Savebetamax.org National Call-in Day

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."

We've heard this song before...

[LostCluster]

We've heard from these Downhill Battle people before. They proposed the a scheme to try to collect Apple/Pepsi winning-cap codes for iTunes downloads [studioqb.com] that neglected the fact that there were limits to how many songs a given person could download, neglected the fact that the rules said non-transferable, and that the group didn't disclose just how they selected the artists they wanted to favor.

In short, these guys come up with nice ideas that don't work due to real world constraints.

Why all in one day?

[A1kmm]

Wouldn't it be better to spread it out over a long period of time, otherwise they will know it is an organised compaign and will just disregard the calls? Is there any advantage to do this all in one day whatsoever?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Clarification on Betamax decision

[michaelmalak]

From the story summary:

1984 Sony v. Universal case regarding Sony's Betamax VTRs and copying of copyrighted movies

Not exactly. It covered time-shifting, of which copyrighted movies were a particular example. The Supreme Court was almost at a loss of what to do due to ambiguity of Copyright law and the lack of widespread VCRs in the home when the last major Copyright law was written (1976). They dared to divine the intention of Congress by saying that time-shifting constituted fair-use, and hinted that Congress should follow up with a more specific law in the future. Now Congress is doing the clarification, and it looks like it won't be in the consumer's favor.

Shameless plug: this was covered almost a year ago in my blog article U.S. corroborating with WIPO to overturn Betamax decision and also eliminate public domain [underreported.com] (which I've shamelessly plugged here before).

More trivia: before the Betamax decision, movies would come on HBO before videotape release (prime example: Star Wars -- HBO copies for a time were the only way to get a Star Wars videotape). Due to the assumed illegality of taping off HBO, movie studios considered HBO airing to constitute less ownership than selling videotapes. The Betamax decision reversed this notion, and thusly also the order of release.

Re:Why all in one day?

[qbwiz]

Isn't it likely that if the phone calls were spread out over time, they would be more likely to be forgotten and underestimated? If the previous phone call about an issue was a few days ago, you might not really link the two in your mind and figure out the strong support for an issue. If they all come at once, it's relatively easy to notice that there is strong support for an issue - you've been dealing with people who care about it all day.

sorry for them...

[ezonme]

Their business model is history... If they win this battle the RIAA/MPAA will know how it feels like to shoot themselves in the foot when they realize that they lost a powerfull distribution/advertising channel like the P2P networks. The indies will always find a way to get their productions to the people, they don't need p2p, just a website.

What's next?

Re:Not the INDUCE act again...

[Ironsides]

Have you ever heard of Larry Niven's "ARM"? In his stories they are the technology police of the UN (who run the planet) and are charged with suppressing all new dangerous technology. (Read as any new technology period). They are the most corrupt organization in his stories.

You're mostly right

[rsilvergun]

The structure hasn't changed though. Do a bit of digging and you'll find the common man has never had any real power except right after WWII (and only then because there was a shortage of workers thanks to your friend and mine, the Machinegun). _All_ complex societies throughout history have been centered around satisifying the wants of a lucky few. Ours still is, it's just that technology and Globalism has expanded the number of Lucky ones, and the losses of WWII allowed the unlucky ones to make out OK for a while.

Trouble is, just about every single poor and middle class bastard wants to join the oppressors. And every time you add an oppressor, you've got to add some oppressed. This is just the way human economy works. As soon as the masses make some gains, along will come someone to take them away so he can join the ranks of the wealthy and powerful. There is a way to stop this: forced birth control. Either that or War, famine and disease will work just as well. So long as there are too few people to effectively oppress. Capitalism needs lots of cannon fodder.

Oh, and give me Socialism over capitalism any day. Adam Smith envisioned a world of small time shop keepers and factory owners with a stake in thier communities because they lived there. Globalism breaks all that. What's been keeping your job from going overseas is isolationism broght on by the Cold War. Now that that's over capitalism's busted. Capital will flow where ever labor's cheapest, and that flow will keep standards of living down. You're not gonna feel this too bad, but you're children will. Their lives are gonna suck.

