Slashdot Mirror
House Bill to Make File-Sharing an Automatic Felony
JAgostoni writes "Wired news has an article about a new bill that would make it a felony to upload a file to a P2P network." EFF has a copy of the bill online. Conyers and Berman both get over a quarter of their campaign funding from Hollywood, according to opensecrets.org. You may remember Berman from this bill and this one.
Guess we should stop teaching our kids that sharing is good....
I have complete faith in this bill being passed. You know... because it hasn't been made into a crime when it was tried before.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
Do they even stop to think about the sanity level of these bills before they introduce them?
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
How long untill some jack ass Senator tries to pass a bill that will make running a FTP server illega?
With somewhere around a quarter of the US population engaging in filesharing, I suspect that corporate-run prisons will be a growth sector over the coming years.
I'll need to call my lawyer shortly...
... TECHNICALLY I would be in violation of "uploading" my song files to my Mac and playing them over my LAN to the stereo with my SliMP3 player? It's all simply peer to peer networking.
Based on this new bill
Ironically I've _never_ done Napster or Kazaa or Freenet or any of those types of P2P networks. Yet the RIAA probably wonders why people like me have simply STOPPED buying CD's. Not 1 for 3 years now.
I mean, it's not as if they're even hiding that they've been bought now.
So, publicly funded election campaigns and permanent and continuous auditing of their finances.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I think this is a great direction to head with our already broken justice system. Within a few years I'll be able to go to work with a loaded AK-47 and massacre... ohh lets say anywhere between 10-12 co-workers, and get a lighter sentence than if I downloaded a few songs/movies from the internet.
WTF is going on when I can assault someone, sell drugs, or some such and get a lenient sentence (which means I'll be out in less than half the time sentenced for) but if I do anything computer related its some gawd-awful thing.
Its called a "perceived threat". And the entertainment industies are scared shitless that, as the article indicates "they try to hold on to their business models", they may have to change models. Lawmakers see a threat because they're campaign funds come from these sales. And it is amplified by the fact most are technologically-inclined(Lets blow their computers up, yeah!). Here's a thought, using technology as a tool. But what good is a tool to them if they can't control it outright? That seems to be their outlook.
The entertainment industries have to take a good hard look at the future. Piss of your buyers or work to accomidate them while makeing cash.
Read the proposal: "not less than $15,000,000" "for investigation and prosecution of violations" of the "Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003". [Great acronym]
Shit, everytime I hear about a law like this I get to urge to move to another country, and even then you're not always safe from this sort of stupidity.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
What are the chances of this bill acctually being passed compared to his failing track record?
This bill imposes penalties for unploading files containing copyrighted content where the uploader does not have the permission of the copyright holder. It's perfectly reasonable. The Slashdot article, on the other hand, is sensationalist nonsense.
... Everybody who's suprised by this action?
:(
I thought so.
Now hands up everybody who's suprised it took this long?
Doubt it'd make it through tho... But these days you can only hope for rational behaviour, not expect it
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
A felony? Why not a misdeamenor? WTF?
I can leave a CD at my buddy's house and no one cares....
Time to write to Congress again... third time this week....
This space for rent.
But what jail will be big enough to hold all the fileswappers?
So if I want to share my own copyrighted works free of charge, would that make me a felon, or just anyone who downloads them and makes them available to others?
To understand recursion,
you must first understand recursion.
Just wondering why when they are both Democrats, as in this case, the /. story does not mention their party. When they are Republicans the party is made very clear, like with Sen. Hatch.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Looks like Freenet is labeled as "enabling software" under terms of the proprosed law.
The proposed law also seeks to impose up to a 5 year jail term for registering a domain using false information... Bad stuff.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Seriously, if things were as our forefathers had intended the people behind this type of legislation wouldn't want to leave their house without bodyguards.
I'm still amazed that Ken Lay and his Enron buddies haven't been shot yet; what was it, 150,000 retirements they destroyed?
I think the higher-ups (in gov't and corporations) would be a LOT more responsible if they feared for their lives a bit more.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
[yahoo news]
Without trying to spark a political debate (which this comment surely will), its interesting that Democrats seem to favor the bill and Republicans do not. Any thoughts as to why this may be? Is the RIAA in the pocket of Democrats?
This just doesn't seem like one of those issues that would normally fall along party lines.
Its also frightening that they point to "song swappers". What is a song swapper? If I email an mp3 that I ripped from a personal CD to myself, does it make me a song swapper? It sounds to me as though this legislation would be incredibly sweeping. Scary stuff.
[FromTheMorning]
...let's make all forms of exchanging information illegal. Search engines, private servers, radio and television, etc. because I could possibly copy a television show on to VHS or DVD and give it to my friend.
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
Remember: The old adage "fight fire with fire" does not apply to non-metaphorical fires.
Actually, back-burns are a classic way of fighting forrest fires. The idea is to deprive the larger fire of the fuel it needs to continue spreading.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
To support the EFF. It's quite clear that the major record labels have some pretty good lobbyists to get a bill like this one on paper.
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
I'm not an American (am UK),I know a felony is an illegal act. But is it a criminal or a civil offence ? i.e. can you be sent to prison for it ?
If so then all I can say is welcome to Orwell's 1984 !
1. Connect PC to Internet.
"Plus, the poorly written bill sets up an unnecessarily wide dragnet, Schultz said. It criminalizes the placement of any copyright work on a computer network."
"'If you have a file stored on your computer and your computer is connected to a publicly available network, you may not even know that you are committing a felony, but this law could put you in jail,' he said."
Operating systems are copyrighted. All you Windows/MacOS/SCO users better disable your Internet uplink.
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
We need to get those murderers, drug dealers and people who listen to music without paying off the streets - they're dangerous.
Please tell me again how many people in the US make use of p2p networks.
How many of those have voted for these politicians in the past and will be pissed off enough to vote for someone else?
How many that have not voted for these politicians and will vote for them now?
My guess is that the first number >>> second number. Exist Conyers and Berman
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
All my porn comes from P2P! How am I supposed to get it now?!
Summation 2
If I read the proposal correctly it will be illegal to offer "enabling software" for download without notifying the customer of its implications.
Why risk five years in prison when you can do easy time instead? Give up your P2P networks and purchase (or steal, we know what you little motherfuckers are like!) a handgun. Now go to your local video store and rob them at gunpoint! You're still likely to get a lesser sentance than if you'd downloaded the file, plus you don't have the cost of burning a CD! Woot!
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
...but granted, it is still scary nonetheless that people WE elected into office to represent us actually think this way.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Plus, the poorly written bill sets up an unnecessarily wide dragnet, Schultz said. It criminalizes the placement of any copyright work on a computer network.
"If you have a file stored on your computer and your computer is connected to a publicly available network, you may not even know that you are committing a felony, but this law could put you in jail," he said.
So, even if you don't know you are connected to kazaa (computer in a library, for instance) you could still get jail time for it, positivly amazing. I'm sorry I live in Michigan, where someone from my state wrote this pos up.
There's more! Under this bill it would also be a crime to use false information when registering a domain name. The punishment is up to five years in prison. Of course, there are no prohibitions against using that now guarenteed-to-be-accurate information for marketing purposes. Sigh.
If file sharing becomes illegal...ut oh!
Bye-bye Bill Gates. You built-in to Windows the ability to share files and folders on a network. FOOM! There goes windows.
It's back to Windows 3.X for us!
Speaking of File sharing....isn't a webpage basicly a rudimentary shared file of text files, Images, and multimedia content?
FOOM! There goes the internet.
OK, now I understand why the Supreme Court recently legalized sodomy. Clearly, it was necessary to make it legal before the RIAA and the US government start systematically buggering the general public.
<RIAA spokesperson>
Lube? What do you mean, lube? You're a thief, plain and simple, so you're going to be buggered in the exact manner that I specify. Which means no lube!
</RIAA spokesperson>
Take down your FTP Servers, boys, we're going back into the dark ages.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
My senators and rep Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Cornyn, and Tom Delay will all be getting faxes today from me. Again, I will stress the angle that the US should not be in the business of keeping businesses with outdated business plans propped up. In addition, a mandatory five year sentence to federal pound-me-in-the-*** prison, when we got killers, drug kingpins, and celeberties get off with easier sentences. Oh I am peeved at the moment. Hey Michigan and California wake up and don't elect this jokers again.
If everything went into place according to the way that bill is written, Microsoft would have to have a warning label on everything it sells "that it is enabling software and could create a security and privacy risk for the user's computer."
It appears that this bill would take away a content producers ability to share a file for which they hold the copyright. Example: I write a short story, and upload it to the WASTE network P2P app. so I can download it from a remote location. FBI finds out, I'm charged with a felony and up to 5 years in prison!
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but, come on that's just stupid.
Now let me see if I understand this whole P2P thing.
The idea is that you have a file on your computer and you share out access to that file. A client then comes along and downloads/transfers that file to their computer.
When exactly are you "uploading a file" in this process?
(In the traditional sense an upload usually signifies a push process.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Now, I call to all patriots to fire-up Kazaa and start spewing forth all your MP3s. It is your patriotic duty to kill, destroy and eradicate the music and movie industries who have subverted democracy to their sole advantage!!!
Time for us all to mass migrate to Freenet. To get you all started, I've uploaded a copy of this bill to Freenet.
Same chances of getting caught... and it won't be a felony.
now they are going to do it with file sharing. Arbitrarily harsh punishment for small crimes.
love is just extroverted narcissism
"A new bill proposed in Congress on Wednesday would land a person in prison for five years and impose a fine of $250,000 for uploading a single file to a peer-to-peer network.
Oh thanks goodness! I never have less than 5 uploads going at a time, and I think that my download max is about a dozen, which I hit all the time.
...of the law is the will of the people, how is it that the will of the people contridicts the law?
(No, The Brain didn't actualy say that)
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
It's bullshit like this that makes marginally sane people crack, and start sending out anthrax letters, bombs, and buying high-powered sniper rifles... don't these Congresscritters get it?!? Why would you risk the wrath of some lunatic over a Britney Spheres, I mean Spears tune? Time for WW III, I guess, since we are already regressing back to the Stone Age anyway. Fucking clueless bastards.
-The (incredibly pissed off) Dog
Welcome to the War on Copying!
(Brought to you by the government that brought you the smashingly successfuly War on Drugs, which after 32 years of increasing the drug abuse problem and smashing civil liberties, we're sure to win any day now.)
Mandatory minimum sentances for copiers. The death penalty for copying "kingpins". Criminaliztion of CD burners as "copying paraphernalia". Zero tolerance laws, where kids who write down pop song lyrics in on their schoolbook covers will get busted.
Oh yes, and more smashing of civil liberties. And more people in jail (in the nation that already has the highest incarceration rate in the world), and more money for the prison-industrial complex.
Coming soon to a nation near you. But you know, Copying is public enemy number one...
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Jails are already running substantially over budget and overpopulated in many states. They are releasing actual felons and lots of non-violent drug offenders prematurely due to this fact.
Locking up some poor schmuck as a felon for sharing his shitty 128kbps rips of 50cent would not only define anti-reason but also would be unfeasable from the economic standpoint. Either you have to lock up half of your population or be unable to enforce the law. This is just a losing position this bill has, and was put forward for symbolic purposes only.
Sort of like that time when Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft to prove a point in the wake of Iraqi War.
Whats next? If you are sending packets out of your computer, you're a terrorist?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
How much content on p2p networks is legally distributable content? I think this bill might be a tiny bit overboard, but it's needed in today's 'gimme shit for free' internet society, especially here on slashdot. KaZaa has nothing but copyrighted music and movies, freenet is a haven for child porn perverts (as was discussed in yesterday's freenet article), BitTorrent has nothing but hollywood movies. You've ruined it yourselves, slashdotters. I hope you enjoyed the grabassing while it lasted.
Wouldn't want to let anyone see my enabled c$ drive.
Well, according to the proposed bill, any computer network that allows 3rd party access to copyrighted works would be illegial...
_CMK
Bad spellers of the world untie!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Oh, I'm sorry. I was just trying to publish some information. Now I've commited a felony and lost my right to vote. These clowns are why we were given ammendment number 2.
I'm not a file sharer, I'm an information sharer. I'm scared as hell.
Fellow USA-ers - instead of whining on /. - lets go out and vote these guys out of office. They attack us - we fight back. Hit them where it hurts. "I'm a file swapper - AND I VOTE". ;) As Cartman would say: "Seriously guys!"
Courtesy Political Money Line (http://www.fecinfo.com), please note the following donations to the Conyers for Congress 2002 campaign:
MPAA INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 10/5/2001 $2,000
SPRINT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 10/4/2002 -$1,000
SPRINT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 6/14/2002 $1,000
SPRINT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 7/13/2001 $1,000
SPRINT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 12/31/2001 $1,000
SPRINT CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 6/11/2002 $1,000
TIME WARNER TELECOM INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 1/23/2002 $1,000
TIME WARNER TELECOM INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 7/25/2001 -$1,000
TIME WARNER TELECOM INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 7/25/2001 $1,000
By the way, if you hear Conyers talk, he sounds exactly like Sugar Bear.
-- Apparently, some people are calling me 'Maurice' merely because I said something about the pompitus of love.
Wow... that only took a few years. When is the government going to realize they do not have the organizational ability to keep up with changing technology. By the time this comes into effect, there will be something else that falls outside the law. Instead of freaking out and trying to jail everyone, perhaps embracing the technology and finding a way to work with it may be a better cause.
"The bill was introduced by Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.)."
You Democrats in the reading audience better be paying attention to this.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Felony = very bad crime that follows you around for the rest of your life. It is a criminal offense.
Jeremy
It's like, since offshore accounts are used mainly for money laundering and illegal gambling and other illegal things like that, that's why it's illegal to deposit money into an offshore account, right? ... Um, that -is- illegal, right? ... Using this kind of logic, shouldn't it be?
of this bill being passed.
Bit-player House politicians introduce bills such as these as a way to demonstrate to their constituencies that they are doing 'something' to address whatever problems said constituents are complaining to them about.
In this case, based on the intensity of the **AA's prosecutions of persons using file sharing, the more draconian their suggested bills appear, the better chance they having of pleasing their constituents, and hence raising more funds and votes the next time they're up for election.
Based on the success of these types of bills in the past, this measure likely will not make it outside of the house, much less the senate, where it will most assuredly get chewed up and spit out.
Beyond that, even if this measure did make it to the senate, and did get passed as law by the president, it would be struck down through litigation as a gross violation of the 1st Amendment.
''(b) As used in this section, the term 'enabling software' means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.''
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any modern operating system be considered 'enabling software' under that definition. If so, how will computers with preloaded OSes comply with this section of the law? Is it possible that all OS providers will now become felons?
If this passes I guess they could roundup the executives of AT&T, Time/AOL, Comcast, etc. for offering and running usenet servers that offer access to music and movies newsgroups. They're sharing with us right?
Too many people are tied in to file sharing for this to go through. The public backlash would be enormous. The powers that be will not risk having their marriage with corporations bought into the spotlight for something as trivial as this. I mean if the news picks this up there are going to be alot of questions asked about who funds this politician and his motivations. Not to mention he may lose next election when his voters revolt. If anything what this will do is make other proposals seem less drastic. For instance after hearing about possible criminal charges maybe people will think strict DRM and civil suits are not so bad. But I really doubt this is going to ever be a law.
Don't get me wrong, I think Davis should be recalled as much as the next man...but maybe these wonderful folks should be next in line.
I'm going to get flammed by some idiot Davis supporter...or at least modded as a troll by one.
This Bill requires that one have the permission of the copyright holder to upload a file on a peer to peer network. It ignores the possibility that such upload might be perfecty valid under Fair Use, hence (under current law), not require the copyright holder's permission.
This law essentially (like so many RIAA/MPAA efforts) attempts to trample fair use, while imposing ludicris penalties for unfair use (interpreted as most all use).
Phus. Sysiphus.
A felony is the highest form of criminal offense. Convicted felons also give up certain rights (some even after their prison sentence is over), rights like voting, serving in the armed forces or running for any political office higher than county level. And oh yeah, convicted felons give up their right to self defense as well. They are unable to own firearms.
This bill doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing--it wasn't written to pass, and it isn't expected to get very far.
HOWEVER, the 'rewrite' of it, which is far less egregious and overreaching, will seem like a huge compromise in comparison, and will get through without much problem. If it was introduced on its own, it would be fought tooth and nail, but now...
This is standard practice: If you want the moon, shoot for the sun. If you want a controversial law passed, start by asking for something ten times worse.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
love is just extroverted narcissism
The authors of the Bill of Rights had to start each with "Congress shall make no law", and neglected to add "And congressmen shall not introduce such a bill, either". It's also too bad that "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" wasn't introduced until the 13th amendment.
Please, tell me someone else here has read "Noir" by K W Jeter? It's a near-future sci-fi where copyright law has gone off into the weeds. The main character is a copyright violation hunter who finds the violators and takes their spinal cord. This law would be one more step closer to that. It was really scary when I read it two years ago, and it seems more relevant than Orwell's "1984" sometimes.
Apparently it's out of print, at least that's what Amazon says, but I picked it up at my local library. I urge everyone else to do the same, it's a good read.
From the Wired Article:
"In addition, filming a movie in a theater without authorization would immediately qualify as a federal offense."
I wonder why they are so afraid of this? I can't imagine that anyone who would really want to see a movie would settle for watching something cammed off the screen as opposed to going to the theater or buying the DVD. If anything, they should be afraid of the high quality DVD DivX rips.
IIRC it is a criminal offence that not only can you be jailed for, but you lose the right to vote ever again (at least in florida) or work in certain jobs.
If it were any other Congressmen I might chalk it up to one of those laws that says any citizen in the district can submit ideas for legislation that must be discussed and voted on by that legislative body. I think the Mass. State Commons (or whatever they call they state legislative body) has some sort of law like that (please hold all Mass. jokes). I think it a bit unfair of the slashbots to characterize all of Congress as uniformly unknowledgable when it comes to technology or blind to the fact that these two guys have Hollywood hands so deep in their pockets and so far up their asses that they look like some sort of human-sized muppets in a badly starched suits being groped in a Japanese commuter train (try to each your next meal with that image floating around).
Bottom line, with a few notable exceptions (the PATRIOT act and DMCA come to mind) the US Congress is usually a pretty fractious and discerning body that tends to steer away from stupid posturing such as this. It's far more likely these two Hollywood fluffers are up for re-election and want to top off their warchests. If this one doesn't get shot down in committee I'll be amazed.
I'd just like to point out that at this time, the sponsors of this bill all appear to be DEMOCRATS.
/. are often quick to point out how Republicans are protecting the Record labels and softare monopolies... but it seems to me that both parties have a hand in this.
Ok, mod me as troll or flamebait if you like, but it is the truth.
The really sad part is that Republicans aren't much better on this issue. As far as I can see, the American Consumer can not look to either of the major parties to protect their fair use rights. Writers on
Shame...
let's ban driving and nursing.
just because some people use p2p networks illegally, doesn't mean everyone does.
USE='clever' emerge -u sig
No, you wouldn't technically be in violation. It says you are in trouble if you provide the ability for the public to copy more than 10 copies at a value of more than $2,500. As long as you aren't providing access to this stuff to the public, then it's not effecting you.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
the slashdot guys are all democrats. duh.
Currently we have special interest groups funding government.
This is one of the reasons I might be voting for Howard Dean. At least he listens to what the people have to say http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/ http://dean2004.blogspot.com
I think the whole internet politics idea is genius.
Its just a matter of getting the old out and putting the new in. Dean seems to be new blood, advocating a new political process.
I'm going to watch his blogs carefully this week. Maybe I'll make a comment on it about this and see if he responds.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Year 2010 version of the bill...
"Performing or relaying the contents of copyrighted works without express permission from the copyright holder is a criminal offense punishable by death. Violators will be shot on the spot."
to return to a profitable market after the slump:
1 Send everyone to jail
2 ?????
3 Profit!
This just shows-to-go-ya that the political left is just as devoid of integrity as Orin Hatch, or anybody on the right. Everybody's got somebody in their pocket.
So what's the problem? Put a disclaimer box in your file sharing software and you're off the hook. Direct Connect is already ahead of the game.
The security and privacy thing, to me, sounds like it's aimed at software that quietly installs networking junk on your computer without asking you first. Sounds like it stops trojans and spyware more than it does Kazaa et al.
Lastly i'd draw all of your attention to the emphasis upon security, privacy, and '3rd parties storing data on that computer' (which sounds more like a backdoor ftp/irc serv).
But hey don't let me stand in the way of your panic.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Content like movies, music and software are the country's No. 1 export, but the creators are being hurt by people who use technology to get the content for free, Conyers said.
I see, so passing this bill into law will clearly prevent people in foreign countries that are not subject to US laws from sharing and downloading files. Right.
Store the software for this Sensor Networks for NBC Threats in an eeprom, when updates are done, neighbors notify each other and spread the code. Peer to Peer network, sharing files. Then we all setup our own sensors, under the auspices of public safety, thereby downloading software from a peer to peer network excluding us from legal action. It wouldn't hurt if the operating software for these sensors had a nice beat and we could all dance to it.
This country tastes like pain.
-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-
What would Yossarian do?
over a quarter of the us population using filesharing... which is well into the millions.
Hollywood say they will invest 15million per year in it, how many could they possibly employ with that? likely less then 300 people
so you have under 300 people fighting 10million+, they really need to look at things in the right perspective.
I recall seeing a list a while back of artists and/or labels that were represented by the RIAA (surprisingly, a lot of indie labels were on that list). Does anyone know where I can find that list again? Boycotting the RIAA doesn't mean to stop buying CD's, but to stop buying CD's that the RIAA "protects".
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
f@#@ the law they can't arrest us all
file sharing is a felony.
Our government dealt with larger issues than song swapping? Things like trying to fix Welfare, Medicare, homeless, the ecomony, etc etc etc
Been a long time since I saw our gov't do any real work.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Sweet. This isn't too bad. I'll let some Chinese (or someone from some other country) upload their junk, and then I'll download it. In fact, only one person need upload the material. Then two people DOWNLOAD it from them, then four people from those two, then eight from those four, ..., then 4294967296 from those 2147483648.
Honk if you're horny.
You're a retard.
AC comments get piped to
I hope they worded that one carefully (ha!) or they might have made search engine web crawlers and caches illegal.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
This is just like the crackdown on Marijuana in the late 60's, early 70's. All those laws ended up greeting scrapped when mom and dad's little Johnny was thrown into jail and given a felony record for smoking a joint. This appears to be the same thing: Share a file, get a record. All for sharing some Metallica.
Regardless of how you personally feel about this subject (file sharing) think about this seriously. Don't we have enough people in prison already? Might this also be an attempt to thin the voter roles a bit (felons can't vote)? What's the REAL agenda with this bill?
Nonetheless, I suspect that if something this extreme goes through, the backlash will be equally great. The question is: How many people will suffer for it in the meantime? What will it take to wake people up and take notice of these corporate-sponsored laws?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
''For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access...''
Those who wish to demonize the bill should read it first. It's not that long (in its current form) and will provide a much more solid base for the demonization.
If ever there was a justification for civil disobedience on a free speech issue, this one would have to make the list. We need a few thousand people willing to upload their own copyrighted work and then publically announce that if this passes, they will do it again. Yes, I am talking specifically about making the statement that they will commit the felony of sharing their own work on a P2P network that they already made available there before the law was passed.
It is obvious why RIAA and MPAA hate anything online, whether it is P2P or just some band's web site. It threatens their stranglehold on the distribution channels. Without that, people with the actual talent to create music and movies can find an audience themselves.
RIAA, just for the record, this weekend I'm going to buy a couple of CDs directly from the artists. They aren't on one of your labels. You won't get a piece of the action. I do it regularly. But it's going to feel even better this time.
Couldn't we just boycott the RIAA to death? It's not like their product is a necessity. Listen only to the music you already have. Buy nothing, download nothing, upload nothing. Find something else to do with the time.
Did this quote confuse anybody else? Presumably they mean the content industry folks are the only ones complaining about things the bill is meant to address. Even interpretted that way, however, it really doesn't add much to the discussion. Of course the industry is the only one that cares about its profits, everyone else is getting free music and movies. The real issue is that this law is just more legal bloat that is meant to scare people more than to plug any loopholes.
"So what are you in for murder, rape, bank robber?" "uhm...I was sharing some Michael Bolton on Kazaa" "You talking about that no-talent-ass-clown singer guy?" "uhhh..." "Come on over here boy." "sob..."
I read the bill (I know, what was I thinking?) and I really don't see where the "upload a single file, become a felon" part comes from. As I see it, the bill has 3 parts: 1. Increase funding for enforcement of copyrights. 2. Require cooperation with foreign governments in copyright affairs. 3. Criminalize Spyware, fradulant domain registration, and movie theater recording. And this is the part that I thought Slashdot would be rejoicing over. I don't think the clarification of "placing of a copyrighted work" to allowing a file (worth at least $2500 _retail_) to be downloaded 10 or more times is going to affect many P2P'ers. I'm beginning to think this whole article was a troll.
The bill is called the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003.
It seems pretty clear that this is designed to protect the big corporations and (maybe) the authors of works. But how this 'protect' consumers and computer owners?
I think I'm going to have to make "I'm glad I'm Canadian." my sig sooner or later...
It's not a question of not buying CD's, it's a question of not buying CD's that are on RIAA labels. Speaking as someone who is a memeber of the independant music community, I can say that bands like ours could use all the support we could get, in order to try and find a place for ourselves and avoid what boils down to a Management Union. The more independant music you buy, the less power the RIAA has, whereas if you don't buy -any- music, then the balance of power stays the same, and believe it or not, you actually help fund their statistics of people not buying music due to piracy. And for the recrod, there are plenty of music labels that aren't members of the RIAA. For example, If you're into Punk, (My area of expertise) there is Street Anthem Records and Fat Wreck Records. Both are known for treating their bands with the level of dignity and respect (and revenue ) that performers aught to be due. What I'm saying is that it's necessary to go a step further than not supporting the RIAA. You have to support their enemy, which would be free and independant music organizations.
