Orrin Hatch to Lead Senate Panel on Copyright, Patents 534
PontifexPrimus writes "Senator Orrin Hatch, (in)famous for his idea of destroying the computers of copyright violators is to head a Senate 'panel, which will have jurisdiction over copyright, trademark and patent law, as well as treaties intended to protect American intellectual property overseas.' Looks like file sharing will finally be erased once and for all. Oh, and this looks like another field day for those who refuse to subsume patent, trademark and copyright law under the heading of 'IP law.'"
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone deserves the name "copyright terrorist", it's Orrin Hatch.
Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? (Score:5, Interesting)
In case people don't understand sarcasm on the net, he was being sarcastic.
I mean, let's say Hatch outlaws file sharing...even say outlawing Bittorrent and things of that nature...will that change anything? The ONLY way to totally 100% stop piracy and file sharing over the Internet is to totally turn off the Internet. That's right, turn the entire thing off.
And trust me, it's only a matter of time before some idiot gets up there and proposes that.
And they're too busy with putting 500,000 dollar fines on radio people that may say "fuck" and having hearings on Baseball. I mean, what the FUCK are these idiots doing up there in Washington? Baseball?!?! WHO THE FUCK CARES! Tax dollars at work folks.
Re:Huh? Is timothy being sarcastic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism [reference.com]: "A radical who employs terror as a political weapon"
For example, someone who tells you that if we don't give the government the sweeping powers they demand that bad people will destroy our way of life.
Re:Ooh, i love this game (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone that says that your computer (which is your property) should be destroyed because of his radical agenda (which is on the extreme side of copyright holders) is a terrorist.
You may use your computer solely for playing games and futzing around on the Internet but many people use their computer for their livelihood or to maintain their quality of life. Some people even use their computer to buy medicines at a price they can afford. Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.
Close enough for government work! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of words that could be used to describe Senator Hatch, and though "terrorist" may not be incredibly accurate, it's not all that far off the mark.
Re:Ooh, i love this game (Score:4, Insightful)
And, contrary to your belief, the cause does not have to be important (or even valid) and the terror does not need to be extreme or widespread for the actions to be terroristic.
Actual loss of money/liberty seemingly randomly is occurring for those suspected of copryight infringement. Those that are trying to lock down IP are doing so by purposefully using fear as a tool.
Yeah, people aren't dying. But there is a group that is "attacking" a supposed enemy with broad strokes, often hitting innocent bystanders, and purposefully employing fear as a tactic. You may have a different implication of "terrorist," but it appears that this fits easily into the definition of "terrorist."
Re:Ooh, i love this game (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't think those inhuman penalties are intended to strike fear and terror in the hearts of citizens, what do you think they are intended to do?
Now, I don't want to get into calling people terrorists at this point, I will restrict myself to commenting on what I think the results of the penalties are.
In my country recently, some "Copyri
Re:Ooh, i love this game (Score:4, Insightful)
There are bought politicians on both sides of the aisle on this one. Although Hatch has proposed some pretty idiotic enforcement for "IP" violations. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat, has instead of draconian enforcement, tried mandating the capabilities (or lack thereof) of consumer electronics.
Draw the party lines all you want, and then prepare to be betrayed.
The only thing that will save us is the uproar of the citizenry when they finally go too far. I believe we will reach a point where almost every TV viewer will be mad as hell (music just ain't going to get to the boiling point), or where almost every citizen is willingly violating IP law and enforcement will be absolutely impossible (not just almost impossible like the RIAA is facing now). Then every politician will have to listen or risk the loss of their political career.
Oh, BTW, if Hollings or Hatch is your senator, let them know what you think. My former senator co-sponsored Fritz's ridiculous bill last year and now hes gone, the next step for me is to make sure that I let his replacement know how I feel he should vote.
Re:Ooh, i love this game (Score:3, Insightful)
The word terrorist has been so depleted of its content thanks to the Bush adminsitration that it won't hurt anybody to call senator Hatch an IP terrorist.
