Group offers alternative to P2P bill

TalkBack 34 of 53:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Legislation as a statement of principle

To be guilty of anything:

The Don't Induce Act includes three requirements that must be met before a software distributor can be found liable: The "predominant" use of the program must be the mass, indiscriminate infringing redistribution of copyrighted works; the "commercial viability of the computer program" must depend on revenue derived from piracy; and the software distributor must have "undertaken conscious, recurring, persistent and deliberate acts" to encourage copyright infringement.


"[P]redominant" is ominous. Sounds like guilt by opinion survey.
I like that money must be made on the program, and that the revenue must be directly associated with piracy. Not that the program is popular, and thus attractive to advertisers, because of piracy, but that the company must have piracy somewhere in its mission statement.
And best of all, the software program providers must have demonstrated intent to promote piracy.

If this turned into legislation and were passed, it would show how much Congress cares for special interest groups dear to their hearts. These special interests have had the misfortune of seeing a change in their business plans, and are entitled to resist huge increases in profits by any means they choose.
Congress needs to pass something to prove their concern, and this bill would criminalize breaking existing law with exactly the right tone of concern and empathy.
A Congressperson could vote for this bill, and pat the shoulder of a content company executive, watching the executive's eyes stab in random directions, body twitch, hands clasp into fists, then unclench so he can run splayed fingers through an expensive hairdo. "There, there," the Congressperson could say. "Those big bad people can't do anything to you anymore."

And the quarter of the population that trades files will keep right on doing so, as they will until a convenient system at a reasonable price gets fully established. People are doubtful at the moment. Content executives could pull the plug at any moment, and their attitudes are not reassuring.

I doubt this bill would pass in its present form. Too sensible and restrained. Senator Hatch would hold a press conference in which he'd point at the wreck of a content executive and say that this is not enough to avenge a human being suffering as that man suffers.
Not enough pain, the good Senator would say, we must hurt, we must cripple...
Okay, maybe no physical violence. But I think the Senator, conveying his own anguish at normal human behavior, might show some of the same quiet rationality as the content company executive.

Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 08/24/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Get top-ranked Novell support for Red Hat when you switch Novell If Linux is going to power your mission-critical applications, you'd ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now