What is the chance of this passing? What with this being an
election year and all? It would be nice if someone can point
out a good site for tracking bills.

HAve Fun,
Sends Steve


>
> more, um, *ugh*
>
> as noted on Joi Ito's Web:
> http://joi.ito.com/
>
> June 28, 2004
> Orlowski on Induce Act and hacker activism
> 11:35 JST Activism - Intellectual Property - US Policy and Politics
>
> In an update on the new Induce Act that I blogged about earlier, Orlowski
> makes an interesting observation about why the IT lobby lost Hatch who is
> leading this bill and who used to be "on our side."
>
> ////
>
>
> The Register Internet and Law Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs
>
> Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/26/hatch_induce_act/
> Dirty rotten inducers - the law the IT world deserves?
> By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
> Published Saturday 26th June 2004 09:34 GMT
>
> It may soon be possible to carry around an AK-47 assault rifle and an iPod
> with you down the street - and be arrested for carrying the iPod.
>
> That's according to critics of a Senate amendment to the copyright code
> proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch this week called the 'Induce Act'. He wants
> to make the 'intentional inducement of copyright infringement' an offense,
> and this will extend liability to any manufacturer of a device which plays
> infringed material, or a shop that sells such a device, they say.
>
> Hatch's terse amendment states that "the term 'intentionally induces'
> means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures; and intent may be
> shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce
> infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then
> reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies
> on infringement for its commercial viability," in which caser the inducer
> becomes an infringer.
>
> However, the amendment also says that "nothing in this subsection shall
> enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability
> for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or
> impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement." And it's
> contributory liability that the RIAA want to see changed.
>
> In his floor speech introducing the measure, Hatch said that once people
> are given PCs, they are bound to infringe. (Many would agree with him
> there). So he frames his bill as a protection. Hatch said people weren't
> aware that they were breaking the law by running P2P software, (citing
> work by Harvard's Berkman Center, which says the Senator quoted them out
> of context) and therefore running "piracy machines" that had been designed
> to mislead their users. Therefore, his argument goes, the users are in
> need of protection from 'inducement'.
> No exceptions
>
> The problem is that 'fair use' isn't on the statute books. It arose from
> case law, and specifically the Sony vs. Betamax case in 1984 in which the
> entertainment industry failed to prevent the video recorder being sold.
> Hatch rather gleefully points this out. "Congress codified no exceptions
> for 'substantial non-criminal uses'."
>
> The act does nothing to address two key issues. The bill insists that only
> by criminalizing millions of people can we ensure artists get paid, which
> is supposed to be our common goal. And it fails to recognize that people
> are always going to exchange music.
>
> This is odd, because four years ago Senator Hatch subscribed to both these
> points of view. He threatened the RIAA that he would introduce flat fee
> legislation, effectively decriminalizing what he now calls "piracy", if it
> didn't clean up its act. (See Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany"
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)
> and Senator Hatch rides to Napster's rescue
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)).
>
> Despite the contributory infringement clause, the opposition is adamant
> that this will threaten the manufacture, promotion or sale of devices
> which play infringing material.
>
> "No one will invest in, or invent new innovative technologies if the mere
> fact that they can be used unlawfully is enough to make both the investors
> and the inventors liable," said Public Knowledge's Mike Godwin.
>
> Mitch Bainwol, The RIAA's chief executive ,has denied that manufacturers
> are the target - "this is not about going after the device makers," he
> told the New York Times, and instead is directed at the P2P networks.
> Hatch himself said the law had purposefully been crafted to avoid
> bothering manufacturers.
>
> "It was critical to find a way to narrowly identify the rare bad actors
> without implicating the vast majority of companies that serve both
> consumers and copyright-holders by providing digital copying devices -
> even though these devices, like all devices, can be misused for unlawful
> purposes," he said.
> Payback time?
>
> It remains to be seen if this eventually criminalizes the iPod. However,
> it is incontestable that the debate - as now framed by Senator Hatch long
> - has left the gravitational pull of commonsense. Take two notions: that
> artists should be compensated, and that we should be free to exchange
> culture, and you soon find an abundance of different options. That the
> debate should have been driven down such a cul-de-sac, is, when you think
> about it, quite extraordinary.
>
> And largely it's the technology community's own fault. They've made it
