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.
Sharing.... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
2. To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
4. To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend.
Somebody needs to buy a dictionary.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the spud-raisin debates continue. Forget the dictionary, OK? What about Miss Manners?
If the musicians were in the room, could you upload it and comfortably let them know what you are doing?
For jam-bands like Phish and a few fringe artists you probably could (at least for some of their songs). That's sharing. For everybody else it's not sharing. The dictionary may not say it, but sharing implies a mutual agreement between all parties involved. Sharing as we know it is a polite activity between friends. Uploading an artist's music against their will, and in the anonymity of your computer room is nothing like the sharing we were taught in kindergarden.
Phish shares their concerts. Fans appropriate Metallica.
appropriate
1. to take for one's own or exclusive use.
2. to take improperly, as without permission
3. to set aside for a specific use or a certain person.
File sharing is not being made a felony. Phish can share all the music they want. File appropriation is the felony.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement ... You're taking content
Bzzt, wrong! In copyright infringement, nothing is actually taken. The original owner of the bits still owns them. Next contestant, please!
For someone all hung up on definitions and using terms properly, you could at least get this part a little more accurate.
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
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
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth the article: "We're giving notice that this is something we want specific attention paid to," said the aide. "The current law is very general."
What, pray tell, is wrong with current copyright law? It is illegal to copy something without permission. Period. Why we need to make draconian laws that just futher extend the reach of the copyright cartel is beyond me.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reach and aim of the bill will be whittled down over the coming months, even then it has a very slim chance of even making it out of committee in both chambers. On the off hand chance it makes it out of both the house and the senate, the versions of the bill will be quite different.. requiring even more whittling and compromise in conference.
Then, after it breezes past our sitting 'I'll sign anything for business' president.. it will almost definitely be challenged in court. The final result will be A) nothing or B) a law that is quite a bit less dranconian and far reaching than this one.
This is the system and the process that MAKES America a pretty darn good country. So, go soak your knee (it probably hurts from the big jerking motion you just made) and let our process do its work.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What, pray tell, is wrong with current copyright law? It is illegal to copy something without permission. Period.
Actually you're wrong. There are plenty of exceptions out there and the law has been interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. It's nowhere nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
That said, I think that one of the main reasons we are seeing so much disregard for copyright law by the average citizen is because the government has disregarding those same citizens in its desire to give corporate interests whatever they want in terms of copyright extensions and restrictions. The average person sees absolutely no benefit from copyright law anymore. That's not the way it was supposed to be. Copyright was supposed to be a bargain between creators and the public. We agree to give them exclusive rights for a limited period of time, and then we get unfettered access to that work once the period has expired. This seemed like a good deal for everyone. Then Congress cut the public out of the deal. Nothing becomes public domain anymore, and won't for as long as they keep extending copyright terms. I see P2P as a backlash (albeit an unconscious one on the part of most people) against overly restrictive copyright laws that people understand to be inherently unfair. If balance was brought back to the system, I think people would have more respect for it.
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:5, Insightful)
No, technically you violated the copyright which is distinct from stealing as far as the law is concerned.
You might notice that the law never refers to copying copyrighted material as theft.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, I have to point out two other possibilities: you received it as a gift, or you created it.
I have lots of stuff on my computer that I didn't buy, including the operating system. It's all Free or Open Source Software, and I received it as a gift. Other stuff on my computer that I didn't buy are things that I wrote (for which I automatically receive the copyright at the instant that I create it).
The stuff I wrote is mine, to do with as I wish. The gifts are licensed to me and I can upload them if the license says I can.
...because (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...because (Score:4, Informative)
I am so sick of this infinitely repeated bullshit claim. Please RTFL before you spout the
See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 [cornell.edu] for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 [cornell.edu] for the penalties.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
And for US citizens not residents of LA? (Score:5, Informative)
I remember reading that the right to trial by combat wasn't removed until 1780 somthing...
