, what does throwing these kids in jail accomplish?
It just makes our government look like it is under the thumb of the corporate world.
Actually, I think this is good, in a way. Perhaps it will start to move more people towards Open Source applications, where downloading software is not illegal. I honestly think the reason Windows is so popular is because of the initial ability of users to easily pirate the operating system.
I pray for a day in which people will not be put in jail for downloading programs. Perhaps 2005 really is the year of linux?
Re:Best legal system money can buy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable company.
The phone company.
The electric company.
Microsoft.
Viacom.
These companies have NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER to the public. They can do whatever the hell they want, pass whatever laws they want, charge whatever prices they want, and people don't have another option.
What do they have in common? They're all monopolies. Those are bad, remember?
Re:Definately the wrong answer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Enshrined in our Constitution." (Score:4, Insightful)
With congress's actions in increasing limits every time Valenti gives them a few bucks, the copyrights have, for all intents and purposes, become perpetual.
Even the British had more sense than that, with Queen Annes copyright limits taking precedent over the booksellers objections. Pity Congress cannot look past their campaign account, and look instead to the rights of the people of the US.
Copyright extensions at this point in time defeat the desire of the framers of the constitution, and thus are unconstitutional. By making copyright limits (de jure) unlimited, they have failed to uphold the constitution.
14 year old Johnny, sitting at home listening to downloaded music is not a terrorist, nor a pornographer, nor a criminal. The real criminals are the congressmen who vote by proxy for Jack Valenti and The MPAA/RIAA cartel, to perpetuate a legalistic imagery that is basically feudal in concept.
Jack Valenti represents the most malicious, vicious, and virulent breed of terrorist this planet has seen. With one stroke of a pen, he can pay congress to enact a minimum of 60 million American citizens into the ranks of the criminal. Your rights are reduced, as you are obviously a criminal, and you have no recourse, as you cannot afford $250.000 for a defense.
Jack Valenti is a traitor to the constitution of the United States, and should be arrested, charged, and tried for that treason.
Re:It's time (Score:2, Insightful)
Another example I ran across today (Score:4, Insightful)
Wh at ever happened to telling a kid's parents, and letting them kick her ass? Or just exposing her to public shame? Does everything have to involve draconian penalties imposed by the almighty nanny state? The prosecutor fabricates TWO very serious felonies to deliver "justice"--what a joke. The funny thing is, under this logic, if she just took the pictures of herself, and did nothing more, she would still be guilty of the "possession" felony!
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.
It's a lot like prohibition. People totally ignored the law, and not only was the law bad by itself, but by being so especially bad, it gave a big boost to organized crime and fostered disrespect for the law.
Laws aren't automatically entitled to respect. They have to deserve respect by being sensible. There was little large scale infringement prior to the 1976 Act in no small part due to the fact that people didn't have a problem with complying with the law. Our laws today are so awful that of course no one obeys them.
I find that this law actually makes a sane and calm attempt to address the problem.
The people are not the problem. This law is just going to make things worse.
It's only "their" files (Score:1, Insightful)
My opinion on this is simple: If you want to share music for free then make music yourself and share it for free. NOBODY will stop you. But if *I* want to make music and sell it then at what point exactly do you think *you* have a right to take it without paying?
This is another law that should NOT be required and WILL be abused but exists ONLY because of a bunch of silly kids thinking "duh, music should be, like, free, dude". It isn't a conspiracy. It isn't corporations running the country or whatever nonsense someone will come up with. It's legitimate corporations pushing for legitimate legal protections and quite rightly being granted them.
So there you go. Now just change the little box to say flamebait, click the button, and the annoying counter-argument will go away and you can go back to blissfully swapping someone else's property.
don't split (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us been in this struggle against the globalist technofuedalist goons for decades, we need more young people to be participants, not just avoiders. Running away is.... well, trying to not sound harsh but it's selfish. The only way evil is ever stopped is to be bigger, smarter, more righteous and brave, stand up to it.
Think about it...
zogger
Re:Consituents speak out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good Thing DVD's are less than $30 each (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Prison is a big business (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My wish (Score:1, Insightful)
Try to get the Green Party to put freeflow of information and copyright reform in their platform then run or vote for them.
Re:It's only "their" files (Score:4, Insightful)
there's a response to this kind of argument (as seen on The West Wing):
-if your son/daughter were murdered, wouldn't you want the death penalty for the accused?
-yes, and that's why I don't think that victims' parents should be on the jury
this is the basis of being judged by your peers, not your victims, a principle which is all but lost in corporate-controlled America (and other countries)
Re:one solution.. (Score:2, Insightful)
US corporations own you (Score:5, Insightful)
I've stopped laughing...
Re:We all know this is unreasonable (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Best legal system money can buy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not so plain either way. There's plenty of truth in his claim.
For example, current copyright law has terms of 97 years. Only "the industry", in the form of large corporations, can profit from anything for that long of a time. The artists would get paid the same regardless of copyright lasting 15 years or 100.
Nobody plans out more than 10 years when considering an attempt to profit from creativity, whether by writing a novel or hiring a singer. All copyright revenues past 15-20 years is just free money for big publishers. (And the more money they collect from Elvis, the less they need to pay to today's performers)
Re:It's only "their" files (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that when the "Intarweb" is involved, legislators suddenly lose touch with reality?
Yes, the record companies do have the right to protect their content. Those laws have been in place for years and did not lock people away for 10 years over 1 track from a $1 CD that they charge $20 for.
The punishment should fit the crime.
