Alternatives to the CBDTPA? 576
badBillStomper asks: "In the next few days I will be meeting with my Congresswomen to discus the effects of a Sen. Hollings CBDTPA on your average customer/techie. I have read tens (if not hundreds) of comments on the various OSDN sites explaining the very obvious reasons why the CBDTPA would cause a great deal of harm to the technology sector as well as consumers. Unfortunately the only postings/articles I have seen which offer a resolution to online piracy have been limited to ways in which the entertainment industry needs to change its business model. While this may be a valid argument, it does not provide a legislative alternative (something which many on Capitol Hill are scratching for). Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track? Most internet users are familiar with the fact that someone with an intermediate amount of network knowledge can tap into data which is sent from one location to another. Vice President Al Gore was the first to link the internet to the idea of the 'information superhighway.' Since Americans are already used to this term, what would the effects of the creation of a kind of 'net traffic cops;' i.e. a law enforcement type of agency which monitors web traffic and fines individuals which break laws, i.e. distribute copyrighted information?"
Why do we need legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:2)
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem comes when a large business has these things, or even worse, distributes them. Look at the Napster case and the pending cases against other P2P software companies. The RIAA/MPAA DO NOT ATTACK INDIVIDUALS. What the CBDTPA will do is make sure that corporations follow the rules by only creating devices that comply with the legislation, therby limiting what a consumer will do. If a company produces a device that does not comply, the RIAA/MPAA are guaranteed to notice, and that comapny is guaranteed to be taken to court.
Legislation IS NOT the answer to this problem - copyright is a job for the courts, on a case by case basis. Copyright is not intended to limit consumer rights, which is what the CBDTPA will do. Copyright exists to protect content creators, but that protection is and should be limited in time and scope.
Regardless of the immediate consequences of Hollings' bill, it will open the door for more and more intrusions on our "right" to fair use (which is more of a historical trend than a right, and it should be treated as such. Fair use does not allow the copying of works we have not paid for or the distribution of copyrighted works to others without consent. In this light, much P2P software use is illegal, which ahs been shown in the courts.). The question is not how this bill, as horrible as it is, will affect us, but what is to come after it. I'm afraid of some day not being able to easily record MY guitar on MY computer without paying/contacting/registering with some central authority. It is in our FUTURE rights that the CBDTPA's true danger lies.
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Copyright exists "...to promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts..."
The end is not to protect authors; protecting authors is the means to that end. It's not the only possible means. It's a means which was thought-up in an age where the idea of instantaneous, ubiquitous, virtually costless duplication, publication and distribution was devoid of conception.
We need to keep our sights on the goal of producing a net benefit to society. If we determine that society will benefit the most by disarming all citizens of control of their computers, then that's what we should do (if our Constitution allows that). But, if we determine that abandoning copyright will serve us best, (the Constitution does allow this; it empowers Congress wrt Copyright, but does not obligate) then the fact that content creators are harmed should only be noted as a regretable but unavoidable fact of life. (The fact that snake oil vendors were harmed did not deter us from the development of modern medicine.) Personally, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
I believe an argument can be made that society can benefit greatly under circumstances where content creators can exercise only minimal control; and I believe the Internet, ubiquitous computing, and even the Free Software movement are shining examples of this.
Perhaps what we need is some form of governance board, perhaps modelled after the Federal Reserve System, which is not beholden to one side or the other to select a dynamic but viable solution. They might choose to raise or lower the cost of publishing (adjusting the interest rates) by modifying the strength of the copyright monopoly vs. fair use, changing the effective term, dictating compulsory licensing (and setting the terms), instituting or changing the registration requirements, etc. I don't know what the balancing formulas would be; we may be just now beginning to think of the "science of Intellectual Property management" in the same sense that we now think of economics as the science of Real Property management".
Legislation is NOT always bad; but in a democracy you do have to eat the meal you've cooked, eat what you're served if you're too lazy to cook for yourself, or go hungry.
Are you hungry enough yet to write a letter? Or even vote?
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need "Internet" cops. The analogy to traffic cops is wrong. Traffic laws are in place (largely -- this is another debate) to protect the individuals using the roads. These so called internet cops would be a government agency that is protecting the copyright of private or public corporations. It is (should be in a free market model) the responsibility of the corporation to protect their own copyright, and the laws should be in place to help provide a framework for the cases where the corporation is pursuing litigation against another corporation or individual because of copyright infringement. There should never be a government agency that acts on behalf of the corporation in this way. Tax dollars are too hard to come by. Any congress person who thinks otherwise is suspect.
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because, today, they have the technology. Just as piracy has been around for over 20 years, so has attempts to prevent it. Remember copy-protected floppy discs? How about VHS videos that skipped when you ran the signal through a second VCR? This is just the latest technology they can exploit to dishonestly maintain their market-share.
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Teh best arguement is that legislation is not going to solve the problem. If they only sell hardware in this country that has protection methods but other countries don't I will get what I need from the other countries hurting U.S. Businesses. It's like throwing a small rock in the Mississippi and expecting it to stop the flow, the river will find another way, even if you use a very big rock.
The Software Industry Already Solved This W/O Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
No legislation of any kind is necessary, except the repeal of the DMCA of course.
Software is even more prone to illegal copying and distribution than video or music, yet the software manufactuerers gave up on 'copy protection' schemes years ago as unworkable, ineffective, and harmful to their legitimate customers' need to back up their software and data.
The solution instead is to serialize each instance of the software sold and cross-reference that serial number with the credit card or other identification of the purchaser, such that if 10,000 copies of program A, serial number #12345, appear on the web the copyright holder can go after the original purchaser as a first step.
This doesn't stop all copyright violations, but it does make most people very, very reluctant to share copies of their software, and, as a result, the software industry is flourishing.
There is absolutely no reason Hollywood couldn't attach a serial number to every digital movie or braodcast sold and downloaded on the web. Sure, some would crack the serial number and remove it, but the vast majority of people are not inclined to give away things they themselves had to pay for, especially if there is some risk (however remote) of their name staying attached to the illegal copies.
I say it again, Hollywood doesn't need this law any more than software manufactuerers needed it 15 years ago. The problem has already been solved without legislation, by the marketplace, and if Hollywood weren't so rigidly stuck in the 20th century they would have long since figured that out by now.
Re:The Software Industry Already Solved This W/O L (Score:5, Insightful)
They can develop a copy-identification system along these lines with three separate elements, and then announce that it has four.
They'll even be telling the truth -- FUD (I've filed off three serial numbers... were they bluffing about the fourth one?) becomes an additional element.
Re:The Software Industry Already Solved This W/O L (Score:3, Informative)
Well, some enterprising people would go to the store (or they worked there), open the box, get the legit key, then return the game. Now they had a working cd-key. Then someone comes and buys that same box. They try to play, and their key comes up as pirated. They didn't do anything wrong but still got screwed.
Server side checking only works when you're forced to connect to their servers to verify the key, so in your example of serialized movies, you would have to dial in to the MPAA's servers before you could watch anything, and if they decided to revoke you key then you're outta luck.
So, good ideas, and I totally agree that legistlation won't do anything but fill up more of our prisons with non-violent offenders.
Travis
Re:The Software Industry Already Solved This W/O L (Score:3, Insightful)
This has a big pile of problems.
First, those serial numbers can always be removed. It's not always easy, but only one person has to do it for an unnumbered copy to "escape" onto the web.
Second, if the serial number is used to trigger million-dollar court cases, then someone who steals a DVD from your briefcase is causing you a million-dollar problem (he can distribute it and get you sued) instead of a $20 problem (replacing the DVD).
Third, mass-market digital media formats (DVDs, CDs, etc) are stamped from a master, which leaves them not well suited to serialization. Software serialization only works because you type in the number yourself.
And last, tying serial numbers to identification is heavy-handed. It pretty much eliminates the possibility of cash purchases, movie rental, or resale. The market simply won't bear it.
Frankly, I doubt that even in the software world, where serialization roughly works, that it would be sufficient evidence to convict someone of piracy in a court of law.