Alex
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:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A good reason to avoid using words like theft and piracy when discussing copyright is the fundamental difference between physical property and copyrightable information: Theft of property deprives you of the stolen item, copyright infringement does not take the information away from you. What copyright infringement does is affect your potential for deriving profit from the information concerned.
I'm not saying that unauthorised copying is OK, just that it becomes easier to confuse the matter under discussion, when improper terminology and associations are used. This is similar to the terrible term "Intellectual Property", which not only tries to equate information with property but also confuses several different kinds of law.
In short, lets keep it simple but correct: What we do with KaZaa is copyright infringement, what thieves and pickpockets (and possibly some corperate executives) do is theft.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really want to get technical about the current US law, then yes, the current US law does not call it stealing. However, theft also has a broader, non-legally-technical, useage. The following is a snippet of Roman law:
6. It is theft, not only when anyone takes away a thing belonging to another, in order to appropriate it, but generally when anyone deals with the property of another contrary to the wishes of its owner. (Gai. iii. 195; D. xlvii. 2. 54. pr.; The Institutes of Justinian, pg. 403.)
Well, let's get technical then.
I know of no legal system anywhere in the world which technically classifies copyright infringement as theft. So, no, it's not only "current" and not only "US" law. Shouldn't it tell you something?
And funny that you should mention Roman law. Under Roman law the concept of intellectual proprety did not exist. There was no copyright (and no patents, and no trademarks, either). Think Roman senators would call a public performance of a song to which the song author did not consent a theft?
So, why cant we just admit that none of us are lawers in a courtroom, just people posting on a web site, and let normal useage of words go?
Because that's not the normal usage of the words. Just as using the word "piracy" ro refer to unauthorized copying is not normal, traditional usage. It is a (successful) attempt by copyright holders to frame the issue in emotionally-sensitive terms.
What do you think sounds better: "Stealing is wrong" or "Depriving a corporation of potential revenue is wrong"?
And if you are wondering why "theft" is the wrong term to use, I'll tell you. When you steal something from someone, that someone no longer has the use of that item. He lost it. He had it and doesn't have it any more.
Compare it to copyright infringement. The copyright holder actually doesn't lose anything in the sense of having less than what he used to have. In a commercial setting he loses some chance potential revenue, and in a non-commercial setting not even that.
That's the reason why "theft" and "copyright infringement" are different things and should be named differently.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Informative)
Damn I'm tired of this. It's copyright infringment, not theft. Noone is deprived of tangible property due to p2p use.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that anyone would claim that not a single CD sale was lost because someone got the tracks for free online. Maybe this isn't you, but it sure is someone. Heck, it's several guys I know; the guy in the cube next to me loudly proclaims on a regular basis, "I used to spend $500-600 on CD's a year, and now I haven't bought one for 3 years since I just download my tracks." Maybe CD sales as a whole do go up, but it's an "ends and means" justification (ie, the ends don't justify the means). It is not OUR place to tell copyright holders what they should do with their copyright though covert infringement; this is their right as the copyright holder to make this decision on their own. We can tell them this with our wallets in other ways though, such as refusing to listen to the music of record companies with whom we do not agree.
The people who lose money due to any of these lost CD sales are the artists and record company execs, yes, but also the guys working security at the front gate, the technicians setting up the sound equipment, the guys running their email servers, the janitors sweeping their floors. Then it's the retailers around the country who lose sales because these guys are not making as much money (or have been laid off). These other losses are not as direct and visible, but money taken from the company comes out SOMEWHERE, and frankly it's not too likely that it's the execs' pockets from which it comes out.
Is this law stupid? Yeah. Is copyright infringement a form of theft though? You bet. If you were arguing that distributing a copyrighted item with out permission that is otherwise available for free is not a form of theft, I'd agree, but each time that someone downloads a track from a CD, and this prevents them from later buying the rest of the CD, this is theft. Maybe you putting a file up on the Internet is not a form of theft, but it knowingly permits theft.
