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."

Comments

Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[The I Shing]

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?

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[turnstyle]

"This is the kind of thing that Frank Zappa warned us was going to happen."

Well, Frank's widdow protects her copyright interests in Frank's works...

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Anonymous Coward]

The artists that people won't buy from are the ones that are large enough to not really matter about. If an unknown goes from 10 fans to 1000 thanks to file sharing but loses about $100 in CD sales, that more than makes up for it come concert time.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[The I Shing]

You're right, she does. Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers. The most they can do is say something like 'Performing the music of FZ" or "...the music of a guy named Frank," and the whole thing starts to look ridiculous.

Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.

Oh, well.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you were the widow (or offspring) of a popular artist, and the government gave you this kind of power, wouldn't you milk it for all it's worth? It beats working for a living, that's for sure.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists make very little percentage off of CD sales when they are signed by major labels. Artists make there real money off of touring live, thats why every group does it, alot. Basically CD's are just a way to advertise there concert. Which in all reality, sending songs over the internet is more effective at that. The only people who really care about CD sales and song downloads enough to sue people and put them in jail are the corporations and record labels who make all of their money off of CD sales.

Personally, I could care less about about the major record labels and would rather them go bankrupt.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[paganizer]

And the inventors of automobiles were really unfair to the horse & buggy industry.
If the business model is obsolete, then it's obsolete, get over it.
What amazes me is that it's obviously pretty clear that the majority of citizens of the U.S. aren't going to agree with this crap, but we just set back and let it happen.
I'm not a big fan of mob rule, but this is ridiculous.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[JustinXB]

Mein Gott, what can we do?

Hmm... Have you ever considered to STOP FUCKING PIRATING?!

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[iminplaya]

...but the fact remains that many of the artists have slept in vans, eaten Mac and Cheese three meals a day, and worked very hard to make the music.

That's because they were dependant a very monopolistic and very corrupt industry to distribute their work. They and their customers need to realize that they no longer need to sell their souls to publish. It's all just a mouse click away now. The industry is very afraid of this and is only trying to protect itself. People of Utah, please don't re-elect Hatch.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[The I Shing]

Hmm... Have you ever considered to STOP FUCKING PIRATING?!

Oh, now stop it, you know what I meant. I meant 'what can we do' about corporations running the government.

The anti-file-sharing bill is just symptomatic of the problem. Lawmakers act without hesitation to protect the interest of corporations, and have to be practically forced to do anything to protect individual citizens.

Corporations have never had this much influence before, probably because they have enough control of the media to stifle serious discussion of the issues.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[orthogonal]

You're right, she does. Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers.... Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.

So?

Thought-experiment time. I represent the Fascist White-Power neo-Nazi rock band "Kill All the Mud-People". While I'm against almost everything Frank Zappa stood for, and for almost everything he disdained, I rather like some of his tunes, so I decide to re-name my band "Frank Zappa Would Agree: Kill All the Mud-People", and put up a big photoshop of Frank Zappa's face centered on a Nazi flag.

Now before you protest that this is a rather extreme example -- and that many or all the bands Gail Zappa has gone after are not in any way Fascist or Neo-Nazi, you will agree, I hope, that none of the bands Gail Zappa has gone after actualy have Frank Zappa as a member, and indeed, that none of them, in all likely-hood share all of Frank Zappa's opinions, musical styles, or personal affiliations, right?

So if these bands are bands that Frank Zappa never cared -- for whatever reasons -- to affiliate himself with in life, why should they be allowed to appropriate his name and likeness -- and the implicit approval that goes with those -- after his death?

The author of the post to which I'm replying is "The I Shing (700142)"; should I have any moral right to start signing my posts, "The above is the opinion of orthogonal (588627) and The I Shing (700142)?" Should I be able to excuse my appropriation of someone else's name by saying, "but The I Shing (700142) is on record for disdaining the music industry's choke hold"?

A person's name and likeness, to the extent that it implies a person's endorsement or authorship, is something that must be retained by that person.

As I noted in a post (Firefox artwork Tuesday 16 March 2004) about the Firefox logo not being GPL'd along with the Firefox code,

I've made some of my code open source, but I've never said that people could remove my name from the copyright, or conversely, put my name on their own work. If my signature were a Chinese ideogram, or a picture of fox wrapped around a globe, I wouldn't let anyone else use that.

Similarly, I can wholly understand why Frank Zappa -- or his widow -- wouldn't want his legacy diluted by a bunch of Zappa pretenders and wannabees. While few are likely to be, as in the thought experiment above, neo-Nazis, few are likely to be as accomplished as musicians and social commentators as Frank Zappa -- because if they were, they wouldn't have to use Zappa's name like a crutch to prop up their own publicity machines. They'd be able to stand on their own.

I like to think my posts and writing -- and for good or bad, they're nowhere as good as those by the writers I most cherish -- can also stand on their own. That's why I "sign" them "orthogonal" and not

"-- Robert Heinlein-esque, Eric Blair-like, Tom Paine-ish, Thomas Jefferson-influenced, John Lockean, John Milton-aspiring orthogonal"

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Ridgelift]

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...

Take a look at The Corporation as a stronger statement. Here's the synopsis:

"Considering the odd legal fiction that deems a corporation a "person" in the eyes of the law, the feature documentary employs a checklist, based on actual diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and DSM IV, the standard tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. What emerges is a disturbing diagnosis.

Self-interested, amoral, callous and deceitful, a corporation's operational principles make it anti-social. It breaches social and legal standards to get its way even while it mimics the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. It suffers no guilt. Diagnosis: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a psychopath ."

Bill Gates might not be psychotic, but his "person" the Microsoft Corporation is a psychopath if there ever was one. Add also the RIAA, MPAA, SCO...psychopath, psychopath, psychopath.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[turnstyle]

"Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers."

Your position is that any band should be able to just go ahead and use Frank Zappa's image and name in their own commercial work, without any oversight whatsoever?

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Jim Starx]

Cover bands are legally allowed and don't represent an endorsement by the original author. Your Neo-Nazi argument is an extreem even without the Nazi refferences. The title "Frank Zappa would agree: blah blah blah" is obviosly an unauthorized endorsement. But a Frank Zappa cover band that states "[so and so] performing the music of Frank Zappa", is perfectly fine in both a legal and moral sense. This is all really irrelevent anyway, the yahoo article was about a zappa song used in an advertisement, not about cover bands.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Chris Carollo]

And the inventors of automobiles were really unfair to the horse & buggy industry.
If the business model is obsolete, then it's obsolete, get over it.

I hear this kind of argument all the time, and I just don't think it holds up.

The transition from a horse & buggy to an automobile was not a "business model" change, it was a change of product -- and consumers preferred the latter. Furthermore, downloading songs for free hardly qualifies as a "business model".

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[stephenisu]

Furthermore, downloading songs for free hardly qualifies as a "business model".

Next thing you know, money laundering will no longer be a legitimate business model..

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[katanan]

you should try and find a copy of The Corporation pretty cool documentary. interesting points on media dissemination and proliferation and the development of the corporation into media and economic structures.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[ethanms]

I agree... these things are illegal... but it's frightening that the potential monetary damages and jail time are so high!

I've been watching Animal Planet all day... guy starves his dog to the brink of death, leaves it outside, he gets a $500 fine... no jail time, etc...

But allowing someone to copy a music file has routinely caused people to get multi-thousand dollar judgments held against them...

Now we're talking jail time + fines...

If even one or two people are financially ruined and left with a shattered life, it will be a tragedy.

I'm just hoping this winds up like that FBI warning at the beginning of dvds and tapes... yeah, $250,000 fine and 20 years in jail for copying... ok...

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I wouldn't. There are a lot of things I wouldn't do for money.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Safety Cap]

~ any band should be able to just go ahead and use Frank Zappa's image and name in their own commercial work, without any oversight whatsoever?

Uh, yeah, seeing as he stopped benefiting from his image and/or name on December 4, 1993, why shouldn't his name and work pass to the public domain? He is not gaining further financial benefit; the dead can't own property.

Wait, wait! I propose that dead people get perpetual license to restrict use of their ideas. Do you know how liberating that will be?! That means that virtually ALL COMEDY (which traces its lineage to Menander) will become illegal. No more vacuous shows like Family Guy, King of Queens, Friends, Will & Grace, etc. Oh ye gods, one can only hope...

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[dacarr]

Jane, you ignorant slut.

Frank can't benefit from it, but he left a legacy. It's up to his estate - Gail, specifically - to deal with that legacy in how she sees fit.

May she not abuse it.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[incabulos]

Let companies have the rights the constitution entitles them

So what rights would these be, pray tell? The constitution grants _no_ rights, not a damn thing to companies or coorporations. Not one teensy tiny right to speak of.

What it does do is secure for authors the exclusive right to copy their works for limited times, to promote science and the arts, yadda yadda yadda. Most importantly, its an _obligation_ on authors as much as it is protection for them. If they arent living up to their end of the 'copyright bargain', that is, if their works are NOT entering public domain after 'a limited time', then they themselves are in violation of copyright law.

Every copy-protected CD, every encrypted DVD or ebook, every 'copyright protected' console or media player sold - all of these essentially render the copyright deal null and void concerning the specific product.

If they dont follow the law themselves, expecting to 'have their cake and eat it too' is a little bit far fetched, wouldnt you say?

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[cbreaker]

Not everyone's goal is to screw everyone all the time.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Jim Starx]

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.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[dukeisgod]

Since I just RTFA'd your link, I think you're taking it out of context. The example you give is of them suing because a company used bits of a Zappa tune in a commercial. No way in hell he woulda gone for something like that. I can't argue with her there. Poor FZ was probably rolling over in his grave about his song in a commercial.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Kierthos]

Yes, and that would not necessarily be because our "enlightened elected officials" *spit* actually believe that either the FCC changes or this PIRATE bill are a good thing. The FCC changes are being wrought in the wake of the 'wardrobe malfunction' and the uptight American reaction to same. The PIRATE bill is being bought and paid for by the music industry.

In both cases you're seeing the politicians doing things not necessarily because they believe that these things need to be done, but because they want to stay in office, and continue to get whopping donations from organizations that donate huge whacks of cash.

The RIAA can't vote, but they damn sure can buy politicians once they're in office. And if previous indications are to be used for future elections, most politicians only need to appeal to that increasingly small fraction of people who do actually vote.

It's only bipartisan because both sides can recognize a good cash cow in the form of the RIAA.

Kierthos

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[SillyNickName4me]

The transition from horse & buggy to automobile is a bad example, let me give a better and more on topic one:

Untill the invention of the gramaphone and availability to the public of records, the only way to listen to music virtually all people was by going to a live performance.

Once it became possible to listen to music at home whever you wanted to, lots of small music theatres simply went out of business due to lack of customers. The market had changed, and the demand for their product had changed.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[shepd]

>so I decide to re-name my band "Frank Zappa Would Agree: Kill All the Mud-People"

That is misrepresentation and libel. The line is crossed when you take someone's non-existant opinion and change it to suit your own.

You could, however, say "Kill All The Mud People, performed to the music of Frank Zappa" because that would be what you're doing (playing a cover of a Frank Zappa tune), I assume. Or I damn well *HOPE* that it's still legal to state true facts.

Well, you could in the US, that is. A lot of other countries have (stupid) "hate laws" to ensure such hatred is bred underground, where it can damage society much more since you can't defend against what you can't see.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[John Courtland]

But they need to offer an alternative. You can't just NOT compete with piracy. It exists, it is there, any amount of unconstitutional (8th amendment at least) laws cannot stop that. This is exactly like the horse and buggy. CD's and physical media in general are no longer needed to gain musical performances, aka the horse and buggy. Digital online music on demand is the car.

I'm gonna take a second here and digress. If I buy an album, let's take an example from my father, so say The Wall by Pink Floyd. He bought that fucking thing in the 1970's on vinyl. Why the fuck should he have to pay another $18 for a CD. He already has the license to play the music right? So why does he have to keep paying full price? If he had his receipt and original and went to RCA (I assume that's the producer, I'm sure I'm wrong) and demanded a CD, he'd be laughed the hell out of there. So then it seems he holds a simple physical item, like a camera for example. But the record industry wants to stop you from selling the album to someone else, or even making copies of it. They want it both ways. I say, fuck them and fuck them hard. I really want every person on Earth to steal as much music as they can until these shitbags realize they can't play dirty pool and get away with it.

Anyhow, these companies, in order to exist, have to adapt. The law should not adapt for them. They have to provide attractive, high quality and available music samples and songs for a reasonable price. That's so fucking simple it's goddamn amazing that only Apple has figured it out. I think the folks at the RIAA should have all their money taken away to feed orphans and they get to live on the street for the rest of their natural days. They have been suckling on the teat of popular entertainment and stifling innovative and creative music for ages.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[rzbx]

That first statement just shines of intelligence.

Legacy eh? So if it is HIS legacy, why would it be up to his estate to deal with HIS legacy? So she sees what in his legacy? Is it the financial aspect? or is it for continuing his legacy? How will the act of making it harder for others to continue his legacy (in a way) be good for anyone besides her and her lawyers monetarily? There is already abuse. The second one believes that they have a right to have complete control over a work that is in the minds of others and acts on his impulse to control is abuse.
I can only agree to one thing, and that is preventing lies. If someone is going around claiming authorship to a work by another or not giving credit where it is due, then it is completely undestandable when one brings the law down upon them.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[macdaddy357]

Republican? Democrat? Those are just the two wings of the corporate party. Both dance to the tunes their corporate masters call. We don't need a third party, we need a second party.

