FBI Raids Arizona School District Over Copyright Infringement

markclong writes "Federal agents in Phoenix and elsewhere in the country raided schools and other targets in a national crackdown on pirated music CDs and movies. The schools lost Internet access including emails to and from elsewhere on the Internet." Despite the assertions in the article, Google doesn't currently pick up any indications of a national school sweep.

Comments

Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Allen Zadr]

So now the Copyright Infringement of Music and Movies is linked to organized crime activities. O.K., I can believe that.

A school district is searched because of piracy?

Obviously the AZCentral.com site sees the link, but I don't. For organized crime to bother, there would have to be money exchanging hands, and I highly doubt that either students or staff of the Deer Valley Unified School District are paying for downloaded pirated materials.

Am I missing something here?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Anonytroll]

Yes, you are missing something.

The bitter sarcasm in the link of organized crime to "piracy"/copyright infringement is that organized crime is behind some of the infringement. However, every infringement can (and it seems like it will) be treated as if organized crime was involved, no matter how stupid. That means: the link has been done, now one is interchangable with the other.

(On a sidenote: it is easier to not go after the organized culprits. It takes too much effort.)

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[JWW]

The recording industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I download music or not.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Famatra]

But if we extend that line of reasoning, why not prosecute a library for copyright infringement?

I have no doubt that is exactly where we are heading. The logical conclusion would be that books, and all copyrighted material, would not be freely available for anyone unless they paid the copyright holder.

What would such a world look like? RMS guesses that this is what such a world would look like here.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[cpt kangarooski]

If it doesn't fall under fair use, then it's copyright infringement.

That's woefully simplistic. There are numerous exceptions to copyright other than fair use that permit people to make copies without infringing.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

downloading music is copyright infringement, not theft. Theft is when someone loses possession of actual (not potential) wealth due to the activities of others. If we redefine theft as the deprivation of potential wealth, then suddenly we have a world where you are a thief if you choose to walk down a road other than the one where a hotdog vendor is waiting for customers.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[someone247356]

"Sitting at a Xerox machine and copying a book, page for page, is wholly infeasable."

Ugggggg....

Since when does easier == illegal?

It doesn't. Never has, never will. Why do people keep bringing this up?

Think about it for a moment. Transcribing a book by hand is hard, taking pictures of all of the pages is easier, therefore, taking pictures of books is illegal, right? Nope.

Using a photocopier is easier than taking pictures, or transcribing it, therefore using a photocopier is even more illegal, right? Wrong again.

Copy a pdf of a book from one location and pasting it in another is easier still, that's got to be sooo illegal we need to apply the death penalty, right? Um, no.

The "how" is, or should be, irrelevent. The "what" is what matters. "Fair-Use" is the same no matter what the material is, regardless of how easy or difficult the process is. The fact that I can legally "space-shift" music (for one example) is still legal no matter how I do it. Copying an LP to another LP, an analog tape to another analog tape, a CD-ROM to analog tape, a CD-ROM to another CD-ROM, an LP or analog cassette, or CD-ROM to a MP3/WMA/Ogg are all equally legal. As long as I keep them to myself the RIAA and the FBI can take a rather long walk off an equally short pier.

Why do you think the RIAA the MPAA and their cronnies are trying to prevent you fom exercising your rights? Because it's rather well established that you in fact have those rights. They can't legally stop you from making a copy of the latest album that you have legally purchased. So what they are doing is making it illegal for anyone to make the tools needed to allow you to exercise those rights. The logic assuming there is any, would have prevented the VCR and photocopier if they could have gotten laws like "No Electronic Theft Act" (the NET act that made non-commercial copyright infringment a crime for the first time ever) and the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" (DMCA - which made the tools used to do the copying illegal, as well as telling anyone else how you managed to exercise your legal rights illegal.)

In the twisted world ofo the RIAA/MPAA etc. All knowledge exists for the sole purpose of making them money. Anything contrary to that is, or should be illegal. The only right you have is to use the music/movie/book, etc. in a manner that maximizes their profits. Any attempt to do otherwise is, or should be illegal. If you come up with a new use for said book/music/movie, then you should have to pay them again for the privilege. Any use that is an easier or more convenient use of a previously existing right, should naturally result in more money in their respective coffers. Since they believe that any use, every utterance should result in more money going to them, all damages will be calculated in terms of money they believe they should have received. Since the courts are making it more difficult (read "expensive") for them to sue consumers, naturally the FBI should be doing it for them.

The fact that the more time the FBI spends chasing eight year olds downloading copies of Hillery Duff, is less time catching kidnappers, or foiling the next 9/11 terrorist conspiracy is irrelevant to the RIAA and their bottom line.

Unfortunately, the current crop of bought congress critters are more interested in pleasing their corporate masters than the citizens that ostensibly elected them, is a failing of our republic. Until enough people get mad enough to actually do anything about it, like voting the bulk of congress out of office. I don't see things changing.

As an aside, a Canadian court recently ruled that people who make files available for sharing on P2P networks aren't guilty of anything. They used the "photocopier in the library" analogy to justify their decision.

someone247356

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Dutchmaan]

You can share an analog copy of a CD you own, but only with "friends", and you can't do it for commercial gain.

You can't make a digital copy of a CD and share it without seriously risking infringment.

Why should the type of copy matter when the action is the same?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[BayBlade]

You won't be charged with theft, but your insurance company won't cover anything taken from your house either.

The reason for this, is that by not locking your door, you've assumed some degree of responsiblity for the theft.

This falls under "the world is not black and white"

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[dasmegabyte]

Well, infringement != theft. Theft is decided by (fairly) concrete laws in a criminal court. Infringment is decided by interpretting law in a civil court.

If you leave a book on your coffee table, and somebody steals it, copies it, and puts it back, I doubt you'd be in trouble. The judge would agree that you had little hand in the infringement.

But if you give someone the book, wink at them, and say "Go ahead and make a copy," I doubt you'd be okay. It's the same if you pay somebody to rob you and claim it as theft. People do this all the time, for the insurance money. Now, whether you're guilty of theft or of misreporting a crime depends on the case...but either way, you CAN go to jail if you ask somebody to steal from you and report it as a crime.

Conversely, if somebody hacked your computer to share your personal much collection, you'd probably be okay. But the chance of a judge or jury believing this argument are slim, especially when they confiscate your computer and discover your KaZaa download folder.

Straw man arguments are cute and all, but they don't replace good old fashioned thinking before you post.

