Other Tech the Senate Would Have Banned 264
An anonymous reader writes "A few weeks ago, Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the 'Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' (COICA) bill, which was discussed here on Slashdot. The main part of the bill would allow the Justice Department to shut down websites that it deems are 'dedicated to infringing activities,' without a trial (due process is so old fashioned). Of course, in reviewing the bill, it's important to note that pretty much every new technology in the entertainment industry over the last century was deemed 'dedicated to infringing activities,' so here's a list of all of the technologies COICA would have banned in the past, including Hollywood itself, radio, cable television, the photocopier, the iPod and more."
Photocopying machines (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading a story years ago about cookbook publishers being up in arms when the Xerox machine came out.
Their thinking was that the secretaries would be swapping recipes via photocopies and not buying cookbooks as a Good Citizen should.
.
I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too.
How dare you have a better product/service than me!
Why should I listen to my customers? They have to buy it from me.
Nothing else going on, apparently (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An amendment would fix this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing else going on, apparently (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An amendment would fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Engaging self-destruct in 5... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An amendment would fix this (Score:3, Insightful)
If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
i think they are treated differently and there for are different.
the individuals in the group would have the same rights as any individual - but the company wouldn't.
Re:I wish... (Score:1, Insightful)
This might be the weakest anti copyright argument I've ever seen, which is genuinely impressive considering how much I read this site. So, lets count the ways:
I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too.
In no way does copyright law force anyone to buy anything, thus it does not "guaranty" or guarantee any profits to anyone. This is made pretty obvious by the thousands of starving artists in the world
How dare you have a better product/service than me!
So by this logic, if I stole cars and sold them on the side of the road for $10 a pop, I would have a better product than the car manufacturers? And no, the classic "it's not stealing because I'm not depriving anyone of anythign" does not apply here, as it's irrelevant. I'm not talking about theft, I'm talking about the inanity of claiming that someone who illegally pawns off something they didn't create "has a better product". If you didn't make anything, you don't have a product.
Why should I listen to my customers? They have to buy it from me.
Again, no one is forced to buy anything. You have a choice between buying it, and not buying it. If they charge more than you want to pay, do without. We're not talking about food or shelter, we're talking about luxury items. Just because you want them doesn't mean you have a right to them.
Re:An amendment would fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
If i person gets someone killed they go to jail - if a company gets someone killed they might get fined..
Err. No.
Corporations and other such organizations cannot be charged with a crime, such charges are applied to people. The actors of the crime. If you commit a non crime killing, you'll be subject to civil charges, not criminal charges. As fines associated with civil charges are generally scaled to your wealth, the fine itself would be a lot loss.
The thing crazy people like to forget is that "imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist. Thus actions are always the acts of people. If a crime occurs, it's a person engaging in them. If a right is being exercised, it's a person engaging in them. Corporations in particular, and similarly but differently for PACs and Unions, the organizations exist as a formalized organizational structure to assist investment and decision making. When that decision making leads to illegal activity, the decision makers and actors are both vulnerable to criminal charges. In addition, the people involved -and- the corporation itself is vulnerable to civil charges.
Re:Nothing else going on, apparently (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does copyright 'guarantee profits' or prevent someone from having a better product? All copyright attempts to do is say 'if you want MY product, you get it from ME, on terms we agree on'. And make no mistake, the 'product' is the song, movie, story, etc, NOT the CD, DVD, or book it is contained on. You are perfectly free to make a 'better' song, movie, or book than me.
Another ban item to consider (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are perfectly free to make a 'better' song, movie, or book than me.
unless of course the better one is merely a massively improved version of your song, movie, or book
Re:I wish... (Score:2, Insightful)
TFA: Tech that would be banned had the Senate had its way to protect against stuff "Dedicated to infringing activities"
GP: "I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too."
P: "'I wish I could have laws written to guaranty my profits, too.' In no way does copyright law force anyone to buy anything"
?
Like, did the gp even say "copyright"? And even if (s)he did, does matter given the context of the article and his/her post?
Re:I wish... (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for when overly broad copyright means you are potentially infringing regardless of what you create.
If three notes are enough to infringe upon a song, it is functionally impossible to make new, non-infringing songs. Similar arguments can be made about other fields.
Re:An amendment would fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>"imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist.
Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?
Nothing except fine the company while the specific individuals that made the decision take golden parachutes and escape without punishment for their crime. The corporation should be treated as an object and nothing more. The company can keep its immunity but it shall have no rights; only privileges which can be revoked at anytime with a mere act of Congress.
Re:I wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
So is my contribution to your new work vital or not? If it is, is there any reason you should not get my permission to use it? If my contribution is not vital to your new work, remove it and you owe me nothing.
