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.
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"
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?
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
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]
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.
No, we need to stop teaching them at an early age that America is a bastion of freedom and liberty in the world.
Quoth the article: "We're giving notice that this is something we want specific attention paid to," said the aide. "The current law is very general."
What, pray tell, is wrong with current copyright law? It is illegal to copy something without permission. Period. Why we need to make draconian laws that just futher extend the reach of the copyright cartel is beyond me.
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.
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.
Same chances of getting caught... and it won't be a felony.
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.
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
Copyright infringement, whatever the rights and wrongs are, is not "sharing". You're taking content produced by others and offering it to others with no sacrifice on your part, but with a potential sacrifice to the people who made the content - that of being unable to earn revenue from people who use that product.
Which, before I get flamed, I'm not arguing that this is never to the artist's benefit in the long run, nor that everyone who downloads music both lacks a copy already and will never pay the artist a cent. But calling it sharing is about as silly as calling it stealing. It isn't either.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
No, technically you violated the copyright which is distinct from stealing as far as the law is concerned.
You might notice that the law never refers to copying copyrighted material as theft.
1. To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
2. To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
4. To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend.
Somebody needs to buy a dictionary.
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
Yeah, right.
It's perfectly reasonable
You have a pretty strange definition of "reasonable".
Hmm, let's play the Sesame Street game:
Kidnapping.
Rape.
Assault with a deadly weapon.
Grand theft auto.
Uploading a file on a P2P network.
One of these things is not like the others. Can you tell me which one?
Hmm, you upload a file to a P2P network, and you are now a felon. Think about that - federal jail time, a fine of $250,000, and a permanent black mark that will prevent you from working anywhere but McDonalds.
I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of "reasonable".
A little thing called due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc. I resent the implication that we are all theives by default, and if anything I think that that is why file sharers have such a laissez faire attitude about copyright violation.
Futhermore, the whole p2p debacle is such a grey area to begin with, ethically and legally. I've had upwards of 100 CDs stolen from me, with no way to recoup that expense. If I download an mp3 of an album I used to have to listen to once am I just as much a thief as the guy who has 50 camrips shares on Kazaa?
At least we agree that more draconian laws arent the answer.
I bet that if you look at the demographics for P2P users, you will find that a majority of their ages would be between teens and mid twenties. Many are either not able to vote or don't care enough to vote. Once they get convicted, the Senators don't have to worry about them voting again.
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.
You misread.
The part you are probably referring to says that merely making files available to the public over a computer network is automatically considered to satisfy the 10 copy/$2,500 requirement, even if no one downloads it.
It makes the mere act of sharing a single file fall under the criminal penalties, whereas before they had to prove you distributed significant amounts of copyrighted materials.
--------------
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 acces-sible 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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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?
Bad bad analogy? When are people going to stop comparing 1's and 0's on a silver platter to stuff in a store? If I could go in a store, buy a candy bar, take it outside, and put it in a machine that made infinite copies of it for free, the only people that would call it a crime were those that would stand to lose profits because of the world no longer having ANY shortage of food.
No one is deprived of anything by sharing files, but lots of people stand to gain from the removal of artificial scarcity. As supply approaches infinity, price approaches 0. There are of course other variables, quality, loyalty, etc, but that's what the IP business is coming down to, practically infinite supply attempting to bolt down the market to ratchet up price.
You do understand that self defense and owning a firearm are not the same thing, right?
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!
No, technically you violated the copyright which is distinct from stealing as far as the law is concerned.
If you really want to get technical about the current US law, then yes, the current US law does not call it stealing. However, theft also has a broader, non-legally-technical, useage. The following is a snippet of Roman law:
And the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following:
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?
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Last I checked this was a PROPOSESD law, which is far different than being an ACTUAL law. Maybe we should start teaching our children how the American government works?
The reach and aim of the bill will be whittled down over the coming months, even then it has a very slim chance of even making it out of committee in both chambers. On the off hand chance it makes it out of both the house and the senate, the versions of the bill will be quite different.. requiring even more whittling and compromise in conference.
Then, after it breezes past our sitting 'I'll sign anything for business' president.. it will almost definitely be challenged in court. The final result will be A) nothing or B) a law that is quite a bit less dranconian and far reaching than this one.
This is the system and the process that MAKES America a pretty darn good country. So, go soak your knee (it probably hurts from the big jerking motion you just made) and let our process do its work.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
What, pray tell, is wrong with current copyright law? It is illegal to copy something without permission. Period.
