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 $250,000 fine. Here's the best part: you don't have to infringe on copyright to be found guilty!"
It'll be a juvenile detention center for those under 18.
It's nice to see Democrats and Republicans working together
Looking at the acronym for the bill, it's the ART Prevention Act. If it passes, we won't have to worry about having any quality movies to share!
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
/me mutters something about "the best legal system money can buy.."
Trolling is a art,
Out of 100,000 sperm you were the fastest?
At home right now in my laptop I have a DVD in the tray. That drive is shared automatically as D$.
Come arrest me!
Idiots.
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.
Click here and have a look at my 550+ divx colection...
Please... don't you download any, that's just for saying "I DON'T GIVE A SHIT" to those fuckers!
Anytime you see legislation like this. Feinstein has taken payoffs to the tune of $264,566 from the Tv/Movies/Music lobby. No one should be suprised by her involvement.
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.
So what are we going to do about this? Now is the time to contact your representative, NOT the day before the bill is passed! Send a typed SNAIL MAIL letter to your representative's office calmly detailing your take on the issue, making a clear and concise argument, avoiding unnecessary detail and personal attacks.
Here is a sample letter which I base my other letters on, for reference:
At least their bandwidth costs will go up
No, I don't condone theft, but I think the draconian laws are worse than the offence they try to prevent....
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
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."
It reassures me to know our "leadership" is spending its time on important things like catering to the complaints of insanely rich corporations instead of trying to fix trivial problems like the state of public education or massive government waste.
This is only for movies that haven't yet been released. Your copy of Matrix won't land in the slammer, but your prerelease screener for RotK will.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
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!
The fact that you put the words "Stealing" and "Copyrighted" in the same sentence demonstrates you have no idea what you are talking about.
Have you actually taken a moment to read the copyright laws? Or did you ask for someone to explain it to you?
Stealing or theft of property is an actual removal of property that doesn't belong to you (yes.. I simplified it for him). Copyright infringement is the distribution of material you have no legal right to distribute. And in most cases carries a heavier penalty than theft.
Did I get it right?
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Obviously the only reason you have a TV and a DVD player is to watch pirated DVDs. The only reason you have a computer is to download pirated music and movies. The internet is only for porn and bomb making instructions you damn dirty pirates.
Be glad that it's not "supporting terrorism" to have a downloaded movie.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
"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?
it does not say any actual copyright infringement must take place--only that the file be available in a shared folder, Web site or FTP (File Transfer Protocol) site. "It says we don't care if anybody got any of these copies," Jaszi said. "We're going to conclude that at least 10 people did. It relieves the copyright owner of having to prove that any violation of their rights actually happened."
Good thing these guys aren't involved in the security of the retail sector. If I owned a store, these guys might put ME in jail because I have merchandise sitting out, available for someone to steal!!
We can now assume that any gun owner has killed people because he/she has a gun and ammunition?
Don't you just love how they spin things by calling it the "Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act"? Wouldn't a more apropos name be the "Big Fat Hollywood Studio Thoughtcrime Prevention Act"?
Ernest MacDougal Campbell III
geek ramblings
What a wonderful breakthrough in law enforcement: assuming that an actual crime has been committed and acting accordingly. In a day and age when people can be automagically declared enemy combatants and permanently removed from the legal system, I guess this was the next step.
Since we're all theoretically capable of criminal actions, I think we should all pre-emptively surrender to the proper authorities.
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
Hell, senators don't even need to be bought these days, they're too busy selling their votes.
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.
Just curious how laws such as this one affect Canadians, if at all?
I wonder whether one person making an audio recording, and another just recording video, would each qualify for prosecution. Is making a copy of a movie really worse than making a copy of a concert performance, with no video?
"actress" Bo Derek.
In any case, we don't know if John Titor was a real time traveler from 2036 or not....his postings/messages make a lot of interesting reading though. He "predicted" the development of CERN's blackholes, China's space mission, and more importantly, the American Civil War, which is supposed to start in the next two years (2004-2005) or so.