Sad

[mfh]

These feds are barking up the wrong tree for a number of reasons. By raiding school systems, they have no proof of who downloaded the copyright infringed files, and therefore no recourse but to infringe upon the rights of students and employees, in an attempt to push the agendas of special interest groups like the RIAA and MPAA. This Gestapo crap should not be tolerated. Schools are for learning, not launching political campaigns, selling ideals, or pushing agendas. IANAL, but why not simply exclude school systems from the P2P copy protection laws? If you want people to pay, charge reasonable prices, create excellent content, and protect your public image. Nobody likes a bully, and the FBI is acting like one, IMHO, and they are taking a page from the RIAA.

Re:Sad

[Oxy the moron]

By raiding school systems, they have no proof of who downloaded the copyright infringed files

This is not entirely true, and it depends on the school system. If the network is done correctly, you could at least trace network activity to a certain computer on the network. Even if they didn't have user id's, almost every school I know of has security cameras and could pinpoint who was at that computer at that time.

Does anybody really benefit from it, though? That is a tough call.

Re:Sad

[zr]

this isnt sad. this is unfortunate. school grants no immunity no matter how innocent crime may seem. i no more like position of RIAA than the next guy, but while laws are there they should be followed. there are ways to change laws and we should be teaching THAT students, not ways to circumvent them.

$.02

Re:Sad

[eclectro]

Nobody likes a bully, and the FBI is acting like one

This is the natural logical conclusion of years of special interest lobbying and subsequent legislation that has put a lockdown on anything copyrighted.

Copyright went from a civil infraction to a criminal federal crime. Meaning maybe they'll send some kids to jail. Or maybe some teachers.

I hate to see it, but in a way I hope that they will make arrests here. Then that will turn the spotlight on the real crime here: congressional whoring for corporate interests (Disney RIAA MPAA) that has given us everlasting copyrights.

Only when the public at large becomes outraged will something be done about it.

This doesn't let the FBI off the hook either. The FBI has let the public down in more than one way in recent years.

Re:Sad

[mumblestheclown]

I dont know who modded you as "insightful."

Clearly you miss the point COMPLETELY.

the RIAA/MPAA doesn't particularly care who did the infringing. it is likely to cost them much more in their own fees than they will ever recover from individual infringers.

What they do want is two things:

• for the infringing activity to stop
• for a message to be sent to others that such infringing activity will not be tolerated.

this "gestapo crap" does just that. it protects their rights WITHOUT having to go after individuals. You should be applauding it.

Re:Sad

[Dun Malg]

Schools are for learning, not launching political campaigns, selling ideals, or pushing agendas.

(scoff!) Schools are daytime-jails for children, designed to keep them out of society's way while the adults go to work. And if you're going to lock them up, you might as well teach them to be good consumers. And if they show signs of NOT being good consumers, send in the FBI.

Re:Sad

[goldspider]

"I think the problem is more like $16-$20 regularly priced CDs at places like FYE and Sam Goody and other stores. "

The great-grandparent said the problem was a lack of reasonable pricing for music. I think I adequately proved that there were in fact reasonable pay-for-download services out there (iTunes is just one of them).

"If you don't put out anything that people want to hear, then people won't buy it"

People are downloading these songs by the thousands; wouldn't that suggest that they want to hear them? Sorry, I don't buy that argument either. This is simply a case (as it always was) of people just wanting free shit.

Re:Sad

[Benedick]

Schools are for learning, not launching political campaigns, selling ideals, or pushing agendas.

Your innocence would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. Schools have always been used for politics. Good grief, take a good, long look at any elementary education textbook these days and see the PC language ooze off the page. You are aware that the NEA is a politically active organization, aren't you? Whether you agree with their views or not, you have to agree that they are active in politics.

Schools, especially colleges, are among the most politically-charged environments you can encounter. Where did many riots and sit-ins occur in the 60s? Where are the Chinese dissidents of today most active? Where are the political ideas of today most discussed? Colleges - schools. People are always trying to appeal to young, flexible, easily-influenced minds to spread their ideas? Where better than schools?

It's simple and always has been: the winners write the history.

follow the money

[53cur!ty]

Cops for hire!! Things are not much different then during the Wild West. Instead of range wars on the plains we are having hollywood wars in cyberspace

Where the answers are

First They Came for the File Sharers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I did nothing - you know what happens next.

Vote in November.

Secretive part scares me

[The I Shing]

What scares me is how secretive everything seems with this story. No-one except the FBI knows anything about how this whole thing came down.

I just can't believe that school administrators weren't warned about the illegal activity and given the opportunity to shut it down themselves. All I can guess is that the FBI figured that if they gave the school a big embarrassing black eye it would serve as a warning to administrators of districts across the country to crack down on their own students.

Re:Secretive part scares me

[Otter]

All I can guess is that the FBI figured that if they gave the school a big embarrassing black eye it would serve as a warning to administrators of districts across the country to crack down on their own students.

I'm just guessing, too, but since the FBI isn't normally running around dragging filesharers out of study hall, I'm thinking this isn't about some illegal copy of In_Da_Club.mp3. It's about some warez crew using the school's computers for heavy-duty sharing, either by an insider (a la the Boston arrests a couple of years ago) or by compromise.

We'll see, and if I'm wrong -- yeah, this is a ludicrous misuse of FBI resources. But I'm thinking the vagueness of the story isn't secrecy, it's from the rushing of a half-understood story into press.

Re:Secretive part scares me

[eclectro]

I'm just guessing, too, but since the FBI isn't normally running around dragging filesharers out of study hall, I'm thinking this isn't about some illegal copy of In_Da_Club.mp3. It's about some warez crew using the school's computers for heavy-duty sharing, either by an insider (a la the Boston arrests a couple of years ago) or by compromise.

That's an interesting thought. Windows computers can be horribly comprimised with trojans. Which means the actual lawbreakers may not be even on the campus!

We all know how underfunded and overworked sysadmins don't get around to patching the machines, so they could be confiscating these machines purely for evidence. Not that anyone at the schools are committing a crime.

We all might be jumping to conclusions here. Not that slashdotters would ever do such a thing.

Another thought, I wonder what role "carnivore" is playing in this.

Wait a minute..

[Allen Zadr]

By raiding school systems, they have no proof of who downloaded the copyright infringed files

The article pointed out that this school district has every student log in, so that everything that student does can be traced.

In not disagreeing with your point, but I wanted to clarify that one statement.

Good to hear!

[frs_rbl]

Now that they've got their hands on real criminals, I hope they'll stop harassing those poor aliens...

Hehe

[mfh]

Yeah, students would never beat up a nerd and take their password.

Pisses me Off

[TnkMkr]

You know what really pisses me off about all of this. It has nothing to do with the ethical issues of piracy, what really pisses me off is the wasted FBI resources. If we have enough FBI agents in Arizona to waste raiding a school trying to catch some kids sharing music does that mean that: 1. all of the abducted children in the state have been found 2. all the murders in the state have been solved or prevented 3. All the illegal drug trafficing through the state has been haulted 4. All extortion has been stopped in Arizona. I do not deny the music companies their right to persue legal compensation if they feel they need to, but some how I just think the FBI has better things to do than bust little Jimmy for sharing his CD collection online.

