Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
United States Government Media Music The Courts News

Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act 739

An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET the Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch. It looks like the RIAA is making significant progress manipulating the marionette strings in Congress. states that if such laws were to pass, the record industry would become the new AMTRAK. 'Bloated and inefficient as always, but now a drain on taxpayers wallets and liberty as well'." Infoworld has a story as well. Reader CryptoEngineer writes: "Marybeth Peters, of the US Copyright Office testified recently before the Senate Judiciary committee in support of the INDUCE Act, which has been discussed here before. In summary, she thinks its not strong enough. Among other things, she proposed scrapping the Betamax decision, which makes it legal to timeshift TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act

Comments Filter:
  • by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:54PM (#9782980) Journal
    Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch
    Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive [] [] in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).

    Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be abused as well. But since the rest of his top contributors are pharma co's he isn't likely to raise that as an issue is he?
    • Orrin Hatch should be beat upside the head with a mackrel.

      That's just my humble opinion though...
      • Yeah, a 50 pound mackrel that happens to be frozen solid.
      • Among other things, it's legal.

        This might be an excuse to start getting out the youth vote. I suggest the following add be placed by 'interested citizens' in his riding:

        Would you like to be thrown in jail for making an MP3?

        Do you want CD writers to be illegal?
        Would you like your computer destroyed for sharing your own music?
        Would you like VCRs to be illegal?

        If Orrin Hatch has his way, all of these things may come to pass.

        NOW is the time to stop him.

        Get active.

        Get voting

        These ads should start going out as soon as possible.. Similar adds in the constituencies of other senators who are supporting this bill.

        People should start putting notices on their websites about senators and congresscrittors trying to outlaw these things.

        If anything will get out the youth vote, I think that this will.

        • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @10:50PM (#9786550)
          This is a type of law that focuses on people who don't vote, young people. Young people are really the only people who are downloading MP3 and DivX stuff. 55 year olds aren't going to risk jail and bank account confication in order to hear "I can't get no satisfaction" one more time.
          Basically when laws like this are passed, they are written very broad so that anything involving music recordings in digital form can be interpreted by some mean old judge somewhere as illegal. But they are always enforced very politically. Rich white kids will get away with claiming that their brother's girlfriend's old college Napster account makes it OK for them to download anything and everything, while black college students will be thrown in prison for downloading 80 year-old African-American history items from the Library of Congress without written permission from the CEOs of the global media corporations.
          These kind of laws just perpetuate and intensify the level of institutional corruption already present in a country. They seem new and extreme for America, but it's just standard operating procedure in the third world. What's disheartening is the extent that the US Congress is adopting third world legal standards. Before the Reagon era there was always someone in the back rooms of the Capitol who would just say that these bills were Bongo Congo laws and not the way that we do things here. Now the corporations are in a positive feedback corruption loop passing dumb laws right and left.
          In the long run, the effect of really dumb corrupt laws is to transfer innovation both in culture and technology to another part of the world where there isn't so much pressure from the government. The reason Hollywood became the world's film capital is because all the bright people moved there from the NorthEast in order to get away from Edison's crushing patents, back when he claimed to have invented everything and had enough money to hire private goon squads to bust up any movie or sound recording activity that didn't pay him off.
          Sometimes you just gotta lighten up and let people create and copy, regardless of how many patents or copyrights your lawyers say you own. In the end, it's good for business.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Are you sure his incentive isn't simple in being an artist himself? []

      Tonight at Saltair, on the anti-P2P tour, Orrin Hatcn and Metallica!
    • SBC is a disincentive, not an incentive. Media piracy helps SBC, because they sell high speed internet access.

      Depending on how vaguely INDUCE is termed & interpreted, (I have no idea about this.) SBC's current business practices could be considered illegal under the INDUCE act, and they may be required to change or face consequences. Dunno.
      • "Media piracy helps SBC, because they sell high speed internet access."

        Not really, piraters actually utilize their high speed access. SBC just wants you to browse the web, not download. They want users who DON'T utilize their connection to the fullest, that way they can support more users on the same t1.
      • Depending on how vaguely INDUCE is termed & interpreted, (I have no idea about this.) SBC's current business practices could be considered illegal under the INDUCE act, and they may be required to change or face consequences. Dunno.

