Slashdot Mirror
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act Introduced
Bootsy Collins writes "Last Thursday in the U.S. Congress,
H.R. 2517
was quietly introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The bill, authored by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and co-sponsored by Howard Berman (D-CA),
directs the FBI
to develop methods of deterring copyright violation through use of peer-to-peer networks, including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies. It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad. Berman, you may remember, introduce a bill last year that would give the RIAA and MPAA wide latitude to
crack suspected violators' computers.
" Update: 06/23 17:03 GMT by S : We also covered a variant of this story on Saturday.
I wonder what they're considering a "file." If they're counting the gifs and jpegs for smileys, emoticons, ads, backgrounds for the chat clients and whatnot, that doesn't seem like a fair comparisson.
What am I saying? This is Congress at work...
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
Neither Smith nor Berman seemed anxious to comment on the legislation.
Heh...done like any professional three year-old who just messed in his pants.
SEC. 3. DETERRENCE AND COORDINATION.
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall--
(1) develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement by--
(A) offering on the Internet copies of copyrighted works, or
(B) making copies of copyrighted works from the Internet, without the authorization of the copyright owners; and
d00dz...l3337 h4><><0ring d0|\|3 |3y t3h g0\/3r|\||\/|3|\|7
(2) facilitate the sharing among law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers, and copyright owners of information concerning activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
The program under paragraph
(1) shall include issuing appropriate warnings to individuals engaged in an activity described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) that they may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Oooooh, scare tactics. Where's Shannon Doherty?
SEC. 4. DESIGNATION AND TRAINING OF AGENTS IN COMPUTER HACKING AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UNITS.
(a) DESIGNATION OF AGENTS IN CHIPS UNITS- The Attorney General shall ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or responsible for investigating intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one agent to support such unit for the purpose of investigating crimes relating to the theft of intellectual property.
(b) TRAINING- The Attorney General shall ensure that each agent assigned under subsection (a) has received training in the investigation and enforcement of intellectual property crimes.
More uber-l337 haxxors.
SEC. 5. EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT- There shall be established within the Office of the Associate Attorney General of the United States an Internet Use Education Program.
(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of the Internet Use Education Program shall be to--
(1) educate the general public concerning the value of copyrighted works and the effects of the theft of such works on those who create them;
(2) educate the general public concerning the privacy, security, and other risks of using the Internet to obtain unauthorized copies of copyrighted works;
(3) coordinate and consult with the Department of Education on compliance by educational institutions with applicable copyright laws involving Internet use; and
(4) coordinate and consult with the Department of Commerce on compliance by corporations with applicable copyright laws involving Internet use.
Free brainwashing too! Man, am I *ever* glad to be living in a country where my congressmen love me so much. I think I'll write them a loveletter right now. Or call them even. Where *did* I put those phone numbers?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Distributing copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. This is true regardless of what you might think about the fairness of either the behaviour of the copyright owner or of the copyright law itself.
This bill is unique. It seems rational. In a world where senators advocate allowing copyright owners to (without due process) destroy or hack computers in an attempt to halt unlawful distribution of their materials, this seems sane.
It does nothing more than encourage law enforcement to cooperate in fighting crime, and puts the American people on notice that breaking the law is wrong, and that the people distributing many popular p2p programs plan spyware in their programs, and that the use of p2p carries risks for the safety of your computer, especially if they are used unwisely (like shareing an entire drive.)
You say
From the text of the bill:
In addition, many of the computer users drawn to the convenience of peer-to-peer systems do not realize that these systems pose serious security and privacy threats to their personal computers or company networks. Recent studies reveal that the majority of the users of these systems are unable to tell what files they are sharing and sometimes incorrectly assume they were not sharing any files when in fact they were sharing all files on their hard drive.
Does anyone have a reference for these "recent studies?" What evidence suggests that running P2P clients is a security issue?
