![Censorship Censorship](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/censorship_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Copyright Bill 891
The Importance of writes "C|Net News is reporting that a new copyright bill, to be introduced next week by Sen. Orrin Hatch, will likely overturn the Betamax decision (which held that VCRs were legal) and threaten all sorts of innovation. EFF broke the story and Copyfight has been all over it. Don't miss the comments of law professor Susan Crawford who says, 'This is amazing. Now we're waaaaaay beyond contributory and vicarious theories of liability, which are court-created and pretty darn broad on their own.' Text of the bill here and PDF."
Powerful incentives (Score:5, Interesting)
Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive [opensecrets.org] in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).
Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be used to kill as well as heal. But since the rest of his top contributors are pharma co's he isn't likely to raise that as an issue is he?
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anyone out there noted that he is not sponsoring legislation to make sure that computer programmers get copyrights and royalties for their work just like musical writers and performers do? I think that if he gave one rats rump about realy copyrights he would start with the people who are being ripped off of their rights the most.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
-Peter
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:4, Insightful)
Writers and performers can get paid salary but they also can get paid royalties based upon some pretty strongly defended copy protection rights under law. The FBI enforces these.
How many programmers do you know who get offered the chance to write for retained royalty pay? Do you think you are likely to get offered such rights which currently do not exist under law? [NOT NO...^*!! NO!] Please get with reality here. Computer programmers are more likely to have their work last longer than movie actors and screen writers who most often get royalties for use.
My objection to SCO and others is not that they should get paid for their work, rather that they stole the work they are demanding to get paid for!
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Interesting)
To think that a Carmack-level uberprogrammer is somehow less creative than these worthless tripe peddlers is obscene, to state it publically with the conviction you seem to have is positively blasphemous.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, some software lasts a long, long time.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Informative)
-Erwos
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I remember the principled opposition to the Patriot Act by Democrats...um, wait. But they did try to stop Republican Bill Clinton from passing the DMCA...hmm. Well, at least they stood up against Carnivore, Echelon, Clipper, CALEA and encryption export controls. Actually no, that never happened either. (In fact, John Ashcroft was a leading opponent of export controls).
It is increasingly obvious that neither major party gives a s**t about civil liberties; unfortunately the Libertarian Party consists mainly of nutjobs and there's no alternative for those of us who value both personal and economic freedom.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
http://scorecard.aclu.org/archival.html [aclu.org]
For 2001, the ACLU's overall rankings were 74% for Democrats and 14% for Republicans. *Of Course* you can pick out cases from the 26%. But it is horribly misleading.
Don't trust the ACLU? Look at EFF archives [google.com]. Same sort of thing.
BTW, if you're one of the "both parties are the same" people, give it a rest and visit >A HREF="http://vote-smart.com">Project Vote Smart, a voting record site. Notice in the summaries that of the 107 different ratings, 93 of them had the parties almost completely stratified on the issue. Now, you can claim that you have a *mix* of alignment with the parties, but to claim that they're the same is just not correct.
Look, I know what it's like. I was raised a Republican. My uncle was even in the House of Representatives. I really, truly believed that they stood for civil liberties. But the voting records don't lie: when it comes to civil liberties, on everything but guns, they're just awful.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Informative)
Why register with a party? Here are a few reasons I can think of:
* MOST IMPORTANT: Being registered with a party lets you vote in the party primary in states that do not have an open primary. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS VOTE IN THE PRIMARY!!! If most of the Republican-leaning independents would register with the party, for example, and choose primary candidates that were more moderate, there would be less idiots like Hatch in the upper ranks.
* If you want to run for office, long standing in the party will equate to added support for you.
* All of the organization of the party starts at elected Precint Committeeperson (PCP) positions (in the major parties, anyway). Being registered with a party allows you to be elected to one of these positions. Getting elected to a PCP position means having some amount of say on party policy, especially at the local level.
* Being involved in the party by participating at the local level allows you to meet all of the candidates running in your area, and you can do your part to help the one you agree with the best to get elected. If none of them are good enough, run for office yourself.
FWIW, I'm a Republican, my wife and I both hold Precinct Committeeperson positions, and I am involved with the party a lot at the local level. I run the network at the central committee office and volunteer time here and there on various campaigns. I also contribute actual dollars to some of the candidates I like.
