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?

[Mr. Arbusto]

This is something that has bothered me for quite sometime. If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement. The property is there, and there is NO money changing hands. Perhaps I just need a swift kick to understand.

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?

[flosofl]

I believe the argument they are trying to use is lost revenue. By distributing the work, you are depriving the label/artist of a potential sale.

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?

[slackerboy]

From the article: "Last year, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on the link between international copyright piracy and organized crime, and the FBI has said that there is strong evidence that organized-crime groups have moved into intellectual-property crime, using the profit to pay for other activities."

It doesn't say anything in there specifically about MP3s. I think the link discussed at those hearings probably had to do with the massive quantities of bootleg CDs/DVDs/software that can be bought on the street in a lot of countries. Linking that sort of thing with MP3 file-sharing is a tenuous connection at best.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[lynx_user_abroad]

If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement.

Are we talking about sharing the purchased CD, or about sharing a copy of the purchased CD?

You can share a CD you own.

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.

Under this reading, sharing an MP3 ripped from a CD with friends is fine, as long as it is an analogue of the original. If an exact duplicte of it turns up anywhere else, you're toast.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[BlackHawk-666]

How cool, now, not only do I get to dress up in a crazy Johnny Depp, Pirates of the Carribean, style outfit for beign a pirate I can also wear a natty suit and say stuff like "You want maybe the don leaves a horses head in your bed" because now I'm also an organised crime figure. Piracy still caries the death penalty on the seas IIRC so don't download any N*Sync whilst sailing!

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement.

Is a copy being made without the copyright holder's permission? If it doesn't fall under fair use, then it's copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if you make any money from it. It's like saying "hey, if you weren't paid to kick that guy's head in then, it's not assault".

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Zocalo]

I've had similar thoughts to this one too, but not overlooking the fact that money does not need to change hands to commit copyright infringement - which would be your "swift kick". ;) The RIAA's recent lawsuits have all been targetted at the people making music available to download via P2P, but surely it's the people that actually download it that are committing the copyright infringement. They are the ones that actually issue the commands that generate the copy after all; where is the additional copy created in the process of sharing a folder in Kazaa or whatever?

If I understand US fair use rights correctly, I can legally buy a CD, rip the data to MP3/OGG or whatever and store them on my hard drive for personal use. If so, then by the RIAAs logic I become a criminal the instant I share that folder on the Internet. But if we extend that line of reasoning, why not prosecute a library for copyright infringement? After all, they are willfully leaving all those books lying around where any number of Joes could come in and photocopy them.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[TyrranzzX]

It's actually kinda simple. They got us used to not having constitutional rights about 40 years ago through the DEA and drug wars, as well as criminalizing drugs so that now they can have control over the media through "copyright raids". Indeed, sharing data on how to hack stuff or songs with political motives such as Violent Work of Art are far worse than pot in their eyes, because it threatens them far more than, say, some moron who gets high all the time.

It's a system of intimidation is what it is. They are poorly justifying having a bunch of armed cops come in and mentally rape a few hundred people through brandishing badges, guns, nightsticks and having em' look through their belongings. Not to mention what the kids are being taught; that some authority can come in at any time and search you however they want.

Now, if you want to know what's actually scary about this one, is the fact that there's now a federal task force for copyright infringement. No longer is it just the copyright holders that defend their works, but now it's the goverment who goes in and busts up "operations". And if they can search an entire school district on that little amount of evidence, I wonder if they could get a warrent against a ISP serving a town and just go from door to door searching houses. Call me crazy, but before we were joking about the thought police, now we've got em'.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Microlith]

If so, then by the RIAAs logic I become a criminal the instant I share that folder on the Internet.

Exactly. As soon as you make it available to others, you are responsible for the copies that leave your machine. You have no right to make available copies to people, since you don't have the right to redistribute the recordings. The RIAA is not wrong here. Foolish in their methods, yes, but not wrong.

But if we extend that line of reasoning, why not prosecute a library for copyright infringement? After all, they are willfully leaving all those books lying around where any number of Joes could come in and photocopy them.

And here's where the slashbots get it wrong time and time again. Sitting at a Xerox machine and copying a book, page for page, is wholly infeasable. Hopping on P2P and grabbing an entire album in sufficiently-close-to-CD-quality format is.

The scale of the violation is much higher when you're snagging entire albums/games/movies free online than when you go to a library and photocopy yourself a few pages out of a couple books (which is a perfect example of Fair Use.) I'd say the closest you get with books, is bookwarez.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[WizardOfZid]

Seems I remember a raid in Toledo last year of a bunch of homes to confiscate PCs and modems for uncapping broadband service speed limits by Buckeye Cable.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/27/13 29248&mode=thread&tid=99

The FBI raided about 13 homes and took 23 PCs and modems but I don't think there was ever any arrests or indititments. The FBI had said the amounts exceeded $25,000 stolen but it never was pursued further.

A quote from a comment on that story, "At this stage they say they have not charged anyone with anything, but confiscated systems for evidence. My bet is that the systems will be returned and charges never filed. This is more of a scare tactic."

Might this be a similar situation; have a big profile raid and then do nothing else?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Laur]

The RIAA's recent lawsuits have all been targetted at the people making music available to download via P2P, but surely it's the people that actually download it that are committing the copyright infringement. They are the ones that actually issue the commands that generate the copy after all; where is the additional copy created in the process of sharing a folder in Kazaa or whatever?

You have this exactly backwards. The uploader is the one distributing copies of the media. A copy is made at the uploaders end and is sent down the wire to the downloader. The downloader is merely receiving the copy, he did not create the copy (and couldn't since he doesn't have the original). It makes absolutely no difference if the downloader "initiated the request." So far I have been unable to locate the section of copyright law which forbids receiving copyrighted material, although copying and distribution is quite clearly prohibited. This may be part on the reason no downloaders of copyrighted works have ever been sued. Does anyone know the specific part of law that prohibits downloading?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[schodackwm]

maybe. But at least you [Zadr] mentioned "staff"

Many comments speak up for the "kids" or "students" whom the writers seem to presume were the targets.

Uh, ... not necessarily.

See, for example, another recent schoolhouse raid and aftermath, in this case involving a university:

Two employees (emphasis supplied) of the State University of New York at Albany have pleaded guilty to copyright-infringement charges after federal agents accused the pair of running servers that collected pirated sound and movie files and software. (10/9/2003)

...and further (excerpted from: infocon

NewsBits for October 3, 2003...
Four Plead Guilty in Online Piracy Ring
Four men have pleaded guilty for their roles in an online piracy ring that illegally distributed tens of thousands of copyrighted items through the Internet. Federal prosecutors said Thursday that the guilty pleas were part of a national probe into pirated video games, movies, music files and computer software. Some of the file servers were located at the State University of New York at Albany.
(omitted: AP, CNN, etc citations and links)

The article DOES say, afterall, that the "computer command center" was the target.

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]

The RIAA's recent lawsuits have all been targetted at the people making music available to download via P2P, but surely it's the people that actually download it that are committing the copyright infringement.

Both are infringing -- the sharer is distributing, and that infringes, and the downloader is reproducing, and that infringes. There's a number of different ways to infringe, and only one involves making a copy.

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?

[Maestro4k]

• 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.

And the feds have shown great willingness to do just that. Remember the DEA raids of what were essentially nursing homes in California a while back? The places provided marijuana for medical use so the DEA busted in with a swat team with full weaponry and handcuffed and essentially harrassed and terrorized a bunch of very sick people. It's actually a step down from that atrocity for them to start raiding every measly little file-sharer, at least most of those aren't sick and frail.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[cpt kangarooski]

The downloader is merely receiving the copy, he did not create the copy (and couldn't since he doesn't have the original).

This is incorrect. He is making a copy. At the very least, he is having his computer write a copy into RAM or onto a disk according to what's coming down over the network. That's enough to count, given the MAI precedent.

The Napster case was pretty clear about all this.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[senzafine]

I must be missing something as well.

"Some parents, especially of elementary students, don't want their kids accessing the Internet," Tait said.

I'm sure that 90% of those parents would be ok if their kids are using the internet at school where certain material is blocked and the student is under supervision. That quote is the most moronic thing I've read today (as of 10:28am).

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And here's where the slashbots get it wrong time and time again. Sitting at a Xerox machine and copying a book, page for page, is wholly infeasable. Hopping on P2P and grabbing an entire album in sufficiently-close-to-CD-quality format is."

Maybe for you or anyone who posts here... But for most of the people I know they could have a book copied in 1/10th the time it took them to figure out how to download/install a file sharing program and find an album they want.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Zocalo]

A copy is made at the uploaders end and is sent down the wire to the downloader.

That's a good point I'd overlooked. The copy of the data is indeed made on the host's PC, loaded into IP packets and sent on its merry way... Hmm. So, if I were to share a huge volume of copyrighted media but never actually had anyone download any of it, I wonder what the RIAA's take on that would be? The law prohibits making a copy, so if one of these cases actually made it to trial, presumably the RIAA would have to prove not only that the music was available, but was actually downloaded too.

Does anyone know the specific part of law that prohibits downloading?

Well, "downloading" is a little specific; I'd say "receiving" is more likely, if it's in there at all. I'd guess it would be have to be handled like receiving physical stolen goods; you'd have to prove that the recipient knew it was stolen and then accepted it anyway. I don't think the RIAA's lawyers would find this too difficult given all the press about P2P, so the only reason I can imagine they haven't tried using this law is because there isn't one (yet).

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?

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, so far it would seem that the RIAA doesn't have much confidence in your theory.

Hardly; they argued it successfully when bringing down Napster.

They go after uploaders, not downloaders.

Yes. It's a tactical decision -- given that even RIAA has limited resources available, they're going after the head of the snake first. Originally they went after the P2P services themselves since that had the promise of stopping users from infringing. It worked somewhat, but has since stalled. So now they're going after uploaders, since one uploader is likely to feed numerous leeching downloaders. Take out the uploader, and the downloaders will find it increasingly hard to infringe without throwing themselves in harm's way. Eventually they'll probably go after downloaders too -- but not yet.

It's just more effective to proceed as they have been, insofar as anything they do seems to have any effect. Downloaders are small fry, but they're still in danger.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Gumshoe]

I'd guess it would be have to be handled like receiving physical stolen goods; you'd have to prove that the recipient knew it was stolen and then accepted it anyway. I don't think the RIAA's lawyers would find this too difficult given all the press about P2P, so the only reason I can imagine they haven't tried using this law is because there isn't one (yet).

You're assuming that P2P doesn't have non-copyright infringing uses too. In fact, the RIAA would have a mighty difficult time proving that the downloader knew it was copyrighted for this very reason. How is the downloader supposed to know that a particular file is copyrighted (or that the uploader doesn't have a distribution licence) unless it is advertised accordingly? Copyright is a way to control distribution and nothing more.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[vida]

So what will the publishing industry do in the near future when any of this turn mainstream:

a) .pdf of full books distributed p2p

b) audiobooks distributed p2p

specially b, since some people don't really enjoy reading from a monitor

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[3terrabyte]

But if we extend that line of reasoning, why not prosecute a library for copyright infringement? After all, they are willfully leaving all those books lying around where any number of Joes could come in and photocopy them.

Good question. Long, tough answer.

Libraries have a HUGE subset of laws with their own Fair Use policies. It's completely different than what you're used to expecting for private individuals. And then there's clauses for archiving.

I remember looking into it years ago to see if I could get Library status for a business idea that ripped people's own CD's into mp3 (for their own use). Kind of a drop off CD's, come back in an hour. Conclusion: dead end.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[ArsonSmith]

So if I leave me door unlocked and someone comes and steals everything from my house, can I be charged with the theft? I mean it happend in my house. Even though someone else did it I left the door unlocked. It must be my fault.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[3terrabyte]

Sorry, you're incorrect! You can not make a copy of something you do not have the original copy of. I'm sorry I don't have the links for this, today.

Napster actually got in trouble for hosting everyone's list. What was the term? What was the analogy -- Racketeering? Such as "hosting the warehouse" where gun-dealers sold illegal guns, etc.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[shark72]

"You can share a CD you own."

That much I understand. If I have a CD, I can loan it to a friend. If he makes a copy of it, he's in violation of the law, but that's largely irrelevant to the act of me loaning him my CD.

"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."

This is where I get lost. Can somebody please point me to the section of US copyright law which spells this out? I understand the part of the law about libraries and similar institutions being allowed to make copies for archival purposes, but I can't find anything that relates one way or another to making copies and giving them to friends.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Lemmy Caution]

The model is broken. The ability to listen to music isn't a good. It is no longer sensible to be treated as a good. The technology has changed it. Too many otherwise completely well-socialized, law-abiding people just naturally lend out their music now - just like if the book publishing industry tried to make it illegal for me to share my books and magazines.

Music needs to be re-understood and financed as a service, like cooking (did you know that recipes can't be copyrighted? If I get a hold of the recipes of the Iron Chef or James Beard, I'm free to use them, share them, or whatever. Funny, they still seem to be doing OK) or jokes.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[irontiki]

Perhaps I just need a swift kick to understand.

The FBI is on it's way to give you a swift kick and seize all of your computer equipment.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[cpt kangarooski]

You can not make a copy of something you do not have the original copy of.

Of course you can. By making a copy of a copy. If the Mona Lisa were copyrighted, and I knew what it looked like based on pictures, even though I had never seen the real thing, and I painted one of my own, that would still be an infringing reproduction.

I'd love to see links from it, but then I'd love to see a living dinosaur too -- and the odds of seeing either are remote, at best.

Napster actually got in trouble for hosting everyone's list. What was the term?

What Napster got in trouble for was contributory and vicarious infringement. Essentially, they helped others infringe, they knew about it, it was to their benefit, and they could have stopped it, but didn't. The funny thing about contributory and vicarious infringement though, is that both causes of action simply CANNOT stand unless there is an underlying direct infringement -- that is, you cannot have helped someone else infringe unless that someone else did in fact infringe. Which takes us back to the users -- uploaders and downloaders -- who were found to have infringed as a part of the case.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[3terrabyte]

Well, it's no joke. Living dinosaur, indeed. I can't find a damn thing to support my point.

Your Mona Lisa example is stupid. You must be trolling. I drew a mona lisa from memory (or even a picture of it) and I can go to jail for hanging it in my basement, and never selling it, advertising it, etc. Yea right.

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?

[jpetts]

so don't download any N*Sync whilst sailing!

Not even if I yvan eht nioj?

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?

[cpt kangarooski]

I can't find a damn thing to support my point.

Yes, that's just what I expected. I didn't say that I _liked_ the law as it stands, but at least I know what it is.

Your Mona Lisa example is stupid. You must be trolling.

It's not the best example ever, but I'm not trolling. I don't troll.

I drew a mona lisa from memory (or even a picture of it) and I can go to jail for hanging it in my basement, and never selling it, advertising it, etc. Yea right.

1) The example presumes the Mona Lisa is copyrighted (which in fact it is not, I just wanted a very famous piece of art for the sake of example) 2) I didn't say jail, I said that it would infringe. At the moment it still takes a bit more than mere infringement for criminal penalties to apply, but not a hell of a lot more. So if you were to paint your own Mona Lisa from memory and hang it up in a secret place where only you ever saw it then you'd just have to worry about the copyright holder suing you for $150,000 or so.

If no one finds out, you're damn unlikely to ever get caught -- but that's merely a practical issue. It doesn't change the underlying offense, any more than saying that a murderer that isn't caught isn't a criminal.

And yes -- this is all fairly stupid, I agree. But that's how things are. I'd like to change it, but I haven't managed to yet. I think that awareness of how amazingly absurd and terrible this law is now is a good tool towards getting it reformed, though.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[AK Marc]

The uploader is the one distributing copies of the media.

In the circles I travel in, there is not an "uploader" and "downloader" for every transfer. There is one "server" and one "uploader" or "downloader." That is, only the person that initiates the transfer is taking action. The server is not making a copy during a download. They are just responding to a request. The server is not downloading from someone copying a file on it. Just making a file available is not uploading. Having a file in a shared directory that someone else goes to and pulls the file from is not uploading. Emailing the file or transfering it to a public server other than your own is uploading.

The courts have ruled that putting a file in a shared folder is not necessarily uploading (a necessary ruling or else all media stored on Windows machines with the default administrative shares would be illegal). They have not yet ruled whether the same applies when someone purposefully puts the files in a shared folder of a program designed for distribution.

However, if just making the copyrighted media available was illegal, then libraries with copy machines would be illegal. From what They are saying, it is perfectly legal for a library or video store to provide media and the means to copy that media without violating copyright, but if I provide media and the means to copy it, I'm breaking the law.

This may be part on the reason no downloaders of copyrighted works have ever been sued.

From what I can tell, they target only those sharing because they are easier to identify. But they charge them only with downloading, since sharing has never been found to be illegal and they don't want to test it now.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[lilbudda]

A copy is made at the uploaders end and is sent down the wire to the downloader. The downloader is merely receiving the copy, he did not create the copy (and couldn't since he doesn't have the original).

Whos's to say they don't have the original? What if the media is scratched or they don't have the time/knowlege to rip a copy? These are still legal activities.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[iwadasn]

Downloading is not illegal unless they can prove that you don't have a license for the music, and you aren't going to use it in ways consistent with fair use. If I have a truck load of CDs and I decide to download MP3s of them rather than ripping them myself, that's perfectly legal.

The problem for the RIAA is that proving that a downloader doesn't have a valid license is essentially impossible, so they can't really bust you for downloading.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Daengbo]

Your analogy is flawed, because sharing a recipe would be more like giving someone the sheet music to a song (which, incidentally, is also a copyrighted work).
Both a recipe and sheet usic require something that a music file does not -- skill to turn it into something useful.
As a former chef, I'll tell you that most will give out a recipe if someone asks, simply because they make their living off of having the skill to make it better than you can and an atmosphere where you want to eat it.
Pressing a button on your player is not an equivalent.

To those stating civil disobediance, I think you are lying to cover your selfishness. When you get a demonstration together, announce in advance that you will be downloading music, invite the press, then get thrown in jail for your action, then I will change my mind, because this is what civil disobediance is used for -- to change the law by making an example of yourself. If you are downloading it for any other reason than this, you are not being civally disobediant, you are just ignoring the law to get what you want, and it's childish.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[AK Marc]

As soon as you make it available to others, you are responsible for the copies that leave your machine.

Then the libraries are responsible for every copyright violation when someone copies a book they checked out. It doesn't work that way for them or video stores, why should it work that way for everyone else?

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

I've done it. I've had classes in college where the handbook we bought was mostly copies of copyrighted material printed by the Kinko's. If you think it isn't done regularly, especially by college students with more time than money on books that are $150 each, you are mistaken. There are at least 20 copy machines in the library at the university I went to. That would be excessive unless there was wholesale copying transpiring. You can even buy copy cards in large denominations if you wish...

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Hexerei]

so, then by the RIAAs logic I become a criminal the instant I share that folder on the Internet.

Exactly. As soon as you make it available to others, you are responsible for the copies that leave your machine. You have no right to make available copies to people, since you don't have the right to redistribute the recordings. The RIAA is not wrong here. Foolish in their methods, yes, but not wrong.

No, it should not be illiegal on the sharer's part. Think about it people.

You have CDs at your house. Most people leave them sitting out and other people can listen to them when they are over. I don't know anyone that locks their CDs in a vault, or hides them in locked cabinets. So by having these CDs sitting out is similiar to having them on your computer being shared. Most p2p programs by default are set to search your computer for files, so the average 'non-techie' wouldn't think about the results of that. I even know people that use their p2p programs to play the music, which means it has to be shared or in their library.
Anyway, back to the CDs in the house. So by having these laying around you are "sharing" them to any visitors that come in. If you have a bunch of friends come over and one of them brings a laptop and rips a CD of yours (without asking your permission) does that mean you are guilty of piracy? That is what happens online. Sure, some people choose specific files to share with the intent of other people downloading them, but others don't pay any attention to it. Just like some people might not pay any attention to the friend that rips someones CDs when he is over.

The guilty party should not be the person that shares it, but the person that downloads it. Because that person is willingly making illigal copies of the music. True, the copy is made on the sharer's computer, but the downloader is the one that initiates those commands.

If someone has a party and at some point a CD is grabbed from his/her collection and then copied using his/her computer without any permission then he/she should NOT be guilty. Only the person that took the CD and copied it is stealing, the owner (or 'sharer') had no part in it except that is where the guilty part found the music (or other 'information').

I'm only talking about p2p use here. If someone is actually handing out copied CDs or putting mp3s on a website that is a different matter because they are doing it for the purpose of redistributing the music. Although I keep some of my mp3s online, but I don't advertise where it is because it's purpose is to allow me to listen to my music at work.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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

And here's where the slashbots get it wrong time and time again.

No, I believe that you've gotten it wrong.

• Copying a book with a Xerox copier is, indeed, illegal.
• The library isn't prosecuted for having books available, as they haven't done anything wrong--any more than Tower Records has by making music CDs available. It's the individual doing the copying that is doing something illegal, and in fact Kinko's often will refuse to copy a book. Educational institutions may or may not have a particular dispensation to copy class materials; it could well be that they simply break the law and the process is ignored.
• Now, since copying music via P2P happens to be easier, and, quite frankly, folks would rather burn a track than download the latest C++ textbook, the RIAA has pursued violators more aggressively--they stand to lose more money (in their eyes). But copying music via the internet is no more an illegal act than copying a book via a Xerox; it's just that the potential profit loss is greater, meaning the RIAA has more incentive to stop it.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Daengbo]

You are so unbelievably wrong, not the slashbots. I will quote a previous post of mine:

Come to Thailand, and I will show you a land where university profs send their textbook to one of the ten photocopy places on campus or another ten just off campus to copy the entire book for all 2-3000 students taking their intro classes. Unless the book is written by one of the profs, I have never seen the real schmeel in a student's hands. Never. Photocopying a Bash book from the library on campus is as easy as taking it to the library photocopier and asking them to do is for 50 satang (about 1.2 cents) per page. If they are too busy to do the whole thing, they'll send it out to one of the volume shops outside for you. You know not of what you speak...

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Allen Zadr]

1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

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.
--
Bold emphasis added.

The only question is the meaning of the word, noncommercial.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Sylver Dragon]

Yes, but those don't threaten the corporate masters of the US. Nor do they endager the continued existance of the US government. They only rape, murder, and steal from the proles, and who cares about them?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Lemmy Caution]

The analogy is not flawed insofar as some people sell cookbooks, and the examples I gave were celebrity chefs with TV shows. Do they specify that you can only make their recipes if you've watched their show and watched the ads? No, they do not.

Music is a skill. It's performance. The added marginal work of musicians to allow someone to hear a copy of their music is zero - nada - nothing. It should be the burden of the musicians to make sure they are compensated before beginning to play, not to pretend that they are in a widget-making business.

How does my sharing my files equate to selfishness? If anything, it would be leeching that is selfish. And leeching is not being chased down: it's file sharing that is.

I don't think it's a matter of civil disobedience in the Rosa Parks sense of the term, because 1. the stakes aren't important enough for that sort of thing, and 2. people are already voting with their hard drives.

I think you know that you're defending an indefensible model.

Incidentally, I have a library of about 2000 cd's. The files I have of music that I don't have on CD are largely so that I can investigate new music, not to avoid supporting musicians. Technically, my M.O. may be illegal, but I have absolutely no problems with it.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I were to share a huge volume of copyrighted media but never actually had anyone download any of it, I wonder what the RIAA's take on that would be? The law prohibits making a copy, so if one of these cases actually made it to trial, presumably the RIAA would have to prove not only that the music was available, but was actually downloaded too.

Actually, according to a bill just passed by a House subcommittee, all you'd have to do is have $1000 worth of music available in a shared folder and you could spend three years in prison. See the full story at http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5182898.html

Chilling. Do we really as a country want to elevate file sharing to a felony? Is this proportional punishment?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[shark72]

"The only question is the meaning of the word, noncommercial."

Correct. That clause covers using a device to make a copy. Many slashdotters will assume that this also covers distributing copies.

Fair use allows format-shifting, mix tapes, and other copies for personal use -- no debate there. The law is clear that you can't be nailed for the simple act of using a tape recorder... and rightfully so.

If you come upon any stuff in the law books that covers distributing copies (analog, digital or otherwise -- many Slashdotters have pointed out that there is apparently a difference according to US code) I would love to see it!

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[sn2k]

just like if the book publishing industry tried to make it illegal for me to share my books and magazines.

Actually, what is being done is like if the book publishing industry tried to make it illegal for you to copy the book and distrubute those copies to your friends. Oh my god, they already do this. What has this cruel world come to?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[dasmegabyte]

You won't see it. There is no such law -- distribution of copyrighted materials is ALWAYS illegal, there's no fair use protection.

Of course, since it's up to the copyright holder to prosecute infringement, I doubt they'd go after anybody if the extent of this was friends sharing mixtapes. That's a good will thing...I'm sure it bugs some record exists, but not so much that they'd risk the PR disaster of "tape raids."

The problem is when the infringement is organized and blatant. How can they let it go? If every person with a computer can get any album they want for free, there's a problem, because the allure is too great.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[smyle]

At the very least, he is having his computer write a copy into RAM or onto a disk according to what's coming down over the network. That's enough to count, given the MAI precedent.

Not disagreeing with you, but think of the ramifications of this.

Every ISP and backbone provider should also be liable. The same electrons don't go directly from one PC to another. If I download a song, their ISP's router will look at the packet, copy it into RAM (or at least a CPU register), then copy it *again* to the other wire.

Furthermore, there's no way around it, since even a manual inspection of what's in the packet will cause another 'copy' to be made of the ever-so-precious copyrighted data. Arrest all ISPs!

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Daengbo]

Fine. I don't even know what "leeching" is, so I wouldn't know the difference. Downloading these files is against the law, so I think people should do one of two things:

1. Follow the law, or
2. Disobey in a way which will call attention to the problem and lay themselves on the line for their beliefs.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Feztaa]

That much I understand. If I have a CD, I can loan it to a friend. If he makes a copy of it, he's in violation of the law, but that's largely irrelevant to the act of me loaning him my CD.

Not in Canada. Ignoring the fact that uploading & downloading music on kazaa is actually legal (until an appeal overturns it), it's actually legal to lend somebody a CD, have them make a personal backup for themselves, then take your CD back. It's still illegal to make a copy of a CD and hand out the copy, though.

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]

It's not that Easier == Illegal. Copying an entire book line by line is probably infringement, even if you scribe it by hand. Copying a single paragraph is probably not. There's no hard rule as to where the cut off is -- the right of prosecution is in the hands of the copyright holder, and if that holder claims your use was infringing, it goes to court. If your use is decided to be infringing, it's illegal, and you could owe money, or worse.

Now, if your infringment is one copy, and you keep it to yourself, maybe loan it to a friend, nobody will know. And it won't come to the attention of the copyright holder. So there's no problem. In fact, if you wanted to scan in all your own books into PDF, that's your right.

Now, when you take that PDF, and spread it -- that is, you give it to a friend, who gives it to a frend, etc -- you are more likely to call attention to yourself. Hence, the copyright holder is more likely to discover you.

Continue that trend. If you scan a hundred books, and spread them to a hundred people, you've committed not one, but ten thousand acts of infringement. If the copyright holder finds out, they're likely to be pissed. And they're likely to request that the courts help them figure out who you are, before your infringment cuts into their profits selling the book.

This sort of thing happens with photocopiers on college campuses all the time. So much that most campuses have established an expensive fee on their copiers to discourage this sort of use.

It's not the EASE of use that makes the infringement worse. It's the SCOPE. The EASE can increase the SCOPE, so maybe there's an indirect link...but that's not the logical link.

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.

The FBI has many, many agents. They're not all working on kidnapping and terrorism all the time. The FBI has a LOT of laws to enforce and I don't think either of us want to ignore a subset of them just because they're unpopular. The 14th Ammendment was pretty unpopular, but it was enforced. So was the 18th.

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.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[dasmegabyte]

I don't think the FBI needs to see a distinction between [`~._.~`Rippin_Krew`~._.~`] and the Gambino family.

If a crime is committed routinely by a group, it's organized crime. Right? And the distribution network for infringing works is pretty well organized.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[GigsVT]

You have a strange interpertation of what "fair use" is. Without distribution in some form, copyright law doesn't apply at all. Fair use most definitely applies to distribution, that's the only thing it applies to.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Lemmy Caution]

Leeching is downloading without sharing. The RIAA et al are going after the people who share - since, technically, they are violating copyright - not the people who download. If you haven't been clear on this very basic aspect of what's going on, then why the hell are you piping in about it?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Eraser_]

I have seen people do this with their music libraries over HTTP. They have an index script which generates a true index of all the mp3's stored on their drive, and serves it up with a link which looks like you're going to download the song. However, when you click the links it goes to a page on copyright law.

I would love to see a harassment suit come from someone like this who gets an RIAA C&D letter/lawsuit. Go all spendy on a lawyer who sees the benefit in pounding the RIAA.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[angle_slam]

Another interesting question is the definition of digital musical recordings.

