Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government United States News Your Rights Online

Texas Rep Wants To Jail File Traders 739

kUnGf00m45t3r writes "There is an article on Wired about how Texas Rep. John Carter wants to jail some college students to scare people away from illegal file sharing. He says, "What these kids don't realize is that every time they pull up music and movies and make a copy, they are committing a felony under the United States code," Carter said in an interview. "If you were to prosecute someone and give them three years, I think this would act as a deterrent." Right..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Rep Wants To Jail File Traders

Comments Filter:
  • by MjDascombe ( 549226 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @08:01AM (#5554039) Journal
    Can also be found here [congressmerge.com] - why not drop him a line? :p
  • Not the law (Score:5, Informative)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @08:03AM (#5554049) Journal
    This demagogue ought to actually read the copyright Act [usdoj.gov] before he starts making false accusations of criminal conduct against his fellow citizens. (He also better make sure his kids are clean.)

    1) Even where infringement is present, it isn't necessarily criminal:

    It isn't criminal unless willful, and it isn't willful merely because it was copied. Evidence of infringement doesn't suffice under the Copyright Act.

    2) Even where willful infringement is present, it isn't necessarily criminal:

    If not for commercial purposes or by taking a retail value exceeding $1,000 in a six-month period.

    3) Even where willful infringement is criminal, it isn't necessarily a felony:

    If not for commercial purposes, it is merely a midemeanor, in the sense that the maximum criminal sentence is limited to not more than a year. (Not sure if that is the relevant standard -- I'm not a criminal lawyer).
  • Re:Not the law (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20, 2003 @08:30AM (#5554191)
    No, you can still face legal charges in a civil court, which would make you pay damages.
  • by wadiwood ( 601205 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @08:49AM (#5554293) Journal
    Then everyone who has ever copied a record or taped something off the telly, should give themselves up, and insist on the same treatment. This is called passive resistence path to law reform. If enough people do it all at once (ie organised), it will completely overwhelm the system.

    In the mean time wouldn't it be nice if the "no felony" rule applied to more than the military. And is it true that some people get a choice of the army or jail in the USA?

    (Doing the rounds on email - no idea if it is true or not):

    Can you imagine working for a company that has a
    little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

    * 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
    * 7 have been arrested for fraud
    * 19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
    * 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
    * 3 have done time for assault
    * 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
    * 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
    * 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
    * 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
    * 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

    Can you guess which organization this is?

    Give up yet?

    It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of USA proletariat in line !!

    to mod or to post? posting wins. me, me, mod me, me ...
  • Re:Yeah, right.... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:06AM (#5554406)
    I think you're forgetting who helped Saddam Hussein get the chemical weapons he used to gas his own people. Do you _really_ think Bush gives a toss about the fact Hussein's an evil bastard? Think for yourself.

    What matters to the US government is if a dictator is pro US. The CIA's first choice for a replacement Iraqi tyrant is a general involved in invading Kuwait and gassing the Kurds. Fortunatly he is now in a Danish prison.
    It wasn't that long ago SH had the full support of the US. Nor is he alone, there are also brutal thugs like Pinochet and Marcos, which have enjoyed US support in recent history.
  • Re:Yeah, right.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:09AM (#5554428)
    Blix (et al) have repaetedly shot down the US lies

    Ahh, the Blix report. I'll be gentle and think you may have actually read it.

    what I found most amusing in it (and the news conveniently left out) was

    "Gee, you aren't supposed to have a launch stand, let alone a beefed up one like that - we told you in 96 the smaller one was bad - Could you please explain why you beefed it up?"

    or

    "Gee, you aren't supposed to have a rocket test stand - let alone a beefed up one like that - we told you in 96 that the smaller one was bad, could you please explain why you beefed it up"?

    Or

    "Gee, you destroyed rocket moter castings in 96, could you please explain why you have this larger casting here now when you aren't supposed to have one?"

    What a fun read that report was.

  • by Photon Ghoul ( 14932 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:15AM (#5554472)
    Offtopic, but to set the record straight, the Republic of Texas was a country. It was created during the fight for independence from Mexico (1835-36). It lasted for about a decade before being annexed as a state of the United States (1845). Invasion threats from Mexico and battles with Native American tribes along with money issues led to the annexation.
  • by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @09:19AM (#5554499) Journal
    for most kids sharing files this is *not* a felony, it's not even a criminal offense! only civil!

    It was. Until the "No Electronic Theft Act" [cybercrime.gov] appeared, which altered the definition of "commercial" to cover file trading as well. So, if you're running Kazaa, WinMX or whatever except with an empty or disabled share at all times, that's (2) and (3) from the parent post covered. As for (1), are you going to claim you accidentally installed that file trading software? If not, NETA would seem to put you into the "felony" bracket as soon as you've traded a couple of dozen albums - or one copy of Win XP, it seems!

    Run a P2P app deliberately, trade $1k worth (at retail prices) of material, and it's a misdemeanour (1 year, $100k fine). 10 or more copies, retailing for $2.5k, and it's a felony (3 years, $250k fine). Ouch!

  • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @10:43AM (#5555179)
    And yes, it is a felony to commit criminal copyright infringement.

    Yes, and this is one of the truly dangerous developments in the copyright cartel's assimilation of the United States government. Copyright violation was always, for more than two hundred years of American history, a CIVIL violation, not a CRIMINAL one. Redress for copyright violations was obtained through litigation in court, not the barrel of a government gun.

    Unfortunately the copyright and media cartels of Hollywood bought legislation from our disgustingly corrupt public officials in Washington, and in the late 1990's turned copyright violation into a federal offense, i.e. a Felony.

