Slashdot Mirror
PIRATE Act Introduced in Congress
certron writes "Xeni Jardin has written a story for Wired about the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" aka the PIRATE Act. It and another related bill are designed to criminalize P2P filesharing by lowering the burden of proof for law enforcement and proposing jail terms of up to 10 years. The bill was introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, both of whom received large contributions from the entertainment industries. Under the bill, even sharing a single file (if a judge decides the value is over $10,000) could land a user in jail. Read the full text of Orrin Hatch's remarks."
Sharing on a P2P network is not stealing. Copyright infringement is a completely different issue. Jail time is definately the wrong "solution".
are you joking?
read this please.
The rest of the country cannot get these two corrupt, entertainment industry pawns out of office. Only Vermont and Utah residents can. Do not re-elect these two. While it might seem they are doing good, they are doing long-term damage to the country, including your states.
Send a message to Leahy
Send a message to Hatch
Please do it now before these two turn the U.S. citizens into entertainment industry criminals and slaves, and infect every other nation with these ideas.
If you are going to criticize the PIRATE act, first do your homework and learn about it.
The PIRATE Act bill, the one sponsored by Sens Hatch and Leahy, gives the DOJ the power to pursue civil cases against file sharers. According to the article and Sen Hatch's remarks, it does not have the provisions about "up to 10 years in prison" or any of that stuff. According to the article, those provisions are part of a draft bill that hasn't been introduced. The description in the slashdot posting imply that these provisions are part of the PIRATE Act, which they are not.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but if you start writing to your Congresspeople about the PIRATE Act, you will have more credibility if you actually know what you are talking about. If you start talking about provisions that aren't even in the bill, your letter will probably receive very little, if any, consideration.
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
Orrin Hatch: TV/Movies/Music $152,360
Patrick Leahy: TV/Movies/Music $178,000
Copyright law protects the copyright holder, whether that happens to be a record company ... or the artists themselves
I see practical problems with this reasoning, based on the inability for an individual songwriter to retain the copyright and succeed in the music business:
What little faith I had in the US Government is now completely shattered. I expect this out of Hatch, that SOB authored the DMCA, but Leahy!?! Every time I see his name pop up on Slashdot, he's doing something right. I thank $DEITY that there is someone up there on the hill that actually has a clue. Back during the Napster hearings he said,
This could be a brilliant 19-year-old in a college dorm figuring out Gnutella or some like it. You can't stop it. You couldn't stop it even if you wanted to. What we need to do, I think, is make sure copyrights and patent laws actually reflect the new reality.
But that's all gone now. Apparently he's had a change of heart in the past few years. Now, instead of likening P2P to the VCR, he sees 60 million Americans as a gigantic cartel.
The very ease of duplication and distribution that is the hallmark of digital content has meant that piracy of that content is just as easy. The very real - and often realized - threat that creative works will simply be duplicated and distributed freely online has restricted, rather than enhanced, the amount and variety of creative works one can receive over the Internet.
Without reading the text of the act, I can only speculate... but it appears that he is willing to hand the RIAA keys to a bottomless warchest to aid in their crusade against little girls. Until now I had a great deal of respect for the man. Seeing him 'turn to the dark side' is causing my faith in the system to go from shaken to crumbling. If Leahy bows to them, then who's left up there to speak for us?
Actually, the major difference between Microsoft and the others is the cost of entry into the markets. The cost of entering the operating systems market is low (if not negligable thanks to GNU and Linux), the problems competing have to do with closed protocols and platforms and the difficulty supporting third party created software.
By comparison, phone service (and cable service, and electricity, etc) is prohibitively expensive to enter. Laying cables can cost upwards of $10,000 per yard in residential areas. It makes no sense for a would-be competitor to even enter the market unless they can persuade the government to force the incumbent to actively help them.
In the US, this has always been the case. There is currently no law preventing me from laying cables to start a phone company or provide cable, indeed there are laws requiring local governments give me the necessary permissions to do so. Despite this, the only time you really see new entrants in either markets are where they can find alternatives - microwave and satellite TV, for instance.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
How exactly is the Government footing the bill for the RIAA's civil suits?
Ummm, I don't know, maybe by having the DOJ provide the lawyers and do the suing for them? Quoting Leahy's press release:
The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act (PIRATE Act) would extend DOJ's current authority to permit its filing of civil copyright infringement cases.
Wow! Now the RIAA doesn't even have to sue. Big Brother will do it for him.
Dear Senator $congresscritter,
I am writing to urge you to speak out against the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004 (the so called PIRATE act) sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy.
This act would have far reaching negative consequences, resulting in the further criminalisation of hundreds of thousands of your constituents and result in widespread abuses of civil law. A law like this flies in the face of common sense and given that it so lowers the standards of proof required, is ripe for corrupt selective enforcement.
Please consider instead offering a solution similar to that which has worked for the radio industry for decades, where compulsory licensing has allowed artists to be rewarded and has allowed millions of people to enjoy the gift of music without being treated as criminals.
Yours $nameyou can find your senators by following this link
That's false. I work at a recording studio. We have several steady customers that come to us for recording their cd's. They distribute their cd's over the internet which brings them some profit but mainly serves to drum up intrest in their live shows which provide for the majority of their income. These aren't even locally large names, very smalltime. But the formula holds true for larger artists. Record sales pay the record company, artist profit from touring. Only the most wildly successfull albums make enough money for the artist to see a sizeable return after the record company takes it's cut.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Hmm.. let's see:
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Patrick Leahy are:
1 Lawyers/Law Firms $320,845
2 TV/Movies/Music $178,000
3 Lobbyists $143,262
Just a coincidence, right?
"That first statement just shines of intelligence."
Well, I'll help out here. You might be too young to remember a '70's era joke, so:
"Jane, you ignorant slut" was the first line out of... um, back up a sec, more background:
The 60 Minutes show in the '70's had a brief end-of-every-show segment called "Point:Counterpoint". In it, a conservative pundit and a liberal pundit each had a minute to speak on a point. One side spoke, and then the other side counterpointed.
Now, on Saturday Night Live, a parody was run every week as well. In it, Dan Akroyd was the conservative reactionary and Jane Curtin the liberal representative. Every week, Jane went first. Then, the Angry Conservative would respond.
The first line out of his thin-lipped mask of anger was: "Jane, you ignorant slut." Then he went on to further insult her.
Back in the day, this was parody. Now, it's the basis of Fox News/MS-NBC news "coverage" every day, NOT meant as a joke, but I digress.
The poster was being self-deprecating, not insulting. Hope I helped.