        I know that's a lovely pipe dream we would love to have--$BUSINESS/$POLITICIAN would be guilty under this act, and then that'll show 'em! The reality part is that we don't get the opportunity to do equal enforcement of crap laws like this. Even though Senator Hatch's VCR at

    • by antarctican ( 301636 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:09PM (#9783195) Homepage
      You know, I would like to see this pass, I would even like to see the Betamax decision overturned. Why you might ask? Because of the wakeup call it will create.

      Right now it's only a small fraction of the population fighting this, or that even is paying attention. However when the RIAA and their lawyer start suing and the VCR becomes illegal.... the public will finally wake up. The sleeping lion which usually let's the government pursue it's own agenda at will, will begin to fight.

      There will be calls such as back in the revolution days, only this time it won't be led my traitors to the Britain (hey, I'm Canadian, the yanks were traitors in my eyes ;) it will be those fighting for these freedoms they've become accustom to. It will force some hard decisions on the direction you want for your country, do you want to be ruled by a corporate agenda or by the freedom that America supposedly stands for.

      If the RIAA pushes too far it could become the largest cultural revolution seen in a century.

      That, plus all the tech companies dealing with this technology will move north and I'll never want for a job - there will always be a black market for time-shifting and the like equipment down south. ;)

      Instead of us whining on slashdot, we need to inform and mobilize the masses. They need to know what their rights are now and what is being done to take them away. They need to have the will to pull in the line of their government, order them on the direction to take. Maybe even get rid of the Democratics and Republicans, two parties that claim to be different but are both the same cultural poison. Come on, give Nader a chance, he has some great ideas. :)
      • Exactly. This will be just like lowering the speed limit to 55mph. Overnight virtually every driver in the country became a criminal. If this act passes, overnight virtually every VCR owner will become a criminal -- exact same situation. And it only took, what, 20+ years to repeal the 55mph national speed limit. In that 20 years cars didn't change much, but 20 years from today most VCRs will be dead (and will long since be obsolete - analog TV is supposed to die shortly after 2006 []), and all the (legal) digital equipment will be technically incapable of timeshifting if the broadcaster disallows it, so in 20 years repealing the INDUCE act will be moot.

        Worst case scenario, in 20 years we won't have any personal computers, because this will outlaw them as well (any general purpose computer is a potential circumvention device and therefore must be prohibited - only DRM-shackled PCs will be legal, and I wouldn't call them "general purpose" if they only do what the RIAA/MPAA want them to do).

        • The national 55mph speed limit was enacted to save gasoline during the oil crunch of the 70's. Once that was over, the national speed limit was only a technicality since there are no national traffic police: local cops enforced the "unofficial" local speed limit.

          Unlike this. The INDUCE Act gives the DOJ jurisdiction over prosecuting these "crimes". All it will take is a couple of otherwise innocent people being prosecuted for owning a VCR and it will be a bloody revolution.

          At the very least, the MP/RIA
        • They can have my PC when they pry it from my greasy, mass market snack food covered hands! - The NCA
        • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @06:32PM (#9784776)
          That's just nonsense. The only things that will become illegal will be products (and services) made by people who can't afford to bribe politicians. The rest of the industry will get exemptions for their products.

          The VCR will not be illegal, the TV will not be illegal. What will be illegal are anything made with open source and not made by a large company.

          BTW the public won't give a shit. They are frogs being slowly boiled and they don't even know. All you have to is to raise the terror level up a notch and watch them cower.
      • Proposed Timeline: BetamaX decision is overturned. VCR's, Tivo's, and all manner of electronic gizmo are now rendered illegal. The MPAA, RIAA, and their cohorts will crack down on a select few people to make an example of them. For once, a legal battle fought on the grounds of COMMON SENSE will be won in court, but probaby be overturned by judges and/or congressmen or whoever decide these things (I'm Canadian) who have all recently bought huge new boats and houses with their big anonymous donations. Maybe, just maybe, at this point, Americans will wake up and suddenly realize that their country is being run by a band of brain-dead monkeys who don't give a rip about you, your job, your dreams or your future. Of course, it could also go the other way with the final vestigal organs of independent thought being wiped out forever, or fleeing to neighboring countries. Either way, it'll stop all this arguing.
        • Americans have been bred and trained to be "asleep" for 8 generations or more. Ever wonder how the unions ever came to be? Lord forbid that they didn't exist, and someone was trying to unionize now... it would be impossible. I wondered, then I realized people 100 years ago were different than you and I. Back then, they had wills. Ours have been erased. Oh well, the unions were co-opted long ago, and are worthless.

