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."
A bunch of college kids are sharing copyrighted corporate products (music and maybe movies), so we have to put them in prison because people who share music and movies online are a bunch of child molesters and terrorists. Yeah, makes sense to me.
This is the kind of thing that Frank Zappa warned us was going to happen.
Sure, we say it all the time, "Corporations are running the country," meaning that corporations have undue influence over lawmakers; but it's getting to the point that we're going to have to find a stronger statement, like "Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives, using the government and their nearly exclusive control of all media content to keep it that way." Or something shorter if we can think of it.
Mein Gott, what can we do?
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
The fact that they sell the 'intellectual property' in question for far less than $10000, could go quite a ways toward minimizing the worth of said content.
This space intentionally left blank.
Million and millions of Americans take part in the sharing of illegal programs/music/movies on the internet, often without their knowledge. At the risk of sounding hackneyed, this kind of law makes it even easier for "Big Brother" to throw potential troublemakers in jail.
Hmmm, doesn't anybody remember when the EFF used to argue that we shouldn't hold P2P tech accountable for how some may misuse it? And that they themselves suggestted suing infringers rather than the technology?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Laws like this make me proud to live in a backwards country such as Canada.
I hear ya man..
I think there will soon be a market in junkets to Canada for Americans that will want to (smoke pot|buy cheap prescription drugs|download movies and music)
I have 2 spare bedrooms for rent!
Trolling is a art,
Hello, this is your wake up call to reality. The RIAA is NOT law enforcement! Obviously, Kazaa cannot keep the POLICE from conducting an investigation through their EULA, but they have every right to keep certain private individuals from using their products. If the RIAA can't use Kazaa, they can't find IPs (unless they use other software, which violates the Kazaa EULA too [read: Kazaa Lite]), they can't file John Doe lawsuits and subpoena contact information.
Laws like this make me proud to live in a backwards country such as Canada.
Make room. If Bush 2.0 gets in again I have every intent of booking it to Canada or England as soon as I can, before he starts up the draft to fund the manpower portion of his neo-con wetdream wars. I won't be alone, either.
I'm sure both Canada and England have their problems but at least they aren't being ran by corporations in the background under an increasingly thinly veiled guise of Democractic Republic-ness.
Out of curiousity.
Some time ago on Slashdot the possibility of a "geek PAC" was discussed.
This is a quesiton somewhat along the same lines. Essentially:
Exactly how much money would it require to do whatever necessary to* remove Mr. Orrin Hatch from a position of legislative power in the United States government?
I think you could find a variety of private citizens, from a number of corners, who would be ecstatic to donate to such a cause, due to the probable benefit it would have in terms of protecting the civil rights, artistic expression, and technological progress of this nation. Slashdotters annoyed at his attempts to introduce increasingly violent anti-file-sharing bills are just the tip of the iceberg.
* legally
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think you meant to ask, "who wants to put everyone in jail?"
Prison is a booming industry. People make massive amounts of money keeping others locked up. Prison's even have lobbyists to help guide harsher laws.
Of course, rich people seldom go to jail. Congressmen and high ranking government officials are rich and abstracted from the common man. They could care less about you. You're just dollar signs to them.
So can Daryl be jailed for p2p sharing of linux under violation of the GPL? GPL is simply a copyright agreement after all.
Vote for Pedro
Sure, we say it all the time, "Corporations are running the country," meaning that corporations have undue influence over lawmakers; but it's getting to the point that we're going to have to find a stronger statement, like "Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives, using the government and their nearly exclusive control of all media content to keep it that way."
Social evolution in action: corporations are more efficient -- better adapted to their environment -- than nation-states.
Nation-states, in their day, were more efficient than kingdoms; which were more efficient than city-states; which were more efficient than tribes; which were more efficient than individuals.
I don't like it, but I accept that it's nature's way: the strong flourish, the weak fail.
Mein Gott, what can we do?
About corporate power? We can do nothing.
Live your life well, try to bring more love than hate into the world. That's all. No big stuff -- no Revolution, no Topple the State, no Stop the Corporations. Work to your scale, as an individual; the rest is History.
