Senate Hearing Webcast Today On DMCA Subpoena Powers 21
An anonymous reader sends this clipping from the Senate Commerce committee website about today's hearing into "consumer privacy implications of the use of subpoena powers by copyright holders to obtain the identities of Internet subscribers allegedly infringing on their copyrights. Members also will examine whether the government can mandate content protection technologies without limiting consumers' legal uses of digital media products. Senator Brownback will preside. Tentative witness list will be available at a later time."
Here's a link to both the schedule and the webcast itself; it starts at 10:00 a.m., EST.
Subpoenas are a basic human right (Score:1)
It is just as important to be able to subpoena customer information as it is to be able to demand information through the FOIA, just as it is to be able to demand that the government be accountable. It is important that citizens be able to demand satisfaction from those who violate the law and injure them.
This does not mean that one condones the RIAA's
Re:Subpoenas are a basic human right (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know who is sponsoring this event?
Re:Subpoenas are a basic human right (Score:2, Informative)
This is not about subpoenas (Score:5, Informative)
Quite simply, this enforcement campaign would never happen without the DMCA, because people don't consider copyright infringement to be a serious crime. Before the DMCA, enforcement of copyright law was generally in touch with the public's perception. There was no public outcry, so the police only cracked down on huge cracker rings.
The DMCA is the hijacking of the will of the American people for corporate profit. The RIAA wants to use our "basic human rights" to bleed us dry. It already has laid claim to powers reserved for our government, while declaring itself immune to the protections of the constitution, especially against unreasonable search and seizure. So please, the last thing I want to hear some ignorant troll bitching about is how we're depriving the RIAA of its rights.
Re:This is not about subpoenas (Score:2)
It can also be argued that the framers never intended the federal government to make legislation about the media in the first place. Why should the government protect the business model of a company that employs rot13 to protect its products, for example?
We need more natural selection, not less.
Re:This is not about subpoenas (Score:1)
Man I hate it when people mess up such simple constitutional concepts.
Article I.(Legislative powers)
Section 8.
Clause 8.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Re:This is not about subpoenas (Score:1)
Okay agreed (my post was too generalized), but what about laws that inhibit other people's constitutional rights? DRM that can't be reverse engineered is just dangerous. For example, if a company went out of business without closure regarding their encryption formats, people should have a right to figure out the technology for interoperability. While a company can obscure their formats to any degree, once those formats are in the wild
Re:Subpoenas are a basic human right (Score:1)
It would be nice if the procedure was that the copyright holder issues the subpoena to the ISP, and the ISP then forwards it to the account owner. And then the account owner can move anonymously through an attorn
Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
This should be fun.
After the parade of ridiculous witnesses showing the *AA lawyer goons going after Joe Citizen the Department of Justice and John Ashcroft will be embarrassed that their Patriot Act is a wimp by comparison.
Seriously, though, it should give some people pause when some random 11 year old getting sued by the RIAA for a "gravely serious violation of copyright law causing billions in loss CD sales" tells everyone that they aren't making tons of money selling "stolen" tracks that get off the internet, tracks that they hear all time on the radio anyway so what's the big deal?
It's really hard for common people to take this artificial issue seriously - they can't identify with the problem, because it's only genuinely serious problem to the people whose money stream is affected by unrestricted trade of media.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
It was before the link crapped out. EMI Boss Jim Rose was claiming poverty, but I'm guessing that's got nothing to do with Mariah Carey's $28 million flop and the $49 million they gave her to get out and never come back.
The point has been made that you shouldn't expect privacy if you open your machine up to peer-to-peer networks, to which I suspect the DoD would be interested. Wouldn't this mean that anyone has a right to explore any non-firewalled machine?
EMI has claimed 2500 e
RealPainInTheAss (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Ashcroft wants every viewer's RealPlayer to phone home IP addresses, to later check each address for running Kazaa.
I don't think I have time to figure out which sub-sub-sub-menu of the 11 tab page RealPlayer config contains the 47 ambiguously named checkboxes that I'll have to alternately check or uncheck in order to turn off the spyware.
Re:RealPainInTheAss (Score:1)
This whole thing is crap! (Score:3, Interesting)
If Congress attempts to mandate any kind of copy protection technology, they have deliberately, knowingly, and unabashedly sacrificed their Constitutional responsibility to protect the rights of the people for the protection of billions of dollars for a few CEO's controlling the RIAA member companies. That kind of elitist "scratch-my-back" bullshit goes against everything that this country was founded on!
It's been said before, but the recording industry's business model is completely ridiculous. The reason people most download is because bands don't actually produce enough quality material to justify the price of a whole album. However, record companies no longer produce cheap singles. So rather than feed money to the hungry beast, consumers look elsewhere.
It's not the job of Congress to protect the interests of the self-righteous assholes who run the RIAA. The fact these money grubbers get so much attention, while our country is facing real problems shows just where our elected officials' interests lie. FWIW, at the time Napster was still around and Kazaa was waiting in the trenches, record sales were at all time highs. And the RIAA had the cojones to claim that file sharing was hurting business!
Re:This whole thing is crap! (Score:2, Informative)
"consumer privacy implications" (Score:5, Insightful)
When did these words become interchangeable?
There's a subtle bias involved. Ask yourself this:
Is it more important to protect consumers or producers?
Is it more important to protect citizens or corporations?
Re:"consumer privacy implications" (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but it's nicer than refering to us as sheep
Re:"consumer privacy implications" (Score:2)
Is it more important to protect citizens or corporations?
Actually, that last one could also be "Is it more important to protect citizens or government?"
The government should be able to defend its actions. Does the DMCA add up? How about the PATRIOT Act? Citizens need to ask these questions daily.
Online copy of Alan Davidson's prepared statement (Score:2)
http://www.cdt.org/testimony/030917davidson.shtml [cdt.org]
A quick google on todays event turns up surpisingly little. It is shameful how the media conglomerates are sweeping DMCA related stories under the rug.
In other news (Score:1)
Revised Patriot Act Will Make It Illegal To Read Patriot Act
WASHINGTON, DC--President Bush spoke out Monday in support of a revised version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act that would make it illegal to read the USA Patriot Act. "Under current federal law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism, including the public's access to information about how the federal police will investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism," Bush said at a press conf
Stupidest Person Alive (Score:2, Informative)