Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Developer · Jun 25, 2004, 08:30 AM

US politicians want to outlaw the iPod because it induces copyright infringement. This is going too far!

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001631.php

http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.pdf

Logic · Jun 25, 2004, 09:07 AM

Is this a joke?

CD Hanks · Jun 25, 2004, 09:10 AM

It won't happen.

Spliffdaddy · Jun 25, 2004, 09:18 AM

next thing you know they'll want to outlaw guns and the wearing of relgious symbols.

No wait...that's France.

maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

lil'babykitten · Jun 25, 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
next thing you know they'll want to outlaw guns and the wearing of relgious symbols.

No wait...that's France.

No, France outlawed religious symbols.

dunno what a relgious symbol is. You have those in your town?

Developer · Jun 25, 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Is this a joke?

No joke. This is a proposed addition to copyright law. I don't know if it is through yet though, since I don't understand the US legislative procedure.

andi*pandi · Jun 25, 2004, 10:28 AM

Stupid stupid law. Stupid.

go here, find your rep, complain intelligently.

http://www.usgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

voodoo · Jun 25, 2004, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
next thing you know they'll want to outlaw guns and the wearing of relgious symbols.

No wait...that's France.

maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

IF that law passes you USAsians will become the most naive people in the world.. no wait!

Troll · Jun 25, 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

Actually that's France too!

phoenixboy70 · Jun 25, 2004, 11:25 AM

un-be-fu<king-lievable!

this is going even faster than i thought it would.

BlackGriffen · Jun 25, 2004, 12:14 PM

Ahem.

Yeah, Orin Hatch is a cretin and media whore.

BlackGriffen

cpt kangarooski · Jun 25, 2004, 02:04 PM

Spliffdaddy--

maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

Actually, we do that too, to a certain extent. Check out the AHRA, which has been around for 12 years or so and is among the reasons why you probably don't have a DAT or Minidisc player.

BRussell · Jun 25, 2004, 06:12 PM

I'm pretty sure this actually is a joke.

CD Hanks · Jun 25, 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Spliffdaddy--

Actually, we do that too, to a certain extent. Check out the AHRA, which has been around for 12 years or so and is among the reasons why you probably don't have a DAT or Minidisc player.

With the advent of computers in widespread use combined with new compression methods, I'd say DAT and Minidisc have been sent back to their respective corners.

(They both have their uses in professional fields, but for the consumer, CD Burners and MP3 players have done quite well)

DBursey · Jun 25, 2004, 11:22 PM

maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

Spliffy, while I love your use of the pregnant pause as much as your self-inflicted foot wounds, the above assumption is a non sequitur. The levy on recording media is intended to reimburse Canadian artists, yes - but Canadian copyrights are not infringed upon through p2p sharing and CD copying for home / personal use.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 25, 2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
US politicians want to outlaw the iPod because it induces copyright infringement. This is going too far!

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001631.php

http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.pdf

You forgot the "rumor has it" part of the story. Notice that this "draft legislation" hasn't actually been introduced.

As for what its implications would be if it were introduced, I have no idea. There is quite a high bar for constitutional vagueness, but this looks like a candidate (if real, which I frankly doubt).

BlackGriffen · Jun 26, 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You forgot the "rumor has it" part of the story. Notice that this "draft legislation" hasn't actually been introduced.

As for what its implications would be if it were introduced, I have no idea. There is quite a high bar for constitutional vagueness, but this looks like a candidate (if real, which I frankly doubt).

You're about 24 hrs behind, Simey. The act has been renamed, and introduced as:
Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act. The only difference between the introduced act and the one floated last week was the bit about 'counsel' was removed. Here's Slashdot's blurb. It includes links to the EFF concerning this matter.

BlackGriffen

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 26, 2004, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You're about 24 hrs behind, Simey. The act has been renamed, and introduced as:
Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act. The only difference between the introduced act and the one floated last week was the bit about 'counsel' was removed. Here's Slashdot's blurb. It includes links to the EFF concerning this matter.

BlackGriffen

Well, if it really has been introduced, that still is a long way from passage. The vast majority of bills go nowhere, or are changed substantially before becoming law.

