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.
Will any of you actually write your congress critters about this?
... I feel much safer with pot smokers and warez kiddies behind bars.
God forbid the FBI go after dangerous criminals
It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad
Piracy's bad......mmmmkay?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
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
I swear the faster future tech and future laws spring up, the more and more I find myself in a future looking a lot like Judge Dredd. This particular saying bugs the sh** outta me: "Quietly introduced" What exactly does that mean...that these people will try and make up some sort of law and unless people are aware enough and rebel against it, there's a good chance it will come to pass? Not to be pessimistic...ahem, but as far as I know, countries go to war without consent of the people. You can bloody bet that laws can be "Quietly introduced" without the will of the people. QD
This should make a good "Fleecing of America" or "Your Money" episode, oh that's right, I'm talking about responsible journalism! Never mind! It's nice to know how my tax dollars are being pissed away, and I will remember that when it is time to vote!
Uhm..excuse me...but shouldn't the FBI be out chasing violent criminals and terrorists, rather than busting teenagers for downloading Britney Spears? Besides...it seems to me that all these wasted hours protecting the obsolete business models of private companies like the RIAA and MPAA might also be spent training agents more....as in making the 'intelligence' community a bit more intelligent.
develop a program to deter members of the public from committing acts of copyright infringement
What exactly qualifies as a "program?"
I know a lot of us are picturing armed FBI raids, computer seizures, kids being drug down the streets in chains for the crime of filesharing and being made into examples. It's possible... hell it's already happening.
However, I'm hoping it's more something like the current drug compaigns. Public awareness on "filesharing" and "piracy" as a crime. Consequences, that type of thing. I also hope that if it becomes obvious enough, people will wake up and Joe Average (tm) will finally realize the type of bullsh*t that corps like the RIAA are trying to pull with the law.
SERIOUSLY, the FBI has no place at all getting involved with copyright issues. There are a lot more things they can do that are a hell of a lot more productive, like preventing 9-11 mark II. We don't need them tapping our internet lines, tracing our IP's, or dragging more people in to court.
I think the USA needs a little bit of seperation between government and corporation - thought by now we all know who is really running the country anyways.
Based on the headline, I breifly held the hope that they would educate you on how to P2P. However, I then made the mistake of reading the summary. So what have we learned from this? It's not enough that you don't read the article before posting, you also can't read the summary before posting. If I hadn't, I could have posted a "OMG 3y3 can't bel3ive thye R go1ng to t34ch us to p1r4t3!!!!!!!1111", but now I'm stuck with this lame post instead.
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).
Read the text of the bill (I can't find the link offhand, but it's out there) -- some of the paragraphs are downright laughable, particularly the one directing the FBI to educate citizens about the dangers of connecting to "unauthorized" P2P services.
Maybe one of these days Congress will stop trying to prop up a failing business model by turning the US into a police state. But I'm not holding my breath...
And what exactly would be so bad about that?
Judging from some of the comments and attitudes that are prevalent here, I think a lot of people need to be told what copyright is, and what it's supposed to do.
If nothing else, how can you possibly make an informed argument against something if you don't know exactly what you're arguing against? (Or for, for that matter)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Oh! You mean downloading music without paying anybody for it is illegal?! Oh!! In that case I think I'll just stop.
::gasp:: the RIAA. And it hurts the artists. Well, it would if the music industry stays in it's current form. For the hundreth time, the market is changing. Perhaps, RIAA, you are no longer required. Please, Senate, don't ruin the industry squelching a change simply to support a company that makes large campign contributions.
I'm glad that education campaign is there, jeez, I didn't know that on my own. It hurts
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
It seems that everyone always gets upset when the government cracks down. The whole point in pirating/ copyright infringment is illegal. Its wrong to take something that someone is not giving away and use it. The fact that you can share your files with all the anonymous cowards on the internet doesn't mean you should.
Do people download music they wouldn't buy, sure. Is there legitimate use for p2p, yes. But it also can be used easily to set out your own inexpensive publishing house and give away what others sell for free.
Information has value, especially in the new economy. I sometimes think people get to bent out of shape when people/companies try to protect that value.
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
...is to provide federal funding to run ads against candidates or referenda which would weaken intellectual property laws such as the DMCA, the super-DMCAs, the CDBPTA (did I spell that right?), etc.
