Senate passes MPAA/RIAA/BSA IP bill
p2pnet news view Politics | P2P:- With the economy in a shambles, investment banks on the verge of closing shop, and a recession worse than any since the great depression, the Senators did what any politician would do:
They passed the PRO-IP act.
Despite opposition from the DOJ and numerous pro-consumer groups, in a bipartisan unanimous vote, the bill was pushed through.
The good news is: they managed to pull the most egregious bit out which allowed the government to file lawsuits on unsuspecting citizens.
The bad news is: taxpayer dollars will go to fund an office whose job will be to look out only for the interests from the likes of the MPAA/RIAA/BSA- it will be an office called the IP “czar”.
Despite the fact the US has much more important issues to take care of and doesn’t need any more tax sink holes, the Senate has decided that this is the best form of medicine you can give an economically ill nation. Also sprinkled into the bill, like any bad recipe, is a dash of ‘increased infringement penalties for imported and exported goods, increasing civil forfeiture powers in infringement cases, and establishing greater coordination between state, federal, and international anti-piracy efforts’, according to Ars Technica.
With the passage of the bill, the decision now rests on president George W. Although he’s vowed to veto the bill due to it’s unconstitutional language, the question remains whether or not he’ll keep his pledge.
The civil forfeiture power grab alone is enough to constitute unconstitutionally sound law.
RIAA boss Mitch Bainwol, giddy with the news proclaimed it, “music to the ears of all those who care about strengthening American creativity and jobs”.
That’s right, Mitch — an industry that’s several orders smaller than the likes of the even technical sector will generate enough cash flow to give the thousands who lost their jobs some hope.
This just might turn our economy around. Or not.
Greed is as greed does ……
Unfortunately with the passage of the bill, most Americans know the only people who’ll have their pockets filled are the members in the Senate who are taking payoffs from the entertainment cartels.
It’s a sad day in America when the Senate, rather than doing something to fix the economy, unanimously votes for a bill designed to kick Americans when they’re already down.
Thanks a lot guys!
Tronix – p2pnet
[Tronix is a database administrator living in California who says he's and avid collector of all kinds of music -- including MIDI and MOD files. "I'm a fervent supporter of consumer's rights especially with regards to copyright laws," he says. "I've reached the conclusion the lawsuits launched against innocent victims are actually out-of-line even for copyright law. The law was never intended to be used against consumers and rather than promoting diversity, it has been used to stifle innovation at the cost to consumers."]
Los Angeles Times – , September , 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
ok everyone , nows th etime to pull OUT of any IT business in the USA.
This includes websites
This includes seedboxes
This incudes any business that relies on innovation and or sharing of knowledge.
Perhaps after there recession they will realize the rest of the world will have moved on.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
‘Greed is as greed does â¦â¦”
Well what do you expect? Our society is based on capitalism and only works because capitalism is built on a solid foundation of greed. Greed is a perfectly normal part of human nature and thus there is no escaping it. Basically it all boils down to greedy consumers (aka pirates) versus greedy corporations and who is allowed to continue to be greedy and who is not. If greed, like all the other so called deadly sins, is indeed perfectly normal human behavior, then is it also a right? If so, then whose rights take higher precedence? I don’t know the answer to this, but I do know one thing. Between consumers and corporations who are at odd with one another, who has the most power? Who of the two is most likely to fall given enough time? I think the answer to that is obvious.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Ahh, I hear Fourth Amendment Privacy Invasion Class Action Lawsuits against the US government Klacking away
September 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
First, no:
“Greed” involves hoarding something, and — as has been pointed out twenty or thirty million times before, p2p doesn’t hoard anything. Copying doesn’t “take” anything from anyone. If I “steal” your bicycle, you don’t have a bicycle anymore. If I make a COPY of your bicycle, you have one, and so do I.
But let’s leave that obvious difference out for a moment, because it’s too complicated a distinction for those who defend the current IP regime.
The whole purpose of IP law is to enforce scarcity by stipulating who is “permitted” to distribute particular content, or (in the case of patents) who is permitted to use particular methods/manufacture particular products. It’s all enforced monopoly, nothing more.
THAT is “greed” incarnate.
