P2P File Sharing Could Cost You A Bundle 1000
geekee writes "CNET posted an article claiming you could be liable for $250,000 in fines and up to 3 years in prison for p2p file sharing. This is due to an obscure law called the No Electronic Theft (NET) act passed in 1997 (signed by Bill Clinton). Although the Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone under this new law, some members of congress have asked John Ashcroft to begin prosecuting. In response to the request, John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, said to expect some NET Act prosecutions."
Ok I deleted all my MP3s (Score:3, Funny)
Long live heather brooke.
woot.
Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:3, Insightful)
On a side note, with the average user base of Kazaa averaging over 1 million constantly not to mention the tens of millions who log in periodically, I am so sure that the US government will jail half the teenage population in the US. This is a bluff plain and simple.
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:5, Insightful)
All they need to do is start jailing people and then use those cases to scare people away from the P2P networks. If they can make people afraid to share files then they destroy the reason that most people frequent the P2P networks.
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:4, Insightful)
People will be prosicuted and do time, but the vast majority will no and will continue to use P2P.
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:5, Informative)
I'll take that as a joke.
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:4, Funny)
Re:+2 Informative on the MQR standard (Score:5, Informative)
The No Electronic Theft law and the supposed "Internet Privacy Act" are two separate laws. Moreover, one was referenced in an article submission quoted from a reputable (subjective, I know) news source, and the other was an off-hand comment by one of the half-million or so Slashdot subscribers.
Trolling about trolling. Yeesh.
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Also I wonder if it's possible to intersect and analyze any IRC/SSL (IRC over SSH) traffic? Because, if it's not possible, than I'll encrypt my filesystem and FBI can forget about any evidence.
Well, fortunately I am not living in USA anymore and perhaps I can forget about crazy USA govt for awhile... untill slashdot will remind it again in such crazy news :)
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't the point. They are not suing you to win. They are suing you to sue you.
They will sue you, and cost you tens of thousands of dollars just to get to the point where their suit against you is thrown out. At the same time, another agent will sue you. And so forth.
And after you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get out of the preliminary rounds, all of which you won, we'll assume, then you will be sued again. And again.
I watched it happen before -- the Scientologists use this technical extensively. The idea of a lawsuit, according to Hubbard, was not to win, but to harrass, to intimidate, to bankrupt, to exhaust, to ruin. In advanced cases, the broken victim can even be brought on board the attacker's cause, as a requirement for cessation of legal attacks. Oh, and gag clauses for the poor schmuck is standard as well.
Oh, and the attack has the most value as a object lesson for everyone else that the suer wants to harrass or control. The very idea that ruin can come to anyone else the attacker feels like swatting stifles resistance and give the victory to the attacker.
And the attacker gets to keep anything of value they can seize from the victim as well.
It's a very economical attack. One only has to ruin one or two people publicly to stop behavior one doesn't like.
The tools required are money, organization, lawyers, and an utter lack of morality.
Re:Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act (Score:4, Funny)
I watched it happen before -- the Scientologists use this technical extensively. The idea of a lawsuit, according to Hubbard, was not to win, but to harrass, to intimidate, to bankrupt, to exhaust, to ruin. In advanced cases, the broken victim can even be brought on board the attacker's cause, as a requirement for cessation of legal attacks. Oh, and gag clauses for the poor schmuck is standard as well.
You've just slandered the Church! We'll see you in court. Have a nice day.
-- I bent my Wookie
Encrypted IRC (Score:5, Informative)
Not used it myself yet, but it sounds neat.
"COULD cost"??!! (Score:5, Funny)
~$500 for two 120mb hard drives.
~$100 worth of cd-rs (most of which I've given away).
P2P sharing ALREADY costs me a bundle.
Re:"COULD cost"??!! (Score:5, Funny)
You're getting ripped off.
Re:"COULD cost"??!! (Score:5, Funny)
Two 120mb hard drives... $500
CD-Rs... $100
Unlimited supply of Bang Bus dot com... Priceless
There are some things you CAN buy, for everything else theres P2P.
(signed by Bill Clinton) (Score:3, Funny)
Under the new version of the bill, signed by George Bush, violaters will be declared "enemy combatants", will be stripped of all rights and will be held for life on the Guantanamo Bay military base.
Re:(signed by Bill Clinton) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:(signed by Bill Clinton) (Score:5, Insightful)
An Australian man, Habib, was captured in Pakistan and took no part in the conflict in Afghanistan. His crime? He has alleged links to al-Qaeda.
So an Australian citizen, captured in Pakistan is being held by the US, in Cuba without rights to a lawyer or even consulant visits.
Now please explain to me why one half of the world hates the US and the other half is getting sick and tired of being told to fall into line.
