Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act 739
An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET the Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch. It looks like the RIAA is making significant progress manipulating the marionette strings in Congress. MP3newswire.net states that if such laws were to pass, the record industry would become the new AMTRAK. 'Bloated and inefficient as always, but now a drain on taxpayers wallets and liberty as well'." Infoworld has a story as well. Reader CryptoEngineer writes: "Marybeth Peters, of the US Copyright Office
testified recently before the Senate Judiciary committee in support of the INDUCE Act, which has been discussed
here
before. In summary, she thinks its not strong enough. Among other things, she proposed scrapping the Betamax decision, which makes it legal to timeshift TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."
VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:3, Insightful)
This is GREAT NEWS (Score:5, Insightful)
And just in case they come for my computer, I'm stockpiling schematics, a 68000 microprocessor, 16 megs of memory, and a hard drive. If my PC won't let me run untrusted software, then I'll fucking build my own.
Screw the content Nazis. I don't fucking need them, but they need my money.
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does the RIAA have such a strong voice? (Score:5, Insightful)
This measure is supported by the RIAA but opposed by the tech industry at large. Why does Congress let the tail wag the dog when it comes to copyright legislation? Does Intel just not give enough money to politicians?
Tivo TV, or no TV (Score:5, Insightful)
I wrote to my Senator (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Senator Leahy:
I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.
I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.
If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.
I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.
I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.
In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.
Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!
Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.
Sincerely,
Honestly, I hope this passes (Score:3, Insightful)
Or better yet, we'll realize that we watch too much TV anyway and start reading some damn books again.
-truth
scrapping the Betamax decision (Score:3, Insightful)
> TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."
Perhaps you can write to your politicos, suggesting that a law which would have made every single VCR owner a criminal isn't really a very good idea.
I no longer care (Score:5, Insightful)
Every direction I turn I see something that I do in my daily life that uses technology to make things more fun or convienient are put up as "evil" and neede to be made illegal. I give up, I'll be happy to live in the underground as a criminal. These ultra rich senators and represenatives have no clue as to what the real world is and do not give a rat's ass about one single citizen.
unless a mobilization of the american public to scream loud and clear to these out-of-touch fools in the government our desires nothing will change and everyting will get worse.
I strongly suggest that every technically adept person learn how to do things secretly and quietly. Making sure their technology is hidden from the police because what you do today will become illegal and more than likely have a harsher punishment than cold-blooded murder.
I laugh when people sell things like this [scottevest.com] to conceal what they are carrying. But it looks like it will be required in the future to listen to music or carry anything technological that is not "approved".
certianly makes you disgusted. men like Senator Hatch in congress are like people stopping to piss on the constitution... they are an embarassment and abomination to what america was.
The "reasonable person" standard. (Score:1, Insightful)
In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
(Italics mine)
The problem here is that "reasonable people" are rarely reasonable.
wonder how he'd feel .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now it's only a small fraction of the population fighting this, or that even is paying attention. However when the RIAA and their lawyer start suing and the VCR becomes illegal.... the public will finally wake up. The sleeping lion which usually let's the government pursue it's own agenda at will, will begin to fight.
There will be calls such as back in the revolution days, only this time it won't be led my traitors to the Britain (hey, I'm Canadian, the yanks were traitors in my eyes
If the RIAA pushes too far it could become the largest cultural revolution seen in a century.
That, plus all the tech companies dealing with this technology will move north and I'll never want for a job - there will always be a black market for time-shifting and the like equipment down south.
Instead of us whining on slashdot, we need to inform and mobilize the masses. They need to know what their rights are now and what is being done to take them away. They need to have the will to pull in the line of their government, order them on the direction to take. Maybe even get rid of the Democratics and Republicans, two parties that claim to be different but are both the same cultural poison. Come on, give Nader a chance, he has some great ideas.
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:2, Insightful)
People erroneously assume that Nader supporters actually want the Democratic candidate to win, and are just (apparently) really confused. What I see is that the Democratic party so poorly represents Nader's followers that they can't even woo them away in the face of certain failure.
