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!

The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the double-dipping dept.

630

AWhiteFlame writes "IPAction.org is reporting on a section of the Reform Act of 2006 that's very shocking and surprisingly not that publicized. From the article: 'This will be a busy week in the House -- Congress goes into summer recess Friday, but not before considering the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA). Never heard of SIRA? That's the way Big Copyright and their lackey's want it, and it's bad news for you. Simply put, SIRA fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license.'"

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

Yet another reason... (5, Interesting)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478267)

Yet another reason to never upgrade....

How are they planning to enforce this on existing setups? Oh wait... they can't!

Shame....

I could dance around about how im running linux etc, but the fact of the matter is even people running windows XP can avoid this, by : Yes thats right, NOT patching. I mean how do they expect to force anything on anyone using a computer?

One day they might learn, but it seems it will be no time soon... :/

Re:Yet another reason... (5, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478281)

The way I see it, this is yet another reason to pirate media instead of buying it.

Re:Yet another reason... (5, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478284)

I suppose it is, like most copyright legislation in the digital age, funadamentally unenforceable against those with savvy or those who are crafty enough to learn from those who are savvy. However, the fact remains that those two groups are a vanishingly small minority; seriously, how many XP users even think about updates? (How many just have it set to go automatically; I'm willing to bet a majority.) The danger of legislation should not be measured against those with the expertise and will to foil its provisions; a true test of the legitimacy of this legislation would be what effect it would have on those who take no special precautions or go out of their way to circumvent it. And on that standard, this legislation is very poor indeed.

Re:Yet another reason... (5, Insightful)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478481)

And they say anarchy is freedom for the strong. Things like this make me wonder if democracy really is any better.

Re:Yet another reason... (5, Insightful)

Down_in_the_Park (721993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478286)

Yet another reason to never upgrade....

Sure, tell this to the average user, who buys computers with preinstalled Vista, OSX, etc. and has "automatic update" activ, because of all these virii. Or you may need a new driver (previous one stopped working, was only temp)...but you can access the driver page only after you installed a certain DRM-patch...

Re:Yet another reason... (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478322)

Or you may need a new driver(previous one stopped working, was only temp

Excuse me but I am genuinely intrigued, how can a driver be "temp"?

No, really, how is that? is that an OSX or Vista feature ? usually after I install a driver (Windows XP or Linux for me) it "drives" the hardware forever and ever. Are they making Shareware or 30-day-Demo drivers or something?

Re:Yet another reason... (1)

Down_in_the_Park (721993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478361)

It doesn't "drive" the hardware for ever and ever, it helps the system to communicate with that piece of hardware. Did you never saw a message that stated " you need driver version x.y.z for this to work"? Well put this a bit to the extreme and a driver will only work to a certain extend and than you have to get some "update".

Look at windows media payer or itunes, they are already installing features that directly interact with your hardware.

Or do you know if and how service pack 2 for XP changed the way the system communicate with the hardware?

Re:Yet another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478287)

I could dance around about how im running linux etc, but the fact of the matter is even people running windows XP can avoid this, by : Yes thats right, NOT patching. I mean how do they expect to force anything on anyone using a computer?

By packaging it with a critical security update?

Re:Yet another reason... (3, Insightful)

quentin_quayle (868719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478364)

"How are they planning to enforce this on existing setups? "

Well maybe I'm just paranoid, but maybe that is an implicit purpose of this provision. It would take something like Microsoft's "protected content path" in Vista to monitor all the copies made. And there's nothing the MP/RI Ass. of America would like better than a comprehensive DRM system required by law. And it's entirely typical of interest groups to use one bad policy as a pretext for another.

Re:Yet another reason... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478493)

And there's nothing the MP/RI Ass. of America would like better than a comprehensive DRM system required by law

and it would be a dream outcome for Microsoft... to get Linux outlawed...

Re:Yet another reason... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478523)

> I could dance around about how im running linux etc, but the fact of the matter is even people
> running windows XP can avoid this, by : Yes thats right, NOT patching.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what have patches and OSs to do with it? If a copy in your cache constitutes a seperately licensable item then it's irrelevant which OS uses that cached copy.