Re:Pisses me Off

[slide-rule]

I hate having to take a contrarian point of view here, but the general delivery of parent's comment (rant) is starting to turn into its own little troll here on /., and while I generally agree with the sentiment expressed, people need to understand that no single person has ultimate, omniscient training in every conceivable thing... that is, the FBI agents involved in this little affair are probably not trained or assigned to (1) child abduction (2) murder (3) drug or (4) extortion units. These were probably something more akin to "computer crimes" agents (or whatever) that actually did have a block of free time some day to do a raid on a school.

Same argument goes to everyone who whines about why /. posts the latest case mod by some teenager when cancer, hunger, national broad-band, $YOUR_PASSIONATE_ISSUE otherwise goes unresolved.

Re:Pisses me Off

[maxpublic]

This would only be true if the FBI's primary goal were to keep you as safe as possible - which clearly it isn't. The FBI's agenda seems right in line with the rest of government: to exert as much control as possible over the general population, through the use of fear and the random revocation of the Bill of Rights.

Welcome to the New World Order! Now where did I put my jack-boots?

Max

Oh for fucks sake...

[DesScorp]

Comparing the FBI cracking down on copyright violation to Nazi's rounding up Jews is about as lame as it gets.

"Oh Amnesty International, Help Me! Those Bush Nazi's took away Kazaa!"

Re:Oh for fucks sake...

[I confirm I'm not a]

To be fair to the original poster (and I do think he/she is over-egging it slightly), Pastor Niemoeller's quote did not begin with "they" coming for "the Jews". The point of the quote was to demonstrate that Fascism begins in a subtle fashion - "First they came for the Communists " ... (everyone hates commies, right?) ... "then they came for the Trade Unionists" ... (organised labour equals communism, right?)

When armed agents of the state kick down school doors, if they're not looking for real threats to national security they had better expect comparisons with previous examples of state terror.

Karma begone!

[xutopia]

Only in America and Australia will you see such a thing. I remember seeing the videos of police telling teenage school girls to get down at gun point (here). The principal suspected drugs in the school but none were found. The police then gave a statement by which the dogs had smelled drugs in the school bags but the drugs had not been found.

What next? Will your house be raided on suspection of IP infrigement? Could SCO ask the FBI to raid your house if you are using Linux?

Re:Karma begone!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't draw guns on high school students. You don't take your gun out of its holster on high school students for a nonsensical drug raid. Not unless the students were shooting at them or they felt that their lives were in imminent danger, the cops had no need to take their guns out for any reason.

Even in Prisons they almost never take their guns out, they use Pepper Spray or other non lethal methods whenever they can. What was done in South Carolina was plain old ignorant totalitarian state tactics, all in the name of terrorizing some students who might have had some pot in their lockers.

Umm...?

[Remlik]

I thought re-distributing the music was the primary infringment. If some of the students just downloaded music how is that any different than listening to the radio?

FBI agents do not need to "RAID" schools. They can set up dates and times with administrators to go over records. One has to believe that someone is pushing this (MPAA, RIAA) with what they belive is evidence against the school system.

The US is supposed to be a government of the people for the people. It is clear now that we no longer elect people "like" any of us, and they certainly do not do much for us anymore. It is time we stood up and took back our lives.

The RIAA/FBI/GOVT has no fucking right to do the things they are doing. File charges, build evidence, take people to court. Fsking Nazi raids on school districts will get you pitch forks and torches in the streets.

Make An Example

[millahtime]

This could easily be an occasion where they raid a place to make an example. They get media coverage. They use this as a scare tactic to get other places to believe they will do it.

Re:Make An Example

[Crash Culligan]

This could easily be an occasion where they raid a place to make an example. They get media coverage. They use this as a scare tactic to get other places to believe they will do it.

You know, there are words that one could use for a government which has to enforce rule by "scare tactic." And those words get prefaced by other words that Rev. Ashcroft would strongly disapprove of to describe a government that enforces rule by "scare tactic" at the request of private organizations, especially ones membered by companies charged with price fixing.

Never mind the debate over "copyright infringement" vs. "theft"; it's not just a matter of who's not helping the RIAA and MPAA roll around in a big pile of money any more. If the government has to resort to measures like this to enforce unpopular laws, if they have to infringe upon everyone's rights (especially those that weren't even thinking of violating those rules before) in order to inconvenience those responsible, then the law, the FBI, and quite possibly the government itself has to change.

I'd like to think that the Founding Fathers (yes, I'm invoking those hoary old bastards; this doesn't bode well for my Karma) intended that bit in the Constitution about restricted "search and seizure" so that people don't get their rights all infringed and trampled on with jackboots unless there's sufficient probable cause against specific individuals. It would also be useful so that the innocent-but-accused don't get victimized by the authorities that are supposed to be protecting them.

In this case, everyone got their access cut because of the actions of a few. As a precedent, it'd be pathetic if it weren't so scary.

(I also have very specific ideas about "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion," but those are off-topic for this discussion.)

Re:Er, what???

[meringuoid]

Then why the strange tie in to organized crime?

Propaganda. Record company propaganda regurgitated by journalist who doesn't actually know how mp3s get pirated.

I have a question

[Progman3K]

Why aren't there software-piracy raids?
I mean I understand about the RIAA having huge lobbying power and all, but if you do the math, you'll no doubt find that there is more money lost to software piracy every year than there is to MP3-trading.

A song has been valued at 99 cents recently, but a Windows license is typically 300 dollars, and I'm sure there are millions of pirated copies of Windows out there.

Even if software piracy ISN'T as big as music-piracy, it must still be huge.

Why aren't there more software-audits?

Why are governments placing a disproportionate amount of emphasis on something like music-piracy?

Re:I have a question

[xutopia]

Piracy doesn't happen in schools and business so much as it does at home. I for one would prefer if MS or the governments would actually do something to circumvent piracy. MS did a statemement not so long ago saying that half the copies of their software was pirated. Imagine if a tenth of these people decided to move to linux because they didn't want to pay for a Windows licence?

Re:I have a question

[EvilNight]

Well, it's probably a matter of the maturity of the piracy in the two different industries.

Computer software vendors have gotten used to the idea that no matter what copy protection schemes they use, a cracked/pirated version of their software will be all over the internet within days of release. They've been getting used to this idea since sometime in 1970 when it first became an issue. I'd also say that all parties involved have just about given up on the idea that they have a chance in hell of stopping it, and have accepted it as a cost of doing business. After all, the legitimate users of the software still make them a profit. No one has ever proven that one download of a program is equal to one loss of a sale, because it isn't, and never will be. For some, it's like trading baseball cards.