Re:Ooh, i love this game (Score:4, Insightful)
This is getting childish guys. It was an analogy [reference.com], it was even in quotes ("copyright terrorist"). Going into detailed semantics on strict definitions misses the point of an analogy. The point is that Senator Hatch is using extreme tactics, including the use of fear, to force people to conform to an ideal that they disagree with but that he believes in strongly. There is an analogy to terrorism in there, but of course it does not fit a strict definition of the meaning. Just like the Monte Carlo method [geocities.com] has nothing to do with the city, a seahorse [pbs.org] is not related to a horse, and neural networks [ic.ac.uk] don't actually use neurons [reference.com].
I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most downloaders are willing to pay for MP3s if they get the same deal as they would if they bought CDs or DVDs, but they don't. Many downloaders would also gladly download TV shows with ads in them or pay a small fee to get TV shows. But for most companies it's all about volume, while consumers want quality.
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:3, Informative)
2- You own your CD, i can lend my CDs to my friends, i can't lend my DRM-infected media files
3- My CD has a very good quality that i can choose to use or degrade on the different medias i use my music from, whereas online music usually uses already crappy codecs (mp3, WMA) with low qualities (~128k?) and can only be de
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:3, Insightful)
While I generally agree with everything you've said, this part is slightly wrong. True that the per-song cost is about the same from a download versus a CD, but on a CD you have to pay for all the songs even if you don't want them. In downloading you only pay for the songs you want. So there is some benefit. But, the rest of the things you say are true. The best valu
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure we can identify complementing definitions of profit (profit by obtaining access to more copyrighted works by sharing - the old "ratio ftp" strategy at work) 'til we turn blue, but c'mon for chrissakes, it's a world of difference (money = power and all that..).
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
For examples of this, see the lawsuits about the libdvdcss software. There was previously no software available for accessing encrypted DVD's for Linux, and the software authors tried to negotiate a way to license the necessary tools. They were repeatedly blown off and told "the tools already exist for Linux", which they absolutely did not.
So the authors cracked the amazingly poor excuse for copy protection on DVD's, and wound up in court for doing it. This is silly, of course, but is the result of an executive policy ignoring the reality of the marketplace and of the software.
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:3, Insightful)
So I think you're saying that because a cartel is artificially controlling supply when there is high demand for a product, the p2p black market has developed. Or looking at it another way, people route around the blo
Re:Um.....iTunes? (Score:4, Insightful)
What iTunes does is give you some of the benefits (previews, convenience), but at a price only very slightly less (or the same, sometimes even more expensive) than the in-store counterpart. Why is this bad? Because they rob you of fair-use in exchange for that convenience. In doing so, it is no longer the same product.
- They are charging too much considering that the "new" technology should allow it all to be much cheaper
- They are replacing a lossless product (in store purchase) with a lossy product, which is, therefore, inferior
- They employ DRM that restricts my fair use
- A side effect of their DRM is that I can only use their service from a commercial OS that I dislike and frankly, believe endangers my network and hardware, or from their OS, only availbable if I buy their hardware
- Another effect of their lousy DRM is that I can only listen to the music on their player, again, forcing me to buy hardware from them
Contrast all this with a service like Magnatune, which offers full, lossless downloads, as well as downloads in "alternative" formats, like Ogg (which I happen to use exclusively along with FLAC for live shows), requiring no restrictive client-side software, no limitations on what players can play the music, or what operating systems can access the content.This is why I ignore iTunes when we talk about legal downloads. It isn't really a product in the same class as people are visualizing. Sure, it may technically be a "legal download", but it takes away so much from what legal downloading should be (and what makes it a worthwhile enterprise), that it doesn't even qualify.
Let make one final point: technology should always be moving us forward, both for the customer and for the business. That is how money gets made; BOTH sides have to feel like they're getting a good deal. But what is happening online with iTunes is NOT a good deal. Perhaps it is for some, but not for most. Imagine if when CDs came out, Sony CDs would only play on a Sony CD player, and Universal CDs would only play on a Universal CD player. To listen to your collection, you'd need to carry 5 CD players with you. Suffice it to say that it would have never gotten off the ground. Maybe a few people would have lauded it as "the wave of the future" with the high quality digital music encoding on the shiny plastic discs. But really, it would have been a dead end.
So it is with iTunes. iTunes is merely interesting because it was the first commercial attempt to create a legal music download service. But it is only interesting, and by no means an example to follow - it will not be long lived because it doesn't really improve customer experience for the vast majority of its potential market. Wait around for the next service that does, or perhaps until iTunes changes their tune.
