'Pirate Act' Would Shift Copyright Civil Suits To DoJ 440
mammothboy writes "News.com.com has a story about the new so-called Pirate Act, which seeks to allow federal prosecuters to file civil suits against file swappers. These lawsuits can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if you guessed that the RIAA is lobbying for it, you're right. What's scary is how fast and how quiet its march through the legislative process has been. In '97, the No Electronic Theft Act allowed for criminal lawsuits, but none have been filed, so isn't it clear that the Justice Department has better stuff to deal with?" There actually have been some prosecutions filed under the NET Act, but not many. Update: 05/26 18:51 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (author of the linked News.com story) writes to clarify: "FYI there have been prosecutions under the NET Act, as you say. But
there have not been any of P2P users. That's why the Senate is doing this."
A good day for starving artists. (Score:5, Funny)
As a member of Citizens United against Network Thievery, let me be the first to jump for joy. For too long musicians and movie moguls have resorted to smaller mansions, some with empty garage spots, as wanton piracy has hurt sales of their reasonably priced products. This rampant hooliganism must be stopp... ed.. whoa... what's this square of blotter paper doing in my coffee?
Re:A good day for starving artists. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, a porn publisher has sued (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about movies, but regarding pictures, you can read the story of Playboy v. Sanfilippo [gigalaw.com].
Re:A good day for starving artists. (Score:3, Funny)
I am the master of the C.L.I.T. Remember this ficking face. Whenever you see C.L.I.T., you'll see this fucking face. I make that shit work. It does whatever the fuck I tell it to. No one rules the C.L.I.T like me. Not this little fuck [referring to Silent Bob], none of you little fucks out there. I AM THE C.L.I.T. COMMANDER! Remember that, commander of all C.L.I.T.s! When it comes down to business, this is what I do. I pinch it lik
Re:A good day for starving artists. (Score:4, Insightful)
It even *says* it's a quote and provides a link to the source. Apparently we got the short-bus mods today.
Re:Song of the piracy apologist...Jesus Christ! (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean really, what's the deal with someone's writing an essay complete with selective quotations from an opponent in an online discussion which he then attacks. Really, that post is garbage, the pure, too-well-focused writing that is the life's blood of corporate America at its worst: 'we can hire someone who can approximate passion and use him to make you believe anything that makes us money.'
Ins
your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here is that the less people pay the RIAA, despite how blindingly obvious a boycott is, the higher the losses variable in the piracy #s go. Wanna send the RIAA a message? Pick a day, buy a bunch of new albums, and on the next day return them unopened and in resalable condition. When a million dollars is made, and lost the next day, it's hard for the retailers not to notice. Suddenly we have a powerful ally...
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:3, Insightful)
pick a day and purchase from independent labels
By all means, do this too. Plenty of great music out there to choose from, given a bit of research. But it doesn't send the same message as buying an RIAA-sponsored CD then returning it. If all you do is buy from Indie labels, the RIAA will scream "lost sales due to piracy!" If you start bringing unopened discs back, on the other hand, they have to account for the sale and subsequent return.
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding of the music biz is that in this type of situation, the retail price of the albums that are returned will be subtracted from the artist's royalities. So the only person receiveing a message are the musicians, who are learning that they should have never entered this line of work in the first place.
You didn't seriously expect that the music industry would not have figured out a way to charge the musicians for EVERYTHING that would be a cost for the record companies, did you?
The music industry is obsessed with the idea that they have the most desired product in the world (with the exception of refined opiates) and that everybody will do everything they can to get everything that they release. Therefore they must go to insane lengths to keep their product away from people except in small, measured, and expensive doses.
To a large extent this is the truth, but it is becoming less so every year. Eventually, the music industry will reach the point where they realise that their extended efforts to prevent people's access to their product has resulted in a significant decline in the demand for their product. Threaten enough people with prison, asset confiscation, and criminal records for using your product and people will stop using your product, regardless of the price that you charge for it. Tastes can change. The music industry may find out that the obsession with possessing pre-recorded music on disks might be a characteristic only found in western baby-boomers. When they pass from the scene, so may their industry.
