Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Making The Justice Dept. A Copyright Busybody

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the too-late dept.

United States 381

poptones writes "The Senate Judiciary committee has just approved four new bills relating to IP law in the U.S. A couple of them provide some much needed reforms for the patent process including raising fees, raising fees more for those who most use the system, and providing discounts for small entities (who'da thunk?)" According to poptones, "Unfortunately, all is not good" -- read on below to see how the RIAA and MPAA stand to gain from one of these bills in particular.

This bill, put forward by your friends and mine, Msrs. Leahy and Hatch, would task the JD with filing civil actions against "pirates" - essentially putting your tax dollars to work bringing civil actions against college students in the name of the very largest Copyright holders, allowing them even more spare pocket change to spend lobbying to restrict your already shrinking online freedoms. A choice snippet from the floor: "For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."

And it gets better: "In the long run, I believe that we must find better mechanisms to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--our children--are not being constantly tempted to infringe the copyrights that have made America a world leader in the production of creative works." Hold on to your wallets folks, they're telling us to "think of the children" again..."

cancel ×

381 comments

Wh00p (-1, Offtopic)

wobedraggled (549225) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035527)

First postage

Re:Wh00p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035547)

Watch your karma drain...

Gentoo? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035533)

I use Gentoo; how does this affect me??

Copyright should become a tax (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035543)

The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay. You create a level below a certain point where you're not taxed (say... $10,000), and then after that, you pay. You could also tie it to length, so a longer copyright would cost more than a new one.

Re:Copyright should become a tax (5, Interesting)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035614)

The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay.

I was thinking the exact same thing, only it should not only be tied to the asset valuation, but to time as well. For example, for the first 5 years of a copyright, you don't get taxed - after that, you get assessed an "Intellectual Property Tax".

The problem with the idea is that asset taxes are inherently evil - so evil that I'm not sure that I'd want to create a new bureaucracy to handle the assessment, levying, and paperwork. It's bad enough we have property taxes (and for very unlucky folks), business asset taxes (ie, I buy a computer, pay a sales tax, and for the next 5 years, I have to pay 3% of the remaining value on the computer to the local county). Can you imagine some auditor going into the library of congress, and sending off letters to authors, playwrights, etc., arguing that their work is worth $X, even though it's been out of print for years, and that they owe back taxes?

On the other hand, if we can't get a limitation to copyright duration, then we should be taxing the hell out of it, so at least SOME public good comes out of it.

When copyright and IP laws are torn all to hell, blame the MPAA and the RIAA for trying to push the envelope and just not being smart enough to leave things alone (just as traditional junk mailers and call centers can blame spammers and telemarketers for the woes that have befallen them as a result of super-sensitizing people to ad-interruptions.)

3% per year?!? (2, Funny)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035721)


I have to pay 3% of the remaining value on the computer to the local county

Good God, where do you live, Soviet Russia?

Yikes!

People around here are damned near ready to go to war over 0.095% per year.

Oops - make that 0.95% per year. (2, Informative)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035734)

Sorry.

Re:Copyright should become a tax (3, Interesting)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035634)

Bad idea. Disney would just buy a 10,000,000 year copyright on everything they could get their hands on.

Re:Copyright should become a tax (3, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035656)

Bad idea. Disney would just buy a 10,000,000 year copyright on everything they could get their hands on.

I liked this idea, and of course the costs should be set so it isn't economically possible to buy a copyright for 10 million years. :-)

Re:Copyright should become a tax (chicken or egg?) (2, Interesting)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035660)

"The more you make off your copyright and the more protection need, the more you should pay."

OR, the more you consume copyrighted works, the more you should pay, no?

Mirror , just in case (0, Troll)

pigscanfly.ca (664381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035729)

Just in case the server crashes and burns (like they usually do),I have put up a mirror.
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthoma s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02237 %3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lop= nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02237%3A&amp%3bsiteId=3&amp %3boId=2110-1028-5203059&amp%3bontId=1023&amp%3blo p=nl_ex [demonmoo.com]
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthoma s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.01932 %3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lop= nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.01932%3A&amp%3bsiteId=3&amp %3boId=2110-1028-5203059&amp%3bontId=1023&amp%3blo p=nl_ex [demonmoo.com]
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthoma s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3Ah.r.015 61%3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lo p=nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3Ah.r.01561%3A&amp%3bsiteId=3&a mp%3boId=2110-1028-5203059&amp%3bontId=1023&amp%3b lop=nl_ex [demonmoo.com]
The mirror of http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthoma s.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02192 %3A&siteId=3&oId=2110-1028-5203059&ontId=1023&lop= nl_ex is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/dw.com.com/redir% 3fdestUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2F bdquery%2Fz%3Fd108%3As.02192%3A&amp%3bsiteId=3&amp %3boId=2110-1028-5203059&amp%3bontId=1023&amp%3blo p=nl_ex [demonmoo.com]
The mirror of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.022 37: is at http://mirrorit.demonmoo.com/r_5/thomas.loc.gov/cg i-bin/bdquery/z%3fd108%3As.02237%3A [demonmoo.com]

Re:Mirror , just in case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035771)

this mirror thing getting boring yet?

or still fishing for whore karma?

Outsourcing lawsuits... (4, Interesting)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035544)

Wow, outsourcing legal work to the goernment, and you don't even need to pay them! Man, is that a racket or what? Up until now, you actually had to be elected to treat taxpayers as your own piggy-bank, thanks to the RIAA and the MPAA, copyright holders (with influence) can now get paid by the american people for... suing the american people!

Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (-1, Troll)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035554)

Yea, fair use and all that crap. Most of the music downloaded is theft. The person has no copy of the song. The movies downloaded, Its theft plain and simple.. That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple. The problem here folks, ever here the old saying "The noisy wheel gets all the grease". Yes a small percentage of people are within there rights, But when you stand up for your rights and try to throw "blanket" statements saying music should just be free and all that you do nothing more then Oil the RIAA wheel so they can move further down the road to reducing our rights. WE are the ones removing our rights. We do this by making stupid statements, by performing illegal actions and in turn throwing fuel in the RIAA fire. If you want to preach stick to the truth, Stick to your rights. Don't sit there and tell me you should be able to download that movie that hasn't even hit the theaters yet and claim to be for the people and all righteous in your actions.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035578)

Most of the music downloaded is theft.

Why stop at "theft" I say it's treason!

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035628)

Downloading American music would be treason, sure, but I think donwloading Arab music would be an act of patriotism. Then again, listening to Arab music would be pretty suspect. Guess we get those traitor pig dog downloaders either way.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035648)

And I say it's genocide! Times a million!

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035733)

Why isn't the UN and their international tribunals doing something about this??? People are committing acts of GENOCIDE against the music industry, and nothing is being done. I say we hold a war crimes tribunal and hang the lot of them.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035661)

Why stop at "theft" I say it's treason!

Or, as the scientologists call it "copyright terrorism".

You are missing the point (5, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035586)

The point of this isnt REALLY about who stole what, but all of the freedoms... legitimate freedoms we lose so that Super Corp X can keep a few more dollars. And the sad thing is it is perpetual... the more rights they take away, the easier it will be for them to do it again... and again. Until we have nothing left.