Re:Why do we need legislation? (Score:3, Interesting)
The pro-gun lobby has for years cited two issues: "Guns don't kill people, criminals kill people" and "there are legitmate uses for guns."
These same arguments, substituting computers for guns, media for people and pirate for kill becomes: "Computers don't pirate media, criminals pirate media" and "there are legitimate uses for computers."
I've personally been anti-gun for years, but I can't help but conceed that their arguments are solid. The put the focus of the discusion on the action and away from the tools.
As we consider file swaping legislation, we need to remember that the public debate need to remain on the action and away from the tool.
Re:Why do we need legislation? *LONG* (Score:5, Insightful)
I am unable to accept legislation with regards to DRM, IP, etc. Most of the companies that are spearheading this have more influence on our daily lives as it is. In the case of Disney, these people have leveraged Mickey and a dead man's legacy for Billion, possibly trillions of dollars. To think these people approach congress, and in light of their successes, they refer to us as a thieving public destroying their profitability. It is shameful to think that these people are approaching the government designed to protect, the people are the venue by which the companies make money, and are getting somewhere with this.
The entertainment moguls are doing what is natural, what is charged by them and fiduciary responsibility. They are, in the interest of the shareholders, trying to setup a monopoly. This is the goal for big business, and big business has done a lot for the World to date. But there is a limit. The government is supposed to counter balance. These companies don't need the government's help for Christ's sake; the PEOPLE need the government's help! These companies have formed mega mergers and huge OmniMediaPlexes that are rackets which amalgamate into the GIGANTIC monopoly.
This, of course, always overshadows standard copyright laws, fair use and the notion that information wants to be free. I have seen really interesting things in training as a chemist at a university. I have seen and heard of things have copyrights and patents as a symbol. The truly novel and unique and worthy ideas are usually so complicated, intelligent that protecting the "IP" is a moot point, most people can't comprehend what trying to be protected if it novel. This isn't to say that there is no caused for protection, but limits are a good thing. This allows other scientists and innovators too quickly build on the successes of others. Think of this way, if you myriad of patents and copyrighted works didn't make you rich, you probably didn't come up with something very unique. If you leverage the governments of the world to force people to pay for mendacity in order to make money, you are in essence screwing the shareholder in the long run, you need to innovate is diminished and the ability to survive hinges on legislation and not R&D.
In the case with music, these people are the worst anti-competitive types out there. A CD costs almost nothing to produce even with all costs factored in. These companies, unlike, say a University, create racket for which there I no escape, and force the artists to sell their intellectual souls to the company. Eh artists resent it. I f*cking refuse to pay $16 dollars for a CD worth not more than $2-$3. Things like E-music prove that only one song off a CD is generally worth keeping anyways, and the heavyweights of music prove this. People need to realize these people are able to create artificial markets, they call them regions [outwardly, blatantly, and cockily], they are able to prevent capitalism by leveraging their monopolies and rackets and creating markets for themselves. DVD is $6 in certain regions. In the US, its $16-$24. In EU I hear it is even more. This is disgusting.
Another thing that crops ups, and especially pisses off the likes of the extra greedy types like Lucas - stuff appearing and being released before its time, illegal releases. Look, I don't know when this happened. But when the movie is finished, just start playing it. Don't set a date. When the move comes in, just play the damn thing. Jesus Christ. I never thought that people would care when you start selling something. If it's good, it sells it self. [people no longer understand word of mouth]. The media moguls are so disenfranchised with their purchasing public they no longer understand what we want - AT ALL. Believe me, it's not a long extended wait.
The internet has made me impatient. I hate traveling now. I want things now, right away, without delay. In an age without magic, getting things faster make things more interesting. I want it now. Like Veruka Salt. Not having it isn't enough; I don't want to wait, ever. I'll even pay more not to wait. People don't understand this. I love camping kernel.org for the latest release. I love the fact there is no latency. A kernel that was released 10 minutes ago can be ALL MINE! The marketing detritus infecting these mega companies does not know what I want. I don't want to wait in line for a film; I'll use some online service to reserve tickets. My time is valuable, I will never have enough, and these corporate slime want to think of ways to take up more of it, to make me wait. For example, I wanted there to be a Service Pack 7 for NT 4.0. After a promise and a long wait, it never came; Microsoft has no idea how much that did to disenfranchise me. Meanwhile there are others who give you access to daily build and CVS in the OSS world, and my needs can be addressed by a simple email.
Big companies need to be re-edified. They are behemoths destined for doom if the government doesn't force them to be competitive again - including with each other. It's a constant struggle, a supply demand issue, consumer versus company. Neither is good or evil, but people don't buy, don't build it. They don't get this they fabricate losses to insinuate that they are losing money. This is a flaming crock. All losses due to IP and piracy are perceived. It is a result of being disconnected with those who use it, its is a result of poor pricing models. Trust me. They want to arbitrarily set a price and force people to pay it. They don't want to find sweet spots, and stratify their pricing. Its not my fault the most I would pay for an office suite is $75. Anything more, and its either pirated or I'll get it for free. Microsoft doesn't want to know this information, apparently, they have never asked me. So they lose $75 bucks, in essence.
The CDPTA, DMCA, and all other legislation hurts the betterment of the internet intelligence cache. It forces people to make changed that are undesired. It causes obfuscation and the legalization of non disclosure for large companies. It basically promotes the flat out lying to the paying consumer. It exposes people to higher risks - what you don't know can hurt you.
People and companies also have to realize that software is no longer interesting for the most part, the usability of it is. We don't license software in our car's computer. We don't upgrade it. It's a functional unit, and the less we know it the better its working. How we USE software is far more important. The car company bought and SDK and probably got a few software engineers to make this software. The professional SERVICE is worth the money, not the software. The integration is the value add, not the software. This has become my attitude, because using software is really a liability. It's like owning a high powered rifle. It can kill, in terms of downtime. The rifle instructor is able to teach the rifleman how to hit targets and not people or other things inadvertently. The point is the instructor makes the rifle worth something. This analogy could be applied to most anything. It's the truth.
Capitol Hill ©(TM)®, both side alike, are listening to where their money comes from. Big companies, especially Disney, Macrovision, Microsoft, and other lobby the hell out of these people and coerce them into suppressing you; and the rest of the world to some degree via trickle down. These mongoloids in Washington have to get with the program, and start reading the law. There is precedent to handle this stuff; usually most of it can be found pre 1850. There is no need to suppress the people.
Laws are broken every day here now. The US has started to make a hypocrisy of the constitution. Here criminal gets far more due process than those seeking to protect their rights. I want a Heckler and Koch G36C. I like that automatic rifle. The more primary form of law, The Constitution, says I can have it. But I can't. Sates violate my rights. But Charles Manson just got his tenth chance at parole. Due process is for criminals here now. Like Microsoft. They have dragged this out ad infinitum, and now there are dead bodies (figuratively), and the innocent's due process was violated in favor of Goliath.
I hate the government now. I want a vote of no confidence. Both parties now piss on the constitution for fun. Big government has destroyed the essence. If you ever heard the George Carlin skit on Turning the 10 commandments into two it proves ONE THING. MORE "laws" means things are far more complicated then they really are. The crux of a concept does not lie in complexity, its utter simplicity. The miasma of complicated laws are designed to created grey areas and subterfuge by which people and the buying public can be exploited, and this door tends not to swing both ways, trust me.
And to close with my thoughts on Copyright.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. Everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our, the USA, laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom are laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Electric Companies, Microsoft, Petroleum Companies, etc.)
I'm going to except his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
......
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On
Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights
providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms
for freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
protection against standing armies, restriction
against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting
force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by
jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of
the land...
Note, here IMHO, TJ wants to along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our
new constitution by nine states. It is a good
canvas, on which some strokes only want
re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently
manifested by the general voice from North to South,
which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty
generally understood that this should go to juries,
habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion
and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty
in finding general modification of these suited to
the habits of all the states. But if such cannot
be found then it is better to establish trials by jury,
the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press
and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish
standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in
all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
With regard to monopolies they are justly
classed among the greatest nuisances in government.