The worst thing is that these bribe-taking criminals won't even be voted out, because every idiot thinks that his Congressman/Senator is a good guy, and it's the rest of them who are crooks. Unless we are all willing to vote against our own incumbent Congressmen and Senators, nothing will ever change.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[John Biggabooty]

I would like to propose something. Let's not refer to the recording industry as the music industry. There is a lot more to music than recordings sold at the mall.

The RIAA and the labels would have us believe that music did not exist before Edison invented the phonograph, but it existed for millenia if not millions of years before then. Music will survive without the recoding industry, or should I say racket, when it goes away like the horse-and buggy industry.

I hope that Hatch and Leahy both get voted out, and that people all over the world don't buy CDs.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Question: What's more vacuous than putting Family Guy into the same category as Friends?

Answer: Wondering "what's more vacuous than putting Family Guy into the same category as Friends".

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[fucksl4shd0t]

All right, let Courtney say it again.

The internet gives bands a way to finally break clear of record companies, and here you come along telling us that we need them. Do you work for the RIAA, by any chance?

Distributing CDs cost $4, you charge your customer however much you want and pocket the difference.

Recording your music doesn't cost a fortune, either, as long as you have the gear to make the music (which you obviously already have if you're playing gigs) and can make the basic connection from your gear to your computer's mic jack.

Any questions?

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[thogard]

You haven't been paying attention have you? Cover bands are derivative works but the RIAA hasn't been going after them in the same way. Coverbands aren't legal unless they do far more paperwork than they tend to do. I know one band that chases down the copy right so they do do legal covers. They are called the Grand Wazoo --The band of a 1000 Dances and do some of the stuff Zappa would do and and they have music online for free. They don't make money from CD sales (they sell for cheap and give half the money to the local eye hospital) but they make their money from live shows.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[mpe]

Really, to smother Frank Zappa's name and image under a mountain of lawyers like that seems kind of odd, especially considering how much disdain the man himself had for the music industry's choke-hold on everything.

No doubt this is only one of many cases of current copyright holders declaring a Jihad against infringers, where the actual creator dosn't have a problem (or wouldn't have a problem were they still alive).
Whilst some creative people are "only in it for the money" for other's it is more important to either be recognised or even simply bring enjoyment to people.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Catbeller]

"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.

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[Catbeller]

That "Deanism" never freaking happened.

The news organizations ran his shout over a microphone designed to screen out crowd noise.

When THE CROWD NOISE WAS PROPERLY MIXED BACK INTO THE TRACK, Dean could barely be heard. He was shouting to be heard over the screams of the crowd.

ABC's Diane Sawyer, I recall, was the only reporter to actually go back, review the tape, and issue an apology. No one else will, though: the Heathers have spoken.

Gore Lied All the Time, Bush is Trustworthy and Personable, Saddam Was going to Attack Us, and Dean Screamed and Was Unstable.

These utter freaking lies are now part of the American fabric of reality, and no one will contradict them because it would mean that reporters would have to tell their "customers" that sometimes the customers are not always right.

Dean never "screamed". He was shouting into the wall of noise around him that his mike wasn't picking up, because it was designed to screen out all sound other than his.

The story had legs because the Heathers had already decided that it fit their narrative, and they won't back down now. They'd look like manipulative bastards, which would be the truth.

God, how I hate it when these lies become "truth".

Re:Excuse me while I smash my head into the wall.

[jon787]

Not everyone's goal is to screw everyone all the time.

Somebody wasn't paying attention in biology class...

alright the acronym is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

sometimes it is just so blatantly obvious that people will go to great lengths to contrive clever acronyms despite the obvious redundancies within the actual expanded title.

come on now.

Re:alright the acronym is ridiculous

[MicktheMech]

How about N.O. A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S. -- New Order Addressing Continuous Reuse of Novel Yet Meaningless Short-forms

Best legal system money can buy..

[grub]

Hatch and Leahy get loads of money from the media moguls to make millions of people criminals while guys like OJ can walk the streets. What an awesome legal system!

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Well, and there's also the fact that Orrin Hatch thinks he's a
really great singer, and therefore likes to say of himself that he has a personal stake in seeing file sharing criminalized. Of course, anybody who's heard his music knows his musical "hits" aren't very likely to get swapped like crazy, and so the truth is that he has rigorously no risk of losing any money from P2P whatsoever...

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[turnstyle]

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?

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been saying that for years, they are commiting a crime, but that's not the point. The problem here is that the punishment far outweighs the crime.

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[iminplaya]

Suing is one thing. Jail is quite another. Current copyright law protects the industry at the expense of the artist, and is worthy of nothing but contempt. As long as these kinds of laws remain on the books, all law becomes contemptable.

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggests that something is wrong with the legal system when a man proven innocent in one court can then be found guilty in another court for a crime the law already said he didn't commit.

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[Minna Kirai]

That is plainly wrong.

It's not so plain either way. There's plenty of truth in his claim.

For example, current copyright law has terms of 97 years. Only "the industry", in the form of large corporations, can profit from anything for that long of a time. The artists would get paid the same regardless of copyright lasting 15 years or 100.

Nobody plans out more than 10 years when considering an attempt to profit from creativity, whether by writing a novel or hiring a singer. All copyright revenues past 15-20 years is just free money for big publishers. (And the more money they collect from Elvis, the less they need to pay to today's performers)

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[black mariah]

Not exactly. The difference is in the way civil and criminal cases are tried.

Criminal cases have a 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' restriction on guilt, meaning that the evidence must show that the defendant was clearly guilty of the crime.

Civil cases are tried on a 'preponderance of the evidence', meaning that the jury is allowed to look at the evidence and if it indicates that the defendant is reasonably accountable, they can find him guilty.

Another difference is that Civil and Criminal courts are just two separate parts of the legal system. Criminal cases are brought up by the goverment against individuals, Civil cases are individuals against other individuals.

The parent comment is only insightful if you know dick about the American legal system.

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[zymurgyboy]

He wasn't found guilty. You cannot be found guilty in a civil court. The word you're looking for is liable. The burden of proof for being found liable of something is much lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applied to criminal cases. All you need for a finding of liability is a preponderence of the evidence.

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.

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[MacDork]

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.

Re:Best legal system money can buy..

[anagama]

I'm not disagreeing with you that the OJ thing was a fiasco. However, courts don't find people "innocent". In the last few years, it seems that news organizations have been using the "pleaded innocent" phrase over and over. Even NPR. Nobody pleads innocent, they plead "not guilty". In terms of a verdict, the jury gets to chose "guilty" or "not guilty". A not guilty verdict simply means that the state failed to prove that defendant was guilty. It does not mean that the person is innocent, just that guilt was not proven, i.e., "not guilty".

I know news organizations think people are too stupid to understand the phrase "not guilty". I don't think that's the case though. If you describe the quality of a restaraunt using words such as

• bad - not bad - good

People will easily understand that "not bad" doesn't mean the place is great. It just means it doesn't suck. "Guilty - not guilty - innocent" works the same way.

Scary

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Under the bill, even sharing a single file (if a judge decides the value is over $10,000) could land a user in jail

Given the strength of the dollar these days, that's like the price of a single Anne Murray CD...

Re:Scary

[bfg9000]

If you're pirating Anne Murray, you have already suffered enough.

Re:Scary

[smchris]

Under the bill, even sharing a single file (if a judge decides the value is over $10,000) could land a user in jail

I was wondering if that meant it was still OK to pirate Gigli.

So what is this going to do?

[xactoguy]

Honestly, the prisons are full enough as it is with petty criminals, if they even attempt to enforce these they are going to fill them up even faster. And, who wants to put in jail? If this gets passed and starts getting actively enforced, hopefully someone is going to stand up against this. I hope you've all donated to EFF lately...

Re:So what is this going to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

What we are going to do is use Freenet ( http://freenet.sourceforge.net/ ) and Mute-net ( http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/ ) anonymous P2P applications to exchange files now.

Upload some music and make a music webpage, im in the middle of making an emulator and book webpage.

See you soon :)

Re:So what is this going to do?

[maeka]

If you would read the linked articles you could see past the hype and realize that this proposed law is an attempt to punish file sharers through fines not jail time.

From Sen. Hatch's comments: (emphasis mine)

It is critical that we bring the moral force of the government to bear against those who knowingly violate the federal copyrights enshrined in our Constitution. But many of us remain concerned that using criminal law enforcement remedies to act against these infringers could have an overly-harsh effect, perhaps, for example, putting thousands of otherwise law-abiding teenagers and college students in jail and branding them with the lifelong stigma of a felony criminal conviction.

The bill I join Senator Leahy in sponsoring today will allow the Department of Justice to supplement its existing criminal-enforcement powers through the new civil-enforcement mechanism. As a result, the Department will be able to impose stiff penalties for violating copyrights, but can avoid criminal action when warranted.

I'm not going to use the T word (theft), but let me just say that the casual breech of copyright is getting out of hand, and getting more and more government attention. Shouldn't we (American) Slashdotters be glad that Congress is discussing a law that increases civil penalties instead of making copyright infringement a criminal offense? With the MPAA and RIAA's tactics increasingly blurring that line between civil and criminal offense, I find that this law actually makes a sane and calm attempt to address the problem.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[cpt kangarooski]

let me just say that the casual breech of copyright is getting out of hand

I agree. The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.

It's a lot like prohibition. People totally ignored the law, and not only was the law bad by itself, but by being so especially bad, it gave a big boost to organized crime and fostered disrespect for the law.

Laws aren't automatically entitled to respect. They have to deserve respect by being sensible. There was little large scale infringement prior to the 1976 Act in no small part due to the fact that people didn't have a problem with complying with the law. Our laws today are so awful that of course no one obeys them.

I find that this law actually makes a sane and calm attempt to address the problem.

The people are not the problem. This law is just going to make things worse.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[Kethinov]

shouldn't we (American) Slashdotters be glad that Congress is discussing a law that increases civil penalties instead of making copyright infringement a criminal offense?

Uh, no.
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

Re:So what is this going to do?

[Chris Carollo]

The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.

But if the cornerstone of the p2p problem is that people are distributing content for free, how exactly are we going to change the laws so that there remains some notion of copyright so that it's still vaible to produce music/movies/games?

It's easy to say "change the law", but the current p2p behavior just seems to fundamentally at odds with practicality that I don't see how it would work.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyrights were instituted as a sort of compliment to patents.

Well patents have been around since 14th century Venice, IIRC, and the idea's been around even longer than that.

But the idea was always the same. Both are intended to benefit the public. It's a roundabout way of doing it, but the public is the ultimate beneficiary; it gets people creating or inventing, but lets everyone make use of the works or inventions.

It gives the inventor of a work a temporary monopoly on what may be done with their work.

Only to a limited extent.

But what I'm talking about is WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?

Give me a good reason for giving an author or inventor any exclusive rights at all with regards to their work or invention.

Since they don't inherently have that exclusivity, it must be artificially given to them. Why would we do that? I think there is a reason, but you haven't said what it is. It's obvious, though. It's because it benefits us to do so.

That is, when someone says that they need something from you -- something like the right to exclude you from their work -- the one question you must immediately ask, and which will determine your entire course of action is this: "What's in it for me?"

Organized crime would have boomed at that time whether Prohibition had occurred or not,

Well it had little to do with the economy. The 20's didn't boom until quite late, and then not for very long, IIRC.

It was because criminals deal in the illegal, and the entire country had a great demand for an illegal good.

Hell, in my hometown there were no mafioso, what with it being a southern backwater, so if you wanted illegal liquor, you called up the Sheriff. He was the one that was selling it. A deputy would deliver your order to your door.

My point is that people have a particular way of behavior. They'll tend to stick to it. Laws that interfere with this behavior can either be sensible or stupid. Speed limits are widely ignored, but people understand the reason for them, since it's sensible, and grumble but don't object to the entire concept. Prohibition (though welcomed initially) was just stupid. No one liked it and in fact ultimately fought against it.

When people are fighting a law, and are disrespecting a law, that's bad. But people are highly resistant to having their behavior changed from up on high. The government couldn't force people to think that Prohibition was a good idea again, and so the government lost that battle.

The prime example of the government succesfully forcing a change in behavior was the civil rights movement and ending segregation. That was a titanic battle with no end of blood and tears and strife.

I am not prepared to go through that over fucking copyrights. They're not worth it.

That means scaling back the law so that it's within the realm of what's sensible; the realm where people naturally wouldn't violate it anyway.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[mirio]

I agree. The solution is not to punish infringement, it is to increasingly legalize infringement so that people's behavior need not significantly change, but they get to stay on the right side of the law.

I agree completely for but for different reasons. I don't think laws should be ammended/discarded to keep people on the right side of the law. I do believe, however, that people are voting with their actions. People believe that casual, not-for-profit petty copying of copyrighted works should not be a crime. Can you name any other "crime" 30 million US citizens are guilty of? This bill would be...no...IS the ultimate in violation of the oath of public office. These politicians vow to represent the people of their districts and they think that the way to do this is to ignore the will of the people, pay close attention to the wishes of their contributors. The politicans of course know what's better for us than we do.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[cpt kangarooski]

Things like copyright application and fees are the sorts of things that businesses can handle as part of their day to day operations, but this would be more of a hassles for individuals, and if they're not likely to make money from their work, they're less likely to want to pay a fee - and if you ask why do they want copyright if they're not going to make money, you're forgetting that copyright has added benefits.