I think P2P networks are cool, and I really hope they stick around after all the Copyright crap is over, but even despite squabbling over "theft" or "infringement" terms, no matter what you call it, it is still illegal, like it or not.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to think that money is growing on trees and people have an unlimited supply. The money that someone did not spend on cd's was spent elsewhere, and most likely, at the same Walmart buying a gas grill instead of 10 cd's, or at a fast food resturant on the way home. That money was still spent paying all the people you are refering to above but a different group of them. People only have so much money to spend, the non essential entertainment budget is probably the first one to be dipped into.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Courtney love said it best (you can find this and many other good quotes here in google cache [216.239.33.100]):
Stealing our copyright provisions in the dead of night when no-one is looking is piracy. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster. There were one billion downloads last year but music sales are way up, so how is Napster hurting the music industry? It's not. The only people who are scared of Napster are the people who have filler on their albums and are scared that if people hear more than one single they're not going to buy the album.
--Courtney Love, NME, 6/29/2000
Just to drive it home a little more (Score:5, Informative)
To drive that point home a little more: theft of copyrighted material would be stealing a CD out of a store - a misdemeaner.
Re:Just to drive it home a little more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dull and duller (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for coming out and saying that. We've all read the same arguments over & over, yet I'm not reading anything I haven't read before. Unless something really interesting comes up, there should be no +mods, although there will be, because Mods moderate when they agree, not when they think it's important.
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think this would fall more under the term wire fraud. Though, again, this type of thing involves taking something from me and, in doing so, denies me the use of that thing, in the case of your analogy, money. Copyright infringment, on the other hand, does not deny someone the use of the thing which is copied. Is it still illegal, yes. Should it be treated as being worse than theft? I don't think so, but that is what this proposed law is going to do. Consider for a moment, what would happen to me if I went into a local Walmart and stole a CD, assuming I was caught? I'd get the legal equvilent of a slap in the wrist, probably a fine and a couple of hours of community service. Now, if this law is enacted and I get caught sharing 1 music file, I get a sizable fine and sent to jail for a couple of years. So, considering that, in your view, each crime is equiveilent, why should the punishments be so disproportionate?
Further, if you look at this from another standpoint, mine for example, this law looks even worse. If I steal a CD I am directly depriving the store of the use of that CD, they can't sell it. Where as, if I download an mp3, I in no way prevent the person I copied it from continuing to use it. Admitadly, I have, in some way, dimished the value of the copyright on that song, but probably by a far lesser amount than the cost of a CD. So, why the huge disparity in the punishment? Why is there to be a greater punishment for the crime which does lesser harm?
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Futhermore, the whole p2p debacle is such a grey area to begin with, ethically and legally. I've had upwards of 100 CDs stolen from me, with no way to recoup that expense. If I download an mp3 of an album I used to have to listen to once am I just as much a thief as the guy who has 50 camrips shares on Kazaa?
At least we agree that more draconian laws arent the answer.
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:5, Insightful)
Here's what it has to do with liberty:
In Saudi Arabia, if you are caught shoplifting something, you get your hand cut off. Now, if this bill passes, in America if you upload a single file to a P2P network, you get stuck in the slammer with Bubba for 5 years, and a $250k fine. We all know how much Saudi law upholds freedom and liberty... see the connection?
Draconian laws, cruel and unusual punishment, and excessive enforcement for things which do not greatly harm society are not traits of a society that values freedom and liberty.
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.
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of more long-lasting harm is the fact that a convicted felon must report that felony to any potential employer when asked (usually on a job application). While the employer doesn't have to consider this, most will toss your application in the circular file if that box is checked, regardless of what kind of felony it was.
That means that as far as rejoining society as a useful, productive citizen, a person convicted of file sharing will have about the same chance as a murderer or rapist. Does that seem logical to you?
It's knee-jerk responses like this (by the congressmen) which unbalance our system so much. They all think about what will get them reelected next term, rather than what their laws will be used to do 20 years down the road.