But is it clear that as encouragements to literary
works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too
valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not
suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public
to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified
in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely
less danger of this abuse in our governments than in
most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many
to the few. Where the power is in the few it is
natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own
partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as
with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger
can not be very great that the few will be thus
favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the
few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison though there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789
I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes,
but I should have been for going further. For
instance, the following alterations and additions would
have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be
allowed to persons for their own productions in literature,
and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not
exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no
other purpose.
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
The question Whether one generation of men has
a right to bind another seems never to have
been started on this [i.e., the European side --
Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American]
side of the water... that no such obligation can
be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. --
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be
self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living; that the dead have neither powers
nor rights over it... A generation coming in and
going out entire... would have a right on the first
year of their self-dominion to contract a debt
for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for
14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing
daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant
term, beginning at the date of their contract, and
ending when a majority of those of full age at that
date shall be dead. The length of that term may
be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take,
for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon...
[according to which] half of those of 21 years [of
age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will
be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the
nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term
beyond which neither the representatives of a nation,
nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly
extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs
to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive
application... Turn this subject in your mind, my
dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country
gives you an opportunity for producing it to public
consideration... Establish the principle... in the
new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new
inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19
instead of 14 years.
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion thread previous to this, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. "
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not he companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules [slashdot.org] moron who founded 3COM to still hold the patent on ethernet?
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting. [virginia.edu]
*** This article is a conglomeration of thoughts that I have previously expressed on another discussion thread. If you have seen these before, please note that the ideas were expressed elsewhere as well. ***
maybe a compromise of tracking the data (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any compromise between doing nothing and Disney's Law?
If they must pass a law... how about something along the lines of... If the owner of digital content places a unique serial number on a given bit of digital content it is illegal to remove or modify that serial number, and doing so has penalty X....
Sure, modifiying someone else's copyrighted works is already illegal, but this would allow people to modify their own works in a very specific way and still keep their copyright... it would also spell out a specific penalty for removing such a serial number.
With legal protection of serial numbers on digital content, lawsuits against the people who illegally release pirated content are possible. It's hard to sue every kid who has a pirated Brittney Spears CD, but this would help you sue the kid who made the original illegal copy.
The entertainment folks can then negotiate with the hardware manufacturers to get some sort of serial number scheme thet would be difficult to bypass... and the law would help stop the few people with the ability to bypass the technology.
Personally, I'd rather not have any more laws... I just tried to think of a way to let the entertainment industry save face, but avoid too many negative consequences... so please don't mod me as a troll just because I actually tried to answer the question... however, please do flame my idea all you want..
Nooooooo...... (Score:3, Insightful)
worse one is not a reasonable option.
Easier to track? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
There are NO alternatives.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tough issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem arises with any sort of P2P sharing. I can send anything I want across AIM. It's not too hard to rip ISOs and send them around. Just about anything I can't get an ISO of I can find a crack of given a little search. Crack programs, not being explicitly warez are in a gray area of legality that makes them difficult to prosocute. And unless you can track a transfer as it happens, it's almost impossible to know it ever happened. There's a lot of warez trafficking on IRC as well, which is also tough to track. There's so many IRC channels and given a minimal amount of effort, it's not too hard to mask your IP. So short of installing a tracking device on every modem sold, there's not much they can do to put a stop to warez in the domains it happens most.
Also, if they try to crack down on internet piracy, people will probably just resort to burning and passing around CDs. I live in a college dorm, I can get any program I want from a userbase of no fewer than 500 people in my building alone if I so choose. Almost everyone has a burner. The best way to stop piracy if to make a quality product that people think is worth paying for. I'm always willing to pay for a product that's served me well (SoundForge, Cakewalk, etc...)
(first post? dunno if someone had a shorter one)
No legislation is the legislative alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is there a need to pass any legislation at all? Why can't adjourning and going home be the alternative?
Re:No legislation is the legislative alternative (Score:2)
Exactly.
Having lost the battle to legislate unreasonably intrusive measures into every aspect of computer hardware, it seems like retrenching to "well, then, just the network" is not realistic. Ethernet cards which intelligently recognize streams of copyrighted bits is just not going to work (least of all because the file formats can be changed before network transmission into something completely different).
If you have to "do something" [I won't even ask the embarrassing question of which large constituency of voters signed the petitions thousands of times asking for this legislation] , then simply
No thanks. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No thanks. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but as another user pointed out, copy-control hardware is most effective when it involves surveillance (eg, dialing into Paramount HQ to verify your license every time you watch one of their DVDs.)
Given that 1-to-many encryption and DRM solutions like the ones used in satellite TV and DVD are relatively easy to break, don't be surprised if your copy-control hardware brings about exactly that which you fear.
Other alternatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Take gnutella for example. How hard would it be to write a client which trolls for people providing my copyrighted information? Log the top X number of abusers, and take them to court. Don't smash them like a bug, that is too expensive. Just hit them up enough that it is no longer worth it to them to distribute copyrighted materials. For every one of these guys slapped on the wrist, you will convince 10 people that it isn't worth the trouble.
Just my $0.02.
Re:Other alternatives (Score:2)
Alternatives to the CBDTPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you go to the grocery store, do you see a policeman walking around following you everywhere you go, each aisle you walk thru.... NO! This is because it is up to the grocery store to provide it's own security... and press charges upon anyone who shoplifts from the store. The government needs to stay out of this. This is between the RIAA/MIAA and consumers. PERIOD.
Why does there need to be legislation? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have MORE than enough protection already. Tell them to develop NEW business models that work in today's infrastructure -not go to congress and cry all the time!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alternative legislation is not needed. (Score:2)
Re:Alternative legislation is not needed. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wrote a similar article on a few weeks back. It is simply unjust to force an entire industry to bear any of the burden of protecting an entirely different industry.
In a relationship like the entertainment industry has with the hardware industry, this is espescailly true. The hardware industry makes it possible for the entertainment to make any money at all; Now the entertainment industry wants to bite the hand that feeds it by forcing the hardware industry - which has already made it possible for the entertainment industry to become as large as it has - to be legislated into forking over the R&D+implementation money so that the entertainment industry can feel warm and fuzzy inside.
As long as there's a way to purchase electronic parts (eg. Radio Shack), somebody will distribute the plans on how to create devices to break any copyright scheme.
Although "privacy" advocates will be very much against it, the actual burden of enforcement falls on the heads of the entertainment industry, and the Federal Government (in the USA, at least).
I use the term "privacy" advocates sarcastcally simply because many aren't really interested in keeping their habits/information private, as they are interested in not getting caught
Personal rant:
Many Slashdotters want to mismatch the term privacy with breaking laws while remaining anonymous.
eg: File-sharing of copyrighted music is illegal. Yes, music is over-priced. Yes, the artists are not getting their fair share.
Shaking your fists at the net and screaming isn't going to change the legality of this. There is a big difference between justice and law.
Whether it is just for the entertainment industry to charge consumers so much and pay their artists, and support staff (audio engineers, etc.) so little has nothing to to do with the actual legality of how business is done. There have been plenty of unjust laws passed (and sometimes repealed) in the world.
Arguing that allowing downloading of music enhances CD sales is not an argument of why the law isn't valid. Providing the music industry a hidden benefit doesn't change the fact that the law on the books states that such activity is illegal.
What many people need to do is that although they believe that closed/proprietary/etc is "wrong," this is an ethical argument, and the law cares little about whether something is ethical or not. It cares if the rules have been obeyed. After that is satisfied, it will listen to an argument. But the purely philosophical argument that "information wants to be free" means exactly nothing in a court of law. Law states that whatever your belief on the justice of the law, distribution of any kind of copyrighted material is illegal. The law has the penalties outlined. Don't like it? Tough; You knew the rules and broke them anyway. Off to prision with you.
Sure, there's civil disobediance. Ghandi proved it. But he also spent a long time in prision for his beliefs.