Excuse me while I RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
What are we to do? Ignore them. Don't steal their products. Don't buy their products. Don't even listen to or watch their products wherever they might be. In the end, maybe by ignoring them for long enough they'll all go broke and die. In the meantime, get out of the damned house, go to a pub and throw your sheckles in the hats of your local musicians who really DO need the money. Buy their CDs. If you have a business, sponsor their gigs. You might even enjoy life a little more in the process.
Copyright assraping - always a bipartisan affair (Score:4, Insightful)
PIRATE = something else (Score:2, Insightful)
or more like Paid In full by the RIAA mafia And Their Equals.
wait, didn't this *cough*bought*cough* Sen. Hatch try something similar before and it got swatted down like it deserved?
Even more reason to reform soft-money.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:3, Insightful)
The excuse is always that the government will be able to "help" solve a problem, but just needs to excercise some more power, so that well-intentioned individuals go along with it. Of course, then they go home and those with vital interests at stake take over the power-wielding functionaries.
The only long-term solution is to strictly only allow a government enough power to enforce basic protection of individual freedoms and nothing more. Otherwise, the excercise of power "for good" invariably becomes simply the excercise of power for the highest bidder or the most interested.
See The Road to Serfdom [booksunderreview.com].
Re:Yet another gun control law... (Score:2, Insightful)
Declaration of war (Score:4, Insightful)
The "tends of thousands" phrase sounds more like a declaration of war against the citizens of America by the increasingly corporate owned government of ours. At a minimum, it sounds like a crackdown on "dissidents". When 1.5 million people are downloading today in America, most of which are law-abiding citizens that don't traffic in drugs, commit violent crimes, and pay for their groceries.
Could this have happened if the RIAA and MPAA were not busy purchasing our congressional representatives?
How do we stop this? I don't just mean the bill; I mean how do we stop the trend. How do we get politicians to represent the people again?
One question I have is how are we a representative democracy if we are no longer represented?
After years of this news growing, I still have not seen a coordinated large-scale effort to restore balance in our government so that it truly represents the people, and respects our principals.
While I consider myself a free market capitalist, and personally choose not to download music that the creators do not offer for free, I completely disagree with treating the American people as dissidents, as this bill and other are increasingly doing.
Is China becoming more like us, or are we becoming more like them?
Re:Best legal system money can buy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Criminal cases have a 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' restriction on guilt, meaning that the evidence must show that the defendant was clearly guilty of the crime.
Civil cases are tried on a 'preponderance of the evidence', meaning that the jury is allowed to look at the evidence and if it indicates that the defendant is reasonably accountable, they can find him guilty.
Another difference is that Civil and Criminal courts are just two separate parts of the legal system. Criminal cases are brought up by the goverment against individuals, Civil cases are individuals against other individuals.
The parent comment is only insightful if you know dick about the American legal system.
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your position is that any band should be able to just go ahead and use Frank Zappa's image and name in their own commercial work, without any oversight whatsoever?
I would give to EFPAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Not practical. Look at the diversity of opinion on SlashDot
OK, then how about an Electronic Frontier PAC? NORML (the weed law reform organization) has both a charity and a PAC; why can't EFF?
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:1, Insightful)
Take it easy Sapphire. They're accountable to stockholders. Stockholders are sold to the public. In fact, you might even say that the companies you mention are publicly held companies. Therefore, YOU'RE A FUCKING ASSHAT SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Congradulations, are you happy being part of the problem?
Ignore anyone who tells you that you can't do anything. That you're powerless. That its inevitable, that its good for you. Ignore anyone that tells you to sit down, shut up, and eat whatever shit they feed you. Because they're wrong. You can do something, and that's what they're scared of. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
And no, corporate power isn't better-adapted to its environment than nation-states. To be more specific, Darwinian theories of evolution do NOT apply, as there IS NO ENVIRONMENT. What we have here is a power grab by a small segment of the population, one trying to return us to the "glory days" of late-19th-century Industrial Feudalism. The fact that they're using a philosophy as weak and repulsive as Social Darwinism to support their position is just the icing on the cake.
That's just retarded. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to pirate something or share it with friends, do it on your own dime. Presumably you _want_ your friends to share in whatever cool thing you've discovered, so you'd put out a little to get it in their hands. In the case of P2P, I don't feel bad, it's my bandwidth I'm paying for that people use to download what I choose to let them download. I aim to shed light on the esoteric and underexposed.
Not act as a gatekeeper profiting off someone else's hard work. That's just sleazy.
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, getting back to the matter - a kingdom can be a nation-state, as can a city-state for that matter. The question really becomes how big a group of people do you need to have to be a "nation" but thats neither here nor there.
Live your life well, try to bring more love than hate into the world. That's all. No big stuff -- no Revolution, no Topple the State, no Stop the Corporations. Work to your scale, as an individual; the rest is History.
That quote is deeply disturbing. I can't tell if you're playing Snowball in Animal Farm or the Ministry of Truth in 1984. I'm not about to advocate revolution but sitting back and letting others decide your life has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Republicrats are of one mind about copyright (Score:2, Insightful)
voting is the only meaningful feedback mechanism you have, and is considerably less messy, so I suggest you use it.
Both the DMCA and the Bono Act had wide support among members of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in both the House and the Senate. They had enough to pass both bills by voice vote, which typically indicates 80 percent assent in each house. What chance does a third political party have of winning a plurality in the Congress?
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. But copyright violation is not theft. If it were, we wouldn't need new laws. Theft is already illegal.
Read about the use of words here [gnu.org]
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to say "change the law", but the current p2p behavior just seems to fundamentally at odds with practicality that I don't see how it would work.