The Audio Home Recording Act was originally intended to prevent exact bit-fot-bit copies of digital recordings. It can be argued that an MP3 therefore isn't a digital musical recording according to the AHRA. Argument may not work, but it may be worth a shot.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[VargrX]

so sayeth Jonhnny Mnemonic:

# Copying a book with a Xerox copier is, indeed, illegal.

can you provide links to case law on this?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[lynx_user_abroad]

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

Understand the distinction between copy and analogue. An analogue is what you get when you make an analog copy of an audio recording. It's not an exact duplicate. The presumption is that some "quality" is lost in the process. An n-th generation duplicate would become unplayable. A copy is identical to the original.

The actions are not the same.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Dutchmaan]

The actions are not the same.

The actions *are* the same.. the *results* of the actions are different.

This is where the courts come in to interpret things. Does the problem lie with the action? absolutely not.. what was acceptable before as ideology has now become unacceptable because of the perception of lost profits.

What this essentially boils down to is the government choosing between protecting the rights of the people vs. the gains of corporations... and I think we all have no illusions on which way the government is leaning. After all lets face it, if the government actually chose for the rights of the people, X corporation would simply change business models and very quickly. since the government works for the corporations now, they have no need to change their business model. ..or in other words it is the people who are being forced to alter their behavior from the status quo not the corporations.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[jonbryce]

That's the argument that won the case for the alleged infringers in Canada.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[dasuridai]

Actually you are missing the point with the easier!=illegal statement. IANAL, but I do understand that laws are created to be used to control actions and not necessarily to conform to strict moral and theological rules. Therefore, when something that the government does not want done becomes easier/more profitable greater restrictions and penalties are required to exact the same balance that existed before this change occured.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Allen Zadr]

The word personal can easily be argued by any competant first year law student as covering giving a copy to a friend (this means 1 copy, 1 friend).

If you make two or more copies then this will be argued as falling under manufacture and distribution. Neither of which are covered by the above exclusion, regardless of noncommercial status.

As the post above points out, it may also be a goodwill thing, but the law protects consumer and artist alike. Anything else is lawful interpretation.

Bottom line, P2P is not necessarily commercial (although any P2P client with ads is), P2P is not personal use.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[lynx_user_abroad]

We must have lost something in translation.

If we start with the same original, how can the results of our actions be different if our actions were the same?

Or look at it another way; if we start with the same CD. I make an analogue (lossy) copy of the CD (.WAV -> .mp3), then an analogue (lossy) copy of the result from that previous step (mp3 -> mp3), and repeat for ten thousand generations, my result will be much different than if I start with the same CD, make a digital (lossless) copy of that CD (cp file${n}.WAV file`expr ${n} + 1`.WAV) and repeat for ten thousand generations.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Allen Zadr]

A much more important point is that Fair Use, the way that portion of the law is written, is specifically for nonprofit use, such as Schools, libraries, government and archives.

Fair use also covers nonprofit use of a song in parody.

The gray area is when you distribute part or a portion of the song in a critique, news story or educational work. This can constitute fair use, but doesn't have to. In otherwords you may find yourself defending said actions to a jury of your peers.

--
Last point, copyright does not only cover distribution but specifically, "performance" and "reproduction". distribution is treated as a derivitive of reproduction (as it rightly is).

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Dutchmaan]

We didn't lose anything in translation, just interpretation. I can see and understand your pattern of logic, I just disagree with the way you interpret it... which is *fine*.. you see things differently than I do and that's cool... it's also why we end up needing things like democracies. If everyone thought and interpreted the same way we wouldn't even need government.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

TITLE 17 COPYRIGHTS CHAPTER 1 Sec. 108.

Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work.

Emphasis mine

And indeed, Sec 107 Fair Use allows for "teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

So you can produce unlimited quantities for classroom or educational use; and libraries can make one copy (and sometimes three.) But libraries cannot make unlimited copies. Although you could argue that you copied the chapter of book from a library for research, even if it was outside of a classroom.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[deblau]

Very simple, really. Emphasis below is mine.

17 USC 106:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, 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.

So unless you fall under one of the listed exemptions in sections 107 thru 122 (107 is Fair Use and 108 is for libraries), you can't reproduce or distribute any copyrighted work.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[AzureLunatic]

Are schools suddenly commercial organizations? (Probably not. But they're not individual consumers either.)

It would be very nice if schools could easily get site licenses for software and other media for only slightly more than the price of a few seat licenses. It might lead to immediate decreased revenue for the companies involved, but if your company's software is what schoolchildren are getting trained on, guess what the majority of those schoolchildren are going to buy themselves (or nag their parents to buy, or download and individually pirate for themsleves)?

That principle, the "what children are trained on is what they are likely to use for themselves" principle, is incidentally why M$ paying fines by donating $$$ worth of software to schools makes me grind my teeth. They're not losing money by giving software to schools, they're recruiting a wider userbase for themselves.

Smaller companies may not be able to afford this as easily, but if the schools duplicated the material themselves, and then paid full price for support from the company, they at least wouldn't be losing actual money. In fact, schools might be encouraged to buy more software from companies they otherwise wouldn't have considered, if they can legally get enough to share with everyone.

I'm taking this a little personally, because it's local. I haven't RTFA yet, as TFA's suffering from the /. effect, but I'm presuming that since someone somewhere upthread said Deer Valley, that it's not our kid's school district, and if it had been, then we'd have at least gotten a note home about it...

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[D.A. Zollinger]

If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement.

You know, that is a question I want answered. Lets say I ripped my entire CD collection to my computer, but because human nature is greedy, I installed Kazaa to download more music. It set up an upload directory where I ripped all my songs so I am sharing my music collection that I legally purchased. I start using Kazaa, but I never find anything worth downloading, but Kazaa continues to run in the background, thousands of songs being shared that I might not even be aware are being shared. In fact, if I do not understand how Kazaa works, I might think that every song on there that is available to download is there for my legal consumption (this is why RIAA, MPAA have been on "educational compaigns"). If I get sued by the RIAA, could I use the following defense:

All of the songs on my computer are legal fair use copies from my CD library. The RIAA is guilty of "breaking into" my computer and gaining "unauthorized access" to my library using exploits provided by Kazaa software.

After all, I'm not the one making the copies of my songs - the downloaders are. I suppose the RIAA could accuse me of contributing to copyright infringement, but if I do not fully understand the workings of Kazaa or their network, can I sucessfully plead innocence?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Shurhaian]

People who download on P2P networks often have their download directory shared(the default). If they leech, then they might be conspiring to commit copyright, but they are not themselves making a copy. (That doesn't mean they're innocent, but you can't charge them of the same thing.)

The moment someone rips a disc themselves and puts that rip up for distribution, they've violated copyright(because it's no longer personal use, even if they don't themselves make any money off it).

Receiving data is not a crime on its own. Obtaining that data illegally, or sending that data illegally, are both crimes(assuming it's voluntary, whether or not you know it's a crime), but they are distinct. No blanket lawsuits against both groups together.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[angle_slam]

Parodies are covered whether or not it's non-profit. E.g., the 2 Live Crew case definitely covered a commercial parody.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[angle_slam]

Last point, copyright does not only cover distribution but specifically, "performance" and "reproduction". distribution is treated as a derivitive of reproduction (as it rightly is).

Huh? Section 106 lists reproduction and distribution as separate rights owned by the copyright holder.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[shark72]

Thank you for the helpful post. After I asked my question I Googled on music fair use and found many pages on fair use exceptions. They seem to be related exclusively to educational scenarios or making copies for personal use (format shifting, mix tapes and the like), which seems to agree with what you're saying. However, a few Slashdotters have pointed out that they believe that "personal use" also includes giving copies to your friends. I certainly wouldn't have interpreted it this way and I can't find anything on the web that confirms this.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[uncoveror]

Repealing prohibition took away organized crime's biggest market, and nearly eliminated organized crime by making it unprofitable. If the mob really is now "pirating", then aboslishing copyright, a form of censorship that has ceased to serve its purpose, would deprive them of that market.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[GigsVT]

The multipart test for fair use is vague. It has no specific limits, it only says what things the court must consider.

So really, you can't count on any specific activity being fair use unless it falls squarely within the prior case law.

This is basically the more general form of what you are saying.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Daengbo]

I don't need to be clear on the intricacies of file sharing (which I don't do), because the original poster said that he was infringing copyright, but didn't care because the law was unfair. I am pointing out that he should either follow the law or protest. Simply breaking the law because he wants something is cowardly.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[macdaddy357]

Pretty soon it will be jack booted government thugs like the ATF and FBI gunning down school children, instead of the likes of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[Allen Zadr]

With permission - you can profit.

Without permission, you cannot.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[nyseal]

No, if you were not paid then it's attempted murder; if you were paid (and the guy didn't die), it's assault.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[nyseal]

But that's where this whole thing gets ridiculous. Whole books ARE available on-line and publishers are fighting that too without realizing it's still POSSIBLE to copy without repercussion. The next generation of music sharing will not be as obvious or traceable as it is today through P2P. Come to think of it, I think I'm anal and patient enough to spend the $100 to copy 'War and Peace' at my local library and send it to the publisher; hell, I'll copy it twice and send a copy to the RIAA. Sue me.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[newhoggy]

What if I was a savant and by listening to a piece of music once, I remember it for life. Have I made a copy?

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[angle_slam]

2 Live Crew never got permission. That's why they were sued.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[angle_slam]

For the record, the case was Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. The court specifically held that

It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair.

Re:Copyright, Organized Crime and Schools?

[lynx_user_abroad]

...believe that "personal use" also includes giving copies to your friends. I certainly wouldn't have interpreted it this way and I can't find anything on the web that confirms this.

The search key you're looking for in "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992"

Check out U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 10, Subchapter D, section 108.

But note: This does NOT say that making a (analog or digital) copy is not an infringment; it only prohibits any copyright holder (RIAA and crew) from bringing any actions for the infringment. So anyone who wants to think of mp3 sharing as "stealing" must also admit that taping a song off the radio is also stealing. It's just that one is a protected, sanctioned form of stealing, and the other is not.

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

[REBloomfield]

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

All users signed an agreement, and they have to log on first. Their every move is trackable. It's the same system we use here at this school.

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

[PalmerEldritch42]

This Gestapo crap should not be tolerated.

Wow- the 2nd post already enacted Godwin's Law! This thread is over too soon.

Re:Sad

[johnkoer]

That really depends on their authentication means. If it is just logging into a domain, that can easily be thwarted by using a knoppix or similar cd and booting right up. There are also utilities out there that will reset the administrator password on a windows machine, thus letting any user get into the machine.

I know this is just an elementary school, but I wouldn't put this kind of stuff past kids these days.

Re:Sad

[tadmas]

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

Why is that? according to the article:

Each person who uses a school computer must log in with a password, Tait said, which means every user can be tracked.

Just speaking hypothetically, if a student does break a law on school property, does that make them immune from the laws? I don't see what the big deal is that they check the computers at school or somebody's job. If someone is breaking the law (which, regardless of whether it's "Gestapo crap", it's still the law), and they get a court order to approve a search....

Searching school/work computers is not valid, but searching home computers is? Believe me, I'd rather have someone raid the computers at work than these guys come into my home. Or is it that you just don't want anyone searched at all? How then would the law be enforced?

Re:Sad

[goldspider]

"If you want people to pay, charge reasonable prices"

Such as, I don't know, $.99 per song?

Re:Sad

[strongcypher]

Exactly. Whether you agree with the what the FBI did here or not (I don't necessarily), the school district should not have been allowing this to go on at all. Their job is to teach our kids the legal system, not how to circumvent it. If schools were being responsible and taking care of copyright infringement taking place on their campuses themselves they could avoid this.

Re:Sad

[Kierthos]

And just speaking hypothetically, just how secure are those passwords. I mean, come on, really. Odds are there is at least one person in each class besides the teacher who can log in as anyone they want. It's hardly conclusive, especially on a grade school level, to say "Jimmy Smith was logged in at the time, it absolutely 100% must be him!".

Of course, I have to wonder just how happy the Feds feel about this, considering most of the agents would probably rather be dealing with real criminals, as opposed to some kids who are sharing copies of the latest Britney/Christina/blonde bimbo single.

Kierthos

Re:Sad

[REBloomfield]

Ours is Proxy auth, and the router will only talk to the proxy. You can boot knoppix if you like (and i do), but you still need to auth with the proxy.

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

[h00pla]

Yes, and it's doubly sad because we're wasting time and resources on tracking down kids downloading Britney Spears when we could and should be tracking down terrorists. But it seems that pr0n, pot and p2p are the priority with the DOJ.

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

[ack154]

I think the problem is more like $16-$20 regularly priced CDs at places like FYE and Sam Goody and other stores. There's no reason for things that high. And I realize that it's not totally the record company setting those prices, but still. They have a part in it somewhere.

And like the OP mentioned anyways, content is a big deal. If you don't put out anything that people want to hear, then people won't buy it. It's simple.

Re:Sad

[johnkoer]

That is a very smart way to do it and yes my method would not work for that situation. I would think that most P2P software would not be able to get through the proxy authentication, so that would even slow down piracy at the school. Since the FBI raided this school district it leads me to beleive that there was rampant piracy going on, which probably means P2P programms running 24/7 (or at least 8/5).

If they don't have knowledgeable administrators (a lot of schools don't have the budget for that), then the students could easily use the system for their own means.

Re:Sad

[lynx_user_abroad]

...they have no proof of who downloaded the copyright infringed files...

You are deluding yourself.

It is only in the digital world of computers and the Internet that we can claim to be able to know exactly who was logged into which computer at which time, who initiated the transaction, and exactly how many bytes traversed the connection.

Don't think that just because it's a jumbled mess to everyone who doesn't understand it that it's a jumbled mess to everyone. There are people alive today who built this Internet thing. None of them understand all of it, but every piece of it is understood in completeness by someone.

This is the part which I find incomprehensible; after two decades there are still people who think the Internet is like quantum physics or bio-engineering; that we're still trying to figure out how it works. We built this; we know how it works. The only stuff we don't know on the Internet is the stuff we don't care about. I would have thought everyone would understand that by now.

It's very likely, as you say, that the level of logging and record keeping required to figure out who did what and when was not kept in the case of these schools. But to conclude with certainty that "they have no proof" is stretching it. They probably don't. Not this time.

But next time....

Re:Sad

[jez9999]

Only if your administrator has been stupid enough to setup the BIOS to boot from CD before IDE.

Re:Sad

[REBloomfield]

Getting p2p software to work is much harder, even if the program allows you to use the proxy. I can honestly say I am confident we've never had a breach. But then, we are one of the few with knowlegable admins, and I mean no offence to my colleauges, as most will admit they are only doing the job because they were pushed into the role for knowing how a VCR worked.....hey, it's got electronics in it....

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

[j-turkey]

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.

Yes, let's expose the dirty secret of congressional whoring. Wait...it's been going on for centuries. Nobody is doing anything about it -- why? Because that's how it works. That's how it's always worked here, and it will continue to. Our economy is an important thing, and our government wants to create a climate where companies (you know, businesses -- AKA corporations [why is that a bad word now?]) can make a buck. This way we all get to have an incredibly high standard of living. That stuff doesn't just happen because we're all happy free Americans.

Is the latest RIAA/DoJ/FBI action the right thing? Probably not...although the details of it are totally scant. But come on -- the real crime? There is so much other horrible crap going on in this world (even in this country). The way our political system works is not a real crime.

...although I agree that Ashcroft's priorities are incredibly fucked up. However, if he got away with going after online head shops and he's getting away with going after ordinary porn (bringing back the decency laws) -- I don't think that the outrage will begin with his treatment of piracy. We'll see what happens in November -- it'd be nice to get rid of that loser.

Re:Sad

[macdaddy]

So what you're saying is the ends justify the means, correct? Well I'm afraid history has proven that theory wrong time and time again.

Re:Sad

[BigASS]

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.

Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that we gave them everlasting copyrights through the actions of our elected officials. Anyways, it's all semantics at this point.

Re:Sad

[ack154]

No, I realize that there are pay-per-download services. My point was that for people that want to buy CDs (which is where the RIAAs "loss" is claimed to come from), the prices are terrible.

People are downloading songs by the thousands, sure. I buy some of them myself. But most of the things people are downloading are singles or maybe a couple songs from a CD. People just generally aren't interested in buying the full CD as much as they used to be because usually there are one or two "decent" singles on a CD, surrounded by crappy filler music. That's why people don't want to buy them.

Re:Sad

[Lumpy]

the nice thing is that the fight against real crime and terrorism is taking the back seat to the civil infraction of copyright infraction...

Nice to see that the FBI can be bought for use and/or is corruptable...

Anyone that is not completely appaled and enraged at this blatent mis-use of FBI resources is nuts.

Re:Sad

[gcaseye6677]

most of the agents would probably rather be dealing with real criminals

I'm sure that's true in a lot of cases, but some of the agents are probably enjoying the idea of roughing up defenseless high school kids, knowing that nobody is likely to pull out a gun and start shooting at them, unlike what 'real criminals' might do. This is easy, risk free work from a law enforcement perspective.

Re:Sad

[eclectro]

Just because it has been going on for centuries doesn't make it right.

Also, I think the degree is a magnitude worse than it was in the middle of the last century.

I agree with you, I don't see the problems of special interests lessening anytime soon, if at all.

So much as corporations go, it seems they have more rights than the individual. Certainly they need to make a buck, but they don't need to make obscene amounts of money at the expense of everything else around them.

As far as the way our political system working being a crime or not, I would agree it's not. Just the people who participate in it.

The bribing of a congressman during the 3 hour vote (rules say 15 minutes, it was the longest in history) for the medicare act comes to mind.

Re:Sad

[RKBA]

Welcome to what it must have been like in Fascist Germany prior to WWII. The news story doesn't say whether or not this was merely a "fishing" expedition by the FBI conducted on the basis of some "anonymous" tip, because apparently the FBI can raid, search, and arrest people without providing a reason, but unless the gestapo were looking for specific persons possessing specific alleged stolen or illegal property, what they were doing is against the supreme law of the land (ie; the same type of thing most other government agencies have also been doing for many years).

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV. ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Sad

[Luminari]

No agreement you sign can force you to give up your constitutional rights. We have the federal government for that.

Re:Sad

[Xabraxas]

almost every school I know of has security cameras

Is that really true? If so then times have really changed, and not for the better. I don't think I like the idea of video cameras in schools.

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.

Re:Sad

[dirk]

while I agree it will be very hard for them to tell who exactly downloaded the files (unless there are proxy logs kept) they idea of exempting schools from the law is ludicrous. While I agree schools are not for politics or pushing agendas, they are also not for committing intellectual property theft. They are also not for pushing the idea that "information wants to be free, so you should be able to take it".

Re:Sad

[pvt_medic]

forget the fact that the schools are underfunded, over populated. And now will be facing legal charges, and loose resources they had to acquire through other venues because they cant afford to buy them in the first place. How about the governemnt use its resources to go after companies instead of schools. WE have our priorities all wrong in this country. I remember last year there was a vote in my state to use money for schools or prisons, guess which one won?

Re:Sad

[dasmegabyte]

Wow, that's a crass, inaccurate overstatement if I've ever seen one. Have you considered writing for Adbusters? They're looking for people like you -- how are your skills with the Photoshop Mosaic filter?

Re:Sad

[Dun Malg]

Wow, that's a crass, inaccurate overstatement if I've ever seen one.

Heh. I prefer to think of it as cynical hyperbole. My mother teaches algebra to 8th graders in a Los Angeles Unified School District school. The bureaucratically-induced despair has rubbed off on me. It's certainly not as bad as that, but some of the (ahem) less effective school districts tend to lean that way.

Re:Sad

[sivadnitsuj]

actually, "gestapo" looks to be an acurate description of the FBI tactics used for this event.

Main Entry: gestapo
Pronunciation: g&-'stä-(")pO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -pos
Etymology: German, from Geheime Staatspolizei, literally, secret state police : a secret-police organization employing underhanded and terrorist methods against persons suspected of disloyalty

1) the warrants are sealed (secret)
2) "underhanded" might be arguably pejorative, but to me, armed police officers storming a school campus mid-day for a non-violent civil offense looks pretty underhanded.

anyone else need a beer?

Re:Sad

[dasmegabyte]

Well, I guess one man's cynical hyperbole is another man's crass, inaccurate overstatement.

My point is: not everybody I know who went to public school is a commercialized automatonl. In fact, a great deal of the clever people I know went to public school. I went to public school. My ex-roommate went to Brooklyn High and was a steadfast Christian with excellent study skills and a keen grasp of calculus -- he used to tutor my upstate ass.

Yeah, some students aren't getting it. Yeah, some parents don't get that this isn't a teacher's fault. But this attitude of bureaocracy and despair isn't helping anybody. Students that want to learn are only going to learn if the teacher is willing to do her best. And teachers are only going to do their best when they don't feel it's hopeless. A lot of good comes out of public schools. It's more than worth the bad, and certainly better than any of the alternatives.

No...

[Allen Zadr]

Yeah - the Phoenix area raid is well reported, and there are plenty of other stories about schools involved with other things.

However, I see no reports of sweeps outside of Arizona. Thus, no news of a National sweep.

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

Cost.

[eddy]

How much does it cost to hire FBI for an afternoon of breaking down doors? Will it cost me extra to have them draw their weapons in a "low ready position" while doing it?

First They Came for the File Sharers...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Vote in November.

Re:First They Came for the File Sharers...

[strongcypher]

Come on now. These people are breaking the law in a country with a system for changing that law, not a Nazi regime. If you don't like the law, get away from your Xbox long enough to change it. You choose to break it...you have to accept the consequences. Not to mention the fact that file sharers make a conscious decision to break the law, whereas the Jews didn't really have a choice whether or not they were born Jewish. You really have a distorted view of the world don't you? Another "anyone that disagrees with me gets called a Nazi" guy, huh? And you probably voted for Howard Dean...

Re:First They Came for the File Sharers...

[kfg]

. . .you know what happens next.

Hiding teenage girls in my house?

KFG

Re:First They Came for the File Sharers...

[Dun Malg]

.you know what happens next.

Hiding teenage girls in my house?

heh. When you phrase it that way, it almost has that "Girls Gone Wild" sound to it...

Re:First They Came for the File Sharers...

[kfg]

In case you haven't noticed I have something of a knack for twisting perspective, and rather enjoy using it.

KFG

Locker raids

[AtariAmarok]

Let's snicker at the image of non-tech-savvy FBI agents busting open lockers: "Lars, do you see MP3's in this locker?" "No, Phil. Not yet. What do they look like anyway?" "Not sure, Lars. Maybe we can go back to the office and get a special kind of dog that sniffs for MP3's. That will save us a lot of trouble".

Re:Locker raids

[Oxy the moron]

Am I the only one who immediately thought of Lars from Metallica when reading this post?

Re:Locker raids

[REBloomfield]

Are those flash movies still available?? They were from monkey chaos or something or other. Funniest things I've ever seen....

Beer goooooood!!!!!! :)

Re:Locker raids

[LordKronos]

http://www.campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/metal licops_56k.html

Re:Locker raids

[REBloomfield]

woohoo!!! thanks :)

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.

Re:Secretive part scares me

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that this more than likely doesn't have anything to do with piracy. The FBI isn't stating it's reasons and they have a court sealed warrant.

I'm going to go further and say I believe this doesn't have anything to do with piracy at all. Terrorist information search?

If this is really about piracy, international warez0r group or not, I will be severely pissed. This would be proof of Americans pissing away MY freedom with their digital acts and new constituted laws of "future proof protection".

If their catching spammers though...I'm all for loss of freedom! er...

Re:Secretive part scares me

[BobSutan]

It would be interesting if their administration adopted a non-logging policy similar to some of the privacy-oriented ISPs available today.

Would the school district be held accountable for the assumed guilt of the infringement, or would it still fall to the people that did it, even though the FBI wouldn't be able to pinpoint them? After all, the school district did have the user agreements, regardless of whether or not they logged all the traffic.

Re:Secretive part scares me

[dasmegabyte]

Similarly, schools have good pipes and make great distribution nodes, either surreptitiously or blatantly.

At my college, a co-worker ran a 0 day distribution server that also provided intranet services to a dormitory. I found out about it, because he tried to get me to take it over for him when he graduated. I declined when it became obvious he also wanted me to be his patsy.

Luckily, the school found that box before the FBI did. Because this guy was in charge of a LOT of servers on campus. If they had found him, they would have confiscated everything!

Re:Secretive part scares me

[wljones]

The federal agents shoot an unarmed woman carrying a child in her arms. They later pay big bucks to her husband, who was guilty of a misdemeanor. The wife was just there at the wrong time.

Federal agents burn a church congregation in the process of serving a warrant. The warrant was not necessary. The county sheriff offered to serve the warrant, but was refused. The Army was called in illegally. Evidence of illegal firearms seized during the raid is never shown to the public. People are jailed for protecting their property from armed trespassers. A young man eventually blows up a courthouse in protest, killing even more people.

A federal agent appears on television to talk about a misguided man travelling across much of the country to take potshots at the president. The agent feels many people knew what was happening, but nobody informed the government. He then demanded more respect for federal law enforcement. He never explained how federal law enforcement was earning this respect.

Now we have federal agents raiding schools for copyright violations. They apparently feel that the students, forbidden to bear arms, will not shoot them on sight. The terrorists that are planning the next big extermination can rest easy. They know the federal agents have no interest in anyone that might sue them or shoot them. Hitmen and suicide bombers need not fear the police, who are too busy terrifying school teachers and school kids to do any real work.

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.

Re:Wait a minute..

[Sheltim]

I, and anyone else that's been in a public (this probably applies to private schools too) know how easy it is to get ahold of someone else's login information. Trivial. And since most teachers aren't too well trained, technology-wise, it's usually not too hard to get a teacher's password either. In some school, there aren't even restrictions on your network access, you just have to know where to look. Long story short, a person could easily log on as A, download and put them in a private folder of person B, and no one would know who did it.

Re:Wait a minute..

[rpj1288]

Probably already said, but what if the person logged on is not the same as the person the account belongs to? How are you going to get the right person?

Er, what???

[ambisinistral]

The article concentrates on downloading music. Then why the strange tie in to organized crime? How is organized crime oging to profit from p2p downloading?

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.

Re:Er, what???

[KingJoshi]

Why wouldn't organized crime be involved in piracy? I'm not talking about the ones file-sharing. I mean, the bootleggers. Sure there are pirated movies we can easily download online, and some of pretty good quality even before the DVDs come out. And those svcds and now even burned dvds are sold on the streets.

There has got to be a lot of money in that. Not only is it sold in the US, but in most nations around the world, the black market is bigger than the legitimate market. Whether people are knowingly invovled in organized crime, or indirectly helping them, I can't imagine organized crime isn't involved.

Now what that has to do with this school or anything else? I have no clue. The "journalist" is juxtaposing information to create the appearance of links that probably don't connect. But we have little clue what the FBI is doing there, except it's supposedly about copyright enforcement. However, due to the nature of dimnishing rights in this country, these are not types of situations where we can just try the FBI and give them the benefit of the doubt. Though I'm not going to lambast them for an action when I don't know what they fully did or why. I will criticize about the sealed warrants and lack of any information (though supposedly that's supposed to be addressed today).

Good to hear!

[frs_rbl]

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

Re:Good to hear!

[Zeddicus_Z]

More funny than the parent comment is the fact some loony mod gave it a +1 Interesting. Aliens? wIj joH'a' neH Daq Internet

Re:Good to hear!

[frs_rbl]

It was my comment, you insensitive clod :P

Hehe

[mfh]

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

Re:Hehe

[REBloomfield]

Then the Nerd will need to tell someone when he gets busted, or face the consequences himself.... Most people will spill, they'd rather get a smack from a bully than get in more serious trouble.

Re:Hehe

[The_Mr_Flibble]

And the nerd would never figure out what the bullies password was for his account then use it for any wrong doings the nerd may want to commit. Never ever ever. Because that's impossible

Re:Hehe

[The_Mr_Flibble]

I might of been ;)

Re:Hehe

[Alranor]

Now i'm not normally a grammar nazi but this is one of those common mistakes that really bugs me:

You mean "I might have been"

Re:Hehe

[The_Mr_Flibble]

It's ok, I was always really crap at the whole english thing.

Re:Hehe

[BJZQ8]

I'm the admin in a school district...and we went to a generic login for that very reason; the fact that, without cameras and DNA samples, you can never tell if someone logging in is really them. (Here comes the analogy that will be counter-analogied and counter-counter analogied to death) I mean, if someone steals a fence post from your front yard and beats someone to death with it, could you be held liable for kiling that person? Passwords and usernames are very freely shared amongst students, and no amount of goading or agreement-signing will change that. The only ultimate cure is teacher supervision...but then again, we're too busy fiddling with standardized tests and leaving no child behind to do that.

Re:Hehe

[johnkoer]

Yea, and a geek would never use a keylooger to get a bully's password

Re:Hehe

[The_Mr_Flibble]

That's ok and quite a good way to stop passwords being stolen. However over here in the uk if you want someones password all you need is a chocolate bar.

Re:Hehe

[REBloomfield]

no amount of goading or agreement-signing will change that

Hopw about punishing people for things they didn't do? It works very quickly. Most will tell you who they've given their password to just at the threat of it. Students need to learn that when they hit industry, sharing credentials just isn't acceptable.

