Alternatives To The INDUCE Act 178
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The 'Don't Induce Act' proposes that only someone who distributes a commercial computer program that is 'specifically designed' for wide-scale piracy on digital networks could be held liable for copyright violations. The proposal includes three requirements that must be met before a software distributor can be found liable: The 'predominant' use of the program must be the mass, indiscriminate infringing redistribution of copyrighted works; the 'commercial viability of the computer program' must depend on revenue derived from piracy; and the software distributor must have 'undertaken conscious, recurring, persistent and deliberate acts' to encourage copyright infringement. No surprise that the MPAA and RIAA are opposed to this 'watered down' bill. MPAA vice president Fritz Attaway showed his organizations true colors by stating that the Don't Induce Act was so narrowly drafted it would be impossible to use it to shutter even operators of peer-to-peer networks."
Dear Mr. Attaway (Score:5, Interesting)
Now this may come as a surprise to you but this exactly is the purpose of this Act.
This may even further surprise you but there are other uses for modern means of communication (e.g. computers, internet) then sharing "pirated" software. That is why a lot of people don't want your concerns about software piracy to hinder the free flow of information more then necessary and the Don't Induce Act is addressing these concerns.
I hope this helped clear things up a little bit for you.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
AC
Re:Dear Mr. Attaway (Score:2, Funny)
Idiotic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Idiotic (Score:5, Interesting)
After that (and now i am being pessimistic) i would not even be surprised if they start to try to making unlicensed *content* illegal.
If these people are not stopped they will take more and more of our rights (and money) until everything belongs to them.
Strict scrutiny (Score:2, Insightful)
After that (and now i am being pessimistic) i would not even be surprised if they start to try to making unlicensed *content* illegal.
Congress can't do that because even more than the DMCA, it would run directly up against the First Amendment, which bans Congress from materially abridging freedom of expression.
Re:Strict scrutiny (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're an indie songwriter and you cut a track, the RIAA isn't going to consider it any more licensed than the latest Linkin Park single. And that's what they're gunning for.
GTRacer
- DRM is bad m'kay?
Misunderstanding of "unlicensed" (Score:3, Informative)
Hypothetically speaking, if I am a songwriter, I am perfectly within my rights as the owner of that song to tell you that you cannot distribute it. That is unlicenced content
I come from a background where "unlicensed content" refers to content that hasn't been approved by the owner of copyright in the player software, such as independently published console games [vidgame.net]. Imagine if every title published on DVD Video had to be approved by the DVD Forum.
Re:Strict scrutiny (Score:2)
A record contract makes the artist an employee on a work-for-hire basis and therefore the work belongs to the record label, not the artist.
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
Yes; two chip manufacturers are being sued for breach of contract because they have done something that their contract specifically forbids. In this case, it's supplying chips used to unencrypt DVD data encrypted with CSS to manufacturers for use in players with analogue connectors that don't have Macrovision applied to their output.
That is in direct contravention of their contracts, and so the
Re:Idiotic (Score:2)
Where will it stop? (Score:2)
Why not go for every camera manufacturer.
Afterall, they have the ability to copy any copyrighted image or text instantly an then produce multiple copies.
Damn, better register my memory and brain while where at it - I have a pretty good memory and could possible copy any image, text or tune without any DRM restrictions.
Even funnier (Score:2)
Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:4, Insightful)
You cannot hold anyone liable who has not broken the law, but whose works has been used, without thier knowledge or consent (explicit) for purposes that may even be explicitly forbidden in the license terms.
You cannot make laws just because you are big corporations and have deep pockets.
Did I just say that?
Don't even hold it with this. Anyone can program anything they want. How it is used and by who is the problem.
Taking away liberties and rights to fight crime is not a good idea.
What will become of all this? We are on the pinnacle of having Microsoft laud 3000 patents a year in everyones face, SCO finally might roll over and die, the RIAA are still dogs.
Dear RIAA,
I found this website with lots of illegal music on it, please invetigate.
Illegal Music, only for RIAA people, do not click this link if you are not RIAA [goatse.cx]
IANAY but if I was I would smack the government on the side of the head.
People should contest this whole affair, not propose an equally distrubing watered down version.
I think the world cannot get any crazier...
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think the Don't Induce act treats programming like it treats the creation of tangible goods. If there is no purpose served by the creation of an item but to break the law, then there is no reason to create *and* distribute it unless your intent is to either break the law yourself, or aid in the breaking of the law. Like it is not legal to manufacture smallpox in my basement, it should not be legal to create (particularly to distribute) software that can serve no legal purpose.