I don't know what is considered a strong argument in bill-writing, but in graduate school we are expected to provide specifics (including citations) when we describe the results of a study. Otherwise, we could be "creatively interpreting" the results, or better yet, making stuff up altogether. Assuming that these studies actually exist, I'd bet that the subjects were AOL users!
...programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad
Is there any actual evidence that filesharing is bad? Weren't record sales up 10% during the height of Napster? Isn't that the only indicator? I'd be very interested in this. If there are stories of bands that go like "we were doing alright, we just put out our first album, then it went on KaZaa, and nobody bought it, but we have evidence that a million people downloaded the whole album and listened to it more than once and swear that they would've bought it if they weren't able to d/l it for free, and now we all work at a burger joint."
If there's no actual evidence, what are they going to teach? "Well, we've got heresay and conjecture, your honor - those are kinds of evidence." Does anyone actually believe that artists are worse off with filesharing around?
c-hack.com |
Ugh.. Lamar Smith is my rep. I've written him a couple of letters on the subject of copyright and I always get the same sort of BS back, talking about how it's important to strengthen copyright law. Blah blah blah. He never gives a reason. It all seems pretty condescending really. Maybe I should write him again and ask him to explain it to me using very small words so that a simpleton like me can understand why we need practically perpetual copyrights.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
From Congressman Berman's own web site, you can see how chummy he is with the Holywood crowd, and even the BSA thrown in for good measure. Quoting from his own summaries:
[Quote]
DREIER, BERMAN REINTRODUCE RUNAWAY PRODUCTION LEGISLATION
"...Congressmen David Dreier (R-San Dimas) and Howard Berman (D-Van Nuys) joined by a bipartisan group of 44 Members of the House of Representatives today re-introduced legislation that provides wage-based tax relief for film and television projects produced in the United States..."
REP. BERMAN LAUDS AGREEMENT BETWEEN RECORDING INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
"...Rep. Howard Berman lauded the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Business Software Alliance (BSA), and Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP) for their announcement of joint policy principles..."
[/Quote]
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
What worries me more than any possible filter on file sharing is that the current lawmakers feel that they need to create one. All data, is nothing but binary information, and honestly, can get passed around quickly, even through file sharing, if people know what theyâ(TM)re doing. It doesnâ(TM)t take much to change a filename and extension, and that will defeat almost any filter possible. The real danger is not what the FBI will block, but what they will be monitoring.
I am a private citizen, and not currently under investigation for any crime of any sort, I even have a clean traffic record, but the only way Iâ(TM)m letting the federal government read my mail, electronic or otherwise, is when they produce a search warrant. What disturbs me is hearing my colleagues saying, âoeIf you havenâ(TM)t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide.â If I remember my constitution properly, the theme is that âoeUnless weâ(TM)re sure youâ(TM)ve done something wrong, we have no right to look,â or "innocent until proven guilty."
And as far as investigations by the FBI go, they would do well to realize a few simple things. Treason is defined as aiding or abetting the enemies of the United States. Our enemies have always been those people who wish to destroy our freedoms, and take away our inalienable rights. I have to wonder why the FBI is concerned with minor file sharers, rather than a certain attorney general, and some members of the house.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"- Benjamin Franklin
'Educate the American public'. Right. Just like those 'drugs support terrorism' campaigns? What's next... 'Downloading MP3s make baby Jesus cry'?
If you read the bill you can see it's simply a repetition of the flawed arguments the big media companies have against P2P.
Take for example points (5) and (6):
Privacy and security violations need to be addressed by banning spyware/adware, not P2P networks. Misleading advertising seems to be the norm in the US rather than the exception, and nothing is being done about it. Gator is not a helpful tool if it's spyware. I am not 'today's winner' if this banner is flashing, because the banner flashes all the time. And if I've "just won $50****" I'm 100% SURE I won't be seeing any of that money at all.
Why don't they ban THAT?
