Slashdot Log In
Anti-P2P Law Looms over the Horizon
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:29 AM
from the party's-over dept.
from the party's-over dept.
Adrian Lopez writes "MIT's Technology Review has a piece by Eric Hellweg about pending legislation known as the Intellectual Property Protection Act. According to Hellweg, IPPA could make it illegal to skip past commercials and could 'criminalize the currently legal act of using the sharing capacity of iTunes, Apple's popular music software program.' More information on IPPA is available at the Public Knowledge website."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
International? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:International? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Trade blocks (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't be too difficult. The standard thing that the US does in this situation is to say "implement our laws or we won't trade with you, we'll tell everyone else not to trade with you, and we'll make it even more difficult for your citizens to travel via or into the US".
It's surprisingly effective, because they only need to actually have it enforced in western countries, and such countries typically rely on trade with the US either directly or indirectly.
It's really not so surprising that corporates (most obviously Microsoft) get away with what they do in the US, because the Federal Government leads by example. The essential foreign policy of the United States is to use its power/monopoly in one region to lock everyone else out of another region.
Having said this, I come from a smaller nation (New Zealand) that has decided to not support the US on several occasions, including various nuclear issues and the Iraq invasion. The result is that our government is now pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with China, because the US won't speak to us. I'm not sure which is worse.
We are comparitively lucky in many ways out here, though. I won't forget that.
Parent
lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator John McCain stated his opposition to this bill, and specifically cited the anti-commercial skipping feature: "Americans have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials for 30 years," he said. "Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?"
Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you could say it's typical of thinking on Slashdot. Never mind.
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Funny)
And damn you if you don't read every ad in your newspaper. If people did, the paper would get paid more for them. You selfish bastards.
Parent
Real life commercial watching (Score:5, Interesting)
When Im forced to use a "hostile television" I notice a few things:
1. THe SAME commercial gets played over and over. I was watching the Simpsons and Malcolm in the Middle live and saw the same truck commercial five or six times. Same with the rest. So skipping something you've seen is hardly costing anyone money.
2. Commercials have zero information quantity. That is to say they are all emotion and no logic. Whats the MPG of that truck? What is its safety ratings? I dunno, all I know is a busty woman is leaning on it on a backdrop of some colorado mountain scene with a flag somewhere on the screen. Or as Dr. Rappielle says "It appeals to the reptilian brain." [anecdotage.com] I'm not a reptile and I like making informed consumer decisions (usually).
I guess the term "victim" here is what is being debated. A market shift to different modes of operation isn't victimizing its the future! Its why we have free markets. So companies can adapt. The old advertisers will be replaced with the new.
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US there are more people in jail for marijuana related crimes than the entire prison population of 1970.
Google for it.
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lots of other [...] crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving impaired is wrong, whether it's due to drugs, fatigue, or talking on a cellphone. You're not suggesting we ban cell phones entirely just becuase they cause some accidents. Why should pot be any different? Keep in mind that a little benadryl impairs driving more than Cannabis.
Parent
Re:Lots of other [...] crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Informative)
From a 1993 DOT report [druglibrary.org], my emphasis. Besides, many many many people take benadryl without knowing it affects driving as much or more than alcohol. Please note that this is not an endorsement of driving stoned. [canoe.ca]
In addition, the drugs don't exactly have any real purpose aside from personal recreation
So? In a free country we should be free to persue what ever recreation we want.
There's also a bit more practical reason to illegalize pot usage in public places - just consider it to be the equivalent of a public smoking ban. People can still do it in their own homes, but it will work better than just considering it a criminally restricted substance.
I can see the paralell, but I'd be opposed to a public cigarrette ban too. I can understand banning smoking inside public (government) buildings. But in the open air, and in private (including places of business) buildings I see no possible justification. What could be less harmful to society than me lying by the river on a sunny day puffing a joint and reading a book?
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:5, Informative)
There may be some costs to society. But the costs of prohibition are even higher. Prohibition does not work, and it never did. It only creates a black market ruled by criminals to fill the demand for drugs that will always exist. Drug quality decreases, increasing overdoses and toxic reactions to contaminants. Then there's the huge cost of imprisoning all of those pot smokers who could have been contributing to society just like everyone else. Prohibition is BAD medicine. Like quicksilver for diahrrea, it causes more problems than it cures.
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you break an arm, it should be covered. If you have lung cancer from LA smog, you should be covered. But if you have lung cancer from choosing to smoke, it shouldn't. Society shouldn't prevent you from harming yourself, but it shouldn't pay for fixing you.
Parent
Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (Score:3, Insightful)
mcain is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mcain is right (Score:3, Insightful)
The times, they are a changing, and the cheese is a moving.
