Music Owners' Listening Rights Act 132
slashdoter writes: "EFF has some info on a new bill before Congress. The
Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000
says that you can use the internet to move music as long as you own the CD. You can
read the story
at the EFF website." The
360-word bill
would have cut the my.mp3.com lawsuit off at the knees, so naturally
mp3.com likes it;
if it passes, mp3.com might even discover its
missing backbone.
So check to see whether your Congressperson is
on the House Judiciary Committee; if so, since that's where the bill is, your opinion can have some real leverage.
Send email!
slashdoter continues: "And on a side note, I just received my welcome letter from the EFF and was angered to find I was only member #11420. After 10 years that's all they have. Come on, as a student it only cost me $20(US). Words are nice but money speaks."
On another side note: civil-rights-wise, it's ironic that this bill's author also introduced H.R. 1081, a silly thing that died in committee. A hate-crime law with stiff penalties for flag-bashing.
how would this affect services like napster? (Score:1)
unlike the mp3.com service that would somehow make users prove that they owned the CDs, the napster service is not able to verify that a user had a particular CD that they are sharing. But still, would this silence the RIAA?
Send SKYWRITERS! (Score:3)
Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
Ok, how do I prove that I own it?
My MP3.com's solution of testing once for the physical presence of the CD is not adequate. Because I can:
1. Borrow the CD from the library, "prove" that I own it, and then return it
2. Buy the CD from a store, prove than I own it, and then return it for a refund.
3. Borrowing CD's from a friend. Similar to #1.
4. I may NOT get credit for the recording when I own it, but not on CD. How do I prove that I own the record?
The only way around #1-#3 is to request that the requestor show to provide the CD each time, defeating the point of convenience.
Re:republican support? (Score:1)
I think that Democrat is in for a big larting at the next convention....
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
One thing to remember, slashdotters, is that this bill is still in commitee. This is where language is tweaked, stroked, twiddled, and otherwise tinkered-with, until it is to the liking of the committee or deemed unworkable. IOW, there's a lot of work ahead for this thing to get through. Unfortunately, my congressman is dead (Bruce Vento), and even if he weren't, he wasn't on the Judiciary committee, so I can't tell him to make sure it isn't gutted. If yours is, it's not enough to tell him (or her) that you want it to pass. You need to be very clear about why it is important, or it's quite possible they'll pass a version that makes it infeasibile(un-?) for anyone to take advantage of it, and then say, "Hey, I passed that bill you wanted!" No Bait-and-Switch!
Re:"Nondramatical musical work"? (Score:1)
Depends on the freedom - (Score:1)
Don't give the Republicans a halo just yet. Maybe they are hands off concerning economic freedom but let's not forget who sponsers the bills for mandatory internet filters in schools and libraries, prayer in schools, flag-burning amendments, and bans on pornography. Each of the major parties advocates some form of socialism - the Democrats want economic socialism and the Republicans want cultural socialism. The Libertarians are the only ones who want true freedoms across the board.
-------
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
the party is more important than the man
the man is more important than anything. when you start giving up your own beliefs for any group, you become a simple minded fool. The US was founded on the public for the good of the individual. not the other way around. It's pretty funny, though, for you to say that Bush or Gore would be okey-fucking-dokey in office just because of the fact that they'd sort of stick to an extremely loose set of standards set by other rich tax-raisers.
Oh well, at least Republicans are admitting that Bush is a fuckwit and that they're just voting republican because they believe that baby's shouldn't be slaughtered in the woom. but once you've been born, you're on your own fuck-o.
me? i'll be either voting Nader or writing in McCain. The two party system influences me about as much as race influences who my friends are.
BTW - assuming precedence, this post will be moderated up to 4.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Shareholders are wrong (Score:1)
The truly absurd thing about the whole lawsuit fiasco is the question between "my bits" and "their bits". The only true place that "my bits" are kept when I purchase a CD is on the CD itself. Whether I use "their bits" stored on MP3.com's servers or copy "my bits" and store them in my MyPlay locker, I'm not using the original bits. I would always be streaming copied bits. I think this is the biggest failing of the courts thus far, to not recognize that their is no distinction between "their bits" and "my bits". There are only "bits".
And this obviously begs the question of what's to stop me from ripping a friend's CD and then uploading those MP3s to my MyPlay locker? How does actually uploading MP3s prove ownership any more or less than using the Beam-It techonology. The bottom line is that neither company has "proof" that I truly own the music that I want to access. Yet one method is legal and the other is not. "My bits" vs. "their bits".
