Bush Signs Law Targeting P2P Pirates 727
BlakeCaldwell writes "CNet is reporting that President Bush signed into law the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (previously-reported).
A lawbreaker can land in jail for up to three years for distributing a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet. The MPAA's president Dan Glickman applauded the move, stating he wanted to 'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.'"
Not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Straight from the EFF [eff.org]'s Fred von Lohmann:...And the bottom line from the EFF:
Re:Not that bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
To say this bill could be a whole lot worse doesn't make it a good bill. Duh!
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:2)
I hit send before I was done. I also wondered what constituted a "pre-release" movie. Does this include 'Battlestar Galactica' and other seasons of shows which don't even have an announcement of a release date yet? I'm going to buy that as soon as it comes out on DVD but I'm sick of waiting. I'm hoping this just means movies that haven't hit DVD yet. Once it hits DVD anyone who has friends that buy it can watch it for free anyway.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:5, Informative)
Thus, for a motion picture such as Battlestar Galactica, there is a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution, but it has not been commercially distributed. It has not been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility, however, since the definition for that term is: The term `motion picture exhibition facility' means a movie theater, screening room, or other venue that is being used primarily for the exhibition of a copyrighted motion picture, if such exhibition is open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.
So since only one or the other has to be satisfied, it is a work being prepared for commercial release. Willfully distributing it on a computer network (e.g. Bit Torrent) is a felony and can result in significant civil penalties.
Is it so hard to look at the text of the law in question?
Re:Not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is now a demonstrable, real need for networks where *all* activities are double blind encrypted transactions through an arbitrary, configurable number of intermediaries who can *prove* they dont know who is sending them data or what data they are handling.
A network such as this clearly falls under the fair use statues as a way to maintain secure person to person communication and confidential file sharing (ala PGP et al), and if it is constructed in such a way that only request originators and suppliers *can* know what they are using the network for yet still cannot know *who* they are doing it with, it would more than satisfy legal concerns such as providing plausible deniability.
Therefore 'sharers' and 'users' can still be caught but only through fairly onerous chores like monitoring thier personal computers during use to see exactly what they are sharing or downloading. This is much more analogous to conventional law enforcement techniques for doing video surveillance and audio monitoring - an agent basically has to get a warrant *with probable cause* to initiate any of these activities, and it is not clear to me that data transactions deserve any less legal protection.
So, to end this somewhat rant like spiel, it is clear that this kind of legislation may be a net *good* for the community in that it forces us to develop a better peered infrastructure simply to maintain our fair use rights.
Heck, i might have to buckle down and give something back to the open source community and the internet community at large at long last myself.
Now if someone would just pay me and my crew our cost of living expenses for as long as it would take to build a network of this sort, or even better if a non profit foundation or relatively wealthy private benefactor would post a bounty ala the "XPrize" with well defined acceptance criteria for such a network (double blind, multiple stops, no scaling issues, configurable encryption levels, automated discovery, etc) I would be able to convince a serious crew to do this now (and we would even donate the resulting IP to the sponsoring org or the open source community - which now that i think about it would be a nice prize requirement) rather than working on other stuff to get paid and pursuing this sort of thing as a hobby.
Seriously interested parties feel free to contact me at zuz(del)ulo at g(del)mail (del). com. I have been thinking somewhat seriously about the algorithmic side of this for quite some time. On the whole, however, it is pretty clear to me that community forces will force the evolution of something with these characteristics, most likely within the next 24 months or so.
Did somebody say anonymity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but not for the reason you probably think.
Civilly, copyright is a strict liability statute. Thus, if you engage in infringing conduct, you have broken the law. It does not matter at all what your intent was. Even if you do not actually believe that you are engaging in prohibited conduct, and it is not even reasonable for you to believe that you are engaging in prohibited conduct, if you do it, you're an infringer.
Your mental state generally only has an affect on the damages you have to pay.
Criminally, willfulness is required, which is a fairly moderate standard. However, IMO unless you honestly have a credible, though erroneous belief in the non-infringing nature of your actions, you're likely to be considered to be a willful infringer. Most of the beliefs about what is and isn't infringement that I see around here probably fall on the non-credible side of the line. Additionally, some courts may simply decide that if the action was undertaken willfully, that is sufficient, even if there was no willful intent to infringe.