Why wouldn't they? They've already started doing it about candidates and referenda that try to legalize medical marijuana.
Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
They certainly should go after all software, music, and movie pirates, and take them down hard. If they make software piracy a lot more difficult, then it will force people to turn to free software alternatives. If they make music piracy a lot more difficult, then maybe folks will turn to lesser-known bands who allow mp3 downloads of their product and possibly find better-quality (but not as well-packaged, commercially) music. And if they make movie piracy a lot more difficult, then...uh...I dunno. I'm sure there's a good reason for that, other than the whole legality issue.
Law enforcement agencies sharing information and teaching kids about why breaking the law is a bad thing. That honestly sounds like a good idea to me. Kids are taught that drugs are bad, that you don't shoot people - why not also teach them tearing away at the foundation of the economy is also a bad thing. Yes, the way the RIAA and MPAA approach things sucks, their business model is old, and they litigate to save themselves. But that doesn't mean that copyright is a bad thing, per se.
Around here, as much as people argue that open-source is the way for the world to go, every one of us has to admit that it's only our day jobs which allows us to spend our nights cutting code for open-source projects. Copyright is a Very, Very, Very Good Thing (TM). I don't think that fact is lessened by some idiotic laws which these guys have tried to pass in the past.
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!
Not too many conservative lawmakers representing Vermont these days ;)
I did, however, write with regularity to my conservative N.C. representatives when I lived there. I figured every minute some monkey spent reading a letter from a flaming liberal commie asshole like me was one less minute they could be holding prayer meetings or what have you.
...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 |
When copyrights were introduced to the U.S., they had a very restricted time frame (fourteen years I believe, without looking it up).
In the intervening years, various parties have managed to get the copyright period extended to a ludicrous extent, and it's for *one* reason: Walt Disney corporation can't come up with anything NEW that's any good, so they've gotta keep protecting Mickey and Donald and Goofy and all those other characters that, by rights, would have passed into the public domain decades ago.
Essentially, legislation and litigation are a poor but workable substitute for innovation and invention.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I mean really. Everyone here knows that the industry needs to change. They know it too. But the real problem here is that WE the US citizens are not being shielded. We elect these people into office and they work for us. However, at some point since they had the power they decided to give themselves more power. In the end, we have a Congressional body that obviously caters to the all mighty dollar. Therefore, screaming about it does no good. For those you tell don't care. Honestl, they don't.
Here's the insightful bit:
Since when did the US government guarantee that a corporation will earn money one way or another? I mean instead of letting the companies attempt to crack down on piracy their own way the companies beg and plead that the US government step in and be the daddy. The problem is that the government is not supposed to be involved in such matters. The ONLY thing the governement to supposed to do receive taxes to defend our countries citizens from outside attacks. Not police the world, bend to the will of a common nation governemnt (UN), or be involved in corporate legalities that do not directly affect the us citizens.
Online music piracy (incorrectly identified BTW), is nothing more than an easier way to "tape" a CD. We all know this. They know this. The bottom line is that the corporation needs to address this NOT the fucking government!!!
We OWN the governement. We are the BOSSES! They seemed to forget this. And we citizens find ourselves electing these people to office to only have them incorporate themselves upon entering office and then immediately being hired by a lobbyist firm as a contractor. This is why it's not called bribery. They are getting paid as if they worked there.
But I could be wrong...
Rivendahl
... there is nothing that has not already been thought
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
(5) 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.
Of all the P2P sharing software I've ever seen, none of them had defaulted to sharing my entire hard drive. It's not the software's fault that it's user has no idea what he/she is doing.
(6) The security and privacy threats posed by peer-to-peer networks extend beyond users inadvertently enabling a hacker to access files. Millions of copies of one of the most popular peer-to-peer networks contain software that could allow an independent company to take over portions of users' computers and Internet connections and has the capacity to keep track of users' online habits.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this is referring to KaZaA and the spyware it installs. What makes this interesting is that, given the above quote, the good representatives seem to favor non-binding EULAs.
(8) In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to act against infringements of copyrighted works, including those works protected under the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property of the World Trade Organization...
I think the Department of Father^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland Security has more important things to worry about than worrying about people distributing copyrighted music, don't you?
