Beta
×

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!

Hatch Pushes INDUCE Act

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the push-back dept.

United States 739

An anonymous reader writes "According to CNET the Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch. It looks like the RIAA is making significant progress manipulating the marionette strings in Congress. MP3newswire.net states that if such laws were to pass, the record industry would become the new AMTRAK. 'Bloated and inefficient as always, but now a drain on taxpayers wallets and liberty as well'." Infoworld has a story as well. Reader CryptoEngineer writes: "Marybeth Peters, of the US Copyright Office testified recently before the Senate Judiciary committee in support of the INDUCE Act, which has been discussed here before. In summary, she thinks its not strong enough. Among other things, she proposed scrapping the Betamax decision, which makes it legal to timeshift TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Powerful incentives (and interests) (4, Interesting)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 9 years ago | (#9782980)

Senate is leaning strongly in favor of the INDUCE Act sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch
Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive [opensecrets.org] [opensecrets.org] in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).

Oddly enough, by the same logic he's using in this legislation prescription drugs should be illegal because they can be abused as well. But since the rest of his top contributors are pharma co's he isn't likely to raise that as an issue is he?

Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (5, Funny)

cheeseSource (605209) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783007)

Orrin Hatch should be beat upside the head with a mackrel.

That's just my humble opinion though...

Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (4, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783300)

Yeah, a 50 pound mackrel that happens to be frozen solid.

Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783021)

Are you sure his incentive isn't simple in being an artist himself? http://www.hatchmusic.com/ [hatchmusic.com]

Tonight at Saltair, on the anti-P2P tour, Orrin Hatcn and Metallica!

Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (2, Interesting)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783190)

SBC is a disincentive, not an incentive. Media piracy helps SBC, because they sell high speed internet access.

Depending on how vaguely INDUCE is termed & interpreted, (I have no idea about this.) SBC's current business practices could be considered illegal under the INDUCE act, and they may be required to change or face consequences. Dunno.

Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (5, Insightful)

antarctican (301636) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783195)

You know, I would like to see this pass, I would even like to see the Betamax decision overturned. Why you might ask? Because of the wakeup call it will create.

Right now it's only a small fraction of the population fighting this, or that even is paying attention. However when the RIAA and their lawyer start suing and the VCR becomes illegal.... the public will finally wake up. The sleeping lion which usually let's the government pursue it's own agenda at will, will begin to fight.

There will be calls such as back in the revolution days, only this time it won't be led my traitors to the Britain (hey, I'm Canadian, the yanks were traitors in my eyes ;) it will be those fighting for these freedoms they've become accustom to. It will force some hard decisions on the direction you want for your country, do you want to be ruled by a corporate agenda or by the freedom that America supposedly stands for.

If the RIAA pushes too far it could become the largest cultural revolution seen in a century.

That, plus all the tech companies dealing with this technology will move north and I'll never want for a job - there will always be a black market for time-shifting and the like equipment down south. ;)

Instead of us whining on slashdot, we need to inform and mobilize the masses. They need to know what their rights are now and what is being done to take them away. They need to have the will to pull in the line of their government, order them on the direction to take. Maybe even get rid of the Democratics and Republicans, two parties that claim to be different but are both the same cultural poison. Come on, give Nader a chance, he has some great ideas. :)

Re:Powerful incentives (and interests) (5, Insightful)

ballookey (740691) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783219)

I'm just going to cut and paste from my blog this morning:

What's next? Are you going to make Adobe Photoshop illegal? I mean, I could use Photoshop to fake legal documents - sure they've made copying currency harder, but it's a lot easier to create fake insurance documents, phony immigration papers, false birth certificates and vehicle registrations.

But do I do any of that? NO. I use it to make a living. I use it to create works of art, which in case they forgot, is one of the things that makes human beings noble and worth anything at all.

I'm sure that a lot of people use it for nefarious purposes. Adobe would be hard-pressed to make an application that's useful and yet could hinder people's evil plans for it. So they leave that to the user and the criminal justice system - as it should be.

Same thing with P2P networks. They just didn't realize how very many people are willing to bend or break the law given the chance. What, they thought everyone's basically GOOD at heart? SUCKER! P2P networks are handy. They have legitimate uses. The most valuable one to me is that heretofore unknown artists can make their work available and with just a little word of mouth, garner a lot of attention and notice they wouldn't previously have had.

And I think that, more than anything, is the crux of it. The establishment has made hoards of money and holds a lot of power based on the fact that previously it was difficult to even make a minor success of yourself. It was like the old system of banks and checking accounts. You couldn't open an account unless someone vouched for you. Similarly, before computers and the internet took over, you couldn't be a success unless someone already rich and powerful vouched for you. (Or you were extraordinarilly lucky. This wouldn't preclude talent, but any talented artist that was successful under the old system will first admit they were lucky to get there.) Frankly, it's mostly the same now, but it's changing. Bands are putting songs they can't get onto the radio on their websites. Videos MTV won't let you see are available online. I don't have to listen to KROQ's corporate-sanctioned IDEA of alternative rock - I can listen to KEXP Seattle right through my computer. Rather than wait several weeks for the "official" release, people globally can get the media they want today. I no longer get suckered into paying $16-18 for a whole CD of crap when all I wanted was one song that frankly, I'd be sick of in three weeks flat anyway. Wifey and Hubby get 10-20,000 subscribers a month and they have a nice house and take fabulous trips. Mark one for everyone.

