# Antipiracy bill targets technology (including PVR/DVR)



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

This is scary....

http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+targets+technology/2100-1028_3-5238140.html?tag=nefd.top

A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes...

...under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement...​


----------



## Redster (Jan 14, 2004)

Lets hope it doesnt pass. Sounds like this could even make it illegal to copy a cd even if you bought it. No more one for at home and one for the truck. And they can also start charging a fee per show that you record. Scaryyy.


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

Redster said:


> Lets hope it doesnt pass. Sounds like this could even make it illegal to copy a cd even if you bought it. No more one for at home and one for the truck. And they can also start charging a fee per show that you record. Scaryyy.


There are other things for people to do, other than TV, radio, etc. They pass this law and they will soon find that out. I will disconnect or scale back my services and cost them revenue. The most powerful vote you have in this country are the greenbacks sitting in your wallet/purse. Not surprised that Orrin Hatch introduced the law. That guy needs to be voted out, he is a fascist.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

There would be many many unhappy customers if they could not use their vcr's, dvd recorders, or dvr's any longer because of this new law. This seems pretty rediculous to me. So do they expect everyone that has these devices to get rid of them or quit using them once the new law comes to pass? Who is going to enforce this? Would the satellite companies that currently have DVR's built into the receivers be required to shut the DVR technology off? What about those that paid all that money for these DVR receivers, dvd recorders, vcr's, etc? Sounds like a lot of people would try to sue over this, many would try to sue the wrong person in the process.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Jacob, the idea is to stop this bill before it gets passed and becomes the law of the land, not to wait and address its evils after the fact. We all need to email our representatives in CONgress to voice our opposition to this frightening bill Sen. Hatch has hatched.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

_Okay, two threads covering the same thing in two different forums. Moving this thread to General Discussion and closing out duplicate thread. The yellow card is on me. - *Holtz*_


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Ok, Mark, I'm not sure if you just corrected or contradicted yourself. In any case, all's well that ends well since the topic ended up in the most appropriate forum. This is a serious issue and it needs the broadest readership possible if we are going to defeat this outrageous legislation.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> Ok, Mark, I'm not sure if you just corrected or contradicted yourself. In any case, all's well that ends well since the topic ended up in the most appropriate forum. This is a serious issue and it needs the broadest readership possible if we are going to defeat this outrageous legislation.


_Actually, I think I shot myself in both feet. Back to topic.- *Holtz*_


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I agree with you Nick, I was just saying if this bill did come into effect what would happen as a result, and I do think we need to do what we can to stop this. I am sure the network's commercials getting skipped with the DVR's does not help the matter any, probably convincing them to rid of them even more so.


----------



## james39 (Dec 10, 2003)

[RANT]

what's wrong with the world today.. Giant media companies with billions of dollars hold all the power to get whatever the hell they desire. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich have the authority to stomp all over the poor and nobody's there to stop them. If I buy a CD, I should be able to do anything I want with that content except for selling copies of it. If I pay for cable or satellite TV service, and get a DVR (or even an old fashioned VCR, for that matter), then I should be able to do whatever I want with THAT content, again excluding any profit taking on my part. See, the point of copyright law is to protect original producers from being copied and sold by so-called bootleggers. The point of having laws is to keep people honest and to punish people who bring harm (financial, or otherwise) to others.

Someone has to draw the line when bills start popping up for the sole purpose of making such and such an industry more wealthy. That seems to me the exact motivation behind a law giving content holders the ability to charge $$$ for people who record their content, and throwing people in jail who have dared to sample their stuff on p2p servers without coughing up the $$$ for the CD. Just to take things one step further, imagine a world where radio, TV, and internet are metered. That is, for every minute of radio I listen to, I'm billed say 10 cents.. or $6 per hour. (From the recording industry's perspective, I've listened to maybe 7 or 8 songs, so shouldn't I pay for that?) Or, as soon as I fire up a PVR, each show I record has a producer set value, so if I save an episode of CSI to my hard drive, I see a $4 charge on my monthly sat bill, or if I save a PPV movie, they bill me the same price as if I'd bought the video tape in the store ($15-20).

This may seem rediculous, but believe me, if they could... they would.

[END RANT]


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Orin Hatch's Orwellian fantasy of protecting us from ourselves by restricting the rights of Americans who want to use technology to enhance their own lives is possibly the most dangerous piece of legislation to the advancement of technology ever to come before Congress.

