House Bill to Make File-Sharing an Automatic Felony 1753
JAgostoni writes "Wired news has an article about a new bill that would make it a felony to upload a file to a P2P network." EFF has a copy of the bill online. Conyers and Berman both get over a quarter of their campaign funding from Hollywood, according to opensecrets.org. You may remember Berman from this bill and this one.
Looks like they are going after Freenet (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like Freenet is labeled as "enabling software" under terms of the proprosed law.
The proposed law also seeks to impose up to a 5 year jail term for registering a domain using false information... Bad stuff.
Spyware == criminal act (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sensationalist nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time to invest in prisons! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Informative)
Read the bill (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Time to invest in prisons! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Informative)
Damn I'm tired of this. It's copyright infringment, not theft. Noone is deprived of tangible property due to p2p use.
Not according to the bill (Score:2, Informative)
''For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access...''
Those who wish to demonize the bill should read it first. It's not that long (in its current form) and will provide a much more solid base for the demonization.
Where, exactly? (Score:2, Informative)
Not exactly (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL...perhaps some /. legal ace can clarify my interpretation of the verbiage.
Bill number is HR 2752 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Already done... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How to Make a Terrorist: (Score:1, Informative)
don't just sit there! WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN! (Score:3, Informative)
I've been involved with communicating with senators/housereps before and its amazing what can happen if a lot of constituents get together and complain.
The links you need are below! Remember, in your letter be polite but to the point. Say that you hope that they will not support Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003. Explain that destroying this nascent technology, P2P, which has so much to offer would be a serious error. And that the interests of the few elite (hollywood) and corporate interests should not prevail over public interests.
Links to email representatives
Berman's contact page [house.gov]
Conyers webmail page [house.gov]
Write your house representative [house.gov]
RIAA's going down. down. down. down.
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Hence the term Republicrats.
Just to drive it home a little more (Score:5, Informative)
To drive that point home a little more: theft of copyrighted material would be stealing a CD out of a store - a misdemeaner.
Re:Read the bill (Score:2, Informative)
Upon further inspection, it appears this bill only amends the part that is referred to by 506(a)(1) of title 17, infringing distribution for commercial gain.
So basically if you share a file, "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" that you do not have authorization to share, the $2500/10 requirement doesn't apply, and it's automatically a felony.
Re:Idiocy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, I have to point out two other possibilities: you received it as a gift, or you created it.
I have lots of stuff on my computer that I didn't buy, including the operating system. It's all Free or Open Source Software, and I received it as a gift. Other stuff on my computer that I didn't buy are things that I wrote (for which I automatically receive the copyright at the instant that I create it).
The stuff I wrote is mine, to do with as I wish. The gifts are licensed to me and I can upload them if the license says I can.
And for US citizens not residents of LA? (Score:5, Informative)
I remember reading that the right to trial by combat wasn't removed until 1780 somthing...
Alex
Re: TV/Music/Movies are 25% (Score:5, Informative)
Top Industries supporting Berman [opensecrets.org] lists TV/Music/Movies as #1 with roughly 25% of all contributions made to the "honorable" Howard L. Berman (for sale for highest bidder).
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill politicians who've been bought
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Informative)
This means you can record the contents to tape, rip it to your iPod, record it on a mini-disc etc, essentially do what you want with it that doesn't infringe on copyright laws. e.g. you can't broadcast it or sell copies down the local market.
Regardless if your CDs are stolen you still own a license to have a copy of the contents of the CD. Technically speaking when you buy a CD you are getting the CD, case and inlays for free, what you pay for is the right to own a copy of the music. This means you can store it in whatever format you want e.g. ogg, mp3, wma, 8-track. This is also why you can legally make backups of your media.
So I think I'm right in saying that downloading a replacement copy of music you own is OK even if your original CDs were stolen. Presumably you would have to provide proof of purchase if you were caught. That said this proposed new law would make even obtaining a legal backup to your music illegal!
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Informative)
Call it what it is: devaluation (Score:4, Informative)
Duplication of creative content is not stealing since the original owner of the content still possesses it. Why is duplication considered to be so immoral? Duplication is devaluation; while the original owner still has the bits, those bits are no longer worth what they were before. Supply has increased, and intersects with the demand curve at a lower point, which means the same bits now sell at a lower price.
Obviously the creators of the content would like to insure that they remain the sole entity allowed to collect revenues for the content, and also insure that the price point is as high on the demand curve as possible. But do they have this right? Does their self-interest override that of other people?