Early in my Internet days I realized the great thing about it was, that with a little know how, a small investment, and a few ideas, anyone could make a few bucks. Some with better ideas would make a whole lot more. Sure enough a lot of people, it turns out, were actually quite willing to take their clothes off and start inserting all manner of objects in front of a camera - if they got paid for it. Did anyone realize how many whores there were out there before it became so easy to set up a subscription site? The free market used to be such a sacred cow with the conservatives. Suddenly they've had the rose-tinted glasses removed and realized the cow's a three-input bovine and they freak out and start legislating the use of inputs.

OK, I ramble, I get off topic. Score me a -1. But the point is, they see things getting out of control. They see their precious status-quo shaken. And rather than adapt and take this opportunity to finally and truthfully get to know their audience for the slightly-slimey and occasionally downright dirty hos they are, they freak out and start taking liberties away. They only way they can see to staunch the flow of blood is to put a tourniquet on technological advances.

We've got to stop this crap or else we're doomed to live with Brittany Spears and her ilk forever.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN (3, Insightful)

WarMonkey (721558) | more than 9 years ago | (#9782986)

VOTE LIBERTARIAN

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (4, Insightful)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783023)

I agree in theory, but in practice a vote libertarian is a vote for Bush. Just ask anybody who voted for Nader in 2000.

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (3, Informative)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783062)

I agree in theory, but in practice a vote libertarian is a vote for Bush

And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either. It's a dog and pony (elephant and donkey) show. The only common theme is spending more of _YOUR_ money to add to _THEIR_ profit.

Proportional Representation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783134)

Try to get proportional representation up so everyone has a voice.

PR is not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783266)

Proportional representation does not change things as to who has a "voice" or not. Without it, the fringe kooks get weeded out at the ballot box. With it, the fringe kooks end up in the legislature, but they still get weeded out when it comes time to vote.

Re:Proportional Representation (4, Interesting)

antarctican (301636) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783295)

Try to get proportional representation up so everyone has a voice.

How the hell do you do PR on a presidential election? Each candidate gets a percentage of the Whitehouse?

For the presidential election two changes would improve the system. First, get rid of the electoral college, make it pure nation wide numbers. And second, single transferable vote, instant runoff voting, whichever name you might call it - that would take away the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" argument. You could vote for Nader, but at the same time vote for Kerry. And maybe once people catch on a bit more, Nader might even win! Yay for America! :)

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783243)

And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either. It's a dog and pony (elephant and donkey) show. The only common theme is spending more of _YOUR_ money to add to _THEIR_ profit.

Yeah because Kerry is going to invade a country that never attacked us while repealing 30 years of progress on environmental laws and giving massive tax cuts to the rich.

Sure the Democrats have their problems (Patriot Act anyone? DCMA?) and they are almost as cozy with big business as the Republicans are but to say they are as bad as the Republicans is truly crazy. Do you really think we'd be where we are (Iraqi quagmire with the entire free World hating our guts) if Gore had gotten elected (or should I say if Bush hadn't gotten appointed)?

Iraq attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783332)

"Yeah because Kerry is going to invade a country that never attacked us"

Real history. Over a period of several years, and until the retaliation in 2003, Iraq engage in approximately 2000 attacks against US and UK peacekeepers who were patrolling the "no-fly" zones in accordance with the cease-fire. 2000 does not equal "never".

"...giving massive tax cuts to the rich."

Very misleading. The rich are a tiny minority of those who received tax cuts under the Bush plan.

"if Gore had gotten elected (or should I say if Bush hadn't gotten appointed)?"

You mean appointed by the voters? Bush won the same way his predecessors did: he won votes in enough states to win the electoral college.

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783335)

Dude, any fair (i.e. equal percentage) tax cut is going to give like 80% of it's money to the rich. That's because they pay 80% of taxes, because they have so much more money than you and because it's taxed at rates approaching 40%.

Why should they pay more tax in the first place? They aren't benefitting from roads or the Army or the IRS (heh) any more than you. Any tax that doesn't involve sending every adult a yearly bill for the *same amount* is communism, plain and simple.

Don't vote Libertarian (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783336)

And a vote for Kerry won't change anything either.

Wrong.

First, Kerry's and Bush's ideals *do* differ. Both Republican and Democrat parties are fairly right-wing when it comes to global comparisons, but claiming that they are identical is ridiculous.

Second, voters are very unlikely to go from Republican to Libertarian. In general, Libertarians compete with votes mostly with Democrats, and will absolutely not beat the Democrats in the immediate future -- there are not enough Libertarians out there. The best way for Libertarians to get a vote is for Democrats to have a large, secure majority over the Republicans -- at that point, Democrat voters that are dissatisfied with Democrat policies will feel safe voting Libertarian, and Libertarians will begin siphoning off votes, and working their way up to becoming a major third party.

