Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Your Rights Online Politics

Anti-P2P Law Looms over the Horizon 560

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This discussion has been archived.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.

Anti-P2P Law Looms over the Horizon

Comments Filter:
  • by genrader ( 563784 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:34PM (#10874862) Homepage Journal
    I believe if individual cities/counties/states wants to legalize public marijuana smoking, that's the local government's business. I think there should be fines for people smoking pot in public areas, particularly areas where people are going to be all the time (city streets, parks, etc.). However, I think whatever the fsck you want to do in your own home is your business. If someone wants to sit on their property and smoke pot all day, so be it unto them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:38PM (#10874895)
    We need some kind of bill-watch section. That way when this gets voted on, we can have an article saying which way it went. Most of the bills that are brought up on slashdot are totally forgotten about afterwards and never posted about again.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:39PM (#10874902)

    In the US there are more people in jail for marijuana related crimes than the entire prison population of 1970.

    Google for it.
  • by johnjaydk ( 584895 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:40PM (#10874909)
    I think we are missing an important part of the puzzle.

    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.

  • by diqmay ( 773248 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:42PM (#10874917)
    While I understand Seantor McCain's remarks, I guess I wonder as how legislation would affect my right to disable images in websites and thus ignoring banners, or even using other software that does not render the ads at all? Does this mean I have to load and all website ads, lest I be judged a criminal, and if I scroll past an embedded add in an article does this mean I'm "fast forewarding" that add. This seems incredibly restrictive and amazingly unenforceable. Diq - spelling is no object
  • Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by siliconjunkie ( 413706 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:43PM (#10874929)
    1. Connect to bittorrent tracker
    2. Determine that the .torrent in question points to protected intellectual property
    3. "netstat -an"
    4. Record all connetions to 6889
    5. Subpoena ISPs
    6. Litigate
    7. Rinse and repeat

  • Fascism (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:44PM (#10874936) Homepage Journal
    Fascist corporate governments require consumers to consume their prescribed advertising. Every citizen is required to consume propaganda that innoculates against antisocial tendencies, like dissent, conservation, and critical thinking - or any thinking at all.
  • Car crashes coming! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:44PM (#10874938)
    Just wait until this law passes, and gets interpreted by courts (especially the part about not being able to skip commercials). Pretty soon, when you are driving on the freeway, you are thus legally required to completely read every billboard you pass by....
  • Re:International? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by krymsin01 ( 700838 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:46PM (#10874951) Homepage Journal
    Why don't you ask the Chinese?
  • by Osrin ( 599427 ) * on Saturday November 20, 2004 @12:54PM (#10875001) Homepage
    ... here in the US we will be paying high prices to cover the creation of the intellectual property (R&D in drug company parlance) while the rest of the world gets to use the product for next to nothing.

    In fact, I predict that some countries will eventually start to complain about the cost of the bandwidth needed to enjoy all the free stuff that is out there.
  • by Free_Trial_Thinking ( 818686 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:15PM (#10875118)
    I'm a little concerned that the EFF and other groups like downhillbattle.org are not helping organize opposition to this bill.
    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.

    --
  • by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:17PM (#10875133) Journal
    Ah, unless you make it a "health concern".

    If I want to sit around and smoke weed all day, it is my business, and the government can't interfere. Until some "medicol doctar!!!1! kekeke!" diagnoses with me with a fancy new politically correct disease, now it's the governments duty to lock me up.

    We had the article yesterday about internet porn. Apparantly getting a hardon is a medical condition caused by "erototoxins". So no first amendment rights for internet porn! It's an addictive disease causing substance just like crack.

    Of course there are people engaged in self destructive behaviour who legitimately are mentally or physically ill. Our society as a whole doesn't have enough common sense to draw the line.

    So lets criminalize Big Macs and titties, bring back prohibition. Umm, lets see, what else do people enjoy. Puppies, kitties, etc..
  • Business as usual (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:22PM (#10875159) Homepage Journal
    First let's examine where the Feds think they derive the authority to even debate these issues. It probably comes from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8,"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    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.
  • by Asphalt ( 529464 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:25PM (#10875174)
    I think the big dealers should be nailed, that's a given

    What do you have against Pfizer?