Well, while we can of course adopt a sliding scale for fees similar to that in the patent system so that small authors are subsidized somewhat by authors that register a lot of copyrights annually, I think it's still important.

1) It is a minor formalized hurdle. This prevents people from copyrighting silly things such as their /. posts or creative writing assignments in their schoolwork, but still allows them to copyright works if they desire it. Basically, this weeds out works that the author doesn't think are worth it. And if the author doesn't think it's worth it, would anyone else?

2) Copyrights really are just about money. Particularly given that per my proposal we'd be allowing a lot of noncommercial uses. AFAICT the only other thing copyrights might be used for is to deny other people the ability to enjoy a work. But by itself, this is spiteful, hence the requirement of publication. Copyright is intended to leave the public better off than they would be otherwise, and ought not be used to lock things up away from people for as long as possible.

So this could mean companies profiting from individuals who had not applied for copyright

Which was how things worked from 1710 through 1976, and there were precious few complaints about it. Obviously the author had the first chance to try to profit. He declined. Why should we then obstinately bar someone else from taking the risk?

You would seem content with letting perfectly viable works accumulate dust and do no good to no one because the author didn't care about getting it out there but perversely wouldn't allow others to do so in his place. That is miserly, greedy, and contrary to the public benefit that copyright seeks to establish. I don't see it as being what we want to have happen at all.

would companies be able to copyright their derivatives?

As is the case now, derivatives are only copyrightable to the degree that they are original. A derivative can never prevent someone else from making a different derivative from the same original source.

You'll have noticed this if you've ever seen those cheap-ass cartoon video tapes for sale which are of the same public domain fairy tales that Disney uses for its own cartoons. The idea is that inattentive parents will buy a non-Disney version of Cinderella by mistake.

Still, a lot of derivatives are good, and the existence of bad derivatives shouldn't turn us off to the idea in general any more than the existence of bad original works should turn us off to original works in general.

This could mean companies being able to use those family photos of yours for its advertising campaign, without permission.

Which would tend to involve rights of publicity, if they're using your persona to sell something. But it isn't a copyright issue. Let's keep different bodies of law seperate, shall we?

Copyright law is concerned solely with satisfying the public good. There are two ways of doing so -- promoting the creation of new original and derivative works, _and_ having said works be totally free for anyone to do anything with.

Don't use it for something it isn't meant to do.

If people are allowed to copy non-commercially anyway, why should someone jump through hoops to stop someone else profitting from their work?

Because 1) It is important for copies of the work to be preserved by the Library of Congress so that the work isn't lost. I _hate_ when works are lost. Not only are they valuable now, they might be even more valuable in the future.

Re:So what is this going to do?

[cpt kangarooski]

At the moment, I imagine the main way to prevent this would be copyright (consider if someone takes a photo of you - *they* then own the copyright, and there's not much you can do about it).

No, if someone's taking photos of you so as to use your likeness commercially, that's a matter of publicity law _now_. Even if they took the photo.

Copyright would only be at most a half-assed substitute when you're talking about either a) photos that don't use your likeness, or b) that don't use it in a commercial sense, e.g. for news reporting, and in both cases where you took the photo, not them. And note that there is a matter of posession. How did others come to have copies of a work under your control in the first place? It isn't as though you're required to give away copies of p.d. works. And would copyright have worked? Something like news reporting is more prone to be fair use, you know.

often people who profit aren't the original creators

There's little to be done about that. The reason that happens today is because either the creators make the work subject to the work for hire provisions of the law, which are hardly a secret, or have signed assignment contracts (perhaps in advance) where they give up their rights in exchange for something.

It's not as though they didn't know what they were doing. They apparently profited enough to get them to give up their rights to someone else. Who are we to judge that that wasn't fair?

I can see requiring some formalities in the assignment contract or work for hire employment, etc. so that all parties know about this in advance, but I see little point in preventing it.

I'd be furious if The Sun or some other paper decided to publish them

But I just don't see why. Your failure to copyright them indicates that you didn't care about commercially exploiting them. If someone else is willing to take that chance, what's wrong about it?

Remember, copyright is publicly oriented, not privately. Copyright seeks to have works created, published, and freely available for the world to use in any way whatsoever. It's not something that's intended to help keep works locked up and hidden. That's totally contrary to its aims. See for example, deposit requirements to ensure that the work won't be lost to the public.

And even though my web page may be entirely public, there is a huge difference between that, and page 3 of the national newspaper.

Well, if you mean that sort of page 3, again remember that pictures of people -- regardless of who takes them -- may be subject to publicity rights.

If that's the sort of thing you're aiming to protect, that's fine, but don't try to stuff it into copyright is all. Develop a different regime that's better suited to your aims.

Oh good...

[Quaoar]

So now the prison system will be keeping DANGEROUS FILE SHARERS off the streets, while at the same time Los Angeles is releasing thousands of prisoners early becuase of a lack of funding. I'm sure glad that John Q. Empeethree won't be hassling our celebrities anymore! Whew!

Same coin, different sides

[aynrandfan]

This is from Hatch's own site . . .

- Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) in introducing the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act" (the "PIRATE Act") to allow the Department of Justice to exercise its existing enforcement powers through a civil, rather than criminal, enforcement proceeding.

Does anyone need more proof that the Republicans and Dems have become just two sides of the same coin? After this, I don't trust them to do much of anything right. *sigh*

Re:Same coin, different sides

[The Monster]

Republicans and Dems have become just two sides of the same coin

They've been that way for a while. Fundamentally, they're both in the business of FUDding their core constituencies about the other party's core constituencies, making them so afraid of the 'bad guys' that they have to vote for the 'good guys'.

Philosophically, they enable each other. They want to separate liberty from responsibility.

• Democrats/liberals want people to have freedom in the bedroom, but share the costs of the exercise of that freedom.
• Republicans/conservatives want people to have freedom in the boardroom, but share the costs of the exercise of that freedom.
  [Lewis Black puts it humorously: Republicans want me to make money, but won't let me spend it on drugs and hookers, so what's the point?]

Then the other side claims the cost of freedom is too high, and uses that as an excuse to clamp down on it. The end result is that we end up with less freedom, and the costs of exercising what we have left are diffused throughout the nation, so we get to pay the price for other people's vices instead of our own, without even getting to experience the pleasures.

Couldn't help but notice...

[Faust7]

Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence.

I'll be damned if that doesn't sound just a bit like SCO.

Something shorter?

[LionKimbro]

...you mean, like...

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! ..?

You mean something like that?

Good Thing DVD's are less than $30 each

[PaK_Phoenix]

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.

Re:Good Thing DVD's are less than $30 each

[gilmet]

True, but they'll make the case that you made it available for 493,563,221 downloads for a total intellectual property value of $10,000,000,000 or so.

Re:Good Thing DVD's are less than $30 each

[gilmet]

Thanks, I was just about to say something about that. Can someone remind me again why we impose scarcity on something that is inherently not scarce??

Yet another gun control law...

[tomstdenis]

Last I checked copyright infringement was still illegal. Does society need more laws that state copyright infringement with P2P is now illegal? ... I mean honestly P2P development is strict freedom of speech. Not to mention the good that comes from it [e.g. BitTorrent].

Laws like this make me proud to live in a backwards country such as Canada.

Tom

Re:Yet another gun control law...

[grub]

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!

Re:Yet another gun control law...

[_KiTA_]

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.

Re:Yet another gun control law...

[VValdo]

Last I checked copyright infringement was still illegal.

Yeah, but now it's illegaler.

W

Re:Yet another gun control law...

[tomstdenis]

"illegaler".

Touche. I can just imagine the senate now... "my bill is bigger than yours! Yeah well my lobbying can beat up your lobbying!"

[in the middle of the floor, two tall senators and one short citizen in the middle]

Tall1: Keep away, keep away!
Tall2: Hey hey, hehehe come get it, whoop missed!
citizen: Hey gimme my rights back!!! ;-)

Tom

Re:Yet another gun control law...

[tomstdenis]

Canada is like most other countries. The politicians are corrupt [e.g. voting their own raises, letting Quebec do whatever they want, Liberals misappropriating money] but at least they're not "oh lets kill people to make us more secure" randomly.

On the plus side though we don't have planes smashing into our office buildings...

tom

Re:Yet another gun control law...

[prozac79]

Illegal, yes... worthy of jail time? No. Let's have the punishment fit the crime. Afterall, I can go about speeding in my car and potentially kill someone and I will only get fined $100. You can get completely wasted one night and only spend an evening in jail for being drunk and disorderly in public. But, if you log onto a P2P network and download a song, you get your entire life ruined because you are now a convicted fellon? And imagine the strain on the legal system if this started happening on a large scale. Heck, I would be pissed if I were a judge and had to sit through another case of "The City of Los Angeles vs. Molly Parker for Copyright Infringement in the 2nd degree".

Bad idea...

[ameoba]

Any law that simultaniously lowers the burdens of proof while raising penalties seems like a fundamnentaly bad idea.

Tho, I guess after the War on Drugs put a generation of poor & minority youth in prision, they have to do something that has the same effect on whites & the middle class, lest they look racist (not an easy trick for a Republican from Utah to pull off).

It's time

[ericdano]

It's time to start outsource all that file sharing......just like all these companies are outsourcing jobs......

Re:It's time

[KD5YPT]

A lot of file sharing originated in foreign country. (hate to say this, but I think Taiwan will have a huge network, for one I came from there, and for two, they have lousy copyright enforcement).

Re:Ways around this

[DRUNK_BEAR]

Hello, this is your wake up call to reality. Do you really think a clause will stop law enforcement from finding criminals? Then commit a crime and put a clause on your doorstep that no law enforcement is to enter your home. Stay inside your home and get someone to do your stuff for you (groceries, etc). You should then be able to get away with free crimes!! Right???

We all know this is unreasonable

[bigberk]

DMCA... PIRATE... Who do you think owns your country? I don't mean to offend you geeks in the US and EU, but your governments perpetually place the interests of large corporations above citizens. Your government is not acting in your best interest. Tell your elected officials that you disagree with what they are supporting, and command them to stop.

Re:We all know this is unreasonable

[Zed2K]

"Tell your elected officials that you disagree with what they are supporting, and command them to stop."

Yeah I already tried that, got a letter back basically saying I am wrong and he is right and because he is an elected official he knows what's best for me. They are all the same, the elected ones, the ones running for election, all of them.

Re:We all know this is unreasonable

[jasonbrown]

"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.

Re:We all know this is unreasonable

[geminidomino]

Every time I hear something like this, a little bit more of me almost wishes the plane woulda reached the Capitol building...

Re:We all know this is unreasonable

[Elivs]

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

Nobody will need broadband if this passes :-)

[OneInEveryCrowd]

Heck, I'll just cancel my dsl and join a health club or something. If I just wanted to surf I could use the computer at the San Jose public library or at work.

Hopefully the Japanese companies don't go after the fansubbers if this happens.

"Enshrined in our Constitution."

[LionKimbro]

"It is critical that we bring the moral force of the government to bear against those who knowingly violate the federal copyrights enshrined in our Constitution."

Yeah. I'll feel guilty about it, when the fed actually proves that copyrights exist in order to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

It sure doesn't feel like limited times.

You've heard it before. And you'll hear it many times over again.

Re:"Enshrined in our Constitution."

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has altered the time span for copyrights a minimum of 40 times. At this point, the current limit is 95 years. Effectively, that is approaching unlimited, as any work created within our lifetime cannot be utilized effectively to promote the idea of the creator by anyone.

With congress's actions in increasing limits every time Valenti gives them a few bucks, the copyrights have, for all intents and purposes, become perpetual.

Even the British had more sense than that, with Queen Annes copyright limits taking precedent over the booksellers objections. Pity Congress cannot look past their campaign account, and look instead to the rights of the people of the US.

Copyright extensions at this point in time defeat the desire of the framers of the constitution, and thus are unconstitutional. By making copyright limits (de jure) unlimited, they have failed to uphold the constitution.

14 year old Johnny, sitting at home listening to downloaded music is not a terrorist, nor a pornographer, nor a criminal. The real criminals are the congressmen who vote by proxy for Jack Valenti and The MPAA/RIAA cartel, to perpetuate a legalistic imagery that is basically feudal in concept.

Jack Valenti represents the most malicious, vicious, and virulent breed of terrorist this planet has seen. With one stroke of a pen, he can pay congress to enact a minimum of 60 million American citizens into the ranks of the criminal. Your rights are reduced, as you are obviously a criminal, and you have no recourse, as you cannot afford $250.000 for a defense.

Jack Valenti is a traitor to the constitution of the United States, and should be arrested, charged, and tried for that treason.

Re:"Enshrined in our Constitution."

[smchris]

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.

Regarding the issue of control...

[Faust7]

"Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives,

Well, in some sense they always will be. We're consumers, the objects of our consumption need an origin, and corporations are that origin. How they choose to design products, manufacture products, market products, and lobby for legislation regarding products will always exert an incredible level of completely transparent control over our lives.