-kgj
-kgj
Someone said something about democracy - about Micky mouse being elected if enough people voted for him. Well, Micky and his friends have been at home in the US congress for quite some time now, and i dont think the exterminator was called? So what sort of jail time you reckon we should give all these crooked politicians when justice is finally served?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Weird, Part of it says that more powers needs to be given to law enforcement to combat "Piracy" but then it contridictoraly says that, most antipiracy legislation has been unseccessfull. Um, whats the point then?
:)
Also, out of the blue it suddenly throws in pornography? What is it about republicans and this constant crusade to stop porn? Someone please contact this fool and tell him that PORN IS NOT ILLEGAL! Sorry, when they start going after our porn, thats when they have GONE TOO FAR!
I mean, 10 years for "expropriating" the potential sale of proprietary data that a judge deems "worth" more than $10,000? Give me a break. Actually, they probably will give me a break; 10 years is more than they want, and they'll compromise downward a bit for what they really wanted in the first place.
Still, the chilling effect of a law like this would only hasten the inevitable development of more secure P2P, and the spread of open source and open content.
Enforcing perpetual copyright is next to impossible without a global police state, and I'm much more likely to fund the Bruce Perens and Corey Doctorows of the world because they've earned my respect by choosing open licenses over the default "AllmineMineMINE!(C)(R)!".
--
Power to the Peaceful
America has enough in the way of issues with giving kids something to do. Dance clubs, live bands, and many forms of entertainment are 21+ only. This lack of entertainment gets worse the smaller the town.
I have nieces and nephews, and one thing I show them how to do is get media online. It sure beats drinking, doing drugs, and generally getting into trouble. Making what I perceive as a wholesom activity a criminal act will result in one less thing to do. Why risk 10 years in jail when you can just smoke some pot and risk only 2 years in jail?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
We should be disgusted that they're cooking up even more ways to enforce laws which are now unenforceable in modern day America. Technology advancements change what should and shouldn't be considered "intellectual property" and our laws haven't been keeping up. The constitution's view of copyright is hundreds of years old and obsolete. Something tells me the founding fathers would look at the way corporations are lobbying congress to reinterpret their words any way they please with considerable disgust.
Don't be a sheep.
"Think for yourself. Question authority." - Tool - Third Eye
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Correction. Companies without corporate lobbyists bow down and kiss the asses of consumers. Companies with corporate lobbyists simply buy a few politicians so that they can introduce laws that dictate what their consumers/competitors can and can't do. Remember, it's the natural instinct of any company in the dominant position to do whatever it takes to retain that dominant position (in the absence of government oversight) - including bribery, corruption, and criminal activity. What is government oversight? It's oversight by the consumer - since we're technically the government. Too bad most of the "government" is on vacation, or too stupid to notice that we're becoming less like citizen/consumers of a capitalistic republican democracy, and more like subjects of an elitist corporate oligarchy.
To tell him that he is just going to make Freenet more popular if this bill becomes law. If he thinks that the porn kids are exposed to on current systems is harmful wait until he causes them to all flee to Freenet. Not only will the be exposed to kiddie porn, but the file traders will be unknowingly storing it on their computers! I am sure that this is the result he wants, the popularization of child pornography. This legislation is ill-concieved for that reason alone. It will accomplish the opposite of its intention.
Lasers Controlled Games!
"Tell your elected officials that you disagree with what they are supporting, and command them to stop."
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I write all of my relevant gov't officials all the time (at least 3-4 / month) and I either get a response like "Don't worry we aren't going to use our new powers to harm you" or no response at all. I don't think they are listening a lot of the time. I agree that writing these people is important but I fear they are not listening to the concerned citizen as much as they are to the corporations funding their next campaign.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The crooked dirtbag Hatch's reasons for this law seem to be nonsense, so what is he really doing? I'll bet the real purpose is to scare away Linux users by claiming that they are participating in "piracy", since we all know that SCO and its parent company Microsoft own Linux, Mars, Venus, the Moon, etc.
"Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence." -- US Senator Orrin Hatch The "tends of thousands" phrase sounds more like a declaration of war against the citizens of America by the increasingly corporate owned government of ours. When 1.5 million people are downloading today in America, most of which are law abiding citizens that don't traffic in drugs, commit violent crimes, and pay for their groceries. Could this have happened if the RIAA and MPAA were not busy purchasing our congressional representatives? How do we stop this? I don't just mean the bill, I mean how do we stop the trend. How do we get politicians to represent the people again? One question I have is how are we a representative democracy if we are no longer represented? After years of this news growing, I still have not seen a coordinated large-scale effort to restore balance in our government so that it truly represents the people, and respects our principals. While I consider myself a free market capitalist, and personally choose not to download music that the creators do not offer for free, I completely disagree with treating the American people as dissidents, as this bill and other are increasingly doing. Is China becoming more like us, or are we becoming more like them?
Open Standards Portal
If you want to wipe out the RIAA and the MPAA point out to the GOP that they are just like unions.
Start filesharing copies of these stupid bills. Then we can complain to the media that these guys are trying to snuff free speech. They'll beg for their political lives.
The civil court determined that most of the evidence in OJ's case likely made him responsible for the death of his ex-wife. There were just enough inconsitencies in the evidence (i.e. non-fitting bloody glove, investigators successfully painted as racially biased), sympathetic jurors and slick representation in the criminal trial to make most of the same evidence not meet the standard for reasonable doubt.
Hence, you have a not guilty verdict in one court, and a finding of liability in another. Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL - but I work for them at trials.
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
I'm amazed that people buy the dreck that the music industry is putting out these days. I've got 30 gig of MP3s and they're all legal live recordings of various bands. I don't share 'em because I like having a low latency link, but I *could* share and it wouldn't be a problem.
Maybe its your *taste* that is the problem - adjust that and suddenly the RIAA is just a comical thing to read about on slashdot occasionally.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Indeed, our government recognizes that its enforcement powers are appropriate when protecting intellectual property and public safety. Recently, in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, Jr. asserted that the Department of Justice should assist private enforcement of intellectual property rights if any of three criteria are met: (1) the level of piracy becomes particularly egregious; (2) public health and safety are put at risk; or (3) private civil remedies fail to adequately deter illegal conduct.
When would that be? People aren't going around killing each other with p2p applications, nor do I know how that is even possible. What a moron. Let's put the blame on terrorism, way to go.
SAILING MISHAP
It's gotten pretty interesting in a purely scholarly way. We have a backlogged stockpile of literally 100 years of audio and video entertainment now. I mean, how much can a person consume? Entertainment _should_, by economic laws of supply and demand, be as cheap as tap water.
Ergo, draconian protectionism. Something has to give.
Write to them again. Point out that they are not there to be right or wrong, they are there to serve you.
Also tell them that you have shown many of your friends his/her response who where equally as disgused. Tell them that you have convinced several of your friends who previously didn't vote, to vote against them. CC the letter to his opponent and be sure the CC at the top of the letter.
Try to be clear and polite so you don't sound like a lunatic. Ideally you want to sound like a member of the middle ground of people who would normally vote for them.
The thought of someone actively campaining against them is worse than just losing one vote.
Elivs
As for me, this is exactly why I dislike people such as Larry Lessig who persue a compromise approach to copyrights. All that ever happens is that they end up getting used and exploited to appease the masses with wishfull thinking, while the MPAA and the RIAA make their next move to screw everyone over.
If anything, it is in our best interest to force the death of copyrights once and for all. It amazes me to see how many people fail to see that the 'emperor is naked' - they actually think that copyrights are just like other free market property rights - that restricting what people can copy actually creates some kind of benefit. Well, bullshit. All people like Lessig do is just get in the way, like those who tried to delay the fall of the USSR, like those who wanted the free states to get along with the slave states. They are useless.
consumer backlash no longer means anything.
Most of the people I know consider P2P a form of nonviolent protest. It's a way of voicing our discontent with the way our consumerist society corners us with the belief that there are no alternatives. Well there are alternatives, many of them, and no matter what the rich white men in suits may believe we can actualize these alternatives into something they can't touch! P2P is our protest! P2P is our power, our voice, our constitutionally protected free speech! Outlawing P2P is outlawing free speech!