In the software world, this breaks down to this: P2P software is legal to author and distribute since it *does* serve a legal purpose -- the distribution of files which are not copyrighted or which have the copyright holder's explicit permission to distribute (eg, music from a garage band looking to make a name for itself, or amateur art).
I am at a loss to think of software that can serve no legal purpose. I'm certain that such purposes exist, but even cracker software such as L0pht Crack is used by network security professionals to test the strength of their security measures. Actually I'll correct that. Viruses serve no legal purpose, probably some spyware/adware is the same. These things would continue to be illegal.
With the Don't Induce act as the standard for what is and isn't legal in software creation, specific measures can be put in place as other public threats are identified, such as (if it wasn't already the case) specifically making it illegal to share copyright works (which don't have the owner's permission for distribution). Fortunately with the standard set at a reasonable level, these exceptions can reach only so high with out contradicting the base law of Don't Induce.
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is pretty much the same thing - I mean if you're a "serious" lab, then you can research the viral properties of various contagions (not sure if you get to play with small pox though). If you're an "unserious" small medical company playing in your basement lab, you can't.
They seem to be taking the same stance with software. If you're a "s
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now your WMD example is ridiculous. A p2p app is used to copy files from one place to another, the "bad" part of that is that it can illegally copy files. Now a WMD is used for mass destruction or the threat of mass destruction, I don't see any other way to use a WMD.
Will WMDs get GWB out of the WH ? (Score:2)
The lack of WMDs might get GWB out of the WH. There wouldn't be a lack of WMDs if there weren't WMDs in the first place (something has to exist before it can't exist, WOW, have I just made a scientific breakthrough ?! Where's Stephen Hawking's phone number, I had it somewhere around here ...)
I'm sure the Democrats would agree that WMDs have other, non-explosive purposes if they win the next election.
Sorry if I've gotten the Democrat / Republican thing the wrong way around, I'm an Australian.
Re:Will WMDs get GWB out of the WH ? (Score:2)
Mommy, what's the difference between a democrat and a republican?
"for your purposes, nothing. Democrats take your money and give it to the poor, Republicans take your money and give it to the rich."
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
Of course, if you read the parent post in its entirety, you'd see that the same conclusion was reached--authoring, distribution, and use of P2P applications should be legal because there are significant legal uses for them.
On the other hand
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
Because WMD's have no legal use, their manufacture or distribution is also illegal. That's what the "Don't Induce" act says about software -- it is only illegal to author or distribute if illegal activities are the only action that can be performed with the software.
P2P's have a legal use, and thus they would not be illegal to make, distribute, or use.
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:3, Interesting)
A better analogy would be lockpicks: as far as I know, it's entirely legal to possess and even use lockpicks, as long as they aren't used for illegal purposes -- even though most lo
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
Exactly. This is why Jack Valenti was accidentally correct when he called DeCSS a "digital crowbar".
I am not sure why the Don't Induce act is so bad.. (Score:2)
The RIAA/MPAA is using the argument that "without the INDUCE act, we have to resort to suing children." This law does call their bluff. It does give them a way to try to sue companies which are distribuing these sorts of tools while establishing a reasonable legal standard.
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
Re:Why pander to something so pathetic? (Score:2)
I think the Don't Induce act works well because it makes it illegal only to produce software which serves no legal purpose: virii and the like. Like WMD's and SmallPox, individual organizations might be able to obtain a license to work with and create these otherwise illegal programs, companies like antivirus and security companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:duh (Score:2)
What is sadder, my inability to troll, or the fact that you kept track of the goatse.cx link even after the first time you ever saw it?
mmmm, one of us worries me. At least everyone knows I didn't check the link for validity!
I still don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if it's easy, it's illegal? I guess I just don't keep up enough with the p2p legal stuff.
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's hope the system isn't too coorporationalized that they succeed completely this time.
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
"We" being Canada? We certainly don't have a copy tax in the USA on all blank media.
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, we do. Cassettes, CDs, whatever can be recorded onto. It's just not charged seperately from the price on the shelf (unlike, for example, sales tax, which is assessed at checkout).
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They could distrubute competetively priced content over the internet (hell there are no inventory costs at all), but they won't do it.
The betamax decision forced the MPAA to be creative in how they marketed their product and they succeded big time. Now, their just to damn lasy to figure out how to make this internet thing work.