Phone bill? (4, Funny)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478268)

Is this the worst bill you have ever heard of?

Just wait until you see my phone bill!

Re:Phone bill? (3, Funny)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478396)

Can't be worse than mr. Gates.

Re:Phone bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478429)

Try google's electricity bill

Now that I've heard of it (5, Funny)

Supersonic1425 (903823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478270)

It's no longer "the worst bill [I've] never heard of" :O

THE CAT IS DEAD (5, Funny)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478491)

Also it's no longer the worst bill. We've all changed it by reading about it.

The question I can't help but ask (5, Insightful)

Astatine210 (528456) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478283)

is "Should the legislators pass this law, how many of them would simultaneously be breaking it?".

Re:The question I can't help but ask (4, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478543)

Why would that matter? You think the RIAA would sue the politicians? You think they would sue any rich person? These laws are designed to put ordinary people in their place, they are not designed to effect the rich and the powerful.

distraction (2, Interesting)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478285)

ahh.. maybe the resurfacing of the gay marriage issue is just a distraction for this bill. it's well known it won't go through and way too transparent to be a realistic attempt to galvanize the conservative base. sneaky lil politians.

Oh, for pity's sake. (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478288)

What if I hear the music pumping out of someone else's stereo? Who do I pay for the privilege? I'm sorry, but this issue is really grinding me down now.

Re:Oh, for pity's sake. (1)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478333)

Dude, pretty soon they'll be charging you a license fee for the "copy" of the song that resides in your own memory.

And don't even think about whistling a tune while you walk down the street!

Alli

Cease and Desist (4, Funny)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478538)

Dear Sir, Your mention of a memorable song that might be whistled while walking down the street not only infringes our copyright by summarising several of our copyrighted works, but also describes two methods of circumventing technological copyright protection systems, and for this reason is in violation of the DMCA. We have taken the liberty of estimating the loss caused to us by your actions, and the final sum is $42,001,390. Your bill is in the mail. All your base are belong to us, The RIAA

What will ISPs do? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478305)

Considering the abundance of proxies, caching routers and so on... will they have to pay for the music passed through them?

Another example of people making laws about things they don't have the foggiest idea about. And another example how the content industry wants to make money out of thin air. Quite literally.

Re:What will ISPs do? (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478498)

You better believe that if the various movie and recording associations could make it to where you have to pay for 15 copies of the album or movie just to listen to it online rather than buy the physical media that they would.

Two birds. Ensures that they can say, "But we tried that. The pirates just won't stop! Even when given a reasonable alternative" and they can fuel their outdated business model a while longer.

Re:What will ISPs do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478578)

And another example how the content industry wants to make money out of thin air. Quite literally.

Radiowaves will probably qualify as an "incidental copy"...

The people as Congress's enemy? (5, Insightful)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478320)

Do any of you get the idea that Congress is now the enemy of the USA people? I've seen law after law proposed (and sometimes passed) that harms the general public of the USA to benefit some small minority that wields some power (be it politicians, industry groups, etc.) Is there any way in the USA for the people to legally take back their own government?

If so, I think you guys should get together and do it.

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (1)

nudeatom (740966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478341)

Its called a revolution!!

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (3, Informative)

gazz (101967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478402)

Don't you mean Wii..?

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478499)

Revolutions, also known as insurgencies, rebellions and terrorism, are illegal. The silly US government seems to have forgotten about its main lobbyist group, the US people, who are paying by far the biggest lobbying bribes in the form of taxes. It seems that taxes have been around for so long that they have come to take them for granted. Unfortunately tax evasion is also illegal.

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (3, Insightful)

Stealth Potato (619366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478581)

Revolutions, also known as insurgencies, rebellions and terrorism, are illegal.

Well, duh they're illegal. Why do you think such a thing would be necessary in the first place? That doesn't mean they're always wrong. Worked for us in 1776.

And you're committing an error by lumping revolution in with terrorism - the two are most certainly not the same, though they are all too often good fellows.

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478415)

Do you really have no idea while it is like this. Could it be that those politicians are supported by companies more than by the people? What would happen if you make negative statements about your employer? Would you not risk the change of being fired. If you have a system where politicians depend on "external" funding, would it than not be strange that they listen to those that pay them (either directly or indirectly)?