Re:(signed by Bill Clinton) (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I don't like it. Not because it's a bad law, or unfair, or whatever. Because it has the potential to be easily taken advantage of. I like that the laws against murder are enforced vigorously. I would like it if this law were too. The absolute chaos that would ensue would be worth me giving up every mp3 I've ever downloaded. I'd love to see all of the school teachers that work next door be led off in hand cuffs. Better too would be the cops that download music! I mean come on! It's a THREE YEAR SENTENCE... It MUST be serious... I would insist that this law be enforced on everyone, even cops, clergy, the elderly and my own dear Mother.
They'll only use this law to hurt people they don't like. ("They" can be anyone that you don't like...
This is a waste of Government Resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a waste of Government Resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a waste of Government Resources (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA wants the government to do this because they want to continue to use their current business plan, which is ludicrous. They charge roughly $15 per CD. As I have downloaded music, I know that once you have the files, you can make a CD of the same quality for about 10 cents (is that what CDRs go for these days?). The RIAA claims that they also have to pay for the recording equipment and the sound engineers who mix the CDs, but while they are charging the customers for this, they are also charging the bands for it. Bands have to shell out a lot of money to get a CD made at a recording studio, and this is what covers the cost of making the CD. The money made from selling it is pure profit for the record company.
I believe that the main reason people use P2P networks is that they cannot afford to buy all of the CDs that they want. For example, I am a college student, and cannot afford any CDs. If I could not download the music, I would just do without it. I am not depriving the record company of money by downloading their music, because I would not give them money anyway. However, if they lowered the cost of CDs, I might be able to afford it, in which case I would buy CDs. If every CD cost $5, the record company would still be making a 5000% markup on the music, but they would be affordable, so people would buy the CDs (I would!).
The record companies have to adopt some sort of plan like this, so that the public stops complaining about the high prices of music. When the public is happy, they will buy CDs. However, the RIAA does not want to do this, because it would mean a change in their business plan, and smaller profits. Instead, they want to complain to the government until they get their way. They take up someone else's time fighting this. They make it someone else's problem. All because they don't want to charge fair prices.
I hope the government realizes that its resources would be better spent on education, scientific research, natural disaster aid, even paying off the national debt. However, music copying is not a major concern of the government. The only reason people think it is is because the RIAA is making a big fuss over it. To them, I say, "Stop whining and deal with it yourself." I hope they figure this out soon.
Re:This is a waste of Government Resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, stealing is stealing. Walking out of the grocery store with a box of macaroni under your coat is stealing. Hot-wiring someone else's car and driving away is stealing. Downloading an MP3 from Kazaa is NOT stealing. It may be copyright infringement, and it may be illegal, but it is NOT THEFT. Theft requires that there be a material loss to the owner of the stolen item. If you steal a box of macaroni, the store cannot sell that box to a customer, and so they lose money. If you steal a car, the owner cannot use it anymore and must replace it, and so they lose money. If you download Random Artist's newest MP3, there is NO material loss for the artist, record company, or anyone else. There is a *potential* loss, if you download an album or single you would otherwise have purchased, but this is not the same as a material loss. If the record company printed 250,000 CDs, and 250,000 people download the album from Kazaa, the record company still has their 250,000 CDs, which they can still sell, so they have lost nothing material.
The record companies would have you believe they lose an $18 sale for every MP3 download on the P2P networks, but that is obviously not the case, since not everyone who downloads an MP3 would have had any interest in purchasing the CD it was released on even if they couldn't download it. Some may have wanted to sample the artist's music before they spent a hefty chunk of change on a CD, some may have liked only that track and been uninterested in buying the whole album, some may already own the track legally and find downloading better than ripping. Lack of intent to purchase doesn't make copying copyrighted content legal, but it also does not directly harm the copyright holder.
DennyK
Doh! (Score:5, Funny)
record companies get desperate (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA Executive Two: $250,000.
RIAA Executive One: Great, let's invoke an obscure five-year-old law that was applied in entirely different context and fine some average Joe for $250,000.
RIAA Executive Two: Why don't we lower the prices of CDs, since they cost practically nothing to make, to improve CD sales and regain our lost capital?
RIAA Executive One: Ha! That's a good one, Bob! Speaking of jokes, did you hear the one about the Irish man and the horse that...
That does it... (Score:5, Funny)
So don't use Kazaa... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there's still the "pre-dawn-raid-and-seize-hard-drive" tactic which I've heard makes that moot...
Re:So don't use Kazaa... (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, wish I had mod points. That definitely rates a +1 funny!
-
Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term `display', the following new paragraph:
`The term `financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.
Very nice. I just traded some recently-read books with my mom. Does this mean I'm gonna fry (she'll probably turn me in 'cuz she's like that)?
Freedom and Liberty ,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, like invent a decentralized p2p system and then trade files with it.
