Slashdot Mirror
Texas Rep Wants To Jail File Traders
kUnGf00m45t3r writes "There is an article on Wired about how Texas Rep. John Carter wants to jail some college students to scare people away from illegal file sharing. He says, "What these kids don't realize is that every time they pull up music and movies and make a copy, they are committing a felony under the United States code," Carter said in an interview. "If you were to prosecute someone and give them three years, I think this would act as a deterrent." Right..."
The 'felony' he speaks of comes from a law that is of a special kind: the kind of laws that we need to have, but are also meant never to be enforced.
If you drive drunk and kill someone, you get 2 years, if you share 500 mp3s you get 3. Sounds fair to me.
Fleur de Sel
I would have no problem with this proposed law, if they offered something similar to music execs guilty of price fixing. So congress should make sure that both sides of this issue are playing fairly.
later,
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
Well, why the hell not? Normally if I give someone in a shop some money, and take away an item worth less than the amount that I gave them, it would not be considered stealing.
Why is it a crime in the first place when the record company has made money from it? Who has been injured?
If I was put in jail instead, they wouldn't have had that one single sale. Therefore, the punishment is punishing the victim as well.
... and unlicensed software. Let's see if his children or spouse should be jailed. (Hey, 3 or more counts -- maybe for life!).
Something about glass houses.
The key point, as I'm sure you were making by italicizing it, is potentially. In my case, they haven't lost any sales, because I will never pay for music again. Not under any circumstances whatsoever. But I will (and do) download music and occasionally rip friends' CDs. And should this imply, as some claim, that there is no incentive then for artists to make new music, that is fine with me. I would be happy listening to what I already have for the rest of my life. I guess this means I believe no one should be a musician by profession.
The right way to do it is to first make p2p music sharing unnecessary by providing a convenient way to download music legally, then enforce the laws that make it illegal.
The shareholder is always right.
So I'm supposed to be scared of this felony thing? But Ollie North is on Fox as a reporter in Kuwait. So crime pays?
Well, the USA obviously consider throwing their children into jail for something which everybody is doing and which has been done at least since the advent of tape recorders.
That means they are causing fear by ruining the lives of few.
Sounds like terroisim to me.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
Yeah, you're right. BThe only good thing about this is that once Bush's out of office he can be jailed when he enters a country that supports the international court. Only problem is, after this war there's probably no country that wants to risk being bombed for abiding international law. (Which the lawful Texan doesn't) So, throwing people in jail for minor copyright issues is okay, but for killing a couple hundred/thousand people it isn't. But who cares about children in jail, especially since the US never ratified the UN convention of children's rights.
The real threat right now is spammers, not file traders
Define the threat you are talking about. Thats the problem, no-one ever does.
If you regard excesive traffic that threatens the stability of the local network as a threat then I can tell you from first hand experience that the bandwidth consummed by spam is vastly less than that consummed by P2P technologies in most ISPs
Is something that affects and in some way or another harm or could harm us all
The one sure way of harming a network is flooding it with traffic. P2P is far more effective at that than spam. Spam floods may disable mail servers as they choke on the load, but rarely do they effect the underlying network.
I think file sharing has gone the same way as Drugs (well at least pot), most (young) people do not see anything wrong with it and many quite happily do it. Yet is illegal. I am much of a philosopher but I would say if nobody supports a law then the law should be changed not the people?
So they want to jail people for file trading/stealing a few hundred bucks worth of crap, but the corrupt CEO's of Enron (file trading/stealing peoples life's savings) and otherwise will likely do less time than the kiddies they make examples of.
Nice to see our perspective of domestic and international law are on par with each other in the insane asylum.
Didnt Texas just notice that their tried to give someone a needle in a case where the accused was found guilty with evidence from police paid witnesses and evidence was withheld? Yahoo Story
Like they need to find more ways of fucking people with their backwards justice. Perhaps they could figure out how to administer what they have first.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
To me, this sounds very much like selective enforcing of the law. It's very easy to hide discrimination in such a system, if the only ones getting cracked down on are left-wing / right-wing / minority ethnic group / anti-war / whatever. Or students of a university critical to the US government.