For these reasons, I cannot honestly believe that MP3.com was consciously committing copyright infringement, as the record companies maintain. They had a business model that made it legitimately easier for the user to use their service. I use both and would much rather "beam" my CDs than rip, encode, and upload.
-------
Re:fight for this (Score:1)
I would mod this up but I already have posted to this story. BTW I got 3 points for submiting this story so I can take a hit here.
________
Re:Depends on the freedom - (Score:2)
Don't give the Republicans a halo just yet. ...
Oh, there is no question the Republic party is far from perfect. The religious right is definitely a pain in the butt. "Prayer in schools" is particularly irritating to me. But all freedom begins with economic freedom, and the religious right makes a lot of noise, but fortunately doesn't have that much power in the party.
One issue I will defend them on is mandatory filters in schools and libraries. I realize reasonable people can disagree on this, but I think the key point is "public places". People in public have a right to a reasonably non-threatening invironment, and I don't think it's unreasonable to attempt to block severely offensive material. For example, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that my little girl should be able to go to the library without teenage boys bringing up women having sex with animals as a joke. For some reason, people think that if the filters can't be perfect, then they're useless. As long as they stop most of the behavior, or make it difficult enough that it's not worth messing with, then that's good enough.
As for the Libertarian party, I like a lot of what they believe in, but unfortunately the party is full of extremists who believe that one set of principles is always applicable in all circumstances. The most telling debate I ever had with a Libertarian is one guy who advocated that people should be able to shoot guns at other people, and in fact had the perfect right to do so -- until he actually hit someone. You see, you have the right to do anything you want until it infringes on someone else's rights, and his infringement didn't begin until he hit someone.
I've had Libertarians tell me that weapons should be absolutely unrestricted. Howitzer on your house? No problem. Personal nuke? Yup -- it's your right, as long as you don't set it off (thus infringing on other's rights).
That's the problem with Libertarianism in a nutshell. It's all based on negative feedback. If you crack down hard enough on crime, then crime ceases. The flaw in that reasoning is that it assumes people are perfectly rational, and people simply aren't.
Now, I will grant you those examples are extreme cases, and I believe (hope) that the rank-and-file libertarian believes that some preventative limits on personal freedom is necessary to prevent total anarchy. But if you look at other, more minor, things, you find the same thread of problems in the philosophy. All negative feedback, no willingness to do some preventative measures.
Not to mention that they advocate going back to the Gold Standard, which is just insane, 19th century thinking. :)
--
But how about descrambling music? (Score:1)
(Note: replace the references to Julie Andrews [julieandrews.co.uk] with your favorite artists if necessary.)
Suppose Julie Andrews is going to record a new album (she can sing a bit... just one second more...), and the record label is going to use SDMI [hacksdmi.com] to "secure" the music on CD. Suppose the only software that can read SDMI-secured CDs are for Windoze and Macs.
Suppose the online copies of the Julie Andrews album is released in Windows Media format [windowsmedia.com] rather than something useful like Vorbis [vorbis.com].
Does that mean I'm shit out of luck if I'm using Linux and looking for "street legal" SDMI-compliant software (with the RIAA pulling the Intervideo defense [slashdot.org] to shut us up)?
Will the RIAA get MP5-armed agents to do a "shoot to kill" at the next Jon Johansen?
Will the SDMI ever be used in the first place to create "racism by reason of operating system?"
Trivia: Ms. Andrews' case against the doctor who wrecked her voice would have been handled by Lewis A. Kaplan if it weren't for the doctor's settlement.
Re:This is good, but... (Score:2)
Not true. It takes a surprisingly small number of people to exert a great deal of influence on a politician. At the Congressional level, they know that for every letter they get, there are thousands of other people who feel the same way. A friend of mine in the PR business orchestrated a campaign among friends and acquaintences to influence the city council of a major California city. With only a couple dozen people writing and faxing, she had the entire council discussing the matter within a couple of days. Do indeed write to your congressbeing, because even a single letter carries a tremendous amount of weight.
Not Redundant (Score:4)
Yes, you already have the right to listen to your music, make mp3s, send it to yourself over the 'Net, etc. But...
That part is a completely new right which does not currently exist. This basically closes the technicality whereby RIAA kicked mp3.com's ass.
---
Supporting the EFF (Score:2)
At first I was discouraged to join since I saw that they would lose 4% of my transaction by using a credit card, but then I figured I was going for a slightly above-average (average donation is $65) contribution, so the small amount that was given to visa was less significant.
If you've been thinking about joining the EFF [eff.org], just go ahead and do it. Even if you can't or don't want to select one of their pre-defined amounts, send them $5 or something... We're at a very pivotal point in history here. 200 years from now, we will look back at this as a very defining moment in the development of our technology and government.
