Savebetamax.org National Call-in Day 249
Rinisari writes "Savebetamax.org, a project of Downhill Battle, has set up a national call-in day for September 14th. They ask that on that day, each person signed up call a specific congressperson about the INDUCE act in an effort to keep a steady stream of calls all day. The "Save Betamax" nomenclature comes from the fact that the INDUCE act could reverse the decision in the 1984 Sony v. Universal case regarding Sony's Betamax VTRs and copying of copyrighted movies."
Not the INDUCE act again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, just think... I know not everyone here on
Wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
I just signed up.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to fight (Score:4, Insightful)
It's be great if it'd work, but it's hard to beat the money of the big corporations....The more I read the news, the more I see the big boys on the hill getting in on this....
Scary stuff it is...
Re:Obligiatory Simpsons Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why all in one day? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree; Correct me if I have a fundamental misunderstanding of how calling a politican works, but if 1,000 people call Mr./Ms. Senator in a day, whoever records these types of calls will probably end up becoming annoyed/overloaded/whatever and is likely to dismiss the high volume... If the 1,000 calls are made over, say, a few months' time, wouldn't it be more likely that each call is recorded and reported?
Re:Why all in one day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, annoying a congresscritter's staff is a good way to NOT get whatever you want. Staff members sometimes have the critical influence over the congresscritter they work for on technical issues they don't understand.
Intent of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong! (Score:1, Insightful)
Happy 9/11!
Not too worried - I live in a free country (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not too worried, I live in Canada. It's a little better here.
Maybe Canada will have to occupy the US soon to liberate it. =P
Re:I tried to publicise it. (Score:1, Insightful)
cut it out, guys.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RTFA and blurb (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it would be madness. But Hollywood doesn't care.
Now it is possible for them to sell read-only playback devices (such as the DVD) and if they ban all DVD-R, CD-R (+/-RW etc etc) then it won't affect their bottom line in the least. They can still profit from home videos that people can still play, but no one can record anything, except the organized criminals with their shops full of equipment... and people with legacy equipment. And once NTSC and PAL have been replaced by newer digital formats, that legacy equipment will become mostly useless. Hollywood would like nothing better.
You better stand up for your rights, or they're gonna kick you in the scrote.
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
Re:It's hard to fight (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be great if it'd work, but it's hard to beat the money of the big corporations....The more I read the news, the more I see the big boys on the hill getting in on this....
Ask any politician which he would prefer: 1000 voters going to the polls, or $10,000 (extra '0'.) You'd be hard pressed to find one that would take the money. Interest groups for corporations hold power, but there aren't 1000 Jack Valenti's in each and every district to vote for Congressman X.
Lost Cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress does *not* give a damn about the citizens, they are only concerned about the people that line their pocketbooks ( i.e. the 'media' and other large corporations ).
The very structure of this country has changed, and the citizens are going to be mowed over.
Fight it all you want, but id rather pick battles that aren't lost already.
The 2nd revolution is long over due, before the "American experiment" fails, and its remains fall into hardcore socialism.
Re:They'll call this terrorism. (Score:3, Insightful)
-Virt
Re:cut it out, guys.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate bridge burners.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That was why they sued sony back then, they were scared shitless by the prospects of their property being stolen!
Unfortunately for them, they lost, but even then they still managed to get a new cash cow out of it. Home videos.
But with the coming of DVDs, they decided, "hey, we needed home videos no more, now that we got these new high tech media like DVDs and CDs that can only be pressed at the factory, why not we make all recording mediums illegal eh"
And if this law passes, the implications are powerful. With CDRs, DVDRs, videos, cassettes, maybe even video cameras all outlawed? Guess who are the only ones with access to recording equipment?
Just because they produce some lousy stinking movies doesn't mean they produce ALL the material in the whole wide world. What about people making home videos of little nelly celebrating her first birthday? Or can you imagine needing to procure a license from hollywood in the future just so you can make a video recording of big nelly's wedding?
No good would come out of this man.. no good at all..
Re:Finally! (Score:1, Insightful)
Could the come up with a worse name? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, could they come up with a worse name? (Well yeah, now that I think about it, I guess they could. But still.)
The names (downhill battle, save betamax, etc.) almost sound like they're trying to turn people off to their cause--which, by the way, I agree with. Why couldn't they call it "Fair use" or "Save our constitutional rights from corporate greed!" or something.