Re:Alternative legislation is not needed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Better approach (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better approach (Score:3, Interesting)
o All works are protected for an initial term of one year upon fixation.
o A copyright term may last for any term between 1 and 100 years.
o In order to qualify for copyright protection past the first year, the copyright holder must register the work with the copyright office, and specify the term desired. The life of the copyright becomes, for tax purposes, the lifetime value of the work.
o The copyright holder may then deduct the cost of producing the work over the term of the copyright.
For instance, a movie costs $100,000,000 to produce. If the studio opts, at the end of the first year, for a 100 year copyright, they could then deduct $1,000,000 per year for the next hundred years.
If the studio were to opt for a 5 year copyright, they could then deduct $20,000,000 per year for the five year period.
If the movie were an absolute dud, the studio could simply allow the one year copyright to expire, and deduct the entire $100,000,000 at once.
This would quickly bring copyright terms into line with the actual market performance of works.
Why must it be solved by laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
With each new law passed being hundreds or thousands of pages long, the complexity of law has gone to outrageous proportions. The last thing we need is more complexity. It would be best if we could simplify the law so that we can enforce the important ones.
Legislation To Simplify (Score:2, Insightful)
This is certainly the right answer, albeit not to the question posed. However, it probably implies the correct question, which is what can be done to deal with the morass that copyright has become? There are a couple of questions that Congress really should be addressing:
The key legislative need is clarification of the government's position, rather than relying upon the courts to thrash this out. CBDTPA's flaws are deeper than the content providers vs. computer industry conflict, and patching it will only slow the development of the clarity needed to go forward.
NO legislation. (Score:2)
Why are you letting THEM set the agenda? We should be passing laws that protect CITIZENS.
Underlying premise and a 180 deg. turn (Score:5, Insightful)
How about these alternatives: (a) no bill (b) a bill which is 180 degrees off from those currently pending: strong protection of fair use, prohibition of changing technology standards (HDTV) to benefit content providers at the cost of consumers, explicit acknowledgement that the Constitution does not guarantee any industry a certain rate of return no matter what their profit margin was in the past, etc.?
sPh
Re:Underlying premise and a 180 deg. turn (Score:2)
Re:Underlying premise and a 180 deg. turn (Score:3, Interesting)
The original length of copyright was 14 years. Returning copyrights to this length would:
a) Allow better enforcement of copyrights with less public resources.
b) Eliminate most of the copyright grey areas, such as Emulation, Abandonware, sharing of classic music, etc. Most content that is exchanged in these grey areas is over 14 years old.
Fair use would need to be guaranteed, and we would need a guarantee that the content would be accessible to the public after this period. But the current "Forever plus five years" copyright term has no benefit to anyone, with the possible exception of Disney.
Yes (Score:2)
Not to worry. Read a few history books. When a minority, no matter how powerful, attempts to brand a majority of the populace 'criminal', their heads get handed to them on platters. Unfortunately, there's usually a lot of ugliness in between.
coprighted information (Score:2)
Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a very dangerous situation. More laws = less freedom, plain and simple. If you need a law to defend you're freedom, its only because the idiots in congress are looking at taking that freedom away. Hell sometimes there are laws (constitutional amendments even) that should protect us, but they just IGNORE those.
The Supreme Court should start to exercise a policy of immediate judicial review of any bills that they think are unconstitutional, no waiting on a challenge. Congress is openly thumbing its nose at very many of our rights, the court should begin to smoke any of the unconstitutional crap they're coming up with before we the people even have to deal with it.
No law in this case would be a good law.
Why are new laws needed? (Score:2)
Wouldn't that be just great? (Score:3, Informative)
And don't forget to tap everyones phone while you're at it!
This must be the most privacy infringing statement I have ever seen on the slashdot frontpage.
On the other hand, they already have a system that would/may be capable of somthing like monitoring a large portion of net communications. Echelon.
And they never bothered to tell anybody about that one in the first place...
Some people may be all to willing to put it in **AA's service...
I find this proposition just as frightening as any of Holling's half baked bills.
What a horrid idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, a law which gives the government explicit permission to tap my net communications any time they like so they can check and see if I might be engaged in piracy is one of the most horrifying things I can imagine in terms of violations of civil liberties. It makes Carnivore insignificant. Christ! This idea makes Holling's proposed legislation look downright benevolent!
Get Out of My Head (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get Out of My Head (Score:2)
sPh
None whatsoever. (Score:2)
Apply standard problem-solving techniques (Score:2)
Start with: What is the problem you are trying to solve?
If your friends on Capitol Hill can't answer that question, they have already given you the appropriate answer.
Responsibility? (Score:2, Interesting)
Troubling... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as 'the IP police', this may be actually more preferable to any legislation concerning copyrights/intellectual property piracy. I firmly believe that the government should not set standards for technology (should be resolved within the industry), nor should they legislate morality (what happened to parents/community and mores?). I am afraid that I would be opposed to any legislation that would restrict my fair usage of any piece of equipment or media.
Does ANY elected official understand this issue? (Score:5, Informative)
Upon calling Paul Wellstone's local office, I told the person working the phone how i was opposed to any legislation mandating draconian DRM solutions and made several valid points. I made a point to inform that I was planning on voting in my first election in 2002 and that my opinions on these issues helped form many of my peer's opinions. Tell some high school kids that this will make burning CDs or making copies of free over-the-air TV programs and they'll get interested real fast.
They said they would have the Senator write me back with a response as soon as possible, but being a Senator, he was a very busy man. Ok, I thought, I'm a reasonable man, what's a few weeks. I don't mind waiting a month or two? I took the form letters from The EFF [eff.org] and tailored them to my needs. I sent compies of this e-mail to recently-elected Senator Dayton (D-MN) [senate.gov], and my Congressman, Representative Martin Sabo (D-MN) [house.gov].
Well my e-mail and phone campaign was way back in September and just now have I received a response from one of my elected officials. What follows is an e-mail I just received on April 29th from Senator Wellstone, seven months after my inquiries:
I liked the part where I he didn't really answer my question... It seems you are correct in thinking Capitol Hill is hell bent on passing legislation. I don't think ANY legislation is a good thing, but I feel that they [capitol hill] see us [letter-writing geeks] as meddlers who refuse to offer a solution. Who says there needs to be a solution? Has anyone had any other luck with their representatives?
Re:Does ANY elected official understand this issue (Score:2)
Re:Does ANY elected official understand this issue (Score:2)
Reminds me of a sig I've seen out here, one of my favorites: "I'm not merely a 'consumer' or a 'taxpayer.' I'm a citizen of the United States of America."
Require them to register... (Score:3, Funny)
Easy. Just pass a law reqiring all software pirates to register with the government. Tell them they get a free speedboat for registering, but they must first prove they are pirates. When they do, arrest them.
After all, piracy is already illegal, isn't it?
Change happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
Change happens. The entertainment industry has to change to keep up with the rest of the world. What congress needs to understand is that the government does not exist to to protect business models from potential threats. It is one thing for the government to punsh those who redistribute someone else's intellectual property without permission, it is another thing entirely for the government to tie the hands of the people, restricting legitimate use of computers, in an attempt to preempt theft.
Does the government put antitheft systems into our cars to prevent people from from stealing them? No. Should the government put antitheft systems into digital devices to protect music? No.
Change happens. Old industries die, new ones are born. That is the nature of reality. The entertainment industry MUST change, and a democratic government has no choice but to sit back and watch.
The business model MUST change (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA and their cronies have to get on board with the new technologies, and not fight against them as strongly as they do. Sure, there are always going to be some slashdotters and the like who insist on getting everything for free because of strongly-held beliefs that all data should be free (like beer) and that intellectual property is all a bunch of BS. However, 98% of America would prefer to use a legal, low-cost alternative to Grokster and Kazza than to have a bunch of illegal MP3's sitting on their hard drive.
If they'll help to create the mechanism by which I, for $1 each, can download tracks from any label from the Internet, I promise you, my copy of Kazaa Lite is going right in the virtual trash bin.