Every major group of people with a strong interest in a particular aspect of society needs an organization to represent them in our government, and the EFF is that organization for the geeks.
If you're interested in what they have done for us so far, and what they are working on, go to http://www.eff.org/archive.html [eff.org].
--
EFF Member #11254
Re:Something to point out... (Score:3)
Wow, it's nice to see that someone else realizes this. It doesn't take much to see that the entire presidential campaign (and, indeed, many other political canidates) is full of complete idiots. I don't particularily like Bush, but the Republican platform most accurately describes my views, so there you go. Whatever your political stance is, people, remember that the canidates will generally toe the party line; vote based on platforms rather than the mindless mudslinging.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
or....He's 12.
Any Democrats that agree with me here and hate this guy simply because he's a republican. Fuck you....you don't get it either.
--
The man is more important than the party. The Keg is Almost dry. Vote on who's going to go get more beer.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
Isn't that a reason to vote Libertarian [harrybrowne.com], not Republican? In my opinion, that three Republicans sponsored this bill (along with the Democrat) might as well be coincidence, as it seems like both major parties are singing the same tune. If you really care strongly about Freedom vs. Socialism, either vote Libertarian or vote Socialist -- don't fool yourself into thinking that the Republicans are the protectors of our liberties any more than the Democrats are.
My Representitive's take on HR 5276 (Score:1)
fight for this (Score:2)
________
Re:current settlements (Score:1)
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:E-mail bad; Snail mail good (Score:2)
For reference, I am a Libertarian, since a Libertarian is the only person you can really trust with protecting your rights. I do also send in snail mail letters, if the issue is particularly important to me. It only takes 10 minutes to print something out and write an address on an envelope. Phone calls are also a good way to reach your reps.
-
A 360-word bill? (Score:3)
--
The EFF has some great suggestions (Score:1)
current settlements (Score:2)
I can see why Mp3.com likes it (Score:1)
Just a quick side curiousity, who has the patent on this?
This seems pretty sparse to be enacted, are many other bills this succinct?
--
Re:An Outrage! (Score:1)
First, the music belongs to the person or people who wrote it. They get residuals every time the song is recorded, sold, and played. Sometimes this is the artist, sometimes a third-party songwriter. It all depends. Read the liner notes to see who owns the songwriting credits.
Second, the music belongs to whoever holds the release rights to it. Often times this is the music company (which is why Prince waged his protest, BTW), but this is not necessarily so. This is also the reason many artists start their own record labels - to have control over how and when the music is released, originally, and on compilation albums. Most times the record company will own the recording rights initially, though in some cases the artist merely cedes the right to first release to the record company and retains the right to re-release the songs after a certain period of time. This is akin to deal authors strike which allow them to distribute their own writings overseas, or in reprint form, as they wish.
Thirdly, the music belongs to whoever purchases it, to a degree. There are already laws and case precedent regarding this.
In each case, a different aspect of the music is owned by a different person. I think it would behoove all the music fans out there to learn a bit about what happens with music when it is produced, which will make us much better at arguing the points we need to argue.
-Jimmie
PS. As an amateur musician moving toward professional songwriting, I can tell you, the money is in writing most of the time.
This is the right way (Score:1)
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
Deo
This looks pretty good, but.... (Score:4)
I have a sad feeling that if this makes it to law (and I'm going to snail-mail my congressman) that it'll be twisted such that only the proprietary systems of the RIAA will be considered "proof." Meaning woe to those who buy CDs and don't get the keycode or something similarly (inappropriately) lowtech that gets shipped with it...
or, worse, unique identifiers per CD, to defeat those who would buy, BeamIt, and then return the CD... said CD is back off the market, there go Joe User's priveleges. Ok, maybe that's a valid use, but how in god's name can you say they wouldn't then use it to do some serious tracking.... don't play Bobby's CD in Judy's CD player, or the authorities will be notified!
Paranoia is fun. Eep.
dodododoooo... (Score:1)
------------------------
Re:fight for this (Score:2)
Virtual CDs (Score:1)
- price of media
- price of production
- price of distribution
- profit for record company
- fee to some copyright organization
- sales tax
Now when you could buy a virtual CD, something like a legal ownership of the music, then you could download and use the mp3 legally. I am pretty sure that price of CD without the first 3 components and with reduced 4th one would go into more than affordable range. Then mp3.com could provide this service of selling virtual CDs to gain legal permit to the songsEx Post Facto (Score:1)
This law would have no effect on MP3 since there actions were illegal at the time. Constitutionally, you can't have a law take place retroactively. This is done to protect people, so that (for lack of a better example) if abortion was made illegal today, doctors couldn't be prosecuted for what they did last year.