I read that the music industry sales have fallen from 36 billion US dollars to 24 billion US in three years. That figure puts the entire business at less than South Korean prostitution (according to Asia Times -www.atimes.com) and almost as big as the toilet paper business. What other business this size gets special laws passed to put their customers in prison over pricing disagreements?
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an idea: how about growing the fuck up and paying for your music and movies? How about not stealing things that don't belong to you? How about abandoning your rediculously naive and misguided notion that you are somehow entitled to free merchandise.?
This is not a troll. I am a retailer. I own a brick-and-mortar retail store. *I* am the one who gets screwed when you do things like this. The products that I sell are part of my livelihood. All that you are going to accomplish from action like this is a reduction in the new products that I can afford to offer, a change in my return policy and you getting banned from my store. Returns are a courtesy extended to the public - they are not mandated by law. Abuse our goodwill and you will lose our goodwill.
Protect your independant retailers. Don't listen to drivel like the parent's post.
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah I knew I should have clarified my post. I'm sorry about that. I pictured that it be focused on a big retailer like Best Buy or some chain. The problem with spreading it across retailers like yourself, besides hurting the wrong place, is that it's a lot harder to track the actual #. Again, I'm sorry about not clarifying this in my previous post.
So I've apologized for my error. This is the last of the apologies in this post, now it's your turn to listen:
"Hey, if we hit it on the right day of the month, we can even cause the RETAILER to pay thousands in extra sales/revenue tax thereby ensuring that they can't afford to do business anymore."
You need satisfied customers in order to make money. Think about that before you get nasty with anybody for wanting the business to be fair. You guys are on the front lines. You face the boycotts. You face the civil disobedience. You have your pitchfork aimed in the wrong direction.
"Here's an idea: how about growing the fuck up and paying for your music and movies? How about not stealing things that don't belong to you? How about abandoning your rediculously naive and misguided notion that you are somehow entitled to free merchandise.?"
You just called an innocent man a thief, you fucking asshole. You run a business dependent on customers buying the stuff you're selling, but you're calling those same customers thieves? Whose fault is it if you go out of business?
Worse, the very fact that you think this is about getting something for nothing means you haven't even listened to your customers. (I'll give you a hint, it's not about getting music for free...) That's yet another nail in your own coffin. We give you money, not the RIAA.
" All that you are going to accomplish from action like this is a reduction in the new products that I can afford to offer.."
That's all you think? Proving a lot of money is at stake isn't going to shift attention to the right direction? You called me naieve?
" Abuse our goodwill and you will lose our goodwill."
You just called me a thief, and you don't understand what my views are. Don't preach to me about earning your good will.
"Protect your independant retailers. Don't listen to drivel like the parent's post. "
Protect your revenue, listen to your customers.
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, how do you feel if its Walmart - who incidentally have enough retail clout to take the point being made at their expense, and shove it back down the RIAA's throat?!
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hilary? Is that you?
Simply adding a "y" to your last name isn't enough to fool us...
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:4, Insightful)
"There's no boycott here. "
An excellent comment with only two minor drawbacks.
First, I did not say boycott, I said send a message.
Second, I did not say anything about acquiring anything, let alone theft.
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the problem: People will download stuff, legit or not. The people who do say "I will not buy stuff that funds the RIAA" even though they're not downloading anything will not be recognized. It will just be assumed that they're downloading the music anyway. (Convenient for the RIAA, isn't it?)
That's why a message has to be sent. The idea I cooked up here is about attaching a price to our beliefs. "Here is a million dollars you could have had, but since you're not listening..." The catch is, it has to be done in such a way that a retailer doesn't lose a million dollars. They're not the enemy. That's why I made the special point about the CDs being resalable.
Funny thing is, Slashdot has the power to pull it off.
