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.
Hands up... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought so.
Now hands up everybody who's suprised it took this long?
Doubt it'd make it through tho... But these days you can only hope for rational behaviour, not expect it
Re:oh yeah. (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright ownersip (Score:5, Interesting)
voters (Score:5, Interesting)
Please tell me again how many people in the US make use of p2p networks.
How many of those have voted for these politicians in the past and will be pissed off enough to vote for someone else?
How many that have not voted for these politicians and will vote for them now?
My guess is that the first number >>> second number. Exist Conyers and Berman
Re:But what jail will be big enough? (Score:3, Interesting)
What was that estimate? 93 million Americans use P2P? That is 93 million prisoners to house for 5 years, and $23,250,000,000,000 revenue for the government.
Perfect way to balance the failing budget!
I'm safe (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh thanks goodness! I never have less than 5 uploads going at a time, and I think that my download max is about a dozen, which I hit all the time.
Re:Sensationalist nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of my MP3s are replacements for CDs that were destroyed.
Outlawing operating systems? (Score:2, Interesting)
''(b) As used in this section, the term 'enabling software' means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.''
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any modern operating system be considered 'enabling software' under that definition. If so, how will computers with preloaded OSes comply with this section of the law? Is it possible that all OS providers will now become felons?
I'm not really worried (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:FTP? (Score:5, Interesting)
They've obviously read "Noir" (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently it's out of print, at least that's what Amazon says, but I picked it up at my local library. I urge everyone else to do the same, it's a good read.
Filming a movie in a theater.. (Score:3, Interesting)
"In addition, filming a movie in a theater without authorization would immediately qualify as a federal offense."
I wonder why they are so afraid of this? I can't imagine that anyone who would really want to see a movie would settle for watching something cammed off the screen as opposed to going to the theater or buying the DVD. If anything, they should be afraid of the high quality DVD DivX rips.
Just for the record... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, mod me as troll or flamebait if you like, but it is the truth.
The really sad part is that Republicans aren't much better on this issue. As far as I can see, the American Consumer can not look to either of the major parties to protect their fair use rights. Writers on
Shame...
Re:Sensationalist nonsense. (Score:3, Interesting)
If making copyright infringement a federal crime punishable by jail time is perfectly reasonable, then jaywalkers should be shot on sight by police. Also, if destroying someone's computer for copyright infringement should be allowed, then I propose that we should simply roll grenades under cars that are parked in handicap spots instead of giving their owners a ticket. It's all perfectly reasonable.
Re:Time for publicly funded politicians? (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2002 (last election), he got $49,859 from TV/Movies/Music, out of over $400,000 raised.
In 2003, he's gotten $2,860 out of $104,000.
Looks like he's gotten more like 10% of his money from the entertainment biz, not 25%. Do the
Re:Looks like they are going after Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
No way in hell is this shit passing -- not on Microsoft's watch.
Great for M$ refunds. (Score:1, Interesting)
20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
23 contents over the Internet.''.
I wonder how M$ feel about this. Since you can theoretically set up Microsoft networks across the internet, and every M$ OS comes with a network-enabled file find utility, that means all versions of windows are now 'enabling' software, and need a big fat warning followed by an explicit acceptance.
I wonder how it's going to affect google and other search engines.
This bill is a joke. Did April come around already?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't Conyers a liberal ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Conyers is one of the most liberal members of Congress, but I'd say someone on the Judiciary Committee minority staff is paying too much attention to money, and not enough to integrity.
His campaign slogan traditionally was "Justice, Jobs, Peace". So much for justice.
What happened to the Nomad lawsuit ruling? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is _nothing_ illegal about making MP3s available on a P2P network. It is _downloading_ an MP3 you do not have fair-use rights to (by owning the CD) that is a copyright violation.
Of course, nobody has the money to fight the RIAA on this and that's what they're relying on. Unfortunately, our legal system has reached the point where fear, intimidation, and money are more important than right and wrong.