Some sort of amnesty could be arranged, but I doubt it in this case.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:3)
Wow, it's nice to see that someone else realizes this.
I know, and we're in the minority. Unfortunately, it's very counter-intuitive to a lot of people, who primarily look at personalities. Not to say that the man doesn't matter at all (Clinton has made the Presidency a laughingstock), but most people don't realize that Congress has far, far more power than the President. Even if you got some 3rd party fool in the White House, all that means is that nothing would happen for four years.
--
Congresscritters are idiots... (Score:2)
I wrote to my representative and informed him that I wanted him to support this bill. It doesn't really have anything to do with Napster, and a lot to do with my.mp3.com. But, being rather ignorant apparently, and even though I barely mentioned Napster in my letter, I got a letter back telling me that my support of Napster was noted and that he'd look into the bill. Damn! That's annoying. I don't really support Napster per se, I am just against the rampant abuses of copyright that have taken place over the years and this bill is at least a small step in the right direction.
Re:But will it affect existing rulings? (Score:1)
Re:Every envelope carries a ZIP code (Score:1)
Re:Something to point out... (Score:2)
Henry Hyde is a good guy-- I don't see what you accomplish by trashing him on general principles. The slashdot They're All Bought Anyway Corps never seems to deploy when democrats are talking. Gore said some virulently anti-gay [drudgereport.com] things in the 80's, but people have been remarkably forgiving of him (I would say, way too forgiving). Republicans on slashdot appear to be guilty until proven innocent-- often, are still 'guilty' no matter how hard they fight for us. If anything, the biggest threat to the CS community is the fact that the community refuses to vote based on the issues they bitch constantly about.
Democrat politicians know that they can support the RIAA, push for national ID's, oppose fair use, support the clipper chip, and hold up export controls on strong encryption. Why? Because programmers vote for them anyway. So, naturally, that is their record. The only technology issue which the democrats can brag about on slashdot right now is the M$ trial-- and their solution, a breakup, makes as much sense as cutting a planaria worm in half: you just get two monopolies.
Yes, Orin Hatch authored the DMCA. And the RIAA and the courts (judges appointed by who? oh yeah, the president) have interpretted the law in ways that Senator Hatch didn't expect or like. That's why the Senate filed a brief with the courts saying that they didn't support the interpretation of the DMCA. That's why they are holding hearings. Hatch pinned Gail Rosen to the wall in the Napster hearings he called, while democrat Diane Feinstein supported the RIAA as it fought the idea of fair use tooth and nail.
So if you are from California (many/most of us are), vote against Feinstein. If you are from Utah, vote for Senator Hatch. That is, if these are the issues you care about. It is very telling that one of the authors of the DMCA is fighting the way it is being interpretted in courts, and we should be helping out.
Re:What does it really mean? (Score:2)
I figured out what is wrong with legaleeze. It is as though through carefully constructed statements, people are writing logical programs in the English language.
The only problem is that nobody ever documents their code.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
when you start giving up your own beliefs for any group, you become a simple minded fool.
No one is "giving up any beliefs". I have serious differences with the Republican party platform, but they most closely represent my beliefs (note "my beliefs"). However, I also am a realist. Democracy works on votes. Guess what? We don't elect a dictator. The President has to work with Congress.
What was that you were saying about "simple minded"? Reducing a complex subject to flamebait does not help your point.
i'll be either voting Nader or writing in McCain.
Thus proving you have absolutely no idea what either man stands for. It's not as bad as the fools who says "I'm voting for either Nader or the Libertarians", but close. While I severely dislike McCain, he's definitely not as bad as Nader.
--
"freedom" Re:Something to point (Score:2)
I think that way too often Republicans are mistaken as being libertarian. If you want to be a true libertarian, you could vote for neither Democrats NOR Republicans with good conscience, especially if you use the entirety of the platform as a deciding factor.
If the Reform party hadn't suddently develop a massive taste for social issues, it might have had a possible chance.
Also, the authorship of the bill is not exactly an "open party" Since it's original author is a Republican (correct me if I'm wrong), he would insist on one Democrat join in order to ensure the "bi-partisan feel." However, other Democrats are not necessarily welcome to the "authorship table."
yours,
Re:Something to point out... (Score:2)
things we can tell about reality master by reading his posts in this thread...
Pretty close, although not that impressive when you consider that 90-95% of Slashdotters probably fall into those categories.