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed the point. They're different. It's not a right or wrong issue. The "companies with a substantial amount of cash" can afford to fight lawsuits in court and/or more easily get their version of legislation approved. When a big company violates the copyrights of some nobody coder, it's very tough for the coder to either find out, have the law enforced, or successfully sue the big company. These generally require power, influence, and money. When a nobody downloader violates the copyrights of some big corporation, the corporation can afford to track them down, have influence to have the law enforced, and sue them successfully. Furthermore, a law that outlaws P2P, for example, screws over the downloaders (whether legal or illegal) but does nothing to stop companies from violating the GPL. Who gets affected by the laws will depend on where the law is targeted. Corporations will tend to influence the legislation to target those who "hurt" their business, with minimal to no effect on their ability to hurt other people.
In short, no, it doesn't cut both ways.
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've managed to troll people into pointing out the moral difference between copying from the MPAA and people writing code in their spare time, and everyone missed the point:
What Orrin Hatch likes to propose are solutions for illegally copying fromt he big corporations and none at all for the programmer. Programmers do not have money to sue a company who uses their stuff, the MPAA, meanwhile, sends cease and desist orders to everyone, and is writing the law. They've managed to get jackbooted government thugs to enforce their copyrights.
It doesn't matter if the laws are theoritically identical. Programmers do not want infinite copyright, no, not even Bill Gates. (There's no point.) Programmers does not want huge fines for someone downloading prereleased copies of movies they've made. (That law doesn't even apply to programs.) Any GPL programmers don't even want the absurd EULAs the rest of the industry has moved to.
GPL programmers, in short, wish to use the original copyright law as it was originally intended: To write work and release it to the public, yet profit from it.
The MPAA and RIAA, however, do not. They are not only giant soulless corporations which not only doesn't produce anything themselves, instead merely providing funding to actual artists, but they constantly lobby to get laws in their favour and abuse the legal process.
If you can't see the difference between that, I point to you the difference between a cop who pulls someone over because he's weaving all over the road, and one who claims someone was weaving because the cop wanted to search his car because they know who he is and he's sometimes 'uppity' with the police. Exact same authority, exact same lwws, and one is an abuse of the system.
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think I can speak for all of us when I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws Hatch wants to pass will do NOTHING to benefit the GPL. Hatch wants laws making it legal blow up people's computers. Hatch wants laws making it illegal to produce any device or software that *could* be used to commit copyright infringment, like VCRs. Hatch wants laws exterminating internet radio. Hatch want a law naming the RIAA and MPAA, and only the RIAA and MPAA, and making them uniquely immune for commiting antitrust violations. Hatch wants laws mandating TVs enforce the broadcast flag. Hatch wants laws to mandate all computers and all "electronic media capable devices" must contain a Trusted Computing enforcement chip.
On that list the ONLY thing that would conceivable have any application with the GPL would be the right to remotely blow up the computer of a GPL violator. And I hardly think taking advantage of such an option would end up being a net benefit for the GPL.
Hatch is a psychopath.
-
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Conflict of interests (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Conflict of interests (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Conflict of interests (Score:2)
Likely copyleft music. But I really got a kick out of reading this:
The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.
So maybe his web site should be destroyed.
Re:Conflict of interests (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Conflict of interests (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok really now, why would a sub committee that is dealing with copyrights also be going after people doing phishing attacks.
Either I'm totally missing something here, or this committee has other plans that wont be seen on the surface for a while.
Simple (Score:2)
It's all on the Internet, and thus CyberTerrorism(TM), which is to be dealt by with RIAA/MPAA's Cuban Department.
What? Me, trolling?
Re:Copyrights and.... phishing attacks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they want to group both sets of violators into the same category. It helps to demonize your opponents if you can say they're in the same category as actual demons.
Also, presumably they're going to propose legislation that tries do deal with all of these crimes, so you won't be able to reject the new DRM legislation without also rejecting the new anti-phishing legislation. So even legislat
File Sharing personal information (Score:5, Interesting)
It's tax time - time to run the annual check to see who is sharing their .tax files (and "Tax Return.pdf") with the world.
Good old P2P. You think it's cute that your kid saves a few bucks by downloading music for free. Instead, you set yourself up for identity theft by publishing your complete tax return on the Intarweb.