I know where you're coming from - to disclose, I like the general idea of copyright, and think it would be fine without industry shills. Today, copyright duration is, what, life + 3000 years? And fair use means that copying stuff for home use is only a misdemeanor instead of a felony?
My problem in light of above is, yes, the law sounds great on paper...but only there. Education is fine, but what about the inter-agency info sharing? Again, I would have not problem if it were used to get blatant commercial-mp3-only sharers, but lately it's been used to go after kids who basically build search engines. And I don't like that.
So it's like this - the law sounds good, but do you support a just law if you know for sure that it will be implemented in a monstrously unjust manner? That has to be considered, because a law in a vacuum is nothing. Consider sodomy laws on the books in most states - they are horrendously discriminatory against homosexuals and other people the Christian Coalition considers "deviants" - but I don't really care because they're not enforced at all, and amount to nothing more than a quaint little nuiscance. This law, on the other hand, while it sounds nice, has the potential to take down a lot of people who have the gall to allow people a way of sharing information without policing that information. And I don't like that at all.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Isn't the FBI stretched really thin as it is? Unless a lot of money is involved, they won't look at you twice. Are they going to run down every college student in the country who is sharing a few MP3's? No.
These people are all living in fantasyland. The senators keep it quiet because they know there will be a backlash. Berman is already saying "It's not my bill. It's his." The RIAA shows their idoicy by touting this bill that they haven't even read! Looking at his top contributors, I don't see the entertainment industry on there. Maybe he wants to get on their payroll?
I think the stealth with which this bill was put out indicates that the senators know that this type of legislation could damage their careers, but they want to keep the soft money coming in and keep writing up this crap.
-R
You know, it always amazes me listening to the slashdot rants and bitches about copyright protection. The "everything should be free, nobody should make money off of anything!" crap astounds me.
If someone creates something, be they a penniless mother of 6 living in a hovel someplace, or a big heartless, greedy corporation, they deserve to profit from it. Why should anyone create anything - programs, music, movies - and get nothing for it?
Before I get the "But Open Source" speech, wasn't that Linus I saw driving around in a very expensive Italian sports car? I more than suspect he knew his work would get him a very good paying job. Good for him. Just like a lot of other OS people are now getting paid well because of their work.
I'm a capitalist. People's inventions deserve to be protected, because it encourages them to keep on inventing.
To those of you who still say everything should be free, remember this:
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself. You better hope to God not too many people steal your company's product, or you'll be out looking for work again.
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
(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
This sounds a little odd to me, more like the're trying to deter members of the public by offering copies of copyrighted works. Shouldn't this be something more like
To deter members of the public who are committing acts of copyright infringement such as: (etc etc).
Laws only seem to be as good as the wording they are written with - until a lawyer with better skills at manipulating said wording come around. Therefore, it makes sense to word them a little more intelligently.
'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'm a little confused. I thought we didn't even have enough money to keep the arts in schools anymore.
Most people who post here know piracy is illegal, and they know that large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use. (Although some folks don't seem to realize "fair use" is a legal definition, but, instead, speak as if they, as individuals, get to decide what constitutes fair use.)
A lot of the noise surrounding this issue is generated by people attempting to pose as intellectual property revolutionaries, convinced that the Internet makes all previous human experience obsolete. This is bogus, of course. Most of these folks just want free music and free movies. And, I'm sure you've noticed that comments typically and quickly descend into namecalling and slander. (Apparently, not having much useful to sa y about the issue, a lot of posters can only stamp their feet, swear, wave the anti-corporate flag, and call people "evil".)
Meanwhile, SLashdot goes on posting these stories in an effort to drum up business.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As a frequent file trader who knows that the RIAA has records of my copyright enfringement (I was once banned from napster by "Dr. Dre") I don't think that I have anything to worry about. I don't host or download that much, especially when compared to other people. Since they will probably go after the big fish first that leaves me pretty far back in line for prosecution. By the time they get to me they will be bankrupt because they have sued all of their customers and won't have anyone to buy their crappy music.
On a philosophical note, if the only time you hear a song is when you download it from kazaa is it really piracy? In the strict sense of the word of course it is but think about it. If I hadn't downloaded the song I never would have heard of it so I wouldn't have bought the cd. My music isn't generally played on Clear Channel radio, which is all that is available in most markets, so I coudn't have heard it between dj prattle and metabolife commercials either so where is the harm?
