Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 There's some shady things going on in Congress (big shock) and we need to fight against them. Here's a link: http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000113020892/ Here's what they're planning on making illegal: * The Piracy Deterrence and Education creates a new crime of “offering for distribution,” with jail terms up to five years. Since the crime doesn’t require proof of willfulness, the standard for other copyright crime, people could be prosecuted merely for having 1000 songs in their “share” folders, without intending that they be redistributed. * The Family Movie Act exempts from copyright or trademark litigation the skipping of portions of movies — but leaves makers and users of commercial-skipping technology open to lawsuits like the one that bankrupted ReplayTV. * The Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act presumes that anyone who has tried to protect his or her privacy by faking the WHOIS info in a domain name registration is willfully infringing copyright or trademark. (see letter from ACLU, ALA, CDT, EFF, and PK) * The PIRATE Act authorizes the Justice Department to step in for entertainment companies to prosecute civil copyright infringement cases. * An anti-counterfeiting provision would add new dangers to fair use of digital media (See Lessig blog) If you think this is ridiculous, then please tell your representatives. Here's a link that will automatically send them mail to let them know that you oppose it: http://www.publicknowledge.org/action/IPPA2391 I'm a big proponent of organizations that fight these sorts of things. If you're looking to make a charitble donation that's tax deductable, think about donating to the EFF (http://www.eff.org); they do VERY good work for everyday people. I'm off my soapbox now. Hopefully some people will put 1/8 the time and interest into this as they do bashing the team. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 several big words there, and i get most of it. ok, basicaly anti-napster type laws. could you sum it up in a few sentences??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 several big words there, and i get most of it. ok, basicaly anti-napster type laws. could you sum it up in a few sentences??? 125033[/snapback] Not anti-napster type laws at all. Much more sweeping. * Illegal to put files in a directory called "share" (or similar)regardless of whether you're sharing them or not. * Illegal to fast forward commercials using a VCR, DVR, computer, etc * Illegal to put a fake name/address to protect your privacy (and avoid spam) if you register a domain. * The Justice department can sue you for copyright violations instead of the actual copyright holder. This will cost lots of extra tax dollars and it only protects people like the RIAA, MPAA, etc. There's a bunch more, but those are the highlights. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 This administration wants to create a police state and they are doing it in baby steps.... 125092[/snapback] Please don't bring politics into this. Either send a message (and say you did), or ignore it. I don't want this to become a flame thread like every other political one. The fact of the matter is, this sort of thing has been happening under democrats AND republicans. The PATRIOT act, for example, was signed by EVERYONE but the WI representative, Feingold (if I recall correctly). This isn't a party thing, it's a "kickbacks from big companies" thing. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 how can they possibly make it illegal to fast forward commercials in my house when I tape a program I am not home to watch??? this is silly... we need to oppose all of the things mentioned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeRay Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 nevermind this drivel fezmid... is your dvd/vhs combo back in business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 * Illegal to fast forward commercials using a VCR, DVR, computer, etc 125056[/snapback] Wha.....? You have got to be schittin' me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 nevermind this drivel fezmid... is your dvd/vhs combo back in business? 125120[/snapback] I've never had a dvd/vhs combo box..... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeRay Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I've never had a dvd/vhs combo box.....CW oops... it was Frez. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 The Family Movie Act is just silly, can't see that getting anywhere. As for the anti-piracy actions, I'm OK with that as long as they stay away from USENET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Signed off on the letter for my Senator and Representative. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Signed off on the letter for my Senator and Representative. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. 125216[/snapback] Not really. Very powerful lobby with a ton of money putting it to use. Politicians love money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 Not really. Very powerful lobby with a ton of money putting it to use. Politicians love money. 125360[/snapback] Exactly. That's why everyone needs to send a letter. It's easy to do -- if you don't want to do any work, you can just take the one that the site provides and click "send" after filling in your info. If you want to be more personal, that's even better! CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Exactly. That's why everyone needs to send a letter. It's easy to do -- if you don't want to do any work, you can just take the one that the site provides and click "send" after filling in your info. If you want to be more personal, that's even better! CW 125558[/snapback] Oh, I did it. And I added :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: . My reps love me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 how can they possibly make it illegal to fast forward commercials in my house when I tape a program I am not home to watch??? this is silly... we need to oppose all of the things mentioned.... 125104[/snapback] That is not what the legislation is trying to say. What it is trying to prevent on the market are the DVR and TIVO machines that automatically edit out the commercials while you are recording them. If these machines were allowed it would put a serious camp in commercial networks since advertisers would have no reason to buy add time. Don't worry, you will still be able to tape the shows but you will have to fast forward through the commercials manually rather than having a machine edit it out for you. As for the rest, as a guy who makes his living off of intellectual property this is not a bad bill. It is designed to protect copyrights and prevent piracy. Allowing the Justice Department to sue violators is to protect agencies such as the WGA, MPAA and others from incurring the cost of massive litigation in a class action type suit. This isn't a step towards a police state by any means. It is an attempt (albeit short sided in my view) to ensure that copywrites and intellectual property are not stolen or violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 This is getting closer to Big Brother every day. Maybe people should have to surrender all of our vcrs, dvd recorders, mp3 players, cd burners, etc. As long as we can keep our AK-47s and Uzis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 This administration wants to create a police state and they are doing it in baby steps.... 