Gnucleus [gnucleus.org] (or substitute BearShare, Kazaa, or the P2P program of your choice) shows handfuls of people sharing .tax files. But don't try to be a Good Samaritan and tell them! They may shoot the messenger if you let Dad know that Daughter has opened up the confidential files to the world!
It's like telling someone that their zipper's down, and they punch you because you peeked.
Due process? (Score:4, Insightful)
wanted: can I run emule on your machine in Russia? (Score:2, Funny)
Do you live in a copyright free country? I will pay you monthly via paypal for the ability to run eMule on your machine (say $3 a GB) and the ability to sftp downloaded files my computer. I want to watch classic films and mickey mouse cartoons and hard to find rare video footage without the Senate subcommittee on mind control and groupthought ordering my arrest and imprisonment.
for (i=1;i++;) (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are you Americans putting up with this crap? Governments have been violently overthrown for less than what the current administration has done.
Common answer: "Because corporations have a stranglehold on our government. It doesn't really matter who gets elected."
Yes, but you still have some kind of pseudo-democracy.
Why do I not hear of any collective group being formed to help inform Joe Public and try and rally some support? Power in numbers! Don't stand for what is currently being dished out to you. It's insulting.
Hell. There's at least a couple of hundred thousand Americans who read slashdot every day. There's a start.
And I'm not talking about something which just called for a change in administration.. like moveon.org
Why not do what you say? (Score:2, Interesting)
Our system is being run by a bunch of facists loosers who drive the car or American government.
They are the drivers of the car. They are not the car. The car works and runs fine.
Our system of government is still better than most others.
The revolution thing was tried in the 1860's.
Go to Gettysburg and weep at the graves before you go telling other people to go and kill someone to fulfil your dreams of what's next.
John Lennon said it best:
"you say you want a revolution. Wha
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, in the letter people should state state that they will vote for whichever polition does the most towards
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:3, Insightful)
What Slashdotters are complaining about is that certain parties, the music industry for example, have overstepped the bounds of copyright law, and now wish to extend the law to cover even more.
The megacorporations have gone too far in their attempts to protect their "property rights". They assume that everyone is a criminal, attempt to eliminate fair use because they might be able to squeeze a few more pennies out of customers, are trying to shut down file
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah we call it a republic though.
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are slim to none you are going to overthrow the U.S. government using guns. In fact its seldom a good way to effect change any place. You are more likely to end up with one group of armed thugs toppling the existing group of armed thugs, and ruling as armed thugs.
You start shooting at people you are going to be instantly be branded as terrorists, criminals and wackos by the state, the media and most people and they will just hunt you down.
When governments are toppled by the will of the people and with minimal violence hold a moral high ground that strengthens their support and power after the peaceful revolution. In fact you really want the state to use violence to put down strikes and peaceful protests. When they do they almost always lose all their popular support and hasten their fall.
Get some books on Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Nonviolent strategies are way more likely to work, the problem is you have to have enough people who want change, preferably a majority. If you have a enough people strikes, peaceful protest and attacking the status quo at the ballot box will work better than killing people. Problem is most Americans like the status quo. Most Americans are fat, dumb and happy. It really isn't likely you will see real unrest for another 10-20 years. By then America's wealth will have been largely erased by trillion dollar annual trade deficits and budget deficits, there will be no jobs, the dollar will have collapsed and been abandoned as the global reserve currency in favor of the Euro, gasoline will be prohibitively expensive in part due to the dollars collapse and the OPEC moving to the Euro.
When America has completed its transition to a real 3rd world country, with 5% being filthy rich and 95% of its people in grinding poverty, then you will have the critical mass to topple the status quo. When Americans can't afford to drive their cars you will have their attention.
Unfortunately it would be better if Americans were a thinking people and toppled a government(both parties), that is currently driving them down a road to the ruin, largely at the direction of a corporate plutocracy whose only allegiance is to wealth and power and will sell America down a river in a heart beat, if thats what it takes stay rich and get richer.
The one flash point you might see in the near term is the Republican's may attempt to seize complete control of the government by exercising the "nuclear option" in the senate and changing the closure rule so a simple majority can end a filibuster. At that point the Democrats will be in powerless in the Senate as they already are in the House. The Republicans will have effectively seized power and we are in a defacto one party state assuming they can hold their majority in 2006 and 2008. An enlightened population would be given pause by such a power grab, you would hope Americans would react, sadly I doubt they will.
