Piracy Deterrence and Education Act Introduced 508
Bootsy Collins writes "Last Thursday in the U.S. Congress,
H.R. 2517
was quietly introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill, authored by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA),
directs the FBI
to develop methods of deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks, including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies. It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad. Berman, you may remember, introduce a bill last year that would give the RIAA and MPAA wide latitude to
crack suspected violators' computers.
" Update: 06/23 17:03 GMT by S : We also covered a variant of this story on Saturday.
Action (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid the FBI go after dangerous criminals
I have written to all my representatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the text of the bill (I can't find the link offhand, but it's out there) -- some of the paragraphs are downright laughable, particularly the one directing the FBI to educate citizens about the dangers of connecting to "unauthorized" P2P services.
Maybe one of these days Congress will stop trying to prop up a failing business model by turning the US into a police state. But I'm not holding my breath...
Not such an issue for me (Score:5, Funny)
I did, however, write with regularity to my conservative N.C. representatives when I lived there. I figured every minute some monkey spent reading a letter from a flaming liberal commie asshole like me was one less minute they could be holding prayer meetings or what have you.
Re:Not such an issue for me (Score:5, Insightful)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Oh yeah, he's not. DAMMIT, THIS IS NOT A PARTY ISSUE!!! If you want a political party to save you from this, vote Libertarian. Or if you want a political party to save you from this _and_ make SUVs illegal, vote Green (not my preference though).
Re:Not such an issue for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, vote Libertarian as in end the drug war, legalize marijuana, and strike every law off the books that has anything to do with opening up a strip joint next to your neighborhood.
What were you saying about conservative Republican? If you find yourself at a loss for words, let me see if I can help you out. Freedom has a price. If you choose to live free and you are a liberal, you must come to terms with the idea that government can't solve social problems. If you choose to live free and you are a con
Re:Action (Score:5, Funny)
God forbid the FBI go after dangerous criminals ... I feel much safer with pot smokers and warez kiddies behind bars.
But don't you realize that File Sharing is a gateway crime? It leads to fraud, prostitution, murder, and massive drug dealing. For the love of god Think of the children!
Re:Action (Score:5, Funny)
I see filesharing as more of a proxy crime myself...
Re:Action (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it now.....
"If you use P2P, you're supporting Terrorism!"
Re:Action (Score:5, Funny)
It starts out with this 10 year old-ish boy walking out of a convenience store with a candy bar, and the shop owner runs out and accuses him of shoplifting it.
The scene then jumps to a cops dropping the kid off at his parents house.
The scene jumps again to inside the house, the kid is sitting on the couch with his father next to him. The father asks, "Did your friends put you up to it?" The kid shakes his head. "Then where did you learn to steal?" The kid looks up at his father with big deer in front of headlights eyes and says, "But Dad, you steal satellite signals!"
It then cuts to a white screen with the words "theft is theft" written on it in large black courier font with the sound of sirens and police radio in the background.
The funny thing is that the commercial makes me want to "steal satellite signals" just so I know my money wouldn't be going to fund such dreck.
So, apparently the progression is: P2P leads to Warez. Warez leads to Satellite Hacking. Satellite Hacking leads to Shoplifting, and so on and so on.
So remember, kids! Every time you download a song off the Internet, you kill a baby panda!
Re:Action (Score:3, Funny)
And every time you download stolen copyrighted porn material off Kazaa and masterbate to it, a ninja kills a kitten! So in theory, Kazaa kills kittens. This is why the FBI and government want to shut down P2P networks, because after all who wants to kill a cute little kitten?
Re:Action (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Action (Score:3, Informative)
Great, isn't it?
Re:Action (Score:5, Insightful)
We should at least be writing to our congress-people about the issue. It's one that's not getting substantial media attention, but it's going to become a HUGE issue in a few years.
NOW is the time to put the wheels in motion that are going to save us from government control over all intellectual property.
We need to force some change- we need to show the media empire that it can't hold onto it's current business model, that it's greedy little eyes need to open up a little and see the damage they are causing.
There is a solution to pirating that does not have to involve the government or anyone else erasing hard drives. Apple's on the right track with the iTunes store. We should be making the RIAA look at new solutions that work best for all involved, not just some fat cats.
