Slashdot Mirror
Jail Time for Movie Swappers
ArmenTanzarian writes "The MPAA is at it again, reports CNET in a story from yesterday. Apparently, suing the pants off of teenagers RIAA-style isn't good enough, they want to go ahead and throw you in jail. To that end, their senators will introduce the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act today; which carries with it a maximum sentence of 3 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!"
Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!
From the first paragraph of the CNet article:
A forthcoming copyright bill backed by key U.S. senators would place file swappers in prison for up to three years if they have a copy of even one prerelease movie in their shared folders.
How is this not violating copyright again? Last I heard, copying movies fell into that category.
So, if you post a movie before it hits the theaters, you go to jail. If you release it the same day it hits the theaters, you just get fined? This whole bill is just stupid.
Copyright law is a civil law not criminal law. As least it's supposed to be.
Sure, they're doing something illegal, but now the movie companies dont need to prove that they did, its just assumed.
Also, the jail term seems to be slightly disproportionate to the crime (in 99% of cases).
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
If they get enough of a wild hair up their asses (and it's looking like a pretty big one), I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them start trying 15 - 17 year olds as adults.
The most interesting aspect of this to me is how well people will be able to claim technical ignorance as a defense. Considering the judges and/or jury trying these cases likely won't have the technical expertise of those being tried, some very interesting situations could arise.
Theft has to do with property. Copyright law isn't property law. Unless they're talking about people going into stores and stealing CDs, there are no property issues involved here.
It's time to strike words like "intellectual property" and "piracy" (as applied to the non-violent action of making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work) out of our collective vocabularies and replace them with neutral, descriptive terms like "intellectual assets" and "unauthorized copying".
In general, I'm okay with making it illegal to share pre-release videos/music...after all, that goes after personal acts, not technology, which is an appropriate use for law.
My only concern is whether the punishment fits the crime. Is sharing one movie really grounds to lose your right to vote for the rest of your life?
Copyright infringement isn't theft, since it doesn't deprive someone else of anything. It's copyright infringement and is illegal. It's also a civil offense, not a criminal offense, like say... shoplifting a CD or DVD, since that would deprive the store of a physical object and the potential revenue from it's sale. See now that's theft, which is a criminal offense, and you'd face harsh penalties of maybe a $200 fine in most states, as opposed to the civil offense of copyright infringment, where you're liable for what... 12 songs on a cd x 150,000 each, 1.8 million dollars?
Let me know if there's parts you still don't understand.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
On a serious note though, I already tried that once. The reply I got was basically they are right, I'm wrong, but please vote for me anyways.
"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said. "Legislation such as that being introduced tomorrow will go a long way toward changing that equation."
What's the high reward for giving away an $8 movie to anonymous strangers?
We have more people in jail now than the USSR under Stalin. I believe we need to protect the IP of content creators. But the punishment absolutely does not fit the crime. Once again large companies are taking advantage of prosecutorial vigilantism that plagues the U.S. judicial system. There is a big difference between a passing a law to deter IP theft and throwing a huge sop to campaign funding media giants. I guess when you have enough children of yuppies being held at gun point or serving 5,10,15 year sentences for file swapping, pot smoking and wearing trenchcoats - these people might do something.
-_-
We can now assume that any gun owner has killed people because he/she has a gun and ammunition?
Really - how do pre-release moveies end up on internet shares? People they trust with them leak them. Those are the people they should prosecute if they had any common sense. Why can't they use their brains? If you're going to give out 100 copies of a movie to reviewers pre-release then maybe you ought to watermark them so the reviewers have some reason to not give them out. There's plenty of options for DRM they could apply to their pre-release copies but they don't - perhaps this is proof that the RIAA will never really manage to sell DRM content to the masses ... they can't even manage to use DRM in limited quantities to known parties.
In the past, totalitarian governments were usually based on some flavor of fascism or communism. We are now witnessing the birth of a new form of totalitarianism -- corporatocracy. In this form of government, the corporations inform the "people's representatives" of what laws are to be passed, as well as what specific punishments are to be imposed for breaking those laws.
It's not that I think that copyright infringement is OK. It is just that the punishments for breaking the law seem extremely harsh, given the nature of the crime. It also seems backwards that corporations can dictate what legistlation gets passed rather than the people, whom the legistlature supposedly represents.
Proverbs 21:19
If they're already violating the law, how will a new law help catch them?