How dare they!
A Surefire way to... (Score:5, Funny)
Basically anything that suggests you're a blonde, pretty teenage girl. There's no fucking way the RIAA et al. are going to sue someone like that; the publicity would decimate them.
Oh... you might have to stop sharing all those German Leather Dungeon mpegs, though, just to keep up the facade.
Although, who the fuck knows what teenage girls are into these days...
Canada's Great eh? (Score:5, Informative)
but it would be nice if we could get some kind of representation in the senate or congress so we could voice out conserns.
What ever did happen to representation in government?
Re:Canada's Great eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Them's the laws, I didn't make 'em. Fortunately, thank God, the swearing and hate speech laws aren't enforced too often. The other two are all the time, though.
>What ever did happen to representation in government?
We lost it when we decided to let people like the CRTC and Supreme Court make laws instead of an elected government.
Selective enforcement. (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say you have a paranoid administration like the Nixon one, or a socio-fascist one like FDR's that wants an easy way to get rid of dissidents. What's a good way? Find out that they used Kazaa a few times, and imprison them for a few years.
This law is another example of government intrusion into your everyday life through regulation and taxes.
"Bring back the Articles of Confederation!"
There HAVE been prosecutions under NETA (Score:3, Informative)
See Pirates With Attitude [cybercrime.gov] for one instance in which I was personally involved.
Sooo, what else is new? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if this law didn't exist, and the feds raid your house and take your mp3 filled drive away, you are still going to be indicted.
Re:Sooo, what else is new? (Score:5, Informative)
Its not theft - its a copyright violation. Big difference.
Sub $1000/180 Days (Score:3, Informative)
So don't let more than $1000 of stuff get up and it looks like you might slip under it.
I might be reading that wrong, but that is how I am looking and interpeting it. IANAL of course. Of couse I am probably interpeting it wrong or taking it out of context.
Re:Sub $1000/180 Days (Score:5, Interesting)
If you assume 20 dollars per retail CD, with 8 songs per album, you're docked 2 and a half dollars per album. That's 400 songs, or 30 real albums (albums with more than 8 songs... Kind of like the equivalent of 421 CD Burners). If you have ripped a portion of your CD collection to your drive, that should be enough to push you over the theoretical limit, and somehow I doubt you will be able to convince the judge to look at your Kazaa preferences file to prove that you are only sharing legal fansub anime.
On the other hand, it does say that this distribution must occur during a 180 day period, which would imply that it is not enough to just have music on your machine, but you must actively upload 400 songs in 6 months... or about two per day, irrespective of the total on your hard drive. This sort of rate would be difficult to prove, though I tend to think that judges would accept an average rate extrapolated to a long period of time, rather than requiring the justice department to tap your line for 400 songs. I've seen an older client serve more than that at a single time, but newer ones tend to throttle that to something that won't DOS itself. Still, a newer client throttled down to 3KBps, with sharing on for only one person, can theoretically serve up a song every 16 minutes. If we assume that half of the time the computer sits idle, and 80% of song transfers are aborted / fail %50 of the way through, You get a successful song transfer ($2.50) every hour and a half. If you leave your computer running all of the time (but, as previously mentioned, Kazaa only half the time), you are stealing $6,480 dollars every 180 days from Bertlesman's pockets. Assuming the previous success rates, and the minimum bandwidth / transfer settings for non-scrubs, you would need to have Kazaa running for less than 1.8 hours per day. Not terribly hard, but it is primarily a background task. Perhaps it is time to share only indies and bands with talent?
Does Kazaa leave logs?
What about p2p for free software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why stop? (Score:5, Funny)
So in essence, theres no reason for me to stop, now that I've already started.
Statute of Limitations (Score:5, Funny)
No, there is. IIRC, there's a three year statute of limiations on copyright violations, criminal or civl. (IANAL, duh)
Stop _right now_, and the chances of you getting smacked for P2P start decreasing by 0.09% every day.
Woah, I dodged a bullet there! (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing I'm a leecher!
Theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really Theft to copy a song from a friendly stranger?
Or if I copy a song from a friend?
Or if I record a song off the radio?
Or if I make my own mix recordings?
Is criminalizing half of the population actually, "Government for the People, by the People"?
Heil Ashcroft..
Fair use information (Score:4, Informative)
Whether you are acting legally under the fair use clause, or if you can be sued or if you can be arrested depends on things such as:
* are you doing the copying, or are you receiving the copy?
* Was money exchanged and/or was this part of a business?
* Was the other person involved a friend or family?
* Was the copying being done for educational purposes? (The more formal the education the more likely the copying will be seen as fair use.)
* how much stuff was copied?
* what was the commercial value of the stuff that was copied?