Re:Action (Score:4, Interesting)
Ugh.. Lamar Smith is my rep. I've written him a couple of letters on the subject of copyright and I always get the same sort of BS back, talking about how it's important to strengthen copyright law. Blah blah blah. He never gives a reason. It all seems pretty condescending really. Maybe I should write him again and ask him to explain it to me using very small words so that a simpleton like me can understand why we need practically perpetual copyrights.
Re:Action (Score:4, Interesting)
He got scared a little when he didn't get his usual 85% to 95% of the vote in the last election. Unfortunately, we didn't scare him enough. Someone bring in a pro-choice, anti-Big Media Republican candidate to take him out...or an electable Libertarian.
435 reps not enough (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a perfect illustration why 435 representatives in Congress is not enough. Congressman simply do not have time for their constituents. They can't be bothered with the concerns of ordinary folks.
The original representation ratio was 1:30k. Now it's more like 1:575k. Today we have the technology that would make a meeting of 8300 representatives possible instead of completely impractical. Personally I'm fully in favor of a tenfold increase in the number of representatives in the House. Heck, even raising the number to something nice and round like 1000 reps would be a step in the right direction.
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you also in favor of paying their salaries?
In all honesty, I doubt things would change that much if we have 8300 representatives vs. 435. It's not just a matter of having too many constituents that makes them unresponsive, it also has something to do with all of those campaign contributions and their own private dealings.
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
yea, but can you image bribing 4151 representatives? I think even companies would be hard pressed to make a dent...
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course that's the the same reason that it will never happen.
Re:435 reps not enough (Score:3, Interesting)
And here I think you have hit on the big problem. Apathy. It might be difficult to get enough people to run to fill 5000 seats. But one would hope the prime cause of apathy is a feeling of powerlessness.
Also, I had a hell of a time trying to vote the issues in the last election. I made a spreadsheet with all the points I felt were important. The problem was I couldn't fill in the cells. There just was not enough coverage on the issues I felt was important. I ended up picking a few major votes and basing m
Re:Action (Score:3, Insightful)
so what else have you done? how much have you informed your friends and family? how many letters have they written?
Geeks writing an email is a Bullcrap cop-out. if we want to do anything but sound like whiney kids, we need to write letters to the editor in all local newspapers, educate friends, relatives, neigbhbors, e
Re:Action (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Action (Score:2)
Tell your Congressfolk that the bill should explain to their voters that everything ever created, from crayon scribblings to songs in the shower to Madonna's "What do you think you're doing" MP3 is automatically covered by Copyright as soon as it's created, and how you should benefit from Copyright laws too.
Tell your Congressfolk that the bill should also include programs which explain to constituents just what the social and cultural benefits of the Public Domain might be, which is what the "limited tim
San Antonio and Hill Country (Score:2)
The 21st Congressional District stretches along the Interstate 35 Corridor from north San Antonio to west Austin and Travis County and encompasses all of the Texas Hill Country. Fourteen counties are included in the District.
Re:Action (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, having read the text of the bill, I'm not entirely sure I will. While I don't see it as a particularly useful bit of legislation, I don't see it as dreadful enough that I would squander my communication capital with my rep [house.gov] to decry it.
I have spent considerable time educating the Honorable Mr. Wexler about the technological and civil implications of ill-conceived copyright legislation (a recent sample [slashdot.org]) but I'm not convinced that this bill really has that much substance of concern. Unless I'm missing something, it directs the FBI (1) to engage in a public education campaign (which I imagine will be about as effective and thorough as the leader warnings on videotapes and anti-drug commercials) and (2) to share information among law enforcement agencies about infringement activities. Frankly, I think if people were better informed about copyright issues and laws it would be a Good Thing(TM), and I'd much rather have an accountable law enforcement agency policing copyright infringement (which is, whatever your personal ethical position, a crime according to the US Code) than RIAA and MPAA vigilantes.
If someone can educate me as to why this bill is so horrible, and what substantial harm it does to consumer rights or technological progress, then I will change my mind and dash out another missive to my rep. ACs need not reply. Nothing of relevance posted in response to this question would you endanger your life or liberty by signing, and and if you do not offer me the respect of knowing my communicant, I will not read your post...
Re:Action (Score:5, Insightful)
(7) In light of these considerations, it is important that Federal law enforcement agencies actively pursue criminals who steal the copyrighted works of others, and prevent such activity through enforcement and awareness. It is also important that the public be educated about the security and privacy risks associated with being connected to an unauthorized peer-to-peer network.