What the Democrats are saying when they want Nader out of the race is, "We wish no one would represent you freaks so that we would be the least of all evils on the ballot." I find it kind of hard to sympathize with that sentiment.
Here is my outlook: the republicans claim that if they get in office, they will destroy my government, take most of my money, and destroy my freedoms. The democrats claim that if they get in, they will destroy my government, take most of my money, and destroy my freedoms (though by different methods! Yippee!).
Best of all, I get told that if I don't vote or vote for a third-party candidate, that I am throwing my vote away and *thus can't complain!* Sorry, but I'm going to vote for the party that won't destroy myself or my country.
It's like if one candidate said he would shoot you in the right knee, another said in the left knee, and a third said he wouldn't shoot you at all. Even if the third had no chance of winning, I can't see the advantage of voting for anyone else. They'll both blow your freakin' kneecaps off!
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next? Are you going to make Adobe Photoshop illegal? I mean, I could use Photoshop to fake legal documents - sure they've made copying currency harder, but it's a lot easier to create fake insurance documents, phony immigration papers, false birth certificates and vehicle registrations.
But do I do any of that? NO. I use it to make a living. I use it to create works of art, which in case they forgot, is one of the things that makes human beings noble and worth anything at all.
I'm sure that a lot of people use it for nefarious purposes. Adobe would be hard-pressed to make an application that's useful and yet could hinder people's evil plans for it. So they leave that to the user and the criminal justice system - as it should be.
Same thing with P2P networks. They just didn't realize how very many people are willing to bend or break the law given the chance. What, they thought everyone's basically GOOD at heart? SUCKER! P2P networks are handy. They have legitimate uses. The most valuable one to me is that heretofore unknown artists can make their work available and with just a little word of mouth, garner a lot of attention and notice they wouldn't previously have had.
And I think that, more than anything, is the crux of it. The establishment has made hoards of money and holds a lot of power based on the fact that previously it was difficult to even make a minor success of yourself. It was like the old system of banks and checking accounts. You couldn't open an account unless someone vouched for you. Similarly, before computers and the internet took over, you couldn't be a success unless someone already rich and powerful vouched for you. (Or you were extraordinarilly lucky. This wouldn't preclude talent, but any talented artist that was successful under the old system will first admit they were lucky to get there.) Frankly, it's mostly the same now, but it's changing. Bands are putting songs they can't get onto the radio on their websites. Videos MTV won't let you see are available online. I don't have to listen to KROQ's corporate-sanctioned IDEA of alternative rock - I can listen to KEXP Seattle right through my computer. Rather than wait several weeks for the "official" release, people globally can get the media they want today. I no longer get suckered into paying $16-18 for a whole CD of crap when all I wanted was one song that frankly, I'd be sick of in three weeks flat anyway. Wifey and Hubby get 10-20,000 subscribers a month and they have a nice house and take fabulous trips. Mark one for everyone.
Early in my Internet days I realized the great thing about it was, that with a little know how, a small investment, and a few ideas, anyone could make a few bucks. Some with better ideas would make a whole lot more. Sure enough a lot of people, it turns out, were actually quite willing to take their clothes off and start inserting all manner of objects in front of a camera - if they got paid for it. Did anyone realize how many whores there were out there before it became so easy to set up a subscription site? The free market used to be such a sacred cow with the conservatives. Suddenly they've had the rose-tinted glasses removed and realized the cow's a three-input bovine and they freak out and start legislating the use of inputs.
OK, I ramble, I get off topic. Score me a -1. But the point is, they see things getting out of control. They see their precious status-quo shaken. And rather than adapt and take this opportunity to finally and truthfully get to know their audience for the slightly-slimey and occasionally downright dirty hos they are, they freak out and start taking liberties away. They only way they can see to staunch the flow of blood is to put a tourniquet on technological advances.
We've got to stop this crap or else we're doomed to live with Brittany Spears and her ilk forever.
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:2, Insightful)
And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either. It's a dog and pony (elephant and donkey) show. The only common theme is spending more of _YOUR_ money to add to _THEIR_ profit.
