Aussie Students Face Jail Over Music Sharing Site 448
An anonymous reader writes "SMH this morning is reporting that three uni students may be jailed for their creation of a music sharing web site. Ok, piracy is not a good thing, but jail is just a tad extreme, don't you think? I hope ARIA (Australian version of RIAA) are pleased with themselves. What burns me about this article is the quote: 'Counsel for the Commonwealth, Paul Roberts, SC, said Ng was well aware he was acting illegally. Not only was the site camouflaged - the web space had been let to him by a teenage boy in Perth - but Ng had co-written an essay for his information technology law course on "open source software licensing."'
Not entirely sure what OS licensing has to do with music piracy."
Re:About time! (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but that makes me wonder about our laws. As a fineable offence it would make more sense, but not a jailable one.
Unfortunate connection (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevermind that said movements survive on the concept of copyright and respecting the creator's wishes. Standard copyright doesn't even do that anymore, considering most creators of original content hand it over as a work-for-hire and aren't even able to assert moral rights (most copyrighted work being produced in the U.S. or for U.S. companies). So it's possible the prosecutor is attempting to trace the connection between open source and piracy that simply doesn't exist.
Don't get too burned.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While the article was poorly phrased, I seriously doubt that it was an attack against the Open Source community. The author was implying that Ng was somewhat about copyright law, and that he probablly knew well that the site was illegal. It was trying to make his infraction seem more blatent, because he allegedly knew he was doing something wrong and still did it. Although, I would see little connection between software licensing and music copyright law, I guess it helps paint him as a bad guy. Bad journalism, definitely; but an attack on the Open Source community, highly unlikely.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I.e, he was well aware that he was acting illegally.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I'm not saying it's *correct* or anything, but the ideas behind free software are incomprehensible to non-programmers, and are therefore easily lumped together with piracy.
Remember, if you can't understand it, it's bad, or otherwise wrong, somehow. And the idea that you should have rights to software for *free* sounds an awful lot like piracy to many average Joes.
I can think of a reason (Score:2, Insightful)
They are both hated by people with copyright-based monopolies.
There is one very simple solution to all of this (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a free will.
This means nobody is making you buy things at gunpoint.
This also means, that if you stop buying music, stop "consuming" music and overall just don't touch anything provided by these *AA people, two things will happen:
1. You will always be safe from litigation
2. They will be hurt due to lost sales
And there is not a goddamn thing they can do if you choose to take this strategy!
Read a book instead. Or listen to the existing records you might have. Or get an instrument like guitar and learn to play.
Re:About time! (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I got pulled over for speeding, I spent 11 months and 29 days in jail. Man, did that suck.
Then a cop saw me walking down Market street a bit inebriated. Instead of telling me to get my ass home, he locked me in the clink for a month.
You won't believe what happened when I got caught jaywalking. Don't EVEN get me started. 12 years in the county lockup for missing the crosswalk by 6 feet! Christ!
Yeah, that's right, every other crime results in a jail sentence. So why shouldn't this one...
You my friend are the problem in this country. You think that jail is valid punishment, or a valid deterrent. Well listen up, it's neither. People go to jail for selling drugs, get out, and sell drugs again. Do you understand? Jail and prison sentences have been PROVEN to do absolutely NOTHING in terms of physical and psychological remediation of inmates.
Want an example? When I was 16 I egged a guy's house and got caught. I went to juvy for 3 days. When I got out, I knew more about how to a) break into a house, b) steal a car, c) kill someone undetectably, than I knew when I went in. Jail - at any age - is a CRIMINAL EDUCATION PROGRAM.
JAIL IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR NONVIOLENT CRIMINALS.
Jail should be the "last resort" - the place we keep violent criminals (rapists, murderers, etc) to prevent them from committing similar acts upon society. Jail is NOT the proper prescription for jaywalkers, drug addicts, or COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA, et. al, have been increasing their anti-privacy measures as time goes on, with broader and broader sweeps and harsher penalties every time they announce a new round. Why anyone, four years after everyone knew it was illegal, still trades music online and expects not to get in trouble is silly.
Why anyone feels sorry for someone who knowingly and willingly breaks the law so that they can save themselves from buying a $15 CD (face it, 95% of the people downloading are doing it for selfish reasons) is beyond me.
'may' face jail (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunate connection (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think this is because of some sort of an accident? People believe this because powerful organizations continually make this claim. Whether it's MS, SCO, RIAA or whatever. They spend millions of dollars creating this association in the minds of the public and they have succeeded.
Next time some executive at MS makes a casual connection between open source and (communism/cancer/socialism/terrorism) you better sit up and take notice.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, if you can't understand it, it's bad, or otherwise wrong, somehow. And the idea that you should have rights to software for *free* sounds an awful lot like piracy to many average Joes.
You're missing the point. That quote wasn't about open source software, it was about the student's knowledge of copyright. This person was a student in an "information technology law course" and wrote a paper on "open source software licensing". A person like this claiming to know nothing about the fact that posting copyrighted works on the internet is illegal is like an accounting student claiming that he didn't know he had to file his taxes every year. If someone knows the advanced portions of copyright law, then they obviously know the basics, as well. That was what the counsel meant.
Re:nice non-sequitur (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Information is worthless, because once it's digitized it can be reproduced at neglibile marginal cost. Information is valuable, because it takes effort to produce information and it can be used to gain a financial advantage over others who don't have the same information. Market economies deal with this dilemma by limitting information reproduction. Open source deals with the dilemma by guaranteeing and enforcing free reproducability (which removes the financial advantage aspect). The difference lies in the attitude towards information: What is the nature of information and which kind of usage do you want? That is the meeting point of Free Software advocates and pirates (even though they clearly approach the issue from different and incompatible sides).