Re:Hehe

[REBloomfield]

I thought that was great. I'd tell someone any old rubbish for chocolate. They don't *know* i just amde it up....

Re:Hehe

[The_Mr_Flibble]

Nah I just give em someone elses password

Re:Hehe

[Thurn und Taxis]

And the nerd would never say, "Sure, I can help you with that computer problem. Let's log you in, first. What's your password?"

Re:Hehe

[mOdQuArK!]

Hopw about punishing people for things they didn't do? It works very quickly.

Yeah, especially if you can figure out the password of someone you don't like. It's fun watching them try to explain why they were downloading child porn.

Re:Hehe

[Xabraxas]

Students need to learn that when they hit industry, sharing credentials just isn't acceptable.

It's middle school! They don't need to learn anything about "the industry" in middle school. They only need to learn about math, english, and girls (boys). They're just kids.

Re:Hehe

[BJZQ8]

That has been tried; a student was suspected of reading administrative e-mails and even changing his grades, and was banned from computer access. The next day, his parents and a lawyer talked to the superintendent, and informed him that they would sue the district if he was not allowed back on the computers (since it was going to be detrimental to his grades.) This prompted the lawsuit-paranoid superintendent to tell me and my immediate boss "Put him back on." There is much to be said about standing up for student rights and also the relative severity of a student lawsuit or an RIAA lawsuit...but this is education, and things do not make much sense.

Re:Hehe

[pla]

Students need to learn that when they hit industry, sharing credentials just isn't acceptable.

Yeah, sure - Tell that to every admin who has pulled his hair out trying to keep a machine up and running, when a few dozen users all have the root password. And sure, you can tell me "That shouldn't happen", but put bluntly, it does.

As kids, they share "credentials" out of either fear, the desire to look cool, to get something in exchange, or perhaps just out of niceness (Most of us learn to share from a young age, in direct contradiction to the RIAA's message).

As adults, we share to spread accountability. I know of more than one situation where some higher-up finds a few gigs of MP3s on a development server, all owned by a non-user account, and the sheer number of people who could have done it kept anyone from losing their job (of course, we all know that in such situations, everyone contributed and had access to that music).

So what do these kids need to learn? The right reasons to share credentials, and how to minimize traceability. Which I believe they do learn - School provides a fairly safe environment in which to try out various accountability-avoidance strategies, figure out which ones work, and (usually) suffer only token punishments when they screw up.

Re:Hehe

[BJZQ8]

I couldn't agree more...school, particularly middle and grade school, should be about learning, not harsh, life-altering punishments like the RIAA would like to deal out, and Administrators do all too often.

Re:Hehe

[thetaikung]

You sound bitter. Were you bullied by nerds when you was a kid?

Shit, I was. Now it's on.

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

[LDoggg_]

That was a horrible analogy.
It is as ridiculous as trying to use 9 women to have a full pregnancy in one month.
Some things must be done in serial, yet some things can indeed be worked parallel. There are many, many problems in Arizona(I'm a resident) that can definetly be helped simply by the re-allocation of law enforcement resources.

Arizona has serious immigration and a drug trafficking problems. Some parts of Phoenix, Tuscon, Mesa, and others cities could be cleaned up with the help of the FBI.
There will always be problems with crime, but busting kids for file sharing should be considered low on the priority scale.

Re:Pisses me Off

[sir_cello]

Hey, I'm trained in intellectual property. Recently, I was part of a lecture given by law enforcement. Trust me, they _much_ prefer to spend their time on more significant crimes: drugs, health and safety, etc. They don't have enough resources as it is, and as far as they are concerned, IPR infringement is very low down on the list. Typically, they only prioritise the IPR cases when it looks like they are large in scale, or have other factors (i.e. the people involved look like they are also into other activities). You know, quite a lot of law enforcement types that I've met (unless I've met the wrong crowd ...) are pretty decent average people - especially the people that work down at the street level. They don't appreciate having _their_ time wasted by high level politics either.

Re:Pisses me Off

[sudnshok]

But don't you feel all warm inside when you see your tax money well spent on protecting rich people's money?

Instead of investigating how companies like Ticketmaster rape millions of American wallets each day, lets focus on copyright infringement so that the 10-20 top execs in the movie and music biz don't see their personal income drop from $30M/yr to $28M/yr.

Lets raid schools.

I'm not saying copyright infringement is right, but there are so many other fucked up things in this country that affect more than 20 people. It makes me fuckin sick.

And I don't want to hear about the starving artists and movie stars. MTV Cribs won't have a shortage of people to profile anytime soon. If there was a magic bullet to completely stop all forms of piracy tomorrow, do you honestly believe prices would come down? No fuckin way! Instead, those execs would pocket it all and blame the high prices for CDs on something else.

When will the masses be protected from the few wealthy elite? Never.

BTW, what ever happened to the Ticketmaster congressional investigations?

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

Re:Pisses me Off

[sevinkey]

Actually, the murder solve rate was recently publicized here in Arizona. Less than 50% are solved for the murders of whites, less than 30% for murders of a minority.

And the illegal drug trade and human trafficing are running strong. There have already been ~50 deaths of immigrants out in the desert in 2004, and there was even a freeway machine-gun battle on the I-10 a couple of months ago that killed several... the "coyotes" that smuggle people into the country were having a turf war.

Oh well, at least no illegal music trading. Good for business I guess since code for a DRM company.

Did I mis-read the article?

[cexshun]

I don't recall reading anything in the article that stated the FBI was looking for pirated music and movies. That was all pure speculation. The FBI refused to comment. Perhaps the FBI was investigating the school using illegal copies of XP in the labs?

Re:Did I mis-read the article?

[no longer myself]

I was thinking the exact same thing. When I try to take all the media spin out of it, the whole copyright aspect may be just a nice smoke-screen to keep people calm.

In all likelihood, the truth will never be known, they'll find what they were looking for, and probably find some petty copyright infrindgement on the side to keep the plausability of the initial story intact.

If I had to wager, I'd say it probably had something to do with that whole "war on terror" thing, but they don't want people to panic so... Let's call it a copyright infringement case so as to teach the younger generation that we really mean business.

Again... I'm just speculating... Like everyone else...

What? This looks like a red herri-- Oh look! A nice shiney penny! Ooooooo!

Re:Did I mis-read the article?

[tadmas]

I don't recall reading anything in the article that stated the FBI was looking for pirated music and movies.

I thought the same thing at first, until I reread it and came across this:

It was among other places in Arizona and "quite a few other states" where sealed search warrants were served, the FBI said. 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.

They couldn't give details about the case (like who they were investigating, what type of infringement they were looking for, how they found out it was at the school, etc.) It does seem, though, that they indicated a very generic high-level reason. It's like they say "we're doing a murder investigation" but they can't say who the victim or suspect are, how they died, etc.

At least, that's the best I could figure out.

Re:Did I mis-read the article?

[swv3752]

I got a spurious connection of a random raid on some school district's computers and a general announcement of a crackdown on copyright infringement.

The FBI were not commenting at all on what they were doing. They had some warrants to seize some computers, and would not comment at all on the current case. Some reporter ust got a PR newswire about the FBI cracking down on copyright infringers and then gets a call about the FBI raiding the school district.

Re:Did I mis-read the article?

[smokin_juan]

"quite a few other states"

At least eight... the feds (stragely enough, the post office) raided eight ITT campuses about a month ago. They still aren't saying why because the warrants were sealed, which makes a warrant pretty useless concidering the fourth amendment and all.

If the feds aren't going to play by their own rules then why the fuck should you? Think about that the next time you're grudgingly being a law abiding citizen.
And remember, if we all drive on the left side of the road we'll all fit on the left side of the road. Are you a part of the problem or solution?

What exactly got poured?

[eltoyoboyo]

"Agents poured through data and records at a computer command center for the Deer Valley School District in the northwest Valley and blocked the office from the public."

I certainly hope that no evidence was destroyed by whatever was poured through those data records :-O

Aren't we at war right now?

[GileadGreene]

Good to know that the FBI doesn't have anything better to do right now (like, for example, cathcing terrorists before they can kill another large group of US citizens), and can take the time to combat this obvious menace to Homeland Security. I mean, people who pirate software or music are practically as bad as terrorists in terms of the damaging effects they have on the economy, right? Right.

Disclaimer: I do not support copyright infringement. Nor should anyone who wants to see things like the GPL actually be enforced. But given our supposed National Security situation I'm a little disturbed that the Feds are devoting this much in the way of resources to something that's really inconsequential in terms of protecting American lives and livelihood.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[nuggetboy]

Granted I don't agree with the raid, but this argument is so overused. Should we stop all traffic enforcement so that we can use those police resources to go solve murder cases?

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[saiha]

Of course not, but should police be giving tickets to j-walkers when there is domestic violence and shootings down the street?

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[swb]

Granted I don't agree with the raid, but this argument is so overused. Should we stop all traffic enforcement so that we can use those police resources to go solve murder cases?

It can be carried too far, as in your unrealistic example, but the application and proportionality of law enforcement resources is *always* a great argument, both for practical reasons and for the obvious political choices demonstrated by making some enforcement targets high priority and others get little or no priority.

For example, why is there an ongoing bong task force but no ongoing anti-fraud task force nailing spammers?

And as others have pointed out, why did we spend hundreds of millions figuring out whether Monica Lewinsky swallowed or not, instead of spending hundreds of millions tracking illegal immigrants or other undesirables pre-9/11?

In my mind, these things only underscore the fact that politics is the priority, and everything else is secondary. High minded claims otherwise just ignore all the other, more serious problems that get ignored so that other more politically favored issues can be pursued.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[Speare]

Cynical comment of the day. The FBI doesn't catch terrorists. When they DO find terrorists, they box them in until they shoot themselves, or they get a sniper to shoot their families instead.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[PetoskeyGuy]

You fool. How do you think the terrorists get into the country? With airlines turning over all their customer data to the FBI the only anonymous way in is by sea. Obviously this was a raid to access the pirates customer database that must have been secretly hidden in a public school in Arizona. Damn sneaky if you ask me.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[DragonMagic]

Ugh, thread after thread of the usual /. whining and pining about how copyright infringement isn't a "real crime".

Yes, the US is at war. However, saying that the FBI should be focusing on terrorists and not on catching serious acts of infringement is like saying cops shouldn't be pulling over speeding cars because there are rapists and murderers who still are on the loose.

Speeding is still a crime, and it *does* cause harm. Infringement is still a crime and it also does cause harm.

The FBI has plenty of men throughout the country. Raiding a school to seize computers will not disrupt their investigation of internal terrorist organizations. After all, they can't be searching internationally, since that would be the CIA's jurisdiction.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[kmankmankman2001]

Well at least the FBI is trying to find something that perhaps they can do well. Our administration has declared "war" on a number of fronts (Drugs, Terror) with rather miserable results. If the FBI now morphs into the foot-soldiers for Jack Valenti's War on Copyright Violators(tm) perhaps they have a chance at actually accomplishing something (I mean, other than having sharpshooters pick off unarmed women). Though I would think it would only be fair to ask the RIAA to directly fund them and relieve us of the tax burden of paying for this "service". Usual disclaimer - I in no way support copyright infringement. I'm just disturbed to see such an indordinate amount of resources being devoted to something like this when there are serious issues with real threats to human safety that aren't being addressed.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[nuggetboy]

I suppose it comes down to how "priorities" are handled and what is the right amount of resources to be spent on issue A versus issue B. *Of course* terrorism is a top priority. But how much more effort should be expended against it than going after drug paraphernalia (which is another issue altogether) or after spammers? Obviously more, but how much more? $1B versus $50M? The bulk of the FBI's resources versus a couple of agents on their days off? You didn't see every FBI agent in the US descend upon Arizona. But I suppose the resources that were expended were too much for the OP. I think the key issue is whether they should have been there at all, based on the issue itself, not on its priority.

Re:Aren't we at war right now?

[nuggetboy]

If jaywalking is illegal and there are officers on-site for the violence and shootings, yes they should be doing their job and handing out tickets for jaywalking.

weekend?

[nuffle]

Why couldn't they wait till the weekend, or at least after hours, instead of disrupting children's school day?

It wouldn't be nearly as good a scare tactic.

Re:weekend?

[Short Circuit]

Well, it's certainly a show of force.

Re:weekend?

[slackerboy]

One word: "overtime". Who wants to pay time and a half to government agents to look for copyright violations?

Assuming that's what they're really after, of course...

Re:weekend?

[pixelpunk]

FBI doesn't work weekends.

Re:weekend?

[Exiler]

I don't know if it's different from state to state, but here overtime is calculated by hours worked per week, not when they're worked.

Re:weekend?

[slim-t]

Why couldn't they wait till the weekend, or at least after hours, instead of disrupting children's school day?

The obvious answer is that the employees of the school will be there during school hours... making the search a lot easier.

Just to throw this out there.. from this story, we know the warrant has two options for when the search will take place:
1) In the Daytime, from 6am-10pm
2) At any time day or night as I find reasonable cause has been established.

The judge would not permit the nighttime search. To make sure you have enough time, you would want to start the search early in the day. And for a copyright infringement case, why make the FBI work weekends? During the school day is the obvious choice - but you could schedule it for a day the students were gone, maybe wait until summer.

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.

Re:Oh for fucks sake...

[dasmegabyte]

Well, the problem with Pastor Niemoeller's excellent quote is that it does not make a separation between the stated purpose of a group and its actual actions.

Certainly, it's fascist to go after all Muslim people. But if a Muslim cell is plotting terror, is it fascist to go after them because they are Muslims?

They didn't "kick down school doors" here. They went into a school because there were claims of massive infringement. The FBI has jurisdiction in all crimes that cross state lines, and investigating infringment is surely in that area. They were armed, because this is America, we have the right to bear arms, and police definitely shouldn't be denied that right. By playing the fasicst card, we're making massive assumptions. Maybe it was not "students," who they were going after, but specific criminals who are also students.

Re:Oh for fucks sake...

[dasmegabyte]

It doesn't matter what I feel. I wouldn't want to live in a world where crimes were forgiven merely because they were noncommercial. If commercial infringment is a crime, why shouldn't non-commercial infringement be one, especially if technology enables non-commercial infringement to be far more widespread and flagrant than any bootleggger.

Face it: a solitary bootlegger with a backpack full of surreptitious copies of the Black Album is peanuts in terms of the destruction of commercial viability of a work when compared to 20 million KaZaa users. Why should the former be a crime and the latter not -- simply because the authors of the original law could not foresee copying becoming so trivial?

After all, dubbing a mix tape takes care and time. 90 minutes for the original and as long per copy unless you have a high speed dubbing deck. There's not a lot to fear when a non-commercial copy of your work requires that an hour of somebody's time be given willingly. There's more to fear when it takes a few seconds and it can be done automatically on request without the owner ever knowing it was requested.

Re:Oh for fucks sake...

[Oligonicella]

Yes, it's an anolgy. It's also a lame one.

I think you have a problem if you think there's not much difference between your steps one and two. And just as significant leap betwixt two and three exists.

Re:Oh for fucks sake...

[I confirm I'm not a]

Fair point, and I broadly agree with most of what you say. However, I have to respond to this:

Certainly, it's fascist to go after all Muslim people. But if a Muslim cell is plotting terror, is it fascist to go after them because they are Muslims?

No. Absolutely not. It is, of course, acceptable to go after them because there is reasonable cause to believe they are terrorists (ie. are plotting to carry out, or have carried out, terrorist acts). It is not acceptable to go after them because they are Muslims.

I suspect that that wasn't what you meant, but I feel it's worth clarifying.

There were Communists plotting in Weimar Germany, there were Trade Unionists who brought instability, and there were Jews who accumlated great wealth at the expense of other Germans. But the actions of a limited minority were used to justify terrible crimes against wider groups. My concern is that a terrible injustice is being committed against Muslims today - Muslims who are in no way connected with, or support, Al Qaeda. Likewise, many, many children were traumatised today, many of whom may well never have shared a file in their lives. When law enforcement officers, armed or otherwise, raid schools due to civil infractions I believe that's cause for concern. (Whether I would have made a comparison with a group that butchered 6 million fellow humans remains debateable)

Credit Card Commercial?

[Allen Zadr]

FBI Raid on your enemy: $125,000.

Add agents with guns drawn: $120 each weapon

The FBI Press Relations agent standing outside the door of your enemy ... Priceless

Re:Credit Card Commercial?

[puppet10]

Is it extra if you don't want the weapons edited out and replaced with walkie-talkies in the news report?

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.

Re:Karma begone!

[radish]

But Students (in this case meaning university age students, thus legally adults) are differen from high school kids, and should be treated as such.

Re:Karma begone!

[SmackCrackandPot]

That reminds me of the story (urban legend?) about how the police used to visit schools and do talks about the dangers of drugs, and how the sniffer dogs would be used to find illegal substances. In such visits, the officer would take a sample substance, hide in the room, and then get his/her partner to bring in the dog who would then explore the room, looking for the item. Except on one occasion, the dog went straight for the headteachers/principals handbag, sat down and just stared at the bag as it was trained to do.
The explanation was given that she had confiscated it from some kids hanging outside the school.

Re:Karma begone!

[Tripster]

Penn & Teller's Bullshit show on Showtime recently covered that raid and showed the video, they also had a quick interview with one of the officers in charge, they basically called the cops scumbags in this instance and also said it was rediculous that in a country such as the US the law can act in such ways.

They pointed out how rediculous it was for all the cops to be running around with guns pulled at "low ready stance" in a freaking school full of kids. They also pointed out nothing was found at the school at all, the raid was basically a blind search.

The video was quite disturbing, they actually tackled one kid in one scene, as Penn & Teller said, many of the folks in law enforcement should not be there because they have serious power trip issues, anyone who has watched Cops on Fox has seen plenty of that.

Quite funny hearing Penn call the cops a bunch of assholes though ... hope he doesn't get pulled over much I guess :-)

Re:Karma begone!

[Tripster]

if you think high school kids don't carry weapons, you are very much out of step with the world

They tackled this "problem" too, it is much less a problem than the media makes it out to be, the fact is kids just aren't going to school armed like freaking Rambo.

It is the isolated cases that do happen that make the news, just because some warped kids go shoot up a school doesn't mean every school has gun issues. Indeed they even said that overall school violence has dropped since the 70's or something, can't recall the dates.

Of course if the parents would get rid of the guns at home this problem would be gone pretty quick, but that won't happen in cowboy land.

Re:Karma begone!

[jeffkjo1]

Of course if the parents would get rid of the guns at home this problem would be gone pretty quick, but that won't happen in cowboy land.

One of my PE teachers in middle school (less than 10 years ago) told us about how, when he was in school, students would come in and put their hunting rifles down on the table and pick them up at the end of class or the end of the day.

My PE teacher was in his mid-30's.

There is nothing wrong with owning a gun.

Re:Karma begone!

[Tripster]

There is nothing wrong with owning a gun.

I agree, for hunting they are quite handy, these days we're at a point in civlization where hunting isn't as much of a requirement to survive but it still should be an option for those who need it.

Handguns on the other hand .. they have pretty much one purpose, killing other humans and really we don't want those at school :)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You are not devious

[mfh]

If you were devious, like I happen to be at times, you would know that about five minutes of hanging a nerd by his underpants would have you his password and his mother's bank card PIN number. Unless proper stakeouts are in place, and correct forensic research is performed, these FBI agents are just acting out a fantasy. It's likely just a pacifier-raid, really.

Re:You are not devious

[Chess_the_cat]

Then that student has a responsibility to inform the network admin or maybe he could change his fucking password dumbass. And if they're getting PIN numbers [sic] maybe he should tell the cops. Please, this just isn't happening.

Re:You are not devious

[The_Mr_Flibble]

Hmm, Not happening so I take it it's just the video games fault that everynow and then a kid hangs himself because he saw it on a game or enters a classroom and mows down all his classmates with his dads gun collection. This is happening but most of the time the kids are to scared of the repercusions if they do grass up the bully. So they either kill themselves or kill everyone else. (Or let it fester inside them until your in a position of power many years later with the names of these bullies firmly engrained in your head and make sure that you get revenge on the torture they put you through when you were younger. Not that I'm bitter. But revenge is a dish best served Ice cold )

Re:You are not devious

[Allen Zadr]

Very good point - I've run into many of my worst school enemies working at gas-stations, convenience stores and fast food vendors.

Nope, I don't feel sorry for them.

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.

Re:Umm...?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Maybe this is why Sen. Fenstein-D. CA, wants to get rid of guns. It's not safe to send in the RIAA thugs when Ma and Pa are packin'.

Re:Umm...?

[taped2thedesk]

If some of the students just downloaded music how is that any different than listening to the radio?
No one has said anything about this raid being about file sharing, although just about everyone on /. has assumed this.

One has to believe that someone is pushing this (MPAA, RIAA) with what they belive is evidence against the school system.
The article said that the FBI appeared to be investigating individuals, not the school district. Perhaps they are investigating someone in IT that has the power to erase logs that they might want. If they notified the district ahead of time, the logs could have been erased before they got there.

I really doubt that the FBI would need to get involved in a simple filesharing case.

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:Make An Example

[Shurhaian]

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.

This is a larger example of how I've seen the school system to work, though. One child abuses something, the whole class - maybe the whole school - has it forbidden as a result.

IANAUS Citizen, and don't really know enough about the FBI to comment in detail, but I do agree with the rest of the parent comment. That this sort of thing might happen at the behest of a monopoly with a clear interest in the matter is utterly reprehensible(a disinterested third party that happens to be a monopoly in some other matter would be at least somewhat less nasty, but only because it's less credible that they spend large amounts of money lobbying for it; if they do, look for a hidden interest).

Even if it didn't, the plausibility of the situation is still rather scary.

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

[Progman3K]

>Imagine if [...] these people decided to move to linux because they didn't want to pay for a Windows licence?

Done!

I've gotten rid of Windows at home, and it was a lot more work to set up, but I am much more satisfied with Gentoo than I EVER was with Windows. Windows CAN'T compare.

Re:I have a question

[thefirelane]

Because...
The music industry hasn't figured out that piracy helps them, the software industry has. Think Adobe cares that thousands of people pirate photoshop that weren't going to buy it anyway? No... they only care that all other competition has been driven out of business

Re:I have a question

[xutopia]

I know the feeling! :) I'm on slackware but occasionally switch to Win98 to play a game that Wine can't play. My girlfriend was sick and tired of Windows taking so long to boot one day and asked me to install Linux on her machine too! :) She had a valid XP licence which came with her computer!

Re:I have a question

[spiritraveller]

Because software companies MAKE money off of piracy by individuals. They DO enforce their copyrights with an iron fist against businesses. But when individuals copy the software, it gives the software company a greater toehold on the market. Those same individuals are employees of companies, who will feel pressured to provide the software that the individuals are used to.

The price per item is not an appropriate measure of the loss. You also have to consider whether the people copying would have bought the item if they had been unable to copy it. That reduces the loss significantly.

Another reason: software companies actually care about public relations. RIAA and MPAA do not. They can have a monopoly on "Madonna" but you can't have a complete monopoly on "word processing." Even though Microsoft effectively does have a monopoly, there are equivalent alternatives. OpenOffice and Word Perfect are alternatives to MSWord. Cyndi Lauper is not an alternative to Madonna... she is a completely different singer.

Re:I have a question

[dr_dank]

Why aren't there software-piracy raids?

Wasn't the BSA doing just that not too long ago? Sending in law enforcement with a court order to search for pirated material or official-looking goons to do the same?

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.

Re:I have a question

[Progman3K]

If I had points I'd mod you up in a hot-second.

The thing is these upheavals you prophesize surely can, do and WILL happen, but typically, there's a lot of useless human suffering along the way before the world ends up a better place...

Re:I have a question

[a24061]

I wish I had a mod point for you: that's a brilliant summary of the situation.

Re:I have a question

[anonicon]

Did you get your pot-smoking buddies to mod you up, because that's one of the few things that might explain Score:4, Insightful.

"Why aren't there software-piracy raids?"

There are, but unless the media is invited along, they are not widely reported.

"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."

Yes, they're both bad, but it's obvious that law enforcement is heeding the advice of Slashdot posters and placing a higher emphasis on more serious crime. You can't please everybody.

"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."

Are you Canadian or something, because that's the only way I can see a Windows license costing more than $300. As for millions of pirated copies of Windows, uhhhhhhhh, so what? Do you think it would be cost effective for law enforcement to raid every home with an illegal copy of Windows in their place? I don't.

"Why aren't there more software-audits?"

There are literally MILLIONS of software audits taking place annually by businesses, software vendors, the IRS and the BSA, but you're not going to know anything about it because it's not sexy Slashdot news.

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

You already answered that above - $$ and lobbying. Additionally, if you depend on Slashdot for your perception of government and law enforcement, you're blatantly missing about 90% of all the other stuff that goes on which is given a higher priority. Believe it or not, your local precinct aren't all sitting on their asses waiting for YOU to download an MP3 so that they can jump on you.

Re:I have a question

[drinkypoo]

There aren't software-piracy raids (just forcible auditing, but you have time to prepare for that) because the SPA no longer exists. Hence there is no task group which goes door to door looking for pirated software - thank goodness.

Governments are "placing a disproportionate amount of emphasis on something like music-piracy" because they are being paid to. In some cases it's called campaign contributions, in some cases it's just lobbying. Regardless they are being influenced by money.

Re:I have a question

[DroopyStonx]

Because it's all bullshit either way. There are most certainly TONS of pirated copies of Windows, but look at MSs profit. They aren't being hurt by it in the SLIGHTEST. Oh wait, so Microsoft has only 6 billion in the bank instead of 6.5-7 billion (assuming piracy even costs them a billion, which is probably not even close)?

I think right there that goes to show that pirating doesn't really affect business. It's just something the industry has to accept.

I notice a lot of people on here are so completely against piracy, and I find it laughable. Yeah, you can follow the law all you want, but look at the numbers and the facts. It's not THAT big of a deal.

IMO, there shouldn't be any raids. There are more important issues going on in this country other than music/software copying.

Re:I have a question

[shark72]

"Why aren't there software-piracy raids?"

They happen relatively often. They are simply not reported on Slashdot. Most fees for piracy are paid out of court but the feds do occasionally put on the blue jackets and bust in with guns drawn. A few years back Microsoft worked with the feds to bust several Microsoft software counterfeiting rings.

Re:I have a question

[JelloGnome]

Microsoft realizes the strength and limitations of its own monopoly. If even 50% of people pay for Windows, that's a ton of profit for Microsoft; but Microsoft would rather have the other 50% use pirated Windows than to have the other 50% use OSX or Linux.

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.

Schoolchildren Mafia

[trewornan]

I see that the article follows the FBI/RIAA agenda of harping on the links between "International Copyright Piracy" and "Organised Crime". Yeah, those kids sharing files are really vicious mafia hitmen in disguise.

Re:Schoolchildren Mafia

[TheSpoom]

Eh, Joey... get some of your friends over here and give this wiseguy a taste of the swinging tire. I have a feeling he won't be blabbing no more.

Re:Schoolchildren Mafia

[trewornan]

Reading this reminded me of some of the kids I went to school with (many years ago). Perhaps some kids aren't all that different from wiseguys after all.

Organized P2P givaways...

[Allen Zadr]

So, this is similar to harrassing those whom went to Al Capone's soup kitchens in Chicago during the depression.

"Yes, I admit it, I ate food that he provided me."

Why not just link pirating and P2P with Al Quaida?

Re:Organized P2P givaways...

[Hexerei]

Actually that has been done to. A few months back I read an article where Homeland Security was linking Piracy to organized crime and the funding of terrorist actions. What I don't understand is this: People download music so they don't have to pay for it. Either because they can't afford it, don't think the CD will be worth $16, or just flat don't want to pay if they can get it for free. So, if people are pirating to get the materal for free how do terrorists or organized crime gain any money from this? I think it's stupid and the FBI should have better things to do then get on their knees and 'serve' the RIAA.

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.

Re:Organized P2P givaways...

[BlackHawk-666]

News flash! weapons_of_mass_destruction.mp3 found on hard drive of Sadaam Hussein. The government wants to execute him, but not before the RIAA sues him for copyright infringment.

Re:Organized P2P givaways...

[Hexerei]

But it usually goes like this:

-> Hard-working artist makes music
-> -> Hard-working record label publishes it
-> -> -> Music lover #456 pays for CD
-> -> -> -> Music lover #456 rips CD to computer (for mp3 listening or sharing)
-> -> -> -> -> Music lover #123 find music from #456 via p2p or other methods and downloads (or trades for another song that #456 wants).

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.

This NEEDED to be done!

[t_allardyce]

Im sick of people whining about how unfair this is, these kids were operating an illigal business, they were pirating CD's and DVD's in the 1000's and peddling child pornography! Not only that, but in the same school another gang had actually used school chemistry labs as meth labs and were selling to kids as young as 14! This alarming news becomes even more shocking as the raid uncovered two more illigal operations in the school - one involved prostitution by some of the cheerleading squad and another: a small arms dealing ring! Yes guns were being traded! this could have easily turned into another columbine and is just a simply shocking example of the state of the school system. People are saying "Hey the FBI used extreme force on childeren" WTF? some of these kids were ARMED themselves! I think the FBI should be commended on bringing this thing down with no casualties and giving these kids the counceling they need and a real chance at a new life. wait sorry, what? only kazaa and afew cds? oops

Re:This NEEDED to be done!