It's up to individual consumers to render that control opaque -- but total opacity is very, very, very difficult.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[AmigaAvenger]

we USED to be consumers, that is the old model of thinking at least. The current trend is that once a industry has a stranglehold on the consumer, we become the enemy, the opponent, since no natural opponent no longer exists.

think of all the current examples of the huge media conglomerates which are doing things to screw the consumer. what is stopping them... nothing. consumer backlash no longer means anything.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[Moofie]

What planet are you on?

The cable company.
The phone company.
The electric company.
Microsoft.
Viacom.

These companies have NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER to the public. They can do whatever the hell they want, pass whatever laws they want, charge whatever prices they want, and people don't have another option.

What do they have in common? They're all monopolies. Those are bad, remember?

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[clifyt]

"We USED to be consumers, that is the old model of thinking at least. The current trend is that once a industry has a stranglehold on the consumer, we become the enemy, the opponent, since no natural opponent no longer exists."

We become the enemy when we are no longer consuming, but also competing.

P2P is competition, not consuming.

Face it, the average consumer out there really doesn't understand what goes into making a product -- even folks that SHOULD know what goes in to a product claim that since its all easily reproduced electronic bits, there really isn't any value in it.

When consumers start being competitors with no way of stopping them, something needs to change.

Think about it this way -- if one or two folks go into a store and shoplift, its a problem. BUT if they get caught, they get a light sentence. Now, what if hundreds went into stores and shoplifted as if it were institutional values? Several magnitudes above previous levels. Folks believed that they would never get caught because the law enforcement couldn't deal with this crime. So, what does law enforcement do knowing they can't police everything? They put a few shoplifters to death...err...a good deal bigger punishment than is really appropriate for the level of the damage *THEY* did...it would be a deterent.

The laws are not just there to punish the guilty, but to be a deterent. Sometimes one has to make an example of someone just to stop others.

Then again, I could just be a bit pissed off right now. I just found out last night some dumb motherfucker is selling software I sell to keep my website alive for $14 on eBay. He packaged about $100 worth of my software (as well as others that do sound design that I'm friends with), and claiming that he should be free to do it because he's not really making a profit -- he's only recouping his cost from burning the discs and sending them out. And thats not even the levels of P2P -- so far, according to his profiles, its only 2 dozen people that will never need to buy my stuff because they have it for almost free.

Theft is theft. If thieves were going into each and every one of your neighbors houses day and ripping them off every day, I can guarentee there will be some dead thieves and a lot of people applauding -- well except for the thieves who will be claiming that civil rights are being taken away and everyone else is a bunch of nazis.

If you want to talk about huge conglomerates screwing over the average consumer, you better be sure that the average consumer isn't fucking things up for those few honest consumers out there first...

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[_Sharp'r_]

There's another simularity you're missing.

All of your listed companies except Microsoft are government created monopolies. Microsoft is easily the most customer-oriented of your list, even if in some ways the screw people.

So blame the main source of the problem, too much government intervention and control, leading to bought politicians to excercise it on someone's behalf.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[richieb]

Theft is theft.

Correct. But copyright violation is not theft. If it were, we wouldn't need new laws. Theft is already illegal.

Read about the use of words here

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[squiggleslash]

AT&T had a monopoly before it accepted government regulation - which it considered a necessary evil. Since then, the government has repeatedly tried to find ways of reducing its regulation of that sector by trying to force Bell and its successors to create competitive environments.

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.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[red floyd]

Stolen from someone's sig...

I am not a "consumer". I am a CITIZEN of the United States of America.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[cgenman]

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.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[zagmar]

Hey, looks like someone didn't read Neal Stephenson's article "Mother Earth, Motherboard" in Wired a few years ago. See, AT&T did not "accept" government regulation. They were a government sponsored monopoly, like most telephone companies in the world. Then, in the 1970's/1980's, the government prosecuted them as a monopoly and broke them into the baby bells. The reason that you don't see new cable being laid by startups is that it is expensive, and competing in a market that is already dominated by a few players does not look good on your VC application. Plus, there is a law that says that local monopolies have to provide competitors space on their networks at a comparable cost to their own maintenance.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[_Sharp'r_]

Telephone: Every heard of a public utility commission? That's the government group you have to get permission from to start a phone company. They'll be the ones telling you what services you are allowed to offer at what rates, if they allow you to do anything at all. Long-distance telephone has gotten better recently, but while deregulation efforts have started in some areas to get rid of the monopoly, in many parts of the U.S. there is only one choice for your phone company simply because the government still says so.

Electricity: Very similar to the phone monopolies, a little deregulation in some aspects, but still largely a monopoly with no choice of local carrier enforced by the government. In fact, in many places, electricity and water are provided directly by the local government.

Cable: Sorry, but if you tried to start a new local cable company, your local government would stop you. A quick Google on "cable television monopoly" reveals plenty of sources. Try the one from an attorney challenging cities ability to award a cable monopoly.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[cbreaker]

"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.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't really compare shoplifting to copying a CD. I mean, if somebody was going into houses and COPYING all the furniture and everything, that's fine.

The analogies just don't square up.

Our society is based on private property, because private property is the bases for accumulating wealth, and accumulating wealth is part of capitalism.

You can always guard your private property. Bury it in the ground. Stand by it with a gun. Etc. But once you get to music, words, etc, you can't do that any more. You can't say "I'd like the world to hear my ideas, but I don't want the idea to spread unless I get paid". This type of "property" is not really property. It requires massive government power to keep it going, to enforce the contracts which directly oppose the natural activity of people. It's just a fact of nature that information can be copied. I can learn a folk song and play it for a kid, and then he's learned it too. I can't do that with a bar of gold. It's him or me in that case.

So, being a computer programmer and (amateur) musician, I can appreciate the feeling of wanting to call on the "guys with the guns" to help you out. But it's a losing cause.

If you don't want people copying your stuff, you just have to keep it to yourself. But the beauty of the free market is that someone will eventually step in and replace you. Too bad for you!

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[AstroDrabb]

Believe me, I do not like this "PIRATE Act" either, but it is a piece of legislation and needs to be addressed that way. Write a letter to your senators / presidential candidate.

For this to be effective, remember to include a personal check for no less then $10,000 USD!

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[zerocool^]

Theft is theft. If thieves were going into each and every one of your neighbors houses day and ripping them off every day, I can guarentee there will be some dead thieves and a lot of people applauding -- well except for the thieves who will be claiming that civil rights are being taken away and everyone else is a bunch of nazis.

If you want to talk about huge conglomerates screwing over the average consumer, you better be sure that the average consumer isn't fucking things up for those few honest consumers out there first...

Theft is theft. Peer-to-Peer is not theft.

If you have an apple, and I take it away from you, the number of apples in the global sense has not changed; the change is purely relative: I have one more apple than I had previously, and you have one less apple than you had previously.

If, on the other hand, you have an apple, and I clone the apple, the global number of apples has increased. You have not lost an apple, but I have gained one.

There is no theft involved in the 2nd.

I'm not going to try and claim to you that you're in the wrong here. It would fall on deaf ears anyway. However, if I asked you to prove that you're losing money because of P2P or whatever, you'd have to show that everyone that "pirates" your software would have bought it in the first place.

I.E. if I download a copy of Maya or something off of a P2P network, I know that I have done something illegal (copyright infringement), however, I also know that the company has lost no money from this act, as I would never have bought it in the first place.

Please remember two things about peer-to-peer:

1.) The vast majority of illegally copied software and multimedia files would not have been purchased at the asking price; therefore corporations in reality lose very little money.
2.) Very few pieces of software are worth the asking price, and even fewer corporations need the price that they're asking. It is this exhuberant overpricing that drives many people to download.

Case in point: It is illegal to download photoshop. It is also absolutely absurd that it costs $600. It's not worth $600, and Adobe doesn't need $600 per copy.
Case 2 in point: Windows. It is illegal to download windows. It is also absurd how much money it costs - $100 per copy. Times millions of copies a year. Microsoft doesn't need that money. Microsoft has $36,000,000,000 in the bank, in cash. If they never, ever sold another piece of software, they could continue as a corporation, and pay all of their employees at their current salary rates, solely on the interest of the money they have.

So, in closing. Downloading software is illegal. Fucking consumers is immoral.

~Will

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[core plexus]

The cable company. No problem there-I don't subscribe. I had cable when I lived in the city, and found something like 120 channels of shit, and rehashed shit. I only watch a few shows each week on broadcast, since I get my news and other information from the net, and my movies on demand are from one of the many rental outlets hereabouts, but I have lived without either for more than a year at a time while working some jobs. One finds other activities.
The phone company. I belong to a member-Owned Cooperative. We all get a check at the end of the year, after the money is plowed back into improving infrastructure. We are all shareholders, and have the same share. And we can vote or raise hell whenever we want. I have excellent phone/FAX/DSL/Cell way out in here in rural Alaska because of it. Sure, I could choose one of the corporate-nonAlaskan-owned services, (assuming they offer DSL) but I'd be stupid to do so. They have proven time and again to be unresponsive to their customers.
The electric company. Same as above, except if I choose, I can generate my own electricity. We've done so at our mine forever.
Microsoft. I use Linux.
Viacom." I think I may have rented one of their videos once.

My point is that we have choices. I turned off my cell and dumped cable. Unfortunately for many people, change is too difficult. I have friends who are on all sorts of drugs for 'panic attacks' and other maladies. I can suggest one month that will cure such troubles.

Here is where I start in the rant about how America had such changes in the 1960's, and then came the 70's, and downhill to the 80's (anything made in 1980's except maybe some music in America was crap-especially cars, heavy equipment, and motorcycles), and then the 90's. Now, something like 45% of the 50% eligible to vote actually show up. Why? What happened?

Maybe Tyler Durden was onto something.

-cp-

How To Change Laws and Regulations

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[Famatra]

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.

Re:Regarding the issue of control...

[clifyt]

The average mainstream artist makes no where near $1M a year.

Unless you are talking about the less than 100 artists a year that make it in the top 10.

The average artist has to pay for people like me -- musicians, producers, sound engineers, music techs, studio gophers and otherwise. We don't come cheap -- i.e., we aren't paid like the taco bell employee, and honestly, its not that much more than computer technology jobs -- you need a few dozen of these around to get the job done. Making music is a business. The business might make a million dollars, but there are people to get paid, and investors (and generally, thats what the music companies are -- investors, they give you X amount of money in hopes of recouping their investments).

Most guys I know that are in it for the long haul live pretty modestly. The president of the local home town bank probably brings home more $$$. Guys that are in it for their first hit, spend and over spend and they LOOK like that have a lot of money, until the folks that need to get paid start asking for the money. I know one guy that pays me in gear because he never has any cash -- at least he did until I realized the gear was most likely not his, but on someone elses dime. Its like paying one credit card with another. And then these idiots go bankrupt. Honestly, you and I could live this exact same way for a couple of years if we were given two big credit cards and just kept transfering the balance (I did this the first year I was in college -- $5k in credit card purchases ended up costing me $20k because of it -- I know folks that were a LOT worse -- but I was still an idiot).

Next time you watch MTV Cribs, just realize the banks, the taxman, bankruptcy courts and the little people like me own all that -- it isn't the artist.

As for my crap not being worth the money -- the $14 on eBay. It might not be worth it. I have quite a few folks telling me it is. If its not worth it to someone else, then they don't *NEED* them. No one is going to go hungry, no children are going to be put out of their homes if they can't aquire my products cheaply. Past that, we had to pay a lot of money for licensing for our products. One was a replication of another technology, for which we aquired permission and licensing before we even started. Regardless if it isn't worth it for one person, then they are free to contact the same persons and get the appropriate licensing, or to develop an equivelent that doesn't require any someone elses work. If they can do it cheaper, fine -- I welcome fair competition. Hell, on my website, a *LOT* of our competitors use our forums. A lot advertise on our site -- the idea of the site was a community for folks that created content for a specific group of musicians...most of our competitors are also folks we have worked with or licensed our sounds to for specific areas that they would do better in marketting them.

Competition isn't a problem...unfair competition is. Taking something someone else creates and remarketting it as their own -- or just a free alternative -- is unfair competition.

As for buying a CD with 3 decent songs -- quite honestly, if I spend $12 on 3 decent songs, I'm happy to hear the rest in their original context -- even if they aren't radio friendly. $1 a song is WAY too cheap -- yeah, I use those services, but I'm willing to give a musician my cash for their cd if even a few make me happy. Then again, I know what goes into making music, and thus for me, there is more value in it...the average consumer thinks 4 musicians show up for two weeks and a polished cd comes out of it all by themselves.

Another excuse for throwing your enemies in jail.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Definately the wrong answer...

[gaijin99]

Prison sentences for non-violent crimes seem like a bad idea from every angle I look at them. Prison sentences for stealing a single copy of the new Madonna song sound incredibly stupid.

"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes, but under what odd twisting of logic can it be worse than shoplifting the CD?

We are seeing the music industry going steadily more insane every day, and when something with that much money goes mad life gets interesting. Piracy isn't right, but it is inevitable during the transition between the RIAA and whatever distribution/compensation model we invent to replace it. Draconian laws with punishments as inappropriate as this one wants are definately not the solution to theft of music.

