Slashdot Mirror
PIRATE Act Introduced in Congress
certron writes "Xeni Jardin has written a story for Wired about the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" aka the PIRATE Act. It and another related bill are designed to criminalize P2P filesharing by lowering the burden of proof for law enforcement and proposing jail terms of up to 10 years. The bill was introduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, both of whom received large contributions from the entertainment industries. Under the bill, even sharing a single file (if a judge decides the value is over $10,000) could land a user in jail. Read the full text of Orrin Hatch's remarks."
A bunch of college kids are sharing copyrighted corporate products (music and maybe movies), so we have to put them in prison because people who share music and movies online are a bunch of child molesters and terrorists. Yeah, makes sense to me.
This is the kind of thing that Frank Zappa warned us was going to happen.
Sure, we say it all the time, "Corporations are running the country," meaning that corporations have undue influence over lawmakers; but it's getting to the point that we're going to have to find a stronger statement, like "Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives, using the government and their nearly exclusive control of all media content to keep it that way." Or something shorter if we can think of it.
Mein Gott, what can we do?
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
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.
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...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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...
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
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!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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*
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
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.
The coolest voice ever.
...you mean, like...
..?
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
You mean something like that?
The fact that they sell the 'intellectual property' in question for far less than $10000, could go quite a ways toward minimizing the worth of said content.
This space intentionally left blank.
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
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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).
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
It's time to start outsource all that file sharing......just like all these companies are outsourcing jobs......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
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???
DrkBr
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
The coolest voice ever.
Million and millions of Americans take part in the sharing of illegal programs/music/movies on the internet, often without their knowledge. At the risk of sounding hackneyed, this kind of law makes it even easier for "Big Brother" to throw potential troublemakers in jail.
Hmmm, doesn't anybody remember when the EFF used to argue that we shouldn't hold P2P tech accountable for how some may misuse it? And that they themselves suggestted suing infringers rather than the technology?
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
"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...
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
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
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote
...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...
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
are you joking?
read this please.
The rest of the country cannot get these two corrupt, entertainment industry pawns out of office. Only Vermont and Utah residents can. Do not re-elect these two. While it might seem they are doing good, they are doing long-term damage to the country, including your states.
Send a message to Leahy
Send a message to Hatch
Please do it now before these two turn the U.S. citizens into entertainment industry criminals and slaves, and infect every other nation with these ideas.
Out of curiousity.
Some time ago on Slashdot the possibility of a "geek PAC" was discussed.
This is a quesiton somewhat along the same lines. Essentially:
Exactly how much money would it require to do whatever necessary to* remove Mr. Orrin Hatch from a position of legislative power in the United States government?
I think you could find a variety of private citizens, from a number of corners, who would be ecstatic to donate to such a cause, due to the probable benefit it would have in terms of protecting the civil rights, artistic expression, and technological progress of this nation. Slashdotters annoyed at his attempts to introduce increasingly violent anti-file-sharing bills are just the tip of the iceberg.
* legally
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think you meant to ask, "who wants to put everyone in jail?"
Prison is a booming industry. People make massive amounts of money keeping others locked up. Prison's even have lobbyists to help guide harsher laws.
Of course, rich people seldom go to jail. Congressmen and high ranking government officials are rich and abstracted from the common man. They could care less about you. You're just dollar signs to them.
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
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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.
What?
Slashdotting the US Senate webserver - that's got to be a new high point for /.
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?
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
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?
Sure, we say it all the time, "Corporations are running the country," meaning that corporations have undue influence over lawmakers; but it's getting to the point that we're going to have to find a stronger statement, like "Corporations are completely and utterly in charge of every aspect of our daily lives, using the government and their nearly exclusive control of all media content to keep it that way."
Social evolution in action: corporations are more efficient -- better adapted to their environment -- than nation-states.
Nation-states, in their day, were more efficient than kingdoms; which were more efficient than city-states; which were more efficient than tribes; which were more efficient than individuals.
I don't like it, but I accept that it's nature's way: the strong flourish, the weak fail.
Mein Gott, what can we do?
About corporate power? We can do nothing.
Live your life well, try to bring more love than hate into the world. That's all. No big stuff -- no Revolution, no Topple the State, no Stop the Corporations. Work to your scale, as an individual; the rest is History.
-kgj
-kgj
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.
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!
If you are going to criticize the PIRATE act, first do your homework and learn about it.
The PIRATE Act bill, the one sponsored by Sens Hatch and Leahy, gives the DOJ the power to pursue civil cases against file sharers. According to the article and Sen Hatch's remarks, it does not have the provisions about "up to 10 years in prison" or any of that stuff. According to the article, those provisions are part of a draft bill that hasn't been introduced. The description in the slashdot posting imply that these provisions are part of the PIRATE Act, which they are not.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but if you start writing to your Congresspeople about the PIRATE Act, you will have more credibility if you actually know what you are talking about. If you start talking about provisions that aren't even in the bill, your letter will probably receive very little, if any, consideration.
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
Someone said something about democracy - about Micky mouse being elected if enough people voted for him. Well, Micky and his friends have been at home in the US congress for quite some time now, and i dont think the exterminator was called? So what sort of jail time you reckon we should give all these crooked politicians when justice is finally served?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Weird, Part of it says that more powers needs to be given to law enforcement to combat "Piracy" but then it contridictoraly says that, most antipiracy legislation has been unseccessfull. Um, whats the point then?