And now its time for my shameless self plug, since we don't have the billions of the RIAA backing us for their own exploitive purposes, and probably never will:
The Pubcrawlers
http://the-pubcrawlers.com
New England Celtic Punk
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- C++ UL+++ P+ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o K- w-- O M V PS+ PE Y+ PG
That's bullplop. The only reason that science and technology is where it is now is because of competition and cooperative work. If everyone has to actually pay for stuff, then I will be poor and the technological community as a whole will suffer
In order to get the most benefit out of this bill, I guess the labels will be raising the retail price of their CDs to $250.
I see the logic in this. I mean, increasing the penalty on drug users has sure been working miracles in that other war.
But really, this is yet another example of: a) bad politicians in corporate back-pockets; b) treating the symptoms instead of fixing the problem; c) desperation; d) adding new laws instead of enforcing existing ones; and, e) thought control.
These Reps may realize how this bill will be defeated and all...but think about it: it forces the issue, it immediately shapes the discussion to favor the current regime, it places fear (you could get a virus!), uncertainty (it could create governmental security breaches!) and doubt (what about the children?) in the minds of politicians looking to get re-elected, it shows their campaign funders that they get their money's worth, and if all else fails...guess who will become well-paid RIAA lobbyists if they're not re-elected?
Personally, I love this kind of desperate action by the RIAA/MPAA and their congressional stooges. All of this sabre rattling will only speed up the development of anonymous P2P file sharing networks with encrypted network traffic. I would also love to see this law passed, maybe it would lead to an organized civil disobedience campaign. After the RIAA lawsuit threat against individuals, I've started sharing my personally ripped (from CD's I own) MP3 collection and I encourage people to do the same.
Note to RIAA:
If the RIAA is reading this and would like to file a civil suite against me, please send me an e-mail and I will be happy to disclose my home IP address that is sharing over 40GB of high bitrate lame encoded mp3's.
Famous Quote from Voltair: The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.
seriously.. once a few CXO's start getting knocked off.. mabey then we'll finally get real enviromental, financial, global, politcal, healthcare resbonsibility
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
19 ``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling soft-
20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
23 contents over the Internet.''.
I wonder how M$ feel about this. Since you can theoretically set up Microsoft networks across the internet, and every M$ OS comes with a network-enabled file find utility, that means all versions of windows are now 'enabling' software, and need a big fat warning followed by an explicit acceptance.
I wonder how it's going to affect google and other search engines.
This bill is a joke. Did April come around already?
The proposed bill actually says, "without the copyright holders permission"... so no, if you provide your works then presumably you are doing so with your own permission :)
The Freenet developers do not and never have had any interest in misleading users about what Freenet is and does.
Of course, I am not trying to defend this bill - it is clearly another example of "rent-a-politician".
Also, I'm still trying to figure out what a 'third' party is in relation to file uploading/downloading. If I put a file on my web/ftp server and someone downloads it ... no problem. Now if someone uploads a file to my server and then someone else downloads it, couldn't this be argued it was me downloading it (hence no third party involved) and then someone else downloaded it directly from me (again, no third party)?
Conyers and Berman have really gone overboard with this bill for their rabid protection of the copyright industry (for $$$?). It makes them look bad, and it makes the Democratic party look bad. When you start writing your letters to your Congressional Rep. (you are going to, right?), also consider visiting the Democratic National Committee and voice your displeasure with these two representatives and their anticonsumer activity. Then when you're finished with that, you can write yet another letter to the House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and tell her the same thing. Be sure to emphasize that these two Representatives make all of the Democrats look bad.
Maybe with enough complaints the Democratic leadership will lean on these fools and make them shut up.
IANAL...perhaps some /. legal ace can clarify my interpretation of the verbiage.
It's not a uniquely American term. You might try looking it up.
/. blurring that distinction is that it feeds the view that the two are equivalent. In other words, it boosts the idea that copyright infringement is the only thing a P2P network can be used for. This is self destructive.
In any case, it means the offense is more serious. A felony conviction has more serious consequences than a conviction for a lesser offense.
There already are certain levels of copyright infringement that are felonies. The language in this act makes unauthorized placement of copyrighted work on a network for free download equivalent to those levels of infringement (which, in practice, is probably accurate in terms of the level of damage done by the infringement).
Notably, that is not the same as making placement of any file on a p2p network an automatic felony, as the editors apparently want you to think. What I find disturbing about
Personally I do find it excessive that an IP violation should be a felony. Such are the existing standards of copyright law; this looks to me like it aims to strengthen enforcement by removing doubt about how certain offenses should be categorized. (The thinking probably is that if I place a work on a P2P network, it will be out there for at least 120 days, at least 10 copies will be made, and the retail value of the copies will exceed whatever limit was cited... but that none of those things can be proved, so instead we'll just legislate them as Truth[tm]. Such a tactic should itself be illegal.)
One last thing: I'm always amused how someone inevitably compares any government action they don't like to 1984. The whole Big Brother thing was about government invasion of individual privacy. Over-criminalizing copyright infringement isn't even in the same league.
I believe P2P is damaging to creative industries (entertainment, software, whatever), and I believe it is wrong, but making something even more illegal is not the solution. This is the same approach used in the spectacularly unsuccessful War On Drugs (and we all know about the Prohibition argument).
As a person who has worked in creative fields most of my life (whether music or other areas), and who understands the importance of copyright protection, I think this bill is a last gasp; the entertainment industry needs to change their approach to selling their product. The demand is very obviously there (otherwise this wouldn't be such a huge issue - it's just entertainment for pete's sake, and consumers act like their right to life is being snatched away), so if the business model is there (when I say business model, I mean not just the outlet for sales, but the whole business model, from top to bottom), the product can be made and sold at a profit.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
For those who track these bills, it has been assigned bill number HR 2752. This link goes to the Library of Congress Thomas website status and summary page for the bill.
1) do you have all the services running that you possibly could? I didn't think so! Open some more up! .pif/.exe/.scr that someone helpfully offered you without asking for it in #!!!l33t-d00Dz-uNl1M1T3d! Hell. Try running Subseven just for kicks on your machine and post to some message boards asking for help on how to use it. Don't forget to mention your IP!
2) don't patch ANYTHING
3) safe computing? Bah! Ask for that Gator plugin! No, demand it! Open the new game which they hope you would like very much that you got at random via e-mail! By all means download that
4) when the jackbooted thugs come a-knockin', just tell the judge (you still get to see one, right? or is it straight to camp x-ray with you?) that "My computer was trojaned. Software I didn't know about was installed and I've never seen those files before." and bingo! Reasonable doubt!
5) ????
6) profit!
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
This law basically makes it illegal to publish even your own material.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
WOW.. A civil issue of copyright violation becomes a federal felony...
Well thats ok for me, the only files i've uploaded/shared to p2p networks are files that ive already downloaded from p2p networks. Well i better hope that logic works because i live in England and that means the American government can take me for whatever reason they want.
So now people can ruin their lives just by downloading music, they dont even have to take drugs, murder, rape, assult or steal! Infact you'll probably get a far less serious punishment for those crimes. Laws like this really help to teach young people what justice is all about.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As long as you share RIAA-distributed music, you're demonstrating that their marketing is beneficial to the artists and that their business model is not antiquated. Support independent artists instead, and prove the RIAA is unncessary. The culture of P2P networks needs to shun those who cause laws like this to be created so that independent artists will have a method of distributing their music to the masses.
so does this mean someone committed a felony if someone gets infected with a virus and it starts emailing out copyrighted files without the users permission?
sircam was one of my favorite file sharing programs. i never knew what i would get from random people on the internet...
but I may be registering Republican now.
At this point in time I feel obligated to remind slashdot that Ashcroft did loose to a dead guy. Once again I guess it's all Missouri's fault.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
There is _nothing_ illegal about making MP3s available on a P2P network. It is _downloading_ an MP3 you do not have fair-use rights to (by owning the CD) that is a copyright violation.
Of course, nobody has the money to fight the RIAA on this and that's what they're relying on. Unfortunately, our legal system has reached the point where fear, intimidation, and money are more important than right and wrong.
LordBodak's journal.
except for that TIA Admiral? Ah right, he was pardoned wasn't he??
Personally, I'm out. No more CDs, radio, TV, cable, Movies, DVDs, etc.
I grossly lumping MPAA/RIAA/Whatever together, but I can't tell the difference anyway. When an industry (entertainment in this case) wages war on its own customers, I choose not to participate in that industry.
You can vote jokers out of congress all you want, but the other party's jokers aren't much different. I've chosen to do the only thing I can, and that's simply not participate in anything related to the entertainment industry.
It's hard; as you've got to give up quite a bit -- but, oh man, you sure do end up with a lot more time to devote to more important matters anyway.
I would encourage anyone who can see the logic of my post to check your resolve and try the same. Spend a month off the entertainment grid -- you might just like it! I do!
Hello. My name is Bob S., and, although I am not one of your constituents, seeing as I live in Minnesota, I still feel it is my duty to express my outrage at the introduction of the Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003 in Congress. (Why is it even called an act? It's a bill.) I'm sure you are already well aware of the fact that the United States has one of the highest incarceration rates of its own population in the world. Your bill will only exacerbate this problem, and potentially cause prison murder and rape rates to skyrocket. How is this possible, you ask? Well, if an 18 year old Dearborn, MI, kid, or perhaps a 30-something soccer mom from Van Nuys, CA gets put in the state penitentiary for uploading an Eminem song to someone, and he/she is put is a cellblock of crack dealers, gangsters, or murderers, I'm guessing he/she won't last too long in there.
Clearly, this is yet another attempt to "buy" laws by the Hollywood "content" (and I use that word loosely) industry. Why don't you do your actual constituents a favor, and stick to areas of life that you actually have a modicum of a clue about? Our country would be better off for it.
-Bob S.
Things like this irk me to the point that I would purposely share every single file that I could find.
Oh? So you want me to pay a fine of $749 billion and go to prison for 15,000 years? Sure. I'd be honored.
There's a worthless law.
e ,one,zero,one,zero,one" which in itself, is not a file. If I am to be convicted...so must be everyone who sees a car be convicted of auto theft.
Why won't this work?... MANY REASONS.
1. Near 100% of p2p programs allow a user to download a piece of a progeam from multiple users. So none is "uploading" a file. Just small parts. Your honnor.. I didn't "upload" the file just the section of it that states "one,zero,zero,zero,zero,one,zero,one,zero,one,on
B. Users of a p2p network do not "upload" files (with the exception of the PUSH p2p networks...I know of only one.)
And
III. Every whiny bitchy beaurocrat who complains about p2p, and tries to pass laws making any part of it illegal all seem to overlook a vital element in their plans. Jurisdiction.
Lets have everyone chip-in and we can all buy a share in a new company. One that produces Free floating, or anchored file-servers. They'll all free float in the international waters of the worlds oceans, or in orbit high above the Earth, and high above the money-grubby hands of Technology ignorant ageing polititions.
But it seems we are heading into two different directions. Crimes and their punishment are being classified into crimes against people and crimes against corporations. Crimes against people can be plea bargained down to minimal sentences. Crimes against corporations are constantly on the upswing as far as severity and punishment.
I remember when I first noticed this was during a period when those two kids from Delaware murdered their newborn child and dumped it into the trash. Their bail was set at $250,000. During that same time someone got nailed with a tone dialer (Bernie S mbe) and his bail was set at $300,000. The Delaware kids sentence for murder ended up being just two years each. Not bad, huh?
Its clearly time to get everyone over the age of 45 out of politics.
Thats why I have the url in my sig
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Yes, I'm close (less than 2 years) to finishing my Ph.D., but I...HAVE...HAD IT!! If this bill passes, I promise that I'm quitting university and fleeing to Canada, New Zealand, or some other hospitable nation and never setting foot in the U.S. ever again! I'll finish my degree elsewhere, even if it means starting from scratch.
This is absolute loonacy. I know 1933 Germany when I see it, Godwin's Law be damned!
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
The assault weapons ban is set to expire in September of next year!
And I've heard people are buying semi-autos and converting them anyway, so it's not as if people don't have these things now.
Aren't all web pages files...and don't you have to share them to make them available to the public...(publish to a webserver). Dot.com becomes Dot.gone for real.
No, they'll hire more bodyguards, become more reclusive and disconnected from reality, and get even more restrictive and privacy-destroying legislation rammed down our throats to protect their own precious fannies.
The golden rule, remember. Those who have the gold make the rules.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
The real truth is, I'm afraid, far more nefarious then that. The DMCA is an attempt to cut-off the fair use clause in the copyright laws. Wny? Look at the backers of the DMCA: the RIAA, the MPAA, MS, and the computer game industry. They don't want you to make backup copies because it is not in their best interest to do so. So what if your copy of Shrek is so badly scratched that you can't watch it anymore? Who care is the kids used your Halo CD as a frisbee and wrecked it? Go out and pay another $20-$50 for a replacement. That's what they won't say, but it is clear to anyone with half a brain. At least Jesse James used a gun.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
Well, that's Usenet fscked then, as soon as someone sends a post to their local news server and claims within it that it must not be propogated.
It really adds nothing new to copyright law other than providing specific civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized uploading of material to a network.
This isn't ncecessarily a bad thing, it protects the rights of the copyright holders. If you create something, you can distribute the heck out of it. Get permission from the holder and again there is no problem.
Now, it does have a specific form of distribution which is treated unequally from the pnealties of all other forms, that may be bad, but I don't really see how as this form can be far more damaging to a holder (in theory at least) than any other.
So don't succomb to the kneejerk reaction on this. Perhaps it is a bit unfair, but it does not take away the freedoms that most people are going to think it does from reading that headline and blurb about the bill.
I may be off the mark. Believe me, I don't support the RIAA at all in this matter, still it is their property and they can do with it as they please. This bill only enforces that in a slightly different way than say, burning 50 cds of it and handing them out.
I am the penguin that codes in the night.
Since this applies to software, does this mean opensource falls in this catagory? Thats how it reads to me.
This won't ever happen. For one, this act, when illegal, is covered by existing law, and for two, it's far too broad.
just something else that the government will try to lock you up for..
/usr/RIAA /dev/null 2>&1
OHHH.. the POOOOOORRRR record companies.. I feel just oh so bad downloading that new album that wasn't worth the plastic it was pressed on..
beating someone sensless with a lead pipe: 6 months
running over a busload of little kids with your car: 1.3 years
Sending that new metallica mp3 to your buddy: LIFE!
Someone should go kick Lars Ulrich in the head repeatedly for starting all this crap with napster in the first place..
8-)
mv
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
Wouldn't any e-mail client that allows a user to send an attachment to 10 or more other users be considered an "enabler"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Frequently, bills are introduced to Congress to test the waters, or distract attention from bills that are likely to passed to more outrageous bills, that will not be passed. While there is an outcry over the decoy bill, the actual bill, while not as bad, is still preposterous, is slid in quietly; on its own or as a rider. (Of course, in some instances the decoy bill actually does get passed, which is what appears to have happened with the PATRIOT Act; in part due to the name).
Quite frankly, I think this is a decoy bill. Where's the real one?
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
...for a change. Just like China.
The only positive feature is that all windows users are felons, since IE is "part of the O/S", but not all linux users are :-)
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
You are using a P2P network as the negotiator, the actual upload goes direct to another user.
Geez, these law maker types are thick buggers.
You do understand that self defense and owning a firearm are not the same thing, right?
Luckily I still have my commodore 64 stashed in a closet so I'll be ready when things come full circle.
All the best,
--Bob
Convicted felons also give up certain rights (some even after their prison sentence is over), rights like voting,
Of course, they have to do this. Think about it, if 100 million people vote in elections, it only takes 50 million people voting together to elect the people they want. There are 50million+ file sharing people, so if they got their shit together, they could take over the system and make file sharing legal. Therefore, you have to take them out of the equation.
As people have pointed out before, systems and people route around damage. If you have a system (Copyright) that gets damaged by massive numbers of people (File sharars) and they could destroy you if they woke up (by voting) you route around them by neutering them by keeping them from voting by making them felons.
Of course they might just continue with their extortion racket of getting 10-20k from everyone in the world, but who's counting?
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Where are the ISP's during all this..... Shouldn't they eventually realize that for a lot of people, filesharing in the ONLY reason they have broadband?
Time Warner in my area produced an entire series of ads that essentially said, "Get Roadrunner, break the law, it's fun!" Shouldn't they be fighting for the filesharers?
People don't like that topic: Link
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
On the whole it seems to me that it used to be the idiots (dems) versus the bastards (repubs) but now it looks more like the idiot bastards versus the bastard idiots. Still, I prefer destroying innovation and free speech to destroying the international order and the biosphere, so count me in the Democrat column.
Well, that's the glory of democracy. You have the freedom to choose. Maybe they'll even count the votes next time.
Hey... we can complain on slashdot all we like. If you do not like what is going on politically then you can voice your opinion with your i) vote and ii) communication to your representative.
I've been involved with communicating with senators/housereps before and its amazing what can happen if a lot of constituents get together and complain.
The links you need are below! Remember, in your letter be polite but to the point. Say that you hope that they will not support Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003. Explain that destroying this nascent technology, P2P, which has so much to offer would be a serious error. And that the interests of the few elite (hollywood) and corporate interests should not prevail over public interests.
Links to email representatives
Berman's contact page
Conyers webmail page
Write your house representative
RIAA's going down. down. down. down.
the music industry already raised prices on CDs to make up for declining sales.
do you think that they will lower prices back down once people stop sharing files?
its just another example of manipulation by the record industry to screw us out of our money. if you ask me, the record industry should be fined for price fixing and breaking laws that were created to prevent monopolistic behavior...
this is a real double standard...
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Next thing you're going to say is that technically the Internet is a P2P network, since all of the OSI layers except for Application are the same. So now "uploading" "copyrighted" "files" to the "Internet" is a "crime."
:-D
Wow, we could shut down PressPlay.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I guess I can't share linux over p2p networks? After all, I wouldn't want to go to jail.
Alright, let's get this straight:
Terrorism does not require massive bloodshed of innocents, it would in fact be much MORE effective if it directly affected it's targets (ploitical and corporate in this case). The idea that terrorism (as a doctrine) is aimed at the populace at-large is incorrect, it is just a lot easier in practice to attack the least protected of your 'audience'.
Also, as a citizen in a democratic country I am PERSONALLY responsible for the actions of my country. All in all very few of us can be counted as 'innocent' when you look beyond direct and immediate actions. The WTC, IMO was amongst the most appropriate targets because it had the LOWEST ratio of innocent people of the available targets (how many children were in the WTC/Pentagon, not many), not to mention it being the home of those who finance our little empire.
War in Iraq? I didn't support it but I financed it with MY tax money. My Problem.
Israeli weapons killing Palestinians? I don't support it, but again, I finance it and leaders I have voted for DO support it. My Problem.
Foreign sweatshops? I'm not a fan, but damn straight I finance them almost every time I go out shopping.
One of the cornerstones of Democracy is personal responsibility for the actions of your elected government. If you don't like that fact you should remove yourself from the position of financier of your nation.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
File sharing=Felony.
Next thing, take the vote away from felons.
Poof! Instant disenfranchised voting segment!And multi-cultural, so you don't have that nasty 'profiling' angle!
Hail the Inner Party! Down with Goldstein!
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I'm not an American either (Like you, I'm also from the UK.) but I do know what a felony is.
Criminal charges in the USA seem to be divided into misdemeanours and felonies. Something like assault with a deadly weapon, or grand theft auto is a felony, whereas smoking weed in a public place used to be a misdemeanour in many states.
As you said, welcome to Orwell's 1984! Big Brother *is* watching you...
These draconian laws will eventually hang their sponsors.
At a time when the school systems are falling apart, much of our young men and women are overseas fighting an illegal war, environmental regulations are being rolled back, and unemployment is riding high, who do these jokers think they are kiding?
"You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but..." you know the rest.
The proposed laws impose a heavier fine for uploading a digital file than for swindling an entire country of people (Enron?).
Let them make these laws. The thing about laws is they require enforcement. The thing about enforcement is that requires people to believe in the law and take it as their duty to make sure it's being followed.
The only people excited about this are politicians and lawyers. At some point, they will have to rely on the police (or the military if the fuhrer gets his way) to push the populace into accepting the law.
Many cops I have spoken with are just as pissed off as everyone else about the way litigation threatens to destroy society. Many would much rather be doing "real work" rather than setting up speed traps, escorting Puff Daddy, harassing the homeless, or all the other duties that the upper class has saddled them with to defend them against the lower class.
At some point, there is a disconnect between the people making the laws, the people enforcing the laws, and the people paying all the bills (us, the taxpayers).
So let the corruption run wild. At some point, we'll all just stop paying our taxes, or stop working (through either our choice or a layoff) and the system, with these silly laws against FILE SWAPPING!!! of all thing will be so heavy on the backs of a smaller and smaller tax base, eventually the whole thing will crumble, the government will go bankrupt, and we can start again.
Sounds good to me.
Hrm...from the article:
Content like movies, music and software are the country's No. 1 export, but the creators are being hurt by people who use technology to get the content for free..
So, entertainment is our #1 source of income(roughly). And by using said entertainment in the wrong ways can hurt others. So the entertainment is like a weapon of sorts? Use it to sudue the minds of the masses for easier control. Hmmm....
Sounds awfully like the plot in this Scud #16 comic book. Basically these two planets shipped movies back and forth at each other, whomever had the biggest blockbuster won that battle, as well as the minds of the people watching it. Espinoge(sp?) was done to uncover movie scripts/plots before they were released.
Kinda funny how mindless entertainment is ranked so highly valuable by our society nowadays.
- A non-productive mind is with absolutely zero balance.
- AC
Remember this article about Orrin Hatch using software that he didn't pay for? Well he was using javascript that he didn't pay for. Anyone could go to his site and get the script.
So Orrin Hatch was posting copyrighted material without the authors permission on a website that was visible to the public. Maybe Orrin needs to stock up on KY before he goes to prison.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
"George Bush: The choice of a new generation" Wait, or is it, "George Bush: The Joy of Bush! Baa bup-ba baaa, ba ba bup-ba baa..."
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
they're trying to pass, we might as well put the non criminals in jails and let's the crooks roam freely. It'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than the other way around and still function to seperate decent society form the crooks.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
That's what I find so interesting about this whole thing. The RIAA is hell-bent on bringing down the P2P world. "File sharing is bad! Die scum! We're losing money, so you should be fined and jailed!" Yet their statistics are gawd-awful wrong and distorted. Even more interestingly though, is the fact that there is so muc more than just MP3 files that are being traded. Did we all forget about pr0n, pictures, software, and even a legitimate file here and there? There's a lot of software switching hands, yet it's the RIAA that's screaming the loudest. Is it because the computing industry understands a bit more about business models in today's economy and the recording industry is just fighting to stay alive with their old monopoly? Hm...stuff to ponder...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
In the early days of the internet (pre-www) it was all about file and information sharing, primarily among academics and the government. All commercial activity was taboo. Now, its turning into the exact opposite - plenty of pop-up ads and spam advertising everything on earth, but sharing files (the whole point of an internet) is being banned. Al Gore must be rolling over in his grave.
Can the owners of Kazaa/various other P2P networks have an EULA? Perhaps they can use the might of the EULA to specify that anyone working for the **IA is not allowed to utilize their network in any way. Since the owners of the p2p networks are companies who pay money to have their networks run, they could technically deny access to the **IA I think. IANAL but I do believe a company has the right to refuse providing a service to someone (i.e. provide p2p access to the **IA) as long as its in an EULA since technically the **IA searching through kazaa's p2p network is costing kazaa money.
Companies are allowed to choose which prospective customers they want as long as its not by gender/race/etc right?
If the **IA is not allowed to utilize these networks, they are powerless to search out college students and sue them for $98 billion.
Didn't, and don't. Care, that is, or at least not in real life. Do you really think that most blank tapes and CDs sold account for home recording? The RIAA and labels know about casual copying. They know people make copies of CDs for their friends. They know that they can't really put a stop to this (although they still speak out against it in public, and make some effort to correct it, but that always fails. Always.)
The problem is one of scale, and the reason there can be any attempt at a solution is that filesharing uses the public network. Suddenly, you can share your music with a lot more people for a lot less effort. All sorts of people are/were doing it, just like all sorts of people make (and have been making) copies of CDs or "mix tapes" (probably not tapes these days) for their friends. The problem is that by using a popular filesharing service, you're practically ADVERTISING the fact that you're illegally copying music. The RIAA can't help but fight something like this.
However, this bill is talking about ten copies of a song. Not 2,000,000, not even 20. This is talking about permanantly constraining your rights as a citizen for letting 10 people listen to some of the music you bought.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Here's how to stop this from being passed:
1. Close your web browser.
2. Write a paper letter to your reps in Congress.
3. Tell your friends to do the same.
4. GOTO 2
Ready, set, go!
Wait, so if I write a song that contains an E-F chord progression and then upload it onto the KaZaa network, can I be charged with a felony?
Then, can I punch Lars in the face? Repeatedly?
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
I guess the current politicians figure their only shot at getting re-elected is to disenfranchise the Napster generation before the kids who grew up filesharing start replacing them with copyright-reform candidates.
Not that it would work -- what jury in the world would convict someone of a felony for sharing and listening to music? How could it not be cruel and unusual punishment to take away someone's voting rights for the copyright equivalent of going ten miles over the speed limit?
I'm not worried about this law passing--it would be political suicide (I hope) to support something so broadly unpopular--but you know how this works. There's one outrageous law that everybody knee-jerks at, and then there's another that's still horrible, but seems reasonable in comparison. That's the one to look out for. (Not that it's not a good time to write your congresscritters now.)
The requested URL
Q: Do you know what a bodyguard is when you are out to kill someone?
A: Just another dumb motherfucker you have to kill to get to your intended target.
Seriously. If I was going to kill someone and they had a bodyguard or more than one bodyguard do you think I'd hesitate for one second to kill them to get to my intended target? Hell no.
If they are worth a damn they might manage to stop me. If they end up dead on the ground then they were ineffective and a waste of money.