The Constitution provides a limited-time monopoly on duplication of content to its creator, and our legal system has inferred that this monopoly may be transferred. Not everyone involved in early American government agreed with this idea, however. In particular, Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the spreading of ideas could not be stopped, benefitted the public, and could not be said to have truly harmed the originator of the ideas since he still possessed them.
The real question is not whether duplication is illegal, or whether it is immoral; it is whether it should be illegal. Not all activities that are illegal should be illegal; not all activities that are immoral should be illegal, either.
The supposed harmful effect of duplication is devaluation of the original. I say "supposed," because it is entirely likely that the loss of value to the content originator is far exceeded by the economy's gain in value as the content is reproduced. But should activities be illegal just because they devalue someone else's property?
I believe that rights should be absolute and unlimited except as they interfere with the rights of others. I believe the government exists solely to protect those rights from infringement by others within and without the government's jurisdiction. Individuals have the right to do whatever they choose with their person or property, so long as it does not interfere with another individual's right to do so. In other words, any activity engaged in by two individuals must involve the consent of both, and requires the consent of noone else.
This sometimes allows activities that I personally might find abhorrent. As a Christian, I find many activities to be wrong that the general public does not. However, this does not give me a right to regulate their activities or infringe upon their rights. Individuals may say things I disagree with; they do not need my consent to speak. However, I may or may not consent to listen. So long as the activity of another individual does not without my consent harm or kill me, or damage or confiscate my property, those activities should still be legal.
Activities that devalue the property of another do not actually harm that individual. The individual still possesses the property, and the property has not actually changed. These activities should be allowed. If an individual spreads information about a defective product, the defective product is devalued. The right to speak out about this product should of course not be infringed. Even if a product is not defective in any way, an individual might mount a campaign to convince the public not to buy the product: by advertising an alternative, for example. Advertising a competing product may devalue the original, but it should not be illegal.
Competition may undercut prices to devalue their competitors' products. This should not be illegal. It is an individual's right to do with his property as he chooses. If he chooses to sell it and take a loss, that is his right. While this might cause trouble for his competitors in the short-term, in the long-term he will not be able to sustain his loss, and the price will rise again, allowing more room in the market for competition to return. (Or else he will fund the loss with sales of
Re:...because (Score:4, Informative)
I am so sick of this infinitely repeated bullshit claim. Please RTFL before you spout the
See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
Re:And for US citizens not residents of LA? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Informative)
True, it's just a proposed law. But it still needs to be opposed NOW so that lawmakers know we don't want it. Why is that a kneejerk reaction?
And while we're on the subject of kneejerk reactions...
Then, after it breezes past our sitting 'I'll sign anything for business' president.
Every single sponsor (6 total) of this bill is a Democrat. Verify it here [house.gov] if you want. I'm really tired of people making the blanket accusation that Republicans are the only ones that support big business. I would venture to say that almost every member of Congress has their token industry from back home that lobbies the shit out of them - and the industry usually gets what it wants, Democrat or Republican.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Informative)
People from all over the USA, not just in the two states they are in, should do campaigns (via email, door to door, etc.) to get them out, and hopefully somemone better in.
Doesn't say "upload", doesn't target just P2P! (Score:2, Informative)
(In the traditional sense an upload usually signifies a push process.)
Yes, the synopsis and even the story got this wrong. P2P pulls content and thus is a downloading medium. The bill doesn't use "upload" even once. The relevant text is: Basically saying you can't leave your copyable works out in the open and expect someone not to copy them, and that you are liable if they do.
Effectively this makes the possessors of copyrighted works responsible for protecting the works from copying. Copy protection schemes would no longer be necessary as it suddenly becomes the duty of the possessor of every copy to prevent access to the work by the public, or be charged with a felony.
They might as well charge you with felony piracy if you forget to lock your car and someone steals your CDs (which I believe is still just a misdemeanor, IANAL, IANACrook).
Not only that, but it declares that you disregard whether anyone actually made copies of the file, how long the file was available, as well as disregard the actual value of the file!
Even if you were to share a copyrighted file which had zero value to anyone, including the copyright holder (for example, you found it while dumpster diving on public property or in deallocated space on a hard drive you bought as used), if you make it available for even a fraction of a second, that file is suddenly worth $2,500, it has been available for 180 days, and at least 10 copies are considered to have been made (i.e. you cost the copyright holder at least $25,000 for that one second of public exposure). Regardless of the facts!
This is an end run around the requirement of a show of damages and of any actual loss! One might as well make the "honor system" illegal and get rid of the concept of presumed innocence.