Even "File swappers for truth" or "ShareOn.org" (both of which suck) would be better names than what they're using.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Why all in one day? (Score:3, Insightful)
True, if the phone calls are few and far between. If the phones are ringing off the hooks for days, then maybe the congressperson might take notice, but wouldn't a single day of calls be forgotten after weeks of relative silence? I'd think a steady stream of daily calls would be much more memorable, and much less likely leave a negative impression. Remember that the person answering the phone is probably some underpaid staff, and as another poster said, it's bad idea to piss off the congressperson's staff.
Re:No one's listening. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No one's listening. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is the facts are the facts. Check out opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org], put in your Rep's name or any of the backers of the DMCA or INDUCE and look where their money comes from. Until real campaign finance reform is passed, like only voters can contribute (No PACs, unions or churches) I feel the system will never be fixed.
What can I say but "Prove me wrong!" (To quote Seymour Skinner).
How far would they go? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not too worried - I live in a free country (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's hard to fight (Score:3, Insightful)
800,000 Geeks = 1839 Geeks per Congessional District. Assumming 3% of Geeks heed this call to arms, which I doubt, that is 51 calls per district. I've seen more signatures on a petition to replace a village traffic light.
Nuke the Whales (Score:3, Insightful)
"ew, Beta" - Homer Simpson
Re:Is there an expert in International Law (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you do care about any US-produced entertainment, it will probably result in crippled media -- crap like DVDs that expire 24 hours after you first watch them, a blackout on new US TV shows until your government passes laws that keep its citizens from recording them off the air, and CDs that you can't transfer to your iPod or similar devices.
This plan makes sense though (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that part of the problem is that the copyright cartel controls 90+% of the 'official' information flow - television, radio, print even billboards. This puts them in a position to have a huge effect on public and private opinion, something that few other industries are able to do and the copyright cartel gets gets it effectively for free.
Until... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if the penalties for doing anything like the above were made much steeper and the enforcement much stricter, then people would really be aware of the problem and would have more understanding of why the betamax situation is important. Unfortunately, their ignorance makes them think that all the warez and "free music" they get from the net and all the illigit software they install falls under the same umbrella as VHS tapes and TV. And since THAT'S always going to be legal, in their minds, there's nothing to worry about. They don't eve "get" the problem. But what do you expect from Joe and Jane AOLer?
Things have been moving in this direction for quite some time now. Some people out there believe that everything needs to be done for a fee and they've got hold of the steering wheel right now. This is why it's important to support alternatives that are still free (beer and speech). As long as people like me (those who believe in doing some things for free in both senses) there will always be a way out. This whole betamax thing is just an extension of this battle. We were given the right to copy decades ago and now they want to take that right away so that they can take money for something that was previously free.
Peronally, I abide by the rules of these companies. If I want or need software and there is no free alternative, I buy it. If I want to watch a movie, I go to the theater, or rent the video. If I REALLY like it, then I buy the VHS or DVD from a used source. If I like a musician or band, I buy the CD and rip it to Ogg Vorbis for my own personal listening. I do not share what is not mine to share. I respect the wishes of these companies. But... wherever there is a free alternative that is legal and does not go against these businesses, I choose the alternative.
This is why I run free OSes at home with only one machine running Windows XP Pro. This is why if you were to compare my Ogg Vorbis collection with every CD I own, you would see that there is not a single Vorbis file that doesn't have a matching disc. If you look through my library of MPEG files, you would see that I own every VHS they were transferred from or they are from sources on the net that are authorized to freely distribute.
Our country is in a fucked up state thanks to the greed of the corporate swine. But things will change once Joe and Jane Average see how little they are allowed to do. ONe she sees that she can't listen to her DRM laced audio file on any machine she wants to without having to pay for duplicate licenses... and once he sees that he can only watch the movei he downloaded for five days and needs to pay for another license to watch again... and once they both run into the situation where they can't let their inlaws borrow the new movie over the weekend because it's only authorized to play on their machine. Then, and only then will Joe and Jane Average "get it". Unfortunately for them, it will be too late and there won't be anything they can do about it. Unless they want to unplug and stop watching mainstream stuff. But you and I both know that that will happen when hell freezes over. Instead Joe and Jane will continue to pour THEIR rightfully earned cash into the pockets of uncreative executives who
know nothing about creativity or artistry. The only thing Joe and Jane will do is gripe about how expensive life has suddenly become because of all the bills they have to pay. The TV bill, the music service bill, the satellite radio bill, the internet bill, the internet movie rental bill, the TiVO bill, etc... And people like me will be shaking our heads thinking, "we told you so".