Here's a short list of things we use every day that are capable of inducing or facilitating copyright infringement, including the storage and tranmission of illegal materials, the use or possession of which could land us in prison -

- video recording and playback devices, such as VCRs, DVD players/recorders, video tape and optical disks, and even video-enabled cell phones
- Audio recording devices - answering machines, tape recorders, personal memo recorders including those in cellphones and provider-based systems
- computer HDDs and FDDs, static memory devices
- digital cameras, and associated memory sticks
- online and offsite storage/retrieval systems and facilities
- pc printers, scanners and copiers
- copy machines, networked printers and fax machines
- wired and wireless LANs, WANs and PVNs
- internet providers, email client software and online email and messaging services, including IM, IRC, FTP and chat systems

I'm may have left out a few, but I think you get the idea.


----------



## Neutron (Oct 2, 2003)

Add to that the computer hard drive. That's right. The same thing that would affect the DVR will also affect the computer.

If this bill passes I will be very worried as I make my living supporting and fixing computers.



Sorry Nick, just noticed now that you already included the HDD. My mistake, but that's the one thing I'm worried about the most from this bill.


----------



## emathis (Mar 19, 2003)

"...on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes..."

Gee, do you think the gun lobby should be worried. They could be next.


----------



## chrisk (Jun 6, 2004)

Not to take this to far off the topic but the anti-gun crowd is trying to do this through civil lawsuits. There are groups of lawyers, organized by the anti-gun crowd, that are convincing municipalities to file civil lawsuits against gun manufactures for the criminal misuse of their legally produced and highly regulated product. The idea is to not actually win the suit but to drive the manufacturer into bankruptcy through mounting legal fees to defend themselves. Not one of the lawsuits has been successful to my knowledge. They have been either thrown out with prejudice or the defendant has been found not liable.The RIAA or MPAA could use the same tactic against D*, E* or any video recording device manufacturer by suing them for their customers recording and illegally sharing copyrighted material. The resulting legal fees would most likely cause the manufacture or service provider to cease offering and / or supporting the product because it would no longer be profitable.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

There are going to be some very VERY SERIOUS issues if this bill passes, I just dont see it passing, it seems to unrealistic. Too many people already have DVR's, computers, digital cameras, printers, etc. How would anybody be able to conduct business with computers especially if you could not store your records? Next thing you know they will outlaw the pen and paper because they would be afraid you would copy what you see.

I think there would be some major reactions if this were to pass, and I think they know that, and they know better than to pass any such rediculous law. Now it would be a different story if they were to try to prevent these type of devices from copying illegal content but still allow them to be on the market.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

The RIAA and MPAA have some very powerful employees, I mean friends, in the US Congress. I don't put anything past them. They've already set up their own "security force" who impersonates police officers and "raids" stores and vendors, and so far the Justice Department lets them get away with it. They already tried to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on subpoenas, but even after that was squashed they issue thousands of "John Doe" subpoenas in a fish hunt for alleged criminals, which has turned into legalized extortion against grandmothers and pre-teen kids. They have succeeded in restricting the "Fair Use" clauses in our Copyright laws in such as manner as to make them disappear. They do not want ANY "Fair Use" except for themselves. They mask their tactics as being concerned solely for the artists involved, yet they have been found to have cheated those same artists out of millions of dollars owed to them.

Something needs to be done to put a big slapdown on the RIAA and MPAA before it is too late. Jack Valenti and Matt Oppenheim are just another form of terrorist.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Do you think you need not be concerned by the proposed copyright protection legislation known as the "Federal Inducement Act" currently being supported and promoted by Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah? Think again. If this should get passed by Congress and signed into law, and you own a computer, VCR or DVD player, you could soon be receiving a government inspection notice similar to this one...

Take a look...


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> This is scary....
> 
> http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+targets+technology/2100-1028_3-5238140.html?tag=nefd.top
> 
> ...


GAAAAAA!!!!!! I am so sick of these Commie rat bast*rds who keep trying to control everything we watch and listen to! My Congressman is going to hear about this right now!


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

ypsiguy said:


> There are other things for people to do, other than TV, radio, etc. They pass this law and they will soon find that out. I will disconnect or scale back my services and cost them revenue. The most powerful vote you have in this country are the greenbacks sitting in your wallet/purse. Not surprised that Orrin Hatch introduced the law. That guy needs to be voted out, he is a fascist.


No kidding. This is a BIG BIG issue for me. There are a couple of hot button issues for me, this one and the second ammendment. Any politician who gets on the wrong side of me on either of those, isn't getting my vote.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> There would be many many unhappy customers if they could not use their vcr's, dvd recorders, or dvr's any longer because of this new law. This seems pretty rediculous to me. So do they expect everyone that has these devices to get rid of them or quit using them once the new law comes to pass? Who is going to enforce this? Would the satellite companies that currently have DVR's built into the receivers be required to shut the DVR technology off? What about those that paid all that money for these DVR receivers, dvd recorders, vcr's, etc? Sounds like a lot of people would try to sue over this, many would try to sue the wrong person in the process.