          This book [] (online ebook) deals with the situation from a different angle, and much of what he
      • You know, I would like to see this pass, I would even like to see the Betamax decision overturned. Why you might ask? Because of the wakeup call it will create.

        I'm sure that lot's of pepople said the same thing about the DMCA, but here we are six years later, and the DMCA is still going strong, despite such stupid things as the DMCA being used to outlaw third party batteries & inkjet cartridges.

        The American people are way to complacent to object to simple things like losing their rights. All the RIA
    • by ballookey ( 740691 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:11PM (#9783219) Journal
      I'm just going to cut and paste from my blog this morning:

      What's next? Are you going to make Adobe Photoshop illegal? I mean, I could use Photoshop to fake legal documents - sure they've made copying currency harder, but it's a lot easier to create fake insurance documents, phony immigration papers, false birth certificates and vehicle registrations.

      But do I do any of that? NO. I use it to make a living. I use it to create works of art, which in case they forgot, is one of the things that makes human beings noble and worth anything at all.

      I'm sure that a lot of people use it for nefarious purposes. Adobe would be hard-pressed to make an application that's useful and yet could hinder people's evil plans for it. So they leave that to the user and the criminal justice system - as it should be.

      Same thing with P2P networks. They just didn't realize how very many people are willing to bend or break the law given the chance. What, they thought everyone's basically GOOD at heart? SUCKER! P2P networks are handy. They have legitimate uses. The most valuable one to me is that heretofore unknown artists can make their work available and with just a little word of mouth, garner a lot of attention and notice they wouldn't previously have had.

      And I think that, more than anything, is the crux of it. The establishment has made hoards of money and holds a lot of power based on the fact that previously it was difficult to even make a minor success of yourself. It was like the old system of banks and checking accounts. You couldn't open an account unless someone vouched for you. Similarly, before computers and the internet took over, you couldn't be a success unless someone already rich and powerful vouched for you. (Or you were extraordinarilly lucky. This wouldn't preclude talent, but any talented artist that was successful under the old system will first admit they were lucky to get there.) Frankly, it's mostly the same now, but it's changing. Bands are putting songs they can't get onto the radio on their websites. Videos MTV won't let you see are available online. I don't have to listen to KROQ's corporate-sanctioned IDEA of alternative rock - I can listen to KEXP Seattle right through my computer. Rather than wait several weeks for the "official" release, people globally can get the media they want today. I no longer get suckered into paying $16-18 for a whole CD of crap when all I wanted was one song that frankly, I'd be sick of in three weeks flat anyway. Wifey and Hubby get 10-20,000 subscribers a month and they have a nice house and take fabulous trips. Mark one for everyone.

      Early in my Internet days I realized the great thing about it was, that with a little know how, a small investment, and a few ideas, anyone could make a few bucks. Some with better ideas would make a whole lot more. Sure enough a lot of people, it turns out, were actually quite willing to take their clothes off and start inserting all manner of objects in front of a camera - if they got paid for it. Did anyone realize how many whores there were out there before it became so easy to set up a subscription site? The free market used to be such a sacred cow with the conservatives. Suddenly they've had the rose-tinted glasses removed and realized the cow's a three-input bovine and they freak out and start legislating the use of inputs.

      OK, I ramble, I get off topic. Score me a -1. But the point is, they see things getting out of control. They see their precious status-quo shaken. And rather than adapt and take this opportunity to finally and truthfully get to know their audience for the slightly-slimey and occasionally downright dirty hos they are, they freak out and start taking liberties away. They only way they can see to staunch the flow of blood is to put a tourniquet on technological advances.

      We've got to stop this crap or else we're doomed to live with Brittany Spears and her ilk forever.

    • by stripe ( 680068 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:27PM (#9783466)
      Sponsers/supporters of the Bill

      Orrin G. Hatch
      Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont
      Bill Frist
      Tom Daschle
      Lindsey Graham
      Barbara Boxer

      If Ms Boxer is up for relection, I am voting for anyone that has a chance to replace her now.
    • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:30PM (#9783509) Homepage

      Congress first of all doesn't particularly care about drafting laws that actually benefit copyright holders in general, rather they care about protecting the interests of the big donors and their pet causes. The DMCA's anti-circumvention statute actually hurts smaller businesses by cutting out "consumer reports" style reviews of DRM systems. Losing 25% of one's potential sales to piracy hurts a small copyright holder significantly more than a large one. In fact, it could make the difference between having a day job and being able to get better at one's creative endeavor.

