Copyright Office Suggests Changes To Induce Act 263
An anonymous reader writes "The US Copyright Office has proposed a new version of the Induce act. Under this new version it is apparently more difficult to bring charges against a company for inducement. Stories on the subject can be found at DRMBlog.com and at News.com."
It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Interesting)
Greed is a powerful thing. The laws are being made by people who enjoy the perks of working for the corporations.
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I wasn't clear... The government officials that are accepting payoffs to put through laws favorable to the coroporations are greedy.
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tennesseeans, vote against Frist. He's a sponsor. South Dakotans? Daschle. Vote them out. If enough of the bill's sponsors are voted out of office, this bill will die as it should. With the exception of Graham in South Carolina, they're -all- up for reelection this year. Vote these corporate tools out of office. Tell all your friends to vote against them, too, and tell them why.
The INDUCE act is typical of what happens when a bunch of idiots think that they can legislate against social change. They tried it with prohibition and with segregation. Look how well those worked. The result of this law, if passed? Nothing. The people who maintain this software will suddenly be replaced by people in other countries. People will continue to violate the draconian copyright laws. P2P will become more and more untraceable and more and more secure. The end result will be that the MPAA/RIAA will lose the current benefits of P2P (tracking popularity), but their efforts will do nothing to stem the tide of illegal downloading.
The reality is that copyright law as we know it is over. Regardless of your views on whether copyright law is still valuable (and personally, I think it is), the public of the world has spoken. They have committed en masse acts of civil disobedience. There is no going back. The people pushing for this bill are trying to stop a train going at full tilt with no one behind the wheel. And while I, as a supporter of -reasonable- copyright, wish it weren't so, the cat is out of the bag. They watched and did nothing as the Internet became a popular mechanism for getting music, and in doing nothing, lost their right to do anything.
The world is a different place than it was before Napster, and no matter how much the people in power want to go back, wishing won't make it so. The sooner they accept this and work to find mechanisms for making money in spite of the inevitability of P2P, the sooner they'll be profitable again. The harder they try to fight technology, the more they will lose.
Remember: VOTE
Re:It's a start... (Score:2)
Incredible post, one of the best I've ever seen here on
It makes me sad when the RIAA exerts so much effort to control my PC. The lost me as a customer years ago and whether p2p gets shut down or not I'm never buying another CD again.
Stopping buying DVDs will be far harder, but the day my PVR (read any PVR) can't record a show that
I get over my cable, I will stop buying DVDs as well (man that will be tough, but doable).
I imagine if the horse and buggy lobby had been this po
Copyright law over? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright law over? (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about NOT getting the point of his post!
This is a war on the Information Commons, not piracy. They want to remove your ability to read a book twice, and similar rights you've always enjoyed. They are trying to lock up the exchange of information.
Please, who gives a damn about the so-called pirates (stupid phrase, anyway).
Re:It's a start... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the next set of corporate tools in.
Re:It's a start... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a start... (Score:3, Insightful)
The trouble is, Pat Leahy is a terrific Senator, and it is very likely that his opponent will take the same position on this issue. A better approach would be to try to get Leahy to change his position.
Re:It's a start... (Score:4, Insightful)
No supprise. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a start... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a start... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem comes when legislators and interested readers aren't aware of all the peripheral meanings and the implications that words take on in a legal context. Inducement, for example, has extremely broad scope in terms of what is an actionable act according to the (proposed) new law.
It appears at first blush the copyright office wishes to mitigate liability for corporations without providing similar clear language for p2p users.
When that is the
HTML Text and Analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this mean that the 9th Circuit is a radical judge making rulings based on personal opinion? I especially love the term "allies in Congress" as if this is some sort of important war.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court, which has the tradition of judicial review, which allows it to overturn laws they see as unconstituional. The Betamax case, which doesn't specifically site a constitutional cause, allows use of technology in a non-infringing manner, even though the manufacturer knows it could be(gleaned from the Grokster decision). Unless the RIAA/MPAA have justices in their pocket, it's doubtful this law will be able to stand up to the Betamax standard. Then again, Orrin Hatch is chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, the first stop for federal(and Supreme) court justice appointees.
Note: I'n not volunteering to be the person to be the case that tries the INDUCE act, should this awful piece of legislation pass, against the Betamax standard.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:3, Informative)
The 9th Circuit ruling and the Betamax ruling set precedents. In the future other courts will refer to such precents and determine the extent to which they are applicable to new cases.