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:4, Interesting)
From Merriam-Webster [m-w.com]:
Doesn't say a think about "refuse to use" and exactly describes getting music through non-RIAA sources. I think you are confusing refusing to deal with the RIAA with refusing to use music. They aren't the same thing.
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:your tax dollars at work... (Score:5, Interesting)
Additionally, you cannot return an unsatisfactory CD. You open it, it plays, you bought it. Who's stealing from whom? Suddenly the reason why people'd put their own time and energy into music sharing comes into sharp focus.
Figures it involved Orrin Hatch (Score:5, Informative)
Hatch's boy is one of the lawyers for the SCO. No surprise there. Daddy's just trying to make the laws for his baby boy to enforce.
Call your senators (you have two) and tell them to oppose this bill. If you don't know who they are, go here to find out [senate.gov].
Re:Figures it involved Orrin Hatch (Score:5, Informative)
Better still, write to your senators (on paper) and tell them to oppose this bill, and why. Politicians place greater emphasis on number of letters received from their constituents than they do on number of phone calls or emails.
THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR! (Score:5, Interesting)
Spend a couple of hours (or a few dollars) supporting a politician who isn't (or won't be) voting for these stinking bills. Make sure that they know why you're donating your money and time. Make it an election issue when they have callins and/or town hall meetings.
If you live in/near Hatch, then make sure to spend some time supportint his rival. If you don't feel free to send money.
Look for innovative ways to support an anti-RIAA politician.
It won't just affect the RIIA. It's a really good way to generate good contacts for other issues -- It's also a good way to meet people (including of the romantic persuasion -- I've actualy ended up going out with a couple of people I'v met thru my political work, and I consider myself pretty clueless at that game.)
If everybody on slashdot spent 3 hours (or $100) on this, it would make the Rifle Association look like chicken scratch.
It's a little bit of time and/or resources that could make a big difference in the next few years -- especially given that these people are still looking at passing this legislation.
Re:Figures it involved Orrin Hatch (Score:3, Funny)
Windows IS the destructive system for filesharing. Sad, yet eerily true.
Here's an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't feed me that line of bullshit that you (or your 'friends') download music to protest/boycott the RIAA.
A real boycott would mean that you don't buy, download, or in any other way consume their product. That tells the RIAA that as long as they keep up with their nonsense, you don't want their product.
On the other hand, when you download music you haven't paid for, all you're saying is that no matter what the RIAA does, you still want their
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just going to assume that their lost sales went to piracy, regardless of the reality of the situation.
I'll agree. Taking shit for free that isn't free is unethical. However, I don't see anything unethical about surfing P2P sites for new music to enjoy and go out to purchase when you find stuff you do.
The RIAA is actually more concerned about marketshare than piracy. The big concern is that non-RIAA acts will get equal promotion time as RIAA acts.
The real fear is that in the near future, the next Elvis, the next Beatles, the next U2, will be some person/group in their bedroom using a small computer studio to crank out great tunes, but doesn't want anything more than enough donations to keep them in rent/pizzas. They don't want the fame, don't want the admiration. They just want the music.
The model is there, and believe it or not, it does work. That's what the RIAA is afraid of, and why they're trying to get everything redirected through approved sources. Meaning things that you need to be signed with one of their labels in order to get exposure.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Between the RIAA pushing DRM tech and their attack on my "legitimate" product replacement scheme, it's easy to see why I resent them. You
Hey, wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing more than the RIAA wanting to shift their legal burden over to the taxpayer...
Re:Hey, wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite. (Score:3, Informative)
So no, copyrights do not need to be asserted for infringement to occur.
-jason
Re:Not quite. (Score:4, Informative)
He is just making a very good point, that this is just to get the DoJ to pay for the RIAA's legal bills. The DoJ will just be able to bring charges on behalf of the RIAA (copyright holders).
How exactly does this benefit taxpayers?
