Slashdot Mirror
P2P File Sharing Could Cost You A Bundle
geekee writes "CNET posted an article claiming you could be liable for $250,000 in fines and up to 3 years in prison for p2p file sharing. This is due to an obscure law called the No Electronic Theft (NET) act passed in 1997 (signed by Bill Clinton). Although the Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone under this new law, some members of congress have asked John Ashcroft to begin prosecuting. In response to the request, John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, said to expect some NET Act prosecutions."
I would go to jail for what I believe in.
But I do believe that theft is theft.
Everyone gets pissed off when someone threatens to take away their pirated music and videos.
If you want to make a backup of your music and videos fine, but don't share them out to other people to freely copy.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Of course, there's still the "pre-dawn-raid-and-seize-hard-drive" tactic which I've heard makes that moot...
The problem with giving people freedom and liberty is - you never know what they're actually going to do with it.
You know, like invent a decentralized p2p system and then trade files with it.
How dare they!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Oh well, I will just have to use DirectConnect or IRC where the 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act applies, it saying that if you are affiliated with any government, police, investigative, ANTI-Piracy Group, RIAA, MPAA, Universal, Fox, any other movie production company or video game company or console manufacturer or distribution company or group, or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one, you CANNOT enter. If this is violated, any evidence obtained during this violation can be thrown out of court.
On a side note, with the average user base of Kazaa averaging over 1 million constantly not to mention the tens of millions who log in periodically, I am so sure that the US government will jail half the teenage population in the US. This is a bluff plain and simple.
File swappers are already commiting theft. This changes nothing except that it spells out the the sentences you could get.
Even if this law didn't exist, and the feds raid your house and take your mp3 filled drive away, you are still going to be indicted.
No sig
But, but...The artist has the original. How is it stealing?
or
I was never going to buy it anyway, so how's it stealing?
or
I should be able to loan anything out to my friends. What happens after that is none of my business.
or
I'll strike at the evil heart of the big anonymous corporations by downloading, uploading every book, music, etc. That'll show them.
Dnaumov - Meta-modding tends to be unkind people who speak out against the "everything should be free" dogma surrounding Slashdot. I disagree with you, but I've seen enough of your posts before to know (hope) you're not trolling.
Yes, I steal music. If you've read the latest article on the RIAA's trouble regarding price-fixing you'd realize they also steal from me.
That's all I have to say.
~D:
I mean, couldn't you, if you got caught, just go out and buy the CDs that they accuse you of illegaly downloading?
Or what if your friend, who owns the latest Eminem CD, comes over your house, downloads it and plays it for you, and then deletes it? Or rather, how can they ever prove that that didn't happen?
I would guess that they only will prosecute people who upload stuff. Actually, I would guess that it's just a scare tactic; or maybe they'll pull a Mitnick and throw some random college kid in jail for 5 years, just to make an example of him. Yikes though.
c-hack.com |
Although I am somewhat nervous about the idea of holding people with no demonstrable plan for their legal future, please keep in mind that every one of the Camp X-ray inmates were captured during operations in which they were fighting our troops. My sympathy is somewhat tempered by this. I live in Saudi Arabia, and see how the more extreme among them think, and they represent the tamest views among Taliban combatants.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
You aren't going to get thrown in the slammer for P2P File Sharing. Your going to get thrown in the slammer for illegal P2P File Sharing of copyrighted material. Granted that 99.99% of P2P File Sharing done now is illegal, it is wrong to label all P2P File Sharing as illegal.
Just because you don't know of any legal P2P File Sharing doesn't exist. Here is Open Office v1.2, Matrix Reloaded Superbowl Trailer, and this website has a lot of legitimate P2P content including Linux Distro's. Do note that all of the content above is on the Gnutella2 Network using Shareaza.
that Hollywood needs Digital Rights Management legislation because copyright laws lack teeth, and there are no effective means to deal with copyright violations online.
Catching copyright violators will be a good thing for copyright reform: suddenly the same people who currently just ignore the laws will press to see them changed. Still better, the legitimate calls for copyright reform won't be drowned out or confused by the wails of spoiled teenagers who just want to grab free music.
Copyright needs reforming, nationally and internationally. Grabbing all the music you can in violation of copyright doesn't help the cause of those who actually want to do something about the problem. Enforcing the existing laws, and getting rid of the violators can only help the cause of copyright in the long run.