Laws do not overturn rulings, but they regularly superceed precedents. A Betamax-equivalent case could be brought before a court which must now consider the fact that the environment under which the Betamax decision was taken (i.e. the laws applicable at the time) is different to the new environment (assuming the INDUCE ac
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is when there is no need for lawmakers, they invent that need themselves, simply because by making themselves useful they can get bribes from campaign contributors. They are just like bureaucracy in this sense.
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary. Until something is done to curb the rampant abuse of existing laws (and legal precedents) by the lawyers, this is exactly what we need, and will continue to need. Until we can somehow stop them from exploiting the smaller loopholes (which always exist), the solution to the problem cannot be leaving even larger ones.
That isn't to say that I disagree with what you believe in principal (or at least, what I think you believe)
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they "go above their mandate," but Congress's implied mandate is to make laws for the good of all the people, not for the good of a handful of corporations and their shareholders. If Congress isn't going to play fair, wh
Re:Radical Rogue 9th Circuit Court! (Score:4, Informative)
From the State of the Circuit [uscourts.gov] speech:
- "Among some of the issues decided or, in one notable instance not decided, by the Supreme Court from the Ninth Circuit were: whether "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as recited in California schools; whether the EPA needs to perform an environmental impact assessment before allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the U.S. under NAFTA; whether murderers sentenced to death by a judge, in violation of the Constitution's jury trial guarantee, can nonetheless be executed without re-sentencing; whether reasonable suspicion is needed for immigration agents to disassemble a car crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in order to search its gas tank for drugs. These are not easy issues."
Indeed they aren't. Plus, the 9th has the most cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. They're rogues alright. But they make hard decisions, and generally are in favor of keeping the government the hell out of people's business.So it becomes... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:So it becomes... (Score:2)
Shut that HATCH (Score:5, Insightful)
First have a proposed act that is so ridiculous no one can sanely accept it, then turn around and seem to offer a compromise, and suddenly the masses gobble it all up!
Still is too vague (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone else notice how this law can be used to restrict information because you can induce someone to commit copyright infringement without providing links or files. I mean if I tell someone how to make a crack for a game by providing only locations and hex changes, I could be inducing them to break copyright couldn't I?
Re:Still is too vague (Score:4, Informative)
The reason is you no longer have have the CD, he now has it. So only one copy. Fee for the copy has alredy been paid.
If you maded a copy for him, or you lent him your to copy to make copy, then you would falling
Re:Still is too vague (Score:2)
In the RIAA's world, the media is non-transferrable. Never mind any legal precedent about First Sale...
Not sure about that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, IANAL, but I am wondering about crazier scenarios here. What if I loan my CD to my friend and he makes a copy which is allowed (but probably infringing) under the Home Recording act. My understanding is that the Home Recording Act merely prevents prosecution for certain types of infringement,
It's an infringement to lend a CD (Score:3, Informative)
If I had a CD and I lend it to my friend Fred.
Actually, that would be unlawful in the United States even without an Induce Act. First sale (17 USC 109 [cornell.edu]) doesn't apply to "rental, lease, or lending" of a CD.
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD (Score:2, Interesting)
"I bought a CD. Then I gave it to Fred, free of charge, and when he was done listening to it, he gave it to me, also free of charge."
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD (Score:2, Informative)
"...for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage
and
"... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending."
Of course, IANAL.
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD (Score:2)
Then you're both guilty of theft under $5000, or whatever it is in the US. Probably still less of a penalty than copyright infringement, though....
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD (Score:3, Interesting)
And, if you own a company, then not only are you not breaking any laws, you can write off the lost goods. So your coporation buys the cd and you, as a rep of the company lose it, Fred finds it, loses it. You as an individual find it again.
Give it back to the company as capital stock when you want to "lose" it again. Love this country.
Re:It's an infringement to lend a CD (Score:2)
And are you saying that one cannot loan books to friends under the current law?
IANAL....
Re:Still is too vague (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops, it seems you are already 50% sold on the law. You already took it for granted that we need some form of Induce Act, now we only need to agree on the specific text.
The truth is that there is no problem to solve with this law, except for the problem of failing business models. Have you actually seen or heard about those strange and dangerous people that go and induce people to break copyright law? Other than on Hatch's/RIAA speeches, of course...
I haven't. There is no need for this
Re:Still is too vague (Score:3, Informative)
I find it amusing to no end that lending a CD could be considered an infringing act. Talk about absurd. I'd jump ship when the idea was considered.