Knowing and volunteering for candidates is important if you really care about issues like this. You know what you get with your vote, and should that person be elected, they'll remember who you are when you want them to listen to why you think this latest bill is a bad idea.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why prescription drugs are heavily regulated, you cannot take drugs prescribed to somebody else, etc.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just making the point--prescription drugs have the potential to be abused also, but that does not make them bad per se.
Lobbying = Corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lobbying = Corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lobbying wouldn't be a problem if the US government would actually abide by the constitution. There are so few things that the Federal govermment can legally do, that lobbying would be pointless... this law, for one, is obviously and blatantly unconstitutional.
Re:Lobbying = Corruption. (Score:4, Informative)
And copyright is one of them. It's even in the original document, not the amendments.
Re:Lobbying = Corruption. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all about special interest and buying people out.
And about circumventing the process.
Should be illegal.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Informative)
1. Senator Hatch was the fellow who last year wanted to develop software to physically destroy the computers of people who download music.
2. One of his staffers cracked into computers of House Democrats.
3. Senator Hatch's website used unlicensed (read illegal) hosting software for several months.
4. Hatch also thinks of himself as an amateur musician, who is losing money because people download his music.
5. Hatch's son is a lawyer, one of who's clients is the SCO.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Funny)
Wake up Utah, there's something stuck on your shoe, and you're stinking up the country.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately he's not up for re-election til 06, and it is doubtful the Republican party will put up any serious contenders for his seat. Demos just waste their time and money trying for a Senate seat in Utah. There is one house seat they usually do well in, but forget the Senate.
As to this issue, I'm just waiting for EFF to put up an action center item on this, once they do he'll get a fax or three on this issue.
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:4, Interesting)
Congressmen, Sponsors and Product Placement (Score:5, Funny)
Hell lets stop pretending anymore. Lets create corporate representatives and get our elected ones back. All these probablems coming from the fact that corporations are seen as people in the eyes of the law. Make the House, the Senate and the Market. People elect the first two, corporations vote for the third and can't contribute to the others.
Re:Congressmen, Sponsors and Product Placement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:3, Interesting)
They backfire when all the people who have been extorted
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Powerful incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we are faced with more and more right-wingers who want to regulate our lives to death to satisfy a few greedy entertainment executives. Load a "bad" program? Go to jail. Buy a VCR? Go to jail. Devise an algorithm to uncripple your own media? Go to jail. This is the world that faces us, if this agenda is successful.
Bill of Rights? We're talking about legislation specifically designed to take our rights away.
Now, back under your bridge, Troll.
Are we a police state yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are we a police state yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
As 0123456 so rightly points out, many of the policies implemented within the United States are ultimately forced through in other countries as a direct result, so that American corporations can protect their "Intellectual Property" and copyright overseas as well as domestically.
And for the record, I'm more than aware that there is a world outside the USA. As a matter of fact, I don't live in the US. But that does not stop me from desparing at the actions of a government who appears to be utterly controll
So he's pretty much out of his mind? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So he's pretty much out of his mind? (Score:5, Insightful)
Campaign donations. I guess he gets paid just to bring this stuff up, irrespective of whether it passes or not. Just making the right noises to please his masters.
Re:So he's pretty much out of his mind? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or (and this is probably closer to a tin-foil-hat type theory, but that doesn't make it false), he is taking the extreme so much farther out that the merely ridiculous looks sane by comparison.
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Could this pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could this pass? (Score:5, Funny)
lol - if you thought Americans got mad when you went for their guns, wait till you see what happens when you go for their TVs.
Re:Could this pass? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Could this pass? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could this pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course it does no good to curse and flame at your senators; keep it clean and thoughtful. Here's my effort to that effect:
Dear Sir,
I've recently read that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is preparing a bill that is being referred to as the "Induce Act" which, were it to be passed, would make significant changes to copyright law.
It may be precipitous to be arguing against something which has not yet been presented, but this one is scary. Wrapped by the excuse of reducing the exploitation of minors, which is a worthy goal, this bill has the potential to wreck the development of software and technology in the US by making any product or service that could possibly be used for copyright violation illegal. Understand that this would have zero effect on technology development outside our borders, putting the US at a severe disadvantage in the global market.