And it isn't limited to just P2P networks. Oh, no! Do you have a fan website dedicated to a television show? Do you include any artwork, imagery, sound samples, or anything else copied from that show on the site? Surprise, you're going to be a felon under this bill if it becomes law just by making such a website accessible to the public however briefly. And you will have caused from $25K to $250K worth of damages and will be subject to 5 years in jail!
This law is outrageous! And I don't mean in a good way!
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Informative)
This is a completely incorrect assumption and it is ignorance like this that allows bills such as the one in this discussion to gain a foothold. Here are some examples of having a copyrighted file on your system w/o purchasing it and being completely legal:
Example1: The owner of the work gave you a copy! Forgot about that possibility didn't we?
Example2: You own a legal copy of the same work on a different medium...say you bought a record in the 1970s or 1980s and you download a song from said record today(maybe to get a digital copy of the song or because the album was never released to CD). Not illegal yet you didn't buy the file...
Example3: Open Source Software!!! OSS can be and is copyrighted all the time and yet owning a file that is released as such is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination and most often, OSS is available for free.
There are other examples, these are just a few. The point being that the powers that be need to wake up and realize the many significant and legitimate uses of file sharing.
Re:The importance of buying independant music (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Normal usage of words" (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean 'after the infringement than before.'
Government Information Awareness (Score:1, Informative)
here [mit.edu]
John Conyers fact sheet:
here [mit.edu]
Howard Berman fact sheet:
here [mit.edu]
Re:Hollywood is small. (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft did over $35 billion in revenue last year. IBM did about the same.
Minor correction: IBM did about $90 billion last year.
So that means one tech company took in more than twice the revenue of the entire movie industry.
Re:Time to invest in prisons! (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, we have more people in prison per capita than ANY other country. Most for non-violent crimes.
short answer to "what is a felony ?" (Score:2, Informative)
Infraction: punishible by no more than a fine.
Misdemeanor: punishible by no more than 1 year in jail.
Felony: punishible by more than 1 year in prison.
To add to the self referential nature of punishment, a jail is a facility at the county (shire) or city level, and one cannot be kept there for more than 1 year at a time. A prison is a facilty at the state or federal level, and is primarily meant for terms of incarceration of 1 year or more.
Re:Could someone please (Score:3, Informative)
It's not. The bill states that the file you upload has to be "a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access". Uploading something in the public domain or something you hold the copyright for to a P2P network would still be just fine.
It's not that this bill would be targeting non-crimes, it's that it would be targeting misdemeanor-scale crimes with felony-scale punishments. A law that would (if totally enforced right now) put tens of millions of Americans in jail for years and remove their right to vote when they get out is practically tyrannical.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Well, there are two types of polls that show your views to be complete BS: Polls of journalists and of readers. Let's see the results:
- 2003 Gallup Poll which says 60% of Americans believe the media are biased; of them 45% think the media too liberal, 15% say too conservative.
- A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as "Democrat or liberal" or "lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican.
- A 2001 survey of 301 "media professionals" by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as "liberal," 59 percent as "moderate" and only 6 percent as "conservative."
I believe the facts just proved taht your are wrong, and if you think half the media is right-wing, it's perhaps because your're on the left of Comrade Zyuganov? :) ]
[ for those who don't keep up with Russian political life, Gennady Zyuganov is the leader of Russian Communist Party these days
-DVK
Re:Democrat Recession Ended When Bush Won Florida (Score:2, Informative)
Bermanss contributors (Score:4, Informative)
1 Walt Disney Co $32,000
2 AOL Time Warner $29,050
3 Vivendi Universal $27,341
4 Viacom Inc $15,000
5 News Corp $11,750
6 DreamWorks SKG $11,000
7 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000
7 National Assn of Realtors $10,000
7 Service Employees International Union $10,000
7 William Morris Agency $10,000
Nice top 10 eh?
Re:A few thoughts from an mp3 addict..... (Score:2, Informative)
"Knowing is half the battle." is from GI-Joe, not He-Man.
I need to get out more
Re:Sharing.... (Score:3, Informative)
The only right that the copyright holder has that he can licence are the rights to make and distribute copies (including derivative copies), and the right to public performance. If he doesn't give you one or more of these rights then there is no licence. Basic contract law, there is no contract unless the contract gives you something new of value. Without a grant of one or more of those rights it is merely an ordinary sale of an object that happens to have a copyrighted work stored on it. No licence, no contract, just plain old copyright law forbiding you from making copies (other than fair use copies which is permitted).
-