--Dan
Artists are NOT suffering (Score:5, Interesting)
"The performing rights organization generated royalties of more than $573 million for its songwriters, composers and music publishers. Royalties increased by $40 million or 7.5% from the previous year.
BMI President and CEO Frances W. Preston said both the revenues and royalty distributions were the largest in the company's history."
Sooner or later this 800 pound gorilla is going to trample their manufactured crisis.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:5, Informative)
As a member of the American Federation of Musicians (I am a freelance musician in Chicago) who has performed and recorded in royalty-pay situations, I can tell you that the artists are the FIRST to get the shaft.
Yes, recording companies will tell you that royalty pay increases, but they never seem to release a breakdown of who gets that pay. I would venture to say that the majority of it does not go to artists like myself, who play on your film scores, your commercials, for whom this is a daily living, not the difference between the 1.2 million dollar or the 2.1 million dollar house.
It's the media conglomerates that are the gorillas here. Royalty checks for those like myself are insulting at best. (This is why I have a day job in IT for now.)
Please do not EVER confuse the RIAA and MPAA with actual ARTISTS.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:4, Interesting)
Please read my post and my link, before calling me "full of shit"...(colossally even!) I never said anything about the RIAA and/or MPAA.
The article is from BMI. Anyone can join BMI, from the individual artist (like me) to the largest publisher. The fact that BMI is collecting record revenue and royalty payments means that the money is flowing regardless of what's happening with Kazaa/Morpheus/etc.
The fact that you don't see much of this money will NOT change with the INDUCE act...in fact it will probably get worse if the INDUCE act is passed because it will stifle the very innovation that is changing the system waaay for the better for musicians like you and I.
In short, this guy that's "full of shit" is full of the same opinion you are. The real exploitation is happening with the old status quo, not the new world of "illegal" downloading.
Recording artists aren't always songwriters (Score:2)
First of all, recording artists aren't always songwriters. "Performing rights organizations" are BMI, SESAC, and ASCAP, which pay songwriters and music publishers for radio play and other public performances of copyrighted songs. Harry Fox Agency pays songwriters and music publishers for putting songs on CD. The record labels pay recording artists for putting their recordings on CD but make the artists pay for their own recording and promotion expenses.
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:5, Interesting)
$573,000,000 / 300,000 = $1910 per year
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:2)
But is this because of rampant 'piracy'? Or could it be that:
Most of the music out there is crap?
Most of the good music out there is carefully controlled by a few conglomorates?
Now, how is INDUCE going to increase this number for the average artist?
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:2)
No.
Nope. If you think it is, you need to turn off the fucking radio and go outside.
What the fuck are you talking about?
AFAIK, it isn't. I never mentioned the INDUCE act, merely provided a bit of math for the dumbasses that think all musicians make millions of dolla
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:3, Interesting)
Your original post actually had nothing whatsoever to do with anything? *confused*.
The post that you were responding to was pointing out that even though the music industry claims that they are hurting because of P2P, they are reporting increases in various numbers that indicate the opposite. Nobody ever said that artists were making millions per year. They just pointed out that the dollar amount going to artists was going up (By 7.5% in fact), and that makes it more difficult to say "The music in
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you will find there are easily ten times that many people with their hand in the pot for that money. so there would only be $57K per "employee" -nB
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:2)
The point is completely relevant, you just missed it. In this case the diamond cartels are trying to use the law to try and preserve their business advantage.
They're doing this by saying that diamond miners are suffering, when in reality it is the cartels that hurt the miners the most. If the miners could form their own diamond company, it'd probaby be a better life for them AND diamond buyers.
And somehow you get Robin Hood out of that? You're buying the hype and paint
Re:Artists are NOT suffering (Score:2)
Check back in a few months and see how the new Roxio ... er, I mean Napster ... is doing since they dumped the CD/DVD business and decided to go with just selling music subscriptions. If they can make universities force every student to pay for a subscription, they just might have something. Otherwise, look for that name to be on the auction block along with some office furniture real soon
IRC? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this umbrella cover IRC - something that has a (supposedly) legitimate use? I can understand the regs on p2p software, but can't IRC users say "we're just chatting..."?
Re:IRC? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can? You understand it? Or you're willing to accept it? Or you just don't care? Because, I neither understand it nor am I willing to accept it. P2P has a myriad of legitimate uses, especially to someone running a *nix system.
See, the problem is that people go "Oh, well, they want to ban X? I don't use X, so that's alright." They don't think about the fact that it's X today, but hey, that just set a precedent for banning Y. Soon you're going "Aww crap, IM just got banned because it includes a file transfer feature. How did this happen?"