The primary reason he mentioned was the ever increasing highhandedness of the US government (this was in 1999-early 2000), before Sept 11 happenings/Patriot Act etc.
Anyway, what he said was, that people got tired of the US government monitoring them all the time, passing more and more unjust laws favoring corporate America, and curbing basic freedoms of the people.
True or not, every time another such YRO story comes up on /., it makes me wonder where America is headed.
They put the Harry Potter 3 trailer online before the intended release date - can they arrest themselves now?
"Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
From the article:
The Cornyn-Feinstein bill also creates another federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, for using "an audiovisual recording device" in a movie theater to make a copy of a film and boosts civil penalties available to MPAA member companies when suing over prerelease movies placed on the Internet.
This is truly astonishing, and to my knowledge, unprecedented. Note that all cases of prohibition of cameras, tape recorders, MD recorders, etc from concerts, variety shows, etc, have ALWAYS been civil matters; rules set and enforced by the persons or companies doing the entertaining.
This is the first instance I can think of where this type of activity has crossd over from civil to criminal jurisdiction. The only possible good that can come out of this is that a conviction will require unanimous guilty verdict from a jury, whereas civil cases are decided by judicial fiat or a majority of the jury.
I don't use p2p myself, but I'd be interested to know where the MPAA & RIAA would stand if a huge worm hit 10,000's of windows systems and installed a p2p client, and then hosted infringing movie/music titles for others to download using any of the currently available p2p apps.
If the worm had a high propogation, surely this would make life very difficult for the MPAA & RIAA.
Come to think of it, if such a worm got into a computer system through a weakness in the operarting system, could the creators of the operating system be held responsible?
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
This is a step in the right direction for sure! Hopefully in 5 years they'll be handing down the death penalty for premedidated file sharing and file sharing with children, far far worse crimes than file sharing with consentual adults!
Only shared folders (SMB?), Websites (HTTP), and FTP are covered? Looks like Kazaa is out of this bills reach. They can't even draft stupid laws correctly.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Apparently, the theatres in my area can't make up their mind if they are pro or anti piracy. The last two movies I have seen have had, during their advertising slideshow before hand, have advertised SBC/Yahoo! DSL with the slogan "Download a movie faster than you can watch one" or something along those lines. So, does this mean the theatre is promoting piracy? Kinda ironic, especially since it was the last slide on the screen, immediately followed by the respectcopyrights ad.
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
Ok, how about OLD movies? Say, something you have a copy of that has since gone out of circulation on DVD and has no chance in hell of being re-released in theaters or shown on TV? This happens with books and music quite often, not everything is in circulation.
So do my files become jailbait again when the studio decides it's no longer profitable to press more copies and blockbuster ditches it to clear shelf space?
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
I think there is a legal and moral principal that says that the punishment should fit the crime. Here if there is any crime it is the depriving of the artist of maybe a few dollars of revenue from a copy of hundreds of thousands of copies that are sold. Do you think that that is worth years of someones life. Or maybe we should make swearing a crime by act of congress and toss your sorry ass in jail for infraction of community standards. What do you think, your crime has been spread to millions of eyes rather than a single small file transfer. Which is the worse more far reaching infraction.
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.
It's good to know that I'd spend more time in jail for pirating a movie than I would for beating Jack Valenti with a lead pipe. I think I'll head over to the MPAA's offices right now!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Having a copy of a video on your hard drive is (arguably) fair use. If your next door neighbor makes a copy of it, then that was and will still be copyright infringement. Under the new law, however, merely having the file up on an open FTP server or Samba share will count as copyright infringement EVEN IF IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR MADE A COPY-- or for that matter, even if he DIDN'T make a copy. Because it's possible, you're guilty of copyright infringement
Huzzah for the senator from the MPAA....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
For those of you who didn't bother to read the article before you posted (which is 99.9999 percent of you), this proposed law would only apply to those who have prerelease items that they are not entitled to have, NOT just any damned thing, which is what most of you want to think/imply. "Prerelease" is a $10 word for "not yet available to the public".
