'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."

Comments

A good day for starving artists.

[grub]

As a member of Citizens United against Network Thievery, let me be the first to jump for joy. For too long musicians and movie moguls have resorted to smaller mansions, some with empty garage spots, as wanton piracy has hurt sales of their reasonably priced products. This rampant hooliganism must be stopp... ed.. whoa... what's this square of blotter paper doing in my coffee?

Re:A good day for starving artists.

[Flagella]

Arrr I'm a PIRATE. I Protect Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation arrrr. /me Walks the plank.

Re:A good day for starving artists.

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

It even *says* it's a quote and provides a link to the source. Apparently we got the short-bus mods today.

your tax dollars at work...

[havaloc]

...spent on arresting pirating grandmothers and children.

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[garcia]

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.

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[NanoGator]

"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...

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people who lick up pop music are not capable of unified protest.

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[NanoGator]

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.

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[Anonvmous Coward]

" 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.

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[Simonetta]

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.

My understanding of the music biz is that in this type of situation, the retail price of the albums that are returned will be subtracted from the artist's royalities. So the only person receiveing a message are the musicians, who are learning that they should have never entered this line of work in the first place.

You didn't seriously expect that the music industry would not have figured out a way to charge the musicians for EVERYTHING that would be a cost for the record companies, did you?

The music industry is obsessed with the idea that they have the most desired product in the world (with the exception of refined opiates) and that everybody will do everything they can to get everything that they release. Therefore they must go to insane lengths to keep their product away from people except in small, measured, and expensive doses.

To a large extent this is the truth, but it is becoming less so every year. Eventually, the music industry will reach the point where they realise that their extended efforts to prevent people's access to their product has resulted in a significant decline in the demand for their product. Threaten enough people with prison, asset confiscation, and criminal records for using your product and people will stop using your product, regardless of the price that you charge for it. Tastes can change. The music industry may find out that the obsession with possessing pre-recorded music on disks might be a characteristic only found in western baby-boomers. When they pass from the scene, so may their industry.

I read that the music industry sales have fallen from 36 billion US dollars to 24 billion US in three years. That figure puts the entire business at less than South Korean prostitution (according to Asia Times -www.atimes.com) and almost as big as the toilet paper business. What other business this size gets special laws passed to put their customers in prison over pricing disagreements?

Re:your tax dollars at work...

[Ryosen]

Yes, by all means, let's hit the RIAA where they'll feel it the most: the RETAILERS. Let's really put the screws to the music labels by forcing the RETAILERS to lose millions of dollars on labor costs and credit card transaction fees. Let's force the RIAA to listen to our angered cries by clearing out the RETAILERS' inventories, making them re-order their stock, paying for rushed processing and delivery charges. Let us cheer in our new found victories while the RETAILERS have to sit on a pile of extra (NON-REFUNDABLE) inventory, costing them lost revenue and storage charges. Let's really fuck over the music industry by preventing RETAILERS from ordering new product, thereby causing their customers to stop coming into the store, since all that is on the shelves is old product. Hey, if we hit it on the right day of the month, we can even cause the RETAILER to pay thousands in extra sales/revenue tax thereby ensuring that they can't afford to do business anymore.

Here's an idea: how about growing the fuck up and paying for your music and movies? How about not stealing things that don't belong to you? How about abandoning your rediculously naive and misguided notion that you are somehow entitled to free merchandise.?

This is not a troll. I am a retailer. I own a brick-and-mortar retail store. *I* am the one who gets screwed when you do things like this. The products that I sell are part of my livelihood. All that you are going to accomplish from action like this is a reduction in the new products that I can afford to offer, a change in my return policy and you getting banned from my store. Returns are a courtesy extended to the public - they are not mandated by law. Abuse our goodwill and you will lose our goodwill.

Protect your independant retailers. Don't listen to drivel like the parent's post.

Hey, wait a second...

[LostCluster]

Copyrights have to be asserted in order to be infringed upon. Therefore, the Justice Department can't just go accusing people of copyright violation without the copyright owner coming forward to claim the foul.

This is nothing more than the RIAA wanting to shift their legal burden over to the taxpayer...

Re:Hey, wait a second...

[The Importance of]

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?.

Re:Hey, wait a second...

[Catbeller]

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...

Charity for the rich

[www.sorehands.com]

Here, if you are a large company, then you can have the government file a civil lawsuit for you, recover money and give it to you, and if they lose the government pays your legal fees. If you are an individual that a large company pirates your copyrighted matterial, you have to pay the lawyer yourself, then if you lose you have to pay their legal fees.

Yep, seems fair to me.

Maybe the money recovered for the copyright lawsuit filed by the government should go to the government, and if the government loses, the RIAA/MPAA should pay the government's costs?