I can't see this bill standing up in court.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Tyralak said:


> No kidding. This is a BIG BIG issue for me. There are a couple of hot button issues for me, this one and the second ammendment. Any politician who gets on the wrong side of me on either of those, isn't getting my vote.


By the time your senators and your representative come up for reelection so you can vote the scoundrels out of office, it may be too late. You need to let them hear your opinion NOW... :new_cussi

...not later. :shrug:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Tyralak said:


> I can't see this bill standing up in court.


Let's deal with it up front by contacting our senators and getting rid of it HERE and NOW rather than waiting and hoping it will be overturned later by the courts!


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

Tyralak said:


> GAAAAAA!!!!!! I am so sick of these Commie rat bast*rds who keep trying to control everything we watch and listen to! My Congressman is going to hear about this right now!


Orin Hatch a communist? (hehehe)

It is more like the capitalist media giants asserting their power in Congress through their lobbyists and campaign contributions. Use a bit of critical thought here. It does more good than ranting. Know the enemy in order to fight them.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> There are going to be some very VERY SERIOUS issues if this bill passes, I just dont see it passing, it seems to unrealistic. Too many people already have DVR's, computers, digital cameras, printers, etc. How would anybody be able to conduct business with computers especially if you could not store your records? Next thing you know they will outlaw the pen and paper because they would be afraid you would copy what you see.
> 
> I think there would be some major reactions if this were to pass, and I think they know that, and they know better than to pass any such rediculous law. Now it would be a different story if they were to try to prevent these type of devices from copying illegal content but still allow them to be on the market.


I remmeber when I thought the dispicable DMCA was too outrageous to pass. It did. We have to do somehting about this one before it becomes law.


----------



## Montezuma58 (May 24, 2004)

> The Induce Act stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act," a reference to Capitol Hill's frequently stated concern that file-trading networks are a source of unlawful pornography.


Come on people, it's for the children :icon_cry:. You don't hate children do you? I bet those of you that are against this bill also like to kick puppies in your spare time.


----------



## Steveox (Apr 21, 2004)

Its all the democrats fault and you fools elected them! Democrats stand for socialism. The democrats are running the senate just like the kremlin in the old soviet union days. Ladies and gentlemen if this ***** ever becomes president count you your freedom days are numbered. So please think before you vote. Our freedoms are at stake.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Steveox said:


> Its all the democrats fault and you fools elected them! Democrats stand for socialism. The democrats are running the senate just like the kremlin in the old soviet union days. Ladies and gentlemen if this ***** ever becomes president count you your freedom days are numbered. So please think before you vote. Our freedoms are at stake.


Damnit, Steveox! It's one of OUR guys who's pulling this bullsh*t. Orin Hatch.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Tyralak said:


> Damnit, Steveox! It's one of OUR guys who's pulling this bullsh*t. Orin Hatch.


Yeah! That's what REALLY sucks. That Rat has GOT to go!


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Orrin Hatch is a Republican Senator from Utah. Gee, what's the predominate religion in Utah? Where is CleanFlicks located where they will send you a sanitized version of current films?

Orrin Hatch Senate Web Site


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

In case some of you are not quite sure, *Montezuma58* has tongue planted firmly in cheek. 

Congress _could_ pass this legislation if we don't speak up now. After all, it's ostensibly "for the children" and what politician in his right mind would vote against that?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

The children would grow up accepting the terms that is wanting to be passed as normal not knowing what it would be like to record their content. Its like someone that is blind that was born that way not knowing what it is like, not knowing what they are missing.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

If this bill passes then S-video cables will be illegal because they could be used to connect a satellite receiver to a video capture card where we could copy shows and distribute them on p2p where the television network would loose tens of tens of dollars!!!!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"... where the television network would loose tens of tens of dollars!!!!"_

Mike, may we assume that you meant to say '...where the television networks would _lose_ tens of _millions_ of dollars'?


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Nick said:


> _"... where the television network would loose tens of tens of dollars!!!!"_
> 
> Mike, may we assume that you meant to say '...where the television networks would _lose_ tens of _millions_ of dollars'?


Not sure if your wink means you know what's what or not, so what he MEANS is the whole piracy thing is blown totally out of proportion.


----------



## amit5roy5 (Mar 4, 2004)

There are so many forms of copying. Duplicating, writing down, TIVOing, downloading, printing. Life wont' function without these. I hope that this doesn't pass. It will make life harder for million of Americans for a few money-hungry company executives.

Yes, I understand that there is a bad economy and companies are having trouple having ends meet, the the American economy will recover.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

What the RIAA and MPAA always fail to mention, however, is that THEY have cheated artists out of far more money than any pirate using any sort of medium could ever accomplish.

Everyone should go to http://www.eff.org to read about this and other issues affecting our rights.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

SimpleSimon said:


> Not sure if your wink means you know what's what or not, so what he MEANS is the whole piracy thing is blown totally out of proportion.