What is worse is that this is a disingenuous attempt to place unwarranted power in the hands of copyright holders and, especially, publishers. If I thought it had the proverbial "snowball's chance in Hell" of achieving any improved protection for children, I might consider it. As it stands, it is a thinly veiled effort to further remove rights of "fair use" and access to technology from the public. Even assuming that was a desirable goal to a majority, this proposed bill would have deliterious effects of distasterous proportion to the freedoms of US citizens and our ability to compete in the world.
Please pause for a reality check, read what is appearing in the press regarding this and other efforts to undermine our rights and freedoms and take a very long and careful look at the true agendas and priorities of your colleague, Sen. Orrin Hatch. I don't know who's interests he is attempting to serve, but I am certain they are not those of his state nor this nation.
Thank you for your time,
[my name]
[my address]
Re:Could this pass? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Could this pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding to the end of
section 501 the following:
(g) Intentional Inducement of Infringement.-Whoever intentionally
induces any violation identified in subsection (a) of this section shall be
liable as an infringer.
(l) In subsection (g), "intentionally induces" means
intentionally aids, abets, induces, counsels, 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.
(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish the
doctrines of vicarious or contributory liability for
copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly
withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright
infringement.
See subsection 1 and the broad verbage. This won't get by, at least not without some serious surgery, because there are too many big companies (re: campaign contributors) who stand to lose from such a broad, sweeping change.
Also, beware of the supposed pretext - child pornography / pedophelia. Some people who are up in arms about these issues may see this bill as virtuous, when it's probably a pork barrel ruse. But I haven't seen any evidence that either thing is 1) correlated or 2) a serious, widespread threat warranting federal legislation. I've seen the same sensational coverage of abuses in the Catholic church, but that is a far cry from scientific studies. Surely Kinsey has done studies on this... but I can't find any clear web references. Maybe being armed with hard science about pedo could help fight the bill (and others using the same red herring).
Your Rights Online: Slashdotters to be executed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Might as well, since it seems only people on
I'm so sick of reading on
Re:Your Rights Online: Slashdotters to be executed (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't you do something about that? Spread the awareness.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill corrupt politicians
Re:Your Rights Online: Slashdotters to be executed (Score:4, Insightful)
You think CNN cares? They're owned by Time-Warner, one of Hatch's bigger contributors.
This is the problem, and the agenda behind Republican media deregulation. If your content producers and your media are the same thing, and have a government-granted monopoly, you control the culture. Instant police state.
This bill is one small step in Hatch's plan to destroy the Internet.
It's fine but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh lord... (Score:5, Funny)
See? Stop being mean to them. They're not corporate shills trying to control culture and take away computers. They're doing it for the children. Think of the children. Don't you care about the children? I, for one, welcome our new child-protecting overlords.
Re:Oh lord... (Score:4, Insightful)
I heard the "Act" part stands for "...And Creates Terrorism".
Sigh.
W
I hope this passes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not too sure of that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you thought the DeCSS lawsuits were frivolous, you're in for a new type. This would effectively ban the LAME-type projects that are source-only in order to avoid copyright infringement. Yep - you're 'inducing' violations by providing a means to distribute illegal copies of copyright materials. What about audio rippers? Well, if they can be inducing violations, they're infringing. Forget about fair use. All you need to ban some product is an example of its use for copyright infringement and a benevolent judge that would accept some broader definition for 'intentional'.
Also, this will be a generalized ban for any devices non-compliant with future equivalents of the broadcast flag in other fields. Maybe even selling the old non-compliant devices, as they're sure to be used for an infringing purpose.
I hope I'm wrong, but remember, if the wording of the law allows it, sooner or later someone WILL use it.
VCR's illegal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:VCR's illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Child Exploitation My Ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Child Exploitation? Child Exploitation? This has about as much to do with child exploitation as it does with farming subsidies or strategic national defense. The only reason this has "Child Exploitation" in the title is so that Hatch et al. can demonize anybody who opposes this as "having voted against protecting children from exploitation".
This is not about protecting America's children against exploitation; this is about protecting the revenue stream of a powerful business lobby.