* Was a copyright filed with the government? (If yes, then punative damages can be awarded, otherwise just the market value and laywer fees.)
* Many other factors.
The best link on the subject of fair use that I could find is: FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS [utsystem.edu].
Most of the web pages I've found on fair used are aimed at teachers and librarians rather than people on P2P networks.
Re:Theft (Score:5, Insightful)
If 90% of the population doesn't believe it is morally objectionable, then what makes it morally objectionable? You seem to be implying that the minority 10% should dictate morality to the majority.
Re:Theft-My excuse is bigger than yours. (Score:4, Interesting)
If I have a Star Trek-like replicator, and I copy, ohh, I dunno, a nice set of table and chairs, or, hmmm, a nice 25-inch LCD monitor, and then replicate it for myself....
Is that theft?
What if I replicate a nice new sports car? Or an apple?
Now supposing everyone had one of those replicators.
I'll tell you what it is.... it's a technological paradigm change; where the previous status-quo is upturned and made obsolete. Big radical change. Chaos [to start with] with order forming from a new way of doing things with the technology, rather than through banning it.
Rocky times, but not necessarilly either immoral or a case of everyone becoming "thieves."
Prosecute the RIAA and the MPAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Declan McCullagh didn't RTFL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Declan McCullagh didn't RTFL (Score:3, Interesting)
I've yet to read the law, but that would seem to indicate that you would be fscked if you used Kazaa and even traded just one mp3.
How do they prove you don't already own the CDs (Score:4, Insightful)
Or what if your friend, who owns the latest Eminem CD, comes over your house, downloads it and plays it for you, and then deletes it? Or rather, how can they ever prove that that didn't happen?
I would guess that they only will prosecute people who upload stuff. Actually, I would guess that it's just a scare tactic; or maybe they'll pull a Mitnick and throw some random college kid in jail for 5 years, just to make an example of him. Yikes though.
This Probably Doesn't Apply To You (Score:3, Interesting)
I just brought up the text of the bill. I'll give my obligatory IANAL here, but in order to be prosecuted under the bill, it looks like you must:
Traffic copies ammounting to over $1000 in retail value within a 180 day period.
Engage in electronic reproduction for financial gain
So, if you aren't selling the right to download your MP3s, or burning and selling (at a profit) CD s of material you download, or even if you do these things on a very small scale, it looks like you can't be prosecuted. This law does not affect the average P2P user, it just affects people who bootleg as a business and happen to use P2P networks to accomplish their goals.
NET act defines nonfinancial gain as financial (Score:5, Informative)
Get your facts straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you don't know of any legal P2P File Sharing doesn't exist. Here is Open Office v1.2 [magnet], Matrix Reloaded Superbowl Trailer [magnet], and this website [leeware.com] has a lot of legitimate P2P content including Linux Distro's. Do note that all of the content above is on the Gnutella2 Network [gnutella2.com] using Shareaza [shareaza.com].
You are either with us or the terrorists (Score:3)
I know lets ban the radio. You do not want to hear any copyrighted songs in which you did not pay for. After all its a public performance according to the RIAA.
On a more serious note is it just me or was this act imposed by Clinton more targeted for mass pirates with cd copying equipment? Puting a file in a directory that is shared is not the same as bootlegging tens of thousands of copries a day and selling them on the street.
Also what really bothered me was that one of the kids arrested so far only downloaded a single movie of star wars. He did not have any other files. Just one in which Lucas didn't like and called Clinton to bust his ass on. The reason why I am concerned is I downloaded a copy of Decss for Windows so I can rip my own dvd's that I purchased. Will I go not into the state prison but rather the maximum federal Pound my in the ass prison because of this? If I want to rip my own dvd's then its dam my own choice. I should not go to jail for it and ruin my whole life (no respectable employer would hire a convicted felon)to practice fair use. But under the dmca and now this a prosecutor can easily equit me of a serious federal crime. I dont own tens of thousands of mp3's but decss really pisses off alot of hollywood executives.
John Ashcroft also prosecuted thousands of kiddie porn suspects under a long investigation. My guess is he is looking for movies and evil programs like decss over those with thousands of mp3's.
So much for the argument... (Score:5, Insightful)
Catching copyright violators will be a good thing for copyright reform: suddenly the same people who currently just ignore the laws will press to see them changed. Still better, the legitimate calls for copyright reform won't be drowned out or confused by the wails of spoiled teenagers who just want to grab free music.
Copyright needs reforming, nationally and internationally. Grabbing all the music you can in violation of copyright doesn't help the cause of those who actually want to do something about the problem. Enforcing the existing laws, and getting rid of the violators can only help the cause of copyright in the long run.