Crowded Courts

[Analise]

Aren't the courts crowded enough as it is? Why make more work for the courts/government? I mean, honestly, there're enough useless/pointless civil cases out there right now, we don't exactly need -more-. And it just seems that if the Justice Dept really wanted to go after music piracy, they ought to do it through criminal courts and leave the civil courts to, well, the RIAA to sue people. How would the Justice Dept sue for damages anyway? Did I miss something in that article? And since when does the legislature ever move that quickly on something?

Re:Crowded Courts

[base_chakra]

Why make more work for the courts/government?

This might have something to do with it (quoted from the news.com article): "The Justice Department would receive an extra $2 million for the fiscal year beginning in October."

Double fucked...

[garcia]

Critics also charge that the Pirate Act may invent a form of double jeopardy: It would let the RIAA sue the same people already sued by the Justice Department.

"The kinds of things we have a double-jeopardy doctrine to prevent seem to be implicated by the bill," said Jessica Litman, author of "Digital Copyright" and a law professor at Wayne State University. "I find it disturbing that the committee reported this out without at least having a hearing to consider some of the alternatives."

Not only do they want the same taxpayers who pay for the prosecution of these people they also have the ablility to resue the same people after the DoJ is done with them.

This isn't a deterrent... It's just going to piss everyone off.

Time to call your Congress Critter

[Hangtime]

I will be sending faxes to my senators detailing my opposition to this proposed law. If I am not mistaken Hatch tried to backdoor the last one or these too a few years back.

burden of proof differs...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:burden of proof differs...

[Ieshan]

Although, it'll be much more difficult to prove damages in a Civil Suit, since it's nearly impossible to link a single individual copying mp3s to any financial loss incurred by the company.

Re:burden of proof differs...

[praksys]

Under current law there is no need to show damages in a copyright infringement suit. Copyright owners are automatically entitled to "statutory" damages if they can prove infringement.

Take a look here.

There is a great deal of "wiggle room" with respect to what the court "considers just," and in 1999, Congress increased the amounts. In cases in which the plaintiff cannot prove that the infringement was "willful," the Copyright Act allows a sum of "not less than $750 or more than $30,000" per infringement. However, if the court finds that the defendant's behavior was "willful," the court has discretion "to increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000" per infringement.

So that is a minimum of $750 for every instance of infringment, even if it was not willful (i.e. even if you did not realise that you were infringing). That should give you some idea of why the people getting sued by the RIAA are all caving so easily. Even at $750 per mp3 (if they are lucky) the statutory damages can add up real fast.

So, this is saying...

[millahtime]

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.

Arrr!

[Rhesus Piece]

Being a swashbuckler myself, I find the name
"Pirate Act" to be highly inaccurate.

It's copyright infringement.
Piracy is a different matter altogether.
Anybody can download a song, but it takes
quite a bit more daring to pilage at a professional
level.

Arrr.

Great, MORE laws

[JBMcB]

Just what we need. The DOJ must have TONS of resources left over from finding terrorists, rapists, murderers, drug smuggling rings, human smuggling rings, organized crime, white-collar fraud, embezzlers, etc... etc...

This should *clearly* be left a civil matter. Stealing is already illegal. Piracy is already illegal. It should NOT be a federal offence to share a file, even if it is copyrighted. There are plenty of civil remidies for copyright holders already.

From causal perusal, and IANAL, at least 30% of the US code should be ditched. There's a lot of redundant, unenforcable bloatlaw in there.

Was this from the Onion?!

[Anita Coney]

The article reads like a story from the Onion. I love this quote, "copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so."

Yeah, the members of the RIAA are just too broke to file their own lawsuits.

And if these civil suits are so easy to win, then why are the RIAA not filing them. It sounds like easy money to me. Heck, suing filesharers could become a new business model.

Re:Was this from the Onion?!

[HBI]

This isn't about money, this is about public perception.

The goal of this strategy is to convince the people that music costs money. The way to do that, after the file sharing splurge of the past 5-7 years, is to make it criminal. The problem with that is the high burden of proof required by standards of criminal law.

If the RIAA sues people, it sends a completely different message - one of greed, which is being actively capitalized upon by certain anti-RIAA segments of society.

This bill puts Federal prosecutors in charge of the filing of the civil suits, making it look like a government action. It's fairly nifty. If this passes, file sharing in the US will die, mostly because of the deterrent factor of having the government enforce it.

This is odious law, though. It needs to be stopped. I might even write a letter, though my state has two scumbag Democrat rich men (Lautenberg and Corzine) as senators - they're probably bought and paid for by Hollywood already.