Thanks for taking time to explain it to me. I seldom know what's what, or at the very least, am the last to know.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Nick said:


> Thanks for taking time to explain it to me. I seldom know what's what, or at the very least, am the last to know.


OK, OK - I get it now.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

So basically the RIAA does this to benefit themselves instead of the music industry.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> So basically the RIAA does this to benefit themselves instead of the music industry.


Exactly. They use the smokescreen of artist representation but really have no interest in the artists themselves. The RIAA represents the music corporations, not the artists. The MPAA is the same for the movie industry, though so far they have not been as aggressive as their music counterpart. But, they're beginning to take some of the same draconian actions, so stopping them now before they get too far is prudent.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Steveox - Try engaging some brain cells..

Republican in the White House. Republican House. Republican Senate. How are you going to pin this on Hillary when ORIN HATCH (Republican) filed the bill?


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

djlong said:


> Steveox - Try engaging some brain cells..
> 
> Republican in the White House. Republican House. Republican Senate. How are you going to pin this on Hillary when ORIN HATCH (Republican) filed the bill?


Exactly, this shows the evils of having one party in control of all three.

Isn't edit a wonderful thing? I really hope UT gets rid of Hatch, but I doubt it. Party affiliation aside, he's just annoying with his extremist views.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

ypsiguy said:


> Exactly, this shows the evils of having one party in control of all three branches.


You count the House and Senate as two different branches?


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

He misstated, but you know what he meant.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Well, I emailed my congressman, and our two senators. Senator Boxer wrote me back first thing this morning. I had to run this through my BS filter to try to divine her actual stance on the matter. As far as I can tell, she is sympathetic to the studios. However, it appears she doesn't think that it requires immediate legislative action. But who knows how she'll vote when it comes right down to it. I did appreciate her writing me back a personal note, and very promptly at that. Anyway I'll post the message she sent me for your perusal.

June 21, 2004

Mr. Jacob Landrum
(street adress deleted)
West Sacramento, California 95691-5899

Dear Mr. Landrum:

Thank you for contacting me regarding
copyright protection legislation. This is a
difficult issue and I appreciate the opportunity
to hear your thoughts.

The United States has always encouraged
and rewarded creativity and ingenuity. The
intellectual property of our citizens is one of
this country's most important assets, which we
must work hard to protect. 

The rapid innovations in digital
technology, however, make the challenge of
providing these protections all the more
difficult. Those in the digital media industry,
including many forms of entertainment, are
concerned that their product is increasingly
vulnerable to piracy and that they are being
deprived of compensation which is rightfully due
to them. 

While I am very sympathetic to these
concerns, I believe that we should first give
the private sector an opportunity to come up
with an effective solution. It is in the best
interests of both the entertainment and the
technology industries to find a way to take
advantage of the promise that digital technology
offers while adequately protecting the rights of
creative artists. Moreover, such an arrangement
would also be in the best interests of
consumers.

I will continue to monitor this situation,
and should the time arrive when I believe action
by the federal government is appropriate, I will
keep your views in mind. Again, thank you for
writing.




Sincerely,


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I seems to me we already have sufficient copyright and anti-piracy laws on the books that already provide adequate protections for those who own copyrighted creative and intellectual properties. There are hundreds, if not thousands of civil and criminal cases that have been successfully pursued through the courts, with severe penalties for the offenders.

The problems I have with what the Induce Bill proposes is that it so broadens the reach of culpability - from the manufacturer to the viewer - that it will surely stifle technological innovation and advancement, and, even worse, put innocent (read ignorant) consumers at risk of being charged, convicted and fined or imprisoned for the simple acts of receiving, possessing and/or viewing purloined copyrighted materials. 

In other words, the net that any fishing expedition under the Induce provisions would cast is so wide and indiscriminate that virtually any and every consumer who may have innocently purchased, received or just viewed pirated materials could be caught up. 

It would be like sitting in a bar having a drink with your spouse when suddenly the joint gets raided by the police for illegal drug activity, and both of you get arrested along with every body else. Or, picking up a package for someone as a favor, and you are arrested and subsequently sent to prison for trafficking because, as it is later revealed at your criminal trial, the package you were carrying contained illegal drugs.

You may scoff at these scenarios, but believe me, bad things frequently happen to innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just ask the women serving time in a federal prison for innocently and unknowingly doing a favor for her man.

Is that next bargain DVD you buy off the $5 rack at your favorite 7-11 or dollar store going to land you in prison?

It could happen.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

People should email/fax/write their congressman and voice their support for the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act , a new bill that would repeal much of the destructive and anti-consumer provisions of the DMCA and would also prevent the draconian measures being pushed by the RIAA and MPAA.