Re:IRC? (Score:2)
First, the Nazis went after the disabled and homosexual, but I was not disabled or homo-sexual, so I did not speak up.
Then they went after the Gypsies, but I was not Gypsy, so I did not speak up.
Then they went after the communists, but I was not communist, so I did not speak up.
Then they went after the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak up.
Then they went after the Catholics, but I was not a Catholic, so I did not speak up.
Then they came after ME, and ther
Anyone sensible even attending? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone sensible even attending? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hardware manufacturers are interested in free speech, for without at least some semblance of protection of free speech, nobody may lawfully buy their products.
Re:Anyone sensible even attending? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's much easier to ram through the bill you want if you can keep the opposition out of the room.
-
Re:Anyone sensible even attending? (Score:2)
Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
"First it was the Hollings bill, then Induce, now the Copyright Office's bill. They look different, but they all revolve around the same thing: Giving content (providers) veto power over all new technology," Rodger said. "Who decided that holders of government-granted monopolies should determine the future of high tech? I don't remember reading that memo."
Mirrors my feelings exactly. Just goes to show that companies (with convenient government puppets) will stop at nothing to establish monopoly over everything in their power.
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to change the law, get disgustingly rich and BUY a NEW one!
Jeez, it's like the commies never paid off a government official before!
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:2)
One could turn this around and ask who decided that technology creators get to determine who uses intellectual prperty and how? I don't remember reading that memo either. Last I checked, it was teh U.S> Constitution that determined what rights others have concerning intellectual property and while the INDUCE Act may go too far in one direction, allowing P2P apps to r
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the constitution is about the PEOPLE. It should, beyond any other purpose, serve the people who constitute the nation. Laws should also reflect the needs and wants of the people, and not of small groups and corporations. If the laws are badly implemented or irrelevant in a new society, they should be changed or annulled.
I don't want people who create works or invent, or think up new technologies to have those exploited by others for profit, but non-for-profit and personal use should not be outlawed.
Re:Insightful quote for those who don't RTFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now define not-for profit and personal use. Should PETA be allowed to use music, speeches, and photographs to promote their causes? What if I as an artist disagree with PETA? What rights do I now have to stop them from using my work? What if they alter part of a photograph o fmine and change the meaning to the exact opposite? One could argue that stadiums do not earn revenue from the use of songs during spoting events, the people are the
Corporations don't have morals (Score:3, Insightful)
A corporation is going to maximize profit and minimize risk. Those are the survival rules for corporations.
Corporations are going to try to keep as much control as they can, and that's why they use whatever monopolistic, power-grabbing tactics they can. It minimizes risk.
Don't expect corporations to behave like people. They aren't people. They're machines trying to optomize an equation.
Inducing people.... (Score:3, Interesting)
How can the RIAA believe that Apple and the other makers of MP3/WMA/etc players are trying to "induce" people into stealing music? My iPod has a very legitimate use: holding my entire music library in MP3 form so I can enjoy it anywhere I go (BTW: I own all the CDs I've ripped to MP3). I really don't care to carry 500+ CDs on me at all times so I can pop the right on into a CD player when the mood hits me.
Idiots....
Re:Inducing people.... (Score:2, Insightful)
They both want it to be illegal to advertise P2P clients as a source for free entertainment. They both want Kazaa, morpheus, etc to dissappear. It hurts their respective business models.
The decision as to who is doing the "inducing" is up to them, and they can make it as arbitr
Re:Inducing people.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Inducing people.... (Score:2)
Re:Inducing people.... (Score:2)
Friends don't let friends buy Britany Spears music!
Re:Inducing people.... (Score:2)
Re:Inducing people.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting that in the RIAA's world, even if you legally bought the media at full price from a music store, ripping MP3s from it is piracy. By that logic, anyone that sells you the technology to rip mp3s is "inducing" you to steal music. It doesn't matter that a small percentage of iPod owners are actually ripping music they wrote and hold cop
Quite an Improvement (Score:2)
The following are some good provisions, really.
(A) distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
So BitTorrent is still okay, although the other P2P clients are in a little more shady of a situation.
(B) distributing any dissem
Difficult for Corporate America (Score:2)
But its still bloody easy for "regular" America to get busted for "inducement". Jesus, why doesn't the RIAA and the MPAA just declare open war on their customers, and convince Congress to force us to give them X amount of dollars per month. That's the only thing that'll make them happy.
