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.
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.
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
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
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
'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.
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.
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
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.