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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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."
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
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.
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.