We all know that betamax is dead as a video medium, but the supreme court decision (Sony vs. Universal) that made it legal also covers your rights to own a CD-RW drive, DVD burner, VCR, hell, even tape recorders.

The problem is, the RIAA and other equally greedy companies are trying to pass the INDUCE act, which will get this supreme court decision overturned, which would limit the way we experience media to the way the media cartels wish it to be presented. THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS ALL IN THE NAME OF CORPORATE GREED.


What else can i say other than I want these b@stards dead and sent to eternal torment in hell for what they've already done and for what they are trying to do, along with the elected officials that are corrupt/stupid enough to go along with it. I want them to live every second of their lives in excruciating agony beyond what anyone has ever known. they deserve it. Our language does not even have a word for the purity of rage and hatred of these douchebags I felt when I heard about this. USA is becoming the country that is of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, with liberty and justice for none. These people have to be stopped now, even if it means destroying the whole governemnt and setting up a new one.


Anyway....

here's sopme basic info:


http://savebetamax.org/


Don't believe me?

try googling for INDUCE ACT.

...the RIAA's not even a company. Do you have any idea what you're talking about.?

regardless of that or not, it still warrants concern, don't you think?

I've already contacted my State's federal senators about this.

Are you kidding me? There's no way this will go through. Congress people use VCRs and TiVos as well you know

Hell, people probably didn't think that prohibition would get passed, either. How is this principle any different?

Do you honestly think that with an attitude like this, people are going to take you seriously? You need to do a bit more research about this.

Have you even read the bill? The bill itself doesnt even mention technology. All it says is that any person or any company who induces another to commit copyright infringment can also be held liable. Last time I checked, the vcr and dvd manufacturers weren't telling people that they should use their products to commit copyright infringement.

Furthermore, the bill does not overturn the prior ruling, it amends it. There is a huge difference. You really need to check your facts next time.

I am initially a bit warry as to the effects of this bill myself, and think that it should be further clarified before it is really considered. But, I honestly think that you are overreacting just a bit. I mean, come on... you want people to rot in hell because of a piece of legislation concerning copyright infringement? No one is going to listen to you if thats how you are going to react.

Here is a copy of the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2560:

...except that prohibition was backed by at least a century of moral and religious beliefs against alcohol.

This kind of thing makes me furious too.

That article mentions lobbyists for the music and movie industries. What the hell do they have to lobby about!? "We need more money!!!!! waaaaa!!!!!" It would be nice if there was someone to tell people like that to STFU and not waste our time any more with this kind of garbage.

DS--they're trying to make it seem as if the DVD and CD-R creating companies DO 'induce' this.

Tracer--the RIAA IS a company. I don't know where you've been. They make money off of every record sold that they 'protect'. Seems like a company to me, regardless if it started as an 'association"

Oh no, not your rights!

This is a legitimate cause for concern, but you make such a piss poor argument for it that you're practically undermining the whole thing.
The sensible, logical argument is that VHS can be used for totally legitimate things, like taping TV programmes. If the copying of movies is really a problem, they could push for a tax on blank video casettes to subsidise their losses. I believe something similar is in place with blank tapes.
But the whole "these are our rights!!!!1" line makes no sense. It used to be your 'right' to own a slave. That right was taken away. It used to be your 'right' to beat your wife That right was taken away. Laws that "take away your rights" are not immediately a 'bad' thing, as they may end up protecting society as a whole.
In this case, there is a legitimate reason why this law shouldn't be passed, but not because it "takes away your rights".


You seem violently passionate against "corporations running America", but the music industry should really be the least of your worries. No, what you should really concentrate on is the involvement of corporations in the presidential system, and the financing of campaigns. The influence those corporations have on the government is worrying. Bush is funded by the NRA, and even if he wanted to put forward gun control measures (but he probably wouldn't want to), he couldn't do it, as he'd lose financial support from the NRA. I'm not sure who funds Kerry, but I imagine he's in a similar boat. The amount of money necessary to run a presidential campaign makes this inevitable.
What you should also be concerned about is the privatisation of state schools and how the corporate funding affects the school syllabus. Do you think children can be taught how to eat healthily when they're funded by McDonalds? Will children learn about renewable energy sources when they're funded by ESSO?
Our school is technically a state school, but recieves some funding from outside corporations, and we banners hanging from the ceiling in the lunch room advertising Pizza Hut and Coca Cola. When you have children from the age of 12 spending five days a week for a good 5 years of their life, that isn't advertising, it's indoctrination. This isn't what a school should be about. (As a sort of 'protest', myself and some others regularly steal or deface those banners, leading the sponsors to pay for new ones).