Re:Felony? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but if I'm reading the bill correctly, I think what they're trying to do is ammend the law to the point where putting a file on a P2P network is equivalent to a level of traditional copying already defined as a felony. i.e. As it is already a felony to make >n copies, it is assumed that putting material on a P2P network permits that many copies to made.
What I can't believe (well, sadly, I can coming from this band of copyright thugs) is how they plan to redefine the law to make uploading, even if no downloading occurs, equivalent to making the physical copies for distribution. Looks an awfully lot like "pre-crime" to me, and I hope the sensible heads in Congress will give this piecve of crap the shredding it deserves.
my personal boycott (Score:1, Interesting)
I grossly lumping MPAA/RIAA/Whatever together, but I can't tell the difference anyway. When an industry (entertainment in this case) wages war on its own customers, I choose not to participate in that industry.
You can vote jokers out of congress all you want, but the other party's jokers aren't much different. I've chosen to do the only thing I can, and that's simply not participate in anything related to the entertainment industry.
It's hard; as you've got to give up quite a bit -- but, oh man, you sure do end up with a lot more time to devote to more important matters anyway.
I would encourage anyone who can see the logic of my post to check your resolve and try the same. Spend a month off the entertainment grid -- you might just like it! I do!
WOO HOO! (Score:2, Interesting)
Why won't this work?... MANY REASONS.
1. Near 100% of p2p programs allow a user to download a piece of a progeam from multiple users. So none is "uploading" a file. Just small parts. Your honnor.. I didn't "upload" the file just the section of it that states "one,zero,zero,zero,zero,one,zero,one,zero,one,on
B. Users of a p2p network do not "upload" files (with the exception of the PUSH p2p networks...I know of only one.)
And
III. Every whiny bitchy beaurocrat who complains about p2p, and tries to pass laws making any part of it illegal all seem to overlook a vital element in their plans. Jurisdiction.
Lets have everyone chip-in and we can all buy a share in a new company. One that produces Free floating, or anchored file-servers. They'll all free float in the international waters of the worlds oceans, or in orbit high above the Earth, and high above the money-grubby hands of Technology ignorant ageing polititions.
One man's conspiracy theory (Score:2, Interesting)
The real truth is, I'm afraid, far more nefarious then that. The DMCA is an attempt to cut-off the fair use clause in the copyright laws. Wny? Look at the backers of the DMCA: the RIAA, the MPAA, MS, and the computer game industry. They don't want you to make backup copies because it is not in their best interest to do so. So what if your copy of Shrek is so badly scratched that you can't watch it anymore? Who care is the kids used your Halo CD as a frisbee and wrecked it? Go out and pay another $20-$50 for a replacement. That's what they won't say, but it is clear to anyone with half a brain. At least Jesse James used a gun.
Decoy (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite frankly, I think this is a decoy bill. Where's the real one?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Completly wrong. All what you authored is your.
Mankind is not divided between Hollywood's accredited producers and the rest of the world's consumers.
I don't want to discuss the use of stole. I want to discuss the concept that creation is reserved to a very few.
Last year, some study by a French ministery revealled that about 1% of French people did author music using a computer. How are the digital rights of those 600000 peoples managed by all those schemes ?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Interesting)
And before I get a bunch of responses, of course there are exceptions, such as the patriot act getting slammed through Congress under the shadow of 9/11 fears. But except for a few high-profile cases, this is rare.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
\Joint"ly\, adv. In a joint manner; together; unitedly; in concert; not separately.
--Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
jointly
adv.
In common; together.
--The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Somebody needs to buy a dictionary.
But seriously, if I copy a file and give the copy to my friend, how is that together, united, in concert, and not separate? Sharing means one copy, used together in the same place at the same time, or used individually, taking turns. So, the grandparent was exactly right: it's neither sharing nor stealing.
mail trading is going to EXPLODE (Score:1, Interesting)
USB 2.0 case =~ $40
For $80, you can make a portable 20GB drive, pack it full of your stuff, mail it to a friend, he copies it, and then he sends it back to you filled with his stuff. Repeat ad naseum. BUilding your collection 20GB at a stretch. 3 mailings a year oughta do it.