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:5, Interesting)
Get one state, then then work on the federal government. Show how one state's freedom increases the quality of life and others will follow. etc.
He's up to about 6500 people [freestateproject.org] who have pledged that they will move to New Hampshire [lpnh.org] once they reach the 20,000 number. I'd love to see this succeed!
Re:for (i=1;i++;) (Score:3, Insightful)
Patentin' stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patentin' stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully, (Score:2, Interesting)
scary boss (Score:5, Interesting)
This man is just exhausting already, and I wonder if that it the point. To take all of us who battle this now and just wear us out until we give up. As the years march by, it will simply become a way of life. Isn't there a word for that?
On a slightly related note: (Score:5, Insightful)
But then I started to pity them cause I realized they just, as an average, don't have the right level of education and willpower to actually fight those abuse so all they can do is witness them and rant on them but they are forbid to act and actually just don't feel the need for it.
This is another step toward an accepted and democratized dictatorship, think of it, soon the US will be the only place on earth where people will elect their dictator... isn't democracy great!
Re:On a slightly related note: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because I think Orin Hatch is a bad choice... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of things in this country that deperately need fixing. The bottom line of the music and motion picture industries is not one of them. Both industries are doing booming business at a time when many people have given up looking for work. Senator Hatch might make better use of his time trying to find ways to keep jobs in the U.S.
At a time when the economy has been in an extended slump, it's not surprising that CD stores, especially small ones, are having hard times. All small retailors suffer during bad economic times. (And don't talk to me about recovery until the jobs being created aren't all at McDonald's.) The success of huge discount retailors like Walmart also plays a role in the decline of CD stores. It's hard to compete with a company that gets huge volume discounts. While we're at it, look at all the other new venues at which you can purchase CDs, including the Internet, bookstores, and even groceries.
In fact, when you look at how broad the retailing of CDs has become, it's hard to believe that piracy is really playing such a large role. More than one study has shown that he people that are most heavily involved in pirating music, are also the ones who buy the most music. So, go ahead *IAA, prosecute your best customers!
The reason I oppose the appointment of someone like Senator Hatch to head anything that has to do with copyright and patent law is that he has never shown any inclination to listen to anyone other than the billionaires who are trying to increase their profits. Hatch reacts with outrage at the actions of file sharers, but can't seem to see that the actions of the *IAA are just as bad. Fair Use is part of the law, too. Taking away our Fair Use rights arguably has a much larger impact on the public than any amount of file sharing does on the *IAA companies.
Fair Use doctrine says that I should be able to make copies of copywritten material for my own personal use. The *IAA want to make it impossible for me to do so, ostensibly to protect them from evil file sharers. Most people don't share files, but many of them want to make up CD compilations of their favorite songs. All media has a limited lifespan. I should be able to make backups so that if my CD gets left in the sun, I can still listen to the music that I've licensed. The *IAA wants to force me to buy a new copy anytime my copy is ruined. If the DRM nonsense goes the way it looks like it will go, I'd have to replace my entire music collection if I got a new computer or if my hard drive went bad. This isn't about protection against piracy. It's about forcing the consumer to repurchase the same product over and over again.
The big crooks here are the *IAA and the people behind them, not the file sharers. That doesn't make file sharing legal, right, or reasonable, but we do need to keep things in perspective.
Re: "stealing" music (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference I see, is that almost every single person I know has violated a copyright where music is concerned, yet I don't personally know a single person who has ever illegally copied a bank data base.
I'm not saying criminal activity on a large scale justifies said criminal activity...but when every single person you know "steals" music, then maybe the law that makes this a crime should be examined. And if nothing else, maybe the penalties for breaking this law need to examined and put more in line with reality.
Usurper_ii
democracy is action (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory a democracy would never have a law that would make most of it's voters into criminals. It would be quite disfunctional...
Just a Senator (Score:2, Insightful)
Paying Orr$n to sing (Score:5, Interesting)
National Treasure.. (Score:3, Funny)
From TFA The mounting dangers that piracy poses to the U.S. economy helped spur the move, Specter said after the announcement. "It's a big, tough subject. We lose billions each year. We have a national treasure named Orrin Hatch who is happy to take over the subcommittee, and I was happy to establish it," Specter said.