I don't know enough about copyright law to comment intelligently about the substance. And looking at it, I was wrong to mention constitutional vagueness. This isn't a criminal statute. From what I can gather about it, it doesn't look to have anything to do with the iPod since I don't think anyone would really think the iPod induces anyone to infringe copyrights through peer to peer networks.

But I'll let copyright scholars worry about it. And note: I don't think slashdot really qualifies.

Developer · Jun 26, 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But I'll let copyright scholars worry about it. And note: I don't think slashdot really qualifies.

http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_.../25/94806.html

You're always quick to discredit the sources but had you actually clicked the "Bio" link, you could have read:

"Susan Crawford is Assistant Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, teaching cyberlaw and intellectual property law."

I think that "qualifies".

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 26, 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Developer:
http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_.../25/94806.html

You're always quick to discredit the sources but had you actually clicked the "Bio" link, you could have read:

"Susan Crawford is Assistant Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, teaching cyberlaw and intellectual property law."

I think that "qualifies".

Not necessarily. But you'd have to have exposure to law professors to understand why I say that.

villalobos · Jun 26, 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
next thing you know they'll want to outlaw guns and the wearing of relgious symbols.

No wait...that's France.

maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

But wait, France did not outlaw religious symbols... But wait France did not outlaw guns.

But maybe they did outlaw nipples on Tv.... Oh wait... that's the US.

villa

gatekeeper · Jun 26, 2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
From what I can gather about it, it doesn't look to have anything to do with the iPod since I don't think anyone would really think the iPod induces anyone to infringe copyrights through peer to peer networks.

How much does it cost to fill up a 40GB iPod with legally bought tunes? Around $10000.

The reason Apple isn't likely to get sued over the iPod is that Apple is currently the industry's darling.

Let's not forget RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia back in 1999.

The RIAA also alleged that the Rio "encourages consumers to infringe the rights of artists by trafficking in unlicensed music recordings on the Internet."

Wiskedjak · Jun 26, 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
maybe they'll just tax the blank recording media - because you're gonna infringe on copyrights, anyways.

No wait...that's Canada.

I have nothing against the tax on blank recording media. When I bought my iPod, I paid $25 to compensate the recording industry in Canada for the downloading of music through P2P sources. I intend to get my monies worth.

BRussell · Jun 26, 2004, 12:22 PM

I haven't seen it stated here, so I think I should: This law wouldn't outlaw the iPod. The complaint is a hypothetical complaint that this group says someone could possibly maybe write someday if this bill becomes law.

I don't see any reason the iPod would be a target of this law. By the same logic, a CD rack induces copyright infringement: "gotta fill up that space!" as the fake complaint says. Or even a hard drive on a computer - what's the difference between an iPod and a computer with a hard drive? I could see P2P software being a victim of this, but not music devices that can work with legal music, especially since Apple admittedly uses the iTunes music store to sell iPods.

I'm not saying I support this bill, but to say its goal is to "outlaw the iPod" is nonsense.

Developer · Jun 26, 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
This law wouldn't outlaw the iPod. The complaint is a hypothetical complaint that this group says someone could possibly maybe write someday if this bill becomes law.

I don't see any reason the iPod would be a target of this law. By the same logic, a CD rack induces copyright infringement: "gotta fill up that space!" as the fake complaint says.

What is this RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia 199 that someone posted above? Was that hypothetical or did it really happen? If it happened then the RIAA already tried to sue someone with exactly that argumentation. So this hypothetical complaint isn't as far fetched as you want it to look.

BRussell · Jun 26, 2004, 01:20 PM

Sure - TV producers didn't even want US customers to have VCRs. But your title is misleading, because this bill wouldn't "outlaw the iPod."

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 26, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
What is this RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia 199 that someone posted above? Was that hypothetical or did it really happen? If it happened then the RIAA already tried to sue someone with exactly that argumentation. So this hypothetical complaint isn't as far fetched as you want it to look.

I haven't read that suit, but in general, just because someone sues does not mean that their case is a good one. People bring all kinds of far-fetched suits.