The Subversives

[DarkOx]

These people need to excep the subversives will win. The RIAA et all, need to understand that the least damange will be if they just play ball with what people want. If they keep buying bay laws. Then us citizens will stop respecting the laws, its that simple. Bigbussiness/Gov just needs to learn that you give citizens the laws they really want or you get criminals. The other thing is no you can't jail everyone. Look at interstate speed limits. Clearly the majority of general public favors higher speed limits. My evidence most peoplle are doing 5-10 over. Now if everyone is breaking the law(speed limit) then why have the law? Well police pull over people at random and issue tickets the rest of us get away with it. So its partial negative enfocement whic psycologicly casues us to feel we will continue to get away with it, we tend to go even fast the next time. If they just set the speed for passenger cars to 80 I bet most people would comply, which means you could take care of all the violators. People would then respect the speed law and obey even when it inconviences them. So now if you make stuip laws like "though shall not reccord stuffs with a broadcast flag set" if I want to reccord it I sure as hell with find away as will most people. Just like most people don't reall pay to have the city inspector out if they remodle the basement. They know is dumb and just a veiled tax and therfore say "screw it". I'll bet again if you rewrote that ordinace to say "You onlyl need to be inspected if you change a loaded portion of the structure" people would obey and we'd all be safer.

Look at the history of our first revolution. Here is the scary part noone are thinking about. If you keep makeing stupid laws and by extention keep makeing averge joes who were once well behaived citizen criminals and subversives then you only have criminals and subversives. People don't like to feel that way about themselves forever. Eventually that emotional stage starts to work really good for revolutionary reasoning. Then you get a revolution. I am not saying its gonna be a bloody revolution or anything, but sooner or later people are gonna toss out the current power brokers, they simply will not play ball any more. People are gonna say, forigen policy be damned I don't think think my neighbor Ted is really fit to lead this nation on the national stage but if I elect him at least I will be able to live my life like I used to for awhile I am gonna do it. I think the future is bright domesticly but its gonna ruin our place in the world when it happens, and its all because the current powers that be are two blind to stike a ballance.

Re:sorry for them...

[jgalun]

The problem with the treatment of P2P on Slashdot is that most posters are unable to distinguish between P2P technology and the popular P2P networks.

The INDUCE Act does not outlaw, and the RIAA/MPAA, are not opposed to P2P technology itself. Professor Susan Crawford, positively quoted in a previous Slashdot story about the INDUCE Act, says, "The Act (to be proposed tomorrow by songwriter Sen. Hatch and others) amends the copyright law to say that anyone who 'induces' copyright infringement is himself/itself an infringer."

The act is about is preventing copyright infringement via P2P, not about P2P. Believe me, Orrin Hatch, the RIAA, and the MPAA have absolutely no problem if some P2P network replaces Google as the search engine of choice.

More to the point, the RIAA/MPAA have no problem using P2P themselves if they can control it so that it does not get used to pirate movies and music. If a proprietary P2P network that allows them to charge for distribution of works turns out to be the best way to rent movies, the MPAA would be happy to cut Blockbuster out of the picture and keep those profits to itself.

What they cannot allow is unrestricted use of existing P2P networks for piracy of music and movies. And let's face it - that's exactly what Kazaa and Limewire networks are used for today. I say this as someone who uses P2P to PIRATE MUSIC AND MOVIES. But at least I admit that's what I use it for. I don't pretend that P2P is a future business model for the RIAA/MPAA that they are too stupid to understand.

Many on Slashdot make the argument that P2P-based music and movie piracy is actually good for the music and movie industries, because it may actually lead people to purchase more music and movies - music and movies that they otherwise would not know of. And this argument may be true.

The problem is that it ignores the fact that while content piracy is good for content producers when it exists in moderation, it means certain bankruptcy for content producers when taken to an extreme.

That is why Adobe could care less if you use a pirated copy of Photoshop to make your first web page, but will absolutely send in the BSA ninjas if you run a 200 man web design firm that doesn't own a single license to the product. Short of a totalitarian state, piracy could never be stamped out. It's reality of life, just like stolen merchandise is in the retail business (no, I am not saying that copying copyrighted works is equivalent to stealing physical products). The RIAA and MPAA understand this. They're not worried about the guys who videotape movies and sell a dozen copies on the street corner. That's nothing to them.

The problem with uncontrolled P2P networks is that, if unchecked, there is absolutely nothing stopping everyone from pirating music and movies. Look how easy it is to get popular music and movies on Limewire today. And Limewire has what, a few million users at any given time? Well, what if downloading movies and music from Limewire were known to be legal, and what if it were covered on the front of Time or Newsweek, as Napster once was? You'd get 50 million users. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be using it constantly. The number of shared files would balloon. The speed of acquiring files would, correspondingly, increase.

It would be wonderful for all of us. But it would be the end of the RIAA and the MPAA companies. Because who the hell would ever pay for music and movies under those circumstances? Sure, a few collectors - like the people who insist on buying vinyl records today - but the majority could care less. I assure you, in the time of iPods, the packaging and liner notes mean very little to the average consumer.