Well, not really. But that argument is no dumber than what has been coming out the the copyright companies. Like saying that in an economy that is down %10 due to a massive worldwide recession record sales are down %10 because of... computers. Or that the value of a copy of a song which the sell for 4 dollars suddenly becomes 10,000 dollars because it was put on a P2P network. Or that computer hacking is terrorism and terrorism is treason and treason is punishable by death but hacking to protect copyrights is a noble form of copyprotection and stopping someone from hacking to protect their copyright is a violation of the DMCA.
Sigh. All I want is a little sanity in our legal system.
The ______ Agenda
So you are saying that minority groups with more cash to flash than possibly the majority, dictate law to an extent. Doesn't that seem wrong?
The definition of stealing is a bit blurred in my view. The money made in the music industry is produced majoritively by fans. I don't believe fans would, as a rule of thumb, intend to rip off their favourite music artist.
People I know who download music via P2P generally have no intention of buying the album whether they aquire the music via P2P or not. In reality this means of aquisition primarily becomes a form of advertising.
This is prevailent with movies also. Who likes 'Lord of the Rings', downloads it and then doesn't see it on the big screen or buy the dvd?
Admittedly songs released as singles or 'one hit wonders' may be impacted but I doubt any artist that has penetrated the industry would be effected.
The only viable reason to create laws for P2P is to prevent packaged redistibution and illegal sales.
Anything else and we may as well start introducing laws for dual cassette decks and radios with a record function.
I think there are a few changes we ought to implement:
1) Copyright has a term of 5 years from first publication (where publication is any form of public accessibility to the work including performance). All types of works other than software (and chip masks, if we continue to allow them here) may be renewed for an additional 5 years, in the last year of their current term. No work can be copyrighted more than 25 years in sum. This is retroactive if possible, possibly on a sliding scale.
2) Strict formalities are required for all works. Notice, publication, deposit, and registration. Works cannot embody trade secrets, just as is the case with patents. Disclosure must be made so as to allow the meaningful use of the work in any way by later persons. Best edition copies must be deposited with the Library of Congress. Works must be published, i.e. available to the public. EULAs don't qualify. Copyrights must be applied for (a constructive copyright can apply to protect manuscripts et al prior to publication, but only where the author has ultimately copyrighted the work) expressly by the author. A fee is likely required to cover processing costs, the storage of the deposited works, etc.
3) Use of EULAs, encryption, DRM, etc. in a published work void copyrights and pending causes of action.
4) The only penalties for infringement are civil, have more modest fines, and can only be brought by the rights holder.
5) States are totally preempted from the field of copyright and related matters by virtue of the copyright and commerce clauses.
6) Natural persons acting noncommercially who would otherwise have infringed are not liable. Trading works for like isn't commercial; costs of reproduction, media, etc, are. Commercial P2P is as well.
7) We abandon all international copyright treaties and agreements -- foreign authors are to be treated identically with domestic authors, but must comply with our formalities, laws, etc.
8) Architectural works are out, moral rights are out, hulls are out, design copyrights are out, utility and merger doctrines are reemphasized.
9) MAI v. Peak is legislatively overturned. Volatile copies (rule of thumb: if the decay is equal to or less than that of speech, it's volatile) don't count as fixed.
Would this agenda result in fewer works being created? Sort of.
Some works would decline, but note that other works -- derivatives of those that would enter the public domain or where the derivatives are noninfringing per #6 -- would be on the rise! Since during the terms no _commercial_ exploitation of a work could occur legally w/o the rights holder's permission, it's still fairly viable. Their market is a bit less, but still exists.
More importantly, copyright would no longer be so hostile towards the public, and that is JUST AS IMPORTANT. HAVING WORKS CREATED IS NO GOOD IF WE CAN'T FREELY ENJOY THEM!
After all, what's the point of encouraging works being created other than that we want to enjoy them, inclusive of copying, distributing, making derivatives, etc.?
This is what I've come up with, anyway. I'd be greatly interested in what others think of it, or counterpropose.