So your proposal doesn't help people to not commit crimes. If they take some infringing action even with regards to encrypted data they don't know the contents of, then they are probably still criminal infringers. After all, courts do not look favorably on the concept of willful blindness, which is basically what you propose.
What you're really doing is making it difficult to get caught at these crimes, which is a different proposition. It's sort of the difference between how one could avoid a murder conviction by either a) not murdering people, or b) making sure to not leave any evidence behind that points to oneself.
A network such as this clearly falls under the fair use statues as a way to maintain secure person to person communication and confidential file sharing (ala PGP et al), and if it is constructed in such a way that only request originators and suppliers *can* know what they are using the network for yet still cannot know *who* they are doing it with, it would more than satisfy legal concerns such as providing plausible deniability.
Like I said, plausible deniability is a really bad thing to rely on; courts simply do not like it, and if you make the attempt, you can probably rely on them to not be friendly should you need to rely on them to be voluntarily lenient.
Also, fair use is only in one statute, and it has nothing to do with what you propose. As for technology providers, they would be relying on the current formulation of contributory and vicarious liability (read the Sony and Napster cases for more on that, particularly Napster as a cautionary example) to avoid liability themselves.
However, the Supreme Court is at this moment reconsidering the Sony precedent, and there is a very real possibility that the creators or providers of a network as you envision could end up being liable for its use since despite it having many possible uses, it's also practically intended for an illegal one. It doesn't help that you just underlined that with your post here in a public forum, should it be you that faces future legal action. We'll know how this shakes out in the summer, when the Grokster opinion is issued.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
Technology tends to evolve in the directions that our culture desires. It is clear that our culture desires that there exist some avenue for *truly* anonymous conversation and data transfer. Our laws are quite clear that this desire is one supported by historical and legal precedent, and is moreover almost a fundamental axiom of american society.
Therefore, since the development of a cryptographically secure anonymous network is technically feasible, it is very likely to c
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:3, Funny)
Know what I find offensive?
FBI warnings, MPAA "messages" and commercials on DVDs that I cannot skip or circumvent. Now THAT's offensive.
Using this law, we might be able to get user restrictions removed from DVDs.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have also watched hundreds of movies where sombody got their throat cut, but it did not explicitly depict the gushing blood, the cutee's bubbling, burbling, rasping sounds as he tried to breathe through a severed esophogus and inhaled his own blood, but the entertainment value was not diminished.
So, if these scenes were ed
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of what an artist (in this case, the Director, Producer, Writer, Actors, Editor, etc.) tries to do with his or her medium, is to convey information. Some of the information is logic (story), some is emotional. (in fact, Aristotle said that it's best to make arguments using three elements together: logos, ethos, and pathos - logic, ethics, and emotion).
So while some people don't require more than a subtle implied sexual encounter, others are less sensitive, or maybe the artist wants to dial-up the emotional impact a notch or two for dramatic effect.
Who the FUCK are YOU, to say that an artist can not use his or her medium in this way?
You are a paying customer. So when material is too explicit for your tastes, simple; don't pay for that material. Don't watch. 'k?
Yes, it's true that there are hacks out there (probably 99% of the movie industry) who abuse this freedom, because, frankly, sex sells. Also, there's simply a style in moviemaking in our contemporary era, that calls for such intensity of explicitness, or pathos, (similar to the 19th century Fauvists painters use of intense color and crude shapes). Maybe a decade or two from now, that style may change, or not, depending on the tastes of the audience, and how strongly the market is controlled by government/religious regulation.
It could be said that the current "style" of moviemaking is driven by market demand. And that demand, is shaped, in part, by a social backlash to religious repression of sexuality, dating back to your cited "golden age" of classic cinema.
I posit that without such repression, people, in general, will see such explicitness, and eventually get sick of it, and the demand for that style will change, to something else.
I would like to see that happen. As a market response to a supply of material that's over-saturated in explicitness.
But the more folks like James Dobson, Michael Powell, and yourself, try to tell people what they can (or should) or can not (or should not) see, or create, the more people will want to see, or create those things.
I want to see good moviemaking, and more emphasis on subtlety, and logos and ethos, and less emphasis on pathos, as well.
But I'm voting with my dollars. I don't think that government or church should intervene in this market, other than to break industry dominance by the few players, both in production and distribution.
