[Janos]

Found via SA, if this is a redux then close the thread.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html

WASHINGTON -- Several lobbying camps from different industries and ideologies are joining forces to fight an overhaul of copyright law, which they say would radically shift in favor of Hollywood and the record companies and which Congress might try to push through during a lame-duck session that begins this week.

The Senate might vote on HR2391 (.pdf), the Intellectual Property Protection Act, a comprehensive bill that opponents charge could make many users of peer-to-peer networks, digital-music players and other products criminally liable for copyright infringement. Some opponents believe the bill would also undo centuries of "fair use" -- the principle that gives Americans the right to use small samples of the works of others without having to ask permission or pay.

The bill lumps together several pending copyright bills including HR4077, the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, which would criminally punish a person who "infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement." Critics charge the vague language could apply to a person who uses the popular Apple iTunes music-sharing application.

The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed language, viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture," like the previews on a DVD. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers.

Also under the proposed law, people who bring a video camera into a movie theater to make a copy of the film for distribution would be imprisoned for three years, fined or both.

The Recording Industry Association of America vigorously defended the bill, saying it would provide a "common sense set of tools that will help law enforcement better deter and prosecute theft."

"This legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Many pieces of it already have unanimously passed one house of Congress," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's appropriate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy."

The groups that lined up against the bill include the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the American Conservative Union and public-interest advocacy group Public Knowledge, which hosted a press briefing on Friday as the opening salvo of its campaign to stop passage.

The groups are calling for the Senate to postpone consideration of the bill until at least next year, when there would be more time for hearings and debate.

In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will expire next year, with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in line to take over the committee. Bill opponents hope Specter would take a different approach to copyright law than Hatch, who has been an advocate of several bills that have rankled public-interest, technology and consumer-electronics camps.

The entertainment industry has been lobbying hard for quick Senate passage during the lame-duck session, with opponents gearing up for a tough fight.

Hollywood's involvement has even irked the American Conservative Union, which holds considerable sway with conservative Republicans in Congress. The ACU plans a major print ad campaign this week to oppose the bill, mainly because some provisions would require the Justice Department to file civil copyright lawsuits on behalf of the entertainment industry.

"It's just plain wrong to make the Department of Justice Hollywood's law firm," said Stacie Rumenap, ACU's deputy director.

The Motion Picture Association of America also defended the bill.

"There are components there that we think are critical for the health of a vibrant film industry and intellectual property as a whole," said Rich Taylor, a spokesman for the MPAA. Specifically, the camcording provision and allowing the Justice Department to prosecute copyright infringers are important to the movie trade group, he said.

Katie Dean contributed to this story.

Thank God I do not live in USA. Hope this doesn't affect me too much.

Summary: Piracy is worse than stealing cars, you have to watch their stupid ads - which are not what you have paid for - etc.

yay

[an0n]

Laws + Internet -> Internet

For every shill working 9-5 on making stuff to stop you, there's about a 1000 coders working 24-7 to let you.

[Moonsword]

I'm forced to agree with him, but a lot of the file-sharing programs are going to take a hit.

[Terminator]

Congress should not meddle in things they don't understand

[Flipside]

If that was the case, they shouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning.

[Fineus]

What they should really look at is *why* people feel the need to pirate such things.

Eventually they might realise that £15 for an album or £40 for a computer game are unacceptable prices when the majority of the money goes to the publisher, not the developer / artist.

Interesting then, that the publisher is the group that wants to shut down internet piracy.

If their money grabbing ways were toned down, and multimedia was made affordable again, things might change somewhat and the average joe might go back to buying his entertainment in stores, rather than looking for ways to download it.

[Zarax]

Here we go!
Proibictionism, ACT II

[Flipside]

I used to buy albums on Audio cassete for £9.99 - £14.99 when I was a teenager. Imagine how I felt when (a) these tapes were the cheapest piece of .4p per unit crap quality that money can buy and (b) the tape stretched and wrapped itself around the play-head usually within a year of purchase.

I've already paid for the 90% of the stuff I download, it's not my fault that the Distribution company use the cheapest, poorest quality media they can find.

[Terminator]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
What they should really look at is *why* people feel the need to pirate such things.

Eventually they might realise that £15 for an album or £40 for a computer game are unacceptable prices when the majority of the money goes to the publisher, not the developer / artist.

Interesting then, that the publisher is the group that wants to shut down internet piracy.

If their money grabbing ways were toned down, and multimedia was made affordable again, things might change somewhat and the average joe might go back to buying his entertainment in stores, rather than looking for ways to download it.

Right, if album were say, $5 and games were $20 we wouldn't have this problem.

[Annihilation]

All this fuss just because of the junk Hollywood and recorders make nowadays. I wouldn't watch or hear almost all that they produces for free. Well after all these executives need money to buy their daily cocaine...

[Flipside]

Oh, it'd still go on, it's been going on since long long before the Internet etc.

But it's the fact that people can't afford the music that led people to find other ways to acquite it. If the dilemma had never arisen it would not have grown.

In a way, these companies created the very problem they are struggling to deal with, because it would have been easy to fix the problem, they knew it existed, but they were too greedy.

[Zarax]

They will be forced to a compromise, otherwise the whole hi-tech lobby will just sail out and kiss them goobye.

[Flipside]

In fact, isn't there a monopolies commision order or something still outstanding against these companies ordering them to drop their prices which they've ignored for several years or the like?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
What they should really look at is *why* people feel the need to pirate such things.

Eventually they might realise that £15 for an album or £40 for a computer game are unacceptable prices when the majority of the money goes to the publisher, not the developer / artist.

Interesting then, that the publisher is the group that wants to shut down internet piracy.

If their money grabbing ways were toned down, and multimedia was made affordable again, things might change somewhat and the average joe might go back to buying his entertainment in stores, rather than looking for ways to download it.

CD/media costs are an absolute joke.  IF you shop around with smaller record stores, there's a £3-6 difference for most new (and old) CDs; someone- more than one - is definately taking a huge cut along the line

[karajorma]

Lets also point out that CD's and tapes are quite different in price yet it's the CD that actually costs less to make.

It's probably the same with DVD and Video. I don't believe for a second it takes £3-£4 more to make a DVD than a video cassette.

[Flipside]

Mass produced DVD's are the same price as their CD equivalents. They don't use any more materials and the manufacturing technique is the same price.

[Nuke]

its a fact that the industry used the advent of the cd to jack up prices.  that is where the prices spiked. now when the technology was new it made sence, but now it seems rediculous. its my theory that the industry saw this and knew they could use the cd to outragously raise their profits. they also knew that the cost to produce cds would be largely decreased as the technology evolved. ive always seen something wrong witht  fact that digital busic, games, videos, whatever, can be mass produced into infinity withought loosing any information and with a minimum of cost. i dont see file sharing as being any worse that market manipulation.

[Flipside]

Funniest thing is that something like 60% of the stuff being downloaded 'illegally' is stuff that isn't produced any more and would only be worth anything if you still had the original in, say, 15 years time.

[.::Tin Can::.]

It doesnt even COST that much to produce the titles out there for christs sakes. Some blank CD's, a neat cover for it, and you're off. Oh, wait, the box. Thats like, what, another 5 dollars? Dear me.

[Flipside]

I mean, who really cares if my Dad wanted to download, say, Threshold of a Dream, by the Moody Blues?

There are possibly a few shops that he could go to and pay a hugely inflated price for a vinyl which is probably scratched and pitted half to death, and which can only be played on a Record Deck, which requires a seperate piece of hardware of most midi hifis. And why should he have to pay more for something because it's old? I wouldn't pay more for a mouldy sandwich?