The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of 630
Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
from the double-dipping dept.
from the double-dipping dept.
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.'"
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question I can't help but ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, I think you guys should get together and do it.
Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
"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:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether they would be replaced by new assholes, though, remains to be seen.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
5th grade grammar (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The question I can't help but ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FUD Rules! Shame on slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
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..
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Is this really the worst? (Score:2, Insightful)
Worse than http://akaka.senate.gov/akakabill-b.html [senate.gov]
I think the title is a bit melodramatic. There are tons of truly wretched bills that get passed every day. As it stands, downloading music that you didn't pay for is considered illegal in this country anyway. This new bill only clarifies the existing position by making you have licenses for every version of a song you have. I think it is silly. I don't think it is the worst thing Congress has done.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to stop this crap is fighting it now. Get out and tell lots of people about this bill and that they need to call XXX-XXX-XXXX today to voice their concer to their senator/house rep/etc... you need to get the numbers for people and print out papers for them because if your friends and relatives and co-workers get distracted by a shiney object they will forget all about it. (Wonder why bush is asking for a no gay marriage amendment? it's nothing but a distraction for crap like this.)
Re:Vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that there are assholes on both sides of the aisle. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney^H^H^H^H^H^HSouth Carolina) sponsored the SSSCA [wired.com], which tried to introduce some pretty extreme copyright enforcement provisions itself. Both the parties are so close together on so many issues like this, I'm not sure it matters who is in office.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least, the minority of more skilled people that understand why an
Re:The people as Congress's enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
GW and his puppeteers have defined Terrorism as anything that is done by anyone that is not the United states or it's allies.
so, if you are a smaller force trying to attack a larger force, you are terrorists. if you are against anything that GWB is then you are a terrorist. if they want to label you a terrorist, then you are a terrorist.
That is the greatest abomination of the patriot act, it allows you to violate all human rights by simply slapping a "terrorist" sticker on the intended victim.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
They already did that with that Microsoft Genuine Windows crap they forced down your throat. How many people here were crying in their beer to find their pirated copy of Windows XP no longer worked after updates? ;-) Not me of course, I got it for "free" from the university.
Re:Vote. (Score:4, Insightful)
The real political spectrum to worry about is "libertarian" vs. "totalitarian," and right now we're entirely represented by the latter!
Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Things have gotten so bad, that me and others like me feel less like a criminal by "stealing" software and music vs buying it.
I had to call tech support one time because some software was not working via the license manager, and do you know why? We paid too much for it. My user had a single user license, and then my company bought a site license, which made the individual license not work.
The now infamous Ernie Ball being raided by the BSA incident and the removal of all Microsoft products in 6 months is another example. The guy was completely legit, and he had to pay something like $20-30k in extortion to make sure that he was really paying enough for software.
Its safer to pirate and download music now vs being rootkitted by buying it.
I have over $1k in software at home that I am _terrified_ to touch because of all of the dongles and online registration and whatnot. Aside from the quality of the software not being that good, the crap that I have to go through just to make it work has really made me decide that I'm not going to buy software any more. I felt the same way when I bought my first C/C++ compiler. I paid something like $140 for it, and on the same computer gcc generated code that was 2-4x faster!
So, the media companies have really convinced me and others that free media is better. Their loss, not mine.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anarchy ensure freedom for the strong.
Capitalism ensures freedom for the rich.
Democracy ensures freedom for the majority.
Republics ensure freedom for their constituents.
All forms of government ensure freedom for those who are in power.
No mechanism or form of government ensures freedom for all - the only way this is ever possible is if those in power choose to cede their capability to exploit those that are not. The great philosophers of democracy as well as the founding fathers of the US had no delusions about this. It was always understood by them that freedom for all is only obtained only by the enlightened self-interest of the law-makers, and preserved only by the eternal vigilance of the people. However, far too many members of our populace no longer understand this.
Re:Submission Has It Wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the "Flaminess" of your post, I will still respond.
1 - I am not resistant to improving the situation. I know the US isnt great right now. I live here, work here, and vote here. Regardless of what you may think, its still one of the best places (speaking with regards to government and voting exclusively) to live, work, or vote. This was the meaning of my post. It sucks. But its better than many other things.
2 - "Some of us don't want to take that lying down.. or bending over as the case may be. " Good. Does that also mean that you must have an irrational view of the world? Do you really think that your government form sucks that much? Its very easy to point out what sucks, but everyone quickly forgets the good tenants of the US democratic system.
3 - "We want to come up with better ways of doing things, and I'm sure that there must be better ways. We need serious reform of our election system, first and foremost." That all sounds grand. Would you like to propose some actual solutions, or just bitch about how the current ones suck. Try being proactive. When you do, you will learn how difficult it is to create a perfectly balanced system that lasts over hundreds of years. Again, our current system isnt great, in fact its probably bad, but that doesnt mean we should throw it away overnight. There are good things here.
4 - "Until then, we are stuck in a corrupt system that feeds off the cash of special interests and puts up walls to prevent the non-corrupt from getting in." And explain to me how this is different from ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. This is government, Get used to it. Improve it, Regulate it, Reform it, But you wont remove corruption from government. Where the power is, the corrupt go. Again, I am not trying to belittle your viewpoint, and I would tend to agree that it needs work, but I would rather see you propose solutions that just BITCH.
Thanks.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot needs a "+1, Flamebait, But Not Wrong" mod, just for posts like yours.