      Hatch has been steadily earning the name "RINO" in conservative circles for his "Republican In Name Only" politics. The RP may not be too conservative, but he's a flaming statist if there ever were one in the Senate. It's also alarming to see many self-proclaimed capitalists support this measure, as IPCentral, a capitalist IP blog and Motley Fool seem to think that INDUCE is common sense. Of course, IPCentral didn't have trackback enabled so I had to email a rebuttal [] to some of their arugments.

      At this point I just don't understand the record labels. Why don't they push hard to get people buying on iTunes so that they can turn digital distribution into an even bigger cashcow? They seem to be convinced of the "justice" of their cause, so much so that they'd rather be dead right than wrong alive.

      I don't even need to boycotte them anymore because Century Media and Projekt make most of my favorite music now. Lacuna Coil, a fast rising goth metal band that stole the show at Ozzfest 2004, is signed to CM, which is not affiliated with the RIAA according to the RIAA Radar. This is the future, people. Labels like Century Media know the writing is on the wall, and that being a member of the RIAA is as socially acceptable in the 21st century as declaring you're down with people who gas Jews and lynch black people for fun.

    • What's sickening is that it doesn't matter who you vote for this election - the MPAA & RIAA have bribed^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontributed to the campaign funds of both sides. Democrat, Republican, they'll both vote for this monstrosity. They've stopped listening to the little guys.

      The only hope is to challenge the constitutionality of this bill and hope the Supreme Court strikes it down.
  • VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WarMonkey ( 721558 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:55PM (#9782986)
    • by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:58PM (#9783023) Homepage
      I agree in theory, but in practice a vote libertarian is a vote for Bush. Just ask anybody who voted for Nader in 2000.

      • Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (Score:4, Informative)

        by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:00PM (#9783062) Homepage Journal
        I agree in theory, but in practice a vote libertarian is a vote for Bush

        And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either. It's a dog and pony (elephant and donkey) show. The only common theme is spending more of _YOUR_ money to add to _THEIR_ profit.
        • by Shakrai ( 717556 )

          And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either. It's a dog and pony (elephant and donkey) show. The only common theme is spending more of _YOUR_ money to add to _THEIR_ profit.

          Yeah because Kerry is going to invade a country that never attacked us while repealing 30 years of progress on environmental laws and giving massive tax cuts to the rich.

          Sure the Democrats have their problems (Patriot Act anyone? DCMA?) and they are almost as cozy with big business as the Republicans are but to say they are as

        • by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:17PM (#9783336) Journal
          And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either.


          First, Kerry's and Bush's ideals *do* differ. Both Republican and Democrat parties are fairly right-wing when it comes to global comparisons, but claiming that they are identical is ridiculous.

          Second, voters are very unlikely to go from Republican to Libertarian. In general, Libertarians compete with votes mostly with Democrats, and will absolutely not beat the Democrats in the immediate future -- there are not enough Libertarians out there. The best way for Libertarians to get a vote is for Democrats to have a large, secure majority over the Republicans -- at that point, Democrat voters that are dissatisfied with Democrat policies will feel safe voting Libertarian, and Libertarians will begin siphoning off votes, and working their way up to becoming a major third party.

          Third, there is a particularly disagreeable type of person noisily advocating Libertarian voting at this point -- Republicans who do not believe that they can get any centrist voters, and are trying to convince people sitting on the line between Libertarian and Democrat to vote Libertarian, as Libertarian is not a threat to them. The Republican party is already in hot water in two different states for funding and backing Nader to try to weaken the Democrat vote. I am not saying that you are such a person, but there is no way for us to know that this is the case.

          I understand that you want to vote based on pure ideals, however, the voting system is not a mechanism to make philosophical claims. It is a system to place the next set of officials in office. If your vote does nothing, you have simply thrown your vote away. That is not because people are operating badly; it is because the voting system in the United States is not structured in such a way that is conducive to many parties. The real fix would be to move to preferential voting (personally, I'd like to see the electoral college go away at the same point in time) or another voting system that doesn't discriminate as harshly against slightly smaller parties. The problem is that the people in office have little incentive to change the voting system to something that favors the little guy. Again, I think that the best fix for this, if you really believe in Libertarian principles, is to ensure that the Democrat majority is large enough, siphon off enough votes to win smaller elections and begin pressure, using these elected officials, for voting reform. That really needs to be pushed through for a third party to be in place. Once that happens, the Libertarian party has a decent ground to stand on. Yes, that's a lot of work, and it's a way off, but to do otherwise, to imagine that the Libertarian vote is going to beat Bush, is just wishful thinking.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Funny, I thought it was a vote for Nader.