If the market is freed, demand will drive the next evolution in cinema. (and not, as Lucas and his ilk wants us to believe, technology - technology could make it possible to break the screwed up over-consolidated market, but it's not going to do anything to change demand-driven stylistic content - who here is sick of "good eye-candy, crappy story" movies? raise your hand.
Re:Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
My point exactly. Would a graphic sex scene have mad Love Story a better movie? No. In fact, it would have been a distraction from the theme and message.
Would explicit special effects of Hunphrey Bogart's character getting decapitated with a machete have made Treasure of the Sierra Madre a better movie? No. (Actually, there was a scene that showed the character's decapitated head, but it was
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if my DVD has scratches and cannot play a certain chapter, so I skip it?
What if I close my eyes during a pivotal moment of the film?
What if I watch a "modified for public broadcast" version of the film, with major scenes/language/etc. cut out?
What if I watch a movie halfway through, then shut it off because it's crap (*cough*Butterfly Effect*cough*)?
Gimme a break.
You also argue that you won't know what's been removed-- I beg to differ. See, they'll still be releasing/making the regular DVDs, VHSs, etc.. and I'm sure there will be information somewhere about what was removed or questionable; if not by this company than by the numerous other websites on the internet that detail film gore/language/sexuality.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:2, Funny)
Personally, I think it's vaporware, and clearly not open-source.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:2)
This kind of techinque to get laws passed doesn't go over well with most of us. Its like those gun legislation bills that start out quite good, but then are amended to death with loads of pork and turn in to shit legislation.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
My concern with the bill is the sections regarding commercial content. You can skip things that are offensive to you but not ads? What about the paid placement of Marlboro ads in Superman II? Would skipping that be illegal still?
In any case it is interesting to see how the responses by the Slashbots vary depending on how the headline is written. When these services are mentioned as "censorship" everybody goes nuts about how evil they are. When the story is posted as being about giving you more "freedom" the same idiots praise it. It would be interesting to compare the last few Clearplay/Cleanflicks stories and look for inconsistencies in the attitudes of individual posters based on the headlines.
Sheep! All of them!
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Informative)
No. I just don't think it warrants a possible prison sentence of 3 years.
You can skip things that are offensive to you but not ads?
Ads are offensive to me; problem solved.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:2)
Is there a legitimate need for "release dates"? Epecially having different ones according to geography. What's so difficult about just realeasing the movie when it is finished?
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Make sure you keep track of who is commenting, and of whether each individual's comment is "positive" or "negative". I suspect that there is an explanation other than just herd mentality. (Though that probably is a factor in some cases.)
I suspect that most of the people that comment, or at least that start longer threads of comment, are people that feel strongly one way or the other. And depending on the wording of the headline, you may be inspired to comment or you may not, depending on which side of the fence you're on.
Me, there are two things that most often inspire me to comment: If I am upset in some way by the post or article itself, or if I am upset in some way by a comment in the discussion thread. "Hear, hear!" type posts don't contribute much unless they are long on explanation, and I seldom check a thread before one of those is up already, so I don't usually bother. The remaining portion of my posts are inspired by a void of information in an article or a comment that I feel I can fill.
As far as this specific issue is concerned, no it's not ideal. I still hope for copyright lifetimes to be reformed someday. I still think it's kind of retarded that ads can't be skipped. (I do understand the motivation--if ads can be skipped, advertisers are literally throwing money away for those people--but personally, I think that's part of the risk of doing business.) I also think that the 3-year jail sentence is ridiculous. To put it in perspective, what's your state's normal sentence for a drunk driver? Ours is less than 3 years, I can tell you that. And I think drunk driving is a heckuva lot worse than selling a prerelease movie.
But it could have been worse. Recent efforts at undermining all P2P activity have failed. Universities don't need to release the identity of students on their networks to the **AA lawyers. And so on.
We won some battles and we lost some on this bill. But there is yet hope to win the war.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that three years in jail is harsh, and probably out of line when compared to drunk driving. I would guess that on your first offense the judge isn't likely to send you to prison for three years. What would you suggest is an appropriate punishme
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course there isn't. And the people who do it are assholes catering to pathetic little losers with no patience and/or willingness to pay people for what they create.
