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....
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"
... 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?
Maybe we could buy some senator to add "rider" that accepting brib^W donations from Hollywood is automatic felony?
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>
Same chances of getting caught... and it won't be a felony.
"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.
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!
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!"
I believe it is perfectly legal for me to obtain content that I have license to. I can share out files at home, connect to that machine from work and listen to music, right? I PAID for the music!
Most of my MP3s are replacements for CDs that were destroyed.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
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?
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.
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
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
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.
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
So they're making it a Fellony to Upload a SINGLE copyrighted song?
That's still nuts.
1. This makes you have less of a penalty for walking into a CD store and stealing the CD from there. The punishment should be equal to the same crime in the real world. Not magically enhanced for being done via the computer.
2. As the article says, some may be connected to a network, not even know that they are sharing songs, and then be stuck with a fellony.
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.
> Hey Michigan and California wake up and
> don't elect this jokers again.
I'm sorry, but democracy only works with an educated populace. Everyone here is so stupid that they will continue to elect these kinds of people. Our country has no hope. People just continue to get more and more stupid. So much for a civilization.
--- witty signature
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
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.
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.
If making copyright infringement a federal crime punishable by jail time is perfectly reasonable, then jaywalkers should be shot on sight by police. Also, if destroying someone's computer for copyright infringement should be allowed, then I propose that we should simply roll grenades under cars that are parked in handicap spots instead of giving their owners a ticket. It's all perfectly reasonable.
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.
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
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".
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.
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
As someone who worked for Conyers for a few years as a legislative aide, I can only guess he's getting *very* bad advice from his current staff.
Conyers is one of the most liberal members of Congress, but I'd say someone on the Judiciary Committee minority staff is paying too much attention to money, and not enough to integrity.
His campaign slogan traditionally was "Justice, Jobs, Peace". So much for justice.
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.
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??
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
Yes. An FTP server meets the test of "enabling software." But this law doesn't make FTP servers illegal. It just means that a clear and conspicuous warning has to pop up and say "This software could create a security and privacy risk on your computer," and allow the user to cancel if this is not what the user wants.
This bill does not make FTP illegal, nor does it make P2P illegal.
What this bill does is make trading copyrighted material a felony. It adds teeth to existing laws, because the existing laws obviously aren't acting as a deterrent.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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...
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.
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
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.
Felons may not have bulletproof vests as well, which I classify as self defense.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
> 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).
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
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.
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
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
(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.''.
Wish I had some moderation points right now - this (from my reading) is the only part of this bill that's REALLY bad (the others are really merely "redundant").
The bit about "file sharing" specifically mentions "copyrighted works without authorization of the copyright holder", so doesn't criminalize file-sharing of files you ARE authorized to share (public domain, or works you have the copyright to yourself, or works you've gotten permission to share from the copyright holder). However, the provision quoted above (presumably meant to discourage distribution of useful file-sharing utilities with 'electronic warning labels' [akin to the 'smoking is bad for you, duh' labels the US Federal Government requires on cigarettes]) places what I think is an unreasonable procedural/regulatory burden on software developers because of its badly-written nature.
(Are 'click-through' licenses really enforceable? If not, does that mean the obvious procedure of having the "this program could conceivably be used to store stuff on your computer or let people search it" warning as a "click OK" pop-up wouldn't be valid?...)
Maybe legislators should be required to obtain at least 4-year college degrees before they're allowed to legislate all over a field....
So, while the bill isn't nearly as bad as the the article blurb above implies, it's still pretty badly written, and from my perspective just shows Berman's trying to appease his donors. Seems he'll just incrementally 'roll back' what his bills attempt, bit by bit, until he hits one that passes. I'm guessing he'll then procede to add to that bill bit by bit with riders to other bills, etc., and hope nobody notices...
And, yes, *I* (though I am not a lawyer(tm)) would think that "Network Neighborhood" falls perfectly under the description of this provision...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
(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.
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
A kind reminder from the Ministry of Love...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
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.
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.
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.
> It adds teeth to existing laws, because the existing laws obviously aren't acting as a deterrent.
I think those teeth are made of rubber. If the existing laws don't deter, there's a good reason for that. Because people don't think it's wrong.
"What? They're still breaking the law? STOP IT, before I pass another law!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
I agree! Damn, I wish I had some mod points to mod you up!
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
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!
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
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.
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
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
...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.
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.
Even more intresting, although I can't say I'm for it, how many slashdot readers are in favor of revolution? If not, when? What would the government have to do to go to far? Will I be arrested for even mentioning this in a somewhat serrious way?
Little Brother, watching the watchers
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.
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!
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