And heck, if people are accidentally sharing their entire harddrive, then the software's interface needs to be improved, and the setup procedure for sharing files needs to be changed. Why doesn't a P2P app come with a warning if you decide to share an entire harddrive? Oh that's right, 'a good UI' still means nothing but flashy buttons and a 'cool skin' these days, thanks to Microsoft's own crappy UI skills and inconsistencies. The fact that creating applications for Windows is a pain in the ass doesn't help much either, because a programmer will be satisfied with something that 'just works' rather than something that works well.
From the user side, it's simple: if people are stupid and leave their house door unlocked, you don't teach them to brick their doors and windows shut, you simply teach them to lock their door.
The biggest problem I see is that this sort of stuff plays right into the hands of Palladium and friends. People don't want to take responsibility for their own safety. If someone comes along and offers them 'a completely secure platform!' with lots of bells and whistles in a colorful package, then they'll buy it for sure, especially after being 'educated' on how important security is.
I don't mind companies protecting their interests, but the problem here is that some congressmen are trying to introduce laws that take our rights and privacy away just to keep their fat checks coming in. Giving ANYONE the right to hack a computer because they suspect someone illegally has copyrighted material is dangerous. That's what we have courts for. Allegations should be proven before sentences are handed out. Also, there are often legitimate, unforeseen reasons to break just about any rule.
I think copyright laws should be amended to give specific rights such as the right to make copies to different media as long as you don't distribute it to others. The rights holder shouldn't be able to dictate when and where you view it.
If they want to use DRM or give licenses for public broadcast or site licences, that should be done in a contract signed by both parties, and it should be up to the company to sue in civil court for breach of contract if they choose to do so.
Lawsuits for copyright violations are expensive. All these new laws are doing is forcing the taxpayers to pay for it. I don't think it's up to the taxpayers to defend a proposed business model. If they want DRM so bad, they should come up with good DRM instead of expecting us to pay to clean up their mess, and we shouldn't be forced to have hardware installed in our computers even if we choose not to do business with companies that require DRM hardware.
Actually, having read the text of the bill, I'm not entirely sure I will. While I don't see it as a particularly useful bit of legislation, I don't see it as dreadful enough that I would squander my communication capital with my rep to decry it.
I have spent considerable time educating the Honorable Mr. Wexler about the technological and civil implications of ill-conceived copyright legislation (a recent sample) but I'm not convinced that this bill really has that much substance of concern. Unless I'm missing something, it directs the FBI (1) to engage in a public education campaign (which I imagine will be about as effective and thorough as the leader warnings on videotapes and anti-drug commercials) and (2) to share information among law enforcement agencies about infringement activities. Frankly, I think if people were better informed about copyright issues and laws it would be a Good Thing(TM), and I'd much rather have an accountable law enforcement agency policing copyright infringement (which is, whatever your personal ethical position, a crime according to the US Code) than RIAA and MPAA vigilantes.
If someone can educate me as to why this bill is so horrible, and what substantial harm it does to consumer rights or technological progress, then I will change my mind and dash out another missive to my rep. ACs need not reply. Nothing of relevance posted in response to this question would you endanger your life or liberty by signing, and and if you do not offer me the respect of knowing my communicant, I will not read your post...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
He got scared a little when he didn't get his usual 85% to 95% of the vote in the last election. Unfortunately, we didn't scare him enough. Someone bring in a pro-choice, anti-Big Media Republican candidate to take him out...or an electable Libertarian.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Speaking from political experience, there is one thing that scares the bejesus out of your elected officials: Non-profit issue advocacy groups.
These groups can raise ulimited funds, are not required to disclose their donors, and most importantly, promise to run radio/television/print ads against any legislator that they deem "anti-tech" during election season.
Trust me, if your congressman knows that the "Coalition for Fair Use Computing Knowledge" or some such, will be watching how they vote on crucial tech bills (no matter how "quietly they're introduced), and letting their constituents know about it. They will think twice.
I cant believe with all the other current mandates the FBI/Federal Law Enforcement has, that this ranks anywhere near a top priority. I can think of 10 more important ones right off the top of my head.
