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!

Anti-P2P Law Looms over the Horizon

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the party's-over dept.

United States 560

Adrian Lopez writes "MIT's Technology Review has a piece by Eric Hellweg about pending legislation known as the Intellectual Property Protection Act. According to Hellweg, IPPA could make it illegal to skip past commercials and could 'criminalize the currently legal act of using the sharing capacity of iTunes, Apple's popular music software program.' More information on IPPA is available at the Public Knowledge website."

cancel ×

560 comments

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

International? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874845)

The internet is international, how will this be enforcable?

Re:International? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874943)

I don't think they really care about that. This is all about controlling consumer base in the "land of the free".

Re:International? (2, Interesting)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874951)

Why don't you ask the Chinese?

It will end up like the drugs industry... (2, Interesting)

Osrin (599427) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875001)

... here in the US we will be paying high prices to cover the creation of the intellectual property (R&D in drug company parlance) while the rest of the world gets to use the product for next to nothing.

In fact, I predict that some countries will eventually start to complain about the cost of the bandwidth needed to enjoy all the free stuff that is out there.

Re:International? (0, Troll)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875010)

``how will this be enforcable?''

The USA is a superpower, and they're not afraid to take advantage of that.

Re:International? (1, Troll)

rnash (530673) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875052)

We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar.

Re:International? (1)

Performaman (735106) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875102)

"Ve vould leave it if ve could!"
-The Producers

lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (4, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874850)


Senator John McCain stated his opposition to this bill, and specifically cited the anti-commercial skipping feature: "Americans have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials for 30 years," he said. "Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?"

Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (2, Interesting)

genrader (563784) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874862)

I believe if individual cities/counties/states wants to legalize public marijuana smoking, that's the local government's business. I think there should be fines for people smoking pot in public areas, particularly areas where people are going to be all the time (city streets, parks, etc.). However, I think whatever the fsck you want to do in your own home is your business. If someone wants to sit on their property and smoke pot all day, so be it unto them.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874902)


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

Google for it.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (2, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874899)

well, I guess that now is the time to declare war on P2P networking.
That'll put a stop to it.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (0, Flamebait)

Dausha (546002) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874904)

No, I'm sorry. I don't see dope smoking as a victimless crime. Society is a victim. Self is a victim.

Same goes for tobacco use. Sure, it is not a crime because it had been a staple of our society for so long. However, municipalities et al. are doing what they can to restrict its consumption such that they can eradicate its use. They want it to be a crime. Why? Because the society costs are so high in terms of health expenses, etc.

Personally, I like the idea of returning felony to its original meaning. :-)

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (0, Flamebait)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874948)


So jailing people during prohibition was legitimate punishment for that subversive behaviour? I think the big dealers should be nailed, that's a given, but if someone chooses to sit there on their own property they should be able to inject pretty much whatever they want into their bodies. I don't need old, grey men thinking for me.

Mind you, I'm in Canada so you can write me off as a filthy Leftist :)

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874979)


they should be able to inject pretty much whatever

Heh, I swear I meant to type injest. :)

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

The Patient (571083) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875072)

Even if you meant to type injest, in order to make ajoke, I think it's still avalid comment, given the subject matter. =)

I sure hope they build some specialized prisons to house victims of this new law, though.

Me: So, what are you in for?
Burly Savage: I killed my entire family. What are you in for?
Me: I skipped a McDonald's ad.
Me (thinking): Hm. I think I just dropped a tad on the pecking order ...

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

Squareball (523165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875094)

Hey I agree with you and I'm a right winger. :) I belive that drugs should be legal. Society is NOT a person. Society has NO rights. PEOPLE have rights. The individual. If I want to harm myself.. it's MY self.. MINE and if I want to destroy it, so be it. How about Obesity? Every other person is fscking huge now days.. shall we lock them up for those cheeseburgers and fries? IMO if an action doesn't take away my right to life, liberty or property through force or fraud, it shoudln't be illegal. Period.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (5, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874953)

Fast food and smoking also have very high health costs to 'society' so should they be made illegal too?

Lots of other [...] crimes to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875055)

" Fast food and smoking also have very high health costs to 'society' so should they be made illegal too?
"

If you can propose a foolproof way that only the drug users suffer the consequences, then I'm all ears? However as the old saying goes, your rights end were mine starts.

There's a local 25 year old teacher who will no longer teach because someone high on drugs crossed the centerline and hit her head on.

But of course drug use is a victimless crime, right?