        People erroneously assume that Nader supporters actually want the Democratic candidate to win, and are just (apparently) really confused. What I see is that the Democratic party so poorly represents Nader's followers that they can't even woo them away in the face of certain failure.

        What the Democrats are saying when they want Nader out of the race is, "We wish no one would represent you freaks so that we would be the least of all evils on the ballot." I find it kin
      • by irokitt ( 663593 ) <archimandrites-iaur AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:13PM (#9783248)
        I'm not a libertarian, but I think you should vote for what you believe in. Voting for a candidate because they're more likely to win is kind of like voting for what everyone else believes in.
      • Just ask anybody who voted for Nader in 2000.

        Spoken like someone who has already forgotten what happened in 2000. Tens of thousands of Nader followers decided to get clever and vote for a candidate they disagreed with because they disliked Bush more. The result: Nader had a poorer showing than he might have had, and Bush still won.

        Besides which, it's patently false that a libertarian vote is a "vote for Bush." There are quite a few people that would probably vote republican if they couldn't vote libert

  • Flip, flop (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ryu2 ( 89645 ) * on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:55PM (#9782995) Homepage Journal
    Funny, I remember Orrin Hatch was actually a SUPPORTER of the original P2P Napster, to the extent that he actually put some of his own amateur works on there.

    See, for instance here []

    Why the change of heart? I guess sticking to one's original convictions is too much to ask.
  • This is GREAT NEWS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <> on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:57PM (#9783011) Homepage Journal
    I find that I spend far too much time watching television, and listening to music. With the pain in the ass regulations that are going up, I can finally dump my satellite dish, DVD player, television, and TiVo. Without all that crap, I can finally get some programming done.

    And just in case they come for my computer, I'm stockpiling schematics, a 68000 microprocessor, 16 megs of memory, and a hard drive. If my PC won't let me run untrusted software, then I'll fucking build my own.

    Screw the content Nazis. I don't fucking need them, but they need my money.
  • by minorthreatbmxxx ( 738716 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:57PM (#9783016)
    As much as I agree with the RIAA that piracy is wrong and should be stopped, things are getting ridiculous. Corporations shouldn't have this much power in government. This is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people, but is now controlled by the corporations...
    • This kind of legislation is horrifying. Jackasses like Hatch are basically selling RIAA an exclusive, protected license to make money by drastically curtailing the freedom to move information (but not, apparently, the freedom to move money into his pocket.) The brazen attitude is what really sends chills down my spine, bought Senators aren't even making an effort at an appearance of balance, he's advocating for the rubber stamping of legislation written by special interest corporations making huge segments
    • Fine.
      Do the following.

      1. Get of your ass and write your senator / Congressmen

      2. Vote the bums out.


      Steven V>
    • It's called fascism []

      Read up on it! []
  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by strike2867 ( 658030 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:57PM (#9783018)
    Does someone have a list of Senators currenty in favor of the act. They need to be urgently sto^H^H^H replaced.
    • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

      by Armethius ( 718200 )
      Cosponsors of the bill include: Bill Frist (majority leader) Tom Daschle (minority leader) Hatch (chairman of the judiciary committee) Leahy (ranking member of the judiciary committee
    • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I can tell you that I most certainly will NOT be reelecting Debbie Stabenow [] this comming election, who is co-sponsoring INDUCE. Take a look at the list of INDUCE's Co-sponsors [] to see if there's anyone you're going to help vote out this fall in YOUR state.
  • by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:58PM (#9783029)
    Consider this...
    More than 40 trade associations and advocacy groups voiced similar sentiments in a letter to senators July 6. The Induce Act "would chill innovation and drive investment in technology" overseas, said the letter, signed by CNET Networks, eBay, Google, Intel, MCI, TiVo, Verizon Communications, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.

    This measure is supported by the RIAA but opposed by the tech industry at large. Why does Congress let the tail wag the dog when it comes to copyright legislation? Does Intel just not give enough money to politicians?

  • by DigiShaman ( 671371 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:59PM (#9783036) Homepage
    Because it will take bills like this to reach rock-bottom before the public wakes up. Only then can we get rid of the bill and the RIAA.