International Terrorism (a la Bin Laden)
Domestic Terrorism (Tim McVey)
Black Hat Hacking
Intl Corporate Espionage
Border Security
Drugs (you can argue for legalization, but until then drugs is a major violent crime issue)
Organized Crime (of all intl & domestic ethnicities)
Corporate Malfeasance (Enron, Tyco, etc)
Political Campaign Monitoring
Catholic Church Criminal Indictments for Pedophilia and subsequent coverups(not happening at a federal level yet, but any other organization that large would have been targeted)
Copyright is wrong. It is an outdated concept that now directly contradicts First Amendment freedoms. Copyright, not the First Amendment, should go. People who violate copyright (which is itself debatable under the usual "fair use" arguments) are not criminals. They are just people doing what people have always done and should do: share ideas and culture. Painting that as a crime is just as misanthropic and deluded as you could be.
All of you who pontificate about how file-sharers are pirates and criminals and good-for-nothing freeloaders should wake up out of false consciousness and consider the consequences you think we all ought to live in. Information not only wants to be free, it must be free.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This is a perfect illustration why 435 representatives in Congress is not enough. Congressman simply do not have time for their constituents. They can't be bothered with the concerns of ordinary folks.
The original representation ratio was 1:30k. Now it's more like 1:575k. Today we have the technology that would make a meeting of 8300 representatives possible instead of completely impractical. Personally I'm fully in favor of a tenfold increase in the number of representatives in the House. Heck, even raising the number to something nice and round like 1000 reps would be a step in the right direction.
Constitutionally Correct
"File sharing is terrorism, isn't it? I mean Sen. Hatch seems to think so"
hrm, let's see...
Main Entry: terÂrorÂism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
That sounds more like what the RIAA does to people swapping songs than the other way around.
Not that I'm trying to defend copyright infringement but it's pretty clear who is trying to coerce who by means of terror. i.e. "Stop doing that or we'll sue you for your life savings."
It's just that there are so many people who have convinced themselves that it IS in fact illegal to make copies of the music they own
Actually, this may be true in the United Kingdom and Australia. Those countries have no Betamax precedent in their copyright case law and interpret "fair use" (also called "fair dealing" or "fair play") much more narrowly. Private home copying of music or dramatic fictional movies does not qualify.
Will I retire or break 10K?
From the TV/Movies/Music Industry?
Naw I didn't think so. Every single time one of these stories comes up there is always a congressman taking a payoff.
Thank you. This is exactly the kind of insight that will convince me to act. Striking use of the word theft, in fact any implication that copyright infringement and theft can be equated, from the bill is truly a wise choice.
I am embarrased to have missed that. I will start preparing my letter forthwith.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
The problem is that some things simply should not be allowed to be patented, nor copywrited. Some things are not appropriate for this "protection" and in any case, the protection is abused and abused, extended and extended ad nauseum to the point that it no longer serves the purpose that the Founders intended.
What do you do when the government fails to properly represent the will of the people? What do you do when the government selectively protects and gives preferential treatment to corporations and other $$$ interests over the people? What do you do when the legal system and political system fails at its proper job? Revolution? Yes, but not yet. Civil disobedience is a good start, ignoring illegitimate laws and bringing them down by default is another (recall that the "legal" and "good" liquor laws of the temperance movement failed miserably because people ignored the rules and drank liquor, made liquour, regardless of the laws. The laws were wrongheaded and flat-out wrong so people did the right thing and ignored them and otherwise sidestepped them. Same with abortion, same with birthcontrol - people got them regardless of the laws (so-called "legitimate" laws). Unenforceable laws need to be ignored and trashed.
Software should not be patentable. Certain ideas and expressions should not be Copywritable, but most of all, the protection should be for a TRUE limited time rather than infinitum and for the greater good of society rather than for the express purpose of lining the pockets of a few greedy bastards in Hollywood.
When patent and copywrite protection is brought back to reason and cut back to reasonable periods of time, then we'll talk about how it is "right" and completely correct for law enforcement to enforce the law. Enforcing illegitimate laws makes law enforcement agencies illegitimate.