Yeah because Kerry is going to invade a country that never attacked us while repealing 30 years of progress on environmental laws and giving massive tax cuts to the rich.
Sure the Democrats have their problems (Patriot Act anyone? DCMA?) and they are almost as cozy with big business as the Republicans are but to say they are as bad as the Republicans is truly crazy. Do you really think we'd be where we are (Iraqi quagmire with the entire free World hating our guts) if Gore had gotten elected (or should I say if Bush hadn't gotten appointed)?
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you just feel powerless? (Score:1, Insightful)
filesharing == speeding (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The sky is falling (Score:3, Insightful)
So this is blatant evidence of political graft with wealthy individuals? Apple obviously intends for its media players to only be used for legal purposes. Mike Entrepeneur, who doesn't contribute strongly to political campaigns, obviously intends for his media players to be used to distribute pirated works.
Proprietary software vendors who produce media playback software obviously intend for their software to only be used to play properly licensed material. Open source media players are obviously intended to play primarily pirated material.
A proprietary software vendor who writes a network filesystem obviously intends for only properly licensed material to be exchanged. Open source distributed network filesystems are obviously intended to violate copyright rules.
Don't vote Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
First, Kerry's and Bush's ideals *do* differ. Both Republican and Democrat parties are fairly right-wing when it comes to global comparisons, but claiming that they are identical is ridiculous.
Second, voters are very unlikely to go from Republican to Libertarian. In general, Libertarians compete with votes mostly with Democrats, and will absolutely not beat the Democrats in the immediate future -- there are not enough Libertarians out there. The best way for Libertarians to get a vote is for Democrats to have a large, secure majority over the Republicans -- at that point, Democrat voters that are dissatisfied with Democrat policies will feel safe voting Libertarian, and Libertarians will begin siphoning off votes, and working their way up to becoming a major third party.
Third, there is a particularly disagreeable type of person noisily advocating Libertarian voting at this point -- Republicans who do not believe that they can get any centrist voters, and are trying to convince people sitting on the line between Libertarian and Democrat to vote Libertarian, as Libertarian is not a threat to them. The Republican party is already in hot water in two different states for funding and backing Nader to try to weaken the Democrat vote. I am not saying that you are such a person, but there is no way for us to know that this is the case.
I understand that you want to vote based on pure ideals, however, the voting system is not a mechanism to make philosophical claims. It is a system to place the next set of officials in office. If your vote does nothing, you have simply thrown your vote away. That is not because people are operating badly; it is because the voting system in the United States is not structured in such a way that is conducive to many parties. The real fix would be to move to preferential voting (personally, I'd like to see the electoral college go away at the same point in time) or another voting system that doesn't discriminate as harshly against slightly smaller parties. The problem is that the people in office have little incentive to change the voting system to something that favors the little guy. Again, I think that the best fix for this, if you really believe in Libertarian principles, is to ensure that the Democrat majority is large enough, siphon off enough votes to win smaller elections and begin pressure, using these elected officials, for voting reform. That really needs to be pushed through for a third party to be in place. Once that happens, the Libertarian party has a decent ground to stand on. Yes, that's a lot of work, and it's a way off, but to do otherwise, to imagine that the Libertarian vote is going to beat Bush, is just wishful thinking.
Re:Why does the RIAA have such a strong voice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they're out there talking to law makers while we sit around at home eating pizzia and watching TV?
Re:Honestly, I hope this passes (Score:4, Insightful)
People already have this experience in that most commercial ISPs include, in their AUP, clauses which make it grounds for termination to use in-house routers and switches. Everyone does it but, technically speaking, you're not supposed to.
It seems that in today's world the issue isn't about being a criminal or not. Everyone is, by default, a criminal at any given time. The issue is which people are more likely to be targeted as victims of a law enforcement system gone haywire.
Re:This is getting out of control (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds familiar. The *IAA cartels have/are doing the same thing. We need separation of markets and state.
Down with entertainment! (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what folks?
I am still alive. In fact, my quality of life has largely improved since I did this. A little bit (and I do mean a *little bit*) of entertainment is ok. The problem is that our culture is addicted to mass entertainment as an opiate. Put it away. Turn off the TV. Go out with your friends or work on something worthwhile instead. Get yourself off the hollywood crack.
