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!

EFF's Letter to the Senate on INDUCE

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the getting-the-word-out dept.

United States 189

z0ink writes "Picked up off of EFFector today a letter to all US Senators on the topic of IICA (Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004 -- formerly the INDUCE Act). 'In February, EFF proposed an industry-led collective licensing solution that would ensure compensation for copyright owners while minimizing the need for governmental intrusion into the digital music marketplace,' writes EFF Executive Director Shari Steele in the letter. 'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.' IICA has been covered here on Slashdot with more information available here."

cancel ×

189 comments

USA are scheisse (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842296)

Burn Hollywood, burn !

Re:USA are scheisse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842310)

yuo aer teh wni!

Fristage Postage (-1, Offtopic)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842303)

GNAA Announces Interview wth Real Troll Talk
GNAA Announces Interview with Real Troll Talk

Osaka, Japan - In a worldwide first, GNAA founder and president timecop agreed to conduct an interview with Real Troll Talk, a Slashdot member documenting the ways and means of internet trolls worldwide.

Although meant to be a one on one interview, several GNAA members were present in the audience, and many "contributed" to the interview by shouting out points that timecop forgot and by calling him an asshole. "The interview went well," timecop said afterward, "I was very pleased with the interest in GNAA and the exposure we'll be getting through this. Real Troll Talk seemed to have an unhealthy obsession with the sexual aspects of GNAA, though."

GNAA member godspeed noted that "The interview was really good, and I have a strong feeling that Real Troll Talk may be a homosexual black man himself. You could say my gaynigdar was set off by that dude." Opened to other GNAA members for comment, vSKIZZILE was quick to add "HAHA FGTS! You are all gay, LOL @ WTC LOL @ JEWS!!!! FRIST POSTAGE FOR GNAA!"

A transcript of the interview is available in Real Troll Talk #6, available at Real Troll Talk's Slashdot journal [slashdot.org]

About Real Troll Talk:

Real Troll Talk is Slashdot member number 793436, and has been running a series of journal articles on internet trolling, seeming to take a particular interest in Slashdot [slashdot.org] and Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] . You can find back issues of "Real Troll Talk" at Real Troll Talk's Journal [slashdot.org]


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid TBD
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_tbd@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 GNAA [www.gnaa.us]

YOU FAIL IT ! (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842314)

But I like your comic movie [imdb.com] so I pardon you (despite your puny americanhood).

Re:YOU FAIL IT ! (0)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842353)

"mmmmmmmm ohhhhhh yeah, slip it in further, oh yeah baby... just like that... let me get the lube... awwww yeah... that's it... oh yeah baby..." - michael, speaking to Adolt Hitroll during a hot round of anal love making

Re:YOU FAIL IT ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842397)

Erm...
As virtual as he is, Adolf Hitroll has neither sexual appendices nor cavities, so how can he engage in the activities you describe so well, I suspect you're a master at these ?

Copyright owners != artists (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842307)

"It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers"

Of course most copyrights are owned by publishers, not artists...

Re:Copyright owners != artists (0)

Valar (167606) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842351)

Source?

Re:Copyright owners != artists (2, Informative)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842541)

look at what follows the "little c in a circle" on CDs etc.

One big problem (3, Insightful)

millahtime (710421) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842356)

One big problem is that Washington is made up of a lot of lawyers. Like they will allow the money to flow away from them.

Not sure which is more greedy...the record labels or the lawyers. They both want all the money and are not worried about the artist.

Re:Copyright owners != artists (1)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842362)

The more public awareness about that, the more chance artists won't be crushed by the RIAA / ClearChannel?

Re:Copyright owners != artists (4, Insightful)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842369)

A P2P system designed with a more direct artist > consumer flow in mind could alleviate that problem too.

Then of course it'll be blamed for putting a whole shitload of fat guys in suits out of work, they'll buy some more laws to put a stop to it, etc...etc...etc...

Damn, I have become cynical lately.

Re:Copyright owners != artists (5, Insightful)

sotonboy (753502) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842404)

I dont think putting fat guys in suits out of work is a bad thing. And if you do create the more direct flow of cash to the artist then the fat guys wont have the money to buy the laws. Once it starts it may well snowball.

That was just "Snowball"... (2, Funny)

EvilCabbage (589836) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842560)

...."Why do they call him Snowball?"

Some days I can't help myself, sorry.