But you shouldn't go to jail for being an asshole.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet after 229 years of lobbying Congress the flesh and blood people of this fine country and losing their rights sliver by sliver to those "people" created out of paper and ink.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that bad... (Score:2)
False advertisement isn't that big a crime, but extortion and perjury sure is.
If people started actually suing them for unlawful threats, we could get something done. Of course, it would take a lot of organizing work to pull something like this.
Re:Not that bad... (Score:2)
For political kudos they are only going to cut off your left toes. At least this year, next year they are working of a way to cut both your legs off at the knee.
In soviet russia... (Score:5, Funny)
New name for law... (Score:5, Funny)
"We here at the FBI take FECAL matters very seriously, and Jimmy here is in way over his head."
Funny that they stress "Family Entertainment". (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Funny that they stress "Family Entertainment". (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, maybe the bill is self-referencial and the whole process of trying to stop people from sharing or distributing by threats is entertaintment for the whole family.
How about I plant copies of a pre-release on somebody's computer the let the feds come and jail him for 3 years? Don't like your neighbour -put the latest peace of crap from Hollywood in the shares on his windows 98 machine and watch him burn. Can you imagine going to jail for distributing "Big Momma's House" - fun times!
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Funny that they stress "Family Entertainment". (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the key, you see. Cunning use of bills.
As you say, putting 'family' in the name is good. Or perhaps you might slip something evil in with something good. Perhaps it's a 'perverted arts' amendment into the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield. You vote for it? Next election campaign, "he voted for government money for perverts!" You vote against it? Next election campaign, "he voted against the evacuation!" Better yet, if you then remove the evil amendment and have the vote again... Next election campaign, "he flip-flops!"
Ah, the joys of governmental corruption ;-)
Re:Funny that they stress "Family Entertainment". (Score:3, Funny)
Oh he thanked them alright. (Score:2, Insightful)
And they would like to thank the MPAA for their contribution.
the word sponsor just leaves a bad taste.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just can't understand how "buying" laws is considered perfectly natural and good legislation... (I know that's not exactly the context the word was used in, but still)
Re:the word sponsor just leaves a bad taste.... (Score:5, Funny)
The one who has the Gold makes the Rules
Just like in France... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the word sponsor just leaves a bad taste.... (Score:3, Informative)
irony (Score:5, Funny)
The story says it all (Score:5, Interesting)
With everything going on today we're going to hunt down... filesharers? And sentence them like they've committed assault. Right.
The guiding hand of corporate bribes, excuse me, contributions, was never more obvious.
Re:The story says it all (Score:2)
lets hunt (Score:5, Insightful)
might as well add the pastors children to the list too.
The only way I can see the stop laws like this is to send the ruling class's children to prison.
Nice knowing you guys (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* I knew I'd have to do this sooner or later. (Score:2, Funny)
Wait for "The list to be populated"
Click "Remove" next to "eMule, used Frequently"
"Are you sure you want to uninstall eMule?
*sigh* "Yes"
Remember kids, when you use P2P, you're supporting terrorists, and because of that, using P2P will get you shipped to Syria where a confession will be tortured out of you, and then you'll be imprisoned without trial or access to a lawyer until such time as Democrats seize control of the government.
Re:*sigh* I knew I'd have to do this sooner or lat (Score:3, Insightful)
Which probably won't result in any more than cosmetic changes. If you have only two political parties it's quite cheap for special interests to buy both of them.
American Law, got to love it (Score:4, Insightful)
In the meantime lets let convicted murders get out on "good behavior" so they can get another shot and killing someone else.
Lets send rapests to see a shrink who can claim they are now safe for the world again.
Lets focus on every stupid little thing that happens EXCEPT the things that harm and affect us the most!!!
Cause gosh darn it I don't ever want to walk pass some "Axis of Evil" P2P criminal on the streets, the pure inhumanity of it all.
Re:American Law, got to love it (Score:2)
P2P is being punished so harshly because doing so protects the interests of big business.
Here's the skinny:
The wealthy don't care about the crimes that impact predominately middle and lower class people. They don't care about white collar crime because most of the time, it's the government or the Middle or Lower classes that end up taking the financial hit. (Enron for example)
P2P however is something that the wealthy can't let stand. The lower and Middle classes have the chan
Re:American Law, got to love it (Score:3, Insightful)
The loss of our bread and circuses.
