Comments on: INDUCE proposal bans p2p nets

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:36:41 +0000

Everything you say is true……..

if it is true this truly stupid law is to protect children then what ever happened parents keeping up with their children’s internet activity?

This is a cheap attempt from what is a parent’s responsibility to the goverment being involved in the business of babysitting…….

The concept of secondary responsibilty is a crock of excreta……..

It merely shifts responsibilty from the primary offender to a third party such as a webmaster on a website.

It’s much like trying to sue a porno site because children could get exposed to smut.

It’s a laughable concept.

It’s already been to court and it got thrown out as being unconstituational and even more importantly, not enforcable.

Just like life in america.It’s always somebody’s fault but mine.Any lawyer can tell you that……

It’s just a cheap attempt by the riaa and the mpaa to impose A defacto p2p ban under the guise of children’s issues.

It is just for the riaa’s and mpaa’s benefit.

The entertainment will stoop to any level to get their way.

I don’t have to be a us congressman to see all of this.

Of all of the issues that effect this country today including terrorism why people like orrin hatch wastes his time on frivolous legislation i would not dare to speculate.

Unless he is truly a fucking moron.

People say that orrin hatch has the highest rate of laws that he authored that gets thrown out of court because of those laws being unconstitutional.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:30:55 +0000

all this will do is drive the computer technology business overseas.

This is one bad law.

They say any kind of home recording technology would not be exempt from scrutiny from the riaa and mpaa gestapo to include:

1. consumer grade cd and minidisc recorders even with the serial copy management system.

2. Any professional grade cd and minidisc decks with a serial copy management free input jack even for use among professional musicians.

3. any type of dat deck

4. any kind of cd copying or ripping program for computer including mp3 and wma computer files.

(even the windows media player could be considered an infringer).

5.Any kind of combination dvd player and vcr combo.

6. any kind of dvd standalone dvd recorder.

7. And of course any kind of dvd copying program that defeats css encoding

(which is already illegal ; ask bob moore of the defunct 321 studios )and computer grade dvd recorders.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 14:42:57 +0000

ahh but take a look at any of the p2p sites offering software here’s winmx;

“It allows you to connect, download, and share files with MILLIONS of other users through the decentralized WinMX Peer Network … you’ll have access to one of the largest and most diverse networks of shared media files in the world.”

It doesnt say copyrighted material is available on its networks.

In free speech there is a difference between standing up on a soap box and telling people to commit a crime and no one actually going at out and commiting said crime vs those who listen to the person on the soap box and go out and commit a crime. In the first instance the person on the soap box is protected under free speech (no crime commited), in the second instance they can be held liable for the actions of others.

Stretching it a bit with the free speech parabel, but winmx isn’t telling anyone to commit copyright infringement. They offer software that allows the sharing of files of any kind. It’s PEOPLE not software infringing on copyrights.

It’s just like gun makers, automobile manufacturers, etc. Those products can be used to infict harm or not. But neither of those industries have been shut down because they have the potential to inflict harm.

I still think it’s absurd. From what I’ve read the list of technologies that could potentially be killed if Induce was enacted is huge:
email, IM, iPOds, streamripper, XM radio to mp3, etc. You name it if it can make a copy or send it to someone else it can fall under the Induce Act. The thing is, this isn’t really about copyright infringement this is about the big four trying to contain new technology and prevent it from being used. It’s not the first time (betamax being the biggest case but there are other technologies – including, the radio that the music industry has tried to stop and/or make a profit from.)

This is big corporations becoming big brother – freaks me out.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:22:10 +0000

They work around this by changing the legal definition of “induce”
to actually mean something that can be demonstrated more easily.

“For the purposes of this subsection, ‘induces’ means to commit one or more affirmative, overt acts that are reasonably expected to cause or persuade another person or persons to commit any infringement under subsection (a) of this section.”

“reasonably expected” eh?

Whose reason is it do you think?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:18:38 +0000

Unfortunately, they are hoping that the other countries will follow suit and make p2p illegal there too.

I’m certainly hoping it won’t even work in the US.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 15:33:54 +0000

this proposed act is just absurd!

how can you prove you “induced” anyone to do anything? Dave Webb has it right – ban pencils … hell why don’t we just outlaw computers? The internet? Both “induce” people to potentially infringe on copywrite … hell while we’re at it – get rid of vcr’s, dvd players, cdr’s … hell get rid of music players … oh wait that wont work then they can’t try to make money off of us … bloody hypocrites

Sad thing is while this is going to stifle innovation it’s NOT going to stop p2p networks in any of thier forms from continuing on.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 09:26:27 +0000

(B) actively interfering with copyright holders’ efforts to detect infringing uses of dissemination technology and enforce their copyright against those uses;( This is where they get you with the first punch. P2P nets will have to turn over the names of those who fileshare Riaa crap music. The second punch is the Pirate act which will allow DOJ to go after those who share Riaa crap music and with the info from P2P’s they’ll know right where to find you!!!! But these laws (if they become law) might backfire on them. Indie Music is getting Bigger by the day???? If P2P were to go All INDIE then music fans might start enjoying mostly unsigned Bands / Artists ect. 60 million people that’s one hell of an audience and with all the angry music fans who no longer able to share Riaa crap music 60 million people might just start seeing it as Hey Riaa keep your crap musak WE (60 million) have found something better so to hell with your product!!!!! Without the Riaa musak in the way of Indie bands the best of the best of the Indie bands will suface and rule on P2P’s after all where were all the Riaa artists before they were signed by a major label????? They were Indie(and some have gone back to being Indie after a major label dropped them from their roster) Hardship tends to make you try harder to win your goals and their are alot of Bands/Artists that are ready to cut out the middlemen and go right to the music Fan’s and with the Riaa crap music out of their way this could be the last Stake to drive in the heart of the major labels’s to kill them off???????? Be carefull of what you wish for Riaa you may just get it!!!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 07:10:39 +0000

So if this law is passed… P2P networks will shut down?

Now P2P is WORLDWIDE… how exactly do they plan to enforce this when the P2P software goes off-shore?

Decentralized networks… you gotta love ‘em!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 22:25:01 +0000

There has to be collusion. Isnt that in any way illegal?