Let's discuss some *other* issues that are really bad.

[Erik Mesoy]

I hope to make this a less partisan thread, although it'll possibly be more technical.

ISSUE 1: Orrin Hatch's INDUCE act.
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/AnchorDesk/4520-7296_16-5142800.html
The short: Mr Hatch thinks the Sony/Betamax decision was a bad idea and wants to pass draconian copy-restricting measures under the delusion that these protect copyright.
The long:

For the most part, we live in a free country. An example: Even though it's generally illegal to drive faster than 75mph on any road in the country, car manufacturers don't install electronic speed enforcers on vehicles. If you get caught driving too fast, resolving the matter is up to you and the highway patrol, and the police can't automatically collect money from Volvo every time your station wagon hits 71mph. But imagine what would happen if, before you were ever caught speeding, the highway patrol preemptively brought lawsuits against every entity responsible for your driving too fast. Volvo, your tire manufacturer, the movie Speed, the ad firm who made the car look fast, and even NASCAR could be sued for "inducing" you to speed.

Sound ludicrous? Consider Orrin Hatch's ill-conceived INDUCE Act 0f 2004, which essentially enforces similar rules in the world of digital music. (Quite bizarrely, the term INDUCE stands for inducement devolves into unlawful child exploitation --if you discover the connection between copyright infringement and the exploitation of children, please let me know.)

The act would illegalize anything that might make you more likely to infringe copyright. It's written in such overly broad language that you can't tell whether it would outlaw the iPod, tape recorders, libraries, the Internet, or just technology in general. After all, one could argue that all of these have made people more likely to commit copyright infringement.

To show what sort of inane lawsuits would be possible under the INDUCE Act, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) drafted a mock complaint, in which Apple, Toshiba, and CNET are sued: Apple for manufacturing the iPod, Toshiba for supplying the iPod's hard drive, and CNET for my iPod review, in which I explain how to use the iPod to transfer music between two computers. The fake complaint accuses these three companies of inducing copyright infringement by conspiring to put an iPod in your hands so that you might, of your own volition, fill it with unauthorized copyrighted music.

If this had been happening earlier, typewriters could have been banned because they let you copy books far too easily.


ISSUE 2: SCO's lawsuits.
Imagine that an international company sues you for theft, stating only that you've stolen something from them but not what.
Should the suit get thrown out? Well, SCO has sued... umm... Linux, more or less, for stealing code, never saying what code was stolen, and the lawsuit has been going on for close to four years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies
http://www.groklaw.com

I'll happily admit that what I just said here is oversimplified.
However, the US legal system is being played like a lottery and gratuitously abused.

 

[covok48]

I can boil down the above companies' rationale for these actions in a sentence: "Since you cannot convince a consumer to purchase what was once free...sue the medium of exchange."

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Sue?

The first case is about a really bad law.
Several companies want to turn your computer into a spybot that does not answer to you, and they're buying lawmakers. If these people have their way, you will never, ever again own a computer in the United States. You will lease it, and software will need a license before you can install it. Linux and similar operating systems will be illegal because they encourage piracy.

Don't tell me that's not scary.

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

 

[El_Machinae]

How can the lawmakers be possibly informed enough to even bring about such restrictions?

Is there a judge in the land that even understands this type of case?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Is there a judge in the land that even understands this type of case?

Maybe some... but there is no judge in the land that fully understand even one field of law these days. All they can hope to do is to understand the applicable set of laws to a particular case.

How can the lawmakers be possibly informed enough to even bring about such restrictions?

You, my friend, have put your finger on one of the biggest sore spots in modern law. I'm a 'prentice hacker, so I'm watching two worlds collide here, and what's becoming apparent is that the lawmakers... are lawmakers by tradition and not by qualification.

From the ZDNet article:

"(Quite bizarrely, the term INDUCE stands for inducement devolves into unlawful child exploitation --if you discover the connection between copyright infringement and the exploitation of children, please let me know.)"

Can you say "0mg teh CHILD ABUSE we must BANZ0RZ IT"? It's like that, only phrased in adult language in very many cases. (Most of them are too technical for me to list or you to care about, which is why I hope to get your attention with the INDUCE act instead.)