INDUCE not good, but something needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Could Kazza be used for legitimate uses? Sure it could. But is it? Not a chance in hell. And they do nothing to try and even try to push people toward using it legitimately. P2P shouldn't be outlawed. But if 99% of your network is copyrighted material, and you are told this over and over again, and you do nothing to even pretend to try and correct the problem, then your network should be shut down. Common carrier status only works because most of the traffic is legitimate traffic. When all the traffic is in violation, then common carrier status doesn't help anyone and should be revoked.
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right! Probably the best idea is to get rid of the laws being violated. Or to put it another way, when even a large minority of people do something it is crazy to make that thing illegal. Laws should reflect the whole of society rather than just being a tool for certain well placed minority groups to mould everyone else.
If you don't like the way that concept of 'freedom' pans out then, as you American's like to say, why not give communist China a try.
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, then maybe we can get some sanity into this discussion.
The problem is if we just ignore copyright completely - and it becomes legal for large corporations to do so - the biggest distributor wins. Who might that be? Maybe Wal-Mart, maybe
Re:INDUCE not good, but something needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, it's ridiculous, listen to yourself. People just want to listen to music and watch pornos. If it really hurts those industries, then a few a few less pornos will get made, and a few artists won't get signed. True artists will endure. The world will go on. No cultural harm will be done by a few record executives not getting as rich as they would like. We need to rework the whole system for scratch.
But you're just a troll anyway.
I sit in awe as the situation escalates (Score:2, Insightful)
However, for a person like myself who just wishes to lawfully make use of technology, I despise all of you on both extremes of this argument. That includes you fucking jackasses that continue to utterly abuse the rights of copyright holders w
Re:I sit in awe as the situation escalates (Score:2)
Dialog box loophole? (Score:5, Interesting)
".. causes the user of the technology to infringe copyrighted works without the user making a specific, informed decision, for each copyrighted work at issue, about whether to engage in such infringement; "
Doesn't this mean that all the file sharing programs have to do, is to pop up a dialog box for each file that is can't verify the user has the rights to download? Wouldn't that give the user a specific, informed decision about every file and also remove the program from inducing infringement by the terms of this draft?
very squishy (Score:5, Insightful)
- (A) 13 14 distributing any dissemination technology capable of substantial noninfringing uses knowing that it can be used for infringing purposes, so long as that technology is not designed to be used for infringing purposes;
P2P networks are capable of substantial noninfringing uses (whether or not they experience substantial noninfringing uses).So the question comes down to whether or not a P2P network is designed to be used for infringing purposes -- it seems there is some measure or intent that is required for this to be true, and that seems awfully hard to decide or prove one way or another. But, this is sufficiently ambiguous that it would need to be decided in a very messy court battle. Plus, this clause doesn't place any limitations on the extent of infringing purposes for which the technology must be designed - one could argue that if it allows even a single infringing use, it was designed that way, and therefore it was designed to be used for infringing purposes.
Of course, one could make the same claim about email.
I see. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly, Hatch introduced (it says here [techlawadvisor.com]) legislation "in March 2000 to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits arising from crimes committed with their guns".
'Hypocritical douche-bag', is the phrase you're fumbling for.
Form letter from Orrin Hatch (Score:5, Informative)
here [slashdot.org]. This was the 3rd time I've contacted him, and the other twimes, he (or whoever answers his mail) always personalized the response, addressing specific concerns and questions I had. This time, it seems to be nothing more than a form letter. Enjoy!
----Begin Letter----
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 (S. 2560). I appreciate your comments and apologize for the delay in my response.
The media have widely broadcast misconceptions about the intent and purpose of this bill, spreading concerns that S 2560 would outlaw Google, eBay, iPods, VCRs, TiVos, computers, CD burners, recordable DVDs, and a litany of other multi-use devices and Internet service providers. Let me be clear: This legislation was not designed to have any effect on these or future technological innovations, and I will work to ensure the final bill that is considered by Congress meets those criteria.
S. 2560 has one goal - to crack down on those whose intended purpose and sole business model is to induce children, teenagers, and others to illegally download copyrighted music and movies for free. Without the illegal copying, these filesharing companies would be out of business, yet they amass huge profits while their customers are being forced to pay thousands of dollars in damages to the copyright owners. This bill is merely an attempt to close the safe-harbor loophole that these companies are using to knowingly lure their victims into this illegal activity and make them face legal liability for their actions.