Closed systems (Score:5, Interesting)
They've consistently been rejected by the market, which should tell Congress something.
As A Child... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are PLENTY of laws on the books that make it a crime to copy software (or any other copyrighted material for anything but fair use).
What the software and music industry seem to want is the Feds to establish "internet police" to relieve them of burden of prosecution. Perhaps this strikes some as sane, to me it just seems insane.
In an era when our legal and civil rights are being stomped on by business and government alike (for example Alcoa lawyers are attempting to seek that they have the right to enter the homes of folks who oppose an Alcoa stripmine) are we just to smile and say "please, limit my liberties a little more!".
This of course TOTALLY ignores the fact that unlike the U.S. superhighways, the information superhighway is international. Let's see how those "net cops" catch folks in Taiwan.
I do not condone stealing copyrighted material. But bad laws will not help the situation.
No new laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell your Congressfolk that there are already existing laws that need to be applied before adding new ones. I don't see the MPAA/RIAA/etc. actually attempting to go after violators with copyright law - the issue is one of control of content and technology, and the copyright issue is just the smokescreen.
What they *should* do (Score:2)
Spend money on enforcement.
It's that simple. Software and media piracy is already illegal, we just can't/don't enforce the law. Making more law that we don't enforce (or selectively enforce, which is worse) is pointless.
Are you suggesting... (Score:2)
Scary, isn't it.
A police organization overlooking all net activities is just begging for government abuse.
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Could it be that the reason it is so difficult to find a reasonable answer to this question is that there is no reasonable answer at all? The "piracy laws" already exist, and are applicaple to digital piracy. No new laws were needed to shut down Napster. No new laws will be needed to stop some bozo from from selling pirated DVDs on the net either.
By the way, if by "congresswomen" you mean Dianne Fienstein and Barbara Boxer, be sure to talk to them about some of the questionable "Sept 11 laws" they've been supporting.
Aren't we fighting that agency - CARNIVORE (Score:2)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Why legislate? (Score:2)
However, all that has changed and copyright violations are now criminal acts under U.S. law, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.
The U.S. already has law enforcement bureaus on all levels: Federal, State and Municipal. We do NOT need YAPD -- Yet Another Police Dept.
Now, legislation providing funding for existing agencies to hire personnel, obtain equipment and training, is another matter.
The VERY big problem, is that data can easily cross State if not International boundaries. Jurisdictional disputes will tie up the courts for years.
If a legislator wants to actually do some good, they need to look into legislation modeled after various International Law, such as the Law of the Sea, etc.
They should also fight any half-baked, feel-good, unenforcable laws that some grandstanding legislators try and force thru Sen. Hollings
Finally, legislators need to educate themselves and their staffs (staves?) on the international, distributed, fault-tolerant realities of the Internet. And I don't mean learn how to send their own e-mail. The basics of routing, backbones, peering, P2P, client-server, etc. Networking 101
Almost Forgot: (Score:2)
Add Rider bill - Require them to replace all media (Score:5, Interesting)
This would be fair since it puts as much burdon on the associations of "content providers" as it does to the whole technology sector. Maybe some will then see how obsurd the whole thing is since they already have a good amount of protection.
Make that rider airtight, and add an escrow clause (Score:3, Interesting)
Any producer of digital content that is technologically protected in such a manner that does not allow license holders to exercise fair use rights must issue replacement or duplicate copies within 7 days of request by the license holder. Replacement or extra copies may not be witheld for any reason, and license holders may request up to 6 copies per year for the duration of the original owner's copyright. Users may request copies of the media in ANY format that the copyrighted material has been published in that is of equal or lesser quality to the format the content was licensed under.
In addition, all copyrighted material will, at the time of application for copyright, be placed in escrow in a high-quality unencrypted and unencumbered digital format (equivalent in quality to the highest-quality protected format the copyrighted material is released under) with the Library of Congress for immediate public domain release at the expiration of copyright. In the event that the original copyright holder ceases publication of the material prior to the expiration of the copyright, license holders may request up to 6 copies per year of the material from the Library of Congress' escrow copy.
Analogy. (Score:2)
Jawalking is a crime, already punishable by a small fine, but thanks to a new type of nuclear-powered running shoes, it is a crime that has become more prevalent. Jaywalking hurts the companies that make the little pedestrian signals, and so they lobby to have a law put in place that will attach an explosive collar to the neck of anybody who uses sidewalks, such that only *legal* pedestrian crossings are used.
It's the same thing with the RIAA. They see their cash cow threatened (because MP3s and streaming radio give much more power to the musicians and the listeners than they do to the recording industry), and will lobby until the end of the earth to protect their business model. Sorry, but there is no "right to profitability", and if your customers are deserting you for an alternative, even a lower-quality one, you really should re-think your business model; not try and get the better one banned.
To the contrary (Score:2)
Now, let's just assume for a minute that we can count on our representatives in congress to actually represent their constituents. If they truly have the best interests of the people in mind, perhaps they would consider passing legislation which eviscerates EULA's. Another way for them to put some time to good use would be to impose a tax on unsolicited bulk email.
Citizens rights to privacy and due consideration are being trammeled by a very powerful minority. Instead of inviting knuckleheads like Eisner for "hearings", they should be beating these petty tyrants upside the head.
The Corporate States of America is no joke.
Enforcement of Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
It's one part this and one part that.
They need to aggressively enforce their copyrights to protect their content. A simple search on Google is frequently capable of turning up multiple violations. I don't understand why they don't have enforcement teams on the payroll that work in conjunction with lawyers and the local law enforcement to use copyright law to prosecute. Sure, it will give you a bad image with consumers, but people may actually become scared enough to start obeying copyright law. They may also start lobbying to get laws changed, but hey. The problem is not protection of their content, that's impossible as Bruce Schneier likes to tell us, since every protection scheme can be broken, but of enforcement.
Read my lips, no new laws.
Congrats! (Score:5, Informative)
Next - what party is she?
If Republican - advocate a free-market solution, pointing out the revenues (and earnings, and by extension, taxes) from the technology industry far outweigh the income from the Content Cartel.
(If she's a Republican on the Religious Right, you may also want to point out that Hollywood hasn't been terribly friendly to her party in terms of donations, or her constituents' values, either. When was the last time Andy Grove of Intel decided to advocate sexual promiscuity and drug use? :)
Second - no matter what party she's from, avoid terms like "Content Cartel". Works great on Slashdot. Makes you sound like a tinfoil-hat-loon to a politician.
If Democrat - go for the "why subsidize Hollywood and 'big business' over the little guy selling hardware out of his storefront" angle.
Also, and most importantly, if she's a Democrat - point her to Rep. Boucher. A fellow Congressman from her side of the aisle who truly "gets it".
(For that matter, pointing a Republican Congressman to Rep. Boucher wouldn't hurt either. "Hey, man, even some of the Democrats realize that Fritz' bill is a Big Mistake, and they realize so for precisely the same reasons I do. When a Democratic Congressman can find common ground with Sen. Orrin Hatch (e.g. the DMCA has gone far beyond what its legislative proponents intended), there's probably some room for not just bipartisanship, but there's also something fundamentally wrong with the Hollings bill."
Finally - it's not just the Hollings bill. Rep. Boucher put it very well in the interview when he said there were two ways to look at it: Either all your base are belong to Hollywood, or not.
If you can educate your Congresswoman as regards to what to look for (and what to look out for - (including, but emphatically not limited to, Hollywood-mandated restrictions on hardware manufacturers and computer owners, backed up by force of criminal law) - you stand a reasonable chance of not just stopping the CBDTPA, but whatever successor bills Hollywood tries to put through if CBDTPA is defeated.
Finally-finally - and you probably shouldn't have to be told this, but just for the sake of completeness - be respectful and professional. Get a haircut. If you're male, wear a suit and tie. Dress like you're going to the most important job interview of your life.
Just 'cuz there are a lot of long-haired, wild-eyed geeky types on Slashdot, doesn't mean you have to fill the stereotype. The more they can see that opposition to CBDTPA isn't just a "long-haired freak" position, but a rational response on the part of consumers and businesses alike to a poor law, the better for our side.