Re:Hey, wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
If he so wishes, under this new law, Ashcroft can prosecute at will. If he wants to be a dick about it, he can do it without bothering to consult with the copyright holder. Hell, even if the holder decides to release the disputed work into the public domain, Ashcroft could still prosecute the "thief" under the "the Law is the Law" clause of reactionary lore -- the work was copyrighted at the time of the "crime", so the wishes of the holder would be irrelevant.
This is the final stage in the criminalization of what once was a civil offense, if it was an offense at all -- copying a musical work. It used to be criminal if it were done for profit. Now it will be criminal whenever the AG wants to nail someone.
The Church of Scientology is turning cartwheels right now. This has been their pet evil project since the early ninties. They will get to file FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES against people who quote Hubbard's works about the great galactic federation and the atom bombs and the volcanoes. (Hell, I can't even say the "X" word, because the owners of Slashdot will pull my post if the COS says "boo!") This isn't a digression: they have instigated this crusade from '91 to the present day, ever since their flying saucer religion got outed on anon.penet.fi and up to the present day.
And as for Ashcroft and the Justice Department: what an incredible tool for harrassment. Political enemy? Check the ISP logs, see if the Enemy of the State or a member of his family ever downloaded music. Break his financial back, put him or his own in prison. How many people have downloaded tunes? How many are eligible for Club Fed if this law gets passed? If you ever hose some public official, you can spend years dreading the email summoning you to years of court-run hell because you hosted some Guess Who tracks in '02.
Damn, if only we could take over a country somewhere and declare freedom from the Berne Convention...
Re:Hey, wait a second... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hey, wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is to say that the DOJ's pace would not be faster? Seriously, the more court cases they bring the more they can look like they are "tough on crime" and make the arguement that they need larger budgets, more staff, etc. Even leaving aside the other problems with having the DOJ running civil suits on behalf of others, I don't want the bureaucratic bloat this will cause.
Charity for the rich (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, seems fair to me.
Maybe the money recovered for the copyright lawsuit filed by the government should go to the government, and if the government loses, the RIAA/MPAA should pay the government's costs?
Best Governement $$ can buy! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Best Governement $$ can buy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Best President $$ can buy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not big on kookiness, or conspiracy theories, but the two major parties are conspiring even if it's informally to keep third parties out of majority elections. In 1992 Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote and participated in the highest rated presidential debate of all time [debates.org]. After Perot's preformance in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats conspired to not include Perot in 1996. [fair.org] Clinton's aid, George Stephanopolous said:
STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."
In 2000 it was announced that candidates wouldn't be allowed in the elections unless they were polling at 15% of the vote ahead of time. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).
While this has strayed off topic a bit, how can you expect not to have laws against the will of the people when the people are no longer in control of who they can vote for? Politicians do their best to make the Republicans and Democrats look different, and they are on social issues, but surely not on economic issues despite what some democrats and republicans might think. They both spend carelessly, and support big business. As long as these people are in power, you will have crap like the RIAA getting free lawsuits going on.
Crowded Courts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Crowded Courts (Score:5, Informative)
This might have something to do with it (quoted from the news.com article): "The Justice Department would receive an extra $2 million for the fiscal year beginning in October."
Double fucked... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The kinds of things we have a double-jeopardy doctrine to prevent seem to be implicated by the bill," said Jessica Litman, author of "Digital Copyright" and a law professor at Wayne State University. "I find it disturbing that the committee reported this out without at least having a hearing to consider some of the alternatives."
Not only do they want the same taxpayers who pay for the prosecution of these people they also have the ablility to resue the same people after the DoJ is done with them.
This isn't a deterrent... It's just going to piss everyone off.
Re:Double fucked... (Score:4, Informative)
" nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"
Your money is neither your life nor your limb. Like it or not Double Jeopardy is only for criminal prosecution.