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (5, Insightful)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874968)

Stupidity harms society. I'm not seeing anyone making that illegal.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874988)

Maybe next time you make a point you should try backing it up with some facts, please cite some actual evidence, and maybe people will be more interested.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875054)

The same goes for being fat. Of course, there are people stupid enough to start doing things like suing McDonald's. Some cities are contemplating placing "sin" taxes on fast food.

All I'm saying is, when the fat police come and go Shylock on your ass (or whatever part of the body they prefer), don't say you didn't see it coming.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (5, Insightful)

gartogg (317481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874923)

OK, so I think that the entire idea is ridiculous, and spoke out against it [savetheipod.com] . BUT: bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it. I mean, it's fine to point out that the revenue model is outdated and will no longer work, or say that the advertisements should be moved to placements in the shows, but calling it victimless and comparing it to smoking pot is, well...

I guess you could say it's typical of thinking on Slashdot. Never mind.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (5, Funny)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874984)

bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it.

And damn you if you don't read every ad in your newspaper. If people did, the paper would get paid more for them. You selfish bastards.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875085)

<obligatory Simpsons quote>

Quiet, the commercial is on...we don't watch these, it's like we're stealing TV.

</obligatory Simpsons quote>

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875067)

Can a network give a potential advertizer a guarentee that X number of people will see their commercial? From what I understand, advertisizers pay for the potentional to reach customers. They don't pay less or more than the given rate for whatever time period they want to advertize in depending on how many people tune in. True, that rate is determined by historical trends based on ratings, but that's just an educated guess.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875093)

"but bypassing the adverts is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it"

"Not gaining money from it"

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (0, Troll)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874946)

Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004 for behavior theyve been engaged in for more than a quarter century?

Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.
Perhaps, but you are using very different reasoning from him. You point out so-called victimless crimes (or perhaps those crimes where victims are dehumaninzed--such as the corporations who own the IP that you're stealing) is a concern. Good luck getting those overturned. That would require a major socially liberal movement that just ain't gonna happen.

A of socially-accepted people have legally skipped commercials for 25 years. When the MJ laws hit the books, this wasn't the case. Drug users weren't a majority & they were able to use anti-african american and anti-latino sentiments to help pass the ban.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (2, Insightful)

KontinMonet (737319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875031)

When laws against heroin were enacted, 1/4million people were made instant criminals, not because they were shooting up but because heroin was an ingredient in a lot of 'medical tinctures'. When prohibition was enacted, a majority of the population were affected. When anti-dope laws were enacted (as a tax initially) again, a majority were affected because, previously, farmers, clothes manufacturers, etc.etc. had been encouraged to grow hemp as it is an extremely versatile plant. It grew as a 'weed' and anybody with the weed on their land could have been arrested. It took a long time to eradicate.

In all cases, citizens were going about their legal business only to be criminalised practically overnight. This process is not new.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874973)

That's exactly his point. Unlike pot, skipping commercials has not been a crime. The question is, should we make it one?

I think the answer here is going to be, "no." And it's mine, too.

What you feel about decriminalization of marijuana is irrelevant unless you're so high that you imagine everything has something to do with pot.

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1, Insightful)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875004)

Your jails are full of fellow citizens that dared to smoke pot. That "crime" has been on the books far, far longer Senator.

Your comparison seems flawed. You're comparing making a behavior we've been doing for a long time that may be made illegal to a behavior that has been established as a crime for quite some time (sine hte 20s or 30s I believe)

Re:lots of other victimless crimes to worry about. (1)

dourk (60585) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875033)

And god knows this administration isn't ever going to admit when it's wrong. That crime will be on the books for a long, long time.

I do, however, propose making cigarettes illegal. Maybe then I could quit smoking.

mcain is right (5, Insightful)

OffTheLip (636691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874853)

We have been fast forwarding through commercials for years. This legislation is a joke. Consumers are not required to read the ads in magazines or newspapers. I really see no difference.

Re:mcain is right (3, Insightful)

ElDuderino44137 (660751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874875)

The only difference is ...

The times, they are a changing, and the cheese is a moving.

In other words, markets are desperately trying to keep today exactly like yesterday.

Cheers,
-- The Dude

Re:mcain is right (2, Insightful)

SuperficialRhyme (731757) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874900)

Consumers are not required to read the ads in magazines or newspapers.

Just wait until next year.

I really see no difference.

That'll be the arguement they use.

I don't even know if I'm being insightful or funny (I hope funny!).