It's a sad day (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of your claim that corporations are more efficient than nation states (which is a whole other argument, and is like comparing apples to oranges), I dispute that we should accept corporations as our government. Why? Because I believe that the best government is that which is for the people, and responsible to them. Efficiency is totally irrelevant - the question of what is the best government is a question of morals, beliefs, passions, and theology, not mathematics and work-motion studies.
Furthurmore, resolving that, since you are an individual, you have neither influence nor potential for influence at a national level is dead-end thinking and as repulsive a philosophy as handing government over to corporations. I could point out that people in power are individuals, and such an empirical argument is enough refutation, but taking it to a normative level is more satisfying: You can say that small scale things, like helping people out of a burning building, or giving directions to lost people, are good and important, but involving yourself in a cause you believe will improve everyones lives, like participating in a campaign to roll back the influence of corporations in national politics, is inherently superior in goodness and importance. I hate to quote a movie here, but "The greatest evil is the indifference of good men."
And finally, it isn't social evolution, it'd be political evolution.
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a "consumer". I am a CITIZEN of the United States of America.
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:1, Insightful)
So blame the main source of the problem, too much government intervention and control, leading to bought politicians to excercise it on someone's behalf.
Microsoft's dominance depends on copyright, which is a government-granted monopoly. It is also the monopoly power behind the media industry. Don't discount government influence so readily.
Have faith in economics, not entrenched interests (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider how much economic activity was generated by the whole Y2K thing, and by how much economic (ie, hardware purchases, purchases of broadband) by Napster. These events, although by themsleves, did not contribute a lasting economic impact, the investments that they induced people to make (ie, always on internet, faster computers, more computers everywhere), created a ready market for all those internet companies that survived the shakeout - ie, Amazon, eBay, etc.
For an example of how US restrictions have nurtured overseas industries, look at India's pharmecuticals industry, which went from generics and copying patented drugs, to partnerships with US companies to conduct research, manufacturing, and clinical trials. A similar gap is happening in embryonic stem cell research. China is driving development of new video entertainment technologies because they don't want to be beholden to US patents on every unit they sell (ie, Dolby, MPEG2, etc.)
The early movie industry was based on what the movie companies would now call "piracy". Songwriters at the turn of the century decried recording technology as theft of the songwriter's trade. Basically, whole industries have all, at one point or another, been accused of unfairness (ie, unfair competition, destroying jobs, etc.) Many, if not all of them, have spawned far more jobs and economic wealth than the industries that preceeded them.
Instead of turning back the clock at the behest of monied interestes, and setting US economic progress back years, if not decades, we should be liberalizing our laws. The idea that to effectively promote a new music act, or book, or movie, requires a whole bunch of money and time is no longer true (the demise of the multiple layers of distribution between recording artist and the now defunct corner record store - which didn't exist one hundred years ago, is an example of that.) Regarding research, investment, and development - the money will ALWAYS be invested when investors smell money - the fact that they will have to recoup their money faster, or will have to contend with more competition merely drives more competing efforts, which means MORE JOBS FOR EVERYONE, MORE CHOICE FOR CONSUMERS, and A MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY.
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been watching Animal Planet all day... guy starves his dog to the brink of death, leaves it outside, he gets a $500 fine... no jail time, etc...
But allowing someone to copy a music file has routinely caused people to get multi-thousand dollar judgments held against them...
Now we're talking jail time + fines...
If even one or two people are financially ruined and left with a shattered life, it will be a tragedy.
I'm just hoping this winds up like that FBI warning at the beginning of dvds and tapes... yeah, $250,000 fine and 20 years in jail for copying... ok...
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes we can, and we will (I hope). Look at your evolution trend:
Individuals -> Tribes -> Cities -> Kingdoms -> Countries...
Now follow the line of reasoning:
The trend is for organizations to become wider. The day many people WORLDWIDE are fucked up, because capital respects no country, and cares about nobody, is the day that you'll begin to see a push for a worldwide government that can regulate capitalists worldwide...they will have nowhere to hide.
Some thing will be governed worldwide, some others in a regional way, just like Federal and State governments can peacefully coexist, so will countries. But the shift will not be swift...
The other alternative is that 99% of the population become slaves or exterminated (less jobs available than people, remember automation?).
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:4, Insightful)
Electricity: Very similar to the phone monopolies, a little deregulation in some aspects, but still largely a monopoly with no choice of local carrier enforced by the government. In fact, in many places, electricity and water are provided directly by the local government.
Cable: Sorry, but if you tried to start a new local cable company, your local government would stop you. A quick Google on "cable television monopoly" reveals plenty of sources. Try the one from an attorney challenging cities ability to award a cable monopoly [cato.org].
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, wait! I propose that dead people get perpetual license to restrict use of their ideas. Do you know how liberating that will be?! That means that virtually ALL COMEDY (which traces its lineage to Menander [imagi-nation.com]) will become illegal. No more vacuous shows like Family Guy, King of Queens, Friends, Will & Grace, etc. Oh ye gods, one can only hope...
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: Corporations and their laws are more efficient at extracting wealth. They do not necesarily create wealth. For example, a company can be granted a monopoly, and become the most valued company on earth (Microsoft as one of the examples). But that does not create wealth at all. They are charging you more than they are offering in return, because you or your other companies have no other option than to pay the extra "price". And all other companies and their citizens earn less. The thing becomes worst with patents, as they can not only extract wealth from everyone else, they can STOP progress by laying mines of restriction on what everyone else in the world can do. That's not only granted by the pantents themselves, but by the assimestric nature of justice (big company dumps 100 millons in lawers and you have to defend yourself with much less...in effect).