> very easy for the MPAA and the RIAA to draft such legislation. Rather than
> making themselves a nuisance in Washington DC, worrying politicians, and
> bringing attractive alternatives to the public's attention,
> technology-literate advocates simply dived out of the way.
>
> Why is this so? Many IT people don't like getting involved in
> demonstrating or lobbying, providing the group with vital inertia to begin
> with. But that's a symptom, not a cause? Non-IT people like to think IT
> people are uniquely bad at social relations, and only seem to be talk
> persuasively to other like-minded IT people. The Internet seems to have
> exacerbated this fragmentation. There may be some truth to this: the
> Howard Dean bubble demonstrated how very intense computer-based activists
> can easily get an exaggerated idea of their own numbers and eventual
> impact. Or perhaps tech people simply aren't interested in social
> relations at all: slogans such as "Software freedom!" are baffling to
> someone whose CD won't play in their car stereo.
>
> This week dissent against Hatch's bill has been confined to the Internet,
> which means it's safely out of sight for most people. Concerned citizens
> looking for NRA-style talking points will instead find migraine-inducing
> "rebuttals" such as this one
> (http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html), written for the
> primary benefit of the author. (A double pity, as this is a guy who knows
> his stuff).
>
> Well, perhaps it's a combination of all these factors. Perhaps too, the
> brief flood of speculative capital into the technology industry in the
> 1980s and 1990s convinced IT people they didn't have an exalted place in
> society. For a time, they did, and even now many seem to think so. And
> underneath, there's the hunch that the market will sort everything out, or
> the belief that every problem can be solved with technology. Whatever the
> reasons, the fightback against the RIAA and the MPAA has been as effective
> as the proverbial one-legged man in a backsid- kicking competition. The
> entertainment industry should be thankful it has opponents so inept.
> Opportunity knocked
>
> We mention this only because the good Senator Hatch personifies the missed
> opportunity. He once shared the view of many involved in the technology
> sector today that the RIAA could not be trusted to clean up its act, and
> that alternative compensation systems that ended "piracy" could prove to
> be very popular. That was in 2000.
>
> At around the same time, the EFF was campaigning for Napster to be
> legalized, without offering any suggestions as to how the artists might be
> paid - thus surrendering its moral authority on the issue. Meanwhile, the
> RIAA was courting and flattering Senator Hatch.
>
> At a special gala awards dinner early in 2001 hosted by the National
> Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Hatch was awarded a "Hero Award"
> and the diners heard Nashville star Natalie Grant perform one of his
> songs, "I Am Not Alone", Joe Menn reported in his book about Napster, All
> The Rave [Reg review
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/napsters_back_what_did_silicon/)]
>
> If turning a Senator is this easy, why couldn't the techies do it?
>
> There is hope. The coalition announced earlier this week brought industry
> into the battle. And the decision by the New York Times this week to
> publish two op-ed articles on alternative compensation systems (one of
> which is by William Fisher, whose ideas we explored here
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)). This
> should help to take the flat-fee discussion firmly into the mainstream,
> where it needs to be. r
> Related links
>
> INDUCE Amendment, from the Senator's Hatch
> (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id83&suppresslayouts=true)
> NY Times - Fisher
> (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
> Related stories
>
> Why wireless will end piracy and doom DRM and TCPA - Jim Griffin
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/11/why_wireless_will_end_piracy/)
> Music biz should shift to flat-fee, P2P model - exec
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/)
> Free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid. We
> explain how
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)
> Microsoft, Apple snub consumer freedom coalition
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/ms_apple_snub_boucher/) MPAA,
> RIAA seek permanent antitrust exemption
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/26/mpaa_riaa_seek_permanent_antitrust/)
> House bill would cast FBI as copyright Pinkertons
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/23/house_bill_would_cast_fbi/)
> US Senator pauses on PC destruct button
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/19/us_senator_pauses_on_pc/)
> US Senator would destroy MP3 traders' PCs
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/18/us_senator_would_destroy_mp3/)
> Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/23/senator_hatchs_napster_epiphany/)
>
> Copyright 2004
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Thanks, I will write a letter to my representatives.
People should know that the democrats can be just as
bad about this as the republicans. Many of the RIAA
and Columbia record folks have very intesne lobbyists
that really hammer away at representatives and are
very very persuasive.