[gl4ss]

yeah..

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0421dvrai d- ON.html
just draws a picture where they had been basically copying movies and music from overseas.

quite a fucking long way from organized pirating crime operation in which would have included selling the stuff on dvd's / cd's..

it basically seems like it was just a huge operation to stop some kids from downloading stuff from kazaa/ftp-dumps/irc, and the effect of this to anybody else than couple of kids lives fucked? just about zero. REAL FUCKING GOOD USE OF FBI RESOURCES AND HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY!

Re:This NEEDED to be done!

[budhaboy]

are you mad?!

How did you get all of that from the article posted?

Bypass

[mfh]

There are many ways around even the tightest security, and we all know how laughable school security is, even today. Students could easily hide a trojan that creates a file dump complete with scrambled FTP, and they wouldn't really need to even spoof someone's UID to do that (just email it to an idiot)... and don't even get me started with key-loggers. The schools don't have the training to combat P2P, and they also lack the funding (for even decent art supplies) so forget about it.

Re:Bypass

[Oxy the moron]

While I agree with you in that most school security is sub-par (and it could be broken with moderate effort), what you are suggesting is (typically) well beyond the grasp of most high school students. IMO, it is at least beyond the grasp of the majority of HS students who would use a program such as Kazaa at school.

Re:Bypass

[REBloomfield]

What he's suggesting is bollocks :) Schools don't need money to combat p2p, and you certainly don't need 'training'. While I'll admit that there are unskilled admins, they mostly ask the more knowledgable ones, and we're always willing to help. Students always try and get round the system. They're almost always caught. If we can't catch the student, we close the hole.

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.

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.

Re:Free copying of media

[October_30th]

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.

Yeah, they tried that argument.

It was shot down by that administration: "The majority of the traffic would still be illegal, so too bad all you who would like to share Linux distros or some other legal material. No go." Oh, those who research networks and P2P like systems can apply for a special permit from the administration.

Sure there was some research, but if you think that the majority of that bandwidth is used for research, you're kidding yourself.

So, we should

Freenet

I've tried it. Theoretically nice, but it's slow to the point of uselessness.

Re:Free copying of media

[October_30th]

So, we should

Damn. That should read: So, we should use all the available bandwidth just for the sake of using it all up?

I'm talking about traffic outside the university. The university (ie. government) pays for it - that's my tax money. I don't want my tax money spent on bandwidth of MP3s and AVIs.

In short, sharing is OK as long as it is what the fair use rights really were made for: sharing with your friends like your close family. 100000+ people on the net are not "your friends" when it comes to fair use.

Lars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which FBI we talking about, the Finlander Bureau of Investigation?

How to keep the RIAA from raiding you

[eltoyoboyo]

Evidently someone in the Deer Valley school district must be running a file sharing supernode with lots of recent stuff

Check out Eff's site for guidelines on how to keep the RIAA sniffers at bay. And use common sense! If you are sharing the Usher, "Confessions" album, the current Billboard #1 selling album, you are directly competing with record stores and radio stations. You should get shut down IMO. However, sharing ISOs to FreeBSD is a Good Thing. (You could probably, illegally, share the Perry Como Christmas album and not get noticed....IANAL)

FLT

[patte]

This is probably the US part of the big raid in Europe where some Fairlight sites went down.. rumors have said that sites in both .nl och .us got busted.

Some pictures from Utwente Campus:

http://undying.by.ru/flt.JPG
http://mjrider.student.utwente.nl/gallery/politie
http://www.swecheck.net/bust/index1.html

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.

Re:FLT

[patte]

"both those sites did get busted, that's the word around the campfire anyway, siteops have asked all to part their channels.

those are the only US busts from what i've seen so far, but also many many .nl sites brought down, and it seems as tho the target for this bust was fairlight, as many fairlight members were busted...but it seems as though even people not affiliated with fairlight have been busted (but bulk of the people fairlight). gonna have to wait and see what happens"

Quote from theisonews forum

Re:FLT

[mkro]

This is probably the US part of the big raid in Europe where some Fairlight sites went down.. rumors have said that sites in both .nl och .us got busted.

Yes, it all seems to be about Fairlight, and not only in the Netherlands and the US, but in 12 countries, including three persons in Singapore.

USA becomes a police state

[dimss]

Ten years ago USA were symbol of freedom for us. Five years ago I wanted to get US visa and job.

Now I see that your country becomes a police state at dangerous speed. My life began in Soviet Union (not in Soviet Russia, I was born in Soviet Latvia). We couldn't even imagine anything like KGB raiding our schools!

Re:USA becomes a police state

[PetoskeyGuy]

Damn. So much for the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes.

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?.

Re:USA becomes a police state

[bhima]

Yeah, we'll have to start with the "In Fascist America" ones.

Re:USA becomes a police state

[Billly Gates]

In Soviet Russia, RIAA raids YOU!

Oh, shit wait a minute

Re:USA becomes a police state

[/dev/trash]

You may not have imagined it, but it was happening.

Re:USA becomes a police state

[rhizome]

For one thing, Western music doesn't "rule the world". Secondly, even if it did, history tells us that the people who are getting most of the compensation are marketers and executives, who are the true products of the American industries. You'll notice that they never get outsourced.

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.

Re:But show me the link.

[dasmegabyte]

So you're saying that crimes aren't crimes unless the criminal makes money off them?

What about harrassment, vandalism, assault, rape? What about stealing cars to joyride, dining and dashing, hopping turnstiles, giving drugs to friends?

Are you saying that we shouldn't prosecute gangs if they're engaged in these activities if they're not out for a profit?

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?

Re:What I want to know is . ..

[budhaboy]

Nah, they were probrably downloading textbooks because the 'no child left behind' act took all their money away to buy physical ones.

Re:What I want to know is . ..

[a24061]

what the hell is "Stolen copyrighted material"

Just parroting the industries' deceptive terminology. Copyright infringement is not theft; the two things are entirely different and criminal law should have nothing to do with the first one.

Lars.

[AtariAmarok]

Lars is much more of a Swedish name.

Well

[mfh]

Since you put it that way, I guess it really is much easier being a high school kid today. But in all seriousness, these options don't seem very obvious for people being abused by the system and their peers. I just don't think it's fair to arrest/fine high school kids for P2P. They have way too many problems today. And if a nerdy kid rats out his bully, he or she knows they are going to be abused far worse for doing so. The consequences from peers often outweigh any other consequence, because peer-pressure is rash, irrational and swift (unlike many typical adult punishments on all counts).

Hey, I agree with you buddy, but I just don't think you're very tuned-in with the whole high school experience.

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.)

Re:Two Sides to this

[rangek]

We might actually get some real, hard, law out of this case....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.

This is really sad. Legislatures make laws, not lawyers and judges. Legal precedent is not law. If a court rules one way or another on this, that does not make it the law of the land. Theoretically the next victim could appeal all the way back up to the Supreme Court and get a reversal. That won't get the first victim out of jail though. Why should it work in reverse?

For example, take the whole gay marriage thing. A particular couple can go to a judge and ask for a ruling on a no-gay marriage law. If that judge says they can be married, he can compel the state to give that couple a marriage license. The state does NOT have to give every one a marriage license though.

Now as I understand things, it is a bit different when a Supreme court (at the federal or state level) rules that a law is unconstitutional.

Well, anyway, IANAL, and you are. But it is disturbing that you seem to take it for granted that you and yours (i.e., lawyers and judges) are the ones making law.

Oh, and I totally agree that sealed warrants are bad, bad news.

Re:Hopefully this sweep will go international

[BorgDrone]

It already did, there was a raid yesterday in 8 countries targeted at 'Fairlight' (warez group).
I live on a university campus in the netherlands and 2 dormitories were raided, in total there have been raids in 14 houses in the netherlands alone.

Press release (in dutch, couldn't find an english one, too lazy to translate)

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

[ObiWanKenblowme]

First of all, it IS possible to only purchase used CDs, in which case the recording industry wouldn't get any more money from him. Whether or not the original poster actually does this remains to be seen, but in response to your post, assuming that's the case his statement doesn't sound nearly so hypocritical and self-serving anymore.

As to your comment on who will create the next UT when no one feels like paying anymore, someone always will. There might not be as many huge blockbuster productions anymore, but there will always be talented musicians, artists, film makers, game developers, etc. who do it for the love of the craft, not for the promise of fame and fortune. It may not justify downloading music or software, but it's not a valid argument against it either.

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

In fact copying music is entirely legal anyway.

This is incorrect. In fact, as a rule, reproducing a copyrighted work unauthorizedly is infringing. There are various exceptions to this, but that's a far cry from being 'entirely legal.'

We have always been alowed to record a friends CD or tape, the radio, TV shows, movies we rent, etc, etc, etc.

Also incorrect. The AHRA is permissive of certain sorts of copying, but is pretty new, and isn't really that expansive. Most copying around here probably isn't AHRA compliant. And there's no blanket exceptions generally that match what you're talking about. The closest you could get would be fair use, but fair use does not permit blanket statements to be made -- each fair use must be justifed anew based on the circumstances that surround it; making a copy of a show on tv for time shifting might have much better chances of success in a fair use argument than copying a rented movie.

Truthfully the only crime (legally) with copying music is not the downloading but the sharing.

Incorrect, and three for three. Downloading copyrighted music unauthorizedly is illegal as it infringes on the copyright holder's exclusive right to reproduce the work. Sharing it is also illegal, since the copyright holder also has an exclusive right to distribute the work.

Man, doesn't anyone read 17 USC 106 anymore?

Re:IP theft

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

I would note that in the last two examples, if you were caught, you would be charged with trespassing (or something similiar), not copyright infringement.

Re:IP theft

[3terrabyte]

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

The media (including this article) are always lazy when they say "FBI Raids so-and-so who were downloading illegal mp3s".

This is a misnomer, and digging deeper, ALL the lawsuits, settlements, fines, jail time involve the illegal distribution of said mp3's. Not the downloading of.

Although the USA does not have such a distinct admission that download is "OK" (like Canada) every lawsuit so far has dealt with distribution. The next part I can only guess: But I think that is because they don't want to fight that in court just yet (and maybe lose).

Re:IP theft

[Kaa]

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.

You have a very strange worldview.

Did you earn or pay for the air you breathe? You don't deserve it. Did you earn or pay for the ocean you swim in? For the view (in extremely high resolution and full 3D, no less!) of a very pretty girl who just passed you on the street? For that open-source program you've downloaded recently? Did you earn or pay for reading Slashdot?

Re:IP theft

[Bonewalker]

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? You make some valid points, but this one above is not. The game industry is making more money than ever before, and is rivaling music and movies, yet people have been 'pirating' games for decades.

Re:IP theft

[gobbo]

The grandparent poster may in fact be American, but may have omitted their country of origin in a lapsed moment of Canadian chauvinism (perish the thought!). There are lots of canucks (proportionally) on this site, after all.

In Canada it is, in fact, legal and ethically acceptable to download a tune you'd like to hear or borrow a friend's CD and put some tracks on a tape for the car. Legally, as encoded in our copyright laws, and ethically, as culture has a communal element, like it or not. Besides, any time I or my friends shared music with each other (going back to 8-tracks, eh), it resulted in further sales for the artist, since we were engaging in grassroots marketing. Win win.

Now there's a further element: I paid for personal use copying, through levies included in the recording media price when I purchased it. I guess that makes it both ethical and moral, too.

The grandparent's assertion that it is illegal to share is even ambiguous in Canada, and they're still hashing it out: the latest decision is that P2P sharing a la Gnutella is a bit like having a photocopier in a library.

Too bad about that Land of the Free thing, eh? :-P

Re:IP theft

[tfowler]

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

Let's try one more time to switch some of these words around.

The book industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether I walk into a library and read books or not.

Who will create the next great book when no one feels like paying for them anymore?

Not everything in the world is done in pursuit of money.

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

[fitten]

that it's none of their fucking business what I download or why I do it.

Actually... if it's software that I sell for a living, it *is* my business (in multiple senses of the word) when you download my software and use it for free. But you are right, I wouldn't care *why* you did it because the end result is the same regardless of your rationalizations to ease your conscience.

Re:IP theft

[nickstance]

"Did you earn or pay for the air you breathe? You don't deserve it."

I would gladly pay whatever organization went through the effort to create the air I breathe.

"Did you earn or pay for the ocean you swim in?"

Same as above

"For the view (in extremely high resolution and full 3D, no less!) of a very pretty girl who just passed you on the street?"

She's in public, I can therefore see her for free, if, however she were in a club that wanted me to pay to see her, then I would have to either a. PAY
b. NOT SEE HER

"For that open-source program you've downloaded recently?"

It's open source, they don't want anything for it, if they did, it wouldn't be open source

"Did you earn or pay for reading Slashdot?"
I assume that if the owners of slashdot wanted $ they would make this a pay site, since they don't they must get their money from another source, i don't know, maybe advertising?

Look closely at your own worldview if these are the best arguments you can come up with

Re:IP theft

[ratboy666]

'Downloading copyrighted music unauthorizedly is illegal '

Awkward, and wrong. Downloading is not illegal. Accessing computer resources without authorization is illegal (in many jursidictions). But downloading? No.

Uploading and sharing copyrighted material without "authorization" -- yes, illegal (in many jurisdictions -- there are exceptions).

Downloading... as much as people tell you it is "illegal", it is not (at least in the US and Canada). It may be "immoral", or "wrong", but illegal? No.

And yes, we do read Copyright law.

Ratboy.

Re:IP theft

[3terrabyte]

You beat me to it. I was going to append to most of my posts today that my insistence that only uploaders are getting sued means just that. THe downloading part is simply unproven in court.

Your constant quoting of 17 USC 106 is a little disturbing. That is not all there is to it. It can not be black and white like that. Why didnt' you then post 107? By only posting 106, even fair use is illegal.

Re:IP theft

[schemanista]

Well said. I have no empirical evidence to support this, but I suspect that someone who spends 14 years writing a "great" book was probably motivated by something other than potential profit

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

Downloading is not illegal.

As a general matter? Just downloading by itself, no that's not illegal. Hence the qualifiers:

If you download music, and that music is copyrighted, and you're downloading it without authorization from the copyright holder -- _that_'s illegal.

Uploading and sharing copyrighted material without "authorization" -- yes, illegal (in many jurisdictions -- there are exceptions).

Downloading... as much as people tell you it is "illegal", it is not (at least in the US and Canada). It may be "immoral", or "wrong", but illegal? No.

And yes, we do read Copyright law.

Great -- now read 17 USC 106 and the MAI v. Peak case and tell me how downloading is not reproduction.

Re:IP theft

[Svartalf]

Which, of course, you do, right?

Nice supposition. In my case, I can say the same thing as the parent poster, but I can assure you that I do not download things all the same. I do occasionally watch movies, but I've pretty much kept to either local bands or the old stuff I already have. I don't buy their expensive trash for the large part- and I'm quite sure that the bulk of the loss is due to people being fed up with being handed garbage for anywhere from $15 to $20 per pop.

Better yet- your thinking is wrong. It's the public's "IP", we, through the US government, have granted the artists and producers a time limited monopoly on the production and initial distribution of the works in question. It's not taking something other than stepping on the monopoly they were given. The term is "infringement" and I do not care how many times someone tries to equate it with theft I will keep pointing out that there is a very specific and definite legal and actual distinction between infringement and theft.

In theft, if I commit an act thereof against you, I've taken away the thing I've stolen from you and deprived you of the use thereof.

In infringement, if I commit an act thereof against you, I've merely taken away potential profits from the initial distribution of the item in question. You may/may not have ever even seen the profits in question- and you still have the item at your disposal to garner profits from other potential customers. It's only when it gets in the large (the ratio of people infringing to the ratio of people buying) that it really becomes more of an issue- and as far as the law is concerned, it's still not theft even then.

Oh, by the way, you're barking up the wrong tree with the game argument. It's not piracy that makes the games suck- it's the insistence on "sure" bets that produce formulaic games. The big players you're defending here will not take a chance on something new and different that may/may not sell- so long as all the people out there keep buying the same crap time and time again, they'll keep churning it out because it's a "sure thing".

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

THe downloading part is simply unproven in court.

Well, there was enough to the argument to get Napster. As a matter of law, I think it's already settled. I certainly don't see any good arguments around it.

Your constant quoting of 17 USC 106 is a little disturbing. That is not all there is to it. It can not be black and white like that. Why didnt' you then post 107? By only posting 106, even fair use is illegal.

For the sake of brevity. I mean I could've gone through 107 through 121, 1008, etc. Yes, fair use applies, and you'll note that 'subject to' bit at the beginning of 106. However, a) I am doubtful that fair use typically applies here, b) it's incumbent on the person alleging fair use to do so, so others that really believe it's viable under the circumstances would be better at it than I, but mostly c) it's not relevant to the issue of downloading being able to infringe.

Remember -- the parent felt that downloading was never an offense period. I have at least corrected that mistake; now I hope it'll be clear that downloading is always an offense, though sometimes exceptions might apply.

Re:IP theft

[forand]

(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

Sorry you just proved that you were wrong on one point, not to say that you aren't correct in the remainder but as you can see the distribute clause says that it only covers distribution by "sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" and since you NEVER own the music you buy by making copies and sharing them you are not giving ownership of the ip in anyway thus this method of distribution is not covered by this clause.
But alas IANAL.

Re:IP theft

[Omestes]

Actually, your wrong. Your making some sweeping general statement, just because the poster does not support the RIAA does not mean that he does not support all of your examples, over even that they are valid.

Sure, there are certain software companies I will not give money to, and would pirate if I had the need. Price bloating is abhorrant, and should not be supported. Thankfully most the these overly expensive programs have open source alternatives, which I support with use, word of mouth, and money.

I still go to theaters, I still watch movies, I still buy DVDs. The only movies I would ever think of pirating are older flicks, which I have never seen, in order to see if I would buy the DVD. And then of course I don't support the compainies, since I prefer a good used bookstore over blockbuster or suncoast. But the movie industry still gets my money, but only for a higher quality product.

I see my favorite bands whenever they are within 200 miles of my house. If I found them morally repugnant they would not be my favorite band, and thus would not support them. (Hence no Metallica concerts for me, no M.J., rap idiots)

I pirate games until I have the cash to buy it, if I like it. Minor break of law, but no break in personal ethics. If it sucks, I delete it, and never buy it, or play it. Too bad no money is given for a bad product, they should make that even more illegal.

The RIAA, on the otherhand, I find morally repugnant. I think EVERYONE should pirate music from them, hell, piracy is the wrong work, I'm a PRIVATEER of music, it is a war. I have no reason to give them money, prices over inflated, most albums are 90% crap, mercenary buisness practices, and they are one of the cheif killers of personal freedom within the market. Screw Legality for a moment, lets look at ethics, protest. If they made boycott illegal, would you espouce against it?

And, they WOULD NOT receive any of my money, even in a world devoid of P2P, since all of their new music is the standard crap, there may be 4 artists whos CDs I would buy, and I buy those now anyways. Taste should also be legislated as illegal, it makes some idiot loose revenue! Bleh. Give control and profits to the artist, I delete kazaa. Simple, effecitive, hoorah!

Re:IP theft

[Frit Mock]

Did you pay for your life?

Re:IP theft

[!ucif3r]

Yes I am Canadian. I just figured our laws would be similar. Guess I was wrong. Stupid me. Really doesn't change the point of my post though. What the **** are the FBI doing raiding a school?

Oh and I also noticed that there are a lot of Canadians on this site. Funny that... eh?

Re:IP theft

[Cypherus]

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

Excuse me, but I do not steal my games/music/movies...I don't pirate games. I buy every game that I own because I support them making more games and they diserve it. I agree that if we do pirate games, that they won't make good games anymore. I download music now and then, but 99.9% of the time i go out and buy the cd. that .1% of the time it's a hard to find cd or song so I keep it.

Movies, I prefer to have the dvd packaging and such. I don't download movies (unless you count porn and I don't think that industry is suffering at all).

Software...now this is something I do pirate...why? Because I'm a broke ass college student and can't afford to pay $180 for Office XP...Plus I don't use it all the time. Now and again I may jump on it to type a letter or something for school, other than that I don't use it. This is how I justify it...if you don't like it oh well...I'm the one who will have to take responsibility for my actions...not you...And let me ask you...do you think it's making money that's important or making good music? If artists would stop bitching and complaining about their damn cd sales and sit down and make some good music then they wouldn't have to worry about people going out and buying their cd's. The RIAA and MPAA has lied to us for so long about all these artists and movie people losing billions over us pirating music and movies....bullshit...it's all bullshit...I'm sorry that Ben Afleck can't buy his thrid porsche or Brittany Speeres can't buy he leer Jet...wait a second no I'm not! Stop spending so much damn money and maybe you wouldn't need so much damn money to support you gluttonus habit of buy everything on the fucking planet...because you can...Oh and my whole point was don't throw us all in the same pot...we aren't all the same...

Re:IP theft

[!ucif3r]

Well as Wally pointed out once on Dilbert he didn't have porn on his computer, he simply had sequences of 1's and 0's, which the people who found the porn caused to form pornographic images on the screen. So truthfully they were the ones responsible for the pornography.

Similarly if the FBI or RIAA finds .mp3's on my computer and they play them to find out what song they are, they are in effect reproducing the music themselves. So I guess unless they actually catch me listening to said music I havn't done anything wrong by simply storing harmless sequences of 1's and 0's on my computer.;-)

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, you let me know when you find people who are not only stupid enough to fall for that, but who are the right people. (No one cares if /. posters fall for it -- I want to see federal judges fall for it)

Re:IP theft

[ratboy666]

MAI v. Peak

Let's begin with this. I know its second on your list -- but why not.

The ruling in MAI v. Peak is that loading a program into RAM constitutes making a "copy" under Copyright law. Here (in Canada), this is NOT a violation of copyright, but (apparently) in the US, it is.

So, if you do not have a valid license (specific copyright), you may not execute programs.

Peak used systems at their premises, that had software licensed to MAI customers to access service logs. Basically, it was a violation of copyright to boot the MAI computer!

When downloading, I am not using MY computer to make the copy -- I argue that the reproduction happens on the computer hosting the material (Peak could have had the customer boot the OS, and this would have been legal!). The fault (in our case) lies with the uploader or hosting computer.

Peak knew about the licensing -- they in fact had a valid MAI license, and provided a service to MAI customers. I don't know that copyright assignment of the material. I am NOT responsible for every publisher and tracking copyright of such material. I listen to the radio, watch TV, read books, and download from the internet. In all of these cases I presume proper copyright, or that the copyright holders are pursuing the guilty.

Peak knew the customer had a license, was aware of the license, and booted the OS without a valid license anyway.

And that's the difference.

Enough of MAI v. Peak. (and, ps. it was a BAD decision -- you people in the US should be ashamed of that one).

Ratboy.

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:IP theft

[Catbeller]

You're omitting a great deal. The are exceptions to the copyright laws, commonly called "Fair Use".

You can duplicate for:

educational purposes;
satirical purposes;
personal use (yes, you can!);
informative uses, such as news stories.

The proponents of the new Copyright Crime meme do not mention the rights you already have. And the DMCA, by forbidding the reverse engineering of any encryption so that onecan make a duplication, effectively eliminates Fair Use without the bother of changing any laws.

Also: the idea of copyright almost didn't make it into the U.S. constitution. Business proponents wanted it, but thinkers like Jefferson wanted none at all - understanding that new ideas stemmed from old ones.

The compromise simply limited copyright to a limited period of time, giving both side their due. Copyright holders made some dough, and eventually their work became fodder for other people's ideas.

The new regime simply removes the time limit. Copyrighted material is now the property of whoever owns it, forever and ever and ever...

This was not what copyright was created for in the U.S. Not for the creation of a new class of private property, but for creating a fair way of releasing a man's work into the commons, yet recompensing him. Reward for effort, and then seeding the greater whole.

The copyright industry (!) has broken the contract that the writers of the constitution worked so hard for. And they are successfully implementing their insane vision into the world's lawbooks, by hook or crook.

Let's sum up:

Copyright is not property;
Copying can be a right, even without the owner's consent (Fair Use);
The constitutional contract with the American people has been unilaterally voided by the "intellectual property industry";
Therefore no contract exists.

Re:IP theft

[!ucif3r]

Woah man, take a joke, jeez.

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

The ruling in MAI v. Peak is that loading a program into RAM constitutes making a "copy" under Copyright law.

Well, to be more accurate, the holding is that copies in RAM are fixed. This hasn't just had an impact in the computer software arena; the Utah Lighthouse case found that people who read web pages that contained infringing copies had themselves made infringing copies due to the nature of how the computers used to read it operate. It's a terrible line of precedents, though, I have to say.

So, if you do not have a valid license (specific copyright), you may not execute programs.

No -- if you own a copy of a program, you can make any copies or adaptations you need to run it per 17 USC 117. Likewise you can make as many backup copies of the computer program (it doesn't apply to other kinds of works) as you like.

The problem with licensing is that licensors claim that the users don't own the copies of the software, and thus 117 is inapplicable. That means that if you can't just buy a copy outright, you have to license it and take whatever terms are forced on you as part of it. This is also a hotly contested point and not settled yet. But for MAI itself, it isn't an issue.

When downloading, I am not using MY computer to make the copy

Oh yes you are. Note that there are probably any number of short lived copies along the way. But according to MAI, so long as they can be percieved (and they can be) it's enough.

Thus:

1. Copy on sharer's hard disk.
2. Sharer's P2P software begins to read in this copy, making a new copy in RAM.
3. The NIC copies from RAM and sends packets down the line.
4. As the NIC reads in the step 2 copy, it's erased.
5. Lots of hardware on the network makes copies as the file goes down the line.
6. Your NIC makes a copy as it recieves packets.
7. The local NIC copy is used to make a copy in RAM
8. The copy in RAM is written to the hard disk.

Copies are fixed in tangible mediums, remember. If the medium changes, it's a new copy. Since your hard disk ends up with a copy in the end, that's going to be sufficient.

I listen to the radio, watch TV, read books, and download from the internet. In all of these cases I presume proper copyright, or that the copyright holders are pursuing the guilty.

This is an unsafe presumption. Copyright is a strict liability statute. It doesn't matter much (save for damages) whether you knew the work was copyrighted, or whether you intended to infringe. As long as you objectively infringed, regardless of your intent, you're toast.

Re:IP theft

[phasefx]

"...whether I sneak into their concerts without paying or not."

That's just trespassing. :D

-- Jason

Re:IP theft

[dasmegabyte]

but not enough to make a stink about it or go raiding places for pirated works.

Unless it is the possibility of these raids that keeps the majority (if it is a majority) buying CDs and games.

After all, if it weren't for the threat of getting a ticket, we'd all commit more traffic infringements. I've seen a lot of people make turns at red lights simply because they knew there weren't any cops around.

Regulations and demands are worth nothing unless people know you're going to enforce them.

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

You're omitting a great deal. The are exceptions to the copyright laws, commonly called "Fair Use".

As I said to another poster, fair use is not relevant to my point which was to show that downloading is, at least, capable of being infringing behavior. Besides, I doubt that most P2P users can sucessfully show fair use.

You can duplicate for:

educational purposes;
satirical purposes;
personal use (yes, you can!);
informative uses, such as news stories.

No, you cannot. Not like that.

You need to read more carefully -- there is a four prong test used to determine whether or not something is fair use. If you fail the test, even one of those uses you list above will still not be fair. And it's also possible to pass without having had one of those purposes. The purposes listed in the statute, say, (which you got wrong, anyhow) are illustrative at most. They don't really mean anything, other than that Congress expected that they'd be prone to be fair.

Jefferson wanted none at all

Of course, Jefferson was in France at the time, so he had somewhat less input into the Constitution than you might expect. At any rate, if it hadn't been an enumerated power of Congress, it would've fallen to the states. In fact, between 1776 and 1789, the states _did_ have their own copyright laws, and generally screwed it up. It's one of those things that is best handled at the federal level. In fact, there are still a handful of state copyright laws on the books today, and federal preemption may not be completely total.

The compromise simply limited copyright to a limited period of time, giving both side their due. Copyright holders made some dough, and eventually their work became fodder for other people's ideas.

I don't think it was a compromise, particularly, but I do think that the idea was to benefit the public and to hell with the authors. Authors are just a means to an end, they're not important in their own right.

but for creating a fair way of releasing a man's work into the commons, yet recompensing him. Reward for effort, and then seeding the greater whole.

I disagree -- It's not supposed to be fair. It's supposed to promote the public good. Any benefits that authors might enjoy are entirely secondary.

But I do agree generally that massive reform is needed to scale back the scope of copyrights and put authors and publishers back in their place. Sadly, that has little to do with the law _now_ which is mostly what has been discussed here.

Re:IP theft

[totatis]

Your slippery rope would be right except for one thing : I do backups of my datas on CD. Each time I do that, I have to pay a tax to compensate for the piracy I could have done.

Since I've already paid via the tax, why souldn't I download music ?