Re:You are missing the point (2, Insightful)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035608)

We have the freedom to live LEGAL lives.

At what point does it step past "freedom" and into illegal?

Do I have the right to shoot the noise dog next door to be "free" of the noise?

Why not?
When our "freedoms" and illegal cross steps have to be taken. By supporting the illegal actions regardless of the cause or ideal behind it you bolster the RIAA's arguments.

Re:You are missing the point (5, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035641)

We have the freedom to live LEGAL lives.

The point you're missing is that what is LEGAL is constantly shrinking. If the law was a static, absolute thing, your point would be valid. At some point one must stand up and say "the law goes too far". Are you really suggesting that all laws should be obeyed simply because they're LAWS?

Mod it UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035651)

nt

Re:You are missing the point (2, Insightful)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035663)

No I am not.. What I am saying is 2 wrongs do not make a right.

You feel its wrong, Argue the legal valid points. Don't just download music because you think your punishing the RIAA for there acts. Your feeding there power not working to prevent it when you take those actions.

Re:You are missing the point (1)

jezmund (102188) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035769)

That's pretty simple, Inspector Javert. When the statutes passed by Congress violate the Constitution which is the higher law of the land.

Try Section 8, Clause 8. I also recommend you read the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amdendment.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035593)

It is a question of resources. Their are a lot of more serious crimes being 'overlooked' that don't get enforced. Why are copyright laws enforced with such vigor, yet white colar (Sunpoint Securities) and illegal's are give what amounts to a free pass?

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (1)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035636)

Because this wheel is extremely noisy.

If enough people made noise about white color crimes laws would change, actions would be taken.

We as a people pick and choose what we fight for and against. But unless you take into consideration your actions there are penaltys.

I think copyright is wrong, Does that make it right for me to download music I don't own.

I think abortion is wrong, Does that make it right for me to blow up hospitals that perform those abortions?

If I think copyright is wrong, Does that make it right for me to download music I don't own.

Where do we draw the line? At some point it has to be drawn.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035657)

Where do we draw the line? At some point it has to be drawn.

I'm thinking maybe it should be somewhere before the blowing up hospitals point. How about you?

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035596)

Why should a CIVIL matter with VERY LIMITED PROVABLE DAMAGES land anyone in JAIL?

That's the plain fuckin truth right there. We see Big Money directing Big Gov't. In fact, Big Money not only writes the law for Big Gov't to pass, it now gets to direct Big Gov'ts long arm of the law.

This is fucking sick. I don't care if copyright infringement is illegal, there was already plenty of law to deal with it.

Dear Americans: Your system fucking sucks. Thanks for pushing it on the rest of the world, too.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (3, Insightful)

MntlChaos (602380) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035605)

I think you misunderstood what this is doing. This has the government sue people, but the RIAA et al get the money. The peoeple pay for the lawyers for the corporations, basically

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (1)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035652)

No, you mistunderstood.

I agree the methods are wrong, But its our own actions that have fueled the methods.

Plenty of the actions by the "Homeland of Securitys" can be deems wrong and against our founding fathers ideals.

Why then do they get away with it. Because the "wheel" called terrorism made so much noise the goverment had to act.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035688)

Why then do they get away with it. Because the "wheel" called terrorism made so much noise the goverment had to act.

Unfortunately the "wheel" called government has been causing pandemonium, so they shouldn't be surpised that a few other people "had to act" too.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035645)

I agree.

The validity of the GPL depends on intellectual property rights including copyright. How can we condemn a group like SCO who is trying to violate our property rights when we support the mass violation of others' property rights?

The community's position on things like the validity of the GPL is greatly harmed when we cheer for piracy.

Look, I've downloaded songs too... but I don't claim the moral high ground. It's bloody piracy, and I know it.

so you got first astroturf post... (3, Interesting)

alizard (107678) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035653)

OK, we know which side you're on. Whether you actually believe the crap you're speaking or you've got a sponsor that makes your words astroturf is known only to you and your sponsor. All I can say is that if you're getting paid, the PR firm should demand its money back. You're whining, not arguing.

We also know that by and large, "piracy" translates to end users redistributing reduced quality versions of the real products on their own dimes to the profit of the record and film industries. There are a long list of reasons why the Hollywood content cartel do not like letting the free market determine how they get marketed instead of giving them sole discretion as to what the public finds out about a product before release, the main one is that it can make crap movies or records DOA befcre they hit the street as well as take good ones to number 1. However, "protecing businesses from incompetence" is not a proper use of taxpayer funds.

However, the real question here is WHY should the Feds spend our money to assist copyright holders take legal action against end users. Traditionally, that is the copyright holder's problem, which the copyright owner asserts in exchange for the ability to derive income from the copyright.

If you wish to donate YOUR money to the RIAA and MPAA for attacking end users, your privilege. Don't bring the rest of us in to this.

Re:so you got first astroturf post... (1)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035691)

I haven't bought a CD in almost 3 years. I have a live365 account and I listen to music there.

I hate taxes, But I pay them.. Because I think our goverment spends to much money, because I think the tax laws are just not right, Do I not pay my taxes and get thrown in jail. Or do I vote for the people I feel will affect the taxes the most?

Its not about WHO is right or wrong. Its about the actions WE as the people take to try and right those wrongs.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

Re:so you got first astroturf post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035714)

2 wrongs do not make a right.

Then why on earth do you advocate prison sentences for copyright infringement? And who do you think is going to meet the costs of that, are you volunteering or are you expecting the rest of us to chip in? Prison is not cheap, and copyright infringement is not that serious. Christ you don't go to prison for parking dangerously.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (3, Insightful)

localman (111171) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035666)

That day 0 copy of the next StarWars can and should land you in jail plain and simple.

Get a sense of perspective, for God's sake!

That day 0 copy of the next StarWars film should get you a stiff fine at worst. Prison? Are you kidding? I don't think people should breach copyright (sorry, it's not the same as stealing), but your extreme view shows you're way off base. Prison is for people who are dangerous to society. I am 100% sure that you yourself have done things that are more dangerous to society than downloading a stinking movie online.

What we all really know for sure:

1) Copyright and patent law in this country are out of hand, giving people the impetus for unlawful resistence.

2) Unlawful resistence is unlawful and not particularly effective in this case.

Everything else is speculation and fiery opinion. Personally I'm for reforming the laws. In the meantime, as an artist myself I have released some of my work [crazyeddy.com] under a creative commons lisence. I encourage other artists to do the same.

Cheers.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (1)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035706)

I said jail.. That can mean a week to think about what you did. I didn't say the state pen.

I think the punishment should be based on the actions..

1) Did you download it to watch yourself?
2) Did you download it with the intent to put on your ftp server for others to download.
3) Did you record it with the intent to distribute illegally.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (3, Informative)

josh3736 (745265) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035671)

For the last time:

IT IS NOT *THEFT*!!!

It is copyright infringement. Plain and simple. I have not walked into the studio and taken the physical property of the artist. Still think its theft? Dictionary.com [reference.com] :

To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.

Copyright infringement doesn't meet all of those conditions. When I download something, I have not removed "every part of the property" -- you still have your copy, and so does the artist, the studio, etc.