Re:mcain is right (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874937)

In order for you to get your paper however for the price you pay, advertisers pay huge sums of money to the paper company, who cares if you don't read their ads, you still bought the paper.

Re:mcain is right (3, Funny)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874958)

Wait till the law against using the bathroom during commercial.

Re:mcain is right (1)

twofidyKidd (615722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874970)

I don't watch television, which means I'm bypassing all kinds of commercials. I don't need a Tivo or some TVR to avoid an advert. So does that make me a criminal for willfully dodging ad spots? I'd have all kinds of counts against me in a 24 hour period if that was the case. I'd love to see that go to hearing or trial. I'd get every person I knew, media or otherwise in on that event.

Dirty $ (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875017)

Well hard dirty capitalist cash, and the fact they TV is a good baby sitter for the masses to stop them plotting to overthrow a corrupt government.

You can still all own a gun right? Think about where you could point that gun and make a real difference.

Legislation. (1)

ElDuderino44137 (660751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874859)

It's articles like this that make me want to say ...

Let's ignore our legislators ;) ... The Dude

Re:Legislation. (2, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874873)


Let's ignore our legislators

That's not wise. Without uproar to counter these corporatism-driven laws you'll end up in jail for behaviour you thought legal. Ignorance is no excuse.

Legislation-Absentee Landlords. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874920)

Ignorance is how we got into this mess in the first place. If people had been busy doing their civic duties (not just voting in the presidential election), then a lot of this wouldn't have happen, because there would have been enough responsible citizens saying "Don't do that". We're as much responsible as the politicians and corporations we lambast. They did their parts, when will we start doing ours?

Re:Legislation. (1)

ElDuderino44137 (660751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874950)

Exactly,

But fear of incarceration should not deter one from action on ones conscience.

Cheers,
-- The Dude

Re:Legislation. (1)

320mb (590888) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875108)

I will ignore this idiotic crap.......I have a linux box that I use for DVD's and it is hooked into my 32 inch TV........I bypass all the garbage anytime I want.........and the Gov't is NOT going to tell what I can and cannot do......

One word (1)

Queer Boy (451309) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874865)

crimethink

Orwell is crying right about now.

Re:One word (1)

back_pages (600753) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874882)

One corrected word: thoughtcrime

Re:One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874982)

Crimethink is the newspeak for 'thoughtcrime'. Thoughtcrime isn't really an oldspeak word, but it has come to be used in today's English as a reference to 1984. I think.

Re:One word (1)

Queer Boy (451309) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874995)

crimethink [newspeakdictionary.com] is doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc.

Re:One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875040)

too bad our legislators never read 1984

Enforcement? (2, Insightful)

Iftekhar25 (802052) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874876)

How do they hope to enforce this law?

Re:Enforcement? (1)

ElDuderino44137 (660751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874896)

Aftermarket electrodes attached to your remote control ;)

Re:Enforcement? (2, Interesting)

siliconjunkie (413706) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874929)

1. Connect to bittorrent tracker
2. Determine that the .torrent in question points to protected intellectual property
3. "netstat -an"
4. Record all connetions to 6889
5. Subpoena ISPs
6. Litigate
7. Rinse and repeat

Re:Enforcement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874980)

That's great but I live in South Korea and am a Canadian citizen.
A little outside their jurisdiction.

Re:Enforcement? (1)

John3 (85454) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875107)

The won't need to pass a law...TiVo is already planning [usatoday.com] on popping up ads when users try and skip commercials. I'm going to need to dig back into my "Hacking TiVo" [amazon.com] book and see if there's a way to prevent the TiVo software from being updated automatically.

WOW (5, Insightful)

jackb_guppy (204733) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874879)

We are creating the old USSR, right here in America.

We have lost parts of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment. Bush's 2000 win gutted any of 10th that was left.

The police can now search your home and "finincal" records with court oversite with informing you that it even happened and barring all from talking about it.

So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?

Re:WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874956)

So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?

Because their stupid

WOW-Addiction (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874993)

"So why does anyone think that removing Fast Forward button would not be another freedom lost?"

Freedom to be entertained I suppose. So why not send the clearest message that even the courts haven't taken away? You know the right to vote with your money. Does the "can't skip" law affect those who don't own any kind of entertainment? Does the DMCA affect those who refuse to own any entertainment say what they create with their own minds?

The only reason all these laws affect you is because of the American public's addiction to entertainment. Get rid of that addiction and the drug dealer has no sway over you. Continue to use, and pretend it's some kind of right, and you'll be forever playing by the entertainment dealers rules. Dance, consumer, dance.