P2P piracy is just a way to get your crack cheap and prolong your addiction. I deleted my P2P crap as well.
The great growth of civilization that we've seen in the last several hundred years is a result of a tremendous pooling of human talent and a tremendous outpouring of productive work. The removal of extreme religiosity as an opiate combined with the emergence of a strong "work ethic" drove the enlightenment. Hollywood is a new opiate for the masses and has largely replaced religion as a useless mental distraction and timesink. As such, hollywood is soaking up time that could be spent socializing, experiencing, and doing. In other words, these opiates soak up productive time.
A myth perpetuated ruthlessly by the entertainment industry is that you need "rest" from your "work." If you feel this way, it probably means that your "work" is something that you do not enjoy doing and herein lies the problem. You should enjoy your work.
I also believe in something that I call "productive recreation." Productive recreation is when you do things like socialize with friends, travel, study, or engage in hobbies. These things give you knowledge and experience. These are the root of creativity and the growth of the mind and soul. Shrink-wrapped entertainment gives you neither knowledge nor experience. It is a time sink that rots the mind.
I think it is time for an anti-entertainment movement and a simultaneous revival of two things: a life revolving around direct personal experience and a work ethic. Work hard, play hard, and experience reality. Turn off your TV and get the f*ck off the couch.
However, I do still have one guilty pleasure. I still read slashdot.
essential liberties (Score:3, Insightful)
Some days, don't you just wish that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution read, "A well regulated public domain being necessary to the happiness and liberty of a free People, the right of the people to keep and hear music shall not be infringed." How is it that guns are an essential liberty, but iPods are so dangerous that they must be outlawed?
Re:Flip, flop (Score:5, Insightful)
And John Kerry has..... what... exactly... to do with this?
"Flip flopping" is just a label that arrogant people who can't think for themselves [slashdot.org] pin on people who admit a mistake and change their position. Apparently, in modern America, it's more important to stubbornly plod along a known destructive path than to turn around and try to get off of it. Whether this applies to Hatch or not, I couldn't say, because, frankly, I don't think he has any convictions. He's just another one of the many politicians that moves in whichever direction the wind blows since that's most convenient for his political career.
There is a major dirty open secret here (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress first of all doesn't particularly care about drafting laws that actually benefit copyright holders in general, rather they care about protecting the interests of the big donors and their pet causes. The DMCA's anti-circumvention statute actually hurts smaller businesses by cutting out "consumer reports" style reviews of DRM systems. Losing 25% of one's potential sales to piracy hurts a small copyright holder significantly more than a large one. In fact, it could make the difference between having a day job and being able to get better at one's creative endeavor.
Hatch has been steadily earning the name "RINO" in conservative circles for his "Republican In Name Only" politics. The RP may not be too conservative, but he's a flaming statist if there ever were one in the Senate. It's also alarming to see many self-proclaimed capitalists support this measure, as IPCentral, a capitalist IP blog and Motley Fool seem to think that INDUCE is common sense. Of course, IPCentral didn't have trackback enabled so I had to email a rebuttal [blindmindseye.com] to some of their arugments.
At this point I just don't understand the record labels. Why don't they push hard to get people buying on iTunes so that they can turn digital distribution into an even bigger cashcow? They seem to be convinced of the "justice" of their cause, so much so that they'd rather be dead right than wrong alive.
I don't even need to boycotte them anymore because Century Media and Projekt make most of my favorite music now. Lacuna Coil, a fast rising goth metal band that stole the show at Ozzfest 2004, is signed to CM, which is not affiliated with the RIAA according to the RIAA Radar. This is the future, people. Labels like Century Media know the writing is on the wall, and that being a member of the RIAA is as socially acceptable in the 21st century as declaring you're down with people who gas Jews and lynch black people for fun.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupidity Breeds Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proportional Representation (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:There is a major dirty open secret here (Score:5, Insightful)
That has gone away. I wish all politicians would see this: STAY AWAY FROM MY FREEDOMS! This is the reason that I am more and more disgusted with the two-party system: they are both into increasing the power of the federal gov't. I am not. End of story
Re:Don't vote Libertarian (Score:2, Insightful)
My pragmatic Libertarian voting philosophy is:
1. If you live in a swing state, vote for Kerry. A Democratic white house will be deadlocked by the Republican congress. Political deadlock is the least-worst real-world option for liberty-minded folks. Studies of state and federal budgets have shown that a Democratic president/governor with a Republican senate spend the least and a Republican president/governor with a Republican senate spend the MOST!