So please, stop spreading the propoganda. It's not theft.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0, Troll)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035735)

Ahh but that defines the taking of solid objects and was put in webster before computers even existed.

If I take a copy of microsofts source code home and put it on the internet not only can I be fined for possible losses but even jail time is possible if they can prove my intent to defraud them.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035760)

Ahh but that defines the taking of solid objects and was put in webster before computers even existed.

That what theft is about. Copyright infringement long predates the existence of computers.

I know this is hard to believe, but it is possible for something to be illegal without being theft. Murder is illegal, it isn't theft, kidnapping is illegal, it isn't theft, parking on a yellow line is illegal, it isn't theft, treason is illegal, it isn't theft. Copyright infringement is also illegal. It is not theft.

Theft is one very clearly defined crime. Copyright infringement is a different very clearly defined crime. They do not have the same actus reus. They do not have the same mens rea. They do not have the same penalties. They are different.

What is the obsession with confusing the two?

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035676)

Yea, fair use and all that crap. Most of the music downloaded is theft. The person has no copy of the song. The movies downloaded, Its theft plain and simple..


Except there's no theft occurring - it's copyright infringement. Making a copy of something is not theft and no matter how many times you say it, it will not become theft unless we completely change the meaning of the word 'theft'. Saying it is theft makes you a terrorist - you see how stupidly people distort the meaning of these words today?

As for the rest of what you say, I can only agree that people who continuously infringe copyright are not doing us or them any good. If you don't agree with a company's method of distribution or other practices, the most effective thing is to refuse to buy their products and legally protest against them. Infringing their copyrights isn't helping your cause, it's just self-serving. It especially annoys me when little punks try to justify it by saying it's some kind of moral retribution. No it's not - you're just a cheapskate.

That said, the RIAA and MPAA are disgusting companies and the politicians who support these measures need to be better informed by non-corporate entities or else oustered from office. Having the Justice Department get involved in these civil matters is absolutely ridiculous unless they're going to make themselves available to everyone for every type of civil matter. That could get interesting - I'd finally be willing to start my software company if I knew the JD would work as my defense counsel for any frivolous patent (or other) lawsuits that might come.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (1)

sequential (600649) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035698)

"Most of the music downloaded is theft."

I can't believe this was ever modded up to +5 interesting. It's factually inaccurate and close enough to a troll to be marked as a troll. Not to mention it's about as forward thinking as shooting yourself in the head to wake yourself up.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035718)

Yea, fair use and all that crap. Most of the music downloaded is theft. The person has no copy of the song. The movies downloaded, Its theft plain and simple.

Hey, moron. This potential law isn't about the criminal act of copyright infringement - the JD already handles the criminal part. This potential law is about granting the government the authority to be involved in civil cases.

The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal law is that the government is not supposed to have the authority to punish we the people unless they have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Civil law is for cases where there is only a preponderance of evidence. Civil law has only ever been meant to encompass civil entity versus civil entity, not government versus governed.

When the dispute is civil entity versus civil entity, who is supposed to decide which side the government should back? Criminal law already deals with copyright infringement.

Take for example the IBM versus SCO fight - that is a civil dispute, which side should the government be backing? Neither. The government should never be involved in civil disputes except as the adjudicator.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (0, Troll)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035750)

Hey moron. The post was not about the rights or wrongs of the laws passed.

It was about us supporting RIAA's movement by performing, supporting, and telling people to do the acts they say we are doing.

Re:Let the endless arguement begin. Good vs Evil (4, Insightful)

Mycroft_VIII (572950) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035727)

No it's not theft. Your thinking comes from the belief that IP holders have a right to the ip they controll. In fact all they have is privilige,a leagly sanctioned privilige, granted for the express purpose of increasing the public good when those grants of privilige expire.
They do NOT own that music or movie or concept. The minute they place that info in the public view, WE own it. However in order to incourage them to create such things we (via our proxy, the government) grant them a limited monopoly on the profitable distribution/use of that material for a limited time.
At least that is how it is supposed to be in the United States. But corporate $$ has been spent to buy poloticians and propaganda untill a suprisingly large number of people actually believe they have some sort of natural right or ownership over ideas just because they were first to come up with it, or at least file paperwork claiming so.

Mycroft

Crimes? So what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035740)

Personally I feel i should be able to do ANYTHING i wish.

And i act on that concept every day.

And if some of my actions happen to hurt some company ( at least on paper, it doesnt harm them in reality anyway )with too much money to burn, i really dont care.

Sigh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035555)

Another anti-copyright article on slashdot. How innovative.

Wait a minute.... (5, Funny)

MistaE (776169) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035556)

Now hold up here, are you saying that the taxes that are taken out of my summer job are gonna go towards prosecuting my friends that are stealing music during the school year?? Well... can I at least choose who gets axe then?

Yes.. (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035615)

Now you see how all the offshored people feel about having to pay taxes that are then used to pay to help relocate their jobs offshore.

It sucks.

Re:Wait a minute.... (3, Informative)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035701)

It's kinda funny -- when the RIAA wants a tax to pay off the RIAA, it's a BAD thing. When the EFF wants a tax to pay off the RIAA [eff.org] , it's a GOOD thing.

Re:Wait a minute.... (1)

The_Mystic_For_Real (766020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035728)

This post highlights an issue in tax law that seems to be ignored. Except when you vote for your representatives, you have no control over where your money goes.

Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? (3, Interesting)

PurifyYourMind (776223) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035559)

I suppose it's nice that the fees are reduced for smaller entities. But can individuals or small organizations actually enforce copyright online? I mean, most people don't have the resources to fund drawn out or chronic lawsuits. Is a cease-and-desist letter powerful enough?

Re:Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? (2, Informative)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035587)

The small entity reduction is for patent fees, and is nothing new. Small entity fees have been half the normal filing fee for quite some time. As for small organizations enforcing their copyrights, that's a good question. Certainly, none of use has the resources that the RIAA does to bring 2500+ lawsuits (without and significant progress on any of them) but, at least for violations hosted by reputable ISPs section 512 [cornell.edu] should provide some ammo.

Re:Can the "little guy" benefit from IP? (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035682)

"But can individuals or small organizations actually enforce copyright online?"

Often a letter (even a friendly one) can help.

Also, note that federally registered copyrights award legal fees (as opposed to 'defacto' copyrights).

Congress... Ugh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035570)

Utter and complete crap from our congress yet again. What toads.

Song of the piracy apologist (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035584)

If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.

Song of the piracy apologist:

(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."

(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.

(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.

(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do.

(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something.

(7) I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things for free on the internet is.

(8) I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.

(9) I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.

(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.

(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.

(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.

(13) I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't interested in hearing the original any more.

(14) I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free enterprise at work".

(15) I believe piracy is simply "free advertising." Even though that's what radio is, but with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Basically, what I really want is to be able to choose the songs I want, listen to them whenever I want, but I don't want to have to pay for it. Essentially, I want the whole thing for free with no strings attached.

What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.

Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever. Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and make some noise.