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

What ever happened to government for the people? Ah yes, it became government for the people that contribute the most to your reelection fund.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

invaliduser88 said:


> What ever happened to government for the people? Ah yes, it became government for the people that contribute the most to your reelection fund.


We have the best government money can buy!


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> We have the best government money can buy!


Aint it the truth.


----------



## Danny R (Jul 5, 2002)

Hatch introduced the bill on the floor of the senate last Tuesday. The text of it is very broad:


> Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 2560, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act.
> 
> I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

Danny R said:


> Hatch introduced the bill on the floor of the senate last Tuesday. The text of it is very broad:


That's horrible. I hope it doesn't get very far. Although, with this and other bills, would could solve our energy problems. Just hook up a generator to Thomas Jefferson's body. It's probably spinning at reletivistic speeds right now. I wish someone would introduce a bill that makes it a crime to "design or impliment any device or system which is designed to inhibit or discourage Fair Use."


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

HappyGoLucky said:


> What the RIAA and MPAA always fail to mention, however, is that THEY have cheated artists out of far more money than any pirate using any sort of medium could ever accomplish.
> 
> Everyone should go to http://www.eff.org to read about this and other issues affecting our rights.


So because they may have cheated them we should also cheat them? I don't think so.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

mainedish said:


> So because they may have cheated them we should also cheat them? I don't think so.


No, what he's saying is that the MPAA and RIAA are 1. Using the piracy "problem" as an excuse. It's a red herring. Sort of like saying "Do it for the children. You don't HATE children, DO you?" and 2. They're simply hypocrits, claiming they're all about the artist's rights, when they routinely sodomize the same artists they're pretending to protect. He's not saying people should engage in wholesale piracy.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

mainedish said:


> So because they may have cheated them we should also cheat them? I don't think so.


You said that, not me. Nowhere have I advocated cheating anyone, so why you would attempt to spin my words into something completely unfounded is irresponsible of you.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

Ok. So with High Speed internet making it easy to steal movies will you use that excuse if dvd sales drop also? Because they will. That's the next thing to come and they know it. And you have not even talked about all the pirated software on the internet. And I have XM satellite and I don't think much of either the MPAA and RIAA.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

Tyralak said:


> No, what he's saying is that the MPAA and RIAA are 1. Using the piracy "problem" as an excuse. It's a red herring. Sort of like saying "Do it for the children. You don't HATE children, DO you?" and 2. They're simply hypocrits, claiming they're all about the artist's rights, when they routinely sodomize the same artists they're pretending to protect. He's not saying people should engage in wholesale piracy.


Even if they are using it as a excuse it does not make it legal. If CD sales were strong would stealing of P2P be ok? Many are trying to make excuses for downloading music but it's stealing. Kazaa and other P2P companies have had it too easy for too long. They admit that most use it for stealing and they know it.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

mainedish said:


> Ok. So with High Speed internet making it easy to steal movies will you use that excuse if dvd sales drop also? That's the next thing to come and they know it. And you have not even talked about all the pirated software on the internet. And I have XM satellite and I don't think much of either the MPAA and RIAA.


Once again, it's not an excuse. Nobody here is advocating piracy! The argument is that the MPAA and RIAA are using piracy as an excuse to get around the fair use laws they've hated for years, but could never get around. They want to tell you when and where you can watch and listen to things. They want to charge you up the ass for doing so. They want to eliminate time-shifting, and archiving of TV shows. They don't want a person who buys a CD to be able to make a copy for the car. They want a person to have to re-buy a movie if their toddler scratches it, instead of being able to make a backup. They eventually want to be able to meter your TV viewing and charge you per hour. These are things we have to fight, have nothing whatsoever to do with piracy.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

this legislation is too broad. Youa re looking at P2P but it potentially affects a lot more than that.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

mainedish said:


> Even if they are using it as a excuse it does not make it legal. If CD sales were strong would stealing of P2P be ok?


What the hell is wrong with you? You need to improve your reading comprehension. NOBODY here is advocating piracy! The MPAA and RIAA are using piracy as an excuse to pass more and more draconian laws which violate fair use, and trample on the rights of consumers. THIS is what we're talking about!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Maine read a short extract of the bill that focused on P2P and decided he is for it becuase it will outlaw that. Whenver anyone explains that there might be a better (more enforceable) way to achieve that end, or says that the bill is too broad he ignores their comment and focuses on P2P being stealing. If he read the bill I think he might change his mind. I am not even sure that he is aware that the bill covers more than P2P networks.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

I am only talking about P2P networks. They are being used for stealing . I am for a bill to get rid of P2P networks.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> Maine read a short extract of the bill that focused on P2P and decided he is for it becuase it will outlaw that. Whenver anyone explains that there might be a better (more enforceable) way to achieve that end, or says that the bill is too broad he ignores their comment and focuses on P2P being stealing. If he read the bill I think he might change his mind.