--
Ytrew
Why is this causing such an "outrage"? Stealing copyrighted material IS wrong. If you don't like it, then well, tough shit. Copyrights are there for a reason (let's forego the whole argument about Disney and never-expiring copyrights -- that's a different topic). If I own a work of art that I've put a lot of effort into, I certainly do not want it copied around without any control on my part, unless I've specifically granted everyone permission to do so by releasing it under the "free unlimited distribution allowed" license (e.g. this creative commons clause). If you violate my copyright, then I want you punished. If you think this is unfair of me, then fart in my general direction and don't use my work. I will certainly understand and not be offended in the slightest.
You cannot expect every artist to put their works into the public domain or license them for free distribution. That's just not how this world works, whatever your youthful idealism is telling you. Please respect people's copyrights and don't steal their works. If you do, then don't make a scene when they press charges.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
We have a Democratic Republic. This means that we elect people to hold office that we feel will act in the best interest of the American people. Also keep in mind that Switzerland is .0043 times the size of the US and its population is .0262 that of the US. It's a lot easier to have a smaller population have a more active role in government like this.
How does shit like this get moded beyond a 1? It really amazes me the amount of Bush bashing gets moded up on slashdot. How can you compare people who are encouraged to kill Americans, enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay to those who pirate music? I don't understand how those on slashdot can relate something as trivial as swapping music to flying an airplane into a building full of people, and laugh.
WRONG!
An Australian man, Habib, was captured in Pakistan and took no part in the conflict in Afghanistan. His crime? He has alleged links to al-Qaeda.
So an Australian citizen, captured in Pakistan is being held by the US, in Cuba without rights to a lawyer or even consulant visits.
Now please explain to me why one half of the world hates the US and the other half is getting sick and tired of being told to fall into line.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Two bits (IANAL,GWFY).
Firstly, the definition of "financial gain" only applies to Title 17. There are a whole bunch of notes that seem to exempt "financial gain" from exemptions. (yes, that's a double excemption. See why we need lawyers?)
Secondly, trading books with your mom isn't a violation of copyright, as you didn't make a copy. (duh.)
OOP! Boomtown Rats-Fine Art Of Surfacing CD - Item #2501717xxx Final price: $72.00 Your maximum bid: $19.00 End date: Jan-23-03 16:29 PST
First, in re: the NET Act, what is the "retail value" of an out-of-print title? My assumption is that it is zero, otherwise the record co., in this case CBS/Sony, would market it. By my reading, this Act applies only if the copyrighted material has retail value.
If the retail value is zero, then I don't see how this NET Act can possibly apply if I would choose to download the MP3s of the entire album and burn my own CD. Perhaps a lawyer could shed some light on this matter.
Secondly, why won't this record co. and others wake up and see that there's obviously a market for this CD, and presumably thousands of other out-of-print titles? Why are they pissing away this revenue stream? (No pun intended) Maybe they're too busy scrambling after the next Britney?
In the case of OOP titles, do I have to become a criminal to obtain my music or else pay $72 for a used disc on Ebay? Totally bizarre.
One of the dangers I can see in a law that is not applied equally (not all known violators of the law are actively pursued), is that it can be used to really screw someone you don't like. For example, say I'm a prominent member of the Green Party whom the presiding regime is looking for a way to silence. Coincidentally, I also downloaded a copy of the new N'Sync album (hey, bad taste isn't illegal. yet...). Bam. They've got me. And while they have my box, I'm sure they'll probably make sure that all my nudie pics are legal also (though apparently, even images of women who simply look to young can get you into trouble).
;) ) 3 years in jail... Yeah that's about right... In Rhiyad...
So, I don't like it. Not because it's a bad law, or unfair, or whatever. Because it has the potential to be easily taken advantage of. I like that the laws against murder are enforced vigorously. I would like it if this law were too. The absolute chaos that would ensue would be worth me giving up every mp3 I've ever downloaded. I'd love to see all of the school teachers that work next door be led off in hand cuffs. Better too would be the cops that download music! I mean come on! It's a THREE YEAR SENTENCE... It MUST be serious... I would insist that this law be enforced on everyone, even cops, clergy, the elderly and my own dear Mother.
They'll only use this law to hurt people they don't like. ("They" can be anyone that you don't like...