/syle
Effectively they're avoiding dealing with the fact that they have a serious leak problem within the suite of companies with which they deal, like duplicators, advertising agencys, studio employees, etc.
Note that the only guy that gets nailed is the one who puts it in the shared folder - nobody involved in the actual leak is affected - because it's them.
If you actually read the article, it is quite clear that this is specifically meant to target those who share movies that are not yet released in theaters. However, the following line contradicts this:
"this legislation will go a long way toward targeting one of the most serious contributors to piracy right now, which is the practice of camcording motion pictures. It's the first time the U.S. Senate has had legislation that specifically addresses the threat of camcording."
How does this address the "threat" of comcording, since this is normally done post-release.
Another nitpick about this is the complaint that no copyright violation is needed...the movie just has to be in a shared folder. Well, if no one downloads the movie, how the hell can the verify what is in that shared file???
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
What a wonderful place for our nation to raise it's non-violent offenders. So enriching, that they are guaranteed to grow up to be world leaders, great composers, and Nobel-winning scientists. Yes, this is absolutely the best way to teach our children how to be responsible, polite, and articulate.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Congress should post a page on front of the bill, citing the financial interests of the person who introduced it.
The ART Prevention Act, sponsored by those who are in the greatest financial conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
In general, I'm okay with making it illegal to share pre-release videos/music...after all, that goes after personal acts, not technology, which is an appropriate use for law.
... indeed, the fact that one explicitly does not have to violate copyright in order to run afoul of this law is rather telling. I suspect non-MPAA film makers and potential competitors are the primary target of this legislation, and that, as usual, copyright violators are merely a convinient pretext for passing fundamentally anticompetative legislation.
What if it is MY prerelease for MY movie that I'm trying to get into the hands of critics so that it sees the light of day despite my not being part and parcel of the MPAA?
This is as much an attack on Indie film makers trying to break into the market as it is copyright violators
Legislation attempts like this, and the intellectually bankrupt philosophies that engender it, lead me to believe that we will soon be little more than an economy of monopolies and trusts, with all of the worst traits of capitalism combined with all of the worst traits of a planned, noncompetative economy. Welcome to Our Brave New Future: more of the same on a much tighter budget, without the distractions of human rights or human respect.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Thanks for helping people associate Linux with copyright infringement. Yes they can point at examples like you and say that it is just a piracy tool for cybercommunists.
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
This is along similar lines to what I was thinking.
My belief is that if something isn't available for you to buy, it's ok to get it some other way, since the owner isn't losing money. So the fact that most bands don't sell recordings of their live shows means (for me, at least) that it's ok to collect bootlegs of them.
The fact that this legislation only applies to movies which aren't available for purchase seems counterintuitative. You'd think that people trading DVD rips when the DVD is commercially available would do far more financial harm than people trading cam/TS copies of movies in theaters, or movies no longer in theaters which haven't been released on DVD.
A cammed/TS movie does not compare to the theater experience. I find it hard to believe that someone would go to the trouble of downloading 1.5+ gb of poor-quality video rather than spend $5 at a matinee.
Congress was intended to write laws. But you'd be excused for not knowing that if you ever saw a Presidential or Presidential candidate speach. But congress has also limited their own powers by giving up authority to the FTC, FCC, and now even the RIAA and MPAA.
I won't even mention the judicial activists and nusiance lawsuits that attempt to accomplish through litigation what can't be accomplished through legislation...
The role of gov't is to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the citizens. Conversely, only gov't, through an open procedure, can derive citizens of life, liberty, or purusing happiness (ie jail). It is irresponsible, and I would suggest unconstitutional, to deny those rights (via jail) for a tort-offense.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Wasn't the original justificiation for DMCA the ease with which digital copies could be transferred without loss of quality?
Yet, another part for this bill appears to be to stop people recording movies using camcorders -- clearly the original quality of such a copy is going to be low.
What this is really about is that the primary sources of illicit pre-release versions of movies are within the movie industry itself. What this act will allow is prosecution of those who receive copies while not prosecuting the original copyright violator who is most likely a movie industry insider.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Dick Durban (D) - 312/353-4952
Peter Fitzgerald (R) - 312/886-3506
And what's up with Orrin Hatch? Why is this jackass always involved with things like this? First he wants to destroy computers. Now he wants everyone who might be involved in copying songs to go to jail.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
For comparison, the sentencing range in my state for first degree manslaughter (when a person recklessly causes the death of another person) is 31 to 41 months for a person with no previous criminal record.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
Direct democracy is just the first step to tyranny by majority.