I don't pay the BSA when I buy a blank CD, and I don't copy their stuff. I do pay a tax on blank CD to music association, so when I copy music, I've alreay paid it.

Your argument would only be good if I hadn't alreay paid for the right to copy music.

The day the music industry accepted to receive money for each backup of my business data I do, that day they lost the right to complain when I go and downlaod some music. I've paid it via blank CD.

Re:IP theft

[Have Blue]

Bad analogy. No one's time, effort, or resources were expended producing the air you breathe.

Copies do deprive someone of something- they deprive the copyright holder of the right to control how their work is copied. That's why it's called copyright. And maybe this doesn't apply to you or JWW, but there are a vast number of people who do download music, movies, and games but would pay for them if that was not an option. And if the companies producing these products are so despicable, why don't you stand behind your words and not use them at all? Oh, wait, that wouldn't let you have your cake and eat it too, which is obviously your God-given right.

The bit about the makers of UT is a non sequitur and has no bearing on whether copyright infringement is right or wrong. And the parent is absolutely correct- if it looks like Epic won't earn a profit on UT2K5 due to rampant piracy (or whatever), then there won't be a UT2K5 for anyone to pirate, and everyone loses.

Re:IP theft

[geoffspear]

The law refers to "copies [...] of the copyrighted work", not some sort of metaphysical "Intellectual Property". You don't "own" the "music", but you are distributing copies of copyrighted work. If you do it on CD, it can be argued you're transferring ownership of the physical CD, which is a copy of the work. "Ownership" of "Intellectual Property" is irrevelant; it's not even mentioned there and you're implicitly adding it to make your point.

Re:IP theft

[DroopyStonx]

To be quite honest, there isn't much of a threat if the average Joe were to download music/software. It's when you don't take the proper precautions when sharing it. If you were to go download a copy of Windows XP right now from alt.binaries.cd.image, I bet you my entire salary that you would get away with it 100% (providing you aren't copying to CD, reselling it, or sharing it). The consequences (legally against you, and monetarily against the industry) would be literally non-existant.

The only argument that stands is, "If everyone did it.." which is 100% true IF it did occur, but... not everyone does and not everyone will.

Re:IP theft

[Coleco]

How about this:

"The rich record excutive that price fixes, rips of the artist and bribes congressmen has already lost all the revenue they would have gotten from me. Period. End of thought."

Are you honestly suggesting *they* deserve the money more than I do?

Re:IP theft

[po8]

Who will create the next Unreal Tournament when no one feels like paying for them anymore? The authors of the not-for-profit Unreal Tournament Next Generation, maybe?

Seriously, the argument that people will quit creating because their copyright-based profit "entitlement" is diminished or even eliminated has always seemed totally ludicrous to me.

Creative works existed since long before the existence of copyrights and patents. Every time a new technology was invented to ease distribution of creative works in a new medium ---book press, newspaper press, radio, television, magnetic tape, floppy disk---a host of new work sprung up before there was any clear way to profit from it. Shakespeare is the poster child here, but look at the machinima movement today. Are there commercial computer animations? Well, yes. Yet even given the possibility of making a profit by leveraging existing laws, many of the top machinima creators give their work away.

My personal belief is that the current length, breadth, and assignability of rights under both copyright and patent legislation actually discourages new creative work. Talented creators find that they can make money developing and promoting their existing work (for 20 years or even forever) with far less risk than they incur by creating something entirely new. Skilled entrants to the field are discouraged from participating voluntarily: during the production of new works, they run a high risk of violating the panopoly of legal rights of established creators, without compensating financial reward that would allow them to defend themselves in the legal system. The unrestricted assignability of rights means that rewards of creation often substantially accrue to entities other than the creator. The net effect of all of this is insidious, but clear: there is much material produced, but it is largely highly derivative, often of low quality, and produced by fewer and fewer prominent creators. Indeed, were it not for the fact that folks still continue to create without reasonable expectation of serious profit, professional orchestras (who subsist largely outside the scope of the copyright system) would probably outnumber pop music groups in the United States.

To return to your specific case, note that we have a terrific model for what happens when a commercial game engine is no longer copyrighted. When Id allowed folks to develop successors to Doom, their actions spawned a whole host of free games based on that source---many of them of extremely high quality. The best of these have become major creative and commercial successes in their own right. I would much rather have a novel low-cost game based on the Unreal Tournament framework than "the next Unreal Tournament". Changes to the law might give me just that.

I believe that there are many folks who have felt as I do on these matters. Yet I see them decreasingly voicing their opinion even in the potentially friendly forum that is Slashdot. I do not know whether this is because they are intimidated into silence by the current hostile environment, or gulled by the massive advertising-driven social campaign currently underway. I note with irony the dramatic increase (on Slashdot, no less!) of McCarthyesque "I am not stating that copyright infringement is moral" disclaimers such as yours. History suggests that a society that requires these kinds of disclaimers for participation is rarely on the road to health. I am not stating that copyright infringement is legal: it is obviously not. I do, however, believe copyright and patent infringement to be moral in many cases. I state this in spite of the fact that by doing so I endanger my professional and social status to some degree, because I believe that speaking out for my beliefs may benefit my fellow creators and society as a whole.

As the author of numerous commercially successful creative works, you might think that I would have a vested interest in preserving the current strong patent and copyright prote

Re:IP theft

[walterbyrd]

>>Sharing it is also illegal, since the copyright holder also has an exclusive right to distribute the work.

Since when does the copyright holder have an exclusive right to distribute? Are you saying I can't sell, or give away, my legally obtained books, cds, videos, dvds?

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

The distribution right? Man, it's an old one. I'd have to look up the precise language of the 1790 Act and the Statute of Anne, but I'd guess since the 18th century.

Are you saying I can't sell, or give away, my legally obtained books, cds, videos, dvds?

No, I'm not.

The distribution right is limited elsewhere (17 USC 109) such that it does not apply to people making certain later dispositions of copies of works that were originally distributed authorizedly by the copyright holder.

Selling a used, legally made and acquired copy of a book, for example, is perfectly legal, all else being equal.

I didn't really want to get into every single nuance of the law since a lot of it isn't relevant to the discussion right now and anyway it just muddies the waters -- title 17 isn't that hard to read through for the most part, but I have no desire to recap it just for the sake of making an unnecessarily thorough argument.

Re:IP theft

[Kombat]

Software...now this is something I do pirate...why? Because I'm a broke ass college student and can't afford to pay $180 for Office XP

But you can afford $nn,000 tuition and housing fees, hundreds of dollars in textbooks and other learning tools, but not the software?

I suppose you never drink beer then? Or heard of "Academic Pricing" on virtually every piece of software that Microsoft produces?

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

Know this: I'm not defending the law as it stands. I don't like the law as it stands, though I do think that the circumstances are still such that _some_ form of (massively reduced) copyright is still a good idea. I'm just talking about what the law currently is, whether we like it or not.

It doesn't do any good to ignore what the current state of affairs is. In fact, it's an important thing to know so as to make cogent arguments in favor of changing it.

Re:IP theft

[Lehk228]

Well, UT actually has a very large benefit for having a legal copy, Online Play. No CD Key No master server. and fuck the RIAA i don't even download their crap anymore, I buy non-RIAA CD's all the time though.

Re:IP theft

[westlake]

Shakespeare is the poster child here

Not st all.

Shakespeare prospered in London, became part owner of a theater, bought a house in the country and lived an active, working. retirement on a very comfortable middle class income.

He was a throughly commercial, professional, playwright who played the patronage game deftly in order to survive.

Re:IP theft

[MaineCoon]

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.

That is a completely different, and very asinine argument. There is a significant difference between music and movies, and water and air. The major distinction between necessity for survival and your mere wants and desires aside, there is fact that air is something that it is impossible to own and control and is something every human being needs. You can bet your entire MP3 collection that kids in west africa don't need that Celine Dion song you downloaded last night, but they sure as hell need air and water. At least the air they are guaranteed to.

If you cannot survive without your illegal copy of a song, movie, book, then you need serious help.

Re:IP theft

[wintermute740]

"Which, of course, you do, right?"

You know what they say about assumptions, right? They make an ass out of u and umption.

In all seriousness, I'm with the parent post. The RIAA has also made its last cent off of me, regardless of whether I download music or not. Why? Because A) they've pissed me off by their heavy-handed tactics, and B) I don't download music.

Re:IP theft

[Oligonicella]

Incorrect. Shakespear's "copyright" enforcers would simply have been a couple of cheap thugs. Lots of law was different, back then.

Re:IP theft

[nmjon]

I think you are missing a huge point. Who gives crap if Madonna can't buy another jewel studded bustier.
Are you trying to say that copyright infringment is the worst type crime that the FBI should be going after? I can think of a few other things that could be more important. How about, oh lets just say....
TERRORISM!!! CHILD MURDERS AND ABDUCTIONS, DRUGS
I guess that Hummer makeover for Ahnold is more important.

Re:IP theft

[po8]

The point being that (so far as I am aware) no form of "intellectual property law" protected Shakespeare's creative work: he made money by using the work successfully, and by convincing others to contribute to it. It was thoroughly possible in Shakespeare's time to be a productive creative genius and be commercially successful at it, without the benefit of copyright law. Probably still could be, given the chance.

Re:IP theft

[Rakarra]

So, umm... downloading child porn wouldn't be considered illegal either, then?

Re:IP theft

[Rakarra]

Ever heard of freedom of speech? Or fair use? If you buy a copyrighted book and read it to me by exercising fair use.

Yes, that would be just fine. Playing it on the overhead speakers at your local department store would not be fine, though.

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

Contributory and vicarious infringement both require that there is in fact an underlying direct infringement, however. The Napster case discussed the violations of users as a necessary prerequisite for Napster itself to be liable.

Re:IP theft

[Oligonicella]

"Sneaking into a movie theatre deprives them of a seat. Downloading does not."
You're not paying to see the movie, which you obviously intended to do.

"record label prints 10,000 CDs"
Which they cannot sell now, because their customer base just evaporated. Oh yeah, you righteously presume they either have more customers or should wither and die.

"Every company that engages in any form of commerce is directly depriving..."
So you're justifying your actions as "competition"? Exactly what goods are you producing to compete with?

"The incentive for the public good ..."
This is merely your opinion, as you admit.

"...the vast majority of artists are never compensated anyway."
And that is utter bullshit. You think they don't need food and shelter? Oh, you mean the "starving artist" thing? Well, that art won't be seen by anyone, no distribution. By the way, as with any other endeavor, the "vast magjority" of participants aren't very good at it. Why should they get paid?

"Getting something they don't deserve?"
Puh-lease. "Found a way to get it themselves without any external intervention". Had to think a bit on that one, eh? Just another way of saying "found the item offered illegally". And the movie bit, sheesh. Sophomoric.

"Stop pretending that copyright is a moral issue."
Fine. Stop pretending piracy isn't about ripping someone off. "Big Business". Right.

Re:IP theft

[gobbo]

Except that those of us who do NOT "share" music are actually free to buy blank CD-Rs at standard prices, without paying a mandatory levy.

Fair enough, and I agree. I was supremely pissed off about the levies at first, since I didn't download music or any other media sharing; then after a couple of years (and broadband access) I just shrugged and started a modest download habit, guilt-free in all respects. Still, the spirit of the copyright system is more user oriented in Canada. Maybe you should consider sharing now and then, or does that go against your heroic rugged american individualism?

Friends still lend me CD's, I still make tapes (or more often rip tracks to HD), and I still purchase as often as I ever did (which is rare, because I have eccentric tastes). It's not about downloading, really, it's about the way in which culture is propagated. Music products are properties; they are also released into the wild, and like it or not become part of the commons. Copyright is (or should be) about dealing with this.

Re:IP theft

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm 99.44% in agreement with you. But again, I was talking about what the law is now, and not what it was once, or should be. I'm very much in favor of reforming and scaling back copyright law.

Re:IP theft

[gobbo]

What the **** are the FBI doing raiding a school?

They're developing a culture of fear, and so enhancing the already powerful authoritarian streak in american society.

Re:IP theft

[AK Marc]

Sharing it is also illegal, since the copyright holder also has an exclusive right to distribute the work.

I don't see sharing and distributing to be synonyms. Sharing is making available. That is no different from a library, rental store, or just borrowing/lending the entire work to a friend. Distributing is distribution. Now, if someone downloads from my PC, it is quite likely they are making an illegal copy, so that may get closer to infringing activities. But if I'm infringing by providing the resources that someone else uses to violate copyright, then the libraries are in violation as well every time someone uses a copy machine in the library for an infringing act. They are not responsible, so I will presume I am not as well until such time as the courts prove otherwise.

And have no mistake, the courts will never prove otherwise. It is too risky that a court may declare that the mere availibility via P2P is not "distribution" and thus would make sharing explicitly legal. Instead, the **AA target the people that do share, but only charge them with downloading. That way, it appears that sharing is illegal to keep people from doing it, but no ruling will have been made on it.

Re:IP theft

[Yartrebo]

And if the companies producing these products are so despicable, why don't you stand behind your words and not use them at all?

You're right, they are despicable and I don't buy their products anymore. I've also stopped downloading their stuff (I play too much computer as it is anyway). I'm running Linux (Mandrake 9.1), so no need for bootleg software.

I do watch TV, but I do boycott certain channels, like FOX and all the Viacom channels. PBS gets most of my viewer time, but I still view them as sleazy (they run advertisements for really slimy companies, and even though they are non-profit and funded by the government [in part], they retain 'all rights reserved' on their media). They won't be getting any donations from me. Naturally, all the for-profit networks rank even lower.

Copies do deprive someone of something- they deprive the copyright holder of the right to control how their work is copied.

I can also say that "copyright does deprive someone of something - the right to do what they want with their information", 'their information' being defined as what is in their hands.

Re:IP theft

[true_majik]

But you are right, I wouldn't care *why* you did it because the end result is the same regardless of your rationalizations to ease your conscience.

Of course, this includes if my reason was "I downloaded the music/movie/program because I could and felt pretty cool knowing I had in my possession the album/movie/program not released in retail yet. So how would I rate this album/movie/program? Oh I coudln't say. I dont even listen/watch/use it". Would I buy it in retail if it was for $1? Probably not. How is it that me having possession is a lost revenue case? I haven't the slightest clue.

Re:IP theft

[drsmithy]

Copies do deprive someone of something- they deprive the copyright holder of the right to control how their work is copied.

It is not a right, it is a legal fiction.

Re:IP theft

[rjshields]

Bad analogy. No one's time, effort, or resources were expended producing the air you breathe.

I'm not sure that God would agree with that. /me says with tongue wedged firmly in cheek

Re:IP theft

[Zareste]

admit that what they do is wrong

'2+2=5' is wrong. Your dualistic "My view of the world is the only one" thoughts are really nothing worth listening to. Come back when you've ended your temper tantrum and have a point to make - till then nobody's going to take your psychological shortcomings to heart.

Re:IP theft

[Fallen_Knight]

my god, the diffrence between downloading and sneaking into a venue is HUGE.

They are diffrent as sneaking in you are going on to someone PRIVATE PROPERTY without PREMISSION as you haven't paid the OWNER to enter the venue. That is why you cna be kicked out for any reason they want, its their property and security has the right as representives of the owner to remove anyone from the property they choose.

They are selling you a seat on their property so you can view a performace. they are NOT selling you music, a movie or whatever.

Now this has nothing to do with downloading being right or wrong, theres a huge diffrence between your examples, ones copyright infringment, and the other is... well i dunno, maybe its nothing because they have the legal right to prevent access to their property so no new law is needed.

the ONLY things you cna compare downlading to is borrowing someone elses CD/tpae/DVD and makeing a copy of that. Or stealing satalite TV (thou i feel tis up to the contents provider to protect its signal not to outlaw it)

And now i could go on to say why those against downloading have no valid point because i won't bceause i'm sure others will point out the statistics and why there is no reason to prevent for it other then greedy corprete pride and ignorence and control of the consumer.

Re:IP theft

[fitten]

What about:

I drove this car out of the car show because I could and felt pretty cool knowing I had in my possession the car not released in retail yet. So how would I rate this car? Oh I coudln't say. I dont even listen/watch/use it". Would I buy it in retail if it was for $1? Probably not. How is it that me having possession is a lost revenue case? I haven't the slightest clue.

The only difference here is that you are talking about copying something that doesn't have physical materials. I worked to make my software and depend on its sales. If you can't afford my software, then do without maybe? If you can't afford a car, you find alternative means of transportation like a bus, train, or subway and you do without the car. Both are still products of someone else's time and effort, and in some cases, materials.

Exactly my point!

[Allen Zadr]

That's exactly my point. It's similar to writing an article about children riding bikes without helmets, and adding in a blurb on child fatalities in car crashes.

Perhaps the educational videos bought by the school district were purchased by the shopping cart video dealer down of 4th street.

Coincidence

[bhebing]

Funny thing is: same thing is happening in The Netherlands. According to the news-site nu.nl, the local tax enforcers are looking for 'perpetrators' in Utrecht, Enschede and some other cities. Arrests, allegedly, have been made. Now, is this really true, or are they pulling some big fat FUD-operation?

Re:Poured?

[tehcyder]

Interesting, they mixed up the idea of the Agents pouring through the school and pawing through the data.

Maybe they thought the word paw was a bit insulting to the mighty G-men?

Re:baby boomers, lay off already

[October_30th]

now you want to screw over your own children (clamp downs like this)

Screw over?

Since when did upholding the copyright law become "screwing over your children"?

That's like saying that the local shopkeeper is screwing me over because he keeps calling the cops every time I pick up a new version of MS Office, AutoCAD or Matlab without paying for it.

Re:Tiptoeing...

[dr_dank]

IANAL either, but I'm sure the FBI with a court order in hand can skirt any FERPA issues with ease.

Better things? Like what....

[BoomerSooner]

Maybe stopping terrorist attacks, that couldn't be it.

Our government is fucking incompetent because it is beholden to the corporations not the people.

Lost email? What - that's their own fault

[portwojc]

The schools lost Internet access including emails to and from elsewhere on the Internet

How is the email issue important except pointing out whoever is in charge of their network had a badly planned set up for email.

offtopic: lame sig file

[proj_2501]

n/t

stop it or you'll go blind

[moviepig.com]

Right. Mount a marketing blitz to convince kids that their identity and self-worth depends on experiencing some new CD or movie, then legally and morally prosecute them for sharing the experience.

Or, to put it another way, "Your mother and I are going out. Don't put beans in your nose. The beans are in the cupboard."

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[gowen]

Unless the copyright law being enforced is like a Nazi law.

Which it isn't. Otherwise the headline would read:

FBI Raids Arizona School District Over Copyright Infringement :
Perpetrators Summarily Executed and Buried in Mass Grave

Which is not, as far as I can ascertain, what has happened here.

It must've been a pretty serious issue...

[Audigy]

...consisting of multiple infringement reports, else I can't figure why the FBI would be wasting their time.

It's probable that a number of computers on the school's network were compromised and are running 'host' servers via IRC, BitTorrent, etc.

It's much more common these days to get slammed for uploading files, instead of just downloading and possessing "copyright infringing material" unless there's intent to distribute.

I haven't started searching yet, but I'm curious to see if any IPs in the school districts' ranges show up. :)

Agents poured through data and records

[emilng]

From the article: Agents poured through data and records...

Shouldn't it be "pored through data and records"?

I was picturing liquid FBI agents that act like the Sapphire liquid that can sumberge books and computers without damaging them.

Re:Poured?

[Dun Malg]

Poured? Does anyone learn to spell anymore?

Hey, it could've been worse. They could've written "Hoards of agent's searched students lockers. Infringers where arrested and there secret hordes of MP3's were confiscated."

Babel Fish to the rescue

[PalmerEldritch42]

Here is the lovely Dutch to English translation ala Babel Fish:

Functional parquet floor, 22 April 2004 Large-scale study into Internet piracy As a result of information, provides by the US Department or Justice, Criminal Division, computer crime & Intellectual Property Section, have on 21 April 2004 in achttal land, among which the Netherlands, doorzoekingen taken place. The information is related to international criminal organisations which occupy themselves by means of use of computers and the Internet with the large-scale and worldwide exchange of illegal copies of digital files, which is contrary with copyright legislation. Such organisations have been confessed in the Internet world as "Warez-groepen". A group which is confessed as "Fairlight" is one of groups oldest and the most known within warez-scene. This group has existed for in the middle of years ninety and has had the reputation that she is responsible for cracking kopieerbeveiling of popular and high-quality entertainment sortware, such as computer game. Fairlight have been further confessed as of weinige Warez-groepen that from are on financial gewin. By fraud officers of the FBI study into the activities of Fairlight has been performed. Its Ip-adressen of Fairlight used computers determined, with which the physical locations of those computers could be retrieved. It appeared go in a number of cases in the Netherlands present Ftp-servers, he who for rise and transport of illegal programmatuur seemed be used. On the basis of the obtained information of the American authorities the presumption that exists a number in the Netherlands resident suspected, in association with abroad resident persons, an organisation forms that copyright protected work for the verveelvoudiging or for distribution available has. Suspecting has existed that this organisation in the Netherlands has been for some years active. Closer study into the persons has been performed and the locations which in relation Ip-adressen well-known to stand. On Wednesday 21 April 2004 at three o'clock at noon in the Netherlands in 14 a tal houses doorzoekingen has been performed by FIOD-ECD, under the guidance of the functional parquet floor and with support of the rural parquet floor. Moreover it has been requested to some universities stored data extradite which in relation stand Ip-adressen well-known to. The research took place in all medewerkende countries simultaneously. During the research no further statements will be made. ..Terug..

Re:Babel Fish to the rescue

[Flyboy Connor]

OK, I'll do my best to turn this in something meaningful:

---

National Police Force, 22 April 2004

On 21 April 2004, information delivered by the US Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section, led to property searches in eight countries, among which the Netherlands.

The information is related to international criminal organisations which use computers and the Internet for the large-scale and worldwide exchange of illegal copies of digital files, which violates copyright legislation. In the Internet-world such organisations are known as "Warez-groups".

A group known as "Fairlight" is one the oldest and best-known groups within the warez-scene. This group has existed since the middle of the 1990s and has the reputation to be responsible for cracking copy-protections of popular and high-quality entertainment software, such as computer games. Fairlight is also known as one of the few Warez-groups doing this for financial gain.

Fraud officers of the FBI have investigated the activities of Fairlight. They determined IP-addresses of computers used by Fairlight, with which the physical locations of those computers could be determined. In some cases it concerned FTP-servers located in the Netherlands, used for the storage and transport of illegal copies of programs.

Based on the information obtained from the American authorities, a number of Dutch residents were suspected to form an organisation, together with foreigners, that multiplied and distributed copyright protected works. It is presumed this organisation has been active in the Netherlands for some years.

Persons and locations related to the known IP-adresses have been investigated closer.

On Wednesday 21 April 2004, three o'clock PM, fourteen houses in the Netherlands have been searched by the FIOD-ECD, supported by the national police force. Several universities have been asked to turn over stored data in relation with the known IP-addresses.

The search happened in all cooperating countries simultaneously.

While the investigation is going on, no further statements will be made.

---

My own opinion is that this was a long time coming. I often got offered Fairlight CDs even at work! Tracing IP-addresses to locations seems to me to be a good enough reason to do a search.

Obviously this is more important than...

[Mr. McD]

...oh say missing fuel rods from a
nuclear power plant in Vermont. Thank god the FBI is keeping our schools safe!

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.

crackdown related to Dutch raids?

[Zarn]

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

Dutch news site NU.NL reports that the FIOD-ECD (Economic Crime Unit of the Dutch IRS) raided twenty locations on Wednesday, mostly campus locations in Groningen, Utrecht, etc in search of illegal software. This was done at the request of United States Customs Service (emphasis mine).

Dutch news sites often confuse one Federal service with another. Could this be related to the raids in Arizona and the "national crackdown"?

Re:crackdown related to Dutch raids?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the official press report (Dutch), there were raids in eight countries, and they were acting on information from the US DOJ, Criminal Division, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section.

Re:crackdown related to Dutch raids?

[Zarn]

My translation of the Dutch Attorney General's website posting :

Large-scale investigation of Internet piracy

As a result of information provided by the US Department of Justice,
Criminal Division, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section,
on April 21st 2004 raids took place in eight countries, among which
the Netherlands.

The information pertains to international criminal organisations who
- by using computers and the Internet - deal large-scale and worldwide
exchange of illegal copies of digital files, which is against the laws
of copyright. Such organisations are known in the internetworld (sic)
as "Warez-groups".

A group known as "Fairlight" is one of the oldest and most wellknown groups
in the warez-scene. This group exists since the mid-nineties and has the
reputation to be responsible for cracking copy-protection of popular and
high-grade entertainment sortware (sic), such as computer games. Fairlight
is also known as one of the few Warez-groups out for financial gain.

Investigation officers of the FBI have investigated Fairlight's activities.
The IP addresses of Fairlight's used computers have been determined, which
yielded the physical locations of those computers. In a number of cases
they appeared to be FTP servers located in the Netherlands which seemed to
be used to storage and transport of illegal software.

Based on the information obtained from the American authorities there is
the suspicion that a number of suspects who live the Netherlands, working
together with persons living abroad, form an organisation which deals in
copying or distributing works protected by copyright. There is the suspicion
that this organisation has been active in the Netherlands for some years
now. The persons and locations related to the known IP addresses have been
further investigated.

On Wednesday April 21st 2004 at 3pm 14 apartments were searched by the FIOD-ECD
led by the Functional Court (?) and with the support of the National Court (?).
In addition several universities have been requested to submit storaged data
which are related to the known IP addresses. The investigation took place in
all cooperating countries simultaneously.

There will be no further announcements pending the investigation.

Re:crackdown related to Dutch raids?

[Frit Mock]

Hm ... what did the CIA say, where they are?

It was the Whitehous, wasn't it ... and they where that short of resources to search them, that Mr. Bush had to look for them himself ...

At least, they have a good excuse, that none where found ... one man can't search fast and efficent enough and someone just moved them away ...

Re:crackdown related to Dutch raids?

[adavidw]

Here's an article that appears to say they're related: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5198047.html?tag=n efd.top

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.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Deflagro]

Is this what our tax dollars are paying for? What about the war on terror that we've already lost, or the war on drugs that we can never win? Are we going to make a new department, maybe the Federal Bureau of Copyright Infringement?
This is idiotic and we can't just sit back and watch the goverment work for big business...

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?

DOJ resources

[color of static]

I'm so glad that resources are being used to protect valuable corporate IP instead of that icky war on terrorism. Maybe now my children can safely attend school to only hear and see legitimatly licensed content. One more thing I can sleep better about.

Re:DOJ resources

[Frit Mock]

If governments lack successes in one area (like the war in Iraq), they are trying to be successful in othere areas (like copyright infridgement) ??

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?

I'm so glad to know

[John the Kiwi]

that the FBI is taking care of our national security. This is definitely not a waste of time, money and manpower in my opinion. We should definitely be pandering to the RIAA and whoever they bought this week.

This is pathetic. FBI find some real criminals because this is a joke.

It's most likely because of ..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. school hosted dump sites, ftps, or xdcc bots. Good colleges/universities tend to have decent internet connections (*really* decent connections), so kids leave their computers on sharing literally terabytes of files. When the government sees this much illegal data streaming out a school connection, it's a pretty big deal. I, for one, am glad this happened. Maybe with lower internet costs next year, my tuition will be affordable.

except the parent was lying

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent deserved being modded down. He was not 100% right. He was 20% right at most. He referred to duplication as "taking" and "theft".

Re:except the parent was lying

[itchy92]

You fucking people and your fucking self-deception. MUSIC is a product, not the CD on which it is distributed. A MOVIE is a product, not the reel from which it is projected. SOFTWARE/CODE is a product, not the disc from which it is installed.

These things are priveleges, not rights; you do not have a right to hear music, as much as you may like to think otherwise. You're not helping the artist fight some grave injustice when you bypass the RIAA and "duplicate" music through various sources; you are fucking stealing. If this is what you want to do, fine; call yourself a theif and be done with it, but don't try to talk about how you're "sticking it to the man" and your favorite bands "aren't making any money anyway"; your favorite bands made a concious decision to sign with "the man" and they're certainly not making any more money when you STEAL their music.

I am a musician. I will never sign with an RIAA member label (if it was ever offered), because I believe my music should be freely distributed. But I don't speak for the thousands of other artists out there, nor would I ever want someone else making that decision for me.

/rant
/first time I've understood why some posts become so emotional... sorry. I'm not as infuriated as I sound.

Re:except the parent was lying

[shepd]

Repeat after me...

The word stealing:

- Is not defined so that you get to keep your property after it is stolen
- Does not appear in US Copyright Law*
- Is going to be overruled in court, should you call the pirating defendant that
- Applies, when it comes to music and individual crime, to shoplifting only
- Generally applies to crimes where the maximum punishment is a weekend in jail and a $250 fine. Only "grand theft" / "larceny" / "robbery" carry similar sentences to the crime you mention.

Just use the language properly, that's all I'm saying. Otherwise, it's an overloaded, useless word and I would then feel justified in saying you're "stealing" the clarity of the English language.