If it is not available for release to the general public, and if you don't have permission of the copyright holder to have it, then gee...you're violating copyright.
So here is a quick tip on how to avoid getting busted under this act if it does become law:
Don't have prerelease copyrighted material on your system if you don't have permission of the copyright holder.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
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.
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.
... to the 50's; yes. But it's the 1850's, not the 1950's.
Solution 1 - encrypt the file. Then it's a DMCA violation for them to unencrypt it.
Solution 2 - name a garbage file w. the same name as an unreleased movie and share it, then counter-sue when they have you arrested.
Solution 3 - Move the file to a non-US site
Solution 4 - Send a (short) clip as an email atachment to each senator and congressman, with a note saying that they are now, without having done anything except check their mail, violated the proposed legislation and are liable to 3 yers in jail.
There really is no solution for the **AAs except to build more value into what they're offering. Doing world-simultaneous openings of stinkers like Matrix Revolutions in the hope of ripping of consumers doesn't cut it any more than re-releasing the same song in yet another different format/compilaton/variant.
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.
how's that for legal?
Supreme Court decision
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.
Hi, i'm sherif john bunnel, and tonight, we're gonna show you, [SMASH] what happens, [WACK] when criminals, [BANG] break the law! Comming up: How a violent homocidal pedophile is finally caught and given a speeding ticket.
What happens when drunken teenagers get behind the wheel.
And the car theif that just couldnt say no to a 3 month relaxed probation deal.
But first:
Orange County Florida, and police are about to raid a known file sharer, but suddenly little Jonny Doe tries to outsmart law enforcement officers by dropping his files in the recycle bin.
Law enforcers act quickly to secure the machine "DROP THE MOUSE DROP THE MOUSE" the outlaw fails to comply. Shots are fired and the teenager is down.
"I had entered the room and i saw him in the corner with a mouse in his hand, we are trained to just shoot if we see a mouse because we cant afford to take risks, if there was a hostage in the room we couldnt take the risk that they may view copyrighted material."
Thats one kid that will learn, that when you play with computers, with no regard for the law, you can expect the cold end, of an officers gun!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Yes, here's a quote from the article I found particularly funny:
"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."
I want to know what strange universe this guy lives in where getting to see The Hulk for free is considered "high-reward." I would think that would be punishment in and of itself.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
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.
Oh Google cache, why hast thou forsaken me? :P
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Holy crap, another completely useless term created for no good reason.
You deprive someone of something without paying for it. You're stealing the money you owe them.
No. You have deprived them of nothing, they still have it. You have infringed copyright, and it is arguable that you owe them money, but you certainly did not steal money from them. The law is very clear, why can't YOU understand it? If copyright infringement was the same as stealing, there would be no reason to have the term "copyright infringement" and an entire section of laws pertaining to it.
This is so insanely simple. Not that it matters. I don't know why Slashbots feel the need to point out that it's not "theft" constantly. It doesn't make it any less illegal or immoral.
You are right, it is simple, but you don't get it. You are also right that it doesn't make it less illegal. (no reason to talk about morals here, they are subjective) It makes it a different *KIND* of illegal. That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Seriously, practically every week we hear about movies setting box office records.
/RANT ON /RANT OFF
:)
Yet, someone with a Hulk workprint on their PC is instantly guilty?
I seriously doubt the movie industry is in financial straits. Despite DVD, pay per view, specialty channels, etc. People still love to see movies on the big screen and will not jump en masse to peer to peer to get their fill.
Even with broadband, it;s a pain in the ass to download movie files.
Go to the theater and watch a movie the way it is meant to be. And from the box office number$; it seems that that is what the majority of consumers are doing!