I'd like to say "let the hackers write the laws", but that will never fly. Never. Not ever. And in large part, that's due to a very real political orthodoxy. But the current alternative isn't really working either, because it's like letting the Tribe Elders write laws. And didn't we get rid of that system a long, long time back?

Back to your question, I think they seldom are. They hear "piracy" and "X dollars lost" from the RIAA, when the RIAA counts every downloaded song as a theft because it would otherwise have been purchased, and suddenly you can't buy music any more. No joke. You can lease it! And the music CDs come with spyware that you aren't given a choice to install, which installs itself as soon as the CD goes in the drive even if you don't copy songs, and which hides itself in the registry and won't be uninstalled unless you are a Supreme Ninja Hacker Mage Lord!
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html
Like the original article said - imagine a car that has access to your bank account and transfers money to the police every time you speed.

I'll quote myself from another forum:

You should be afraid, angry and activist!

I'm open to suggestions!

 

[Pyrite]

The more restrictions they put up, the more holes they leave open.
You know that.

 

[covok48]

Sue?

The first case is about a really bad law.
Several companies want to turn your computer into a spybot that does not answer to you, and they're buying lawmakers. If these people have their way, you will never, ever again own a computer in the United States. You will lease it, and software will need a license before you can install it. Linux and similar operating systems will be illegal because they encourage piracy.

Don't tell me that's not scary.

Dude chill out. I was agreeing with you. i was just poking fun at companies who do this and hence the quote.

 

[amadeus]

This article is two years old.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

This article is two years old.

Oh don't worry. Republicans are still shitting all over the Internet. Have you heard of net neutrality?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh don't worry. Republicans are still shitting all over the Internet. Have you heard of net neutrality?

Google can move its servers North of the borders To canada.
Thou US citizens are gonna be screwed having to "PAY" for using search engines, user emails, Im and so on.

 

[Comraddict]

Here's good one: Chinese sweatshops.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I now understand, one level deeper, how this [removed] can pile up.

The more restrictions they put up, the more holes they leave open.
You know that.

No, I don't know that. Enlighten me, please, first as to what holes will be left open, second as to why this minor mitigating circumstance is much use.

This article is two years old.

The ZDNet one? Who cares? The Final Virus is just as old and still an issue. The laws haven't gone away, rather, more of them have gotten passed. I'm using the worst issues rather than the recent ones, partly because there were no threads on this previously. (A search for "induce" in titles returns nothing.)

Oh don't worry. Republicans are still shitting all over the Internet.

I thought I asked for this to be a less partisan thread.

Have you heard of net neutrality?

Now that, we had a thread on, and I recall Narz said something along the lines of "that's messed up! Bastards!", but no one seemed to care there either.

Here's good one: Chinese sweatshops.

Yes, make a thread on that. This one is aimed at technological issues.


This is an area that people seem to want to be ignorant of because they don't like technical details. Bad attitude.
Your computer could be taken from you. Already Sony has stopped selling music CDs, and the way this is going, you may become unable to purchase a computer, rather licensing it. It could be illegal to wipe your hard drive and install Linux or a similar free (as in speech) operating system. All in the name of preventing piracy and other crimes, of course.

 

[general_kill]

Oh don't worry. Republicans are still shitting all over the Internet. Have you heard of net neutrality?

MY VIRGIN EYES!

 

[downtown]

This is old. Sen. Hatch has already been embarrassed for this

 

[BasketCase]

But imagine what would happen if, before you were ever caught speeding, the highway patrol preemptively brought lawsuits against every entity responsible for your driving too fast.

This isn't as ludicrous as it may sound. It's one of the primary arguments of the anti-gun lobby: "a gun makes it easier to commit murder, therefore it should be banned".

If something is specifically intended to facilitate a crime (as some claim Napster was), banning the thing that facilitates the crime isn't such a stretch. Personally, I disagree with that stretch, but that's just my opinion.

 

[FredLC]

Moderator Action: Closed under thread starter's request.