But I don't speak for the thousands of other artists out there, nor would I ever want someone else making that decision for me.

Fortunately, well, once fortunately, it *was* only their decision to make for 14 years. Then everyone could benefit from the cultural infusion provided by new talent, no matter how poor the disposition of the creator of it. If there's one thing society has noticed, it's that some (not all) artists are extremely odd people, and, as such, tend to do things in an manner society doesn't support. Some want to give away their talent, such as yourself, and some write books that sit on shelves and aren't found until the author dies. Luckily, even now, that art will *eventually* end up doing public good, even if does end up a century out of date.

I support your right to call people out with the right terms. Piracy is fine, as it's defined to exactly what you want. Copyright violation is great too, although you'll sound like a lawyer using it. But stealing is plain stupid, it's too ambiguous, and, quite honestly, doesn't explain the true consequences of the crime. "Grand larceny CD" would be much more appropriate.

* - A single instance, referring to the act of shoplifting-type crime, is listed in there, and is only there to differentiate between actual piracy and the crime of stealing/theft.

Re:except the parent was lying

[scatalogical]

The monied businesses are writing the laws in the US today. I want the RIAA MPAA etc. gone. I could care less about violating a bunch of self serving corporately sponsored laws. I am a musician and a programmer. I feel not even slightly threatened by copyright infringement. To be blunt, if all the IP owners in the world never invented or produced anything ever again I would still have entire lifetimes worth of really good music etc. to enjoy. These asshats are stealing our cultural heritage. Fuck them and anyone who supports them.

Re:except the parent was lying

[dasmegabyte]

I think the major problem with digital copyright infringment is that it doesn't FEEL like theft. Theft of physical property doesn't occur in comfortable rooms full of friends. It generally doesn't have the party atmosphere we see on KaZaa.

As such, there's a need to rationalize this. If it doesn't FEEL like breaking the law, it's not breaking the law, right? In fact, it must be a moral imperative to buck the evil record labels!

I think a few scare raids are going to change that emotion REAL quick. The reason I stopped pirating software was somebody tried to set me up as the patsy admin on his distro server. I disappeared instead. Good thing, too...three months later, the FBI was interviewing my superiors at our work -- this cat escaped being expelled, prosecuted and fined by a few days. That could have been my head in the noose if I hadn't seen the sinister forces behind the "glamour" of weekend LAN parties, "free" hardware and international chat sessions.

It's apparent that the RIAA is coming down on "innocent" file sharing with the same force. It's not chat and Napster anymore, folks, and if they put you in their sights it won't matter whether you boycott cds or not. You're gonna need a lawyer and a shitload of luck.

Re:except the parent was lying

[satchboogie]

Your post makes absolute and total sense. Stealing is stealing, whether it is a ju-jube or a Porche.

I am impressed to see that you would boycott the RIAA and most bands should do the same. Many out there cannot because of contracts.

Let's face it, the RIAA members have money and when you have been starving and trying so hard to scrounge enough money to even buy guitar strings, and some body comes along and fills your head with dollar signs and promises, what would you do?

The Music Industry has been taking advantage of the artists and the consumers since it's economic impact really became significant (1950's with Elvis and later in 1964 with the Beatles and the British Invasion rebellion by the US artists).

I don't purchase much music at all. I limit myself to those artists that I really like. I don't have much money at all (student) but I am more than happy to give it to those I like (Joe Satriani for example).

Most of what I download I already have on cassette or vinyl. It is more convenient to download someone else's CD copy than to record it from a decent tape machine (which I don't have) or from a scratch-filled record on a decent turn table (which I also don't have).

The rest are singles that are not available or come on an album with 10-20 other songs I do not want and for a price I don't find reasonable. That is assuming I can even find a copy of the recording.

If I were in the position of many of the artists who are wrapped up in RIAA member contracts, I'd let them expire or get out in any way that does not legally bind me to the RIAA. Then I would purchase or get a loan to purchase some servers and sell my material for a reasonable price per song ($1 or less) on my own website.

The RIAA would hate that because they would have no control. I would have full control and full income to pay for recording bills, engineer bills, mixing bills, CD production (I would probably manufacture them myself or get a bunch manufactured on an asneeded basis), etc...

But that's just me.

Re:except the parent was lying

[itchy92]

You're right; that's fair enough. I suppose I didn't mean stealing in a legal context, simply in a moral/practical sense; and I understand that to an extent, the two are intertwined (a very loose extent, and I'm speaking of this instance, not generally).

The main point in my post was simply that people are aggrandizing their piracy/theft/whatever into a protest of the RIAA/MPAA, but then claiming that it doesn't matter because it's not hurting them *REALLY*. The hyporcisy is glaringly obvious. I don't quite believe the claims of lost profits from the RIAA, but of course they use them to prove their point. And I certainly don't agree with their tactics for enforcement, but if I tell you that I'll shoot you if you download a song, and you start downloading and I start shooting, you can't really claim innocence.

Don't like the system? Change it. Demand change, demand to be heard. Don't defy it for your own personal benefit and claim that you're not doing anything wrong because the laws are unjust. That's just stupid.

Re:except the parent was lying

[steeviant]

The word piracy is also grossly out of proportion with the crime being committed. In a world where there is still real piracy happening on the high seas, it's outrageous to equate license violation with the act of piracy.

Real pirates take actual property, murder, rape and abduct people. It's at least as injust to call copiers pirates as it is to call them thieves.

Re:except the parent was lying

[d34thm0nk3y]

...you do not have a right to hear music...

Well, I guess that is where we differ. I believe that we do have a right to access our own cultural heritage. Unfortunately, for the first time ever, that culture is wholly owned by one consortium. It is the monopoly of culture that is the problem, not greedy downloaders, not greedy artists, not even greedy labels. If there was no monopoly the greedy labels would actually be competing with each other instead of teaming up to steal our culture from us and then sell it back at ungodly prices.

Re:except the parent was lying

[shepd]

>Don't like the system? Change it. Demand change, demand to be heard. Don't defy it for your own personal benefit and claim that you're not doing anything wrong because the laws are unjust. That's just stupid.

I totally agree. The problem (well, it wasn't supposed to be one, but will be) is, in Canada, it did get changed.

Here, due to a levy charged on CDs, "pirating" music by downloading it is completely legal.

But, surprise, surprise, CIRA (Canada's RIAA) doesn't like that. It sucks. You try to play fair, and you end up screwed.

That being said, I've been against the CD levy from day 1 -- it was a bad idea then and a bad idea now.

Re:except the parent was lying

[itchy92]

Yes, but this has been the case throughout history: culture has always been socially-synonymous with wealth. The great operas and symphonies were not performed on streetcorners for the chimney sweepers, they were in lavish concert halls and operahouses for the rich.

I don't disagree with what you say, but you make it sound as though these musicians and artists are releasing their music into public domain, and the RIAA is snatching it up without their consent and selling it. Again, the truth is you do not have a RIGHT to culture; it is a luxury, one in which you're welcome to engage, but since culture is the product of a society, society can charge for it if it wishes.

Hmmm, that'll be my new sig: everything's a product.

Re: Not tracable

[REBloomfield]

We'd bust you for sharing your details. It's you who was logged in, so it's you who suffers. Unless you want to tell us who you gave your details to...

If you give someone your CC details, and they access child porn, it's you who is going to get it in the neck....

How about churches ?

[nurb432]

Locally i know of one church that got busted for showing a bootleg copy of 'the passion' to their membership, and forcing it upon the children in their care ...

Did they get fined? Nope.. somewhat of a double standard going on.

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[eclectro]

What I meant is something like the Right to Read, which seems somewhat prescient given today's news.

It's true that summary executions are not taking place, but the FBI, Justice department, and the government at large seems increasingly hostile torwards the citizens it's supposed to serve.

Also, don't forget that the US government helped put this man in power.

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:ReGoddamndiculous

[Frit Mock]

Hm ... among the 1000 important things the FBI could do is espacally one:

Investigate corrupt politicans. ;)

Our top priority?

[javab0y]

This is quite interesting Ashcroft testified in the 9/11 proceedings. Interesting things to note is that "a now-famous memo from the Phoenix FBI office about possible terrorist infiltration of aviation schools did not reach decision-makers until after the attacks." As well as, FBI directory Juis Freeh stating "One is that there was a lack of resources."

Hmm...a lack of resources and information not getting to the proper people. Could it be because they are using thier resources to bust little kids? I am glad our country has thier priorities in order.

Napster Library?

[krysith]

Ever wonder how history might be different if "Napster" had instead been named something like "The Sharing Library of the Internet"?

I think that people would have a far different reaction to a "library" being shut down than a "peer-to-peer startup company". People understand that libraries are supposed to share information - that's what they do. And generally people don't have a problem with that. It's when buzzwords like "P2P" and "piracy" become involved that people have a problem with file sharing.

Note to self: if ever making P2P applications, call them Library-something-or-other.

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.

Re:Napster Library?

[Shurhaian]

Libraries also expect you to return their limited number of copies. They're not changing the number of instances; they're only allowing people to borrow those instances.

Librariers don't run off copies of the books and give them to comers; they have an inventory and they want it back.

Re:Napster Library?

[nyseal]

Libraries are usually subject to local, state or federal funding to a certain extent....so I guess it depends on your locally purchased, ehrr, I mean elected officials.

Re:baby boomers, lay off already

[10am-bedtime]

glad you asked. upholding the law is one part of the picture. where did the law come from? that's another part of the picture. who is really doing the upholding (who is "on the ground" knocking on doors and carting equipment away)? that is yet another part. and of course the picture has a background of observers as well as a foreground of participants.

to the above questions, i would say the laws come from those in power, and it is the next generation for the most part whose duty it becomes to do the work. this screws the impressionable in two ways: they learn to be tools of unjust laws instead of learning how to undo the injustice, and the subjects of their efforts (typically also impressionable) will direct their ire against the messenger instead of the message. the last part is human nature, granted. and like a screw, things go round and round, getting deeper and deeper, until only outlaws are truly free, and only if they keep their mouth shut. "i pensieri stretti e il viso sciolto", like they say...

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.

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[gowen]

Re : Right To Read

Can you really not discern the moral, legal and ethical differences lending someone a book to read and manufacturing a verbatim copy of that book for that person (the correct analogy for what goes on in "file sharing").

schools...

[WormholeFiend]

that'll teach them!

Re:Poured?

[NeoThermic]

Doesn't anyone know how to look beyond their screen?

Dictionary Reference for Poured
v. intr.


1. To stream or flow continuously or profusely.
2. To rain hard or heavily.
3. To pass or proceed in large numbers or quantity: Students poured into the auditorium.
4. To serve a beverage, such as tea or coffee, to a gathering: We need someone to pour.

So, if they poured through the data, they passed through the data in large numbers; meaning either many agents looking at a small amount of data, or a large amout of data being looked at by a few agents.

NeoThermic

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:We won already?

[Czmyt]

Or maybe some spammers? When are they going to put this much effort into rounding up the spammers? It seems like that would be a good use of our money. At a time when their image could not be any lower, this kind of transparent, industry-sponsored police action does not help. Now if they could do something about the blatant, illegal drug sales and fraud perpetuated by the spam gangs, that would be a positive contribution to society.

The RIAA was stupid, now they pay

[Morganth]

Basically, any half-way smart businessman who actually understood business trends would have seen the Napster revolution, and though "here's a way to profit," not "here's a reason to sue."

It's very simple. If the RIAA, instead of taking the angle that MP3 downloading was "pirating," had decided that it was just the new, preferred distribution channel of consumers, then with some quick work and smart marketing, people would be _BUYING_ all their MP3s today. If the labels had embraced the new, faster, more flexible medium for music storage (namely, people's hard drives and MP3 players), they could have profited like mad.

Of course some people would have still stolen MP3s, but in much the same way that some people "steal" CDs by buying burned copies on the streets of New York.

The bottom line is, when fat cats get comfortable, they don't want to rock the boat, even if in rocking it they save everyone on board. I want the RIAA to die a horrible death. Not because I don't respect intellectual property (which is owned by the artists, let's remember, and not the RIAA), but because it is purely a business organization (an "industry association"), and it failed in its only real capacity: to notice and adapt to business trends in order to allow the record industry to respond to changing economic climates. It deserves to be destroyed now--it did it to itself. If I were a record label, I wouldn't be screaming to sue piraters: I'd be screaming to dismantle the RIAA for not realizing what should have been done years ago, before Shawn Fanning became a geek superstar.

Who Said P2P

[nurb432]

People are assuming P2P..

Students could have just brought in CD's from home..

Be they loaded onto the network, or just shoved in a drawer..

It has helped RIAA...

[WindBourne]

get a republican as CEO. Now, they can get presidential favors and start raiding high and grade schools.

Pictures of raids yesterday

[Fuzzums]

In the Netherlands and Germany there were rainds too.

pictures

Rumors here talk about the FLT group that is busted.

Fair Use

[Allen Zadr]

I doubt it. Actually, a lot more situations fall under Fair Use than most people think.

Making a physical copy of a venerable media qualifies as fair use. Making an MP3 of a small portion of a song to use as an example of that song is also fair use (in the more traditional sense). In fact, making a cassette tape of a CD and giving it to someone you know (without money exchaning hands) is also fair use.

However, putting a copyright work in a location where absolutely everyone can copy it is not fair use.

I still don't see how P2P sharing in schools is linked to organized crime, as the article suggests.

Re:Fair Use

[cpt kangarooski]

Making a physical copy of a venerable media qualifies as fair use.

No, you can't say that for sure. It probably does, I agree, but you just cannot make blanket statements as to what fair use does and doesn't allow. You have to conduct a case by case analysis every single time.

In fact, making a cassette tape of a CD and giving it to someone you know (without money exchaning hands) is also fair use.

Well, the distribution side of it might be, but the reproduction side would almost never be analyzed under fair use -- the AHRA already covers it, so there's no reason to conduct an additional analysis.

However, putting a copyright work in a location where absolutely everyone can copy it is not fair use.

Under the right circumstances it might be. There's nothing that actually precludes it, it's just difficult.

Re:Fair Use

[3terrabyte]

Good point.

Fair use was deliberately written to be vague so that each case can be analyzed. There are no absolutes. But... with enough money, I suppose there are no absolutes in law at all.

I'd also like to point out to your parent that Fair use was created during the Analog days. The NET ACT and DMCA are both additions that have been made to ruin Fair use for digital copies.

For instance, the NET ACT could be invoked against you when you "give a copy to a friend" even when no money is exchanged. Why? Because they redefined what "monetary gain" stands for. Expecting something back in return (like trading) now falls under monetary gain.

Re:Fair Use

[cpt kangarooski]

Fair use was created during the Analog days

Heh. People always say this, but it isn't so.

Books are, in fact, digital. Each letter and word is distinct from the others -- there's nothing in between a and b, just as there's nothing in between 1 and 2.

Re:Fair Use

[shark72]

"Making an MP3 of a small portion of a song to use as an example of that song is also fair use (in the more traditional sense). In fact, making a cassette tape of a CD and giving it to someone you know (without money exchaning hands) is also fair use."

Do you have a citation for this? Are these covered in copyright law, or are they more in the realm of not needing backup because everybody knows they're true?

Googling on "fair use music" gives me the following:

http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/guidemu s.htm

http://www.serve.com/marbeth/music_fair_use.html

http://www.pdinfo.com/fairuse.htm states: "We have attempted to do find specific details and examples of Fair Use of music. The rumors that it is OK to use so many notes or so many bars are just not true. There is little doubt that, other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html states that one can make a "mix tape" for one's own personal enjoyment (their words). There's nothing on the EFF page which gives one blanket authorization to make a copy of a CD and give it to a friend, whether cash is exchanged or not. Nor in this article, which was written by a lawyer.

A common point found in many articles I've read is the impact on the market. If the copying is done to avoid buying another copy, then it's not fair use. While making a copy of a CD for a friend -- cassette, MD, DAT, CD or otherwise -- might be solely so he can "sample" it or "try before he buys" or "evaluate it for consideration of purchasing it," in most cases it's not -- you are making a copy for a friend because he'd rather get a copy from you for free than to buy his own. Not a huge crime -- but not fair use.

Re:P2P

[nitehawk214]

You aparently do not know what the word draconian means.

Too late

[Sanity]

What next? Will your house be raided on suspection of IP infrigement?

Its already happening.

Anyone from the Onion Here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see an "article" about FBI/"newly formed Iraqi IP taskforce" raiding an Iraqi school...but lack the writing skills myself.

Free Culture

[solaufein]

Two words: Free culture. Both the book and the idea. Give it a read. http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

Photocopying books

[antizeus]

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

When I was in school, it happened all the time. In fact, I've got about two-thirds of a book on C*-algebras sitting around somewhere. Before anyone complains, let me say that the book was out of print, and we had the blessing of the author.

Generation Jackass.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm concerned that a whole generation of jackassess
is being created. Absolutely nothing is being done
to encourage the virtues of charity, goodwill toward
others. All the things that make up a nice human
being that you would want living next to you are be
choked out of existance by the usual gamut of laws,
jackbooted thugs, incessant commercialism. It is
sorrowful. Weep for heartless creeps that are being
produced.

Re:Toledo uncappers case

[schodackwm]

from Broadband's followup :

Seven of the uncappers were indicted in September of 2002. One case was dismissed. Two offenders struck deals and went through a diversion program (Wirtz being one), and were not prosecuted. Two others were charged with reduced misdemeanor charges and placed on probation, while one other was convicted of a felony and placed on "community control".
...
Eventually he (Wirtz) wound up agreeing to pay $3200 in Restitution, $300 for a "diversion program" class, and forty hours of community service. Another offender wound up settling to the tune of $30,000, and others still walked away without paying a dime. Broadband reports.com

Re:baby boomers, lay off already

[orthogonal]

Since when did upholding the copyright law become "screwing over your children"?

I think about December of 2003, when numerous Australian schools, at the behest of the Australian version of the RIAA, advised parents not to video tape their children's Christmas musicals -- and in some cases having guards confiscate parents' cameras --, because the parents might film their children singing copyrighted songs, thus violating the rights of the copyright owners.

Yep. You and your kids don't have a right to keep a memento of their first Christmas pageant, because that might violate a corporation's exclusive right to an arrangement of a traditional Christmas song.

Your personal memories of your kids don't count; corporate profits do.

At that point, I think that many are getting screwed for a small plutocracy.

Middle School

[Allen Zadr]

Middle School is the worst. Ask any cop, teacher or social worker.

This is where kids first become large enough to put people in the hospital and they often do.

This is where most kids are first introduced to drugs.

This is where kids first start getting sexually active (a blow job isn't sex / you can't get aids from sucking dick ) - and all the other bullshit that these kids feed eachother.

Middle School is where children start making adult decisions, but don't have to face adult consequences. It's all a joke, because nobody gets punished.

High School isn't much different, but at least in High School, these kids start seeing the adult consequences of the decisions that they are making. You actually have to sit in jail for assult in a High School. And for those that actually plan on attending collage (sadly, far too few), the fear of expulsion actually means something.

If you think it's "only Middle School" then it's been way too long since you've been to one.

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[eclectro]

We really do not know what crime, if any, has happened here.

At this point it is pretty much rampant speculation.

But assuming that it is file sharing, what is troubling is the manner that the law is being enforced.

Can you really not discern the moral, legal and ethical differences lending someone a book to read and manufacturing a verbatim copy of that book for that person.

What I can discern is how morally wrong, legally questionable, and unethical current copyright law is.

So if we have a nation of lawbreakers, maybe the law needs to be changed, rather than throw everybody in jail. Which the RIAA and friends seem to be earnestly trying to do.

From the article;

"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."

I think it is a natural progression of the ever expanding copyright law to have a per-use-permission on copyrighted information. In which case you have the FBI raiding schools if they haven't paid for all the times they may have read something electronically.

So much as it being morally wrong to make a verbatim copy to give a friend, it's unfortunate that there is not some compulsory licensing model in place that would allow me to do so without being a "lawbreaker". It does not show my moral deficiency, but the deficiency of lawmakers who are unable to think for the larger public interest.

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.

No child left behind

[Doc Ruby]

on the paddywagon's route to prison.

Re:No child left behind

[Doc Ruby]

We all learned to copycat in school, and we're a stronger nation for it ;).

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[gowen]

there is not some compulsory licensing model in place that would allow me to do so without being a "lawbreaker".

There is already perfectly workable compulsory licensing model. It involves your friend strolling to the local bookshop and buying his own damn copy.

This is all a bunch of BS...

[taped2thedesk]

First of all, none of the articles published so far have said anything about them raiding schools. They entered the Administrative Services building of a school district (to be accurate the article should have said the FBI was raiding "school districts", not "schools"). It's a small point, but when I first read the story I imagined a bunch of FBI agents storming an elementary school while the kids tried to ignore them and go on with their normal school day.

Secondly, this probably isn't just about a few kids swapping files. The article mentions "piracy", not "file sharing", and historically the FBI hasn't been involved in minor file sharing investigations.

While the article seems to be making all sorts of guesses about what is going on, the fact is that the warrant is sealed and no one has said much of anything so far. As others have pointed out, this could be over anything from compromised servers to child porn. Why don't we wait to see what is going on before everyone assumes that this is about file sharing?

Just to give you an idea of how little anyone actually knows, check out a few of the other stories from other sources...

I also find it interesting, that as Michael pointed out in the story, there hasn't been a single mention of any other raids, yet the article claims that "Federal agents in Phoenix and elsewhere in the country raided schools and other targets in a national crackdown on pirated music CDs and movies." This raid happened yesterday, so there should have been some news coverage of other raids if they took place. Where else in the country?

The only fact that can be traced to anyone is that "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." Everything else seems to be the reporters guessing what happened by guessing that this is connected to the Justice Dept's announcement.

Until I get some more information beyond "The FBI was investigating actions by individuals that have something to do with the Deer County School District" (the only real information in the article), I'm taking this as a bunch of BS by second-rate sensationalist reporters.

On a lighter note, I enjoyed the reference to the district's "COMPUTER COMMAND CENTER" - perhaps they meant the server room?

Control & Evolution

[tilleyrw]

It is nice to know that law-enforcement agencies exist that can be bought
and used like a toy cap-gun to enforce questionable legalities when
Corporate Intere$t i$ involved.

I am using StationRipper at this very moment to rip songs from the
soundstream of Club 977. This is for my personal use. According
to the click-through agreement when installing the program, this
is supposedly legal.

As a child of the 80's, the majority of my musical choices
are from this era. Does this mean I will never buy another CD?
Possibly. Will the RIAA seek me out now that I've announced
I'm ripping from a stream? Possibly, but doubtful.

What's next? Video rippers will appear to complement the current generation
of audio rippers. Does that mean no one will ever buy a DVD?
Possibly, but doubtful.

Do I care? Obviously not. I'm a died-in-the-wool user of Debian linux.
Society as a whole will evolve past this obession with control that provides
entertainment for all of us who know the futility of such an exercise.

Re:Control & Evolution

[AmericanInKiev]

Video rippers will appear to complement the current generation
of audio rippers.

And Tivo is a what?

AIK

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!

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[eclectro]

Sorry, but I refuse to worship at the shrine that has become copyright.

our tax dollars at work

[denisdekat]

Goog thing too, last thing I want the FBI doing is going after the corporate criminals who stole millions in the last corporate bubble. Much more fun to bust little kids :)

Priorities

[R@Bastard]

What has our society come to...

We probably spend more money on this 'raid' than on the funding that this school gets in a month for books, phys-ed, and the like. Is business the only point in our society? Even if it *is*, it's better to have a well-educated consumer class than not. Bah.

What a waste. Doesn't the FBI have more important things to do?

Ignoring for a moment the tired argument about whether copyright infringement is a crime,

DON'T THEY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO!!?!?!?

</rant>

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

[westlake]

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.

Shakespeare's First Folio was published in 1623, about seven years after his death. The surviving members of his company were under no obligation to publish anything, ever. Think about that for moment.

The Conger was a trade association that shared the cost of publishing and distributing books no single one of them could handle. Johnson's Dictionary, that sort of thing, works that otherwise would have never made it into print.

Re:I call BS

[3terrabyte]

There are reasons why people keep pointing out the theft vs. non-theft. Many of those reasons are wrong, but the main correct reason is because the punishment and definition is different in the law books.

This is especially apparent in civil vs. criminal penalties of each.

And although off topic, one of the things that is really starting to bug me is that it's possible to get in LESS trouble for stealing a CD from from a store than it would be to download it! Don't you think $150,000 per infringement is a little excessive?

Re:I call BS

[Registered Coward v2]

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,

Sure you can - you create it in the case o songs, books or programs, and you have rights to ownership. Just because someone can take a copy without taking the orginal doesn't make it any less a taking of your property.

and not end up at a situation where you advocate anything less than perpetual copyright.

No - you can limit the rights to such intangible property to balance the benefit to society of making it worth creating and ultimately th eability of others to build on it and create better versions.

Abd that is the key - making it worth someone's time to create it - without that, much of what fuels progress or the arts would not exist.

And copyright, by protecting works encourages dessimination because there's profit to be made in it, which leads to funding for more works and more profit.

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.

Re:I call BS

[MunchMunch]

"Sure you can - you create it in the case o songs, books or programs, and you have rights to ownership. Just because someone can take a copy without taking the orginal doesn't make it any less a taking of your property."

You need to base your assertion on more than that. You are, however, in good company--even Lawrence Lessig asserts that copyright is a property issue, probably, like many, for reasons of intuition and common vocabulary--but I think that our insistence on applying physical property norms to the fundamentally different product of ideas and creativity is dangerous.

The fact is, today that conception of creativity as property is an intuition that allows laws like the DMCA and SBCTEA to be passed with little oversight and hardly a gesture to the public interest. The reason is, senators and many others wouldn't dare challenge the sanctity of 'property,' confirmed as it is by numerous international treaties and constitutions, norms, and basic human intuitions. But creativity is not personal property--it is a unique social and cultural product. It is dangerous to analogize this, because, as now, people talk about physical property even when they think they're talking about creative products.

Re:I call BS

[Oligonicella]

"but I think that our insistence on applying physical property norms to the fundamentally different product of ideas and creativity is dangerous."

Physical property norms are not applied to music, art, writing; physical property norms are for the duration of the physical object in your possession, copyright is for the duration of you for the possessing.


"conception of creativity as property"

That is not the concept. They concept is the creation as property.

In a more abstract sense, indeed my "creativity" is my "personal property" because it is, perforce mine, not yours.
If you want something created, do it yourself or humiliate yourself and pay someone who can do it to do it for you.

Re:I call BS

[Cromac]

You cannot look at information as property, and not end up at a situation where you advocate anything less than perpetual copyright.

The way the copyright law in the US reads would tend to support that position. You can't copyright information/facts/data. You can copyright the presentation of such information, but not the facts themselves. So if I have a receipe for BBQ sause I can't copyright the list of ingredients or how it's prepared. I can copyright the book it's in with whatever other commentary there is, but the receipe itself isn't protected under copyright law.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

How does that apply to sharing music? I don't think it does, just pointing out a detail in copyright law.

Re:I call BS

[nyseal]

The founding fathers did not have downloading music or Xerox machines in mind when drafting the Constitution, granted, however the idealism behind intellectual property and copyright still stands (which are different, mind you). Copyright was INTENDED to be limited so information could eventually be shared with the masses in a timely manner while still affording the original author some form of monetary gain on their work(s). Believe it or not, this does promote creativity within the masses that these works are distributed. When companies like Disney or the RIAA have a perpetual lock on these rights and can afford to extend them indefinitely through our legal system, society has a real problem and eventually these companies own EVERYTHING with no hope of societal release, compromise or recourse. Example: should I not be able to download Beethoven because Sony has the most current license on copyright? How about Glenn Miller, or The Doors? How 'new' or 'old' does a work have to be before the masses don't have to "pay" without some conglomerate saying (or paying) for the rights only to yet again rape the masses? Obviously I'm not talking about Brittany's latest single release; however that's the very beginning of the battlefield where the first shot is fired by companies with money versus copyright law. If it's a 'hit' they claim all rights; if it's not, they claim all rights 50-100 years from now. Win-win for big business. That was not the intention of the fathers or their interpretation of copyright law; nor will it ever be.

Or how about...

[LilMikey]

"The music industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether they overcharge me 80% or not."

or "The music industry has already lost all the revenue they would have ever gotten from me, whether they abuse their near-monopoly or not."

It's already been shown people are more than willing and happy to pay a fair price for music. People 'stealing' music is their reaction to being raped for years by that industry. It's civil disobedience. It's the only way consumers can fight back when the RIAA 'owns' 95% of the music, 100% of the radio, and a solid 75% of the government. Only a moron thinks copying music is the 'right thing to do' but most have little problem believing it's 'justified' and quite obviously 'working.' This is the market balancing itself against an industry that was more than happy to use technology to rape it's customers for decades.

But don't blame me, I only listen to NPR.

Good that whole "war on terror" thing is over

[SuperBigGulp]

As a taxpayer and citizen, it makes my cranky to think that FBI field agents are being tasked to on raids to search for possible evidence of possibly victimless possible crimes.

I know that enforcement of "regular" laws and ordinary criminal investigations do not cease during a time of war, but searching for copyright violations? Please.