So no, companies PER SE, are not better at creating wealth, only humans create wealth, after all, it's all our work.
Re:don't split (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well patents have been around since 14th century Venice, IIRC, and the idea's been around even longer than that.
But the idea was always the same. Both are intended to benefit the public. It's a roundabout way of doing it, but the public is the ultimate beneficiary; it gets people creating or inventing, but lets everyone make use of the works or inventions.
It gives the inventor of a work a temporary monopoly on what may be done with their work.
Only to a limited extent.
But what I'm talking about is WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?
Give me a good reason for giving an author or inventor any exclusive rights at all with regards to their work or invention.
Since they don't inherently have that exclusivity, it must be artificially given to them. Why would we do that? I think there is a reason, but you haven't said what it is. It's obvious, though. It's because it benefits us to do so.
That is, when someone says that they need something from you -- something like the right to exclude you from their work -- the one question you must immediately ask, and which will determine your entire course of action is this: "What's in it for me?"
Organized crime would have boomed at that time whether Prohibition had occurred or not,
Well it had little to do with the economy. The 20's didn't boom until quite late, and then not for very long, IIRC.
It was because criminals deal in the illegal, and the entire country had a great demand for an illegal good.
Hell, in my hometown there were no mafioso, what with it being a southern backwater, so if you wanted illegal liquor, you called up the Sheriff. He was the one that was selling it. A deputy would deliver your order to your door.
My point is that people have a particular way of behavior. They'll tend to stick to it. Laws that interfere with this behavior can either be sensible or stupid. Speed limits are widely ignored, but people understand the reason for them, since it's sensible, and grumble but don't object to the entire concept. Prohibition (though welcomed initially) was just stupid. No one liked it and in fact ultimately fought against it.
When people are fighting a law, and are disrespecting a law, that's bad. But people are highly resistant to having their behavior changed from up on high. The government couldn't force people to think that Prohibition was a good idea again, and so the government lost that battle.
The prime example of the government succesfully forcing a change in behavior was the civil rights movement and ending segregation. That was a titanic battle with no end of blood and tears and strife.
I am not prepared to go through that over fucking copyrights. They're not worth it.
That means scaling back the law so that it's within the realm of what's sensible; the realm where people naturally wouldn't violate it anyway.
Do somthing then (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.
I agree completely for but for different reasons. I don't think laws should be ammended/discarded to keep people on the right side of the law. I do believe, however, that people are voting with their actions. People believe that casual, not-for-profit petty copying of copyrighted works should not be a crime. Can you name any other "crime" 30 million US citizens are guilty of? This bill would be...no...IS the ultimate in violation of the oath of public office. These politicians vow to represent the people of their districts and they think that the way to do this is to ignore the will of the people, pay close attention to the wishes of their contributors. The politicans of course know what's better for us than we do.
Shifting cost away from RIAA/MPAA companies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Winners and losers:
Justice Department gets more funding, more cases, can claim to be "tough on crime". Winners.
RIAA/MPAA no longer have to shell out bucks to sue people, they just report them to the Justice Department. Winners.
Court system, clogged already, gets further clogged with 1000s of P2P cases. Losers.
US Taxpayer has to pay for procsecuting P2P file shares. Losers.
P2P file sharers now get criminal records. Think about all the losses that brings in US society. In some states, that includes the right to vote. Big losers.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: the move of copyright infringment from civil law to criminal law is one of the most nasty and dangerous changes in recent copyright laws.
Re:Write your congressman? .... (Score:1, Insightful)
So, can we now move past this whole anesthetizing idea that money outrules large groups of people?
Re:one solution.. (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need is to choose exactly what people want, not what people we want. Voting for people is no longuer working, because the scope is now too broad. Not everyone can know about everything, but if 500 guys can rule everyone, why cannot we make a change and force those 500 guys to vote what their supporters want (ie: they must obey their masters, the citizens).
Ubiquitous access to a network could solve the problem, the time for direct democracy is now...we don't need representatives anymore.
What I want (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were to actually take the time to read it, you would find that in the first 10 ammendments, those that are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, Ammendment 8 states:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
This forms the very heart of our concept of justice. You do not cut off someone's had for stealing a candy bar, you do not kill someone for a simple assult. The punsihment must fit the crime. How then, can you possibly stand by the current law which allows for a statuority fine of $150,000 PER FILE shared? That is CLEARLY an excessive fine. How can you stand by a proposed law that allows for 10 years in jail for sharing files? This is more time than they gave the people who stole (which deprives someone of property, something filesharing does not) my friend's car?
What's more if you were to read the Constituion you would find it allows for copyrights to exist and describes what they are. It does this in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 Which says that congress shall have the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
It is then quite clear that current copyright law does NOT meet that standard. The time is quite clearly obscenely long (life +50 years) and therefore not the limited times the Constitution demands, and it has been twisted in such a way (the DMCA) that it no longer is used "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" but rather to attempt to maintain absolute control.
The Constituion is above all other laws, and the rights, and limitations, it lays down cannot simply be legislated away. Federal, and all other, law is subordinate to it. Copyright law as it stands is unconstitutional and therefore MUST be changed.
So quit with the "evil filesharers" crap. What they are doing my be against the law, but it is a law that has become unjust, and just because something is against the law does not mean that the punishment can be anything a coperation wants.
As a final note: If copyright infringement is such a problem, why did the media industry make more money when Napster was active and less after it was shut down? (it's a rehetorical question)
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, while we can of course adopt a sliding scale for fees similar to that in the patent system so that small authors are subsidized somewhat by authors that register a lot of copyrights annually, I think it's still important.