That's why the RIAA and MPAA need to have legal means to fight file sharing. They'll never shut down online piracy completely - just like Adobe will never be able to track down every home user who has a copy of Photshop 5.5 on his PC that he got from a friend. But they don't need to. They just need to have enou

Re:Lost Cause

[Adam9]

I did a quick search at Thomas [loc.gov], and found this:

"(6) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (`DMCA') was enacted as an attempt to safeguard the traditional balance in the face of these new challenges. It gave copyright holders the ability to fight digital piracy by employing technical restrictions that prevent unlawful access and copying. In practice, however, the DMCA also endangered the rights and expectations of legitimate consumers."

and then..

" `(c) CIRCUMVENTION FOR NONINFRINGING USES- (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this title, a person who lawfully obtains a copy or phonorecord of a work, or who lawfully receives a transmission of a work, may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to the work or protects a right of the copyright holder under this title if--

`(A) such act is necessary to make a noninfringing use of the work under this title; and

`(B) the copyright owner fails to make publicly available the necessary means to make such noninfringing use without additional cost or burden to such person."

Sounds good to me. It's called the BALANCE Act and it was introduced last year.

What about Hard Disks ?

[MorseKode]

So if they want to prohibit everything that can reproduce sound or video they have to prohibit every aviable storage medium, from ZIP 100MB disks to Compact Flash memory, and even HARD DISKs...

IMHO i think this whole thing is too stupid, there will allways be a way to save analog or binary data. They wont go home by home checking for storage mediums and like allways happened, we will find a new way to record and copy music and videos.

I cant believe the music and movie industry hasnt figured this out yet, but it just a matter of time they understand they wont ever finish piracy by prohibiting or sueing.

Some day..... i hope..... in a near future..... they will realize they wont go anywhere acting like this, and understand that they have to compete with piracy as companies do with each other, the one that ends earning money is the one that gives you a better product or service.

Re:Is there an expert in International Law

[mvdwege]

Just look at the sordid history of the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive). You will see that the entertainment industry will meet up with some European Commisioners, have lunch, and presto! two months later the relevant committee comes up with a new EU directive implementing the latest draconian US copyright law into an EU Directive.

I am not hopeful. And I live in one of the countries that generally implement EU directives in the most liberal way possible.

Mart

Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a bit shaky on my Constitutional Law. If a bill is passed whose provisions are deemed illegal by a prior Supreme Court ruling, couldn't a petitioner (EFF?) file an injuction against the law the minute W signs the bill?

Didn't this happen with the Internet Communications Decency Act (or whatever it was 10 years ago)? I mean, there is fairly clear precedent for an injuction, at least, if not an immediate ruling.

BTW, where does Sony stand on this issue today, 28 years later? In 1976, they were the manufacturer of the "copyright infringing copying devices"; now, they are one the few major film/media producers.

The times, they are a rollin'

Re:It's hard to fight

[theboy24]

That is a good point, but with the way that redistricting has been going in a large # of states, most of them do not have to worry about re-elections unlss they publicly screw up really bad. I'm sure some of you remember the fiasco that went on in texas, or the fact that only somewhere around 20 house seats are seriosuly contested each election. Not only are we losing our rights as consumers, but the system is being rigged so that we have no control over the media and content that we spend our money on, and no effective way to change it if we live in the wrong district. I know the arguament has been/will b made that we have a choice not to buy, the problem is that if this trend continues there will be no choice in the marketplace, Big Media (riaa/mpaa/ect.. will haev enough influence and control that they will be telling you exactly what you can buy and how you can use it, and eventually that if you refuse to give them your money, that you are doing soemthing illegal, but more ominously that if they have their way, there simply will not be choice, you will buy their product or go home empty-handed. The more that this is allowed to happen the more it will continue to happen, if they can do it with movies and cd's theyre not going to stop untill everything that you ever buy is owned by them. We are rapidly losing our rights, and the ability to gain them back. this should be a wake up call to anyone who cares about having a government that is responsive to the people. Think about it for a minute, if the system did work, then how are we in a situation where most mainstream media and content comes from a very small collection of organizations that arent held accountable for anything, coupled wit hthe fact that most national politicains do not have to worry greatly about re-elcetion. Things might be a lot different If they actually had to get re-elected and defend things like INDUCE to a public that wasn't being manipulated by those same media interests, but o-well. Someday we'll be telling our grandchildren about the good ol days, when we had consumer and poltical rights. Alright, no more rant. thanks for bearing with me =)