Anyone who is going to download and watch a crappy camjob of LOTR ROTK is a moron. That is a big screen movie! However, they shouldn't be crucified for it either. The punishment here does not fit the crime IMHO.
If there is a crime being committed it is by the movie studios for:
1.) Jacking up ticket costs to the point where it is now worth waiting for the DVD release. I can pay up to $13.50CDN per person depending on the theater and show time. So, instead of taking my girlfriend to every freakin' movie. We now pick and choose. If it's big screen worthy (Matirx, LOTR) we'll hit the theater. If it's not. (i.e. any romantic comedies) we rent it on DVD for $5.
2.) Recycling the same plots over and over and over again. There is a movie formula in America that is followed to the T by practically every studio depending on the genre. There are not too many truly original films anymore.
3.)Blaming the leaked movie files on the end users (consumers) and not the people within the movie industry making this material available prematurely. What's to stop the MPAA from manufacturing this crisis for their own gain? It's not that far fetched.
US Senators should be spending their time and resources questioning the validity of " The War on Terror" not passing sweetheart copyright laws that hammer the average consumer to the benefit of a multibillion dollar industry.
Cheers.
I agree that copyright infringement isn't theft, and I think pre-DMCA law bears this out. Recent laws, such as the DMCA and the No Electronic Theft Act, along with the proposed law in discussion here, seem to be pushing the idea that copyright infringement is the equivalent of theft (or worse, in the case of some of the penalties). That this doesn't represent reality (i.e. copyright infringement doesn't do harm in the way that physical theft does) is being ignored. That these draconian laws are being pushed by "content providers" is no surprise - they don't want to lose contol of their "content."
Slightly incorrect. Orrin Hatch's son, Brent Orrin Hatch, is a lawyer retained by the SCO. Funny that Senator Orrin Hatch is trying to pass laws to make his son rich.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
I mean, it sorta kinda records. Playback is increasingly fuzzy with time (with the odd exception of tag lines from SNL near office water coolers, or Monty Python quotes in environments lacking in females)
"sorry, sir, but after we search your backpack, please step into the operations theater for a quick lobotomy. Yes, sir, this is required. No brains allowed in the movie theater. Ha ha, sir, yes, no brains in the the industry either."
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
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>
But I simply don't get what the problem is here. If one "shares" material in a manner which violates to copyright conditions, or receives something shared that way, it's a copyright violation.
And if you don't like the copyright conditions, than you are perfectly free not to obtain a copy. If you don't like the price, don't buy it, but don't steal it either. I don't like buying things from greedy, exploitative, monopolistic entities any more than others do. So, I only rarely consume their products.
As for "sharing" being a violation even if there is no evidence that someone took it, that seems fair enough. If people blatently commit a crime and run around shouting, "you can't catch me; you can't catch me," then of course there will be changes in the types and standards of evidence used for prosecution.
I think that it is realistic to say that the current level of threat of prosecution and penalties has not prevent widespread copyright violtion. So it is not evil or insane to look at raising penalties and enforcement. (Even if it is a very stupid tactic). Each instance of copyright violation is a very small crime. But if it is widespread it can be very destructive. I guess it is like spam in that respect.
Just because the [RM]IAA are evil, doesn't mean that we should feel justified in violating the copyright. As I've said before, it's not civil disobience if you try to evade prosecution.
Sorry for the rant. And I certainly don't intend this to be a troll (and I hope it won't have the effect of one). Anyone who feels a real need to rake me over the coals for this, should feel free to email me. (A small amount of digging will find my address).
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
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.
"That is a huge difference. Civil vs Criminal illegal, to be exact. By calling it theft, you are changing it from a civil offense to a criminal offense. There *IS* a difference between them. The law makes a distinction between them, why can't you?"
It's an extremely common perception among /. readers that copyright infringement is exclusively a civil offense. Nonetheless, in US law, there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement. Here are the details.