Re:That was just "Snowball"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842729)

thirty-seven?!

Re:Copyright owners != artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842793)

I dont think putting fat guys in suits out of work is a bad thing.

Unfortunately,

(a) the fat guys in suits do not share this admirable sentiment, and
(b) our laws are mostly made by fat guys in suits.

I'd love to see that change as much as you would, but I honestly don't see how we're ever going to start the metaphorical avalanche when there's a metaphorical security guard at the top of the metaphorical mountain with a metaphorical license to shoot dead anyone who tries to make the first metaphorical snowball...

Re:Copyright owners != artists (3, Funny)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842442)

putting a whole shitload of fat guys in suits out of work

It's for their own good. They'll lose weight that way.

Re:Copyright owners != artists (1, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842552)

Then of course it'll be blamed for putting a whole shitload of fat guys in suits out of work, they'll buy some more laws to put a stop to it, etc...etc...etc...

I wouldn't be too worried about those guys. I'm sure John Kerry's presidential administration would pick up any ex-RIAA executives and offer them positions of power. The democrats have a love-fest going with the entertainment industry just like the Republicans are supposedly controlled by Halliburton. :-)

Re:Copyright owners != artists (1)

finkployd (12902) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842844)

Then of course it'll be blamed for putting a whole shitload of fat guys in suits out of work

You are going to have a hard time convincing fat lawyers in suits (Congress) to put other fat lawyers in suits (RIAA) out of business.

Finkployd

Re:Copyright owners != artists :: why that's GOOD (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842853)

Artists want to make decisions about their work. One such decision MIGHT be to sell their rights to another agent.

Grousing that some artists decide to do just that leads to a suggestion that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to do so?

Re:Copyright owners != artists (3, Informative)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842936)

That's called treating the symptom, not the problem.

The problem is that entertainers (I refuse to call most of them "artists") are still signing contracts with the RIAA.

Any solution to the "P2P conflict" will have to center around getting entertainers to stop signing with the RIAA. Once that happens, the RIAA has absolutely no power over the entertainer and the means they choose to distribute their music.

Re:Copyright owners != artists (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843054)

I know copyright law is different in America than the UK, but surely copyright by definition belongs to the artist (or their heirs)?

If I write a book/song, I have the copyright of it.

Re:Copyright owners != artists (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843098)

Generally that's the case, but in the US at least, we have what's called a "Work-For-Hire" clause which states that the result of said work belongs to the one doing the hiring, NOT the one doing the creating.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that standard RIAA boilerplate includes such a clause.

No comment (1, Funny)

duckandcoveranduck (797033) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842317)

From the website:
EFF is a nonprofit group of
passionate people -- lawyers, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights.

Re:No comment (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842349)

Who said the money would go to the EFF?

Re:No comment (4, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842380)

EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers

I hear some [gardenofpraise.com] lawyers [rebelswithavision.com] are more than just profiteering bastards and actually want to change things...

Re:No comment (1, Insightful)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842530)

And I'll bet both of them would be ashamed to share a profession with the ambulance chasers that are so prevalent today.

Lawyers (3, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842337)

It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers

It's time for a solution to any problem that never involves lawyers.

Lawyers are a kind of leech that is created by the government itself: the law that governs what citizens are or aren't allowed to do (that means all of us) has become so complicated that we, the citizens, have to hire 3rd parties who are versed in its intricacies, to "interface" with the judicial system. This certainly isn't new, and it's the same thing in all countries in the world, but it never fails to infuriate me.

Make the law simpler, and (1) the leeching caste of the lawyers will not be required each and every time you have to talk to a judge, and (2) since people won't necessarily lose money on attorney fees, frivolous lawsuits designed to impoverish the defendants, or threaten to do so like the RIAA's strong-arm technique of wrestling 3 grands out of 13 year old teens, will disappear.

Re:Lawyers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842393)

How is this a flamebait? MODS PARENT UP!

Explanation of the /. moderation system (abridged) (-1, Offtopic)

stephenbooth (172227) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842589)

  • Opinion moderator agrees with = Insightful
  • Opinion Moderator disagrees with = Flamebait

HTH, HANDN

Stephen

Re:Lawyers (2, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842802)

It's time for a solution to any problem that never involves lawyers.

I tell you what: the first thing we do, let's read Henry VI part II, act iv, scene ii.

Good advice from 410 years ago.