--
Ytrew
Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea of facing even $5,000 in fines for obtaining a few hundred songs illegally should be considered ludicrous. This fine should be at the top of such a penalty, and only in extreme circumstances. A $250,000 fine for such a thing sounds, to me, simply un-American. We like our lax criminal penalties. Who does the RIAA think they are?!
Unpopular opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this causing such an "outrage"? Stealing copyrighted material IS wrong. If you don't like it, then well, tough shit. Copyrights are there for a reason (let's forego the whole argument about Disney and never-expiring copyrights -- that's a different topic). If I own a work of art that I've put a lot of effort into, I certainly do not want it copied around without any control on my part, unless I've specifically granted everyone permission to do so by releasing it under the "free unlimited distribution allowed" license (e.g. this creative commons clause [creativecommons.org]). If you violate my copyright, then I want you punished. If you think this is unfair of me, then fart in my general direction and don't use my work. I will certainly understand and not be offended in the slightest.
You cannot expect every artist to put their works into the public domain or license them for free distribution. That's just not how this world works, whatever your youthful idealism is telling you. Please respect people's copyrights and don't steal their works. If you do, then don't make a scene when they press charges.
The wrongness is not that relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
The wrongness is not that relevant--the punishment is completely disproportionate to the offense. Letting your parking meter expire is also wrong, but when we catch someone doing it, we write them a ticket. We don't send them to prison for years.
In the P2P situation, there's no demonstration that the copyright holder actually lost the "value" of the copied works. So it's ridiculous to treat it as if that amount was actually lost, rather than (realistically) a few percent of the amount, tops. So if uploading $1000 of CD's is "theft", it's theft comparable to shoplifting a pair of blue jeans, and should be prosecuted about the same way. Also, the stuff defining downloading more stuff as "financial gain" is positively Orwellian. What we're seeing is War On Drugs Part II.
ObLink: The Right To Read [gnu.org].
this law is a symptom- Disney is the disease (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try, Mr. Eisner. Unfortunately, this is exactly the topic. The fact is that businesses which benefit from copyrights that don't expire are co-opting the legal processes in the USA, which is what the original post is about. This law is just an expression of a more general malaise.
That's nice that you own a copyrighted work. I have the right to incorporate your work when making a parody, whether or not you are offended by it-- I think Mattel [upi.com] proved that today. But that's not the point. The point is that I used to have a second option- I could wait for you to die. Once you were dead, there was a proscribed period during which I could not use your original work- but if I was lucky enough to live 100 years after you, well after world+dog had forgotten your name and what you used to be famous for, I could take your idea and breathe life into it and bring it new relevance in my new time so that people could enjoy it again. And if I had a proper sense of humility, I could even give you credit for inspiring me.
As it stands now, I can do all of that- but I have to pay Disney, or BMG, or SONY for the priveledge of trying to make a house on the foundation that you built, so some random fuck that neither you nor I have ever met (you've been dead for 50 years, remember?) can keep making the payments on his goddamn X5 beemer.
nooo-ooo, but I can expect that the Constitution of the United States should mean more than the wishes of Disney, Inc. to the lawmakers in this country. After all, that's the oath [emailyoursenator.com] they swore to when they took office. Right now, my expectations are not being met. Since I don't have the financial power to impact(read: buy the vote of) 95% of the lawmakers, especially [opensecrets.org] the ones [opensecrets.org] who [opensecrets.org] benefit the most [opensecrets.org] from 'donations' made by the content industry, I'd rather exercise my power of civil disobedience against the companies who pay for their re-election campaigns. Make 'em feel it in the pocket, dontchaknow. And I don't think that Rosa Parks intended to make a scene, I think she was just fed up by the bullshit she had to go through every day. People aren't stupid- if they learn of a better way to get to what they want, they'll take it. Right now, the record industry doesn't need more laws protecting copyright- they need someone to build a better mousetrap.
I'd be thrilled if someone would press charges- I'd go to jail (or guantanamo) first. File sharing cases would overwhelm the courts, and the laws would be changed. I don't see change happening that way, but I guess anything is possible.
Let's make a test case. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? I'm not the Devil, testing your faith... Michael Eisner is the only man who can currently claim that distinction and I no longer think you're him. Send me some of this 'content' you claim to have, via Kazaa. Call it "Mr_Icon.MP3" or whatever you want. I'll download it, and then re-publish it, and you can sue me for copyright violation and charge me for criminal violation of the NET act. I'll be waiting for your reply...
Holy crap people (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of how much you disagree with a license, doesn't make it any more right to turn around and do the same thing that you hate so much when you're on the other side.
At the risk of being labeled a troll right off the bat, quite a number of people here seem like a bunch of whiny people who feel that they can just take what they want from other people, but their heads virtually explode when the shoe is on the other foot.
No, it did NOT say that. (Score:5, Informative)
No it did not.
