Slashdot Log In
Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act
Posted by
michael
on Fri Jul 23, 2004 02:53 PM
from the push-back dept.
from the push-back dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 739 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @01:39PM)
Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be abused as well. 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 (and interests) (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 23 2004, @09:45AM)
That's just my humble opinion though...
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday June 24 2005, @05:12AM)
Beat him over the head with a VOTING BOOTH. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel | Last Journal: Saturday April 15 2006, @12:27PM)
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.
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.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://luther.ca/)
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:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday June 24 2005, @05:12AM)
Worst case scenario, in 20 years we won't have any personal computers, because this will outlaw them as well (any general purpose computer is a potential circumvention device and therefore must be prohibited - only DRM-shackled PCs will be legal, and I wouldn't call them "general purpose" if they only do what the RIAA/MPAA want them to do).
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.
Stupidity Breeds Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.thinktankdesigns.ca/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 02 2004, @07:07PM)
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday July 26 2004, @06:48PM)
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:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:5, Informative)
Orrin G. Hatch
Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont
Bill Frist
Tom Daschle
Lindsey Graham
Barbara Boxer
If Ms Boxer is up for relection, I am voting for anyone that has a chance to replace her now.
Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a major dirty open secret here (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.blindmindseye.com/)
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:There is a major dirty open secret here (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bmo-web.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 18 2004, @08:37PM)
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
VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @06:36AM)
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.
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:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.dragonmagic.net/)
And Germany was allied with Japan, and vice versa, which just made Germany an equal enemy.
Don't forget, Japan and Germany had a pact together through World War II. This is why we went to war with Germany.
Don't vote Libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 03 2004, @04:03AM)
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:Proportional Representation (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://luther.ca/)
How the hell do you do PR on a presidential election? Each candidate gets a percentage of the Whitehouse?
For the presidential election two changes would improve the system. First, get rid of the electoral college, make it pure nation wide numbers. And second, single transferable vote, instant runoff voting, whichever name you might call it - that would take away the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" argument. You could vote for Nader, but at the same time vote for Kerry. And maybe once people catch on a bit more, Nader might even win! Yay for America!
Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Insightful)
Flip, flop (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.cs.stanford.edu/~mwang/ | Last Journal: Saturday January 25 2003, @07:55PM)
See, for instance here [wired.com]
Why the change of heart? I guess sticking to one's original convictions is too much to ask.
Re:Flip, flop (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gh-sts.com/HOWTO | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:39PM)
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.
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