I can't even read your post. Why don't you use spell check?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

mainedish said:


> I am only talking about P2P networks. They are being used for stealing . I am for a bill to get rid of P2P networks.


But that is not what this bill does. It is far broader than that.


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

mainedish said:


> I am only talking about P2P networks. They are being used for stealing . I am for a bill to get rid of P2P networks.


Guns and knives are used for killing. Cars are used for drug running. Radio waves are used for coordinating terrorist attacks. Wanna get rid of all those too? P2P technology has many other uses. Trying to ban certian technologies because they can be used improperly is foolish, ignorant, and ultimately destructive. There are plenty of tools availible for companies to protect their copyrights. In fact, with the dispicable DMCA, they've gone TOO far. Companies have TOO much power, and are using those new laws for the REAL intent for which they were passed. Tho get rid of fair use, and quash competition.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

If they outlaw P2P technology only outlaws will have the new Eminem single.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

Tyralak said:


> Guns and knives are used for killing. Cars are used for drug running. Radio waves are used for coordinating terrorist attacks. Wanna get rid of all those too? P2P technology has many other uses. Trying to ban certian technologies because they can be used improperly is foolish, ignorant, and ultimately destructive. There are plenty of tools availible for companies to protect their copyrights. In fact, with the dispicable DMCA, they've gone TOO far. Companies have TOO much power, and are using those new laws for the REAL intent for which they were passed. Tho get rid of fair use, and quash competition.


Fair use is one thing. But downloading a song you don't own is stealing. Do you really think people who download music already own the song? And what other purpose do people use Kazaa for?

They used to sell cable boxes and say "We don't sell these for you to receive free Cable" or words like that. Huh.


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

Listen, I don't want to lose Tivo or my DVD recorder but some of the CNET report has some lobbyist defending the P2P networks . The final bill might be nothing like this. I don't want them to outlaw vcrs and tivos but I do want them to outlaw P2P.


----------



## james39 (Dec 10, 2003)

It isn't a crime to transmit data across the internet. P2P technology (in general) must not be outlawed. Copyright infringers (people who wilfully upload and download the intellectual property of recording artists through public distribution networks) should be fined according to laws which are already in place to protect the rights of content producers. Fair use must also be defended. It is fair that I may make any backup copy I want for personal use. It is fair that if I invite friends over, they may listen to the music which *I* have purchased. It is unfair, for me to make copies and charge $$ for them, it is unfair for me to post the song on a public network for others to copy. Balance must be acheived so that fair use is protected, and unfair use is prosecuted.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

mainedish - the problem with the RIAA is that they blame lower CD sales on piracy, specifically P2P netowrks. now, when Napster, the mother of all P2P nets was in full swing and they were THE place to go to, CD sales were *up*. they are using the piracy red herring to blame lower sales upon when, in fact, it's everything from the economic slowdown, to fewer acts coming out to the proliferation of CD-Rs out there for less than a buck and people wondering what they're paying for when list price is $18 - which is what it was 20 years ago (when vinyls was $5.99 to $9.99 in this area and they justified the higher prices for CDs by saying it cost more to produce and even got the artists to take lower royalties on CD sales).

So Napster goes away and sales go down... The RIAA is about as disingenuous as you can get...


----------



## mainedish (Mar 25, 2003)

djlong said:


> mainedish - the problem with the RIAA is that they blame lower CD sales on piracy, specifically P2P netowrks. now, when Napster, the mother of all P2P nets was in full swing and they were THE place to go to, CD sales were *up*. they are using the piracy red herring to blame lower sales upon when, in fact, it's everything from the economic slowdown, to fewer acts coming out to the proliferation of CD-Rs out there for less than a buck and people wondering what they're paying for when list price is $18 - which is what it was 20 years ago (when vinyls was $5.99 to $9.99 in this area and they justified the higher prices for CDs by saying it cost more to produce and even got the artists to take lower royalties on CD sales).
> 
> So Napster goes away and sales go down... The RIAA is about as disingenuous as you can get...


Believe me I am not defending the RIAA being a XM radio sub. I just want the stealing to stop. Pirated software is something Kazaa admits is on the P2P .And that is a greater concern for me then Music.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

mainedish said:


> I don't want them to outlaw vcrs and tivos but I do want them to outlaw stealing.


 In case you haven't already heard, stealing is already "outlawed", and has been for some time now. There already are laws on the books that make the various forms of stealing a crime. So you think we need yet another law? People like you that think passing more and more laws is the solution to every problem, you worry me.

It's the same with the bogus (so-called) "hate crime" laws. There were already sufficient laws in place that made murder, assault, arson and all the other crimes against persons and property a felony. I would venture that for those who commit such crimes against anyone, there is already a component of 'hate' in their motivation, regardless of who their intended victim is.