I am amazed that they have taken aim at an Apple product.
Apple has done a very good job of getting recording
artists remuneration for their work. Even more interesting
is the fact that musicians are deserting the traditional
channels of distribution which often treat them very
nastily. I mean you throw your rights to them, they give
you little in return and they have a lock on your creative
output for a long time. It benefits very well groups but
small acts who really need the money get little or nothing.
A friend of mine is thinking of having me publish his
work through non-traditional channels because of this
problem even though his work is pretty much very good
psychedlic rock revival.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve



>
> this could pass; why not? these people are idoiots.
>
> here, read this:
> http://www.savetheipod.com/index1.php
>
> and no thanks, I will definitely not HAve Fun just yet.
>
> cheers,
> jg
>
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org wrote:
>
>> What is the chance of this passing? What with this being an
>> election year and all? It would be nice if someone can point
>> out a good site for tracking bills.
>>
>> HAve Fun,
>> Sends Steve
>>
>>
>>>
>>> more, um, *ugh*
>>>
>>> as noted on Joi Ito's Web:
>>> http://joi.ito.com/
>>>
>>> June 28, 2004
>>> Orlowski on Induce Act and hacker activism
>>> 11:35 JST Activism - Intellectual Property - US Policy and Politics
>>>
>>> In an update on the new Induce Act that I blogged about earlier,
>>> Orlowski
>>> makes an interesting observation about why the IT lobby lost Hatch who
>>> is
>>> leading this bill and who used to be "on our side."
>>>
>>> ////
>>>
>>>
>>> The Register Internet and Law Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs
>>>
>>> Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/26/hatch_induce_act/
>>> Dirty rotten inducers - the law the IT world deserves?
>>> By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
>>> Published Saturday 26th June 2004 09:34 GMT
>>>
>>> It may soon be possible to carry around an AK-47 assault rifle and an
>>> iPod
>>> with you down the street - and be arrested for carrying the iPod.
>>>
>>> That's according to critics of a Senate amendment to the copyright code
>>> proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch this week called the 'Induce Act'. He
>>> wants
>>> to make the 'intentional inducement of copyright infringement' an
>>> offense,
>>> and this will extend liability to any manufacturer of a device which
>>> plays
>>> infringed material, or a shop that sells such a device, they say.
>>>
>>> Hatch's terse amendment states that "the term 'intentionally induces'
>>> means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures; and intent may
>>> be
>>> shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to
>>> induce
>>> infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then
>>> reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity
>>> relies
>>> on infringement for its commercial viability," in which caser the
>>> inducer
>>> becomes an infringer.
>>>
>>> However, the amendment also says that "nothing in this subsection shall
>>> enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory
>>> liability
>>> for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or
>>> impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement." And it's
>>> contributory liability that the RIAA want to see changed.
>>>
>>> In his floor speech introducing the measure, Hatch said that once
>>> people
>>> are given PCs, they are bound to infringe. (Many would agree with him
>>> there). So he frames his bill as a protection. Hatch said people
>>> weren't
>>> aware that they were breaking the law by running P2P software, (citing
>>> work by Harvard's Berkman Center, which says the Senator quoted them
>>> out
>>> of context) and therefore running "piracy machines" that had been
>>> designed
>>> to mislead their users. Therefore, his argument goes, the users are in
>>> need of protection from 'inducement'.
>>> No exceptions
>>>
>>> The problem is that 'fair use' isn't on the statute books. It arose
>>> from
>>> case law, and specifically the Sony vs. Betamax case in 1984 in which
>>> the
>>> entertainment industry failed to prevent the video recorder being sold.
>>> Hatch rather gleefully points this out. "Congress codified no
>>> exceptions
>>> for 'substantial non-criminal uses'."
>>>
>>> The act does nothing to address two key issues. The bill insists that
>>> only
>>> by criminalizing millions of people can we ensure artists get paid,
>>> which
>>> is supposed to be our common goal. And it fails to recognize that
>>> people
>>> are always going to exchange music.
>>>
>>> This is odd, because four years ago Senator Hatch subscribed to both
>>> these
>>> points of view. He threatened the RIAA that he would introduce flat fee
>>> legislation, effectively decriminalizing what he now calls "piracy", if
>>> it
>>> didn't clean up its act. (See Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany"
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)
>>> and Senator Hatch rides to Napster's rescue
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)).
>>>
>>> Despite the contributory infringement clause, the opposition is adamant
>>> that this will threaten the manufacture, promotion or sale of devices
>>> which play infringing material.
>>>
>>> "No one will invest in, or invent new innovative technologies if the
>>> mere
>>> fact that they can be used unlawfully is enough to make both the
>>> investors
>>> and the inventors liable," said Public Knowledge's Mike Godwin.
>>>
>>> Mitch Bainwol, The RIAA's chief executive ,has denied that
>>> manufacturers
>>> are the target - "this is not about going after the device makers," he
>>> told the New York Times, and instead is directed at the P2P networks.
>>> Hatch himself said the law had purposefully been crafted to avoid
>>> bothering manufacturers.
>>>
>>> "It was critical to find a way to narrowly identify the rare bad actors
>>> without implicating the vast majority of companies that serve both
>>> consumers and copyright-holders by providing digital copying devices -
>>> even though these devices, like all devices, can be misused for