(a) DESIGNATION OF AGENTS IN CHIPS UNITS- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.
(1) educate the general public concerning the value of copyrighted works and the effects of the theft of such works on those who create them;
Copyright infringement is not, and has not yet been placed, in the same legal category as theft. Passage of this bill would give the RIAA, MPAA, and Congress the precedent to redefine the crime from infringement to theft, a much more serious crime with harsher punishments. As I am sure you are aware from your interaction with Mr. Wexler, precise legal phrasing is a potent and manipulable tool of politics.
While I agree that the gist of the bill appears harmless, the use and insertion of the word theft into the bill could very well be a 'backdoor bill' attempt. Educating the public is a good and noble goal, and well worth while. But I am wary after so many times things have been slipped into bills to allow another bill in that redefines the laws in such a way.
Re:Action (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of insight that will convince me to act. Striking use of the word theft, in fact any implication that copyright infringement and theft can be equated, from the bill is truly a wise choice.
I am embarrased to have missed that. I will start preparing my letter forthwith.
Re:Action (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Action (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how free speech and open access to information are paramount until it's government agencies that are communicating amongst themselves...
I simply do not see what legitimate interest there is i
Re:Action (Score:5, Insightful)
This was made clear in the lawsuit against mp3.com back during it's mymp3.com release. (If you don't remember, they ripped & encoded about 60,000 albums onto their servers, and then all you had to do was pop in your ORIGINAL cd and it scanned it to make sure it was real. Then, suddenly you had that album available online, anwhere, streamable. --you didn't have to upload it)
They lost, and with a fight. (Lawyers + money)
Education! (Score:5, Funny)
Piracy's bad......mmmmkay?
Re:Education! (Score:3, Funny)
Next... (Score:2)
Re:Next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from some of the comments and attitudes that are prevalent here, I think a lot of people need to be told what copyright is, and what it's supposed to do.
If nothing else, how can you possibly make an informed argument against something if you don't know exactly what you're arguing against? (Or for, for that matter)
Re:Next... (Score:2)
No, People Wrap Greed in Cloak of Bogus Principles (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of the noise surrounding this issue is generated by people attempting to pose as intellectual property revolutionaries, convinced that the Internet makes all previous human experience obsolete. This is bogus, of cou
Re:Next... (Score:2)
2.3 billion...? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what they're considering a "file." If they're counting the gifs and jpegs for smileys, emoticons, ads, backgrounds for the chat clients and whatnot, that doesn't seem like a fair comparisson.
What am I saying? This is Congress at work...
Re:2.3 billion...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doncha miss the Hoover years? (Score:4, Insightful)
Our tax dollars at work! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this a trick question?
Re:Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:2)
File sharing is terrorism, isn't it? I mean Sen. Hatch seems to think so.
rather than busting teenagers for downloading Britney Spears?
Well, let's not be too stringent on what people should be jailed for.
Besides...it seems to me that all these wasted hours protecting the obsolete business models of private companies like the RIAA and MPAA
The RIAA and MPAA are trade groups (or lobby groups), not private co
Re:Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:3, Interesting)
hrm, let's see...
Main Entry: terÂrorÂism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
That sounds more like what the RIAA does to people swapping songs than the other way around.
Not that I'm trying to defend copyright infringement but it's pretty clear who is trying to coerce who by means of terror. i.e. "Stop doing that or we'll sue
Re:Uhm...excuse me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry to say, but illegal copying is one of the few things that the federal government actually has the constitutional right to do something about.
What is the program? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly qualifies as a "program?"
I know a lot of us are picturing armed FBI raids, computer seizures, kids being drug down the streets in chains for the crime of filesharing and being made into examples. It's possible... hell it's already happening.
However, I'm hoping it's more something like the current drug compaigns. Public awareness on "filesharing" and "piracy" as a crime. Consequences, that type of thing. I also hope that if it becomes obvious enough, people will wake up and Joe Average (tm) will finally realize the type of bullsh*t that corps like the RIAA are trying to pull with the law.
SERIOUSLY, the FBI has no place at all getting involved with copyright issues. There are a lot more things they can do that are a hell of a lot more productive, like preventing 9-11 mark II. We don't need them tapping our internet lines, tracing our IP's, or dragging more people in to court.
I think the USA needs a little bit of seperation between government and corporation - thought by now we all know who is really running the country anyways.