Who needs the Internet to trade files? It just makes it nifty, easy, and quick. But destroying P2P won't end filesharing. It'll just force it into the underground. Remind anyone of prohibition?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Instead of STEALING the song (e.g. from a shop) which is a slap on the wrist from the police, what you are doing a copyright violations which is a vastly more serious offense! (as far as the law is concerned).
You may get a $100 fine for nicking the CD, but as you know, it's $150,000 per song for copyright infringements.
Having a personal copy of a song is covered by fair-use, but distributing that copy is illegal.
Re:Sensationalist nonsense. (Score:1, Interesting)
You think that that's bad, read on... (Score:2, Interesting)
That's pretty steep for not wanting your personal information shared to billions of people.
Looking bad (Score:3, Interesting)
So, it's the special-interest beholden, bribe-taking, power-hungry Democrats that make the honest 1% look bad?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got 2 milk crates of tapes that I bought for around 10 dollars a piece, and only about 1 in 10 still plays worth a damn. I've got around 500 cd's that I've bought for between 12 and 18 dollars a piece. Couple of years ago I had almost 900, but some crackhead busted a window out of my car and swiped 2 cases from my backseat.
I don't see them falling over themselves to defend my property rights. As far as they're concerned, that money I spent got me nothing but a cheap piece of plastic, and when that's broken or gone, that's my problem. Well, I disagee.
Far as I'm concerned, I can fileshare for 10 more years at the rate I'm going and the RIAA is STILL going to owe me money. They want to kick down my door, charge me 150000 a song and slap a felony on my ass so I can't vote against their little butt boys, they can give it their best shot.
The One Thing that Keeps Bothering me (Score:3, Interesting)
You can get water for free and you can get (with a tiny bit of tech-savvy) porn for free and yet bottled water and online pay-for-porn are both HUGE businesses. Neither of them have had to resort to corrupting the legal system in order to sustain their profits.
When is the entertainment cartel going to get a clue?
MjM
I only mod up...
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
all operating systems are now illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
so remember to turn off file sharing on all your servers, and purchase lots of floppy disks for sneaker-net
Intelectual property (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way to 'steal' a copyright would be to do something like hack falsely register someone else's work at the copyright office, or something like that.
Re:Time for publicly funded politicians? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if I own the copyright? (Score:1, Interesting)
Or does this apply only to copyrighted material for which permission has not been granted?
And remember, kids (Score:5, Interesting)
House Representatives have a 98% reelection rate. [commoncause.org] Why? Well, because they enjoy a 5 to 1 advantage in campaign funding over their opponent(s), and Joe Sixpack trusts the candidate who can afford to be "As Seen On TV".
The more evil Berman gets, the more he's likely to be reelected. Apparently it doesn't pay to be an honest politician.
But Berman isn't the problem, he's just a particularly blatant symbol of it. Contributing to the EFF is just papering over the cracks. Campaign reform, or civil disobedience, or outright revolt is the only way to get these parasites off of us.
follow the money (Score:1, Interesting)
- http://open-gov.media.mit.edu/DBD/CACHE/0000/000/
4 00/025/ [mit.edu]
and Conyers:- http://open-gov.media.mit.edu/DBD/CACHE/0000/000/
4 00/080/ [mit.edu]
It's amazing what you can do when you own Congresspeople.Democrats for the "Little Guy" (Score:2, Interesting)
Here are 6 Democrats supporting a bill solely on behalf of the entertainment industry: Conyers, Berman, Schiff, Meehan, Wexler, and Weiner. If you want to verify they're all dems, look here [house.gov].
Here are some gems from the proposed bill:
1822. Notice and consent relating to certain software
(a) Whoever knowingly offers enabling software for download over the Internet and does not
(1) clearly and conspicuously warn any person downloading that software, before it is downloaded, that it is enabling software and could create a security and privacy risk for the user's computer; and
(2) obtain that person's prior consent to the download after that warning; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
(b) As used in this section, the term 'enabling software means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.''.