In fact, this NET act sounds like a nice cost-saving opportunity for police departments, which can always use some more of those fancy high-end computers that MP3-collecting geeks use. Not as good as the cars they get from "drug dealers", but still useful in these troubled times.
it always strikes me funny that everyone got in an uproar over p2p when we've been doing the same thing with usenet for ages. ok, usenet may be harder for the newbies to figure out. its not always point click simple, but when p2p is dead (not saying thats an inevitability) then folks will say "hey, geek, is there some other way for me to download britney spears?" so when are they gonna try to shutdown usenet? or irc? two things I enjoy far more than the p2p proggies.
-
The wrongness is not that relevant--the punishment is completely disproportionate to the offense. Letting your parking meter expire is also wrong, but when we catch someone doing it, we write them a ticket. We don't send them to prison for years.
In the P2P situation, there's no demonstration that the copyright holder actually lost the "value" of the copied works. So it's ridiculous to treat it as if that amount was actually lost, rather than (realistically) a few percent of the amount, tops. So if uploading $1000 of CD's is "theft", it's theft comparable to shoplifting a pair of blue jeans, and should be prosecuted about the same way. Also, the stuff defining downloading more stuff as "financial gain" is positively Orwellian. What we're seeing is War On Drugs Part II.
ObLink: The Right To Read.
Only thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that they supposedly say that file swapping is analgous to stealing, yet it carries a higher punishment. If I shoplift, I am not fined for 250k. What is wrong with this picture? If stealin is stealin, then punish people accordingly. I am not charged 250k if I go into a store and copy a magazine.
13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
It doesn't matter how they were captured, if they don't have a trial it's wrong.
Say the government declared you a terrorist for some reason, when you were really innocent. In a sane system, you would have a trial, be found innocent, and released. Under this system - BAM, you're away for life.
It does not matter how bad the crime is.... I'll repeat that:
IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW BAD THE CRIME IS. They might be innocent, and if they are not entitled to a trial, it screws up the entire legal system so badly that it becomes nothing better than a dictatorship.
(We don't like this guy, but can't pin anything on him.... say he's a terrorist! Then we won't even have to give him a trial.)
Today it's the Taliban, but tomorrow it could be you. This is how bad laws get in, no-one complains because it seems so reasonable until they get accused.
Yeah, instead I live in fear that the CRTC will kick me off the air for a lack of Canadian content, and that they'll break down my door for deciding I prefer to watch foreign satellite TV. Oh, and I have to live in fear that I'll get busted for swearing on my cellphone, or accidentally downloading hate speech.
Them's the laws, I didn't make 'em. Fortunately, thank God, the swearing and hate speech laws aren't enforced too often. The other two are all the time, though.
>What ever did happen to representation in government?
We lost it when we decided to let people like the CRTC and Supreme Court make laws instead of an elected government.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
This particular law doesn't have anything to do with you moving your music from one place to another, but giving access to a completely different person. So cool it. Sharing commercial products with others is illegal, and it's vfery easy to assertain guilt.
You've got a file sharing program running with shared commerial files on it? You are guilty, end of story.
-BrentI've been waiting for this to happen for some time. We are now on the cusp of our latest suicidal "war" on our own society. I have no problem with protecting copyrights, but this law puts the Draco in draconian. Do we really want to head in this direction again? Do we really want to start locking people up for years for an arguably victimless crime? How about solving all the murders first? How about the punishment fitting the crime: perhaps a fine and restitution?
Your accusation of thoughtcrime is based solely on doublethink...
`(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
Exactly what is a Phonorecord? Does this mean that in order to procescute, the RIAA will have to bring back vinyl records, then prove that converted your vinyl "phonorecords" to MP3, prove you shared it for 180 days, and then find the retail value of your online P2P collection to make sure it's in excess of $1000? Does the retail price take into account inflation or is the "original" retail price of the "phonorecord"? I just called Wal*Mart and tried to get the price of my "Buck Owens, Under Your Spell Again" phonorecord, but didn't have any luck.
If they can apply this law to P2P sharing, I will be amazed. I still can't believe that the US Congress, (the government of the most technologically advanced society in the world), used the word "Phonorecords" in 1997. How embarassing. France and Germany are probably still snickering.
As far as I am concerned, anything that came out only on "Phonorecord" should be in the public domain already. Looks like the geeks are going to have to organize a political party if we want this nonsense to stop. I vote for TUX as the party mascott.