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478434)

Have you ever seen a poor congressman? Has to mean something..

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (4, Insightful)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478416)

Yes, it's called Jury Nullification. The problem is I doubt any jury of 12 average americans will be smart enough to do anything useful.

Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478525)

Yes, it's called Jury Nullification. The problem is I doubt any jury of 12 average americans will be smart enough to do anything useful.

it would have to get in front of a jury in the first place... the entire methodology of RIAA/MPAA lawsuits is to drag it out and make it expensive so that the other party surrenders before it gets to a jury... they know full well that any jury would throw it right out...

Mind you, jury selection could be fun... could you ever get 12 people selected who weren't guilty of the "crime" themselves?

Vote. (2, Insightful)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478477)

Don't worry. Many of these assholes should be kicked out come the elections in November.

Whether they would be replaced by new assholes, though, remains to be seen.

Bah! (2, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478323)

It's times like these that I hate living in a republic. What I wouldn't give for a real democracy!

Re:Bah! (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478326)

Did you know that outside of Sid Miers Civilization, these concepts are not mutually exclusive?

Re:Bah! (1, Informative)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478335)

go read: http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvs dem.htm [chrononhotonthologos.com]
A republic is mutually exclusive with democracy. In one version the people vote on laws, in the other they vote on representatives. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Bah! (2, Informative)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478393)

There are hybrid systems that allow parallel legislative paths, which include both legislative representatives and direct democracy. Witness, for example, the binding referendum, which is a direct democracy tool in many (mostly mid-western) American states. Now, whether their existence is a good idea or not, that's another thing entirely.

Re:Bah! (1)

Andrzej Sawicki (921100) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478444)

A republic is mutually exclusive with democracy.
Except if you throw in a referendum every now and then?

Re:Bah! (3, Informative)

m874t232 (973431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478511)

The page you point to is bullshit.

The term "republic" is simply a term that arose historically to signify that a nation was not a monarchy or dictatorship. Far from being mutually exclusive, all democracies actually are republics. Democracies in which the people vote on representatives are called "representative democracies"; most democracies are of that form these days because nothing else is really practical.

The US used to be a republic (no monarch) but probably shouldn't be considered a democracy during its first century or so (too limited representation). These days, the US is a representative democracy, not much different from European democracies.

Contrary to what that article says, democracy is not tyranny of the majority; protecting minority rights is an essentical part of democratic government (but not of all republican government, in which historically large parts of the population weren't represented at all).

Re:Bah! (1)

gilroy (155262) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478559)

"Republic" comes from "res publica", literally, the "people's thing". It is meant to denote that the state belongs to the people, as opposed to the king (monarchy) or the rich (plutocracy) etc.

"Democracy" in turn means "rule by the people".

They are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, every democracy has to be a republic, as the people cannot rule a thing that is not their own.

It's time to leave behind the 5th-grade civics textbook that incorrectly put repbulics and democracies in opposition just because it served someone's ideology or sense of aesthetics back in the 1950s...

Re:Bah! (3, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478451)

Really? People in Congress are supposedly educated, and they can't write decent legislation. Do you trust the American public to really make smart decisions? Furthermore, if anything the last Presidential election showed the American public is to apathetic to vote. I don't mind the concept of a Republic. In theory it is more efficient than polling the known universe on everything. However, what we need are better leaders in Congress. They have proven time and time again they don't know what the hell they are doing.

Occasionally a third-party candidate with a brain comes along, and the two major parties make sure they never see the light of day. Partisan politics make sure that no one cares about actual issues. The only thing that matters in DC is making the other party look bad, and swearing blind allegiances to party lines, even if you don't know what the line is, or why the line was formed the way it was.

Re:Bah! (1)

SmokedS (973779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478555)

Let's see, what is the number one requirement for making it to high office? Answer: Being willing to compromize your integrity in exchange for power. Be it through taking bribes(sorry contributions), doing hatchet jobs on the competition, or pretending to believe what you don't. The list of minor and major dishonesties that most politicians are guilty of is long, and few - if any - politicians get more honest as their career progresses. Many apparently believe that such people are to be trusted above the people in general. I never cease to be amazed by that.