Re:What is the program? (Score:5, Informative)
In all truth, the FBI is exactly the organization to investigate copyright violations. Remember the warnings at the beginning of movies? IP and copyright are Federal laws. The FBI enforces federal statues
disclaimer: I hate this bill and think it should not come out of committee.
Re:What is the program? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. My biggest problem with this is that violating a copyright, at least right now, in the United States, is not a 'crime' per se; it is a civil offense. The copyright holder is responsible for dragging you into court and extracting damages. What this bill proposes is that the FBI now take on that role, at taxpayers expense.
Re:What is the program? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but Corporations and copyright holders deserve protection under the law too. If not the FBI then who should be involved with copyright issues? The FBI is not the CIA, or the military, it's the government association responsible for enforcing most federal laws. Stealing copyrighted materials violates a federal law, hence the FBI should get involved. Unless you want to abolish copyrights, or create another law enforcement body to handle this sort of thing, then it is the FBI's business, this law would just make it a higher priority for them .
And you're hoping it's like the drug campaigns? The war on drugs is one of the most enormous failures that hte US government has ever embarked upon. It's caused increased violence, helped to fund terrorism, and not slowed down the drug problem.
Damn.... (Score:3, Funny)
d00-dz! (Score:2, Interesting)
Heh...done like any professional three year-old who just messed in his pants.
SEC. 3. DETERRENCE AND COORDINATION.
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall--
(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--
(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or
(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet, without the authorization of t
mwa ha ha haha (Score:2)
Hey, don't touch that! You don't know where it's been!
"They're all over me!
They're inside of me!
Can't get 'em offa me.
I'm covered with....(bacteria)...GERMS!"
That doesn't sound too convincing, ANY file you get off the internet is a security concern, no?
Education (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad that education campaign is there, jeez, I didn't know that on my own. It hurts
US cracks down on ILLEGAL activities.. so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do people download music they wouldn't buy, sure. Is there legitimate use for p2p, yes. But it also can be used easily to set out your own inexpensive publishing house and give away what others sell for free.
Information has value, especially in the new economy. I sometimes think people get to bent out of shape when people/companies try to protect that value.
Re:US cracks down on ILLEGAL activities.. so what? (Score:2, Informative)
Since the government don't "earn" money, so is the taxpayers money that is being diverted from one area to another area that is being said "more important" or "vital" or any other adjective.
The FBI now will start to eavesdrop and crack down on Joe Beer so he stops downloading N Sync and LOTR. Good...
Without that kind of distraction Bin Laden parked two boeings in manhatan, other at the pentagon and another di
Fair bill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. This is true regardless of what you might think about the fairness of either the behaviour of the copyright owner or of the copyright law itself.
This bill is unique. It seems rational. In a world where senators advocate allowing copyright owners to (without due process) destroy or hack computers in an attempt to halt unlawful distribution of their materials, this seems sane.
It does nothing more than encourage law enforcement to cooperate in fighting crime, and puts the American people on notice that breaking the law is wrong, and that the people distributing many popular p2p programs plan spyware in their programs, and that the use of p2p carries risks for the safety of your computer, especially if they are used unwisely (like shareing an entire drive.)
The Real Bill (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently this is the real bill.
So, please tell me what is rational about this? Yes, distributing materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. We already have laws and civil penalties for this. Thi
And the next step... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is to provide federal funding to run ads against candidates or referenda which would weaken intellectual property laws such as the DMCA, the super-DMCAs, the CDBPTA (did I spell that right?), etc.
Why wouldn't they? They've already started doing it about candidates and referenda that try to legalize medical marijuana.
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
I reckon you support terrorism (Score:2)
Defeat file sharing through file sharing. Ah the irony.
Supporting P2P is supporting terrorist. Just like doing drugs, sleeping with people of the same sex, vandalism, murder, bouncing checks, jay walking, post
Re:I reckon you support terrorism (Score:2)
They're not talking about defeating file sharing--just illegal file sharing.
See the difference? No, probably not. Copyright violation only happens when you violate copyright law. There is nothing in the letter or stated intent of this bill that would make P2P illegal per se.
Implied intent may well be another thing (especially with the backing of Berman, the RIAA, and the MPAA) but your statement is just flat out wrong. (and hence, unironic)
Re:I reckon you support terrorism (Score:2)
See the difference? No, probably not. Copyright violation only happens when you violate copyright law. There is nothing in the letter or stated intent of this bill that would make P2P illegal per se.