The notion that “pirates” are motivated by “greed” is completely and utterly ludicrous — if for no other reason than the whole system is based on mass distribution of “content” promiscuously to pretty much all comers at no charge.
Copyright extension WAS motivated by “greed”, but enhancement of the “public domain” cannot, simply because once particular content is freed of IP restrictions, there’s no way to “hoard” it from others.
The question isn’t “greedy pirates vs. greedy corporations”, but: corporations attempting to enforce a perpetual monopoly at gunpoint.
So actually learn something about the issue before posting something that stupid.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
âSo actually learn something about the issue before posting something that stupidâ
Actually Henry, the Irate Pirate has a lot right here. Itâs YOU who is on unsteady ground.
You said:
âCopying doesnât âtakeâ anything from anyone. If I âstealâ your bicycle, you donât have a bicycle anymore. If I make a COPY of your bicycle, you have one, and so do I.â
So far, that much is true. But if my bike was handmade, say, and my design is one of a kind (like a song for instance) and it was only for sale….. if you wanted it you could have purchased it or passed on it entirely, right? Thatâs what any clear thinker expects and what the law requires. But you just âborrowed it for a fewâ (without any permission) so your computer could copy it illegally, taking a free copy that is unauthorized and giving me nothing for my work as was intended all along.
You broke the law by copying it in the first place. And you know it. So you see Henry? Even the Irate Pirate is way smarter than you.
Maybe they can find you a nice room next to Daniel Dove. LOL.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
^^ Hi Henry and Sam-whoever-you-are:
Sam, there’s a big difference between someone with original, well-articulated, views, be they ever-so-off-the-beaten-track, and someone who says the same thing over and over and over in different ways (almost to the nth degree).
Cheers!
September 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Sam’s back?
Oh goody! I trust we’re all looking forward to hearing him recycle the same nonsequiturs ad nauseum (yet again.)
Sam: you’ve never actually managed to either
A:) refute the fact that the RIAA lobby-bots have vastly inflated copyright terms far beyond their original limits
B:) Provide a reasonable justification for such actions
C:) keep to a consistent position. Namely, when I (among others) provided evidence that IP is not a “fundamental right”, and that even under the current system “rights-holders” lack “exclusive control” — fair use, first-sale doctrine, etc., you didn’t bother to reply to any of those objections, and merely resorted to taking pot-shots at my supposed “ignorance” of the subject, since I’ve never navigated the tortuous red-tape strewn legalistic maze created by your RIAA buddies.
So actually have something substantive to say, M’Kay?
September 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Just to bring everybody up to speed here, I’m gonna reiterate a few things.
1. “Sam” believes that copyright and patents are a “fundamental human right”.
2. I point out the historical roots of IP law — the Statute of Anne, for one. I further point out that at no time has this been viewed as a “fundamental right”, but rather — at least in the United States — as a PRIVILEGE, a State-enforced monopoly granted for a “limited” time with the explicit goal of promoting “Science and the Useful arts”.
3. He responds with the claim that he still believes he should have “exclusive control” over “his” content for “a significant period of time”.
4. I point out that even under the current — horribly bloated and corrupt — IP regime rights-holders do NOT have “exclusive control”: two really large exceptions to such “control” being the “first-sale doctrine” and “Fair use”. Ironically, “Sam’s” handle — as HE HIMSELF admitted in an earlier response — is an example of ‘fair use’, and his ability to USE that depends on the estate of Theodore Geisel not having “exclusive” control over it.
5. He then proceeded to subject me to a barrage of: ad hominem attacks interspersed with bombastic drivel about how totally badass he/his lawyers are in regard to their ability to play the existing IP laws to their advantage. Also — despite the fact that I had already completely refuted every claim he made in reference to IP, he insisted on claiming that I had “a big mouth, but zero understanding” about the subject.
In other words, he’s revealed himself to be a sniveling, pseudo-intelectual little troll with delusions of grandeur.
But I’ll play along:
Let’s assume “Sam’s” claim is right. Let’s assume that I actually “borrowed” his hand-made, one-of-a-kind bicycle so as to figure out it’s design specs and then have an “illegal” duplicate made of it.
In that instance, then yes, I’d be guilty of STEALING a bicycle — the single, existing physical object which already existed. The notion that you can “steal” a design or idea is a really recent aberration in historical terms — as I amply demonstrated previously.