I'm not denying that introducing any such system would be a quite painful process of maturing to the population, or that it would take time and that serious mistakes would probably be made. But how anyone could claim to believe in democracy yet prefer representative "democracy" is beyond me. That is not democracy in my opinion, it's a facade of democracy put in front of a system where the people with the most money have the real power. It's better than many alternatives, but calling it democracy is stretching the term to breaking limit.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478457)

You sap. This country hasn't been a republic for nearly 150 years!

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478541)

This is true, but it hardly qualifies as a democracy either.

Re:Bah! (0)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478508)

It's actually more of an empire by now.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478516)

Yes, a two-party system, where the other party is far right and the other one is also far right, can hardly be described as democratic, now can it?

"Honorable " (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478325)

Isn't it funny that all of those Congresscritters have the "Honorable " in front of their names? "Dishonorable" should be more like it - corrupt bastards.

Re:"Honorable " (1)

RegularFry (137639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478507)

If you need to make a point that you are something, you probably aren't...

Re:"Honorable " (0, Troll)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478550)

Well, think about it. Who decides to prefix their names with 'honorable'? The people running the country? Congress!
If you don't like it, go massacre the inhabitants of some other country and create a democratic government there with self-congratulatory prefixes banned.
Think of it as a fork.

Re:"Honorable " (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478562)

That's not funny, that's Orwellian. You know, when you say somthing which means the opposite.

Yet Again.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478338)

You know it only the worst one till the next one.

But you know big busness, they see the public are the stupied ones. Then forget that the public are the consumers. Then whine when they don't make money, blame it on someone or something else. Then try to get another bad law through.

hmm anyone see a cycle here?

It seems they don't learn from there mistakes?!

The worst Bill I've ever heard of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478343)

Is Bill Gates.

That'll show-em (5, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478346)

Those FBI warnings made the movie rippers sure take notice - boy howdy!

This one should really put the kiabosh on those piracy shennanigans. Just you watch!

Goodlatte, why am I not surprised... (5, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478347)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte epitomizes what is wrong with Congress. He used to be my congresscritter when I was still in VA's 6th district. He runs unopposed. Literally. He's the only guy on the ballot. He represents a mostly rural district, but makes copyright issues his side issue. He's also passionately anti-hacker culture. The man is a scumbag to the nth degree because he takes large amounts of money from interests from outside of his district and pursues them from the safety of a district with no competition. He's actually what convinced me of the need for proportional representation.

Re:Goodlatte, why am I not surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478371)

The man is a scumbag to the nth degree because he takes large amounts of money from interests from outside of his district and pursues them from the safety of a district with no competition.

Back in 2000, I formed a S-Corp here in GA. Well, to make a long story short, I started getting calls from Congressmen. I didn't recognize their names, so I looked them up on congress.gov. These folks were representatives from other states - IIRC, one of them was the critter you named! They wanted my "support". Un-fucking-believable!

Re:Goodlatte, why am I not surprised... (1)

lessthan (977374) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478390)

Why didn't you run? You could have been a Senator!

Re:Goodlatte, why am I not surprised... (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478544)

There's a better reason for proportional representation;

How about a political system that allows politics ?

The one-man districts don't allow this. They're geographical representation, not political.

Put simply, a geographical group that is (very) popular in 10% of the USA, while being unpopular elsewhere gets about their fair representaiton, they get about 10% of the representatives. Fine.

But a *political* group, that focuses on actual policy rather than geography, fares much worse. If they're really unlucky, they can get the same number of votes as those above, and still not a single representative.

If you get 10% of the votes in every district. Because you have a *political* platform that about 10% agree with, then guess what, you get zero representation whatsoever.

As it is in the US, only a few votes count. Namely only those that go to one of the few (mostly 2, on rare occasions 3) candidates with real chanses of winning in one of the districts where there's a close race.

All other votes are completely irrelevant.

Re:Goodlatte, why am I not surprised... (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478549)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte epitomizes what is wrong with Congress. He used to be my congresscritter when I was still in VA's 6th district. He runs unopposed.

Those last words make my blood run cold... how does he do it?