Private audience? (1)

CRepetski (824321) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874881)

ITunes is only shared over a network, and isn't downloaded but viewed - doesn't this mean that the feature could be construed as a viewing to a private audience? This is legal with movies etc, why made illegal for music? Just because music is more commonly transfered makes congressmen antsy over the streaming issue.

Re:Private audience? (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874947)

It's impossible for a computer to view anything without making or already having a copy in local memory.

Check out the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry case for a discussion of how it's possible to infringe on a copyright by means of going to the wrong web page via a computer.

Plus of course, even if we were to consider this to be a performance, leaving something open to anyone that wants to access it is to leave it open to the public.

I remember reading somewhere... (5, Insightful)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874887)

...if Edison invents the lightbulb today; there would be atleast huge protests on 7 PM News by candle and gaslight makers union; atleast 3 lawmakers would speak against lightbulb and how it is dangerous due to its explosive nature; 10 states would pass laws banning usage of lightbulbs...

welcome to the land of the free.. (0, Flamebait)

a voice in the crowd (559942) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874888)

you americans kill me. you let the big stuff slide but pay attention to nits because some chick with big hair mentions it on the evening news.

Re:welcome to the land of the free.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874994)

You sir, are the master of the straw man.

What's Next? (4, Funny)

Malicious (567158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874891)

Further along the horizon is legislation that will require all citizens to actually buy the products that the see advertised. Being exposed to an advertisement and not purchasing it is a breach of contract, punishable by large fines or death.

Re:What's Next? (1)

ElDuderino44137 (660751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874913)

The funny thing is ...
That was a summary of an episode of Sliders.

For more information, see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874892)

For more information, see here [slashdot.org] .

Idea for a new slashdot section. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874895)

We need some kind of bill-watch section. That way when this gets voted on, we can have an article saying which way it went. Most of the bills that are brought up on slashdot are totally forgotten about afterwards and never posted about again.

Fast-Forward is the flamebait of the package. (5, Interesting)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874909)

I think we are missing an important part of the puzzle.

The gameplan is: Lump some eight laws together in a package. Make one of them outrageous stupid. The stupid one gets all the flak, is pulled from the package and the rest sails straight trough congres.

Re:Fast-Forward is the flamebait of the package. (2, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875095)

But that's just the thing! The law that has everyone pissed off is actually about the only good one! It's all the others that we ought to be objecting to.

So it's much more clever than you give them credit for.

Dammit (5, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874911)

This is the third article on /. in a week that totally misreads the proposed addition to 17 USC 110.

It does NOT make it illegal to skip commercials.

It just says that this new exemption doesn't apply to skipping commercials. If there is an EXISTING exemption (or if the manner by which the commercials are skipped isn't even prima face infringement) then those still remain in effect just as they do now.

This is little more than a clarification.

That said, it is a bad bill overall, since there are a lot of other provisions attached with this one which suck, such as criminalizing copyright infringement even more than it is now, permitting the government to file civil suits for infringement, further gutting registration formalities, etc.

But this is one of the only halfway decent parts of it -- as it would tend to remove any doubt as to the legality of what Clean Flicks has been doing, and would permit other creative uses of EDLs, such as to edit Jar Jar out of Star Wars movies -- and so it annoys me quite a lot to see people's outrage arising out of a misreading of the bill. Be outraged at the rest of the bill, dammit.

far reaching consequences (3, Interesting)

diqmay (773248) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874917)

While I understand Seantor McCain's remarks, I guess I wonder as how legislation would affect my right to disable images in websites and thus ignoring banners, or even using other software that does not render the ads at all? Does this mean I have to load and all website ads, lest I be judged a criminal, and if I scroll past an embedded add in an article does this mean I'm "fast forewarding" that add. This seems incredibly restrictive and amazingly unenforceable. Diq - spelling is no object

Firefox Adblock? (1)

dark-br (473115) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874918)

Wouldn't this also ban Adblock from Firefox? From the sound of it, it would, and if ads are forcibly viewed, it sounds like they'll forcibly allow adware and spyware soon too.

Its time to write your congressman. (1)

Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874919)

And include th standard 100 dollar check for reelection campaign, plus 50 dollar checks for key staff members (chief of staff, legislative director, the Legislative Assistant for tech issues). Anything over 50 for a staff member is illegal. Or maybe you could do the unthinkable and contract a spammer to flood congress with emails against the act (and then make sure to sign up the spammer for as many snail-mail advertisements as possible).