I find it especially ironic that the same congress that can't seem to punish the aristocrats who steal millions from their employees wants to send people to jail for up to ten years for stealing a little music...

Re:Definately the wrong answer...

[Paddyish]

"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes, but under what odd twisting of logic can it be worse than shoplifting the CD?

Sharing on a P2P network is not stealing. Copyright infringement is a completely different issue. Jail time is definately the wrong "solution".

Re:Definately the wrong answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sharing" music on a P2P network is stealing, yes

Well, the record companies would like it if everyone thought that way, so they attempt to make a simplistic analogy between information and physical objects. Our intuitions and ideas about whether it is wrong to take an object away from someone else don't directly apply to merely making a copy of something. There's a good reason we have separate laws for theft and copyright infringment. I strongly urge you not to fall into the habit of treating them as the same thing.

Anyway, the REASON they hate copying more than simply walking into a store and taking a cd out with you is that they can can control the latter, not the former. Control is their game, and they're dead scared their "business model" will go the way of the dodo at any moment. Instead of adapting to the market they are treating millions of good Americans like criminals.

Re:Definately the wrong answer...

[siege04]

Here's a thought.. if we're going to get thrown in jail for downloading a copyrighted song, why not just steal the CD from Wal-Mart? If we get caught the punishment will be way less severe than jailtime.

Re:Definately the wrong answer...

[zymurgyboy]

Prison sentences for non-violent crimes seem like a bad idea from every angle I look at them. Prison sentences for stealing a single copy of the new Madonna song sound incredibly stupid.

Yeah for that non-violent crime, sure. But if come into my house and steal my furniture -- even if you don't kick my ass -- I still want you to go to jail.

Aint Slashdotting great

[Aczlan]

Less than 30 comments and the server running Orrin Hatch's Senate page is slashdotted..... Well now we know where the budget is not being spent

boy, they have balls...

[Roger Keith Barrett]

...the P2P companies are trying to ransom the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue.

This is HILARIOUS! They're accusing P2P "companies" of trying to get a monopoly on music distribution? Isn't that a little like Napoleon accusing Hitler of being a dictator? Holy tamoly, these guys got balls.

Secondly... the fact that they use "companies" shows once again that they don't get it. Computer networks don't have to be sponsored by companies! These lawmakers are so deluded that they not only do they allow corporations to overrun the country, they refuse to acknowledge that indviduals even exist anymore.

It gets worse every day...

Re:Ways around this

[nertz_oi]

are you joking?

read this please.

Consituents speak out

[plankers]

The way to stop this sort of thing is to be a constituent of Hatch or Leahy. If you are one, make it clear to them that they will not get re-elected with behaviour like this. And then tell your neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc. what these two guys are up to, and ask them outright to never vote for them again.

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.

Re:Consituents speak out

[Jaalin]

Leahy's not nearly as bad as this makes him out to be. He's been a great senator for Vermont, and is generally fairly liberal. He's sponsored tons of bills that I love, inluding the PATRIOT Oversight Restoration Act. And I have to admit, the PIRATE act doesn't seem all that bad. It would simply allow civil prosecution, which makes sense in cases where criminal charges seem too harsh. And since the RIAA is filing civil charges anyway, I'd much rather have the Department of Justice investigating and charging than the RIAA.

Re:Ways around this

[mroch]

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.

A serious question.

[mcc]

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

Re:A serious question.

[covox]

Looks like Senator Orrin Hatch is building himself quite a track record (originally with his bulletproof scheme of remotely destroying illegal filesharer's PCs, and the large amount of stolen JavaScript used on his webpage) One can only wonder how long it will take for the suits at the RIAA to come to terms with how they can't shut down or neuter this "internet" thing, no matter how many potential customers they litigate to poverty. Personally, I'm all for a messy, violent demise of the recording industry (and Orrin Hatch, just to be on the safe side), so that my children (and hopefully my children's children) will never have to be subjected to the absolute horror of hearing an 'Australian Idol' finalist sing ever again.

Re:A serious question.

[IamLarryboy]

"* legally"

I assume that you mean according to the laws on the books. However, as an American you have the AUTHORITY and the RESPONSIBILITY to uphold your constitution and your declaration of independence ABOVE any other laws. I believe that this and MANY OTHER LAWS do not honour those documents. It is your duty to remove any representative that votes in favor of such laws BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY including the use of force. As near as I can tell this includes all of them with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

ps: I am sorry for the offtopic post. However, the revolution IS coming whether you want it to or not. You best be prepared.

Prison is a big business

[MacFury]

and, who wants to put in jail?

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.

Re:Prison is a big business

[dryeo]

And if prisons are your business it is much better to fill them up with computer nerds, pot smokers, and other non-violent types. Who wants a bunch of violent prisoners in their prison?

"priracy" "children" "human shields" "pornography"

[Anonymous Coward]

I started to count the usage of each of these words or phrases in the speech but couldn't finish because of nausea.

It seems that he'd like us to believe that we must have this bill to protect children from pornography - although no place does he suggest protecting the IP rights of pornographers from file sharing children. I wonder why not?

Read carefully the paragraph where he justifies government intervention if 1) the level of file sharing becomes particularly egregious; or, 2) public health and safety are put at risk; or, 3) private civil remedies fail to deter illegal conduct. Pay particular attention to each of these - any one of which he claims justifies government action.

"Particularly egregious"? Legally defined as exactly what level of file sharing?

"Public health and safety"? The public well being is threatened by sharing music how?

Author?

[Amorpheus_MMS]

I wonder if it was the MPAA or the RIAA that wrote this one. ;)

Re:one solution..

[ewhac]

Apart from armed rebellion, voting is the only meaningful feedback mechanism you have, and is considerably less messy, so I suggest you use it.

The press has been bought off. Shame is obsolete. Overt corruption has somehow morphed into an asset. Bald-faced lying to the public no longer surprises anyone, much less gets anyone in hot water. And, if you're not careful, voting will become just another CBS/Gallump/Diebold opinion poll, with every bit as much scientific and moral validity.

Don't give up the last lever you have.

Schwab

Yay us!

[Spad]

Slashdotting the US Senate webserver - that's got to be a new high point for /.

amazing,,

[Roger Keith Barrett]

It's really amazing...

When jobs are oursourced overseas or we bring people in with H1 visas they tell us "let the free market decide" and that we shouldn't be "protectionist."

But when one of their corporate buddies starts to have a problem, they pull out the guns. It goes for music as well as drug companies (not allowing us to reimport drugs from Canada is definitely protectionist).

Boy... how long can any of us hold out faith in our government?

not good for SCO

[geekee]

So can Daryl be jailed for p2p sharing of linux under violation of the GPL? GPL is simply a copyright agreement after all.

Great

[Azureflare]

Now, what does this bill accomplish?

Does it go after the big time pirates?

No, because those big time pirates are in other countries.

This bill will enable companies to destroy families by throwing the 16 year old kid in jail for sharing expensive applications.

What harm are file sharers doing to society? Why does their action warrant time in court and/or prison?

I fail to see how this will even help corporations who see piracy as a problem. Often the reason people download expensive software is because they can't afford the price. Sure, that's no excuse, BUT will those companies see increased revenue as result of these actions?

So, what does throwing these kids in jail accomplish?

It just makes our government look like it is under the thumb of the corporate world.

Actually, I think this is good, in a way. Perhaps it will start to move more people towards Open Source applications, where downloading software is not illegal. I honestly think the reason Windows is so popular is because of the initial ability of users to easily pirate the operating system.

I pray for a day in which people will not be put in jail for downloading programs. Perhaps 2005 really is the year of linux?

Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[handy_vandal]

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

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[CrookedFinger]

Or you could continue to take part in the development of newer, more distributed models of power that are more efficient than large corporations...

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[black mariah]

Er... like Socialism? Sounds good to me.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[_Sharp'r_]

The problem is that as we allow the government to gain more and more power over our lives, people who want to use that power for something are more and more attracted to controlling the government and it's leaders.

The excuse is always that the government will be able to "help" solve a problem, but just needs to excercise some more power, so that well-intentioned individuals go along with it. Of course, then they go home and those with vital interests at stake take over the power-wielding functionaries.

The only long-term solution is to strictly only allow a government enough power to enforce basic protection of individual freedoms and nothing more. Otherwise, the excercise of power "for good" invariably becomes simply the excercise of power for the highest bidder or the most interested.

See The Road to Serfdom.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[Fnkmaster]

Corporations are more efficient at creating wealth than nation-states, but they are essentially just an expression of capitalist tribalism within the nation-state. They aren't necessarily or always more efficient at maximizing happiness or utility or any of the other measures of what is "good" in the world than the nation-state.

Laissez faire wasn't handed to us by the gods, and it doesn't necessarily maximize utility within the nation-state to adopt that position. I don't have an answer to the other poster's challenge about providing better alternatives to the corporate structure for efficiently organizing economic resources, except to note that especially in the centers of wealth, we are moving to a service-based economy in this country. And services are often better performed in semi-collaborative trade groups or professional service corporations, like legal partnerships and medical practices. I'd love to see better structures for organizing larger, product-oriented companies, such as networks of collaborating service or trade groups that cooperate for mutual economic benefit.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[RickHunter]

Congradulations, are you happy being part of the problem?

Ignore anyone who tells you that you can't do anything. That you're powerless. That its inevitable, that its good for you. Ignore anyone that tells you to sit down, shut up, and eat whatever shit they feed you. Because they're wrong. You can do something, and that's what they're scared of. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.

And no, corporate power isn't better-adapted to its environment than nation-states. To be more specific, Darwinian theories of evolution do NOT apply, as there IS NO ENVIRONMENT. What we have here is a power grab by a small segment of the population, one trying to return us to the "glory days" of late-19th-century Industrial Feudalism. The fact that they're using a philosophy as weak and repulsive as Social Darwinism to support their position is just the icing on the cake.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[petabyte]

You're misusing the definition of a nation-state. A nation is a group of people that feel like they belong together as a group. A state is large government agency. Americans are a nation that have a state. You don't have to have a state to be a nation though - the Palestinans are a nation as are the Kurds (I tried to avoid those examples due to the feelings involved but couldn't think of nothing else).

Anyway, getting back to the matter - a kingdom can be a nation-state, as can a city-state for that matter. The question really becomes how big a group of people do you need to have to be a "nation" but thats neither here nor there.

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.

That quote is deeply disturbing. I can't tell if you're playing Snowball in Animal Farm or the Ministry of Truth in 1984. I'm not about to advocate revolution but sitting back and letting others decide your life has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[Kirijini]

Bullshit.

Regardless of your claim that corporations are more efficient than nation states (which is a whole other argument, and is like comparing apples to oranges), I dispute that we should accept corporations as our government. Why? Because I believe that the best government is that which is for the people, and responsible to them. Efficiency is totally irrelevant - the question of what is the best government is a question of morals, beliefs, passions, and theology, not mathematics and work-motion studies.

Furthurmore, resolving that, since you are an individual, you have neither influence nor potential for influence at a national level is dead-end thinking and as repulsive a philosophy as handing government over to corporations. I could point out that people in power are individuals, and such an empirical argument is enough refutation, but taking it to a normative level is more satisfying: You can say that small scale things, like helping people out of a burning building, or giving directions to lost people, are good and important, but involving yourself in a cause you believe will improve everyones lives, like participating in a campaign to roll back the influence of corporations in national politics, is inherently superior in goodness and importance. I hate to quote a movie here, but "The greatest evil is the indifference of good men."

And finally, it isn't social evolution, it'd be political evolution.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[al.cx]

Corporations are a legal construct within the state. If you do away with the state, then you're also doing away with the corporation.

Let me put it another way; the nation-state *is* the enviroment in which the coporation exists.

Now, If you want an explanation as to what is occuring today...

"Fascism should more properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[fferreres]

We can do nothing.

Yes we can, and we will (I hope). Look at your evolution trend:

Individuals -> Tribes -> Cities -> Kingdoms -> Countries...

Now follow the line of reasoning: ... Countries -> Multicountry pseudo governments (like EU) -> World Government

The trend is for organizations to become wider. The day many people WORLDWIDE are fucked up, because capital respects no country, and cares about nobody, is the day that you'll begin to see a push for a worldwide government that can regulate capitalists worldwide...they will have nowhere to hide.

Some thing will be governed worldwide, some others in a regional way, just like Federal and State governments can peacefully coexist, so will countries. But the shift will not be swift...

The other alternative is that 99% of the population become slaves or exterminated (less jobs available than people, remember automation?).

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[fferreres]

Corporations are more efficient at creating wealth than nation-states

Correction: Corporations and their laws are more efficient at extracting wealth. They do not necesarily create wealth. For example, a company can be granted a monopoly, and become the most valued company on earth (Microsoft as one of the examples). But that does not create wealth at all. They are charging you more than they are offering in return, because you or your other companies have no other option than to pay the extra "price". And all other companies and their citizens earn less. The thing becomes worst with patents, as they can not only extract wealth from everyone else, they can STOP progress by laying mines of restriction on what everyone else in the world can do. That's not only granted by the pantents themselves, but by the assimestric nature of justice (big company dumps 100 millons in lawers and you have to defend yourself with much less...in effect).

So no, companies PER SE, are not better at creating wealth, only humans create wealth, after all, it's all our work.