1) It is a minor formalized hurdle. This prevents people from copyrighting silly things such as their
2) Copyrights really are just about money. Particularly given that per my proposal we'd be allowing a lot of noncommercial uses. AFAICT the only other thing copyrights might be used for is to deny other people the ability to enjoy a work. But by itself, this is spiteful, hence the requirement of publication. Copyright is intended to leave the public better off than they would be otherwise, and ought not be used to lock things up away from people for as long as possible.
So this could mean companies profiting from individuals who had not applied for copyright
Which was how things worked from 1710 through 1976, and there were precious few complaints about it. Obviously the author had the first chance to try to profit. He declined. Why should we then obstinately bar someone else from taking the risk?
You would seem content with letting perfectly viable works accumulate dust and do no good to no one because the author didn't care about getting it out there but perversely wouldn't allow others to do so in his place. That is miserly, greedy, and contrary to the public benefit that copyright seeks to establish. I don't see it as being what we want to have happen at all.
would companies be able to copyright their derivatives?
As is the case now, derivatives are only copyrightable to the degree that they are original. A derivative can never prevent someone else from making a different derivative from the same original source.
You'll have noticed this if you've ever seen those cheap-ass cartoon video tapes for sale which are of the same public domain fairy tales that Disney uses for its own cartoons. The idea is that inattentive parents will buy a non-Disney version of Cinderella by mistake.
Still, a lot of derivatives are good, and the existence of bad derivatives shouldn't turn us off to the idea in general any more than the existence of bad original works should turn us off to original works in general.
This could mean companies being able to use those family photos of yours for its advertising campaign, without permission.
Which would tend to involve rights of publicity, if they're using your persona to sell something. But it isn't a copyright issue. Let's keep different bodies of law seperate, shall we?
Copyright law is concerned solely with satisfying the public good. There are two ways of doing so -- promoting the creation of new original and derivative works, _and_ having said works be totally free for anyone to do anything with.
Don't use it for something it isn't meant to do.
If people are allowed to copy non-commercially anyway, why should someone jump through hoops to stop someone else profitting from their work?
Because 1) It is important for copies of the work to be preserved by the Library of Congress so that the work isn't lost. I _hate_ when works are lost. Not only are they valuable now, they might be even more valuable in the future.
Re:It's only "their" files (Score:2, Insightful)
Would your disdain change at all if it was your single file that was being shared?
Ignoring the fact that I *do* have files shared (GPL'd software to be exact), I gotta wonder, what musician out there DOESN'T have any of his/her files shared? Vanilla Ice maybe? Any file or piece of music can be copied instantly at nearly zero cost. And people like music. Therefore.. files will be shared. Just like tapes were shared and LPs were shared and thoughts and memories and ideas are shared.
People with your point of view, frankly, don't make any sense. Sure, in some abstract moral plane, everybody who uses the results of some else's efforts is supposed to respect whatever arbitrary rules that person comes up with.
But come on, here in the real world, the files will be shared. You have to start with that as a *given*, part of the assumptions, part of the initial conditions.
Do people like you *really* think that filesharing will stop because of some moral posturing? Or because of stricter and stricter laws?
My opinion on this is simple: If you want to share music for free then make music yourself and share it for free.
My opinion is equally simple: If you don't want your music shared for free, find another line of work. No laws required for that, no prison terms, no sermons from up on high. And totally compatible with the reality of the situation.
But no, here in the US of A, if you don't like something, you pick up the phone, open your checkbook, and buy whatever law you need. Throw in some hollow words about "struggling artist", "property rights", or "child pornography", and wait for the laws to pass.
Look into the future 5, 10, 100 years. Will information ever become uncopyable? No. The corporations will just have to learn to accept it and find something worth selling (like, maybe, a good user experience, a good selection of music, etc., etc, like Apple is trying to do).
I don't blame the people who do what comes naturally. I blame the people like Orrin Hatch and the record labels who insist on pissing into the wind, and then act surprised that they got wet.
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, because Frank Still benefits! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not? Or do you think Shakespeare's descendents should get a cut of the Folger's gate?
When does this madness stop? The guy is dead. His stuff should be PD at this point.
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is misrepresentation and libel. The line is crossed when you take someone's non-existant opinion and change it to suit your own.
You could, however, say "Kill All The Mud People, performed to the music of Frank Zappa" because that would be what you're doing (playing a cover of a Frank Zappa tune), I assume. Or I damn well *HOPE* that it's still legal to state true facts.
Well, you could in the US, that is. A lot of other countries have (stupid) "hate laws" to ensure such hatred is bred underground, where it can damage society much more since you can't defend against what you can't see.
Re:Same coin, different sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Philosophically, they enable each other. They want to separate liberty from responsibility.
-
Democrats/liberals want people to have freedom in the bedroom, but share the costs of the exercise of that freedom.
-
Republicans/conservatives want people to have freedom in the boardroom, but share the costs of the exercise of that freedom.
Then the other side claims the cost of freedom is too high, and uses that as an excuse to clamp down on it. The end result is that we end up with less freedom, and the costs of exercising what we have left are diffused throughout the nation, so we get to pay the price for other people's vices instead of our own, without even getting to experience the pleasures.[Lewis Black puts it humorously: Republicans want me to make money, but won't let me spend it on drugs and hookers, so what's the point?]