The RIAA/MPAA and other entertainment providers have not gotten used to this idea yet, because to them this piracy problem (at least the internet one-to-many part of it) is completely new. It'll take decade or two of every copy protection scheme they invent being craked overnight, and every release appearing on the internet the instant it hits the theaters before they end up giving up the same fight and accepting it as the cost of doing business. In the meantime, we will see these kinds of raids from time to time just like we did with the FBI raiding the warez scene during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

It'll probably be a lot worse for the media industry. They've got more to lose, and their product is popular with everyone, everywhere, unlike software which is only popular with computer users. Computer use is a lot more widespread today than it was when this was happening in the software world, as well, and that is surely a contributing factor. Add to this the moral and legal ambiguity of the entire problem, and you end up with a lot more users who are willing to engage in this behaviour. After all, how can recording a copy of a song from the radio be legal, while downloading it from the internet is not? TV shows from a TiVo that are shared and downloaded are somehow different from TV shows recorded on a VHS tape and dubbed? Are they really? Fundamentally, they are the exact same activity. The big difference is that one is distributed through a channel controlled by the Big Money(tm), and one is not. That difference, to many, is no basis for a law regulating the trade of human culture, since government has no business and no right to pass laws to ensure the continuance of corporate profits.

It's a losing battle, and everyone knows it except the corporations. The ones that figure it out and adapt will survive, the ones that don't, won't. Same goes for countries... those that allow the freedom will have a major advantage over the ones that don't. Sadly, it looks these days as if the USA is going to be one of the least free in this area. Fundamentally this is a battle over who has the right to control and distribute human culture. The existing control structure is being severely eroded by a new distribution mechanism that is controlled by no one and answerable to no one, and it is as titanic in implications as any social change in human history, make no mistake. This is about your right to broadcast, your right to be heard.

Bottom line is, as always, to do as your conscience demands. What the law demands is negotiable, because law has seldom followed conscience in letter or enforcement, especially these days. The more unconscionable laws that pass, the less respect people will have for the law itself, and the more eroded the base of society becomes. Someday it'll end in a revolution, as always, and when we pick up the pieces we can build something better from the mess. It'll sort itself out in a few decades just like all other major societal changes do, and the world will end up a better place because of it.

Get ready for hard times

[WanderingGhost]

I don't like when I'm pessimistic, but... Things don't look good, really. This sort of episode shows that people doing things based on laws and pressure from whoever-is-big-and-says-he-is-losing-money (sometimes not even money). One important thing that is being ignored more and more is common sense. This is not only related to copyrights, but to a lot of other things (international relations, etc).
Maybe it will be too late when they find out that laws don't fix problems? That problems shouldn't happen in the first place? And that laws shouldn't be viewd as "the truely correct thing", which can be used as an excuse to do all kinds of weird and crazy things (because the law says I have this "right")? Even if the industry technically has the "right" to fight piracy, did they think about it first? Do the artists understand what's going on? Surely they don't. They just believe what they are told... That "the evil people are taking away their money, and that they'll be doomed if nothing is done".

OK, I feel better now that I said this... But I'm still pessimistic.

Across the Seas! Beware!

[barryfandango]

"Some of the stolen copyrighted material being sought in the raids is suspected as having been distributed from overseas sources."

Ooooh... Overseas! I hear that's where the terrorists are too. This is a pretty poor excuse for a news story.

Free copying of media

[October_30th]

I don't quite get it.

I've heard my own students whine during a lecture break about how "outrageous" it is that they're not being given free hands to swap music, movies and software at will. When and how did people get the idea that they are entitled to free entertainment?

What happened to paying for your software, music or movies?

What about the university bandwidth? I for one am glad that my workplace is cracking down hard on all P2P use. I want a working net for doing my job. So, run a client, get caught and after one warning you're expelled/fired - doesn't matter if you are staff or a student. And no, you can't just pipe the stuff over another port or encrypt it. Your bandwidth use, source+destination IP and a variety of other things will give you away.

Re:Free copying of media

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they grew up with entertainment being ubiquitously crammed down their throats over the public airwaves, and in nearly every gathering of people. And our species being adept at abstracting....well. It's a battle that can never be decicively won.

As far as things go, if you're not talking about hiring musicians, it's a relatively new idea.

All speeders should be killed on the spot. This will solve speeding. There's something to be said for designing community resources around how people will use them as opposed to trying to design people around how you wish them to use resources.

Look, I'm all for people living up to their end of the bargan, and if you've got a 1->zero tolerance standard. Thems the constraints of the system, and one would be advised to behave accordingly. HOWEVER, that doesn't magically make the, increasingly unreasonable, artificial constraints placed upon the system a brilliant idea.

Out of curiosity, should much of Washington DC be razed and redesigned because of the illgotten intellectual property of a slave? Should the US pay reperations to great briton for all the technology illegally imported by their former colonies? Does the public at large have no recourse when their right to a public domain has been sold and when they've recieved no compensation and none seems forthcomming? Maybe "fair" is what the people say it is. In the end, the only rights you have, are the rights you can get other people to agree you have.

Re:Free copying of media

[j-turkey]

What about the university bandwidth? I for one am glad that my workplace is cracking down hard on all P2P use. I want a working net for doing my job. So, run a client, get caught and after one warning you're expelled/fired - doesn't matter if you are staff or a student.

Woah, there -- back up a sec. There's nothing wrong with P2P use in and of itself. I'll say it again (just for effect): There's nothing wrong with P2P use in and of itself. Unless you're a government like the Chinese government who is afraid of giving people a voice, you have to understand that P2P is an incredible tool that can make everyone their own publisher. It can make everyone their own record label, and everyone their own private movie studio. Just because people are (widely) using P2P for piracy doesn't mean that it's automatically a horrible thing. It's a great way to distribute content for a small amount of resources.

University bandwidth? Are you kidding? You think that every chunk of bandwidth that doesn't go to P2P goes to educational use? That's not right -- I went to college within the last 10 years, and I know what we used the bandwidth for: Porn, games, music, websurfing, screwing around. Sure there was some research, but if you think that the majority of that bandwidth is used for research, you're kidding yourself.

And no, you can't just pipe the stuff over another port or encrypt it. Your bandwidth use, source+destination IP and a variety of other things will give you away.

This statement is just plain wrong. Check out Freenet. This is a network which anonymizes content creators and allows people to share with confidence. If you don't want to spend alot of time researching it, here's a basic summary. It's partially intended to be a tool to get around folks like the Chinese government (who are afraid of giving people a voice) by encrypting the data and distributing the content in a way that's anonymous.

But show me the link.

[Allen Zadr]

Right but Organized Crime has no interest in depriving others of money, unless it's a direct derivative of making money for themselves.

