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"
A felony? Why not a misdeamenor? WTF?
I can leave a CD at my buddy's house and no one cares....
Time to write to Congress again... third time this week....
This space for rent.
But what jail will be big enough to hold all the fileswappers?
So if I want to share my own copyrighted works free of charge, would that make me a felon, or just anyone who downloads them and makes them available to others?
To understand recursion,
you must first understand recursion.
Just wondering why when they are both Democrats, as in this case, the /. story does not mention their party. When they are Republicans the party is made very clear, like with Sen. Hatch.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Looks like Freenet is labeled as "enabling software" under terms of the proprosed law.
The proposed law also seeks to impose up to a 5 year jail term for registering a domain using false information... Bad stuff.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Seriously, if things were as our forefathers had intended the people behind this type of legislation wouldn't want to leave their house without bodyguards.
I'm still amazed that Ken Lay and his Enron buddies haven't been shot yet; what was it, 150,000 retirements they destroyed?
I think the higher-ups (in gov't and corporations) would be a LOT more responsible if they feared for their lives a bit more.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
[yahoo news]
Without trying to spark a political debate (which this comment surely will), its interesting that Democrats seem to favor the bill and Republicans do not. Any thoughts as to why this may be? Is the RIAA in the pocket of Democrats?
This just doesn't seem like one of those issues that would normally fall along party lines.
Its also frightening that they point to "song swappers". What is a song swapper? If I email an mp3 that I ripped from a personal CD to myself, does it make me a song swapper? It sounds to me as though this legislation would be incredibly sweeping. Scary stuff.
[FromTheMorning]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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
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.
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
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.
> 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
(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
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.
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
I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected, and I even included this important link regarding who funds Howard Berman.
1 Walt Disney Co $32,000
2 AOL Time Warner $29,050
3 Vivendi Universal $27,341
4 Viacom Inc $15,000
5 News Corp $11,750
6 DreamWorks SKG $11,000
7 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000
7 National Assn of Realtors $10,000
7 Service Employees International Union $10,000
7 William Morris Agency $10,000
Nice top 10 eh?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I 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.