Day after 9/11, you get a referendum: "Deport all Muslims from the country?" I'd be rather worried that it would go through.
I'll take my republic, thanks.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Assuming that the person would have actually paid for it. That's a big assumption.
If you found yourself unemployed because employers could get what you do for free, I bet you'd be crying foul over that.
No, I'd find another job. I have no right to demand an employer pay me for something they can get for free. If what I do is now worth zero I need to find a new job or career.
I think it's called the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment).
On the other hand since we've decided that the 1st (speech - DMCA) and 4th (illegal search and seizure - the Patriot Act and lots of Supreme Court decisions) Amendments aren't really that important* anyway, this concept may remain just that - a principle to which lip service is given but which is ignored in practice.
* There may be other amendments that have been conveniently ignored in recent years - these are just the ones I'm pretty sure of.
Don't wait forever to release the DVD version of a movie, then. There's almost always a grace period where a movie isn't in theaters OR on DVD/VHS...totally unavailable. So, if it's IMPOSSIBLE to see the movie legally, what do you expect? It doesn't make any sense - what is there to be gained by making the movie unavailable for legal rent/purchase? I'd speculate that this is one of the big reasons for downloading movies before they hit DVD. I personally don't mind paying to go to the theater or to rent a movie, as long as you'll actually LET ME.
You're utterly missing the point. Is having one illegal movie on your hard drive worthy of three years in prison?
It's about proportionality. In most states, first degree murder is a life offense. We consider murder a serious crime. On the other hand, driving over the speed limit will generally get you only a ticket.
In Michigan, carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a two year crime. Do you really think that having one movie on your hard drive is greater harm to society than someone illegally concealing a handgun?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
But the only way to stop all of this stuff, the DMCA, ridiculous patents, et al is to get involved in the political process and vote each and every one of these special interest-pandering congressmen out of office.
I'm involved in the Dean campaign, and it has cleared up a great deal of the mystification surrounding government and how it works. It's not really that hard. In fact, it's so straightforward and easy that you smack your forehead at how difficult you thought it once was.
When there is deep, latent consensus on an issue like this, movements to counter it pretty much organize themselves, given a catalyst. Think of it as seeding clouds to make it rain. Or ice-9, if you prefer.
We can point out the injustice of current copyright law, declare over and over again that fair use protects file sharing, scheme up new file sharing software that escapes monitoring, and on and on ad infinitum, but that's really only treating the symptoms of the disease. The cause of the disease is the government in Washington D.C. and its members who only listen to the wishes of monied special interests. Root that out, and all our lives will be much, much easier in tech.
I know that most techies loathe politics because they associate it with student government and the popular kids in it who spat on us in our formative years, but they have clearly made it their business to come after us and make our lives difficult. So we had better go after them, or we will get what we deserve: nothing.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
We have more people in jail now than the USSR under Stalin.
/. is blatant ignorance modded as Insightful.
Please. May we assume you have a source for that "insightful" fact? Instead of simply spouting off what you overheard at the last frat party, how about some actual numbers.
US Prison population, Dec 31 2002 - 2,033,331
Most of the increase in recent years has been due to violent offenses.
Stalin's era - Approx 4 million prisoners in the camps for political repression.
I'm not disagreeing that 2 million is a lot of people. But are they all there for "file swapping, pot smoking and wearing trenchcoats"? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
Only on
on the one hand, the article talks about how this new law would apply when the film "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time."
how*EVER*, the article later quotes MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor saying "this legislation will go a long way toward targeting one of the most serious contributors to piracy right now, which is the practice of camcording motion pictures."
excuse me while I blow coffee through my nose, but:
1) isn't there a big difference between the two?
2) can someone tell me what is the TRUE aim of this law?
3) if the MPAA is so worried about dvd screener leaks, why don't they just embed the names of the screener recipients on the footage, something like "this screener is for Mr. Suchandsuch's private viewing only". if it leaks, then they can go directly to Mr Suchandsuch and sue him.
Don't use firearms analogies, they only work with half of your audience. The other half doesn't see any legitimate use for a saturday night special.
paintball
The behavior of those swapping the movies would suggest that there is great value in it.