That one could have some positive implications for spyware, but I don't think that's the intent. I think the RIAA is trying to get a jump on theories made by some that new P2Ps will use granny's computer to serve files without her knowledge.
Here's another...
Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
5 years! For false info when registering a domain! And some say drug laws are bad!
It's time to start the letter writing...
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Econ 101 doesn't apply here. Economics deals with the allocation of scarce resources. Information is a limitless resource; it can be transmitted and copied endlessly. Only the artificial construct of Copyright Law makes it scarce (not necessarily a bad thing if there is balance as the Founders intended). The means of reproduction, like printing presses, photocopiers, and computers, are a scarce resource, but they're getting cheaper all the time. Other things that go into an album like a musician's time and creativity are scarce, but that's a miniscule fraction of the price of a CD. A musician's time is more directly related to things like live concerts, and there you'll see market forces at work.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Get with the program.
File-Sharing is really license sharing. There's no need to be pedantic about that use of terminology. "Piracy" , "stealing" sure. But I think this is a widely accepted alternate definition of "sharing".
Where the cognative dissonance comes in - is the license terms forbid it, but everyday common sense does not.
(for example, someone blasting their boom box - are they necessarily sharing their license with anybody with in earshot? How about your wife listening to a CD you bought, and left in the car you share? Those are examples of common sense telling us there's no violation of license terms going on - but the LETTER, and some cases INTENT of the license terms IS being violated
Offset (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA's problem though is that if they do not control the distribution of music, they have no more power. They've been able to create contracts that effectively enslave artists because, for the longest time, they were the only show in town for getting your name out there. Now, this is changing with word of mouth becoming more and more powerful as a means of marketing. Why sacrifice your artistic integrity and your wallet when you can produce your own music on your own terms.
Eventually labels will come to realize the power of this new distribution channel and take advantage of it. The profits for the labels will be lower, but it's still likely to be lucrative business, and it's going to improve the average livelihood of musicians at the expense of the megastars and the old style labels.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now if people download the mp3's of this new album and find that it's not as great as all the hype lead everyone to think, then it's not going to sell quite as well. You are stuck with all these CDs in your warehouses.
Then you've got Band B. They aren't very popular. You've done little to market them. There might be one or two copies of their CDs in each major record store and no extras in the warehouse. They weren't intended to be a big seller. Their mp3's end up on P2P networks and people download and listen. WOW. They are great! People rush to the store and buy their CDs, but none are to be had. The radio stations don't play these guys either. The record company then has to pay a higher cost per CD to press them since they aren't dealing with the same huge quantity they pressed for the mega-star. The poor record company makes less money, though they sell more CDs overall. Plus the extra effort involved in understanding what people really want to hear is obviously too high a price to pay these days for such self-serving entities.
I know that example has some holes, but it goes with my belief that the record industry is more interested in control over the music in all aspects than just raw sales. They won't make as much immediate cash from a diluted market of sales of thousands of artists as they will for an all-attention focused marketing campaign on a lucky few.
That's where the consumer gets to apply Astroglide to their rectum. We don't get the choices we could have or the cheap education in various types of music that hasn't hit 'mainstream'.
People's musical tastes don't change every years, so much as the music industry pumps the ears of teenagers full of particular bands because it's the most profitable short-term thing to do.
Look at the complete and utter lack of new hip-hop during the past year or two. Artists have not quit writing hip-hop music. It's still being written just as it was in it's peak 4 years ago. It's just not being invested in by the record companies as they are still squeezing every penny of profit out of what's already out there, knowing if they release one or two new tracks for radio play every month they will continue to manufacture sales.
I hope what I just typed makes sense. It's a bad represenation of what I think their reasons are for this type of BS.