One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about. They view it primarily as a means to get free stuff, and then they turn their eyes from the free stuff to the non-free stuff and think to themselves "maybe I'm entitled to get that one for free too". The noble ideals of grass roots participation in the creative process, and/or supporting it in a principled way (namely, boosting the "free foo" movement by preferring free foo to nonfree foo), or for that matter, any other form of moderately principled codes of ethics, are completely lost on them. I think it's a shame that these leeches use OSS, but there's not a whole lot that can or should be done about that. But I'd be much happier if at the very least, they wouldn't confuse the OSS movement (free as in freedom) with the Napster driven movement (free as in "loader").

Significant Rebuttals:

Often, the rebuttals to this post are more amusing than the points raised.

Witness, for instance, this post [slashdot.org] , not surprisingly upmodded as "Insightful." I have chosen this reply as representative of the mindset the above list mocks, because it demonstrates quite clearly how deluded the self-righteous values of pirates have become with regards to pirating artists' music. The entire post was an unknowing illustration of every mindset mocked in the list, and it was educational enough to warrant inclusion. It would be amusing if it wasn't depressing:

Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits,

Notice that the CD is apparently crappy, yet he will make a copy of it. Why would you make a copy of a crappy album?

if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of,

I guess he should be angry at his local store, then. Mine charges $11.99 at most. But none of this matters--iTunes presents songs at .99 per song. There is absolutely no excuse anymore when it comes to the high price argument.

then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends.

Apparently, he wants to spread this "crappy" album around. It's so crappy, his "friends" will also have copies. Meanwhile, the artist is getting screwed.

In my past experience, my friends wind up buying the CD if they like it,

Again, the already-debunked "sampling" argument. This anecdote, raised by all piracy apologists, begins with "In my experience" and then outlines some instance in which someone actually went and bought the CD after hearing a copy of it. This is supposed to justify the blatant piracy and copyright infringement, as if the other 99% of Kazaa users are merely "sampling" the music. It flies in the face of not only common logic, but human nature. If you can get something for free you would otherewise have to pay for, it's natural to want it for free.

and that's with a full 16/44 copy, not some crappy mp3. Though my burner is so old, it's really a pain in the ass so you've gotta be a pretty good friend.

The artists appreciate your support of their rights by pirating their music. All in the hopes someone decides to buy the full CD. Quite a risk you're taking on their behalf.

I don't see how anybody is abusing "sharing", that's exactly what we're doing.

The point whooshes completely over his head--the complaints against the RIAA painting people as "thieves," then turning around and painting copyright infringement as "sharing."

Giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about.

Witness the spin--"giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about." The issue of it being completely illegal is ignored. The issue of spreading an artist's music so that others don't have to pay for it, thereby ripping them off, is completely ignored. Suddenly, you're "giving a voice," a positive spin that is meant to invoke emotive feelings of goodness and freedom. Typical propoganda.

I don't know anybody that shares music that they don't like.

Completely irrelevant. If you like music, you should pay for it. Use iTunes or spend 12 bucks on the CD. You don't magically have the copyright transferred to you from the copyright holder so that you can "give a voice" to "sharing."

I don't see how anybody is abusing the word "information". Please elaborate.

Apparently, the phrase "information sharing" has escaped this poor soul's ears. It's another classic spin used by piracy apologists to justify their activities.

And this is the first time I've heard "Copyright enforcement militia", and as much as it tugs at my heartstrings I prefer cartel.

And I prefer "criminals," because legally and morally, that's what pirates are. Ripping off artists in the name of some hippie mindset justified in their minds in order to remove the pang of guilt the feel over the fact that nobody will be able to make money making music. Because they end up "giving a voice" to every song that comes out.

Not true. As overpriced as CD have been found repeatedly in courts of law to be, people continue to buy them, and in increasing numbers.

The yearly decline in CD sales is magically not happening in this person's mind. In fact, sales are somehow increasing. No stats are given, and no facts. It's just happening in his mind. Can't argue with that kind of research.

I believe that what drives piracy is the ClearChannel takeover of radio coupled with the consolidation of the "record industry" into two or three major monoliths, which led to the overwhelming proliferation of incredibly bad, bland, uninspired, uninteresting, untalented, demographically safe crap being promoted by Corporate Music.

The classic hivemind argument.

Apparently, GETTING SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY FOR IT isn't the underlying factor in piracy. This is an example of the niche opinions of Slashdot somehow being projected onto the majority of society. Outside of Slashdot, nobody knows or cares about the "RIAA."

If music is so terrible, nobody would be pirating it. This is another example--the old fogies here at Slashdot believe the bands today are "crappy," ignoring the fact that today's generation loves them. Somehow, someone's individual opinion in a post on Slashdot is supposed to represent the entire CD-buying demographic.

Somehow, the ClearChannel takeover of radio is supposed to be the reason for piracy. Apparently, people can't buy CDs because a certain companies owns radio stations. I guess ClearChannel has agents set up at record stores to prevent you from buying CDs, and hackers online to prevent you from buying via online music stores like iTunes.

All people want is to hear good music again.

If music is so bad, why is it being pirated so much? Again, ignorance of the fact that today's youth loves today's music. The Slashdot fogies who think The Who is still relevant believe all of today's music is bad. Sounds like my parents.

Music doesn't get pirated because nobody wants to hear it...it gets pirated because people want to hear it without having to pay for it. This is not a hard situation to figure out.

It's hard to look at the history of copyright law and not see Disney et al's just-one-more-extention policy as a money grab. Copyright law was specifically written to allow copyrights to expire after a reasonable time to allow works of IP to enter into the public domain. These regulations were sound and just and were written for a reason.

This paragraph is bizarre, because it's in response to the point that piracy apologists attempt to justify piracy as a response to copyright extensions, when most pirated works are recent releases. His entire retort is irrelevant.

I do believe that showing other people how good a certain artist is could possibly result in that person buying the CD. Sharing crappy, lossy MP3's is one way of showing them how good it is, just like radio used to be.

This means pretending the copyright magically transferred to you and delivering "free advertising" is legal. 100% of the people downloading from you will also magically run out and buy the CD instead of just listening to the mp3 you gave them.

The truth, as we all know, is that maybe 2% of people will actually go out and buy a CD when they already have it downloaded. Most people can't tell the difference between 192kpbs mp3s and a standard CD. But piracy apologists will use any argument to distract from the fact that they have yet to reply to--what they're doing is legally and morally wrong.

BUT. I have bought dozens of CD's that I liked the MP3's of. And I don't see why you feel the need to conflate the two unless you're afraid of your own argument's invalidity.

In other words, "My anecdotal situation means that all the millions of Kazaa users are all going to buy CDs of their mp3s, especially mp3s that I'm sending them. It's 'free advertising,' and I don't understand how you could possibly point out the fact that what I'm doing is illegal and wrong toward music artists--giving people a reason not to pay for the music by ripping a free version and giving it to them."

Wow, you really have a poor grasp on the situation.

The amusing part is that I know full well what goes on in the music industry. Trust me on this.

Let me rephrase for you: I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong.

The obvious question then becomes--how can you justify pirating an artist's music?

EVERYONE TAKE NOTICE--this is the bizarre contradiction that cannot be understood. This is the heart of the propoganda spin. In a pirate's mind, it is simply ignored because it makes no sense and they know it. How does pirating music prevent an artist from being ripped off? Aren't you preventing them from being paid? Aren't you giving away the fruits of their labor? Did you get their permission to do this? Did you know artists willingly sign their contracts? The list of reactions could fill paragraphs, but let's continue.