We need a movement with a quickness! (1)

Mr. Fruit (980043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478354)

Where are the movements which would bring these bills out to the public, and get the public to get THEIR views out. It's a democracy, right? Ask how many people want this draft to go through... I say a simple website to start with...We

Isn't that the theory behind EULAs? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478357)

Ie that making a copy when you install the software, and another when (portions of) it is loaded into RAM to be executed is disallowed by copyright law, and so an additional agreement (the EULA) is required to allow you to do so. Sounds like a music biz lawyer has suddenly woken up and had one of those "Hang on..!" moments.

(Note that I'm not saying that it's right, or that even if it is required it justifies some of the terms that end up in EULAs, just that that's the justification I've always seen used)

text of bill? (1)

Toba82 (871257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478362)

Does anyone know where to find the text of the bill? I haven't been able to find it with THOMAS [loc.gov] .

Let me ask you (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478372)

What are you all going to do about it?

Re:Let me ask you (0, Troll)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478433)

> What are you all going to do about it?

After 9:00 EDT, I'm going to Slashdot their phones.

Anybody else wanna do it too?

Re:Let me ask you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478453)

1. Whine on Slashdot
2. ???
3. Bill rejected

Next question, please ?

Does that include MP3 players (1)

tobybuk (633332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478376)

Does this mean that when I buy a CD I need a further licence to rip this to an MP3 player or an iPod? If I have two iPods do I need to licences?

Re:Does that include MP3 players (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478417)

Yup. The US is fairly unusual having a 'fair usage' clause on copyright. Other countries do not allow you to eg copy a CD you own for playing in the car - you'd need to buy 2 copies or carry one around. Equally, backing a CD or game to protect the original is illegal.

Re:Does that include MP3 players (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478460)

On the other hand, a lot of countries various organisations won't kick up such a fuss if you copy your music onto an iPod, even though it's technically illegal. The BPI are getting worse though (Probably due to RIAA pressure).

bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478462)

In fact, many other countries permit the creation of backup copies. Other countries even permit non-commercial sharing of copies with friends, something that is illegal in the US.

So, basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:bullshit (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478570)

So, basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

Go on then, name them.

Re:Does that include MP3 players (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478486)

Presumably, therefore, if Apple are selling iPods in countries where no iTunes music store has been set up, and those countries have no "fair usage" legislation, there's a bunch of people wandering around with iPods that have absolutely no music on?

Re:Does that include MP3 players (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478430)

Exactly.

Damn, that's bad... (1)

ABoerma (941672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478385)

...so what are the odds of this bill making it through Congress? From (at least one of) the comments in TFA, it would appear the Members think this is bad just like we do.

RIAA/radio "settlement" talks (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478387)

RIAA: Give us your customer lists in full!

Internet Radio: We're, um, broadcasters? You know, that
whole "streaming" technology? UDP?

RIAA: ....and your point is?

Internet Radio: That we don't keep track of this sort of thing?

RIAA: *Mr. Burns voice* Excellent...er...oh, not to worry my good fellow. We'll just use a conservative estimate. Smithers, gather up the census data for the number of Internet users on any given day! The rest of you, begin our next "negotiation"!

Satellite Radio: *gulp* Umm...mommy?

Obligatory (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478389)

Que SIRA SIRA. Whatever will be will be. I'm not in the US you see. Que SIRA SIRA.

Enforce it, if you can (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478400)

So ?

And how many taxpayers are they willing to alienate by enforcing this bill ?

Re:Enforce it, if you can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478410)

erm, all of them, I think.

Re:Enforce it, if you can (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478437)

And half of them would put Ralph Nader and the greens to the white house.

Sorry, sir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478418)

But all copies of a recording I make during my ownership of that recording are fair use. The only copies that I can make that would violate fair use are ones I attempt to sell without license.

From one of the comments to the article (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478424)

Anyone notice the retroactive pricing clause? Am I reading this wrong, or are they saying that we're liable for this activity as far back as 2001?

Re:From one of the comments to the article (1)

Optikschmoptik (971793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478485)

I would hope that, if the bill passes, a retroactive pricing clause would be struck down immediately as an ex-post-facto policy; at least from what I remember from my ninth-grade government class. Of course, the other Latin I learned in class that day was Habeus Corpus, which I guess is pretty much out the window when the executive branch decides they don't want to follow it. Ninth grade was a while ago.