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm gonna take a second here and digress. If I buy an album, let's take an example from my father, so say The Wall by Pink Floyd. He bought that fucking thing in the 1970's on vinyl. Why the fuck should he have to pay another $18 for a CD. He already has the license to play the music right? So why does he have to keep paying full price? If he had his receipt and original and went to RCA (I assume that's the producer, I'm sure I'm wrong) and demanded a CD, he'd be laughed the hell out of there. So then it seems he holds a simple physical item, like a camera for example. But the record industry wants to stop you from selling the album to someone else, or even making copies of it. They want it both ways. I say, fuck them and fuck them hard. I really want every person on Earth to steal as much music as they can until these shitbags realize they can't play dirty pool and get away with it.
Anyhow, these companies, in order to exist, have to adapt. The law should not adapt for them. They have to provide attractive, high quality and available music samples and songs for a reasonable price. That's so fucking simple it's goddamn amazing that only Apple has figured it out. I think the folks at the RIAA should have all their money taken away to feed orphans and they get to live on the street for the rest of their natural days. They have been suckling on the teat of popular entertainment and stifling innovative and creative music for ages.
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:2, Insightful)
The analogies just don't square up.
Our society is based on private property, because private property is the bases for accumulating wealth, and accumulating wealth is part of capitalism.
You can always guard your private property. Bury it in the ground. Stand by it with a gun. Etc. But once you get to music, words, etc, you can't do that any more. You can't say "I'd like the world to hear my ideas, but I don't want the idea to spread unless I get paid". This type of "property" is not really property. It requires massive government power to keep it going, to enforce the contracts which directly oppose the natural activity of people. It's just a fact of nature that information can be copied. I can learn a folk song and play it for a kid, and then he's learned it too. I can't do that with a bar of gold. It's him or me in that case.
So, being a computer programmer and (amateur) musician, I can appreciate the feeling of wanting to call on the "guys with the guns" to help you out. But it's a losing cause.
If you don't want people copying your stuff, you just have to keep it to yourself. But the beauty of the free market is that someone will eventually step in and replace you. Too bad for you!
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:1, Insightful)
The wax cylinder eventually evolved into the CD, but the concept is the same. Sure, the experience is not the same as a live concert, but you get cover art, you get a "collectible" item, you get the nuances of performance captured for later admiration and enjoyment.
Now we are undergoing a similar change. People have collected many CDs (and a few wax cylinders). They don't want to waste all the space keeping them. People are more impatient. They want to buy music *now* and hear it *now*. They want to exchange music with each other, easier than using tapes or CDRs. And they are a little tired of the high price of music. When I was a kid, tapes were $8, and a new computer was $2000. Now the CD is $18, and the computer is $299. That doesn't make sense.
Digital music began filling that need. Unfortunately, unlike the wax cylinder transition, the equipment to make digital music was already available in people's homes. The music industry was slow and fat from CD sales, and didn't realize what was happening. So they got sideswiped by the P2P stuff.
But the P2P world is terrible. It's like rummaging at a flea market, and hoping what you find isn't broken or dirty.
So we see the next transition in business models.. first the business model was selling time in a theatre or concert hall. Then the business model was selling hunks of wax or plastic that contained sounds. Next, the record companies will sell a "music buying experience". Like the Apple iTunes Music store. Do you really need to go to Apple to find the latest tune? No, but it's a hell of a lot better than looking for it on kazaa!
That's the direction the music industry *must* move in. They must realize that the next logical step in this progression is that the price of any particular piece of music is approaching zero.. they have to find something to sell that is scarce, like a good downloading experience, recommendations from other listeners, categorization of music, etc.
Seems like a new business model to me. Of course, getting the government to step in and help out is part of *any* big company's business model in this day and age.
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
Legacy eh? So if it is HIS legacy, why would it be up to his estate to deal with HIS legacy? So she sees what in his legacy? Is it the financial aspect? or is it for continuing his legacy? How will the act of making it harder for others to continue his legacy (in a way) be good for anyone besides her and her lawyers monetarily? There is already abuse. The second one believes that they have a right to have complete control over a work that is in the minds of others and acts on his impulse to control is abuse.
I can only agree to one thing, and that is preventing lies. If someone is going around claiming authorship to a work by another or not giving credit where it is due, then it is completely undestandable when one brings the law down upon them.
Re:Definately the wrong answer... (Score:2, Insightful)
and really unfair to public transportation... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I think you overestimate how smart US citizens are (a remarkably easy thing to do). They don't think too far ahead. When it's really obvious they're getting screwed (like it was with Divx) they don't fall for it. But when it's less obvious (DRM in iTunes anyone?) they fall like a ton 'o bricks. And pretty soon broadband with be ubiquitous enough that they can start phasing out physical media all together. Heck, the Ignorant Masses will probably look forward to that day: no more carrying around 500 CDs. Which is all well and good untill you're paying 5 cents every time you listen to an AAC.
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA and the labels would have us believe that music did not exist before Edison invented the phonograph, but it existed for millenia if not millions of years before then. Music will survive without the recoding industry, or should I say racket, when it goes away like the horse-and buggy industry.
I hope that Hatch and Leahy both get voted out, and that people all over the world don't buy CDs. [dontbuycds.org]
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
All right, let Courtney say it again [salon.com].
The internet gives bands a way to finally break clear of record companies, and here you come along telling us that we need them. Do you work for the RIAA, by any chance?
Distributing CDs cost $4 [mixonic.com], you charge your customer however much you want and pocket the difference.
Recording [sourceforge.net] your [www.eca.cx] music [rosegardenmusic.com] doesn't cost a fortune, either, as long as you have the gear to make the music (which you obviously already have if you're playing gigs) and can make the basic connection from your gear to your computer's mic jack.