LK
Re:Double fucked... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double fucked... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that argument is constitutionally unsound, and is exactly the kind of thing the Double Jeapordy clause is meant to guard against. If the prosecution doesn't like the venue, they can argue for a change of venue, but they don't get to go for a second round by just going to a different level of gover
Time to call your Congress Critter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to call your Congress Critter (Score:3, Funny)
burden of proof differs... (Score:5, Interesting)
a criminal suit is beyond reasonable doubt.
civil suit is *much* easier to 'win'
that's how the bastar^h^h^h^hlawyers are getting rich...
Re:burden of proof differs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:burden of proof differs... (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look here [gigalaw.com].
So that is a minimum of $750 for every instance of infringment, even if it was not willful (i.e. even if you did not realise that you were infringing). That should give you some idea of why the people getting sued by the RIAA are all caving so easily. Even at $750 per mp3 (if they are lucky) the statutory damages can add up real fast.
So, this is saying... (Score:5, Interesting)
Arrr! (Score:5, Funny)
"Pirate Act" to be highly inaccurate.
It's copyright infringement.
Piracy is a different matter altogether.
Anybody can download a song, but it takes
quite a bit more daring to pilage at a professional
level.
Arrr.
Re:Arrr! (Score:3, Funny)
quite a bit more daring to pilage at a professional
level.
They all end up in elected government offices.
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Great, MORE laws (Score:5, Insightful)
This should *clearly* be left a civil matter. Stealing is already illegal. Piracy is already illegal. It should NOT be a federal offence to share a file, even if it is copyrighted. There are plenty of civil remidies for copyright holders already.
From causal perusal, and IANAL, at least 30% of the US code should be ditched. There's a lot of redundant, unenforcable bloatlaw in there.
Re:Great, MORE laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... Well there are a lot of people who think that copyright is doomed because in this digital age there is no way to stop copyright infringement. But isn't that just another way of saying that there are no effective remedies for copyright holders?
I think it would be more plausible to argue that this new measure will be just as futile as existing measures, rather than trying to argue that existing measures are already effective.
There's
Was this from the Onion?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the members of the RIAA are just too broke to file their own lawsuits.
And if these civil suits are so easy to win, then why are the RIAA not filing them. It sounds like easy money to me. Heck, suing filesharers could become a new business model.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a more reasonable deterrent (Score:4, Insightful)
It would stop the record industry looking like violent thugs, and people who genuinely feel they've been wronfully accused wouldn't have too much to lose if they wanted to challenge this. The record companies are not doing their cause a lot of good with aggressive penalties against ordinary members of the public.
Oh, Orrin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea. because that's what our court system needs (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile we are hard pressed to give rape & murder cases adequate attention.
On the other hand, guess all those new lawyers need something to do.
More Gvmt Spending - What does the taxpayer get? (Score:5, Interesting)
Question About the RIAA Lawsuits (Score:5, Interesting)
My business plan (Score:5, Funny)
2. Become president of the SIAA (Software Inudstry Association of America).
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
I think #3 has something to do with lawsuits...
Re:My business plan (Score:3, Informative)
1. Convince all the software manufacturers in the country that they need someone to manage their industry.
We already have the BSA [bsa.org] to take care of this...Oh Wonderful =\ (Score:4, Interesting)
For a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove to a jury that you stole music beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil trial, all you have to prove is that it's possible and probable that you did it.
So it's basically taking out all the expenses that a criminal trial would have needed. There's no need to do any computer forensics, deep investigating, etc. All they would need to do (basically) is get your ISP records and show you have used *file sharing program*.
So it's very possible that you might have installed Kazaa, et al, to download a new game demo, OSS, independent 'free' music, etc - but if you have a NOFX mp3 on your drive that alone is enough to get some money out of you. If this thing flies, I fear the power RIAA will have. They will truly become a company to fear.
Re:Oh Wonderful =\ (Score:3, Interesting)
Virginia Slashdotters... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.house.gov/boucher/
(Having been raised Mormon, I also have a lot of other reasons to bitch about Hatch, but I'll save that for later. That whole state is run by asshats.)