Just because you've got an itch... (Score:2)
Just because you've got an itch doesn't mean that you should scratch it.
There is no need for additional laws, and the idea of ``net cops'' is sheer lunacy compounded with totalitarinism. If a copyright owner doesn't like what somebody's doing with the copyrighted work, let that owner deal wiith it. The {RI,MP}AA can waste their own dollars chasing honest citizens who're acting in concert with the Constitution and ignoring unconsitutional laws.
If you really want to tell your representatives what law to pass, tell them to pass a law repealing the DMCA and the Bono act.
What happens on the file trading networks isn't a crime. What is a crime is that the Scottsdale Symphony [scotsymph.org] can't afford to perform Maurice Ravel's Bolero (you know, the Bo Derek piece) because, thanks to Sonny Bono, it's back under copyright.
b&
Sorry. The tecnological cat is out of the XTerm... (Score:2)
Therefore my question to the slashdot community is what new legislation would you support which would make those who engage in online piracy easier to track?
There can be none to support, I'm afraid. Any laws that attempt to track file sharing will be ineffectual. Cryptography and Steganography would have to be stamped out first, which just isn't going to happen. Sorry.
Most internet users are familiar with the fact that someone with an intermediate amount of network knowledge can tap into data which is sent from one location to another.
It's not just that, my friend. Within any device capable of playing back digitized content, at some point that digitized content will be in pristine format - un-encrypted and just as it was recorded. Some smart person, a "hacker" if you will, is going to figure out where in the device it's in said format and how to extract it. Then it's in a file, converted to MP3(or DiVX or whatever) and on Kazaa, or sent through PGP encrypted e-mail. Very hard to police that, without resorting to totally draconian measures.
Vice President Al Gore was the first to link the internet to the idea of the 'information superhighway.' Since Americans are already used to this term, what would the effects of the creation of a kind of 'net traffic cops;' i.e. a law enforcement type of agency which monitors web traffic and fines individuals which break laws, i.e. distribute copyrighted information?
No offence intended, but you must be a newbie to
First of all, Mr. Gore isn't the best name to use around here, since he has lost all credibility by speaking "authoritatively" about things he didn't understand. Internet Traffic Cops? See my arguments about Crypto and Data Extraction above. They will simply not be of any appreciative benefit to consumers - only to corporations that are trying to protect outmoded business models with flawed laws. Plus, authoritarian organizations aren't embraced with open arms, unless they're restoring authority to "the little guy". Your Traffic Cops are the antithesis of that.
For good or ill, the world of computers and the Internet is ultimately controlled by hackers. You have to be a hacker, and think like one, in order to get along.
Work with us, not against us - give some and then take some is the only way.
Soko
Your job is already done (Score:2)
What you should really be doing is pointing out that the current laws are already ridiculously broad and that you cannot change the basic functions of the internet in any way (aside from making certain functions illegal to USE) without seriously harming the technology industry, which pumps a lot more money into the economy than the copyright industry. You should also push the fact that this sort of legislation, i.e. any legislation that hinders the technology industry by forcing them to implement legal restrictions in hardware and software, will just hold the United States back in a technology market that is growing by the day.
Some times, more legislation just isn't the answer. At some point, they have to be satisfied with the legislation that they have and stop playing games with the rights of US citizens and the health of the US economy. The DMCA already does enough damage to our rights and the open nature of computer standards. Any further copyright bills will be a huge blow to not only our rights, but the economy and the companies and employees within it.
Suggestions (Score:2)
(IANAL or congressional expert and I don't seriously expect my ideas to be used, but I hope this post was more productive than the ones he's complaining about.)
There is NO alternative, NO compromise (Score:2)
You can't legislate a technological enforcement of copyright laws any more than you can legislate a technological enforcement of traffic laws.
This is not a question of legislating crime and punishment, like Prohibition in the US in the 1920s, or the current War On Drugs, or compaign contributions, or bribery or cheating on taxes. The CBDTPA is an attempt at legislating a technological enforcement of a law. It is impossible. There is no compromise (Only be preggers on Thursday, ok?) and there is no alternative (How about being pregant in your neck instead of belly?).
If you can't understand that, how in the Sam Hill do you expect to get it across to your congresscritter?
Talk to Rick Boucher (Score:2)
We don't NEED a legislative alternative (Score:2)
Yes, but changing their business model is the only thing that is going to solve the problem. We don't WANT nor NEED a legislative alternative. Invariably, any further legislation in this matter will only serve to harm consumers, invade their privacy, and strengthen an industry which needs to grow up and start figuring things out on it's own. No amount of legislation will stop or even hinder pirates without completely shafting the rest of us and it's high time our politicians learned this.
Why does the government have to be involved? (Score:2)
The real solution, though few people will admit it, is to reform the copyright system. There is a desire to stamp out all piracy because money is made by exploiting an idea for all it is worth instead of creating new ideas, and there is a desire to pirate content because of a general lack of value in currently produced content. If copyright terms were reasonable, content providers would need to create new content with enough value to attract customers in order to stay in business. Combine this with a healthy public domain to satisfy people who do not want to pay for content, and the digital piracy problem should become much more manageable.
Of course, this means defining "reasonable" copyright terms. To do this, it is necessary to understand why copyright is needed in the first place. Despite what some corporate advocates might want you to think, copyright is intended to encourage the creation and distribution of information content for the public benefit. There must, therefore, be a balance between the incentive to the content creator and the benefit to the public. The immediately obvious first step in copyright reform is to retroactively repeal all retroactive copyright extensions - if the copyright terms were adequate to encourage creation, extending them does not benefit the public (at least as long as time travel is impossible or impractical).
Next, it is necessary to define an adequate copyright term for future use (not effective retroactively). Since copyright is supposed to cover a "limited time" and the content in question is used by humans, the obvious definition of a time limit to a human is the typical human lifespan. A factor of this number (recalculated regularly) would therefore make a reasonable copyright term. Something around .5 would give the content creator plenty of time to receive compensation (if not, the chances don't improve much with additional time) while giving the public access to the content before it is of no value (if it still has significant value at this point, it is of cultural significance, and therefore should be available for use by the general public). People would get their creative content, content creators would have incentive to create, and "pirates" would lose any moral high ground. What more could you want (aside from large corporate interests controlling access to the flow of creative content)?
Subsidies for buggy whips (Score:3, Insightful)
The way to fix the problem isn't surveillance or legislation; the real solution is to adapt the marketing model to price the music/movies whatever low enough that that the financial benefit of bootlegging doesn't exceed the moral benefit of legitimate copies. This is perfectly doable, given the exceedingly low cost of online distribution.
Two points - first, the music industry works by their oligopoly on the distribution of physical media and store shelf space. THAT is what they don't want to give up, because then their role as middleman becomes irrelevant.
Second, i'd feel a lot more moral inclination to avoid bootlegging if music artists saw even a dime for every dollar their label makes off their art.
The plain and simple truth is that the vast majority of working, professional musicians are NOT part of the major label system. In fact, it's very difficult to make a living at music once you're signed your soul over in blood to the labels. This legislation is NOT FOR THE ARTISTS. It is for the record distributors.
The movie industry is different, but only slightly. VCRs were supposed to destroy their industry, but instead it became a huge boon. Most people watch most movies only once or twice, so they need to keep the per-view cost down, period. They've already solved their distribution problem, unlike the RIAA.
Think about it... do you really believe this legislation is to protect ARTISTS? Or, gawd forbid, consumers? No, it's their to keep a couple of fat industry's reality checks from bouncing for a few more years.
I say we let the Invisible Hand of the market slap some sense into them.
One-sided views (Score:2)
Immediately, I'm going to see replies saying, "Change the business models. The companies can still make money in this environment by doing x, y, z." And, yes, perhaps there is a business model out there somewhere that would enable studios to develop content, distrubte it for free, and still make profits on it. However, no one has discovered that business model yet! Nor do I think they ever will.