Sets a bad precident. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off is the matter of incidental copies. As you mentioned, incidental copies created during the delivery of digital files are considered by some to be in a legal grey area. This law clarifies the position by stating that these copies are covered by the compulsary license. However, this is very dangerous wording as it legitimizes the concept that a license is needed for the copies. Furthermore, as the compulsary license only applies to "nondramatic musical works", this opens the door for others (MPAA, BSA, etc) to insist that licenses are required incidental copies of thier works. Most likely this would come in the form of worsening C&D actions which are too costly to defend against regardless of the eventual legality. The area becomes even shadier in the case of p2p distribution methods (when used legally - distributing copyrighted work without permission is undoubtedly illegal).
This "grey area" does need to be clarified, and the intention of the section is good, however is needs to be worded in a way that debunks rather than supports the idea that incidental copies may need licenses. Something along the line of this:
IANAL, so I am sure that this could be worded better.
Furthermore, as the copyright office is quoted in your post, streaming is not the same as distribution and the current poor wording of the bill that would strengthen those trying to treat streaming as distribution (like cd) rather than performance (like radio).
All in all, the intent - to clarify the law and close legal traps for online music stores - is a good one, but the way it is written creates many more traps in the process.
It totally screws the copyright holder too... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the text of the bill:
So if an artist for whatever reason happens to decide he doesn't want to grant permission to people to reproduce his works, he can be completely screwed over if they go over his head and get this so-called "global" license that applies to an unlimited number of digital works (and do you think that the artists are going to be fairly compensated for this? Fat chance)This bill offers do destroy the very foundations of Copyright if it passes, that is, the *EXCLUSIVE* rights of the copyright holder to grant permission to copy his or her works.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
On what do you run your OS? Is it a computer? Well sooner or later it is going to fail and you need to buy a new one (or parts of it). Ever heard about HD-TV-ready hardware, which has a build in protection against analog copying and allows output only to a certain digital connector, which can't be interrupted (too lazy to dig up the details).
What if future motherboards will have DRM already integrated and do need to have it integrated by law? And what if the american DRM legislation is enforced on your country by trade restrictions, WHO etc.?
What if legislation requires that internet-routers check for a little signature in packets, that shows you have a DRM-enabled system or not?
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a direct result of our two Senators no matter what the population congress. The lower population states, usually but not always Republican states, get most of the pork, earning far more Federal dollars than they pay in taxes, while the high population states almost always pay far more in taxes than they take in.
This is just another example of that principle at work. We should disband the senate and redistrict the congressional districts to prevent gerrymandering. Or better yet, elect congress by national random lottery. Why not give it a try? We really couldn't do much worse than we have now...
Re:"Actual solutions" (Score:4, Insightful)
" We need shorter work weeks, stronger labor unions, worker-owned or directed firms, less debt and more respect for the environment."
Shorter work weeks would nice if it worked but in a globalized world its kind of a strategy for failure. Like it or not there are countries where people work a lot more than Americans, and pretty much everyone works more than Western Europeans. You simply wont compete with 30 hour weeks unless you actually pay people for 30 hours work and you are proposing cutting their annual incomes by a quarter which I don't think was the idea.
I'd like to believe labor unions would make things better, but at least in the U.S., they started out good and then turned in to a force as malignant as corporations if not more so. First off they were taken over by power hungry corrupt people just like corporations and governments. You see union heads have power so they got corrupted just like all the other power centers. Even worse many unions fell under the control of organized crime. Second of all the have created environments where workers don't have to work. They can hide behind a blizzard of union rules that completely obstruct companies from getting the job done, managers managing or turning a profit. One of the strongest unions America has left is the United Auto Workers, and the fact that Ford and GM are at the mercy of their unions is insuring they are going to land in bankruptcy. They simply can't compete against Asian competitors who are operating without unions. Third unions suffer blatant cronyism, where you have to know the right people to get in to the union and then get a job, resulting in hiring of incompetent people with connections over the best qualified.
Now maybe if you could unionize the entire planet so it was a level playing field it might work, but unilateral unionization of only American workers would just accelerate off shoring and the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Less debt is unarguably good.
Can't say if worker owned and directed firms would be good or bad. I'm guessing it would vary wildly from situation to situation. In some cases workers would be highly motivated by it and produce great results. In others worker would twist in to getting the most benefits for the least work, and would do strategically stupid things because it was in their self interest. Some executives do the same thing. My take is throwing this out like its the be all and end all solution is wrong, sometimes it would work and sometimes it wouldn't.
Re:Democr... bwahahahaha (Score:3, Insightful)
but our system actually works, at least most of the time, due to the whole fact we have more than 2 "real" parties. we have 4 seat-holding parties in the house of commons, as opposed to the 2 seat-holding parties in the government in the US.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bono Act of 1998 not only extended copyright on existing works, but actually reimposed copyright on many works that had been in the public domain for decades. All audio recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until the year 2067, even wax cylinder recordings made by Thomas Edison in the 1890s. Congress might as well have declared all existing 30-year mortgages to be 95-year mortgages. If you've been making house payments for 29 years, how would you like to be told that you now have to keep making those payments for decades to come? Or that the house your parents paid off years ago belongs to the bank again, because Congress says so? You would be fully justified in telling Congress and the bank to go to hell, and defending yourself against anyone who came to enforce this law.
This is what happens when special interests get their way with lawmakers, and the general public doesn't care enough to do anything about it. When Congress makes capricious pronouncements that defy fundamental concepts, the system ceases to make sense. Reasonable people have to be willing to stand up and defy unreasonable laws.
Re:Yet another reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it - they PAID someone to write code to make your software NOT WORK. Hmmm. Now, where did they get the money to pay this guy? Oh, from YOU!
Now, think what software companies could do if they could get beyond all this paranoia and concentrated just on MAKING THE SOFTWARE WORK.
Now, I'd PAY for that!