Re:Lawyers (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843058)

Isn't the guy saying that a tyrant wanting to take away people's rights?

Re:Lawyers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842864)

Someone on Slashdot actually spelled 'lose' correctly!

Here here! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843038)

Lawyers know there is strength in numbers. I mean, you need at least 2 lawyers in the world, otherwise there's nothing for the first one to do!

I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (5, Interesting)

Mr. Neutron (3115) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842358)

But it's like talking to a brick wall. They see this as a "protecting against theft" issue, and no amount of oration will change their minds. The concepts of freedom to invent and create without worrying about being liable for any and every violation that might produce is lost on them. The concept of fair use, and reasonable limits to copyright are lost on them.

I give up.

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (2, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842415)

How about sending them all a letter containing a list of all the children's stories and scientific literature that is public domain?

Here's some examples of public domain fiction:

Brother's Grimm stories (itemize them)
Peter Pan
Gulliver's Travels
(And other collections of children's stories.)

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842558)

We all know that Peter Pan and Snow White have been written by Disney's lawers!

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842572)

I don't think Peter Pan is Public Domain in the US for another 8 years or so.

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842652)

I'm thinking of the original text story, not the animations or other performances. Granted, I don't know the original copyright date.

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842694)

Death of author + 75 years isn't it? JM Barrie died in 1937.

But this is just a nitpick. There are many great works in the public domain, and we can probably find a lot of cases of fair use and public domain works being greatly beneficial both to the public and large corporations.

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842420)

A couple of them seem to care. However, I think you are right for the most part.

Re:I've tired writing my Senators and Congressman (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842433)

Try including a few hundred thousand dollars in bearer bonds with your letter. That's what Jack & Hilary do.

Give 'em a chance (5, Interesting)

seaniqua (796818) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842378)

I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is a good thing.

The current online music business model sucks a big fat one. If improvements were made (better availabiliy of new and non-pop artists, choise of file size including lossless, etc.) and the fee were changed to a per-month system, I think enough people would switch over and make it work. I would gladly pay $10 a month for unlimited downloads of lossless material (the EFF says $5, which is derived from the statistic that the average american spends $60 a year on CDs, I would recommend a higher amount, though, because I expect that people would download more music in this system than they would buy in a store).

Re:Give 'em a chance (3, Insightful)

hyphz (179185) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842436)

But it was a stupid letter.

The big music companies can't be forced to block-license their output. They do it for radio stations because it's in their interest to have their songs played in a context where a) large numbers of people can hear them, and b) if their song isn't playing, someone else's would be.

Neither of these applies to individual downloads. The fact you're listening to their song doesn't mean that large numbers of people will hear it. And, if you want to hear a particular song and find it isn't available for online download, it isn't particularly likely that you'll run off and buy another song which IS available for online download. (Unless you're an EFF protestor, but that's too small a group.) And if you say "if it isn't available for legal download I'll pirate it" then they'll call for the handcuffs brigade. It's ridiculous to suggest that the suggestion for addressing the devaluation of a law should be backed by the threat of breaking that law.

Nor do either of these apply to "internet radio stations" where there are far too many for any one to have significant coverage.

Re:Give 'em a chance (1)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842564)

it's in their interest to have their songs played in a context where a) large numbers of people can hear them, and b) if their song isn't playing, someone else's would be.

Neither of these applies to individual downloads.

No, but what DOES apply is that it's to their benefit to make some money out of people getting their music from P2P rather than getting nothing but lawyers' bills.

Nothing they can do will prevent people from sharing files over the Internet. The sooner they stop trying to turn back the clock and learn to embrace new technology instead, the happier we'll all be: We'll have more music available, they'll be making money from a new market (and spending less on lawsuits).

Everybody wins. They just haven't realised it yet.

Re:Give 'em a chance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842796)

That's not what they want. It's clear WHAT they want is to prevent anyone from creating/copying music without permission from them.

Sounds like a perfect monopoly to me.

Re:Give 'em a chance (2, Insightful)

tsg (262138) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843138)

The big music companies can't be forced to block-license their output. They do it for radio stations because it's in their interest to have their songs played in a context where a) large numbers of people can hear them, and b) if their song isn't playing, someone else's would be.

Actually they can. The recording industry fought the compulsory licenses instituted for radio because they lost some control. It was in the consumer's best interest to have the compulsory licenses so the radio stations couldn't be held hostage by the recording industry. The same thing with cable television. Broadcast television programs have a compulsory license when shown on cable. That was to prevent the broadcast stations from being able to kill the CATV market by making the licenses too high.