Senator, you're a schmuck and a tool. The afterlife, if it exists, will most likely be a very unpleasant place for you.
Can't overturn the decision (Score:4, Interesting)
So while Orrin Hatch may be a sleazy politician, he's not the Darth Vader who will pervert and destroy the entire copyright system in the US. (yeah, yeah, the ??AA has already done that, ha, ha, +1 Funny)
Re:Can't overturn the decision (Score:5, Informative)
What I think is more important is the RIAA hired Senator Hatchs son as one of their lobbyists. It should be a conflict of interest. Since they can't outright buy the Senator, they hire the kid who will have a wealth of oppertunity to influance his father.
Oh yes they can... (Score:5, Informative)
Congress can't overturn a decision by the Supreme Court, thats a convenience of having a well-designed government.
Your "well-designed government" was designed by this thing called The United States Constitution, which states, in no uncertain terms:
Of course, The Constitution ain't the most politically correct document these days, and goodness knows the courts don't give a damn about it...Re:Can't overturn the decision (Score:3, Interesting)
This will surely induce me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will surely induce me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will surely induce me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Opposition (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know who opposes this in the Senate? They deserve a cookie.
Re:Opposition (Score:4, Insightful)
they dont deserve cookies they deserve votes and letters to them from you stating that you will vote for them because of their actions.
too many times we only bitch... we never EVER freely give praise and rewards to those that do good.
you want the senators to do good things? when they do something good, send them a check, and a letter stating "good boy!"
Overturn Betamax? (Score:3, Insightful)
Screaming and histrionics aside, I don't know how else you could prevent digital theft. For years, Democrats have argued that to stop gun crime, we must outlaw guns. This is common sense. Why now do we reverse our logic? To stop digital copying crimes, we must outlaw digital copying.
Re:Overturn Betamax? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overturn Betamax? (Score:3, Interesting)
Right? Or does Kazaa have non-infringing uses? Does a gun have non-killing uses? The question is one and the same: do you ban the item for its controversial use.
Here is a gun that was not designed specifically to be capable of destroying flesh [browning.com] - quite the opposite. With this counterexample I
Re:Overturn Betamax? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a Sony DVCam. I can record images of my little nephew running around, and of my trips and stuff, but its digital, so I could make perfect copies of things that I have recorded. I can
Re:Overturn Betamax? (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't theft. The original is not lost to its owner. It is, at most, unauthorized duplication. Which is exactly the problem that has been being worked on by the software industry, unsuccessfully, since at least the late 1970's.
Further, gun crime is an illusion. There is only crime. Whether I stab, run over, blow up, electrocute or saw someone in half, it's all still just as much of an illegal act no matter how it was done. Someone died. They
Re:Overturn Betamax? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you outlaw guns, it just means only the most hardcore criminals will have the guns. Outlaw digital copying, and only the most hardcore copiers will keep doing it.
Even if it was $1 for a cd/dvd/whatever, someone somewhere would still be copying and stealing it. Even if it was *free*, someone would rather download it than run down to the store just to pick it up.
My point being, that it is *impossible* to prevent theft unless you get everyone to agree not to steal. It's called the Social Contract. However, we are *never* given the choice to enter into that contract, we're *born* into it. Effectively slaves to laws we never agreed to in the first place.
Some people reject this forced contract purely on that basis, even if they don't know it. The teenage stereotypical rebellion? The black market? I digress.
You can make an infinite amount of laws, it will not change anything. You can imprison the *entire* population, and people will still pass around contraband. The only thief that won't steal is a dead thief, and dead thieves don't buy *anything*.
Broadband (Score:4, Insightful)
This would pretty clearly target the network equipment manufacturers, if you couldn't move the packets, nobody would be able to pirate this stuff.
This would pretty clearly target Intel/AMD/Motorola and any other manufacturer of microprocessor that can be used to convert this pirated media into something visual/audible.
The list goes on and on.
This is messed up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Legislators in Canada (I am not an American. YMMV) looked at this and while recognizing a problem, rejected the notion of stiff criminal penalties for this kind of thing. This concerned me here enough to write a detailed letter to the committee reviewing these laws in Canada.
