Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Infringement In the News
Lots of newsbits about copyright infringement today - let's mash them all together with some egg whites and breadcrumbs and see what we get. marklyon writes "The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act. John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, made the pronouncement at the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual technology and politics summit Tuesday. Cnet has extended coverage." Reader M_Talon writes "According to this article on ZDNET the RIAA is using one of the DMCA's more nasty clauses...the right to subpoena an ISP for a suspected pirate's personal information. They want to force Verizon to reveal the customer's information, and Verizon is refusing on the grounds that the pirated material isn't on their servers." Reader MattW writes "Apparently some theaters are consenting to run anti-piracy ads before movies. After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year,
right?" Finally, the Washington Post (probably one of the last articles we post from their site, as they go registration-required) discovers spoofed files on Gnutella, and public radio is reporting that the RIAA will drop their suit against listen4ever.com, since it's, uh, gone.
Doesn't seem to stop Slashdot from continually posting links to the New York Times.
is usenet the solution to p2p networks? shhhh, but why aren't the RIAA and MPAA going after giganews, easynews, etc?
Anything you say will be held against you.
The majority of Americans want to free music. They want to share.
The majority of Americans do not see digital piracy as theft. The majority of Americans also do not see picking flowers at a public park as theft, or sneaking a grape at the supermarket. The majority of Americans drank alcohol before the legal age. Technically, we should all be in prison, but these minor crimes don't really hurt anybody, and so they are overlooked. Why, then, is the DOJ going after file sharers?
Isn't this a fucking democracy? Why is the majority submitting to laws made by the whims of the same companies that release O-Town records and other toxins into the environment? Why am I the only one sending daily letters to his Senator, that Clinton bitch, begging for support for our digital lifestyle?
I don't want to go to jail for pirating the new Pearl Jam or Queens of the Stone Age albums. I bought them anyway, but since I didn't clean them from my WinMX serving directory, i'm technically abetting piracy. This laxness could get me 5 years in a federal "pump me in the ass" prison, and that is wrong. I don't think I deserve it. I don't think my crime is that bad. I don't think that I'm depriving anyone of actual property or actual money they might have actually made, and I don't think the majority would argue with me.
So why are we letting it happen?
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"The really scary thing is that these are (suppositely) smart, educated people. Why then do they act like a bunch of scared school children then? I just don't get it. Will someone please explain it to me - like I was a six year old?" They have a monopoloy and it was never threatened with significant change until the internet became popular. They are trying to use the approach of using a gun to kill a fly (or maybe a piano?). To sum it up: Its all about control and dominance. I really do hope to see some backlash from major ISPs.
This quote from the anti-piracy PSAs in movie theatres article is way to save the children for my taste:
"downloading movies instead of buying a ticket or a video would hurt the industry's behind-the-scenes workers, including makeup artists and custodians"
Now I am not advocating theft of their property - what I am upset about is the rampant attempts by media to skew your opinions on a subject with emotional connections. Iknow I know... its *always* been happening - but these days it is so much worse than it ever was before - as the causes that the media is used to convey information for are more and more plastic and manufactured.
the media is continually trying to sway public opinion through emotional manipulation. Putting you in a position where if you dont agree with the opinion or dont have the emotions they want you to then you're automatically a terrorist - or hate the children etc....
(I know I am not articulating this as well as I would like... but I think that you get the point) I am just so tired of the slant that is put on all the information out there. Is there no place that I can get information - generic and straight forward without the emotinal buzzwords and hyperbole??
Was anyone else a little miffed at the chart to the right of the Washington Post article which seemed to imply that increasing blank CD sales were the cause of the leveling off of CD sales? Could it *possibly* be that blank CD sales rose so much higher because blank CD's were being sold at commodity prices? Now a good number of those blanks may very well have been for pirating, but I'll bet a good number of them were for software backups, saving personal photos, and other legitimate uses.
Music CD's, OTOH, have remained at the same stinking price (for the most part) for the last 5 years. Want to sell more of something when the demand/market share ISN'T increasing? Do you want to actually slow piracy? Charge a reasonable amount for a product that's in LESS demand! These guys just can't seem to understand that the CD buying market itself is not the same as it was 25 years ago -- thers is just too much supply for the demand.
I know this has been pointed out before, but isn't the whole point that they go after copyright infringers and not the software makers that produce napster and kazaa?