Really, you shouldn't be worried about the music industry.

^^^^^^
what mort hog said

maybe i did overreact, but anyone would agree that they're becoming a little too powerful for everyone else's good. Any organization that can leverage the legal system to force ISPs to comply with their demands (among a huge list of other questionable acts) is a huge cause for concern. No company should have that much power.




Big corporations hold too much power. The government should should force big companies/associations like microsoft or the RIAA to split into several smaller companies, like what they did to Ma Bell.

I'm a moderate republican, but I sure as hell don't believe in the "big business knows best, so let them have free reign of everything" philosophy.

I also believe that the government shouldn't control everything, either. The government should act as referee when things get out of hand with corporate interests, but indididuals should be left alone for the most part.

"Once in a blue moon," they say.

Tonight's looking blue, because I wholeheartedly agree with Mort-Hog.

Right, but it's the whole "individuals being left alone" type thing that's resulted in corporations having so much power.

The people have control over the government. The more power the government has, the more power the people have.
The people have no control over corporations.

The RIAA and MPAA are media cartels. They may not be companies themselves, but they're composed entirely of major corporations like Sony and their team of crack[pot] lawyers.

It's like the OPEC of the multimedia world and there's absolutely no reason why anybody should defend it. The RIAA cartel has a monopoly over the entire multimedia industry and it's almost impossible to find a CD that wasn't published by one of their members.

I would very much like you to tell the school teachers of America this position on indoctrination.


It is bad to leverage the legal system to enforce the law?

Mort's got it hit on the head. The nail,t hat is.

I'm confused Page. You have, on numerous occassions admitted to pirating sofware, whoops, I mean "permanently borrowing" software, and now you're having a sook about companies trying to implement measures to stop people stealing their stuff. If that's not the height of hypocrisy then I don't know what is. The companies are not the damn problem. You and others like you who steal other peoples work or abuse the techonology at hand are what is causing the problem.

The only reason we need to have laws is because people are knobs and will try to screw each other over in their own interest. As long as people keep doing it, the "evil corporations" can continue to use it as an excuse to implement security measures that limit the way we use digital content. So until you stop stealing other peoples work, quit your whingeing, since you are the reason for things like DRM.

I whole heartedly agree with Pagewizard. Now please excuse me whilst I go rip off all his site designs for my own uses.

Party on rebels, party on.

Let's build an H-bomb.

Yeah I can't believe that anyone can make one! It's scaring the crap out of me!

I don't get it.

Communism I say, Communism!!!

Mort, Page started a thread awhile ago in which he freaked out about the fact that just anyone[/i[ can easily procure the materials necessary and the knowledge to make an H-bomb. It took a little while, but we got him to calm down a bit. This thread just reminds some of us of that.

Heeee. Other sorts of bombs, sure, but an H-Bomb? Heee.

♥

♣♠•

:p

Quoted for truth. You're only mad about any motion in favor of copyright management because it directly conflicts with your personal interests.

This bill doesn't really make much sense, as DS said, it needs clairification.

But really, unless you think it's your right to download music, I don't think any of this will effect you.

JediKirby

Um...isn't that the whole point of a democracy (or for you anal people, republic even)

No, wrong. The point of democracy is to prevent any one person from having much more voice than the next. Democracy is built around the (unrealistic) ideology that every person has a predetermined set of basic human rights.

One of those rights does not include flippantly stealing any and all copyrighted material one comes across.

I didn't say anything about that, but way to twist my words around.

Democracy centers around the idea that you should protect your own best interests, and yes it does naively assume you have some form of decency which is common to all others so that your own best interests won't be way outta whack with what everyone else wants.

No, it doesn't. The Greek etymology of 'Democracy' translates to "Rule by the people", more or less. Democracy refers to a government chosen by the (or some) people, direct or representative (if you want to be all Platoic about it, democracy refers to direct representation and republic refers to indirect representation). Universal suffrage is not a necessary component of democracy. Equality is not a necessary component of democracy. Democracy is about majority rule (sometimes with minority protection bundled in, often creating conflicts between being truly democratic and protecting minorities).

Either way, I don't see how this is at all significant to..well...anything at hand..