Now if they were just to accept the digital age and offer us music online where we purchase individual tracks or collections (a CD in mp3 isn't a CD or album anymore, really) and download it to a personal media device; I'm sure they'd profit more than ever, but it would take time to catch on -- time is money and money is needed to impress investors NOW, ASAP, or we are all going to die poor and lonely!! Damned be this greedy capitalist society. If I could only get a job in Canada, I'd blow this joint in a heart beat.
Conyers usually supports civil rights (Score:3, Interesting)
This privacy clause, which I hear people complaining about, I think actually protects the average user.
It's trivial for software providers to meet its requirements, but it may make spyware or other such software illegal:
'' 1822. Notice and consent relating to certain soft-
ware
''(a) Whoever knowingly offers enabling software for
download over the Internet and does not--
''(1) clearly and conspicuously warn any person
downloading that software, before it is downloaded,
that it is enabling software and could create a secu-
rity and privacy risk for the user's computer; and
''(2) obtain that person's prior consent to the
download after that warning;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
6 months, or both.
''(b) As used in this section, the term 'enabling soft-
ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
contents over the Internet.''.
Re:definiton 3 also fits. (Score:2, Interesting)
Because there's already some history behind calling it theft. Do you really want to go that route?
Really, the most natural word for this new activity is "distributing" but that doesn't make the pirates feel all rosy inside.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Bad example.
Cash is stolen unless an approved media source is used to get the music. That media source can be radio, approved online sources, cd sales or what have you but when you copy a friends CD or download music and the artist sees NOTHING in return you are STEALING MONEY (tangible money) from them. You are not diminishing anything. YOU ARE STEALING! At least admit it. I am not saying that the system in place is a good one I am only saying that yes, copying music is the same as stealing money form the artist.
Re:web browsers too? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wish I had some moderation points right now - this (from my reading) is the only part of this bill that's REALLY bad (the others are really merely "redundant").
The bit about "file sharing" specifically mentions "copyrighted works without authorization of the copyright holder", so doesn't criminalize file-sharing of files you ARE authorized to share (public domain, or works you have the copyright to yourself, or works you've gotten permission to share from the copyright holder). However, the provision quoted above (presumably meant to discourage distribution of useful file-sharing utilities with 'electronic warning labels' [akin to the 'smoking is bad for you, duh' labels the US Federal Government requires on cigarettes]) places what I think is an unreasonable procedural/regulatory burden on software developers because of its badly-written nature.
(Are 'click-through' licenses really enforceable? If not, does that mean the obvious procedure of having the "this program could conceivably be used to store stuff on your computer or let people search it" warning as a "click OK" pop-up wouldn't be valid?...)
Maybe legislators should be required to obtain at least 4-year college degrees before they're allowed to legislate all over a field....
So, while the bill isn't nearly as bad as the the article blurb above implies, it's still pretty badly written, and from my perspective just shows Berman's trying to appease his donors. Seems he'll just incrementally 'roll back' what his bills attempt, bit by bit, until he hits one that passes. I'm guessing he'll then procede to add to that bill bit by bit with riders to other bills, etc., and hope nobody notices...
And, yes, *I* (though I am not a lawyer(tm)) would think that "Network Neighborhood" falls perfectly under the description of this provision...
Re:They've obviously read "Noir" (Score:3, Interesting)
I admittedly don't know much about book publishing, but I'd think that they have the text in some electronic form. Replication of that document is essentially free (cp
Ah, but look! Amazon has about 60 copies, used, waiting for your money. The publishers don't get a dime of that money, AFAIK. If Amazon is selling it, don't you think there's a demand? If the publisher isn't willing to put up the money to run another batch of books, why don't they let us have the file (for a fee?) and print it ourselves? Because that would completely blow their current business model, and we all know that established industries (RIAA, MPAA, book publishers) are loathe to change, so they spend a little cash and buy themselves a senator or two.
Yeah, I'm completely cynical and distrust the whole process now. Can ya blame me?
BTW, I completely forgot about the debtors in "Noir." Scary. I'm off to pay down my credit cards!