Re:An amendment would fix this (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that they can't. A corporation isn't a large group of individuals that decided to get together. It is an organization of a company that is typically owned by a small number of individuals (as few as one) for the purposes of protecting the assets of the proprietors if the company fails and to protect the proprietors from legal responsibility if the company does something in appropriate (usually). There is no good reason for a corporation to be treated as a person, as the sole purpose of a corporation is to prevent the individuals that make it up from having liability. Granting those people rights without liability attached is fundamentally unjust.
Corporate contributions to political campaigns, for example, means that someone in a position to dictate policy for a corporation is able to spend the money of other people without them really having any say in the matter. I mean sure, they could ostensibly sell their shares, but that just means that a different group of people are getting screwed. More to the point, that wealth was acquired because of the workers that make up the corporation, yet they have no real say whatsoever in how the money is spent except insofar as some of them may also be minority shareholders. In effect, this means that the voices of a few are amplified unfairly due solely to their being in charge of a corporation. In addition to these people casting one vote through their personal financial contributions, they are able to cast a second vote through corporate contributions, whereas the average citizen cannot realistically do the same. This promotes inequality in which the people with the most money and power are able to exert undue influence, thus increasing their money and power, in a sort of perverse feedback loop. This is exactly contrary to the founding principle of democracy---the notion that all are created equal abd should have equal rights under the law.
Unions are only slightly better. In principle, people have the right to refuse to join a union and can merely pay their "fair share" dues---the collective bargaining portion of the union dues without the political portion. In practice, however, the unions stand for many things, and there is no practical way for a union member to say that they will allow their dues to be spent on some, but not all of its political goals. As such, because it is a "take it or leave it" proposition and because contributions from a union represent substantially greater weight than individual contributions, members are unlikely to deny everything merely because they disagree with some of the union's positions. This again means that the decision-making process is taken out of the hands of its members and given to its elected leaders, again unfairly exaggerating the voice of a few on many issues.
I'd be fine with all the corporate and union contributions if I could say on an individual basis that their contribution must be reduced by 0.002% to account for me withholding my portion thereof. As long as this is not the case---as long as I don't have a vote on each individual issue---then corporations and unions do not accurately reflect the will of the people who comprise them, and as such, those contributions are a fundamental usurpation of power, denying us our rights as shareholders, union members, and workers in those corporations.
Re:I wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure you do.
Why should I have to pay for food. It grows on trees.
Really I do not like DRM at all but this fantasy that the cost to produce software, music, movies, tv shows, and books is pure fantasy.
The cost to duplicate them is pretty low but the actual cost to produce them is significant.
And you do not have to buy the content from them. You will not die without it. You are just not free to take it.
Don't get me wrong. The cost of DVDs, CDs, and EBooks is way too high.
But they also do not have to be free.
How will they know without a trial (Score:5, Insightful)
the trial is the process by which they discover if the website 'dedicated to infringing activities' and not just the subject of whining or attack by commercial rivals.
Re:Photocopying machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you think they get their ideas?
Sad reality (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing, every second story on /. is about how the government is trying to take away more and more Liberties and Freedoms that are intrinsic to the people and even those that are granted by amendments in a more specific way and I argue [slashdot.org] that this [slashdot.org] is what [slashdot.org] is wrong [slashdot.org] with the governments [slashdot.org] but over [slashdot.org] and over [slashdot.org] people fight [slashdot.org] me on this here, completely missing the point that they are less Free with every bill that the government passes, they are staring right at it and cannot see it, I do not understand this, but I understand that if even on /. this is the general attitude, then in the rest of the population this has to be even more pronounced, so basically nothing will change, people want to be controlled and punished and ruled by tyrants. People have decided this is what they need, it's sad.
Re:I wish... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the people "Creating" the stuff.
Its the people making money from it for money's sake.
-They get laws written to extension a monopoly beyond reasonable terms. (Copyright extension act)
-They use "Hollywood accounting" to defraud people who helped to create the "work"
-They kill 1st-sale-doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)with DRM and time limited ownership.
-They get the "work" broadcasted and expect everybody to drop everything to listen/watch the broadcast. We could record TV and radio 30+ years ago. Today we can even find someone else to do it for us for free and the MiddleMen freak out.
**If they would offer free DLs *WITH COMMERCIALS* I would rather DL that then PB versions.**
Instead I must:
-PAY for iTune$/Netflick$/etc
-WAIT and PAY for DVDs with DRM and root kits.
-WAIT and HOPE it plays again
Remember, they already broadcasted it for *FREE* so why should I pay to watch/listen to it, especially if I missed it?
If it's good:
-I will want a REAL stamped copy of a CD/DVD.
-I will want to see their concert (Oops, middlemen don't do concerts!)
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Photocopying machines (Score:1, Insightful)
4chan