Orrin Hatch is a COPYRIGHT NAZI

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Mods: yes, there's five paragraphs, but the article is long and the paragraphs are short.

http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+targets+technology/2100-1028_3-5238140.html

A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes.

The proposal, called the Induce Act, says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures" and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.

(...)
Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced "sometime next week," a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure.

(...)
"They're trying to make it legally risky to introduce technologies that could be used for copyright infringement," said Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law. "That's why it's worded so broadly."

Litman said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement, Litman warned.

[cheezus]

1. God, it pisses me off how copyright and patents are misused

The main point of these laws was not to insure any profit for the holder of intellectual property, but to spur innovation. So there would be many songs instead of everyone just performing one or two hits. In order to corner the market you'd have to make your product BETTER, not just make and sell it cheaper.

The reason that you need to disclose the secrets of your invention is so that when the time is up others can use it, and improve upon it. If nothing else, you need to invent something new, because your last invention is not longer an exclusive cash cow.

But the trend over last, well, LONG time is towards "intellectual property". That you can OWN an idea, or a song, or and invention, or a story... and that you have a RIGHT to PROFIT from it! Oh man, that just strikes me as so wrong...

[Baltimoreboy]

2. You deserve to own what you produce

If I write and book and you go to the bookstore, buy one copy and start reproducing it and selling it elsewhere, that is theft. The same goes for songs, movies, software, etc.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. My, where do I start?

"You deserve to own what you produce" until you sell it. Then it's no longer yours.

"If I write and book and you go to the bookstore, buy one copy and start reproducing it and selling it elsewhere, that is theft." This is copyright violation. It is not theft. This is like calling theft murder.

The operative words above being "and selling it elsewhere". These people want to prevent me from making a compilation CD out of my own CDs, for my own use. They also want to prevent me from taping TV shows for later viewing. Is that right?

[Sandpiper]

4. Yeah what a crazy idea

That you can profit from your own creation.

[cheezus]

6. sure, for a while

but not FOREVER. Profiting from the creation is FINE, but it was never the point.

the problem is, what happens when you invent/create something, and it's been done before? You didn't STEAL it, but you are legally bound from profiting from your own creation.

That was the reason for patents. Invent something, reap a few reasonable rewards, but keep inventing.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. Misused?

"But the trend over last, well, LONG time is towards "intellectual property". That you can OWN an idea, or a song, or and invention, or a story... and that you have a RIGHT to PROFIT from it! Oh man, that just strikes me as so wrong..."

You cannot copyright an idea. You have to have something on paper or some kind of documentation that you can register with the copyright office. You can copyright works in progress and something doesn't have to be published or produced in order to copyright it. The copyright belongs to the creator as soon as they create it, but if they want to be able to sue someone for copyright infringement, they have to register their "creation" with the copyright office.

What strikes you as wrong about it? If I write a book, I own the copyright. It's mine to sell to a publisher. If I find a publisher, they pay me an advance (usually just a few thousand dollars for a new writer) and then I get a royalty for every book they sell, which first goes against my advance. What if someone else decides they want to publish my book with a red cover? Do they get to print it up and sell the copies without paying me? NO! They're ripping me off as well as my legitimate publisher. Copyrights apply to "original works of authorship" - songs, photographs, software, etc. The creator owns it unless they sell the rights to someone else.

Inventions get patented and patents are good for 20 years. Generally you have to provide sufficient documentation (design drawings, prototypes, formulations, etc.) in order to get a patent and your design or formulation must be significantly different from any other currently patented item. You designed or formulated it, you own the rights to manufacture it and sell it, or to sell your patent rights to a manufacturer.

You're right that the ability to copyright and patent increases innovation, but only because the creator knows that once they've created that thing, it's theirs to sell. They put their work and creativity into it, why shouldn't they be the one that makes money from it?

I don't get why you don't get it.

[jeff30997]

3. Next on their list :

The Close all Library Act.When you go to a library,authors don't make a dime!!!:grr:

[shraby]

7. Orrin Hatch has a vested interest in

that bill..I believe he used to write songs for Carly Simon.

[JDPriestly]

8. Substitute homicide for copyright infringement

Can you imagine Hatch introducing a law to prohibit the inducement of homicide by those who invent technologies that further killing -- like gun manufacturers, etc.

Excuse me, Mr. Hatch, but your perverted values are showing -- property rights, first and foremost.

[Emboldened Chimp]

9. I remember him actually suggesting on the Senate floor

that record companies should be allowed 'remotely zap' someone's computer if they try to illegally download music. Hatch is fucking crazy.

[LTR]

11. Didn't Hatch get some heat for stealing the code for his website?

I remember reading once that his web site was created with pirated software.

Anyone remember this?