Oh, come on! At least 95%, and probably more like 99%, of peer-to-peer file trading by volume is "stolen" intellectual property. There's very little demand for anything else. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise, or to claim that one permitted file somehow makes up for a million "stolen" ones.
The punishment is way out of proportion to the crime...but in the vast majority of cases, it is a crime.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
living on SS and it's petty larceny. Maximum sentence of about a year. If she wants her money back she can sue you when you get out.
"Steal" a $.50 song from Metallica, go to jail for three years and pay a $250,000 dollar fine.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
KFG
Yes, except for three issues:
A) You couldn't stop people from making those digital copies if they were listening to it. (Even if they have to feed their "line out" back into the "line in" on their sound card")
B) There is no proof that you aren't listening to it at the same time you are sending it out to the media library.
C) The government would find that illegal too.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
In fact, the humor is that such things are obviously not even close to being equivalent, but the Bush handlers wouldn't care.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Make sense to me that Ashcroft would go after the little guy who does what the music industry tells him to do, rather than the music industry that is known to be stealing money both from consumers by illegal unfail trade practices and from artists. After all, the little guy will not pay off Ashcroft.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Have we won ANY of these wars?
How about a war on those who would call a war for anything.
The 'war on piracy' (wait for the MassMedia catchphrase) will be another failure, brought to you by those who would profit by its existence. Just like all the other 'War on' groups.
Hey Ashcroft, how about a war on puritanical Fundamentalists who see art as pornography, and symbols of fair Justice as dirty, masturabatory 'distractions' that should be covered up. Loser.
The American people want to see some titty.
Is it just me, or does it seem like the harder it is to catch someone doing a particular crime; the more extreme the punishment can be. Regardless of the seriousness of the offense
Take for instance harrasment. You harass someone in public; that's a misdemeanor in most cases. Now, if you use a computer to harass someone-- THATS A FELONY?? Read the LAW, in Arizona at least. Basically, if you use a computer to do pretty much anything; you're a Felon.
The only reason I can think of is because it is harder to catch people online. But is that a fair reason to increase punishment? Because most investigators don't know how to use computers?
Nice try, Mr. Eisner. Unfortunately, this is exactly the topic. The fact is that businesses which benefit from copyrights that don't expire are co-opting the legal processes in the USA, which is what the original post is about. This law is just an expression of a more general malaise.
That's nice that you own a copyrighted work. I have the right to incorporate your work when making a parody, whether or not you are offended by it-- I think Mattel proved that today. But that's not the point. The point is that I used to have a second option- I could wait for you to die. Once you were dead, there was a proscribed period during which I could not use your original work- but if I was lucky enough to live 100 years after you, well after world+dog had forgotten your name and what you used to be famous for, I could take your idea and breathe life into it and bring it new relevance in my new time so that people could enjoy it again. And if I had a proper sense of humility, I could even give you credit for inspiring me.
As it stands now, I can do all of that- but I have to pay Disney, or BMG, or SONY for the priveledge of trying to make a house on the foundation that you built, so some random fuck that neither you nor I have ever met (you've been dead for 50 years, remember?) can keep making the payments on his goddamn X5 beemer.
nooo-ooo, but I can expect that the Constitution of the United States should mean more than the wishes of Disney, Inc. to the lawmakers in this country. After all, that's the oath they swore to when they took office. Right now, my expectations are not being met. Since I don't have the financial power to impact(read: buy the vote of) 95% of the lawmakers, especially the ones who benefit the most from 'donations' made by the content industry, I'd rather exercise my power of civil disobedience against the companies who pay for their re-election campaigns. Make 'em feel it in the pocket, dontchaknow. And I don't think that Rosa Parks intended to make a scene, I think she was just fed up by the bullshit she had to go through every day. People aren't stupid- if they learn of a better way to get to what they want, they'll take it. Right now, the record industry doesn't need more laws protecting copyright- they need someone to build a better mousetrap.
I'd be thrilled if someone would press charges- I'd go to jail (or guantanamo) first. File sharing cases would overwhelm the courts, and the laws would be changed. I don't see change happening that way, but I guess anything is possible.