Actually you're wrong. There are plenty of exceptions out there and the law has been interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. It's nowhere nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
That said, I think that one of the main reasons we are seeing so much disregard for copyright law by the average citizen is because the government has disregarding those same citizens in its desire to give corporate interests whatever they want in terms of copyright extensions and restrictions. The average person sees absolutely no benefit from copyright law anymore. That's not the way it was supposed to be. Copyright was supposed to be a bargain between creators and the public. We agree to give them exclusive rights for a limited period of time, and then we get unfettered access to that work once the period has expired. This seemed like a good deal for everyone. Then Congress cut the public out of the deal. Nothing becomes public domain anymore, and won't for as long as they keep extending copyright terms. I see P2P as a backlash (albeit an unconscious one on the part of most people) against overly restrictive copyright laws that people understand to be inherently unfair. If balance was brought back to the system, I think people would have more respect for it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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
Copyright infringement ... You're taking content
Bzzt, wrong! In copyright infringement, nothing is actually taken. The original owner of the bits still owns them. Next contestant, please!
For someone all hung up on definitions and using terms properly, you could at least get this part a little more accurate.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The problem is that every ultra-draconian/crazy measure (like this, or like UCITA, or the bill that would allow the **AA's to legally DoS people's computers) makes laws that are less outrageous seem tame by comparison. The next DMCA will pass more easily if, when it's proposed, everyone looks back at proposals like this and says "This new law isn't overly oppressive--it's much milder than those others!"
Except anyone who would have had a share of the profits of any sale that is not made because someone can get it for free.
I don't think that anyone would claim that not a single CD sale was lost because someone got the tracks for free online. 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." 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; this is their right as the copyright holder to make this decision on their own. 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, 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 sweeping their floors. Then it's the retailers around the country who lose sales because these guys are not making as much money (or have been laid off). These other losses are not as direct and visible, but money taken from the company comes out SOMEWHERE, and frankly it's not too likely that it's the execs' pockets from which it comes out.
Is this law stupid? Yeah. Is copyright infringement a form of theft though? You bet. If you were arguing that distributing a copyrighted item with out permission that is otherwise available for free is not a form of theft, I'd agree, but each time that someone downloads a track from a CD, and this prevents them from later buying the rest of the CD, this is theft. Maybe you putting a file up on the Internet is not a form of theft, but it knowingly permits theft.
I think P2P networks are cool, and I really hope they stick around after all the Copyright crap is over, but even despite squabbling over "theft" or "infringement" terms, no matter what you call it, it is still illegal, like it or not.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
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 sweeping their floors.
You seem to think that money is growing on trees and people have an unlimited supply. The money that someone did not spend on cd's was spent elsewhere, and most likely, at the same Walmart buying a gas grill instead of 10 cd's, or at a fast food resturant on the way home. That money was still spent paying all the people you are refering to above but a different group of them. People only have so much money to spend, the non essential entertainment budget is probably the first one to be dipped into.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
So, the lesson we should be teaching our kids is "Shoplifting is much better than copyright infringement if you are going to obtain music illegally. Steal it from the record store instead of downloading it from the internet." After all, the penalties are much less, even though shoplifting actually hurts more people.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
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.
- 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
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.
Don't think that will stop them:
Over 40% of the US population has smoked marajuana, but that doesn't stop the War on Drugs.
If this escalates, some political figure will have to declare "War on P2P filesharing". Unfortunately, probably a quarter of people in the US (probably mostly seniors citizens who vote)don't even know what that is, and consequently won't give a shit about another war on american people.
The US has the third highest incarceration rate in history, after hitler's germany and stalin's russia, mostly due to the drug war.
What P2P users must do is hire some lobyists in washington so they can get what they want. Unfortunately, P2P users like to get something for nothing, so this will never happen . .
-n
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.
You guys all missed the next definition, which is the closest -- the sharing of a secret. How do we describe commercial software programs? 'Secret bits' right? How are music/movie files much different?
My journal has hot
A good reason to avoid using words like theft and piracy when discussing copyright is the fundamental difference between physical property and copyrightable information: Theft of property deprives you of the stolen item, copyright infringement does not take the information away from you. What copyright infringement does is affect your potential for deriving profit from the information concerned.
I'm not saying that unauthorised copying is OK, just that it becomes easier to confuse the matter under discussion, when improper terminology and associations are used. This is similar to the terrible term "Intellectual Property", which not only tries to equate information with property but also confuses several different kinds of law.
In short, lets keep it simple but correct: What we do with KaZaa is copyright infringement, what thieves and pickpockets (and possibly some corperate executives) do is theft.
> 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.
Thank you for coming out and saying that. We've all read the same arguments over & over, yet I'm not reading anything I haven't read before. Unless something really interesting comes up, there should be no +mods, although there will be, because Mods moderate when they agree, not when they think it's important.
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).
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.
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
If someone hacks into your bank account (let us assume this is in a country with no depositor insurance) and empties your account you haven't been deprived of anything tangible. Is it theft?