The same situation exists here. If the licenses are not compulsory, the recording industry can simply make the licenses so high that it's cheaper to buy a CD and thus protect their business model.

Re:Give 'em a chance (1)

bubblenut (733901) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842451)

Who, whom on average spends less than $60 a year on music would spend $5 a month to download it? I would suspect the average needs to bumped up further.

Re:Give 'em a chance (0)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842565)

I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is a good thing.

Gee, the "I hate XXX as much as the next guy, but ..." is so very conductive to a constructive dialog. It clearly shows that you have a balanced view of the said hate object, and is dealing with the matter in a fair, considerate and informed way.

Yeah right (2, Insightful)

muyuubyou (621373) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842832)

$10 a month for unlimited downloads. Too bad neither you or the EFF will set the price.

I think setting a fixed fee would be a bad idea. No incentive -> degraded quality -> socialism -> death of the industry.

I'd gladly pay $200 for the latest Ferrari.

Re:Give 'em a chance (2, Interesting)

sgtrock (191182) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842885)

I used to buy at least a couple of CDs a payday. I passed outside the RIAA's primary demographic of 18-34 quite a few years ago, and my music buying habits did diminish quite a bit. I was down to maybe one a month.

About 5 years ago I quit buying any due to financial constraints. Once my situation improved, I didn't start buying CDs because; (a) I finally understood how the RIAA operates, (b) I really don't have time to sample tracks on sites like mp3.com anymore, and (c) my tastes run to mainstream music, mostly country.

Would I pay $10/mo just to be able to DL lossless music? Nope. Would I have 20 or 30 years ago? Doubtful. But back then you could still get some damn fine concept albums. Live albums, story albums like Jeff Lynne's "War of the Worlds", Rush 2112, almost anything by ELP (Emerson, Lake, and Palmer), Frank Zappa, the Grateful Dead, etc. Lots of good stuff. Now, albums just don't seem to hang together as well.

The point is that I bought albums because I wanted to hear all the tracks that never got airplay. So many of them were such great songs.

If there was a $5/mo service I'd be more interested, even if there were further surcharges for DLing songs. $10/mo for a service that I would only use infrequently sounds like too much.

Just my .02. No one else's. :)

Re:Give 'em a chance (2, Insightful)

ccady (569355) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842949)

The point is that I bought albums because I wanted to hear all the tracks that never got airplay. So many of them were such great songs.

Interesting. Most people complain that they are forced to buy 11 tracks of crap just to get a single track that they like.

Re:Give 'em a chance (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843046)

I wonder why it is that whenever a news story mentions 'legal' music downloads only 'pay to download' sites are ever mentioned. Similarly with 'charts' of downnloads. The 'download legally for free' or 'purchase direct from the arist' sites are never mentioned.

Fair letter but ,,, (4, Interesting)

SalsaDot (772010) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842398)

Its a fair letter but in this world political "support" speaks lounder than words, you know the kind of support that lines pockets.

Whilst there are artists (ahem) who strive to be "superstars" and there are companies (the publishers who end up OWNING the stars and their material) who will push their resources to get them there -AND- there is an audience for these "pop" sensations, then the monetary incentive will be there to support the publishers and their whims. And that is that.

I do wonder sometimes if the politicians passing these draconian laws have EVER copied a tape, made a compilation disc for the car OR HAVE TEENAGE KIDS who would be so inclined?

Re:Fair letter but ,,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842965)

You know they have, just as those opposed to our gun rights hire bodyguards who carry guns, or have guns of their own, which they consider is their right as congress members or senators - above the laws they pass for us commoners.

Yeah right, 5 bucks (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842399)

"In exchange for paying a low monthly license fee (as little as $5 a month could raise billions annually when spread over the tens of millions of filesharers), music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them."

Great idea braniac. End lawsuits protecting intellecual proptery and copyrights. Just give everyone all the music they want for $5. That will solve all the problems, eh? That will pay all the artists and publishers?

No. Thats a pittance. And people would still steal music (yes, I said steal, let go of your state of denial, nerd), refusing to pay this tiny fee.

This is just more leftist propanganda. Its "big business'" fault that individuals break the law. They should have reacted with a "better business model" or something. (that is you thieves' stock answer, right?) There is no individual responsibility for anything. Its not your fault you steal music and movies that you have no right to.