Have you contacted your senator? (Score:3, Insightful)
PRON (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PRON (Score:3, Insightful)
The porn industry understan
1000th post, write to your Senators (Score:3, Interesting)
So anyway, if you're in the U.S., write to your Senators. Tell them about your concerns about having your taxes spent on government officials pursuing civil suits on behalf of the RIAA. Point out the unconstitutionality of double jeopardy.
And while we're talking about senators, does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have senators in federal congress be the party leaders from the state congress? That would be a big step in going back to a republic of states (Assuming you're a propponent of states rights). It'd be kinda neat to replace the house that way too, but I can't think of a good way to do it with the current representation by population that we currently have in the house (which I think is a good thing). Something where voters elect our state government, and the president, and the federal congressional reps are a subset of the elected state reps. I think that would be really cool.
We need Falafel (Score:5, Funny)
Federal Assistance for Limiting the use of Acronyms For Evil Legislation.
And so we move to anonymous networks... eg.FreeNet (Score:5, Informative)
And there we go again... Apart from the fact that I find the influence that big industries have on the justice system in the US nauseating, the music industry seems to think that it can "stop" swapping in any way. This is typical black and white thinking
What is actually happening here is that the "system" (in this case the swappers and the music industry together) shift to a new equilibrium location, where the trade-off between speed and ease-of-use on the one hand, and speed on the other hand, is optimal for the given situation on the legal battle-field.
First we had Napster: very easy to use, but having the flaw of a single point of failure. Then we had the FastTrack and Gnutella networks (think KaZaa and LimeWire here): good bandwidth, but no anonymity at all, but at least without the need for a single point of failure. Then came eDonkey and his friends: less bandwidth, more obfuscation. A step further along the line lies FreeNet: anonimity beyond reasonable doubt, but a slow network and it's hard to find things. In the future, the balance might shift even further to the side of obfuscation, encryption and low bandwidth.
Now before you start yelling: "But FreeNet doesn't work!". Think again: Since about mid-May, it works well again! Try it!
So: go to their website [freenetproject.org] and download that client! Happy browsing!
Re:And so we move to anonymous networks... eg.Free (Score:3, Interesting)
All you need to do in a civil trial is prove that it's probable that the person commited an illegal act. So if it's possible to prove that FreeNet is mostly used for pirating copyrighted works, and that someone has used FreeNet to transfer xMB worth of material, wouldn't it be possible to sue them in a civil suit?
I'm not sure FreeNet is really a 100% safe solution. Simply using it may be enough to allow you to be sued for
Freenet (Score:3, Interesting)
Freenet is an encrypted P2P network where information is not stored at fixed locations: nodes exchange "keys" (information bits) all the time, and in this way "popular" information stays alive while non-used information gradually fades away.
Since every connection between a different pair of nodes is encrypted using different keys, it would be very hard to use traffic-analysis to find out what somebody is sending. To make matters even better: even you don't know what your node stores; it's all encrypted. T
Looks like the US Government... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they have anything better to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, first Ashcroft wants to tackle porn (link [slashdot.org]), then they want the DOJ to go after file swappers?
This is one of the biggest reasons Bush's continued 9/11 references make me ill. I could deal with it if they were actually working to fight terror. Instead, every time somebody waves the bloody shirt, all we get is some tired propaganda for drilling in the Arctic, a Federal Marriage Amendment, tax cuts for the wealthy, or some other thing we have to do to keep the terrorists from winning. Meanwhile, Homeland Security isn't getting the funds it needs for simple, basic port (seaport, not computer port) scanners: link [businessweek.com] (found on Instapundit [instapundit.com]).
I'm a hawk on security, folks. A hard-core, let's get them before they get us, serious hawk. And I'm voting against Bush and his idiots for precisely that reason.
(Sorry for the rant, but I just couldn't take it any more. Feel free to mod this down.)
Ammend the constitution or... (Score:4, Interesting)
For all those people posting copyrighted material that they know full well is illegal to post which alternative is better? Criminal prosecution or civil liability? I think this makes the punishment far closer fit the crime.