Any questions?
Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I agree with your response, you have missed the bigger picture, the one that allows people like us to keep living rather than decorating SCO's or the RIAA's lawn with our ritually-suicided corpse...
The law may side with the corporations (and why wouldn't it, they paid a lot for those laws!), but the current trend in P2P (as well as numerous other areas) shows that, put simply, the average citizen doesn't really give a damn about the law.
I consider this unfortunate, since I consider myself an "anarchist except that governments keep us all from killing one another". But I can't get around it - people consider the "law" the joke it has worked to make itself into. Sad but true.
Corporations have bought laws the same that we might buy the Far Side collection. No less, no more. Well, not quite true - The so-called "law" has the power to imprison those of us who violate corporate profit-rules. But aside from that, look at California. DEA? They've all but started an outright revolution against the federeal government over medical marijuana. Don't feel too surprised to see "fair use" come under similar terms in the next few years.
And corporate-vs-indiviual laws will follow a similar trend in the near future. The DEA just represents on form of that (pharmaceutical companies vs individuals). Next the RIAA will move into the next "necessary evil" position, then perhaps Microsoft. We greatly benefit from their products, but that does not place them above actual humanity.
A revolution has already started. You can ignore it, or fight in it, but if "we" lose (by which "we" means "humans"), you can look forward to a 1984-like future.
Pick a side, because "neutral" means the same as "pro-corporate", whether you like it or not.
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to talk about huge conglomerates screwing over the average consumer, you better be sure that the average consumer isn't fucking things up for those few honest consumers out there first...
Theft is theft. Peer-to-Peer is not theft.
If you have an apple, and I take it away from you, the number of apples in the global sense has not changed; the change is purely relative: I have one more apple than I had previously, and you have one less apple than you had previously.
If, on the other hand, you have an apple, and I clone the apple, the global number of apples has increased. You have not lost an apple, but I have gained one.
There is no theft involved in the 2nd.
I'm not going to try and claim to you that you're in the wrong here. It would fall on deaf ears anyway. However, if I asked you to prove that you're losing money because of P2P or whatever, you'd have to show that everyone that "pirates" your software would have bought it in the first place.
I.E. if I download a copy of Maya or something off of a P2P network, I know that I have done something illegal (copyright infringement), however, I also know that the company has lost no money from this act, as I would never have bought it in the first place.
Please remember two things about peer-to-peer:
1.) The vast majority of illegally copied software and multimedia files would not have been purchased at the asking price; therefore corporations in reality lose very little money.
2.) Very few pieces of software are worth the asking price, and even fewer corporations need the price that they're asking. It is this exhuberant overpricing that drives many people to download.
Case in point: It is illegal to download photoshop. It is also absolutely absurd that it costs $600. It's not worth $600, and Adobe doesn't need $600 per copy.
Case 2 in point: Windows. It is illegal to download windows. It is also absurd how much money it costs - $100 per copy. Times millions of copies a year. Microsoft doesn't need that money. Microsoft has $36,000,000,000 in the bank, in cash. If they never, ever sold another piece of software, they could continue as a corporation, and pay all of their employees at their current salary rates, solely on the interest of the money they have.
So, in closing. Downloading software is illegal. Fucking consumers is immoral.
~Will
Re:Regarding the issue of control... (Score:3, Insightful)
The phone company. I belong to a member-Owned Cooperative. We all get a check at the end of the year, after the money is plowed back into improving infrastructure. We are all shareholders, and have the same share. And we can vote or raise hell whenever we want. I have excellent phone/FAX/DSL/Cell way out in here in rural Alaska because of it. Sure, I could choose one of the corporate-nonAlaskan-owned services, (assuming they offer DSL) but I'd be stupid to do so. They have proven time and again to be unresponsive to their customers.
The electric company. Same as above, except if I choose, I can generate my own electricity. We've done so at our mine forever.
Microsoft. I use Linux.
Viacom." I think I may have rented one of their videos once.
My point is that we have choices. I turned off my cell and dumped cable. Unfortunately for many people, change is too difficult. I have friends who are on all sorts of drugs for 'panic attacks' and other maladies. I can suggest one month that will cure such troubles.
Here is where I start in the rant about how America had such changes in the 1960's, and then came the 70's, and downhill to the 80's (anything made in 1980's except maybe some music in America was crap-especially cars, heavy equipment, and motorcycles), and then the 90's. Now, something like 45% of the 50% eligible to vote actually show up. Why? What happened?
Maybe Tyler Durden was onto something.
-cp-
How To Change Laws and Regulations [alaska-freegold.com]
God bless the idiots... (Score:4, Insightful)
"But wait! Think of his wife and kids! They too must be allowed to benefit from Frank's work!"
AFAIC your kids get the money and material goods you made when you die. Nothing more, nothing less. All the "IP" you created goes to the world, lest we be forced to pay Mozart's great-great-great-great grandchildren for Requiem.
If Frank fucking Zappa doesn't want some band to use his music or image...he can tell them himself
So STOP being fans - they sold their freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
These musicians signed contracts. They knowingly, willingly, and eagerly, sold their rights to make money, to "make it big", and to "life the lifestyle".
Why are you fans of these people? Why do you give a shit about the content they produce? They are sellouts in every sense of the term.
They - all of them - are perfectly capable of allowing free taping and distribution of live performances, allowing free distribution and modification of studio albums, or releasing all of their content under one of several available Creative Commons licenses.
Just give it up. These artists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be "cool" with the fans, but at the same time they want the big money that only comes with selling their material to a big label under exclusive and draconian protections.