Re:Yeah right, 5 bucks (0, Flamebait)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842424)

And people would still steal music (yes, I said steal, let go of your state of denial, nerd)

There's nothing wrong with stealing.

Ahh, "Flamebait" to any dissenting opinions (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842468)

I forgot how bad the groupthink was here...

Re:Ahh, "Flamebait" to any dissenting opinions (1, Troll)

rokzy (687636) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842594)

he's bring up the "stealing vs. infingement". that is flamebait. it is a fact that unauthorised copying of copyrighted works without the owner's permission is "copyright infringement" and not "theft". this is true and anyone denying it is ignorant or trolling.

Re:Ahh, "Flamebait" to any dissenting opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9843175)

actualyl no ,they are not ignorant, they are just plain STUPID.

yes I just called all of you that say copyright infringement is STEALING a bunch of STUPID IDIOTS..

Re:Yeah right, 5 bucks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842619)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhah ahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa suck on my copyright infringement you dumb fucktard.

hmmm download complete, see ya, got some new music to listen to.......... xx

Re:Yeah right, 5 bucks (5, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842762)

(yes, I said steal, let go of your state of denial, nerd)

And how, exactly, is the "Sony Bono copyright extension act" *not* stealing. See, copyright is a deal (see the constitution) where the people (the folks who purportedly authorize government intrusion, BTW) allow artists to maintain a monopoly on their works for a certain period of time. At the end of that time, that work becomes public domain. That is, it belongs to everyone. The artist is compensated.

So, for example, Walt Disney creates Mickey Mouse and produces some cartoons. He is provided a monopoly to make money from that work, and in return it will belong to everyone in 2001. Well, Walt was WELL compensated for producing it, and now he's dead, and Mickey should be ours.

Instead, Eisner buys a few congressmen, and they steal Mickey from us! Mickey Mouse is a cultural icon. He's part of the American consciousness.

Lots of other stuff was stolen from us, too. A lot of it are things that the corporations can't make money on, but they're like "hey, we can't just give away our assets", so it will sit in a vault and the tape or film or whatever it's on will deteriorate until it's gone forever.

This is actually closer to the real definition of stealing, because we are deprived forever of the item, not just an opportunity to make money from it, not just an exclusive right to make copies.

So we complain, we try to point out to them why they are wrong, but they just ignore us. So, we just ignore them, too. We just turn our backs on the bastards that have stolen our culture and our heritage and are trying to take everything else away from us, too. We turn our backs and just say "Fuck you. We're going to do our own thing". We're going to take our country back, one way or another. So you just keep taking money from the traitors that are exploiting us, and sending our jobs over seas, and leading us down the road to a litigation-based economy (how sustainable is that?). You take their money, and pass the laws they want, and we will ignore you more and more. Until your laws don't matter to anyone anymore, and you become irrelevant.

Mickey Mouse is not part of MY FUCKING CULTURE! (0, Flamebait)

FatSean (18753) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843100)

It's good that these corporate logos and mascots are kept out of the public domain. They cheapen our culture, what little it appears we have of it.

Re:Yeah right, 5 bucks (2)

Exatron (124633) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842945)

It's not denial, it's a legal fact. Copyrightable works are not property in any way, so they can't truly be stolen unless they're prevented from falling into the public domain.

The entertainment industry's main business model is becoming unviable, so why should they be granted special protection? The large number of people who willingly commit copyright infringement (it really isn't stealing, get over it) means that the law needs to be changed in their favor because ordinary people no longer view it as a crime.

Support the EFF! (5, Interesting)

faqmaster (172770) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842405)

Buy a T-Shirt [eff.org] , or become a member [eff.org] . A sensible organization like this deserves your support.

Re:Support the EFF! (1)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842445)

They're sensible about everything but spam...and they're wrong enough about that that it cancels out the rest of their good karma, for me.

Re:Support the EFF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842812)

They're sensible about everything but spam...and they're wrong enough about that that it cancels out the rest of their good karma, for me.

Would you like to elaborate? What's this spam policy of theirs that you find so distasteful?

Then nobody has any karma, right? (3, Funny)

Bozdune (68800) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842938)

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Because the ACLU supports the rights of KKK members (and anyone else) to demonstrate, do you therefore not support the ACLU? What political party, anywhere, has a platform each of whose individual planks you wholeheartedly support?