All of this occurs just days after the FBI is criticized for not being proactive enough in preventing crime and spending too much effort investigating criminal activity after the fact. So much for those promises of reform.

Here are some things I think the FBI could be working on:

• Find terrorists in the US
• Find terrorists outside the US
• Why not search for WMD while you're out there

Finish the war on terror, and then maybe we can talk about the relative merits of enforcinge copyright infringement at the state level.

Way to go !

[Anonymous Coward]

".... Statute of Anne....Conger....Jefferson..... Madison"

Way to go, Mr. Harvard! Confuse us with names of extremely obscure historic figures that no-one really has heard of other than you!

Re:Way to go !

[MunchMunch]

Way to go, Mr. Joe Football! Participate in a substantive discussion by attacking the use of facts!

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

Re:Way to go !

[Mycroft_VIII]

I dunno, maybe because the topic is about the FBI rading Arizone state schools. Last I checked both were still in the USA. (which would place him under b).
However since he was moded funny it has occured to me he was just trying to be funny. In which case I should have had a C) your Joking right. In that case I'm sorry I didn't get the joke.

Mycroft

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!

What terrorism?

[donnyfire]

Thank goodness they took time out from their busy schedule of preventing terrorism for this little adventure. I'm sure feeling a lot safer now.

Re:What terrorism?

[jeff13]

My thoughts exactly. If the FBI are the copyright police I gotta wonder what the police do.

OT:Agents poured vs Agents pored

[McFly777]

Oops, I was going to say you were wrong. But then I looked up "pored" at M-W.com (merriam-webster online dictionary).

Main Entry: 1pore
Pronunciation: 'pOr, 'por
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pored; poring
Etymology: Middle English pouren
1 : to gaze intently
2 : to read studiously or attentively -- usually used with over
3 : to reflect or meditate steadily

So, I guess you are correct. Which is only sightly amazing here on slashdot, where it seems that half of the grammar corrections are themselves wrong.

Re:OT:Agents poured vs Agents pored

[emilng]

Yeah, especially since I can't even spell "submerge" correctly.

Interesting argument, but

[Allen Zadr]

I would point out that when a city closes a road for construction that is in front of a business, that city must provide alternate means for customers to get there, including clearly marked signs - or that city must offset that businesses "potential lost business" with cash.

Cities don't give up cash easily, so if there was not a legal precedent for "potential lost revenue" having value, then cities would not go through these hurtles. Yet, they do.

Every copy that is stored on someone's hard drive, is lost revenue. If you merely wanted to 'see if you liked the song' you'd find an alternate method of listening (like a streaming broadcast, or walking into a Music store). The song was downloaded because someone wanted it - but didn't want to pay the $0.99 for a legal online download. Sorry, in my not so humble opinion, that is theft.

However, that still does not give the music and movie industries the right to sue and prosecute little old ladies with Macs that couldn't possibly have perpetrated the crime.

Re:Interesting argument, but

[schemanista]

Every copy that is stored on someone's hard drive, is lost revenue.

I have copies of songs stored as files on the hard drive in my computer. This is perfectly legal according to the concept of "fair use" and the conventions of copyright in the country in which I reside. Neither the artist nor the record company has lost any revenue since each file is a digital copy from a CD which I own. Until a clear legal precedent has been established, the line between unsanctioned distribution of copyrighted material(illegal) and "sharing" (legally protected) is blurred to the point of obscurity.

You have made a common mistake while attempting to argue one side of this issue: no analogy works given the current state of technology, when discussing the legalities of how and by who copyrighted material gets distributed.

These businesses, to which your analogy refers, are selling physical goods or services. Barriers to access have a demonstrable effect on their ability to generate revenue. Recording companies cannot demonstrate that file sharing has a corresponding impact. We may "think" it's the same, we may "want" it to be the same but the link has not been proven, either in the eyes of the judiciary (in my country) nor in the eyes of market observers.

Re:Interesting argument, but

[Allen Zadr]

...each file is a digital copy from a CD which I own.

If that's the case then there's no reason to argue. You, in fact, did pay for those songs. The fact that you make personal copies falls under the following exclusion of even US copyright law:
USC Chapter 10, Section 1008.

Private, noncommercial use is protected (no problem). However nothing about P2P networking is private. If it were, then the RIAA would not be able to find out who's sharing and downloading. The last point is only to emphasise why P2P is not private, not to emphasise the general lawfullness of things done in privacy.

Re:Interesting argument, but

[schemanista]

If that's the case then there's no reason to argue.

You and I may be having two different conversations. I took issue with this statement: ...

Every copy that is stored on someone's hard drive, is lost revenue.

...because only a single data point (mine) was required to disprove it.

And your analogy still doesn't support your argument because the owner of a MegaWraps franchise can say to the City Council: "Last year my sales were $foo for March and April. Since you started construction work on March 17, I've seen a 60% drop in sales and all of my customers complain that they can't park close enough. This road resurfacing project is killing me!" The RIAA cannot make the the same kind of specific assertion because they can't prove that P2P is causing a loss in sales. Any argument about who has the right to distribute copyrighted materials is separate from the tortious issue of supposed loss of revenue.

I'm not arguing about the ethical or legal correctness of P2P. I am pointing out that however "right" your position is, you're not presenting it effectively.

Re:Interesting argument, but

[Allen Zadr]

"You and I may be having two different conversations. I took issue with this statement: ..."

I suppose every post should be a self-contained essay, but if you read down the chain from first-post on, I'm confident that the context of the statement that you took issue with will be effectively clear.

I do, however, forget that many folks view comments in 'time', 'reverse time' instead of nested or threaded (as I do). So I apologize if my statement was not properly put into context as referring to P2P copies.

Huh?

[bonch]

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

It's the same freaking thing. Copyright infringement by people who think they have the right to download everything under the sun just because it's there.

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.

Then, suddenly you get defensive and call a total stranger an "asshat" because they dared bring up the fact that infringement is self-serving.

Guess what? It's my fucking business what you download and why because I happen to make material that has ended up on p2p. Guess what? I wasn't too happy about it either. But go right ahead and pretend you have some sort of right to privacy when it comes to illegal and immoral activity.

Nobody's talking about the software...

[MsGeek]

I can't believe it...everyone's talking about the "borrowed" music on this school district's servers and not the "borrowed" software.

This is one of the excellent reasons why school districts and university systems need to think seriously about moving to Free/Open Source Software. Schools are hurting for money, they have impossible budgets, so who wouldn't be surprised that there might be a few warezed copies of expensive software floating around?

Since the BSA seems to have cojones of steel and no compunctions about storming into Junior and Missy's school and busting teachers and pupils, it is incumbent on school districts and university systems to reduce their exposure to this quasi-legal extortion. The best way is to wean themselves from proprietary software.

I am a student at a Los Angeles Community College District campus, Los Angeles Valley College. The school is running almost exclusively on Microsoft products. Are they 100% paid up? Can they whip out COAs on all their software on the BSA's whim? I am reasonably sure, in spite of the strong precautions taken on the student-accessible end of their network, (you cannot install anything on any of the student computers and even trying will get you banned from the network) that they are not 100% locked down.

However, if they were running a Free and/or Open Source operating system (technically the *BSDs are non-Free in the Stallman sense of the word) and F/OSS they would have no reason to worry. Even on the machines that absolutely, positively HAVE TO run on Windows, (some courseware is Windows-only and requires brain-dead Windows only tech like Active-X) they could protect themselves by running Win32 F/OSS like the Windows port of OpenOffice.Org, The GIMP, Mozilla Firefox, and so on.

This is an excellent article by Dan Kegel about the case for Linux in Universities. Just about all the arguments about Linux in Universities apply with equal veracity to Linux in Primary and Secondary schools.

Any Arizona LUG people out there? I suggest going to your local school district and volunteering your services to help migrate their computers to F/OSS.

Re:Nobody's talking about the software...

[V00D00 NiggerDoll]

A strange-looking old man walked into a funeral home and said to the mortician, "I'll give you $100 for the vagina of the blonde lying in the casket in the front room." The mortician looked at the guy like he was nuts. "Are you crazy?" he said, "I could lose my license."

"How about $200, then?" The mortician debated with himself, then said, "All right, you've got a deal, but keep it quiet, okay?" Locking the doors and pulling the drapes, he went hurriedly to work, scalpel in hand.

In minutes, he was holding the dripping pussy at arm's length, and he asked nervously, "How do you want it wrapped?" "Don't sweat it," the old guy said. "I'll eat it here."

Re:Nobody's talking about the software...

[TyrranzzX]

Or mabye, oh I dunno, absolving the goverment and education institutions from copyright?

Obligatory quote...

[someguysomewhere]

Wont somebody PLEASE think of the children!

Proof

[Allen Zadr]

Just as the Internet is not quantum physics, computers are not inherantly secure. I think the assertion of no proof is the lack of biometric and/or video camera security. A computer lab that requests userid/password cannot guarantee that the logged in person is who they say they are.

Just wanted to clarify that point.

GPL

[bonch]

You know what really hurts? The gut-laugh I have over seeing a community that cries up in arms over any sort of GPL copyright violation and expects all companies and legal systems to respect the copyright of the GPL...then goes to great lengths to call the music industry evil for pursuing infringers of its copyright and spends paragraphs justifying violating every copyright under the sun.

You can't expect everyone to respect the copyright of the GPL and then justify violating it when it's someone else's.

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

Well that Senator DID ask the RIAA....

[Newer Guy]

In their hearings before the Senate, that Senator did ask the head of the RIAA if they were going to go down to the local grade school and round up the usual suspects! I guess they took his lead!

For the zillionth time...

[shachart]

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?

Repeat after me: Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one. I'm not sure about American laws, being non-American, but if it isn't such an offense now, it was one prior to the DMCA, and it should be reverted.

If you violate RIAA copyrights, they can sue your ass. You ain't going to be arrested. The FBI shouldn't waste its time on this, and certainly the RIAA should not enjoy taxpayers money on this.

Re:For the zillionth time...

[3terrabyte]

repeat after me: Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one. ......

If you violate RIAA copyrights, they can sue your ass. You ain't going to be arrested.

Criminal Infringement

Criminal infringement. Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18...

Re:For the zillionth time...

[Matt - Duke '05]

Repeat after me: Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

With a catchy subject line like "For the zillionth time" I should hope that you know what you're talking about. You obviously don't though - go read up on the "No Electronic Theft Act" passed wayyyyy back in 1997.

so much for copyright law.....

[MoFoQ]

Schools (students and teachers alike) are suppose to be exempt from copyrights (provided that they don't sell works). This is the whole reason why they are allowed to use the xerox machine and the reason why they are not suppose to be charged for royalties on music they may play during nap time or during their music classes.

This reinforces just how low the RIAA would go to make their money. I'm pretty sure the artists themselves would've let this one go. For godsakes, they are kids...IN SCHOOL! At least it wasn't in California, where education is crap as it is.

Re:so much for copyright law.....

[Discopete]

At least it wasn't in California, where education is crap as it is

Perhaps you'd like to re-examine the educational system in Arizona. It blows. An extremely high percentage of our students leave school without the ability to even read/write or speak passable English, let alone any other skills.

The FBI chose one of the 4 highest mean-income school districts in the Phoenix-metro area. The 4 being Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Deer Valley and Gilbert/Chandler.

Phoenix metro is very much a case of the "haves" and the "have nots". In this case, the FBI went after the "Haves", probably with the intention of going after the students and parents next.
Most of the other Districts have a high number of students that fall at or below the poverty-line, barely understand the concept of American laws and/or are the sons/daughters of illegals immigrants.
The FBI chose one of the districts where a high portion of the student body is upper-middle to upper-upper class, relatively well versed in the concepts of american law and have parents and family that can't just be deported, thus alleviating much of the flight risk.

Why doesn't the FBI do something useful, like investigate the Neo-Nazi organizations that plague the Gilbert/Chandler Schools?
Perhaps because that would mean that the sons and daughters of many white, upper-class corporate executives would be going to jail.

Re:so much for copyright law.....

[MoFoQ]

I say California's blows more....but in reality, they both blow for blowing. (opening the floodgates for the "who's on first. what's on second." jokes).

yea...why is the FBI wasting time and taxpayer money on non-critical issues. No wonder 9/11 wasn't prevented; the feds are too busy chasing insignificant, petty misdemeanor "crimes". I just hope that the FBI shapes up so we don't repeat the tragedy.

Re:Robbery and rape!

[socode]

Another interesting thing is that your objection to that particular use of the word "rape" in that context is incorrect, since it also means stealing.

Perhaps you should ask rape victims if you are entitled to speak for them about what they might find objectionable.

Media Incompetency

[MacWiz]

"In the past year, the recording industry has gone after people, including children, for illegally downloading music from the Internet. Earlier this month, the Recording Industry Association of America subpoenaed the University of Arizona to provide the personal information of four students accused of illegally downloading music from university computers."

Three reporters worked on this story and evidently none of them understand the facts.

No one has been subpoenaed anywhere for downloading music.

The 9/11 Commission support this argument

[Polymath Crowbane]

The argument is valid now because both the 9/11 Commission and senior members of the Justice Department have said the FBI needs to consider dropping some of its traditional crime investigating to focus on counterterrorism. In an environment of shifting FBI priorities, what focus/resources should be committed to enforcing IP law as opposed to other crimes, which are, apparently, going to be turned over to local authorities. Are we looking at a world in which the FBI deals solely with terrorists and IP offenders?

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[Rick and Roll]

Damn, you can't allow the word "fuck" into your post, but you make the entire content of it ridiculous as fuck.

The law is not being enforced like a Nazi law. It is wrong for them to do that, but it is much more in line with the hundreds of governments over the years that do not allow free speech, do irreasonable search and seizure, and consider the perpetrator guilty until proven innocent. There have been very few governments that are any where near the Nazis. The Nazis killed millions of innocent people, in case you've forgotten. And BTW, it's Holocaust Rememberence Week.

So I see you haven't a common knowledge education. Here's what I suggest: go to the bar and learn to say the word "fuck". Once you can get past that small injustice, you can see how small it is, and how much it pales in comparision to being ignorant of the Nazis and their massive assault on the Jews.

Let's be technically clear on this....

[gosand]

You can't make a digital copy of a CD and share it without seriously risking infringment.
Under this reading, sharing an MP3 ripped from a CD with friends is fine, as long as it is an analogue of the original. If an exact duplicte of it turns up anywhere else, you're toast.

Just to be technically accurate, there are no MP3s on a CD. So you are making a transformed derivative copy of portions of it. So is an exact duplicate of that derivative copy a derivation of the original? So is the infringement making a copy of the (derivative) copy or making another derivative copy of the original? What if there could be a very slight modification to the copy such that it was not an exact duplicate of the original?

And before all the "it's still stealing" dopes come out of the woodwork, I am just trying to discuss the technical points of the argument. I am not passing judgement on them or applying them to a specific scenario.

Re:Let's be technically clear on this....

[lynx_user_abroad]

So is an exact duplicate of that derivative copy a derivation of the original?

My opinions only, here, of course. An exact duplicate of the analogue derivative is not protected under the Home Recording Act. An analogue derivative of the analogue derivative would be. Clear as mud, huh?

So is the infringement making a copy of the (derivative) copy or making another derivative copy of the original?

There is no strong defense against the posession of an exact (digital) duplicate of a recording somebody else owns. If you're getting it off the net, that's what you have. You'd have to fudge an awful lot of bits in the mp3 to convince a judge it was a true analogue rather than a copy with very slight modifications. Then again, true analog duplication does this seamlessly, is protected under the Home Recording Act, and most people can't tell the difference.

The best loophole I can see would be to use an analog connection to rip your CD's. Send a digital copy of that analog derivative to one (and only one) friend, and destroy your copy of the analog derivative as soon as it is sent. If you want to send it to a different friend, you'd have to make another analog derivative, because if friend A and friend B have identical duplicates of the same analog derivative, somebody has comitted an infringment. Of course, once you've sent the file to friend A, there's nothing you can do to prevent him from making a digital duplicate for friend B. That would be an infringment, it wouldn't be you comitting the infringment, but if there's watermarking in the recording pointing to your original, you'll likely get skewered for it anyway.

Everything I've seen seems to indicate the RIAA and the like don't get actionably mad until people who don't own the original wind up with exact (digital) copies of stuff other people have. If you're offering digital copies to (or pulling copies from) other people, you're almost certaintly infringing. You may be able to claim a Fair Use exemption if the other person is "your friend" and the copying is clearly non-commercial, but neither of those are generally true for p2p style downloaders.

And as far as the "it's stealing" arguments go, it's only stealing if we agree to call it stealing. Just like when they kill our people inside our country it's terrorism, but when we kill their people inside their country, we're just "getting rid of the tryants".

Gee, I could have sworn

[bonch]

Gee, I could have sworn it was illegal to pirate someone's copyrighted works.

Somehow you've turned the "real crime" over to Congress for extending some copyrights. What does that have to do with P2P, and how does it give pirates the right to infringe on artists' rights?

I won't hold my breath for an answer.

Seems pretty organized to me

[bonch]

Actually, the term "organized crime" isn't that far-off...P2P is pretty organized (Sharereactor/connecter/provider, anyone?), and the illegal downloads ARE a crime. It's organized crime, just in a different high-tech way.

This helps the fight of global terrorism...right?

[oDDmON oUT]

Otherwise WTF are crucial law enforcement resources being frittered away on this?

(I know, I know, it's all about who's given the biggest chunks of campaign contribution getting their goodies, but I had to ask the rhetorical question anyway).

The headline is wrong, anyway

[bonch]

I didn't read anything in the article that said the FBI was looking for pirated music and movies.

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:Ludicrous!

[Greyfox]

Lets go to the board shall we?

Despite at least a couple of agents actually voicing their concerns about those Saudi citizens attending flight schools and not really being all that great at landing, the ball was already dropped once. Statements by pretty much the entire bunch of top advisors to the Bush Administration do nothing to convince me that they weren't off smoking crack or something while those Saudis learned how to fly planes well enough to crash them into targets here.

A large number of Americans believe that another terrorist attack will occur on American soil before the election.

President Bush went on national television in response to this and basicially said "Defending the nation is hard."

So in my opinion, if every single agency man is not currently out there chasing terrorists and other violent criminals, then I'm afraid I do have doubts about their ability to defend this country. Them raiding some school over a bunch of two bit movie pirates does not instill me with confidence. I am going to be sorely, and I mean SORELY pissed off if another terrorist attack on our soil does succeed. We've already paid thousands of gallons of American blood for cheap oil, shall we risk paying more to fatten Valenti's wallet?

That's just how I feel.

Re:Ludicrous!

[Zebbers]

you can not tell me that this is a valuable use of resources for the fbi
they are being used as a tool for the corporations gain
nothing more
they are not helping keep america safe
or protecting citizens via this raid

Re:Song of the piracy apologist

[kien]

You forgot one:

(15) I'm still waiting for the recording industry to prove that file sharing is harming their business.

As soon as they prove harm to their bottom line, I'll take a much more dismal view of song-swapping.

--K.

Re:Song of the piracy apologist

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.

Lets use emotionally loaded words like "theft" and "piracy" that convey a sense of physical loss, even though no loss takes place.

I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.


A CD cost 5-10 cents to make, and sells for $15-20. Thats outrageous.

I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course -- but lots of other people probably do.


Lots of people would never buy it in any case, which means the record company was never going to get any money anyway.

I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it

Nice strawman. Lots of people have posted here and elsewhere about finding new music they liked, and then buying the CD, or attending concerts. I've NEVER seen the above attitude stated. Cite?

I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing.

Exactly How Many people can you share it with before it is no longer sharing??

I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.


And I'm SOOOOO sure that you drop a check to the RIAA everytime you overhear music from someone elses radio.

Re:Oh for *bleep* sake...

[eclectro]

It is wrong for them to do that, but it is much more in line with the hundreds of governments over the years that do not allow free speech, do irreasonable search and seizure, and consider the perpetrator guilty until proven innocent.

And that's what the Nazis did.

There have been very few governments that are any where near the Nazis. The Nazis killed millions of innocent people, in case you've forgotten. And BTW, it's Holocaust Rememberence Week.

Stalin's Russia, khmer rouge of Cambodia, Chile's Pinochet come to mind. I believe the Nazi's killed 6 million jews.

So I see you haven't a common knowledge education. Here's what I suggest: go to the bar and learn to say the word "fuck". Once you can get past that small injustice, you can see how small it is, and how much it pales in comparision to being ignorant of the Nazis and their massive assault on the Jews

I am sorry to see that you haven't a common knowledge of the cultural vernacular of the word "Nazi". Like when they used it on the TV show "Seinfeld" to describe the "Soup Nazi" in a humorous context. The context I was implying was that of an unforgiving, unbending enforcement of law, in particular copyright law. Not in relation to the fact that they killed a lot of jews.

The world is filled with injustices. Some large, many small. I wish to contribute to neither.

Maybe you could forsake your self-righteousness for a little more politeness.

Uh, Google?

[jcuervo]

Despite the assertions in the article, Google doesn't currently pick up any indications of a national school sweep.

FBI raids school district, other targets in piracy crackdown
Ars Technica - 1 hour ago FBI agents raided the Deer Valley [School] district's Administration Services Center, just south of Deer Valley High School in Glendale, at 6 am and stayed ...

What's really funny (I thought) was the Google News link to slashdot...

Uh, Information is not in question.

[Allen Zadr]

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.

Further:

"...ideals of copyright...emphatically NOT a grant of property."

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 .

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.

Re:Uh, Information is not in question.

[Allen Zadr]

The link is the only exclusion in the law that could possilby apply to the use of music copies. You are correct in saying that this law does not specify personal though.

What constitues a violation is everything else (as seen here).

"P2P is used by consumers isn't it?"

Technically, no. If you are not sharing it could be argued that you are consuming. However, if you are sharing then you are distributing. Distribution, regardless of form or price is either covered under manufacture or broadcast (section b and continued in the link above).

Finally, the parent poster is trying to invalidate the value of right to copy based on the innocuous fact that the copyright is not property. However, according to the law value is explicitly protected (see chapters 8 and 10 regarding royalties and royalty dispersement).

Re:Uh, Information is not in question.

[spiritraveller]

Finally, the parent poster is trying to invalidate the value of right to copy based on the innocuous fact that the copyright is not property. However, according to the law value is explicitly protected (see chapters 8 and 10 regarding royalties and royalty dispersement).

That's not how I read the parent post at all. He simply argued that what you call "value of right to copy" is NOT the same thing as property. That doesn't make "value of right to copy" less important. It is just different.

One way in which it is different is that "value of right to copy" disappears after a "limited Time[]" (Art. I, Sect. 8, US Constitution).

Violating copyright is not "theft". It may be just as illegal as theft (if not moreso). But it is not the same thing. When people refer to it as theft or even "piracy" it implies the taking of something that is property, something that forever has value to the person it is taken from.

That kind of thinking is what let's Congress get away with giving corporate copyright holders a 95 year duration. 95 years! So they can get away with sticking to the absolute minimum that the Constitution requires, because we the people don't even understand the benefit of public domain works anymore.

The Founding Fathers never conceived of "intellectual property". The phrase did not even come into existence until the 1970s.

Copyrights are pretty straight-forward

[rjelks]

"This is something that has bothered me for quite sometime. If the CD was purchased and then shared. How is the sharer committing copyright infringement. The property is there, and there is NO money changing hands. Perhaps I just need a swift kick to understand."

Copyright infringement happens when a person copies someone else's copyrighted items without permission. The argument, is that the "sharer's" computer will make a copy of the file that it is in the process of sharing. A lot of people are getting "fair use" and copyright infringement mixed up. You don't have to profit in order to commit it and owning a copy of the media in question has no bearing on the activity. You only have very limited copying rights to media under "fair use" and the above example doesn't fall into that category. Making "backups" for media you own, by downloading from someone else, is not legal under copyright laws. The copyright infringement happens because nobody, other than the holder of the copyright, has the authority to distribute and copy copy-protected media.

Vauge Law, Detailed Rules

[tiltowait]

There is no constitutional/US code details to fair use and copyright coverage or duration. The Fair Use provisions are as detailed as they get.

That doesn't stop certain groups from coming up with insanely detailed rules (interlibrary loan guidelines, for example, involve things like the lesser of one chapter or 10% of a written work if requested less than 5 times a year unless the work is over 5 years old etc. etc.) that have no real legal foundation.

Re:Sad is right

[Dun Malg]

Spoken like a true middle-schooler (shouldn't you be in school now)? Certainly, the allowance for commerical influence into classrooms and into the hallways of schools is an honest problem, but every civilized society has some sort of learning program for children.

I'm not really trying say that the stated purpose, nor the original intent of our schools is to be child-jails, but that they have essentially become that. Between parents who abdicate their responsibility (forcing teachers to spend time as disciplinarians rather than educators), and school districts being more concerned about maximizing student-hours than quality of education, many contemporary schools are more like day-care centers.

Spoken like a true American child Because everything is handed to you, and your parents have enough money to be comfortable ... you feel that education is not worth anything.

Go into any "developing nation" and look at how kids your age view education. They really do have nothing, and they know the only way to get something is to learn.

It's interesting how you assume that I am a child. I suspect you've misinterpretted my hyperbolic, cynical indictment of what many schools have become as a juvenile mis-analysis of what school is meant to be.

I am not anti-American, but I my goodness that attitude will guarantee that this country will continue to be on top of the most hated list. Get it through your head, you are making a difference... A negative one.

Hmmmm....I submit that pointing out a major flaw in the US educational system is positive rather than a negative. Admittedly, griping about a problem alone is unlikely to elicit any meaningful change, but it's certainly a step above pretending that schools nowadays aren't more concerned with maximizing the appearance of effectiveness (social promotion, grade inflation, forced mainstreaming) than with actually educating children.

Re:Steal at Babbages

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> It is pretty near technically impossible to steal software using p2p, CD burns, floppy-to-floppy, or anything at all with a computer

We have one of two cases here.

1) You're strictly interpreting "steal" to mean *only* removal of a physical object.

2) Your computer isn't actually plugged in.

Which is it?

FBI ... haha

[jasonsfa98]

The FBI can't protect us from terrorist so they have become the right hand of the RIAA, MPAA. Can we try and work out some of our more important problems before we worry about the checking account balance of RIAA, MPAA officials. Jesus Fucking Christ...

RIAA FBI

[mbowles]

Why don't we allow corporations to openly sponsor governmental departments in return for tagging their name to that of the department. It could openly raise a lot of money for cash-starved governments and might be enlightening, if not entertaining, when we begin to see names like RIAA/MPAA FBI, Exxon EPA, and Microsoft DOJ as a few possible examples.

xeroxing crackdown in 1980s

[peter303]

I recall some incident in the 1980s about college professors manufacturing textbooks out of journal articles for classroom use. This was found to illegal and resulted in xerox machine restrictions for a while- some where moved to restricted areas in libraries. Some journals would print "send me money" notices on the first page of articles giving the cost and address of making a copy. I think this was more policed at places like Kinkos rather than personal copies.

Semantics

[Dirk Pitt]

I am totally on your side that the acceptance of the copying of CDs/software/movies and sharing them is completely and totally wrong. Most of the people who post here are not practicing some sort of civil disobedience as they would have you believe, most just want an excuse not to pay.

BUT -- I just don't agree with you that it's stealing. It's a poorly placed word that is meant to assign a certain moral responsibility; they problem I have is with the severity of this responsibility.

If I physically steal a CD, I've deprived someone of a tangible good. Someone's going to pay, whether it be the distributor, the store owner, or an insurance company. I've displaced an item from one person's possession to my own.

In the case of copying a CD and giving it to my friend, no possession has been displaced. The originator can still copy the CD as many times as he likes, I've done nothing to cost him money.

Now, have I reduced his potential revenue? Maybe. I can create a CD of static, sell it to some fool for $1, and he can copy it 1 million times and send it to 1 million people. He's broken the law, but I've not lost any money. No one else would've paid the dollar.

Have I broken the law by violating copyright protections? Yes. But that's the distinction -- I am committing a *copyright violation*, not a theft. It is not just semantic BS, there are real world differences between the two. While I agree it is totally wrong, it is not stealing. Logic would say that if it's stealing, it's also stealing for me to burn my paid-for CD to my ipod, or copy the CD to have a copy in my car and my home stereo. It's not -- copyright law gives me that right.

Or do you really believe that this is also stealing, that I should have to buy multiple copies of something for personal use across geographic locations? If it's stealing, it's always stealing. Otherwise, it must be something more complex, like what it is, a copyright issue.

Until the language is used correctly, the greater public will never gain true understanding of this issue, and it will never be fairly treated for both consumer and content provider.

Re:Semantics

[Allen Zadr]

I think your subject line does this subject a great deal of justice, and I'm happy to accept your argument on it merits (as you have presented a balanced, and rational point of view).

Yet, infringement of rights, is almost worse than theft. Infringement of rights describes what happens when a person or group is being opressed. If I make you fear standing up for yourself - without making a specific threat (assault), then I am infringing on your rights.

So, I'll accept it. It's a semantic difference, but I agree it can be an important distinction.