While many of the ultra wealthy would love to destroy the Middle Class, it's an amazing stabilizing influence. Everyone in it is highly unlikely to rise up against the government in any dangerous way. How many suicide bombers have season tickets, a three bedroom house and a mortgage?
It also provides a means for the masses to channel our energy into financial and ec
Re:American Law, got to love it (Score:2)
Sad but true.
The truth about American Law (Score:3, Interesting)
The number of federal inmates on death row is 37, Federal Death Roll Inmates [deathpenaltyinfo.org], the number in Texas alone, 447. Death Roll Inmates By State [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
When the Feds do become involved, the sentences are rarely lightweight and the prospects for early release are negligible. California man sentenced to 30 years in sex case [soc-um.org]
The rest... of the story. (Score:3, Insightful)
Glickman later added that he would like to apologize to those same congressional sponsors, as their seven figure checks will be delayed for up to two days.
Good Government (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good Government (Score:3, Interesting)
Time Shift? (Score:5, Interesting)
a. Criminal Infringement
1. IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed:
C. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
So much for distribution of television shows online. Almost all of them will eventually release a DVD of the series (commercial distribution) therefore anyone posting last nights tv show as a torrent will be a criminal.
Re:Time Shift? (Score:5, Informative)
It also reasons that if I run an FTP server and password protect it (jim:jim), then it isn't "accessible to members of the public".
lets get drunk and drive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to MegaCorp, where we make the rules, and frankly, human life is far less important than our profits.
Arrest the First Criminal (Score:5, Interesting)
What A Cheap Shot (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Zonk, can you cite anybody in the Administration who has said that enforcement of IP laws is part of the War on Terror?
No, I didn't think so. So why the cheap shot connecting the two? It's funny how slashbots talk out of both sides of their mouths, that the technology shouldn't be procescuted, it should be the violators. Now the violators are being targeted, you guys still whine about...something.
Downloading OK? (Score:2)
Thank god! (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
>50.000 for every shared file, in claims against
>file sharers?
Yes, that is due to todays high speed DVD players which can stearm data that is the equivalency to watching 1000 divx movies in the time you watch a typical movie! It is all MPAA math!
They must have solved all the other problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They must have solved all the other problems (Score:3, Insightful)
What?! (Score:2)
The same law allows ClearPlay to edit hollywood movies against the creators' wishes. Despite the hype to the contrary, it does NOT allow consumers to rip and edit movies. That'd violate the DMCA!
How is allowing corporations to edit movies a "strong advocacy" of property rights?!
Family Movie Act Embedded in Legislation (Score:4, Interesting)
This piece of legislation has a particularly interesting act in it called the Family Movie Act [google.com]. The legislation allows companies to market filters and equipment to skip over parts of a DVD. The idea is that people who don't care to see the more raunchy side of Hollywood can skip the profanity and sex. (Yes, I don't want the profanity and sex in the movies that I watch. I've heard all of the jokes, so let the rants begin.)
This part of the legislation was promoted by ClearPlay [clearplay.com], a company that distributes filters and DVD players that can utilize the filters.
Not only do I like the ability to skip the raunchy stuff, but I like the fact that this promotes the idea that people can have control over the content that they pay to license. Hollywood considers the filters to be an "edit" of the original movie, but since the original DVD isn't altered, I don't see any difference between this and manually skipping content. It empowers the user and I like that. The implications are broader than just "Family Friendly Movies."
Slashdot Editorial Spin (Score:2, Insightful)
The original story led with a headline covering the aspects of the bill that make it explicitly legal to *filter* DVD content, certainly a positive side to this legislation for the tech industry and fair use. Apparently, that headline wasn't sexy enough, though, so they pulled the story and resubmitted it as yet another whine ab
Skewed Justice (Score:3, Insightful)
What scares me here is the absolute disparity (right word?) between the punishment of virtual-space crimes versus violent, sexual and other more "real" crimes.
When you see murderers/rapists/etc walk free 12 months after their committal to jail and yet people can get 3 years for file-sharing... wow, I'm disturbed.
I think it's time more people in congress suffered to violent crime.
Re:Skewed Justice (Score:2, Insightful)
as sad as that statement is i feel the same way. i'd like to see some right wings congressmen get shafted by bubba. you can't possibly argue that you are more emotionally damaged by someone downloading your song, then getting raped.
i'm just waiting for the time when some militia group takes over the gov and sets things right.