Implied intent may well be another thing (especially with the backing of Berman, the RIAA, and the MPAA) but your statement is just flat out wrong. (and hence, unironic)
Umm,
This is Slashdot. Where I do not have to read the article,
Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Law enforcement agencies sharing information and teaching kids about why breaking the law is a bad thing. That honestly sounds like a good idea to me. Kids are taught that drugs are bad, that you don't shoot people - why not also teach them tearing away at the foundation of the economy is also a bad thing. Yes, the way the RIAA and MPAA approach things sucks, their business model is old, and they litigate to save themselves. But that doesn't mean that copyright is a bad thing, per se.
Around here, as much as people argue that open-source is the way for the world to go, every one of us has to admit that it's only our day jobs which allows us to spend our nights cutting code for open-source projects. Copyright is a Very, Very, Very Good Thing (TM). I don't think that fact is lessened by some idiotic laws which these guys have tried to pass in the past.
The big problem with copyrights is duration (Score:5, Insightful)
In the intervening years, various parties have managed to get the copyright period extended to a ludicrous extent, and it's for *one* reason: Walt Disney corporation can't come up with anything NEW that's any good, so they've gotta keep protecting Mickey and Donald and Goofy and all those other characters that, by rights, would have passed into the public domain decades ago.
Essentially, legislation and litigation are a poor but workable substitute for innovation and invention.
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
I've argued in favour of rational copyrights on
I think that there are some real objections to be brought up here, though: What I can infer about this bill makes it sound like the FBI is pushing for greater powers to subpoena ISPs and get information out of them. What they currently have is
Great on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
I know where you're coming from - to disclose, I like the general idea of copyright, and think it would be fine without industry shills. Today, copyright duration is, what, life + 3000 years? And fair use means that copying stuff for home use is only a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
My problem in light of above is, yes, the law sounds great on paper...but only there. Education is fine, but what about the inter-agency info sharing? Again, I would have not problem if it were used to get blatant commercial-mp3-only sharers, but lately it's been used to go after kids who basically build search engines. And I don't like that.
So it's like this - the law sounds good, but do you support a just law if you know for sure that it will be implemented in a monstrously unjust manner? That has to be considered, because a law in a vacuum is nothing. Consider sodomy laws on the books in most states - they are horrendously discriminatory against homosexuals and other people the Christian Coalition considers "deviants" - but I don't really care because they're not enforced at all, and amount to nothing more than a quaint little nuiscance. This law, on the other hand, while it sounds nice, has the potential to take down a lot of people who have the gall to allow people a way of sharing information without policing that information. And I don't like that at all.
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:2)
What I do have a problem with is the usage of federal funds and personnel to attempt to enforce copyright.
Patents enforcement is largely the responsibility of the holder, not the government. Why should the responsibility of copyright enforcement be any different? If a work is copyrighted and the holder does not want to pay to enforce the restrictions associated with copyrig
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what it means is that copyright law no longer serves the purpose that it was supposed to serve. The public has no stake in it anymore. Nothing becomes public domain anymore, and won't for at least another 15 years. Probably longer because they'll just pass their regular 20-year extension again then anyway. Copyright was never supposed to be perpetual. It was supposed to be a bargain between the public and the people creating things that the public likes. We give them a period of time in which they
Copyright was never intended to be pushed this far (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Much like the internet. It was built not by one government but by the efforts of millions of people working together to ensure that a packet of data can travel from on
they should use P2P (Score:5, Funny)
Piracy is bad, mmm-kay? (Score:2)
I give them high marks for concept (snicker), now let's see them implement it.
Anyone heard of these "recent studies"? (Score:4, Interesting)
From the text of the bill:
In addition, many of the computer users drawn to the convenience of peer-to-peer systems do not realize that these systems pose serious security and privacy threats to their personal computers or company networks. Recent studies reveal that the majority of the users of these systems are unable to tell what files they are sharing and sometimes incorrectly assume they were not sharing any files when in fact they were sharing all files on their hard drive.
Does anyone have a reference for these "recent studies?" What evidence suggests that running P2P clients is a security issue?
I don't know what is considered a strong argument in bill-writing, but in graduate school we are expected to provide specifics (including citations) when we describe the results of a study. Otherwise, we could be "creatively interpreting" the results, or better yet, making stuff up altogether. Assuming that these studies actually exist, I'd bet that the subjects were AOL users!