Now, granted, they are doing both. But we can't bitch when the government is going to prosecute the people who are infringing on copyrights. Just because the RIAA is involved, and the term DMCA has been used, does not mean that what is going on is wrong. Say what you will about "but the RIAA is EVIL!", it doesn't make infridging on their copyrights right (as in anywhere close to legal), and they and the justice department has every right to take people who do to court.
Now, you may also have issues about current copyright law. Granted, it isn't very good, but if you want the copyright law changed then bitch about the copyright law to your congressmen or representative. Don't take a stand on this issue, as far as they are concerned everyone who trades music on the net is a criminal, and you can do nothing about that. Convince them that the copyright law is way to long, many of our problems would go away if we could reduce it to something sane like 10-15 years.
And for all of those "we'll make a better system based on trust to trade music files" but don't want to play the political game, you are idiots. Who do you think they are going to prosecute? You and everyone else who uses that system. The only fight we have is in politics, there is no technical solution to this problem. As much as you would like to think you'll win this battle whipping up some code in C, you are going to find there is nothing you can code that will keep the handcuffs off of your hands.
</rant>
" Chernin argued that piracy will not only hurt creators of original content but also consumers if movie studios lose so many ticket sales that they begin cutting expenses. He said online piracy does not seem to have the same stigma as shoplifting.
m l
Chernin also decried efforts to download copies of the latest Star Wars installment. About 10 million people tried to download "Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones" and "Spider-Man" in the weekend after its release, and 4 million succeeded, he said. "
It just struck me as odd that the two movies the guy is talking about made just a little bit of money. from http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-alltime/rank.ht
#5 Spider-Man $403,820,726
#13 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones $298,843,836
where you can get arrested for listening to music.
Is it just me, or has this gone too far. It's time to break out some good old vigilateism on these control freaks. Time to organize.
Gee... Hollywood isn't having a terrible year this year because they release stuff like xXx and Spy Kids 2...nope... it has to be the media pirates...
At different points in the United States, the majority also thought that Women shouldn't be able to vote. Not too long later, a majority of the US thought that segregation was legal, and that discrimination was fine. However, the governemnt stepped in and determined that, in these cases (and many, many more) the majority of the US was wrong. We live in a democracy, but we are not ruled by a mob.
In other words, we listen to the majority but protect the individual from that same majority. We have copyright laws for a good reason, and they should be protected.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
No Electronic Theft Act. Ok.
Here's the definition of theft:
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
Emphasis mine. That should be easy; no file sharing programs remove files from RIAA hard drives. Problem solved!
The most frightening thing about all of this is how the corporate copyright holders are redefining the definitions used in the laws.
It's obvious that these laws were passed with the intent of punishing people who copy and sell copyrighted material for financial gain, meaning money. But they are so scared by Peer to Peer sharing that they have simply redefined "financial gain" to cover any exchange of anything by anybody.
People have a deep urge to share. "I'll give you a copy of mine if you give me a copy of yours" is not motivated by financial gain.
But now a law that was designed to prosecute the guy who runs off a 1000 copies of Photoshop and sells them through the mail is being used to make a criminal out of me, my kids and virtually everybody I know.
The RIAA has bludgeoned its way into a critical issue here. The subpoena provisions only apply to material covered by 17 US 512(c), material on a service provider's system or network at the direction of users. The question, then, is whether or not a system owned by the user of an ISP is on that ISP's network or not.
My take on it is that it's like the phone system; anything upstream of the NIB belongs to the phone company and is on their network, anything downstream is on the user's network. This works for DSL and dialup, and a similar line could be drawn for cable. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that a sufficently incentivized court could decide that by using an ISP, you are putting your computer on THEIR network, and thus 512(c) applies.
This would be very bad, not just because of the subpoena clause. This would allow 512(c) takedown notices of items stored on your own machine. Host your own website with material the RIAA doesn't like? If it's on YOUR network, 512(a) absolutely protects your ISP from any monetary liability regardless of any takedown notices, and against injunctions in most cases. They'd have to sue you directly to get results.
But if the courts rule that your website is on your ISPs network, they can send a 512(c)(3) takedown notice, and your ISP would have to either cut your website off immediately or risk liability.
The labels are also supporting a bill, now under consideration in Congress, that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks, such as LimeWire. That could be done, for example, by overloading file-sharing services with so many requests that they slow to a crawl.
And does Congress realize that this will also affect everyone up and down the line, including the backbones, the ISPs, and other users on the same nodes in cable broadband systems?
After all, these are not a bunch of fat cats we're talking about -- piracy now threatens the livelihood of the rank and file workers of Hollywood. After all, the movie studios are having a terrible year, right?