P2P based piracy doesn't fit. Selling pirated CDs and Video Tapes does, but unless the school store is selling pirated CDs - then this just doesn't fit.

What I want to know is . ..

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

what the hell is "Stolen copyrighted material"

Some of the stolen copyrighted material being sought in the raids is suspected as having been distributed from overseas sources.

Are they talking about:

Bootlegged Windows XP CD's?

MP3 on the computers

Bootlegged CD's

or are they (the paper / FNI) just trying to equate infringement with Theft?

Two Sides to this

[Thunderstruck]

It seems to me there are two issues that arise from this little raid.

1. The police used a warrant under seal. This is a bad thing. How exactly are one's constitutional rights to be secure in person, house, papers (electronic documents) and effects protected if one cannot even review the warrant? Is it justified by an FBI argument than they don't want to reveal the source? If so we've got bigger problems, like the FBI using that justification for to seal ANY warrant. Then of course you have your right to face accusers... Lots of work for the lawyers here.

2. We might actually get some real, hard, law out of this case. If you get enough people into the court system with large scale raids, eventually you'll catch a person with a lot of money and the intestinal fortitude to fight you rather than settle out of court. Then we can finally learn what fair use is, whether your rights to confront an accuser include a computer accuser, and whether these sealed warrants are... warranted.

IAAL, and as my tax professor always used to say, "I don't mind playing by the rules as long as I know what the rules ARE." - (F. Slagle, USD School of law.)

IP theft

[Kombat]

The recording industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I download music or not.

Which, of course, you do, right?

Let's switch some of those words around, and see if it still sounds as hypocritcal and self-serving.

"The software industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I illegally download warez or not."

"The movie industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I sneak into movie theaters without paying or not."

"My favorite band has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I sneak into their concerts without paying or not."

Yup, it does.

In each of my examples though, notice that nothing physical was stolen, yet in every case, you're taking something you didn't earn, didn't pay for, and thus, don't deserve. If you can justify one, you can justify them all.

Who will create the next Unreal Tournament when no one feels like paying for them anymore? Will we bitch and moan on places like Slashdot about how "all current video games suck, why isn't anyone making any GOOD games anymore?", oblivious to the obvious causation - the fact that we've all turned to stealing our software/games/music/movies rather than paying for it?

Re:IP theft

[Anonymous Coward]

What he's referring to is the tactics used by the RIAA in particular. By not patronizing RIAA labels, this does not mean that you will not buy ANY music. There are plenty of outstanding bands on outstanding labels which have nothing to do with the RIAA.

Re:IP theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope argument. All people who download music do not also download movies or games.

I myself don't even download as much music anymore, because I have most of what I wanted and am perfectly happy to buy anything new I feel is worth it. Anything inaccessible (read: not available in my country or out of print) I'll download. I have stopped downloading warez'd games for the reason you cite. I don't download movies because I feel $5-$7.50 is a perfectly fair price for the movies I do go see in the theater. I download programs only when I could not do my job without them (to date the only illegal program I have is Photoshop, and it's an ancient version that does what I want and nothig more-- and the only reason I downloaded that was because I didn't like the GIMP for putting together images for my web site design work).

We have not "all" resorted to stealing. Some of us do not steal at all; still others steal only when certain conditions are met.

But then again, reasoning with asshats like you never works, so that's why I'm psting anonymously-- so I can forget I ever wasted my time trying to "justify" my actions to someone who doesn't understand that it's none of their fucking business what I download or why I do it.

Re:IP theft

[kiwimate]

Well put. I can't believe in the space of 60 seconds you've been modded down from 4 to 2. Oh wait, yes I can -- the truth only hurts when it should, and you're 100% right, and there are simply too many people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions and admit that what they do is wrong.

It's truly amazing what lengths people will go to in order to justify their wrong acts.

Re:IP theft

[Anonymous Coward]

in every case, you're taking something you didn't earn, didn't pay for, and thus, don't deserve. If you can justify one, you can justify them all.

In that case, I choose to justify them all by pointing out that I didn't earn or pay for the air that I breathe, but yet I still deserve it.

What you are missing is the fact that copies don't deprive anyone of anything. No doubt you are champing at the bit to say that they deprive the copyright holder of revenue, but that was precisely JWW's point: the RIAA has acted in such a way that they will not get revenue from him. Whether he later goes on to make copies illegally is irrelevent to this fact, as long as he doesn't distribute those copies to others.

Who will create the next Unreal Tournament when no one feels like paying for them anymore?

I don't see the makers of UT suing kids and lobbying for completely unreasonable laws.

the fact that we've all turned to stealing our software/games/music/movies rather than paying for it?

Copyright infringement is not theft. I am not stating that copyright infringement is moral. I am stating that it is a completely different offence to theft.

Re:IP theft

[!ucif3r]

Don't be so naïve. Clearly these are not the same thing. If that is the best argument you can come up with for not downloading music you are going to have to do better if you plan on actually convincing anyone they are doing anything wrong.

People buy music they like, based on what they can afford to spend on music. They download songs because they like to listen to music on their computers or MP3 players. Downloading music is not affecting industry profits in any way. The industry has yet to demonstrate anything except diminished profits during a time of recession (holy crap!).

In fact copying music is entirely legal anyway. We have always been alowed to record a friends CD or tape, the radio, TV shows, movies we rent, etc, etc, etc. Now all of the sudden because we can make a digital copy it is a big deal and people need to be fined thousands or go to jail.

Truthfully the only crime (legally) with copying music is not the downloading but the sharing. Distribution of copywritten work is a crime. But this law was intended to combat organized crime style piracy, where the goods are coppied and sold on the black market for money. By real criminals, not to some 11 year old kid using some filesharing software to get the latest lousy Britney Spears video.

Can you honestly say that defending the bank accounts of millionaires (assuming they are actually being threatened) is worth the FBIs time and taxpayer money given that there are many more important things they could be spending their time protecting us from other than the scourge of music sharing?

Copying media, any media, is not akin to breaking into a concert or a movie theater, although given how much is being charged these days for both I can't say I would be outraged over that happening.

As for Unreal Tournament, well, how many sequels of exactly the same game, but with better graphics so you can have a reason to blow $300 bucks on a new video card do they need to sell 100,000 coppies of at $50 a pop before I get to stop caring that some guy pirated it.

The point (after all this rambling) is that two wrongs don't make a right. And the way the RIAA and the MPAA and John Ashcroft are treating this matter is wrong. They are going to far for nothing. Well, actually, possibly for another zero on their profit margins.

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyright infringement involves the illegal distribution of a copyright you do not own (or don't have permission from copyright holder).

It might, but that's not a prerequisite.