Actually, I think this would fall more under the term wire fraud. Though, again, this type of thing involves taking something from me and, in doing so, denies me the use of that thing, in the case of your analogy, money. Copyright infringment, on the other hand, does not deny someone the use of the thing which is copied. Is it still illegal, yes. Should it be treated as being worse than theft? I don't think so, but that is what this proposed law is going to do. Consider for a moment, what would happen to me if I went into a local Walmart and stole a CD, assuming I was caught? I'd get the legal equvilent of a slap in the wrist, probably a fine and a couple of hours of community service. Now, if this law is enacted and I get caught sharing 1 music file, I get a sizable fine and sent to jail for a couple of years. So, considering that, in your view, each crime is equiveilent, why should the punishments be so disproportionate?
Further, if you look at this from another standpoint, mine for example, this law looks even worse. If I steal a CD I am directly depriving the store of the use of that CD, they can't sell it. Where as, if I download an mp3, I in no way prevent the person I copied it from continuing to use it. Admitadly, I have, in some way, dimished the value of the copyright on that song, but probably by a far lesser amount than the cost of a CD. So, why the huge disparity in the punishment? Why is there to be a greater punishment for the crime which does lesser harm?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
No, technically you violated the copyright which is distinct from stealing as far as the law is concerned.
If you really want to get technical about the current US law, then yes, the current US law does not call it stealing. However, theft also has a broader, non-legally-technical, useage. The following is a snippet of Roman law:
6. It is theft, not only when anyone takes away a thing belonging to another, in order to appropriate it, but generally when anyone deals with the property of another contrary to the wishes of its owner. (Gai. iii. 195; D. xlvii. 2. 54. pr.; The Institutes of Justinian, pg. 403.)
Well, let's get technical then.
I know of no legal system anywhere in the world which technically classifies copyright infringement as theft. So, no, it's not only "current" and not only "US" law. Shouldn't it tell you something?
And funny that you should mention Roman law. Under Roman law the concept of intellectual proprety did not exist. There was no copyright (and no patents, and no trademarks, either). Think Roman senators would call a public performance of a song to which the song author did not consent a theft?
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 that's not the normal usage of the words. Just as using the word "piracy" ro refer to unauthorized copying is not normal, traditional usage. It is a (successful) attempt by copyright holders to frame the issue in emotionally-sensitive terms.
What do you think sounds better: "Stealing is wrong" or "Depriving a corporation of potential revenue is wrong"?
And if you are wondering why "theft" is the wrong term to use, I'll tell you. When you steal something from someone, that someone no longer has the use of that item. He lost it. He had it and doesn't have it any more.
Compare it to copyright infringement. The copyright holder actually doesn't lose anything in the sense of having less than what he used to have. In a commercial setting he loses some chance potential revenue, and in a non-commercial setting not even that.
That's the reason why "theft" and "copyright infringement" are different things and should be named differently.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
America, Land of the Free (TM) has a larger percentage of incarcerated citizens than China, Land of Communist Oppression.
Think about that for a moment.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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
And the spud-raisin debates continue. Forget the dictionary, OK? What about Miss Manners?
If the musicians were in the room, could you upload it and comfortably let them know what you are doing?
For jam-bands like Phish and a few fringe artists you probably could (at least for some of their songs). That's sharing. For everybody else it's not sharing. The dictionary may not say it, but sharing implies a mutual agreement between all parties involved. Sharing as we know it is a polite activity between friends. Uploading an artist's music against their will, and in the anonymity of your computer room is nothing like the sharing we were taught in kindergarden.
Phish shares their concerts. Fans appropriate Metallica.
appropriate
1. to take for one's own or exclusive use.
2. to take improperly, as without permission
3. to set aside for a specific use or a certain person.
File sharing is not being made a felony. Phish can share all the music they want. File appropriation is the felony.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Very true. But you forgot to mention that fact that just because you downloaded a song doesn't mean you weren't going to buy the cd. Heck, it doesn't mean you don't already own the cd. I've misplaced CDs that I legally bought, so I downloaded high quality mp3s of all the songs, burned a new cd, and used that until I found the original. Also, I've downloaded songs from bands that I've never heard of, and wouldn't have gone out to buy the cd, only to find that I really like their music and them go and buy all their cds. My downloading their music helped their sales.
I think Courtney love said it best (you can find this and many other good quotes here in google cache):
Stealing our copyright provisions in the dead of night when no-one is looking is piracy. It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster. There were one billion downloads last year but music sales are way up, so how is Napster hurting the music industry? It's not. The only people who are scared of Napster are the people who have filler on their albums and are scared that if people hear more than one single they're not going to buy the album.
--Courtney Love, NME, 6/29/2000
This space for rent, inquire within.
What's this got to do with freedom and liberty? They're talking about theft of copyrighted material.
Here's what it has to do with liberty:
In Saudi Arabia, if you are caught shoplifting something, you get your hand cut off. Now, if this bill passes, in America if you upload a single file to a P2P network, you get stuck in the slammer with Bubba for 5 years, and a $250k fine. We all know how much Saudi law upholds freedom and liberty... see the connection?
Draconian laws, cruel and unusual punishment, and excessive enforcement for things which do not greatly harm society are not traits of a society that values freedom and liberty.
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.
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
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