The RIAA is not a government organization. They are not a police force. They are no different from Uncle Joe's Deli down the street. Why then does everyone in the legislature seem to think they should have special provisions and laws passed on their behalf? If *I* start a business, I'm sure they won't pass laws to make MY life any easier...(the rhetorical answer, of course, is money and the legal form of bribery known as contributions).
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they have to do this. Think about it, if 100 million people vote in elections, it only takes 50 million people voting together to elect the people they want. There are 50million+ file sharing people, so if they got their shit together, they could take over the system and make file sharing legal. Therefore, you have to take them out of the equation.
As people have pointed out before, systems and people route around damage. If you have a system (Copyright) that gets damaged by massive numbers of people (File sharars) and they could destroy you if they woke up (by voting) you route around them by neutering them by keeping them from voting by making them felons.
Of course they might just continue with their extortion racket of getting 10-20k from everyone in the world, but who's counting?
Re:For non-Americans - what is a felony ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that it would work -- what jury in the world would convict someone of a felony for sharing and listening to music? How could it not be cruel and unusual punishment to take away someone's voting rights for the copyright equivalent of going ten miles over the speed limit?
I'm not worried about this law passing--it would be political suicide (I hope) to support something so broadly unpopular--but you know how this works. There's one outrageous law that everybody knee-jerks at, and then there's another that's still horrible, but seems reasonable in comparison. That's the one to look out for. (Not that it's not a good time to write your congresscritters now.)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sharing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is deprived of anything by sharing files, but lots of people stand to gain from the removal of artificial scarcity. As supply approaches infinity, price approaches 0. There are of course other variables, quality, loyalty, etc, but that's what the IP business is coming down to, practically infinite supply attempting to bolt down the market to ratchet up price.
Time to invest in prisons! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to invest in prisons! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time to invest in prisons! (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about that for a moment.
Anybody got a dime (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on this new bill
Ironically I've _never_ done Napster or Kazaa or Freenet or any of those types of P2P networks. Yet the RIAA probably wonders why people like me have simply STOPPED buying CD's. Not 1 for 3 years now.
Read the bill (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Read the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
You misread.
The part you are probably referring to says that merely making files available to the public over a computer network is automatically considered to satisfy the 10 copy/$2,500 requirement, even if no one downloads it.
It makes the mere act of sharing a single file fall under the criminal penalties, whereas before they had to prove you distributed significant amounts of copyrighted materials.
--------------
For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-sible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.
The importance of buying independant music (Score:5, Insightful)
And now its time for my shameless self plug, since we don't have the billions of the RIAA backing us for their own exploitive purposes, and probably never will:
The Pubcrawlers
http://the-pubcrawlers.com
New England Celtic Punk
Re:Anybody got a dime (Score:5, Funny)
Time for publicly funded politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, publicly funded election campaigns and permanent and continuous auditing of their finances.
Re:Time for publicly funded politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
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: TV/Music/Movies are 25% (Score:5, Informative)
Top Industries supporting Berman [opensecrets.org] lists TV/Music/Movies as #1 with roughly 25% of all contributions made to the "honorable" Howard L. Berman (for sale for highest bidder).
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill politicians who've been bought
Re:Time for publicly funded politicians? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time for publicly funded politicians? (Score:4, Funny)
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is going on when I can assault someone, sell drugs, or some such and get a lenient sentence (which means I'll be out in less than half the time sentenced for) but if I do anything computer related its some gawd-awful thing.
Its called a "perceived threat". And the entertainment industies are scared shitless that, as the article indicates "they try to hold on to their business models", they may have to change models. Lawmakers see a threat because they're campaign funds come from these sales. And it is amplified by the fact most are technologically-inclined(Lets blow their computers up, yeah!). Here's a thought, using technology as a tool. But what good is a tool to them if they can't control it outright? That seems to be their outlook.
The entertainment industries have to take a good hard look at the future. Piss of your buyers or work to accomidate them while makeing cash.