N.b. that I _am_ aware of those who don't like rights to be defeasible, but I don't think it would matter in terms of the end results and it's dangerously like moral rights. So I've left it out deliberately.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Orin's forgotten that he represents the people of Utah and not just corporate interest.
I ma live in Utah, but between SCO and Hatch (Remember he wanted the right to trash people's machines remotelY) I'm thinking Nevada might be a good move.
>Social evolution in action: corporations are more efficient -- better adapted to their environment
Okay, so considering corporate consolidation and conformity in business practices is the norm the next step is to just grant them all monopolies thus socialism - government controled means of production.
Or we can break monopolies, remove corporate money and influence from our politicians, and pass pro-consumer laws.
Considering how few companies own so much capital, our media fails us, and how little say we have and in anything then we're practically the USSR and we all know how that little experiment ment.
>no Revolution, no Topple the State, no Stop the Corporations
Yeah, that's the defeatist attitude they want to have. Go back to watching Reality TV while us adults try to fix things.
The first analogy is that shortly after the invention of the car someone robs a bank a uses the car to get away. The banking industry pays congress to outlaw the car.
Second, the railroad industry has locked up the freight market. Nothing is shipped in-land without going through them. Except for short distances they are the only option. As soon as the model-T comes out someone takes the body off, hammers on some boards and viola --- a truck. The railroad industry pays congress to outlaw the auto.
Either way what is today a vital industry dies in America.
I am working on p2p business applications for ERP, and CRM applications. I guess I should consider moving to another country.
If this becomes the next new new thing, the US looses out.
isn't everything on the network some form of sharing..?
I browse a web page - it sends me a block of HTML and other stuff to view.
I pull a file from a co-worker's computer..
I pull a file from someone's FTP site.
It's all "sharing".
So we shut down the network because information is transferred across it all the time?
"1. The Cable Company
You can get a Satellite Dish any day of the week."
I can't get satellite because I have too many trees. There's a number of reasons someone might not be able to use sattelite, that being one of them. So no, I have no choice, when it comes to cable TV, most people only have the choice of one cable company.
"2. The Phone Company
Where I live there is a bunch around. If you dont like them, there is always getting a cell only. Even a satellite cell phone is available-- and thats no matter where you are."
Where I live, and everywhere but major metropolitan areas in the NE, we have Verizon, or nothing. Cell phones are good but they cannot replace a good hard line when you need one.
"3. The Electric Company
Those have recently been privatized too. There is competition, plus you could buy a generator."
Not really. I can choose another power company, but they just buy the power from the same source. It ends up being more expensive. Privatizing power has been a big flop. GENERATORS? You're kidding right?
"4. Microsoft
No. They are a dominant firm in monopolistic competition (they have a strong impact on prices and control a large market share). Software (except some specialized stuff) is mostly a monopolistic competition kind of environment. Lots of Product Differentiation, Advertisement etc. Versioning is important here too."
Many US States and the EU would disagree. As do I.
"5. Viacom
Come on. There is other players in the entertainment business too. Oligopoly, maybe. Monopolistic Competion, most likely."
I dunno about Viacom. So whatever.
"NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER"
Well, sometimes it seems that way, but that is really not the case quite yet."
It is the case. I need 5 phone lines at a customer site, and we HAVE TO USE VERIZON. We can't hook up five cell phones on the wall. When they screw up, it can sometimes be days before they fix something. They raise prices and the only thing we can do is pay. Same with Microsoft. Same with Cox Cable. Same with Naraganset Electric.
Internet Access is often another form of monopoly since it rides on the same line as cable. A lot of people can get DSL, but a lot more cannot. So besides dial-up (which you can't effectively do with a cell phone, and dialup is becomming more and more obsolete) you have to use Cable Internet. I have no choice for my ISP, and they know it. They raise the prices often, they keep blocking more and more stuff, and there's nothing I can do besides pay. Not having high speed internet is not an option for me.
There may be no hard, true, 100% monopolies around, but it's close enough to not matter. Sure, you could always live in a straw hut and shovel shit for a living, but if you want to actually participate in society you have no choice but to buy their services, good or not.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I'm no more in support of this proposed bill than the next Slashdot reader, and I think that some of the proposed penalties are outlandish too. But let's be fair.