Again, just for the record, a piracy apologist has actually stated that they believing ripping off artists is wrong. The mind boggles.

The record companies always have and always will rip off the artists. Some artists, usually those whose immediate financial future depends on the gratitude of Corporate Music, support P2P. Some artists, mostly those whose immediate financial furtures *do* depend on Corporate Music, don't support P2P, like Metalicca, and don't agree with me, hence one must realize their opinions are informed directly by their vested interests.

"Vested interests" means making a living making music. This entire reply was a pointless statement that didn't actually say anything knew but merely restated. "Some artists support P2P, and some don't." No kidding. But if you believe record labels rip artists off, how is giving away their music so that NOBODY gets paid any better? How can you explain that artists willingly sign their contracts? Have you actually spoken to any of the artists you are ripping off, or did you just assume you're "protecting" them as you grabbed their latest album for free?

Selling CD's is indeed a business model, but not one that meets the needs of today's consumer.

What are the needs of today's consumer? Are you a business major? Are you saying it's okay to pirate the fruits of artists' labor because you don't believe CDs are a viable business model?

What makes you think they're not a viable business model--the fact that sales are going down? Did you honestly not factor in the multitude of piracy amongst college students and youth that goes on? And if you didn't, why did you ignore this factor? Obviously it will have an impact.

The consumer *will* go where they can get the best product, this is called "competition" and is a vital component of capitalism.

Oh, no. I can see where this is going.

Or don't you believe in capitalism?

And there you have it. Apparently, piracy is capitalism. Just another form of "competition." Not paying for something is capitalism. And if you believe in paying for the CD at the store and not getting for free, you don't believe in capitalism. Again, the mind boggles, but this deserves further examination.

How does one's brain actually reach this conclusion? It would be interesting to chart out the logical process that lead to this incredible leap. It's more amazing because you know that to this piracy apologist, it's not insane at all.

Somehow, a band working their way through clubs, signing to a major label, taking three months out of their lives to slave away on a record album for the label to promote and advertise and put in stores, and people buying the CD that gets put out, is not capitalism.

Somehow, the band doing all that, and then some college students ripping the CD and putting it online so that nobody has to pay for it, is capitalism.

I don't ever expect an explanation for this. I merely illustrate it here for the amazement of all. Welcome to the great lengths that pirates have gone to in order to remove the stigma of criminality from their online activities. Infringing on someone else's rights is somehow just another form of free enterprise.

Remind me again the next time the GPL gets violated and people here are up in arms--"don't you believe in capitalism?"

And I'm not giving anything away, if I was then I wouldn't have it anymore because I'd have given it away.

It does not register in the mind of this too-far-gone pirate that you can give a copy of something away. What's more intriguing is that the phrase "giving away" is such a red flag in their minds. Who cares?

I *share*.

Thank you for the clarification. Criminals always share their goods. Notice that this person stated before that they didn't see instances in which the word "sharing" was being emotively abused. Then goes right out and does it.

If it sounds innocent that's because it is.

If my previous statement about criminals sounded like flamebait, it wasn't. If you infringe on somebody else's copyrights by distributing their intellectual property, that is illegal. It is also immoral. You are giving away copies of their work so that they don't get paid for it. Again, you will never, ever be able to justify this--especially to an artist's face. Why? Because you'll never ask them and you never have.

It is not innocent. Are you saying the law should allow people to pirate anything that is copyrighted? How will John Carmack ever make money on Doom 3 if pirates simply copy it everywhere so that nobody has to actually buy or order it? Can you explain that? And can you explain how it is "capitalism" and "competition?"

No...of course you can't. You're a music pirate who has simply justified copyright infringement in your mind because you're used to the convenience of downloading, and now you're bitter that someone is trying to take away the free ride.

I believe that artists should be compensated for their work, preferably by as many people as possible.

How do you expect that to happen if nobody will buy the CDs because they've have someone "share" it with them online?

I mean, they can sell concert tickets to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell t-shirts to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell CD's to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell iTunes downloads to people who've heard about them through P2P.

Welcome to the logic of irrationality. The point this statement is a retort to was about how piracy apologists say that very thing in order to explain how artists will be compensated, meanwhile never actually buying any t-shirts, concert tickets, etc. themselves.

This also ties into the debunked "free advertising" argument, which doesn't matter anyway because you weren't given permission by the copyright holder to share their material online. If you believe the copyright of the GPL should be upheld, you must also believe in upholding the rights of other copyright holders. Or else you are a hypocrite making yourself look like a fool. Intellectual property rights exist so that people can make a money from their ideas--which includes music. Are you saying artists don't have that right?

P2P is not being used as a free radio. It's being used to pirate music without paying for it. The fact that this person ignores this simple fact tells you how far their mind has gone to justify their activities. The other 99% of Kazaa and eMule users simply don't exist in his mind. Magically, P2P is this community-driven radio in which people "share" "free advertising" with each other. This is a head-in-the-clouds ideal that is absolutely far from the real situation, but hey, it justifies piracy in a neat little sentence. "People will 'hear about them through P2P' which makes it all right!"

One wonders if this person also believes bootleg t-shirts are all right, or concert bootlegs, because they're merely "competition"...well, it doesn't matter. That would shatter his religion of piracy. And yes, it has become a religion.

As an artist myself,

Oh? Name your band and give me your website, then "share" all of your albums and never get paid for them.

I fully appreciate the artists' need for compensation to subsidize future works, almost as much as I appreciate P2P's potential as a promotional utility and distribution channel.

How will artists get paid on a distribution channel that does not enforce payment?

You honestly expect everyone to embrace a distribution channel in which nobody pays for anything, and the business model is dependent on the "good will" of the downloader who "might or might not" buy the album once they've downloaded it? Why would someone buy an album they already just got for free?

I believe in capitalism.

Yes...and your definition of capitalism, per above, is free distribution of everything without paying for it. Very capitalistic, indeed.

The music business model I support the most is traditional CD stores, which I visit about once or twice a month to buy things that I've heard online.

It's not that people must buy CDs or iTunes songs, it's that they should respect the rights of copyright holders and not rip artists off by pirating their music with bizarre justifications about "giving a voice" and "sharing" other people's works that normally you must pay for. Do you also do the same with games, movies, and other software?

Almost all business models involve giving away a sample of the product

Since when is downloading an entire album in a RAR file just a "sample of the product?" iTunes gives you samples, as do most music stores which let you hear the album through headphones.

P2P piracy is unnecessary, but more importantly, it's not prevalent for the reason you describe--it's just people freeloading to get things without paying for them. To deny this is to remain purposely ignorant to what's happening, which simply weakens your argument all the more.

(cheese cubes at grocery stores, songs on radio and MTV back when you could actually hear good music there, advertisements, test drives of cars, etc).

Yes, somehow that compares to having entire discographies available on P2P services, often in uncompressed APE format. They are merely "samples." And with the eventuality of Internet2, people will be able to download entire catalogues in 30 minutes...this is just for "sharing" purposes.

I believe that copying someone elses music that I paid for in a store, and redistributing a lossy MP3-compressed version of it to my 1,000,000 aquaintances on the internet is sharing.