    FUCK IT, PASS THE FUCKING BILL. Jesus....*sigh*
    • PASS THE <censored> BILL

      I'm really getting to the same apathetic feeling for nearly everything in society.
    • More than that- make it stronger. The copyright office person suggested reversing betamax- I hope they do. Because breaking everyone's VCRs and TiVos is about what it would take to wake the american public up in this regaurd.
  • by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @03:59PM (#9783044)
    Hatch introduces these radical bills all the time. This one is Pre-committee [] []. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Eventually the computer industry will step in and say this is crazy.

    Here's the way a bill is normally passed. This one is about at step 2 1/2.
    1. A senator and a member of the house get togather and write a bill.
    2. They drop it in their respective drop boxes, and GPO prints it up.
    3. The rules committee send it to committees for review.
    4. Subcommitees tell their committees whether they want a hearing on it.
    5. Hearings are held, and each bill is modified.
    6. Assuming the bill doesn't die in Committee, and most of them do, it goes to the rules committee for the Senate and the House. A lot of them die this way, too.
    7. The rules committee schedules a vote. If they don't, time passes, Congress adjourns, bill dies.
    8. Both the House and Senate vote. If one doesn't support the bill, bill dies. These are timed votes, and if you can't get a majority within about 15 minutes (usually) that's it.
    9. Assuming all of the above has occured, you get a conference committee of Representitives and Senators who will hammer out a comprimise between the House and Senate versions. If they can't agree, it dies.
    10. Then the President can sign or veto. If he vetos, or refuses to act in 10 days (Pocket Veto), the bill dies UNLESS 2/3 of the House and Senate vote to override it. This rarely (in less than 1/10th of vetoes) occurs. If they don't, the bill dies.

    All of this has to occur in about 5 1/2 months. I don't think this one will get the fasttrack, and I certainly don't think the House will ever pass it.
  • Tivo TV, or no TV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AIX-Hood ( 682681 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:00PM (#9783049)
    I and 500 of my closest friends have Tivo style television watching entrenched in our way of doing things that if it were taken away, we'd probably just stop watching it altogether.
  • by neonfrog ( 442362 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:01PM (#9783070)
    (here is the letter I sent, misspellings intact)

    Dear Senator Leahy:

    I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.

    I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.

    If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.

    I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.

    I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable

    In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.

    Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!

    Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.

  • by TheHonestTruth ( 759975 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:01PM (#9783076) Journal
    Maybe once America (the majority that is) can no longer record/TiVo COPS or Jerry Springer reruns without personally asking a Fox customer service rep each time they want to do so, they'll wake the hell up to all the bullshit big media companies are pulling in DC. I hope this passes and people realize that they've been asleep at the democratic wheel and vote every Senator (D) for Disney, (R) for RIAA out of office.

    Or better yet, we'll realize that we watch too much TV anyway and start reading some damn books again.


    • by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:19PM (#9783364) Homepage Journal
      without personally asking a Fox customer service rep each time they want to do so, they'll wake the hell up to all the bullshit big media companies are pulling in DC. I hope this passes and people realize that they've been asleep at the democratic wheel

      People already have this experience in that most commercial ISPs include, in their AUP, clauses which make it grounds for termination to use in-house routers and switches. Everyone does it but, technically speaking, you're not supposed to.

      It seems that in today's world the issue isn't about being a criminal or not. Everyone is, by default, a criminal at any given time. The issue is which people are more likely to be targeted as victims of a law enforcement system gone haywire.
  • by Threni ( 635302 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:02PM (#9783083)
    > she proposed scrapping the Betamax decision, which makes it legal to timeshift
    > TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."

    Perhaps you can write to your politicos, suggesting that a law which would have made every single VCR owner a criminal isn't really a very good idea.
  • Time to speak up now before it becomes law, don't you wish you could go back in time and speak up before the DMCA was passed?

    Also elections are being held soon, vote anyone out who supports this bill.
  • After reading a description of the bill, vomitting did not need to be induced, it came naturally to me.
  • I no longer care (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:03PM (#9783112) Homepage
    My government officials are hell bent on making me a criminal then so be it.

    Every direction I turn I see something that I do in my daily life that uses technology to make things more fun or convienient are put up as "evil" and neede to be made illegal. I give up, I'll be happy to live in the underground as a criminal. These ultra rich senators and represenatives have no clue as to what the real world is and do not give a rat's ass about one single citizen.

    unless a mobilization of the american public to scream loud and clear to these out-of-touch fools in the government our desires nothing will change and everyting will get worse.