So just about every open source program has a copyright notice.
Will it now, according to the law, be illegal to upload this material ?
Then they will start excavating bits of your gray matter for whistling the tune you just heard on the radio...
Lurking in the desert
"~Anger is more useful than dispair~"
-T3
So, like me get this straight.
The States slaps Middle Eastern and many other countries around for years and finally one group takes a pot shot back at you (9/11).
Government then decides its time to tackle this terrorism thing head on. Builds many bogus cases against very notably weak opponents and... sends in the Marines...while quietly building a case to basically suspend constitutional freedoms in the name of freedom... like that makes fuckin' sense... anyway, back to the war on terrorism?
This after years of funding the very terrorists they now have to hunt down because they've learned how to fight back and NO I'm certainly not saying I agree with their methods or tactics but slap a dog long enough on the nose and it eventually will disappear or take as big of a bite as possible.
Now, the fight is gone underground, the oil is following again but the price remains higher then prior to the war(s) and corporate America continues to rape and pilage their own and the record and movie guys have called in some funding markers to wage their own war on consumers. Huh?
Excuse me for saying so but America seems to be eating its own in a desparate effort to mantain the business models and monopolies that the FREE internet will eventually force to change. That is of course until sending an email that may cause average Americans to fight back is deemed an act of terrorism!
Send in the Marines!
I was browsing around...and came upon a list of felonies...
List of Felonies
I guess filesharing is now right up there will violent crime...
Jeesus.. I'm off to meta moderation to take care of this one.
To many, otherwise helpless people, it is.
I agree with what Kableh said 100%. It is illegal to copy anything that is copyrighted, so why do we have to spend more money on a law that should be taken seriously.
Both Wired News and Yahoo News Australia are covering a bill which, if passed, would "make it easier to slap criminal charges on Internet users who copy music, movies and other copyrighted files over "peer-to-peer" networks", by making it a felony to share files. Penalties include "...include up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine." The bill, known as the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003 (ACCOPS), is sponsored by John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.). Contact information is on their sites.
Note that the law just says "copyrighted works". Does this mean that CPAN needs signed authorization from every author of every revision of the code on their website? Its hard to see why not. I know that I plan to take the freeware off my website if this passes, because I don't have anything in writing from the authors, and I don't think the comments in a README file will stand up in court as authorization.
"...that would make it a felony to upload a file to a P2P network."
Um, I think you mean "copyrighted" file!
These kinds of headlines are to blame for the negitive view the general public has of P2P. P2P is a legitimate technology, and always will be. Just because a technology can be used to commit a crime, doesn't make it inherently bad.
Scott
Why don't they just tell us to go stand by the stairs and get it over with?
...thanks to David Blunkett's excruciatingly stupid efforts to help the US wage their War on Freedom^WTerror, we can now be extradited to the US with absolutely no due process, simply on the basis that a US law enforcement agency suspects us of having commited a crime that would carry a US legal system jail sentence of >1 year.
;)
So remember kids, don't piss the Feds off, or they'll have you rotting in Guantanamo before you can say "I want my phone call".
I guess it's time for the p2p guys to kick things up a notch and deliver a truly serverless, truly anonymous, securely encrypted network who's UI looks just like Notepad
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
But they at least pretend that they're no longer affiliated with their previous corporations, and it's the American people who get the blunt end of the stick rather than the corporations.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Yeah, my 60-year old aunt doesn't need a gun; she can just unload the whole six pack of whoop ass.
If by some chance this bill passes, Bush can guarantee himself the 2006 election by vetoing it...
Heck, I'd be willing to overlook the Iraq mess.
If you buy fake goods you could be
helping terrorists.
Cheers,
W00t
Jeese louise!! these SAME old arguments about P2P and/or theft appear DAILY on slashdot now and its e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y boring.
Does anybody recall the wave of farm foreclosures in the '80s? IIRC there were more than a few incidents where desparate farmers shot the local constables and bankers who were repossessing their farms. Shortly after those incidents began making national headlines, interest rates came down. Coincidence? or vigorous self-defense?
I remember the news stories well, but I have been unable to find any archives or history about this period.
It'll be Republicans who introduce something like this next year. The two parties are like a penny. It has heads and tails sides, but it's still the same thing (and they're worth about as much, too).
Hence the term Republicrats.
To drive that point home a little more: theft of copyrighted material would be stealing a CD out of a store - a misdemeaner.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
So I wonder how many years that old guy who injured 55 and killed 9 people including a 3 year old is going to get? If its less than 5 years maybe I'll just start running people over with my car instead of downloading music. They are going to get me somehow, might as well make it worth their time.
I'd like to see some examples of where the EFF has succeeded in defending our online freedoms, or affected actual change that has positively impacts our online freedoms.
Until they (or you, or anyone, I suppose) can prove that they are more than a money pit wrapped around a good idea, I'm afraid I can't consider the EFF a responsible investment.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
let the riaa spend the time and money going through everyone's files. suing each and every one of us and throwing most of the nations teenagers and techno-elite in jail.
the court systems and lawyers will make a fortune and with their entire marketplace in jail the music industry & hollywood will go down in flames. well maybe the government will earn enough to get out of war debt.
america. where selling crack and guns on the street will get you a slap on the wrist. pirate the "american idol" cd and you go to jail for 5 years!
I'm sponsoring the following bill in Congress. In a nutshell, P2P file shares will be eligible for the death penalty. Most will be shot dead.
Rapists, mass murderers and those who push drugs to small children will be eligible for early prison release to make room for jailed P2P'ers.
20GB hard =~ $40
USB 2.0 case =~ $40
For $80, you can make a portable 20GB drive, pack it full of your stuff, mail it to a friend, he copies it, and then he sends it back to you filled with his stuff. Repeat ad naseum. BUilding your collection 20GB at a stretch. 3 mailings a year oughta do it.
Who needs the Internet to trade files? It just makes it nifty, easy, and quick. But destroying P2P won't end filesharing. It'll just force it into the underground. Remind anyone of prohibition?
SO this would effect any files and not just ones which you do not have copyright for? What about content creators who cannot afford to distribute thier content in a more effective way?
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
"Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security (ACCOPS) Act of 2003"
Exactly how are consumers and computer owners protected by this act?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
"The golden rule, remember. Those who have the gold make the rules."
Only in capitalism, my friend. Only in capitalism. Try looking at a system system which says "They who expend the labor make the rules."
I've often wished I lived in the US, just for the convenience of ordering things online and the availability of a lot of new technology-- the iTunes Music Store, for example.
But if this bill gets passed, DAMN I'll be GLAD I'm not in the US!
Kindly see who supports (with $$$) Mr. Berman.
Entertainment Industry: $204,291.00
Legal Firms: $109,600.00
surprise, surprise. opengov coming in handy, once again
Please remain seated at your terminal, Mr. halo8 (445515). Secret Service agents will be arriving shortly to discuss your views on the ideal form of government.
If you fail to comply, Minister of Love Ashcroft will have no choice but to re-educate you.
Let's not belabor the silliness of this proposed legislation. The only question is what should be the response.
Obviously the political process should be allowed to run its course--contact your representitives, tell others of this lunacy, etc. However, given how utterly corrupt the US political system is--and the widespread apathy (i.e. hopelessness) of the populace--there is no guarantee that sanity will overcome the corrupting influence of big media money on the whores in DC.
It may be that IF this legislation (or something like it) becomes law, we could have the perfect case for the citizenry to use the time-honored concept of jury nullification. Simply put, juries can (and IMO, should) simply refuse to convict those accused of "crimes" which are contrary to basic concepts of fairness and common sense. With a sizeable fraction of the population file-sharers themselves, it is going to be awfully hard to weed us out of many jury pools--particularly if people do not assist the process by honestly revealing their feelings on the subject in voire dire (jury selection). I have no qulams about employing such tactics in the face of massive injustice purchased with corrupt campaign financing, and I hope you don't either.
I would take the same approach to the medical marijuana cases Herr Ashcroft wants to push, despite state laws to the contrary (state laws that were frequently instituted by citizen intiatives). Enough is enough.
Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
That's pretty steep for not wanting your personal information shared to billions of people.
DecafJedi
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something
No shit. Seriously now, who walks by a post that is THREE SENTENCES LONG and contains the phrase WTF? (OMG LOL ROTFLMAO!!!!!1!) and is ALREADY modded to 4 and decides, gee, THIS ONE REALLY NEEDS ANOTHER FUCKING POINT. For crying out loud, people.
Be sure to emphasize that these two Representatives make all of the Democrats look bad.
So, it's the special-interest beholden, bribe-taking, power-hungry Democrats that make the honest 1% look bad?
Anybody got a dime
I'll need to call my lawyer shortly...
Dude, you're already on the internet; just email the guy! And if he doesn't check his email 50 times a day (or doesn't have email), then he probably won't be able to help you out with this situation anyways.
Karma: NaN
I think his interpretation is correct, and it should eliminate a lot of FUD.
Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
Well, the reason to vote for Dean is because hes better than Bush. You know damn well voting Libertarian means you are voting for Bush.
We have to get Bush out, as a Libertarian you know Bush is no conservative. Just like I know Bush is no conservative, so Bush isnt the guy either of us want in office.
Dean may not be perfect, but hes better than who we currently have. Dean may spend money on healthcare but at least that money will be spent on us.
Dean has alot of very good ideas, he listens to the people, the people funded Dean. I consider him a Populist. Sure he has some socialist ideas, pure capitalism cannot work in the real world and you know it, even if you are libertarian you know this country is not ready for your libtertarian utopia just like socialists know this country is not ready for their socialist utopia.
We need a mixture of both because theres two types of people in this country, those who are fueled by individualism, and personal accomplishment, and those who are fueled by making a difference and improving society.
You can consider me a socialist, because I do not care about the money aspect of work. I do however understand that not everyone in this country is willing to live in a socialist utopia, greed prevents this, just like laziness prevents your libtertarian utopia.
Both of us should just vote for the best person for the job as President. Dean may be alittle bit of a socialist, but thats what this country needs, if we had a libertarian President this country would fall apart because like I said, people in this country dont all work for the same reasons, not everyone values individualism and money.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Reading the article carefully, would a vulnerable home PC be considered "publicly accessible"? The public can certainly use their access to acquire whatever copyrighted work you might have placed there.
Hmmm...
Maybe someone should hack and download from Rosen's PC, then report her (after thoroughly scrubbing the logfiles, of course).
Then there's the question of caching proxies. Is the proxy's loading of some file considered a copyright violation, and by whom? The proxy's operator? The person who read the file through the proxy?
At least it'll never pass.
I guess on the plus side, it screws Bonzai Buddy with that "enabling software" requirement. They'd have to tell users that their software is a privacy risk.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
You can get water for free and you can get (with a tiny bit of tech-savvy) porn for free and yet bottled water and online pay-for-porn are both HUGE businesses. Neither of them have had to resort to corrupting the legal system in order to sustain their profits.
When is the entertainment cartel going to get a clue?
MjM
I only mod up...
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
A corporation is a business whose goal is to maximize profit while minimizing loss. The expenses incurred in paying taxes is considered a loss. The most common way of compensating for losses is to increase the price of the product or service that the business manufactures or provides. When this is done, the cost of the losses is shifted from the business to the consumer that purchases the product or service.
When a corporation is taxed, it simply raises it's prices, and the consumer ends up being the one who actually pays the bill. The problem is that since we don't ever see the cost of these taxes listed on a check stub or receipt, we don't notice it.
Of course, I would never download mp3s, and I would never advise anyone to commit perjury or obstruct justice...
But, since this is America and I am free to explore ideas: if I were an mp3 downloader, I would simply set up a WiFi network, make a copy of my mp3s onto a hard drive and bury it in my friend's backyard, and say that I had never downloaded mp3s in my life and that if must have been a hacker coming from your WiFi connection. Even better, extend the antenna so that the range can reach a few miles, and then there really isn't anything you can do about controlling access - but you will now that the RIAA has informed you of this security problem you have... thanks, RIAA!
I wonder what filesharing will be like when they invent a cheap disk that could hold, say, a record company's entire catalog. P2P networks will be replaced by sneakernet.
From article:
If you have a file stored on your computer and your computer is connected to a publicly available network, you may not even know that you are committing a felony, but this law could put you in jail...Every computer has copyrighted material on their machines. Windows is copyrighted by Microsoft, so in essence, this bill makes committing a felony as simple as connecting a Windows machine to the internet. Someone who misconfigures their file and print sharing services, and inadvertently shares their whole C drive has just committed a felony - regardless of their intentions.
There are already viruses which turn unsuspecting Windows machines into filesharing nodes and spambots. If this law is passed, computer virus victims could literally be sent to jail for doing nothing more than checking their email. When it comes down to it, most users are not sophisticated enough to correctly configure their file and print sharing on windows machines, let alone detect when their box has been owned by a filesharing virus. This law would literally make it a crime for joe user to connect to the internet after his box gets hacked.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
What if you're in a state that has "three strike" harsher sentencing for the third felony offence, and you download an albulm? Yeah, probably part of a single charge, but can you imagine someone getting caught for the third time and doing 20+ with no parole?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
How many shitty countries have to fail before you realize it just doesn't work?
- Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft.
- Copyright infringement is already illegal. We do not need an additional law to deal with it.
- Prison time is not a suitable punishment for file-swapping.
- The vast majority of copyright infringement and subsequent revenue loss takes place not online, but overseas.
- Dropping revenue figures, particularly in a sluggish economy with high unemployment, cannot be blamed on file-swapping alone.
- The Recording Industry has not made its case that file-swapping leads to substantial lost revenues.
- The Recording Industry is living under the illusion that it is a mature industry. If it wishes to earn more revenues, then it needs to shed its adversity to risk.
- The Recording Industry does not care about artists, and does not represent their interests.
- The Recording Industry is not pro-First Amendment.
- The suppression of file-swapping is not about preserving intellectual property; it is about controlling the distribution of information, including legitimate distribution of properly licensed information.
- The single best way to prevent the spread of computer viruses is to not use Microsoft Office or Microsoft Outlook.
- If kids want to get their hands on pornography, then it is time for their parents to have "the talk."
- Without peer-to-peer networks, kids will still get pornography from friends and from the vendor down the street.
- The government creates its own security risks with bad foreign policy.
- Peer-to-peer networks aid, rather than inhibit, intelligence gathering efforts.
- The best means of protecting national security is through human intelligence, not by making illegal a line of communication.
Have I missed anything?Finding God in a Dog
Up to 5 years in prison?
What we need to do is get Berman in prison, that's the real problem here.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill politicians who've been bought
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Go ahead, get your panties in a bunch.
Now, let me explain:
If I write and perform an original song, it is copyrighted. I can encode that song into the MP3 format and upload it to a P2P network. I, as the copyright holder, can say "go ahead and make as many copies of this file as you want". That is not illegal. They want to put more and more power in the hands of the copyright holders - fine. We can all be copyright holders. So go ahead - put extreme power in the hands of the copyright holders. If I can set up a system that tracks my copyrighted material, and I can trace it to the RIAA, you can bet that I'll be able to retire after that lawsuit is over. I am sure I wouldn't be the only one who would do the same.
Somebody needs to shake these motherfuckers at the RIAA/MPAA and tell them they are not the sole holders of copyright in this country.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Thank you, that's what I get for trying to read legal documents first thing in the morning. Now where did I put my coffee?
But still it holds true that you have to make it accessible to the public.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I take it most members and non-members of the slashdot community are US citizens. Instead of complaining in vain thru slashdot, each one of you should log in to this stupid politician's page, leave a message with your discontent and bring that site to its knees. Then create a counter proposal to this bill, gather as many signatures (I'm sure with the popularity of P2P this won't be hard) as possible and submit it. And start boycotting movies and music stores.
If Americans used their heads and courage instead of passing for comformists then even gas prices prices would be accessible well below $1 per gallon (supreme). There is a war at home that we have to protest against(as opposed to Irak), it's called the DIGITAL PROHIBITION war, just as was alcohol in the 1920's, these capitol building idiots are just repeating past events in American history. Take a stand, stop wasting your time filling up the slashdot forums with nonsense and get out there and DO SOMETHING.
---written by guerrillero999@yahoo.com---
Would the same people sanction prison terms for those who swap tape compilations with friends? Or who photocopy newspaper and magazine articles for them?
Someone set up already...
P
as i read the proposed law, and i am not a lawyer, a program must display that it can share files when you install it. does windows? heck, does GNU/Linux?
so remember to turn off file sharing on all your servers, and purchase lots of floppy disks for sneaker-net
... living in Canada! You Yanks have some real dunderheads running the show these days... Sorry aobut your luck.
or any file with "copyright content" (I think they meant copyrighted) carries this penalty. This means if you create a song, own the copyrights for its performance, and upload your performance to a P2P network, you will still be breaking the law.
Can you say "monopolistic control of distribution mechanisms?" Better not, it's probably a copyrighted phrase, now.
Get off my launchpad!
Great! I'll ship my CD collection to someone in Europe and ask them to upload it to the P2P network.
What a preposterous law! Seems a lot like the Office of Precrime to me.
Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
The recording executives are deprived of rooms full of cash ;)
--Quentin
Okay, I read the bill. And while it does seem pretty bad, for the internet in general (making it a crime to distribute p2p programs without warning users that it could violate their 'privacy' even if it doesn't, for example) it doesn't seem to say anywhere that it would make it a felony to upload any file to a p2p network, only a file copyrighted to at least 10 other people in 180 days, with a retail value over $2,500 Did I miss anything? I'm not a legal expert
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Care to elaborate?
This space for rent.
I guess this is just more incentive to build a "peer 2 peer" Internet using wireless. The corporate network can have its fiber the rest of us will go wireless. This is ofcourse a pipe dream, but, in theory ISPs can become obsolete. I don't know what I'm rambling about...
There is serious reason to believe that this might actually get through as law.
It's got some things going for it and against it. The Dems behind it are from various regions of the country--MI, CA, MA, NY, and FL. Those areas are also urban. Of course, that means that industrial money and interest in those congressional districts carries a bit of weight. Also, your artsy-fartsy types and wealthier constituents are probably represented. Wealthier people are investors and quite politically active. Are their investments in the entertainment industry? Artsy people are always interested in copyright law when it goes in their favor. On the other hand, artsy folks don't like the word "felony" associated with their freedom of expression. Two-edge sword and a tough call. We'll see who's writing their congressmen to complain.
On the other hand, the Republicans still have some power. Typically, the Repubs don't care much for extra laws to worry about unless it curries favor with big money industry. But, GOP-ers tend to be quite conservative and there aren't alot of Hollyweird or musician Republicans so no love lost if they don't play along.
It's kinda hard to call this one along the normal bipartisan lines, though. The bottom line is this: money talks and bullshit walks. Whichever group has the bucks and the most sympathy wins. People who steal don't get much sympathy and the record companies & hollyweird have the bucks.
Now, look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. You know that P2P sharing of copyrighted material is stealing don't you? Why should somebody feel sorry for you? Best of luck convicing the jury.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
This newsletter could also have a short, well written brief on the 'bill of the month' and links to the EFF and such.
Then distribute it on P2P.
It seems to me that it is the very *best* use of P2P - to educate voters and pre-voters as to what they are in for if this bill passes. As long as it's small and quickly downloaded, such a message could get out to many who won't see these bills otherwise.
Hell, record a message and put it in spoofed mp3 files. (just like Madonna) Just get it out there.
It pains me to see promising technology like p2p legislated out of existence. Especially since it *can* be used to educate people, and allow distubution of works that wouldn't be touched by the 'content industry'.
From article:
If you have a file stored on your computer and your computer is connected to a publicly available network, you may not even know that you are committing a felony, but this law could put you in jail...Taken literally, these guys want to make it a crime to connect a computer to the internet.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
If this passes, there will be so many felons roaming the streets that it won't mean anything anymore. When you go to fill out an application, and it asks you if you've ever been convicted of a felony, it will have a check box next to it that says file sharing so they will know to ignore it. Or it will say "have you ever been convicted of a felony other than file sharing".
No one seems to mention that this would go against the eighth amendment to the US constitution.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. [www.law.cornell.edu]
I would define having P2P sharing suspects labled as felons as cruel and unusual punishment. IANAL, but I do know a few, and this kind of law would never stand up in a court, because it flies in the face of the constitution.
Other laws that do that have always been struck down. The reason that the Patriot Act et al has not been struck down is that it does take a court case to fight these laws. Congress can pass what it wants, but we can still fight it in court.
Guess its time to find money to support the EFF and the ACLU.
To make the majority of the population in this country a felon, therefore removing what is left of our rights and freedoms on a massive scale.
If you lower the bar far enough, you will include everyone eventually..
Its time to toss out these people. All of them. Now.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Theft is a criminal offence. Copyright violation is a civil offence. That is a very big difference, and one the media don't seem to have noticed. Wonder why the word 'piracy' is used? Because theft is implied but not stated.
As my representative (I live in Massachusetts and all), I'm writing to you in order to ask that you vote against the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003. While file sharing is a large concern, and does need to be taken care of, this bill is not the way to do it. For example:
19 ``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling soft-
20 ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
21 computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
22 puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
23 contents over the Internet.''.
By this definition, web browsers are "enabling software", which makes AOL, Microsoft, Apple, Opera, The Mozilla foundation, and others liable to be " 17 shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than18 6 months, or both." This is due to the fact that web browsers allow 3rd parties to store data on the users computer ("cookies", which allow websites to store user data for retrieval in the future), and allow 3rd parties (the site owners) to search this data.
Yes, I agree file sharing is a large issue. However, this bill is much too broad to effectively stop file sharing without doing harm elsewhere. Please, do your best not to allow this bill to pass.
Sincerly,
Will Henchy
This appears to be like a bad comedy skit... picture the scene: prison cell: So guys what you in for? Murder Assault and Armed Robbery Uploading the new Metallica Album to KaZaA *GASP*
Kinda like how the Dole company made it a felony to steal pineapples from the fields on Oahu, Hawaii.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Roman Law is only binding in Louisianna. The other 49 states are common law states, with all British Commonlaw prior to 1776 being binding unless overruled by the legislature...
I remember reading that the right to trial by combat wasn't removed until 1780 somthing...
Alex
Nope, wrong! The lefties who think that "once a few CXO's start getting knocked off.. mabey then we'll finally get real enviromental, financial, global, politcal, healthcare resbonsibility," are not generally the "gun nuts" of the country. The gun owners are the right-wingers :)
"There was no disclaimer in the song file saying that it was copyrighted material. Most movies have FBI warnings at the beginning, why don't song files?"
You looked at the wrong stat. You looked at the PAC contributions only. Politicians are bought also by individual contributions...
Top Industries supporting Berman lists TV/Music/Movies as #1 with roughly 25% of all contributions made to the "honorable" Howard L. Berman (for sale for highest bidder).
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill politicians who've been bought
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
This is being inserted to get around the clause in the United States Code stating that "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
Take a look at the wording of the bill and the Code for yourself. First the bill:
Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended... by adding at the end the following: "For purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of the copyright owner, on a computer network accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.''.
Let's take a look at the referenced Title of the United States Code that will be modified:
Criminal Infringement. -
Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
So, the net result is that posting a file on a P2P network counts as distributing 10 copies worth $2,500 or more, which is a criminal (rather than civil) offense.
... you'd be hilarious! Whatever next?
I totally agree that file-sharing is a grey area. I also had my car broken into and lost hundreds of CDs. Fortunately I had made mp3 backups of some and thanks to file-sharing programs like napster and kazaa, I was able to recoup most of the others. I PAID for those cds already and so in my mind did nothing wrong by redownloading them.
If it hadn't been for the generosity of others sharing their bandwidth and music, I wouldn't have any of them, and therefore file-sharing is not wrong in my mind. The person who downloads the songs without the CD or any intention of buying it is the "criminal"... not people like me.
In retrospect, this was a great learning experience too, as I realized just how much money I had poured into CDs that I barely listened to. It makes me think twice (3 or 4 times even) before I spend money on music that I can get from other sources.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
This law is completely unenforcable... They'll probably want to add some nice pork to this to pay a "security" firm to do a study on how to enforce this. Three to one says RIAA / MPAA own shares in said company. Wonder what the return on investment of that Campaign Contribution will be.
Yet more money thrown into the crapper.
--WooooHoooo--
And are these 50 million + people all registered voters in the United States of America?
"They who expend the labor make the rules" is exactly how open source works. I don't see any signs of it failing.
Great comment--unfortunately you should have stopped there.
Not that it would work -- what jury in the world would convict someone of a felony for sharing and listening to music? How could it not be cruel and unusual punishment to take away someone's voting rights for the copyright equivalent of going ten miles over the speed limit?
Aren't juries supposed to decide whether a person is guilty or innoscent of breaking a law not pass judgement on the law itself? Though I tend to agree that it can be a great place for citizens to send a message about terrible laws, it really doesn't matter because judges can set aside verdicts if the jury ruling is counter to existing laws whether just or not.
I'm not worried about this law passing--it would be political suicide (I hope) to support something so broadly unpopular
Could have said the same thing about the DMCA, Patriot, Sonny Bono and countless other acts. People don't get riled up until after the fact (if at all), and congressmen are rarely (if ever) held responsible for their legislation.
Vote Quimby.
Well, the problem is that "intellectual property" is not actual property, it's a colloquialism cooked up by people who wish it was actual property. You can buy and sell copyrights, and you can buy and sell copies. But making a copy of something isn't stealing, because it doesn't affect the copyright.
The only way to 'steal' a copyright would be to do something like hack falsely register someone else's work at the copyright office, or something like that.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Much in the same way that owning a fishing rod is not, technically, the same thing as fishing itself. It's possible to fish with your bare hands but you're likely end up without any fish.
In matters of self defense, a gun is much safer (for you) than trying to use your bare hands.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
I feel real sorry for what you guys in America are having to put up with, i hope you find a solution to the degeneration of your legal system soon.
Felons may not have bulletproof vests as well, which I classify as self defense.