Lets treat him like treasure and bury him *DUCKS*
Another horror brought to you by Orrin Hatch.. (Score:4, Insightful)
A better choice would have been Boucher, at least he understands technology although I'm sure for some reason he isn't eligible....pity
This is yet one more step in the ongoing fscking of the United States.
Thanks Utah (Score:3, Funny)
It's time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Send a Respectful Email (Score:5, Informative)
Intellectual Property Address (Score:3, Funny)
I think of it as "the collective face-slap heard round the world."
-Waldo Jaquith
If you voted Republican, you voted for this (Score:3, Insightful)
You voted for them, you're getting what you voted for. Enjoy.
mark
Re:This might save my family. (Score:4, Informative)
http://tinyurl.com/4vxlf
Re:This might save my family. (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe you should have invested in a local prison or not bought a location so close to a Walmart?
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
We supposedly buy a licence to listen to music.. but then when a new format comes out, we're not allowed to "upgrade", you have to buy a whole new licence. If your media is damaged - tough. Buy a new licence.
We have had to sit and watch the recording industry take legal action to prevent importers from selling music in some countries at a lower retail price gained by buying it in another country... so they can continue to take massive profits in richer societies. This still happens - the EU is investigating iTunes Music Store pricing in the UK as its more expensive than in the euro-zone. [engadget.com]
Do I pirate music? Yes. Do I know it's technically wrong? Yes. Am I sympathetic to an industry which has stolen from me and everyone else for years and now has the tables turned? No fucking way.
I will start buying music again when I can pay between 40 and 50 pence per track for a file without DRM. Until then, I'll steal.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2, Informative)
And to add to the insult and injury, there was both cassette tapes and 8-track tapes.
Since TFA mentions movies, we might as well point out the various video formats we've seen: VHS/Betamax, laserdisc, DVD, and soon-to-be Blue-Ray.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah slashdot self indulgent quasi logic at its best.
Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
The music industry's never been a free market really due mainly to the existence of industry bodies and accepted price-points, but now it has the problem that people can obtain the goods without paying at all, it's going to have to start listening eventually
I believe my best contrinution to the debate is
A) not to support them by paying extortionate prices for media and
B) to state the
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I can bring 25,000+ mp3 songs ripped with EAC/LAME from my own CDs and vinyl. I can't be alone. Someone out there has all that classical music I still need. You know, all that music that's hundreds of years old...
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2)
You know it's wrong, but you do it anyway. I can respect that. I have no problem with that. You have your reasons, but they're not offered as excuses. I tip my hat to you (or I would if I were wearing a hat).
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither side is right. But when the law becomes an ass, people will disrespect it. That's what it IS.
Law is not morality. Law is usually what the "haves" use against the "have nots." The "have nots" are not a bunch of hooligans, they really will respect reasonable limits and rational morality.
When the law makes sense again, people will be less inclined to disrespect it because it will be seen to serve a public good by having a reasonable purpose.
Copyrights should serve as a protection for natural persons. We natural persons do not currently have lifespans reaching over a hundred years. When we see limits like that being codified we know the beneficiary is a fictitious person - a corporate entity or estate.
We respect the creators of good and useful things; and we also expect wealthy heirs and hangers on and to get jobs and become useful to society and not to just live off of royalties because they paid off the right people in D.C.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
You describe the sorry state of the current system in regards to copyright extensions, and you point out the likely revolting developments, if Hatch has his way (given his track record).
However, there is something wrong with congratulating yourself for violating a law on one hand, while also relying on that law to protect something you value. It's self-deceptive and hypocritical. I was applauding the original poster for not being a hypocrite, for not
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have the right to break a law because you dont agree with it?
Either way you answer that shows question more problems with the legal and political system than most people are ready to address. Mindboggling issues that most Americans (or World) are not ready, or not important enough to deal with. I see the p2
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Always.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Always.
If you're willing to accept the consequences of punishment for breaking that law, true. Then it is Civil Disobedience and hopefully your imprisonment or fines will serve as a rallying point against an unjust law.
If, on the other hand, you just think you should be able to choose to violate whichever laws you don't like that are a part of the structure of the society in which you're a voluntary member then you're just a self-
Re:What I don't get... --- Does this help? (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, you (somewhat) make the same mistake that is made about
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup, you don't get it.