Re:Sharing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright infringement still doesn't fit the definition of theft, because you still haven't affected someone else's property contrary to their wishes. If I copy bits off of my brother's hard drive, I've affected my hard drive and his hard drive, but noone else's. The original bits that belonged to someone else are still sitting on whatever medium they were recorded on, and neither my brother nor I has disturbed them or that storage media. Therefore, neither of us has used anyone's property contrary to the wishes of its owner, and neither of us has committed theft by any definition.
As for the Oxford English Dictionary, whether material or immaterial, the original bits and the medium they are recorded on are both still in the possession of the owner, so nothing was "taken."
Copyright is devaluation, not theft. Legal shennanigans to the contrary are just attempts to restrict the natural rights of others (contrary to their wishes, I might add).
A few thoughts from an mp3 addict..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi, my name is Nick, and I'm an mp3 addict. I have about 80GB of mp3's (60GB sorted into albums) which I download from usenets, kazaa, or get from friends. I also BUY a few CD's now and then (gasp!). Here are some reasonings for what I do and why I think my behavior is acceptable:
First, I never upload any copyrighted material to any network, and I make sure that my music folders are not shared. This (hopefully) will decrease my chances of getting busted by the RIAA.
Second, I buy CD's from artists that I really like or that are hard to find online. I admit to downloading albums from artists that I like - HOWEVER - I go to their concerts, which is where the ARTIST actually makes some money.
Third, I know every album that I have. It's not an exercise in "rat packing" or whatever, I actually listen to and enjoy everything that I have.
I spend a lot of money on DVD's these days, which cuts down on my budget for CD's. I download movies to check them out, and then buy them if I like them (for better video quality, of course, and the extras - I love commentary tracks, etc.). I'd probably buy more CD's if they had more "special features" like a DVD, interviews with the artist, behind the scenes, etc. (I'm aware some CD's have these, but not really artists that I'm interested in). Heck, lots of the DVD's I buy nowadays are less expensive than CD's! What's up with that? Anyway...
Lastly, I'm a college student, so I don't have that much money to spend on media in the first place.
To sum up, I don't share my files, I buy CD's, I go to concerts, I don't rat-pack, I buy DVD's because they have more entertainment value, and I have a limited budget. So tell me, what exactly am I doing wrong here? I think I pay my dues to the music industry.
But I guess the laws don't really operate on principle, do they? They have to be able to be nondescrimenant (sp.?) and broad.
P.S.
Please do not go on a tirade about "stealing" or "copyright infringement" - I know technically what I do is illegal, but in principle, is what I do wrong?
Re:They've obviously read "Noir" (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a common publishing and recording industry tactic to stop publishing works from people whose work you have publishing rights to, and want to hurt financially (for speaking out, not selling a million copies in the first month, whatever lame reason).
So you're suggesting, just because the publisher doesn't want to spend the money on someone's work, that the owner of the I.P. should suffer? Why not make it a requirement that works be published on demand (at a premium if at a lower publishing rate) instead? That way the publisher gets some cash and the owner gets their work out on a holding pattern.
Two authors I know had to wait 7 years after the first run of their books to get the right reverted back to them to find another publishing house (and better contract) to finally get mass marketed.
75% Of The Public Opposed H-1B Too (Score:5, Interesting)
The Homeland Security system does seem to be heading toward the sort of exceedingly low-wage system of "employment" so desired by the folks who brought us H-1B -- and the felonization of P2P file systems is exactly in line with the rest of the war of terror on the population committed routinely by the folks who call the tunes.
Even slaves get food, shelter, clothing and medical care -- which is more than a lot of tech workers are getting these days.
Someone will figure out that slavery is a superior system to the current con-game and also figure out a way to use the military against their own populations to enforce it. I think its already started in privatized prisons and their prisoner-labor programs [umass.edu] and the exploding rate of incarceration in the Unted States [motherjones.com] -- however they really do have to figure out what to do about the prisoner rape problem [hrw.org] before they can be considered good massah's by computer nerds who will then work not for money but for privileges in the system.