I'm beginning to wonder if many of these copyright laws prohibiting unauthorized copying could be overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment. Should this law pass, and the usage of P2P software continue to grow, a significant portion of the population will be jailed. Construction and prison administration will boom as a result, but overall, the future growth and prosperity of the nation will be retarted because all the brilliant minds are rotting in cells.
So if I get convicted for 3 counts of file uploading, that's 3 felonies. The 3 Strikes You're Out requires an automatic mandatory life imprisonment for the third felony conviction in California.
Looks like the prison population is going to skyrocket very quickly!
rj
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
This is so far from true that it's the best possible illustration of a vital point: media industries have influence vastly out of proportion to their economic impact.
The entire MPAA takes in, charitably, about $40b in revenues each year, including domestic and foreign video and film releases, and the RIAA is even smaller. Compare to the tech industry: Microsoft did over $35 billion in revenue last year. IBM did about the same. Cisco, $19b. 3 companies together take in more than double the entire movie industry - more than the movie and music industries put together, in fact. (To say nothing of Dell, Sun, Apple, Oracle, HP/Compaq, etc. etc. etc. etc.)
And yet it's the media that set the rules. Why? Tight political connections, of course (Jack Valenti was the first presidential advisor sworn in by LBJ after JFK's assassination), bred of one simple fact: politicians depend on the media to get elected. Quid pro quo. That's a rant for another time, however.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Since RIAA = RICO violations when is the FBI going to wokr for the common US citizen and charge RIAA with RICO violations?
Enough with RIAA bullshit its time to cut the head off the serpant
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Really... why have a public dole for politicians?
Instead campaign donations should be limited to registered voters in the district that the election is being held. If you do not have the right vote in an election, then you have no business trying to influence it with money. There is no reason why californians or new yorkers or englishmen or germans or anybody else should influence an election in North Dakota or Georgia. Only the people who can vote (by right of living there as citizens) should be able to influence the election. The outside money is just too corrupting. This would also have the effect of cutting off "special interest" groups like corporations, labor unions, and political action committiees who are not individual citizens of the district in which the election is being held.
The article mentioned copyrighted material. Now, what happens if I record a song myself and place it on a peer-to-peer filesharing network for distribution. Does that qualify? What if I encourage my friends to share the file on their p2p networks? Are we all felons?
Or does this apply only to copyrighted material for which permission has not been granted?
Skal! AMS
Duplication of creative content is not stealing since the original owner of the content still possesses it. Why is duplication considered to be so immoral? Duplication is devaluation; while the original owner still has the bits, those bits are no longer worth what they were before. Supply has increased, and intersects with the demand curve at a lower point, which means the same bits now sell at a lower price.
Obviously the creators of the content would like to insure that they remain the sole entity allowed to collect revenues for the content, and also insure that the price point is as high on the demand curve as possible. But do they have this right? Does their self-interest override that of other people?
The Constitution provides a limited-time monopoly on duplication of content to its creator, and our legal system has inferred that this monopoly may be transferred. Not everyone involved in early American government agreed with this idea, however. In particular, Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the spreading of ideas could not be stopped, benefitted the public, and could not be said to have truly harmed the originator of the ideas since he still possessed them.
The real question is not whether duplication is illegal, or whether it is immoral; it is whether it should be illegal. Not all activities that are illegal should be illegal; not all activities that are immoral should be illegal, either.
The supposed harmful effect of duplication is devaluation of the original. I say "supposed," because it is entirely likely that the loss of value to the content originator is far exceeded by the economy's gain in value as the content is reproduced. But should activities be illegal just because they devalue someone else's property?
I believe that rights should be absolute and unlimited except as they interfere with the rights of others. I believe the government exists solely to protect those rights from infringement by others within and without the government's jurisdiction. Individuals have the right to do whatever they choose with their person or property, so long as it does not interfere with another individual's right to do so. In other words, any activity engaged in by two individuals must involve the consent of both, and requires the consent of noone else.
This sometimes allows activities that I personally might find abhorrent. As a Christian, I find many activities to be wrong that the general public does not. However, this does not give me a right to regulate their activities or infringe upon their rights. Individuals may say things I disagree with; they do not need my consent to speak. However, I may or may not consent to listen. So long as the activity of another individual does not without my consent harm or kill me, or damage or confiscate my property, those activities should still be legal.
Activities that devalue the property of another do not actually harm that individual. The individual still possesses the property, and the property has not actually changed. These activities should be allowed. If an individual spreads information about a defective product, the defective product is devalued. The right to speak out about this product should of course not be infringed. Even if a product is not defective in any way, an individual might mount a campaign to convince the public not to buy the product: by advertising an alternative, for example. Advertising a competing product may devalue the original, but it should not be illegal.
Competition may undercut prices to devalue their competitors' products. This should not be illegal. It is an individual's right to do with his property as he chooses. If he chooses to sell it and take a loss, that is his right. While this might cause trouble for his competitors in the short-term, in the long-term he will not be able to sustain his loss, and the price will rise again, allowing more room in the market for competition to return. (Or else he will fund the loss with sales of
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
House Representatives have a 98% reelection rate. Why? Well, because they enjoy a 5 to 1 advantage in campaign funding over their opponent(s), and Joe Sixpack trusts the candidate who can afford to be "As Seen On TV".
The more evil Berman gets, the more he's likely to be reelected. Apparently it doesn't pay to be an honest politician.
But Berman isn't the problem, he's just a particularly blatant symbol of it. Contributing to the EFF is just papering over the cracks. Campaign reform, or civil disobedience, or outright revolt is the only way to get these parasites off of us.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Would users of KaZaA and eDonkey, etc. still be safe because their uploads consist of harmless fragments of files? It's just a coincidence that the other peer's software just happens to know how to peice the fragments together to make the file whole again.... Maybe not. Remember when mp3s were legal if you deleted them within 24 hours or something? Those were the days.
are determined to take over the Government to control it.
If the RIAA would just take the money they are spending on lobbyists and alarmist ads in "Entertainment Weekly" and instead invest it in updating their delivery system to reflect modern technology, maybe they could stop whining about people "stealing" "their" product. I support artists, and buy cds directly from them whenever possible. I attend concerts and other appearances, where a fair portion of the price I pay goes to the person who actually CREATED the music/art/whatever. But it's prepostrous to think that file sharing is "stealing," when the companies themselves only give the artists a nickle out of every $20 spent on a cd. If each cd has ten songs, that means each song I "steal" is worth one-half of one penny to the artists. COnsequently, I send a donation of $50/year (MUCH more than I've "stolen") to artists' charities, in the name of "File Sharers Everywhere." The RIAA can cry all they want. Progress progresses. Good thing they aren't in the messenger business, or they'd fight to outlaw email.
If you consider what felony means, they're saying that essentially they'll deprive you of many of your key citizenship rights, like the right to vote in some states, the right to get a good job, all because you shared an MP3. Yes this is overkill. RIAA must be stopped.
I mean, if they are only concerned about people doing it for financial gain, then this is a silly law. Why would you pay a pirate for music on-line when you can download it all for free :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The basic cause for the P2P phenomenon is a failed business model. Those who own the businesses refuse to change and would like to force the consumer to stay in the model.
If the industry and Congress succeed in passing this law, I would suggest a grass roots effort to organize one month during which NO ONE purchases any music whatsoever. Sort of an economic smackdown, if you will.
um, "affecting" you, not "effecting you"
It is not black-and-white like the RIAA claims it is.
There're at least three classes of people who download copyrighted music:
1. People who pirate to avoid buying
2. People who pirate, but couldn't afford to buy the music in the first place
3. People who pirate, but also buy music they like
The RIAA in its campaign of half-truths is implying all the people, who download copyrighted music belong to group number 1 and hence all P2P activity is costing them money. That's a complete and utter lie.
They are actually getting MORE money from group number 3 and neither losing or getting more from people in group number 2. Granted there're probably more people in group number 1 than group number 3.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill the RIAA
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
It's a sad thing when our representatives introduce legislation that enables the federal government and/or public/private businesses into our homes on a mission of search and seisure without a warrant or proof of any kind, and to recommend that further legislation be enacted allowing someone to invade, no CONTROL your privacy and be permitted to nuke aspects of your private life at will, for better or worse, for right or wrong, mistake or no. These bills are little more than the our legislators endorsing terrorism against American citizens, and there's no excuse for it.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
- http://open-gov.media.mit.edu/DBD/CACHE/0000/000/
4 00/025/
and Conyers:- http://open-gov.media.mit.edu/DBD/CACHE/0000/000/
4 00/080/
It's amazing what you can do when you own Congresspeople.At least they're going to criminalize false domain registration info. Maybe if we strip out about half of the Act it'll actually do some good.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
(When did they put in a posting length limit? I've never hit that before. Did I really rant that much? :) )
Competition may undercut prices to devalue their competitors' products. This should not be illegal. It is an individual's right to do with his property as he chooses. If he chooses to sell it and take a loss, that is his right. While this might cause trouble for his competitors in the short-term, in the long-term he will not be able to sustain his loss, and the price will rise again, allowing more room in the market for competition to return. (Or else he will fund the loss with sales of another product, in which case competition can shift to competing over the new product.)
I do not believe content duplication should be illegal, because all it does is devalue the property of another. I believe that property consists only of the tangible medium in which the content is recorded. When I use my media to duplicate the content a friend possesses in his media, the value of the media upon which the original content is recorded may decrease, but I have not damaged or stolen the media, nor have I killed or injured anyone. Copyright law unfairly gives a third party control over an exchange between two individuals on the basis of perceived devaluation of that third party's property. Since devaluation of property is not a sufficient reason for which to restrict fundamental rights, this is unacceptable.
In the long term, devaluation due to content duplication may cause a product's value to go to zero. However, this is not always the case. RedHat Linux CDs may be duplicated without restriction, yet they still retail for $5 at Linux Central, and original RedHat CDs from RedHat with support retail for over $40. Even if the value of the content were reduced to zero, it would still not be a sufficient reason to restrict the rights of others. There is a time during which the value of the content is positive; in this time the originator of the content can secure a (non-exclusive) profit. Once the value of the content is zero, the originator needs to move on and compete on a different product. Rights should not be infringed to guarantee profitability to anyone for any reason.
Currently United States law restricts my rights, supposedly to encourage innovation. This is a tradeoff I would refuse if asked. Even if the innovation of others is encouraged, I would not choose to have my rights infringed by law. I refuse to take advantage of the law to restrict the rights of others regarding content I create, and I choose to work within the system to persuade others of the importance of these rights in the hopes that this unfair restriction may one day be removed.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Has it ever occurred to the braintrust on /. that the folks proposing this law have no belief that it will actually get passed? Ever heard of asking for more than what you really want? They're only asking for something so ridiculous so that anything else they ask for, by comparison, will seem reasonable no matter how draconian it actually is. It's one of the oldest tricks in the political book.
True, but I think it is the abridgement of the constitutional "right to bear arms" that is being mentioned. As a citizen of the US, you are supposed to be entitled to bear arms, so-as to put yourself on an even footing with criminals and invading infantry. Of course, since the criminals have automatic weapons, it's kindof a moot point.
Of more long-lasting harm is the fact that a convicted felon must report that felony to any potential employer when asked (usually on a job application). While the employer doesn't have to consider this, most will toss your application in the circular file if that box is checked, regardless of what kind of felony it was.
That means that as far as rejoining society as a useful, productive citizen, a person convicted of file sharing will have about the same chance as a murderer or rapist. Does that seem logical to you?
It's knee-jerk responses like this (by the congressmen) which unbalance our system so much. They all think about what will get them reelected next term, rather than what their laws will be used to do 20 years down the road.
The RIAA is not a government organization. They are not a police force. They are no different from Uncle Joe's Deli down the street. Why then does everyone in the legislature seem to think they should have special provisions and laws passed on their behalf? If *I* start a business, I'm sure they won't pass laws to make MY life any easier...(the rhetorical answer, of course, is money and the legal form of bribery known as contributions).
Yeah, nothing like all that crap to get em back into the fold. You're an unperson now buddy, maybe if your lucky you can get a job flipping burgers. So where is the motivation for them to live honestly now ? There is none. They buy themselves a stolen gun for $100, a bag a crack rocks, and in a few months have enough money to buy their rights on an as needed basis.
But then, the people who enact these systems sure as hell don't want them to work, because that would mean they'd be out on the streets looking for a private sector job. Better to keep criminals in the same old games, and keep themselves and their buddies in well paying jobs.
I thought it was 50 million in the US and 100million more outside? Also, most are or will be >= 18 within a few years, so you're talking tens of millions in the US who could vote if they got off their asses.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
The artist is deprived of tangible MONEY when the music is downloaded. The radio argument holds no water as the artist is paid EACH time his music is played on the radio as well as gets a cut from each CD sold. When you don't use one of the approved methods of accessing music you steal money from the artist and company issueing the music. I am not saying the system is good but COPYING IS THEFT!
You can't copy a chocolate bar. This entire thread is a complete waste of time. Everyone understands how filesharing works, there's' no reason to use insipid analogies.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Here are 6 Democrats supporting a bill solely on behalf of the entertainment industry: Conyers, Berman, Schiff, Meehan, Wexler, and Weiner. If you want to verify they're all dems, look here.
Here are some gems from the proposed bill:
1822. Notice and consent relating to certain software
(a) Whoever knowingly offers enabling software for download over the Internet and does not
(1) clearly and conspicuously warn any person downloading that software, before it is downloaded, that it is enabling software and could create a security and privacy risk for the user's computer; and
(2) obtain that person's prior consent to the download after that warning; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
(b) As used in this section, the term 'enabling software means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.''.
That one could have some positive implications for spyware, but I don't think that's the intent. I think the RIAA is trying to get a jump on theories made by some that new P2Ps will use granny's computer to serve files without her knowledge.
Here's another...
Whoever knowingly and with intent to defraud provides material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering a domain name shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
5 years! For false info when registering a domain! And some say drug laws are bad!
It's time to start the letter writing...
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
Anonymousa te
Cowards
Create
Orwellian
Police
St
ACCOPS - Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security
RAVE - Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act
You want to know who REALLY runs the country now? It's obviously the people who thought up the ridiculous names for G.I. Joe vehicles so that they could have acronyms like the Cobra FANG, HISS, SNAKE, etc. Check out these names: http://crimsonguard.tripod.com/vehicles.html - notice a striking resemblance to current law names?
During the Great Depression thousands starved in our Land of Plenty. Go read Grapes of Wrath -- did those humble farm folk turn on the country and society that screwed them over? Did they try to steal the tons upon tons of food that were burned at State lines for beurocratic/regulatory reasons? No.
Americans equate economic fortune with personal worth, wether we like to believe it or not. If your family is starving, it is not because your kind Government is callous, but rather because you are lazeabout and generally worthless human being........it's sick.
------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I especially like this quote from the article, implicitly attributed to one of Berman's aides/cronies: "The law is meant to keep up with changing technology."
Presumably, the law "keeps up" with technology by crushing technological advances into teeny tiny pieces, thus slowing technological change to the glacial pace at which the law moves.
(I think I have a good perspective on the relative speed of each... I'm an attorney pursuing an MCIS degree.)
David Stein, Esq.
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Land of the incarcerated and home of the paranoid.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Stan Lee was supposed to get 10% so with a gross of over $400 million, that should be a nice chunk of change right, $40 million. But Sony (shrewdly enough, that's their right) made the contract 10% of net and through their bookkeeping methods show they movie hadn't made a profit
Any idiot who signs a contract giving them a percentage of net profits is an idiot and deserves what they get.
Just like when Spyglass signed for a percentange of the sale of the IE when they gave their software to microsoft: it had no stipulation that there be any price for it whatsover! (the real price is hidden in the OS, so its a scam)
The only valid way to sign contracts these days is for a fixed price or a percentange of gross for any form of sale or bundling and with a minimum unit price.
The value of a good or service is rightfully established only by free individuals exercising their right to choose to engage or not engage in willful exchanges. Any attempt on the part of government to affect the value of a good or service must necessarily involve the infringement of the rights of one or more parties involved in the potential exchange.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I guess Bill's gonna get arrested again
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
It's thinking like this that gets laws like the DMCA and Patriot Act an easy run through congress. Come on people, can't you see that this kind of thing is already going through with no trouble? Get off your a$$es and make some phone calls to your local senators and representatives - they're there to listen to you, and they won't know what you think unless you tell them!
Then again, didn't the DMCA already make copyright violation of digital works a felony? That was the "reasonable in comparison" law - now they're making it worse.
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
stfu fag and :gb2k5:
it also fits under definition 3 above:
3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
As far as definition 2 goes, it isn't implied anywhere that the turns need to be taken in series rather then in parallel. And besides, the word 'sharing' has already been used for years to describe, um, sharing of files. I mean how long as the term "network shares" been around to describe, um, network shares on SMB networks? The term is so common now that we don't even have any other terms to describe it.
Sharing is the most natural word to use for this new activity. The problem with calling it 'stealing' is that it implies a criminal act and that there is no difference between downloading or uploading an mp3 and stealing a CD from a store, when clearly there is.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling software' means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but this seems to include web browsers too. For that matter, probably Network Neighborhood, not that I would ever use that filth. But still.
I mean you could really stretch this into the networking bits of the kernel.
Great law! Suberb grasp of technology! Everyone's a criminal. Let's all go to jail.
John McNair
So, why cant we just admit that none of us are lawers in a courtroom, just people posting on a web site, and let normal useage of words go?
Because we are discussing laws and there has evolved very specific language that is key to understanding and discussing the law. If someone does not feel qualified to discuss the law in a meaningful way, then they should bow-out rather than misusing legal terminology and confusing important issues. Someone need not have a law degree to understand that theft and copyright infringement have wholly different legal meanings.
"Theft" is a crime. "Copyright infringement" is a civil offense. The people sponsoring this bill would like nothing more than to have the general public think of "copyright infringement" as "theft" -- because the average person is far more likely to believe that someone should go to jail for theft than for copyright infringement.
Theft and copyright infringement are different for a very important reason: In a theft, the victim is deprived of something that they previously had, whether it is money, jewelry, a car, or some other tangible thing. In copyright infringement, the victim has no less after the crime than before.
"Notice and consent relating to certain software ``(a) Whoever knowingly offers enabling software for download over the Internet and does not--
``(1) clearly and conspicuously warn any person downloading that software, before it is downloaded, that it is enabling software and could create a security and privacy risk for the user's computer; and
(2) obtain that person's prior consent to the download after that warning; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `enabling software' means software that, when installed on the user's computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that computer, or use that computer to search other computers' contents over the Internet.''
Another interesting item is that the networks must be:
"accessible to members of the public who are able to copy the work through such access shall be considered to be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at least 10 copies of that work with a retail value of more than $2,500.''
So if your server is not accessible to the public, read as private, password protected P2P or ftp server perhaps, then it would not be subject to the law??
What you're saying may seem at least logically viable and strategic, but in practice it doesn't seem to happen, ie. you don't get political or military assassinations occurring at all, by anyone, neither labelled as terrorist, crackpot, nor anything else.
:-)
OK, military establishments are obviously hard and very well protected so maybe that's part of the reason why not, but it can't be wholly a protection issue since all but the very top ranking politicians wander around pretty freely, almost without safeguards. You never hear of them being "taken out" by a terrorist, clinically. They're more in danger from muggers, I'd say.
Contrasted to that, the type of terrorist that has no qualms about harming the innocent abounds in the world today.
Given your premise about which kind of terrorist or freedom fighter is more likely to get laws changed, how come that we don't see any of the "good" variety?
I think I'll add to the static.
I have no sympathy for the record companies. I think they started a downward spiral years before P2P networks came on the scene. Napster & co. have just been the last nails in the coffin.
I used to have roughly 35,000 mp3s. I can't pretend this was any sort of legit file sharing, it was a gross orgy of gathering every song I liked even slightly. But I recently deleted them all and bought from Apple iTunes maybe a half-dozen song I couldn't live without.
The lessons I learned were: a) sharing a few tunes with someone to turn them on is one thing, downloading tens of thousands is imposible to justify. b) As I said I don't have any sympathy for the bands represented by the RIAA, and don't think they deserve any money. By having thousands of songs, all I'm doing is helping to promote them for free. c) Music is addictive, and free music is even more so. There's much better things to obsess over.
So in short: RIAA is bad, but so is downloading mp3's. Avoid it all and just enjoy the ocassional song, preferably a local band or something. You don't need much more.
_______
2B1ASK1
So, they want to clog our courts and prisons with people who did nothing more than share a few files? And taxpayers end up paying for it? This is ridiculous.
"I killed 14 people wit an icepick, what you in fo'?"
"I shared 50GB of music, with a Dell. Ph33r m3!!!!"
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
In addition, those who provide false information when registering a domain name could also be charged with a federal offense.
That's not needed. It's already in the agreement that you must provide correct information when you sign up for a domain name. So no legislation is required.
Oh wait. It's easier to make it a federal offense than to have the registration companies actually check it and enforce the policies they have already in place.
Why can't they see this?
is for everyone who uses p2p apps (students, im looking at you) to march to wherever and 'turn yourselves in'.
How will the system work, when everyone is a felon?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
I thought one of the tenets of American culture was that everybody living in this country was innocent until proven guilty. By the looks of things, members of our congress with vested interests in these companies are launching dragnets based on the assumption that anything uploaded on a P2P network is stealing and we need to lock those people up.
with the RIAA planning to file a reverse class action lawsuit (Press Release), as well as proposed bills to eliminate any anonymity on the internet (Wired Article), it appears that we are being stripped of the very freedoms this country was founded on by the people who have sworn to protect it.
Fine then. Take away our right to privacy. Lock up anybody who uses P2P networks, or distributes any type of material on the internet. Make every internet user out to be a criminal. Then we will be left with people who only use the internet for E-Mail and AIM, led by power-hungry politicians, to drive us into the next century.
As a side note, I'm interested to see the provisions provided in this bill with regards to the actual verification of copyrighted material. We probably already know the answer, throw everybody in court, and let them prove otherwise.
Representative government? For who?
"We the People..." my ass. I hope America wakes up one day and torches this unconstitutional junta that has taken over our republic.
Thomas Paine is spinning in his grave.
Hammer of Truth
So now, when an independant artist uploads a file to a P2P system to promote their own work, will they be committing a felony?
Trolling-putting a rubber c0ck down your pants and cutting it off with a chainsaw: noisy and it makes you look d1ckless
Just don't tell the Jury that they'll lose these rights. Don't let the defense bring it up. There was a kid convicted of dealing cocaine and giving a 30 year sentence based only on the evidence of snitches who got 'deals' for their own crimes. Someone interviewed a juror who said the kid was 'nice' and expected them to only get a few months in the can. After he was told of the sentence he said "I wish now I didn't know." oops.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I have to admit I'm unsure how to read that "enable 3rd parties" bit. Does that mean that it must enable someone else to upload to my machine? Or does it mean that it must enable me to download stuff from elsewhere?
Is it true that some people no longer pay for their music because they can get it for free? Yes. But there is an inverse trend which the RIAA tries desperately to ignore because it hurts their business. That trend is people who are actually buying more music because of the ease with which they can try out new music through sharing. It is similar to the pseudo-legal trading of tapes that happened before this, but on a much grander scale.
The RIAA's problem though is that if they do not control the distribution of music, they have no more power. They've been able to create contracts that effectively enslave artists because, for the longest time, they were the only show in town for getting your name out there. Now, this is changing with word of mouth becoming more and more powerful as a means of marketing. Why sacrifice your artistic integrity and your wallet when you can produce your own music on your own terms.
Eventually labels will come to realize the power of this new distribution channel and take advantage of it. The profits for the labels will be lower, but it's still likely to be lucrative business, and it's going to improve the average livelihood of musicians at the expense of the megastars and the old style labels.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Just listen to all of the people saying it is theft, and all of the people who say it is not theft. It is no wonder we end up with laws like this.
Some people believe they are only breaking the law if they get caught.
We all know it is wrong, be it a copyright violation or be it theft. It is simply wrong.
I know people who use P2P to share their own artistic creativity, but 99.96% simply use it to rip off others via copyright violation.
I do not agree with the copyright system, but our violations/theft will only give reason to strengthen the current laws. It will not cause the needed enlightenment in our law makers.
Get a free ipod.
John Ashcroft and Orrin Hatch have collaborated to draft a bill that would make it a felony to transmit copyrighted material via electronic means. Senator Hatch personally drafted a clause in the proposed legislation making it legal for anyone discovering such behavior to destroy the personal computers of the perpetrators or simply to execute them. When asked if this would apply to people telephoning their mothers and singing the copyrighted song "Happy Birthday," Ashcroft said that even our mothers must pay when they steal. Ashcroft then bowed his head in silent prayer.
Just like telephone phreaking, but now even our grandmas are felons.
Duplicate!
4 59 967
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71396&cid=6
1. People who pirate to avoid buying
There are a *lot* of people in this group.
2. People who pirate, but couldn't afford to buy the music in the first place
It's called "doing without"... something that folks these days seem to not be able to understand.
3. People who pirate, but also buy music they like
This is the "test drive" group. To me, this is a very valid (the only one of the three) use of music sharing, although I wouldn't call it sharing. I go to CD stores that allow me to listen to the CD before I purchase it. If I don't like it, they reshrink-wrap it and put it back on the shelf. If I like it enough to buy it, I buy it. If I can't afford to buy a CD, I don't go into a CD store or browse the CD isles in other stores.
Having some way to download mp3s for test listening before purchase, to me, is a very good idea. Unfortunately, even if you somehow watermark legit mp3s or put expiration times in them or something, folks will attempt to (and succeed most likely) disable those things so that they can be used for groups 1 and 2.
They are actually getting MORE money from group number 3 and neither losing or getting more from people in group number 2. Granted there're probably more people in group number 1 than group number 3.
And there is steady migration FROM group 3 TO group 1 (and maybe group 2 given the economy). Which means they make less money.