Read the proposal: "not less than $15,000,000" "for investigation and prosecution of violations" of the "Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003". [Great acronym]
Shit, everytime I hear about a law like this I get to urge to move to another country, and even then you're not always safe from this sort of stupidity.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Felony? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can leave a CD at my buddy's house and no one cares....
Time to write to Congress again... third time this week....
Re:Felony? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
But what jail will be big enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright ownersip (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood is small. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so far from true that it's the best possible illustration of a vital point: media industries have influence vastly out of proportion to their economic impact.
The entire MPAA takes in, charitably, about $40b in revenues each year, including domestic and foreign video and film releases, and the RIAA is even smaller. Compare to the tech industry: Microsoft did over $35 billion in revenue last year. IBM did about the same. Cisco, $19b. 3 companies together take in more than double the entire movie industry - more than the movie and music industries put together, in fact. (To say nothing of Dell, Sun, Apple, Oracle, HP/Compaq, etc. etc. etc. etc.)
And yet it's the media that set the rules. Why? Tight political connections, of course (Jack Valenti was the first presidential advisor sworn in by LBJ after JFK's assassination), bred of one simple fact: politicians depend on the media to get elected. Quid pro quo. That's a rant for another time, however.
-Isaac
Looks like they are going after Freenet (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like Freenet is labeled as "enabling software" under terms of the proprosed law.
The proposed law also seeks to impose up to a 5 year jail term for registering a domain using false information... Bad stuff.
How to Make a Terrorist: (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still amazed that Ken Lay and his Enron buddies haven't been shot yet; what was it, 150,000 retirements they destroyed?
I think the higher-ups (in gov't and corporations) would be a LOT more responsible if they feared for their lives a bit more.
Re:How to Make a Terrorist: (Score:5, Insightful)
that CEO's and other corporate leaders should be more afraid of
revenge wrought as a result of their behavior. But how many
terrorists target CEO's and leave the innocent population alone? How
many individuals in the WTC had 'bad behavior'?
A terrorist can (and does) strike fear in the hearts of the just and
unjust alike...wouldn't you rather strike fear in the hearts of the
unjust and leave the just alone? Much harder problem...
All the more reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:voters (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet that if you look at the demographics for P2P users, you will find that a majority of their ages would be between teens and mid twenties. Many are either not able to vote or don't care enough to vote. Once they get convicted, the Senators don't have to worry about them voting again.
No! (Score:4, Funny)
Now better off with armed robbery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now better off with armed robbery (Score:4, Funny)
Domain Names too (Score:5, Insightful)
Supreme court (Score:5, Funny)
<RIAA spokesperson>
Lube? What do you mean, lube? You're a thief, plain and simple, so you're going to be buggered in the exact manner that I specify. Which means no lube!
</RIAA spokesperson>
Shoplift! (Score:5, Insightful)
Same chances of getting caught... and it won't be a felony.
welcome to the War on Copying! (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the War on Copying!
(Brought to you by the government that brought you the smashingly successfuly War on Drugs, which after 32 years of increasing the drug abuse problem and smashing civil liberties, we're sure to win any day now.)
Mandatory minimum sentances for copiers. The death penalty for copying "kingpins". Criminaliztion of CD burners as "copying paraphernalia". Zero tolerance laws, where kids who write down pop song lyrics in on their schoolbook covers will get busted.
Oh yes, and more smashing of civil liberties. And more people in jail (in the nation that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world), and more money for the prison-industrial complex.
Coming soon to a nation near you. But you know, Copying is public enemy number one...
Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Locking up some poor schmuck as a felon for sharing his shitty 128kbps rips of 50cent would not only define anti-reason but also would be unfeasable from the economic standpoint. Either you have to lock up half of your population or be unable to enforce the law. This is just a losing position this bill has, and was put forward for symbolic purposes only.
Sort of like that time when Rangel introduced a bill [cnn.com] to reinstate the draft to prove a point in the wake of Iraqi War.