2. If you do not live in a swing state, vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. In the 2004 Presidential election, in particular, even the mainstream media have identified the Libertarian Party as a possible Republican spoiler (ala Nader). Elections are won and lost by a tiny 1% sliver of "centrist" swing voters, not a party's "base". Just like Democrats take African Americans' votes for granted, the GOP takes Libertarian votes for granted. We should let the Democrats and the GOP recognize that Libertarian swing votes are up for grabs... for the right price.
Re:And here is his response (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite part is "Our experience with patent law shows us that such provisions work: over the years, the number of patents has steadily grown and patent-related industries continue to thrive." Yep, people like Teleshuttle Technolgies and MercExchange make the economy so much stronger. At least for their lawyers.
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides which, it's patently false that a libertarian vote is a "vote for Bush." There are quite a few people that would probably vote republican if they couldn't vote libertarian.
Re:The sky is falling (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a legal system that has, for over 200 years, been determining just this kind of thing. I see no reason to believe that it will suddenly completely break down if asked to determine intent in this situation.
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:2, Insightful)
Germany never attacked us- should we have waited to go to war with them? Oh, and Iraq did attack us almost every day between 1991 and 2002.
giving massive tax cuts to the rich.
Everybody that pays taxes got a tax cut. The only reason the rich got a "massive" tax cut is because they pay a massive amount of taxes.
Iraqi quagmire
The liberation of Iraq has been one of the most stunningly successful military compaigns ever. I was going to ask what possible motivations you could have to call it a quagmire, but I think we both know the answer to that...
with the entire free World hating our guts
So, you like to exaggerate, eh?
or should I say if Bush hadn't gotten appointed
No, you shouldn't say that.
Ubiquity sells (Score:5, Insightful)
It has to be the ubiquity and fun, because it sure as hell isn't talent [britneyspears.com].
So once they drop the axe on PVRs, VCRs, MP3 players, any type of recording, sharing or portable media devices that don't require retinal scans and call in activation. Once this new "Digital Lifestyle" becomes an expensive burden, they will start to lose money.
I buy CDs, usually most the songs suck, but theres a few on there. I know I can just rip the CD, toss it in the closet (or garbage), move it around from PC to notebook to MP3 player at will. It probably wasn't worth the $12 for the talent, but oh well its fun and easy. The first CD I physically can't rip/move or that requires me to call some 800 number to activate - seriously - people will start examining the value and quality of the content first and the impulse buys will drop. It becomes a hassle to enjoy the digital lifestyle so people will only put money in the things they're really really serious about, and that will impact sales a lot.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, piraters actually utilize their high speed access. SBC just wants you to browse the web, not download. They want users who DON'T utilize their connection to the fullest, that way they can support more users on the same t1.
Re:Flip, flop (Score:4, Insightful)
""Flip flopping" is just a label that arrogant people who can't think for themselves pin on people who admit a mistake and change their position.
Admitting a mistake is acceptable. In fact, I can respect that, but flip-flopping is something entirely different because most just try to slip the change in to their platform unnoticed. Watch, you won't see Orin Hatch (or John Kerry, for that matter) apologize or retract any previous statements even if they are "seemingly" contradictory.
Flip-flopping, for politicians is usually a sign that they follow the polls, and have no concern for the actual public good. Right or wrong, here's the mentality: "If 52% of Americans want me to say this, then that's what I'll say, and if next week, the polls show something different, then I'll say it too, because the public is too stupid to remember I'm contradicting myself. If worse comes to worse, I can always ride the wave of mediocracy and soft-money into reelection."