I think CDs should be cheaper, but hey, I think everything should be cheaper. I don't particularly mind paying for music and I think something like iTunes is a good idea. I'd really like to be able to download individual songs and pay like $1 per song and I can make my own CDs from those. That way I get only the songs that I like (even though I'd probably miss out on some music because some songs take a while to grow on me). Unfortunately, I don't know of a good way for the music industry to be able to do that and be able to prevent people from just "sharing" the songs and basically being the same thing that goes on now.
When will we really fight this attack on our civil liberties. There seems to be a form of McCarthism developing over this. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. The powers that be in this case just presume you're breaking the law without knowing what file has gone where.
Does everyone realize that the war on MP3's is always in the headlines yet, rape, murder, and the like don't get any of the hype like this subject. P2P copyright infringement, yes infrongement, not crime is becoming the most demonized subject since Marijuana and a lot of us know how full of shit that argument is. It's a fucking felony to trade a Britney Spears song but not one to buy the cd? WTF is that shit?
We need to all sit back and take a hard look at what's going on or we risk the gradual loss of our freedoms and choices. It really is up to us where this goes. RIAA/MPAA/Paid members of your local goverment, house and senators with a vested interest in pleasing the lobbyists for these groups are now changing our laws and no one on our side is doing anything to fight this. WTF are we going to just sit here and take it dry? Forget the file trading issues we're talking about our freedom of choice in, what was once, a free market.
It's up to every single one of us to vote with our wallets and to inform our senators and congressmen/women that we simply will not stand for this. A revolution in a sense, non-violent, but with knowledge and money and we have the masses to begin this. Will we continue to sit on our asses or will we fight for our freedom of choice and fair use?
It's up to all of us so get off of your ass and do something
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
They already do "repo" computer systems for filesharing. In the case of some of the university students who were charged, their computers were taken (along with pretty much everything attached, like an oh-so-dangerous power strip), and they could make no progress in getting them back. Apparently that's the way it goes: you'll get your stuff back eventually, but it's more practical to just give up.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Couldn't think of a valid argument so try and insult my sexual preference.
Good show lad.
Now I am upset because you called me gay and realize just how wrong I am. Copying is not theft at all. Thank you for showing me the truth and helping me realize I love men.
So if everyone on a P2P network contributed 1 cent to "political funds", the politicians would have a reason to think twice?
This doesn't really discuss the point at hand, which is whether or not copyright infringement is theft, but I'll bite anyhow.
Yep, the RIAA does point at every single music download as a lost sale, which seems to imply that they believe that every single person who downloads a music file illegally would otherwise have purchased the album. Plus they don't try to factor in whether or not people download songs AND own the album (thus it being a legal download). Though they've never stated as much so blatantly.
Despite half truths from the RIAA, and despite whether or not you only download songs which you would not otherwise have bought, it's still illegal to download songs for which you have not paid. No matter whether or not you *are* taking money from the pockets of those whose work is embodied in the album, directly (artists) or indirectly (accountants, IT guys, janitors), it's still illegal to partake of someone else's intellectual property to which you have not been given permission (usually this permission is bought in the form of CD's).
No matter what lies are spread, no matter whether or not you cost anyone any money, it's illegal. Period.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Even if this is stuff I own the copyright to, I can pass the stuff on IRC DCC and commit a felony?!!
What kind of fucked up plan is this?! Someone in Congress has his head up his fucking ass. We need to tell them to get fucking real and start doing what WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do. This is fucking bullshit.
And I am aware that this is going to cause a hit on my karma. Oh well, big deal.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
On my university campus, SMB is a very popular way to share files, copyrighted or not. Its very easy for an uninformed person to turn on their Windows File Sharing to legitmitally share a document with a colleague/peer, and at the same time accidentally share copyrighted material. SMB file sharing is so popular, some geeks have written web based search engines to find files on the network (luckily they smartened up and made them only available to on-campus connections. I still think this constitutes a public network, though, because the entire campus community has access).
My point is, if someone finds and downloads a copyrighted file on a shared PC, isn't this analagous to someone leaving their room unlocked and having a stranger come in, copy a CD, and return the original? Under this bill, the person who unintentionally gave the public access to the copyrighted material is the one who is charged with a crime, not the person who actually did the copying (which, under traditional copyright law, is the actual crime).
(In the traditional sense an upload usually signifies a push process.)
Yes, the synopsis and even the story got this wrong. P2P pulls content and thus is a downloading medium. The bill doesn't use "upload" even once. The relevant text is: Basically saying you can't leave your copyable works out in the open and expect someone not to copy them, and that you are liable if they do.
Effectively this makes the possessors of copyrighted works responsible for protecting the works from copying. Copy protection schemes would no longer be necessary as it suddenly becomes the duty of the possessor of every copy to prevent access to the work by the public, or be charged with a felony.
They might as well charge you with felony piracy if you forget to lock your car and someone steals your CDs (which I believe is still just a misdemeanor, IANAL, IANACrook).
Not only that, but it declares that you disregard whether anyone actually made copies of the file, how long the file was available, as well as disregard the actual value of the file!
Even if you were to share a copyrighted file which had zero value to anyone, including the copyright holder (for example, you found it while dumpster diving on public property or in deallocated space on a hard drive you bought as used), if you make it available for even a fraction of a second, that file is suddenly worth $2,500, it has been available for 180 days, and at least 10 copies are considered to have been made (i.e. you cost the copyright holder at least $25,000 for that one second of public exposure). Regardless of the facts!
This is an end run around the requirement of a show of damages and of any actual loss! One might as well make the "honor system" illegal and get rid of the concept of presumed innocence.
And it isn't limited to just P2P networks. Oh, no! Do you have a fan website dedicated to a television show? Do you include any artwork, imagery, sound samples, or anything else copied from that show on the site? Surprise, you're going to be a felon under this bill if it becomes law just by making such a website accessible to the public however briefly. And you will have caused from $25K to $250K worth of damages and will be subject to 5 years in jail!
This law is outrageous! And I don't mean in a good way!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
From what I know of Conyers, he's a relatively radical (compared to the rest of Congress) liberal, and an outspoken supporter of civil rights in the face of government intrusions.
This privacy clause, which I hear people complaining about, I think actually protects the average user.
It's trivial for software providers to meet its requirements, but it may make spyware or other such software illegal:
'' 1822. Notice and consent relating to certain soft-
ware
''(a) Whoever knowingly offers enabling software for
download over the Internet and does not--
''(1) clearly and conspicuously warn any person
downloading that software, before it is downloaded,
that it is enabling software and could create a secu-
rity and privacy risk for the user's computer; and
''(2) obtain that person's prior consent to the
download after that warning;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
6 months, or both.
''(b) As used in this section, the term 'enabling soft-
ware' means software that, when installed on the user's
computer, enables 3rd parties to store data on that com-
puter, or use that computer to search other computers'
contents over the Internet.''.
This article is about a lot more than just "instant felony for file sharing." These are coppied straight from the text file on the EFF website.
For instance:
TITLE I--INCREASED DOMESTIC ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2004, to the Department of Justice for investigation and prosecution of violations of title 17, United States Code, not less than $15,000,000.
SEC. 102. NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION COUNCIL.
TITLE II--INCREASED INTERNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
SEC. 201. INFORMATION SHARING.
202. LIMITATIONS.
TITLE III--ANTI-PIRACY TOOLS
SEC. 301. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR PLACING WORKS ON COMPUTER NETWORKS.
SEC. 302. NOTICE AND CONSENT.
SEC. 303. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FALSE INFORMATION IN REGISTRATION OF DOMAIN NAMES.
SEC. 304. PREVENTION OF SURREPTITIOUS RECORDING IN THEATERS.
SEC. 305. EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL WILLFULNESS.
As you can see, the Slashdot article only points out the issues in Title III of this bill. Natrually, we all jump on the bandwagon and immediately attack this bill. The RIAA is bad. Copying music isn't piracy. That's commited on the highways or the high seas. Downloading copyrighted music isn't stealing! It's not a criminal offense. It's copyright infringment. That's a civil matter, not criminal...so we shouldn't have felonies for this...
But hey, when did copyright infringment become an acceptable practice? Since when is it ok to infringe on the copyrights of others? Just because we've gotten so used to this, downloading software, music, games, applications, etc., we have become numb to this and it is now acceptable practice in our minds.
Remember when Orrin Hatch's site was found to be running scripts and code that wasn't properly licensed? We all said "HA! See, we're not alone. You do it too!" But that just shows that we all still think it's at least a little bit wrong.
Ok...flame me now, I don't care.
"Give me your corrupt, your wealthy,
Your corporate masses yearning to profit free,
The greedy refuse of your teeming cities.
Send these, the bought, gold-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
Australia.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Everyone seems very concerned by the legal situation. In a democratic country , the views of the poeple are supposed to be represented by the elected politicans. If the majority of the county see no wrong in copying some music, then surely the law should be changed to make that practice legal rather than illegal. All the people arguing against copying of media seem to be concerned more with what the law says than what is 'right'.
The Apocalypse.
Famine, Disese, Pestialence (sp?) and every joe sixpacks favorite WAR
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
It's called freenet.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You do understand that self defense and owning a firearm are not the same thing, right?
As a practical matter, they are for many people.
How exactly do you propose that Grandma, or your 90 pound sister, defend themselves from Bruno, pounding on the front door, demanding entry, and not inclined to wait for the police?
Remember DeCSS?
1) Take copyright work that you own.
2) Create a different artistic representation of it, say in 0's and 1's, in hex, or some binary type readable format.
3) Post artistic representation under freedom-of-speech guise
4) Visitor downloads art
5) Visitor runs a parser to convert artistic representation back to digital, playable format
And for some added fun...
6) Get RIAA to help you sue visitor under DMCA for reverse engineering your artistic representation.
7) Profit. Whoops, forgot there was supposed to be a ??? step somewhere in there. This exercise will be left to the reader.
(IANAL)
After reading the Bill, the U.S government would still have to make a burden of proof the the file was uploaded to 10 unique individuals, with a base value of at least $2,500. 10x$20 = $2,000 if you upload a song from a CD. What needs to be clearified, is that if there are multiple songs from that CD that are also downloaded, they cannot also be added to the charges because it would cause double jeopardy over the same material. Also, multiple files should be counted as multiple counts, not added together. One thing about the criminal system is that the burden of PROOF is on the prosecutor, not a burden of conspiracy, or a burden of probablibity.
-that's my "off-site backup"... ;)
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
An important question is, who says that anyone has the RIGHT to make money? No one has the right to make money. Who has the right to have their archaic business model continue past its day? No one has that right.
I say that the RIAA and MPAA need to learn how to make money in this day of digital everything. IF they can't figure it out, they should go out of business. This will not deprive anyone of music, just kill off a lot of leeches (music execs). Musicians will still make music, and they will either sell it themselves, or someone else will come along with a great new business model that works in THIS era. Probably one that is a lot more fair to the musicians themselves, I would be willing to bet.
Lets recap: No one has any RIGHT to make money. Got that? They make money because they have a product that people want and are willing to buy, and can deliver it, and have a workable business model. If they aren't able to make fly, they go out of business. Happens all over the world, every day. No one has the right to use the government to protect their revenue stream. Period.
Sounds like this would make usenet illegal as well.
A couple of replies to this article have suggested that armed revolt is the only way to get anything done. However, I think that the consequences are likely to be bad.
First of all, after all these armed people win, they will not be able to agree on a new form of government, and the inevitable compromises will result in a form of government as bad as what we already have, if not worse.
Second of all, the U.S. does not exist in a vacuum. It is highly likely that if the U.S. broke out in civil war, a foreign country such as China would take advantage of its apparent weakness, and invade.
There is no answer as easy as that.
And just because you have a fishing rod doesn't mean that you are going to catch fish.
I think you should attempt to avoid situations, locations, etc where people might want to do you harm. To me, this is the first step of self defense. It is true that these things are not always avoidable, but I would add that in the case that you are attacked by someone with a gun, merely owning a gun is not going to help you at all. You have to know how and be willing and capable of using it under pressure. It must be easily accessible to you after an attack is already underway. I'd say that outside of criminals, these things probably aren't true of most people who carry guns. Someone's 60 year old aunt probably doesn't have much chance of digging her gun out of her purse after the need has already presented itself with the big bad guy standing right there watching.
Not to mention that some studies have shown that gun owners are actually more likely to be killed by a gun than non-gun owners
By Federal guidelines, I get three years for possession of Rohypnol, the so-called "date rape drug". It's part of a law introduced in 1996. Bootlegging Metallica's /And Justice for All/ record now carries a stiffer penalty than illegally possessing the drugs to rape a woman. This is progress, indeed.
What the hell is wrong with people?
"Hey, man. What are you in for?"
"I killed three people. Family and their dog. Got life, no parole. You?"
"I gave my friend Jim a copy of Hybrid's new album."
"Whoa . . . You're one hardcore mother&*(Y!%@."
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
"distributing" sounds weird because you are only distributing the files some of the time, when you are uploading or downloading them, but you're 'sharing' them constantly.
In fact, its almost impossible to not use the word sharing to describe running a file share. and having files available for distribution. And not only that, but the activity does fit definition 2 given above if you allow for parallel turns.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
(Prepare for some rambling)
Hi, my name is Nick, and I'm an mp3 addict. I have about 80GB of mp3's (60GB sorted into albums) which I download from usenets, kazaa, or get from friends. I also BUY a few CD's now and then (gasp!). Here are some reasonings for what I do and why I think my behavior is acceptable:
First, I never upload any copyrighted material to any network, and I make sure that my music folders are not shared. This (hopefully) will decrease my chances of getting busted by the RIAA.
Second, I buy CD's from artists that I really like or that are hard to find online. I admit to downloading albums from artists that I like - HOWEVER - I go to their concerts, which is where the ARTIST actually makes some money.
Third, I know every album that I have. It's not an exercise in "rat packing" or whatever, I actually listen to and enjoy everything that I have.
I spend a lot of money on DVD's these days, which cuts down on my budget for CD's. I download movies to check them out, and then buy them if I like them (for better video quality, of course, and the extras - I love commentary tracks, etc.). I'd probably buy more CD's if they had more "special features" like a DVD, interviews with the artist, behind the scenes, etc. (I'm aware some CD's have these, but not really artists that I'm interested in). Heck, lots of the DVD's I buy nowadays are less expensive than CD's! What's up with that? Anyway...
Lastly, I'm a college student, so I don't have that much money to spend on media in the first place.
To sum up, I don't share my files, I buy CD's, I go to concerts, I don't rat-pack, I buy DVD's because they have more entertainment value, and I have a limited budget. So tell me, what exactly am I doing wrong here? I think I pay my dues to the music industry.
But I guess the laws don't really operate on principle, do they? They have to be able to be nondescrimenant (sp.?) and broad.
P.S.
Please do not go on a tirade about "stealing" or "copyright infringement" - I know technically what I do is illegal, but in principle, is what I do wrong?
I belong to the ______ generation.
Wonder what the constitution would say about that?
Of course, the courts should strike it down. Seems like you can steal billions and not go to jail--but steal something that might cost a buck (price of a song on Apple), go to jail for 5 years!
Please note that we are paying a "duplication fee" whenever we buy a blank tape or cd to those who are assuming we infringe copyrights with them? If I am paying royalties to the RIAA on tapes and cds that I use for personal recording, then I guess i should be copying copyrighted information, since I am paying for the privilege already.
Does the constitution actually mention criminals at all? From what I gathered, the possession of arms is strictly linked to being able to serve in a military type capacity.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Read the actual bill, please - while it does (to my eye) seem badly written, there is ONE bright spot in it.
I have long felt that the problem with "copyright" laws is that 'copying' is no longer synonymous with 'for distribution' (as it really was back when distribution was the only reason anyone would go to the trouble of setting up a printing press to make copies of things). The doctrine of "fair use" more-or-less means that you can make as many copies and "derivations" of a work you've legally purchased as you want...for your own use. The actual PROBLEM isn't copying....it's distribution.
This bill includes a provision that specifically declares that putting up an unauthorized copy of a protected work on a publically-accessible network is "distribution". While it then goes on to specify that (if I'm reading the nigh-unparseable sentence correctly) if you leave the file up over 180 days the law pretends you've automatically distributed it to 10 people and that 'value' of the violation is $2500 regardless of how many people even noticed it was there let alone downloaded it...which I think is a REALLY bad thing to have the law specify...it DOES indicate that MAYBE legislators will eventually become conscious of the difference between "copying" and "distribution", and stop pre-emptively criminalizing copying (whether for distribution purposes or not).
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yes and no. A Jury CAN basically force the government to drop charges against someone by issuing a not-guilty verdict. The best/worst example of this is OJ Simpson.
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
Ok, obviously this law has NO CHANCE of passing. (and if it does, i'm moving to canada). Typical of our esteemed politicians, it is a proposed law to appease their constituents. Often our law makers, whose salaries, comfy offices, sexual conqubines(read interns), etc are PAID BY THE USA TAXPAYERS! The fact that they continually put up proposed laws in this way sickens me. I don't pay taxes (actually i do) so that they can act like street corner whores giving blowjobs to the corporations lining their pockets.
We pay them to put into effect laws that help the CITIZENS of this country. Problem is, we have a set of corporate elitests(read scumbags) in office that want to force US economic interests throughout the world at any price (See "IRAQ WAR").
This country is going straight to hell in the name of "Homeland Security" (see "nazi state creation"). Laws like this, if passed, will have resounding consequences on our freedom for years to come. We are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY (or if in Texas, dead before proven innocent). I hope the right wing in this country, who once stood for personal liberty and rights, STAND UP TO THIS OPPRESSION, and fight for the constitution by taking out King George and his cronies before we become a fascist police state (unless we already are).
p.s. BUSH IS A FASCIST PIG (and cheney,runsfield,ashcroft,rice,etc are his sucklings)
the bill will be shot down immediately but the guys that proposed it will be able to say "hey, look what I tried to do for you guys. More money, please. Kthnx."
The truth doesn't care what I think.
You could start paying for music.
There are plenty of legal resources for sampling the latest music. Including many of the stores who sell it.
File sharing has become socially acceptible piracy and it's not surprising companies are attempting to curb it with drastic measures.
Drastic measures are obviously necessary. People aren't taking the hint. Software companies were the first to have to deal with this and now the music and movie industry.
Whinning that the punishment for the crime is too harsh and then threatening to commit a crime with a lesser punishment is just a sample of the stupidity prevelant in society these days.
Here's a crazy idea: don't break the law. If you don't like the fact it's against the law to pirate/steal things you don't own, move to the moon.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Hmm....and hopefully, we'll start generating musicians who can not only come up with original, groundbreaking material like in days of old...but, more importantly, ones that can tour and put on a show, and earn their money the old fashioned way.....great concerts!! That way we all benefit!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ah, but the don't have to imprision everyone. Just nail a few high-profile folks, and the rest of the sheeple will fall into line.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Whenever we have one of these stories about a congressman proposing some legislation, there should be a direct mailto: link in the paragraph. It doesn't matter whether the law is good or bad. It would encourage people to email the appropriate representatives and have their voice heard.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/17/music. internet.reut/index.html
In a series of hearings on Capitol Hill last spring, lawmakers condemned online song swapping and expressed concern the networks could spread computer viruses, create government security risks and allow children access to pornography.
Yeah, wipe out p2p, and ALL the porn, spam, virii,and security threats wil all go away!
Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
But should everything illegal automatically be considered wrong? Say the Democrats and Republicans pass a bill which makes it a felony to join any party except their two and a felony if you don't join any party. This means if you don't want to be a part of the biparty, you will also lose your right to vote.
Is this right? In this era of corruption, would you really be surprised if this happend?
A kind reminder from the Ministry of Love...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
At my school a few years ago, students were busted for sharing mp3s over the network even if they were protected as long as the password was "easily guessable," such as "password" or "mp3".
Could such a policy be enforced over the public internet? If so, could one use the DMCA as defense?
"Intellectual Property" is an invention of law, to serve a purpose
The only true argument in this discussion so far.
Aren't juries supposed to decide whether a person is guilty or innoscent of breaking a law not pass judgement on the law itself?
A jury can do what it damned well pleases, and there is no consequence unless you took bribes or something.
As a person, you are obligated by God (if you believe in one) or conscience (if not) to behave in a conscientious fashion. If that means ignoring the law when it will ruin a person's life for sharing a song, then so be it.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The bill hasn't been passed yet.
Actually, a jury has the same power to declare a law unconstitutional that a judge does, and while a conviction can be set aside by an appeals judge, it's very difficult for a judge to set aside an aquital.
The jury is virtually never informed that they have this power, but it is there.
You must be a subject of some crown, not a citizen of a republic.
With all the collective brain power within this forum, surely there must be some good suggestions for how to stop this proposed law from going any further.
The Homeland Security system does seem to be heading toward the sort of exceedingly low-wage system of "employment" so desired by the folks who brought us H-1B -- and the felonization of P2P file systems is exactly in line with the rest of the war of terror on the population committed routinely by the folks who call the tunes.
Even slaves get food, shelter, clothing and medical care -- which is more than a lot of tech workers are getting these days.
Someone will figure out that slavery is a superior system to the current con-game and also figure out a way to use the military against their own populations to enforce it. I think its already started in privatized prisons and their prisoner-labor programs and the exploding rate of incarceration in the Unted States -- however they really do have to figure out what to do about the prisoner rape problem before they can be considered good massah's by computer nerds who will then work not for money but for privileges in the system.
Seastead this.
"No matter what lies are spread, no matter whether or not you cost anyone any money, it's illegal. Period."
I don't disagree.
However, the RIAA is using their lies (it's the recession and the decline of the relative value of an audio CD compared to things like DVDs) to make the problem appear so serious that their lapdogs in the Senate and Congress come up with these near-fascist bills on a regular basis.
That's why it is important people do not buy into the lies and deception brought forward by the RIAA and their paid lobbyist in the Congress.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
How about, because no one is respecting the current law?
Imagine if there was a law against murdering someone else? Now imagine if people didn't obey it? What would happen?
For even more fun and profit ask yourself what would happen to a society that adopted A, just because no one really liked B?
The managment of a society through what hurts the least, instead of what's actually needed.
> "They who expend the labor make the rules" is exactly how open source works. I don't see any signs of it failing.
Open-Source is a business model for IP handling. To think that makes it a good analogy for a system of governance is a mistake. In real world practice, communism does not sustain itself as a system of governance. Sorry.
Virg
If some kind of law like this is ever passed, doesn't the RIAA and the lawmakers realize that dozens of such things as freenet, which was discussed yesterday on slashdot, will appear overnight, allowing people to continue sharing files but preventing them from being found out (without an assload of work done and more money spent than the government would *ever* allow)?
Are you talking about the Democrat Clinton/Gore Recession?
BTW, Republican Bush and the Republican Congress have extended unemployment benefits long past when they would normally expire.
If only we didn't know that "bootlegging" in that last class has to do with alcohol, there'd at least be one example of a felony that sounded remotely like "letting someone copy a song for free." But... nope.
One of the qualities of a working justice system is that punishments are proportionate. This bill violates that in spades. Why not let them chop off our mouse hands, you know?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
it really doesn't matter because judges can set aside verdicts if the jury ruling is counter to existing laws whether just or not.
I believe judges can only set aside guilty verdicts or judgements in civil proceedings; anything else and you're hitting double jeopardy provisions.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I wonder how long its going to take the Dept. of Just Not Enough of a Pain in Everyone's Asses to figure out how much stolen property is being fenced on eBay... or more appropriately when they and eBay are likely to admit it!
Probably not until the next big American corporation steps forward claiming to be losing billions to those eBay fencers!
Send in the Marines!
but if this were to pass, bye bye internet. imho it would encompass everything from email to im clients, which could also be considered p2p.
Yes, copyright law is not vague, but it doesn't say, to my knowledge, that you can't download a song from a P2P network and listen to it without the copyright holder's permission. Can you site the specific part of copyright law that makes this behavior illegal? On the other hand, it does say that the person who gave you that file in the first place could not do so legally providing that he met the qualifications of more than 10 copies or $2500 value.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Your assuming our congressmen have enough technical knowledge to read email. Now thats going out on a limb, don't you think?
Much in the same way that owning a fishing rod is not, technically, the same thing as fishing itself. It's possible to fish with your bare hands but you're likely end up without any fish.
Use a net or fish trap. If you have a bit of practice, you can also use spears or arrows.
Government Information Awareness
here
John Conyers fact sheet:
here
Howard Berman fact sheet:
here
What we need isn't classical terrorism, like blowing up an airplane or a bus or a building. Rather, we need a systematic assassination of those that would sacrifice basic civil liberties, environmental responsibilities and human rights for profit. And I'm talking about both of the "two" parties and all lines of CEOs.
Are you a lawyer who specializes in pushing through vague ass patents, sitting on them doing nothing to develop the idea into real technology, and then pulling it out, dusting it off, and suing everyone who made "your" idea reality? You're gonna die.
Are you a politician who will make anything digital illegal if it isn't approved first by Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft - no matter the potential uses or the employed uses - just to keep getting your campaign money? You're gonna die.
Are you a legislator that is so viscously anti guns that you want to remove the people last (albeit feeble) method of defense against a corrupt government? You're gonna die - though in your case we won't use a gun, just to prove we can kill you even if you outlaw guns.
Are you CEO of a paper company who thinks clear cutting the redwood forest which you aquired in a sneaky ass back room deal for a 10th of what is is worth ripping off taxpayers and destroying a national treasure so that future generations will never know what beauty our country once held? You're gonna die.
See, if we kill a few select targets the others will think twice about their actions. Right now, there is no immediate harm done by their actions. They only see next quarter's profits, not 50, 10 or even 1 year down the road. By putting murderous revenge from consumers into the picture we give them an immediate consequence to contend with at their board meetings. "Hmm, we could do this evil thing and turn a profit, but John did and look at him, he got killed days afterward. Maybe we should think about the big picture a little more." Likewise, we make it personal. Once you've made your first 5 million, you are out of touch with the rest of the world. The impact of your actions will never ever affect you or anyone in your world. Fuckover the retirement accounts of hundreds (or was it thousands) of loyal hardworking employees that put your business where it is today? Sure, why not, I've got my retirement account. Ok, buddy, but for how much longer will you have your life?