Third, there is a particularly disagreeable type of person noisily advocating Libertarian voting at this point -- Republicans who do not believe that they can get any centrist voters, and are trying to convince people sitting on the line between Libertarian and Democrat to vote Libertarian, as Libertarian is not a threat to them. The Republican party is already in hot water in two different states for funding and backing Nader to try to weaken the Democrat vote. I am not saying that you are such a person, but there is no way for us to know that this is the case.

I understand that you want to vote based on pure ideals, however, the voting system is not a mechanism to make philosophical claims. It is a system to place the next set of officials in office. If your vote does nothing, you have simply thrown your vote away. That is not because people are operating badly; it is because the voting system in the United States is not structured in such a way that is conducive to many parties. The real fix would be to move to preferential voting (personally, I'd like to see the electoral college go away at the same point in time) or another voting system that doesn't discriminate as harshly against slightly smaller parties. The problem is that the people in office have little incentive to change the voting system to something that favors the little guy. Again, I think that the best fix for this, if you really believe in Libertarian principles, is to ensure that the Democrat majority is large enough, siphon off enough votes to win smaller elections and begin pressure, using these elected officials, for voting reform. That really needs to be pushed through for a third party to be in place. Once that happens, the Libertarian party has a decent ground to stand on. Yes, that's a lot of work, and it's a way off, but to do otherwise, to imagine that the Libertarian vote is going to beat Bush, is just wishful thinking.

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (1)

BlaKnail (545030) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783137)

However, since Badnarik [com.com] is on the far right of the political spectrum instead of the far left, wouldn't a vote for him take away a vote that should have been for Bush otherwise?

Anyway, saying a vote for *fringe candidate* is a vote for *bad politician* is very simplistic and not always true.

Badnarik is not right-wing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783226)

Badnarik is libertarian, not right-wing. Right-wingers believe in a strong government. Libertarians, in contrast, argue for much smaller and weaker government.

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783203)

Funny, I thought it was a vote for Nader.

People erroneously assume that Nader supporters actually want the Democratic candidate to win, and are just (apparently) really confused. What I see is that the Democratic party so poorly represents Nader's followers that they can't even woo them away in the face of certain failure.

What the Democrats are saying when they want Nader out of the race is, "We wish no one would represent you freaks so that we would be the least of all evils on the ballot." I find it kind of hard to sympathize with that sentiment.

Here is my outlook: the republicans claim that if they get in office, they will destroy my government, take most of my money, and destroy my freedoms. The democrats claim that if they get in, they will destroy my government, take most of my money, and destroy my freedoms (though by different methods! Yippee!).

Best of all, I get told that if I don't vote or vote for a third-party candidate, that I am throwing my vote away and *thus can't complain!* Sorry, but I'm going to vote for the party that won't destroy myself or my country.

It's like if one candidate said he would shoot you in the right knee, another said in the left knee, and a third said he wouldn't shoot you at all. Even if the third had no chance of winning, I can't see the advantage of voting for anyone else. They'll both blow your freakin' kneecaps off!

Re:VOTE LIBERTARIAN (3, Insightful)

irokitt (663593) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783248)

I'm not a libertarian, but I think you should vote for what you believe in. Voting for a candidate because they're more likely to win is kind of like voting for what everyone else believes in.

TROLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783185)

Why is Libertariaism always modded up around here? It's a political philosophy for junior high schoolers.

Re:TROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783227)

Only as much as our founding fathers were. I find it intereting that so many would see us heading down the path that we are going rather than trying to stop the insanity that is both the democrats and the republicans. The dems seem to want grab my right to own a gun, and handle a business the way that I see fit, while the Republicans are more than happy to grab all the other rights from me while allowing big business (not small business) to trample me.

Re:TROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783265)

Oh, it's a *CUTE* little troll! :)

Hey, that's because even a high-schooler can see the logic of libertarianism. High-schoolers also tend to be more idealistic and more live-and-let-live.

It's when they grow up that they realize they can't get what they want out of life, so they try to make the government give it to them.

Flip, flop (4, Interesting)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 9 years ago | (#9782995)

Funny, I remember Orrin Hatch was actually a SUPPORTER of the original P2P Napster, to the extent that he actually put some of his own amateur works on there.

See, for instance here [wired.com]

Why the change of heart? I guess sticking to one's original convictions is too much to ask.

Re:Flip, flop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783205)

I hate it when I see people bashed simply because they changed their minds on something. Sometimes a change of mind is a good thing. People can become more educated on a topic, or look at it in a new light and understand why a different position might be good. This is especially true in technical areas where folks often don't understand all the details and implications.



Now I'll go along with you that it's the wrong way to change in this case, but I think that has more to do with money changing hands than new insite into the problem/ramifications.

Re:Flip, flop (0)

strictnein (318940) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783234)

Same thing was Kerry. He voted for Napster before voting against it. He owns an MP3 player, but doesn't have any MP3s. Or maybe he owns some MP3s but he stuffed them down his pants?