When they tried the betamax case they tried to label us all as potential criminals, then they managed to create a large market for real customers. They can do the same for digital/internet content, they just don't want too.
I already will no longer buy CDs, regardless of whether I file share or not. If the MPAA keeps at this I will stop buying DVDs (yes I admit I am hooked on buying DVDs). The results of their efforts to guaruntee their revenue stream from me will have the effect of eliminating it alltogether.
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
hard drives, servers, electricity, and fast Internet plumbing all cost money
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
It has ALWAYS been illegal to make a copy of a song on a mix tape for someone (unless they own every song on the mix tape as well) it's just that they never went after people when you were only able to share with a few friends. Now it is a few million frien
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that's not true. If my memory serves me correctly, copyright law specifically requires infringement to cause significant harm to the copyright holder. One copy for a friend is not significant damage. That's why the RIAA is only going after the big offenders on P2P.
Deciding based on an arbitrary number now? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that a serious argument? If it's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Number of abuses is irrelevant.
No, it's more complex than that... (Score:2)
Profits are seen as a means to this end--e.g. people will innovate more often if there's enough reward for doing so.
Fair use balances that interest in that, if your use of the material doesn't, among other things, threaten their profits, if it is educational (e.g. likely to lead to more innovation), etc., it is not seen as harmful. Thus, it is protected by the First Ammendment,
While we'er on the topic of more laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Induce (Score:5, Funny)
further to the above... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Fritz Attaway, vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America, said the Don't Induce Act was so narrowly drafted, it would be impossible to use it to shutter even operators of peer-to-peer networks. "There is no way that anyone could ever meet the burden of proof that this establishes," Attaway said. "It's spin. (They're) not being honest here."
what's wrong with peer-to-peer networks?
what's wrong with burden of proof?
oh I see the problem - the last remnants democracy that need to be outlawed.
The thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only a side effect of the fact that to date there hasn't been an effective means of enforcing the right of the content distributor to broadcast something for one consumption only -- technology has only recently gotten to the point of allowing distributors to exercise some measure of control over their level of distribution.
When DRM becomes a reality, it'd be up to Congress to determine whether or not we have a right to multiple uses of recorded content, in my opinion. And this Act seems to be a pretty clear sign of where things are going.
Re:The thing is... (Score:3, Informative)
Unless re-view is explicity limited by a broadcast, it does imply multiple viewings are allowed. Kinda like the 'rebroadcast of this NFL event is prohibited'
When DRM becomes a reality, it'd be up to Congress to determine whether or not we have a right to multiple uses of recorded content, in my opinion
If you are talking 'multiple uses' in the on PC/on CD/on Mp3/in
Re:The thing is... (Score:2)
Re:The thing is... (Score:2)
Bullshit. Put an erase head after the read head. Write once, play once. That has been the case for decades. To claim it wasn't possible before, is a poor excuse to undo a decades-old accepted practice.
Kjella
Re:The thing is... (Score:2)
... and who's going to ge the first one of us to open that end-user product up and cut the leads going to the erase head?
There's a reason you don't find any products that use that type of read-once technology, besides the fact that nobody would pay extra for the erase head: there's always a way around it [anticrack.de]
Re:The thing is... (Score:2)
What right to broadcast for one consumption only? Ain't no such thing. Just because a content owner wishes to do something does not make it a right.
The rights of copyright owners are pretty explicitly spelled out in the law. There's nothing there which says that you can limit how many times people watch what you have broadcast...
Free Software? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we take it a step further, and unlike bittorrent, we have a piece of free software whose authors made with the purpose of piracy, what is to be done about that?
The way I see it, this bill won't satisfy those in Hollywood for the above loopholes. So all the software used for de facto pirating will be non-commericial, how does Hollywood benefit much from this. Looks like they'll still want to draft some other legislation.
The obvious answer to Sen. Hatch's problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are you saying that you're happy to ban a technology which has many fundamentally excellent reasons to exist purely because it can be used to infringe copyright?
That being the case, do you possess a camera? A VCR? A tape deck? You won't mind disposing of them, then?
Oh, you say that the bill would never be enforced in that way?
WELL DON'T WRITE IT IN THAT WAY, STUPID!
Re:The obvious answer to Sen. Hatch's problem is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They might as well outlaw breathing, and arrest people for "air piracy" if they have a bone to pick. It would be convenient to all involved (except the victim, but he's a nobody anyway).