Yeah! After all, we ALL know that it's OK to steal from people if they have more money than you. The bastards!
If you're going to make a point about whether something is right or wrong, it doesn't help your case to bring out irrelevent facts about how rich someone is. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I guess going after the WorldCom and Enron executives who
....
perpetrated massive fraud and theft on their shareholders,
employees, and customers is just too hard for the DOJ. It's
much easier to surf the internet for tunes, subpoena an ISP for
personal records (thereby avoiding doing any work), and bust a
14 year-old kid who can't afford a new CD since his Dad was
was swindled out of his job and pension by the economic
damage resulting from widespread, unprosecuted corporate fraud.
A troll?
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
"All this smacks of desperation," says Eric Garland, president of BigChampagne, a company hired by major labels to measure online file-sharing traffic. "When you've got a consumer movement of this magnitude, when tens of millions of people say, 'I think CD copying is cool and I'm within my rights to do it,' it gets to the point where you have to say uncle and build a business model around it rather than fight it."
You'd think they'd get it eventually, but I guess some people never will.
This isn't flamebait. I hate the RIAA/MPAA and will continue to do what I can to prevent them from castrating technology to the point where its just another content delivery system.
That being said, is prosectuting end users for copyright violation bad in itself?
The absurd technological measures that they are proposing to "protect" their content will have far reaching and long lasting implication on what we can do with our hardware (whether or not I ever load file sharing software or "consume" any of their content).
Prosecuting someone who shares a bunch of teeny-pop (who is probably a minor) seems to be a much less damaging use of their money.
I honestly have to wonder whether the music industry paid to put propaganda on the front page of The Washington Post, because David Segal has been around long enough to know better than to write a piece like "A New Tactic in the Download War" (8/21/02).
Segal repeatedly points to falling sales of CDs and implies that piracy is the cause:
"The record labels have been spurred to action by figures they find terrifying: The number of 'units shipped' -- CDs sent to record stores or directly to consumers -- fell by more than 6 percent last year, and it's widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002. Those drops are already hitting the industry hard. Labels are laying off employees, ditching artists, slashing budgets for tours and videos, and combing their back catalogues for reissues that cost almost nothing to release."
Yet he neglects to mention that every industry has been hit hard and is laying off people -- even the news media. If CD sales fell 6 percent last year, I'd say the music industry is doing extremely well, because the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell about 9 percent in that same period (including the post-9-11 recovery).
Segal goes on to say sales are "widely expected to fall 6 to 10 percent more by the end of 2002." Guess what? The Dow has fallen over 10 percent since the beginning of the year, on top of last year's 9 percent loss, and the economy is widely expected to get worse. Could it be that people are spending less money on trivial things like CDs because they have less money in their pockets? Or because their retirement savings have been wiped out? We would all like to be patriotic and buy an album a day, but one must have priorities. At least until CDs become edible and wholesome.
"There's evidence, though, that Americans are spending more time than ever listening to CDs," Segal continues.
What is Segal's evidence?
"Market surveys suggest that more blank CDs (CD-Rs) than recorded CDs are now sold in the United States."
Perhaps Segal could explain how an increase in CD-R sales constitutes evidence "that Americans are spending more time than ever listening to CDs."
CD-Rs are also facilitate fair-use activities. The 40-something who has just discovered CD-Rs decides to put his deteriorating record collection on CDs so he can listen to them for years to come. The 20-something creates a custom mix of his favorite songs from several CDs so he doesn't have to take his eyes off the road to change discs on his way to work.
CD-Rs are also used to archive data. We live in an age where the data repositories we depend on, from the computers in our homes to the physical documents in the World Trade Center, are no longer safe. They can disappear in an instant when anything from a software glitch to a terrorist attack occurs. It stands to reason that people look to the CD format to archive their tax documents, emails, family photos, scans of their kids' artwork and anything else that's important to them.
What mother couldn't turn up enough content to fill a spindle-full of CD-Rs a month? And as she realizes the potential for storing memories and documents, she begins to collect even more. She takes more digital photos and more video of her family. She starts scanning in old family photos and scanning the catalogues for a moderately-priced DVD-R burner because she needs more space.
