and then bitch about copyright laws that are too broad????

Sorry, Apple. No sympathy to be found here. Nor for Google, Amazon (owner of the ridiculous one-click patent), or any of the other corporate entities that may be affected.

You guys willingly participate in a broken system when it favors you, don't look to me for help avoiding the consequences.

Smart political move. Sure it is.

Like killing a fly with a sledge hammer.

How can a download of a song sold to the user under a contract with a record company be illegal? A dumb & dumber effort that needs to be cleaned up a bit.

Hopefully there will be some senate aides that own an iPod and can advise their boss on this matter.

why VP Cheney - apparently a keen iPod user - allegedly told Leahy to "go !**! himself".

Or then again, maybe he's just an arrogant foul-mouthed jerk with no sense of decorum.

Who knows…

Quote

jfbiii wrote:
and then bitch about copyright laws that are too broad????

Sorry, Apple. No sympathy to be found here. Nor for Google, Amazon (owner of the ridiculous one-click patent), or any of the other corporate entities that may be affected.

You guys willingly participate in a broken system when it favors you, don't look to me for help avoiding the consequences.

Out of curiousity, have you read the aforementioned patents? I've read the Apple 'transparency' patent and the Microsoft 'double-click' patent. I should look up the Amazon one-click patent, and I'm not sure what Google has patented that's in dispute - mind enlightening me?

Remember (IANAL) that the big question that has to be answered for a patent to be awarded is 'Is this a novel thing?'. In the case of Apple's patent, the patent is not on transparency per se, but rather on a use of transparency to convey information - a method that I have not seen in use. (Specifically, Apple patented windows that fade over time, and at some threshold become unresponsive to user input.) Likewise, Microsoft's patent is not on the concept of double-clicking but on the use of a variety of doubleclicking (sort of a long-click-click) to trigger actions on certain applications. It's meant for embedded systems. So both of these patents are pretty legitimate, in my view, being rather novel. If you've got prior art for them, do let the Patent Office know. Ditto Amazon's patent - it's my understanding that a great many people went on a search for prior art for it, and nothing legally qualifiying showed up.

Also, note that patent and copyright, though both intellectual property, are completely different realms, and give different rights. Just because an organization might abuse the patent system does not mean they cannot strive for fair copyright.

Jason

How can a download of a song sold to the user under a contract with a record company be illegal?

===

You tell me. The article said nothing about this. They were talking about sites like Kazaa where music is traded illegally.

Where Apple comes into this is that they make software and hardware that can be used in tandem with such illegal networks. (Also note that they're NOT in trouble right now...they're saying that this law could perhaps allow them to GET in trouble in the future IF this law were to pass. I don't think that's likely now that so many companies are opposing it.)

While it's certainly ok for a law to make the sharing of music on such networks illegal it does need to be cut down to protect people who aren't actually involved in sharing the music.

"How can a download of a song sold to the user under a contract with a record company be illegal?"

The article didn't say anything about making the iTMS illegal, it's talking about mp3 players like the iPOD. The vast majority of music put on iPods is not downloaded legally from the iTune Music Store; it's ripped from CD's.

For those of you that have read previous posts of mine, this is old news: I really hate the RIAA/MPAA.

First, jfbiii... read the damn bill. This copyright law would give license holders (think music) to sue anyone they feel INDUCES file sharing of ANY type. That includes materials legally bought through something iTunes or Napster (though the terms are different ... ).

In other words, if you sell/give/resell any CD player, VCR, DVD player, or MP3 player, you are liable for each individual song that particular item can hold.

If you resell a 10GB iPod or Rio, then you'd be liable for up to $100,000 for EACH song that would fit on that. Basically, millions of dollars.

This would be money that not only the RIAA/MPAA would continue to use for their legal team, but also to continue to pressure Congress to force even more legally binding laws. Oh, and it stifles ANY innovation.

Any new ideas for music, movies and related will now be under direct persecution from the RIAA/MPAA.

So jfbiii (illiterate one), since you have failed to read the bill,and other items that are before Congress, how could you know why these companies are upset?

I don't want to be around a year from when yer bitchin' from your jail cell because you couldn't pay for the liability of the songs you MIGHT have been able to share.

To all: apparently, nothing short of a visit from the NRA will stop Orin Hatch from continuing to press idiotic legislation like this. Of course, maybe it's because he was a one-time musician and just wants to keep making money for a song you've never heard....

No it didn't say anything about making it illegal, it just WOULD BE illegal under the term "inducing". Read the bill.

People, your country is of no service to you if you pay no attention to the leadership and the bills it passes.

Become more patriotic by reading what your government is passing... and what it's doing without your consent.

I'm not a Big Brother fanatic, but I will say this: you are not in the country you once were even ten years ago. The fear that companies have of people actually coming up with a better idea than them has motivated those companies to press Congress for ridiculous laws that take your rights away as a consumer.

The fear that the government has of anothe terrorist attack has caused those same leaders to pass bills that take away a few of your most basic rights as an American citizen. Read the f@#$%in' Patriot Act.