Which other felonies match up with this offense? (Score:5, Interesting)
If only we didn't know that "bootlegging" in that last class has to do with alcohol, there'd at least be one example of a felony that sounded remotely like "letting someone copy a song for free." But... nope.
One of the qualities of a working justice system is that punishments are proportionate. This bill violates that in spades. Why not let them chop off our mouse hands, you know?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I regularly obtain copyrighted material without paying for it from the local public library. Of course, these are books, not "files." But then again, if I borrowed a CD or DVD you might say I have the file(s).
Since I enjoy reading quite a bit, the book publishers are definatley being deprived of income. In the relatively short time that I've had my library card I've already read a couple hundred dollars worth of books without paying a penny for them. Most are books that I would have paid good money for if I couldn't have borrowed them from the library.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
NO, IT MOST CERTAINLY IS _NOT_
I regularly take CD's I have at home, and make mixes to play in my car (as I have 400+ CDs, and my car CD player only holds 4.)
The CDs are copyrighted works.
I do not have permission of the copyright holder to make the mix CDs.
IT IS MOST DEFINITELY _NOT_ ILLEGAL FOR ME TO DO THIS , as it's covered under FAIR USE.
The *only* caveat that comes into play is with regards to geography, since people in one country are not typically subject to the laws of another.
If this is true, then how can fair use exist? How can someone in California legally copy a newspaper article from a California newspaper, and not be infringing copyright?
There are many instances were it's not illegal to make a copy of a copyrighted work without the owner's permission.
Time you lot had another "Tea Party" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Felony? (Score:1, Interesting)
For all the rest of you, get this straight.
The law is not holy writ. But some bonehead will say it's man's codification of god's will.
The law is not sacred. But some bonehead will villify you for saying it is not.
The law is not always good. But some bonehead will defend it even though it is manifestly not in his own best interest.
The law is not always what's best for the country, the people, etc. But some bonehead will call you un-American for saying so.
The law is something created by people, many of whom feel no loyalty to you, many of whom think you're a punk, many of whom thinks that if an RIAA delivery truck runs over your head on the way to make a profit you should be sued for lying in the road. But some brainwashed bonehead will act as a free mouthpiece for them which, I'm sure, just tickles them pink.
The law is a tool. But some bonehead will think it exists for its own right, that it has some necessary life of its own.
The law SHOULD benefit the people first and corporations only insofar as the corporations benefit the people. But some boneheads, due to whatever flawed image of themselves, do not identify with the people.
The law is static. It does not automatically change to meet the needs of the people. But some boneheads think that everything is a black or white moral issue which never changes.
If, 50 years ago, a law benefited the people, the artists, and the recording industry, that same law may today hurt all three. Some bonehead will still cling to it though.
There is a tip point in law. Laws cling on past their usefullness until something tips the ballance and enough people realize its outmoded. Then it changes. But some boneheads will fight it all the way.
Listen up, boneheads. Right and wrong does not enter into it. It's about what works, specifically what works for the people. The current IP model does not work. It must change. It will change. The only question is how.
It's like a revolution where the outcome is clearly in favor of the revolutionaries. If you're the dictator and you know you will lose, do you destroy your country in a battle you can't win? Or do you back out for the benefit of all? The answer is, because you're a dictator, you're an asshole, you don't give a shit about your country, and you'll see everyone of the little pissants fucked before you leave power.
And that's the way it is with the RIAA. I don't know if they know their model is doomed. I think they do. I think their attitude is, fuck em -- we built this and we want to keep it this way and we'll fuck everybody on our way down.
Boneheads.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course this is probably what the RIAA and MPAA fear the most...
Why buy the new sh*t when the great old classics are PD?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The first copyright law (in Occidental history anyways) was the Statute of Anne [copyrighthistory.com], passed in England in 1710. The law was passed because of another technological innovation (albeit, by that time, a 250 year old one): the printing press.