It posted an article saying that you could be [etc.] for p2p file sharing of COPYRIGHTED WORKS, WITHOUT PERMISSION.
It's just FINE to run or use a p2p network and share UNCOPYRIGHTED works or copyrighted works WITH permission.
Let's get it RIGHT people. If we let "p2p file sharing" become synonomous with "p2p file sharing of stolen intelectual property" we've lost half the battle.
It used to be - as with "hackers" vs. "crackers" - the mainstream media getting it wrong and tarring the good guys with the bad-guy brush, and the nerd sites getting it right but crying in the wilderness. Now we've got a mainstream site getting it right, while the slashdot posting gets it wrong.
I can just imagine the RIAA lawyers pouncing on this article as further evidence that "the only use for p2p is theft". "See! Even they admit it!"
So let's have a little more attention to such distinctions - from the posters, or for GOD'S SAKE at LEAST from the EDITORS!
Re:No, it did NOT say that. (Score:5, Insightful)
The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime...but in the vast majority of cases, it is a crime.
Any Risk Downloading Out-of-Print Titles? (Score:5, Insightful)
OOP! Boomtown Rats-Fine Art Of Surfacing CD - Item #2501717xxx Final price: $72.00 Your maximum bid: $19.00 End date: Jan-23-03 16:29 PST
First, in re: the NET Act, what is the "retail value" of an out-of-print title? My assumption is that it is zero, otherwise the record co., in this case CBS/Sony, would market it. By my reading, this Act applies only if the copyrighted material has retail value.
If the retail value is zero, then I don't see how this NET Act can possibly apply if I would choose to download the MP3s of the entire album and burn my own CD. Perhaps a lawyer could shed some light on this matter.
Secondly, why won't this record co. and others wake up and see that there's obviously a market for this CD, and presumably thousands of other out-of-print titles? Why are they pissing away this revenue stream? (No pun intended) Maybe they're too busy scrambling after the next Britney?
In the case of OOP titles, do I have to become a criminal to obtain my music or else pay $72 for a used disc on Ebay? Totally bizarre.
Re:Any Risk Downloading Out-of-Print Titles? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you've really got something there. It wouldn't take much to convince a jury and a judge that the value of those mp3s is $0.00 simply because it's out of print.
Cross examining the label, "Why is this CD out of print?" "Because it wouldn't be financially benefitial to print it" "Are you saying that it would cost more to print the CD than it would make?" "Yes"
Then while questioning you, "I understood you burned these mp3s to a CD?" "Yes" "How much did that cost you?" "50 cents" "It cost you 50 cents to create this CD?" "Yes"
In summation, "You've heard testimony that it would cost more to print the CD than they'd make selling it. My client printed this CD for 50 cents. These mp3s are worth less than 50 cents.. I'd say my client is guilty! Guilty of stealing 50 cents. I implore the jury to right this injustice, and demand that my client pay back that 50 cents to the record label"
The precedent set would be wonderful.
um... usenet? (Score:5, Insightful)
If swapping is stealin then..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If swapping is stealin then..... (Score:4, Funny)
The tactic is not going to work. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since (I imagine) there are literally thousands of amoral people with enough programming talent, knowledge of network protocols, and spare time, I can't see a few "test cases" putting an end to sharing.
Essentially, the investigators will have to monitor the networks to see where files come from, then seize the computers to show that the file lists are the same as they monitored.
If one builds an IP spoofing scheme (similar to Triangle Boy, for example) into a P2P protocol, the actual IP of the sharer could be hidden. Then reasonable doubt goes out the window.
Prosecutions would then have to focus on the downloaders, which is a much more difficult problem because it takes quite a bit to get to the value trip points.
(Not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas or anything or trying to suggest that there may be a degree thesis in this scheme.)
The Next Drug War (Score:5, Insightful)
Phonorecords for Financial Gain? (Score:4, Insightful)
`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Exactly what is a Phonorecord? Does this mean that in order to procescute, the RIAA will have to bring back vinyl records, then prove that converted your vinyl "phonorecords" to MP3, prove you shared it for 180 days, and then find the retail value of your online P2P collection to make sure it's in excess of $1000? Does the retail price take into account inflation or is the "original" retail price of the "phonorecord"? I just called Wal*Mart and tried to get the price of my "Buck Owens, Under Your Spell Again" phonorecord, but didn't have any luck.
If they can apply this law to P2P sharing, I will be amazed. I still can't believe that the US Congress, (the government of the most technologically advanced society in the world), used the word "Phonorecords" in 1997. How embarassing. France and Germany are probably still snickering.
As far as I am concerned, anything that came out only on "Phonorecord" should be in the public domain already. Looks like the geeks are going to have to organize a political party if we want this nonsense to stop. I vote for TUX as the party mascott.