However, I do take issue with this...
He's got no political perspective as, in his eyes, the Republican vs. Democrat debate is an Us vs. Them thing.
Not at all. I'm an engineer. To me, everything comes down to "what works" or "what doesn't work". Not everything the Democratic Party advocates is bad, and not everything the Republicans advocate is good. But on balance, Democrats advocate more central government control, and that has been proven time after time that it doesn't work. But government control sounds like such a simple solution that unfortunately people fall into the trap of wanting the simple solution. People very rarely apply any historical perspective.
Take Vouchers -- I advocate vouchers because public schools don't work compared to private schools. I also think that poor people should have the same ability to put their kids in the school of their choice as rich people. Yet Democrats usually oppose vouchers. Why, when the people it would help the most are poor people in bad schools?
I'll tell you why: Control. Schools are one of the most powerful institutions of social architecture. Democrats believe passionately that the government has a role in shaping and molding people into having the beliefs they think they should have. If parents could make their own decisions about how to educate their children, they would be giving up a great deal of their power.
But social architecture has failed over and over and over, and in fact, almost always does more harm than good. Welfare has destroyed the character of generations of poor people, because many people refuse to believe that you can't simply give away money in order to raise people out of poverty. But it sure sounds good on paper.
You think you have me pegged in some nice little slot in your mind, but quite frankly you haven't proved you have any "political perspective". You only seem capable of throwing out little cynicisms to prove that "Hey, I'm not fooled by any of the candidates, I know what's really going on". It must be nice to have a neat little view of the world, full of "rich people that don't care" and "poor people screwed by The Man". Guess what -- the world is more complex than your narrow little view.
--
Haiku (Score:1)
Having but one fatal flaw:
It made too much sense
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
Re:But... (Score:1)
Ah, but all of the MP3s stored on MP3.com servers came from CDs that MP3.com had PURCHASED, or from independent artists who had given permission for their music to be placed on the site. If MP3.com had merely let users upload MP3 files into private lockers -- a more time-consuming and less space-efficient way of doing things -- they would have been much less vulnerable.
The record companies' argument was that it was illegal merely for MP3.com to create a database from CDs that it owned (as though it made no difference how that database was used).
The RIAA got its tail kicked by the Rio court when it tried to pull a similar stunt regarding the hard drives on personal computers. But they won against mp3.com -- which serves to illustrate the much different and more restrictive standards that are in effect when it comes to commercial use.
too specific (Score:2)
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
You can't do this anymore, at least not at Best Buy. I have a best buy receipt in front of me now:
"We accept returns & exchanges 30 days from the date of purchase on the remainder of our merchandise.
Exceptions to the 30 day policy include: opened Computer Software, opened Videos, opened Video Games and opened Music.
You may EXCHANGE these items for the same title if the original is defective. We do NOT accept returns on these items if opened and non-defective. If any item is returned with any of the original package contents missing, the full purchase price will not be refunded."
Notice that you can only exchange, not get your money back :(
Slightly OT question, re My.MP3.com (Score:2)
Another use for the :Cue Cat:! (Score:1)
-Nev
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
So then what about the average middle class person whose kids are stuck in the shitty school? They can't afford private school either. Everything isn't black and white like vouchers insinuate.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
your concepts are absolutely whack. private schools are better for PRECISELY the reason that opening them up to all people (read: vouchers) would kill them. Public schools aren't failing because of some mythical malaise surrounding these institutions. And if you give everyone a voucher to go to a private school, guess what...you just turned it into a public school. Sure, there are subtle differences, but these are moot in the long run.
As far as your view on the role government should play in people's lives, you've got the same problem as every other democrat/republican i've ever met. You all want more laws, it's just a question of whether your state or the federal government gets to make 'em and enforce 'em. I say to republicans and democrats and libertarians and the green party, keep your fucking laws off me.
oh. and if you're view is so en-fucking-lightened than what's with this cute little jibe:
Democrats believe passionately that the government has a role in shaping and molding people into having the beliefs they think they should have.
umm...i had a pretty democratic upbringing. and although i hate democrats now about the same as republicans, i take issue with that statement. It's fucking anti-democrat propaganda. but, lest this thread continue, i will say, you have you views, i have mine and nothing i will ever say or do will make you change your mind.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Something to point out... (Score:1)
lest this thread continue, i will say, you have you views, i have mine and nothing i will ever say or do will make you change your mind.