All one has to do is look at Linux. Linux is a wonderful product, developed by volunteers, and given away free to anyone who wishes to download it. That said, there are a lot of companies out there who develop their own distributions of Linux and are trying to sell them. Has any of them made a profit? Nope. Red Hat? They were profitable for 1 quarter, and haven't been ever since. Caldera? Corel? None of them have made money by selling something available for free.
The entertainment industry can't exist in the way that Linux does. Content created by movie and television studios costs a LOT of money. If this content is then pirated by consumers and distributed for free the studios can't afford to create new content. End of story! Yes, it hasn't reached that extreme yet. Disney isn't going to have to close up shop because of the amount of piracy on the Internet right now. But, the problem can only get worse.
There needs to be some sort of compromise on the issue. Fair use can get along with DRM. THAT is the issue that needs to be resolved. As consumers, we shouldn't say, "Well, I bought this CD so I should be allowed to rip MP3's of it and distribute them to all of my friends and anyone who wants to download them off of Napster." That isn't what "fair use" is all about. It's about protecting the consumer's right to use a product they purchased. Should I be able to duplicate a CD so I can keep one copy in my car and another one at home? Yes. Should I be able to make copies for all of my coworkers? No.
I don't support the DMCA because it's poorly written legislature. However, I do feel that there needs to be some sort of control over intellectual property so that piracy doesn't detract from a studio's ability to make great content.
There is no alternative (Score:2)
1) The freedom to run any software on my PC that I want, and
2) The right to record my own content and distribute it how I like, including for free,
then piracy is a fact of life. Deny me those rights, and you deny me freedom of speech.
Our congresspeople may be searching for a way to make Pi equal to 3, or repeal the law of gravity, but it's doomed to fail.
Do nothing (Score:2)
We already have traditional copyright law which prohibits illegal distribution of copyrighted materials.
We already have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows the content industry to devise any copy protection methods it wants and makes it a crime to circumvent them.
The industry already has all the legal tools it needs to fight genuine piracy. The only thing stopping it from doing so is the realization that going after end users would be a public relations disaster. Is Congress really that eager to bring the PR nightmare upon themselves with a new law that interferes with the actions and technical abilities of law-abiding citizens?
Any industry that treats all of its customers like criminals and treats its products as something to be protected from the customers is doomed to fail. The longer Congress and the industry avoid this realization, the more painful it will be for everyone.
Wrong battle (Score:2)
Re-read the pre-DMCA US copyright law and the applicable article of the US constitution. Note that these basically begin with the reverse tenet - that everything (all aspects of any creation) are freely available EXCEPT as restricted.
The owners of the creation - not the creators in most of these cases, but the owneres - are perfectly justified in trying to reduce theft of their property. But when any such action becomes such that the default exceeds their restrictive permissions, then they are at fault. To use a tangible analogy, a store is perfectly allowed to mount cameras and put 'tattletags' in their property and use private police to prevent shoplifting. BUT... the tattletags must be removed when sold, and the private police cannot arbitrarily check my car as I leave the parking lot (different from leaving the store), and the cameras can't be set to look upon me in my home. How many of you can prove that you purchased all the furniture - or all the books, or even all the electronics - in your house if a policeman were to arrive and demand such proof (or face charges of theft)? And yet, that's the essence of current thought on protection of intellectual property.
I think, really and truly, that there are enough laws on the books already to protect against property. The solution is no longer getting a law to mandate protection. The solution lies in effective techniques - social, technological, and operational practices - that minimize the theft. I find myself wondering just how much theft there really is - I have seen many exclamations of theft, but even at the height of the Napster excitement nobody was brought to civil or criminal court except the carrier of the product - who could not prove (or disprove) that the clients who'd submitted the disks were doing so without having paid for the property.
We don't need new and more restrictive laws. We might (maybe) need better enforcement of the ones we have. THAT is what I'd ask you to pass on to your legislator.
A further objection (Score:2)
There is no way to search for copyrighted material without examining the content of all traffic going across networks. Such a law would require the police to continually monitor large amounts of all network conversation, with active attention to their content, in direct contravention of all established law and precedent regarding wiretaps and other surveillance techniques. It essentially amounts to a call for blanket surveillance of the population in order to protect the copyrights of certain business interests.
Given that I have opposed such expansions of federal authority in the past, when the excuse was the (arguably much better one) of capturing terrorists, I cannot imagine countenancing such a law when the only incentive is to help some groups make a buck.
Yonatan
Bad idea (Score:2)
What about encryption? Will I have the right to encryption like the big boys will have? No, probably not under this idea or else the idea is useless. So I get fucked over and different rules are applied to me because I'm not rich.
How will this "traffic cop" thing work? Think for a minute about what happens when the government and companies have the ability to check and approve of everything you send or receive. What makes you think that they will use this power wisely? Why would they allow dissenting views to get out? How would anyone know about the censorship? Maybe they will track all files with the word "censorship" in them and stop them so noone will ever know who's being censored. That's a fucking great idea. Any sort of mandated filtering and interception of data is a BAD idea. You are advocating the destruction of the Internet (and of all other forms of digital private communication). There is no way to use technology to effectively stop the flow of bits without destroying freedom.
You are talking about destroying freedom and privacy to preserve copyright. This is a simple quiz and this is how you should present it to the congresswoman.
Freedom
Copyright
Pick One.
The thing is that the people who support the CBPDTA are actually correct. The only way they can continue to protect copyright is to do the very things that they want done in the bill. It probably doesn't go far enough because it doesn't advocate a house-to-house search for all old unprotected equipment, and it probably still allows people to make personal backup copies in certain circumstances. The only way to protect copyright is to destroy freedom. I challenge you to give the Congresswoman the short quiz I presented above, ask her if she had to choose between freedom and copyright, which would she pick. If she can't answer that, then she isn't willing or able to deal with this yet. Then, ask her to find out more about it until she understands that the choice between freedom and copyright is the correct choice. You can only protect one strongly. If you don't get it, then you need to go learn more about what computers can do, until you realize that unless computers are destroyed or turned into toasters with screens, copyright can't be protected.
HEREs an Idea (Score:2)
How about a law that explicity affirms fair use, legalizes non-commercial sharing, legalizes reverse engineering, legalizes bypassing of "effective access controls", rolls back the DCMA completely, and denounces any such legislation such as SSSCA or CDBPTA as unconstitutional.
This will do wonders for the "content industry", even if they dont like the taste of the medicine. It will also do wonders for the quality of content.
Disclaimer, this may not be what your congresscritter wants to hear...
Faulty Thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Eric Christian Berg
The only solution is enforcement.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The copyright holders need to start suing people who are using P2P programs to distribute copyrighted materials without permission. Once that happens the use of P2P software will stop really quickly.
Hey, Folks! This was the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very simple. Introduce some sort of Draconian legislation, not because you expect it to be passed, but to soften the electorate for a "compromise," which is what you really wanted in the first place.
We don't need legislation. Neither the motion picture industry nor the record industry needs protection. They're doing just fine, and if they started being smarter, they'd do even better. When they say that profits are being sucked out of their businesses by hordes of evil pirates, they are lying and they know it. What they want is very simple; they want more control over the market so that they can bring back the halcyon days of poorly paid "studio talent" and ring in the new days of corporate-controlled boy bands and Britney Spears clones. The motion picture industry tried this before with chains of theaters and this practice was declared illegal. They want legislative imprimateur not only to own the theaters this time but to own the idea of a theater. It is the exact same deal.
What is this, annual Falling for the Bloody Obvious month?
Congress has a hammer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress has the ability to pass laws. Therefore, every "problem" must have a solution found by passing a new law.
If the solution does not include passing a new law, then you must have the wrong solution.
The "Red Flag" Law.. (Score:4, Informative)
The effects of the law were quite profound - nobody wanted to buy a car if they couldn't drive it faster than they could walk, so while Henry Ford created the assembly-line, and created one of the strongest automotive industries in the world, Britain's car industry lagged sorely behind the rest of the world. The "red flag" law (as it came to be known) was repealed 10 years later, but the damage it did to Britain's automotive industry has never been undone (disclaimer: I am British.)