Any artist that tells you they really want their music to be "free" are saying this in spite of their desire to have all the things that come with big label money.
They obviously have made their choice. Their choice is that big label money is more important than freedom.
It is better to make music in your freetime, work a partime job, and make music for the sake of freedom.
This is why I have abandoned not just the music industry, but also the want-to-be music industry bands; in other words: every last one of them who do not release their music under a full and unrestricted copyleft license.
Re:Yes, because Frank Still benefits! (Score:3, Insightful)
This [cornell.edu] should answer your question.. It's a table showing what sorts of works from which years are currently in the public domiain. Notice the "without subsequent registration" conditions? I'm willing to bet that Gail is keeping up with the copyright registrations to keep FZ's music out of the public domain.
Don't Like It? (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone Help Me Understand (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how the RIAA can place a value that high on a single track when someone can easily get it from iTunes for $1.00. Any ideas?
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall. (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt this is only one of many cases of current copyright holders declaring a Jihad against infringers, where the actual creator dosn't have a problem (or wouldn't have a problem were they still alive).
Whilst some creative people are "only in it for the money" for other's it is more important to either be recognised or even simply bring enjoyment to people.
Re:Excuse me while I RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't purchased any RIAA products or downloaded any music for a long time. I think I tried downloading some music a month ago and the tracks were screwed up (presumably RIAA trying to make it tougher).
Then I thought to myself:
(1) The record companies should be trying to make downloading music difficult, as long as they obey the law.
(2) I don't feel any right to hear their music if they don't allow me to
(3) I really don't need the music. I listen to the radio and that's fine with me.
So, I just gave up. I like music, but I don't need it from the RIAA.
And I agree about the bullshit arguments. If you didn't create the music yourself you have no "right" to it. The artist could have made a CD and threw the original in the furnace and then NOBODY would have it. Instead, they found it in their financial interest to share it with the record companies, who pay the artists solely because they expect consumers to pay them.
And if you want to talk about freedom, consider what has been boycotted in the past. Very noble people would boycott the bus system and walk 10 or 20 miles instead of paying a faire, just to protest their mistreatment. That's sacrifice for the greater good. And nobody in the U.S. seems to be able to boycott some crappy music? If you hate the RIAA so much why keep buying?
the Sovietization of America (Score:3, Insightful)
Throw in the restrictions of civil liberties like PATRIOT Act, CAPPSI/II, TIA we were told would "protect" us against terrorism.
How much input does a citizen who can't afford to be a major campaign contributor have on the political decisions made that affects him? What kind of meaningful choice do we have between the GOP President and his "challenger", a member of the Democratic Leadership Council that changed the Democratic Party's political message to "a kinder and gentler GOP policy"?
How long before the average American citizen has no more freedom for meaningful political action than a Soviet Union citizen had?
People generally ignore laws when they know that there's no meaningful way to get them fixed. In a democracy, if public behavior doesn't fit the laws, it's the laws are supposed to get changed. If the laws don't change, something's wrong with the democracy. The fact that this bill is being taken seriously because the *AA organizations have paid off quite a few politicians rather suggests that things have gone radically wrong.
Re:So what is this going to do? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, if someone's taking photos of you so as to use your likeness commercially, that's a matter of publicity law _now_. Even if they took the photo.
Copyright would only be at most a half-assed substitute when you're talking about either a) photos that don't use your likeness, or b) that don't use it in a commercial sense, e.g. for news reporting, and in both cases where you took the photo, not them. And note that there is a matter of posession. How did others come to have copies of a work under your control in the first place? It isn't as though you're required to give away copies of p.d. works. And would copyright have worked? Something like news reporting is more prone to be fair use, you know.
often people who profit aren't the original creators
There's little to be done about that. The reason that happens today is because either the creators make the work subject to the work for hire provisions of the law, which are hardly a secret, or have signed assignment contracts (perhaps in advance) where they give up their rights in exchange for something.
It's not as though they didn't know what they were doing. They apparently profited enough to get them to give up their rights to someone else. Who are we to judge that that wasn't fair?
I can see requiring some formalities in the assignment contract or work for hire employment, etc. so that all parties know about this in advance, but I see little point in preventing it.
I'd be furious if The Sun or some other paper decided to publish them
But I just don't see why. Your failure to copyright them indicates that you didn't care about commercially exploiting them. If someone else is willing to take that chance, what's wrong about it?
Remember, copyright is publicly oriented, not privately. Copyright seeks to have works created, published, and freely available for the world to use in any way whatsoever. It's not something that's intended to help keep works locked up and hidden. That's totally contrary to its aims. See for example, deposit requirements to ensure that the work won't be lost to the public.
And even though my web page may be entirely public, there is a huge difference between that, and page 3 of the national newspaper.
Well, if you mean that sort of page 3, again remember that pictures of people -- regardless of who takes them -- may be subject to publicity rights.
If that's the sort of thing you're aiming to protect, that's fine, but don't try to stuff it into copyright is all. Develop a different regime that's better suited to your aims.
A boycott would flush this sewage down the toilet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God bless the idiots... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is pretty short sighted.
Take the situation where someone writes the great american novel, and their spouse takes care of them financially.
Now assume that the author is finished with the book and is in negotiations with a publishing house, unfortionatly, before a contract could be signed, the author drops dead from a heart attack.
According to you, the publishing company is in the clear to go ahead and publish the book, and make millions, while the spouse of the author gets nothing, even though they sacrificed much time and money to support their spouse. Why should the spouse be screwed out of their fair share of the profits of their spouses work?