>>> unlawful
>>> purposes," he said.
>>> Payback time?
>>>
>>> It remains to be seen if this eventually criminalizes the iPod.
>>> However,
>>> it is incontestable that the debate - as now framed by Senator Hatch
>>> long
>>> - has left the gravitational pull of commonsense. Take two notions:
>>> that
>>> artists should be compensated, and that we should be free to exchange
>>> culture, and you soon find an abundance of different options. That the
>>> debate should have been driven down such a cul-de-sac, is, when you
>>> think
>>> about it, quite extraordinary.
>>>
>>> And largely it's the technology community's own fault. They've made it
>>> very easy for the MPAA and the RIAA to draft such legislation. Rather
>>> than
>>> making themselves a nuisance in Washington DC, worrying politicians,
>>> and
>>> bringing attractive alternatives to the public's attention,
>>> technology-literate advocates simply dived out of the way.
>>>
>>> Why is this so? Many IT people don't like getting involved in
>>> demonstrating or lobbying, providing the group with vital inertia to
>>> begin
>>> with. But that's a symptom, not a cause? Non-IT people like to think IT
>>> people are uniquely bad at social relations, and only seem to be talk
>>> persuasively to other like-minded IT people. The Internet seems to have
>>> exacerbated this fragmentation. There may be some truth to this: the
>>> Howard Dean bubble demonstrated how very intense computer-based
>>> activists
>>> can easily get an exaggerated idea of their own numbers and eventual
>>> impact. Or perhaps tech people simply aren't interested in social
>>> relations at all: slogans such as "Software freedom!" are baffling to
>>> someone whose CD won't play in their car stereo.
>>>
>>> This week dissent against Hatch's bill has been confined to the
>>> Internet,
>>> which means it's safely out of sight for most people. Concerned
>>> citizens
>>> looking for NRA-style talking points will instead find
>>> migraine-inducing
>>> "rebuttals" such as this one
>>> (http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html), written for
>>> the
>>> primary benefit of the author. (A double pity, as this is a guy who
>>> knows
>>> his stuff).
>>>
>>> Well, perhaps it's a combination of all these factors. Perhaps too, the
>>> brief flood of speculative capital into the technology industry in the
>>> 1980s and 1990s convinced IT people they didn't have an exalted place
>>> in
>>> society. For a time, they did, and even now many seem to think so. And
>>> underneath, there's the hunch that the market will sort everything out,
>>> or
>>> the belief that every problem can be solved with technology. Whatever
>>> the
>>> reasons, the fightback against the RIAA and the MPAA has been as
>>> effective
>>> as the proverbial one-legged man in a backsid- kicking competition. The
>>> entertainment industry should be thankful it has opponents so inept.
>>> Opportunity knocked
>>>
>>> We mention this only because the good Senator Hatch personifies the
>>> missed
>>> opportunity. He once shared the view of many involved in the technology
>>> sector today that the RIAA could not be trusted to clean up its act,
>>> and
>>> that alternative compensation systems that ended "piracy" could prove
>>> to
>>> be very popular. That was in 2000.
>>>
>>> At around the same time, the EFF was campaigning for Napster to be
>>> legalized, without offering any suggestions as to how the artists might
>>> be
>>> paid - thus surrendering its moral authority on the issue. Meanwhile,
>>> the
>>> RIAA was courting and flattering Senator Hatch.
>>>
>>> At a special gala awards dinner early in 2001 hosted by the National
>>> Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Hatch was awarded a "Hero
>>> Award"
>>> and the diners heard Nashville star Natalie Grant perform one of his
>>> songs, "I Am Not Alone", Joe Menn reported in his book about Napster,
>>> All
>>> The Rave [Reg review
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/napsters_back_what_did_silicon/)]
>>>
>>> If turning a Senator is this easy, why couldn't the techies do it?
>>>
>>> There is hope. The coalition announced earlier this week brought
>>> industry
>>> into the battle. And the decision by the New York Times this week to
>>> publish two op-ed articles on alternative compensation systems (one of
>>> which is by William Fisher, whose ideas we explored here
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)). This
>>> should help to take the flat-fee discussion firmly into the mainstream,
>>> where it needs to be. r
>>> Related links
>>>
>>> INDUCE Amendment, from the Senator's Hatch
>>> (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id83&suppresslayouts=true)
>>> NY Times - Fisher
>>> (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
>>> Related stories
>>>
>>> Why wireless will end piracy and doom DRM and TCPA - Jim Griffin
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/11/why_wireless_will_end_piracy/)
>>> Music biz should shift to flat-fee, P2P model - exec
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/)
>>> Free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid. We
>>> explain how
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)
>>> Microsoft, Apple snub consumer freedom coalition
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/ms_apple_snub_boucher/) MPAA,
>>> RIAA seek permanent antitrust exemption
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/26/mpaa_riaa_seek_permanent_antitrust/)
>>> House bill would cast FBI as copyright Pinkertons
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/23/house_bill_would_cast_fbi/)
>>> US Senator pauses on PC destruct button
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/19/us_senator_pauses_on_pc/)
>>> US Senator would destroy MP3 traders' PCs
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/18/us_senator_would_destroy_mp3/)
>>> Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany
>>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/23/senator_hatchs_napster_epiphany/)
>>>
>>> Copyright 2004
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 05:43AM, <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org> wrote:

>Thanks, I will write a letter to my representatives.
>People should know that the democrats can be just as
>bad about this as the republicans. Many of the RIAA
>and Columbia record folks have very intesne lobbyists
>that really hammer away at representatives and are
>very very persuasive.

The Democrats are paid for by Big Media. They are not your friends when it comes to copyright.

>I am amazed that they have taken aim at an Apple product.

See the EFF's mocked-up lawsuit.

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

Do note that the RIAA have made it explicit that they're going after the P2P networks, not the good old hardware manufacturers. They just want to get rid of the new competition using your representatives rather than the marketplace.

>Apple has done a very good job of getting recording
>artists remuneration for their work.

No they haven't. My house has 3 iPods and several Macs (it's our main platform) so I'm not anti-Apple by any measure, but look at how they are treating the Indies in the UK and how different companies are getting different deals based on how big they are. And the record companies get the money, not the artists. The artists would only get a low-digit percentage of that money even if the record companies weren't masters of creative accounting.

>Even more interesting
>is the fact that musicians are deserting the traditional
>channels of distribution which often treat them very
>nastily. I mean you throw your rights to them, they give
>you little in return and they have a lock on your creative
>output for a long time. It benefits very well groups but
>small acts who really need the money get little or nothing.
>A friend of mine is thinking of having me publish his
>work through non-traditional channels because of this
>problem even though his work is pretty much very good
>psychedlic rock revival.

Apple would keep DRM even if it wasn't requried, because it locks users to the iPod and their store.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php

Apple are *not* "good guys" in this: they should remove the DRM, oppose this act (they and Microsoft are the only major IT companes that aren't!), and stop helping the artist-screwing, kiddie-bankrupting, senator-buying old guard in the media dig their claws in as the market starts to sweep them away.

Rip, mix, burn? More like sell, spy, sue.

- Rob.