The fact is, “Sam”, even if you don’t want to admit it, there IS a difference between stealing a physical object such as a CD or record album and making a COPY of it. You believe that it’s the State’s job to stipulate who should be “permitted” to use specific industrial techniques/design lobic , and who can “legally” duplicate/distribute information .
You’ve also stated that you see the expiration of ‘your’ copyright terms as “taking” something from your daughter.
We’re all really clear on your ‘arguments’ here, Sam. You see the “Public Domain” as some type of atrocity, and believe that State-aided monopolies are not just a good thing, but a “fundamental right’”.
But here’s the problem: if you believe that those holding the ‘rights’ to such a monopoly should have “exclusive control”, then, to my admittedly ignorant and pea-brained way of thinking, you should be AGAINST the fair-use and first-sale exceptions.
If that’s the case “Sam”, then I will ask you again: did you get explicit permission from the estate of Theodore Geisel to use their “Intellectual Property?” If so, please provide us all some form of documentation to that effect, or kindly shut the hell up.
Otherwise, you’re just “hiding behind” the fair-use doctrine, in the exact same fashion you accuse p2p users to be ‘hiding behind’ laws protecting privacy. Remember, ’sam’, you claimed that such laws were the ‘privilege’ of a “well-ordered society” — and thus, presumably, NOT ‘rights’ as is commonly believed.
Sorry, Jon, but this guy really DOES annoy me with his sad little trolling.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Correction to the above:
This piece of shit Keyboard is failing.
Patents: State-granted monopolies related to who is permitted to use particular manufacturing techniques/design logic
Copyright: State-granted monopoly over who is “permitted” to distribute a given set of information.
The Public Domain: information/design logic/”content” in general which is free from the above restrictions.
Let’s not lose sight of what “Sam” — and other apologists for the current IP regime — are REALLY advocating here. He may not work for the RIAA, but by his own admission he most definitely has a stake in the preservation — or even “enhancement” — of the current IP regime.
As I’ve said before: it’s not suprising that he’d deride anyone disupting his position as “ignorant”. I kinda hoped the guy would’ve come around by now, but hey.
Anybody else wanna bother about this troll? I’ve said all I’m gonna say, and — evidently — none of it penetrates.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:52 am
So the US goverment thinks it is better to support organize crime then protecting it’s citizens? The RIAA (and sister in crime MPAA) have no legal reason to exist. The main purpose of the DIGITAL MAFIA (MPAA/RIAA) is to steal money from consumers and artists. Their contless crimes have spread more devastation on US families then any terrorist groups ever did.
But this new bill who sole purpose is to support a 26B+/year industry that does not need any help. But it will not work, because most US citizen are law abiding and they know that by buying a CD or DVD (or BluRay) they money goes directly to support an internation crime organisation that sole purpose is to spread crime and corrupt goverment worldwide.
Now let’s hope Bush will do on thing in as the president
September 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Actually, upon further reflection, it occurs to me that this is probably a really good thing on some level:
1. More bureaucratic bullshit heaped upon an already over-burdened and excessively complicated legal system. The Government can barely deliver the mail, much less prosecute the continuous, no-exit-strategy-whatsoever style of warfare the Neocons seem to enjoy so much, AND clean up the shit left over from Katrina, AND continue waging their completely unwinnable “war on drugs” etc.
2. Considering things like the “PATRIOT” act, and how popular waterboarding seems to be, if even Bush’s DOJ is worried about whether this thing is unconstitutional, you KNOW it’s gotta be bad. The guy may be barely verbal and he sure as hell got into the White House under suspicious circumstances, but one of the reasons we HAVE a President is so he can veto stupid shit like this.
So if it passes, we all win because Government becomes even more overburdened, inefficient and bothersome, thus waking more people up to the horrible mess IP law has become.
