KaZaA? Not if Congress has anything to say about it..

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-22 11:03pm

By this logic, could one ban VCR's because they can be used to tape things off the TV?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-06-22 11:06pm

Gandalf wrote:By this logic, could one ban VCR's because they can be used to tape things off the TV?

Thats just it, this new law is worded such that VCRs would become illegal.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-22 11:11pm

Alyeska wrote:
Gandalf wrote:By this logic, could one ban VCR's because they can be used to tape things off the TV?
Thats just it, this new law is worded such that VCRs would become illegal.

That's fucking obscene.

How many people own VCR's in the US?

Here it's 4/5 households at least.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-22 11:16pm

What does it mean to "counsel" copyright infringement, exactly?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-22 11:18pm

kojikun wrote:What does it mean to "counsel" copyright infringement, exactly?

Damned if I know, but if you do it, you're going to jail.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-22 11:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:
kojikun wrote:What does it mean to "counsel" copyright infringement, exactly?
Damned if I know, but if you do it, you're going to jail.

Dictionary.com has the following to say.

Counsel

1. The act of exchanging opinions and ideas; consultation.

2. Advice or guidance, especially as solicited from a knowledgeable person.

3.A plan of action.

4. Private, guarded thoughts or opinions: keep one's own counsel.

5. A lawyer or group of lawyers giving legal advice and especially conducting a case in court.

I'm still stumped.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-22 11:33pm

I was wondering about the VCR issue and began to see if it could be extended, since the act is suppodsly written in such a way as to give the widest possible leeway to it's implementation should technology change.

So how about CD and DVD burners, surely they would fall foul of the same problem as a VCR, that is you can use them to make copies of other DVD's and CD's... So I suppose they must be banned as well...

Heh in theory this could be applied to so many pieces of technology... that it seems insane, and scary enough as the Technology we use improves this act will be following along right behind it trying to put genies back in bottles rather than adapting to the new world that emerges.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-23 03:01am

If VCRs will be banned, then so will sending files via instant messanging.

This is just ridiculous. Will somebody please tell Orrin Hatch that no one is downloading his shitty music so he's not even potentially losing money over it? It's the only way to explain it, since with his "let's blow up file-sharing computers remotely" bullshit he obviously can't be reached with technological arguments.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-23 03:12am

Darth Wong wrote:Damned if I know, but if you do it, you're going to jail.

Mike, there's a reason a man like you is loved by so many and hated by so many, and your wit sure as fuck is one of them.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-06-23 07:59am

Gandalf wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
kojikun wrote:What does it mean to "counsel" copyright infringement, exactly?
Damned if I know, but if you do it, you're going to jail.
Dictionary.com has the following to say.

Counsel
1. The act of exchanging opinions and ideas; consultation.

"Hey, what do you think of this whole file-sharing business?"

"I like it, it lets me preview CDs before I buy it, get porn, and...oh, shit, the cops heard us."

Hmm...doubt it.

2. Advice or guidance, especially as solicited from a knowledgeable person.

"Hey, my IM File Transfer isn't working, what's the deal?"

"I could tell you, but I don't want to go to jail."

Again, doubt it.

3.A plan of action.

"Your Honor, I offer Exhibit A: source code to create an intra-campus file-sharing server."

Possible, but that's like convicting of a crime before you do it, so I seriously doubt that'd pass.

You can't get arrested for planning a bank robbery, can you? Though threats of bodily injury can get you in trouble... Hrmm...

4. Private, guarded thoughts or opinions: keep one's own counsel.

Yeah, this would be totally fucking impossible to enforce.

5. A lawyer or group of lawyers giving legal advice and especially conducting a case in court.

This could be what they're aiming for. Maybe. Now wouldn't that be amusing? Lawyers jailed, for giving legal advice to/defending somebody who was file-sharing in court. Well, at least that would ensure some very quick legal challenges to the validity of this law, now wouldn't it?

Though I'm pretty sure that would fly in the face of quite a few laws and probably the Constitution itself. Still, the thought of lawyers being thrown in jail en-masse is one I'd chuckle over (too bad it's being put in by a real dumb ass law).

I'm still stumped.

Me too. I really can't imagine what they're going after with that one, other than trying to make it as vauge as possible.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-06-23 09:10pm

Isn't it a copyright violation to buy a product and publicly display it? That would make TVs and stereos illegal, because I can invite 100 people and charge them to watch the latest Star Wars DVD or turn my house into a dance club.

thecreech · Post by **thecreech** » 2004-06-23 09:20pm

I am not into Conspiracy theories or anything like that but damn, money talks don't it

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-06-23 11:07pm

all software used to rip files to HDD could banned under this as could the .mp3, .ogg vorbis, .wma, and any other audio codecs because the smaller file size they afford tends to make sharing easier. Hell they could ban the internet entirely.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-23 11:25pm

Just repeat after me...

Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States...

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-24 01:28am

HemlockGrey wrote:Just repeat after me...

Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States...

We gotta stop 'em librul godless activist judges from ruinin' Amerika! [/Congress]

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-24 02:23am

I was surprised when I learned that downloading Star Trek episodes are illegal.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-24 02:25am

Downloading those episodes is illegal because they're copyrighted. Nevermind that you can't buy them and can't watch them whenever you want, you damage potential future sales by allowing download.

Ofcourse, statistics say otherwise, but who cares about statistics when theres people to sue!

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-06-24 08:39am

Banning the free transfer of files entails banning the free passing of data which in turn bans the free passing of all the lovely little bits that make up the data and the files which in turn means anything beyond a ping would possibly be illegal...

Although...in an interesting little aside there is a huge amount of amusement to be had with the Fair Use terms in copyright with regards at least to written material and the way the 'Net works. It's legal to copy exctracts and small portions...technically, you are only copying one packet at a time and thus all you're doing is legal under copyright laws...particularly since the copy is being made by you for you.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-06-24 02:31pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Banning the free transfer of files entails banning the free passing of data which in turn bans the free passing of all the lovely little bits that make up the data and the files which in turn means anything beyond a ping would possibly be illegal...

Although...in an interesting little aside there is a huge amount of amusement to be had with the Fair Use terms in copyright with regards at least to written material and the way the 'Net works. It's legal to copy exctracts and small portions...technically, you are only copying one packet at a time and thus all you're doing is legal under copyright laws...particularly since the copy is being made by you for you.

So... basically... technically they haven't a leg to stand on. Course you could never convince a jury unless you somehow "WOW" them with your geekness

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-06-24 02:40pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Just repeat after me...

Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States...

I doubt we'll need SCOTUS on this one. How likely is this to pass?

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2004-06-24 04:09pm

Andrew J. wrote:I guess they haven't heard that everyone's moved on to BitTorrent by now.

BitTorrent frightens me though. Why can't they crack down on that, too?

'Raine

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2004-06-25 10:06am

You know, I could use a pen to copy out a book then sell it. Whoops, stop selling pens!

What about scanners? Just scan page-by-page and distribute it(oh wait, that does happen. Crap, I love my scanner, I don't wanna lose it).

Hey, video cameras! Just record the TV(I've SEEN this done), and distribute the tape(I know it's banned in theatres, but what can they do about your own home?)!

I have the ability to record a song off the radio. What stops me from giving the tape to anyone who wants hear the songs? Arrest all stereo producers!

Sheesh, arrest by all means the thieves themselves. But this new thing? It's UTTER BULLSHIT. Supreme Court - squash this, please.

VF5SS · Post by **VF5SS** » 2004-06-25 10:15am

Gandalf wrote:By this logic, could one ban VCR's because they can be used to tape things off the TV?

Betamax it =D