Copyleft was created as a countermeasure which uses copyright law to subvert the traditional copyright system. With viral copyleft licences, content creators who are sick of the way copyright ties up the rights to creative works while shafting the public domain have created a collection of work which is like a protected public domain - derivative works which build on it must be released back into it.
If copyright law was reasonable, we wouldn't need copyleft. I would gladly sacrif
Re:What I don't get... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank you USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:5, Insightful)
> difference is between someone violating the
> license terms on a copyrighted work released
> under a GPL license, and someone violating the
> terms under which a CD is released by (for
> example) Sony?
The differenc:
GPL programs don't come with encumbered software that will secretly install itself on your machine to ensure that you keep the GPL, and will post your personal data to the owner of the SourceForge project page, plus any other material that it feels might be related to your breach of the GPL (including any other code that you write, so that the owner can make sure it wasn't derivative of his) and which is capable of shutting down your computer if it determines the GPL has been violated (with no responsibility for it to be *correct* in that determination).
GPL authors don't then, having written that encumbered software, demand legal protection that obliges users to run it on their machine.
GPL authors don't gleefully accept your contribution to a project, and then argue that any code you ever write for the rest of your life must be GPLed because the programming skills you learned while working on the GPL project can only result in code which matches that which is GPLed.
GPL authors don't buy up entire distribution channels, and make exclusive agreements with them, to ensure that you are *forced* to GPL any software you want to write if you ever want it to be noticed, and even then they can still veto anything they don't want published for any reason.
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:2)
While nowhere near as draconian as this real example from the world of CDs, I think the bitching from the kernel that this is not a GPL module and now the kernel is tainted is in the same category of behavior.
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:2)
Consequently, that's also why I have a Nomad instead of an iPod.
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:2)
I'm the author of a GPL'd (well, LGPL'd - it's a library) work myself. I firmly believe in my right to copyright my work and license it as I see fit. And even though I disagree with the terms that Metallica (for example) have chosen, I respect their right to choose their own terms. It's a quest
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:4, Informative)
> terms. It's a question of fair play - how
> could I possibly demand protection for my own
> rights, if I'm not prepared to afford that
> same protection to others?
The point I was trying to make is that - as far as I can tell - nobody is doubting the need for and value of copyright and other IP-related law. The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA), and b) the corporate slant with which it is being developed and interpreted ("copy protection clubs", submarine patents, machine-gun patents, etc.).
Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would question that assertion - there seem to be a lot of "nobodies" here on
The problem is a) the draconion measures being employed to enforce it (eg, DMCA)
I have to wonder if the DMCA would stand up to judicial review, if some of its more draconian measures were actually brought to trial. I have the same doubts about the several cases of file traders being sued by the *AA's - every case I've heard about was settled out of court before it could be brought in front of a judge or jury. Why haven't the EFF or some other organization funded a legal defense for one of these folks? Getting a precedent on the books that establishes a more reasonable penalty would be an important step, in my opinion.
machine-gun patents
Great Cthulhu, is that one still valid??? How long has Hiram Maxim been dead now, anyway?
Hatch didn't just argue that copyright should be kept strong. He argued that the computers of people violating copyright should be destroyed. That's a whole different issue.
I can't argue with that. I'm not arguing for or against strong copyright, just consistency; regardless of how strong it is, it should afford equal protection to all copyright holders. But in any case, Hatch is a horrible choice to chair this committee. Destroying the possessions of someone without the giving them the benefit of due process is ridiculous. You'd think someone in his position would have a better understanding of the Constitution than that.
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dentist's don't have the right to tell you how to use teeth that they repair. Mechanics don't have the right to tell you how to drive your car. Pen manufacturers don't have the right to tell your what to write. Similarly, it is not to society's benefit for the entertainment industry to tell you how to be entertained.
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:2)
I'm against software/hardware/arts that limits what people can do with it. If someone enforces the GPL, he's trying to STOP someone else from creating propietary software, and defending our rights to access his creation, and so, it's a good action. If someone
Red Herring! Red Herring! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a complete red herring. What the industry is trying to stop with their heavy-handed digital right management and anti-reverse-engineering laws is not activity they are authorised to prevent, and it's not analogous to any activity the GPL prevents.