Let's make a test case. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? I'm not the Devil, testing your faith... Michael Eisner is the only man who can currently claim that distinction and I no longer think you're him. Send me some of this 'content' you claim to have, via Kazaa. Call it "Mr_Icon.MP3" or whatever you want. I'll download it, and then re-publish it, and you can sue me for copyright violation and charge me for criminal violation of the NET act. I'll be waiting for your reply...
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
A fine should relate to the damage done, right?
Actually no. Fines are usually assessed above and beyond damages. There is a general legal principle that punishment ought to be proportional to the crime - but that does very little to constrain the penalties that congress can attach to crimes. Note for example that it has not hindered three-strikes laws that impose very lengthy sentences on people who commit relatively minor crimes (on top of prior convictions for violent crimes).
Prosecution by the Justice Department? I thought they were there to serve the public, to keep serial killers of the street and so on. Spend tax payers money for prosecuting folks that share their favourite musician's work with other fans? Get real.
Just imagine that you get busted and the prosectutor gives you the following choices: (A) plead guilty and agree to give us all your money, up to a max of 250k, (B) don't plead guilty and still give us all of your money, plus go to jail for 3 years, or (C) (ha ha - this one is just for a laugh - see below) spend all of your money on a successful defense.
Which option would you pick? My guess is most people will go for (A) which means that the prosecution of these cases will almost certainly turn a profit for the feds. That is one of the great things about draconian penalties - sensible people are not willing to run the risks asociated with defending themselves.
And get it to stand up, when going through the higher courts? I don't think so.
This may come as a surprise, but similar laws with similar penalties for copyright violations have been around for a long time - haven't you ever watched the warning at the start of a rental video? As Jessica Litman notes in her book "Digital Copyright", novices to copyright law are often surprised to find out that what they are doing is illegal and that it is subject to such harsh penalties. They often decide to fight it out in court, and they always lose.
In this type of case the burden of proof is very low. They just have to show that you had a copy of something. Then it is up to you to show that you really owned it - if you can. Unless they are careless enough to conduct a bad search there will be nothing to appeal.
All this P2P stuff was (originally?) supposed to fossilize the likes of the RIAA and transform the music industry into one where middlemen were eliminated, artists were (finally) fairly paid, and consumers reaped the benefits of abundant free content. But none of this happened.
A comparable analogy would have been if the Open Source community, instead of creating their own, superior free software, had all turned into lazy warez junkies. You can't win a war relying on your enemy's resources
So what we need is an "Open Music" revolution. But that will require educating artists who don't spend their days reading Slashdot. They need to learn that a record label deal is not the holy grail of their career, but rather in most cases, a hindrance. Artists need to treat their talent as a personal enterprise, not a raffle ticket to ride the gravy train.
When this dream is realized, the lawsuits will end, the fascist laws will be repealed, the manufactured pop-icons will vanish, and the world will be a better place. Get to it.
I was going to make the same point, until I saw your post, and realized the difference between liking the GPL and not liking anti-P2P legislation. Technically, you are right: if we don't respect copyrights, then there is no reason to respect the GPL any more than anything else. But I don't think that is exactly the real issue.
Here is the deal: the GPL is about sharing; it is the opposite of a restrictive copyright law. It empowers individual and not some central entity. It helps spread creativity and not stifle it.
So obviously we need some kind of copyright to protect intellectual property, to keep creative work from being ripped off. But the copyright system, and its enforcement, can't just be set up to protect the big corporations. See endless comments about business models, etc.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
Where this libertarian argument breaks down is when you consider the healthcare dollars.
Anyone can go to any ER in the United States and they HAVE to be seen and appropriately treated (all that stuff about uninsured people having no access to medical care is crap)... it's federal law. I can't tell you how many illicit drug-related illnesses I've treated; overdoses, infections, complications, drug-induced abortions, etc, etc... the monetary cost is huge.
When someone, decades ago, decided to fund healthcare for society out of public funds (we are about half-socialized already), I don't think they had any idea what they were buying into. Funding healthcare for everyone, regardless of their unhealthy habits, is astronomically expensive. Naturally, this leads to the plea from people who either don't want to pay for the stupidity of others, or want to control the behavior of others
"Look how much money this is costing society!!"
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Here is the deal: the GPL is about sharing ; it is the opposite of a restrictive copyright law. It empowers individual and not some central entity. It helps spread creativity and not stifle it.
Indeed the GPL probably has more in common with the US Constitution than the more recent US copyright laws.