You want to be protected? You have to read, you have to protect yourself. Otherwise, don't be surprised in the near future when you'll have to pay homage not only to whoever's in leadership, regardless of whether you agree with them or not (oh? you disagree? get used to "concerned" visits from your local authorities), but also to a sponsor (i.e. a company who wishes to remain in power and will do anything to maintain that position.)

Seriously. Get involved, register to vote, pay attention to things that AREN'T said.

Quote

metavurt wrote:
Read the f@#$%in' Patriot Act.

Tried to once. It's well-nigh impossible because the majority of it is amendments to existing legislation (none of which is included.) Things like "The third paragraph of Section 7(g) of US Title 35 is amended to read:". Now it would be nice if they would include those sections so we know what's changed. (It's almost enough to make me want to legislate that the US Code be managed by CVS or subversion. )

And now, back to more on-topic things.

Jason

The issue is that corporations want to make money by obtaining fraudulent patents that, under the current system, they can protect more easily than they can challenge. So they file bogus patent application after bogus patent application because once they have it they are likely to retain it. At that point, innovation is stifled and people are using the legal system to extort money from other innovators unethically.

With copyrights, and this bill specifically, you have people using the same technique, although in a slightly different legal forum.

I don't have any sympathy for anyone except the consumer, who is screwed both ways.

Jason, there's more going on with bad patents than examiner's inability to decipher whether or not something is novel. Changes to patent laws in the last two decades have removed most of the checks and balances that protect against abuse and rewarded the patent office for issuing more patents rather than doing a better job. Increasingly, all aspects of the patent process are being ignored. Combined with deliberate changes that make patents increasinly difficult to challenge we have a system that is out of control and needs to be reformed, just like we have with the copyright system. That major corporations are threatened by one while they abuse the other is humorous, but evokes no sympathy from me.

And metavurt, nobody's interested in throwing consumers in jail with this new law. They're interested in suing people with deep pockets, not in jailing consumers. If you jail consumers, there's nothing for them to buy. And if there's nothing for them to buy, there's no deep pockets for the riaa and others to sue. Thanks for making me laugh.

Aren't CD's inherently easier to copy than vinyl...
Aren't record companies inducing infringement by selling music on CD's...
Why don't the record companies go back to vinyl or 8-track!

10% of the American public would pay $5 to see Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) fight a big mean dog on Pay TV.
86% of all viewers would root for the dog.

-TV Nation

I'm sorry, have you not paid any attention to some of the remarks that Hilary Rosen made in her leaving the RIAA?? She had to talk the board DOWN from wanting to put people in jail for sharing files. Yes, consumers.

Groups like the RIAA have become so blinded by their zealousness to protect their licenses that no, they don't see the big picture that by putting consumers in jail they will take away from their buying base.

Again, read some more before you laugh. There is no laughing matter anymore with any of these policies.

they've got links to the bills, plus other little side bills, and plain language explanations...

you can also write your representation for a more layman's term explanation

Quote

metavurt wrote:
they've got links to the bills, plus other little side bills, and plain language explanations...

you can also write your representation for a more layman's term explanation

Thanks for the tip.

I do remember this bill - it's been in the news for a while.

metavurt, I'm not saying that this bill is a good thing. I certainly agree that it is very loosely worded such that almost anything can be taken as inducement to infringe. Heck, I'll name one such 'thing' - "The ability to resell used CDs is an inducement to infringe, since someone could copy the CD and then resell it." Likewise, I have reservations about accomplishing what this bill is intended to accomplish - since 'inducements to infringe' are likely to overlap fair use rights. What I was noting in my previous post was that it would be nice if we could see the language of the original before amending - that way instead of trusting someone's description of what is changed I would be able to see the net effect for myself.

jfbiii, my previous reply to you was intended to rebut the "they're getting what they deserve" attitude I perceived there. The patents you described are to the best of my knowledge worthy of patentability. I certainly agree that we need to examine the patent system to assure ourselves that it is accomplishing its intended purpose. And I definitely decry the use of patents as a legal stick to extort money. Could you provide me with a 'bogus patent' held by one of the companies you've mentioned, as a demonstration of their bad-faith action within the patent system?

Regardless of whether these companies 'deserve' to be safe from litigation under this bill, the Inducement to Infringe Copyright Act looks to be a bad thing all around. Let's keep our eyes focused on that, and our hands writing letters. The bill is currently in committee (as of 06/22/2004), so there's plenty of time to kill it yet.

Jason

Quote

jfbiii wrote:
and then @#$@# about copyright laws that are too broad????

Sorry, Apple. No sympathy to be found here. Nor for Google, Amazon (owner of the ridiculous one-click patent), or any of the other corporate entities that may be affected.

You guys willingly participate in a broken system when it favors you, don't look to me for help avoiding the consequences.

I sure hope you don't go bawling when you can't use your vcr, cd burner, computer or any other system you probably can't live without if they pass this

As I see it the thing about this bill that is scary is the precedent. Let's assume for a second that it isn't thrown out. It would establish a precedent that if you produce a product for a legal purpose and someone uses it for an illegal purpose then you are liable.