Senator Hollings is doing the exact same thing to American computer industry with this bill - to satisfy a vocal minority, he is sacrificing an emerging industry, and it will set back the American economy.
Give them tools to catch pirates after the fact (Score:3, Insightful)
The first is that piracy would be difficult, although not impossible. In my view, this is pretty hard goal to argue against.
The second goal is the one I have trouble with. They're trying very hard to avoid electronic distribution systems that would mitigate their existing advantages.
Right now the big media companies are the gatekeepers of the existing distribution system. If you want to get a record into the stores, or if you want to get a movie into the multiplex, you need a big company's help, and in practice, that means you have to give them more than half of the money.
There has always been piracy -- I'm 40, and I used to make extensive use of my cassette deck, as did everyone else I knew. Piracy is nothing new. What's new is the potential for media distribution systems that give individuals and small independent companies the same sorts of access to the public that the big companies have.
The media companies want to prevent piracy. But I think that we have to do what we can to shift the emphasis away from piracy, and towards the creation of open distribution systems.
Now one problem with open systems is that people will buy something and resell it or give it away. My argument is that this inevitable fact doesn't outweigh the overwhelming public interest that would be served by open distribution systems.
Let the media companies go after pirates after the fact. Give them stiff peanalties, something that will defer people from sharing songs for free on the net. Why give something away when there's a real downside, and no upside?
Let the media companies choose the formats they use for their products -- if MS wants to make a player that will try to validate the user as an authorized owner, and they want to use that, that's great. Let them come out with new electronic audio players that will police their media rights.
People whine about the new celine dion cd coming out in copy protected format, but that's the right of everyone involved. Celine Dion doesn't owe me free music, and neither does her record company.
But it's fundamentally unfair for the government to get between you and I, and say that we can't exchange a song that one of us created over a network in a specific format, because that format doesn't provide the media companies with assurances that the song wasn't pirated. That's an unreasonable burden to put on us, and it will, to use a MS phrase, "stifle innovation."
It seems to me that the core problem here is that the media companies take a big bite out of the transaction because they control access to the distribution system. Without that gatekeeping role, they don't produce enough value to justify their cut.
Unfortunately for them, computer networks are going to wipe out that gatekeeping role unless people like your Representative vote for laws that provide artificial support for it.
It sucks for them, just like automobiles sucked for buggy whip manufacturers. But it's good for the world.
Let them build whatever system they want (crippled cd's and authenticating players and all), but don't force everyone to use it.
Make sure that we preserve the ability to build alternative systems.
The DMCA *IS* the Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
This industry hasn't even done a decent job taking advantage of the DMCA, which is PLENTY sufficient and then some.
Net cops are not the ideal. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you that the CBDTPA is terrible but I think that the nature of your question is the wrong one. The fundamental problem here is that we do not need any news laws. I realize, of course, that it isn't legislatively sexy, or politically gainful for a budding Senator to say that but it's the truth.
The proponents of the bill claim that the current anti-piracy measures are insufficient, and unless "something" is done the "Content Production Industry" will collapse. And, they claim that if this industry collapses nothing new will ever be created. As proof of the damage they cite the lack of Consumer Broadband and Digital Television, as well as declining CD Sales.
As Carnivore [epic.org] and magic-lantern [wired.com] demonstrate governments can track user behavior online. And, they are exploiting those abilities to the utmost. They have been focusing on terrorism lately, but they can always turn their eyes to copyright infringement if they wish. I believe that those tracking powers are too great and need to be reigned in not expanded, but that is a discussion for another time.
Therefore, despite what the "Content Production Industry" claims, the existing laws can be enforced. We do not need to change the underlying code in order to make it more difficult to trade files, nor do we need to make otherwise legal activities (such as fair use) illegal for fear of theft. Such bills only punish the vast majority in order to catch the few, and in so doing, go against the whole point of criminal justice; to defend the majority, not persecute them.
Digital Television and Broadband have been held up by competing standards, low demand, unfair competition, and the last-mile problem. Despite what the bill "finds" the lack of demand is the fault of a number of factors not potential piracy. Even if it was, that lack of demand is not a social problem requiring government efforts. The rpbolem is one for the marketing departments not public servants.
When you consider CD-Sales the same problem of proof exists. When Napster was at its zenith (at the height of the tech boom), CD Sales were up. Now, in the midst of a U.S. recession, they are down. Doubtless copying is part of this but, how much? And, does that impact justify increasing the prices on most consumer electronic products, and making life more difficult for consumers, electronics producers, and even copyright holders? Again the proponents of the bill have not offered any hard proof. The same goes for Movies, books and other cultural works.
Lastly and most importantly, the whole point of copyright law is to encourage the production of "science and useful arts..." [cornell.edu] It is not intended to create or sustain a publishing industry. Despite what Jack Valenti says they have not proven that the current state of affairs will reduce the number of authors, musicians and filmmakers out there. All that they have shown is that it may reduce the number of publishers out there.
The bottom line is; there is no proven compelling public need for this kind of legislation. If anything the need is to examine the charges of price-fixing and stifling competition that have been leveled at the industry and to examine the digital tracking of the Justice Department.
The clear avenue here is not to do nothing but to prevent harm from being caused.
I want legislation to protect me first. (Score:3, Insightful)
None. First I want legislation to protect me before I vote for any legislation to stop piracy. (And whan I say piracy, I mean true piracy, the kind that causes harm, not the definition that the RIAA has bastardized in order to explain their lousy sales.)
The reason that the CTPBASPAFP is so awful is that there is all this 'protection' for the handful of corporations trying to get it passed, and none for anybody else. I want legislation that protects my rights so that a corporation cannot impede them. DigitalConsumer.org [digitalconsumer.org] has the right idea. Establish our rights first. This is absolutely necessary to enact before you can go legislating anti-piracy measures.
Why? Because, for one thing, the MPAA and the RIAA have some extremely broad defintions of what piracy is. They think that burning a song from an MP3 is piracy. It's not. They measure any time they don't force a customer to give them money is piracy. By their defintion of the word, a huge portion of the internet population would have to be punished.
So let's say, hypothetically, that our rights are established exactly as DigitalConsumer stipulates. Now we can start talking about legislation because we know what they law cannot say. It's easier to define what Piracy is at this point and determine a suspect's guilt. Once they do that, then they can investigate individuals or groups who are seeking to distribute their content in a way that causes harm to the normal distribution channel.
Let's say that somebody records an episode of That 70's show, which is available on public broadcast (no cable or satellite required...) and makes it available on the web. Is it piracy? By DigitalConsumer's bill of rights, no. It's space shifting. You can't go after people sharing that show. Does it do harm to the industry? That's debatable. If somebody doesn't watch the show on TV they're missing the commercials that make it money. But wait a minute, that's not piracy. If I missed That 70's Show and f'd up the taping of it, the only other choice I have to watch it is to download it. The studios have a real easy way to get me to watch the commercials for it. Provide it, with commercials, for me to download. Simple. That's why it's not piracy. I'm not relieving their ability to make money off it.
The people's rights are far more important than the corporations'. Protect our rights, and then we'll work with corps in order to keep piracy down. Don't keep piracy down at the expense of our rights.
Legislating the impossible. (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine, if you will, the analogy of power companies wanting to base thier industry on oil, which for the moment is a in abundant supply. Imagine if over the years, they completely run out of oil, and I mean COMPLETELY run out. Now, in order to keep thier business going, they come up with the idea of using an over-unity (free-energy, perpetual motion, etc.) machine to supply them power. Since such a machine does not exist, and CAN NOT exist, which option seems more logical to you (and to your congresswoman): A) Legislate that a perpetual motion machine must be created by the year 2006, or B) Tell the power companies they they will simply have to think up a new business model and explore alternate means of power.
A Modest Proposal (Score:3, Interesting)
Therefore, allow me to present three proposals that will not prevent copying, but will make it difficult:
Hope the above list of suggestions helps.
Re:Rephrasing the question (Score:2)