If you shoplift a CD, the music company is out $15 (or whatever their profit is after paying off the marketing/recording/stores/lawyers/etc). Not an awful lot.
But if you put a CD on a P2P network, dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people could potentially download the album instead of buying the CD.
Yes, you can make various arguments against this (e.g., "the downloaders might buy that (or other) CD anyway", or "maybe nobody will download it so there's no loss" or even "The RIAA are a bunch of dicks whose monopoly artificially increases the value of music") and maybe some or all of those are true... but that's not the point.
As it stands -and the way it is being presented to the lawmakers- the RIAA is likely to lose more money if a person distributes their property on a P2P network than if that same person were simply to help themselves to a five-finger-discount at the local record store. And as such, the "crime" of P2P should carry a heavier penalty than petty theft.
It is NOT *just* about lawmakers out of touch with the new reality of an Internet-enabled world (although I am sure this plays some part), nor is it all about EVIL CORPORATIONS running our government (certainly they have influence but this often tends to get blown out of proportion).
If a lobbyist says to a politician "well, these geeks on P2P are costing us 3 gajillion dollars a year, which means that we're going to have lay off 10,000 people in your state alone!" and all those politicians hear from the 'geeks' is "The RIAA are a bunch of pussies and copyrights are bad anyway, mmm'kay?", don't let's all jump to conclusions about corruption and incompetence. In fact, many lawmakers are trying to do their best for their constituents (although some -like Hatch- even I wonder about).
So, to conclude, I'm not trying to argue that there is no corruption or bad influence in Politics... but neither should we make it out to be as simple as we often do on Slashdot.
Actually, what we all *should* do is help the various "geek lobbies" (e.g., EFF, etc.) and perhaps even create new ones that promote and spread the "geek ideal" to those who hold political office.
Although, I suppose, to be truely influential, the "geek lobbies" have to have more than just ideals to move politicians, so here's a challenge: how does P2P *help* the economy and create more jobs?
This is one of those situations I wish I was actually studying something like history or politics, because I've often wondered the same thing as you.
You know these topics are beaten to death and nothing ever becomes of them nor is there any attempt to create a change. I say STFU and fucking do something about it or don't bitch. I personally don't buy shit anymore. I can go without and indy labels don't really appeal to me so I have enough stuff built up to make it through these times.
You know if people would just stop buying, and I mean an enormous amount of people, then we could finally reap somekind of reward for our actions like freedom to do what we want, when we want with different forms of media. Everyone should be getting together to protest in certain types of civil disobedience and they like because money talks, bullshit walks.
Hit them where it hurts - pocket books - and we'll see a HUGE difference because no one is listening now. They see people continuing to buy so where's the incentive to back off? There isn't. The people to go after first are the paid-for politicians who are selling our rights as consumers for personal gain and no one does shit except call them names. That really hurts a politician!
We really need people in the loop, in government agencies, in all forms of life to help make this change or the days of "big brother" will be something we wished we had instead of where we'll end up. This issue goes so much deeper than freedom with music, movies, etc. This is about the selling of our rights on a day to say basis for personal gain and to further enslave us, or better yet, indoctrinate us into a system of conplete and utter control.
Seriously....DO FUCKING SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
You know.....we should flood these guys with the IPs of people who have music in their Windows shared folders. You know, all those 'pirates' on millions of computers who put their media in the proper M$-designated folders: "My Music" "My Shared Folder" etc etc Just do a search on a random broadband netblock on port 139.... There are thousands of people who put media files in their shared folders and forget to protect them (Sharing is on by default in XP). Whether they own the media or not is irrelevant, they've got it shared, therefore they're pirates. Perhaps that will show these sens the stupidity of broad, sweeping laws.
It seems to me that Hatch is more interested in going after P2P companies, and is looking to move the procecuting of individual P2P participants from criminal to civil proceedings. It seems to me that the slashdot article is blowing this out of proportion. Compared to what the RIAA is trying to force on congress, this is mild.