Re:The obvious answer to Sen. Hatch's problem is.. (Score:2)
Buh? Did you know a drug dealer was labeled as a "terrorist to our children" so they were able to use the Patriot Act against him, allowing them to wiretap & break in without a warrant?
I think the RIAA/MPAA have proven time and again that they ARE willing to go overboard any chance they can get within the boundaries of the laws they've currently purchased.
They still bandy about the $150,000 per copyright infringement to scare their civil suits into settling. T
You also missed the meme (Score:2)
Please do your research.
What? (Score:2)
Your first two sentences should end with for now and yet.
People should be very concerned when people go around saying "Oh, they're just passing an overly broad law so they can selectively enforce it on the bad things and leave out the good". Because at that point you're only
You are missing the point (Score:2)
Try to keep up.
Re:The obvious answer to Sen. Hatch's problem is.. (Score:2)
Don't INDUCE (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also not any attempt to justify or allow piracy. It is simply a *fair* suggestion, which will catch the true commercial pirating organisations, rather than kids who share the occasional piece of software with their friends, or legitimate users who wish to make backups of their original data.
They claim that the Don't Induce act is also too narrow in scope, which would stop them from attacking p2p networks; I don't think this is a bad thing. They have proven over the last while that they are only too happy to use their legal powers against anyone, from young to old, to squeeze a bit more cash out of ordinary people, while commercial piracy is still rampant. It's not *too* narrow in scope at all, simply narrow enough to avoid ambiguity, and to stop half the net falling under their legal juristiction. It's narrow enough to be *fair*.
But then, it's to do with making money, not doing the right thing.
Other changes (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
It bothers me that the debate has been framed in terms "stealing stuff that you didn't pay for and how can we stop that" rather than the fact we have, for the first time in history, a culture whose important facets are all owned by corporations, and whether or not that's a very good idea.
Re:This is pointless... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, how to create taxation for non-governmental organisations. And no, it's not a good idea when companies can buy the ability to introduce laws to prop up their business model. However, the INDUCE act itself might provide precedence for all kinds of laws intended to stop people being assholes at the detriment of freedom.
At this rate, the US will lawyer itself into oblivion.
Making illegal copies != theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Making a copy of a copyrighted work and distributing it is not theft. It is a copyright violation. These are two different things.
Re:Making illegal copies != theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Only legally. Morally, there's no difference. Financially speaking is another thing again.
If I download "Garfield" and watch it then I have morally stolen something because I clearly wanted to see it enough to bother with the download time but I refused to pay for it, so I have something for nothing while depriving the seller of payment for their goods. On the other hand, if I
Still aiming for the man... (Score:3, Insightful)
If
a) 99% of the people wanted to use a kitchen knife to stab someone
b) 99% of your sales were thus made for that purpose
c) if you tell that your knife is razor sharp, anyone with IQ > shoesize will figure out it works for the purpose they want
Kjella
Re:Still aiming for the man... (Score:2)
What might a viable Induce Act look like? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, obviously the law can't simply name the companies it wants to get rid of, so there has to be some kind of test to identify these "bad actors". The fundamental problem (for the Induce Act) is that there may not exist an objective test that can effectively isolate those they wish to isolate, meaning that the Induce Act will inevitably require a subjective test. Subjective tests must be clarified by litigation, but it only requires the threat of litigation to torpedo many potentially valuable new technologies before they even get out of the angel investor's office.
It is therefore my suspicion that it will be impossible to rewrite the Induce Act such that it addresses the concerns of the IEEE, CEA, EFF, and others, while still achieving its stated goal. This probably means that the current effort to come up with a compromise is unlikely to bear fruit. I doubt the situation is improved by the fact that the person charged with achieving this compromise is the Register of Copyrights, Mary Beth Peters, who has a more anti-technology view than even the RIAA will comfortably admit to.
Whatever happens, I am sure that history will regard the Induce Act as the most violent death throe yet of a powerful and influential industry. Lets hope they don't take too many useful technologies down with them.
Re:What might a viable Induce Act look like? (Score:2)
I should hope not!
First of all, Kazaa and Morpheus have legal uses as well as the more common illegal ones. One such use is for transferring files that are too large for email attachments or reliable transfer by MSN or similar. I've used this myself; I had people send me files by sharing them on Kazaa.