Making everyone a criminal, so that the government can "take down" those they feel like is quite bad by any standard. Copyright holders can do that when they pick their targets to pursue, but once the police is making their own investigation, they really should do their best to provide equality for the law, not arbitrarily, or worse yet, intentionally pick scapegoats.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ok, Got your attention on that one :-)
Now exactly is this moron Rep from texas expecting this to work? the tactics they use against obviousally and morally sick crime called child porn doesn't do a damned thing. And now this blathering Idiot from texas wants to focus on something that is a percieved problem and waste resources on that instead of the real problems?
This man just gave his competition some really good ammunition for the next campain..
Rep. John Carter doesn't care about your children, in fact he wants them in Jail. Rep. John Carter cares more about big business than children, as he would rather waste resources on chasing college students and kids than stopping child porongraphy or other truely illegal activities.
Rep. John Carter, who is he working for?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I haven't bought an album since the metallica debockle. So if you think about it, file sharing, or rather, the music industry's response to it is responsible for me not wanting to have anything to do with any of it.
According to his web site, http://www.house.gov/carter/ , he has offices in Round Rock and College Station. Anyone know when he's up for election? I think a few posters on Campus with some quotes about his "idea" will get him swiftly kicked out... provided the college populous goes and votes.
Hell, anyone want to recall him? I'm sure there are a few TU students in Round Rock who'd be happy to help...
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
How about an offense that can actually land you jail time? Like, say, marijuana possession? Boy, that whole 'throw kids away for two years for possessing an ounce' thing, that sure keeps kids off the doobie, don't it?
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
While I agree that the congressman's comments seem to reflect poor judgement in terms of how to phase in punishment, is it not appropriate to begin enforcing the law against those who break it? When ideas like the DMCA or SSSCA (CBDTPA) are proposed I am offended because they punish me for things that I do not do. Isn't enforcing the existing law exactly the right approach?
As a counter-proposal how about this:
Step 1:
For six months, send letters to violators stating that the executive branch will begin enforcing the law.
Step 2:
For six months, enforce the law lightly. Give a few kids a week a summons and (if found guilty of willful infringement) probation.
Step 3:
Gradually increase the punishment to the natural level for the law in question. Start adding public service and small fines, and gradually ramp up.
This is much the way that traffic law enforcement devices with cameras are phased in, and as a person living in a city with red-light enforcement traffic cameras, I have seen it work.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Actually by the same token, all corrupted politicans should be trial as traitors to the good old U.S. of A. and hanged.
You know that makes you sound like a bit of a philistine, right? Perhaps you mean that nobody should be solely a recording artist these days?
_nfotxn
"Copyright violation was always, for more than two hundred years of American history, a CIVIL violation, not a CRIMINAL one."
Only for downloaders is it a criminal offence. Ripping off copyrighted songs and incorporating them into your own, IF YOU ARE A RECORD PRODUCER, is still a civil matter.
Nice? If the music is sent via MTV and recorded its fair use and perfectly legal. If its send via DSL and recorded its a felony with a long sentence. Even though the record companies give the product free (with promotional video) to MTV to promote the artists.
---------------------
Congressman Sessions:
As a voter in your district, I'm writing in response to an article (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,58081,0 0.html) in which your fellow Texas Representative from the 34th District, John Carter, explictly expresses support for prosecuting as felons people who participate in illegal file sharing online. While I recognize that such action is in violation of copyright law, I also recognize that representative Carter's statements are a direct reflection of the common agenda of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and of the sizable campaign contributions that these organizations are using to influence legislation in thier direction.
Let me be clear that this letter is not in advocacy of illegal file sharing, but rather in response to the misguided stance of felony prosecution that your fellow representative has publicly taken. This is a problem that is endemic of the internet age, and is a result of there being an inadequate system of permanent distribution of these media from their respective industries (e.g. CDs & DVDs that scratch/crack/break, and audio and VHS tapes that degrade with time) and the availability of technological measures to ensure the indefinite lifespan of the media with digital archiving on computers.
Thus, it is apparent that, rather than fight the swell of illegal file sharing with threats of felony prosecution, thereby placing the onus of responsibility on the end user, the onus is instead squarely upon the RIAA and MPAA to discover a means to utilize the advancement of technology to discover a better means of distribution for their media.