Re:Social Evolution of Corporate Power

[pla]

Congradulations, are you happy being part of the problem?

Although I agree with your response, you have missed the bigger picture, the one that allows people like us to keep living rather than decorating SCO's or the RIAA's lawn with our ritually-suicided corpse...

The law may side with the corporations (and why wouldn't it, they paid a lot for those laws!), but the current trend in P2P (as well as numerous other areas) shows that, put simply, the average citizen doesn't really give a damn about the law.

I consider this unfortunate, since I consider myself an "anarchist except that governments keep us all from killing one another". But I can't get around it - people consider the "law" the joke it has worked to make itself into. Sad but true.

Corporations have bought laws the same that we might buy the Far Side collection. No less, no more. Well, not quite true - The so-called "law" has the power to imprison those of us who violate corporate profit-rules. But aside from that, look at California. DEA? They've all but started an outright revolution against the federeal government over medical marijuana. Don't feel too surprised to see "fair use" come under similar terms in the next few years.

And corporate-vs-indiviual laws will follow a similar trend in the near future. The DEA just represents on form of that (pharmaceutical companies vs individuals). Next the RIAA will move into the next "necessary evil" position, then perhaps Microsoft. We greatly benefit from their products, but that does not place them above actual humanity.

A revolution has already started. You can ignore it, or fight in it, but if "we" lose (by which "we" means "humans"), you can look forward to a 1984-like future.

Pick a side, because "neutral" means the same as "pro-corporate", whether you like it or not.

Couldn't they have waited...

[ScottSpeaks!]

...to introduce this on Talk Like a Pirate Day?

It was bad enough when legislators just gave their bills doofy Orwellian names like the No Child Left Behind Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or the Defense of Marriage Act. Now we have to put up with nonsense like the Call Responsibly and Stay Healthy (CRASH) Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, and the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN SPAM) Act, and now this. At least geeks recognise the joke value of acronyms such as these. Do our president and legislators?

Another example I ran across today

[coltrane679]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/2954803/detail.html

Wh at ever happened to telling a kid's parents, and letting them kick her ass? Or just exposing her to public shame? Does everything have to involve draconian penalties imposed by the almighty nanny state? The prosecutor fabricates TWO very serious felonies to deliver "justice"--what a joke. The funny thing is, under this logic, if she just took the pictures of herself, and did nothing more, she would still be guilty of the "possession" felony!

Read the article before submitting it

[humblecoder]

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.

Re:Read the article before submitting it

[evilviper]

If you are going to criticize the PIRATE act, first do your homework and learn about it.

Why should we be held to a higher standard than our Senators? They rarely ever read the bills they vote on.

I have only ONE question

[StandardCell]

How many hours did it take Hatch and Leahy to scour a thesaurus for words to be able to spell a meaningful phrase with the letters PIRATE?

Someones been mass doping the public again.

[t_allardyce]

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?

don't split

[Anonymous Coward]

---don't abandon your nation to the greedists and the fascists. If it gets that bad (a revival of the draft would be a biggie IMO), then stay here in the US and fight.

Some of us been in this struggle against the globalist technofuedalist goons for decades, we need more young people to be participants, not just avoiders. Running away is.... well, trying to not sound harsh but it's selfish. The only way evil is ever stopped is to be bigger, smarter, more righteous and brave, stand up to it.

Think about it...

zogger

Re:don't split

[marcilr]

I number of people I know have the same thoughts. The general feeling is when the federal goverment comes knocking for our guns the time will come to use them. It will be interesting to see if the national guard and military will have the stones to shoot their own brothers and sisters. I used to think they wouldn't (kill people that is), but with Powell selling out and the latest round of atrocities, anything is possible. As I get older, and the years ahead are fewer than the years behind, I find myself more willing to sacrifice my own life for what I believe in. Namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.

Prirate Hatch

[ManuelKelly]

Is this the same notorious pirate hatch?

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/20/0046 23 7&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=185&tid= 99

huh?

[Ender77]

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! :)

Draconian desperation

[Saeger]

The media cartels are obviously getting desperate if the best they can come up with is attempting to buy more draconian business-model-preservation law. First the DMCA and the NetAct, and now this.

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)!".

--

Excuse me?!

[nyseal]

'The moral force of the government"? What the hell is THAT supposed to mean? Wow...now I'm REALLY on board with this P2P crackdown thing; especially if the morality of the government brings it's weight to bear. For all those who are in favor of anti-P2P software I suggest this: give campaign dollars to Senator Hatch and let the federal government dictate a prison term for up to 10 years for downloading a song. What a crock.

So the kids will just start smoking pot again

[zakezuke]

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?

unlike SCO

[TubeSteak]

they're tying pornography into all this. What doesn't make sense is their attempts to equate P2P with underage/animal/illegal porn while raising penalties for essentially movies & mp3s. I'd suggest that illegal porn has no value at all, so this law won't cover it, and that under existing copyright law, its very easy to assign anything a value over $10,000... meaning that they're going to fcuk over the 18-25 crowd.

I could understand the law if it was aimed at the release groups operating with 100Mbit lines... but just like SCO, this law would hurt the 'end user' aka the consumer, not the true enablers.

Sounds reasonable..

[-tji]

Public health and safety are also directly threatened by business models that tempt children toward piracy and pornography and then use them as "human shields" against law enforcement.

Umm... Yeah.. P2P users are human shields.. so, this is a risk to public health and safety. Thank you Senator Hatch for bringing this to our attention.

Re:It's only "their" files

[rokzy]

>Would your disdain change at all if it was your single file that was being shared?

there's a response to this kind of argument (as seen on The West Wing):

-if your son/daughter were murdered, wouldn't you want the death penalty for the accused?
-yes, and that's why I don't think that victims' parents should be on the jury

this is the basis of being judged by your peers, not your victims, a principle which is all but lost in corporate-controlled America (and other countries)

Re:one solution..

[AVGVSTVS]

Voting for anything beyond very local government is a waste of time. Even if your votes are counted legitimately (which I seriously doubt), 90% of the time the opposition candidate is just as bad as the incumbant, while there are benefits in switching them around constantly, to continue to participate in thier charade only gives them more ability to claim a mandate. They can stuff thier "mandate" I for one welcome this absurd legislation, as well as the rest, never in the history of this nation has the government trampled so many rights in such a short time, passed all types of legislation essentially marking every citizen as a criminal, and put forward such a sorry lot of "leaders". The danger lies in the slow erosion of liberty, it tends to not be noticed, with the rapidness the current regieme is going about it however, the people DO notice. This is the first time in my life ordinary people openly of armed rebellion in polite conversation. People are waking up to the fact that the 2 party system is a sham, and they are being bled dry by an elite of murderers and thieves who care nothing for those under them. So, as for these new laws, I'm beyond outrage, I'm just waiting patiently for my countrymen to wake up and join me, keep it coming.

US corporations own you

[Anonymous Coward]

I once laughed at the way OCP ran everything in Robocop.

I've stopped laughing...

Re:It's only "their" files

[FullCircle]

My problem is that the fine for shoplifting, or ACTUALLY stealing the CD, carries a minimal fine and a small mark on your record. Possibly a short stay in jail.

Why is it that when the "Intarweb" is involved, legislators suddenly lose touch with reality?

Yes, the record companies do have the right to protect their content. Those laws have been in place for years and did not lock people away for 10 years over 1 track from a $1 CD that they charge $20 for.

The punishment should fit the crime.

Hatch's and Leahy's $$

[macdaddy]

For those that are interested...

Orrin Hatch: TV/Movies/Music $152,360

Patrick Leahy: TV/Movies/Music $178,000

Excuse me while I RTFA

[C10H14N2]

What is going on is that even the evil forces of people like Orrin Hatch are realizing that criminal penalties are _not_ appropriate, that branding "otherwise law-abiding" people as felons for something that is individually rather trivial, but on a massive scale certainly non-trivial. It would behoove people to at least give them the credit for that observation rather than run headlong into Orwellian nightmares. Frankly, I don't feel sorry for anyone involved in this argument. No one is forcing you to play their game, but if you want their products, it shouldn't surprise you that they will do everything to ensure that you play by their rules.

What are we to do? Ignore them. Don't steal their products. Don't buy their products. Don't even listen to or watch their products wherever they might be. In the end, maybe by ignoring them for long enough they'll all go broke and die. In the meantime, get out of the damned house, go to a pub and throw your sheckles in the hats of your local musicians who really DO need the money. Buy their CDs. If you have a business, sponsor their gigs. You might even enjoy life a little more in the process.

Re:Excuse me while I RTFA

[jadavis]

I wish I could mod your posts up.

I haven't purchased any RIAA products or downloaded any music for a long time. I think I tried downloading some music a month ago and the tracks were screwed up (presumably RIAA trying to make it tougher).

Then I thought to myself:
(1) The record companies should be trying to make downloading music difficult, as long as they obey the law.
(2) I don't feel any right to hear their music if they don't allow me to
(3) I really don't need the music. I listen to the radio and that's fine with me.

So, I just gave up. I like music, but I don't need it from the RIAA.

And I agree about the bullshit arguments. If you didn't create the music yourself you have no "right" to it. The artist could have made a CD and threw the original in the furnace and then NOBODY would have it. Instead, they found it in their financial interest to share it with the record companies, who pay the artists solely because they expect consumers to pay them.

And if you want to talk about freedom, consider what has been boycotted in the past. Very noble people would boycott the bus system and walk 10 or 20 miles instead of paying a faire, just to protest their mistreatment. That's sacrifice for the greater good. And nobody in the U.S. seems to be able to boycott some crappy music? If you hate the RIAA so much why keep buying?

I just wrote Sen. Hatch

[John Harrison]

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.

Three problems

[tepples]

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:

• National brick-and-mortar retail chains tend to carry only recordings by "those artists who have signed away their rights."
• Commercial radio tends to play only recordings by "those artists who have signed away their rights," and I know of no promotion mechanism other than commercial radio that reaches captive listeners in moving vehicles in geographic areas whose FM spectrum is too crowded to admit college radio (such as my hometown).
• A singer-songwriter who hasn't signed up with a publisher the size of Warner Chappell often has trouble gaining access to expert musicologists who can verify whether or not a given song is in fact original, given that the space of legally unique melodies is provably finite and that commercial radio taints all listeners with "access", so he has no way of knowing whether it's safe to record a particular song that he wrote. If you don't believe me, ask the estate of George Harrison (read more).

Copyright assraping - always a bipartisan affair

[kaltkalt]

Remember when the Do-Not-Call anti-telemarketing registry was challenged by the terrorist marketing agencies and Billy Tauzin, chair of the House Commerce Committee, remarked that "50 million Americans cannot be wrong" (referring to the 50 million Americans who signed up for the Do-Not-Call Registry)? Well, taking that statement at face value, twice that many Americans download music off of the internet, so therefore downloading copyrighted material cannot be wrong simply because the threshold 50 million Americans do it. Of course, 50 million Americans can be wrong and usually are wrong, but at least with the telemarketing bill Congress was listening to the people. That's its job. Here, Congress is listening to special interest groups whose interests are anathema to much more than 50 million Americans. One more thing to notice is that the PIRATE Act, like all restrictive copyright legislation (such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) that assfuck the rights of Americans, is sponsored by both a Republican and a Democrat. Screwing us on this issue is always a bipartisan affair. That's why these bills are never campaign issues. No matter which party you vote for, you are going to get screwed unless you are the RIAA or MPAA.

PIRATE = something else

[MoFoQ]

Politicians Intent on consumer Rights And True fairuse Elimination.

or more like Paid In full by the RIAA mafia And Their Equals.

wait, didn't this *cough*bought*cough* Sen. Hatch try something similar before and it got swatted down like it deserved?

Even more reason to reform soft-money.

Declaration of war?

[Openstandards.net]

"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?

which country should i be moving to?

[Anonymous Coward]

My conditions:

1: high speed internet access
2: relaxed copyright/pirating issues
3: good food
4: not on US bombing list OR bombers of countries on said list.

there must be somewhere suitable..

Declaration of war

[Openstandards.net]

"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. At a minimum, it sounds like a crackdown on "dissidents". 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?

Leahy WAS one of the 'Good Guys'!!!

[MacDork]

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?

I would give to EFPAC

[tepples]

Not practical. Look at the diversity of opinion on SlashDot

OK, then how about an Electronic Frontier PAC? NORML (the weed law reform organization) has both a charity and a PAC; why can't EFF?

More details

[macdaddy]

Let me give you some more figures:

TV/Movies/Music:
Ranked #7 overall of the industries contributing to the 2002 election cycle with a grand total of $39,902,175. 78% went to Democrats, 22% to Republicans.

You can view TV/Movies/Music's contribution history here.

Who are the top contributor's in TV/Movies/Music? You can find that out here. The top 6 contributors and their funds for the 2002 election cycle are:

Saban Capital Group $9,333,000

Shangri-La Entertainment $6,731,000

Viacom Inc $2,016,891

AOL Time Warner $1,502,806

Walt Disney Co $1,212,364

Vivendi Universal $1,184,249

See anybody we know?

That's just retarded.

[Ayanami Rei]

My opinion has always been thus:

If you want to pirate something or share it with friends, do it on your own dime. Presumably you _want_ your friends to share in whatever cool thing you've discovered, so you'd put out a little to get it in their hands. In the case of P2P, I don't feel bad, it's my bandwidth I'm paying for that people use to download what I choose to let them download. I aim to shed light on the esoteric and underexposed.