Do me a favor and double it!
This was more or less an incencitive to call for innovation (make something new and usefull and we the *governement representationg the people* will give you for some years a monopoly on exploiting your invention*. But slowly it was perverted by the copyright holder. Nowadays they try to make it pass as a natural law protected "RIGHT" of them to exploit something, and if somebody break thier right it should be enforced harshly. The problem here, is that copyright has grown imbalanced and the public interrest are gone completly lost.
Yes BALANCED copyright is a very good things. UNBALANCED copyright is dangerous as it is drowning those for which it was made to begin with : the public interrest. And I think this is what the posted is protesting against. The law are becoming harsher for breaking a privilege octroyed to a small group than some crime with far more impact (rape, hold up, political corruption) and the middle and ways to fight for the "enforcing" of this privilege are becomming increasingly out of whack.
You know, the difference between a police state and an ultra corporatiste state may not be that big...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What it's supposed to do, according to the Constitution, is promote the public domain. Can you tell me how the current 100+ year copyright terms, with unlimited retroactive extensions, promote the public domain?
I don't think you're taking this seriously enough.
According to this article today's Guardian, pirates killed or injured 145 people at sea in the first three months of this year. There are calls for the Royal Navy to station warships in the affected areas, to protect trade routes.
So you see, piracy is an ongoing and deadly threat... oh wait... *reads thread again*... Somebody seems to have started using the word "piracy" to mean "copyright violation". What an odd thing to do.
Actually, since the laws benefit content providers, shouldn't they pay to educate us?
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
that violating a copyright, at least right now, in the United States, is not a 'crime' per se
Have you read Title 17, United States Code, section 506? Pay attention as well to the definition of "financial gain" in section 101.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So if the RIAA or MPAA are allowed to "crack" our computers, what does that mean for DMCA-related issues?
I mean, if I traded through, say, freenet - and they cracked/reverse engineered freenet (assuming they could, technically), does that mean the creators of freenet can sue based on DMCA violations? After all, they would have to reverse engineer the encrypted datastream to first see what was actually being traded - and as I recall, cracking encryption was at the very heart of the DMCA.
"including efforts to facilitate sharing information about suspected violators amongst law enforcement agencies"
;)
hmmmmm, i wonder how they could get all that information out to so many agencies quickly and effeciently. is there some kind of way to share files between a large group of users that can balance the bandwidth load between all the users???
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
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.
Yup. I got that part.
Stop right there, pardner...
This is exactly what the reasonable slashdotter is railing against. Let's pause for a moment, catch our breath, then repeat after me:
There is nothing illegal about sharing files. Even if it's done it on-line. Even if it's done using p2p. Even if it's done in a large-scale operation.
I'd love to string-up those selfish miscreants who share infringing music on-line, and it's not just because they are using up all the bandwidth or getting something for free that I would have to pay to get (obviously different moral standards). But I see even more danger in people who would use the "disallow all file sharing" cure to solve the "some childish thieves" problem.
The Internet, as we know it, is about peer-to-peer sharing. All of the greatest features of the Internet (USENET, email, WWW, IRC, etc) were originally peer-to-peer, at least until the abuses forced us to CancelMoose, Spamblock, Filter, or Botban the functionality to useless castration. We need to ask ourselves if p2p is worth anything, because our elected officials are clearly already asking those questions. We need to be prepared to answer those questions. If we had to give-up sharing of infringing material, would we still want the Internet? Statements like "large-scale p2p filesharing isn't legitimate fair use" reinforce the idea that the Internet is just a copyright-infringment-orgy with no other use than facilitating copyright infringment. If that belief is allowed to hold sway, then the heavily taxed, heavily regulated, privacy-free and totally useless Internet will surely follow.
They're only going to let us make the same mistake so many times before they reach the conclusion nobody important actually uses that stuff anymore.
In my opinion, if we are opposed to legislation such as the proposed, then we have an obligation to a) share files like there's no tomorrow, b) avoid sharing any sort of copyright-infringing material, and c) shun with utmost prejudice anyone attempting to destroy the community we love by wasting the precious resources on their own childish quest to avoid paying their own fair share.