:)
Also, out of the blue it suddenly throws in pornography? What is it about republicans and this constant crusade to stop porn? Someone please contact this fool and tell him that PORN IS NOT ILLEGAL! Sorry, when they start going after our porn, thats when they have GONE TOO FAR!
I mean, 10 years for "expropriating" the potential sale of proprietary data that a judge deems "worth" more than $10,000? Give me a break. Actually, they probably will give me a break; 10 years is more than they want, and they'll compromise downward a bit for what they really wanted in the first place.
Still, the chilling effect of a law like this would only hasten the inevitable development of more secure P2P, and the spread of open source and open content.
Enforcing perpetual copyright is next to impossible without a global police state, and I'm much more likely to fund the Bruce Perens and Corey Doctorows of the world because they've earned my respect by choosing open licenses over the default "AllmineMineMINE!(C)(R)!".
--
Power to the Peaceful
America has enough in the way of issues with giving kids something to do. Dance clubs, live bands, and many forms of entertainment are 21+ only. This lack of entertainment gets worse the smaller the town.
I have nieces and nephews, and one thing I show them how to do is get media online. It sure beats drinking, doing drugs, and generally getting into trouble. Making what I perceive as a wholesom activity a criminal act will result in one less thing to do. Why risk 10 years in jail when you can just smoke some pot and risk only 2 years in jail?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
>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)
I once laughed at the way OCP ran everything in Robocop.
I've stopped laughing...
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)
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.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Orrin Hatch: TV/Movies/Music $152,360
Patrick Leahy: TV/Movies/Music $178,000
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.
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:
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.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
"Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence." -- US Senator Orrin Hatch The "tends of thousands" phrase sounds more like a declaration of war against the citizens of America by the increasingly corporate owned government of ours. When 1.5 million people are downloading today in America, most of which are law abiding citizens that don't traffic in drugs, commit violent crimes, and pay for their groceries. Could this have happened if the RIAA and MPAA were not busy purchasing our congressional representatives? How do we stop this? I don't just mean the bill, I mean how do we stop the trend. How do we get politicians to represent the people again? One question I have is how are we a representative democracy if we are no longer represented? After years of this news growing, I still have not seen a coordinated large-scale effort to restore balance in our government so that it truly represents the people, and respects our principals. While I consider myself a free market capitalist, and personally choose not to download music that the creators do not offer for free, I completely disagree with treating the American people as dissidents, as this bill and other are increasingly doing. Is China becoming more like us, or are we becoming more like them?
Open Standards Portal
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?
Open Standards Portal
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?
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?
Indeed, our government recognizes that its enforcement powers are appropriate when protecting intellectual property and public safety. Recently, in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, Jr. asserted that the Department of Justice should assist private enforcement of intellectual property rights if any of three criteria are met: (1) the level of piracy becomes particularly egregious; (2) public health and safety are put at risk; or (3) private civil remedies fail to adequately deter illegal conduct.
When would that be? People aren't going around killing each other with p2p applications, nor do I know how that is even possible. What a moron. Let's put the blame on terrorism, way to go.
SAILING MISHAP
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...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
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.
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.
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.
The new influx of skinny white, 18-25 year old males is sure to make the current prison population happy.
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?
===---===
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Dear Senator $congresscritter,
I am writing to urge you to speak out against the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004 (the so called PIRATE act) sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy.
This act would have far reaching negative consequences, resulting in the further criminalisation of hundreds of thousands of your constituents and result in widespread abuses of civil law. A law like this flies in the face of common sense and given that it so lowers the standards of proof required, is ripe for corrupt selective enforcement.
Please consider instead offering a solution similar to that which has worked for the radio industry for decades, where compulsory licensing has allowed artists to be rewarded and has allowed millions of people to enjoy the gift of music without being treated as criminals.
Yours $nameyou can find your senators by following this link
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.What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
>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.
Yeah, right.
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.
don't rapists usually get less than ten years? this is ridiculous.
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.
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)
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?
"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.
_nfotxn
Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leahy in sponsoring the Protecting
...
But recently, some unscrupulous corporations may have exploited new technologies
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.
and discovered that the narrow scope of civil contributory liability for
copyright infringement can be utilized so that ordinary consumers and children
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Music of Senator Orrin Hatch
And, as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.
-Flakbait
Temporary Minister of Propoganda for the Assyrian Empire
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
Like what I said? You might like my music
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
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
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.
Stack overflow: pid 352258, proc httpd, addr 0x11f7ffff0, pc 0x12000195c Segmentation fault (core dumped)
This is way out of hand. Wasting all this time and energy and money to go after a person sharing a 99cent song is insane.
Why don't we go after the real criminals and people who mean this country harm, instead of a wholesale expansion of who is considered a criminal? ( but then again, convicted criminals legally loose most of their rights, perhaps this is the actual goal of this movement.. that is if I was paranoid... )
And while I've not read the entire thing, what is this about 'reducing burden of proof' ? When will we reach the point that unsubstantiated 'suspicion' gets you jail time with no recourse but to rot in jail..
Are they taking into account exploited computers? Are they going to PROVE it was the owner that was sharing ( or even knew it was wrong ) ? Or are we now responsible for the actions of a criminal that breaks into our home ( effectively ) and steals your stuff, and uses it inappropriately.?
---- Booth was a patriot ----