In college (I finished in 2001) I knew many many kids who would spend hours of every day trying to find new releases. It was an obsession. To be the first one to get ahold of the next big movie was the goal. All for the satisfaction of being able to say 'I already saw that.. it sucked' days before the movie opened. They craved being 'in the know' above everyone else.
That made these movies incredibly valuable to this group. The legisaltor quoted is exactly right, people do derive great value from these movies. Why else would so many of them invest huge amounts of time and money (DVD burners, high speed connections, etc..) primarily to get these works?
It seems very simple to me.. you can judge the general value of anything by the lengths people will go to get it (See: Water and food when there isn't any left). People go to great lengths to get these movies..
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
It's an amusing story, but clearly an invention. Specific in unprovable detail and vague with the meat. Here's a quote from Mr Titor about a computer he is reportedly seeking:
"The 5100 has the ability to easily translate between the old IBM code, APL, BASIC and (with a few tweaks in 1975) UNIX".
It reads well, but means nothing.
Civil wars are always possible, of course, but they tend to happen when there is a social revolution - and a consequent shift of power - that the political structures do not adapt to. This is not the situation in the US.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
This is very special case. Since MPs are the representatives of the people, they should basically stick their own opinions up their asses and defend the opinions of the voters. That's how representative democracy was supposed to work.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I am most upset about the general trend towards increased prison sentences.
Is taking a camera into a movie theater something that is on par with accidently killing someone?
Is taking a camera into a movie thater enough of an offense that it is worth spending $150,000+ to incarcerate someone for 5 years, not to mention the costs to actually convict them?
This is the kind of criminal act that would be very unevenly applied. And the penalties seem very extreme compared to the seriousness of the offense.
Remember that these penalties often stack. If you film a movie, put it on the internet, and burn a copy for your friends they will probably get you on at least three offenses right there. That's the kind of thing that leads to outrageous prison term (that and stupid drug laws!)
In the past, totalitarian governments were usually based on some flavor of fascism or communism. We are now witnessing the birth of a new form of totalitarianism -- corporatocracy.
That's an important point about what we're on the brink of here, but dude. Fascism *is* corporatocracy. Just ask Mussolini(or if that doesn't cut it, a book or website about him). Or Berlusconi, the current media mogul prime minister, head of the EU, with strong ties to the neo-fascist party. One of the key goals of the fascist agenda(although one which was never fully realized) was the merging of government of economy into the Corporate State. As I recall, anyway.
<RANT>
The U.S. has something crazy like 5%+ of the national population in jail currently. This is more than any other country in the world -- close to the sum of all the prisoners in all other countries in the world.
Right now the most common type of offense individuals in jail is a drug-related offense. I'd argue that addicts need treatment more than incarceration to change their lives... and before anyone argues that treatment costs the state too much consider that it costs $77,000 per year to keep someone in jail.
Now as if we didn't already have enough jail overcrowing and enough people behind bars who are nonviolent people and victims of overharsh legislation we'll start throwing people in jail for copying bits from one place to another. God, this is an outrage. Let me tell you something else: if a rich white kid with no past offenses is busted swapping music or movies at Princeton he'll get a slap on the wrist. But if a poor hispanic high-school drop out "loser" gets busted and the DA is looking for a reason to take him off the street anyway, the "loser" will get fucked.
The USA is moving from a democratic republic to a oligarchy where all the power rests in the hands of the rich and well connected. Slowly the rights of the individual are being eroded in the name of fighting terrorism. Slowly the rights of the big corporation are being increased. The rich get more tax cuts and no inheritance tax while the poor lose their jobs. The only reason that Congress is interested in creating IP law like this is because the RIAA and MPAA are rich and well connected.
People are so apathetic and the change is so gradual that I'm convinced no one will realize what's going on or care until it's too late.
</RANT>
One would think a lawyer would be able to make his/her argument without using the word "lameasses"...
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
You're a lawyer? Amazing! I'm a judge. Yep, a bona-fide judge. Guess I'll just overrule you on that point. As a bona-fide judge, I can honestly say that stealing does only apply to the actual taking of physical property. Since I'm a judge I should know. That, and I own a mansion and a yacht (much like a medical doctor I know).
Because if I dress in thick leather bikers gear and wear a motorcycle helmet, I'm impervious to most non-firearm violence you could dish out, short of a sword. Add in my size (6'4") and the other two friends with me, we could perform home invasions with pretty much no risk. It's hard to stab through even a leather bomber jacket, let alone a biker's jacket with ballistic crash padding inserts. A bike helmet would let me shrug off a baseball bat the head.