Steal $1000 cash from a little old lady. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
"Steal" a $.50 song from Metallica, go to jail for three years and pay a $250,000 dollar fine.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
KFG
Eh? (Score:4, Funny)
In 2001, a 21-year-old Michigan man named Brian Baltutat was successfully prosecuted under the NET Act for posting a mere 142 software programs on the "Hacker Hurricane" Web site.
'Mere'?
I didn't even know that there were 142 software programs out there worth stealing...
Old news?... (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to hit these jokes where it hurts? Write a decentralized Kazaa that uses pseudo-random rotating ports and a healthy encryption mix. Make sure you use all the standard ports as well as ports for gaming systems (PS2 & Xbox). Encryption doesn't have to be too heavy - 128bit for searches and 40bit for transfers. When the court commands the ISPs to monitor traffic the ISPs have to tell the court to stick it since the DMCA (?!) won't allow cracking/breaking encrypted communications.
So where's the independent music? (Score:5, Insightful)
A comparable analogy would have been if the Open Source community, instead of creating their own, superior free software, had all turned into lazy warez junkies. You can't win a war relying on your enemy's resources
So what we need is an "Open Music" revolution. But that will require educating artists who don't spend their days reading Slashdot. They need to learn that a record label deal is not the holy grail of their career, but rather in most cases, a hindrance. Artists need to treat their talent as a personal enterprise, not a raffle ticket to ride the gravy train.
When this dream is realized, the lawsuits will end, the fascist laws will be repealed, the manufactured pop-icons will vanish, and the world will be a better place. Get to it.
What do you believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I do believe that theft is theft.
Everyone gets pissed off when someone threatens to take away their pirated music and videos.
If you want to make a backup of your music and videos fine, but don't share them out to other people to freely copy.
Re:What do you believe in? (Score:4, Interesting)
Say I have a CD of "Revolver" by the Beatles, I can legally convert it to MP3. But converting CDs to MP3 is a drag, if I can't be stuffed doing the conversion, I can log into napster and download the MP3s. Similarly, if I want to save other owners of that CD the hassle of converting their CDs to MP3, there is nothing wrong with me sharing the files via p2p.
The problem comes when someone who doesn't own the CD downloads the files from me. Now personally, I don't care -- I think it is up to each person to decide what laws they're willing to break -- but I still haven't broken any laws (or at least I shouldn't have). Just because what I do makes it easy for others to break the law shouldn't make what I do illegal.
Re:What do you believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're too lazy to convert your own CDs to MP3s (arguably a one or two click task for most people), you're probably not going to hassle yourself with the often ardous task of trying to find a non-fake, good quality version of your entire CD with someone that doesn't have a full queue or not on dial-up. Chances are you'll get a hodge-podge of songs ripped at different qualities from different people, but you might get lucky. Or you might like pop music. Whatever. Moreover, I'm pretty sure the copyright law says you have the right to make backup copies for personal use, not for public use... so you theoretically are doing something illegal (breaking copyright law) by having them in a publically available area. By your logic, warez FTP sites aren't breaking the law because they're saving others the hassle of ripping their game CDs to isos. Geez.
Re:Bring it on (Score:5, Funny)
It exists.. why not donate, while you're at it (Score:3, Informative)
They need all the cash they can get.
Re:how long will it take? (Score:5, Informative)
They have. It is called Freenet. [freenetproject.org]
Re:how long will it take? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how long will it take? (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out http://www.freenetproject.org [freenetproject.org] and read the philosophy of the project. The philosophy is the important aspect right now, not the functionality. The functionality will get there, and when it does, what are we going to see?
What will the powers that be do if there is a system that virtually guarantees that you are immune from monitoring?
How will things change when we see that they can't stand it and they decide to fight back 10 times harder than they did against PGP and Phil Zimmerman?
Freenet, and other distributed anonymous sytems like it, could be the catalayst for another crypto-revolution.
Re:how long will it take? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how long will it take? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone just likes to sit on their butt and whine about stuff they have never bothered to put any effort towards fixing.
Re:I agree. (Score:5, Interesting)
She wrote back to me to say, there is currently a bill that is fair and protective of consumers known as the CDPTA (or whatever the fuck it is called this week).
Even tho she is quite liberal, we obviously are not on the same page. And even tho she thanked me for writing, she basically told me what I had to say had no value in the modern world, and to stay in touch.
In case you havent noticed, unless you own the copyright on Micky the fuckin Mouse, or some such property (Britney anyone?) you dont stand a chance having your voice heard 'in these modern times'.
Sorry to be a cynic. Vote with yer $buck$, thats how you get heard.
Re:Funny (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a hard time believing that Swiss Citizens have voted on every single line in the law books. When Switzerland joined the UN recently, did you actually vote on that, or did some representative vote in your name,.