CD-Rs are also quickly replacing the floppy disk. Floppy disks wear out, they are susceptible to magnetic fields, they don't mail very well, they're slow, and they only hold 1.4 megabytes of data. A DSL user can download 1.4 megabytes of data from the Internet faster than he can read 1.4 megabytes of data from his own floppy drive. CD-Rs will not wear out in your lifetime (unless you microwave them), they are impervious to magnetic fields, AOL has proven that you can transport them in many creative, inexpensive ways, they offer fast data transfer rates and they hold at least 650 megabytes of data. There is also evidence of a growing market for CD-Rs to be used as frisbees, travel mirrors, cetrifuge shrapnel and kid-safe Chinese throwing stars.
However, Segal's "evidence" proves nothing about American listening trends.
Segal also mentions the music industry's support of a bill that would make it legal to "impair the operation of peer-to-peer" networks and follows it up with a quote from RIAA chairwoman Hilary Rosen in which she announces that the industry has a "history" of being "generous with consumers," and that it is simply looking to enforce its existing rights.
Segal tries to present the appearance of a balanaced story by noting that the bill's "strategy has generated plenty of skepticism." This is true. However, the only skepticism he cites is the industry concern that "foolproof locks... don't exist in the digital realm."
He neglects to mention the larger concern: that the wording of the supported bill would make it legal for the music industry to attack any network it "suspects" may contain pirated files. It allows big business to engage in unrestrained vigilante justice on the digital frontier with the kind of attacks that have brought down major Internet services like Yahoo and ETrade in the past. These attacks are currently federal crimes, for good reason. The bill would give the music industry the legal authority to shut down any service on the Internet indefinitely, without a court order or subsequent review. The Washington Post may want to bear this in mind the next time it publishes an unfavorable review of a music album.
This shoddy journalism smacks of the kind of factually incorrect propaganda corporations distribute in their press releases.
Segal's article fits well with the music industry's propaganda campaign. At a time when the bill is being considered in Congress, a front-page story in the only Washington paper that ends up in every Congressman and Senator's office highlighting the alleged need for legislation to save the industry and combat lawlessness is worth its weight in gold.
I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that the music industry could "buy" this story. I also find it hard to believe that a seasoned reporter like Segal could be lazy enough to write this article and that a front-page story would not undergo the scrutiny necessary to uncover its deep holes and steep slant. The most plausible explanation I can find is that The Post is so genuinely concerned about the implications of the bill it wants to secure its place on the industry's alleged "generous" side.
Then I wanted to move some DVDs into a form I could actually watch on a plane (pda), cause my laptop screen is too big for cattle class and I find that even owning such a tool would make me a felon...
And now I reflect on how the DoJ wants to make these bold statements, but when it comes to protecting me from
1) having my software cracked and put up on a foreign site (along with a lot of other victims)
2) having my 401K raped (actually I don't invest in tech, but I still got nailed due to overall market misery)
they could care less about me or any other average citizen other than when some entrenched interest thinks we need to have something else taken away from us.
I come to the sad conclusion that the government that governs me does not in any way shape or form represent me or my interests. It's getting worse every day, and the common consensus at this time from the system to the average slashdot reader is that we're criminals, and anything done to us is perfectly fine, but anything we do is inherently bad.
Methinks the time for massive digital civil disobediance is upon us. Since we're all already guilty before the fact, since it's perfectly OK to assume we're bad and act accordingly with zero proof, who the hell wants to be hung for a sheep. Time to be a wolf, I say.
Prosecuting file sharers will definitely cause many to stop sharing. Why risk these ridiculous penalties. So, we can have off-shore servers; these will be cut off if things continue as they have. Other tech solutions can be legislated to death as well.
Most understand that it is the business model that is dying, not music (though some of the shit out there...). All businesses strive for a Monopoly. Most of the time they find it better to divide the territory among the survivors in an ologopoly. An ologopoly is much the same as a monopoly except to stay busy, the MBAs trade a few points of market share back and forth, and they wait patiently for the mistake that will crumble the other, so they can take credit and get a few million more options.
Seems like the real conflict is 'how does one achieve economy of scale without granting so much power to the faceless company that the customer becomes an afterthought to the real money made through manipulating the Stock market?'
Thoughts?
>The DOJ announced that they are planning to prosecute filesharers under the The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act.
All the more reason for people to help the Freenet project by writing code for it. Freenet is designed to protect the identity of the people who make files available, the people who download them, and even the location of the servers the files are stored on.
It's another bad use of a law which can be easily abused to deal with the situation.
Point taken, the law ain't perfect. However this gives me hope that the DOJ is at least *trying* to punish the actual wrongdoers instead of just controlling everyone like the RIAA would like to do.