Control over media devices has another impact to - it's about control over the PRODUCTION OF MEDIA. With so much news and speech regulated THROUGH the media, this is tremendously important for the future of free speech in the USA.
Sigh, sometimes I think the world went mad while I wasn't looking. You just don't put people in PRISON for sharing a SONG with NO PROFIT. There is this thing called CIVIL law. Sue him into the ground, sure. Prison is where you put murderers and rapists - not copyright infringers. I wonder how many politicians in the USA would see the irony if they looked back at the treatment of international patents over historical timescales.
Arrgh! Please, get involved in this process and get organized. DO SOMETHING.
Chilling effect? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but won't this have a "chilling effect" on technology? Isn't it one thing to go after people who break the laws, rather than going after people who might offer ideas on how to break the law (or ideas with other applicability)? I guess this is one of the reasons I can not find anything which will record streaming media on the internet, and I have looked and looked and looked. One of my professors has his lectures streamed on-line, and I wanted to copy it to watch it later, but could not. I guess with this law, if someone made software to copy that streaming content, it would be illegal. Oh well, less power to the people I guess.
Exploitation? (Score:5, Insightful)
What!!???
Using peoples' fear of child exploitation as a tool to push through draconian copyright measures to help BigCorp Inc. is despicable.
Surely this _is_ child exploitation.
It's bad enough that there are sickos in society preying on children for their bodies without someone to then abusing that exploitation to steal their legal rights.
Fascist Alert.
LDS Soon to Run Country (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LDS Soon to Run Country (Score:3)
I am just waiting for a polygamy thread to start up in this story.
In any case, if you live in MA, like I do, you already have a Mormon overlord.
Re:LDS Soon to Run Country (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm also disgusted by the constant Mormon bashing that takes place anytime a Mormon tries to do anything, no matter how unrelated. Senator Hatch is acting for Senator Hatch's interests here...religion has nothing to do with this.
I just sent my contribution to EFF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just sent my contribution to EFF... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I just sent my contribution to EFF... (Score:4, Informative)
I write this not because I'm a supporter of either party, but because I'm tired of the finger pointing. They're all doing it, most are corrupt, and only active and educated voters can change it. And here's a hint... neither Bush nor Kerry are going to be your friend in the copyright law fights.
Gotta love "freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)
US Ambassador sales pitch on democracy:
"So look, get get all this freedom in a 'democracy', but the trick, and you'll love this, is that you have the freedom to take away freedom. Now don't do it right away, give them 100 or so years and then start doing it slowly so that no one notices til it's too late. It also helps to get in bed with big business cuase oil or not, cash is king."
Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insanity (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more, it could ewen make learning how to build them illegal, effectively banning education in electrical engineering, the knowledge of which could, of course, be exploited to create digital copies of a work.
Aaaagh... my head is imploding... (Score:5, Interesting)
Giant corporations walk into a congressman's office, just flat-out order him to introduce a bill that their lawyers wrote that suspends the Constitution so that they can make a little bit more money, and the congressman goes right along with it, apparently without a moment's hesitation.
As far as enforcing this law, I cannot imagine in a million years that any standard of fairness would even be considered in its application. As Drummond states in Inherit the Wind, "I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy. You can only punish. I warn you that a wicked law, like cholera, destroys everyone it touches -- its upholders as well as its defiers."
When people who innocently use technology like TiVo and VCRs and CD burners start getting randomly sued and arrested by RIAA and MPAA members, I can only hope that the public outcry is strong enough to reverse the trend. But I fear that the opposite will happen, that we'll all be huddled under our bedclothes, shivering in fear that the giant corporations will come after us next. Terrified that armed corporate goon squads, deputized under the banner of protecting copyright, will break our doors down, confiscate our computers and home entertainment systems, and lead us off in handcuffs, we'll do anything to protect ourselves from them, even if it means testifying against a neighbor, friend, or family member. Boy, do I hope that I'm just being paranoid.
Not again! (Score:3, Informative)
He's been one of the big supporters of the Pirate Act [slashdot.org] (allowing the DoJ to file civil suits against file swappers) and the Induce Act [scrawford.net] (blog [p2pnet.net]) which seeks to hold those that "induce" copyright infridgements criminally liable.
Here's some more information on him [vote-smart.org]. I guess some people should just not be reelected...