Not a flame, but I'm curious how it works in other countries (I got some idea when I spent a week there in June, but a week is so little time).
Re:Funny (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the Swiss had a public referendum [guardian.co.uk] on joining the UN. It won in a squeaker: 12 cantons (like US states) for, 11 cantons against.
In Switzerland, important changes to the law must be approved by the public.
Re:Funny (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but that last canton had a huge number of disputed votes mistakenly cast for Pat Buchanan!
It's not a democracy. It's a republic. (Score:5, Informative)
Nice to hear it. Wish we had that here.
Got to love America?s "Democratic" government, passing laws without even letting the people know.
Actually, the US isn't a democracy. It's a republic. The general population doesn't vote on the laws (as in a democracy). The enfranchised portion of the general population votes on the legislators, then the legislators vote on the laws.
Originally the general population voted on the representatives and the states chose the senators (with the states' population in turn chosing the state reps and governor who were the ones chosing the senators). But that got changed so the population votes directly on both.
Of course sometimes they pass laws without the CONGRESSMEN knowing.
- The congresscritters rarely read the text, but depend on the recommendations of their staff, their party, (or sometimes their major contributors B-( ).
- Even if they want to read what they're voting, often it's impossible. The staffers put together the final text of enormous bills, which appear on the legislators desks within hours, or even minutes, of the final vote. (I recall one that was a stack of paper several feet thick that showed up in just such a fashion.) I've yet to hear of a congresscritter voting against a bill because "I haven't had time to read it."
- A conference committee might completely re-write a bill (possibly with similar staff "assistance"). Both houses normally rubber-stamp a conference committee's results.
And even when the congresscritters know what they're voting on, maybe nobody else does, or has a chance to comment. For instance:
The "Firearm Owners Protection Act" was a bill to protect gunowners from the web of 30,000-ish conflicting state, county, and local firearms laws when traveling. A tiny bill that said ~"If it's legal where you start your trip, legal where you finish it, and locked up in between, it's ok to transport it no matter what the state and local laws say in the places you pass through"~. Much support from pro-firearms groups.
In the minutes before the final vote it was amended to also ban the manufacture of new machine guns for sale to private citizens in the (already heavily regulated) private market. So the supply would be limited to those already papered - and thus become obsolete, expensive, and eventually disappear.
SURPRISE!
Of course it passed. (And some pro-gun organizations got a lot of undeserved flack for "selling out" the machine-gun fans, when it was really a crooked political gambit by the anti-gun politicians.)
Of course the Swiss don't have this problem. Their government REQUIRES them each to have a machine gun (or some other piece of large-scale military nastiness) handy. B-)
Re:It's not a democracy. It's a republic. (Score:5, Informative)
if we join the army we get a automatic rifle and even some bullets to keep at home (it's part of our militia system)
but it is not legal to buy or own other such weapons
they wanted do requier tank crews to keep their tanks at home but nobody had space for it, so they just sold the old once to people for near to nothing,
it's a shame that you have to keep it inside of a building or i would have bought one
what we have is called a half direct democracy
that means we have some sort of congress too and to my happiness no president(if i look at bush). but we have also the possibility to infulence our law or constitution directly by a public vote
what you have is called a indirect democracy in our schools
Re:It's not a democracy. It's a republic. (Score:5, Informative)
republic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French rpublique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL [m-w.com], PUBLIC [m-w.com]
Date: 1604
1 a (1)
(2)
b (1)
(2)
2
3
democracy
Pronunciation: di-'m-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a
b
2
3 capitalized
4
5
So we in the USA live in a Democratic Republic .
Swiss army knife (Score:5, Funny)
Well, a little red knife, anyway.
Or the big red knife:
- Tiny little scisors
- Tiny little screwdriver
- Tiny little tommygun
- Tiny little satelite uplink
- Tiny little antitank missile
- Tiny little tactical nuke
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Funny)
1) Abortion (except for pro-choice pubs and pro-life dems)
2) Death Pe--wait, Romney is a Republican...
3) Profit! (no actually that's both too...hmmm...)
So because of these clear differences and the fact that the Senator from Disney is a Repub-- well anyway because we know Republicans are BAD, and Democrats are GOOD, any law signed by Bill Clinton must be good.
So you should have read the whole slashdot lead-in so you knew which way to think about the issue based on party affiliation.
Any other way wouldn't be Democratic.
Re:My Theory (Score:5, Funny)
wtf mods? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I steal music. If you've read the latest article on the RIAA's trouble regarding price-fixing you'd realize they also steal from me.
That's all I have to say.
Re:NET Act question (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, to hear some people tell it, watching a TV show without watching commercials is theft too, so I think fair use was obsoleted long before this thing happened.