My point is, we don't need more laws to address acts that are already amply covered by existing laws.

In Georgia, there is saying that one hears when the state legislature convenes in Atlanta each January. _"Take your wives, your daughters, and your money and run for the hills! The state legislature's in session."_

Just one of my many, many great ideas is for Americans to finally say to CONgress _"Just stay home and do nothing but draw your salaries. We'll call you if we need you."_ We don't need those arrogant blustards dreaming up any more ways to spend our money and further infringe upon our constitutional rights.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Mainedish is strogly against Government interference in our lives----except when it might benefit his industry.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

mainedish said:


> Listen, I don't want to lose Tivo or my DVD recorder but some of the CNET report has some lobbyist defending the P2P networks . The final bill might be nothing like this. I don't want them to outlaw vcrs and tivos but I do want them to outlaw P2P.


So because you dont know waht the bill will finally look like you endorse it? There's somethign cockeyed there. Could it be that you had absolutely no ide want it was about when you first endorsed it and are unable to addmit that was a mistake/


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Nick said:


> In case you haven't already heard, stealing is already "outlawed", ... ... ...


Kudos & hurrahs - you're 100% correct on all counts! :righton:


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

mainedish said:


> Ok. So with High Speed internet making it easy to steal movies will you use that excuse if dvd sales drop also? Because they will. That's the next thing to come and they know it. And you have not even talked about all the pirated software on the internet. And I have XM satellite and I don't think much of either the MPAA and RIAA.


So now you want to outlaw broadband internet use? Should we make it illegal to connect at any speed above 24kbps? :sure: After all, that high speed broadband can be used to steal music, movies, and programs, so it should be illegal, right?


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

mainedish said:


> I am only talking about P2P networks. They are being used for stealing . I am for a bill to get rid of P2P networks.


How is a law in the US going to affect the internet, which is an internation entity? Is the FBI going to try arresting someone in Great Britain for using P2P software that is illegal in the USA? Is the US government going to put filters on internet trunks to block P2P ports or anything else they deem illegal? That's much like what places like China and Cuba do. Such great company.

Even if P2P were made illegal, it won't stop the usage. It is far too pervasive and far too flexible. There are many legitimate uses for P2P, especially in the business world, also. What you and this bill is asking is akin to tossing a paper towel into the Mississippi river to keep it from flooding.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

HappyGoLucky said:


> How is a law in the US going to affect the internet, which is an internation entity? Is the FBI going to try arresting someone in Great Britain for using P2P software that is illegal in the USA? Is the US government going to put filters on internet trunks to block P2P ports or anything else they deem illegal? That's much like what places like China and Cuba do. Such great company.


Plus, if someone in the US is P2P'ing with someone in the UK, would this law apply or would it fall under international jurisdiction?



HappyGoLucky said:


> Even if P2P were made illegal, it won't stop the usage. It is far too pervasive and far too flexible. There are many legitimate uses for P2P, especially in the business world, also. What you and this bill is asking is akin to tossing a paper towel into the Mississippi river to keep it from flooding.


VERY NICE analogy!!!


----------



## catman (Jun 27, 2002)

This sounds awflly fimilar . they said the same of VCR's back in the 80's Beta is not around but VHS is . where do you find bata today ? in computers .


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

mainedish said:


> Even if they are using it as a excuse it does not make it legal. If CD sales were strong would stealing of P2P be ok? Many are trying to make excuses for downloading music but it's stealing. Kazaa and other P2P companies have had it too easy for too long. They admit that most use it for stealing and they know it.


A coathanger can be a deadly device, so is a can of gasoline or a stick. You cannot ban something based on its *potential* to be used for something illegal. P2P technology has terrific, LEGAL uses for technology, Groove network is one that comes quickly to mind. Theft is illegal today. Adding this ridiculous law to the books will do nothing other than outlaw legitimit uses of technology.

mainedish, have you or your significant other ever "loaned" a book to friend to read or gave a magazine to a coworker? If so, did you mail a extra copyright payment to the publisher and author?

I recently read an interview with an accountant and lawyer for a firm that audit recording labels for royalty payments. Both said in the 20+ yrs that they have been doing this they have NEVER found a single lable that had paid the artist what they were entitled to according to their contracts. The MPAA and RIAA are quite simply lying about the facts when they say this is about protecting the artist.

Hopefully everyone has contacted their Reps and Senators.


----------



## psycaz (Oct 4, 2002)

Hey, the downloading of movies is what caused GIGLI to be such a flop, everyone who wanted to see it downloaded instead of going to the theatre to see it. (Huge sarcasm)

I agree with the others, piracy is wrong, but you can't convict everyone because someone might do it. Ask Direct TV. They finally got busted on their tactics.