In other words, markets are desperately trying to keep today exactly like yesterday.
Cheers,
-- The Dude
Re:mcain is right (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
WOW (Score:5, Insightful)
We have lost parts of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment. Bush's 2000 win gutted any of 10th that was left.
The police can now search your home and "finincal" records with court oversite with informing you that it even happened and barring all from talking about it.
So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?
Re:WOW (Score:5, Insightful)
Pfff! As if there was anything left of the tenth! Lincoln gutted it way back when, and FDR buried whatever was left. The feds usurping states' power was a done deal long ago.
Parent
I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:4, Informative)
I dont think any respected source could claim edison 'invented' the light bulb.
More info HERE [wikipedia.org]
Parent
What's Next? (Score:5, Funny)
Idea for a new slashdot section. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fast-Forward is the flamebait of the package. (Score:5, Interesting)
The gameplan is: Lump some eight laws together in a package. Make one of them outrageous stupid. The stupid one gets all the flak, is pulled from the package and the rest sails straight trough congres.
Dammit (Score:5, Informative)
It does NOT make it illegal to skip commercials.
It just says that this new exemption doesn't apply to skipping commercials. If there is an EXISTING exemption (or if the manner by which the commercials are skipped isn't even prima face infringement) then those still remain in effect just as they do now.
This is little more than a clarification.
That said, it is a bad bill overall, since there are a lot of other provisions attached with this one which suck, such as criminalizing copyright infringement even more than it is now, permitting the government to file civil suits for infringement, further gutting registration formalities, etc.
But this is one of the only halfway decent parts of it -- as it would tend to remove any doubt as to the legality of what Clean Flicks has been doing, and would permit other creative uses of EDLs, such as to edit Jar Jar out of Star Wars movies -- and so it annoys me quite a lot to see people's outrage arising out of a misreading of the bill. Be outraged at the rest of the bill, dammit.
far reaching consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
P2P is a "national security crime"?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa thar. Time out. Game penalty. Chill.
The sharing of the Anarchist's Cookbook would be a national security issue. IP theft of weapons technology, air defense systems, domestic utility and transportation infrastructuce are national security issues.
But P2P of ENTERTAINMENT is a "national security crime"?!?
That's the most flawed stretch of reasoning I've ever seen. And I don't even engage in P2P.
And if this bill becomes law and my fast forward button is outlawed,
It's a sad day when laws are passed to perpetuate outdated business models.
We may very well see TV forced into being more (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully, people will see the insanity of this law and not pass it, which will mean that the distribution methods for scripted shows will either have to evolve or die. I personally hope they evolve into distributing the shows directly to the public via an iTunes like service. That way I no longer have to pay for cable just to see the few shows that I enjoy; I can purchase them directly. The producers of these shows no longer have to be encumbered by the increasingly draconian regulations of the FCC. Just imagine what South Park could do if they weren't worried about being fined.
First convict lining up (Score:4, Funny)
Well, it is Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
...so I can't expect anybody actually went and read the fucking article. Here's [64.233.167.104] the Gooogle cache for the article at Public Knowledge. Take a minute and read it.
Once again, the intellectual property cartels are lobbying thru legislation that seeks to further limit and erode the rights of consumers. We all seem to be laboring under the idiotic assumption that the current system is "just how things are". Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract. This contract is supposed to benefit both parties-- the creators of intellectual property and the People.
Write your Senator. Vote. Make intellectual property a campaign issue for future elections. Tell other people about how their rights are being taken away and encourage them to do the same.
I'm soooo scared (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to chuckle everytime I see a law or technology attempt to suppress the desires of the people. First we had Napster, then Kazaa, now Bittorrent. The geeks will always win.
Now what worries me is the effects of all this in the interim. The message of freedom being spread throughout the world is spoken by those who consistently attempt to pass laws controlling what we can and can't do.
If you're Exxon, you'll get an exemption for pollution. If you're Joe Blow, you'll get put in jail for fast forwarding through a commercial. What's wrong with this picture?
Need more organizations involved (Score:5, Interesting)
It's common knowledge that the government is slow and us internet folk are fast. Yet here we are seeing the opposite, the government is being fast, and freedom organizations of the internet are slow to pick up the fight.
Perhaps this suggests groups like EFF, et al need to re-examine how they react to legistlative bills. Not to sound over-dramatic, but I think they need an "army" of concerned citizens ready to start calling/writing their legistlators within 24 hours notice. Sort of like the minute-men of the American revolutionary war. Perhaps we even need a figuritive watch-tower to monitor congress and catch these bills in the very earliest stages.