Let's look at the actual law, shall we? (emphasis below mine)

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 121 ... is an infringer of the copyright ... of the author.
17 USC 501(a)

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission
17 USC 106

As you can see, both copying and distributing seperately qualify as infringing behavior, all else being equal.

ALL the lawsuits, settlements, fines, jail time involve the illegal distribution of said mp3's. Not the downloading of.

Yes, because it's more efficient to go after distributors right now than it is downloaders. You're making a stupid claim on par with 'because he only struck at the head of the snake, the rest must be invulnerable.' Remember, not too long ago, RIAA wasn't pursuing distributors, they were pursuing P2P services; did that mean they couldn't have possibly sued distributors? Of course not, but your 'logic' would've said that they of course could not do something because they hadn't already done something.

Re:IP theft

[DroopyStonx]

I agree 100% with the parent poster. Chances are, if I didn't have a medium available to download the movies/games/music, I probably wouldn't have purchased them anyway, and it's true.

If I had no intentions whatsoever on seeing The Punisher movie and I get bored and decide to download it, no one is really losing money. Yes, techinically it's illegal, but I'm not distrubuting it, I'm not profiting, and I'm not stealing. If I wasn't able to download that movie, I'd probably end up forgetting it even existed until it hit HBO or was available on Netflix.

Who will create the next Unreal Tournament when no one feels like paying for them anymore?

That is a completely invalid "what if" statement. Everyone DOES have the ability to download these movies/games (provided they have a decent connection or are willing to wait a long time). In fact, you get them from the EXACT same place you download your music from. Does everyone do it? No. Yes, in a not-so-perfect world where EVERYONE downloads EVERYTHING and pays for NOTHING, then yeah, it would hurt, but it's not that way and it will never be that way, so therefore it doesn't really hurt. Note, I said "doesn't really" because yes, it hurts *some*, a very small fraction, but not enough to make a stink about it or go raiding places for pirated works.

Re:IP theft

[Anonymous Coward]

"The movie industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I sneak into movie theaters without paying or not."

"The movie industry has already lost all the revenue the would have ever gotten from me, whether my sister who saw the movie described it to me or not."

you're taking something you didn't earn, didn't pay for, and thus, don't deserve.

Well, since I now know the plot and story of the movie that my sister described to me, and I didn't earn, didn't pay for, one of us must therefore be a theif, right?

So now you're advocating talking about stuff you've seen or heard, right?

Should it be illegal for people to hum copyrighted songs, too?

Your arguments are absurd.

Re:Organized P2P givaways...

[Anonytroll]

It would make sense if it went like this:
-> Hard-working artist makes music
-> -> Hard-working record label publishes it
-> -> -> Evil organized criminal comes along and pirates it
-> -> -> -> Music lover #123 pays the evil organized criminal to get that piece of piracy
-> -> -> -> -> Music lover #123 spreads it so everyone can have it

Now, there is obviously a problem with this trail of thoughts. It seems like the FBI is either not able or willing to see it.

No taking, no theft occurs

[Anonymous Coward]

"In each of my examples though, notice that nothing physical was stolen, yet in every case, you're taking something you didn't earn, didn't pay for"

More weasel-words to make something look worse than it is. If something is duplicated, it is not taken.

"the fact that we've all turned to stealing our software/games/music/movies rather than paying for it?"

While there is a lot of unauthorized duplication, theft of software/etc is at this time a very minor problem.

Re:No taking, no theft occurs

[markfive]

More weasel-words to make something look worse than it is. If something is duplicated, it is not taken.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

theft of software/etc is at this time a very minor problem

I prefer to steal Babbage's, but thats just me.

Re:FLT

[Mister Coffee]

I would have been suprised if there wasn't a link with the Netherlands especially with the TU twente. It is just like the fairy tale of Ali Baba, with Ali Baba's cave lokated at the TU twente.

More criminalization of civil laws...

[TheRealStyro]

The criminalization of civil law is not what our country's founding fathers created. They created a legal system where a copyright owner could take a potential violator to court. These actions of searches and seizures of private property (& don't get me started on legality of sealed warrants) before a proper trial violate several constitutional, as well as international, laws. We need to contact our elected representatives and let them know our outrage at their silence while our rights are being trampled.

Are we sure they are after music?

[chosen_my_foot]

The knee-jerk reaction is that this is a P2P bust, but the article never seemed to verify. There is this quote:

"Federal agents in Phoenix and elsewhere in the country raided schools and other targets in a national crackdown on pirated music CDs and movies."

Notice, however, there are no statements from the FBI about the nature of this raid. It is possible they are looking for pirated software more than pirated music. I used to work in the Office of Technology for a school district, and I know for a fact that at least 25% of our software was unlicensed. Just innocent little things like 1 Windows 98 CD and key for a 25-computer lab and so forth. At one point, we did order 25 copies of Win2k but they were sent with no product keys. We were told to wait for the keys to come in, but we installed with one of our existing keys anyway. If I had to estimate, I would say that we had no less than 300 computers running off of the same product key with no site license.

I had to search for cracks for a few utilities a couple of times, as well. When the librarian's database was backed up on 8 floppies and disk 4 went bad, I needed something to repair a corrupted .ZIP file. The only shareware utilities I could find had a 1MB filesize limit, so a crack was necessary.

Was it so wrong, though? The kids needed computers for education. Our department's budget was very small, and we had to maintain dying hand-me-down servers and PCs with next to nothing. Microsoft was willing to give free copies of Win2k, but only if we had been given donated machines and only if those donated machines had blank hard drives.

I'm waiting for the press release before I grab my pitchfork and torch. It could very well be that our villains are not the RIAA but the ever-unpopular Microsoft and other software companies.

Re:Are we sure they are after music?

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

Was it so wrong, though? The kids needed computers for education.

If it wasn't so wrong, why didn't you just not pay for ANY of the Windows copies?

Is it OK to steal when it's "for the kids"?

NO!

Do not try to justify your theft. If you really want to not pay for software, USE FREE SOFTWARE.

Fsck sake...

[Maqueo]

OK, so we use every trick in the book the get kids into buying into stuff == (happiness|coolness) and then we wonder whey they just grab it instead off the net instead of spending the $$$ they don't have?

Left Behind

[Vegetable Soup]

What pisses me off is that they're going after a school district - and school districts don't generally have much money. Individuals may be violating copyright, but a policy of going after school districts seems to put the burden on those who don't have much and who we want to protect (school districts) to benefit the RIAA. How many children will be left behind because of this policy?

ReGoddamndiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

"The raids came on the same day that Justice Department officials in Washington announced the creation of a new Intellectual Property Task Force to step up copyright enforcement.

Some of the stolen copyrighted material being sought in the raids is suspected as having been distributed from overseas sources.