The REAL reason this is scary (Score:5, Insightful)
HOWEVER, the 'rewrite' of it, which is far less egregious and overreaching, will seem like a huge compromise in comparison, and will get through without much problem. If it was introduced on its own, it would be fought tooth and nail, but now...
This is standard practice: If you want the moon, shoot for the sun. If you want a controversial law passed, start by asking for something ten times worse.
Amendment VIII (Score:5, Insightful)
Direct from the Article.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so passing this bill into law will clearly prevent people in foreign countries that are not subject to US laws from sharing and downloading files. Right.
Classifying crimes... (Score:5, Insightful)
But it seems we are heading into two different directions. Crimes and their punishment are being classified into crimes against people and crimes against corporations. Crimes against people can be plea bargained down to minimal sentences. Crimes against corporations are constantly on the upswing as far as severity and punishment.
I remember when I first noticed this was during a period when those two kids from Delaware murdered their newborn child and dumped it into the trash. Their bail was set at $250,000. During that same time someone got nailed with a tone dialer (Bernie S mbe) and his bail was set at $300,000. The Delaware kids sentence for murder ended up being just two years each. Not bad, huh?
Decoy (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite frankly, I think this is a decoy bill. Where's the real one?
Does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Then, can I punch Lars in the face? Repeatedly?
Real trollbait here... (Score:5, Insightful)
From article:
If you have a file stored on your computer and your computer is connected to a publicly available network, you may not even know that you are committing a felony, but this law could put you in jail...Every computer has copyrighted material on their machines. Windows is copyrighted by Microsoft, so in essence, this bill makes committing a felony as simple as connecting a Windows machine to the internet. Someone who misconfigures their file and print sharing services, and inadvertently shares their whole C drive has just committed a felony - regardless of their intentions.
There are already viruses which turn unsuspecting Windows machines into filesharing nodes and spambots. If this law is passed, computer virus victims could literally be sent to jail for doing nothing more than checking their email. When it comes down to it, most users are not sophisticated enough to correctly configure their file and print sharing on windows machines, let alone detect when their box has been owned by a filesharing virus. This law would literally make it a crime for joe user to connect to the internet after his box gets hacked.
Theses (Score:5, Insightful)
- Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft.
- Copyright infringement is already illegal. We do not need an additional law to deal with it.
- Prison time is not a suitable punishment for file-swapping.
- The vast majority of copyright infringement and subsequent revenue loss takes place not online, but overseas.
- Dropping revenue figures, particularly in a sluggish economy with high unemployment, cannot be blamed on file-swapping alone.
- The Recording Industry has not made its case that file-swapping leads to substantial lost revenues.
- The Recording Industry is living under the illusion that it is a mature industry. If it wishes to earn more revenues, then it needs to shed its adversity to risk.
- The Recording Industry does not care about artists, and does not represent their interests.
- The Recording Industry is not pro-First Amendment.
- The suppression of file-swapping is not about preserving intellectual property; it is about controlling the distribution of information, including legitimate distribution of properly licensed information.
- The single best way to prevent the spread of computer viruses is to not use Microsoft Office or Microsoft Outlook.
- If kids want to get their hands on pornography, then it is time for their parents to have "the talk."
- Without peer-to-peer networks, kids will still get pornography from friends and from the vendor down the street.
- The government creates its own security risks with bad foreign policy.
- Peer-to-peer networks aid, rather than inhibit, intelligence gathering efforts.
- The best means of protecting national security is through human intelligence, not by making illegal a line of communication.
Have I missed anything?More serious crime than some violent crimes? (Score:4, Funny)
What we need to do is get Berman in prison, that's the real problem here.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill politicians who've been bought
Call it what it is: devaluation (Score:4, Informative)
Duplication of creative content is not stealing since the original owner of the content still possesses it. Why is duplication considered to be so immoral? Duplication is devaluation; while the original owner still has the bits, those bits are no longer worth what they were before. Supply has increased, and intersects with the demand curve at a lower point, which means the same bits now sell at a lower price.