Flip Flopping is a disease... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783325)

but not the one you think.



It's funny that a the worst thing a politician can do is "flip flop", i.e. change his or her position on an issue.


What if, perhaps, said politician realizes that they were wrong before, that the situation is not as simple as they previously thought, that circumstances have changed? In this case, do we not *want* a politician to "flip-flop" and adopt the (corrected) position? Or are we all simpletons?


I know this is off topic, and I'm not trying to imply that Hatch is justified to be supporting this bill, but the obsession with "flip-flopping" is a pet peeve of mine. Go ahead and mod me down.

This is GREAT NEWS (4, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783011)

I find that I spend far too much time watching television, and listening to music. With the pain in the ass regulations that are going up, I can finally dump my satellite dish, DVD player, television, and TiVo. Without all that crap, I can finally get some programming done.

And just in case they come for my computer, I'm stockpiling schematics, a 68000 microprocessor, 16 megs of memory, and a hard drive. If my PC won't let me run untrusted software, then I'll fucking build my own.

Screw the content Nazis. I don't fucking need them, but they need my money.

Re:This is GREAT NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783257)

You know, I personally agree with you.

Let them do this. I have already eliminated television from my life. This just gives me an incentive to eliminate more of their useless crap from my life as well, and will pretty much kill them in the eyes of the younger generation.

I don't mind paying money for *good* music and *good* movies. I will continue to do so. Erecting ridiculous content restrictions will just kill my desire for the "fluff" that they produce.

Re:This is GREAT NEWS (1)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783286)

Ha. They'll shut down radio shack. And you'll need a transistor and solder liscense. And unprotected hard drives will be punishable by monkies.

Re:This is GREAT NEWS (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783357)

I canceled my cable subscription back in Jan-February. TV is a waste of time, so many better things I am doing without it now (hobbies, excercising, working harder/smarter/better, relationships).

Ditch TV.

This is getting out of control (5, Interesting)

minorthreatbmxxx (738716) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783016)

As much as I agree with the RIAA that piracy is wrong and should be stopped, things are getting ridiculous. Corporations shouldn't have this much power in government. This is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people, but is now controlled by the corporations...

Re:This is getting out of control (1)

RWerp (798951) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783144)

Come to Europe, then. In Poland we dumped out entire government for, among other things, coveting to the interests of one financialist (well, they had to screw up the health care system, too).

Re:This is getting out of control (2, Interesting)

antiMStroll (664213) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783181)

This kind of legislation is horrifying. Jackasses like Hatch are basically selling RIAA an exclusive, protected license to make money by drastically curtailing the freedom to move information (but not, apparently, the freedom to move money into his pocket.) The brazen attitude is what really sends chills down my spine, bought Senators aren't even making an effort at an appearance of balance, he's advocating for the rubber stamping of legislation written by special interest corporations making huge segments of the general population criminals. There's a special place in hell for his kind and I wish him god's speed in his journey.

DUP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783017)

DUP! /. is teh sux!

Question (5, Interesting)

strike2867 (658030) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783018)

Does someone have a list of Senators currenty in favor of the act. They need to be urgently sto^H^H^H replaced.

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

krazo (220290) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783292)

There should be a web page where for any legislator you could find out:
  • Which bills they proposed
  • Which bills they voted for and against
  • Which committees they are on
  • Other information like that which I can't think of right now

It could be cross-referenced by bill too. So, you could see who voted for and against which bills. You could see things like partisanship, who was most likely to vote against his party, etc., etc. Maybe it could be linked to campaign finance records too so we could see whose pocket everyone is in. I know the information is all public domain, but I don't know of any simple way to access it.

Does anyone know of a site that does anything like this? I think it would go a long way towards making actions of congress more transparent and maybe forcing a little more accountability on legislators (by having their voting records very easily accessible and understandable for the public.)

Re:Question (4, Informative)

Armethius (718200) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783304)

Cosponsors of the bill include: Bill Frist (majority leader) Tom Daschle (minority leader) Hatch (chairman of the judiciary committee) Leahy (ranking member of the judiciary committee

Re:Question (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783315)

I can tell you that I most certainly will NOT be reelecting Debbie Stabenow [congress.org] this comming election, who is co-sponsoring INDUCE. Take a look at the list of INDUCE's Co-sponsors [loc.gov] to see if there's anyone you're going to help vote out this fall in YOUR state.

Why does the RIAA have such a strong voice? (4, Insightful)

yeremein (678037) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783029)

Consider this...
More than 40 trade associations and advocacy groups voiced similar sentiments in a letter to senators July 6. The Induce Act "would chill innovation and drive investment in technology" overseas, said the letter, signed by CNET Networks, eBay, Google, Intel, MCI, TiVo, Verizon Communications, Sun Microsystems and Yahoo.

This measure is supported by the RIAA but opposed by the tech industry at large. Why does Congress let the tail wag the dog when it comes to copyright legislation? Does Intel just not give enough money to politicians?