Follow the money

[HPNpilot]

There is a lot of money behind the RIAA and MPAA and this money gets in the way of public policy. Of course the FBI could be put to better use in thousands of other ways, but few if any of those other ways can put nearly so much money into politician's re-election funds.

The politicians seem to never learn that the best course for the country is to stop micromanaging law enforcement and the military.

Re:Uh... not a good example

[dasmegabyte]

Oh word. Thanks. i hadn't thought of that.

criminal youth == $$$$

[demo9orgon]

We live in a time when it's really easy to be a criminal.
Check out this nifty law:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02911.ht m

Think of this as a big stick.
This is a reactionary "blanket" law which is often used by k12 institutions or any civil instituion in order to eliminate problems. All schools in Arizona have to adopt this kind of regulation in order to obtain funding.

Read the tennets of this reg. and think of all the times it could have been applied to you during your k12 internment. Schools exist to not only socialize and educate, they also serve as a vector for the criminal profit system.

I would expect any user who has violated the schools' computer usage contract to be hit with this reg because the disruption of IT activity is clearly a disruption of the school...not to mention all the suits and firearms, search and possible seizure of equipment. ARS 13-2911 is at least a class 6 felony. Yes, the number of k12 felons is growing all the time because there is a definite intolerance for human behavior in civil institutions in this country. It's now proper to chemically control our kids instead of making things meaningful or interesting. We don't motivate, we mandate, and if that fails then it's easier to criminalize a child than actually motivate them. This as the inevitable breakdown of a school system/institution which has produced ever weaker generations of educators. Our education system has fed upon itself in a folly of making everyone happy and over-the-top political correctness, and in the end, has no choice but to become just another vector for the criminal industry.

If you have kids, you should view public schools as your last resort. Therin lies mediocrity and the sufferage of disenfranchised tools.

When a government adopts a "no child left behind" policy, they're just using doublespeak for "And no child shall escape our rough hands and sweet nothings whispered in their ear" as institutional violence is visited upon them. How many of our greatest thinkers have come from public schools(factory worker socialization camps)? Maybe someone could pitch us a few.

how do you americans put it..

[t_allardyce]

cheerleaders are sluts, film at 11! ;)

Intellectual Property as a Weapon

[theAmazing10.t]

What I don't think most people get here is not whether taking/creating illeagle copies is wrong but that there is something very wrong with the whole system. I have made my living in many different ways but mostly as an artist and a software developer. So having a right to make a living off of this work is important for me, but to what end. I need to make a living off of these works and the best way for me to make a living is not to charge one person $10,000 but to charge 100 people $100. That way the cost is spread around to many people who should be able to aford what I have (hopefully want to pay that price too) and if that is too high maybe I can get 1000 people to pay me $10 each. This keeps me happy and hopefully them happy as well. But what is happening today is very simular to what drug dealers do. Get a hold on a drug (idea/music/movie/book) market and get everyone I can hooked on it. Destroy the competion and then contol the price, driving it ever higher to line my pockets. Copyrights and patents are being used like weapons. Don't want more competion, kill them with lawsuits. Don't want to reduce your price, kill them with lawsuits. Want to make sure your market is not able to leave, kill them with lawsuits. Now they even have the FBI doing the work for them. There is definately a disconnect here. We have so many people downloading and using warez. Would we have that large a group if things were an even playing field? Would so many of them feel they need to justify it if they didn't feel they had no other choice. I realize that this is just commercialism and we don't really need these products. They are luxuries for the most part, but some of them are not. If I want to make a living as a developer I need the tools to do it with. With MS Visual Studio costing over $1000 that takes a lot of up and coming programmers right out of the picture. While a mechanic may need $10,000 worth of tools or better they can usually start out with just a couple of hundred bucks and grow. With Software products the starting price is just that a starting price, every year you need to come up with more and more money and the EULA limits even how you may resell or keep the product. At least a mechanic can resell his tools when he is done with them. This all has to change. It isn't working for the consumer and in the long run it won't work for this country. Just look at what happen to the aviation industry in this country before WWI because of the IP lock the Wright brothers had. I don't know how it needs to change, but change it must.

Operation Fastlink press release now out

[bibliotek]

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/April/04_crm_263. htm But it doesn't say anything about schools...

Re:Operation Fastlink press release now out

[slackerboy]

However the second page of this Reuters report has a couple of quotes from Herr Ashcroft about schools. Specifically:

"Ashcroft declined to say where the raids had taken place, but noted warez groups often used schools as distribution hubs.

"I don't think the schools should be a safe haven for any type of criminal activity," he said."

Re:So many holes

[octalgirl]

"This Gestapo crap should not be tolerated."

I agree. There are so many holes with this process, I don't even know where to begin. As an admin of a school system, I am stunned that the feds would even consider going over a supers head and not let them know what was happening. If they are trying to make an example, they really picked the wrong target. A school district is a like a mini city, and it is utterly ignorant of the feds to think they can take their internet/email away and not have an impact on the functioning of the district. The days of losing email access for a day or two in schools is long over. They now run mission critical apps just like everyone else. Imagine if it was payroll day? Most payrolls are electronically submitted to the paying bank. There are several accounts in a district that get updated like this. Due to all the COPA who knows what-the-law-is-named-now crap to protect kids online, just about every school in the country runs a filter or they will lose e-rate money, and as is indicated in the article, the do block downloading sites as best they can. (just another reason why federally forcing schools to run filters doesn't work, because they don't always work right, as indicated). Everyone has a logon so it can be traced? Bah! Not in an open lab. Our own downloading has slowed to a trickle, but it hasn't stopped. Everyone uses home directories, they can't access the C: drive, so we periodically search the server drives for *.mp3, or *.exe, etc. We catch a few that way, and things get deleted. As far as organized crime is concerned, the only way that would play in is if one of their servers was hacked, they didn't know it, and someone out there was streaming music/movies from their server (and stealing their bandwidth to boot) without their knowledge. That is no reason to bust in to a school like they are the bad guys. That actually happened to me once, someone had posted 10+ movies to our ftp site overnight, I hadn't put the MS lockdown tools on yet. But it was found in a couple of days and the movies were deleted. That doesn't make us bad guys, just another business getting caught in the same traps as everyone else out there, correcting it and moving on.

I can't believe they didn't even send a letter with any chance of making right before pulling a 'raid'. In most cases the ISP is the one who sends a letter to suspected pirater, giving them a chance amend. There once was a time when you were innocent until proven guilty, just another reason how the DMCA fails this country so miserably. (off note, we should all remember this one during the next round of DMCA comments in 2+ years)

I can imagine how scared the kids might have been because of it, esp on the heels of the Columbine anniversary. FBI agents just standing around their buildings, gaurding doors and not talking to anyone??? Someone out there blew it politically when they tried to make an example of a school district.

Operation Fastlink

[scsscs]

This is most likely part of Operation Fastlink - "The Largest Global Enforcement Action Ever Undertaken Against Online Piracy," according to the DOJ

Question intended to provoke thought included.

[localhost00]

I believe this is at most a publicity stunt. I mean, c'mon! Do you honestly think Joe Student will keep his MP3 and DivX collection on school computers? Heck no!

I find it more likely that one of those **AA beitchs paid a shitload of money to these FBI agents to go raid the school. Now I just hope some parent (particularly a loaded one) could file a lawsuit for this incident.

Do you think the RIAA would have the FBI raid a law school?

Re:Question intended to provoke thought included.

[Creepy Crawler]

Yep. No doubt abut it.

Read the DOJ press report jerk.

Case by case...

[Allen Zadr]

The first part ("...portion of a song...") can be covered by fair use, if you do it in the right context. This type of use must be covered on a case by case basis.

However, The second part ("making a cassette tape...") is cited in the following exclusion:
1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

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 P2P becomes an issue is in the distribution of said copyright to an audience that is obviously not personal in nature. Giving to a friend, meaning one, is personal. Giving to 2 friends could fall under distribution and/or manufacture. That's a whole different ball-game, not covered by the above exclusion.

Re:Case by case...

[shark72]

Thanks. Agreed, I think copyright law is clear that you can't be busted for making a cassette tape.

The original poster states that copyright law (specifically, the fair use guidelines) allow you to give copies to your friends. Unfortunately the articles I've found on the web don't back this up.

"Giving to a friend, meaning one, is personal. Giving to 2 friends could fall under distribution and/or manufacture."

I assume you've read the EFF link and the other links in my post... do you believe that "personal use" in the context they use also includes giving copies to others?

Re:Case by case...

[Allen Zadr]

I believe that the argument lies between personal and manufacture/distribution.

Since you can rightfully be sued for anything in this country there is no guarantee that you won't find yourself in court defending your actions. That's why I point out that 1 copy to 1 friend is safe. Easy for a lawyer to defend your action here.

However, once you've made more than 1 copy, you start playing on the edge of the only exclusion that protects you (as manufacture is covered in a different part of the law, and has no exclusions).

Yes, and also on this point...

[Anonymous Coward]

My SO is a library director at a public lib with a rather large and popular CD and growing DVD collection. I keep urging her to loan out COPIES of CDs/DVDs and to keep the originals in a back room library. That way, when they are scratched or not returned, they could just burn a new copy. She is concerned that it would be a copyright violation. Seems clearly a case of fair use to me, but the RIAA has everyone shaking in their boots with their nonsense. Anybody care to help me out with this argument?

Statement

[dryan]

A statement was just released about this here

Now perhaps everyone will stop posting about the RIAA which has absolutely nothing to do with these raids.

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.

Not Crimes, Organized Crime

[Allen Zadr]

As the above post alludes to, my point is the link between Organized Crime and P2P at a school district.

Oranized crime is not in the business of harrassment, vandalism, assault and rape. Although these crimes are sometimes derivitives of an organized money making venture, or staying out of jail.

I see no scenario where P2P music sharing could even be a derivative of Organized Crime.

Re:Not Crimes, Organized Crime

[hchaos]

Oranized crime is not in the business of harrassment, vandalism, assault and rape. Although these crimes are sometimes derivitives of an organized money making venture, or staying out of jail.

While organized crime may not commonly be in the business of vandalism or rape (there being little money in either venture), they are definitely in the business of harassment (e.g. protection rackets) and assault (e.g. murder for hire), as there is a lot of money to be made in both ventures.

Re:Not Crimes, Organized Crime

[Allen Zadr]

That's exactly my point, in more specific words.

Correcting another Waco wacko

[Anonymous Coward]

"Federal agents burn a church congregation in the process of serving a warrant. The warrant was not necessary"

You are referring to Waco. Some WacoFacts:

the Feds served the warrant days before Koresh burned his own compound

"Church congregation"? That's a nice way of putting what was essentially a rape camp where the leader said "I'm Jesus. Have sex with me" to children.

The warrant was not necessary? This would have come out in court. Sorry, the Constitution and the law do not make answering warrants OPTIONAL.

Koresh torched his own compound after many days in which he had a chance to lawfully submit to the warrant like you are supposed to do.

"People are jailed for protecting their property from armed trespassers"? The police had a warrant. You do NOT have a right to shoot the police if they come with a warrant. If the warrant is wrong, or the process is wrong, go to court and this will come out.

"A young man eventually blows up a courthouse in protest, killing even more people." McVeigh, like you, was uninformed about the issue, and decided to kill a large number of civilians, of whom none were at Waco.

Re:Correcting another Waco wacko

[wljones]

The feds could not produce the warrant when requested. It was unnecessary, because this was a firearms violation, and at least one resident in the compound had a Federal Firearms License. Koresh did not torch his own compound, and the man proving this was killed before he could produce the evidence, which he extracted from analog video tapes. The federal agents did not have a warrant. One had been written, but they left it behind. The raid was not necessary. The sheriff and David Koresh could have settled the matter in minutes, with no gunfire, no teargas, and no military hardware. Agreed that David Koresh was not a nice person, but an armed raid using firearms, gas, and military hardware was not necessary, and the police are supposed to serve notice before searching. A few have died for ignoring this minor point.

McVeigh's target was a courthouse full of innocent people. He was as unconcerned about their guilt as the federal agents were about the children at Mt. Carmel, a point he made brutally clear.

And finally, your "facts" are the government approved version, which no thinking man accepts at face value, especially when blatant coverup and clear violations of the law are obvious to even casual observers.

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).

Correction

[MunchMunch]

I said "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."

It should say "...copyright's primary function is to make the restrictions small enough..." I didn't even want to comment on incentives, which are naturally also an aim of copyright. Incentive is good, to a reasonable extent. However, the incentives in retroactively extending copyright, or by changing it to lifetime plus whatever, is not adding incentives, period. It is just rewarding entrenched parties and destroying the purpose of copyright.

Four separate undercover investigations

[Anonymous Coward]

'Operation Fastlink' Is The Largest Global Enforcement Action
Ever Undertaken Against Online Piracy


Key bits:

"Over 120 total searches have been executed in the past 24 hours in 27 states and in 10 foreign countries. Foreign searches were conducted in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden as well as Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Operation Fastlink is the largest multi-national law enforcement effort ever directed at online piracy."

"Among the groups targeted by Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X"

I doubt it has anything to do with P2P, most of "sites" reside in universities/schools/dorms.

Canada's CD tax

[AtariAmarok]

"Here, due to a levy charged on CDs, "pirating" music by downloading it is completely legal"

The US also has a tax (levy) on blank CD media, but there are still legality issues.

Your tax dollars at work.

[waferhead]

Don't we feel proud?

This used to be a civil matter, but I guess if you bribe enough politicians, anything is possible.

Throw 'em all out next election.

Too bad Kerry sucks...

Back in the day...

[Omestes]

Yay! My old high school. I wonder what exactly is going down, the article in the AZ Republic(an) is just as dumb as the FA. I remember ditching class to help install the modern network, replacing the old AT&T 8088s they had set up, with high tech herc video, and no network to speak of. Piracy was me distributing an old monocrome DOS version of Galaga to play during keyboarding. (Sadly, they used these old boxes up to 1995)

That new network was so full of holes it was funny.

Continuation...

[Allen Zadr]

If I am interpreting your amended statements correctly - you are saying that an individual artist should not be granted the full copyright protection that is currently offered.

If your argument is that monolithic corporations should not be granted copyright protection for, say, the 'life of the company'. I fully agree. Yet, if I have a 'unique' way of organizing information, then I feel I should be protected from Disney taking my work and re-distributing it without paying me.

If I want to protect myself from the big corporations, then I also get automatic protection from independant individuals with mass publishing capabilities (web site owners, P2P sharers). Sadly, monolithic institutions get the same protection, but that protection is still based on an individual artist's rights (Yes, I use artist very broadly).

If you write an essay on the merits of P2P and how it benefits society, should I be able to send that to everybody on a P2P network? What if you were about to sell that essay to a newspaper? I find it equally as interesting that you did not simply copy the NY Times story into your post. You respect their right to display their copyright materials after a registration process has been completed. How does that benefit society?

I really don't think your views are that far off the mark, but I see copyright being broader in the eyes of the original framers than you seem to state. The right for an artist to obtain value from the reproduction and performance of that artist's work is an integral part of copyright, and always has been. They way I read history, the protection of monolithic organizations is the only unintended result of copyright.

Re:Continuation...

[MunchMunch]

"I really don't think your views are that far off the mark, but I see copyright being broader in the eyes of the original framers than you seem to state. The right for an artist to obtain value from the reproduction and performance of that artist's work is an integral part of copyright, and always has been."

You're absolutely right. Sometimes, I just get too repulsed by the 'property talk' that goes on and focus too much on the civic purposes of copyright. But, yes, it is most fairly a mediation between an artist and the public. It moderates between giving incentive to an author to provide whatever novel value they add, while eventually repaying and forward-paying the achronological 'public' which has added the rest of the value.

I don't quite agree with you on everything (NYTimes link was not an endorsement, just a citation to a random online journal to give an option; P2P can and should be used to advance culture and no, it doesn't bother me that permission is often not granted, as again the issue is not natural rights or authorial dignities but instead incentives), but it is good to hear a moderate voice.

Re:block them all with protowall

[Allen Zadr]

This would not prevent the RI/MPAA servers from getting "result lists" that point to your IP as the source. It would only prevent the MP/RIAA servers from contacting your machine directly. As well as prevent you from contacting the RI/MPAA servers directly. Sounds like somebody has a great idea that isn't as complete a solution as you would hope.

mp3 quality loss?

[AzureLunatic]

Please do explain for the rest of us exactly how much degradation of the material occurrs with the .mp3 -> .mp3. At what generation does the loss become audible to the trained ear? At what generation does it become audible to the average listener? What generation are most of the .mp3s being shared?

I've never looked into this, and it does sound interesting.

Legality Vs. Technological Ability

[d474]

It seems to me Technological Abilities of the future will expose the flaws of what is considered Legal today.
If the host that has an MP3 in a shared folder on a P2P network is the one committing the illegal act when a downloader copies it, then the future seems to me a scary place.

Consider this:

For sake of argument only, let's say there were one day a technology to copy or duplicate any physical object within, let's say 10 minutes. The machine that does this is portable, say, the size of a backpack. You take this machine into a library that is sharing books (duh). You take a book off the shelf that looks interesting. You place the book in your duplicating machine, and 10 minutes later, you have a perfect copy. You leave.

Who committed the crime? The Library, or You? Be careful what you answer, because this is exactly what goes on P2P networks all the time.

Your download, my loss

[Allen Zadr]

I'm not typically Republican but - why should the RIAA subsidize your wanting "stuff" just because you can't afford that stuff?

That's what capitolism is about. You get to prioritize your wants with how much cash you have to spend. If you feel you need music, learn to play a cheap instrument.

If music were something that should be subsidized, then it would be available from the Red Cross and Salvation Army. Hmm, their music probably isn't what you wanted to download though.

So now you listen to all types of music that you now, never have a reason to pay the artist for. And that $100 that, at one time, you could have spent on music anually - is probably put into other things.

Fine, it's not technically theft, but it surely does do damage. As a musician and a programmer, I find your point of view quite annoying.

Re:Your download, my loss

[rtb61]

Distributing media on a format that will not last the life of your copyright licence which you legally purchased is theft and fraud (they sell it with out notice that the media has been designed to fail short of your copyright entitlement). It is interesting how these government organisations bow and scrape to please the pigopolists but when it comes to representing the consumers against the pigopolists all is silence. They want 70 years where is my 70 years. Two wrongs don't make a right but they steal and defraud with every copy of the media they distribute, unless there is a fair redress on the life of the consumers licence to the media that reflects the copyright life of the media.

Asshat?

[Allen Zadr]

That's a personal decision that you have made based on the probability that you will never "make it" in the music or programming industry in any large sense.

Don't stomp on my rights. Give away your own stuff, and leave my stuff out of it.

Re:No taking, no theft occurs

[markfive]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Now, see, he gave a REASON to back up his opinion. You just said "Nuh-uh, dumbhead" and dismissed it without offering a single counterpoint to that argument. That's why he's right and you're an idiot.

That is also why this argument is never going to end. People don't seem to CARE if they have a point, they'll just argue what they feel by dismissing everything the other side says with witty but utterly vacuous comments.

The irony is of course that you, yourself, have added nothing to this argument. Consider yourself dismissed.

Real Work

[Allen Zadr]

It's really too bad that you don't consider your own art and talent to be 'real' work.

By real work do you mean that you dig ditches or flip burgers? Once you are above that line in the work-force, you are paid for what you know more than the actual joules of energy output by your aching back. So, really, the first $6.00 an hour you make are for work, the rest is what you know.

How is artistic output not worth something?

Nice

[tetro]

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

*Operation Fastlink* - Not copyright crap

[TubeSteak]

Everyone seems to be missing the real story!
The article linked in the main post is missing soooo much information its amazing.

These raids are the result of "Operation Fastlink" and are a direct attack on the Release Groups that supply everyone with movies/warez/appz/gamez/etc. Here's a real story & A much better google news link will help fill out the picture. here are some snippets:

No arrests were immediately announced, but Ashcroft said they were coming. Among the countries in which FBI searches have been conducted are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden and Great Britain.

Three Singaporeans were arrested on Wednesday night in an anti-Internet piracy operation involving 12 countries.

At the request from the US authorities, the Dutch tax investigation service FIOD-ECD has raided 14 locations in the Netherlands in an operation against large scale software piracy.

This was an international effort

In Their 18th Year Of Glory, FairLight Is No More
A small archive of their text files

I got suspended

[josh3736]

[B]ut this is education, and things do not make much sense.

Hear hear. Seems like the Administration (including those in charge of the computers/network) are more concerned with Covering Their Own Ass® than anything else.

For example, I recently got an out of school suspension. Why? "Inappropriate Use of Computers." What did I really do? Installed some GPL apps on a computer that I use all day every day. (Audacity, VNC, ssh, dvts... I'm in charge of our TV studio, this stuff helps me get things done.) Obviously, I was pissed when I came in one day to find out that the shit has hit the fan. Oh, then they had the balls to call me at home 2 days later when they couldn't figure out how to turn on the lights in the theater.

Anyways, since I am producer/editor/everything else, I have the issue of copyright to deal with: The kids in the TV class submit their videos (which we later air on closed-circuit TV to everyone inside the building) with songs as background music or whatever that they have either downloaded or ripped off a CD. During the aforementioned shitstorm, the issue of copyright was brought up. They refered to some guide that had some bullshit about using 10% of copyrighted works. I say that is bullshit as I just read from this post that there is nothing of the sort in the actual law.

This is very much a grey area, and makes me wonder, is what we are doing actually fair use (I think it is), or is it indeed infringement and should I start getting worried about the the RIAA's Private Copyright Enforcement Force, er... the FBI knocking down the doors?

Re:I got suspended

[Sinterklaas]

Fair use is inherently a grey area, with great leniency for the judge. Normally, four factors are considered: purpose, nature, amount, effect.

Purpose: Nonprofit educational use is valued over commercial use. In your case, this will probably work in your favor.

Nature: Copies of educational texts are more likely to be considered fair use than artistic works (such as music). The way you use the copyrighted work is also important. For instance, giving out copies of a newspaper article for an assignment is likely to be considered fair use. Your use of music to spice up the videos (more entertainment than education) is likely to work against you.

Amount: Although the law doesn't say anything about it, the judge will certainly consider the amount that was used. Copying an entire book will be much less well recieved than just copying a few pages. I certainly wouldn't try to broadcast an entire CD in full, but broadcasting entire songs may also be held against you.

Effect: The more likely it is that your 'fair use' will cost money to the copyright owner, the more likely it is for your actions to be considered infringement. For instance, just broadcasting music might mean that people no longer buy music for their music player or listen to the radio. The fact that such a service is 'competing' with these options would be very much against you. In your case, it probably depends on how you use the music. Creating your own music videos would be bad, but background music to a very school-specific video might be ok.

Anyway, the RIAA could certainly sue your school if they wanted to. They might not win (I'm really not sure how it would pan out), but your school might not have the resources to fight them off. Then you might be looking at a nasty settlement fee. The safest bet might be too try and use freely available music whenever possible and otherwise try to reduce the amount of copyrighted music you use. And I would definately try to keep under the radar, drawing publicity to this in the mainstream media (by having a local station air the best videos made by students, for instance) would be dangerous.

Some more info

RE: utter crap....

[King_TJ]

If you actually could, magically, stop everyone from buying music from the recording industry tomorrow - do you really think all the world's musicians would just decide to quit creating music, ditch their instruments and recording gear, etc. ??

I think not! Rather, you'd simply force a revolution in how music is bought and sold. Believe me, I used to play in a local band and I still have many musically inclined friends. Almost all of us believe in the mantra of "once a musician, always a musician". Many of us have sold off our drum sets or guitars for one reason or another (often marriage), and yet we've all purchased replacements for them again. It's just a creative outlet for people... a way to have one's voice heard and feelings expressed. It's human nature to enjoy listening to music, and it's also in some people's nature to enjoy creating it! None of this will ever go away, just because some big conglomerates can't figure out a way to package and resell it with a big chunk of profit in it for themselves.

Re:No taking, no theft occurs

[AhBeeDoi]

Never argue with Jack Valenti. He's always right.

Re:No taking, no theft occurs

[slim-t]

The irony is of course that you, yourself, have added nothing to this argument. Consider yourself dismissed.

What did you add?

I'll at least say that theft is defined as: 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Since you are not depriving anybody of anything, there is no theft. That's not to say it's legal - there may be some copyright infringements or trespassing issues in some of the examples given.

Oh boy

[ae-valkyre]

Watch out, those 12 year olds are really gonna bring down the industry by downloading music and games! Suing corporations for collectively stealing software, I understand, but a bunch of kids? Oh no! Oh YEAH!

Our bright future

[Zareste]

Headline articles two years from now:

"FBI Raids Party, Shuts Off Music, Makes Listeners Pay for Licenses"
"FBI Raids Man's House, Finds Man Reading a Book to a Kid, Convicted for Sharing"
"FBI Raids Guy Across the Street, Convicted for Living Near Pirate"
"FBI Raids FBI Base, Fucks Itself After Finding Mountain of Bribes"

I'll pay for things if they're worthwhile

[agraupe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a CD costs approximately $16 dollars in most cases. Factor out the cost for packaging and the CD itself, and that leaves approximately $14.50. New per-track online stores have been selling songs for 99 cents apiece. Thus, I should be legally allowed to share 14 songs off that CD once (or one track 14 times, or anything in between).

Also, I am willing to pay that much for a CD IF THE MUSIC IS GOOD. For example:

Today I downloaded four songs off a CD. All were good, so I went to the store and bought the CD. There were many other good songs as well. I am also willing to pay for movies. I recently saw Kill Bill Vol. 2. It was worth the $7.00, and it will be worth another $7.00 whenever I get some more free time :)

I mainly object to paying for overpriced things, like Photoshop, Flash, etc... There is no reason why these programs should cost more than $50 IMO. They would probably get more sales, so the overall profit would be similar. I, for one, would be willing to pay for this software if the price were slightly more reasonable.

Re:No taking, no theft occurs

[jgrissinger]

It might not technically be stealing but it has the same affect. It is admirable to not buy the things you love on principle. That is a sacrifice for something you believe in. On the other hand it is the epitome of hypocrisy to pretend that you are boycotting these product when in reality you are just to cheap to pay for them.

Heh

[mfh]

> Nope, I don't feel sorry for them.

I tend to avoid eating where my lifelong nemeses serve food, but that's just me. :-) I do, however, enjoy the thought of them asking each person who drives up if they want fries with that.

One teacher's perspective

[crem_d_genes]

I am a teacher, and joining this discussion late. My issue is not with file sharing; I think whatever legal things are going to finally resolve about that, will apply to situations outside the school setting. I don't think anyone should be using school servers for those purposes at any time

My insight is more that there is a movement going on throughout the schools to gradually erode access to the web in schools across the board. More and more sites are blocked, even those to respected journals because they meet a classification of *magazine* online. I think in the not so distant future administrators will be scared off the web entirely, opting instead for expensive commercial closed *intranet* packages that guarantee test results and meet national standards. I realize this is somewhat outside the present discussion, but if I were an administrator, I would be looking hard at how a raid by the FBI would look on my career record. Nearly every software company even remotely connected to education now has a department devoted to development of a product such as that mentioned. And schools will pay for the *privilege* of denying themselves the access - and the headaches.

I can't imagine the FBI raiding schools to check how many copies were being run on the copy machines of copyrighted materials. Yet in terms of sheer volume, the number of books that would have to be purchased to stop this practice should give one pause. The total number of pages would be in the billions I am sure. It is basically the same violation, but why isn't it prosecuted? Why the emphasis on the web? I am just that cynical to see that there are literally thousands of new products waiting on the wings. Just one educator's observations.

Re:Toledo uncappers case

[tnt419]

I was the one lucky enough to get the felony. I also got 9 days in jail, 3 years probation with weekly drug tests, no alcohol use for the 3 years, and quite a bit of money in fines, restitution, and lawyer fees. And this was my first offense but i guess someone has to be the one they make an example out of.

Re:Poured?

[oDDmON oUT]

Could be that the reference was to another similar sounding word:

Main Entry: pore(d)
Pronunciation: 'pOr, 'por
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pored; poring
Etymology: Middle English pouren
1 : to gaze intently
2 : to read studiously or attentively -- usually used with over
3 : to reflect or meditate steadily

In which case...

It's a national sweep, but not of schools

[adavidw]

This is a couple of days later, so this probably won't be seen by anybody, but the announcement of the "sweep" is covered here: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5198047.html?tag=n efd.top. It's a multinational effort going after warez groups.

Note that the FBI quote in the article said that the school was among other sites in Arizona and elsewhere that was being raided. That quote doesn't mention schools at all. I don't know why the writer or editor chose to make the leap in the first paragraph that multiple schools were being raided. Even so, the article gave ne assertion that it was primarily schools that were being raided.

My feeling is that this school district had a warez server on their network, and they got raided. Possibly one or two schools were included elsewhere in the U.S. or other countries, but that's not the same as what people were getting from the headline.

-Aaron

Hang those pirate bastards!

[dtabraha]

Boy, that FBI couldn't catch terrorists flying two planes into skyscrapers in downtown New York, or a truck bomb down in OKC...

BUT BY GOD THEY'LL FRY EVERY DAMN KID THAT STEALS A SONG FROM THE RIAA!!!

What the fuck is wrong with this country.