Why Justice? Because that's the law enforcement arm of the federal government. This is an improvement to the NET act, not an extension.
The point of this is (Score:3, Insightful)
American Whoredom (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that conservatives stop being conservative when large corporations want things to go their way in defiance of the wishes of the marketplace (such as file sharing)? Someone help me out here.
Re:American Whoredom - False Assumptions (Score:4, Informative)
1. Republicans are for less government.
Regan authorized spending on an A$$LOAD of money in the 80's. Remember, Congress spends money, the President just authorizes it. Heck, just about every Republican president in the last 30 years spent more money than the last.
2. Democrats are for corporate responsibility
Except for those companies who pay their bills. The Pirate Act is sponsored by Patrick Leahy (D. VT)
It's simple, if you want less government control:
http://www.lp.org/
If you want more,
http://www.gp.org/
http://sp-usa.org/
(T
Re:American Whoredom - False Assumptions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:American Whoredom (Score:3, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to conservatives isnt the 'invisible hand' of competition supposed to be a self-regulating force that works best without government intervention?
No that's liberalism a philosophy that seemed radical in the eighteenth century and so was mindlessly opposed by the conservatives of the period. Now in the early twentyfirst century such nonsense is just tired old dogma and part of the dominant ideology which means it is fervently and mindlessly promoted by the conservati
priority multitasking and limited resource use. (Score:3, Interesting)
More pain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of innovating past these problems the record label's are effectively allowing the state to mantain their monopoly for them... expect more legislation and more erosion of civil rights just to keep them fat and happy...
DOJ Brings the Suit, Keeps the Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't make sense? Neither does someone other than the copyright holder initiating the civil suit. The damaged party should seek its own reparations.
Scarcasm, Denial, Indifference, Despair, Anger (Score:5, Insightful)
*looks around*
I mean it's not like this is a corporate tool to get our tax dollars to work against us.
*cough*
I mean it kinda is, but what can we do.
*wimper*
Yeah it is, damnit, I can't believe this. How can corporations be allowed to do this!?!
*arrrggg*
God damnit this is rediculous. What happened to the Republic that once was!!!
[NO CARRIER]
Today's episode brought to you by the PATRIOT Act, in conjunction with the letters F, U, C, K, E, and D.
Isn't this a good thing? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they're not "going after the actual traders." They're lobbying the Department of Justice to waste taxpayer money going after alleged traders. That's what the fuss is about.
DMCA them (Score:3, Funny)
1- create an encripted P2P network
2- make sure it's easy to decrypt
3- create a user licence saying that if you're DOJ/RIAA/MPAA you can't decrypt
4- wait for them do break in and tap the network
5- sue their ass based on DMCA
6- profit
Re:DMCA them (Score:3, Informative)
Call me a fool for responding here. Maybe you were intending to be silly, and the people who modded you up as Funny saw it right. But, let's be clear: this is a terrible idea.
Even if the network were broken into, the DMCA covers copyright law which is a civil matter. You acknolwedge this by saying 'sue' them. But then you would invite criminal charges being filed against you under the aforementioned NET act. You sue them, they charge you. And, once more, the original copyright owners also still have
Do something productive (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA raises quite a large stink with its inflated numbers and its skewed version of theft and piracy. Practically everyone in the US knows about their fight to stop file sharing.
How many congressmen do you suppose have heard of the RIAA? Great, now how many of those congressmen do you suppose read slashdot?
The problem here is the same problem Linux faces against Microsoft - marketing. We're all pleased that IBM is now marketing linux when the truth is, Linux needs to be marketing itself. We have the same problem here with the RIAA.
We have RIAA lobyists, but who's out there publically lobying against them? So far, all the mainstream voting population has heard is that file trading is evil. They don't know that there IS an alternative to RIAA action. For all they know, thats our justice system at work.
As many readers as slashdot has, or tech-zines or webblogs, what we really need to do is get Average Joe to know what the heck's going on.