The raids are reflective of a new effort by the Justice Department to treat copyright enforcement as a higher priority, something that motion-picture and music-industry officials have been urging. "

Hmm lets see our wonderful FBI among other government orgs let 9/11 happen, tons of unsolved child abductions, serial murders, etc. Have nothing better to do now but raid elementary schools because the MPAA and RIAA want them to. Yeah copyright infringement is wrong but isn't there about 1000 other more important things the FBI cold be working on locally here in Phoenix? This is ridiculous. The government is on it's way to be run by the MPAA and RIAA. Law enforcement is going to bust a school for music and movies while people are selling crack downtown NEXT to the police HQ (I saw it yesterday), gangs a few miles south run rampant terrorizing neighborhoods, etc. and one of our top priorities now is busting and (in the near future when more laws get passed) jailing people for downloading music. This is just sickening. The Justice Deparment... what a joke.

Re:USA becomes a police state

[Analogy Man]

I really appreciate your comment. Following 9/11 I made the comment that my greatest security was anonymity. In away the source of my freedom is the same.

I wonder to what extent is freedom in the former USSR states and Eastern Europe due to more democratic laws versus limitation of enforcement resources. There could be a law against sneezing, but it enforcement would be limited by budgets and priorities.

As our executive branch and their mechanisms of power (CIA, FBI, ATF) get more budget and latitude to operate (sealed warrants etc) it will be interesting to see how many existing laws and regulations are enforced on behalf of the corporations pulling the strings of our elected officials.

Not to get too Orwellian, but will our countries prosperity lead to a accelerating erosion of our freedoms by enabling a increasingly powerful police/security apparatus? What will be the breaking point were the average Joe Bloggs will be fed up? When this happens will the populace have sufficient power to take back their government?.

woosh.

[Anonymous Coward]

the FBI rushes in to protect big money.
how surprising.

how long before any given organization with means to actually do something is controlled exclusively by corporate interest? not long.

We won already?

[Skye16]

Don't we have some terrorists to be finding and stopping before they can kill us all? Or even rapists and murderers fleeing across state lines?

Just seems like the FBI has their priorities a bit out of place, here...

Re:Bypass

[Xcruciate]

I have to agree. I am an admin for a school district. We don't have the money or the resources to implement the latest and greatest in security for our users. We do what we can, but, as other people have mentioned, some kids have way more time on their hands that we do. If you are a teacher reading this, please, please monitor what your kids are doing on the computers and on the Internet. Yes, we filter content also, but there is a limit to it's capabilities. Teacher monitoring is the best defense we have.

It also bothers the hell out of me that the friggin' FBI is WASTING time on this crap when they could be TRYING to track and bust terrorists.

This whole thing with downloading music is just silly. IAAOF (I am an old fart) and I never got into downloading .mp3's even though I am in the tech biz. I still go out and buy CD's (gasp). To actually waste my taxpayer dollars trying to bust people for this is laughable when my taxpayer dollars could be used to try to beef up this country's security.

Re:Napster Library?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have wondered the same thing. Who gets to define what a "library" is? I pay taxes and my local library (in the traditional bricks and mortar sense) uses that money to buy several copies of books or CDs or videos or whatever, which they then share for free with whomever in their district wants them.

So, if I started an Internet site charging a modest fee ("taxes") to support my purchasing of several digital copies of items which I then shared for free with those in my "district" (those who paid money), why is that not a "library"? Assume that prior to making its music available, originally Napster purchased the music it later shared. Is Apple I-Tunes a library, but not Napster? What's the difference? Is it discrimination for a comapny to see its wares to Apple for I-Tunes, but not sell to Napster?

I wish someone would sketch out the differences between something like Napster and a traditional library, because I have studied libraries a little and I just can't see any conceptual differences. The only difference I can see is that the content companies approve of one, but not the other. Their approval or disapproval seems completely arbitrary to me.

Hooray!

[Greyfox]

I'm glad the FBI is doing important stuff like protecting copyrights! Obviously they have nothing more important to do! I'll be happy to know, the next time Al Quida attacks the USA, that at least the studios that Jack Valenti represents didn't lose another $9 to those evil teenage movie pirates!

I call BS

[MunchMunch]

"Whatever helps you sleep at night."

"I prefer to steal Babbage's, but thats just me."

Please. You 'theft' nuts are why we're moving to a pre-Statute of Anne conception of copyright. You cannot look at information as property, and not end up at a situation where you advocate anything less than perpetual copyright.

Additionally, if you combine this with the insane but popular concept of creativity being a result of Foucoultian "genius," then you have a situation even worse than Conger-dominated England, circa 1708, where every literary work, like Shakespeare was inherited through a single publisher family and kept from the public for hundreds of years.

You think you are being 'common sense' and 'intuitive' in a lawyer-speak, responsibility-shirking world when you use words like 'theft.' But you of course don't realize that you're just taking an ultimately simple-minded approach that is absolutely inimical to the ideals of copyright that Framers like Madison and Jefferson intended when it was created--to be a civic-minded engine for progress, emphatically NOT a grant of property.

Re:I call BS

[markfive]

Look, I could really care less if you steal music or not. And yes thats what it is theft. No matter how many fancy names and pseudo intellectual phrases you come up with, the fact still remains that by taking intellectual property that you have not paid for, you are breaking the law. Please dont try to pretend that you are stealing the latest Britney Spears album for the "greater good".

Thats really the only problem I have with people who try to make this argument. Just admit it, you are stealing. Whatever, who cares. You are not trying to set information free or further the intrinsic goals of the Founding Fathers. Give me a break!

Re:I call BS

[MunchMunch]

That may have been its purpose originally. Like many other industries, such as the film and music industry, the impetus for the Conger's existence does not need to be detrimental to copyright. Citing a civic intent at the birth of the Conger does not excuse the fact of what they eventually did to limit and sell back to the public their participation in their own culture, with no discernible benefit and only restrictions to the encouragement of creativity.

MOD PARENT UP

[anethema]

I've said it 100 times.., and ill say it again! :)

Pisses me off...

[eclectic4]

Good thing we hired more FBI agents in the aftermath of 9/11 to stop terrorists. Looks like the extra man hours are paying off!

Spending my tax money on having the fucking FBI literally raid the place my children go to learn to insure the RIAA and the Movie industry pad their yearly record breaking sales numbers is beyond ludicrous.

Absolutely insane.

Meanwhile, we have 12,000 gun murders a year, education budget keeps getting cut, we still don't provide health care for our children (at LEAST), employee production has skyrocketed and large corporations apparenlty can use the FBI to break the balls of our kids, in school, to quelch loss of profit.

No wonder the world fucking hates us. Our priorities are so fucking whacked, I wouldn't want our brand of "freedom" to spread either! We don't want to spread freedom, fuck, if that was the case then we would have invaded Saudi Arabia, a "great" ally and one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, years ago. But, they have things we need, so we leave them alone and call them our friend. In the case of George W., actually very good friends.