    I strongly suggest that every technically adept person learn how to do things secretly and quietly. Making sure their technology is hidden from the police because what you do today will become illegal and more than likely have a harsher punishment than cold-blooded murder.

    I laugh when people sell things like this [] to conceal what they are carrying. But it looks like it will be required in the future to listen to music or carry anything technological that is not "approved".

    certianly makes you disgusted. men like Senator Hatch in congress are like people stopping to piss on the constitution... they are an embarassment and abomination to what america was.

  • by harley_frog ( 650488 ) <[harley_frog] [at] []> on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:04PM (#9783113) Journal
    To your Senators [].
  • Senators record the number of calls and letters they get on an issue. In most offices, a call carries the same weight as a letter. If enough people call their senator's office, the Senators will shape policy to what their constituents want.
  • Amtrak analogy? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nucal ( 561664 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:05PM (#9783133)
    Aside from the government connection - I fail to see how the Induce act is anything similar. The US Government actually runs Amtrak as a quasi-independent business (much the way the US Postal Service is run). The Induce act is meant to put a set of regulations in place, not run record companies.

    What I find interesting is that the current administration is perfectly happy to regulate the behavior of regular citizens, while allowing unregulated and irresponsible corporate behavior ...

    • The US Government actually runs Amtrak as a quasi-independent business (much the way the US Postal Service is run). The Induce act is meant to put a set of regulations in place, not run record companies.

      That's where you miss the connection. The government doesn't run Amtrak. The people with controlling money interests of Amtrak run the portions of the government which have any influence on any aspect of Amtrak's business.

      On the entertainment media and software side: The government doesn't legislate ru
  • about holding weapons manufacturers liable for deaths using their products. he should have his brain scanned for malware.
  • of MaryBeth Peters without the human-like shell she uses in her mission of deception, revealing her boundlessly evil true form?

    I recognize that it might scar the young and faint of heart, but staring into the heart of darkness is necessary sometimes.

    Or does that seem a bit over the top? I can never tell.

  • by lofi-rev ( 797197 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:08PM (#9783175) Journal
    Recollection becomes an "unauthorized derivative work", talking becomes "piracy." Forget Fahrenheit 9/11, the real danger is Fahrenheit 451.
  • by anonymous cowherd (m ( 783253 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:08PM (#9783182) Homepage
    Quoting the Act itself:

    In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

    (Italics mine)

    The problem here is that "reasonable people" are rarely reasonable.

    Doh, didn't mean to post this as AC.

  • by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:10PM (#9783201)
    Results 1 - 10 of about 2,850 for Orrin Hatch insane. (0.13 seconds)
  • Most people (correctly) criticized the US Supreme Court's Eldred decision because it essentially held that "limited time" could mean forever.

    Beyond that mistake, the Court went further and stated throughout the opinion the fair use rights citizens have are the societal benefits mandated by the Constitution. In other words, the Court strengthened its support for fair use rights.

    However, if the public domain is taken away. And if fair use rights are legislated away, then exactly where is the Constitutiona
  • by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @04:27PM (#9783460)
    According to the article, "Nobody wants to undermine the iPod [but] We have to understand that some people use P2P technology in ways that are wrong and illegal." -- Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt)

    Some days, don't you just wish that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution read, "A well regulated public domain being necessary to the happiness and liberty of a free People, the right of the people to keep and hear music shall not be infringed." How is it that guns are an essential liberty, but iPods are so dangerous that they must be outlawed?
    • How is it that guns are an essential liberty, but iPods are so dangerous that they must be outlawed?

      Our freedom of speech and right bear arms is to protect us from tyranical powers of government.

      Maybe its time to exercise our rights.
    • How is it that guns are an essential liberty, but iPods are so dangerous that they must be outlawed?

      Because guns can be used to keep someone from killing you, and guns can be used (in the last extreme) to fight a government that can no longer be fought "within the system".

      It's hard to exercise your freedoms when you are dead, and guns can help prevent death. They can be abused, just as free speech can be abused (a few restrictions on the free speech rights of Jim Jones might have saved his followers, fo
  • Ubiquity sells (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Proc6 ( 518858 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @05:22PM (#9784091)
    Digital media is fun right now, CDs and DVDs combined with MP3s and MPEGs, iPods, notebooks and portable DVD players abound and the synergy between the outright paid for content and the "shared" content keeps them both going.

    It has to be the ubiquity and fun, because it sure as hell isn't talent [].