Incidentally, I though Lessing had a great idea on charging companies to keep copyrights. However, his "$1 a year" tagline is impractical, as it would cost the government much more than $1 to process all the claims. Make it $10 to renew for 10 more years after then first 10 years. This cuts paperwork way down. Then, after 20 years, make it $50 for the next 10 years. After 30 years, make it $250 for the next 10 years. Then, make it $500 for each subsequent 10 year stint. Sell it to congress as a revenue stream, but it should be inexpensive enough to keep the RIAA and MPAA from trying too hard to kill it.
First he threatens people who use pirated software with blowing up their computer, and then it's found he forgot to register some software on his website.
e ss .memos.reut/
And then, one of his staffers does a little "P2P" sharing with hacking into Democratic files, and obtaining information that he was not legally allowed to have. So guess what happens there? It goes to the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee to decide whether to have a probe. The Democrats aren't in the room at one point, and the Chairman (Senator Hatch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) ends the investigation.
WTF is wrong with Utah?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/congr
I suggest that if your response is going to be essay length then use essay format. As
it is now it flows haphazardly, and is even worse without a thesis statement as a guide post.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
However, it would be outlandish to attempt to deny the fact that the
overwhelming majority of content traded via P2P networks is pirated material.
By using the term pirate, or theft (instead of copyright infringement), you do
yourself a disservice if your intention is to at least have the appearance of
neutrality.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
However, once Joe American and his friends were pirating massive quantites of
content online they couldn't just ignore the issue any longer.
Massive quantities of content like radio and books + media from the library? Perhaps you mean people reading the classics for free because they were in public domain? No? Ah yes, I know the problem, the 'pirating' issue again. Solution: use law to put the content into the public domain, and expand fair use.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
Sure, the penalites being imposed don't fit the crime...You want to stop being
treated like criminals? Well then stop acting like them.
There doesn't have to be any 'crime', that is the point. The people can will,
though voting, that copyright be a day in length. These corporations forget that
their billions in copyright profit comes by permission of the people; these very
people that are starting to become annoyed at being treated as criminals. Soon the people
will simply change the definition.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
As a result, we only get stiffer penalties and more draconian laws...
No. People are using p2p in defiance of the law because people have no respect
for the law as it stands. Just as many people continued to drink alcohol during
prohibition: stupid laws are broken, and eventually removed, when many, and
eventually the majority, of people find them absurd.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
You shouldn't be congratulating and encouraging people to pirate content via P2P
networks as if it were some sort of moral imperative with equal gravity to most
situations that truly deserve non violent protest.
Promoting *copyright infrindgement* as a means of civil disobedience and protest
is perfectly ok. The real test though is if these people are willing to goto
jail, or be bankrupted ($$$$$ in fines, or being sued). It really is too bad
that people will have to goto jail or be bankrupted, I suggest we try to reduce
copyright length so people will not have to have their lives destroyed over this.
Matt - Duke '05 said:
Don't buy their products... you only prove to these companies that there is indeed a demand and a market for their products.
Many copyright infringers do not want their artists to go bankrupt. Some simply are aware that the RIAA was guilty of price gouging, and think that paying more for a CD then a *movie DVD* is corrupt and unfair. Others only want to try the product, and still others are not willing or able to buy it so they download it.
(Interesting side point, many companies think they have a lost sale every time someone downloads their work. Of course this is false, if someone downloads something that wouldn't have bought to begin with there is no loss for the company. This is one reason why the estimates of losses from P2P is so outlandishly high).
Conclusion: people have no respect for these draconian (and becoming more draconian by the day) copyright laws and it is now up to the people to make their pleasure known. Vote for candidates that want fair use rights enlarged, and copyright length reduced.
Mein Gott, what can we do?
Someone needs to start "For the People, Inc." and we all need to become paid staff, assign our lifetime outputs/copyright to The Company, and get our ID badges issued at the door.
The Company can then fulfill its charter, which is to protect all of us from other Corporations and Entities. All of our works will be protected, everything that we do together as a group will be company confidential, protected by all the right trade law, etc.
