Comments on: Copyright Office pitches anti-P2P bill

A proposal surfaces to ban file-swapping networks--a response to the recent court ruling that said they were legal to operate.

[bryan_2001]

the riaa is wrong

i think thier is nothing with free music

[bryan_2001]

i agree

what the person was trying to say thier is nothing wrong with download free music or movies aney thing else for that matter.

Induced what?

The RIAA and the politicians who believe in this "induced" philosophy are wrong.

Are we going to say to all of the civil processes in this country that if someone can "induce" then they are guilty?

Shoot, if CNET induces frustration at their editorial opinions then are they liable for harm that comes from someone who injures another?

This whole entire inducing thing is ridiculous. Peer-to-peer networks can be used for many innocuous things like sharing pictures or music I made myself. Let's find a better way to enforce copyrights using new technology instead of killing the messenger.

Inducemet by RIIA itself

RIIA or its members are the biggest inducer to copyright infringement by these actions:

1. Changed from vynil records to CD. This has induced millions of decent people to want to copy CDs.

2. Sony, a RIIA member even sells the blank CDs and the recorders neded to make copies of CDs.

3. Some RIIA members have gone to the extreme of selling great recordings. These are real inducers for copying. True, these are exceptions. Most records producd by RIIA members are musically worthless.

4. By being infringers themselves. Sony, a RIIA member, has made over 15 records with our songs without a licenses or ever paying royalties. By setting the example, they make others believe that they can get away with it.

5. By suing kids and their parents, RIIA is creation a nation of rebels and what do rebels do when punished? Usually break the rules even more. That is why jails are full and more jails are needed as more are punishd. A vicious, growing, circle.

Prohibition did not work but that lesson was not takn by RIIA or the Copyright Office or by the current crop of lgislators.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Whats the big Deal

People have been recording media for decades. The cd and dvd burner come out and now I can't record my music without gettin sued. What happend to the days when if you did not use it to make money you were not in trouble. Good thing they don't make toilets at riaa oterwise we would pay .25 cents a flush and .50 cents to use the toilet.

About Copyright Office new "induce proposal"

From th legal business point of view any confusing additions to the copyright laws is good. More fuzzy lawsuits will be made and these, the fuzzy ones are where the money for lawyers because the legal work is far more complex and more profitable.

What the American people deserve is a simplified copyright law: If you SELL a copyrighted work without authorization from the copyright holder, you are an infringer. All else in the law is jut fat an confusion that benefit the lawyers, who as a group casue more inducement to indfringe copyrights than anyone or nything else. Lawyers and judges induce infringement by defending the infringers, an ironic twist. Visit my web page if in doubt about this.

All uses other than selling or illegally authorizing the use of copyrightd works without authorization of the owner should be legal because there is no practical way to prevent it. I am a copyright holder of many songs. The radio plays the songs all the time without my authorization. Many performes use it on their shows. All that is against the present law. But the law doesn't work because I cannot prove that the performances of our songs were really made or lawsuits are to costly and there is no cost to benefit ratio to speak of and because I benefit from the playing of the songs because as the songs performed become btter known, their market value goes up.

Lets face it, the copyright laws are really written by or for the benfit of a few monopolies and for the legal and court business to flourish. Not for the benefit of the people or the artists who create the works.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

[MythicalMe]

Good except

I am mostly in agreement about rewriting the copyright law. It is unnecessarily bloated and geared to protecting corporate interests, especially those of the RIAA and MPAA.

The RIAA doesn't seem to understand that most of the users which are trading via P2P netwarks are rebelling. Congress should take note of that. For too many years, now Congress has been enacting laws that protect corporations and forgetting about the real people, the people that matter, the citizens.

Haven't we taken the cue from the past 4 years? Corporations cannot be trusted. Those with interests in making huge profits, those at the top of the corporate ladder, don't care about individuals. They're putting their own greed ahead of even their own stockholders!

Let's rewrite the copyright law yes, but do so so that the artist gets well-compensated. Lets make it illegal for corporations to "own" copyrights. The court systems have been clogged with one corporation suing another for copyright infringements. For goodness sake, let's also cut the amount of time that the copyright is enforcible, say to 10 years.

[ordaj]

We're becoming a police state, for corporations, by corporations

Why in god's name would you ban technology?!? We don't ban guns and they have the potential to rob someone of their life. Christ, is no government agency not paid for for by special interests?

And someone, please, tell Orrin Hatch to shut up.

This is so stupid

Look, its pretty well established jurisprudence that it is in fact against the law to download music you don't have a legal right to own (ie, didn't purchase). But its also pretty clear that legally, its not the fault of the network owners that their networks are used for illegal activities, anymore than it's the state's fault that people speed or transport drugs over their roads, or the car manufacturers that people use cars for those same activities.

That being said, Sharman et al clearly profit from the illegal use, but that's incidental to the availability of the network. And they profit by generating ad revenue for malware vendors.

If the RIAA and Congress really want to "regulate" these networks, a ban is clearly illegal and the 9th Circuit (or maybe the Supreme Court next time) is just going to strike it down for being overbroad. But, why not take the money out of it? Make it illegal and enforceable on an individual basis to install any software application onto a computer without the direct, explicit interaction and consent of the user, an individual license agreement for each application, and a disclaimer that delineates precisely what the program is, does, and why its being installed (ie, if I find Gator on my computer again, I can sue GAIN for a sum to be set by statute). Give users the legal ability to "opt out" of spyware and adware that is bundled with P2P programs, give some hope to net users the nation over that the spyware will not invariably compromise every facet of their lives, and drastically (and incidentally) cut the profit margins for companies like Sharman. Its win-win for everybody except the freeloaders.

Consequences of hypergreed...

The RIAA, SCO, et. al. are so focused on exploiting their precious
"intellectual property" (which, though they may own it, they
didn't actually create - but that's another rant) that they are
killing the goose that lays the golden eggs they gobble so
greedily.

Americans sometimes forget that we're only 4% of the world's
population. If we limit technology here, we will just become a
technological backwater and the rest of the world will pass us
by. Eventually, the US market for their precious IP will dry up
becouse nobody here will be able to afford it.

Plus, the US already has the largest percentage of its population
in prison of any developed country (most for nonviolent
offenses) so how big a hit will our economy take to support our
new and expanded prisons full of IP "pirates?"

[Myron.S]

Changing the law . . .

Brill. So the court rules against the government and then the government will manipluate and change the law to that another appeal will succeed?

So what's the point in having a law when Congress will not abide by the ruling? Congress, or any government, should not try and circumvent a ruling by a court.