Re:Why does the RIAA have such a strong voice? (3, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783345)

"Why does the RIAA have such a strong voice?"

Because they're out there talking to law makers while we sit around at home eating pizzia and watching TV?

understatement.. (0, Troll)

cowboy_ein (646822) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783030)

"We have to understand that some people use P2P technology in ways that are wrong and illegal."

You mean people use p2p for something other than warez / music / pr0n?

I hope is passes (2, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783036)

Because it will take bills like this to reach rock-bottom before the public wakes up. Only then can we get rid of the bill and the RIAA.

FUCK IT, PASS THE FUCKING BILL. Jesus....*sigh*

Re:I hope is passes (1)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783148)

PASS THE <censored> BILL

I'm really getting to the same apathetic feeling for nearly everything in society.

Re:I hope is passes (1)

cowboy_ein (646822) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783206)

I'm really getting to the same apathetic feeling for nearly everything in society.

In fact.. if I'd be more apathetic if I weren't so lethargic!

Re:I hope is passes (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783202)

More than that- make it stronger. The copyright office person suggested reversing betamax- I hope they do. Because breaking everyone's VCRs and TiVos is about what it would take to wake the american public up in this regaurd.

Re:I hope is passes(sic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783294)

I know you're joking, but the problem with this is that by the time things have hit rock bottom it may be too late to do anything about it. By the time the "public wakes up," which I don't think they ever will, the RIAA will be the law and people won't be able to fight it.

As the saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Resisting now saves a lot of ugly work later.

Not only a repost, a non-issue. (4, Informative)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783044)

Hatch introduces these radical bills all the time. This one is Pre-committee [loc.gov] [loc.gov]. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Eventually the computer industry will step in and say this is crazy.

Here's the way a bill is normally passed. This one is about at step 2 1/2.
1. A senator and a member of the house get togather and write a bill.
2. They drop it in their respective drop boxes, and GPO prints it up.
3. The rules committee send it to committees for review.
4. Subcommitees tell their committees whether they want a hearing on it.
5. Hearings are held, and each bill is modified.
6. Assuming the bill doesn't die in Committee, and most of them do, it goes to the rules committee for the Senate and the House. A lot of them die this way, too.
7. The rules committee schedules a vote. If they don't, time passes, Congress adjourns, bill dies.
8. Both the House and Senate vote. If one doesn't support the bill, bill dies. These are timed votes, and if you can't get a majority within about 15 minutes (usually) that's it.
9. Assuming all of the above has occured, you get a conference committee of Representitives and Senators who will hammer out a comprimise between the House and Senate versions. If they can't agree, it dies.
10. Then the President can sign or veto. If he vetos, or refuses to act in 10 days (Pocket Veto), the bill dies UNLESS 2/3 of the House and Senate vote to override it. This rarely (in less than 1/10th of vetoes) occurs. If they don't, the bill dies.

All of this has to occur in about 5 1/2 months. I don't think this one will get the fasttrack, and I certainly don't think the House will ever pass it.

Re:Not only a repost, a non-issue. (4, Funny)

bloggins02 (468782) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783152)

Just out of curiosity, at which of those 10 stages are we permitted to start worrying?

Re:Not only a repost, a non-issue. (1)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783168)

I, personally, start worrying at 6, or if the bill goes into fasttrack, by which it skips the committee process.

Re:Not only a repost, a non-issue. (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783230)

Couldn't you just set that to the tune of "I'm only a bill, yes I'm only a bill, just sitting here on Capitol Hill..."?

Pocket Veto (1)

salahx (100975) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783275)

Then the President can sign or veto. If he vetos, or refuses to act in 10 days (Pocket Veto)....

Not quite - it a "Pocket Veto" only if, during those 10 days, Congress adjurns. If Congress is still in session after those 10 days, then the law is passed as though he signed it!

Re:Not only a repost, a non-issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783361)

You're forgetting that after step 9 (conference committee) that both houses have to vote on and pass the compromise bill. And as another poster said, the pocket veto only occurs if Congress adjourns, otherwise the bill becomes law if the President doesn't act within 10 days.

Tivo TV, or no TV (4, Insightful)

AIX-Hood (682681) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783049)

I and 500 of my closest friends have Tivo style television watching entrenched in our way of doing things that if it were taken away, we'd probably just stop watching it altogether.

PLEASE DONE PASS THE BILL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783187)

I and 500 of my closest friends have Tivo style television watching entrenched in our way of doing things that if it were taken away, we'd probably just stop watching it altogether.NOOO! 499 more trolls! Just what we don't need!

Same here (1)

raygundan (16760) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783299)

I absolutely cannot go back to watching TV on someone else's terms. I've been using a VCR to timeshift for years, and tivo since 2000. If the tivo becomes illegal or has its functionality reduced to a pointless level, I will simply abandon TV. My TV set will become a video-game and DVD display monitor, and I will suddenly have a much higher monthly budget for spending on something besides TV.

