NationStates Jolt Archive

Designed to outlaw illegal filesharing, CNET.com is running an article showing growing support for the Senator Orrin Hatch backed "Induce" Act.

http://news.com.com/Senator+wants+to+ban+P2P+networks/2100-1027_3-5280384.html

The act would hold liable under copyright law "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of said law. It enjoys broad support from RIAA and music industries, yet software corporations are concerned that the act is far too broad in it's scope and would hamper all peer-to-peer networking technologies and not just illegal usage of them. Also, it's easy to see how the law might be applied far beyond it's scope, allowing huge tracebacks in copyright violation cases.

I think it's interesting that Hatch is floating this act, given who his campaign donors are.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00009869&cycle=2002

Is this the law that has the potential of banning everything from the pencil to the CD-burner via the VCR?

Also, Orrin Hatch should be, well, let me answer with a smiley :mp5:

Yeah well this sucks. I say no. I'd vote no. Dammit and I;'ve tried sending them emails to! :(

Those capitalists. I hate property laws.

It isn't even their property.

It isn't even their property.

Gee why should our legislators concern themselves with other people's property? I mean, it's not like it's part of their job or something. :rolleyes:

This is an idiotic law that should never pass. With the word "intentionally" in the law it becomes toothless because anyone can just say "I didn't mean to" and get off, and without the word "intentionally" it's overbroad and would put nearly everyone outside the law. For instance, a person could be considered breaking the law simply by creating a product that people would wish to steal. With the law as it is, with "intionally" in it, it does nothing toward it's goal (anyone who has any expereince debating can see that the law has no solvency whatsoever for the problem is is purported to address) while creating the potential for otherwise law abiding citizens to get in trouble with the law for no real reason. Long story short, it's a terrible law.

Couldn't this law(if poorly written) be used in cases of guns and drinking?

Their product induced him to commit these crimes.....

Never liked Orrin; never will

Don't forget that Sen. Hatch is a recording artist (http://www.hatchmusic.com) himself (Johnny Ashcroft, too), obviously concerned about his precious intellectual property.

Gee why should our legislators concern themselves with other people's property? I mean, it's not like it's part of their job or something. :rolleyes:
But it is being backed by groups that don't have it as their property.

It isn't even their property.
Actually according to copyright laws it is their property, we’re just buying the rights to use it without actually owning it. They can, if they truly wanted, just come in and take their stuff back whenever they wanted to.

It isn't even their property.
the lawmakers or the artists, because i agree either way. the artists dotn give a crap if people get their music, not most, its the record labels all pissed because they are losing money, the artists still have to get paid what their contract says they get for their cd and they still have to put out cds, they dont give a crap

Actually according to copyright laws it is their property, we’re just buying the rights to use it without actually owning it. They can, if they truly wanted, just come in and take their stuff back whenever they wanted to.
I know, but all the copyright laws in the world will not make me see the artist's intellectual property as the record label's.

Good.

It would be the record label's IP even without copyright laws, because the artist transferred it to the record label.

Only because they are effectively forced to, otherwise they cannot release it. Legal fictions will not make me see the artist's intellectual property as the label's.

Actually according to copyright laws it is their property, we’re just buying the rights to use it without actually owning it. They can, if they truly wanted, just come in and take their stuff back whenever they wanted to.

Actually, when you buy the rights to a person's intellectual property, as in the case of buying music, it is forever and cannot be undone without the consent of both parties. On top of that, if you buy a CD or music on another medium you are also paying for the physical medium which they could not take back even if they could take back their intellectual property.

Yet one does not have the freedom to do whatever they want with said physical medium.

Don't you see? Laws cannot contain information. Information WANTS to be free, and if you look at it froma darwinian perspective, proprietary information will cease to exist in the not too distant future. SWITCH TO LINUX/GNU, and the law cannot find you or identify you, and ther are no private backdoors courtesy of Microsoft.