It will never happen. The best you can hope for in life is to support organizations whose views MOSTLY correspond to yours. Unless, that is, you want to be all by yourself. What's that old joke? I think it's from MAD magazine, mid 60's -- one Frenchman is a restaurant owner, two Frenchman is a political party (apologies to the French).

Bien soir.

(I think the joke finishes, "three Frenchmen is a love triangle," in case anyone cares).

Re:Support the EFF! (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843162)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Sibling likens it to to the ACLU supporting the KKK's right to demonstrate, which is a flawed analogy. Allowing idiots to spout off doesn't hurt anyone, and is a valid concern of free speech. Spam is theft, costing money to those who run networks who then have to pass the costs on to users. It's been established that commercial advertising is NOT "Free speech" (which is not to say all spam is commercial. It's about consent, not content). Bringing up the KKK is a strawman at best.

Maybe I am cynical (3, Interesting)

mpost4 (115369) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842406)

But I given up hope that anything good for fair use will come out of washington, The momentum from the clinton era is to strong now. And if Kerry gets in, he is bound to help his contributers back at hollywood, also (as much as I like Bush) Bush will not be any better, I don't think he has the time to look into and understand the issue at hand. Both canadates will not be good for fair use laws (better elect on other [more] important issues] So at this point I not going to worry about fair use anymore, it is dead, I will now give up (acturaly have a while back) and buy the DRM stuff (read iTMS, because atlest they are giving some ok rights to the user, read 5 computers can be autorized)

Re:Maybe I am cynical (1)

squatex (765966) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842517)

...or give them the proverbial "screw you" and just start/keep pirating stuff.

If this was the 80's (4, Insightful)

AngryScot (795131) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842413)

I wonder what the current state of the computing industry would be like if during the 80's a bill similar to this was passed to stop double tape decks being manufactured?

I belive that if this bill goes ahead it could act as a catalyst for other countries to pass similar laws and at the same time hurt the IT sector worldwide.

Re:If this was the 80's (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842523)

Except in China. China will be the last bastion of digital freedom.

Re:If this was the 80's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842925)

Except in China. China will be the last bastion of digital freedom.

Unless the "digital freedom" you want includes the right to look at Falun Gong websites...

Re:If this was the 80's (2, Interesting)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843127)

Comparing tape-to-tape copying with CD-ripping/P2P is apples/oranges.

There is a definite cost to illegally mass-distributing music by making multiple copies of a cassette. You'd have to buy a TON of blank tapes (not cheap). You'd only be able to make one copy at a time. You'd need a means to physically transport the copied tape to the recipient. All of that costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to do.

On the other hand, today all you need is a PC, CD-ripping software, and P2P software like Kazaa.

There is virtually no cost associated with CD-to-P2P distribution (about 15 minutes to convert an entire album to .mp3). Therefore there is little to discourage people from engaging in illegal copyright violation.

And by no means am I a RIAA apologist. It's just that the RIAA is far more concerned about P2P than they were about cassettes because the threat to their (outdated) business model posed by P2P is much greater.

nice proposal but ... (2, Insightful)

sebounet666 (801253) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842414)

The problem is that the government will do anything to sustain the music industry. That involves wiping out the competition (P2P), because with P2P people can really choose the music they want to hear and discover alternative artists.
They only care about copyright owners, not artists.

Re:nice proposal but ... (1)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842924)

It's not a nice proposal, it's an empty proposal intended to make the EFF look charming.

For starters, it's hinged on the notion that rightsholders will voluntarily license, and that downloaders will voluntarily pay.

Does that sound reasonable to you? Really?

Also note that the EFF proposal suggests that rightsholders would sue downloaders who don't pay. Sound familiar?

Re:nice proposal but ... (1)

sebounet666 (801253) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843144)

Well, yes, I would pay a monthly fee to download, if this allowed me to download everything I want. But I really don't think that rightsholders would agree.

Just Lower the price of music (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842428)

If the industry would just lower the price d/l ing of a song to something like 10 cents, this would all be moot.

Why wont they work with p2p software and have each d/l cost like .10 cents? (cheaper if you share)
They would make Billions and it would cost them allmost nothing to distribute the music, because the fans would be doing it for them. Sure people would still d/l for free, but most people would pay .10 cents if it was easy to get the un DRM'ed music.

It'll never happen (4, Insightful)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842431)

'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.'