Actually, my beliefs have evolved a number of times in response to reading other's opinions. In fact, I used to be much more Libertarian, until I figured out their beliefs had fundamental flaws (as I stated in another part of the thread). Can you say the same? Is there room in your philosophy for error, or is everyone just wacko and just wants to force laws on you?
By the way, I'm not sure where you read into my views that I want to create more laws. I want to replace a lot of laws, and do away with a lot of others, but clearly the net total number of laws should be reduced.
--
Re:What does it really mean? (Score:2)
I thought it would be quite fascinating if it was required to write the laws in an unambiguous language, designed to be interpreted by a machine.
Legislators could feed new laws in a massive population models, to try and get an idea of how their laws were going to affect the society. They could also use "legal validation" techniques to find out if their new laws conflict with any old ones, and perhaps to give them ideas on how to consolidate the laws they are trying to pass with ones that already exist (to try and reduce complexity).
Court cases would be handled by modeling having the prosecution & defence come up with models of their case (with the human judge/jury existing to make decisions about model conflicts), feed it all into the "did the defendant break the law?" legal testing machine, and yet a guilty/not guilty, perhaps with an acceptable range of punishments.
A non-binding version of this judgement-machine could be used so that individuals & organizations could try and model types of behaviors that they want to pursue, and see whether it is illegal or not.
It goes almost without saying, of course, that all the laws should be Open Sourced
Stores give no refunds on opened pure-IP products (Score:2)
defeat those who would buy, BeamIt, and then return the CD... said CD is back off the market, there go Joe User's priveleges
That's why most stores won't refund opened products that are nearly pure IP. Such products (CDs, videos, DVDs, etc.) are typically exchanged for an identical opened title. Some anal-retentive stores (not naming names) even refuse to accept returned computers because the operating system (not naming names here either) install disc "has been opened."
An Outrage! (Score:1)
How would you like congress telling you you had to let people publish your Slashdot comments in a book just because the person publishing the book had already read them on Slashdot? In fact, when a situation like this came up (the whole John Katz Hellmouth fiasco) people were outraged. But when a bill comes up, a bill under which Congress strips record companies of the ability to use their property, Slashdotters are overjoyed.
This kind of hypocrisy is troubling.
Find out who your rep is (if you don't know) (Score:1)
republican support? (Score:1)
Who digitizes CDs? (Score:2)
who digitizes the music
That would be the compact disc manufacturer. The music is digital before it is even packaged. Who compresses [vorbis.com] the music, on the other hand...
Tell the house majority leader how you feel (Score:1)
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
Not true (Score:3)
And even if it did apply to criminal sanctions, your example is still wrong. There's nothing constitutionally"ex-post-facto" about making something legal which was previously illegal. It's strictly a negative restriction.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:4)
Don't you think it's a little strange that he couldn't get at least one other Democrat to support it? Don't you think he would rather have a 2/2 balance?
I'll give him credit for sponsoring it; not all Democrats are anti-freedom. But more often than not, Republicans vote to give more freedom and take away government power, and Democrats vote to consolidate power and take away freedom.
--
Much Ado About Nothing Happening (Score:1)
But, my political instincts, and I am rarely wrong (sadly), are that this bill will never see the light of day. It will either:
A. die in committee in the House
B. have riders attached and amendments made that turn it into a pro-RIAA bill
C. fail to be called to the floor during session due to opposition from big bucks
D. if passed by the house, never get heard as a bill in the Senate
E. if passed by the house, die in committee in the Senate
F. if it makes it through the Senate, have riders or amendments so it's a sacrificial lamb to offer up the president
G. if it passes through both Senate and House, have amendments and riders during conference
H. if it makes it through all that, be vetoed by the President (either one) due to some political infighting between political sponsors and the President or during some battle over funding.
So, basically, fight the good fight, talk to your senators and congressmembers, but you're going to have to watch this all the way through the political process to make sure it comes out the other end in a good form.
Many bills are offered, few pass, most are sacrificed.
Re:current settlements (Score:1)
Consider: When a book goes into the public domain, even though the publisher and author had a contract, the publisher still gets to stop paying royalties. I don't see how this would be different legally--what *was* considered copyright infringement under the law is no longer considered copyright infringement, therefore they aren't infringing, therefore the RIAA has no grounds on which to complain.
Nota bene: I'm not a lawyer either.
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
Still, you can claim ownership of the CD which you bought through the verification service, and then sell it (if CD's actually have any value after this service is implemented). You will not recover all of your money, but some.
The whole thing of a CD independent of the media is tricky, because there is no verification at listening time that you have the license. The only license now is the physical CD (i.e. they go together). But, suppose you use the physical CD as a license to it in some disposable media. Now you sell the CD. Does the owner of that CD have the license to listen to it? Technically, no, because you retained the license, so the CD has no license. But there is no infrastucture for a CD without a license.