The RIAA and MPAA need to come to facts as others have said that their biggest enemies are themselves. They expect sales to continue to go up in a down economy. They keep looking for a scapegoat and don't want to admit they have gotten caught with their price gauging. If you add in that probably half of what they produce is garbage anyway, why should sales go up. 

I only see about 1 movie a year in a theatre anymore due to ticket prices. I just wait for the dvd. I don't buy cds anymore, don't like whats produced. MY wife waits until they start hitting the cheapy section or she won't buy them either. They cost too much. I'd rather go back to vinyl than pay what they want. There is no reason for the inflated prices outside of greed.

Of course those extra profits can buy some of the best congrssional legislation out there.

P2P networks may engage in illegal activities, but you can't hold everyone accountable or blame everyone on them. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty around here. But more and more its just: GUILTY! , hey what was it did they did again...


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2004)

"How is a law in the US going to affect the internet, which is an internation entity? "

Simple answer to that. We'll do just what we always do when some other country refuses to be our biatch -- bomb them back to the stone age and send in the troops. That'll teach those infringement enablers. If the Russians could have controlled the flow of info as well as our existing, let alone proposed, copyright law does, they'd still have their evil empire.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Example of Best Congressmen Money Can Buy:

http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=68207

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Judiciary Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.) issued the following statement regarding H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act.

"We strongly oppose the substance of H.R. 107. This legislation would eviscerate a key provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which is successfully protecting copyrighted works and providing consumers access to more digital content than ever before. In fact, a DVD player is now as common a household item as the VCR was 15 years ago precisely because of the DMCA. H.R. 107 would undo a law that is working and destroy the careful balance in copyright law between consumers' rights and intellectual property rights.

"Furthermore, our strong objections to the substance of H.R. 107 are matched by our objections to what appears to be a bold jurisdictional power grab. The Judiciary Committee has - and has long had - exclusive jurisdiction over copyright law. Rest assured, we will wholeheartedly oppose this move in a bipartisan fashion, as we would expect Energy and Commerce Committee leaders to do if we attempted to write energy legislation."​What isn't noted in their little speech is that these three House members are currently some of the biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the movie and music industry corporations and lobbyists. The RIAA and MPAA lobbyists practically set up shop in their offices. But of course, that doesn't mean these elected officials might be biased, does it? :sure: :sure:


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2004)

This bill is BS!!! If your son buys a music CD, and the music gets installed on your daughter's computer; then both of your children are criminals ???
Welcome to the United States of Corporate America!!!!!


----------



## Tyralak (Jan 24, 2004)

HappyGoLucky said:


> [/indent]
> What isn't noted in their little speech is that these three House members are currently some of the biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the movie and music industry corporations and lobbyists. The RIAA and MPAA lobbyists practically set up shop in their offices. But of course, that doesn't mean these elected officials might be biased, does it? :sure: :sure:


Happy, hell has just frozen over, and I recently saw a flock of pigs heading south for the winter fly over my house. I actually agree with something that dispicable little Troll, Michael Moore said. I saw a re-run of the O'Reilly Factor, where Moore was a guest, and he made an interesting point. When Bill asked Moore is he advocated Socialism, Moore said not really, and said something along the lines of: "Big corporations are more socialist than anyone else in this country." I did some thinking on this, and I think he's right. Every time there's public backlash over a product, corporations are the first to want to impinge on the 1st Amenendment. They lobby to have the libel (sp?) laws strengthened so people can't speak out. When they do poorly in business, they're the first to ask the governement for a handout to bail them out of their own poor business practices. When they fear competition, they try to get laws passed like the DMCA which has been used more often than not, to quash competitors making a competing product. Or they try to get patent laws broadened so that nobody can make a competing product. And when they want to increase their profits, they're the first to ask Congress to pass new laws like the piece of legislative diahreah we're discussing now, basically outlawing fair use, so people cannot backup the items they buy for their own use. Thus requiring the person to spend more money they otherwise wouldn't have to spend to replace a damaged CD, or to have to re-buy a movie on DVD that they already own on VHS. A lot of big industries are using the government as their own personal piggy bank. As a true Libertarian Capitalist, I find this deeply offensive.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

Tyralak said:


> Happy, hell has just frozen over, and I recently saw a flock of pigs heading south for the winter fly over my house. I actually agree with something that dispicable little Troll, Michael Moore said.


(BONG) (BONG)
"What Knockers!"
"Why, thank you, Doctor"

I think you'll be Abby Normal before you know it.


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

Interesting piece from the EFF. Mock compliant based on INDUCE Act;

http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.php


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Tyralak said:


> Happy, hell has just frozen over, and I recently saw a flock of pigs heading south for the winter fly over my house.


Those damn pigs flew in front of my LNB and gave me pig fade :lol:


----------