Think about that. You make a car and someone robs a bank and uses it in the getaway then you are liable for the robbery. You make a broom and someone uses it to assault another person then you are liable. Not necessarily criminally but in civil court. Some little kid takes a pen and pokes another on the playground. Bic gets sued for millions for child abuse. These cases aren't that far fetched. Read through some of the case law regarding civil suits and you'll already find thousands of equally stupid lawsuits many of which get settled for "an undisclosed amount". This law would open anyone up for being sued for anything they ever made, worked on, developed, or manufactured. You make a wooden candle holder in jr. high wood shop. 20 years later someone buys it at a garage sale and brains their spouse with it, you are liable for wrongful death.

This bill IF enacted, and IF not thrown out of court on the first round would be an absolute catastrophy.

IANAL I just call them as I see 'em

"You make a car and someone robs a bank and uses it in the getaway then you are liable for the robbery. You make a broom and someone uses it to assault another person then you are liable."

On the other hand...make an assault rifle or a Saturday night special, and sell it to someone who robs a bank or goes postal and kills a dozen people, and it's "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

This law is unconstitutional under equal protection provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Of course with today's courts, there's no reason to think that a little thing like that will mater to anyone.

A couple of truths:

1. Copyright and patent law, indeed the whole legal system, is badly broken in a way that favors large, wealthy corporations over individuals.

2. This law is an abomination and we should all fight it, not for the sake of Apple and Napster but for the sake of our own freedoms.

>>>so blinded by their zealousness to protect their licenses that no, they don't see the big picture that by putting consumers in jail they will take away from their buying base.
<<<<

And I have heard that some retail outlets will imprison shop lifters, thus eating into their buying base. What kind of stupid idea is this? Ok people admit that piracy of music happens. Now for the harder part...admit that this piracy does hurt the people who produce it and who should have the right to profit from it.

OK now that we are no longer fighting a stupid fight. Does this bill go too far? In practical use probably not but it should be much more clear how secondary "inducers" are to be treated. The argument against the iPod with this bill goes something like this.

Because few people have legal access to 40GB of music that Apple must be encouraging the use of illegal music.

This ignores the other usages for the iPod (Firewire hard drive, photo storage system and audio recording system) And assumes that illegal music sharing continues to occur. Both of which would help make sure Apple was never convicted (Also Apples on going attempts to make it difficult to distribute music with an iPod and their vested interest in legal music downloads would bode well for the company)

I'm not sure exactly how to word a bill to take care of illegal file sharing once and for all. It seems that common sense would handle this problem, but that is too much to ask for. What allows Kazaa to continue to function is the fact that it "could" be used something for legal purposes. But because 99.9999% of all files being sent through kazaa are illegal you should be able to write some law that would make kazaa illegal but leave the ipod alone.

Maybe makers of this type of software need to add in basic protections against piracy and show that they are trying to limit illegal use or face prosecution. I'm not sure but I do know that Piracy is out of hand and that the iPod (or any other mp3 player) is not the cause.

Fix the law but don't dismiss the concept that kazaa and others need to be shut down.

First come hearings followed by a committee vote. From committee it goes to the full Senate. In order to become law a similar bill must make its way through the House and then to House/Senate conference to work out any difference between the two versions before being sent to the President for signature.

Chances are the bill will not make it to the full Seante floor as it is currently written and it's highly unlikely this bill will find its way through the House (where it hasn't even been introduced) without serious modification.

The language is far too broad which makes it difficult if not impossible to enforce. I'd say this is more about making noise than it is about making law.

Eventually the file-sharing networks will be shut down but this is not the legislation that will make that happen IMHO.

You might as well try to patent a color as a means to convey information over time.

IMO one-click was a bad patent. Being able to reduce a set of actions to one click, regardless of the set of actions, is not a patentable idea.

"Regardless of whether these companies 'deserve' to be safe from litigation under this bill, the Inducement to Infringe Copyright Act looks to be a bad thing all around"

Of course it is. My point is that companies like those mentioned contribute to the legal atmosphere that makes their discomfort with this bill possible. If any one of them were to trade places with the RIAA, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Simply stated, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. That is impossible.

...of Normal Laws Act, where if we find a stupid unenforcible law, we throw the Legislators who voted for the thing in Jail.

Oh, and fine them $100,000 per stupid vote. Retroactive across their entire political career.

What makes this proposal extremely stupid is the Telephone and Electric companies are just as technically "guilty" as the PC that was (or "could have!") used illegally.

I'm plain tired of hearing about all this crap these days. Everyone fights so much. Can't we all see that we all to some degree or another have little idea as to how to get along with each other and live life? Will we ever see a way to come together and help each other just get through this life the best we can? No owners manual included, we just continue to fight our way to survive...we fight each other. It's just does no good. It just makes life so uneasy, untrusting and chaotic. Frankly, take all my stuff. I've lost it time and time again. What I own, owns me. And to fight for it, or protect it is a waste of time. When we die, we realize it's not ours in the first place. Fear...so much fear. I'm not buying into that anymore. Where fear has gone, love will come to replace. Where can I give, rather than take or fight? So much more to life when lived this way.