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
Wrong! (Score:1)
Re:Before you get too revved up about this ... (Score:1)
Boucher is my congressman, so I know a litle bit about him. He is very progressive and pro-technology. This kind of law is not out of character for him. He seems to "get it" more than other congressmen when it comes to technology.
Locally, he's done a lot to lay down a technology infrastructure in our region. He's very interested in technology issues.
Re:jWhere do I exchange (Score:1)
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
Re:fight for this (Score:1)
You may see this as a fight for access to free pop music, and that may seem trivial. But it is an issue that is defining intellectual property in the digital age (oooh, lots of pretty buzzwords), and it will have important ramifications for free speech in the future. That is not trivial.
How RIAA will defeat this (Score:2)
Re:Before you get too revved up about this ... (Score:2)
Im not disagreeing with you, but notice the following:
Rick Boucher (D-VA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Fred Upton (R-MI), Ray LaHood (R-IL)
if this were the case - i guess the Republicrats were working together on their shakedowns now!
Wouldnt surprise me a bit.
Re:An Outrage! (Score:1)
You should be happy that the record companies are even there, so you can have music to listen to.
Correction: "I'm happy musicians are even there, so I can have music to listen to."
Perhaps even: "I'm happy record companies are even there, because otherwise I would only be able to hear music at concerts." (well, or I could sing it myself, or hire someone to)
But more likely: "I'm not happy record companies are even there. Ever since we devised easy, cheap ways to distribute perfect copies of music, there's been no excuse for paying a record company to sell me a copy. Yeah, it's time we cut out the middleman!"
How would you like congress telling you you had to let people publish your Slashdot comments in a book just because the person publishing the book had already read them on Slashdot?
That is legal, AFAIK (IANAL, however). For example, if Pat Buchanan makes a speech delineating his evil plan to exterminate everyone under 60, and I hear it, I have the right to repeat it to anyone I please, and even publish it. Why is it any different if I tape his speech? And if you maintain that my duplication of any part of his speech is illegal, because his speech is his property, and duplication of any part of it would be theft, then what might the consequences be for society?
100 emails = 1 postcard (Score:4)
An email is worth 1/20th a printed letter or printed postcard.
A printed letter or postcard is worth 1/5th the value of a handwritten letter or handwritten postcard.
[rule of political communication - I've been lobbying as a citizen activist for decades]
So, go to the nearest coffee shop or restaurant, get some of those free postcards, slap on 20 cent stamps, and handwrite to your congressmember and senator a short polite postcard about why you want this bill (give number and title) to pass. Then sign it, give your name, phone and address, and send it in the mail. Choose a cool postcard - they love those.
If you do this, you have the best chance of affecting them. The only thing better is a visit in person.
Re:Serious Hole in Proposed Law (Score:1)
B. Exchanging an opened CD is almost the same thing as returning it: just keep returning CD's day after day and very quickly have you an infinite numbers of CD's for the price of one.
Sounds fishy to me (Score:2)
Why are video recordings not included in the provisions of this bill? Surely this is the next medium to undergo the Internet distribution trial-by-fire. "Flickster" is just around the corner (cf. whois flickster.com).
It also fails to address the Napster situation as it exists today. Surely the law does not consider an individual offering MP3s on Napster to be a transmitting organization. Napster itself is certainly not the transmitting organization, nor is the request to transmit sent to, or even through, them. Using the terms from the bill, Napster only offers a directory of individuals willing to transmit works, as everyone knows.
This bill doesn't seem very useful to me, and may prove to be a distraction from the larger issues.
Who is sponsoring the sponsors?
Re:But... (Score:1)
Don't forget the filtering amendment (Score:1)
I decided to kill two birds with one stone and ask my Congressman to oppose the Internet filtering rider and support MORLA in the same note. Here's what I wrote [epistolary.org].
--
Re:Some good news for a change (Score:1)
Isnt the fact that the internet makes this function unnecessary even considered by anyone? What right do the 'distributers' have when we are copying bits? And 'facilitator', is McDonald-izing the arts in America a good thing?
I think the bastards are done - one way or the other, the RIAA is finished, the MPAA is next.*
* This is a note to the RIAA/MPAA weazel who surley reads
**Thats a joke for
Re:Something to point out... (Score:2)
Wow, talk about your unprovable, flamebait blanket statements.