The problem here is that Congress is full of lawyers bent on doing things that amount to full-employment programs for lawyers and accountants. A program like this one that would have the effect of reducing lawsuits has no chance at all.

We complain loudly about conflict of interest by legislators and regulators, while ignoring the biggest one of all: that lawyers write laws. I believe that being a practicing attorney should bar one from being eligible to serve in Congress in much the same way as being an insurance company executive, as a practical matter if not a legal one, bars one from serving as an insurance regulator.

Re:It'll never happen (1)

Senzei (791599) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842908)

We complain loudly about conflict of interest by legislators and regulators, while ignoring the biggest one of all: that lawyers write laws. Next we'll be complaining about the fact that doctors have the upper hand on maintaining personal health, accountants seem to be better at doing taxes, and pro athletes are better at sports than Joe Sixpack. Lawyers deal with laws. The write them, they read them, and they use them to do their job. The conflict of interest is NOT that lawyers write laws, it is that lawmakers pass laws on topics and recieve contributions from parties interested in those topics. That said I am still upset that my accountant friend did a better job on his taxes than I did.

Re:It'll never happen (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843220)

Your analogy doesn't make sense. It corresponds to politicians being good at making (and possibly at keeping) laws and lawyers at winning lawsuits. It says nothing about the intersection of those two classes of people.

Why it won't work (4, Insightful)

cluge (114877) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842443)

I hate to say this, but their are several reasons this won't work. Unless of course YOU write your congress person. [to be honest most people are too lazy]

The EFF idea makes too much sense, and therfore violates about 10 rules of making law

10 rules of making law
a. Any law congress shall enact must be hard to understand and convoluted
b. Any oppurtunity to get your face on TV to tackle a serious problem of your campaign contributer must be taken
c. Do not pass any law that may in any way reduce any lawyers potential to earn money
d. Keep starving artists that way
e. The EFF is just like the ACLU - it's just a collection of letters that your constituants don't know about - but probably won't like
f. If I don't understant it, I must fear it and pass legislation against it
g. This letter contains the phrase " P2P technologies", get RIAA approval on how to think about this
h. This letter contains the phrase "profound threat to innovation", get Microsoft approval after talking to the RIAA
i. Anything that congress can meddle in the better
j. If it's simple, makes sense, and doesn't require congressional involvement it must be wrong.

Also remember that this is an election year. The eff proposal removes a potential income source from lawyers, the single strongest lobby in Congress. This will go nowhere until people take the time to write their congresspersons. May I humbly suggest that my fellow /.ers start writing.

cluge
AngryPeopleRule

Re:Why it won't work (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842875)

These reasons are also the reason why come the next revolution at the head of the queue to be executed will be the Lawyers. The majority are a plague that should be exterminated and, At the head of that queue will be the politicians who are lawyers. They only pass laws that will provide income for other lawyers. If I had it my way, Lawyers would be barred from being lawmakers. The one requirement IMHO to become a lawyer and politician is to have all aspects of common sense forcibly extracted like a wisdom tooth.

Comparing the INDUCE act to... (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842444)

If gun control were pursued the way the INDUCE act goes after copyright violation:

Fishing sinkers would be illegal because they *might* be melted down and recast into bullets.

Re:Comparing the INDUCE act to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842512)

Only if they encouraged people to melt them down and recast them into bullets. Kits that modify guns, or allow you to create your own bullets would become illegal.

Re:Comparing the INDUCE act to... (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842528)

No, squirt guns would be illegal because they produce interest in guns in children.

Re:Comparing the INDUCE act to... (1)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842735)

Ah, but this is the way gun control is being pursued. Gun manufacturers are being sued and put on trial for the actions of sociopaths who buy their products. The argument is that certain types of guns have no legitimate purpose outside of crime, and so the manufacturers are profiting off an illegal enterprise. Sound familiar? You can't but fully-automatic weapons any more, or so I understand; but there are several semiautomatic guns out there which can, with a few modifications, be made fully automatic. So there's considerable hand-wringing not just over automatic weapons, but also semiautos which can be turned into autos; but the NRA is too powerful to ban those entirely, so they just want to get rid of the equipment needed to make the transformation.

The situation is more directly analagous than you might think. (Note that I'm fairly undecided on the issue, myself. I dearly wish I could own a Colt M4A1, presumably because I am insecure in my manhood or played too much CS back in the day, but I certainly don't feel I have a need for a gun.)