Obviously the creators of the content would like to insure that they remain the sole entity allowed to collect revenues for the content, and also insure that the price point is as high on the demand curve as possible. But do they have this right? Does their self-interest override that of other people?
The Constitution provides a limited-time monopoly on duplication of content to its creator, and our legal system has inferred that this monopoly may be transferred. Not everyone involved in early American government agreed with this idea, however. In particular, Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the spreading of ideas could not be stopped, benefitted the public, and could not be said to have truly harmed the originator of the ideas since he still possessed them.
The real question is not whether duplication is illegal, or whether it is immoral; it is whether it should be illegal. Not all activities that are illegal should be illegal; not all activities that are immoral should be illegal, either.
The supposed harmful effect of duplication is devaluation of the original. I say "supposed," because it is entirely likely that the loss of value to the content originator is far exceeded by the economy's gain in value as the content is reproduced. But should activities be illegal just because they devalue someone else's property?
I believe that rights should be absolute and unlimited except as they interfere with the rights of others. I believe the government exists solely to protect those rights from infringement by others within and without the government's jurisdiction. Individuals have the right to do whatever they choose with their person or property, so long as it does not interfere with another individual's right to do so. In other words, any activity engaged in by two individuals must involve the consent of both, and requires the consent of noone else.
This sometimes allows activities that I personally might find abhorrent. As a Christian, I find many activities to be wrong that the general public does not. However, this does not give me a right to regulate their activities or infringe upon their rights. Individuals may say things I disagree with; they do not need my consent to speak. However, I may or may not consent to listen. So long as the activity of another individual does not without my consent harm or kill me, or damage or confiscate my property, those activities should still be legal.
Activities that devalue the property of another do not actually harm that individual. The individual still possesses the property, and the property has not actually changed. These activities should be allowed. If an individual spreads information about a defective product, the defective product is devalued. The right to speak out about this product should of course not be infringed. Even if a product is not defective in any way, an individual might mount a campaign to convince the public not to buy the product: by advertising an alternative, for example. Advertising a competing product may devalue the original, but it should not be illegal.
Competition may undercut prices to devalue their competitors' products. This should not be illegal. It is an individual's right to do with his property as he chooses. If he chooses to sell it and take a loss, that is his right. While this might cause trouble for his competitors in the short-term, in the long-term he will not be able to sustain his loss, and the price will rise again, allowing more room in the market for competition to return. (Or else he will fund the loss with sales of
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.
My two cents... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no sympathy for the record companies. I think they started a downward spiral years before P2P networks came on the scene. Napster & co. have just been the last nails in the coffin.
I used to have roughly 35,000 mp3s. I can't pretend this was any sort of legit file sharing, it was a gross orgy of gathering every song I liked even slightly. But I recently deleted them all and bought from Apple iTunes maybe a half-dozen song I couldn't live without.
The lessons I learned were: a) sharing a few tunes with someone to turn them on is one thing, downloading tens of thousands is imposible to justify. b) As I said I don't have any sympathy for the bands represented by the RIAA, and don't think they deserve any money. By having thousands of songs, all I'm doing is helping to promote them for free. c) Music is addictive, and free music is even more so. There's much better things to obsess over.
So in short: RIAA is bad, but so is downloading mp3's. Avoid it all and just enjoy the ocassional song, preferably a local band or something. You don't need much more.
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:Sensationalist nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sensationalist nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a pretty strange definition of "reasonable".
Hmm, let's play the Sesame Street game:
Kidnapping.
Rape.
Assault with a deadly weapon.
Grand theft auto.
Uploading a file on a P2P network.
One of these things is not like the others. Can you tell me which one?
Hmm, you upload a file to a P2P network, and you are now a felon. Think about that - federal jail time, a fine of $250,000, and a permanent black mark that will prevent you from working anywhere but McDonalds.
I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of "reasonable".
Re:FTP? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Already done... (Score:4, Informative)