    A draconian police state and injustice we haven't seen since the American apartheid of the 1950's, a refusal to enforce an obscene law, or a repeal of those portions of the Sony Bono Copyright Extention Act and DMCA are really the only possible outcomes. Based on our experience with prohibition (creating two tremendous threats that have gutted our freedoms in the 20th century: the Mafia and the FBI) and its successor, the War on Drugs, I expect to see this law enforced widely, if haphazardly, with the result that our jail populations swell even more, and our country suffer social and economic fallout it will fail to recover from this obscenity for generations to come.

    Welcome to the Corporate State. Bend over and take it like a man.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 20, 2003 @11:36AM (#5555664)
    No one is going to get 3 years for sharing files. People involved in these warez groups don't get 3 years. I did some research on the Drink or Die case and found that the government secretly motioned down the sentences of key Drink or Die members without letting anyone know here [cybercrime.gov]. Most of these members were given hefty sentences for press purposes and then getting lighter sentences after all the media hype got directed elsewhere.

    Lets look at some of them:

    John Sankus:

    11/15/02 #17 For the reasons stated in open court, ORDER as to John Sankus Jr. granting [14-1] motion by USA as to John Sankus, Jr. for Reduction of Sentence under the provisions of Rule 35(B). ORDERED that the term of imprisonment imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order of May 17, 2002, be and is reduced to a total sentence of 18 months. (Signed by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ) Copies Mailed: 11/15/02 (rtra) [Entry date 11/18/02]

    Chris Tresco:

    10/28/02 #19 ORDER as to Christopher Tresco GRANTING the [16-1] motion by USA for Reduction of Sentence under the Provisions of Rule as to Christopher Tresco (1); REDUCING Deft's sentence to 13 mos., consisting of 6 mos. in jail and remaining 7 mos. to be served in community confinement, with work release permitted, as directed by the B.O.P. and the P.O. Further ORDERED that previously ordered 11/1/02 surrender date is VACATED and Deft is permitted to surrender voluntarily to B.O.P. once he has been designated. All other sentence terms and conditions remain in effect. Further ORDERED that as an add'l. cond. of supervised release, Deft may not use the Internet for any non-work related purpose without the express, prior permission of the P.O. (Signed by Judge T. S. Ellis III) Mailed: Yes (tbul) [Entry date 10/30/02]

    Rich Berry:

    10/18/02 #11 ORDER as to Richard Allen Berry granting [9-1] motion by USA to Reduce Sentence as to Richard Allen Berry (1) and the Dft's sentence is reduced from the 33 mos. heretofore imposed to 12 mos. to be served on home confinement with work release. ( Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (psid) [Entry date 10/21/02]

    Barry Erickson:

    11/25/02 #15 ORDER as to Barry Erickson granting [13-1] motion by USA as to Barry Erickson for Reduction of Sentence under the provisions of Rule 35(B) and the Dft's sentence is reduced from the 33 mos. heretofore imposed to 15 mos. ( Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (psid) [Entry date 11/26/02]

    Dave Grimes:

    11/15/02 #11 ORDER as to David Grimes granting [9-1] motion by USA for Reduction of Sentence Under the Provisions of Rule 35(B) and Dft's sentence is reduced from 37 mos. hertofore imposed to 16 mos. ( Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (psid) [Entry date 11/19/02]

    Stacey Nawara:

    10/25/02 #18 ORDER as to Stacey Nawara GRANTING the [16-1] motion by USA for Reduction of Sentence under the Provisions of Rule 35(B) as to Stacey Nawara (1). Deft's sentence is REDUCED to 9 mos., to be served in jail either on consecutive days or on the weekends, and the remaining 8 mos. to be served in community confinement, with work release permitted, as directed by the B.O.P and the P.O., and with voluntary surrender. Further ORDERED that an additional special condition of supervised release is added: Deft may not use the Internet for any non-work related purpose without the express prior permission of the P.O. ( Signed by Judge T. S. Ellis III ) Copies Mailed: Yes (tbul) [Entry date 10/28/02]

    Nathan Hunt:

    11/1/02 #13 ORDER as to Nathan Hunt granting [11-1] motion by USA to Reduce Sentence as to Nathan Hunt (1). ORDERED that the 33 Months term of imprisonment imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order of June 21, 2002, be and is reduced to a total sentence of 24 months. ( Signed by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ) Copies Mailed: 11.01.02 (rtra) [Entry date 11/04/02]

  • by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @12:56PM (#5556423) Homepage
    Texas still believes that it's an independent country, and GWB think's he's the president of it. Like when he makes speeches about how you don't mess with Texas :P And, (when he was Governor of Texas) about how Texas wasn't bound by an international treaty since Texas didn't sign it :P

    It may sound ridiculous, but those positions aren't as crazy as they seem. Texas has quite a number of differences from other states in regard to autonomy. Texas is the only state thate began as a sovreign country before it joined the US. As such, it was granted a number of concessions that other states weren't. For one thing, the Feds don't have actual control over the Texas national guard. It is, technically, the Texas Army. The Texas Rangers (law enforcement, not the sports team) are permitted to go into other states and arrest people who have warrants in Texas. They don't often do it, but they can. In many ways, Texas has the characteristics of an independent country. It doesn't execise them much, though, and you generally only hear about them when its politicians make reference to them.

  • by ziriyab ( 549710 ) on Thursday March 20, 2003 @04:08PM (#5558646)
    It's scary that this guy is so opinionated on this matter yet he doesn't even have an email address listed on his web site [house.gov]. He also seems to be on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, which makes him a powerful moron - a dangerous combination.

    Anyway, those in the Austin, Round Rock area, call him: 512-246-1600 and politely express your opinion.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...