If copyright actually is important and should continue to be viable, then going after copyright infringers in this manner is exactly what is needed. Sharing CD's openly with hundreds of people isn't fair use. It is copyright violation. This law might unfairly punish copyright violators, but at least copyright violators are the only ones punished. That's already light-years better than legislation like the DMCA, which is billed as solving the same problem, but which adversely affects all content users.
Translation:
Don't rip any CD's and put them on KaZaA, unless you like to play russian roulette.
Also, if someone gets in trouble for something they did before this law was updated, scream bloody murder.
There is a small but significant difference between stealing a car or grape and copying a cd causing a lost sale.
Difference:
Cars and grapes are physical products, they are (more or less) rare and you cause direct damage to the former owner of the grape or the car.
CDs and DVDs represent virtual goods, they are available in unlimited numbers (almost, as they need a physical representation i.e. acrylic in case of the cds). As this is not about plain old shoplifting of cds, you do not steal a physical object. You could cause (at max) one lost sale. You do not hurt anyones wallet, you just prevent someone from making money.
So you do not steal a thing, you are an obstacle in the way of the profit. Thats a big difference I think.
Preventing some company from making money is at the same level as loitering drunk before the supermarket begging for money - it scares the customers away or like protesting before the shell/ford/GM building demanding the end of SUVs and global warmth caused by CO2 - scares customers away.
So please don't be too serious about "stealing" when you mean "copying". you only affect potential sales, in the end its a lot like greenpeace does with car, fuel and fur sales. If they scare all the potential car buyers about the ecological desaster of SUVs, ford doesn't sell that much explorers, causing them to stumble over the R&D costs of it.
Can you lend me a mod point?
This guy wants the Government to tear up the US Constitution on his behalf, and he has the gall to call others "wholly amoral and self-serving"?
While you make some good points, there is one significant change that we've not evaluated in depth yet.
By the DOJ trying to apply the NET law, the cost of protecting the copyrights is being shifted from the copyright holders to the Federal government, i.e. to the taxpayers. In contrast, a trademark infringement case requires the trademark holder to file suit and press for action. There is a significant difference between a civil violation and a criminal offense.
Apparently, this is justified by the 'vital' role IP play in the US economy. An interesting question to consider is: WHY is the copyright holders is such a privileged positions vis-a-vis the other IP holders? Does the FBI help Coca Cola protect its brand? Does the DOJ investigate patent infrinements??
Wait a minute. Share with friends and family members? So if I sit down and watch a $40 movie once a week with my family for 25 weeks, I get a year of jail time?
This is just another example of the fact that if you look deep enough into US law, you'll find that you don't have any rights at all. Every right that you think that you have, including sharing what you've bought with family members in your own home on the same computer, has been covered by some half-assed law that was rushed through congress and quickly forgotten about five or ten years ago.
NET only includes electronic 'theft'. Is this because they wanted to use the word 'electronic', so they could make the cool name 'NET'? What about fibre-optics - if i transferr data through a fibre optic cable then thats isolating the 2 electronic circuits...
Why is copying bits considered theft?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I'm suprised they didn't link to this article:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-954651.html
"The vast potential of broadband has so far benefited nobody as clearly as it's benefited downloaders of pornography and pirates of digital content"
Chernin, the president of the owner of the Fox corporation, decries the Net's lack of morals. Isn't that delicious?
"The truth is that anyone unwilling to condemn outright theft by digital means is either amoral or wholly self-serving."
Irony meter going off the scale!
Make no mistake about it, this is a culture war with trillions of dollars at stake. It is becoming more and more clear that Hollywood isn't just being greedy, they actively hate and fear the Internet. They would destroy everything we have built rather than adapt to reality.
Uhm... Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking this would work, but why not:
Agent: "1700 mp3z, your going to jail a long LONG time rmAdmin"
rmAdmin: "All of those are backups from CD's I own, or at one time owned, I'm sorry, but most of the original CD's were thrashed when my 4 year old decided to play frisby with my collection *sniffle*" (With a 4 year old around, Let me say, YES things of this sort do happen!)
I'm still failing to see how they could prove it in court. Your innocent until proven guilty, so uh.. quick translation: You actually had the CD's, and your telling the truth, until they prove that you didn't own those CD's. Unless their is yet ANOTHER stupid DCMA clause that says something like "When dealing with copyright enfringement, you are guilty until proven innocent, even if you don't use the internet, have a computer, listen to music, or are deaf"
Can all fish swim?