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!"

20 of 953 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright Infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Copyright Infringement by Zed2K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who am I to say that someone I don't know didn't work on the movie and was given a copy of it before it was released. The point is there is no proof. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is how it works. Sure its easy to prove, but you must do that before the person is found guilty.

    2. Re:Copyright Infringement by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I get pre-release DVDs from time to time as my company works with some companies in the movie industry. Most of them are pre-screeners that allow people to watch the movie before they are released on DVD. They usually do not have features commonly found in DVDs like chapters, alt. soundtracks, etc. If I one of these DVD's is in my DVDROM drive at work and I share the DVDROM in my corporate network, then I'm guilty even if no one actually saw the movie including me. That's why this bill is so bad; it is too vague.

      If some senators made possession of a Saturday night special illegal citing how many gun crimes are committed using these guns , they ignore many law biding citizens who use these guns for purposes other than crime: Personal protection, private security forces, etc.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. Copyright law by cyber_rigger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright law is a civil law not criminal law. As least it's supposed to be.

  3. Re:ha ha! by Gldm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  4. Re:Political Action! by Zed2K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. So does that mean... by Niomosy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We can now assume that any gun owner has killed people because he/she has a gun and ammunition?

  6. Witnessing the birth of a new form of government. by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. er? by syle · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The draft bill will "help law enforcement pursue those who are already violating the law...

    If they're already violating the law, how will a new law help catch them?

    --

    /syle

  8. But where do they come from? by One+Louder · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The irony of this is that the bulk of prereleased movies come from insiders, not random college students.

    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.

  9. I'm a bit confused by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:Feinstein was paid off...they always are... by pmz · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.

  11. This is an attack on Indie films by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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 ... 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.

    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
  12. Call Up. by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hey. Call your Senators. Let them know that this bill is wrong. If you live in Illinois, call

    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.
  13. Punishment to fit the crime? by imnoteddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A three year prison sentence for sharing a prerelease movie?

    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.
  14. Re:Feinstein was paid off...they always are... by Erwos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  15. Someone needs to correct it... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  16. Argue and Complain all you want by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  17. Get real by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have more people in jail now than the USSR under Stalin.

    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 /. is blatant ignorance modded as Insightful.

  18. Re:Witnessing the birth of a new form of governmen by foqn1bo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.