Seriously. I'm about to do this.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
This is way out of hand. Wasting all this time and energy and money to go after a person sharing a 99cent song is insane.
Why don't we go after the real criminals and people who mean this country harm, instead of a wholesale expansion of who is considered a criminal? ( but then again, convicted criminals legally loose most of their rights, perhaps this is the actual goal of this movement.. that is if I was paranoid... )
And while I've not read the entire thing, what is this about 'reducing burden of proof' ? When will we reach the point that unsubstantiated 'suspicion' gets you jail time with no recourse but to rot in jail..
Are they taking into account exploited computers? Are they going to PROVE it was the owner that was sharing ( or even knew it was wrong ) ? Or are we now responsible for the actions of a criminal that breaks into our home ( effectively ) and steals your stuff, and uses it inappropriately.?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Therefore, all progress is due to unreasonable men.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
First the PATRIOT act, and now this - is there some kind of law in the U.S. that mandates that every bill's name has to make some clever (read: daft) acronym? As a UK citizen, I'm not hugely exposed to US legislation, but the UK government's bills generally speaking don't have such overly long names, whose only purpose seems to confuse the actual purpose of the bill and give it a cool acronym...
" To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
What will the argument be in 10-20 years, once nanotechnology has sprouted wings and created a matter copier? If you can duplicate a Ferrari without depriving anyone else of their copy, do you think that doing so should be illegal?
If so, why?
Personally, I think that would be just fine. And it doesn't "hurt" the Ferrari corporation, because they won't need money anyway -- they'll have a matter copier as well, to create anything they need. This is not a pipe dream but it certainly looks like one; for the time being I'll have to continue working. But seriously, why would duplicating a Ferrari be wrong if it harmed noone in the process?
And if you agree with me, then work backwards. We already have digital matter copiers; things will only get weirder.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
random stream of consciousness:
You've been Hatch'd. What is it with Utah that makes it feel like it should do things that fulfill Orwellian prophecy (i.e. this and MATRIX)?
Protection of IP is in the best interests of the US in the long run if international law is enforceable because in the future presumably the US will rely heavily on IP such as inventions and entertainment for GDP (it already relies on entertainment quite a bit). When manufacturing/labor is gone, service and knowledge remain. With the exception of tourism, service has a sketchy effect on the real growth of the American economy. Knowledge, on the other hand, can be very useful if it is able to be sold in exchange for physical goods.
The definition of IP is too broad sometimes. This means that certain works should not protected as much as they are now. Other works should be protected even more.
One song should not be valued at $10,000 unless it is an unauthorized leak. Let's say somebody at the studio leaks a single before it is authorized to be played. That person should have to pay, especially if there is something in her/his contract explicitly forbidding the leak. Record sales do sometimes drop because of leaks. The cool factor of owning an album may increase its sales after a leak, however. With that said, the real impact, as has been discussed often, is in singles sales. Singles sales are obviously not dead, however, when alternatives to p2p like itms or napster2 are around.
Should all file transfers be logged? How can this be done without destroying open source, nothing to say of whatever privacy is left?
Some people do not have a problem paying for music and have learned to live without downloading singles or albums on the Internet. Friends recommend albums to friends, and they're usually right about their recommendations.
Digital piracy is, for the moment, not the same as physical theft. When the US economy relies more on IP as a source of wealth creation, digital piracy will be more similar to physical theft. Right now I still question this whole mode of thought.
Few judges will follow through with the punishments in these types of bills.
Entertainment industry lobbyists suck, but so do people who don't eventually pay for goods that people expect payment for. Just because somebody sounds snoody saying s/he wants payment for being part of the production of art doesn't mean that person shouldn't get paid. People generally deserve to be compensated for lending their talents to the supply chain. The amount of payment is debatable, but that somebody deserves to get paid for work is generally accepted. I hate the MPAA commercials at the movie theater as much as anyone else, but that doesn't mean people don't deserve to earn a living.
Blah blah blah. This is nothing new, I guess, but it's Sunday and I have to go create some IP for the man so that he can profit mercilessly from exploiting the minds of senators with the ROI he gets from my open source software.