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
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
'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.
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.
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
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.