Re:Anyone heard of these "recent studies"? (Score:2)
Why is it bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any actual evidence that filesharing is bad? Weren't record sales up 10% during the height of Napster? Isn't that the only indicator? I'd be very interested in this. If there are stories of bands that go like "we were doing alright, we just put out our first album, then it went on KaZaa, and nobody bought it, but we have evidence that a million people downloaded the whole album and listened to it more than once and swear that they would've bought it if they weren't able to d/l it for free, and now we all work at a burger joint."
If there's no actual evidence, what are they going to teach? "Well, we've got heresay and conjecture, your honor - those are kinds of evidence." Does anyone actually believe that artists are worse off with filesharing around?
What difference does it really make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the insightful bit:
Since when did the US government guarantee that a corporation will earn money one way or another? I mean instead of letting the companies attempt to crack down on piracy their own way the companies beg and plead that the US government step in and be the daddy. The problem is that the government is not supposed to be involved in such matters. The ONLY thing the governement to supposed to do receive taxes to defend our countries citizens from outside attacks. Not police the world, bend to the will of a common nation governemnt (UN), or be involved in corporate legalities that do not directly affect the us citizens.
Online music piracy (incorrectly identified BTW), is nothing more than an easier way to "tape" a CD. We all know this. They know this. The bottom line is that the corporation needs to address this NOT the fucking government!!!
We OWN the governement. We are the BOSSES! They seemed to forget this. And we citizens find ourselves electing these people to office to only have them incorporate themselves upon entering office and then immediately being hired by a lobbyist firm as a contractor. This is why it's not called bribery. They are getting paid as if they worked there.
But I could be wrong...
Rivendahl
Useless Legislation (Score:2)
I've seen a few posts that have indicated that this law would be a Good Thing(TM). But in my opinion, it's useless. The law basically says that law enforcement agencies should share information to stop crime. THAT'S ALREADY WHAT THEY DO!!!
Yes, violating copyrights is wrong, both legally and ethically, and violations should be reasonably enforced. But will this really do anything for the big copyright violators? Prolly not. It's just more fodder to prosecute the small fries. The people who make a ki
In his own words... (Score:2, Interesting)
[Quote]
DREIER, BERMAN REINTRODUCE RUNAWAY PRODUCTION LEGISLATION [house.gov]
"...Congressmen David Dreier (R-San Dimas) and Howard Berman (D-Van Nuys) joined by a bipartisan group of 44 Members of the House of Representatives today re-introduced legislation that provides wage-based tax relief for film and television projects produced in the Unite
Better things to do (Score:2)
Like protecting us from being blown up or poisoned by a bunch of idiots wearing diapers on their heads??
Sheesh where the hell is the priority system around there..
Hmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Of all the P2P sharing software I've ever seen, n
Separation of Powers?!? (Score:2)
may not be a copyright violation (Score:2)
Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
These people are all living in fantasyland. The senators keep it quiet because they know there will be a backlash. Berman is already saying "It's not my bill. It's his." The RIAA shows their idoicy by touting this bill that they haven't even read! Looking at his top contributors, [opensecrets.org] I don't see the entertainment industry on there. Maybe he wants to get on their payroll?
I think the stealth with which this bill was put out indicates that the senators know that this type of legislation could damage their careers, but they want to keep the soft money coming in and keep writing up this crap.
Now think of it for a while (Score:2)
Why copyright violation is called a 'crime' if it isn't even obvious to an average Joe that it's bad? People usually don't have any problems identifying common criminal activities as such; you don't have to explain to a person that murder, fraud, piracy (the real one), rape, blackmail are bad, pretty much regardless of the person's citizenship and cultural background.
Disclaimer: I *
Things that make you go "hmmmm" (Score:2)
Tell me, when will the US actually start *enforcing* the already existing laws, as opposed to wasting time making up new laws to overlap the existing ones?
Oh silly me, there I go thinking again...
Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone creates something, be they a penniless mother of 6 living in a hovel someplace, or a big heartless, greedy corporation, they deserve to profit from it. Why should anyone create anything - programs, music, movies - and get nothing for it?
Before I get the "But Open Source" speech, wasn't that Linus I saw driving around in a very expensive Italian sports car? I more than suspect he knew his work would get him a very good paying job. Good for him. Just like a lot of other OS people are now getting paid well because of their work.
I'm a capitalist. People's inventions deserve to be protected, because it encourages them to keep on inventing.