National security is at stake! (2, Funny)

Rattencremesuppe (784075) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874925)

From TFA:

Jonathan Lamy, spokesperson for the RIAA: "(...) Intellectual property theft is a national security crime."

Soon we'll see P2P users referred to as terrorists ;))

Re:National security is at stake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874972)

It might not be as funny as you think more sad then funny.

Fascism (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874936)

Fascist corporate governments require consumers to consume their prescribed advertising. Every citizen is required to consume propaganda that innoculates against antisocial tendencies, like dissent, conservation, and critical thinking - or any thinking at all.

You are the fascist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874964)

"Every citizen is required to consume propaganda that innoculates against antisocial tendencies, like dissent, conservation, and critical thinking - or any thinking at all."

While you have a good point about forced consumption, the label of "propaganda" points you out as a fascist as well. Those who label something as "propaganda" usually do so as a preliminary to demanding its censorship. "Propaganda" is a meaningless term. It is all just information, like any other information. It does not "innoculate" or "brainwash". It is just information, that is all, entirely protected as free speech (unless you are a fascist, that is!)

Re:Fascism (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874989)

Soon your television sets will only be tunable to state approved stations, which must show political broadcasts regularly.

Hmm, sounds like Nazi Germany to me.

Car crashes coming! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10874938)

Just wait until this law passes, and gets interpreted by courts (especially the part about not being able to skip commercials). Pretty soon, when you are driving on the freeway, you are thus legally required to completely read every billboard you pass by....

All of the examples... (1)

Osrin (599427) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874966)

... of this type of "law" that I have seen proposed so far are driven by the need to protect commerical intellectual property, they all appear to dismiss the benefitis of sharing intellectual property that is designed to be shared - educational content for example - making it impossible to do either.

One I understand, but the bi-product is too costly on society...

how? (2, Funny)

nmec (810091) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874981)


How do they hope to enforce this law?

Simple. the RIAA (just because they like to do these kinds of things) will dispatch a legal representative (and secretary [at your expense of course]) to each and every home with a VCR or DVD recorder, then whenever you fast-forward they will have the power to hand you a press-play-and-desist order. Failure to respond to this will result in the immediate seizure of your remote control, whereby the lawyer will tow your VCR to the impound and force you to make an over-inflated out-of-impound settlement.

You don't think they haven't already thought this through?

Stopping P2P (1)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 9 years ago | (#10874996)

I remember when "they" won against Napster. I was just sitting there thinking how alike Napster was to IRC DCC, while I was asking in channels what was being offered. I don't see how you can stop someone from using something like GNUtella or IRC or Usenet or Bit Torrent, especially if it is international.

Keep it coming (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875008)

This kind of legislation will only result in further crippling of the failing US economy. A once great economic empire will collapse under the weight of its own fear and paranoia. I say let it happen. It is just a form of Darwinism and it will allow burgeoning empires such as the EU to thrive.

P2P is a "national security crime"?!? (5, Insightful)

AnalogDiehard (199128) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875015)

"Intellectual property theft is a national security crime. It's appropriate that the fed dedicate resources to deter and prosecute IP theft."

Whoa thar. Time out. Game penalty. Chill.

The sharing of the Anarchist's Cookbook would be a national security issue. IP theft of weapons technology, air defense systems, domestic utility and transportation infrastructuce are national security issues.

But P2P of ENTERTAINMENT is a "national security crime"?!?

That's the most flawed stretch of reasoning I've ever seen. And I don't even engage in P2P.

And if this bill becomes law and my fast forward button is outlawed,

  • then my DVD player goes in the trash and I will never buy another DVD again.

It's a sad day when laws are passed to perpetuate outdated business models.

If the fast forward button is outlawed, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875068)

only outlaws will have fast forward buttons.

--Pastor Martin Niemoller

oh c'mon, you can't outlaw everything (1)

danimrich (584138) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875018)

In a couple of years we'll get sued for singing a song in the shower or re-enacting a movie scene without paying royalties.

Channel surfing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875023)

Does this mean I can't change the channel during commercials?

Demise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875029)

The demise of "The Land of the Free" has begun. Its rotting from the inside, terrorists need not waste any more effort, since they got the ball rolling, the government has played along ever since.

In the end, its the ordinary people that suffer. Once a great nation, is now turning into a land of endless laws governing and enforcing everything that the "citizen" does.

Really sad.