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)
I wrote (mostly email, some snail) to pretty much every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee [senate.gov] re: INDUCE a couple months ago. The only reply I've received has been from Sen. Feinstein [senate.gov]. I live in NY, so Hillary and Schumer ignoring me is f'd up. Feinstein sent me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts on "music file-sharing." Even though her letter did not address any of my points or even acknowledge whether I was pro or con on file-sharing, she "will keep [my] thoughts in mind should [INDUCE] come up in the Committee."
She believes "the protection of IP rights is vital to a flourishing economy, esp. in CA." And that "we must work to prevent the creation of digital copies of copyrighted works that can be illegally distributed throughout the world." Um Dianne, INDUCE doesn't do that. It's a cash payout to your big donors.
If I have any further comments or questions, I should "feel free" to contact her DC office at (202) 224-3841.
INDUCE, still wallowing in the Judiciary Committee, is now called "Inducing Infringements of Copyrights Act of 2004" and is still called S 2560. So if you call, refer to it by number or the new name.
Make one or two points max per call. You can call again.
Emphasize that you are against S 2560.
If you're from the Senator's home state, mention it and say that you vote. It should theoretically make a difference.
Re:What This Actually Means (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) Under the Betamax ruling there is in fact no legal difference. Both are legal.
(2) Attempting to apply your rule is a legal absurdity, as I'll explain.
You are erroneously looking at it restrospectively (backwards in time) rather than prospectively (forwards in time).
The proper question is if I invent a new and never before imagined product, can I legally bring that product to market and make millions? Or would I be legally liable and sued into bankruptcy if I brought it to market? What does the law say? How do I decide whether and can and should do so?
Under the Betamax ruling I am perfectly free to bring that product to market and make millions if it has "substantial non-infringing uses". I can do so if it a legitimate product with legitimate use. It is not my fault if someone uses my perfectly legitimate spoon to commit murder. It is not my fault if two of my first three customers use my perfectly legitimate spoon to commit murders.
Under your proposed rule I would need to have a magic crystal ball and to predict what percentage of customers would use my never-before-seen product (and thus unpredictable and evolving product) the way it was intended, and what percentage would use it improperly. Not only that, but what percentages do you propose makes for a legitmate and profitable product and what percentages makes for an illegitimate and sue-me-into-oblivion prohibited product? 25%? 50%? 75%? And if my best guess at that future percentage is close to the cut-off, and I supposed to gamble at making millions or being sued into bankruptcy? And what if that usage percentage drifts around over time? Does my product randomly flip-flop between legal and illegal? Some random weeks I can be sued into oblivion, but other random weeks and other cases the judge tosses out any suits against me? Also according to your suggestion, if the product slightly exceeds that "magic percentage" then you would be unfairly depriving the other "legitimate" users of the right to make their perfectly legal and legitimate use.
If I were the first to come up with the VCR and P2P, and first did so today, I could quite reasonably guess that the most common use for VCR's would be for people to make multiple tapes for each other, possibly even organizing some sort of infringing tape clubs. Based on that guess I would expect to be sued into oblivion, and thus not intruduce my product. The movie industry would then be making $ZERO from tapes and tape rentals, rather than earning more from VCR's than they do from theaters as they do now.
And being the first to come up some form of P2P, some never before explored idea, I could quite easily imagine that the most common use would be for bands to self-publish their own music. Perhaps I myself am in a band and that was exactly my intention in creating it, and thus obviously the only usage that occured to me. In that case I would release my product with perfectly good intentions and apparently in full compliance with the law. However I would then unexpectedly and unjustly get sued into oblivion when "too many" people began using my product in a way I never intended, a way I never even imagined.
No, what you sugest makes for absurd, unjust, and worst of all unpredictable law.
-
Re:Could the come up with a worse name? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can imagine the average Senator's response: why do I care about saving an obsolete type of VCR?
It should be called: "Save the VCR day"h, or something similar that makes it clear that the problem is far wider than Sony Betamax VCRs.
Re:They'll call this terrorism. (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised to see that in a decade being a congressman or an MP will be officially regarded as just another profession in the same way as being a doctor or a lawyer is. They'll charge a fee for their services and the more you pay the more you'll get.
Re:They'll call this terrorism. (Score:2, Insightful)