Re:Skewed Justice (Score:3, Interesting)
shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both;
Even assuming someone was sentenced to the full 3 years (at which case the murder-filesharer analogy breakes down) unless they tried to escape or do something else monumentally stupid, they'd get out early, also. On top of that, I'd bet 90%+ of
Take a look at the whole bill... (Score:2, Insightful)
Back when DVDs first came out, this was supposedly one of the big "features" that the industry was touting: the ability to select a G, PG, PG-13 or R rating for the movie. So far, Hollywood has never delivered on that. Then, when a compa
myoptic leaders who hail from rich families (Score:2, Interesting)
but if you duplicate binary bits that happen to form images when passed through an appropriate transmogrifier you go to jail for 3 years.
both sides now (Score:2)
Can't they take a hint? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can we stop using the word "pirates"? (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill is not targeting "p2p pirates," but rather people who put movies up for download before release (which, really, they should be hunting down the people who got access to the movies in the first place). Calling them pirates implicity plays into the ??AA's game of criminalizing anything that doesn't net them a profit.
This is the beginning of a moral right (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for abolishing copyright as applied to published works, but unpublished works are the only true 'intellectual property'.
If it's unpublished, it remains property. Once published, it belongs to the people and enters the public domain.
The archaic 'copyright incentive' was only a sweetener that granted a publication monopoly for a limited time. It's time that ended (at least on the Internet).
So, yes, if the IP is unpublished and under lock and key, then anyone who steals it and publishes it is a criminal of the first order. Although, someone who privately distributes something under NDA to 50,000 conference delegates does not really deserve as much damages as a movie company who has distributed a DVD to 50 reviewers.
ebay? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you start dressing in sackcloth and ashes over Bush's signing of this bill, first ask yourself if your own representatives or senators voted for it. The reason we're in this mess is because people like you find it easier to blame the big guy on national television instead of little guy who only makes your state and local newspapers.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FECA is now L ? (Score:2)
-WS
Re:Not just Americans (Score:5, Informative)
Extradition doesn't mean you enforce foreign law on your citizens, it means you agree to repatriate foreign countries' citizens if they're wanted by the courts.
Re:Not just Americans (Score:2)
Re:Not just Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not just Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that US law most definitly does not apply to the people kidnaapped to Cuba. Effectivly the people held in Guantanamo Bay appear to be held somewhere where their kidnappers are not subject to any country's laws.
Re:Not just Americans (Score:2)
So if you trade with an American you can expect a free holiday in an American prison. I don't know about that though it's possible. However, realize that enough "extraditions" will probably have the effect of boosting anti-American sentiment in other countries, and if the government is seen as pro-American, I'd say this m
Re:Not just Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolute Bollocks.
Extradition laws apply only to laws which are punishable with jail sentences > 1 year in both countries. Generally this means serious offences like murder, abduction etc.
Now, once the UK starts banging people up for swapping movies you may have a point...
Re:Not just Americans (Score:2)
Not so, most extradition treaties stipulate that the crime you are extradited for, is actually a crime on your home country. In fact, some requests made by the USA for extraditions from the Netherlands, for something that is a crime in both countries, have been denied by Dutch courts, on the grounds that the punishment in
Re:Not just Americans (Score:2)
Umm, no. The UK-US Extradition Treaty defines an extraditable offense as one which is a crime in both places. As long as this is legal in the UK, or does not qualify as a felony in the UK(as this now does in the USA), you cannot be extradited.
Re:Not just Americans (Score:2, Offtopic)
There is SO MUCH bullshit floating around in this thread.
Even countries that have an extradition treaty do not extradite for every offense! They also have the right to impose conditions. For example, Canada will not agree to extraditing p
Re:Quote from Alpha Centauri (Score:4, Informative)
For in his heart, he imagines himself your master. A lesson the Americans learned very painfully in Earth's final century, but incorrectly attributed; it was UN Commissioner Lal who said that.
Re:Quote from Alpha Centauri (Score:4, Informative)
Re:last time i checked.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even that. The Corporations doing the lobbying are only a tiny minority of those which exist. It's probably closer to the truth to say that the US is being run by professional lobbyests. Who represent the interests of a few corporations, organised crime, nutcases and possibly even foreign governments.