We need to declare war on these evil greedy people. They can hide behind a company no longer. Sure, Enron might be a bad company, but only because bad people ran Enron. Those bad people need to be dealt with by the rest of us. How much longer can we allow a few greedy assholes to ruin the world? It's past time to hold them personally accountable. Our government won't do it. They're as bad as the Corporations. Hell, they're paid by the Corporations. They are the Corporations. It's clear to me that corporations run this world, and corporations are only as evil as thier leaders and the people making the decisions. And those people are only as evil as we allow them to be. To take back the power to the people, we need to start not at the voting booth, but at the CEO's drive to work, if you know what I mean.
It's too bad it's come to this, but hopefully only 1 or 2 assholes will have to die and the rest will shape up right quick.
Having said that, I'd like to take it all back. You see, a year or maybe even less, I wanted nothing more than to see Senator Fritz Disney Holllings die an early death. But recently he has fought a terrible piece of legislation and has done so convincingly. I'm not sure on the details, but I was very suprised and very glad that he was still alive. So, everything I said earlier is utter bullshit. Killing isn't good and doesn't help anyone, especially those of us with causes - and good causes such as freedom of speech, env. protection, gun rights, privacy rights - though misunderstood causes. We don't need murder attached to the labels those who wish to control us have already given us. (and by us I mean the general
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
We talk about "the RIAA" as if they were some living, thinking, breathing entity, but it's just a small bunch of people that sit around a table and come up with their corporate policy. Even the front man/woman is probably largely a figurehead, especially so soon after a change of appointment.
Maybe what's needed is for the entire set of their policy leaders to be brought out of the shadows and into the glare of public opinion. I doubt if they all have the love of floodlights and publicity of Hillary Rosen, so it might actually have some effect.
This is only for copyrighted works without authorization, not all files. All it really does is clarify the amount of infringement that is done when uploaded, so that it qualifies for a felony under existing copyright law. I think that's pretty ridiculous, personally, but at least they are not outlawing P2P like the slashdot headline makes it seem.
There are actually some good things in this bill, like one that makes it illegal to cause someone's computer to download some crap-ass software without his consent.
Nah. It used to be a civil offence, but then people abused the system, so the DMCA came along and, as I understand it, made it a criminal offence with immediate consequences. (If any US lawyers out there would care to correct the above or post a rather more informed variation of it, please feel free.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Clearly only a prison sentence will teach these serialoffenders a lesson.
This is not about a frustrated public taking what they want because there is no legal avenue to getting it, nor is it about a seriously tilted market in which the producers have created a monopoly intended solely to preserve their profits, nor is it about the influence of big business on government so that laws can be made to measure, the wealth of the commons assigned to those with the biggest pockets, and the cultural heritage of the world straight-jacketed into mediocre and tasteless 'norms' that aim to not offend, not to please.
No, this is about hardened criminals gratuitously connecting their hacker-built insecured hardware boxes to the pirate super-highway and committing offenses so serious, so henious, that prison is, as I said, the only suitable offense.
I thought that prohibition and the "war" on "drugs" would have taught us something about criminalization of large sectors of society.
Guantanomo Bay is too good for these bastards, the law-makers.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Lets recap: No one has any RIGHT to make money. Got that? They make money because they have a product that people want and are willing to buy, and can deliver it, and have a workable business model. If they aren't able to make fly, they go out of business. Happens all over the world, every day. No one has the right to use the government to protect their revenue stream. Period.
g g/movies/whatever... just stay away from it. This means to not download the music in mp3s and listen to it if the music copyright is held by one of the companies you don't like. Deal with the companies that you believe have the right approach for "this era" and completely divorce yourself from companies (and their products) that do not have the right approach.
/sniff
I didn't disagree with this statement in my post. I believe that they should go out of business, as well, if they cannot compete. I'll get back to this later.
As has been stressed many times over in this thread, "sharing" mp3s is not theft. It's copyright violation. Copyrights are something that the government does have a stake in protecting (and, in my opinion, rightly so). If music artists want to give up their copyrights (everyone has copyrights to their original works by default, btw) or define them in a way that allows anyone to give a copy of their music away, then that's the artist's business. I have no problem with that. EVEN if a musician sells his/her own music off their *own* website in mp3 format without any safeguards or protections against "sharing", unless they explicitly give permission for "sharing", the "sharing" folks are *still* in violation of copyright laws.
Now, back to competing in the electronic world... First, the way you support a change is to buy (or whatever) music from "labels"/independents who support the same ideas as you do but you don't break existing laws necessarily to do it (this isn't something like a civil liberties issue where you may need to break laws to invoke a change). You *stop* buying from companies that you do not like and you *do not listen* to music that those companies put out... at all... in any form... radio/television/CDs/Vinyl/8-track/cassette/mp3/o
Claiming that you are "bucking the system" by downloading mp3s and that you are forcing a change through this is simply rationalizing your breaking of copyright laws to ease your own conscience. If you truly believe in what you are doing, you wouldn't have anything to do with the companies you dislike or any product in any form which they produce. Some folks would call "hypocrit" on you, otherwise. Basically you want your cake and to eat it too. I guess the next thing that the downloaders would whinge about is that they can't do it because all the music they like is controlled by the companies they don't like. This would be the time to become active and let your favorite artists know how you feel and give them the support to break away from the "bad guys" and do "the right thing". Awww.... but that's too hard....
back to this statement:
No one has the right to use the government to protect their revenue stream. Period.
I disagree... if I'm protecting my revenue stream through patents and/or copyrights, I fully expect the government to help protect me because that's some of the reasons why they (copyrights/patents/governments) exist. This is true of an independent artist who puts all his/her works on the internet for $0.01USD per copy or a mega-corporation who sticks it to the public. The laws need to be the same no matter who the participants are. It's YOUR choice whether you want to support someone/something that is using copyrights to protect their revenue stream. If you don't like them, don't give them money.
What I think you might have wanted to say is that the government shouldn't support a monopoly. But this, again, is not how things work (look at utilities). I would agree with you if you said "Government shouldn't support a monopoly in the music industry".
The bill should make it a fellony to upload a *copyrighted* file to a P2P network.
A file I created myself should be completely legal, provide I consent to the upload. That's freedom of speech.
Transmitting someone else's copyrighted works, is violating their rights.
That's where the bill has a giant typo.
As far as I can tell there is no allowance for independent professional musicians to allow their own copyrighted work to be traded.
For instance, I have recorded an album, which own the copyright to. As the copyright owner I can and do grant permission for my music to be copied and traded on P2P networks. I however, would not grant permission for my music to be used in a movie, or sold on a compilation, for instance, without my express written consent. I guess that's kind of like the GPL, where you are free to copy the code, but if you want to sell it, there are other rules (regarding source code, etc. although I'm a newb regarding GPL rules).
As far as I can tell by reading the bill (IANAL) there is no allowance for musicians me like me. I would just go to jail.
[despite saying click hear to read the rest of this comment, you only get all of it if you hit reply to this. So I posted it as a reply. Hopefully this will work.] oh sure, now it all displays. whatever.
(and by us I mean the general population. You are a terrorist and a pirate until proven innocent in today's world, all it takes is an accusor- kinda like date rape). So although the above would make a great book or movie, it would suck in reality. Don't actually go killing CEOs and politicians.
Having said that, I have one more contradiction: If you are a psycho killer, and are going to kill someone anyway, don't kill someone innocent like a little kid or an old lady or a guy walking down the street or your wife or girlfriend or her mom or whatever. If you just have to kill someone, then go ahead and kill one of those bad guys mentioned above, like a patent-squatter-lawyer. Don't tell anyone I told you to do this, but I figure if someone's gonna die anyway, it's better a patent-sqatting-lawyer or corrupt politician than someone's little 9yr old sister. Can I get a "Hell Yeah!" from all the 9yr olds and their parents.
"Hell Yeah!"
I thought so. Peace.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
What we need is a conflict of interest law that says any government official who receives political funding must abstain from any legislation relating to that donor as an inherent conflict of interest.
The penalty should be suspension from political
office for a period (days to life) depending on
the severity of the conflict.
Daniel
Will it have broadband?
This space for rent, inquire within.
I guess the current politicians figure their only shot at getting re-elected is to disenfranchise the Napster generation before the kids who grew up filesharing start replacing them with copyright-reform candidates.
I guess the current politicians figure their only shot at getting re-elected is to disenfranchise the 60's generation before the kids who grew up smoking dope start replacing them with marijuana-reform candidates. Oh wait...
I'm not worried about this law passing--it would be political suicide (I hope) to support something so broadly unpopular--but you know how this works.
How broadly unpopular is it? People who vote generally have jobs and have expendable income, they can blow 20 bucks on a CD every two weeks and not worry about it. My dad uses filesharing, but if it's legislated out of existance, I'm sure he would buy CD's instead of changing his voting patterns. Frankly, I don't have the patience to sit and try to download a whole album (or even find the whole album). In general, if you listen to good music, you want the whole thing with cover art. The only people who don't care listen to shitty pop music. The main argument I hear all the time is "there's only one or two good songs on an album!". Maybe by artists whose songs get lots of MTV airtime...
You're living in a Slashdot dreamworld bubble. Who are these copyright reform candidates you speak of? I browse slashdot almost every day and I can't name a single one. I'm not suggesting they don't exist, I'm asking who they hell they are.
I hate to break it to you, but the whole concept of property -- whether physical or intellectual -- is artificial, a binding agreement codified in law between the individuals of the world so as to allow us to get on with our lives.
Without such agreements, we revert to the state where possession is 9/10 of the law, and the other 1/10 is who can physically compel another to give up their possession most effectively.
Gee, you'd almost think that all these dumb ideas in law were put there for a reason, wouldn't ya?
God damn, these "it's an artificial government monopoly" threads are tedious.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Just listen to classical all the time -- I don't think that Mozart cares if some of his songs are downloaded or not.
Beyond that, most classical albums (at least of dead people) are quite cheap ($7-$10) versus the latest flavour of the month band ($15-$20). I guess that is the beauty of work that is in public domain. So, all we have to do is be 300-400 years behind the trend and we are in the clear.
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
Krystal Steal
Karma: NaN
Well, while we're being technical, at least as early as 1755 "pirate" had come to mean "Pirate (Piraat) n.f. [grieks, piratica, Lat. pirate Fr.] I. A fea-robber. II. Any robber; particularly a bookfeller who feizes the copies op other men."
There are many evils you can ascribe to the RIAA, perverting "piracy" isn't one of them.
These legislators seem to forget about the biggest
point-to-point network. The telephone system.
If you can't share data over a point-to-point network, you can't make phone calls or faxes.
duh!
You looked at the wrong stat. You looked at the PAC contributions only. Politicians are bought also by individual contributions...
Top Industries supporting Berman lists TV/Music/Movies as #1 with roughly 25% of all contributions made to the "honorable" Howard L. Berman (for sale for highest bidder).
No, he used the same stat you did, but he was looking at Conyers rather than Berman. Top Industries supporting Conyers lists TV/Music/Movies as #2 with $49,859 out of $413,618 total. That comes out to 12%, less than half of the 25% claimed in the article.
(Dials up his ISP and brings down a couple MP3s for old times.)
"Damn I'm tired of this. It's copyright infringment, not theft. Noone is deprived of tangible property due to p2p use."
[deprive]
2. To dispossess; to bereave; to divest; to hinder from possessing; to debar; to shut out from; -- with a remoter object, usually preceded by of.
Since you're soo tired how about we give you relief?
I'll have a pow wow with all the artists out there and see if they can stop producing music, writing books, and making movies.[1]
Seeing as how they aren't actually producing something tangible. They will readly agree.
And you need never hear the word copyright. Or not worry about someone's intangible being deprived.
Unfortunately the only downside is that there will no longer be any music, books, or movies, but hey who wants intangibles, when we all can fight over the tangibles left over? Anyone wanna deprive the poster of his tangible car?
[1] The most common "intangibles borrowed". If no one gets the message then I'll speak to the rest. i.e. Paintings, photographs, architects, maybe even the gardners union for those cute gardens they create (artistic buggers all).
it's about time some of you got together and had another "Tea Party" and throw those corporations back out of power. Re-enact some of your old safeguards against corporate abuses...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
19 purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing
20 of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of
21 the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-
22 sible to members of the public who are able to copy
23 the work through such access
which also allows you to connect to the internet, as you don't allow access to all your stuff to the WWW, do you?
RTFB (Read the F***ing Bill)
I know it's not the popular viewpoint on /., but fundamentally file "sharing" is unethical, regardless of what the law has to say about it!
The music digitized (whether on a CD or in its raw form), stamped onto vinyl, or recorded on tape is the intellectual property of the artist. And that artist should be compensated.
The injustice here is that the artist is not being fully compensated for the work. Instead the recording industry is putting more and more money in the bank.
Find a way to hurt the industry, not the artists, and I'll be 100% for your cause - so will millions of others. But until then, I'll keep shelling out $15 a pop for CD's.
JB
I use gtk-gnutella on linux and I was wondering if there is any way they can catch me.
You say that "the supposed harmful effect of duplication is devaluation of the original." While you are correct that this is the direct result of duplication, it is not the harmful effect that copyright was intended to prevent.
The harmful effect was (and is) reducing the incentive to create. These days this lack of incentive can easily lead to an inability to create due to a lack of time and/or resources.
A large portion of the technology we use today stems directly from providing incentives (in the forms of limited monopolies) to create. You suggest you would refuse it today. Had the founders done so, the distinct possibility exists that even such transparent technologies as the GUI might not exist (or at very least not be widespread) today. It is even possible that Linux would not have existed, as Linus created it in part to avoid having to purchase an OS for his home system.
It's strange to consider this in today's society where infringement is so rampant, but artificial scarcity encourages innovation not only through those who own their creations, but through those who do not have access but desire the use. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.
Has the balance swung too far? I feel likely so. Is the whole system wrong? I do not feel so - the gains society makes through encouraging new creation are larger than what society gains through simply duplicating the old.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
When you buy software, you are actually purchasing some sort of license agreement to use the software, and not the bits themselves. The recording industry needs to tell the consumers what license they are purchasing music under, and what right they do and do not have in relationship to the music they buy, if they want to treat that music as data. I'd certainly like a formal definition of what I can and cannot do with my music.
Regexes are like cocaine. The first hit is pretty good, but afterwards you try to use them to solve all your problems.
I share a song I wrote, WANTING it to go out and spread as far as it can. Someone downloads it from me and also shares it. I want them to share it - but they don't know that, there's no way to attach a text file to it declaring what my intention is, so when they share it they haven't gotten permission from the copyright holder and in order to protect my copyright they can be jailed. Ridiculous. The copyright owner should need to complain at a minimum, else where's the injured party?
It seems to me that a basic web browser meets the definition of "enabling software" because it let's 3rd parties store data on that computer (cookies). In fact, it seems like most software that talks over a network would meet that criteria.
-Chris
I'm glad my tax dollars are defending poor helpless billion dollar industries. I often wonder if they get cold at night waiting on the street with their tin cup, asking for spare change.
Wait a minute. I'm thinking of the homeless again. I forget, why am I paying taxes to help hold up profits of some company that can't manage a business model in a dynamic market place?
I recommend some cartoonist draw some poltical cartoons for us and post them on slashdot. I now feel like I'm carrying the movie and music industry on my back, my wallet is feeling thinner already.
Dear MPAA and RIAA:
I have not been illegally obtaining your copyright material. I have not been able to purchase your material on my now limited budget. After I pay my taxes and buy food I have so little money that I can only afford to borrow books from the library for entertainment. So please do not interprete my sudden decline in buying your material as piracy.
Thank You.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Hey, wait a minute: where are our guns? Nooooooooo!!!
Have you any idea how amazingly unlikely that is to actually happen? Oh, sorry, you live in the USA. Carry on.
Every American Based Website is ILLEGAL!!! FTPing means uploading to the Internet which is really a disorganized P2P Network. No Web Site may be updated at all!
Consider this simple experiment:
Set water to boil in a small vessel.
Drop a live frog. It will jump right out of vessel due to shock and save itself.
Put a live frog in cold water. Set it to boil.
By the time the water starts to boil, it will be too late for frog to jump out.
Would the fact that you have access to the P2P network, and are able to download all the music you want for free, be considered financial gain? After all, you get all that music for essentially no cost.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, if you educate yourself by reading Title 17 and actually try to understand what copyrights (not "intellectual property") is all about, you may have a different viewpoint.
Pressing vinyl or CDs is (or used to be) expensive. People might not have bothered to make or record music knowing cost they needed to distribute it. Copyrights exist solely for the "advancement of the Useful Arts and Sciences" are are (were) a system to make it worthwhile for people to take on the cost of distributing knowledge or art.
This system rewards the artist by giving a very specific monopoly on certain narrow types of distribution. Title 17 doesn't say that distributed a song for free, with out getting anything in return, without using it to promote a business or bar, is illegal. (Some judges will says that, but even most won't.)
Your bald assertions that "artists should be compensated" of course raises the question, "For what ?"
When someone downloads a file from my computer to there own the artist doesn't pay the electricity, bandwidth, or have to maintain the machine against intrusion. That artist should focus on the one way that Title 17 provides that they get money -- SELLING THEIR SONGS. For starters, that artist can quit giving up all his rights at the first sight of a Gucci-suited RIAA agent.
Basically these artists sign away all the formidable rights Title 17 gave them, and then discover they are poor, and want to restrict my behaviour to compensate. Instead they should change their own behaviour, not give away what they CAN sell, and try to sell that harder.
will be illeagle for me to share my tapes, records (yes the vinyl ones), CDs, and DVDs with my roomates, neighbors, friends and family? Will it soon be against the law for little billy to share his crayons, or GiJoes with his classmates? Will Judge Dred decend from teh sky and despence justice upon the kindergarden class as they are taught "Shareing means Careing" screaming in that poorly acted Sly Stalone voice "Eheeiii ahamm da Lawhhhhh"? Will little so called file sharing "Speakeasies" {aka Lan Parties} popup all over the place?
Seriously any representive that votes for this should be run out of office. And you need to write (as in pen and paper) and mail (as use a stamp) to your respective representitives and tell how this bill if made into law then they will lose their jobs, and their precious money tree called the RIAA will wither and die.
but hey this is just my opinion i could be wrong
This will be a success! After all, notice how ramped-up enforcement and ridiculosuly long prison sentances have eliminated drug use!
.).
(Actually considering the RIAA, I'm wondering how much drug use is responsible for their harebrained ideas . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
If you are going to mention something easily found on a website like opensecrets.org, *LINK* to the damn thing, don't just talk about it.
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
This book should be required reading for anyone about to comment on public issues such as this one. One classic piece of "crooked thinking" it highlights is when one side of a debate siezes on a side issue where they are assured of a strong argument and somehow infers that "winning" on the side issue strengthens their argument on the main one whilst not actually advancing any points to support their position on the main issue. Someone on the receiving end of this tactic gives it legitimacy by falling into the trap of debating the side issue rather than the main one. Of course in this discussion the most highly moderated comments are all about whether copyright infringement is theft or not. Oddly enough in this case the tactic is used by both sides.. as "It aint theft so you cant punish folks that do it" by one side and as "Of course we have to crack down on these digital thieves" by the other.
Arguing over whether copyright infringement is equivalent to theft is all very well and a valid philosophical debate but doesnt address whether this would be a good law or not. Whether copyright infringement is theft or not this would STILL be a bad law if it were ever passed. Authors and artists deserve protection of their works from improper exploitation and duplication. Copyright law provides this. The public deserves to have those creative people satisfy their side of the bargain that created copyright in the first place and release the monopoly on their works after a reasonable time. We can debate how long that time should be and how the supposedly equitable nature of this deal should be preserved as long as you like but it doesnt address the point at issue here. "Is this proposed law a suitable measure for enforcing existing copyright protections whilst preserving the balance between protection and fair use?" I think either side of the theft/not-theft debate will agree that the answer to that substantive question is "No" so why are we debating the "theft" issue so heavily?
I had a
I propose that introducing stupid bills should be an automatic felony.
When a legislator is convicted, he is no longer eligable to vote or run for office.
Before you know it, all the lame congressmen and senators are in jail, and we start getting cool laws!!
The bill says exactly what you suggest.
And you are wrong. You can distribute copyrighted works in many different ways. As you as you explicitly get something in return, whether money or business promotion or a higher rating on a ratio ftp server, I'm pretty sure you are violating the monopoloy on commercial exploitation that Title 17 gives the artist. But the normal usage of Gnutella is probably completely legal, a few warped rulling from one or two judges notwithstanding.
Distributing copyrighted material to more than 10 people in 180 days to the tune of $2,500+ dollars is already a felony. This bill defines placing a single file on a P2P network as equivalent to the above criminal action - regardless of whether anyone downloads it, and regardless of any economic cost or lack thereof.
The law specifically states that we have rights such as Fair use to copy any media represneting the media that we bought a license to..the loophole is one cannot be prosecuted for copying media for no commercial gain..
Viewing html from a browser is copying and sharing..in case you have forgotten do you want internet outlawed by the music monopoply?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
They say that they assume each song uploaded is downloaded 10 times, which makes the total monetary loss $2500, i.e. a felony. How does 10 * $1 per song (the going rate at online distros like iTunes) equal $2500? Looks like $10 to me.
Jack: "So, what are you in for?"
Bubba: "Armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. And I killed two hookers. How about you?"
Jack: "I uploaded a file back in '03."
Bubba: "Ouch. Good luck at your parole hearing."
Jack: "My what hearing?"
Bubba: "Ouch. Well, look me up when you finally get out."
Of course, they have to do this. Think about it, if 100 million people vote in elections, it only takes 50 million people voting together to elect the people they want. There are 50million+ file sharing people, so if they got their shit together, they could take over the system and make file sharing legal.
That presumes that there are candidates for political office that support the dissolution of copyright law. Arguably, your group of file sharers could put up their own candidates, but remember that campaigns cost money, and these candidates would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting corporate money. This hypothetical group would have to fund itself entirely. The candidates would NEVER get sponsored by a major party, so you'd automatically lose the votes of 99%+ of the other 50 million voters in the country.
You would have much better success trying to set up a few PACs with this 50 million person group.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I'll take up with only one point:
> If you don't like the fact it's against the law to pirate/steal things you don't own, move to the moon.
This is oversimple. Firstly, there are a number of posts addressing how one could run afoul of this law without knowing it, and there's nothing in the law that would allow such a defense. Second, it implies that if a law is unfair, and I don't like it, my only option is to leave the country. What about complaining loudly that the law is unfair? Thirdly, it implies that there's a general consensus about how fair copyright law is, and the very presence of huge volumes of offenders belies that fact.
So, here's a crazy idea. I'll protest copyright law, as it's written presently, because I think it's been pushed past all sensibility. When the law shows me evidence of doing anything more than protecting the corporate interests of the RIAA, then I might show it a bit more respect. This bill doesn't move me in that direction.
Virg
a) the majority of VOTING americans are older, and this will continue even more as the average age of the american goes up.
b) most of these older americans aren't the sort that are file sharing, if they use a computer, it's probably for email and simple web surfing
c) most politians are old and will probably be dead by the time the Napster generation gets old enough to care AND vote.
So as of today, I will buy no more new CDs, DVDs, or any other "media" product where the RIAA is or might be involved. I will continue to make my own music, of course, and purchase independent recordings as I find them, but no more purchases from the Pigopolists. I declare today to be "End Dependence Day"
I must say, though, that I am not in the practice of using P2P products or services, anyway, but the increasingly draconian approach to the public indicates to me that the RIAA has no interest in its own customers, so I simply refuse to be a customer.
I did a similar thing with ESPN, when I found that they had hired Rush Limbaugh (pfooey!) to present commentary on their pre-game shows for the NFL season upcoming. I removed ESPN channels from my "favorites" button on the remote, and will do my best not to watch the channel.
Ed
Actually, it's quite cut and dried. Copying a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner is illegal. Period.
(Score: -1, Wrong)
It is noticable that no intent has to be present to be in violation of this law (if passed).
This means that there is a very real possibility of getting penalized without having done anything. It is like on my old school. Some of the teachers had upped the levels to a degree where nobody could pass the exam without the teacher discounting less favorable grades. If the teacher didn't like somebody - no exception was made and he/she would fail.
If crackers or the police or Mr. Bermen himself don't like you, then all there is to do is to hire somebody to upload something to your computer. Easily done these days.
And you are in violation - no need to prove anything.
The old joke "What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a daemon from hell?" still holds true: another lawyer.
Only in George W. Bush's America.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
A whole genre of music dedicated to Larry Bird!
Looks like Bill Gates might be sentenced for life. Windows comes with built-in file sharing. Some of the shares are even enabled after install on various flavors. There is no distinction here, either.. Windows is a software package just the same as Kazaa and Freenet.
in progress now, hurry or you'll miss it
The revolution is comming.....
The whole site is 404 already.
This articles lead paragraph sets an excellent precedent for slashdot political article design.
It has:
1) A new issue
2) It's Supporters
3) Links to the supporter's conflict-of-interest funding sources
4) Links to their past conflict-of-interest track records.
This is the model to follow. If nothing else, if all politic-journalism made issues and $$$ this clear, politicians might start get nervous and represent their constituents again, instead of just representing their wallets.
From The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,
Kremvax
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
I saw my first homelessness PSA in 8 years at 3PM, January 20, 2001. Exactly three hours into Bush's presidency.
Imagine that. All those millions of people lost their homes in a three hour span!
OK, this is gonna be unpopular, but, here goes.
If we have to first agree that copying music is a crime (regardless of what you think of the music industry, the RIAA, the MPAA, the DCMA, etc.), you have to agree that copying music you didn't buy is a crime.
Now, I'll be the first to say that music industry should long ago have tapped the appetite that has led to P2P sharing. But they haven't (neither have you or I, by the way!). And, at this point in time, copying music is a crime.
Since that's the case, then shouldn't facilitating the copying of music be a BIGGER crime? If you store music on your computer, and allow others to freely copy it, your crime is clearly bigger than theirs.