Orrin Hatch is a fskin' hypocrite (Score:3, Informative)
and industry puppet. I wish the CNet story pointed out that Orrin Hatch's official website was found to be running unlicensed software [slashdot.org] a few days after his acclaimed suggestion to destroy "pirates'" machines.
Amusingly, an AC discovered [slashdot.org] that one of the links on the website was linked to a pr0n website as some /.arrs may remember.
Let's look at the big picture. (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think? Will we settle it this time? Will we have copyright anarchy or copyright enforcement? If we're too permissive, we'll have no information economy!
What a false dillemma.
Have you really seen how strict we're thinking of making our copyright rules?
Freedom and privacy are in themselves valuable. And strict enforcement of copyright is simply incompatible with freedom and privacy.
But, actually, neither freedom nor privacy are the most important reason to avoid becoming "too strict" about copyright.
Our _economy_ requires us not to be too strict.
Remember, our whole world is, and has always been, engaged in massive, systematic violations of copyright law. So let's look at why that is, and what purpose it serves, before we rock the boat too quickly.
For a minute, let's set aside mix tapes, and libraries, and the VCR, half your childhood singalongs in school and around the campfire - all of which are illegal, and might not have happened under a "strict" copyright regime.
Lets head to the everyday world of the home and office, where almost every other computer has some illegally duplicated software or media on it. Sooner or later somebody brought a CD or some music from home, or installed WinZIP without paying for it. Only WinZIP is the tip of the iceberg. Many of the most copied software titles are "programs for work." Microsoft's Office, or Windows. Visual C++. Macromedia's Flash or Director.
It gets copied because it's very expensive, and the people who want to use these tools can't always afford them.
This stolen software is used to do work. It writes school papers. It creates art projects. It produces other software, from desktop applications to web sites to video games (even some really big titles you've all bought in the store). It is used by the attorneys of companies suing other companies for copyright infringement, and certainly by the children of everyone concerned. "Stolen" media is present all around you, like air and water, in virtually every workplace, and in every home, used for writing love letters, wiling away hours in hospital beds, researching cancer, and even fighting crime and educating our children. (Yes, even police and schools have been prosecuted by the "BSA" - the software industry's copyright enforcement arm.)
Perfect enforcement of copyright has never been possible, or even close - so only egregious violations of it are prosecuted (big companies that could afford it, but chose not to pay, or stalls on the street - actually trying to sell the stolen goods). The rest pass by, unremarked, uncredited - often even without our noticing.
This stolen softare, present in everywhere, from the halls of giants like EA, Microsoft, and IBM (despite their own best efforts to stop it) to little companies all over the country, has been used to do work that made billions of dollars in the marketplace.
Copying, whatever its costs, has enormous benefits. It's like a magic lubricant, empowering our business and creative activities and enriching our lives - subtracting the mythical "last 5%" from the copyright holder, while adding 500% to the society as a result.
Imagine if a poor person could magically borrow a wealthy man's house. He could shower, eat in the kitchen, he could read the wealthy man's books, change into the wealthy man's clothes, and when walking out the door, get a better job.
Now what if millions of poor men could all live in the rich man's house at the same time as its owner did, without anyone ever meeting each other? What if the kitchen was always full no matter how many people it fed?
This is the magical world of "intellectual property" - where the very term "property" makes us want to protect our ideas as though only one person could possess them at a time. Yet we all know that's not true. Ideas have a different set of rules. As has been observed many times already, "Intellectual Property" many not be
Who buys his music? ($18,000 Royalties worth) (Score:3, Informative)
A past scandal in congress was over institutional supporters of politicians buying lots and lots of a book written by that politician. Maybe the books were in a warehouse or distributed free to members afterwards but the money was "royalties".
The above paragraphs probably have nothing to do with each other.
Attn Citizens of Utah... (Score:3)
First the DMCA and now this....
Sheesh
Typo in the CNet article (Score:5, Funny)
I think they misspelled "moron"
He may be getting money.... (Score:3, Insightful)
All that needs to be done is for the voters in his state to be made aware of what he is doing. People don't have a clue where this copyright legislation is going. Someone needs to start a campaign in Utah saying something like "Sen Hatch doesn't trust you. He thinks you are a criminal at heart. If he had his way it would be illegal for you to video tape your childrens Christmas pageant at school and church." and then show what is between the lines of his bills.
hatch = evil shitbastard (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-American Activities (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also pretty sure that he's got himself covered in regards to any possible charges of being bribed by lobbyists, PAC's, etc. He's probably too smart for that.