Then again, let's hope we don't have to consider the details of this bill--that it gets borked altogether. It sounds like an industry throw-everything-at-the-wall approach. They're either hoping to get lucky and pass this, or come back with a slightly less ridiculous "sensible compromise" after everyone gets lathered up about the completely brain-dead ridiculous version here.

Worst Bill (1)

klang (27062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478435)

The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of ..well, Mr. Gates is pretty bad, and I don't know that many Bill's..

Anyone read the text? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478441)

Did anyone of the above commenters read the actual text [copyright.gov] ? Having read the text, I don't see any place where it says we should start paying for intermediate copies (caches, buffers ...). I do see however the concept of a "blanket license" for those who are distributing music (iTunes, MSN Music, streaming, webcasts ...). This new licensing model would allow them to offer new music or tracks in their catalog wihtout having to (re)nogiate.

FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (5, Informative)

i am kman (972584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478443)

Jeez - the link seems like a pure political rant against SIRA. While it's an important issue, I would've hoped slashdot might have linked to a more intelligent article that actually discusses the bill.

Here's a much more thorough discussion of the bill:

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html [copyright.gov]

This article counters a number of the rants on the extremely biased link slashdot provided.

For instance, the slashdot political link claims "It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory..."

However, the link above specifically says:
"the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."

I'm not arguing that it's a good bill (and I'm pretty sure it sucks), only that the initial link is so blatantly political that it's hardly an objective source for ANY information and is easily proven wrong by a casual read at the facts. Shame on you slashdot for posting such biased and political crap soley to incite a flamewar.

Re:FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478472)

OK, so I haven't read the link. But AIUI, "the proposed blanket license..." is effectively saying "Any organisation which operates a cache for Internet access needs to buy a licence".

They'd target the ISPs first. Then, who knows?

Re:FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (4, Insightful)

SDF-7 (556604) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478561)

I normally hate these "me too!" style posts -- but someone mod parent up. That summary should be edited into the ./ overview and the description amended.

From that article, it really sounds like from the Copyright Office's point-of-view (which granted, has its own bias), this is a simplification. They in fact claim that separate copies currently require separate licensing to be accounted for -- this will remove that need by allowing distributors/streamers to be covered for all transitory copies (caching/whatnot in distribution) or stream fragments. Put that way, the bill makes a lot of sense to me.

What's much more interesting is the section on Designated Agents. If this doesn't scream "lock the RIAA into their position via legal means", I don't know what does. Agents get to use royalties collected for tangential purposes such as legislation and "industry negotiations".. sheesh guys -- why not just add in "Designated Agents will receive services from suitably nubile copyright holders at will" while you're at it. Oh and the "Agent is the sole judge of auditing whether a liscencee has underpaid an agent" is really cute too... I appreciate the Copyright Office calling these jokers out on this... let's hope Congress pays attention to them.

One thing the summary glosses over that bugs me, though:

Digital music services need to be able to obtain licenses to cover all the musical works that they wish to make available. The SIRA addresses this issue by including a default provision that grants statutory authority to the General Designated Agent ("GDA") to license any works not specifically represented by an additional designated agent. Since each agent is required to make available a list of the musical works it is authorized to license for digital uses and any works not affirmatively identified may be presumed to be covered by the GDA's license, a licensee is not only assured that it has the ability to secure rights to all musical works, but it also has the necessary information to determine from whom to secure rights for a particular work as well.


Does that read to anyone else as locking those agents with "significant marketshare" as the only gatekeepers of said blanket licensing (previously established as needed for distribution in this revised model)... which makes me wonder how individual independant artists (those who don't wish to be affiliated with a General Designated Agent) would go about licensing their work to iTunes or whatnot. If they're now effectively represented by a GDA (read RIAA and the like) whether they want to be or not... then I have to read this as a powergrab by the RIAA to ensure they maintain their position as the gatekeepers of distribution (now in the digital age), with all artists having to sign with them. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical..