Not act as a gatekeeper profiting off someone else's hard work. That's just sleazy.

Republicrats are of one mind about copyright

[tepples]

voting is the only meaningful feedback mechanism you have, and is considerably less messy, so I suggest you use it.

Both the DMCA and the Bono Act had wide support among members of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in both the House and the Senate. They had enough to pass both bills by voice vote, which typically indicates 80 percent assent in each house. What chance does a third political party have of winning a plurality in the Congress?

Make Share Fair

[ClickTheVote]

From the article: "The Pirate Act effectively gives government the authority to use taxpayer dollars to bring civil actions against file sharers on behalf of copyright holders."

We The People can stop this bill and get Congress to focus on solutions that will make P2P sharing legal. The EFF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit so unfortunately they cannot lobby Congress. Click The Vote on the other hand is organized as a (c)(4) specifically for the purpose of lobbying Congress on issues like this.

Everyone should sign Click The Vote's "Make Share Fair" petition that supports legal file sharing. Click The Vote also supports open computing and open standards. Joining Click The Vote is a free and easy way to get involved in a group that will challenge the positions of candidates and elected representatives on issues like P2P file sharing and open computing.

We can make a difference if we band together and make our voice heard in the U.S. Congress and European Parliament. Don't just complain, get involved with Click The Vote !

Get them where they breed

[ElectricPoppy]

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.

consider opting out

[puzzled]

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.

It's a sad day

[imemyself]

When people who are just sharing a couple of files, could be put in prison. People here in the US, write your senators and representitives, hell even if you don't live in the US, just email a few, saying you're one of their consitutents, it wouldn't hurt. If anything the companies like M$, and Adobe, and the RIAA and MPAA should be put in prison for stealing from consumers. The minute amount that may or may not be taken from those companies profits by P2P, is nothing compared to the price gouging that they do. Just look on M$'s website under the corporate section. It says 10 billion dollars in quarterly revenue. Do you really think they need any more? And hell, I'm a republican. Maybe also email judges and governors, asking them to challenge this bill.

From Hatch's website

[focitrixilous P]

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.

that's a good start, but...

[pb]

I think we need *more* laws like this. For example, how about this one:

Any Congressman who receives $10,000 or more from the RIAA should be put in jail...

Well what do you think of Larry Lessig now?

[argoff]

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.

Re:Well what do you think of Larry Lessig now?

[argoff]

I bet you're not one of the following.

1. Author
2. Artist
3. Programmer
4. Painter

Without copyright, I will bet pretty soon, there won't be much of a career as author, artist, nor painter.

Actually, I'm all 4, I've heard that before, and I'm sick and tired of it because it wouldn't matter if I was none, but I'm all and because of that I've seen the crap related to copyrights first hand. (Oh, and PS, the entire renassance happened without copyrights, so where are you comming from)

You know, when people say things like this to me, what it means to me, is that they can't think logically about copyrights - so instead they try probing into my personal life to see if they can find some kind of insincere motive to justify blowing me off and ignoring the facts.
Thanks, but no thanks.

Have faith in economics, not entrenched interests

[silentbozo]

Actually, I'm surprised that instead of supporting and nurturing technologies (like p2p) and liberalizing the restrictions on information in support of new industries that can employ lots of US workers, they're supporting legislation that will drive these industries offshore, thereby shifting what could have been US jobs overseas.

Consider how much economic activity was generated by the whole Y2K thing, and by how much economic (ie, hardware purchases, purchases of broadband) by Napster. These events, although by themsleves, did not contribute a lasting economic impact, the investments that they induced people to make (ie, always on internet, faster computers, more computers everywhere), created a ready market for all those internet companies that survived the shakeout - ie, Amazon, eBay, etc.

For an example of how US restrictions have nurtured overseas industries, look at India's pharmecuticals industry, which went from generics and copying patented drugs, to partnerships with US companies to conduct research, manufacturing, and clinical trials. A similar gap is happening in embryonic stem cell research. China is driving development of new video entertainment technologies because they don't want to be beholden to US patents on every unit they sell (ie, Dolby, MPEG2, etc.)

The early movie industry was based on what the movie companies would now call "piracy". Songwriters at the turn of the century decried recording technology as theft of the songwriter's trade. Basically, whole industries have all, at one point or another, been accused of unfairness (ie, unfair competition, destroying jobs, etc.) Many, if not all of them, have spawned far more jobs and economic wealth than the industries that preceeded them.

Instead of turning back the clock at the behest of monied interestes, and setting US economic progress back years, if not decades, we should be liberalizing our laws. The idea that to effectively promote a new music act, or book, or movie, requires a whole bunch of money and time is no longer true (the demise of the multiple layers of distribution between recording artist and the now defunct corner record store - which didn't exist one hundred years ago, is an example of that.) Regarding research, investment, and development - the money will ALWAYS be invested when investors smell money - the fact that they will have to recoup their money faster, or will have to contend with more competition merely drives more competing efforts, which means MORE JOBS FOR EVERYONE, MORE CHOICE FOR CONSUMERS, and A MORE EFFICIENT ECONOMY.

Current inmates support bill

[obsid1an]

The new influx of skinny white, 18-25 year old males is sure to make the current prison population happy.

Speaking of phone utilities (Case In Point)

[lysium]

Just in case anyone needs a reminder of the value produced by a no-bid contract with a monopoly:

Last night Verizon-NYC upgraded software systems on the phone network. Unforunately the 911 crashed hard and did not come back up. The backup system was, regrettably, also incompatible with the software upgrade. So for all of a busy Friday night in a city of 8+ million people, callers to 911 received a busy signal. Who cares to guess how many people were killed by Verizon last night?

===---===

I wrote to My Senators, write to yours.

[swirlyhead]

My letter:
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 $name

you can find your senators by following this link

Since Reading the Article doesn't help

[PetoskeyGuy]

You might as well read the actual draft. Not that it's going to stop the clueless first post who like to comment on their first impression of a single paragraph. :oP

Forgive the formatting, /. filters at work.

From thomas.loc.gov
------------------------
S 2237 IS

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2237

To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, to authorize civil copyright enforcement by the Attorney General, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 25, 2004

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, to authorize civil copyright enforcement by the Attorney General, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF CIVIL COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 506 the following:

`Sec. 506a. Civil penalties for violations of section 506

`(a) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may commence a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who engages in conduct constituting an offense under section 506. Upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, such person shall be subject to a civil penalty under section 504 which shall be in an amount equal to the amount which would be awarded under section 3663(a)(1)(B) of title 18 and restitution to the copyright owner aggrieved by the conduct.

`(b) OTHER REMEDIES-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, injunctive, common law or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person;

`(2) OFFSET- Any restitution received by a copyright owner as a result of a civil action brought under this section shall be offset against any award of damages in a subsequent copyright infringement civil action by that copyright owner for the conduct that gave rise to the civil action brought under this section.'.

(b) DAMAGES AND PROFITS- Section 504 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (b)--

(A) in the first sentence--

(i) by inserting `, or the Attorney General in a civil action,' after `The copyright owner'; and

(ii) by striking `him or her' and inserting `the copyright owner'; and

(B) in the second sentence by inserting `, or the Attorney General in a civil action,' after `the copyright owner'; and

(2) in subsection (c)--

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting `, or the Attorney General in a civil action,' after `the copyright owner'; and

(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting `, or the Attorney General in a civil action,' after `the copyright owner'.

(c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 506 the following:

`506a. Civil penalties for violation of section 506.'.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDING FOR TRAINING AND PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) TRAINING AND PILOT PROGRAM- Not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop a program to ensure effective implementation and use of the authority for civil enforcement of the copyright laws by--

(1) establishing training programs, including practical training and written mat

Next step: socialism

[gad_zuki!]

>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.

Auto-generated response

[Safety Cap]

"The `Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004' (aka the PIRATE Act) is designed to criminalize P2P filesharing by lowering the burden of proof for law enforcement and proposing jail terms of up to 10 years."

This article advocates a

( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting copyright violation. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws based upon your lack of understanding how the internet works.)

(x) People outside the reach of US law can easily continue to swap copyrighted works
( ) Networking and other legitimate p2p uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or slam him in the clink
(x) It is defenseless against encryption/sourcehiding
( ) It will stop p2p sharing for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of p2p networks will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from ISPs
( ) Assumes that no Freenet-style p2p networks will be developed
( ) Many p2p filesharers are children; when you bust them they will be paraded on TeeVee as an example of government excess
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the internet
( ) Open p2p networks in foreign countries
( ) Ease of developing circumventive technology
( ) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new laws
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all monitoring approaches
( ) Extreme availability of copyrighted files online
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme intelligence of people who will fight you
( ) Kazaa

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on filename matching is unacceptable
(x) Network protocols should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Witchhunts suck
(x) We should be able to trade indi songs (that they themselves post to p2p) without being busted
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sharing any non-copyrighted files should be allowed
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Roving bands of vigilantes tend to attack more innocent people than those who are committing crimes
( ) I don't want the government monitoring my net access
(x) Supporting a failed business model via the legal system is not sustainable over the long term (see SCO)

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.

The automobile as analogy

[mindlessrabble]

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.

Do somthing then

[gremlins]

If you don't like this then we can do somthing about it Contact your Reps If every slashdoter over the age of 18 that lives in the US emails them or calls them we can make a diffrence. Its up to you.

time

[jcgf]

don't rapists usually get less than ten years? this is ridiculous.

Shifting cost away from RIAA/MPAA companies?

[thisissilly]

This is about Justice Department doing criminal prosecutions against P2P filesharers -- that means the RIAA/MPAA no longer have to foot the bill for lawyers to sue Joe Shmoe (x10000). Instead, as a criminal matter, the cost is born by the Justice Department, hence the US taxpayer winds up having to pay the bill, no matter how many lawyers it will take.

Winners and losers:

Justice Department gets more funding, more cases, can claim to be "tough on crime". Winners.

RIAA/MPAA no longer have to shell out bucks to sue people, they just report them to the Justice Department. Winners.

Court system, clogged already, gets further clogged with 1000s of P2P cases. Losers.

US Taxpayer has to pay for procsecuting P2P file shares. Losers.

P2P file sharers now get criminal records. Think about all the losses that brings in US society. In some states, that includes the right to vote. Big losers.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: the move of copyright infringment from civil law to criminal law is one of the most nasty and dangerous changes in recent copyright laws.

Re:one solution..

[fferreres]

It's starting NOT to make sense to vote. You can only choose a Mix, each politician is a mix. What we want is not to opt for "War to Irak, but No PIRATE Act) or (Patriot Act, but no H1 visas), etc.

What we need is to choose exactly what people want, not what people we want. Voting for people is no longuer working, because the scope is now too broad. Not everyone can know about everything, but if 500 guys can rule everyone, why cannot we make a change and force those 500 guys to vote what their supporters want (ie: they must obey their masters, the citizens).

Ubiquitous access to a network could solve the problem, the time for direct democracy is now...we don't need representatives anymore.

What I want

[Sycraft-fu]

Is that all of you "fuck them and lock them up" types would go and actually READ our damn Constution. You know, the document that is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the one to which all other laws must adhere and subordinate.

If you were to actually take the time to read it, you would find that in the first 10 ammendments, those that are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, Ammendment 8 states:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

This forms the very heart of our concept of justice. You do not cut off someone's had for stealing a candy bar, you do not kill someone for a simple assult. The punsihment must fit the crime. How then, can you possibly stand by the current law which allows for a statuority fine of $150,000 PER FILE shared? That is CLEARLY an excessive fine. How can you stand by a proposed law that allows for 10 years in jail for sharing files? This is more time than they gave the people who stole (which deprives someone of property, something filesharing does not) my friend's car?

What's more if you were to read the Constituion you would find it allows for copyrights to exist and describes what they are. It does this in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 Which says that congress shall have the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

It is then quite clear that current copyright law does NOT meet that standard. The time is quite clearly obscenely long (life +50 years) and therefore not the limited times the Constitution demands, and it has been twisted in such a way (the DMCA) that it no longer is used "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" but rather to attempt to maintain absolute control.

The Constituion is above all other laws, and the rights, and limitations, it lays down cannot simply be legislated away. Federal, and all other, law is subordinate to it. Copyright law as it stands is unconstitutional and therefore MUST be changed.

So quit with the "evil filesharers" crap. What they are doing my be against the law, but it is a law that has become unjust, and just because something is against the law does not mean that the punishment can be anything a coperation wants.

As a final note: If copyright infringement is such a problem, why did the media industry make more money when Napster was active and less after it was shut down? (it's a rehetorical question)

Coincidence?

[Adam9]

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?

I hear that in some countries...

[Quiet Sound]

"The bill was introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, both of whom received large contributions from the entertainment industries."

I hear that in some countries corruption is not only illegal but that corrupt politicians go to great lengths to hide their crookedness. Probably just a rumor though.

Re:It's only "their" files

[Anonymous Coward]

Would your disdain change at all if it was your single file that was being shared?

Ignoring the fact that I *do* have files shared (GPL'd software to be exact), I gotta wonder, what musician out there DOESN'T have any of his/her files shared? Vanilla Ice maybe? Any file or piece of music can be copied instantly at nearly zero cost. And people like music. Therefore.. files will be shared. Just like tapes were shared and LPs were shared and thoughts and memories and ideas are shared.