I wrote to my Senator (5, Insightful)

neonfrog (442362) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783070)

(here is the letter I sent, misspellings intact)

Dear Senator Leahy:

I would like to express my concerns over the fomerly entitled INDUCE act.

I have read your statement, but cannot reconcile an important point.

If a technology company wishes to make a tool, and induce folk to use it, expressly for sharing copies of works where the copyright has been freely released (my own writings, for example, that I may wish to share with the world for no profit) then that company might not feel it can create such a tool because of the possibility of it being interpreted as an inducement to infringe upon copyright.

I interpret our founding fathers' ideas behind copyright law this way: the more works that are created and shared, the better the world will be. If you create then you alone should be able to profit from your creation, if you so desire, but only for a certain amount of time after which further profit can only be had by creating new works. Copyright serves two purposes: to inspire you to create again and again and, ultimatley, to pass your previous creations into public property where they can be freely copied, thus insuring their preservation for the betterment of all mankind. They carefully crafted those laws with the goals of incenting artists to continue to create works and ultimately preserving those works' societal value forever.

I feel that the internet has provided a distribution vector never conceived before that meets those goals perfectly. Rather than being incented by profit, a corporate goal, many new and important works are being created and freely distributed simply for the betterment of mankind (as well as possible widespread fame or recognition), a societal goal. I submit to you the incredibly valuable Wikipedia.org.

In the past, when copying was limited by technology, an artist had no vector for distributing their works that wasn't corporate -- world-wide distribution simply was not available to the common man due to the tremendous economic hurdles of replication and transportation. Nowadays I, a simple native Vermonter, have an opportunity to share works with my world peers, far-flung and next door, and enjoy their works shared straight to me, without the burden of a cumbersome distribution model. I am hugely incented to create more and share it with humanity. This tremendous incentive never existed before.

Presenting legislation that could be used to stifle technology or activities that induce sharing of freely created works, simply because such could be used to copy works that authors choose to control, would directly contradict the spirit under which copyright law was originally established. Perhaps your response would be that this is not the intent of the law, but I believe that media corporations would try to bend this tool to further their own profits regardless of the impact on freely available works created for society's benefit. There's a reason why libraries are well-represented in the letter you recently received from the EFF!

Thank you for your time and attention, and for your continued work in the Senate.

Sincerely,

Re:I wrote to my Senator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783268)

P.S. Go fsck yourself!

Re:I wrote to my Senator (1)

Hyperspac (794779) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783297)

So did I. Maybe more of us should [senate.gov] , it all most as easy as reading /.

Honestly, I hope this passes (3, Insightful)

TheHonestTruth (759975) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783076)

Maybe once America (the majority that is) can no longer record/TiVo COPS or Jerry Springer reruns without personally asking a Fox customer service rep each time they want to do so, they'll wake the hell up to all the bullshit big media companies are pulling in DC. I hope this passes and people realize that they've been asleep at the democratic wheel and vote every Senator (D) for Disney, (R) for RIAA out of office.

Or better yet, we'll realize that we watch too much TV anyway and start reading some damn books again.

-truth

mods!! mod that post up, please (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783155)

(D) for Disney and (R) for RIAA has gotta be worth at least 2 extras right there :)

Re:Honestly, I hope this passes (1)

cowboy_ein (646822) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783159)

heh reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Peter tries to tape Monday Night Football and as soon as he hits record ABC S.W.A.T. members show up and say:

ABC: Do you have the express written consent of both ABC and the NFL?

Peter: Just ABC..

ABC goes on to destroy his VCR, filling it with bullets....

...WELL I THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY

Re:Honestly, I hope this passes (3, Insightful)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783364)

without personally asking a Fox customer service rep each time they want to do so, they'll wake the hell up to all the bullshit big media companies are pulling in DC. I hope this passes and people realize that they've been asleep at the democratic wheel

People already have this experience in that most commercial ISPs include, in their AUP, clauses which make it grounds for termination to use in-house routers and switches. Everyone does it but, technically speaking, you're not supposed to.

It seems that in today's world the issue isn't about being a criminal or not. Everyone is, by default, a criminal at any given time. The issue is which people are more likely to be targeted as victims of a law enforcement system gone haywire.

scrapping the Betamax decision (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783083)

> she proposed scrapping the Betamax decision, which makes it legal to timeshift
> TV shows with a VCR. Analysis here."

Perhaps you can write to your politicos, suggesting that a law which would have made every single VCR owner a criminal isn't really a very good idea.

Does this mean no more VHS? (1)

lofi-rev (797197) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783263)

Do we get to ditch VHS and get consumer betamax back?

DMCA Deja Vu (1)

KrisHolland (660643) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783086)

Time to speak up now before it becomes law, don't you wish you could go back in time and speak up before the DMCA was passed?

Also elections are being held soon, vote anyone out who supports this bill.

Re:DMCA Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783247)

The only problem with that is some of our senators aren't up for re-election this time. One of mine, Debbie Stabenow (D, Mi), has expressed her support for this, and sadly isn't up for re-election until 2006.