Lame (1)

Yellowknifegts (980049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478450)

Why cant they just let us win cause we will find a way around this like everything. I mean will they be monitoring linux also?

money == access (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478458)

Just a reminder, it doesn't do any good to write your congressman about anything. Congress shows pure contempt for it's constituencies. If you're not generating campaign contributions, then you're not worth anything. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

If you really want to make a difference -- and it's way too late here -- you'll need a lobby. Give money to the lobbyist, pay for access, get the ear of the senator, and then you can make a difference.

Re:money == access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478489)


If you really want to make a difference ... Give money to the lobbyist,
pay for access, get the ear of the senator, and then you can make a
difference.
.. or, if you don't have money, you could always use violence!

Contact = Influance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478572)

You're partially correct; anyone who's got the cash can bend the ear of a Representative. You forget, however, that these guys ARE ELECTED. If they get one phone call from one constituent upset about a vote, they'll probably ignore it. If they get a hundred phone calls from different people, they'll take notice. If they get a thousand phone calls, especially about a bill that would otherwise be ignored by the voting public, they'll take notice.

Seriously, voting doesn't begin and end on election day.

Action to take (4, Informative)

jsse (254124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478482)

I bet majority of you don't read the fine article, and you'd miss something very imoportant:

"Don't let Big Copyright legalize double dipping. Fight SIRA today.

The House is going into recess for the summer at the end of this week, so you have a unique opportunity to kill this legislation. If we can stall SIRA now it would effectively kill it for the reminder of the year, giving us more time to prepare an offensive.

Please call the Members of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property and voice your opposition to this legislation.

Republicans:

Honorable Lamar S. Smith, 2184 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-4236

Honorable Henry J. Hyde, 2110 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-4561

Honorable Elton Gallegly, 2427 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515-0523, (202) 225-5811

Honorable Bob Goodlatte, 2240 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-5431

Honorable William L. Jenkins, 1207 Longworth Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6356

Honorable Spencer Bachus, 442 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, 202 225-4921

Hon. Robert Inglis, 330 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6030

Honorable Ric Keller, 419 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-2176

Hon. Darrell Issa, 211 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515

Honorable Chris Cannon, 2436 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-7751

Honorable Mike Pence, 426 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3021

Honorable J. Randy Forbes, 307 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6365

Democrats:

Honorable Howard L. Berman, 2221 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, (202) 225-4695

Honorable John Conyers, Jr., 2426 Rayburn Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-5126

Honorable Rick Boucher, 2187 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3861

Honorable Zoe Lofgren, 102 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3072

Honorable Maxine Waters, 2344 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-2201

Honorable Martin T. Meehan, 2229 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3411

Honorable Robert Wexler, 213 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-3001

Honorable Anthony Weiner, 1122 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515, (202) 225-6616

Honorable Adam Schiff, 326 Cannon House Office Building, Washington D.C. 20515, (202) 225-4176

Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, 1007 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, (202) 225-6676"

"Honorable" wtf (1)

RoscBottle (937276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478533)

Applies to any politician exactly as much as "honest" do.

5th grade grammar (2, Insightful)

azav (469988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478502)

That's the way Big Copyright and their lackey's want it...

Lackey's?

Oh come on people. This is 5th grade grammar. The proper spelling is lackeys. There is no apostrophe on a non possessive plural.

If you can program, you should at least know how to spell.

As a point of reference, yesterday, I counted three spelling mistakes in an important email from our legal department to a business partner. 1) the email address was misspelled, 2) the person's name was misspelled and the plural of "technologies" was spelled as "technology's".

Simply put, when you are a professional and you screw up on a 5th grade level, you look like a fool.

conflicting evidence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478509)

I'm not very well educated on ... anything, but I did a quick search and found a Statement of the United States Copyright Office to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary concerning Section 115 Reform Act (SIRA) of 2006.

Taken from the statment:
"..the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads."

I could be wrong, but to me that looks like it directly conflicts with TFA. Here's the link http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html [copyright.gov] so you can check it out for yourself before you mod me down for siding with the US copyright office.

Submission Has It Wrong? (5, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478510)

First, let me say that I am very anti-stupid-copyright/patent etc and against the whole trend we've been seeing from RI/MPAA and congress to remove our longstanding fair-use rights and damage the public domain.