125092[/snapback] So drafting laws to protect someone's hard work from being stolen before it reaches the marketplace is akin to creating a Police State? In years past items such as written works, music, movies, etc were protected from copywrite infringment because the technology to duplicate (and distribute) the merchandise was so expensive that it made it virtually impossible for the "average joe" to pirate. In those years, the copywrite laws were enough to prevent large scale piracy because the cost of such an enterprise made it easier to track and prosecute. Now the technology has developed so that anyone with a DVD burner and a camcorder can go into a sneak preview and have a bootleg copy of a movie out on the street for sale before the movie even hits the marketplace. The same can be said of music, books, newspaper articles, etc. That is flat out stealing. The laws have to be adjusted to protect the people who make their living off of intelectual property from this new technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 That is not what the legislation is trying to say. What it is trying to prevent on the market are the DVR and TIVO machines that automatically edit out the commercials while you are recording them. If these machines were allowed it would put a serious camp in commercial networks since advertisers would have no reason to buy add time. Don't worry, you will still be able to tape the shows but you will have to fast forward through the commercials manually rather than having a machine edit it out for you. As for the rest, as a guy who makes his living off of intellectual property this is not a bad bill. It is designed to protect copyrights and prevent piracy. Allowing the Justice Department to sue violators is to protect agencies such as the WGA, MPAA and others from incurring the cost of massive litigation in a class action type suit. This isn't a step towards a police state by any means. It is an attempt (albeit short sided in my view) to ensure that copywrites and intellectual property are not stolen or violated. 125575[/snapback] I respectfully disagree. It will most certainly make it illegal to fast forward through commercials -- ReplayTV was sued and put out of business for this very issue. This law would make it illegal not only to fast forward through commercials on a recording, but also illegal to fastforward through the ads at the beginning of a DVD. Disney DVDs already make it difficult to skip their 10 minutes of advertising to get to the main menu. This bill would make it ILLEGAL to bypass the intro ads. As someone else said, "[it] is freaking ridiculous since it’s your DVD playing on your DVD player in your home. How about making it illegal to not pay attention, too?" Bad bad bad. This bill goes FAR beyond protecting copyright and preventing piracy. It basically gives the copyright holder FULL CONTROL of their peice of work. That's not what the idea of copyright is supposed to be for. And why should taxpayers be holding the bill to prosecute a copyright violation? If my landlord steals my security deposit, the government doesn't pay for me to take him to court to recoup my damages. Why should they do it for a downloaded MP3? I'm all for copyright protection, but this bill goes WAY beyond what should be allowed. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted November 19, 2004 Author Share Posted November 19, 2004 So drafting laws to protect someone's hard work from being stolen before it reaches the marketplace is akin to creating a Police State? And me not putting valid WHOIS information on my registered domain makes me a pirate how exactly? And me fast forwarding through advertisements at the beginning of a DVD I purchased makes me a pirate how exactly? And me putting a file in a directory called "shared," even if I'm not connected to a network makes me a pirate how exactly? This is the entertainment lobby paying lots of money to buy their own laws. There's a reason these ideas were all shot down during the regular session are trying to be rammed in through the lame duck session, and it has nothing to do with protecting the marketplace. Funny that the MPAA wanted VCRs to be made illegal in the day due to IP concerns. Funny that the RIAA wanted used CD stores to be illegal in the day due to IP concerns. Seems that both industries are doing very well, despite the VCR and used CDs. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 And me not putting valid WHOIS information on my registered domain makes me a pirate how exactly? And me fast forwarding through advertisements at the beginning of a DVD I purchased makes me a pirate how exactly? And me putting a file in a directory called "shared," even if I'm not connected to a network makes me a pirate how exactly? This is the entertainment lobby paying lots of money to buy their own laws. There's a reason these ideas were all shot down during the regular session are trying to be rammed in through the lame duck session, and it has nothing to do with protecting the marketplace. Funny that the MPAA wanted VCRs to be made illegal in the day due to IP concerns. Funny that the RIAA wanted used CD stores to be illegal in the day due to IP concerns. Seems that both industries are doing very well, despite the VCR and used CDs. CW 125604[/snapback] Good points, but you aren't reading the bill correctly in my opion. 1) The bill will not prevent you from fast forwarding through commercials, not at all. What it does prevent is the sale of machines that edit out the commercials as they are recorded (like certain models of the TiVo machine that does so to save space on the hard drive). So that is nothing to worry about. If it were, I would be with you on this point. 2) It's not the act of putting a file into a "shared" folder that would be criminal according to the law (and my belief), it is the act of illegally copying a file from a server that is at issue. It is an attempt to expand the liability umbrella from just the manufacturer to the person "buying" (for lack of a better term) the stolen goods. I am NOT a fan of this portion of the law by the way and it is something I have debated with collegues on the matter. Finally, this most CERTAINLY is the entertainment lobby trying to pass laws in their own interest. Name one law that gets passed that isn't pushed through by a lobby. But that is besides the point. The protection of IP is essentail for the Entertainment Industry to survive. The Entertainment Industry is a multi-BILLION dollar industry (just Hollywood alone is roughly 7 Billion a year) that provides thousands of jobs and makes up a sizeable portion of our economy. The MPAA did try to outlaw VCRs, before they realized how big of a profit can be made off of home movies. They adapted to the technology and managed to do so without rewriting the laws. But now the technology has outgrown the law to such an extent that organizations such as the MPAA, WGA, SAG etc cannot possible be expected to keep up. Without new laws the piracy will only get worse. People think that violations of IP only affects those that are already loaded (people like Brad Pitt or Tom Hanks, the top billing guys) but they forget that piracy affects literally THOUSANDS of people. From the guy holding the boom on the movie set, to the guy behind the engineering board during the recording of a new CD, to the guy working as an assistant at a Publishing house, to the guy who takes tickets at the local movie theater...all these people are affected. If Piracy is allowed to go on unchecked, it affects every one of these people. Why shouldn't government enact laws that protect such a large part of our national economy? Why shouldn't they prevent theft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts