Slashdot Mirror
'Pirate Act' Would Shift Copyright Civil Suits To DoJ
mammothboy writes "News.com.com has a story about the new so-called Pirate Act, which seeks to allow federal prosecuters to file civil suits against file swappers. These lawsuits can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if you guessed that the RIAA is lobbying for it, you're right. What's scary is how fast and how quiet its march through the legislative process has been. In '97, the No Electronic Theft Act allowed for criminal lawsuits, but none have been filed, so isn't it clear that the Justice Department has better stuff to deal with?" There actually have been some prosecutions filed under the NET Act, but not many. Update: 05/26 18:51 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (author of the linked News.com story) writes to clarify: "FYI there have been prosecutions under the NET Act, as you say. But
there have not been any of P2P users. That's why the Senate is doing this."
a civil suit is by preponderance of evidence,
a criminal suit is beyond reasonable doubt.
civil suit is *much* easier to 'win'
that's how the bastar^h^h^h^hlawyers are getting rich...
So, this is saying that there is a law out there file swappers could be prossecuted under. But, the RIAA is trying to get a law passed specific to their cause and what they want as an ends.
Evolution or ID?
I think the people sharing thousands of copyrighted items will be a lot happier to pay a few thousand dollars to the RIAA than face real jail time. If you were running a warehouse that was printing thousands of bootleg CDs and selling them you'd go to jail. If you download music, make sure you aren't sharing copyrighted material and you'll be safe.
OK, so now a group of companys that have been found to run a business selling overpriced plastic with artificially high pricing is now trying to get the govt to handle prosecuting their civil matters. I can't imagine this getting passed. However many futurests predict a future controlled by large corporations. This would be a good first step.
The RIAA gets a lot more out of it than saving money on lawsuits. See, PIRATE Act Reveals Sen. Hatch as Strange Ally of Pornography Industry and PIRATE Act - Wiretaps for Civil Copyright Infringement?.
I don't use p2p to transfer copyrighted material and this legislation still bothers me. Why is the federal government enforcing copyright? Because the music industry doesn't have the money to pay for it? The gvmt is currently running a large deficit. What makes the gvmt (and thus taxpayers) more able to pay than the **AA. People always think money from the federal government is free and available but our taxes are the money that pays for stuff like this. Where is the fiscal restraint in washington. (The sad thing is... that last line might get me modded funny). Contact your reps/senators and let them know that copyright infringement suits over p2p trading are not the government's burden. Even if it were filing suits over any type of copyright infringement (which would actually help the little guy more - when his source code is stolen by a large company/etc) I still don't feel it's the government's place.
I know that people have settled, but has anyone actually prepared a defense and went to court? How did it turn out?
Allowing people to be prosecuted in a civil trial for file swapping is a bad bad thing.
For a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove to a jury that you stole music beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a civil trial, all you have to prove is that it's possible and probable that you did it.
So it's basically taking out all the expenses that a criminal trial would have needed. There's no need to do any computer forensics, deep investigating, etc. All they would need to do (basically) is get your ISP records and show you have used *file sharing program*.
So it's very possible that you might have installed Kazaa, et al, to download a new game demo, OSS, independent 'free' music, etc - but if you have a NOFX mp3 on your drive that alone is enough to get some money out of you. If this thing flies, I fear the power RIAA will have. They will truly become a company to fear.
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
"Remember where you money is going when you plunk down your cash for iTunes, CDs, or various other media formats when you are wanting to listen to RIAA controlled music. "
The problem here is that the less people pay the RIAA, despite how blindingly obvious a boycott is, the higher the losses variable in the piracy #s go. Wanna send the RIAA a message? Pick a day, buy a bunch of new albums, and on the next day return them unopened and in resalable condition. When a million dollars is made, and lost the next day, it's hard for the retailers not to notice. Suddenly we have a powerful ally...
"Derp de derp."
The trouble is, the courts are free. But then if they weren't, the common man wouldn't get any justice since he couldn't afford it. So where can we put the split?
How about this: anyone (read: company) who makes campaign contributions has to foot their own bill in any court cases. I mean, paying for the judge's time, etc, instead of the government. After all, if they're rich enough to pay off the politicians to write the rules for them, they can afford to pay to use the system they've manipulated.
Is that fair? Would a system like this stand up or is there a problem that I'm missing?
I've been sitting on my 1000th post (I'm such a nerd) for a while now, waiting for a good opportunity for a 5, Funny. But I just haven't been able to take the time to really put something good together.
So anyway, if you're in the U.S., write to your Senators. Tell them about your concerns about having your taxes spent on government officials pursuing civil suits on behalf of the RIAA. Point out the unconstitutionality of double jeopardy.
And while we're talking about senators, does anyone else think it would be a good idea to have senators in federal congress be the party leaders from the state congress? That would be a big step in going back to a republic of states (Assuming you're a propponent of states rights). It'd be kinda neat to replace the house that way too, but I can't think of a good way to do it with the current representation by population that we currently have in the house (which I think is a good thing). Something where voters elect our state government, and the president, and the federal congressional reps are a subset of the elected state reps. I think that would be really cool.
from that can.
I know this guy who took his "exams" (in quotes because I don't know what to call them) in Germany and "they" pinned him as a fuckup. Well, he moved to the U.S. and became a kick-ass programmer and then a kick-ass C.I.O.!
My point, the European way of doing things has their own set of problems! - as explained by my Irish friend.
I think that you are confusing trademark and copyright. One has to vigorously defend a trademark, or it's lost. Copyright does not require defense; published works are automatically copyrighted, and although the owner may seek restitution, he does not have to do so to maintain the copyright.
If he so wishes, under this new law, Ashcroft can prosecute at will. If he wants to be a dick about it, he can do it without bothering to consult with the copyright holder. Hell, even if the holder decides to release the disputed work into the public domain, Ashcroft could still prosecute the "thief" under the "the Law is the Law" clause of reactionary lore -- the work was copyrighted at the time of the "crime", so the wishes of the holder would be irrelevant.
This is the final stage in the criminalization of what once was a civil offense, if it was an offense at all -- copying a musical work. It used to be criminal if it were done for profit. Now it will be criminal whenever the AG wants to nail someone.
The Church of Scientology is turning cartwheels right now. This has been their pet evil project since the early ninties. They will get to file FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES against people who quote Hubbard's works about the great galactic federation and the atom bombs and the volcanoes. (Hell, I can't even say the "X" word, because the owners of Slashdot will pull my post if the COS says "boo!") This isn't a digression: they have instigated this crusade from '91 to the present day, ever since their flying saucer religion got outed on anon.penet.fi and up to the present day.
And as for Ashcroft and the Justice Department: what an incredible tool for harrassment. Political enemy? Check the ISP logs, see if the Enemy of the State or a member of his family ever downloaded music. Break his financial back, put him or his own in prison. How many people have downloaded tunes? How many are eligible for Club Fed if this law gets passed? If you ever hose some public official, you can spend years dreading the email summoning you to years of court-run hell because you hosted some Guess Who tracks in '02.
Damn, if only we could take over a country somewhere and declare freedom from the Berne Convention...
Ok, first Ashcroft wants to tackle porn (link), then they want the DOJ to go after file swappers?
This is one of the biggest reasons Bush's continued 9/11 references make me ill. I could deal with it if they were actually working to fight terror. Instead, every time somebody waves the bloody shirt, all we get is some tired propaganda for drilling in the Arctic, a Federal Marriage Amendment, tax cuts for the wealthy, or some other thing we have to do to keep the terrorists from winning. Meanwhile, Homeland Security isn't getting the funds it needs for simple, basic port (seaport, not computer port) scanners: link (found on Instapundit).
I'm a hawk on security, folks. A hard-core, let's get them before they get us, serious hawk. And I'm voting against Bush and his idiots for precisely that reason.
(Sorry for the rant, but I just couldn't take it any more. Feel free to mod this down.)
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Right there, way before the first ammendment, is the delegation of power to the federal government to enforce copyrights.
For all those people posting copyrighted material that they know full well is illegal to post which alternative is better? Criminal prosecution or civil liability? I think this makes the punishment far closer fit the crime.
Why Justice? Because that's the law enforcement arm of the federal government. This is an improvement to the NET act, not an extension.
We don't have liberals or conservatives running this country. We basically have corporate lackeys with two different marketing campaigns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to conservatives isnt the 'invisible hand' of competition supposed to be a self-regulating force that works best without government intervention?
Why is it that conservatives stop being conservative when large corporations want things to go their way in defiance of the wishes of the marketplace (such as file sharing)? Someone help me out here.
-_-
I dont give a shit about all these "you cant just ignore one crime because you have some others to deal with" arguments, filesharing should be the least priority on the governments list: catch people who want to blow things up and post anthrax, mass-murderers, punk shit-heads with guns who think they can go around in their stupid gangs shooting people for standing in the way, rapists, pedophiles, muggers, burglers and fraudsters and pirates who actually SELL things with big racks of cd-burners! Then, and only when these other crimes have dropped to a semi reasonable rate should you move on to kazaa users. The court-system has only so-much capacity.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
How about pick a day and purchase from independent labels with the message of "hey RIAA companies, we love music but you aint gettin' our money."
Ah, I just read your clarification in your other post. Sorry about my previous post.
Here's the problem: People will download stuff, legit or not. The people who do say "I will not buy stuff that funds the RIAA" even though they're not downloading anything will not be recognized. It will just be assumed that they're downloading the music anyway. (Convenient for the RIAA, isn't it?)
That's why a message has to be sent. The idea I cooked up here is about attaching a price to our beliefs. "Here is a million dollars you could have had, but since you're not listening..." The catch is, it has to be done in such a way that a retailer doesn't lose a million dollars. They're not the enemy. That's why I made the special point about the CDs being resalable.
Funny thing is, Slashdot has the power to pull it off.
"Derp de derp."
From Merriam-Webster:
Doesn't say a think about "refuse to use" and exactly describes getting music through non-RIAA sources. I think you are confusing refusing to deal with the RIAA with refusing to use music. They aren't the same thing.
" You can't steal bits and bytes."
Additionally, you cannot return an unsatisfactory CD. You open it, it plays, you bought it. Who's stealing from whom? Suddenly the reason why people'd put their own time and energy into music sharing comes into sharp focus.
Now that a government is doing the prosecution, all the file traders have a new avenue of attack. A company cannot violate your right to Due Process, a government can. The government's actions are held to a much higher standard of constitutional review then a private, non-governmental organization's. The first thing I see going is all that subpoena before filing a lawsuit bullshit.
All you need to do in a civil trial is prove that it's probable that the person commited an illegal act. So if it's possible to prove that FreeNet is mostly used for pirating copyrighted works, and that someone has used FreeNet to transfer xMB worth of material, wouldn't it be possible to sue them in a civil suit?
I'm not sure FreeNet is really a 100% safe solution. Simply using it may be enough to allow you to be sued for probably infringing on copyright, since it doesn't need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil suit.
Then again, IANAL, so I have no idea if this would have any weight in court.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Spend a couple of hours (or a few dollars) supporting a politician who isn't (or won't be) voting for these stinking bills. Make sure that they know why you're donating your money and time. Make it an election issue when they have callins and/or town hall meetings.
If you live in/near Hatch, then make sure to spend some time supportint his rival. If you don't feel free to send money.
Look for innovative ways to support an anti-RIAA politician.
It won't just affect the RIIA. It's a really good way to generate good contacts for other issues -- It's also a good way to meet people (including of the romantic persuasion -- I've actualy ended up going out with a couple of people I'v met thru my political work, and I consider myself pretty clueless at that game.)
If everybody on slashdot spent 3 hours (or $100) on this, it would make the Rifle Association look like chicken scratch.
It's a little bit of time and/or resources that could make a big difference in the next few years -- especially given that these people are still looking at passing this legislation.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I don't know about movies, but regarding pictures, you can read the story of Playboy v. Sanfilippo.
if you ever hose some public official, you can spend years dreading the email summoning you to years of court-run hell because you hosted some Guess Who tracks in '02. Statute of limitations is 3 years. However, you still pain a grim picture. One thing I'm curious, though, is: Wouldn't the DOJ start up their own suits at their own pace? Not at the RIAA's pace? In other words, even though this has been the pet project of Scientology, that doens't mean the DOJ will suddenly start filing suits on behalf of the Scientologists, right?
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Orrin Hatch was doing just that!!!!!!!
.wma files, which you couldn't listen to unless you had a copy of the cd!
He had put up his music on his website for preview purposes. But he put up DRM'd
I've saved a copy at http://www.noneinc.com/RIAAEM/
The song was called "Freedom", btw.
Hey there, fuck you too.
Yah, I am a freeloader. Call me whatever you want. I will continue to download music. And once the revolution comes, I will make sure I point your sanctimonious capitalist pig name to the guillotine squads.
Bah.
Very true. I haven't purchased a single CD from an RIAA affiliated record company in years because of their tactics. I also don't download music without the artist's permission. I choose non-RIAA labels and music being offered freely by the artists. I boycott, don't infringe, and listen to music that is a heck of a lot better than "Britney Spears".
Open Standards Portal
Stripped to its essentials, an administration that wanted to squelch any author, musician, periodical, book publisher, or media outlet could go after them for copyright infringement. They would not have to target the speech they dislike. They would not even have to win. The cost of a defense against all the financial resources of the federal government would to crush all but the very deep-pocketed.
You can read the entire argument at:
Free Speech
--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
Freenet is an encrypted P2P network where information is not stored at fixed locations: nodes exchange "keys" (information bits) all the time, and in this way "popular" information stays alive while non-used information gradually fades away.
Since every connection between a different pair of nodes is encrypted using different keys, it would be very hard to use traffic-analysis to find out what somebody is sending. To make matters even better: even you don't know what your node stores; it's all encrypted. This makes legal defense rather easy: it seems the only thing they can charge you with is participation in a P2P network or something alike.
Now, when using Freenet, you download the node-software (see my original post) and run it. This spawns the communication software, and a "virtual web proxy" at port 8888. This proxy interfaces you webbrowser to the Freenet. Browsing thus is a matter of directing your browser to your local host at port 8888.
As for searching: Now this is still a bit of a problem; since information is decentral, there also cannot be a Google-like central database that you can search. However, there are many "spider"-sites (remember the web in the beginning, especially Yahoo before they implemented a real search-database?) that you can use to find info. The most important ones for starting are The Freedom Engine (TFE) and Find Is Not Dolphin (FIND). Links to both are hardcoded into your local freenet proxy.
On the other hand, things are becoming better: The I2P project will be providing fully anonymous IP (IP over ann I2P interface!). Once that's done, you can run anything you like on I2P, even central search engines and the like.
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!