Yes, it is illegally sharing music. Nobody is arguing this.

Music is made for sharing so that more people can buy it if they like it.

Music is made for entertainment that people can choose to purchase or not. It is not a right. And it is not something you have the right to "share" with people for your own selfish reasons--whether or not you believe radio is evil, or today's music sucks, or CDs are overpriced, has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder's distribution rights being trampled on because some college academic students have access to the university T1 line.

Not only is it my right under "fair use", it's beneficial for the artists.

Witness a fundamental misunderstanding of Fair Use. Fair Use lets you make an archival backup of the material you purchased. Fair Use has absolutely nothing to do with illegally sharing that backup with other people so that they don't pay for the original material.

Obviously it is not beneficial for artists to give away their music albums so that people don't pay for them. That's like saying giving away Doom 3 will be beneficial to John Carmack. Don't you think the CDs are being put out because they are intended to be bought? Did you get the artist's permission to distribute their copyrighted material? Did you even consider the rights of the copyright holder?

I believe that the record industry filing thousands of lawsuits against people it knows can't afford to fight them is extortion.

It is not extortion to protect your copyrights. If people are illegally distributing copyrighted materials without the creator's permission, you have no legal basis to stand on.

I believe that the public desire to hear a wide sampling of music, some of which is bound to appeal to them, is nothing new,

No, it's not. That has nothing to do with freeloading albums. iTunes provides samples, music stores provide samples, radio provides samples, online radio provides samples, and so on.

Nobody is using Kazaa or eMule to "sample" albums. They're using it to get music for free without paying for it.

and used to be met by radio before the massive de-regulation and conglomeration of the 90's. You'll notice that's about the time good music disappeared from the public sphere.

No, you'll notice that. Others will say music is just as good as it ever was. And yet others will say you're just not looking hard enough.

Guess what--your niche opinion does not magically extend to the entire rest of society.

And it's also irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you think music is bad. In fact, it doesn't even make sense. Why would you pirate music you don't think is good?

I believe that it's not really piracy unless you keep it and don't pay for it.

Copyright infringement occurs when you download the music. If you believe Kazaa will police itself, and that users will, "out of the goodness of their hearts," solemnly swear to delete the albums so they can run out and buy them, you are purposely clouding the issue to avoid the facts.

Anyting I've downloaded that I haven't eventually bought I've erased.

Congratulations. Because you, one person, deleted things you didn't buy, that means illegally distributing materials without the copyright holders' permission is legal and moral. I'll remember that during the next GPL violation Slashdot article.

13 is just ridiculous, you're being pedantic and you know it. If you've got a point then make it, but it's only fair for you to stay in the bounds of reality here.

I quoted this one simply because it speaks for itself. The person educating me about "sharing" versus stealing and "free advertising" and "competition" is complaining about pedantics.

Guilty as charged. See also "Boston Tea Party"...

After all, online P2P music piracy has everything to do with "taxation without representation," which was the reason for the outrage over the East India Company's tax benefits via the Tea Act of 1773.

Somehow, nobody can just NOT buy the CDs if they hate the RIAA so much. They have to go and "share" them instead. Ripping off the artists is supposed to prove something.

I believe P2P is basically free advertising.

"Free advertising" implies two things:

1.) That everyone is "sampling" all this advertising in order to go out and buy the CDs. 99% of the time, this is not the case. You are purposely ignoring common sense and human nature.

2.) The more important point that makes everything else moot--the copyright does not transfer to you. You do not have the permission of the copyright holder to distribute their entire works in order to "advertise" for them. If you believe in copyright enforcement of the GPL, you can't ignore this. Essentially, you want copyrights obliterated so that nobody can make money off of anything they created, because you're used to the convenience of downloading it all and don't want the free ride to disappear.

Since that's what radio used to be before the ClearChannel takeover.

Which has nothing to do with anything. You don't have the right to pirate artists' music because you don't like ClearChannel. There are plenty of alternatives.

Basically, what I really want is to be able to sample a large and diverse variety of music to better inform my music buying decisions,

So use iTunes, listen to online radio, use music kiosks in music stores, and so on. You do not have the right to break the law and "sample" materials. You're not actually sampling anything, because a sample is a smaller amount of something greater. P2P allows the entire product to be given away so that you don't have to pursue the legal alternative of paying for it. It is the opposite of capitalism and of competition. You were probably one of the same people to jump up and hate "M$" for bundling IE for free in order to crush competitors. By your definition it would be "competition" and "capitalism" as usual.

since CD's are so ridiculously overpiced I can't really afford to buy a bad one.

That has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you believe $11.99 is "ridiculously priced." Even iTunes is currently .99 a song.

Conclusion:

The entire drive of the piracy apologist mindset is to justify an illegal and immoral act. It is illegal because it breaks the law--it disregards copyright law (something championed in GPL situations) and pretends that copyright holders have no rights. The creators of the pirated materials are disregarded in the face of opposition toward some "evil" corporation--in this case, the scapegoat is the RIAA.

More importantly, it is immoral. You are disrespecting the artists. You did not ask for their permission. You've never spoken to them about it. If they dislike P2P, they are poked fun at. The entire piracy movement is an attempt to get things for free, freeloading off the capitalist system that created the environment in which the materials could be created. You do not protect artists from their own contracts (you know, the ones they signed themselves) by making sure they're never paid for their efforts. Pretending everyone else should go out and see concerts and buy t-shirts is an attempt to deflect blame. Notice the person making this claim never actually buys tickets or t-shirts themselves. It's always "someone else."

Song of the piracy apologist: "GIMME THAT, THAT'S MINE! GIMME THAT, THAT'S MINE!"

Re:Song of the piracy apologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035665)

Conclusion:

Get a fucking life.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist (4, Funny)

jamiethehutt (572315) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035681)

"Song of the piracy apologist" sounds pretty cool. Who's it by? I'm having trouble getting sources for it...

I've tried fast track, Gnuttela2 and Edonkey, all of them have found nothing!!

Re:Song of the piracy apologist -- Locked & Lo (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035683)

Song of the piracy apologist: ...

Boy, you seem to have had this one Locked & Loaded and ready to fire on a moment's notice.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist (4, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035687)

If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.

Song of the piracy apologist:

Or, in other words, if you agree with this screed, please use it to spam any future discussion of intellectual property law with pre-canned arguments rather than engaging in a rational debate framed in your own words.
(p.s. post it anonymously so people don't know who you are and mentally label you a mindless parrot)

good summary of RIAA propaganda (1)

alizard (107678) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035697)

But if you post AC, how can you prove you wrote those words for the benefit of whoever paid you to write them? Yes, you goofed. Posting astroturf is one thing. Posting RIAA propaganda and not getting paid for it is fucking stupid.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035705)

I have a feeling this was modded based on length along...

Re:Song of the piracy apologist (5, Insightful)

etymxris (121288) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035713)

Wow, I tried to see every argument you made, but there can be no expectation that I read all of that. You should come up with a more concise summary and link the overly verbose rebuttal of the 30 random comments that pissed you off. Regardless, I don't believe in copyright, and I can tell you why without using 30,000 words:

Copyright was created, at least in this country, for the extrinsic purpose of promoting "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 exclusive rights granted are only done so for a specific end. I am not one to say that just because it is in the Constitution, that makes it right. Rather, it is just a tidy summary of my views on intellectual property. If the consequent is no longer contingent on the antecedent, we can remove the antecedent as extraneous. That is, if the "progress of sciences and useful arts" no longer depends on intellectual "property", then there is no need for this legal entity.