  • by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:29PM (#10875196) Journal
    What about cooking at home? Should I have to get a goverment permit and take a class to buy butter?
  • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:51PM (#10875338)
    As a Tivo owner I have a special perspective on commercials.

    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.
  • Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oylerNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Saturday November 20, 2004 @01:55PM (#10875353) Journal
    Wrong.

    Do we have 35 million drug users in prison? No. Instead, they selectively send those they dislike the most to prison, and let the rest churn through misdemeanors in court, creating a large dsyfunctional rehab industry and a permanent underclass.

    The same will happen with IP infringement.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2004 @02:12PM (#10875458)
    Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.
    When one of your friends is killed on her way to school by a driver who was stoned out of his skull, you'll think differently.
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @02:37PM (#10875577) Journal
    It was about a school somewhere in america, I think New York but am just guessing. The story was about the increased occurence of private companies subsidising parts of a school in exchange for advertising.

    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)

    by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @03:01PM (#10875706) Journal
    P2P is a tool, like a saw, a hammer or yes, even a gun. Don't blame the tool when some human uses it in a wrong way. Over the years many tools have been used to commit crimes - even the lowly rock can be used to murder.

    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!

  • Trade blocks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @03:55PM (#10876005) Journal

    The internet is international, how will this be enforcable?

    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.

  • by wk633 ( 442820 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @04:15PM (#10876146)
    It's a lot easier to add a rider to an existing bill you think will pass, than to write a new one.

    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.
  • Burn everything. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @04:34PM (#10876255)
    No no no no no... They should call this the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FREEDOM ACT. It will make it ILLEGAL to create, possess, use, traffic in, or otherwise have anything to do with intellectual property in any form. It will be the LAW that every intellectual property in existance must be DESTROYED. Books will be burned in huge bonfires. Same thing with paintings, music and movie recordings, film, software, documentation, and even people, because their brains contain intellectual property. When there is NO intellectual property in existance, there will no longer be any piracy, and then the problem will be SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2004 @06:13PM (#10876847)
    Well I made a couple suggestions awhile back. One markup the bills XML style. Two use RSS to let people know that a new bill is coming up.

    And last since this is a copyright story. Here's a book to read.

    Patent, Copyright, & Trademark: An Intellectual Property* Desk Reference by Attorneys Stephen Elias and Richard Stim. 7th edition.

    *Note to audiance, two attorneys using the term "property". Read and find out why.
  • Re:International? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by k-zed ( 92087 ) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:28PM (#10877230) Homepage Journal
    This is all about controlling consumer base in the "land of the free".

    It's still the land of the free, I guess; just some people are more free than others :)
  • Freedom of Speech (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PingPongBoy ( 303994 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @04:02AM (#10879623)
    It's nice to bask in the right to express oneself freely, but those who want to enjoy free works of art should either contribute high quality art for free or buy the copyrights.

    Clearly technology will make copying easier. Technology will hamper the ability of people to profit from their own creativity. The time will come when computers produce better compilations of knowledge and art than people. At this point information may as well be free because I can click on the button labelled "Create" and receive a dump of information that I can enjoy.

    I suggest that we stop using P2P for mere sharing of files that "someone has copied/ripped from somewhere" - especially data that was originally sold rather than freely distributed. P2P is somewhat corrupting, leading to laziness. Instead, consider the success of the free software movement where cooperation produces quality material available at no charge. The time has come for technology to assist us in the production of free art. Look at the incredible special effects done in movies by computers. Well, we can apply worldwide grid computing to rendering free movies, as well as other noble applications such as scientific calculations.

    You can bet that prices for data will drop in the years to come. P2P is a bizarre phenomenon meant for surreptitious file copying - if information was to be made available with no qualms, it would be on a website. Valuable information with heavy traffic is mirrored legitimately. If you have the right to freedom of speech, put your money where your mouth is, and output some free stuff for us.
  • by john_uy ( 187459 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @10:52AM (#10880608)
    making p2p illegal is like making the internet illegal? i mean the internet now does transfer files to one another whether be it html, gif, jpg, mp3, wmv, etc. my question would be what is the differentiating factor for this case?

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...