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..."
Does this bill also contain credit for all the CD's I've legally purchased? I mean, say I have 100 legally purchased songs on CD, and I've pirated 99 songs on mp3, this still represents a net sale of 1 song by the record industry.
Using RIAA screwy logic, does this mean that I haven't actually cost them anything?
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
Great 3 years in prison is plenty of time for them to learn how to be a real criminal. And since the felony will create problems getting a job when they get out, they will have the inclination to do illegal things for money so they can eat and pay rent.
There just isn't enough violent crime in the US anymore. Let's all thank the Texan for finding a way to correct that problem.
Filesharing is, in my opinion, much like speeding. A whole hell of a lot of people do it, and only a small percentage ever get caught or have to face the music, so to speak. When more than half of drivers are doing 70 in a 55, and only 1 in 5,000 are pulled over and given a ticket, there is no deterrent! Similarly, if you've got hundreds of thousands of students sharing files illegally, and you only punish "a few" of them, that's not going to discourage the rest of them.
The idea that "they won't bust me" is always going to be prevalent. Either we put them all in jail for committing these horrible felonies, or we don't bother busting any of them.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
The real threat right now is spammers, not file traders. Is something that affects and in some way or another harm or could harm us all. Why not put them all in jails? or in pits, or use them as human shields on iraq, etc.
From the article:
"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."
I know the american judicial and political system can be pretty screwed up at time, but just how much support does this guy think he's going to get from his constituents (read votes), when he starts sending kids to jail for three years in punishment for what amounts to fiften dollars worth of copyright violation?
To compare, how long do you expect Jeffrey Skilling (former Enron CEO) to spend in jail for the $30 billion lost there . . .
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!"
... 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.
students, the intellectual future and security of a nation, all turning up on his doorstep turning themselves in for 3 years jailtime. A great way to point out the stupidity of his words, and secure free accomodation until the end of your education.
Can also be found here - why not drop him a line? :p
This demagogue ought to actually read the copyright Act before he starts making false accusations of criminal conduct against his fellow citizens. (He also better make sure his kids are clean.)
1) Even where infringement is present, it isn't necessarily criminal:
It isn't criminal unless willful, and it isn't willful merely because it was copied. Evidence of infringement doesn't suffice under the Copyright Act.
2) Even where willful infringement is present, it isn't necessarily criminal:
If not for commercial purposes or by taking a retail value exceeding $1,000 in a six-month period.
3) Even where willful infringement is criminal, it isn't necessarily a felony:
If not for commercial purposes, it is merely a midemeanor, in the sense that the maximum criminal sentence is limited to not more than a year. (Not sure if that is the relevant standard -- I'm not a criminal lawyer).
College students are easily swayed by this sort of thing, and imprisoning a few for longer than most rapists get will surely straighten them out. I mean, once they showed that they put you in jail for smoking marijuana, pretty much every college student in the U.S. stopped smoking pot. This will be just like that, right?
do not read this line twice.
Wait lets not forget those middle schoolers. I know they download music too. But how to jail kids under 16. Disney Jails of course. With a special school in jail teaching all about the evils of downloaded music. I call it Disney Jail. Smaller cells for smaller minds. Jailers/teachers dressed in big eared mouse costumes. Special areas for kindergarden and preschool. Punish them while they're young. Better yet pre-crime... jail them before they do... cause you know they will.
I remember while rejecting the case for breaking up MS, Dubya said we don't want to send the wrong messages to American Corporations. They mustn't feel endangered to carry on innovating in their own country.
What message does jailing students send to American citizens? The one I can hear is "Innovative students who offend Corporations will be jailed. Even if the 'guilty act' does not merit such severe action ".
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
But if we jail people with files, won't they just cut through the bars and escape?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
In the grand scheme of things, cleaning out corrupt politicians is a whole lot more important than cracking down in file trading by people with no money. I'm sure jailing people like Carter for a few years would have a wonderfully deterrent effect on other politicians. What about it?
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.
It was. Until the "No Electronic Theft Act" appeared, which altered the definition of "commercial" to cover file trading as well. So, if you're running Kazaa, WinMX or whatever except with an empty or disabled share at all times, that's (2) and (3) from the parent post covered. As for (1), are you going to claim you accidentally installed that file trading software? If not, NETA would seem to put you into the "felony" bracket as soon as you've traded a couple of dozen albums - or one copy of Win XP, it seems!
Run a P2P app deliberately, trade $1k worth (at retail prices) of material, and it's a misdemeanour (1 year, $100k fine). 10 or more copies, retailing for $2.5k, and it's a felony (3 years, $250k fine). Ouch!
It really bothers me that the RIAA et al compares digital media piracy to be the very same as walking into a store and shoplifting a CD. Conceptually--alright, I see their point that theft is theft. But, let's compare apples to apples here.
Swapping a song is more akin to going to your library and copying an article out of an encyclopedia. I mean, the library paid for that encyclopedia, but Britannica certainly isn't getting any type of royalty or extra revenue for your actions. And, this behavior is actually accepted (otherwise, why did my college library have eight copy machines on each floor?).
The fact is, and this has been stated over and over again, that the recording industry is using a business model that is quickly becoming antiquated because it has not adapted to changes in digital media capabilities (i.e., instant gratification: easier and cheaper to download a single track from the Internet than to drive to the music store).
Furthermore, what is the motivation or desireable quality of owning a physical CD at the cost of $15? For the eight garbage tracks that you get in addition to the 1 or 2 good songs? For the really cool cover artwork? For the satisfaction that your $15 contributed to the squandering lifestyle of the artist, or even worse, the recording label?
Perhaps my views are seeded in jealousy. There, I said it. Because I have no marketable talent, I'm forced to work 40+ hours a week and live entirely on that paycheck. Recording stars might put in long hours at the studio (boo hoo--we all put in long hours to meet our deadlines probably more frequently than they record an album), but in my eyes, they aren't truly working unless they're touring. And, just because they can sing or otherwise attract public appeal, they have the opportunity to afford all kinds of luxuries PLUS have big companies give them all kinds of products for free in hopes of some sort of endorsement. I wonder what that would be like....
Call it theft or whatever, but I think that the everyday 40+ hour a week employee has voiced its opposition to the practices of the recording industry that takes money away from the working class to support the lifestyle of the artists.
The US has a higher proportion of its citizens in jail than any other country - in all of history.
This isn't just in comparison with other "democracies", this is of anywhere, including dictatorships.
It now looks like it's trying hard to keep anyone else from approaching this record.
This is something for the "land of the free" to be ashamed of, not proud of.
the verb "jail" means "temporarily detain until we execute them" or "hold them dang sonsabitches til we's can kills 'em. Yee haw!"
---------------------
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>