Many believe, and I'm sure you're one of them, that copyright and other intellectual "properties" are intrinsic rights of the author. I just disagree. There is no Archimedian point from which such disparate views can be arbitrated, so I don't see this debate being resolved anytime soon. However, I am quite certain that my position is coherence and cogent. You can only contradict it by assuming intellectual rights are intrinsic. Which is fine, but I can simply assume the opposite. And there's no way you can say that my view is wrong because of X, because whatever X you choose, I choose my view to trump it. So please, go ahead and try.

Oh, and you're a lying sack of shit as well. (3, Insightful)

alizard (107678) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035726)

Again, the already-debunked "sampling" argument. This anecdote, raised by all piracy apologists, begins with "In my experience" and then outlines some instance in which someone actually went and bought the CD after hearing a copy of it.

The argument has been completely substantiated in repeated studies, the ones the RIAA didn't pay for. The only studies that contradict this are the ones the content cartel bought, the same way MS buys FUD studies.

P2P promotes sales. It does NOT displace them unless the product is such crap that the normal fan base for a musician won't buy it. That's why the industry uses Big Champagne for marketing purposes. Google is your friend, look up the studies yourself. You've wasted enough of our time.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035731)

I think my Firebird has been hijacked out of Slashdot - such a rational post can never come of ./

Great Post - somebody should get it printed on a T-Shirt.

That's a Mighty Tall Strawman You Got There... (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035741)

You broke the record: that was the longest strawman post I ever saw!

This should have been one of Bush's priorities (4, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035589)

Getting a bigger, more productive Patent Office which thousands of new analysts who know their stuff would do a lot to fixing some of the problems in the economy. By putting many people on the payroll who know what bad patents are, the government can ethically protect businesses from the real pirates: the ones who use IP law to control the productive capabilities of American industry.

Reform should not stop here though. The Bush Administration should make it a priority to strip the FDA of most of its discressionary powers to block drugs it thinks "don't do enough" and to give it more resources to expedite the processing of drug safety tests so that drug companies can profit more easily (thus they don't have to charge as much).

Re:This should have been one of Bush's priorities (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035606)

The drug companies would not have to charge so much if they didn't advertize so much. Look at their SEC reports.

Re:This should have been one of Bush's priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035730)

Uhh, the Bush family is an Oil and Arms industry family not Intellectual Property industry family so why would he give a fuck?!

wouldn't that benefit the GPL? (5, Interesting)

Goeland86 (741690) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035595)

Wait, wouldn't that same bill also allow the Attorney General to prosecute people infringing the GPL? If we use the open licenses more and more, it serves us in the end, no? Or does it apply only to copyrights made with the copyright office? I think this could be indeed a useful law in the future, if used by us GPL lovers. What do you think?

Re:wouldn't that benefit the GPL? (4, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035780)

I think this could be indeed a useful law in the future, if used by us GPL lovers. What do you think?

First a clarification: This potential law is about civil law enforcement by the government.

And for the opinion, since you asked: The government should never under any circumstances take a side in a civil dispute. The entire concept of the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is that in civil law, person A is 51% right and person B is 49% right, and noone knows before the end of the case which side is which. This is referred to as "preponderance of evidence". Given that, which side should the government be backing in a given civil dispute? Neither.

Criminal law is the sole domain of government law enforcement.

Now tell me, really... (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035600)

Now tell me, really, does anybody truly believe that copyright reform could happen without throwing a few bones -- if not the whole T-Rex -- to the **AA lobby?

This is /., not Fantasyland.

[Fantasyland is believed to be a registered trademark of the Walt Disney Corporation. It is used here without permission, but concurrent with the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994) [findlaw.com] and the copyright laws of the United States protecting parody and satire.]

Reminds me of a line from a movie about Cuba (2, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035602)

Cuban security director: "ma'am, Cuba loves its children."

Woman: "Cuba only loves its children until they grow up."

Re:Reminds me of a line from a movie about Cuba (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035692)

So what...

America only loves it's children until they are born.

Protect the rights of the unborn the American fanatic says!

After they are born though deny them healthcare and take away their mom's welfare and removing funding from their schools and...

Re:Reminds me of a line from a movie about Cuba (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035737)

Protect the rights of the unborn the American fanatic says!

After they are born though deny them healthcare and take away their mom's welfare and removing funding from their schools and...

That's not entirely true. If the fetus doesn't attain the ripe age of 17 we can't send it overseas to die fighting for oil and empire. Rest assured they'll keep it alive long enough for that to happen.

Reminds me of a George Carlin quote: (1)

NarrMaster (760073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035747)

On abortion: "Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers"

Simpsons parody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035613)

Mrs. Lovejoy "Think of the children! Will somebody please think of the children!"

How about making some of the crappy software companies write cheaper! I buy sotware if I know I'm going to use it on a regular occasion but if I'm doing a school project and need to use something for 5 minutes and probab;y never touch it again, why would I waste $50 of my already taxed to death money? Why does everyone see a big fat dollar sign above my head? I live and go to school in California, the most expensive place to be.

Re:Simpsons parody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035767)

I live and go to school in California, the most expensive place to be.

So pack up and move, crybaby.

Changing the bargin (4, Insightful)

pben (22734) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035621)

I always thought the deal was the government give a monopoly to a creator in exchange for the creator doing the enforcement of the monopoly. Now government is extending the term (already done) and proposing to take on the role of enforcement also. What is government getting in return for taking on this extra burden? A small increase in filing fees and nothing else? If government is becoming a larger partner in IP enforcement shouldn't they get a larger cut of the IP profits? Somehow I don't think that the Hollywood accounting that goes on in IP companies will ever give government a larger cut.

I always found it odd that this post gets protection of my live time plus seventy years but a new drug only gets seventeen years plus a few extra months the lawyers cheat out of the system at the end of the seventeen years. If something that reduces suffering is only worth 17 years maybe the founding fathers were right to put the copyright term at 28 years.

Re:Changing the bargin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035788)

I find it odd that distribution of copyrighted goods has only gotten cheaper, easier, and wider than in the days of the founding fathers and yet the need has been felt to nearly quintuple the length of copyright since then.

This is a natural progression for these industries (5, Insightful)

phunster (701222) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035624)

In the beginning the recording industry ripped off poor (especially black) artists. The film industry moved west in order to avoid payment for their use of patented technology. These two industries are the original pirates, that's why they are so frightened of modern day pirates.

It is only natural that they feed like pigs at the trough that contains the tax receipts. Industries built on theft don't stop doing it once they become "successful", they do more of it and on a much grander scale.

In other news..... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035625)

Legislation is in the works to ban the key combinations known as "Ctrl+C" and "Ctrl+V".

Copyrights, trademarks, and patients (2, Interesting)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035635)

are so high in price that only large organizations can afford to apply for them.