Prior to printing, "artists" (in this case, mostly writers) were generally supported by "patrons," wealthy individuals who supported the arts for prestige or out of sense of religious need (which is why so much pre-printing western culture is directly related to the mass).
The arrival of printing created a market for books. A market that didn't previously exist. Printing commoditized literacy and literature. At first, the vast collection of classical literature was the source. Printers like Aldus Manutius made personal fortunes by printing vast numbers of classical texts. This re-emergence of classical learning spurred the Renaissance, and literally transformed European culture.
The pressure for a copyright law didn't exist. All of the "artists" being plundered were centuries dead. Over time, however, the vast distribution of learning and classical knowledge led to the existence of a significant community of educated men, and to the vast expansion of that radical late medieval institution: the University.
As the community of learned people grew, the reverence for the classics began to wane as people began to observe things that were, well, WRONG in those classical texts. (Take a look at the history of the University of Paris to see what questioning classical authority could lead to).
Printing can be said to be a major factor in both the Renaissance and in the Reformation. The Reformation is the other important ingredient in how printing made copyright law happen. The Reformation broke the absolute authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It became much easier to be an original scholar.
An era of intellectual freedom (some would say chaos) began. And for the first time in a millenium, Europe began to produce culture instead of merely to echo classical or biblical culture.
Prior to printing, writing was not terribly distinct in its mode of production from, say, painting or sculpting. The production of a book was an intensive labor, and a book was as unique an artifact, or almost as unique, as a painting or a sculpture.
Printing changed that. Printing made a book a commodity. Writers came to be paid by publishers, rather than being church men, wealthy men, or employed by patrons. Writers came to depend on payment by publishers. And this led to the problem.
The problem was that there were no laws to protect ownership of literary works. It was common practice for a publisher to take a book published by someone else, set it himself, knock off a few hundred copies, and sell it himself. In fact, this was much more profitable than seeking out new work. New work was risky -- it might not sell. But find yourself a popular book and then print a few hundred knock-offs and you'd make money for sure! Especially since you didn't have to pay for the creative act itself.
This was the situation engendered by printing technology, the Renaissance and its spread of universal literacy (universal compared to pre-printing anyways), and the Reformation (itself fueled by printing) and the intellectual freedom that came with it. Writers were making deals with publishers and then those publishers were being undercut by "fly-by-night" printers who would take no risk, make no investment, encourage no cultural production, and make fortunes off those writers and printers who were contributing to the culture.
The situation became so bad in England that the Statute of Anne was passed.
Without some legal protection, a living could not be made by creators. Nor could the owners of the means of production be encouraged to take risks on new material. When there is no exclusivity of right
Not just P2P or registration: (Score:3, Interesting)
It reads like it would be illegal to post any copyrighted information to any publicly accessible network. This bill, folks, will make the WWW illegal.
Then again, if senators are passing e-mail back and forth on a mailing list, they will be in violation of this bill, and be called felons.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyways, I can distill my point down to: P2P file sharing is a disruptive technology that is directly analogous to the printing press itself, and, like the printing press, using it to avoid payment to creators and publishers is likely to lead to radical new protective laws. In fact, P2P is more disruptive than the printing press, since the means of production are much smaller, much cheaper, and much more widely distributed.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright terms are practically infinite at this time. Every time the copyrights of certain pieces of art were close to expiration, Congress has been lobbied--successfully--that copyright terms be extended. The Sono-Bono-Act was the most recent example of that. There have been no additions to the public domains due to copyright expiration since the mid 20th century. So, for all intents and purposes, copyright is indeed perpetual.
Re:Well, judging by the posts on this topic... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even more intresting, although I can't say I'm for it, how many slashdot readers are in favor of revolution? If not, when? What would the government have to do to go to far? Will I be arrested for even mentioning this in a somewhat serrious way?
My first impression (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm scanning the photos right now, and I will post them for my distant relatives to look at, legal or not.
Non-Starter Law (Score:3, Interesting)
The only question is: How many lives will be destroyed by a law like this before it makes its way to the Supreme Court?