However, I can't but help feel that he is a traitor. He is un-American, and I hope that he loses re-election. The 1st Amendment is 1st because of its importance to America, and the 1st Amendment is America.
You attack the 1st Amendment, you attack America.
So, Mr. Hatch: ES&D.
Bookmark time (Score:3, Informative)
Let your senators know.
Don't forget the other vector: WIPO (Score:5, Informative)
52X RW Gutenberg Press (Score:4, Insightful)
Let my put it this way, in the good old days of the middle ages if you wanted a book, say the bible, you would aquire a transcription: not a copy. Some monk or whatnot would actually create the article by hand, painstakingly.
Therefore the idea of illegal copies was nonexistent - because it would take forever to make such a copy. you were essentially paying for the transcription service, not really the intellectual property contained within the work - if you were paying at all, that is.
then came the gutenberg press, a great creation, and fun to say too. Copies could be made in a much more effecient manner, but the consumer was still paying for the service more than the copies; after all the bible was the first thing printed - and unless you consider tithe a type of royalty - no money was payed for the creators. I think tithe is more like a membership charge.
Still, the concept of the consumer making thier own copies was unheard of - unless that consumer had a press and the expertise to use it.
Up until the 60's consumers didn't really have any good methods for making cheap copies of any intellectual works; books, music, movies. But then the xerox, and then the magnetic cassete tape.
Basically i'm saying that the current methods of copy protection are a backwards technology. you see, because the freaking consumer now has the ability to create documents that have all the quality expected. The gutenberg press is in every household in the form of HP and Memorex.
Copy protection, IMO is tantamount to sabatoge. It impedes the capability of the consumer to utilize thier equipment to it's full extent - in effect decreasing the functionality.
Money is a great example of this; it is vital that cash be as difficult as possible to copy. But, it is a chasing of the tail. you see, the money of the 20's can probably be duplicated fairly accurately via consumer-level hardware. Money is a type of proof saying "hey, this paper says what i'm worth, you must trust me because george washington says so"; but the physical document (dollar bill) can be duplicated - Gold, not so easy; goods and services likewise. In other words, the value contained within the bill is an illusion. (all value arguably is, but the value of a doctor in times of emergency is not so etheral - service and goods my friends; the only real values).
Eventually, if the hardware manufactures are smart enough, and industrious enough, consumer-level will match corporate-level in every aspect.
Already, consumer-level music is oft-times better than corporate-level; likewise with movies; and likewise with software (read: consumers created linux).
Copy protection should be illegal.
Only one infraction by Senator Hatch (Score:5, Insightful)
Copy machines? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other Infringing Products (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then, next we should be banning:
1. Cameras - they can be used to take pictures of infringing or unlawful material.
2. Tape Recorders - they can be used to produce an audio copy of infringing or unlawful material.
3. Cell Phones - they can transmit infringing or unlawful material.
4. Magazines - in case anybody prints infringing or unlawful material.
5. Books - see point 4.
6. The internet as a whole - transmission of infringing or unlawful material.
...
I know I'm exagerating a bit, but it seems to me this law is like trying to kill a fly with a nuclear bomb - you'll get the desired effect, but totaly blow away things you did not intend to do. I feel innovation will be stifled because companies will be afraid of "possible infringement" and don't want to be liable.
I only hope that Congress wakes up and sees the impact of this law ... but I'm not holding my breath.
Re:Can someone tell me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:When does this fucker's term expire? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:When does this fucker's term expire? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if Hatch were up for re-election in November, he might get the boot (even in the ultra-conservative state of Utah). But his term isn't up until 2006. There is a good Democrat running against him then, I wish I could remember his name, that might have a shot. But I am just worried that with 2 years left to go, Hatch has plenty of time to do some positive PR work to help his image.
Re:a short rejoinder (Score:3)
Dude, he's a Mormon. He does not believe in Physics, Science and Evolution :)