Developer · Jun 26, 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I haven't read that suit, but in general, just because someone sues does not mean that their case is a good one. People bring all kinds of far-fetched suits.

Even an unfounded law-suit costs money. I'm not concerned that such a law would kill Apple, but for smaller companies the risk to be sued could lower the incentive to be innovative. On the other hand it would do nothing to prevent p2p file-sharing software. Such software will just be developed open-source/anonymously and hosted somewhere oversees and that's it.

Originally posted by BRussell:
Sure - TV producers didn't even want US customers to have VCRs. But your title is misleading, because this bill wouldn't "outlaw the iPod."

Ever heard of sensationalism? What good for is a correct title if nobody reads the news?

BlackGriffen · Jun 26, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But I'll let copyright scholars worry about it. And note: I don't think slashdot really qualifies.

I included the Slashdot link because I didn't want to have to include all these other links that I think are worthwhile. Oh, well, here goes:

Here is a line-by-line refutation of Hatch's introduction [PDF] to the Act. EFF has shown how broad the Act is by writing a mock lawsuit [PDF] suing Apple (for making the iPod), C|Net (for reviewing the iPod), and Toshiba (for supplying hard drives for iPods).

That's just the bottom of the Slashdot post, reproduced verbatim and link for link.

Originally posted by Developer:
Ever heard of sensationalism? What good for is a correct title if nobody reads the news?

You aren't kidding. Just look at the thread I started on this very subject. It didn't draw a big debate, but I am satisfied with the quality of the thread.

BlackGriffen

SimeyTheLimey · 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
Even an unfounded law-suit costs money.

True, but defending against an unsuccessful temporary restraining order is about as cheap as it gets. The burden is entirely on the plaintiff, and the defendant has to do little more than say "judge, get this idiot off my back." Which, in the case you point to, is what happened.

But what has this got to do with anything? Is tort reform a hobby horse of yours generally?

Edit: acronym spelt out (sorry for the jargon).

gatekeeper · Jun 26, 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
I haven't seen it stated here, so I think I should: This law wouldn't outlaw the iPod. The complaint is a hypothetical complaint that this group says someone could possibly maybe write someday if this bill becomes law.

Yes, nobody would abuse copyright law like that. Wake me up when someone tries to use copyright law to prevent a company from interoperating with a garage door opener. Oh wait, someone already tried that.

Or even a hard drive on a computer - what's the difference between an iPod and a computer with a hard drive?

iPod marketing says "And yet the iPod gives you a huge 15GB, 20GB or 40GB hard drive � big enough to hold 10,000 songs.". Hard drive marketing doesn't.

I could see P2P software being a victim of this, but not music devices that can work with legal music, especially since Apple admittedly uses the iTunes music store to sell iPods.

How many people fill up their 40GB iPod with only legal tunes? Not many.

iTMS sells MP4 AAC files. iTunes supports ripping to MP4 AAC files.

Why hasn't Apple removed MP3 support?

Apple is inducing copyright infringement </devil's advocate>.

gatekeeper · Jun 28, 2004, 09:16 PM

www.savetheipod.com

cpt kangarooski · Jun 28, 2004, 10:03 PM

I don't know enough about copyright law to comment intelligently about the substance. And looking at it, I was wrong to mention constitutional vagueness. This isn't a criminal statute.

I agree. It is a criminal and civil statute, actually. This would tack on another form of infringement within 17 USC 501. 17 USC 506(a) criminalizes infringement (as defined in 501), provided it's done willfully either for commercial gain or just in comparatively small quantities.

Copyright is just more frequently enforced civilly than criminally, so this probably is what led to your confusion.

At any rate, it is an astoundingly bad law. But then, the US has not passed any really good copyright laws since the 19th century, so it's hardly a surprise. We really need to tear down the entire copyright system and start over from first principles to have something that actually fulfills its purpose and significantly benefits the public.

macvillage.net · Jun 28, 2004, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm pretty sure this actually is a joke.

Yea, this was pretty much deemed a hoax the last 5 times this rumor came around.

This is up there with Osama bin Laden owns Citibank, and/or Snapple

But it is kind of amusing how people go as far as creating websites each time.