From the beginning, I have worked with the technology industries to craft S. 2560 so it targets only a small group of bad actors without affecting legitimate technology interests, and I will continue to work with them to ensure that we find the best way to achieve this goal. I certainly welcome any proposed improvements or alternatives to the approach taken in @. 2560.
Again, thank you fro writing.
Sincerely,
[Sig]
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator
Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
Ernie Miller's Guide to the Induce Act (Score:2)
Rather than get rid of copyright entirely... (Score:3, Informative)
A similar solution could also be applied to software patents (and maybe other patents, dunno), though with the speed the industry is moving something like two years would be more appropriate.
* No, I did not include the RIAA in 'everyone', as while they technically are most unfortunately a part of it, statistically they are an entirely insignificant portion (there's like, a single to double digit number of executives, and maybe a few hundred employees?).
Re:Rather than get rid of copyright entirely... (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is the proper solution (or at least one version of it), it won't happen because you'll never get the big media interests to discuss it publicly. Try to engage them in a public forum of any kind, and get them to explain why copyrights need to last forever, and they'll ignore you, refuse to respond, change the subject, or respond with non-sequiturs. Here's how it might go:
Illissius: Explain why copyrights need to last 90 years.
RIAA
501(3)(a) (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to hear a hypothetical example of any plausible scenario, where this act could somehow be used against someone for disseminating technology.
Re:Finally.... (Score:2, Funny)
-nB
Go big and ban it all. (Score:2, Funny)
"Sir I just heard of a network that connects lots and lots of computers, and it allows them to exchange files"
"Sounds terrible. Let's go ban it"
"Will Do. Going ahead with Plan Q: BAN THE INTERNET"
"Hmm. We just destroyed all that e-commerce stuff we do"
"We sure did"
"damn..."
Re:Go big and ban it all. (Score:4, Informative)
Section 2A would cover any p2p application that automatically starts sharing files
Section 2B would cover any p2p application that explicitly blocks suspected RIAA/MPAA peers
Section 2C would cover any p2p application that includes incentives for sharing copyrighted work.
Section 2D is an anti-grandfather clause: once this passes, if you're distributing a p2p application, it had better not be in violation of 2A, 2B, or 2C
2E is a problem: even if you didn't make the p2p application for copyright infringement, if the users have decided to use it primarily for that purpose, you're guilty. I don't think this section will stand up in court, though.
Oldest political trick in the book! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when pragmatism wins out over principle, but no one pays attention to that... same as when it happened with the DMCA, Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, AHRA, etc. Reactionary pragmatists come out in strong support for modifying it to strip some of its teeth away, dismissing campaigning on principle to abolish it as impractical... and the core of the law sits there festering on the books while the progress-minded pragmatists comfortably pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Re:Finally.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I should probably RTFA, but... (Score:5, Informative)
saying: "KazAAm 2.0 is released, it is a P2P network designed for decentralized distribution of binary files" isn't.
Sort of like selling a smartcard reader/writer is no crime, but advertising it as a tool to hack DirecTV is.
Frankly, there are regulations governing other businesses that could be "shady". Most municipalities have pawn shops licensed and required to report every transaction, and it's illegal for them (or anyone else) to knowingly buy stolen goods.
I think the goal here is to stop companies from profitting by promoting an illegal product. The law probably sucks though, because laws always go to far.
Re:I should probably RTFA, but... (Score:2)
So does this also outlaw those spammers who offer to sell you a backdoor into pay porn sites?
Almost worth it...
:-)
Stephen
Re:I should probably RTFA, but... (Score:5, Informative)
"inducement" as a legal term with a specific meaning in intellectual property law. It typically means that someone is doing something which would *not* strictly speaking be considered an infringement of a copyright or a patent. But what they are doing is "inducing" infringement, i.e. causing, encouraging, soliciting others to infringe.
It's a concept that carries over from criminal law. It's sort of like, hey, she didn't commit the crime, but she did solicit others to do it for her, or something like that.
Re:Canada, here I come. (Score:2, Funny)
At least the US govt is predictable because you can understand what motivates it ($$$$$). Canadian govt is just plain fuckin insane.
Tell Sheila Copps I never got my flag if you see the bitch.
Re:Canada, here I come. (Score:2)
Oh, and as for Sheila Copps, the only reason you know her name is because she pulled the 'badmouth Americans' publicity stunt in a lame-assed effort to show her constituents that she is working for them. Please consider this one of the many examples of ineptitude displayed by our government.
Re:A potential advantage... (Score:2, Interesting)