Second, going after the authors of this software is wron
There are several ways to do it (Score:2)
The patent Act has had conduct-based secondary liability coextens
Re:There are several ways to do it (Score:2)
tell slahdotters to read (Score:1)
did u say comment more? oh, sorry...
More than one side to piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More than one side to piracy (Score:2)
Besides, they already are providing more on the CD's these days!
Possible solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Possible solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh
Re:Possible solution (Score:4, Insightful)
In the old model, the "music industry" contributed (i) means of recording, (ii) means of mass reproduction, (iii) means of distribution, and (iv) means of promotion. (The music itself has always come from the artists.) Currently, means of distribution are nearly free (e.g. p2p networks). Currently, means of mass reproduction are nearly free (e.g. copying files or burning CDs).
Currently, means of recording are becoming cheaper and cheaper as recording / mixing equipment drops in price relative to other goods. Viva la semiconductor revolution! Seriously, how expensive would it be today to produce a recording of the same quality as, for instance, the Beatles masters? That cost is within the reach of artists who have day jobs. It certainly doesn't require a multi-national corporation to pay the studio fees, not when the multi-nat demands a usurious contract signed in blood.
That eliminates 3 of the 4 things the "music industry" used to contribute to the supply of music. What about means of promotion? This is actually the biggest bill the "industry" used to pay for an artist. If the "industry" can be replaced as the promoter of music, then they become totally unnecessary. (It would help to get some real numbers from a real economist to understand the relative costs of promotion, production, and distribution. We're just speculating here.) Free distribution provides a little promotion on its own, but just word of mouth will not achieve the kind of promotion that an expensive marketing campaign does today. So, promotion is the problem we still need to work on. Here is a slight revision of you problem / solution lists reflecting who kept/keeps what money.
Current state of music market:-
More efficient state for music market:-
In your new model, artists will get relatively the same money as in the old. However, the people will get lots more recorded music for far less money. So, where will the money that people used to spend on recordings go? Answer: the people will keep it instead of the Industry.
Contrary to what some of the replies have said, you're not being Polyanna here. An industry only exists if it is the cheapest producer of something people want. All we have to do is keep it legal for independent artists to make and distribute their own music and the "music industry" as we know it today will fall. We just don't need them.
MPAA = idiotic (not in the way you are thinking) (Score:1, Informative)
What they should be doing right now is providing their own cheap, free, fast, and reliable downloading service and eradicate p2p services altogether.
Once the hardware dedicated to their system is omnipresent, start charging for the service. It wouldn't be too long before half the country is paying $50-$70/month for music, simply because
Re:MPAA = idiotic (not in the way you are thinking (Score:2)
MUSIC - RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)
MOVIES - MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)
No vacuum. (Score:5, Insightful)
China, for one, is starting to roll into tech markets, with all it's own internal infrastructure. Entirely self sufficient.
What the acts will mean is that the US ability to innovate, and distribute information effectively enough to research and develop at the rate required to compete with the new and upcoming countries (India, China etc.) will be seriously impared.
All the devices and mechanisms will be so tied up with 'legality enforcement' parts, and the ability to litigate under the existing legal system will mean most of the time that should be R&D will be spent on 'negotiations' to agree that certain areas may be used (for certain sums of money of course) by other people.
Meanwhile, the rest of the unencumbered world will be advancing apace, using a smaller set of laws, and a greater set of freedoms.
The US is showing all the signs of a 'falling empire'. In it's heyday, it had simple laws (relatively) that allowed it to adapt quickly to the way the world was moving. It advanced to become pre-eminent. Then it sat down, and tried to tie everything up to maintain itself. Internal politics and interests fought over shares of the pie.
And now laws are flowing like water, and researchers are being required to look more to internal information, and ways to work around the intrusive legal mechanisms.
This is a huge brake on development and innovation.
One that won't be shared by a good deal of the upcoming countries. At least not in the same way.
Now, if the world would remain static, and things would 'always be this way', then the laws, although draconian and oppressive in their implementation, would make some modicum of sense for the corporate entities to persue.
However, when there is going to be competition arising from areas that are NOT bound by those laws that have been bought, then it's the equivalent of long term commercial suicide.
If the US decides to stick to it's laws and carry on down this route, it stands an uncomfortably large chance of ending up on the wrong side of a built in firewall, preventing a lot of the international information from ever entering it's networks, due to legal reasons that nobody else can be bothered to work around.
Once it's cut out from the international flows, it'll start the slide into being a collapsing empire. Trashed economy, no effective R&D, and generally falling behind the times.