People with your point of view, frankly, don't make any sense. Sure, in some abstract moral plane, everybody who uses the results of some else's efforts is supposed to respect whatever arbitrary rules that person comes up with.

But come on, here in the real world, the files will be shared. You have to start with that as a *given*, part of the assumptions, part of the initial conditions.

Do people like you *really* think that filesharing will stop because of some moral posturing? Or because of stricter and stricter laws?

My opinion on this is simple: If you want to share music for free then make music yourself and share it for free.

My opinion is equally simple: If you don't want your music shared for free, find another line of work. No laws required for that, no prison terms, no sermons from up on high. And totally compatible with the reality of the situation.

But no, here in the US of A, if you don't like something, you pick up the phone, open your checkbook, and buy whatever law you need. Throw in some hollow words about "struggling artist", "property rights", or "child pornography", and wait for the laws to pass.

Look into the future 5, 10, 100 years. Will information ever become uncopyable? No. The corporations will just have to learn to accept it and find something worth selling (like, maybe, a good user experience, a good selection of music, etc., etc, like Apple is trying to do).

I don't blame the people who do what comes naturally. I blame the people like Orrin Hatch and the record labels who insist on pissing into the wind, and then act surprised that they got wet.

Anti-trust

[nfotxn]

In defending the Pirate Act, Hatch said the operators of P2P networks are running a conspiracy in which they lure children and young people with free music, movies and pornography. With these "human shields," the P2P companies are trying to ransom the entertainment industries into accepting their networks as a distribution channel and source of revenue.

I think this is the first admission by the entertainment industry and/or their political cronies of their intention all along. The record and movie industries especially did not embrace digital distribution earlier or seriously enough. What will they do once the PIRATE act (ugh, as if PATRIOT act wasn't sensational enough) is in place and harmless people have ruined lives? They'll start selling digitally distributed content. The MPAA and RIAA want the federal governement to foot their legal bill to control the distribution channel.

Yes, because Frank Still benefits!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your position is that any band should be able to just go ahead and use Frank Zappa's image and name in their own commercial work, without any oversight whatsoever?"

Why not? Or do you think Shakespeare's descendents should get a cut of the Folger's gate?

When does this madness stop? The guy is dead. His stuff should be PD at this point.

Re:Yes, because Frank Still benefits!

[Ubernurd]

When does this madness stop? The guy is dead. His stuff should be PD at this point.

This should answer your question.. It's a table showing what sorts of works from which years are currently in the public domiain. Notice the "without subsequent registration" conditions? I'm willing to bet that Gail is keeping up with the copyright registrations to keep FZ's music out of the public domain.

Translation of "Article"

[Artega VH]

Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leahy in sponsoring the Protecting
Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act (the "PIRATE Act"), a
measure that will provide the Department of Justice with tools to combat the
rampant copyright piracy facilitated by peer-to-peer filesharing software.

Mr. President, I'm going to join with Senator Leahy and prove once and for all
that democrats and republicans are equally as corrupt when enough money is
waved under our noses. Our "owners" would like to stop people giving away
works which don't actually belong to them, but yet, they make a considerable
amount of money from as they signed prohibitively restrictive contracts
with the actual copyright owners. My "owners" would like to continue to
make money (and short of being given access to the money printing press)
want to prevent a tool which can actually harm their monopoly by providing
an efficient way for independant artists to distribute their works.

Let me underscore at the outset that our bill does not expand the scope of the
existing powers of the Department of Justice to prosecute persons who infringe
copyrights. Instead, our proposal will assist the Department in exercising
existing enforcement powers through a civil enforcement mechanism. After
considerable study, we have concluded that this is the most appropriate
mechanism.

Some of us want to lock these pirates up and throw away the key, but others
want to keep them hooked to my "owners" products. So basically we've decided
we want to destroyt their current lives, and still give them a chance to
buy our stuff.

Peer-to-peer file sharing software has created a dilemma for law-enforcement
agencies. Millions of otherwise law-abiding American citizens are using this
software to create and redistribute infringing copies of popular music, movies,
computer games and software.

We think that millions of law-abiding americans are criminals but don't want
to come out and say it like that, so we'll back-hand them instead.

Some who copy these works do not fully understand the illegality, or perhaps the
serious consequences, of their infringing activities. This group of filesharers
should not be the focus of federal law-enforcement efforts. Quite frankly, the
distributors of most filesharing software have failed to adequately educate the
children and young people who use their software about its legal and illegal
uses.

We don't want to harm the stupid ones since they probably don't know how to
cause serious harm anyway. And since most of my constituents are as thick
as two planks and I'd like to be re-elected I don't want this either.

A second group of filesharers consists of those who copy and redistribute
copyrighted works even though they do know that doing so violates federal law.
In many cases, these are college students or young people who think that they
will not get caught. Many of these filesharers are engaging in acts that could
now subject them to federal criminal prosecution for copyright piracy.

There do exist a group of people that would probably never vote for me anyway,
as they think I'm a complete turd, and who happen to be poor because our education
system is up shit creek without a paddle but still enjoy listening to music and
watching movies so they do share alot of these copyrighted works. They know its
wrong but since we continually shaft them most of the time anyway they do it
as a type of protest. Basically we want them to stop.

... But recently, some unscrupulous corporations may have exploited new technologies
and discovered that the narrow scope of civil contributory liability for
copyright infringement can be utilized so that ordinary consumers and children

I need to learn to read a bit more betterer...

[Artega VH]

I thought that said "A PIRATE is introduced to congress" and had visions of a peg-legged, bearded dirty man with a parrot on his shoulder looking around at all the politicians thinking to himself: "So this is what the real pro's look like..."

and really unfair to public transportation...

[rsilvergun]

The free market does not always know best. Car companies in the early twentieth century bought up public transportation and shut it down to force people to buy cars. They're still discouraging pubic transportation from developing even today. This goes against the interest of everyone but a few rich car dealers and manufaturers. All of society is made to suffer because that's how it works in a 'free' market.

And I think you overestimate how smart US citizens are (a remarkably easy thing to do). They don't think too far ahead. When it's really obvious they're getting screwed (like it was with Divx) they don't fall for it. But when it's less obvious (DRM in iTunes anyone?) they fall like a ton 'o bricks. And pretty soon broadband with be ubiquitous enough that they can start phasing out physical media all together. Heck, the Ignorant Masses will probably look forward to that day: no more carrying around 500 CDs. Which is all well and good untill you're paying 5 cents every time you listen to an AAC.

Re:Encourage democracy!

[bigberk]

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.

Fucking Do Something Then!!!

[felonious]

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!!!

Senator Hatch Sings the Hits!

[Flakbait]

Um... yeah. I can't think of a witty comment for this, but here it is. Apparently Sen. Hatch not only wants to support the music nazis, he's also an aspiring artist himself! Right.

The Music of Senator Orrin Hatch

And, as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.

"Who Share a single file"

[Silver_Seagull]

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.

The wording is not as radical as the title

[AZPhysics]

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.

Really neat website, this

[fucksl4shd0t]

You know, I found this really neat website where you can find out all about who your senators and stuff voted for. I'm going to try submitting it as a story to slashdot, since many people ask how to find out this information.

Anyway, you can click on any senate session and see what votes were taken. Then you can click to find out how each senator voted.

Here ya go

God bless the idiots...

[fluxrad]

who will respond to your post in the following manner:

"But wait! Think of his wife and kids! They too must be allowed to benefit from Frank's work!"

AFAIC your kids get the money and material goods you made when you die. Nothing more, nothing less. All the "IP" you created goes to the world, lest we be forced to pay Mozart's great-great-great-great grandchildren for Requiem.

If Frank fucking Zappa doesn't want some band to use his music or image...he can tell them himself ;-)

Re:God bless the idiots...

[mst76]

> Novels, inventions, music, art all becomes public domain the day you die.

That would create an incentive for Disney et al to employ hitmen (if they haven't already).

Re:God bless the idiots...

[A Naughty Moose]

Novels, inventions, music, art all becomes public domain the day you die.

Which is pretty short sighted.

Take the situation where someone writes the great american novel, and their spouse takes care of them financially.

Now assume that the author is finished with the book and is in negotiations with a publishing house, unfortionatly, before a contract could be signed, the author drops dead from a heart attack.

According to you, the publishing company is in the clear to go ahead and publish the book, and make millions, while the spouse of the author gets nothing, even though they sacrificed much time and money to support their spouse. Why should the spouse be screwed out of their fair share of the profits of their spouses work?

So STOP being fans - they sold their freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

It is absolutely pathetic that the great majority of you people obsess over this issue just because you happen to be fans of musicians who have sold out.

These musicians signed contracts. They knowingly, willingly, and eagerly, sold their rights to make money, to "make it big", and to "life the lifestyle".

Why are you fans of these people? Why do you give a shit about the content they produce? They are sellouts in every sense of the term.

They - all of them - are perfectly capable of allowing free taping and distribution of live performances, allowing free distribution and modification of studio albums, or releasing all of their content under one of several available Creative Commons licenses.

Just give it up. These artists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be "cool" with the fans, but at the same time they want the big money that only comes with selling their material to a big label under exclusive and draconian protections.

Any artist that tells you they really want their music to be "free" are saying this in spite of their desire to have all the things that come with big label money.

They obviously have made their choice. Their choice is that big label money is more important than freedom.

It is better to make music in your freetime, work a partime job, and make music for the sake of freedom.

This is why I have abandoned not just the music industry, but also the want-to-be music industry bands; in other words: every last one of them who do not release their music under a full and unrestricted copyleft license.

Senator Hatch is the world's biggest hypocrite

[jfern]

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.

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/congre ss .memos.reut/

Someone Help Me Understand

[Etriaph]

How can a single track, let's say Days Go By by Dirty Vegas, be worth $10,000.00? Why can't users caught with illegal tracks have to pay the market price for the digital media, say, $1.00 a track? Isn't that fair? If I had 2GB of MP3s, OGGs, or other, I would have roughly 571 songs (at 3.5MB a pop on average). So why not pay the $571.00 for the digital music?

I don't understand how the RIAA can place a value that high on a single track when someone can easily get it from iTunes for $1.00. Any ideas?

It is obvious:

[torpor]

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 Sovietization of America

[alizard]

We're heading for a situation where we have the kind of informational monitoring and control imposed on us that the Soviet nomenklatura could only dream of in the service of capitalism. DRM, content monitoring, "trusted" operating systems, and ridiculously dispropriate extensions of copyright both in time and penalties didn't happen because there was any public demand for them.

Throw in the restrictions of civil liberties like PATRIOT Act, CAPPSI/II, TIA we were told would "protect" us against terrorism.

How much input does a citizen who can't afford to be a major campaign contributor have on the political decisions made that affects him? What kind of meaningful choice do we have between the GOP President and his "challenger", a member of the Democratic Leadership Council that changed the Democratic Party's political message to "a kinder and gentler GOP policy"?

How long before the average American citizen has no more freedom for meaningful political action than a Soviet Union citizen had?

People generally ignore laws when they know that there's no meaningful way to get them fixed. In a democracy, if public behavior doesn't fit the laws, it's the laws are supposed to get changed. If the laws don't change, something's wrong with the democracy. The fact that this bill is being taken seriously because the *AA organizations have paid off quite a few politicians rather suggests that things have gone radically wrong.

Waste of resources

[nurb432]

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.?

War on Music Sharing

[greystormcloud]

Coming soon to a street scene near you the sequel to "The War on Drugs". It is the "The War on Music Sharing" - they live amongst us, they go to the same school as your children those evil people on the dark side of society. They are the mp3 pushers. Hey man can i score some mp3's!

A boycott would flush this sewage down the toilet

[dcavanaugh]

Nobody NEEDS the entertainment industry. The sooner we stop buying their crap, the sooner we get our rights back.

Obligatory G. B. Shaw quotation

[orzetto]

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.

Reasonable men try to adapt themselves to the world; unreasonable men try to adapt the world to themselves.
Therefore, all progress is due to unreasonable men.

What acronym can we think up this time, boys?

[AmunRa]

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...

Re:Umm no...

[Thing 1]

If their products are absurdly overpriced, why do you need absurdly overpriced products? A Ferrari is absurdly overpriced too, does that mean you should illegally acquire one? Do you need a Ferrari? Or do you just want one because it's a damn good car, but you can't afford it?

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.

a few thoughts

[gotscheme]

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.

The RIAA can't go after cover bands

[rustman]

Do not confuse the multiple copyrights that make up a song.

There is the copyright on the musical composition AND the copyright on the sound recording.

Musical compositions are licensed by BMI, ASCAP and SESAC in the US, and there are compuslory rates paid by all venues that play any kind of music.

Sound recordings are licensed by Sound Exchange (for compulsories- e.g. satellite radio and webcasting) and by the copyright owner (usually the record company) for other uses (e.g. sampling).

Cover bands are not dirivative works. Cover bands are allowed to perform the copyrighted material created by a composer, but the composer gets paid through the monies collected by BMI, ASCAP and SESAC.

No paperwork is required for a band performing a cover live.

Recording those covers is a different issue, but still there are statutory rates of 7.5 cents per song per record. Some paperwork is required.