INDUCE Act apparently means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783092)

Idiots Now Demanding Useless Computer Entertainment Act

Induce, eh? (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783097)

After reading a description of the bill, vomitting did not need to be induced, it came naturally to me.

I no longer care (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783112)

My government officials are hell bent on making me a criminal then so be it.

Every direction I turn I see something that I do in my daily life that uses technology to make things more fun or convienient are put up as "evil" and neede to be made illegal. I give up, I'll be happy to live in the underground as a criminal. These ultra rich senators and represenatives have no clue as to what the real world is and do not give a rat's ass about one single citizen.

unless a mobilization of the american public to scream loud and clear to these out-of-touch fools in the government our desires nothing will change and everyting will get worse.

I strongly suggest that every technically adept person learn how to do things secretly and quietly. Making sure their technology is hidden from the police because what you do today will become illegal and more than likely have a harsher punishment than cold-blooded murder.

I laugh when people sell things like this [scottevest.com] to conceal what they are carrying. But it looks like it will be required in the future to listen to music or carry anything technological that is not "approved".

certianly makes you disgusted. men like Senator Hatch in congress are like people stopping to piss on the constitution... they are an embarassment and abomination to what america was.

Time to send a message . . . (5, Informative)

harley_frog (650488) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783113)

To your Senators [eff.org] .

The "reasonable person" standard. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783115)

Quoting the Act itself:

In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

(Italics mine)

The problem here is that "reasonable people" are rarely reasonable.

This is a DUPE from ONLY yesterday. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783118)

This is a DUPE from ONLY yesterday.

Write to your senators... No, Seriously. (1)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783119)

Senators record the number of calls and letters they get on an issue. In most offices, a call carries the same weight as a letter. If enough people call their senator's office, the Senators will shape policy to what their constituents want.

Re:Dont bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783215)

Senators dont read the letters they get. An intern glances at them, jots down your stance on the issue.

Then an letter is automatically generated, a signature machine fakes the senator's sig, and a token letter is mailed off to you.

Writing your senator is useless.

I guess we're all thinking: NOT AGAIN! (1)

Zeroth_darkos (311840) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783127)

Another law taking away my freedom :(

Music and Video boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783130)

How about if this thing passes we get organized and boycott the purchase of music and video?

I'm sure many of us have already been doing this for the last year or two, but I'm talking about going outside your local Music/Video store and protesting, and harassing customers that buy DVDs and CDs.

The sky is falling (0)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783131)

Jesus christ, people. Go read the act itself. It is only about 8 sentences or so. It wouldn't outlaw iPods or MP3 players or VCRs or PVRs. All it seems to do is make it so that if you sell something with the intent that it be used for copyright infringement, you can't use the fact that it is also possible to use it in a non-infringing way as a defense. Take iPods. Apple sells them so you can listen to iTMS music, and music that you rip from CDs you buy, and audiobooks you buy from Audible.com. So, Apple is perfectly safe.

Re:The sky is falling (1)

ihaddsl (772965) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783191)

Yes but it wouldn't be slashdot without a serious overreaction and misreading of a proposed bill now would it

Re:The sky is falling (1)

511pf (685691) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783200)

Who says what Apple's intent was in making the iPod? The fact is that it CAN be used as an infringing device and this law would make its non-infringing uses irrelevant, ergo - the iPod is illegal.

Re:The sky is falling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783249)

ergo

You like that word, don't you? You think you are swift, and that it lends your tripe credibility. But your argument is, of course, garbage.

Re:The sky is falling (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783333)

The fact is that it CAN be used as an infringing device and this law would make its non-infringing uses irrelevant, ergo - the iPod is illegal

No it wouldn't. Go read the bill.

Re:The sky is falling (2, Insightful)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783284)

if you sell something with the intent

So this is blatant evidence of political graft with wealthy individuals? Apple obviously intends for its media players to only be used for legal purposes. Mike Entrepeneur, who doesn't contribute strongly to political campaigns, obviously intends for his media players to be used to distribute pirated works.

Proprietary software vendors who produce media playback software obviously intend for their software to only be used to play properly licensed material. Open source media players are obviously intended to play primarily pirated material.

A proprietary software vendor who writes a network filesystem obviously intends for only properly licensed material to be exchanged. Open source distributed network filesystems are obviously intended to violate copyright rules.

The public think "P2P" == "piracy" (1)

Zeroth_darkos (311840) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783306)

Well how about this: I develop a P2P system and advertise it as a general purpose P2P system, and people use it for spreading copyrighted material. Is the fact, that it is a P2P system, enough evidence that I released the software with the intent that it be used for copyright infringement?
If this is the case then the law is a _major_ threat to the OSS community.
I fear the media and public often think "P2P" == "piracy" and this will bias the interpretation of the law.

Amtrak analogy? (3, Interesting)

nucal (561664) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783133)

Aside from the government connection - I fail to see how the Induce act is anything similar. The US Government actually runs Amtrak as a quasi-independent business (much the way the US Postal Service is run). The Induce act is meant to put a set of regulations in place, not run record companies.