Microsoft's already shown us that the quality of a product doesnt matter if you only hear about it form the competetors viewpoint. The same is true of competing ideas.
Potential entrapment situation? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. 'Accidentally' leak your music.
2. Sue everyone who downloads it. The government pays for the lawsuits.
3. Profit!
A letter to my senator (Have you written yet?) (Score:5, Insightful)
I am seriously concerned about S.2237, and the effects that it will have.
Generally, the difference between a Civil action and a Criminal action, besides the level of punishment, is that the Government brings criminal actions (because they are considered offenses against society), and the offended person or persons bring civil actions. S.2237 changes this balance by having the Federal Government bring civil actions in cases where the Federal Government is not the offended party.
This leads to a large inequity here. In criminal cases, government-paid lawyers represent defendants who want but can't afford an attorney. However, parties in civil cases usually have to represent themselves or pay for their own lawyers.
Thus, this bill has the effect of shifting the costs of prosecuting civil cases from the plaintiffs (the RIAA or Copyright holders in this case) to the Federal government, while leaving the costs of defending the cases with the defendent. Besides being inequitable, this also has the appearance of 'Corporate Welfare'.
I am strongly opposed to the passage of this bill, and would ask that you, too, oppose Senate Bill 2237.
Thank you,
Bxxxxx Hxxx
P.S.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE SITUATION THIS BILL ADDRESSES
The prevalence of copyright violations in our current society indicates to me that either the basic law needs re-thinking, or the organizations marketing the products being violated need to re-think their methods of marketing and/or distribution. However, neither of these are sufficient reason (in my opinion) for the federal government to get involved in potentially thousands of enforcement actions against citizens.
As in dozens or hundreds of cases in American history, mass societal 'rebellion' against a set of laws indicates that the law needs to change, not that society needs to increase its enforcement efforts. From Civil Rights to the right for women to smoke, from Women's suffrage to the ability to drive a car without requiring a flagger to walk in front of it, 'mass' rebellion against a law has shown that the law must change, not that the government must more stringently enforce the existing laws.
Currently, those still using the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) exchange sources must (mostly) be conciously choosing to do so, knowing that these actions are in violation of current statutes. Reading in appropriate venues on line, you can find that many have stated that they will continue with this, and boycott purchase of the copyrighted materials until such time as the manufacturers correct their (perceived) inequitable, unfair, and monopolistic practices, and (in some cases) start treating the artists and the public in a fair manner.
Yes, there are millions (estimated) of people using these P2P applications. Currrently, for example it appears that the average number of people connected to the KaZaa network (one of the larger networks) at any one time averages 2 to 3 million, with perhaps as many as 20 million people connecting to it sometime in a month, with indications that this number may be increasing. The question is: What, exactly, does this say?
Surveys of musicians indicate that P2P file sharing has helped more artists than it has hurt. A Pew survey of musicians indicated that 35% felt that file sharing had helped their careers, and 30% felt that it had increased attendance at concerts, as opposed to only 5% who felt that they had been hurt by file sharing.
However, the P2P programs do affect one group directly: The music distributors, members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). These companies cumulatively control the vast majority of the outlets and methods for distributing music... or they did before the internet and P2P applications became prevalent.
From MP3.Com (now a distribution source for independent musicians) to Napster (now a distribution source for some record companies) and KaZaa (still a P2P application/network), the RIAA has had its mon
There's other worms... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this guy who took his "exams" (in quotes because I don't know what to call them) in Germany and "they" pinned him as a fuckup. Well, he moved to the U.S. and became a kick-ass programmer and then a kick-ass C.I.O.!
My point, the European way of doing things has their own set of problems! - as explained by my Irish friend.
Re:Can it be balanced? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, you are missing something - something that many Slashdotters are missing: Cash donations are not what politics and power are all about.
People in power are in power because they know how to manipulate the system. They do favors for each other. You manipulate the system so that my risky investment pays off and I'll do the same for you. They trade favors, not cash.
Sure, they like to talk about campaign reform and limiting cash con