The freedom to create will soon be over, thanks to the fascists in power.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001631.php

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5238140.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=INDUCE+Act+EFF&btnG=Google+Search (for more on this... the zdnet article is underplaying the scope of this.)

It stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act" though it has nothing to do with pornography. Orrin Hatch devised it, but websites all over the place are adding in Fritz Hollings as he's rabid on destroying consumer FREEDOM in the name of corporate control.

This is very serious stuff, folks. If a product that's made has the potential to be USED in a criminal act, it is then illegal.

Also note, this applies only to technology. It's still okay to make guns, big knives, and other weapons.

America the Hypocracy. (don't give me bunk on the name, it's "hypocrisy" + "democracy", that's what people mean when they say "Hypocracy". It is a valid epithet.)


The proposal, called the Induce Act, says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures" and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.


The bill represents the latest legislative attempt by influential copyright holders to address what they view as the growing threat of peer-to-peer networks rife with pirated music, movies and software. As file-swapping networks grow in popularity, copyright lobbyists are becoming increasingly creative in their legal responses, which include proposals for Justice Department lawsuits against infringers and action at the state level.


Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced "sometime next week," a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure.

Though the Induce Act is not yet public, critics are already attacking it as an unjustified expansion of copyright law that seeks to regulate new technologies out of existence. (that's thanks to Unkie Fritz Hollings (D)...)

"They're trying to make it legally risky to introduce technologies that could be used for copyright infringement," said Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law. "That's why it's worded so broadly."

(more from the zdnet link up top...)

:think:

If anybody creates and sells something technological that COULD be used for illegal purposes, they'd get in big trouble.

Owning such a device would also be illegal.

Camcorders, what allows you to capture them into your computer and make DVDs out of them, would be illegal because they can be used as a channel for piping movies through from your VHS machine or potentially DVD (not all discs are encoded and some camcorders don't have the technology to distort the signal if the macrovision protection is there...)

Remember the Sony lawsuit from 1984, where the Supreme Court said VCRs were not illegal because there were far more legal uses than potentially illegal ones? This is the same thing, only expanded to utterly ridiculous lengths.

And the wording of the bill is so glib and generalized, in true fascist nature, so that anybody with anything could be put in the slammer and ordered to pay a gigantic fine.

Cool, huh?

Napster was killed by these guys.

Napster was a de facto Peace org, spreading music and chat rooms internationally.

(I'm for free exchange of information, sharing of all things, and contributing as a society of people - not a container of selfish monsters. But such an advanced evolved civilization will never happen, not until post-oil and assuming people ditch their current mindsets (HAH!))

But the repukes et al talk about freedom, innovation, this, and that. It's a bit two-faced to say the least when they pull this sort of thing. It's freedom for the corporations (who also steal from each other and patent it as their own :eyes: ) but quite the opposite of freedom for the consumers.

By, Of, and For the Corporation. This is Post-Reagan America.

Depends on which side you are on -- the creators or the thieves.

speaking of fascists in power, what do you think of this



Sending loyal troops far away on "drills" is part of how theCIA rigs COUPS


in the third world. Send the loyal troops far away on "drills", move your hand-picked units into the capital to do the dirty work & install the dictator.

In this case -- presumably -- the bulk of the USAF was tied up in drills so bin Laden's hijackers could do their dirty work on the WTC and the Pentagon.

It's very possible. And it's right out of the CIA/BFEE playbook. As is changing procedures to hinder any effective response (e.g. require any response to go thru a bureaucrat -- like Rumsfeld -- then make sure the bureaucrat is 'unavailable').


For more information on the mechanics of coups, see Edward Luttwak's excellent book 'Coup d'Etat'. Much of the information is directly applicable to 9/11; in a coup, the CIA disables the bulk of the target country's military, while their relatively small force targets the presidential palace; in LIHOP/MIHOP, the BFEE presumably took steps to disable the bulk of the relevant military so a relatively small strike force could target the WTC and Pentagon.


Finally, if the 4th plane that went down in PA had wiped out Congress, Bu$h would be absolute dictator today. If Congress was indeed the target (as many media reports have suggested), 9/11 was a failed coup; the WTC and Pentagon being distractions while Congress was the principal target; a strike at Congress alone -- with Bu$h-the-unelected as beneficiary would have aroused far-too-much public suspicion, anger, and resistance. But wiping out Congress as one-of-many terror strikes would have probably been accepted...

I wonder if the likes of Tom DeLay will ever figure out that backing Bu$h is dangerous to their health?

Name three technical devices that can't be used to violate someone's copyright.

Computers, definitely, especially computers that have scanners and/or CD/DVD burners on them.

Tape recording devices. Including VHS ones.

Photocopiers? People have been violating copyrights with the Xerox machine since about one day after it was invented.

You can violate a copyright with a camera...you can also create a copyrightable work with one.

If I wanted to sit there long enough, I could copy a book by hand...meaning a pencil is a means of violating a copyright.

And from what I've heard, every person who has ever attended Ringling Brothers' Clown College has at one point made him-or-herself up as Ronald McDonald. Ronald's face is copyrighted.