We may very well see TV forced into being more (4, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875034)

interactive. The biggest losers in the whole TiVo thing have to be scripted pre-recorded shows. News shows quickly lose a lot of their value after they are aired. Aside from a few select games, almost all sports shows lose their value after the game is over, the only shows that don't are shows such as sitcoms etc.
Hopefully, people will see the insanity of this law and not pass it, which will mean that the distribution methods for scripted shows will either have to evolve or die. I personally hope they evolve into distributing the shows directly to the public via an iTunes like service. That way I no longer have to pay for cable just to see the few shows that I enjoy; I can purchase them directly. The producers of these shows no longer have to be encumbered by the increasingly draconian regulations of the FCC. Just imagine what South Park could do if they weren't worried about being fined.

First convict lining up (4, Funny)

dantheman82 (765429) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875039)

OK, I'm going to record an MP3 reading of the Intellectual Property Protection Act (all 200,000 pages) and intersperse commercials in support of the bill throughout the MP3. I will share it on my network (there's no place like http://127.0.0.1) and present you with a dilemma. You can stream the reading off my network and break one part of the legislation. Or, you can choose not to listen and thus disregard my commercials and break another part of the legistlation. Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense, unless your IQ is less than the average Hollywood filmmaker.

Re:First convict lining up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875084)

Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense, unless your IQ is less than the average Hollywood filmmaker.

Makes perfect sense to me

- RIAA

iTunes Sharing (1)

One Louder (595430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875056)

Presumably, the proposed law doesn't allow iTunes-type sharing only without the permission of the copyright holder .

Apple must have negotiated that permission from the labels when they created the feature, along with the burning and iPod sync limitations. It may be true, however, that such a feature might become illegal in other products.

i2hub? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875063)

how will this affect a p2p system on an educational research network like i2hub?

Another stupid law from the crackheads (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875071)

Does it make it illigal to leave the room or mute the sound during commercials? what about if you record a program (on your old VCR) and pause recording during breaks? There has to be some sort of legal limit here, does anyone know what it is? Same goes for P2P, what if you build up a social network through email or instant messaging - I message my friend saying "have you got xyz.mp3?" and if not he will message someone else and ask for me. Where do you draw the line with that? Writing laws is almost the same as writing software, but even Microsoft can write better software than most law-makers can write laws. Law is like a giant software product, some of it is 100 years old and has no use but bloats the rest, market research has been mostly ignored, allot of it is so crap you wouldnt be able to pay peope to use it and the rest is so full of holes that an _entire_ profession has grown up around exploiting it.

Well, it is Slashdot... (3, Insightful)

adjuster (61096) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875074)

...so I can't expect anybody actually went and read the fucking article. Here's [64.233.167.104] the Gooogle cache for the article at Public Knowledge. Take a minute and read it.

Once again, the intellectual property cartels are lobbying thru legislation that seeks to further limit and erode the rights of consumers. We all seem to be laboring under the idiotic assumption that the current system is "just how things are". Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract. This contract is supposed to benefit both parties-- the creators of intellectual property and the People.

Write your Senator. Vote. Make intellectual property a campaign issue for future elections. Tell other people about how their rights are being taken away and encourage them to do the same.

I'm soooo scared (2, Insightful)

ScooterBill (599835) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875075)

I remember the former Soviet Union outlawed all sorts of things. Did it stop people? No, it just pissed them off until...well we all know what happened.

I have to chuckle everytime I see a law or technology attempt to suppress the desires of the people. First we had Napster, then Kazaa, now Bittorrent. The geeks will always win.

Now what worries me is the effects of all this in the interim. The message of freedom being spread throughout the world is spoken by those who consistently attempt to pass laws controlling what we can and can't do.

If you're Exxon, you'll get an exemption for pollution. If you're Joe Blow, you'll get put in jail for fast forwarding through a commercial. What's wrong with this picture?

Forced to watch commercials? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875083)

The global multi nationals and domestic corperate giants sure do have our politicians by the balls dont they.

How insulting. It rememds me of clockwork orrange where you're forced to sit and watch.

Speaking of P2P...is suprnova.org down for anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875087)

It has been inaccessable for 2 days for me and i am curious as to why...

What happens if I fall asleep while "watching"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875096)

and then wake up after the commercials?

I'm glad I don't live in the US (1)

Sebby (238625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10875106)

and feel the shame of having put these "people" in power (or been incapable of keeping them out of power)

Anonymized encrypted P2P is here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10875115)

The first anonymized P2P applications are here - great ones are http://freenet.sourceforge.net and http://entropy.stop1984.com/en/home.html - and hopefully some talented developers will create more. Let the age of anonymized filesharing begin!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?