So, in this light, something like this makes sense.
It reads like it would be illegal to post any copyrighted information to any publicly accessible network. This bill, folks, will make the WWW illegal.
Then again, if senators are passing e-mail back and forth on a mailing list, they will be in violation of this bill, and be called felons.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Scene: A little girl is on the computer, making a compilation CD for her friend.
The girl is sitting on her chair, makes a few clicks and the cd is done. she gets off her chair and starts to walk down the country road to her friend's house to give her friend the cd. As she is walking the scene changes and shows a SWAT van driving up, then her walking, then the SWAT team getting ready to unload the van.
The girl arrives at her friend's house and just as she hands of the cd, the SWAT team busts down the door, yells to the kids and then everything freezes.
This will be reality if the Berman/Conyers bill is passed. Write your senator, before it's too late
I would totally give up a few bucks to fund public service announcements like this one. Granted, it's a tad violent, but I'm no ad man.
TV time is cheap on local networks & local cable outfits.
(btw, send in that check to the EFF you've been putting off!)
His campaign contribution. Just stick your payckeck for the next 3 years to the letter.
they're doing so much just to stop music and movie piracy all because it's related to money... and lots of money.. but we dont see them doing anything to stop guns. i know it's in the ammendment, but wtf.. personally i think society should really look at what's more important... i guess money's higher prioritized than lifes.
my blog
OK since we can't shoot for the novel. Lets go for what could be.
Everyone take out a pad of paper and pencil.
Now make a list of items that are created by artists. Next make a list of items not created by artists. Now imagine a world without the items on the first list. Pretty sterile isn't it? That's the world the attitude behind file sharing will create. Today it's movies, music, and books, but as technology improves the list will grow ever bigger because the attitude is insatiable. Now what self-respecting artist will want to raise their kids into that kind of environment? To feed the unrelenting attitude[2]. If people think the IT crisis[1] was something to moan about? They haven't seen anything yet.
Ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the world that greed and selfishness built. Admire it before it collapses from it's own unsustainability.
[1] What! Writing code isn't artistic?
[2] Shades of communism. You work for the P2P'ers. They take everything, leaving you with just the "tangible" shirt on your back.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn!
Well, he respawned 'on the third day', counting the Friday he died as day 1 and the Sunday he respawned as day 3, but it was less than 48 hours elapsed time. Still some pretty bad lag. Of course, back then I guess they had to use IP over camel transport....
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Is that this legislation is being proposed contemporaneously with other legislation to help people in repressive regimes circumvent government-imposed restrictions on free exchange of information.
Of course, it will never occur to most members of U.S. Congress that the former legislation pushes the United States further into the direction of being a repressive regime itself. After all, this is the same U.S. Congress that passed the Patriot Act.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
But does it warrant getting a tougher punishment than let us say, somebody selling drug (which one can argue put people in danger, or undermine society for hard drug) or physical thievery of items (where somebody is REALLY deprived, whereas with copyright violation you have only lost Potential revenue) or even IIRC rape, or executive which steal more money than potential revenue lsot for RIAA. Bottom line making copyright violation a felony instead of a misdeanor.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Just as a foot note, I've noticed a lot of banter discussing the true and proper meaning of terms used amongst the various posts. Like "sharing"and "stealing" etc. Others have tried to straighten out the language being used, others have taken notice and even still others have noticed but haven't taken any consideration and therefore have continued down an arguement trail that further befuddles the discussion and makes one wonder what the original post was about. I think this is what those who support the Bill are counting on. If "sharing" isn't a proper term to use should we then use "propogation" in it's place? If "stealing" is not a proper term then should we not use the term "deprivation"? If it's unclear what the "scarce resource" is should we then use "potential consumer"? If so could we then say? By "propogating" copyright material one is "depriving" the "RIAA or whoever etc" of it's "scarce" "potential consumer" base. This clearly doesn't seem like stealing to me but rather disrupting an entity's revenue model. Is this what it all boils down to? Trying hard to stay on track. =)
A christian that minds their own business. Been waiting for that one for a while...
Jerry Fallwell anyone?
Now thats a good christian attitude, don't piss of the neighbours, you have to share the public spaces outside your personal property with them.
You don't want some big ass gay boy knocking on your door at 3:00 in the morning looking for you...
...are there bills to make P2P filesharing a felony, yet no law or bill against sharing a public domain book on how to build a bomb?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
This isn't just about theft vs. copyright infringements. It's also, unfortunately, about producing and distributing counterfeits. That is, undoubtably, both a criminal and civil offense.
However, the witch hunt for "pirates", no matter what they are guilty of, should not and MUST NOT infringe upon the personal individual's rights to fair use. This is what's about to happen, and why we should worry.
Regards,
--
*Art
by at least one cent.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71426&cid=6462 362
Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't http technically a p2p protocol? Thus would such a bill make putting up a web site distributing copyrighted material (and most sites have a copyright notices, and and thus distribute copyrighted materials) be illegal?
.... I got to be missing something, guess I need to re-RTFA.
I realize no one will probably, prosecute them but this pretty much ends legal web sites. And since GPL is still a copyright, this would make distributing OSS a felony as well..
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
So, if there was no chance that I would go out and spend my hard earned money buying an album / movie, then there is no potential loss, thus no "piracy"? Would that be the proper chain of thinking?
Also, since most "cable" internet providers, also push copyrighted content for "digital cable" across the same publically accessible network, wouldn't that make all "cable" internet providers be punishable by this new law? I mean, it's a public network, and if someone could figure out the transport mechanism and figure out a method of reading it, wouldn't that mean that the cable company is the one who "posted" it on the public network?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I can't be the only one sick to death of the "theft or not theft" argument that wastes bandwidth on this site.
Here's an idea, folks: Let's drop the stupid argument and agree to disagree, and actually discuss the merits of the issue itself. As several astute /. readers pointed out, there is no clear delineation between the two. The government is free to impose civil and/or criminal codes on either.
Both theft and infringement are crimes. What you call them beyond that, or how you group them together, or how you relate them to each other makes little difference in the eyes of law at this point. You can discuss the merits of a particular law or bill without devolving into an argument that reminds one of the inane "less filling!" "tastes great!" commercials.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
From the bittorrent site torrentse.cx:
"The site torrentse.cx recieved a cease and desist letter during the day of Wednesday, July 16, 2003 for copyright infringement. The entire website has been removed and will not return."
my blog
Not to mention that some studies have shown that gun owners are actually more likely to be killed by a gun than non-gun owners
/yawn.
Wait... you're telling me that someone is more likely to be shot when there is a tool that is used for the purpose of firing a projectile at an object? Now that's an informative study.
The sad part is that this guarantees support not only by the RIAA and their principle stockholders (likely other big businesses with lots of money to spend on bribes (er, campaign contributions)), but also by the prison guards unions and the communities that make a pile of money from putting people in jail.
Isnt Berman the one that is an author also?Wouldnt this be a conflict of interest?
Infraction: punishible by no more than a fine.
Misdemeanor: punishible by no more than 1 year in jail.
Felony: punishible by more than 1 year in prison.
To add to the self referential nature of punishment, a jail is a facility at the county (shire) or city level, and one cannot be kept there for more than 1 year at a time. A prison is a facilty at the state or federal level, and is primarily meant for terms of incarceration of 1 year or more.
Even moreso if the RIAA is successful in cutting into tour profits of the artists, when will people stop going to concerts enough for the musicians to revolt against their labels?
I'm afraid it'll probably come down to an almost complete lack of rights before enough people make a stir about all of this copyright infrigement bullshit. And it is bullshit. I have created several works that are technically copyrighted by virtue of the fact I created them (and I could file for a formal copyright, but what's the point?), yet I can't sensibly expect my work to be valueable enough that I should have a monopoly on it indefinately (assuming I renew the copyright indefinately).
Just like the SCO case -- if you try to hide all your evidence/copyrighted materials and only show them to those who pay enough (analogous to signing an NDA) -- how can you expect anyone to care enough about you or your work to pay you royalties.
Get down off your ego - you're just not that imporant...no one is.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Original postition: copyright violation is not criminal (general case)
Your response: yes it is, read the law (general case)
rebuttal: no it is not, read the law:only in very specific case is it criminal
your attempt to rebut rebuttal: original position was bald!
Your response was as hairless.
If you did read it, it appears you did not read it closely. If you did read it closely, you did not summarize accurately.
No apology due you, probably one due from you.
Let's say you had a CD reading drive which had N pickup heads. If each of these heads were focused on a different bit of the CD drive (ie: these particular bits were "on loan" at a point in time) would letting N people listen (each on a distinct head) be legal?
Here's what I'm getting at: If I have an 80 minute CD with songs, and "loan" song #1 to listener 1, song #2 to listener 2, etc, is there any law which states this can't specifically be done as long as what is being borrowed is physically exclusive?
Or in another way, say a library purchases a 300 page book and literally rips it into 150 double-sided pages. Can it then *legally* loan out each page and "effectively" allow 150 people to read a portion of this book simultaneously?
Electronically, the book example seems feasible. Offer two book formats: One complete copy that you can borrow for an extended period of time, and one split copy where your borrowing of a page expires after five minutes.
Has anyone seen any information on this kind of deal?
I hope the RIAA plans on handing out the funds
needed to imprison 60 million zit faced teenagers.
Make way for generation "P".
Just a few simple changes...
/thats/ a law I'd love to see...
s/a file/spam/
s/P2P network/mail server/
Now
If some more college build a search engine and then a high profile, some people or organization might step in and argue a good case that might provide a blow to the hard handed influence of the RIAA on institutions. It might even create or help create precedent over similar DMCA bullying to security analysts, educators, and whistle-blowers. If a company refuses to fix an exploit or vulnerability, even after proper means are taken to inform them, the only other available way must be to inform the public. Security through obscurity is a poor methodology.
If thats the case, let me propose a much cleaner solution. Lets just shoot anyone who does any file sharing - avoid the cost of a trial and the cost of keeping someone in prison.
In fact, lets make it even more effective. Do the same thing for anyone selling or giving away a book, or cd or dvd. In fact, if anyone remembers, copyright has been claimed on the images of some buildings (the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is the one I remember first), so lets shoot anyone who takes a picture of such a building. The baseball teams are peeved about people sitting on the tops of buildings and watching games over stadium walls - so lets hire helicopters to shoot them all. I'll bet that with a couple of hours of thinking I could find ways to kill off most of the world - including KalvinB.
"Let them die then and decrease the surplus population" (Charles Dickens)
> Couldn't we just boycott the RIAA to death? It's not like their product is a necessity. Listen only to the music you already have. Buy nothing, download nothing, upload nothing. Find something else to do with the time.
As pointed out elsewhere, this isn't the best solution to the problem. If everyone stops buying music at all, it's easy for the RIAA to point to that and say that it's due to illegal file sharing. It's better to buy music like you normally do, but do the boycott correctly and don't buy music produced by RIAA member companies. That sends the very clear message that you're willing to buy music, but you're not willing to buy it from them, and steals all of their "filesharing is reducing music purchases" thunder at the same time.
Virg
Sharing usually involves taking something that belongs to you, and depriving yourself of it to allow others to use it as well, thus improving things for everyone.
No, that sounds a whole lot more like "giving". "Sharing" means expanding the group of beneficiaries.
The music industry "shares" what they "have" with everyone willing to pay for it, so long as they abide by the conditions (such as "not sharing farther").
How much personal sacrifice is involved in "sharing" GNU source code? None at all. How much in the case of sharing personal experience? Again, none. It is the terms set by the original "giver" that make the distinction.
Your point here is valid, but your redefining common words to set up the otherwise sound argument asks to be questioned.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
ok everyone lets get things on cassettes and maillists like '95
ill start postering and handing out flyers of my music/vids
if anyone likes send me snail mail detailing the songs you want.and your address
Ill send a cassette of said files COD
NOT!
how deep does this go?
does this mean i cant share ANY files ?
I live in canada, and i think if you like trading files you should move out of AmeriKA
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Man, that would be so much more straightforward than trial by judge or jury. Simply put, the lawyers lose their teeth and are put on the same ground as mortal men.
Excellent solution. Now, to un-repeal it.
I have another law I want to enact. Called HEC - Human Emission Control. What this bill consists of is restrictions on amounts of gasses produced by human beings: You shall not breathe in more then 1 time per 5 seconds. You shall not fart more then 3 times a day. Burping is not allowed except in infants up to the age of 2 years. The penalty for violating this law is 1 to 900 days in an oxygen deprived room with a fine up to $50,000. Repeat offenders shall be put to death. This bill should radically improve the quality of our air. Future generations would thank us!
Free speech is getting expensive...
Better still, staple them to Howard Berman.
With all the current issues and the current political status, I'm surprised no one has thought about staging a protest? That'd be kinda cool, see Larence Lesig along with Linus, members of the EFF, along with all the slashbots on Washington on the footsteps of Congress with a wireless network of laptops giving out speeches.. bring in Steve Jobs (since apple has iTunes) to show that there are other ways to do biznuz instead of via the goverment and imprisoning half the population. Why not start an opposite camp? Viva la revolution?
Washington Office
Congressman Howard L. Berman
2221 Rayburn H.O.B
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-4695
District Office
14546 Hamlin Street
Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411
(818) 994-7200
howard.berman@mail.house.gov
Why don't you check out Howard Dean's site (especially the blog):
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer>
Everyone knows that our politicians are bought by a wealthy minority of corporations, but if you are not contributing to the guys who are the most willing to listen to "little people" like us, then you have noone to blame but yourself.
Howard Dean has been "bought" but bought by around 80,000 individuals who donated the most to his compaign. When did YOU last buy a politician?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Anonymous Coward wrote...
Er.. you've jumped to conclusions.
P2P sharing causes items that are created by artists to disappear?
Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I hope I am), but are you implying that without profit motive artists won't create art?
What I might believe P2P will remove "art" creations that are largely "commercial" and "grande" powered by big bucks and big distributions. Maybe. I think there's still enough profit in these indeustries even with P2P. They're just greedy for more $$. Thanks, but I can do without Matrix and Britney Spears. As for paintings, sculptures, and folk music, I don't think anything will ever kill that. Not even war.
Greed is what is causing the entire debate in the first place. Take away copyright altogether and what happens? Corporations no longer have a vested interest to progress "art" to stupid, boundless, ridiculous levels of mass distribution, profit collection all in the name of "culture". Do I really consider TV programs, movies, and pop-music to be "art"? Without corporate backing Art returns to its fundamental roots. Capable of being identified with by its people. Providing the service I would like to believe is its true purpose. Communicating personal meaning from artists to audience.
How much of the music that is created today will endure 2 generations? How many music compositions(and art in general) that were created before the invention of copyright have endured to this day, and will for generations to come?
We have CLEARLY taken the wrong road to preserve ART. Much worse we have taken the wrong road to creating NEW ART.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Copyright. I wonder who was the first person to use that word? What if the word itself was copyrighted, and we needed the original author's permission to use it?
Copyrights, Digital Rights Management, Patents - it's all the same thing. Someone thinks they get to OWN an IDEA. How wrong-headed can you be? I know that in America you for the most part worship consumerism and commercialism and essentially money (read: The Almighty Dollar), but we really need to get beyond that, and soon.
With software patents on 'one-click' shopping and even patents on human genes, every little bit of information will soon be owned by someone. What happens when we're no longer allowed to put two ideas together in a new way to come up with a completely new idea? What if we're never exposed to that critical 'idea seed' that will help us advance as a race because some pigopolist has a patent or copyright on it?
All the world's knowledge belongs to all humanity - it's our legacy to our children. What the vendors (RIAA / MPAA / et al.) need to do is learn to rely on service and added value rather than trade secrets and digital rights management. They seem to have forgotten that their raison d'etre is to SERVICE their consumers.
What WE need to do is vote bastards like this out of office and replace them with someone REPRESENTATIVE of the people.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
The earlier post about checking out books from the library is dead on. I get cd's from the library all the time. So If I created an online LIBRARY that users could log into and BORROW mp3's for a duration(say two weeks) wouldnt this effectively be legal??
A constitutional right is not necessarily an unalienable human right. In Europe, Asia, and actually most countries in the world, the posession of firearms is illegal, which the US and Canada are notable exceptions.
Criminals indeed do give up rights if they are convicted. Sure, they still retain their human rights, but they have to give up some constitutional rights. The words "WITH DUE PROCESS" that are attached to many of the clauses of the constitution means that under fair trial and conviction may these rights be stripped from the person.
Sharing is good, when it's your own property that you're sharing.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
I have said, time and time again, that if you want to send these businesses/associations/etc a message, send it with your dollars. Boycott their products/services. But DON'T give them ammunition by trading in illegal materials.
I hope they will find some loophole in that bill, for independent musicians who upload their music files free of charge to the world, to get more listeners.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
And you think that a Ken Lay will have one or two bodyguards, when the money they steal from the American public will pay for hundreds? I don't like those odds, not unless I have WMDs on my side.
On a related note, I can tell you that the "Ken Lay of Birmingham, Alabama", Richard Scrushy, was already so paranoid years before his swindling was exposed, that he had MIB look-a-likes all over his corporate headquarters. You couldn't even get onto the mile-long driveway to the building without an appointment and an escort.
You are mistaken. Piracy (unauthorized duplication of copyrighted materials) is a felony in certain cases where the value exceeds certain amounts. The sites that do a lot of music "sharing" are typically way over the limits. Hence the recent prosecution of several offenders. What this new bill proposes to do is make it a felony to pirate music at *any* level. For those worried about it, just stop illegally "sharing" the copyrighted works of others, and you have nothing to worry about.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
So ... How do I mod the story itself -5 Troll?
"but you know how this works. There's one outrageous law that everybody knee-jerks at, and then there's another that's still horrible, but seems reasonable in comparison"
This works on many levels, from the individual to the government level. Here is an example of the personal level.
Ever seen those cartoons where the protagonist is presented with a particularly vexing moral dilema and immediately is assisted in his decision by the proverbial angel and devil figures perched upon his shoulders?
Imagine now, that instead of a being of goodness and light on one shoulder and a being of evil and darkenss on the other, the individual was posessed of 2 (TWO) devils, and 0 (ZERO) angels. The only difference between the two devils is that one of them is a little larger and more intimidating and tends to reply to every moral question in the most outrageous manner.
Me: "Hmmm...I'm kinda bored...wonder what I should do tonight."
*POOF*
Devil 1(The BIG, CRAZY one): "Sodomize the pope! That'll do it...yeah a lil' pope sodomization will cure that boredom right up. Course we gotta poke his eyes out when we're done."
*POOF*
Devil #2 (slightly better dressed and not slobbering at all): "Man is he crazy (thumbing at Devil #1 on the other shoulder)...let's just smoke some crack and shoot at the police."
Me: "Hmmmm...Ok, I'll go with devil #2. Hold on a sec while I load my gun."
I think you see the problem.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Perhaps a recall is in order. Why not take some inspiration from CA and their Governor?
I've always been under the impression that the more a band's music is heard the more people will go to their concerts. That's where a band makes most of their money, the money from selling albums is little because of all the publisher and middlemen take most of the profit (correct me if I'm wrong).
That's why big business is so upset about it, not the artists. In almost all cases you don't see the artists taking people to court. The artists WANT people excited to about their music so when they tour more people will see them live! The more exposure the better and in turn more ticket sales! Why do you think Pearl Jam fought Ticketmaster so much? It discourage people from their biggest reveune intake!
my 2 cents.
Come on- the title is a bit misleading. It's not outlawing all file sharing, just sharing that violates copyright law. No big deal if you actually read the bill text.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain.
I would say RTFA... In this case RTFA doesn't quite apply because the article doesn't explain the bill. Before you contact your congress-people, I would suggest you read the bill so that you can form your own opinion instead of regurgitating the slanted (and dishonest by omission) views of Wired.
/. summary (go figure), but it also has other poor implications: what about content for which you do not own the copyright but have a distribution agreement? There is also the idea that this puts copyright out of the civil court and into the criminal one.
The bill doesn't say you can't share, but rather that you can't share (over a network) files for which you do not own the copyright. This is less drastic than what I immediately thought after reading the
Here is the relevant text:
18 (2) by adding at the end the following: ``For
19 purposes of section 2319(b) of title 18, the placing
20 of a copyrighted work, without the authorization of
21 the copyright owner, on a computer network acces-
22 sible to members of the public who are able to copy
23 the work through such access shall be considered to
24 be the distribution, during a 180-day period, of at
And... do contact your reps when you feel you are informed.
int illegality;
int main()
{
while (1!=0)
illegality++;
return illegality;
}
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
I just gave $25 to EFF. If you care at all, you should to. Use the money you would have spent buying CD's or going to a ClearChannel concert.
Mostly cable companies.
Disney, AOL, Vivendi, Dreamworks...
US bribery law is politician friendly, but a politician can slip up. There's no lower limit on a bribe. One movie ticket, go to jail. So watch those guys. Find one direct payment or gift, and they're toast.
18 USC 203
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent -
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
It's easy to get this shit to end once and for all. Find an intelligent candidate to run against one of these clowns, finance him (in a grassroots sort of way) and vote the bastard out! All it will take is ONE of these clowns to be thrown out on their lobbyest fattened asses and you'll find the rest of the pack so scared for their jobs that they'll quickly come around. These jerks are emboldened by voter apathy. They're ARROGANCE needs to be rewarded by unemployment! The Republicans found out about this trick YEARS ago! Why do you think they now control BOTH houses of Congress? EASY! They got people who supported them to actually get off their asses and VOTE! Why are the Democrats such morons? The Democratic party is supposed to protect the working man. All I see there two democratic turncoats doing is taking industry money and voting AGAINST their constituants. Throw the assholes out!
"I totally agree that file-sharing is a grey area. I also had my car broken into and lost hundreds of CDs. Fortunately I had made mp3 backups of some and thanks to file-sharing programs like napster and kazaa, I was able to recoup most of the others. I PAID for those cds already and so in my mind did nothing wrong by redownloading them."
Well I had my house broken into and all the furniture was stolen. Due to the fact that I didn't have insurance I had to go around town "borrowing" furniture from everyone else. Hey I PAID for that furniture already so in my mind (were else?) I did nothing wrong in going into other people's houses and "borrowing" the furniture to replace my own.
Thanks to the thoughfulness of others in not investing in locks, and burgler alarms. I would be without furniture, and therefore what I did was OK.
In retrospect, this was a great learning experience too, as I realized just how much money I had poured into furniture that I barely used. It makes me think twice (3 or 4 times even) before I spend money on furniture that I can get from my neighbours.
BTW You file-traders crack me up with your made up examples to justify your actions. keep up the good work.
Isn't e-mail nothing more than a very primitive peer-peer network? So attaching files would becoem illegal!
"I don't want to discuss the use of stole. I want to discuss the concept that creation is reserved to a very few."
Hi! I'm anonymous guy, and I want to discuss my inability to wield a hammer and chisel, while others can, thereby ending up with the title "stonemason". I feel this is unfair, and that therefore I should be free to "borrow" anything of carved stone to make up for the inadequateness that I display.
When you leave the cd on kazaa, your not copying it but allowing others to copy it from you.
When you leave your cd at a friends house your allowing that person to make as many copies as he wants.
In both cases you aren't copying but allowing others to...
Hmmm... Pie...
okay, this is my 2 cents.... and it's probably not well thought out, and has a million holes in it, but i feel like making a fool out of my anonymous cowardly self.
um...according to this, making a file available on a p2p network is a felony, or whatever, even if it's not downloaded, right? but wait, if it is a p2p network, then the only server is your own computer, hence all you have to do to make it available is to have to have the file on your computer. SO... according to this bill, merely having both a p2p program on a computer, coexisting with just about any file that you paid for, could potenially be a crime, right?
um... if my thoughts are as clever as i first thought, i think i need a really good lawyer.
SO WHERE was the RIAA 30 years ago when I was "STEALING" music from the radio, HMMMMMMM?
Where were they when I was "STEALING" movies and copying them to VHS? HMMMMMM?
Now technology is biting them in the ass and they are just now crying foul? I dont buy it......They should embrace this tech, not sue their customers
Given that we have laws like the DCMA resulting in people being imprisoned, I think it might take a bit more than labeling concerned people as "knee jerkers" to sell your message.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
One convenient thing about this desperate onslaught against reason and the constitution by the copyright industry is that as the offense is repeated, so to may the attempt at defense.
I read with some dismay about the Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003, or ACCOPS introduced by representatives Conyers and Berman. Please remind them at the next opportunity of the text of the 8th clause of the constitution:
"The Congress shall have the power.... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"
There is a critical point here, carefully obfuscated by the RIAA and it's minions - there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property."
There is a concept in law called a "Natural Right," and it is generally accepted that people have a natural right to propriety. But as Jefferson was explicitly clear on, there is no natural right to "own" an idea:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea..."
Copyright does not protect property, it is not about protecting property; it is about promoting science and the useful arts. Copyright is not a property right; it is a temporary monopoly. Violating copyright is not theft, it is not piracy; it is guerilla anti-trust.
This distinction is quite clear in the constitutional grant of exclusive right, that such grant would not be obviously self-justified as it would be for property, but that such right is justified only in as much as it fulfills the noble social good of "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts."
Today fear of over-reaching laws wielded by greedy institutions has a broad chilling effect on innovation: science and the useful arts. ACCOPS further extends the damage done to innovation by such ill-conceived laws as the DMCA, CTEA and NET. Their only real purpose is to protect the profits of copyright holders by appropriating the public domain, and as much as they do so at the expense of innovation, they are unconstitutional. It is time to undo these egregious mistakes, not to extend them.
Thomas Jefferson was quite clear on his views of copyright and these views are enshrined in the 8th clause. It is a grant of an "embarrassing monopoly" and not a right; explicitly the fugitive fermentations of a mind cannot be owned.
Conyers and Berman need to hear and understand his words:
"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, i
sorry, can't share the files on your webserver anymore. gotta turn it off. fucking american government is stupid. time for the people to revolt.