First of all, it's not "blanket". I made a point to say "more often than not". Second of all, maybe you missed when Democrats were trying to ramrod socialized medicine through a few years ago? That's called "the government consolidating power, and taking away freedom". Yes, it was Republicans that saved us from the horror of a bill.
You'll also note which party consistently votes to give more power to the state and local levels, and which party consistently votes to take away power from the state and local levels. Yes, more local power == more local freedom.
--
Re:fight for this (Score:1)
E-mail bad; Snail mail good (Score:3)
Congress people still tend to only respond to faxes, phone calls, in-person visits, and most of all, postal mail ("snail mail"). E-mail is typically ignored.
However, if you feel you absolutely cannot bring yourself to go Herculean task of printing out your message and putting it in an envelope, then at least include your mailing address at the bottom of your e-mail. Otherwise, your Congressional representative will have no way of verifying that you actually live in their district, and will definitely ignore your message. They will probably ignore it anyway, so send snail mail. It is much more effective.
"Nondramatical musical work"? (Score:2)
This is good, but... (Score:3)
And above all, SEND REAL MAIL! This point is repeated in every article about contacting our reps, but it's worth repeating again...
REAL MAIL IS THE BEST WAY TO SHOW THEM YOU CARE
If 1/10th of us write a letter, and we get our girlfriends/boyfriends to write letters, and they get one friend of theirs to write a letter, that's worth more than every one of us sending 10 emails from our various email accounts.
GAIN EVERLASTING LIFE [alexchiu.com]
Re:"Nondramatical musical work"? (Score:3)
Can mp3.com hold on until it becomes law? (Score:5)
Add into that the completely unprofitable terms they agreesd with the publishers and labels there's no way they can demonstrate a business plan which will let them survive.
So... if they go into hibernation and hope that bill succeeds then they might survive, but that's assuming they can survuve the rest of the lawsuits. Instead - if they launch Beam-It again it'll drain their funding anyway but keep their users.... until they can no longer afford the per track fees.
The thing is - mp3.com have now set the goign rate for licensing fees - so they've probably screwed up companies like Musicbank who were relying on acquiring these licenses, and I guess they've stopped myplay.com from trying to do the Beam-It thing also - at least until the bill comes through.
Fun Fun Fun....
I HAVE THE ANSWER!!! (Score:2)
Since the RIAA loses money every time we download a file from Napster, I have begun downloading files 24 hours a day! I have already download Britney Spears' and The Spice Girls' over 350,000 times! By my calculations, they'll be broke by July 2003!
Dammit, somebody get me a Beowolf cluster and an OC3!
Sadly, can't see it getting out of a commitee (Score:2)
Before you get too revved up about this ... (Score:3)
Re:current settlements (Score:4)
if this law is passed and MP3.com already has to pay a few cents to record companies for my.mp3.com, will mp3.com be able to stop paying the companies, or since the settlements were made before this law would they stil have to pay
They will probably have to continue paying. The settlement between mp3.com and the RIAA labels is a private contract. If it turns out that mp3.com bought something useless (rights to broadcast music that are free), so be it.
What makes it even more sick is that if mp3.com just says, "screw it, we won't pay the RIAA, because the contract is worthless", they can be sued for breach of contract, and they'll probably lose. Unless there's some sort of escape clause already in the contracts, I dunno.
-jon
Re:fight for this (Score:2)
Sixteen years of Bush ( George, then Jeb ) will ruin America.
Re:fight for this (Score:2)
Re:fight for this (Score:2)
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:2)
I would challange you to back this assertion of yours, but I think it will be more telling to watch this bill get thrashed by Hyde and everyone else on the Judiciary Committee. Selling influence is bi-partisan, and though the entertainment industry leans Democratic, they've hardly put all their eggs in one basket [opensecrets.org].
And hey, remember the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? Or the, *drumroll...* DMCA?
--
Re:This looks pretty good, but.... (Score:2)
Some good news for a change (Score:2)
It's about time something like this went through official channels. It is absolutely the right of the owner to disseminate their purchased material as they see fit, so long as it does not jeopardize the rest of the artist/audience relationship (ie. revenue losses, misrepresentation, doctoring of copyrighted materials). No musician under Universal or BMG was forced to sign with them - they chose to turn their expression into consumable product, so they shouldn't complain about everyone taking part in the exchange they chose as well.
If they wanted otherwise, they should have stayed in that garage.
Where Your Vote Should Go [mikegallay.com]
Something to point out... (Score:4)
It's not a coincidence that there are three Republicans and only one Democrat on this bill. Don't get all your information from the media (including Slashdot), look at reality. And this not rare, it's typical. Please vote accordingly.
--