THAT'S why the American public hates flip-flopping. We like our politics simple. (Sometimes a little too simple. President Bush's "You're either with us or against us." comes to mind.) It's not that we prefer to have a stubbon, principled politician. It's that we DON'T want a self-serving weasel in office.
-Grym
You like the electoral college? I don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
You should be made aware that the electoral college is already population-based. California, for instance, has many, many more votes than North Dakota does.
The issues that people have with the electoral college focus around the fact that it is only a rough-grained representation of what people want. For example, by Gerrymandering (redrawing voting districs for political advantage), one can isolate all the people that feel strongly about one issue in a single district, and limit their influence to one vote, leaving remaining districts to be narrow victories for the other side.
The main reasons people support the electoral college at all are logisticial issues that I largely now see as solved. It can reduce the cost of recounts by localizing disputes, and speed up the amount of time until the results from voting are in.
Other political effects -- it tends to reduct the impact of physical areas that overwhelmingly feel strongly about something. This tends to blunt the political impact of, say, Mormons in Utah, since Utah has as much clout as a bunch of people in New York, which might somewhat favor abortions but not be screaming and raving about it like the Mormons.
Theoretically, the representative elected in an electoral college does *not* have to follow the vote of the people that he is representing (a rather disturbing thought to many people, including me). It has only happened a handful of times; perhaps ten electors have disregarded the wishes of the people they represented over the history of the United States, but it can happen.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:essential liberties (Score:3, Insightful)
Our freedom of speech and right bear arms is to protect us from tyranical powers of government.
Maybe its time to exercise our rights.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike this. The INDUCE Act gives the DOJ jurisdiction over prosecuting these "crimes". All it will take is a couple of otherwise innocent people being prosecuted for owning a VCR and it will be a bloody revolution.
At the very least, the MP/RIAA are going to discover that the harder they make it for people to watch their shows and listen to their music the less people are going to do it and they will bleed themselves dry.
I agree about US preferences (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush is a huge flipper. Sure, he sticks to (bad) decisions like glue, but when there's a vote to pick up by shredding a core Republican principle, he'll do it in a heartbeat.
He opposed the Dept. of Homeland Security. Big government, anti-freedom. Oh, polls were in favor. Cool. He's down with it now. Especially as something to bludgeon Dems with. (Who were for it, almost unanimously, and who were among the folks who originated the idea.)
Agricultural subsidies - statist and terrible economics. What - my base in the Red States is addicted to them? Sure!
Free Trade? Sure, unless tariffs on steel might sway West Virginia.
UN involvement in Iraq - "don't need 'em" until we do. Both dumb and a flip flop.
The stem cell position is as agonizingly nuanced and weaselly as anything a Democrat pres or presidential candidate has articulated in the last 30 years.
Bush has almost no principles. Those he has are wrong.
seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:essential liberties (Score:3, Insightful)
Because guns can be used to keep someone from killing you, and guns can be used (in the last extreme) to fight a government that can no longer be fought "within the system".
It's hard to exercise your freedoms when you are dead, and guns can help prevent death. They can be abused, just as free speech can be abused (a few restrictions on the free speech rights of Jim Jones might have saved his followers, for example). For that matter, gasoline can be abused (the worst mass murder I can recall was when someone used gasoline to burn down a crowded night club with hundreds of people inside it) but you seldom hear people calling for a ban on gasoline, strict liability for gas stations, etc.
The First and Second Amendments are, coincidentally enough, the two most important of the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech helps keep the political process healthy, and guns in the hands of citizens are the ultimate check on the power of government.
iPods are nice, but they hardly represent a crucial freedom.
steveha
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's OK for 1% of the population to control over 90% of its wealth? That's not democracy, that's unregulated business gone crazy. Tell me, what can an individual do with $10 billion that he can't do with $1 billion. Money is power. Just because someone is rich shouldn't make their existence more meaningful than mine, but to politicians the person with more money has a louder voice.