When I take a GPLed program and modify it and keep my modifications secret I'm not violating the GPL unless I distribute the binary to someone without gicing them the source. Copyright controls distribution, not use.
When I rip a CD so I can play it on my computer or mp3 player I'm not violating the terms under which a CD is released by Sony. If I give someone a copy or keep the files after I sell the CD I am, but that's not what the indusry is trying to prevent... they're trying to prevent me from playing the music, not distributing it.
So the answer to your red herring is "none, and it's irrelevant".
By the way, I like your handle, "B.S.Artist".
Re:Red Herring! Red Herring! (Score:3, Informative)
If you are found with large numbers of albums ripped on your laptop and cannot produce the CDs, will they accept your honest statement that the CDs were stolen?
Under traditional copyright law if you don't distribute those songs from your laptop you're not guilty of anything. It doesn't matter how you got them, you could have recorded them from the radio (legal), from a TV broadcast or simulcast (legal).
I do have a couple of trashed CDs I keep as the no-longer-rea
The Slashdot Group Mind Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The "average slashdotter" you have constructed is made of straw, and your attack on it is nonsensical.
Anyway, being opposed to Orrin Hatch is not the same as being opposed to copyright, and being in favor of limited copyright is not the same as being in favor of unlimited copyright. For all we know, mr. Hatch could very well be proposing new laws that make GPL-style use of copyright illegal (I'm sure some method can be found, and don't think Microsoft et al haven't thought of it).
Re:Refresh my memory, please? (Score:5, Insightful)
what the essential difference is between someone violating the license terms on a copyrighted work released under a GPL license, and someone violating the terms under which a CD is released by (for example) Sony?
Sure, it is impossible to violate "the licence a CD is released under" because no such licence exists.
When you buy a CD you get no licence because you need no licence.
When you buy a book you get no licence because you need no licence.
Really that's what has so many people confused and why there is so much arguing over copyright issues. It's not much of a simplification to say that copyright really only restricts three things: (1) creating new copies, (2) distributing new copies, and (3) public performance. By law, those are the only three rights available for a copyright holder to licence. If he is not licencing you one or more of those three rights then he is not licencing you anything at all. Copyright does not restrict anything EXCEPT those three things. All other activities are UNRESTRICTED by copyright. You need no licence to to anything OTHER than those three things. If you want to read the law, it's right here. [warwick.ac.uk] You'll see that law lists 6 things, I lumped together 1 and 2 under 'creating new copies', and I lumped 4 5 and 6 together as 'public performance'.
You do not need a licence to read a book, it is unrestricted.
You do not need a licence to play a song, it is unrestricted.
You do not need a licence to resell a book or CD at a used book store, it is unrestricted.
There is no such thing as a licence to read, no such thing as a licence to play music, no such thing as a licence to "use".
If you buy a book or CD you can do essentially anything you like with it for personal use in the privacy of your own home. It is not copyright infringment and you need no licence. The copyright holder sold you that copy and that copy is your property. You just can't start running off more copies and offering them to the public.
And the same it true of GPL'd software. Once you are given a copy you can do essentially anything you like with it for personal use in the privacy of your own home. You only need the GPL licence if you want to start passing out copies (or derivative copies). THAT is restricted by copyright.
-
Re:Blame Utah (Score:2)
They only picked Orin Hatch because he is the US equivlent of what us australians call a "safe seat".
He has so much support from the religious conservatives in utah that there is little chance of him being voted out (either by those opposed to his support of the media cartels or for any other reason). This means that they can count on him being around long enough to help get whatever new laws they have bought through Contress.
Re:History repeating itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't think something like this couldn't happen again.
By the way, forget region codes... can anyone tell me a brand of DVD that will let me skip over the various warning notices at the start of the DVD? I have to sit through as much as a minute and a half of that on some disks...
Re:Vote Green (Score:3, Insightful)
However, y'all never tire of telling us how you live in the greatest democracy on earth, so, why do you all vote republicrat? or not vote at all?
The people here who object to these kinds of stupid laws probably aren't the same people who claim the US is the greatest democracy on earth; a substantial number would even point out that we don't live in a democracy at all.
I don't know about the congressional elections but in the last two presidential elections the public has NOT elected the Bush regime.