Liars... I mean... Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
What the lawyer did not say:
The lawyer was making an insidious attempt to vilify Free Software with his questionably legal attack on information sharing. That would be an added benefit for an industry that wishes to eliminate OSs that have the ability to disable DRM.
The record industry is steady on course to destroy all freedom on the Net for a few quarters of profit. This is the essence of greed.
Re:He's stealing. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, computers and the internet have rendered this unnecessary. I can make an exact copy of your car, and you were deprived of nothing. For the most part, I *choose* to have a merely reasonably accurate replica for the sake of bandwidth which can then be further duplicated.
Because there is no scarcity (Even though the RIAA is doing it's best to force artificial scarcity upon us), there is no value. You will have to produce a good enough product that people wish to pay you to make more, because with no scarcity you cannot force people to pay you.
If I might continue with the car analogy, my decision to drive a Toyta Camry instead of a Porche or Corvette is due to scarcity: It takes far more labor to produce a Porche or 'Vette, so they cost far more than I can afford. Therefore, others make cars which use cheaper, lower-performing parts which fit my budget.
Enter the duplicator. It can promptly make an exact copy of anything you feed into it, down to the subatomic level if you want to wait a bit longer. There is no longer any scarcity of cars; I can simply borrow my neighbor's luxury vehicle and copy it. As the price for all cars is now effectively zero, the only ones who can continue making cars are those who can produce a product of the quality that will convince you to willingly pay for it.
Similarly, the advent of music sharing means that there is no scarcity, so the only ones who should make music are those who can produce music of such quality that you want to pay them to continue making it. Unfortunately, this direct relationship between the band and their audience leaves no space for the pinheads running the RIAA corporate members to take a share and the buggy makers will be damned if they give up without a fight.
Punishment fitting the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Using the 99 US cents that Apple's iTunes service charges for songs, the 1000 songs on the computer had a commercial value of around $990. If the students had stolen a car worth $990 would the DPP be recommending jail time? If they had stolen $990 worth of CDs during a house burglary is there a realistic chance that they would face jail for their first offence? Either of these non-computer crimes would have a more traumatic effect on the victim.
A crime committed using a computer deserves a sentence in line with a non-computer crime involving similar levels of victim impact, financial loss and inherent malice.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How wrong can one be. What makes you think so? In my profession (medicine), knowledge is completely unlicensed. If you are interested in a particular piece of knowledge, like how to operate a hernia - I am happy to share this with you. No royalties, no licensing fees. You may have to pay for my time if you need me to teach you, buts that's all. After that, you can do whatever you like with your knowledge - share it, multiply it, APPLY it!
It is even tradition in my profession to provide services for free to those who can't afford them - in most countries legislation even compells us to do so (in most civilized countries, a doctor cannot walk away unpunished from a patient in danger of life or limb regardless whether the patient is able to pay anything for the services rendered).
"IP" however is an artefact created by people who either see their purpose in life in amassing as much money as possible regardless of the damage they do to society or by people who would not have any purpose at all if they wouldn't create such artefacts.
Doctors all over the world are fighting drug patents and similar "IP" that actually kill more people every single day than the whole gulf war did.
We certainly have no sympathy for putting people into jail for replicating an indefinite ressource. How can you steal what can be replicated indefinitely?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
*snip*
We certainly have no sympathy for putting people into jail for replicating an indefinite ressource. How can you steal what can be replicated indefinitely?
I think you may be stretching the analogy a bit. As a physician, you're welcome to tell all your friends how to operate on a hernia. However, it would not be appropriate for you to photocopy all of your med school textbooks and give those copies away, would it?
This is not to say that textbook publishers are not, as a species, utterly reprehensible in their practices--new editions annually, ugly markups, etc. However, If I were a textbook author, I still would legitimately feel I had been ripped off if someone were to copy my work.
Your point that concepts in intellectual property--open source, closed source, public domain--can (and should!) be explained to the layperson is well taken, but your comment is equally instructive on the dangers of analogies in law.
US: Up to 5 years in prison for $2.5k of sharing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Title 18, Section 2319 of the US Code:
"Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(1) of title 17 -
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;"
You can search the US code here [house.gov].
The same language is going into The FTAA Treaty [ftaa-alca.org], meaning all of North and South America would face prison for the same crime:
"[4.1. Each Party shall provide criminal procedures and penalties to be
applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or infringement
of copyrights or neighboring rights on a commercial scale. Each Party shall
provide that significant willful infringements of copyrights or neighboring
rights that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain shall be
considered willful infringement on a commercial scale.
In criminal procedures, remedies available shall include imprisonment and/or
monetary fines sufficiently high to deter future acts of infringement and
with a policy to remove the monetary incentive to the infringer. Each Party
shall further ensure that such fines are imposed by judicial authorities at
levels that actually deter future infringements.]"
This is what it has to do with OS licencing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some CDs are more expensive than that (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who's taken a semester of police foundations [or listened to their brother rant about it] knows that there are several techniques people use to evade prosecution.
The first is minimalization. That is "I broke the law but only a bit". e.g. speeders do this all the time. "I was only 20 over the limit". Or they try to rationalize it. E.g. "Marajuanna never killed anyone" or "the CD doesn't cost 32$ so it's ok to steal it, they still make a profit on the few sales they do make".
I think mostly on
Furthermore Linux sucks and BSD is dead..... oh and I think I'm forgetting something
Tom