    So once they drop the axe on PVRs, VCRs, MP3 players, any type of recording, sharing or portable media devices that don't require retinal scans and call in activation. Once this new "Digital Lifestyle" becomes an expensive burden, they will start to lose money.

    I buy CDs, usually most the songs suck, but theres a few on there. I know I can just rip the CD, toss it in the closet (or garbage), move it around from PC to notebook to MP3 player at will. It probably wasn't worth the $12 for the talent, but oh well its fun and easy. The first CD I physically can't rip/move or that requires me to call some 800 number to activate - seriously - people will start examining the value and quality of the content first and the impulse buys will drop. It becomes a hassle to enjoy the digital lifestyle so people will only put money in the things they're really really serious about, and that will impact sales a lot.

  • by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <{ten.labolgcbs} {ta} {ytisobmir}> on Friday July 23, 2004 @06:56PM (#9784961) Homepage Journal
    Mr. Hatch,

    You have proven yourself to be a man of noble intent. Your support of the DREAM Act alone shows that you care about individuals, and that you care about the future of America. I am certain that your support of INDUCE is also backed by noble intent; it is wrong for people to steal from the works of others.

    On that note, let's examine the business practices of the corporations that have asked you to help them. They frequently state that they are here to protect artists; if that's so, why do artists who work for them revile them? They say that they are here to prevent theft; if so, why do artists accuse them of stealing from artists? They say that P2P applications have no legitimate uses; if that's so, why do struggling independent artists -- those not affiliated with the RIAA's member corporations -- embrace P2P applications as their last, best hope?

    I write to you as an artist, and on behalf of artists, whose livelihood is threatened not by P2P apps, but by INDUCE. The RIAA is not speaking for me; it is my competition. Their true purpose is not to protect me, but to lock me out.

    Remember how hard you worked to secure digital law for the RIAA, so that they could distribute digital content safely? And how afterwards, they never did it -- except for a few third-rate websites? Instead, they used the law to lock out the means we independent artists use to promote our music -- P2P applications like Napster! These file-sharing applications give me a huge audience and distribution mechanism, so that I can find new fans without the need for the RIAA. That is the REAL reason for laws like INDUCE -- it's not about theft; it is about CONTROL.

    What protection is there for legitimate uses of P2P software? What is there in this bill to ensure I can still promote my music without having to sell my soul to the RIAA's member companies using the latest in technology?

    If you would like to discuss this issue more, please give me a call on my cell phone any time at (redacted). I believe that you would not promote a bill that would hurt America and its future. I think that if you understood my point of view, you would understand why I feel this bill, in its current form, may be very dangerous to America's future.
  • by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @07:18PM (#9785121)
    You're not the only country in the world. You're not even the only country on your land mass.

    Your friendly neighbour to the north (Canada) allows filesharing technology. The Internet cares not for borders.

    Our stores will sell gear without DRM. (It's cheaper to make stuff without it.)

    You can walk or drive to Canada. If not, our stores will ship gear to you. Pick up a high-flow toilet while you're here - they're great!

    Also, our legal system is loser-pay. That means that if someone sues me in a Canadian court and I win, they pay my legal bills. The RIAA's tactics can't work in Canada.
    • Our stores will sell gear without DRM. (It's cheaper to make stuff without it.)

      Thats about to change. DRM will be included in most chips (CPUs, MPEG-Decoders & other DSP etc..) and once its in it will pose no extra cost. Finding chips without DRM will be the hard (i.e expensive) thing. Im guessing no American or European companies will risk making them for fear of being fined, some other enterprising foriegn manufactures might make some (or make mod chips) they could potentially make a fortune. Once t
  • So Stop It (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cgreuter ( 82182 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @10:15PM (#9786328)

    This is really easy to stop. For all we talk about campaign contribution and corporate influence, Hatch is still accountable to the people. If you want to kick him out of office, just get the voters mad at him. All the campaign contributions in the world won't get him re-elected if the voters hate him.

    And none of the voters like this bill. The only reason he's getting away with it is that most people don't know about it at all. (What? The mainstream media isn't reporting on it? Shocking!)

    So get the word out. Write a pamphlet that describes this in a way ordinary (non-geek) folk will find informative (think "VCRs made illegal", not "stifling innovation"), put it online and get people in those areas to print up copies and hand them out door to door.

    Be sure to ask the recipients to write to Hatch et., al about this as well. There's nothing like a flood of angry letters to get a politician to back off.

If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.