Last week, Sen. Hatch made an outrageous suggestion for a bill to allow copyright holders to destroy file-sharer's PCs . Some people thought this was just a spurious bill to take the heat off of the "real dangerous" laws that would then be proposed, which might seem more "rational".
Apparently this is the real bill.
So, please tell me what is rational about this? Yes, distributing materials without the permission of the copyright owner is illegal. We already have laws and civil penalties for this. This may seem like a good law (in the same way that if we had a problem with lots of windows being broken, the FBI assigning more agents to a Broken Windows Units would seem reasonable), but in fact, it is not. If I find someone violating one of my patents, I sue them, hopefully I win, and they pay me recompense or the Sherrif comes and takes their car. This is how it works. I can't expect the FBI to go around looking for people violating my patents, gathering evidence at taxpayer expense, and then handing all the information over to me.
If they are to do so, they ought to do this service for everybody. Somehow I get the feeling they aren't going to be worried about my IP, or the IP of my friends with the Indy-band website. They are going to be protecting ONLY the big money, RIAA/MPAA IP. If you don't believe this, look at recent history. This is unfair and wrong. Yes, the RIAA and MPAA are suffering from massive violations of their IP rights. But to spend tax monies on agents specifically dispatched to police their IP is unfair to other IP holders, as well as the taxpayers. It is essentially a subsidy to the legal expenses of the RIAA and MPAA. Do we really want that? Let them try to work with the laws we have.
The MPAA and RIAA have a basic problem with their business model (they are basically in the same boat as each other). What they need to realize, is that in a world of near instaneous worldwide transmission and recording, once something is released, that's it, its out there. TV and radio have worked fine with this for years (few ever complained about people recording CHiPs and Knight Rider with their VCRs). Yet TV and radio made plenty of money. If the MPAA and RIAA want to make money, they need to rework their distribution methods so that the choke-point is closer to the artist.
Until the MPAA and RIAA realize that they can do things a different way, they will keep trying to get the government to enforce their easily-violated property rights. The only way to make them change is to NOT make it easy for them to sue half of America. Make it as hard for them as it would be for you, or me.
Funny how it's the copyright industries and their apologists always screaming about how the ability to create copies means the end of the world, etc., despite all previous experience to the contrary.
As far as previous human experience goes, the Constitution does not allow patents and copyrights to be given as a recognition of any sort of property rights in ideas and expressions. These artificial monopolies are things that can optionally be given, with LIMITS, to promote PUBLIC ends. The ideas about copying that you don't like are, by and large, the same ones that the Founders came up with. (Read Jefferson's letter on patents sometime.)
If you look at who has done the most to harm the PUBLIC ends for which copyright is allowed, I think you'll find it's not the file sharers. It is the publishers who want to DRM everything and extend copyright unto infinity and control stuff after the sale. Unlimited Government-enforced monopolies on speech and ideas is FAR, FAR more dangerous than even the garbage Chicken Little scenarios where the entertainment industry collapses.
Funny how free speech and open access to information are paramount until it's government agencies that are communicating amongst themselves...
I simply do not see what legitimate interest there is in blocking one division of the Federal system from the knowledge possessed by another so long, and this is critical, as all are bound by effective rules to protect the rights and privacy of the citizens. It seems to me there is more risk to the public good posed by the failure of interagency communication than there is protection in lack of it.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
That's hilarious! The best part of it is that's it's not illegal to decode digital satellite signals in Canada. Directv is not licensed to sell satellite TV service in Canada so it's impossible to "steal" a service that doesn't exist. There's no problem using hacked access cards and receivers there.
Yeah, Vote Libertarian[Which, BTW is the same, IMHO, as voting conservative republican], and Let's Get Rid of all social Services, Public Education, Public Transportation, Student Finincial Aid, Student Financial Loans, National Park Services, the Legal System, and make the USA a Dog Eat Dog/Survival of the Fittest Nation"as in, if you're poor, well, you don't deserve an education, or anything at ALL" that's how the Libertarian/Republican Dog Eat Dog/Survival of the fittest Idiots think."