In the bigger picture I'm an optimist and I hope to see over the next few years that the internet will help people get organized and bring strong pressure to bear on governments. We see how powerful the open-source model is, I'm waiting to see a similar phenomenom with politics. We see beginings of this with the Dean campaign and things like Groklaw but again I'm hoping this is just the begining.
I just wish there were more I could do personally.
--
Business as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that the language includes "promote the progress". It does not include provisions for deterring competition. Note also that the language includes "authors and inventors" and makes no provision for the corporate empires which manage to back authors and inventors into a financial corner to induce them to sign away all ownership.
As always, without anything in the Constitution to specifically address P2P, fast-forwarding of commercials, or regulation of content and viewing, we must defer to the 10th Amendment,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
To preempt those communists in the crowd who would like to interpolate their favorite part of the Constitution to include their pet issue of the week I would like to remind everyone of Amendment 9,"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, there you have it. As always our federal politicians are wasting our taxpayer money debating issues which they have no authority, responsibility, or legal jurisdiction over. As always they will come up with mandates which will tax us further, hamper manufacturers, and prevent the consumers from getting what we pay for.
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for any of the current politicians. I also do more than my fair share attempting to educate those who don't have any clue what real freedom or liberty is.
Bring on the trolls.
Had Enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
A law against murder. Sounds great
A law against burglary. Good idea
A law against smoking pot. Now we are pushing it. If you are going after the DWI aspect of it, sure, otherwise... (Though on a personal morality basis I think it's wrong. I really don't believe I should impose my views in a personal arena like this. Because of course what is to prevent someone else doing the same to me when they are in the majority.)
A law against fast forwarding through commercials. Ok senator, the good people of your state think you need to look for a new line of work
weird stuff (Score:5, Informative)
"Intellectual property theft is a national security crime. It's appropriate that the fed dedicate resources to deter and prosecute IP theft."
Since when were you able to steal "creations of the mind"? I don't like this word game which intends to make copying stuff morally relative to stealing. If you are against corporations tightening the copyright law, don't use the term "intellectual property". The word "property" distorts and oversimplifies the whole idea.
Letter to my senator (Score:5, Informative)
People ought to be asking themselves, seriously, a much broader question: Should Congress to be passing laws that the majority of people don't want? A case can be made for such laws in the case of individual rights of minorities. But I don't see that a corporation merits any consideration whatsoever with respect to any law that restricts our freedom.
Ditch the TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet is far more interesting than television anyway.
Re:Ditch the TV. (Score:4, Insightful)
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Parent
I remember an old documentary (Score:4, Interesting)
This has been an issue for a long time around the world and every single time it is done the powers that be insure us that it will not go out of control.
lucky for the dutch we are several years behind the rest of the world so if we want to see the future we take a ticket to the US of A.
Far from the cafeteria being run by McD or books on economy being printed by Wall Street the docu saw a far far worse case.
Students were made to watch simple commercials on tv. Don't watch the commercials and you can't attend classes.
So for those worried about ordinary tv forcing you to watch commercials, you are a bit slow. Far worse has already been tried.
P2P is not bad (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that history would teach us that when a popular activity is outlawed, that activity doesn't go away it moves underground. Look at the roaring 20's and the temperance movement that caused prohibition. Outlawing alcohol didn't make it go away, it just drove it underground and made common criminals wealthy and willing to protect their enterprise with guns and a little enterprise called "Murder Inc."
A similar corelation can be made with illicit drugs today; Crack, crank, heroin, and pot are all available on street corners in every major city! Those gangsters also protect thier illicit interests with guns and murder.
One has to wonder if the drug situation were dealt with a little differently, if things wouldn't be better? Please note I am not being pro-drug here. But I have to wonder if cocaine and other drugs were available to adults in controlled stores if we wouldn't have less crime and about the same number of adicts? If that was the case, wouldn't it be a success? Our prisons would be less crowded and we would probably have less crime.
By now some of you are thinking I'm a lunatic, that P2P software is different from drugs. Please believe me when I say I understand that. But regulation brings with it unanticipated and often disasterous consiquences. It makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and, it puts the country that regulates it at a competitive disadvantage to the countries that don't. All in all, I see this kind of conservitive over regulation as a "bad thing."
Also, FTP can and frequently is used "peer to peer," so are IM programs: Are all of these going to be legislated away because of some short-sighted law? Is this really appropriate legislation - aren't there already plenty of laws that address copyright violations? I can't see how true American's can't agree!
It's looking inevitable now... (Score:4, Insightful)
The inefficiency, corruption, and general incompetence of the American government is at the moment staggering. And it is happening because we the people have let it happen. Say what you will, this government is still absolutely bound to the will of the people because we can vote it out of office come every two years.