And you'd be naked or in PJs, and just waking up, as we crashed through your door. You wouldn't stand a chance.
But, there's no good way to provide even 80% protection from bullets from a reasonably sized handgun. Bullet-proof vests are very expensive and they only cover the torso.
If I thought you might have a gun I wouldn't feel so invunlerable. I mean, I might shoot you first, but if you (who knew the house and the squeeky stairs) shot me first, you'd probably kill me. Now, what if I don't know if you have a gun, but know that you could if you wanted.
Guns are equalizers. One senior citizen with a gun could kill or wound an attacking thug and drive the others off. With only strength-multipliers (baseball bats and such) how would they fare? Guns might be scary, but they do have a purpose.
Yes. They really are. I live in Hollywood, and you can't even cross the street around here without slipping in a giant puddle of 'tude dripped by the latest wannabe producer. Conversations with people in the entertainment industry about filesharing are disappointing; a lot of them really do seem to think that pure gold issues forth from their movie projectors and that every precious note of their latest guitar jam should win them a place in the Smithsonian. The public has treated these brats like royalty for years; why should we expect them to behave differently? I've always believed that the MPAA/RIAA crusades against technology have a lot more to do with ego than with money.
Watch it? How about reading the book instead. It's better. Uses less bandwidth. And you (probably) won't go to jail for it.
It's completely unnecessary - the laws are strong enough as they are. This law, like the DMCA, at best serves only to lower the burden of proof, and make it more economical to sue. My guess is that there is something more sinister hidden in the wording.
Litigious bastards
You're talking about a DVD rip, not a prereleased cam.
If someone goes into a movie theatre with a hidden camera and videotapes a movie, then that's all they're going to get. A recording of a movie, not a full-featured DVD.
This article is about prereleased cams, not DVD rips. The article even states that once the movie is out, then distributing it is no longer a felony.
I'd recommend you read the article in the future.
Although the poster took great pains to point out "It would not require that any copyright infringement actually take place.", he completely left out the actual description of the bill, which is "A forthcoming copyright bill backed by key U.S. senators would place file swappers in prison for up to three years if they have a copy of even one prerelease movie in their shared folders.". If you want to bash a bill on the front page of /., you should at least give the readers who don't RTFA a chance to understand what you're disagreeing with.
Vote for Pedro
This bill also has the effect of criminalizing anime fansubs and places like AnimeSuki. Must be quite embarassing for Disney that so much great animation is pouring from Japan and kicking their fuddy-duddy asses eight ways from Sunday. They can only license so much of it.
Notice how in Japan - with its more sane cultural attitude to copyright - there is an enormous, spontaneous fan culture producing things like the doujinshi phenomenon whereas in America, land of The Mouse(TM), there is NOTHING like that. There can never BE anything like that here because of these attitudes. Hence, Japan gets an energized, creative pop culture and mountains of incredible, inspired anime and we're stuck with "Treasure (Fucking) Planet" and crazed threats of cops kicking down our doors and long prison sentences for stupid "offenses".
Anyone notice how much money The Matrix has made in the last five days? Good thing no one made a shakycam copy of that and stuck it on Kazaa, or else no one would have gone to the theatre at all!
This is the war of money on art, because Hollywood has contempt for everything that isn't either money or power. It doesn't know what the fuck art is, other than a potential marketing angle. This should be called the ART Prevention act, art being a basic human experience of insight, joy and shared understanding. They may as well call the next one the RISE OF THE HOLLYWOOD MACHINES Act.
*spit*
RIAA and MPAA are so very misleading...(to the point that it's getting both tiring and stupid)
EVERYONE - carpenters, painters, stunspeople, actors, studios and so on - that works on a movie set producing a movie are paid in full when the when their work is done and the contract is fullfilled. When they said that a movie costs xxx million dollars to produce, the price tag includes the wages. If there is anyone losing money due to file swapping, it's the company that produces the movies and sells the rights to use the movie for memorabilia.
I think I can predict what they're going to do now...like RIAA, MPAA will eventually go after the independent movies produced by students, ametuers and hobbyists who's sole channel of distribution is P2P, and deprive the world of good quality movies while filling our and our children's eyes with crap that only benefits them...
-------------------
"Whoever has the gold, makes the rule - that's us, the consumers"