This issue has arisen purely from the sphere of economics. Simply, why would I pay $18 for a CD/$30 for a DVD whose lifespan I cannot guarantee and whose replacement I will have sole financial responsibility for in the event of loss when an alternative, regardless of its legality, exists and is readily available (e.g. internet file sharing). However, if these industries were to offer their product in electronic format for a reduced cost (effected by saving themselves the cost of physical media and its physical distribution), or in some other way ensure that I have indefinite access to the media I purchased, then the argument for legitimate purchase would be much more compelling, and I'd be much less likely to engage in illegal file sharing in lieu of commercial obtainment.
These industries try to stand on both sides of the intellectual property argument, which hurls the legitimacy of their entire stance into a dubious light. On the one hand, by claiming violation of copyright law by unlicensed distribution of the content electronically, they clearly state that the value of the CD or DVD is in its artistic content and not in the physical media. On the other hand, by denying the availability of indefinite access to the content in case of a damaged CD or DVD, they state clearly that the user is purchasing not the content with their dollars but rather the physical medium itself.
Obviously, these ideas are contradictory, and quite obviously, the internet file sharing phenomenon of RIAA and MPAA content is a clear REACTION to the failure of these industries to act responsibly and consistently in their obligation to participate in fair commerce with the public sector.
And so, returning to the genesis of this letter, I ask, as a voter, that you take all measures to oppose any movement within the legislature that would seek to prosecute as criminals users who participate in illegal file sharing, and instead support legislature which would direct the RIAA and MPAA towards all efforts at finding an appropriate mechanism for media content distribution that would insure indefinite access for the consumers who purchase their products.
Thank you for your time. Regards,
--<name>
Seriously. I don't understand why, but why don't we just get rid of most of these notions of copyright. A large portion of the American population thinks its fine to copy files/dvds/vhs all sorts of things.
.
Copyright is a grant by the government of a monopoly right to produce a product.
So lets get rid of it. It's an outdated notion, and it's not like anyone has God-given right to anything sort of grant by the government. It is not 'immoral' or 'unethical' to replicate intellectual property, except for the legal aspect.. Most of our economic laws are in place to encourage a certain economic structure. Laws against activities that hurt people=Moral questions. Laws to promote economic model=matter of preference.
It is already a very common practice, and I would guess that a majority of Americans think file sharing to fantastic, not criminal.
Why hasn't anyone seriously proposed this? Sure, it would hurt contributions from the entertainment industry, but it would probably increase contributions from electronics manufactures (Sony/Intel/etc), and be a great campaign issue: "You want your Napster? Fine. Vote for the Democrats(or Republican, or Green, or whoever is willing to do it) and you'll get it. We'll even throw in some funding to get Internet2 online faster, and make person-2-person even faster!"
Before you snicker at that idea, realize that then there could be reasonable regulations to protect certain industries. Music=freely tradable. Movies=freely tradable. Software=2 years before its freely tradable. Books=4 years before they are freely tradable. Etc. .
Sure, Books and Software would still be illegaly traded, but keeping it illegal for a little while would prevent wholesale production of knockoffs.
But as far as I, and most of the American public is probably concerned, unlikes books and software, music is performed! . And that's good enough to encourage individuals to go into the music industry. Remember: Copyright exists to promote the arts and sciences. Musicians have a viable revenue stream without the recording industry.
And the recording industry? I don't care if record execs end up in the gutter. They plan on sending college 'kids' to jail? Bah. The Government no longer needs to issue a monopoly to these people. They don't provide any useful function anymore. The internet can do what they did at a fraction of the cost, with far greater accesibility. So what if there is dilution---->If the government was willing to endorse wholesale filesharing, it might even start the golden age internet advocates have been talking about for ages.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I've never posted on a subject more than once before, and now I have posted three times on this one...
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has been warning that it is approaching peak capacity. They're looking at the possibility of having to parole people early to create room for newly-sentenced convicts.
I really hope that those who have been convicted of rape, assault, drug-dealing, etc. are not being released to make room for file traders!
As I said before, this proposal is not proportional - if stealing a CD in a store is a misdemeanor, while downloading the songs that comprise the CD is a federal felony, something is wrong. Of course, when compared with proposals to hack systems or run DDoS attacks, imprisonment seems to fit right in...
We can use this in a bunch of situations. For example:
We know that not all people who sit in Congress are stealing from their constituents and taking money in exchange for political influence, but we're very sure that many are.
So lets take, say, one Congressman and make a real example of him by putting him in jail. That should be a real wake-up call to the rest of them.
Any nominees?
--------
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.