The problem is that the American people are becoming apathetic and uncaring. Nixon irretrievably broke the faith of millions in their government. Even if they hear about these bullshit bills, they have no idea what to do and form their opinion soley around what the magic picture box says.
And do you know what the problem is? We're allowed to escape basic education without even being able to recite our nation's founding documents. Twelve, thirteen years of schooling before high school graduation. We were never required to so much as read the Constutition or the Declaration of Independence.
Personally, I think it's an outrage that the founding documents of our nation aren't required reading in every single high school in the nation. Being able to recite the first two articles of the Declaration, the meaning of the first ten amendments, and being able to enumerate in no unspecific terms the powers of all three branches of Government set forth in the Constitution should be a requirement for high school graduation.
And you can make that possible. Obviously, there are certain politicians don't want you to read material that tells you that it's your duty to rebel against an unjust government and that all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved by the states or the people, but if the people create enough of an outcry and vote out representatives who oppose it, it will happen if only because the remaining representatives will act out of self-preservation. And note that I didn't say ALL politicians. Heck, I've got a copy of the Constitution in front of me that was sent by my representative in the House.
Now stop staring at the screen. Go out there and make a ruckus.
H.R. 4077 Establishes the National Tree (Oak) (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, now: skip all the text, and jump right to the bottom- "TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS." Section 201, the designation of national tree.
"The tree genus Quercus, commonly known as the oak tree, is the national tree."
Can someone more informed in the ways of law tell me what this is all about?
Re:H.R. 4077 Establishes the National Tree (Oak) (Score:5, Interesting)
It also creates all sorts of back-room deal making. Basically, "I'll vote for your bill if you add this pork for my local constituancy". It'a also why attack ads can say "So and so voted against mothers and apple pie!". What they really voted against was some other thing the bill, the "mom and applie pie" was added on.
It's really really stupid, and it's very American.
Parent
This doesn't really scare me (Score:4, Insightful)
These laws are utterly futile...and they are futile for several reasons. For one thing, they are completely dehumanising...they are counter to human nature and human desire. For another, because they are largely unenforceable, they rely on the laughable expectation that they will be willingly obeyed.
As I've said earlier, we keep getting more and more evidence that we are now genuinely in the Aquarian era, and it ain't going to be how the song from that stupid musical Hair described it. Initially anyway, we are in for a period of truly mammoth conflict. Uranus and Saturn, or to use imagery which people are more familiar with...the elderly vs the young and the new...Science, intellectualism, altruism, and the desire for genuine freedom colliding with tyranny, willful ignorance and stupidity, commercialism and fear...Smith vs Neo.
Unfortunately for Ashcroft, Hatch, Vilenti and the other Smith wannabes of the world however, although they may do some damage in the short term, long term they don't have a prayer of getting anywhere with their ambitions. They're too stupid, too greedy, too fearful, and therefore largely self-defeating. At times I pity them, because if they could learn to change their own mindset and behaviour they also could benefit from the future that the rest of us are busy creating.
If you step in chewing gum, it will cause your shoes to stick to the ground to a minor degree, but not ultimately enough to cause you anything more than inconvenience. Also, despite how tenacious said chewing gum may be in remaining on the soles of your shoes, it can and will be eventually scraped off...and then you continue walking. Humanity is still going to ultimately get where it wants to go...Bush and his friends might try and set up roadblocks, as have other such individuals throughout history...but ultimately all they amount to are potholes.
Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Determine that the
3. "netstat -an"
4. Record all connetions to 6889
5. Subpoena ISPs
6. Litigate
7. Rinse and repeat
I'm just too tough for you. (Score:5, Informative)
Fascism is corporate government. Usually politically controlling the people through fear, backed by application of force. It also usually includes arbitrary bigotry, to harness mass consciousness in the service of the new worldview behavior mechanisms: "Jews must be destroyed, so Germans must join the army", or "Gays must be cured of their sins, so Americans must elect Bush". Fascism is not just manipulation of information, strong words arguing points of action through connotations. Fascists aren't the only assholes. Fascism is very specific, though fascists are usually skilled as cryptofascists, hiding when it suits them. Fascists are masters of media, and much more insightful in the workings of the mass mind, which is innoculated and brainwashed every day in the mass media, without needing to strap individuals into chairs for psychohypnotic trance therapies and subliminal programming. That's what late-night TV is for.
Parent
Re:American Dream coming true (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a theory! I believe in the United States the citizens are not the humans but the corporations. The humans are the flora and fauna that grows in the society. The real citizens are the corporations. They vote (with their money), they have rights but no obligations, they have access to legislation, they participate in the society, they sent the flora and fauna to die on endless wars while they (the corporations) profit out of it!
Sad...
Parent