And if it gets vetoed, it’s just another big ol’ bitch-slap to the RIAA lobby-bots. Considering that the U.S. Copyright office is toying with a proposal IP advocates think would create “copyright chaos”, it’s pretty goddamn likely that the IP regime as it exists now is in it’s death throes. The propaganda, misinformation, corruption and back-door shenanegans have all worn thin, and our illustrious Leaders have a hell of alot bigger things to worry about — like, for example, trying to prop up an entire banking industry which is busily Enronning itself into the ground.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“So far, that much is true. But if my bike was handmade, say, and my design is one of a kind (like a song for instance) and it was only for saleâ¦.. if you wanted it you could have purchased it or passed on it entirely, right? Thatâs what any clear thinker expects and what the law requires. But you just âborrowed it for a fewâ (without any permission) so your computer could copy it illegally, taking a free copy that is unauthorized and giving me nothing for my work as was intended all along.”
Let’s try a more realistic approach;
Your wife/girlfriend sees a designer dress in a magazine that she is just dying to have, but it costs about $5,000. She buys the exact same kind of fabric as that used in the dress, studies the pictures of it and produces a copy that looks identical to the designer one, but at a tiny fraction of the cost. She does *NOT* sell it. She does NOT pass it off as the designer version, she simply wears it and lets people think she paid a lot of money for it.
Under what exact law would this be illegal? I expect you to name the exact federal statutes and explain how they apply to the above example.
I’ll be waiting…
September 28th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
” Iâll be waiting⦠”
Don’t hold your breath Rekrul.
Yours is the closest non-digital analogy to the p2p debate,
and the most reasonable.
I wouldn’t expect a reasonable reponse without ad-hominem, at least from
Sam, at any rate.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Rekrul, Iâm not an attourney, Iâm a designer with IP to license and protect and lawyers just work for us. Itâs Sunday night here in New York and I donât know the section and line item that determines your answer. Iâd imagine it exists. You can read about copyright a lot of places, though, and maybe find it yourself; I recommend you do. I found this, for instance:
âExclusive rights
There are five basic rights protected by copyright, and they are sometimes called the five “pillars” of copyright. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
⢠To reproduce the work in copies
⢠To prepare derivative works based upon the work
⢠To distribute copies…..â
……….and so on.
The woman who knocks off the haute couture dress in your example has no right to do that if the design is properly copyrighted, whether she sells it or not. Explained another way, you have EVERY right to design your own car, a better car for instance, and copyright your work, then license it for manufacture. A lot of excellent product is innovated that way. But if you make a piece by piece exact replica of a Chevy or a Ford you can bet their lawyers will come calling. You have absolutely no right to do that. None, for profit or not. That automotive design belongs to the automaker. Same with a DELL Computer, a Givenchy dress, a Warner Brothers Cartoon. You can make an original computer design, a dress or a cartoon, and I recommend you do, but you do not have the right to copy someone else’s, and the law gives you the same protections for the work you create yourself. Chevy (or Ford, or Givenchy as in the dress) would be right (as I understand it) to stop you from making a replica without license and therefore benefitting from the work that THEY did.
Back to your dress example, you CAN use a tailoring detail like the way a cuff is cut or a collar is lined, because a small piece of the work can be properly lifted from the original designer as âFair Useâ the same way a line of a song can be lifted and reused in a recording or even Sam I Am, as a small piece of the Theodor Geisel oeuvre. All that is quite fair, and not hard at all for reasonable people to distinguish from a full and exact replica of, say, his entire body of work. You did say the dressmaker âproduces a copy that looks identical to the designer oneâ, right? So no, thatâs not allowed. Thatâs just stealing someone else’s design, and thatâs considered really bad form in the design world. That sparks a legal action and itâs the fastest way to be shown the door among professional design firms. As a community, we have zero respect for that, Rekrul, we take our pride in creating truly new stuff that moves the market forward.
Now, your dressmaker could also make a parody dress for example, a cartoony version, say, that is willfully distorted and pokes fun at the original and is referential perhaps but in no way is able to be confused with the original design. Thatâs cool, and fun, and protected under parody. Thatâs how Weird Al Yankovic became a star, right?
But as I understand it, the way copyright works delivers value to the creator for a specified period of time, (a very fair proposition if you ask me), and delivers that same evenhanded protection across the board to any original design that your dressmaker might come up with, if she copyrights it and then markets it for her own living.
So tell her to respect copyright and design her OWN dress, Rekrul. She might come up with something non-derivative and really great. Thatâs what we do at my firm every working day because afterall, we do this with pride and weâre trying to promote innovation here, not some illegal copy.