And when we installed "democracy" in South America to stop Communism we called it a success too. Now look how peaceful and uncorrupted their governments are. Lest wait a few years before we declare unconditional success. If Iraq collapses in a few years... well, FUBAR. Enter more terrorists generated by harsh conditions which will be blamed on us. "Entire" and "hating" may be exaggerations. It should be "the alienation of some of our historically strongest and staunchest allies." To be fair, you have exaggerated quite a bit too. That's very true. Even though he was appointed by the Supreme Court, Gore should be blamed for giving up his challenges.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:2, Insightful)
What about guns? As long as those are legal, it's clear that any of these laws outlawing software that could "potentially be misused are clearly hypocritical.
- "P2P apps can be used to illegally copy music"
- "Guns can be used to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings"
See what I mean?
You've got it all wrong.... (Score:1, Insightful)
The record labels are in the position of whale-oil salesmen at the dawn of the age of electricity.
The whale-oil industry undertook huge PR campaigns to talk about the evils of electricity... got laws passed to help them. In the end, they died like dinosaurs. The smart ones however, adapted.
Here's the REAL problem: Adapting to embrace the new technology will in this instance, as the labels know, make the labels obsolete in the long run and they will perish.
As many have noted, the labels simply have a dying business model, and suggest labels need to embrace on-line music sales and sharing. Some have done so. But what few people have realized is that by adapting to the new technology like the smart whale-oil salesmen, they are signing their own death warrant because the widespread adoption of legitimate, on-line music sales will have artists asking: "Why do I need a label?" And they will be right to answer that question "I don't" because the services (spit) labels give to artists (distribution, pressing, promotion, etc.) will be either 1) unnecessary or 2) practically no cost with on-line sales.
You don't need a label to get your CD into the store with limited shelf-space.
You don't need a label to front the budget for pressing.
And consumers don't need a label to find and develop bands.
Everyone else still has a job... producers, musicians, recording studios, roadies, groupies, etc.
It is just the labels that die.
They are desperate for a plan B that will save them... even if that means raping women and children and cutting heads of innocent old ladies. ANYTHING rather than die.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Insightful)
The VCR will not be illegal, the TV will not be illegal. What will be illegal are anything made with open source and not made by a large company.
BTW the public won't give a shit. They are frogs being slowly boiled and they don't even know. All you have to is to raise the terror level up a notch and watch them cower.
Beat him over the head with a VOTING BOOTH. (Score:5, Insightful)
This might be an excuse to start getting out the youth vote. I suggest the following add be placed by 'interested citizens' in his riding:
These ads should start going out as soon as possible.. Similar adds in the constituencies of other senators who are supporting this bill.People should start putting notices on their websites about senators and congresscrittors trying to outlaw these things.
If anything will get out the youth vote, I think that this will.
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. I remember all those iraqi airplanes flying overhead dropping bombs on my town. Who can foget the awful sight of iraqi tanks rolling down wall street firing at churches and apartment complexes. What a horror that was. Finally there is the image of iraqi soldiers walking from house to house dragging people away from their houses to go lock them up in distant prisons while the women and children were left sobbing in horror.
Thank god bush fought the iraqi army back.
Vote in 2004 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Can you avoid the RIAA? (Score:3, Insightful)
You Americans forget something: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your friendly neighbour to the north (Canada) allows filesharing technology. The Internet cares not for borders.
Our stores will sell gear without DRM. (It's cheaper to make stuff without it.)
You can walk or drive to Canada. If not, our stores will ship gear to you. Pick up a high-flow toilet while you're here - they're great!
Also, our legal system is loser-pay. That means that if someone sues me in a Canadian court and I win, they pay my legal bills. The RIAA's tactics can't work in Canada.
Re:Don't vote Libertarian (Score:3, Insightful)
Is a dyed in the wool big spender who'll only grow the government
but Bush's Republican white house and Republican congress have increased defense and non-defense spending WAY MORE than Clinton did in his eight years. A Republican congress can't say no to a Repubulican president (and vice versa). But do you think a Republican congress would let a Democratic president pay spending increases? NO WAY! Political deadlock is the ONLY viable (short term) solution for liberty-minded voters.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that lot's of pepople said the same thing about the DMCA, but here we are six years later, and the DMCA is still going strong, despite such stupid things as the DMCA being used to outlaw third party batteries & inkjet cartridges.