We've already tried writing our congressmen (or we've decided it wasn't worth wasting a stamp on trying) why not try a new tactic; one we're already familiar with, one right up our alley, one that's both totally legal and totally moral, one that's sure to make the xxAA freak; boycott on-line copyright-infringing material and promote the sharing of legitimate material instead.
Back the downloaders, but smack the freeloaders.
It will be interesting to see how quickly the RIAA backpedals once the on-line community equates anything Brittany with being an Internet freeloader.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
This kind of nonsense is not going to stop until the media giants are made fully obsolete by a mass shift to independent artists/film/etc. P2P is a tool to help this happen, but it's not the end solution. We need quality musicians to stop signing record label contracts and lead the revolution against the big media middle-men. We need musicians that can think like entrepreneurs, not employees.
What we need is a movement like Open Source but for music: a legal and unstoppable alternative to the corrupt monopolies that exist.
Artificial scarcity is becoming more and more artificial. Soon all literature, recorded music and video will fit on a cheap disk. If disk space doubles every year for the next 14, today's 120GB drive will become tomorrow's 1PB drive. The Internet Archive, by comparisson, is "only" 300TB.
At that point, the protectionism will become impossibly difficult to defend. When each person could be be given a copy of the Archive of Human Knowledge for the equivalent of 1 week's wage, the issue will resolve. There will be those societies who become enlightened, and those who wither in the greatest of dark ages.
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.
I'm sorry but someone needs to kick these U.S. lawmakers is the ass (that means you people).
What happened to the U.S. government actually addressing serious issues in the world. We have a internal economy that is in shambles because the government can't enforce accounting regulations that (get this) ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. The U.S. is in the mist of a international nightmare with two countries (Afganistan... remember them, and Iraq) waiting on us to clean up the messes we made flexing our stockpiled military hardware, and a global reputation as an angry child with a big stick.
And these Congressmen think some sort of priority should be set on protecting an ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
Please... I understand the law should be enforced but do you think a cop is going to write out parking ticket in the middle of a murder arrest. When the FBI can tell me that organized crime has been eliminated, all escaped fellons have been captured, all murders have been prevented and all the missing children have been found. Then maybe we should let them look at the music industries small copyright issues. (and I mean small... I don't believe the industry is suffering one bit, we made only XXX billions instead of XXXX billions.. BOOO HOOOO.)
Ok so since when did it become ok for MY tax dollars to go towards protecting the copyrighted material of a company? You are taking MY money away to ensure the flow of money to someone ELSE....what the fuck?
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
i believe this has been covered on /. before, but the first google is this
The term we need to use here is copyright infringment, and despite what geeks and lawmakers alike would love to believe, there is no way to codify the concept of copyright infringment in a way that a computer program or delusional person can always understand.
I have nothing againt an individual sharing copyrighted material, so long as he is authorized to do so. If somebody wants to share public domain stuff, that's okay. If somebody wants to share his own copyrighted material, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material with my explicit permission, that's okay. If somebody wants to share my copyrighted material without my explicit permission, but within the bounds of "fair use", I may not like it, but because we both live in this society and we've agreed that a concept of Fair Use is a good thing (and we're created laws specifically for that), that's okay, too.
But anyone sharing my copyrighted material against my wishes and for their own private gain (or to avoid their expense) is acting in a fashion which is illegal, selfish, and stupid. And it doesn't matter how corrupt our politicians are, or how evil the RIAA is, or how unreasonable copyright term is, or how many other people are doing it, or how slim their chance of getting caught is, or whether or not they would have paid for it otherwise, or how outdated the current business model is, or whether the author/artist would be "richer" or "better off" if he'd change his mind and allowed it to be shared, and so on. As far as I'm concerned, those are just the lame rationalizing of a delusional mind which has already admitted it is infringing someone elses copyright, but has decided to do it anyway for its own selfish reasons.
This is one of those things we can't really leave up to our computers or our lawmakers to decide. We have to decide for ourselves if we would rather live in a world where we have free access to all of the content produced by the RIAA and kin back when they existed, but nothing at any price since we killed them, or whether it's better off for us to respect the wishes of our valued authors and artists and acknowledge a right we know they can't well enforce in exchange for the things we will lose if we force them to enforce it poorly.
Thanks for letting me rant.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.