It can also be an eye-opener to Google on "criminal copyright infringement." You'll be rewarded with plenty of links to cases in the USA where parties were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement and have been sentenced to jail time.
At any rate, maybe I can explain the original poster's point better. If I create something (a book, or some software, or a song) for which there is a total market of X people, and if this gets out on the P2P networks which facilitates X - N (where 0
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Unfortunately, you apparently have not read the article. There are two new classes of felony defined by the proposed legislation. The first felony kicks in if you make a digital copy of a movie (that isn't commercially available yet) available in digital form on a computer network. That carries a maximum 3 year prison sentence. In order for the law to apply, you must (a) share the file on any computer network, and (b) the movie in question can't already be available on DVD or VHS for purchase. Once a movie becomes available for purchase in stores, the law appears to no longer apply, and the article seems to confirm this supposition. Furthermore, mere possession of a file isn't sufficient; the file has to be shared, so that you're actively contributing to infringement. However, the law doesn't specify that you have to actually be infringing the movie studio's copyright, nor does it specify that anyone had to actually download the file from you.
Of course, bills can and do get changed before they are passed into law. So this loophole might be closed up soon.
The other class of felony, which nobody seems to be talking about, carries up to a 5 year prison term, and comes into play if you bring a camcorder (or other "audiovisual recording device") into a movie theater. So if a theater owner or usher catches you with a camcorder in a movie theater, and you're recording the movie you're watching, you would be in violation of this law. This is a form of piracy that has been around for a long time, but with the advent of digital camcorders and software that makes it easy to make DVDs or DiVX files out of digital video, it's a lot easier to distribute movies pirated this way.
I have mixed feelings about this second provision. First, a 5 year prison sentence seems a bit harsh for someone who's taping a movie. In fact, it seems very excessive. Not everyone who tapes a movie intends to distribute the copy widely (or at all). On the other hand, making video copies of movies before they're available for purchase or rental, indeed while they're still in the theater, robs the studios and the makers of the film of potential revenues. Of course, there's no loss of real money, so it's hard to call it theft in the strict sense, but someone who might be inclined to go see a movie several times on the big screen might instead see it once on the big screen (or not at all), and then watch a bootleg thereafter.
(By way of contrast, it's highly unlikely that someone who pirates a song or an album would actually pay for that song or that album if the illegal copy weren't an option. Music is much more commoditized, and social attitudes toward pirating music are much more permissive than toward pirating movies. Besides which, most people seem to agree that music is overpriced. Therefore, it's much easier to dismiss RIAA claims of "lost revenue" because the reality is that you can't lose what you never had to begin with. At least with movies, there are still plenty of ordinarily honest people who would be tempted to watch a bootleg movie instead of pay for a ticket to the theater. And the bootleg is almost always inferior to the big screen experience.)
----Corruption----
Widget Industry: We will donate a ton of money to your campaign if you promise to pass legislation to help our industry.
Politician: In that case, I will enact the legislation if elected.
----NOT Corruption----
Politician: If elected, I will enact legislation which will help the widget industry, because I believe it is the right thing to do.
Widget Industry: In that case, we'll donate shitloads of money to your campaign, so that you are more likely to get elected.
So it's a fine line, and not very different, functionally. One thing is for sure, though. If 2 people are running for the same office, and a company donates money to BOTH of them, that is a sign that, at least, the company thinks they are corrupt. Otherwise, the company would only donate money to the politician that would be most favorable to them regardless of whether they donate money or not.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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
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*
"WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights"
Treaties, of course. But a nation as powerful a force as *China* only follows treaties to the extent that benefits China. If China decides to go hostile, what does the rest of the world think it's going to do about it?
All the military and political force in the world isn't going to force China to do anything China does not choose to do. Treaties are toilet paper without either cooperation or force. Right now, there is substantial cooperation. What conceivable force is there, in the absence of that cooperation?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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"