I have had many ideas I could not patent, trademark, or copyright because I could not afford to. Plus their database is hard to search, one of them is still in telnet form! When will these databases get into the 21st century?

My former employer said they made 40 patients based on my ideas. I tried to search on the employer's name, but that is not an available option. I searched on my name, which came up with nothing. So obviously they registered the patents in someone else's name as the inventor. Which I later found is not valid to do, as I am the inventor of those ideas.

Give a discount to people based on income level for the fees. For Pete's sake they can gather the info from the IRS for people and the SEC for companies. Also have an idea tax that taxes a small fee for revenue used for the ideas, so the government can collect some money as well.

Re:Copyrights, trademarks, and patients (1)

servoled (174239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035668)

Their search engine (at least for patents, not sure about trademarks) is actually very powerful. Assigne and inventor searches are both readily availible online and quite simple to use if you know what you are doing. For example:

Asignee Search = an\[assigne name here]
Inventor Search = in\[inventor name here]

Re:Copyrights, trademarks, and patients (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035715)

I know, but nothing came up in my name for either categories. So how do I search for patients that used my ideas? I cannot search by the company name apparently, so their search is useless to me.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035638)

Seems to me that Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is not likely to get one whole lot of cooperation from a Republican-controlled Senate, House, and/or White House. Even if they like the idea -- A Lot -- they're still not going to let him have credit for it.

And I wouldn't expect Vermont's other Senator, Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), to have many friends in the majority party either.

Remember this next time you're chanting, "Anybody But Bush!"

Re:Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035781)

Are you retarded? Leahy and Hatch work together on these types of bills all the time. Just because Leahy is a (D) does not mean that the rest of the Republican Congress will not go along with the bill.

you do realize this promotes.... (2, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035642)

....works that don't have such legal complexity overhead and consumer at risk issues?

i.e. free software...

the more complexity that is built up, the sooner the ever advancing world will move forward beyond such getting in the way complexity.

a simple matter of the ever increasing velocity of reaching new things for us all to benefit from and/or enjoy.

From the bill (1)

The_Mystic_For_Real (766020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035655)

From the bill:AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR TRAINING AND PILOT PROGRAM.

G) the role of the victim copyright owner in providing relevant information for enforcement actions and in the computation of damages;

Not only do we have to pay for the investigations and lawsuits, we have to pay to train people to do them. Furthermore, there seems to be limited legislation setting or limiting the amounts in such suits and that the copyright holder may have the power to decide on amounts. It seems that now some of the possibly exaggerated figures coming from RIAA/MPAA spokespeople may be represented by the government in a court of law. In my mind, copyrights should be protected an piracy is wrong, but this bill seems to have a high cost to the people without providing any clear benefits for them.

Think of the children indeed... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035679)

Children who will never be able to hear Leadbelly playing because someone forgot to convert it from an obsolete format, and now nobody can listen to it with modern equipment.

I realize that artists need some sort of protection, but it's really the entrenched ones who worry about this. A friend of mine is a freelance composer of original music for software, radio, TV and film productions [lucasmaciel.com] , and he's got samples of his work on his site that he's just giving away. Of course, they are copyrighted and if you wanted to use them in your work or sell them, he needs to get paid, but he's not wrapping them in all sorts of layers of protection to ensure it, since what he really wants to do is attract new customers.

What rips my jocks (5, Insightful)

DarrylKegger (766904) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035684)

about the view that people who make illegal copies should be punished(and usually it's advocated that it should be severe punishment) is that it is simply against the law and therefore WRONG! If anything, law-breaking on a large scale should be an indicator that the law needs to be changed.

Such a shame.... (4, Interesting)

MancDiceman (776332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035689)

People don't realise that it does indeed cost money to produce creative works, and those people who invested in them have a right to protect them. If it costs you $100 million to create a feature film, what incentive is there for you as an investor, a studio, whoever, to put that money in if within a week of the final edit being finished it is distributed to your entire audience for free?

Somebody else here has already pointed out that "open music" is about you going out, playing an instrument, singing, writing lyrics and tunes, putting it all together and distributing it under the terms you want.

The "file-sharing" model is to open enterprise what warezing Win XP is to downloading your favourite Linux distro.

So, instead of trying to take other people's music and distributing it without their permission, how about you actually try and create music people want and give it away under terms like the GPL, much in the same way you do with software now?

No? Why not? No, seriously, I want to know why not...

Re:Such a shame.... (1)

DarrylKegger (766904) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035752)

Start Quote Exaggeration. Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner. A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it kindly. End Quote Richard Stallman's words, not mine. Hope he doesnt sue me.

Children? (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035690)

Fuck the children.

Re:Children? (2, Funny)

jamiethehutt (572315) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035785)

Fuck the children. I'm not sure thats the best course of action, I mean look what its doing to the King of Pop...

The day is coming that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035696)

...not only will be making any copy of any "portable" media, illegal, but to legally create anything that resides upon any portable media, you must first be granted a license permitting you to do so.

Some questions (4, Interesting)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035704)

#1 What is the definition of Piracy? Is it making illegal copies and then selling them, or is it just making illegal copies? What about copies for backup purposes or that fall under "Fair Use"?

#2 Most other crimes carry the "burden of proof" on the prosecutor. Why is this one different? Hey there, John Doe is using Kazaa, even though we found no MP3 files on his hard drive besides the ones he bought or has a right too, the fact that he has Kazaa shows that he "Might" be sharing said files with others. We have no evidence of the sharing, but the fact that he uses Kazaa is enough for us to brand him a pirate! Slap an eyepatch and peg-leg on him and send him to jail!

#3 So what pirates are they targeting? While a majority of the pirated copies come from other countries such as China, Russia, etc, we have no legal power over there, so instead we shall target teenagers and college students who don't know any better and only want to share songs with friends, etc. "Sc*w fair use, we got the copyright laws rewritten to exclude it. Jane Doe is using part of a Metallica song in a college presentation, so we will lock her up and throw away the key!

#4 How much money earned is enough? Oh sure we make a ton of money selling $20USD CDs that cost us 50 cents to make and ship, and only give $2USD to the artists, but we could be making more if the John Does and Jane Does of the world stop using our songs without permission and sharing them, while they are promoting our songs and possibly generating more sales, we have a potential to earn even more income by suing these individuals.

Why civil suits (4, Interesting)

smiff (578693) | more than 10 years ago | (#9035717)

"For too long, Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of pirates, by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges with high burdens of proof..."

In a criminal case, the government must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil suit, they must only prove the preponderance of the evidence.

In a criminal case, if the defendant is acquited, the goverment must return the defendant's belongings. In a civil case, the government can seize a person's belongings and the defendant must prove his innocence to get them back.

The most significant difference is that in a criminal case, if the defendant can not afford an attorney, the government must provide one. In a civil case, the defendant is left to fend for himself.

seems as if this world gets fucked more each day (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9035789)

the USA wants to own this whole planet, and in general the powerful and mighty want more power and greed each day that passes.

the small and unimportant masses get fucked over and over again, have less rights, less money, give all their shit to the already wealthy people, who will never be happy with the bazillions they have already.

this whole system is gonna shut down real soon now. this economy, so called democracies and business systems either capitalism or others dont work well for this planet, but only for a very little part of the people, who have more and more each day.

time for some changes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...