That said, I took a look, and this Act doesn't read to me the same way the submission is characterizing it. The link is here: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html [copyright.gov]

I could be wrong, but from what I've read, the Act actually tries to do the opposite of what is claimed in the article submission, as to the seperate licensing of cached/buffered/etc copies of content.

Here is an excerpt from the linked page above:

"First, by simply filing one license application--or in the case of multiple designated agents or a change in digital uses, a limited number of applications--a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works(4) in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure. Additionally, we note that the SIRA appropriately does not preclude a copyright owner from entering into a direct licensing agreement with a particular digital music service, thus preserving multiple licensing options for copyright owners and licensees.

Second, the proposed blanket license covers all intermediate copies (e.g., server, cache and buffer copies) necessary to facilitate the digital delivery of music and applies to streaming and limited downloads.(5) Presently, there exists much confusion and controversy as to whether these copies and uses must be separately licensed, which the Office understands can result in protracted negotiations and delays. By resolving these issues, the SIRA clears the way for the legitimate music services to focus on rapidly delivering music to the consuming public and developing new technologies to make delivery even faster, regardless of whether such technologies involve additional intermediate copies or not.

Based on the foregoing and our involvement in discussions on these issues over the past several years, we anticipate that the blanket licensing approach would be welcomed by, or at least be acceptable to, the various interested parties. Furthermore, we note that blanket licensing has proven successful with respect to the section 114 compulsory license for sound recordings, and would expect it to function similarly in the section 115 context.

However, the Copyright Office strongly urges that the SIRA not characterize streaming as a distribution or as a form of "digital phonorecord delivery," or DPD. A stream, whether interactive or noninteractive, is predominantly a public performance, although the various reproductions such a transmission requires makes it appropriate to address in section 115. A stream does not, however, constitute a "distribution," the object of which is to deliver a usable copy of the work to the recipient; the buffer and other intermediate copies or portions of copies that may temporarily exist on a recipient's computer to facilitate the stream and are for all practical purposes useless (apart from their role in facilitating the single performance) and most likely unknown to the recipient simply do not qualify. Similarly, a stream should not be considered a DPD as that term is presently defined by 17 U.S.C. 115(d), because it most likely does not result in "a specifically identifiable reproduction by or for any transmission recipient of a phonorecord." The Office recognizes that the SIRA proposes to amend the definition of DPD to specifically incorporate streaming, but such an amendment is problematic because a DPD is generally understood--and should be understood--to be a distribution in and of itself. Characterizing streaming as a form of distribution is factually and legally incorrect and can only lead to confusion in an environment where the concept of distribution by means of digital transmission is already the subject of misguided attacks.(6) The Office therefore suggests that the SIRA's proposed section 115(e) apply to both digital phonorecord deliveries (which would not include streaming) and streaming (as a form of transmission distinct from digital phonorecord deliveries), and that the definition of "stream" be reexamined in light of the foregoing discussion. The Office does, however, support the SIRA's conforming amendment to subparagraphs 115(c)(3)(C) and (D) that deletes the reference to reproductions or distributions of phonorecords "incidental" to a transmission. This undefined term which lacks any legislative explanation has been the source of much confusion and has prevented the establishment of rates for these actions."

That reads to me as if they want to eliminate the licensing of cached/buffered content nonsense that has been a legal grey area. I hope I am right, but I am afraid I may be wrong. Can anyone shed more light on this? Has the Act been, or is it likely to be, modified with the Office of Copyrights' recommendations?

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Submission Has It Wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15478530)

The article that is linked to is absolutely awful. No information just a bunch of opinion and hype. Tabloid journalism at it's worst. In particular it contains no link to the legislation itself, so that we could, you know, actually decide for ourselves if this is good or bad legislation.

Run for Federal Office (1)

rackrent (160690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478537)

And change the rules. I mean, it's so easy! (it takes a bit of money, though. Just a bit.)

Federal Election Commission [fec.gov]

Delay (1)

pestil3nce (979907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15478566)

If that bill passes Windows Vista is going to be delayed...again. Maybe if Windows and Congress work together, they'll have the funding and resources to realize just how ludicrous the idea is. If they want me to pay for every song I listen to, no matter where I am, I am never using the radio again.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?