The American people are way to complacent to object to simple things like losing their rights. All the RIAA has to do is somehow associate piracy with Terrorism, and Americans will be happy to give up their rights.
Re:This is getting out of control (Score:2, Insightful)
And completely ineffective.
Vote them out to be replaced by whom? The only people who have any chance of being elected are those who get media exposure. The media is owned by a small number of very large corporations -- the very same corporations that are behind this bill to begin with. If you want to have the slightest chance of being elected, you have to do what the corporations want. Fail, and you'll either be ignored or you'll get a lot of bad press (like Dean did -- do you really think the "screaming madman" impression the media gives of him was even close to being an accurate and fair picture of him?). Either way, you won't be elected, because people won't elect someone they don't know about or who they think is a loser, and they get all that information primarily from the media.
No, sorry, this is a rigged game, and there's no way out.
Re:And here is his response (Score:3, Insightful)
This line to me contains the crux of one of the biggest problems while the whole discussion. Note that you are only a consumer, over and over again. Not a producer, not a citizen, not a fellow american, not a constituent, hell.. not even a customer. Only a simple a consumer. As long as our the members of our government view us all as simply a gaping maw waiting to buy and wolf-down the products of industry we will not be given equal footing with said industry with regards to drafting legislation.
Re:Beat him over the head with a VOTING BOOTH. (Score:1, Insightful)
I live in Utah, and have lived here for 15 years. Until that man himself wants out of the Senate, my guess is that he will continue to be re-elected by the blind masses here in LDS-land that follow the political directives of their church. Its a tragedy that these people are directed against thinking for themselves so much of the time.
But yes, we need to get more people voting, so we can those who would oppose Hatch's agendas in other states into the Senate, so we don't have to worry about him anymore.
So Stop It (Score:3, Insightful)
This is really easy to stop. For all we talk about campaign contribution and corporate influence, Hatch is still accountable to the people. If you want to kick him out of office, just get the voters mad at him. All the campaign contributions in the world won't get him re-elected if the voters hate him.
And none of the voters like this bill. The only reason he's getting away with it is that most people don't know about it at all. (What? The mainstream media isn't reporting on it? Shocking!)
So get the word out. Write a pamphlet that describes this in a way ordinary (non-geek) folk will find informative (think "VCRs made illegal", not "stifling innovation"), put it online and get people in those areas to print up copies and hand them out door to door.
Be sure to ask the recipients to write to Hatch et., al about this as well. There's nothing like a flood of angry letters to get a politician to back off.
Youth vote? What youth vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically when laws like this are passed, they are written very broad so that anything involving music recordings in digital form can be interpreted by some mean old judge somewhere as illegal. But they are always enforced very politically. Rich white kids will get away with claiming that their brother's girlfriend's old college Napster account makes it OK for them to download anything and everything, while black college students will be thrown in prison for downloading 80 year-old African-American history items from the Library of Congress without written permission from the CEOs of the global media corporations.
These kind of laws just perpetuate and intensify the level of institutional corruption already present in a country. They seem new and extreme for America, but it's just standard operating procedure in the third world. What's disheartening is the extent that the US Congress is adopting third world legal standards. Before the Reagon era there was always someone in the back rooms of the Capitol who would just say that these bills were Bongo Congo laws and not the way that we do things here. Now the corporations are in a positive feedback corruption loop passing dumb laws right and left.
In the long run, the effect of really dumb corrupt laws is to transfer innovation both in culture and technology to another part of the world where there isn't so much pressure from the government. The reason Hollywood became the world's film capital is because all the bright people moved there from the NorthEast in order to get away from Edison's crushing patents, back when he claimed to have invented everything and had enough money to hire private goon squads to bust up any movie or sound recording activity that didn't pay him off.
Sometimes you just gotta lighten up and let people create and copy, regardless of how many patents or copyrights your lawyers say you own. In the end, it's good for business.