What I find interesting is that the current administration is perfectly happy to regulate the behavior of regular citizens, while allowing unregulated and irresponsible corporate behavior ...

Re:Amtrak analogy? (1)

maximilln (654768) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783196)

The US Government actually runs Amtrak as a quasi-independent business (much the way the US Postal Service is run). The Induce act is meant to put a set of regulations in place, not run record companies.

That's where you miss the connection. The government doesn't run Amtrak. The people with controlling money interests of Amtrak run the portions of the government which have any influence on any aspect of Amtrak's business.

On the entertainment media and software side: The government doesn't legislate rules for media and software. The people with controlling money interests in the media entertainment and software industries run the portions of the government which have any influence on any aspect of entertainment media and software.

Re:Amtrak analogy? (1)

ihaddsl (772965) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783238)

The newsletter writer obviously has a grudge against Amtrak.

wonder how he'd feel .... (2, Insightful)

scud80 (718453) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783171)

about holding weapons manufacturers liable for deaths using their products. he should have his brain scanned for malware.

How soon before we can get pictures ... (1)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783172)

of MaryBeth Peters without the human-like shell she uses in her mission of deception, revealing her boundlessly evil true form?

I recognize that it might scar the young and faint of heart, but staring into the heart of darkness is necessary sometimes.

Or does that seem a bit over the top? I can never tell.

Human Memory Soon to Be Banned (3, Funny)

lofi-rev (797197) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783175)

Recollection becomes an "unauthorized derivative work", talking becomes "piracy." Forget Fahrenheit 9/11, the real danger is Fahrenheit 451.

The "reasonable person" standard. (4, Interesting)

anonymous cowherd (m (783253) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783182)

Quoting the Act itself:

In this subsection, the term `intentionally induces' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.

(Italics mine)

The problem here is that "reasonable people" are rarely reasonable.

Doh, didn't mean to post this as AC.

Google Search: Orrin Hatch insane (4, Funny)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783201)

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,850 for Orrin Hatch insane. (0.13 seconds)

and whos fault is it? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783217)

Its yours. All you people who continue to download copies of movies and songs without paying. Those of you who continue to argue the semantics of how downloading an mp3 is not theft because someone still has the original. Those of you who use bad logic to justify your actions. "Well the company is greedy, therefore I'm doing a great justice to the world and our freedoms"

Blah. You are fucking up our rights because you are cheap idiotic theives.

Re:and whos fault is it? (1)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783270)

Blah. You are fucking up our rights because you are cheap idiotic theives.

Hey, I'm not cheap.

The Eldred decision and fair use... (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783242)

Most people (correctly) criticized the US Supreme Court's Eldred decision because it essentially held that "limited time" could mean forever.

Beyond that mistake, the Court went further and stated throughout the opinion the fair use rights citizens have are the societal benefits mandated by the Constitution. In other words, the Court strengthened its support for fair use rights.

However, if the public domain is taken away. And if fair use rights are legislated away, then exactly where is the Constitutionally mandate benefits for citizens?! Does anyone even care about the Constitution other than for internet porn and gun rights?!

Don't you just feel powerless? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783253)

Don't you just feel powerless when lawmakers push shit like this through? You write letters and get some form letter thank-you back from some congressman flunky. Democracy in action.

filesharing == speeding (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9783261)

Hatch has blown way out of proportion the size of the filesharing "problem". I think it is useful to push the analogy that filesharing is like speeding. Just because 60 million americans speed doesn't mean it's a huge problem that needs some heavy-handed legislation to fix. It makes sense to ignore minor speeding and to put the drunk driver who's going 100mph in jail. Similarly, there's no evidence that casual filesharing hurts anyone, so there's no real need to do anything about it. The effort should be put into fighting people who manufacture and sell copyrighted materials for profit. For some reason (*cough* lobbyists, contributors), Hatch sees every filesharer as some maniac drunk driver.

with sony (1)

DeusExMalex (776652) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783326)

and with sony claiming that even showing something on the screen is copywrite infringement, we'd better get rid of those pesky computers. also those movable-type printing presses had better go too - after all, their express purpose is to reproduce copywrited material. sticks and mud? gotta solidify the mud & burn down the forests so there aren't any more sticks...

If we write enough letters, they HAVE to LISTEN (1)

write_with_numbers (779746) | more than 9 years ago | (#9783339)

I am a resident of TN and after reading an earlier /. article and following up with a little research on this piece of legislation I took the time to write both of my state Senators. I am putting this post here and hope it gets modded just high enough to see so that I can get out a single message.

If you are in America, write your state Senators and protest this bill with an intellegent argument from the tech community.

We must remember the most important and base principles of a Senator
1. They often vote on bills they have not read or barely understand.
2. They have to listen to people in their state because if they don't they loose the next election.
3. They don't come close to understanding technology like a technician, engineer, programmer, or any of the vast army of geeks out there.
4. Knowledge is power and big words (technical terms) impress the hell out of someone in a political office, because they can take your letter and read it on the Senate floor to sound like they are informed.

If we all write in, we will start a debate. If we start a debate, we will win.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?