No, what we really want to spread is the idea of property rights, capitalism, greed, wants, consumerism, you know, to make a few people rich, because that's what matters most!

Re:Way to go !

[Mycroft_VIII]

If Jefferson and Madison are "extremely obscure historic figures" for you then a) I feel sorry for you, and B) I seriously question your ability to partake in this discussion with any credibility.
He wasn't confusing the isue, he was actually discusing in a more complete context. But I suppose if the subject was math you would make the same arguement if someon brought up multiplication and long division.

Mycroft

Ludicrous!

[aksansai]

This is one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard in a while. I can't believe it was declared "Insightful" by a moderator.

To be so ignorant as to imply that the FBI doing its job in domestic affairs will deter its ability to prevent terrorism (by any organization) is amazing to me.

The FBI is not an entity with one sole investigative purpose. It is an entity that is the federal government's ability to make sure that federal law is respected and upheld. They are a law enforcement group. Copyright infringement is just one of their purposes - they've been tracking down copyright infringement even before the popularity of trading music on the Internet (have you ever seen one of those big FBI warnings at the start of a movie).

The FBI states that its priorities are as follows:

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack.

Top priority would mean that most of the agents working for the FBI would be dedicated to preventing another attack from a terrorist organization.

2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.

What good is freedom if foreign governments get to decide what happens with our government? I can completely understand why this ranks #2 on their list of priorities.

3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.

Although it may be a highly debated topic, exchanging software, music, or other digital data that is a copyrighted work without the permission of the publisher or author is illegal. The fact that it is the third priority means that this would also have quite a few agents to investigate these crimes. In my opinion, I believe that they are probably understaffed for this particular task.

4. Combat public corruption at all levels.

This would include state officials. Imagine the scope of work that is necessary to fulfill this priority.

5. Protect civil rights.
6. Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises.
7. Combat major white-collar crime.
8. Combat significant violent crime.
9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners.
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission.

If you have any doubt in the FBI's ability to investigate possible terrorist threats, go their website and do the research for yourself. I would hate to think what would happen to this country if our sole purpose was to defeat terrorism while neglecting our domestic issues. A crime is a crime - and affects us all, in the end.

Re:GPL

[Mycroft_VIII]

Personally I download very little that's still under copyright. Almost never if it's still publicly available in fact I can only think of a few songs, all from the same disk that won't play in my cd-rom because the idiot copy protection scheme I don't feel like trying to bypass.
A few other item's haven't been available to the public for many years, except one in a really cheesy version I hate on a soundtrack.
Personally I am all for the concept of copyright as ORIGINALLY INTENDED. a few years (10-20 on books and movies, a bit less on software) as I have NO problem with people making money off of thier efforts that way. What I have against the *IAA is thier tactics and attempts to undermine the meaning of copyright as a tempory granted priivilage. Instead they want to treat it like property rights, in perpetuity, at the expense of all concerned (including themselves in the long run), and take excessive actions to protect it. They buy^H^H^H lobby congressmen, try to get the right to hack others computers if they MIGHT be filesharing 'thier' work, instantiate lawsuits against thousands in an extortionlike manner, make pseudo-cd's that in at least on case cost many people a repair bill when they tried to play it on thier computers. And so on.
While some are just being hippocritical (by only see-ing copyright law as good when it supports free as in beer things) many more are just simply angered by those companies that abuse the concept of IP, by eighter the *IAA's tactics listed above, or by ignoring the GPL for thier own selfish gain.

Mycroft

Re:Uh, Information is not in question.

[spiritraveller]

MunchMunch wrote:

"You cannot lok at information as property..."

US Copyright law makes a distinct delineation between information and style/artistic presentation. Music is art.

So what? Just because it is art doesn't make it property. The parent poster was pointing out that copyright does not create a property right... and this must be obvious, for if it did create a property right... copyrights would never expire.

The 5th Amendment's Just Compensation clause would require that the government pay just compensation to the copyright holder at expiration... since that would be a taking by the Federal government.

I think we can be certain that was not the intention of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

Barring non-commerical, personal use, making copies is wrong. P2P networking is not personal, thus is not exempted.

OK, here's what you linked to:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

Where does it say "personal" in there? P2P is used by consumers isn't it?

I won't argue that P2P is legal. But if you are going to cite something, at least cite something that supports your argument.

Missing the point

[MunchMunch]

"Yes and no. The law grants protections to those whom create original works. These protections include exclusive right to reproduce and perform those works. Barring non-commerical, personal use, making copies is wrong. P2P networking is not personal, thus is not exempted.

Bringing up arguments about eighteenth century "right to publish" is bogus. The first amendment automatically protects your right to publish. It even protects your right to parody a copyright work (although not to gain financially from such parody). As a previous post already said, Whatever helps you sleep at night "

The funny thing is, copyright as conceived in our constitution regards creative works--I said 'information' because that's a more basic designation than 'art' and is the most general subject of the Framer's Federalist paper discussions, but 'artistic' works if you insist-- as already belonging as much to the public who through generations of particapatory culture made current creativity possible as to the authors of that work.

The law does not grant protection to those who create "original" works in the strict sense if not the legal, because there are no original works. Every work is in some way derivative. Instead, the law grants temporary copy privileges to novel expressions, which is certainly tenuous ground no matter how you look at it. If you think there is 'genius' creativity, or are 'original' works out there, then you may be right to some small extent--but as the Framers correctly understood, the far larger influence is public culture that freely available.

You are arguing as if there needed to be some positive impetus in order to 'free' creative productions from their rightful ownership. That is simply wrong in both a historical and conceptual interpretation of copyright. Information and artistic expression already will spread if unimpeded, and copyright's primary function is to make the incentives to produce small enough that that spread will be as unimpeded as possible.

Copyright is a grant to protect one thing and one thing only--progress for the benefit of the public. That's what the constitution says, and you are free to disagree, but you better have better rationale than just an assumption that an author has a vague set of 'rights' that are granted by a spurious conception of total creativity of "original" works. At least the Framers listed their principles.

P2P is many things, but more studies are showing that, though the RIAA and copyright 'moral intuitionists' such as yourself don't want to hear it, P2P is culturally enabling a lot more than it is disabling, and regardless of trifling questions of legality is thus more of a boon to the true, real and forgotten purpose of copyright than it is an attack.

AHRA and US Copyright law...

[Allen Zadr]

Actually the AHRA ammended US Copyright law, including most of Chapter 10, which I site from above.

While the original intent was to protect bit-for-bit copying of music, the actual law does not make a distinction (unless I missed something).

Nice

[tetro]

Isn't it nice to see that the piracy problem takes precedent over the terrorist threats.