Given the chance, most people out there are decent and honest. Hamstringing the country's ability to develop, just to try and catch a few people who may (or may not) influence a company's net profits by a tiny fraction of a percent is a dangerous game. One day, if these laws go ahead, those clamouring corporations may just realise how they've managed to sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Re:No vacuum. (Score:3, Insightful)
And President Londo is trying to negotiate a deal with the Shadows to bring us back.
Re:No vacuum. (Score:2)
And there has been no stock market crash due to One-click shopping patent from Amazon, or the gif/jpeg fiasco.
I agree with everything you say, but just not the outcome. It's not that black & white. MONEY TALKS. And as soon as any of this crap gets in the way of a real gravy train, laws will be smacked down, or exceptions will be made. If we're willin
Circumvent the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Circumvent the managers at the RIAA by letting your software music jukebox manage your favorite artists. This requires a central database listing creative works and the artists who actually made them so that you can donate automatically to your favorite artists.
problem: telling some site what kind of music you have my get you sued as you declare to have illegal music.
solution: give partial hash code (checksum). Site returns say 200 potential hits. You verify for yourself if you have have a copyrighted song 'belonging' to the site. You discard the 199 misses and you use the info about the song to compensate the listed artist directly. This can be done anonymously: "I love your (unspecified) work here is a donation of 20 cents". Artist uses statistics to figure out how to compensate those who helped him with popular creations if the donations rise above thousands of dollars.
So you spend say 300 dollar per year to (automatically) compensate your favorite artists directly without confessing a crime as your jukebox figures out compensation anonymously and you can also donate manually, even though you do not have any works of arts of that artists in your possession, making the system a black box, meaning that donations do not directly indicate illegal possession.
Why pay for distribution? Let's circumvent the RIAA.
--
Dennis SCP
Re:Circumvent the RIAA (Score:2)
So no paying the artist directly still gets these associations after you, Except now your paying more (your settlement plus what you sent the artist)
Coorporate controlled software anyone ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it than that (specific) software is singled-out in a (company-supported, broad) "we take you down, if we can find any illegal use for your product" -attack, when most *if not all* producs that are created today have their illegal uses.
Telephones are used to communitcate evil intentions between common rob
Insider's view (kind of) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insider's view (kind of) (Score:3, Interesting)
I have often mentioned that the music industry would rather make 100% of 5 billion dollars, than 70% of a 20 billion dollars. It's crazy.
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." - Jack Valenti.
But what happened? The VCR/DVD rental aftermarket today is actually bigger than the theatrical market?!
One of the best things I noticed when Napster first came out was the sheer selection. Rare, out of pr
I can't decide... (Score:2)
Richard Posner has been blogging about IP (Score:2, Informative)
Word Pairs "Brief Shining Moments" (Score:2)
Electromagnetism is one place to use the word "induce", but most of the population that reads warnings on the sides of bottles associate:
Must be that whoever [democracymeansyou.com] came up with names like:
etc. was on vacation that day. They missed their chance to name it the
Does this apply to guns? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the 'induce' principle is worth a damn, it should be a general legal principle rather than a single piece of legislation aimed at a particular target.
Guns dont kill people, but machines violate IP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guns dont kill people, but machines violate IP? (Score:2)
Roll that back into your gun analogy
-
Control of the Media Distribution Model (Score:2, Informative)
Seeding a P2P network anonymously (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't believe no one has brought this up before, and I can't believe I just thought of it.
Re:Seeding a P2P network anonymously (Score:2)
What if I claim I was using a P2P client for legitimate purposes, and accidentally shared my entire drive, thus unintentionally making the copyrighted work available?
Or even simpler, why not just give my friend a copy of the word and let him share it? Plausible deniability and all that.
My Alternative to the INDUCE Act (Score:2)
Re:My Alternative to the INDUCE Act (Score:2)
(I don't normally respond to myself, but I didn't think of this alternative until it was too late)
Easy solution: shorten the span of copyrights (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is illegal: leave it alone. (Score:2)
Like the whole "no open alcohol container in a car"... these are just useless "babysitting" laws. It's already illegal to drive drunk, so why keep making laws?
In any case, people worry for nothing about these laws. IF this got passed (at that point you might as well call this country a failure), it would just spawn more desire for open source anonymous P2P networks.
Once those are released, then what? They wi
Steve Jobs is going down (Score:2)