To those of you who still say everything should be free, remember this:
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself. You better hope to God not too many people steal your company's product, or you'll be out looking for work again.
Bad wording (Score:3)
(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or
(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet
This sounds a little odd to me, more like the're trying to deter members of the public by offering copies of copyrighted works. Shouldn't this be something more like
To deter members of the public who are committing acts of copyright infringement such as: (etc etc).
Laws only seem to be as good as the wording they are written with - until a lawyer with better skills at manipulating said wording come around. Therefore, it makes sense to word them a little more intelligently.
The 2-minute hate begins now.... (Score:3, Interesting)
'Educate the American public'. Right. Just like those 'drugs support terrorism' campaigns? What's next... 'Downloading MP3s make baby Jesus cry'?
If you read the bill you can see it's simply a repetition of the flawed arguments the big media companies have against P2P.
Take for example points (5) and (6):
Privacy and security violations need to be addressed by banning spyware/adware, not P2P networks. Misleading advertising seems to be the norm in the US rather than the exception, and nothing is being done about it. Gator is not a helpful tool if it's spyware. I am not 'today's winner' if this banner is flashing, because the banner flashes all the time. And if I've "just won $50****" I'm 100% SURE I won't be seeing any of that money at all.
Why don't they ban THAT?
And heck, if people are accidentally sharing their entire harddrive, then the software's interface needs to be improved, and the setup procedure for sharing files needs to be changed. Why doesn't a P2P app come with a warning if you decide to share an entire harddrive? Oh that's right, 'a good UI' still means nothing but flashy buttons and a 'cool skin' these days, thanks to Microsoft's own crappy UI skills and inconsistencies. The fact that creating applications for Windows is a pain in the ass doesn't help much either, because a programmer will be satisfied with something that 'just works' rather than something that works well.
From the user side, it's simple: if people are stupid and leave their house door unlocked, you don't teach them to brick their doors and windows shut, you simply teach them to lock their door.
The biggest problem I see is that this sort of stuff plays right into the hands of Palladium and friends. People don't want to take responsibility for their own safety. If someone comes along and offers them 'a completely secure platform!' with lots of bells and whistles in a colorful package, then they'll buy it for sure, especially after being 'educated' on how important security is.
I'm a little confused (Score:4, Funny)
British proposal to prevent piracy (Score:5, Funny)
According to this article today's Guardian [guardian.co.uk], pirates killed or injured 145 people at sea in the first three months of this year. There are calls for the Royal Navy to station warships in the affected areas, to protect trade routes.
So you see, piracy is an ongoing and deadly threat... oh wait... *reads thread again*... Somebody seems to have started using the word "piracy" to mean "copyright violation". What an odd thing to do.
Getting their attention (Score:4, Interesting)
These groups can raise ulimited funds, are not required to disclose their donors, and most importantly, promise to run radio/television/print ads against any legislator that they deem "anti-tech" during election season.
Trust me, if your congressman knows that the "Coalition for Fair Use Computing Knowledge" or some such, will be watching how they vote on crucial tech bills (no matter how "quietly they're introduced), and letting their constituents know about it. They will think twice.
OK, I'll say it: (Score:3, Interesting)
All of you who pontificate about how file-sharers are pirates and criminals and good-for-nothing freeloaders should wake up out of false consciousness and consider the consequences you think we all ought to live in. Information not only wants to be free, it must be free.
Sooo, what about the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, if I traded through, say, freenet - and they cracked/reverse engineered freenet (assuming they could, technically), does that mean the creators of freenet can sue based on DMCA violations? After all, they would have to reverse engineer the encrypted datastream to first see what was actually being traded - and as I recall, cracking encryption was at the very heart of the DMCA.
Does Berman mention that he accepted over $200K? (Score:3, Interesting)
Naw I didn't think so. Every single time one of these stories comes up there is always a congressman taking a payoff.
The Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need is a movement like Open Source but for music: a legal and unstoppable alternative to the corrupt monopolies that exist.
Big Media's Achilles: cheap petabyte drives. (Score:3, Insightful)
At that point, the protectionism will become impossibly difficult to defend. When each person could be be given a copy of the Archive of Human Knowledge for the equivalent of 1 week's wage, the issue will resolve. There will be those societies who become enlightened, and those who wither in the greatest of dark ages.
My dollars at work.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:serious (Score:2)
That's "Hedley" (Score:2)