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.
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.
If I read the proposal correctly it will be illegal to offer "enabling software" for download without notifying the customer of its implications.
This bill goes after people who allow "enabling" software to be jailed for up to five years if they don't jump through the proper hoops. It is not just going after people who upload copyrighted material. Try reading the law that you are supporting.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
corporate run prisons already are a growth industry. Think RoboCop, it's comming!
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.
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
In the 90's (I can't find stats on the aughts), prisons were either the 4th or 5th largest growth industry in the U.S. Obviously the tech and biomed sectors were larger, but still says a lot about our country.
Damn I'm tired of this. It's copyright infringment, not theft. Noone is deprived of tangible property due to p2p use.
''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.
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.
IANAL...perhaps some /. legal ace can clarify my interpretation of the verbiage.
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.
Come on. THey're not making the service illegal. They're making it so they can slap a felony on you easier IF YOU GET CAUGHT SHARING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL.
So, perhaps it *is* time to implement Assassination Politics.
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.
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.
Actually, due to things like mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes rules, they're tending to release violent felons -- murderers and rapists -- early, but they can't release non-violent drug offenders.
"If you have a music (or other copyrighted work) file, and you didn't buy it, technically you stole it."
Um, I have to point out two other possibilities: you received it as a gift, or you created it.
I have lots of stuff on my computer that I didn't buy, including the operating system. It's all Free or Open Source Software, and I received it as a gift. Other stuff on my computer that I didn't buy are things that I wrote (for which I automatically receive the copyright at the instant that I create it).
The stuff I wrote is mine, to do with as I wish. The gifts are licensed to me and I can upload them if the license says I can.
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
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
I read recently an interview with someone from the RIAA and he talked about this, if I understood correctly what was said he claimed that buying a CD means you have a license to listen to and own the copyright material on the CD.
This means you can record the contents to tape, rip it to your iPod, record it on a mini-disc etc, essentially do what you want with it that doesn't infringe on copyright laws. e.g. you can't broadcast it or sell copies down the local market.
Regardless if your CDs are stolen you still own a license to have a copy of the contents of the CD. Technically speaking when you buy a CD you are getting the CD, case and inlays for free, what you pay for is the right to own a copy of the music. This means you can store it in whatever format you want e.g. ogg, mp3, wma, 8-track. This is also why you can legally make backups of your media.
So I think I'm right in saying that downloading a replacement copy of music you own is OK even if your original CDs were stolen. Presumably you would have to provide proof of purchase if you were caught. That said this proposed new law would make even obtaining a legal backup to your music illegal!
Felons may not have bulletproof vests as well, which I classify as self defense.
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.
I am so sick of this infinitely repeated bullshit claim. Please RTFL before you spout the
See U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506 for the offenses and Title 18, Chapter 113, Sec 2319 for the penalties.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
True, it's just a proposed law. But it still needs to be opposed NOW so that lawmakers know we don't want it. Why is that a kneejerk reaction?
And while we're on the subject of kneejerk reactions...
Then, after it breezes past our sitting 'I'll sign anything for business' president.
Every single sponsor (6 total) of this bill is a Democrat. Verify it here if you want. I'm really tired of people making the blanket accusation that Republicans are the only ones that support big business. I would venture to say that almost every member of Congress has their token industry from back home that lobbies the shit out of them - and the industry usually gets what it wants, Democrat or Republican.
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
A better way of showing how American government works is by voting these two idiots out of office in the next election.
People from all over the USA, not just in the two states they are in, should do campaigns (via email, door to door, etc.) to get them out, and hopefully somemone better in.
(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?
The only "bullshit" is what you posted. Why don't you try reading the material at the links you provided:As you should be able to see from the above, only some specific forms of copyright infringement are criminal offenses. Someone who Xerox's an article from a magazine for their personal use has not committed a criminal offense. Someone who downloads a song from Kazaa solely for the purposes of listening to it has not commited a criminal offense. What is criminalized is only willful copyright infringement for profit or when such willful infringement is of works with a retail value of more than $1,000 in a six month (180 day) period. Now please apologize to the original poster who you accused of posting "bullshit."
"If you have a music (or other copyrighted work) file, and you didn't buy it, technically you stole it"
This is a completely incorrect assumption and it is ignorance like this that allows bills such as the one in this discussion to gain a foothold. Here are some examples of having a copyrighted file on your system w/o purchasing it and being completely legal:
Example1: The owner of the work gave you a copy! Forgot about that possibility didn't we?
Example2: You own a legal copy of the same work on a different medium...say you bought a record in the 1970s or 1980s and you download a song from said record today(maybe to get a digital copy of the song or because the album was never released to CD). Not illegal yet you didn't buy the file...
Example3: Open Source Software!!! OSS can be and is copyrighted all the time and yet owning a file that is released as such is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination and most often, OSS is available for free.
There are other examples, these are just a few. The point being that the powers that be need to wake up and realize the many significant and legitimate uses of file sharing.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
You can use the RIAA Radar search engine to check whether a label is a member of the RIAA. (Amazon.com web services at work)
/t
#!/usr/bin/english
In copyright infringement, the victim has no less after the crime than before.
I think you mean 'after the infringement than before.'
Government Information Awareness
here
John Conyers fact sheet:
here
Howard Berman fact sheet:
here
Microsoft did over $35 billion in revenue last year. IBM did about the same.
Minor correction: IBM did about $90 billion last year.
So that means one tech company took in more than twice the revenue of the entire movie industry.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
America, Land of the Free (TM) has a larger percentage of incarcerated citizens than China, Land of Communist Oppression.
In fact, we have more people in prison per capita than ANY other country. Most for non-violent crimes.
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.
Explain to me again why uploading and sharing legal files to a P2P network is a felony?
It's not. The bill states that the file you upload has to be "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". Uploading something in the public domain or something you hold the copyright for to a P2P network would still be just fine.
It's not that this bill would be targeting non-crimes, it's that it would be targeting misdemeanor-scale crimes with felony-scale punishments. A law that would (if totally enforced right now) put tens of millions of Americans in jail for years and remove their right to vote when they get out is practically tyrannical.
Well, there are two types of polls that show your views to be complete BS: Polls of journalists and of readers. Let's see the results:
- 2003 Gallup Poll which says 60% of Americans believe the media are biased; of them 45% think the media too liberal, 15% say too conservative.
- A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as "Democrat or liberal" or "lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican.
- A 2001 survey of 301 "media professionals" by Princeton Survey Research Associates found 25 percent self-identified as "liberal," 59 percent as "moderate" and only 6 percent as "conservative."
I believe the facts just proved taht your are wrong, and if you think half the media is right-wing, it's perhaps because your're on the left of Comrade Zyuganov? :) ]
[ for those who don't keep up with Russian political life, Gennady Zyuganov is the leader of Russian Communist Party these days
-DVK
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
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.
I know this is a really lame distinction and it will certainly date me, but for the record:
:P
"Knowing is half the battle." is from GI-Joe, not He-Man.
I need to get out more
There is no such thing as a licence to use something or to listen to something (though "they" would love to make it so).
The only right that the copyright holder has that he can licence are the rights to make and distribute copies (including derivative copies), and the right to public performance. If he doesn't give you one or more of these rights then there is no licence. Basic contract law, there is no contract unless the contract gives you something new of value. Without a grant of one or more of those rights it is merely an ordinary sale of an object that happens to have a copyrighted work stored on it. No licence, no contract, just plain old copyright law forbiding you from making copies (other than fair use copies which is permitted).
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.