Re:Comparing the INDUCE act to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842902)

The argument is that certain types of guns have no legitimate purpose outside of crime, and so the manufacturers are profiting off an illegal enterprise. Sound familiar?

Yes, but just because an argument is false in one context doesn't mean it's necessarily false in all contexts.

Legitimate uses of guns that I can think of off the top of my head:

- Sport: rifles and handguns.
- Hunting: rifles and shotguns.
- Personal protection: shotguns and handguns.

The only category where automatic or even semi-automatic weapons might be appropriate is the one I deliberately left out, which is "guerilla warfare against an oppressive government": the likelihood of our government ever getting bad enough to justify a revolution is fairly slim.

Now, you might say "a shotgun won't do me much good if a gang with AK-47s breaks into my house", but frankly the only time anything like that's going to happen is if you've made the sort of enemies who could probably bring in artillery support if they wanted to, and in that case you're as good as dead anyway, so deal with it.

I really don't see why anyone "needs" autos or even semiautos, because all your leisure and protection needs can be served with manual weapons.

And yes, someone will probably now apply that to cars, and say "you're saying we should ban automatic cars", but I'm not: I'm saying that there is a logical argument for banning automatic weapons which doesn't actually restrict any of the activities the average American wants a gun for.

I will buy music again when.. (4, Insightful)

SlashDread (38969) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842516)

I can -buy- a lifetime irrevocable licence to -it-.

Not a plastic scratchy waste product. Not a shitty format digistream for my iPod.

A -full- perpetual, amd fully paid up licence please. And THEN, ill pay.

Ill burn my own dern copies. Ill mediashift too my own dern iPod. I just want a -licence-, and a one-time access to a 100% lossless audio format. And the burden of knowing Im a licensee, should be given to the RIAA. I fully expect THEM to proove Im a licensee, and as such can copy YOUR cd if mine gets lost.

"This music was made for you and me"

"/Dread"

Re:I will buy music again when.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9842664)

And the burden of knowing Im[sic] a licensee, should be given to the RIAA. I fully expect THEM to proove[sic] Im a licensee...

This cannot work. Think about it: the RIAA is going to be the entity questioning the fact that you have a license. You should then be able to prove that you have a license. Otherwise, it'd be like demanding that your opponent's lawyer defend you in court.

miaow! (-1, Offtopic)

allowme (801541) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842521)

miaow!

It's too vague... (4, Informative)

mratitude (782540) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842761)

`(g)(1) 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. `(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. `(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement.'.
The first paragraph isn't unreasonable and even includes the "reasonable person" test. Anything can happen in a process involving lawyers, judges and law enforcement but the "reasonable person" test has a long history of staving off overzealous lawyers and enforcement knee-jerks.

The problem is with the third paragraph. Making a copy of your legally purchased mechandise is still against the law. According to paragraph 3, even if you make a copy of an audio disc for your purposes; Should that copy ever be found in a condition by which it isn't under your immediate control (not on your person, on an internet connected PC, in your car) you are liable under the provisions of this law.

That $5 a month fee (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842810)

It's not practical. It means that we assume that peopel are always going to spenda fixed amount on music in any given time. Not only that, but it means that those who can't afford it, rather than getting fewer songs, as is the case at the moment, will be entitled to none at all.

Some of us like to be able to choose the amount we spend.

Wrong audience (1, Insightful)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 9 years ago | (#9842838)

'It's time for a solution to the P2P conflict that pays artists, not lawyers.'
How many of the senators are lawyers ? How many musicians ?

But Laywers.. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843004)

Make the business world go around.. ( so its a slow downward spiral, but it is still 'round' ).

On a serious note, normally when we are discussing 'media copyrights', the holders are rarely the artists...

What do artists have to say? (1)

Pastis (145655) | more than 9 years ago | (#9843006)

Ever sinve P2P came out, and music labels started they fight against it, I saw almost nowhere artists tell us what they think.

In one way, engineers/hackers/nerds thinking what is best for them is not better than labels/lawyers doing the same.

A new distribution solution should involve all actors: artists, customers, distributors (whatever those become after the change).

dictionary defination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9843128)

corrupt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-rpt) adj.

1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. An American politician

The ability for a few to get bribes to the detriment of the masses.
eg:

"I am the king of Nigeria. I have $20,000,000 for you. You can trust me. I'm not an American Politician."
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...