If all the P2P network users turn ourselves into the appropriate authorities on the same day? We could slashdot the cops!
cndrr
This is fucking bullshit. You put wife-beaters in jail for five years. Some fucking rapists and child-molesters don't even go to jail for 5 years.
According to democratic ideals, file-sharing is the most legitimate thing in the US. More legitimate than any politician, more legitimate than the RIAA, more legitimate than the church. That's because more people have expressed their support for file-sharing than for politicians, the RIAA, or the church.
Millions upon millions of Americans have engaged in file-sharing. The idea that over half of the US population should be accused of a felony and imprisoned for 5 years is absurd. It would be like making speeding a felony, punishable by up to 5 years.
The simple fact is, the act of file-sharing cannot be construed by any reasonable person to deserve 5 years in jail, or any jail-time. At most, a reasonable person could only deem that the penalty should be the proven cost to the copyright owner of that file-sharing. Anything beyond that is out of proportion.
The simple fact is, these politicians -- Conyers and Berman -- are anti-American. I say that because they support a policy which would hurt many Americans and which is not supported by the people. So much for Democrats being the protectors of personal freedom.
We should not concern ourselves with absurd arguments that the RIAA and musicians put up about the "wrongness" of file-sharing. Reasonable arguments can be made agaisnt that, and it is hardly something that is obviously wrong like rape and murder. Thus, since it is neither obviously wrong nor right, our only concern should be what policy benefits *us* the most, and to support that kind of policy. The proposed legislation does nothing to benefit the public, nor me in particular, nor the vast majority of individuals -- arguably, not even the musicians, but only the RIAA and music-labels; thus, the rational person must oppose it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Unfortunately, many of the people who trade music online are prolly in the 15-40 age bracket, well outside the middle-aged demographic that actually controls the country. They know that many of the people who trade music online are probably computer savvy, inherently irreverant and probably take an antagonistic view of laws in general. You can be sure they want this group suppressed at any cost.
The current US govt. would like to put every intelligent American with a clue in a position where they're so scared to "bend" the rules that they stay neatly in line. This is one of the many laws being formulated to point peoples attention inwards, towards domestic issues and civil liberties and general non-issues (I mean really, how can one equate Murder and Piracy?) while the Bush administration merrily rapes and pillages the world at will in their quest for oil and control. Of course, this is all under the guise of "protecting" us. There is no true justice here. Money = Justice. Today I am a pessimist...
Now the RIAA can sue anybody who has installed or downloaded software that allows people to share information over an electronic network, presuming that they have pirated music, since there is no other legitimate use of this technology!
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
I would like to congradulate your tremendamous efforts in keeping industries that do not want to evolve with technology in business by attacking legally individual persons who may or may not be doing anything wrong. It is good to know though that your mucking about will only delay the inevidable, and eventually this "record industry" thing will actually have change with the times. Keep up the good work jack-asses.
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
Apparently US military procedures (to be made up) will govern his "trial", where even the principles of Natural Justice, e.g. the defendant being allowed to hear the evidence against him, will not apply.
Never underestimate the stretch of US wishes.
it's one thing to make a law like this, another altogether to implement it.
Even the USA doesn't have enough jail cells to incarcerate every kazaa/dc/ed2k user in the country. Need to build another gulag in Cuba just for filesharers..
The economic implications would be enormous. In most cases, people with decent internet access = people with jobs. Jailing literally millions of productive people would wreak havoc on industry, and might make it hard to pay for all your new jails..
What copyright infringement does is affect your potential for deriving profit from the information concerned.
Very true. But does any one else find this pretty silly? There are many ways of depriving the music industry of revenue.
Amazon and eBay deprive them of a great deal of revenue through online used-CD sales. Why buy a new CD when you can find a virtually new one for the same price? It happens all the time. Money changes hands all the time but the only people who see any of it are the sellers and the websites. I mean come on, someone obviously wanted to buy a CD, and the producers and the artists never see a dime of it.
When the selection of used CD's was more sparse, this wasn't such an attractive way of buying but the web now makes it possible to deny a huge amount of revenue to producers even if people decide to stop sharing.
But where is the outrage? Well, there isn't any, of course, even though big dot-coms are making lots of money by taking food out of the mouths of Dr. Dre's kids.
It's all pretty arbitrary to me. File sharing is 'wrong' because it is illegal. Maybe it's time it wasn't. The people of this country have the same right to act in their own selfish self-intrest as the recording industry- and 50 million or so file-sharers is a pretty big voting bloc.
You didn't think it was George Bush did you?
This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
but the kids who grew up smoking dope didn't care who won, they were pretty much all right with . . . whatever, man.
don't waste your vote on Democrats or Republicans!
When will governments learn that you cannot defeat the #1 rule of any society: If there is a demand, *someone* will supply the product legal or not.Criminalization only makes the criminals rich. Now, instead of downloading his music, Johnny Q. Public now buys boootleg CDs from his "dealer" for his music "fix". The RIAA would do better to take the money they are spending on lobbying and lawyers and put it into developing a music distrubtion system that is technology friendly and give us consumers what we want and expect.
I've been saying for a long time now that corporations have more legal rights these days than individuals. If this thing becomes law, it pretty much seals it for me: politicians are nothing but a bunch of corporate whores. :-P
We should ask congress their definition of "United States" because I know for a fact that in other sections of the USC that "United States" and "U.S."
mean ONLY DC, guam, virgin islands and america samoa.
So if this is the case with their new bill, if you arent a citizen of one of those territories or living in one of them, there really is nothing to worry about but pointless threats.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
A person has legitimately bought a copy of some software. They offer it online at kazaa. Another copy is made (copyright violation) and sent to another computer (theft, technically). This is theft, because the new copy that was made and sent to the other computer was completely removed (the other computer now has the full, functioning program) and was not paid for. When you get right down to it, that group of actions matches the law's definition of theft. correct me if I'm wrong in any of my logic here
Make me laugh.
US always come back with the word "freedom".
They are making their own definition of this word.
Come on...all those bills....and you still think you live in a country with freedom?
Illusion. US doesn't have any freedom. They are taking your freedom away.
gosh I'm happy to be in Canada. It's not perfect but at least I don't get all those bills imposed to my ass every month.
Karma: Very Very Very Very Bad
No we cannot justify our need to steal, but it feels good to be a pirate and thumb our noses at those who get rich selling the candy we crave. The average Joe in Chicago during the depression gladly took hand out from Al Capone, and many looked up to him as a figure standing up against what everyone loved to hate, Government.
The problem is Government has become dissasociated from people. The media has taken advantage of this and regularly makes villains of polititions, cops, and anyone seen to be in authority. It is ironic that the very media who has made all the money making villains out of polititians is now running to them for protection from a wave of junk media and pop music pirates. "This situation will get out of hand and we will be lucky to live through it." Quote from the Hunt for Red October.
There is going to be a fundimental shift in media and entertainment. As it no longer becomes possible to sell cds to the craved audiance then some other venue will become more important. Music concerts where the stoned out, lighter waving audience makes almost as much noise as the band have just become a bore to music lovers. Real musicians and performers will rule the day again because they are the only ones that will be able to get anyone to actually listen.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
then 300 people are listening to it.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
It seems to me that this bill is not an initiative of the good man himself, but rather originating from the big Hollywood institutions.
And I find that very strange. Why would you trust a *politician* who clearly can be bought *legally* at all?
Wouldn't it be better for the US if you find other means of funding campaigns, so you can at least find out what those politicians' true political agendas are made of, instead of being defined by whoever they take money from? Just my 2c, feel free to flame me.
(nt)
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
We could probably "liberate" washington with slashdot readers alone. Just think... the United States run by slashdot users! RIAA, Microsoft, and certain senators would be deported to whatever country we are currently the most pissed off at.
let's see.... 'stealing' a copy right... you mean someone would have to do something like usurping the purchased right to distribute?
No. When you steal something, the other person doesn't have it. You still have your copyright if I make a copy without being licensed by you. I violate your copyright, but haven't stolen anything from you.
Suppose you rape my girlfriend. You've 'violated' her, but you haven't stolen her. On the other hand, if you seduce her and convince her to break up with me, you've stolen her.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If you can copy my couch and use it at your house without causing me any inconvenience, you're welcome to it.
get email that when the link is clicked, it uploads some copyright data (some windows dll) onto a P2P network. Then all the congressional staffers are in jail and they can't pass any more stupid laws!
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Since the whole internet is really P2P, wouldn't that make it a illegal to post a web page :-)
My parent post wasn't a troll. It simply points out a blatant flaw in a common argument used by those against the intellectual property framework. How does exposing a major flaw in a common argument constitute trolling? <sigh>
Go on, mod me down as flamebait if it makes you feel better. But I'd rather you posted an informed counterargument and saved your points for somewhere they'd be constructive.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
i looked at the text copy on EFF, and saw only reference to the sharing of copyrighted material. this does not make posting any content to a P2P network illegal, as the story unfortunately implies.
i also saw reference to forcing P2P vendors to carry disclaimers with their software, but not to jailing people whose computers were complicit in the sharing of illegal material. where is the language in the bill to that effect (it might be there -- but i didn't see it)?
It seems to me like what they're trying to kill is the whole concept of P2P sharing -- whether it's their content, or not (and most especially if it's not -- the last thing they want is for artists to have a viable alternative to the RIAA to get their work widely known).
Beside which: this is a civil issue... They should really have to deal with this themselves... They're the ones making billions of dollars off of starving musicians and an art-hungry public.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Dear Sir. I would like to register my opposition to a Bill called the ?Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003? or ACCOPS. The bill was introduced by Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Howard Berman (D-Calif.). It is my understanding that this ?Bill? (don?t know if it is yet actually a bill or not) would cause anyone of the 60 million Americans who now trade files online to be labeled as Felons subject to $250,000 fines or 5 years in jail. This is patently unacceptable, copyright violation is a civil matter not a criminal matter and the vast majority of computers online that are trading files are setup to by minor children without the knowledge of their parents. Also the music business and the media outlets that they own continually call filetrading ?piracy? or ?theft? file trading is neither it is violation of copyright which is a civil matter not a criminal matter. In addition this Bill targets those who have the files on their systems not those who actually do the ?copying? the people downloading the files so by just having a file on your computer would be labeled a felon. It is my opinion that the music companies (thru their heavily lobbied representatives) have decided on this approach of going after people that have the files on their systems because that technically they can?t locate the people actually doing the copying, the downloaders.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
America home of the free? With laws like this I'd contemplate preferring living under Saddam Hussain.
for "representatives" who sponsor laws which 50 million citizens find unfair, absurd and unconstitutional. Maybe that will shut them up.
A better idea would be to outlaw corporate political contributions ala Canada.
...so that a lot of people will get really pissed off about it.
I recommend to all of you a novel, "Term Limits", by Vince Flynn. If you're not nodding agreement by page 50, you're not mad enough yet.
And with all the high powered coders and brains here, can we not assemble a new IP that bypasses the current Internet, INCLUDING a damn-near-uncrackable encryption system. Actually, in law, the state has to prove you commited the offense before you can be convicted, even in civil trials. Having to crack an encryption system to find out what's on the drive will raise the price to stratospheric levels, especially when the RIAA has to foot the bill.
I want revenge. I'll settle for justice. Mercy is optional, but not very.
Think about it, what is the most commonly used P2P network out there? Email! Making it a felony to upload a file to a P2P network would outlaw the sending of email.
On the other hand, it would also outlaw spam... so perhaps it's not as bad as we think.
Homestar Runner rules. Don't forget the Teen Girl Squad "404'd!!" when you go to a nonexistent page:
http://www.homestarrunner.com/blahdiblah
Gotta love it.
...I'd say this would constitute as an attack on the Internet itself. The 'Net is all about freely sharing data all over the world. What the data contains, or what you do with it, is your own problem. If it's something like underage porn or pirated movies, and you're caught with it, then you should be punished under their respective laws! But this is attacking it at its source: the actual sharing of data. What do you think the Internet is? Sharing mother****ing data! This is a massive encroachment on the most fundamental liberty of the modern age of communication. Sharing copyrighted data? Punish those individuals that have no right to it, but don't make most of the wired citizens of the world into felons. This is another step towards the annihilation of free speech.
You hate America, we have to give peace offerings to countries (buy them out) to stop terrorism?
Bush and the Republicans are busy cleaning up the messes that clinton created.
What did Clinton create? We werent at war under Clinton, Saddam was not put in power by Clinton, Bin Laden was not trained to fight the soviets by Clinton.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
And you live in Florida, you can never vote again. On the other hand, Ken Lay is a free man. Isn't the American justice system great?
I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected, and I even included this important link regarding who funds Howard Berman.
1 Walt Disney Co $32,000
2 AOL Time Warner $29,050
3 Vivendi Universal $27,341
4 Viacom Inc $15,000
5 News Corp $11,750
6 DreamWorks SKG $11,000
7 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000
7 National Assn of Realtors $10,000
7 Service Employees International Union $10,000
7 William Morris Agency $10,000
Nice top 10 eh?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
If your congress members are elected as a result of campaign support by an industry and these members subsequently push pro industry issues, does this not mean that they might have deceived the voting public? This is assuming their official pre-election platform did not include their intended agenda to support the sponsor's aims. I believe this is a problem in governemets all over the planet. What can be done to hold these thugs accountable?
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here, but consider this:
Movie and music bits are media. They are generally read in and played back in sequential order. Even if these bits are encrypted, you can record them into another format during playback.
Commercial software is not played back in sequential order. Depending on its complexity, it could have an infinite number of playback variations. Therefore, it cannot be recorded (in full) to another format. It can only be reversed engineered/simulated.
Artists do have a right to freely express themselves... thats in the bill of RIGHTS! Nothing in there about getting paid.
Or were you making an argument that artists should be economically incentivized to create by being rewarded for their creation? That is in the constitution, but it is society that decides how much artists get paid, and in what form. If the majority of society is ignoring minor or non-commercial copyright law violations (and don't kid yourself - even if they are not downloading music they are making copies at Kinkos or in other ways violating copyright laws) then that is a choice society has made. If the laws don't reflect the wishes of society, that is a flaw in the system that will hopefully be corrected.
Arists have the right to look at what society is offering them, in terms of incentives for creation, and decide whether to create art or not to create art. They don't have the right to get paid for their art. If they did, I've got a bunch of fingerpaintings from 1st grade I've been saving for just this occasion. Either way, as Courtney Love said, good artists (who aren't greedy) have nothing to worry about. Feeble artists who are being artificially propped up by an artificial monopoly (you know who you are) have the right to get treated like everyone else...
No, but the surveys not paid for by the RIAA point unambiguously at the fact that "free tracks", whether made available by FM radio, Internet Radio, or P2P correlate rather strongly with increased sales. The musician I work with doesn't mind losing a CD sale if getting her tracks onto Kazaa results in getting 3 more. Of course, the extreme example of this was Eminem, whose entire CD album was "pre-released" onto P2P. He cried all the way to the bank, that record went straight to #1.
Why? Simple. Do you buy a record if you have no clue to what it sounds like? P2P distribution of broadcast-quality (128K) tracks gives people enough of a clue to what the music sounds like so they know whether or not to buy it. If a person hears it and doesn't like it, he won't buy. But this is only a "lost sale" in the mind of an RIAA flack.
Maybe this isn't you, but it sure is someone. Heck, it's several guys I know; the guy in the cube next to me loudly proclaims on a regular basis, "I used to spend $500-600 on CD's a year, and now I haven't bought one for 3 years since I just download my tracks."
Any musician reading this should hope he uploads as well.
Maybe CD sales as a whole do go up, but it's an "ends and means" justification (ie, the ends don't justify the means). It is not OUR place to tell copyright holders what they should do with their copyright though covert infringement;
Mandatory licensing like the one that applies to broadcasting is preferable. If Congress hadn't stepped in and TOLD the music industry what copyright holders must do with their music, there would be no broadcasting industry.
this is their right as the copyright holder to make this decision on their own.
WRONG. It is a privilege granted them by society in the public interest, and that privilege can be limited in any way Congress sees fit. The music industry knows this, even if you don't. That's why it spends so much money on campaign contributions.
We can tell them this with our wallets in other ways though, such as refusing to listen to the music of record companies with whom we do not agree.
The people who lose money due to any of these lost CD sales are the artists and record company execs, yes,
Only in the minds of an RIAA propagandist, paid or unpaid. Most musicians would rather get several sales as a result of people listening to FM radio or P2P or Internet Radio and saying "I like this" and lose an occasional sale because someone went to a lot of trouble to find copies of all the album tracks. It has to do with making money. Music that's locked away in a record company vault profits nobody.
RIAA "anti-piracy" activity is about denying non-RIAA artists access to channels where the general public can easily find them, not about stopping piracy. Otherwise, the money they spend bribing politicians would be spent on bringing copyright infringement actions in the Asian world, where their products are copied track-by-track at CD pressing plants.
but also the guys working security at the front gate, the technicians setting up the sound equipment, the guys running their email servers, the janitors
Only in imaginations stimulated by RIAA propaganda. Nice try. Have an exploding cigar.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Tell your representitives to eat shit and die for this. That an F-ing joke. This kind of shit makes me want to move to Canada or Europe where this kind of shit doesn't happen.
and yachts and expensive suits, etc....
In Australia us law abiding citizens aren't allowed to posess bullet proof vests either, but then I guess there is that originating from convicts thing isn't there
were == where
her == here
I just finished reading the bill. One thing I got from it is that if after going on a trip to Disneyland, I post the photographs on my website, one of them containing a picture of Mickey Mouse or some other disney creation, after one year I would be considered to have pirated $5000 in copyrighted works, and I would be subject to hefty fines and imprisonment.
I'm scanning the photos right now, and I will post them for my distant relatives to look at, legal or not.
The fund raising statistics from 2002 would suggest otherwise
The study also found that Democrats were far more reliant than Republicans on deep-pocketed givers in the 2002 election cycle, and were much less successful than the GOP at raising money from donors giving small amounts. The findings were released today at an event launching the Center's comprehensive study of the effects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly called the McCain-Feingold law.
simply put, people have no problem presenting propoganda as information. Don't believe the hype.
Because the less fortunate don't deserve to listen to music right? In fact, you might say the poor shouldn't be allowed to drink water because they didn't pay for bottled water. If you knew what it was like to be poor, you wouldn't want to do without.
Any law that so broadly prohibits communication will be held unconstitutional.
The only question is: How many lives will be destroyed by a law like this before it makes its way to the Supreme Court?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Is it just me or there's been growing a trend of troll legislators recently? I hope that's not the case, otherwise someone should come up with a way to mod these people down. oh wait...
Part of being a performer is just that - performing; putting on a show. Be it in an onstage venue, such as a play or musical, or on a movie set, or at a concert. No matter what the clamor is from the "Industry," people need to realize that without the performers, there would BE no RIAA / MPAA. There would be no problem. As a hobbyist musician, and having "Real" musician friends (people that perform for a living), I can testify that P2P is not hurting the performers. Case in point: I do not purchase CD's unless I like the band. I do not know if I enjoy the music or not unless I've heard it. Such is the dilemma. ANY purchase made is an investment - an investment in one's own well-being (such as purchasing food or medicine), an investment in one's happiness (such as purchasing a game or other forms of entertainment), an investment in one's future (traditional monetary investing, purchasing educational materials or "time" in a classroom). When I invest in something, I want to recieve the most satisfaction for each dollar I spend. Literal translation: If I like the music, I buy it. If it sucks, I don't. Personally, and this is ONLY my point of view, I see no problem with downloading a song from a P2P network. If the song is played on the radio, what kind of protection scheme is in place to prevent the recording of said broadcast? How does the RIAA plan to circumvent the digital recording of music in the future? Making it more difficult to "rip" a CD does nothing, except render current "unprotected" players obsolete, thus creating more artificial demand for unnecessary products. As far as I know, as long as any given audio player produces sound thru speakers, the song(s) can be recorded and saved in an unprotected digital format, to be *gasp* "shared" online. And (I know this has been said before) what about the rights of users who's files are open source, or not subject to copyright. As I mentioned, I am a hobbyist musician. I CREATE works, therefore I own the rights to said works. If I want to upload a file of my own to a P2P network, I have the right to do so; at least as much right as Metallica does to sue their fans for violating their copyright. Regarding licensing: Again, just MY PERSONAL OPINION - if I purchase a CD, software item (such as an application or video game), or even a book -- I am purchasing a tangible item which is a storage medium for the product I have licensed for use. Basically, as long as I can prove that I purchased the license (Save those reciepts), I can listen to said songs wherever, whenever, and however. I can utilize said software wherever, whenever, and however. I can enjoy said book wherever, whenever, and however. But what if the original storage medium is destroyed? Tough luck, says the licensor? I don't think so. Just random thoughs on the issue. Feel free to flame away. -z-
-z-
Just the other day a rich black American singer (rapper) who had been convicted of a felony was charged with illegally hiring others to accompany him with THEIR legally possessed guns.
In other words, felons can't even hire armed bodyguards to protect themselves.
The reason politicians can be bought so cheaply is because of the law of supply and demand -- there is a large supply of politicians willing to be bought.
The bits in a broadcast-quality (128K) MP3 are of zero retail value. A broadcast-quality MP3 is of the same retail value whether you hear it courtesy of a FM radio station or off Kazaa.
It's only commercial value is if it persuades you to buy a different set of bits packaged in a form you can pay for, i.e. the bits packaged in a higher-quality CD or now, a different and somewhat higher-quality set of bits sold via iTunes. It frequently does, which is one reason why record sales went up when alternative Internet broadcast-quality tracks were more easily available and why they went down immediately Napster closed.
The "value" placed on the broadcast-quality bits is an artificial creation pulled out of the asshole of the RIAA lobbyist who presented the Congressmen with the bill ready for introduction in the legislative process.
The only purposes of the bill has nothing to do with piracy. The reasons for the bill are:
- to cut off channels that independent artists have the same access to as the major record labels
- to give the RIAA something they can go to their members and say "Look, we're giving you value for your money
- to give the CEOs of the major record labels something they can go to the CEOs of their parent companies with and say, "PIRACY!!! is the reason why we're losing money, and if we can get this bill through Congress, we'll start making money again.
None of these are good reasons to put a single person in jail.Given the errors I've pointed out in the parent post, the rest of his argument is meaningless.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Hi! I'm anonymous guy, and I want to discuss my inability to wield a hammer and chisel"
I think you should address your reading comprehension skills first.
If this is a recovery, where are the new jobs?
Why did we go from a $200B surplus in 2000 to a record $475B deficit this year?
Tech Public Policy stuff
By making it dangerous to redistribute them with or without the consent of the author. Remember the bots which are filing DMCA violation complaints against various people without regard to whether the MP3s contained content owned by any member of any *AA organization? The intent of the bill is to persuade Americans that making content available for upload is too dangerous to do even if it's their own material they want to upload.
Piracy is irrelevant to the intent of the bill or the *AA organizations. If they wanted to stop piracy, the money that is being spent on politicians would be spent on stopping the plants that are pressing the billions of pirate CDs and VCDs and DVDs being sold in Asian countries which is ripping off content by any reasonable defininition of copyright.
Tech Public Policy stuff
From the UK's "The Register":
The powerful Congressman at the center of the controversy over royalty rates for small webcasters took $18,000 from the Recording Industry Association of America.
As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner was instrumental in forcing the deal that could result in an antitrust suit against the RIAA being filed by small webcasters.
--
More at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31812.html
Arguments about whether or not copying hurts the recording industry are completely irrelevant. We live in a capitalist society. If technological progress creates a landscape where the recording industry cannot exist any longer, then, goodbye recording industry.
Plenty of businesses get "hurt" by technological advance. By your logic we ought to ban computers because of the all the damage done to the typewriter industry, or perhaps the horse and buggy vendors from 1900s are entitled to sue Detroit for damages because they were hurt by all of those cars.
So, f--- the record company. Time's changed. Turning the government into the record company's monkey is not going to change the fact that we have machines that are really good at copying stuff and people ought to use them.
This is my sig.
This is proof that whatever kind of government you have, if you pay the right people the right amount of money you will get what you want.
Graft works.
A modern day Al Capone could be brought down for "file sharing", or whatever you want to call it.
Enby in Waltham
From an LA Times article (reg req):
Under current law, distributing 10 unauthorized copies of a work with a retail value of more than $2,500 is a felony -- provided that prosecutors can show that the distribution was done deliberately and with an intent to violate copyrights.
The Conyers-Berman bill would equate offering one or more works for others to copy the equivalent of distributing 10 copies worth more than $2,500.
"When someone makes available to 300 million people a new movie I think it's a pretty fair assumption that at least 10 copies are going to be downloaded," said Fritz Attaway of the Motion Picture Assn. of America. "And when somebody does that, that's grand theft."
Is that really the MPAA's argument? Has Fritz Attaway heard of pyramid schemes, and does he understand why they do not work in the long run?
The shareholder is always right.
Those two jerks, Conyers and Berman are both Democrats. Selling out their country for dirty Hollywood money.
Aren't felonies better kept for more serious and henious crimes, like rape, murder, and embezzling millions of dollars?
Sorry, but I hardly believe that Jr. grabbing (or posting) a copy of the Matrix from Kazaa because he can is in the same league as the above. But then the thought that the punishment should fit the crime has not had a place in the American Judicial System for some time. The whole fiasco with the three strikes laws and the War on Drugs reveals this.
I know I'm the first to say this, but why on earth would you sue the people who you want to purchase a product from you? That's just stupid - and if everyone goes to jail -- who's going to be lieft to download music? Think of it this way: let's say there are (for sake of this post) 100 people in the US. 75 of them listen to music. The RIAA makes, let's say, $75 a year from those 75 people. Now 50 of thoe people start downloading their music, so the RIAA only makes money from 1/3 of the people, or a total of about $25, since 2/3 of their customers are not downloading music. So now they send those 50 downloaders to jail. No one's going to purchase musuci while in jail, so they still aren't going to make more than $25 a year... it's kind of convoluted, but its makes sense if you think about it enough...
also, would this bill be retroactive?
are you telling me selling and/or smoking pot is less serious then downloading music? jebus
-tozzer the illusionist