I meant that Apple was better. Big corporations generally do not
have public interest in mind and are very nasty when it comes to
artistic expression. Now I can't afford Apple products even though
I would love to work on something that has a real operating system
under the hood.

Unfortunately one has to alas play hardball politics with these
people. I can put some pressure on people out here in California.
I maybe able to sway Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia
as they are my old represenatives. A lot of times the large corporations
have a big advantage because they are the only people who make
a good effort at contacting them and presenting good arguments.
It is only recently like three or four years as far as I know that
people on things like PBS began to run programs that questioned the
whole effect on culture of the whole DRM thing.

Sometimes it is hard to talk to fellow lefties who sort of moan
at me that people like Boxer et al. are in the right place in all
these issues of life and death and the Bill of Rights and so they
look the other way at the DRM. I have kept ASCAP and BMI away from
any of my work, not that it is anywhere attracting the majors. I know
however that a friend of mine who wants me to distribute his work, that
he might change his tune if some major came around offering bucks and
babes.;) Oh well sigh sometimes this all gets pretty disheartening.

Note another friend did strike a particular deal with some disribution
involving with Apple and he and his band now live on the income from that.
ANother old friend in a musical group is reasonably well remunerated.
The big thing is these people did well enough to be kind of considered
a "real band" i.e. they made the Billboard charts etc.

When I worked on the California Crime Law with its (in)famous
"Electronic No Trespassing Sign" we were very disheartened when
one chamber supposedly liberal pretty much ignored us and "to be
tough on crime" wanted to pass a particularly egregious bill
which made all sorts of things felonies. When it went to the other
chamber we got a call from some represenative. We went and met with
him. He was amazingly supportive of us. The bizarre thing is he was
a republican from Souther California and had a huge picture of Ronnie
Raygun. We went, my friend John gave our basic position. I did an
analysis from when I was a Network Admin for a large ARPANET site.
It was amazing as we pretty much got everything we wanted. I was just
amazed. I have never been involved in anything as succesful since…
I hope perhaps to have a repeat…It is a pain to sometimes feel like
one is beating one's head against the wall and compromising too much
and always having to see everything from others point of view.

Have Fun,
Sends Steve



> On Tuesday, June 29, 2004, at 05:43AM, <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, I will write a letter to my representatives.
>>People should know that the democrats can be just as
>>bad about this as the republicans. Many of the RIAA
>>and Columbia record folks have very intesne lobbyists
>>that really hammer away at representatives and are
>>very very persuasive.
>
> The Democrats are paid for by Big Media. They are not your friends when it
> comes to copyright.
>
>>I am amazed that they have taken aim at an Apple product.
>
> See the EFF's mocked-up lawsuit.
>
> http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.php
>
> Do note that the RIAA have made it explicit that they're going after the
> P2P networks, not the good old hardware manufacturers. They just want to
> get rid of the new competition using your representatives rather than the
> marketplace.
>
>>Apple has done a very good job of getting recording
>>artists remuneration for their work.
>
> No they haven't. My house has 3 iPods and several Macs (it's our main
> platform) so I'm not anti-Apple by any measure, but look at how they are
> treating the Indies in the UK and how different companies are getting
> different deals based on how big they are. And the record companies get
> the money, not the artists. The artists would only get a low-digit
> percentage of that money even if the record companies weren't masters of
> creative accounting.
>
>>Even more interesting
>>is the fact that musicians are deserting the traditional
>>channels of distribution which often treat them very
>>nastily. I mean you throw your rights to them, they give
>>you little in return and they have a lock on your creative
>>output for a long time. It benefits very well groups but
>>small acts who really need the money get little or nothing.
>>A friend of mine is thinking of having me publish his
>>work through non-traditional channels because of this
>>problem even though his work is pretty much very good
>>psychedlic rock revival.
>
> Apple would keep DRM even if it wasn't requried, because it locks users to
> the iPod and their store.
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php
>
> Apple are *not* "good guys" in this: they should remove the DRM, oppose
> this act (they and Microsoft are the only major IT companes that aren't!),
> and stop helping the artist-screwing, kiddie-bankrupting, senator-buying
> old guard in the media dig their claws in as the market starts to sweep
> them away.
>
> Rip, mix, burn? More like sell, spy, sue.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>