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.
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
"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
...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
Slashdotting the US Senate webserver - that's got to be a new high point for /.
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
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?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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
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 once laughed at the way OCP ran everything in Robocop.
I've stopped laughing...
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.
"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
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.
"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.
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/
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
sig?