How about a more reasonable deterrent

[91degrees]

Considering people are not making any money from file sharing, I'd have thought that a fine of something like $100, would be more than adequate as a deterrent.

It would stop the record industry looking like violent thugs, and people who genuinely feel they've been wronfully accused wouldn't have too much to lose if they wanted to challenge this. The record companies are not doing their cause a lot of good with aggressive penalties against ordinary members of the public.

Oh, Orrin...

[dhakbar]

"Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt that any nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority to pursue such a campaign." As always, they're looking for the "necessary deterrence" to stop a widespread cultural shift that has already occurred. Much like the war on drugs, this war on piracy is going to end up costing the tax payer more money, infringing upon non-infringing citizens, and lining the pockets of those in government who perpetuate heavy-handed methods of dealing with petty crimes. This nation doesn't want or need another war on drugs. It just doesn't benefit the majority.

Yea. because that's what our court system needs

[Illserve]

The RIAA hammering through thousands of hundreds of thousands of court cases.

Meanwhile we are hard pressed to give rape & murder cases adequate attention.

On the other hand, guess all those new lawyers need something to do.

More Gvmt Spending - What does the taxpayer get?

[SuperficialRhyme]

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.

Question About the RIAA Lawsuits

[Beg4Mercy]

I know that people have settled, but has anyone actually prepared a defense and went to court? How did it turn out?

My business plan

[Cytlid]

1. Convince all the software manufacturers in the country that they need someone to manage their industry.

2. Become president of the SIAA (Software Inudstry Association of America).

3. ???

4. Profit!!!

I think #3 has something to do with lawsuits...

Virginia Slashdotters...

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

...be sure to drop a note to Rep. Rick Boucher! He has consistently been one of the few (and by few, I mean only) politicians who isn't totally in the pocket of the RIAA and their ilk. (cough cough... Orrin Hatch... cough cough) He recognizes the rights of copyright holders to make a fair buck off their work, but he also draws a damned firm line on the rights of citizens to control the things they've paid for. And if you're not in Virginia, he'll still listen to your opinions. It's about time we started paying attention to the pols who *haven't* been bought and paid for yet.

http://www.house.gov/boucher/

(Having been raised Mormon, I also have a lot of other reasons to bitch about Hatch, but I'll save that for later. That whole state is run by asshats.)

Figures it involved Orrin Hatch

[Stargoat]

It figures that Orrin Hatch is one of the sponsers. The Republican from Utah has been doing this stuff for years now. The guy thinks he is a musician, and is worried that pirating music could hurt other musicians. Last year, Orrin Hatch was the jackass who advocated developing technology to destroy the computers of people who download music. It was one of Hatch's staffer's who broke into a democrat's computer and read his docs. Hatch himself was found to have pirated some software a while back as well to host his website.

Hatch's boy is one of the lawyers for the SCO. No surprise there. Daddy's just trying to make the laws for his baby boy to enforce.

Call your senators (you have two) and tell them to oppose this bill. If you don't know who they are, go here to find out.

Re:Figures it involved Orrin Hatch

[srleffler]

Call your senators (you have two) and tell them to oppose this bill.

Better still, write to your senators (on paper) and tell them to oppose this bill, and why. Politicians place greater emphasis on number of letters received from their constituents than they do on number of phone calls or emails.

PRON

[crackshoe]

Alright. SO, you know a big part of P2P traffic is porn - porn that is almost without a doubt copyrighted, but most Porn companies don't go out of their way to track down pirates (or at least joe average light downloader). If the porno industry no longer has to expend their own money or effort to crack down on copyright violators, don't you think they'd start? Pornographic copyright violations and investigations could, as i see it, drown out all the RIAA efforts by shear volume.

We need Falafel

[happyfrogcow]

FALAFEL:

Federal Assistance for Limiting the use of Acronyms For Evil Legislation.

And so we move to anonymous networks... eg.FreeNet

[ControlFreal]

And there we go again... Apart from the fact that I find the influence that big industries have on the justice system in the US nauseating, the music industry seems to think that it can "stop" swapping in any way. This is typical black and white thinking

What is actually happening here is that the "system" (in this case the swappers and the music industry together) shift to a new equilibrium location, where the trade-off between speed and ease-of-use on the one hand, and speed on the other hand, is optimal for the given situation on the legal battle-field.

First we had Napster: very easy to use, but having the flaw of a single point of failure. Then we had the FastTrack and Gnutella networks (think KaZaa and LimeWire here): good bandwidth, but no anonymity at all, but at least without the need for a single point of failure. Then came eDonkey and his friends: less bandwidth, more obfuscation. A step further along the line lies FreeNet: anonimity beyond reasonable doubt, but a slow network and it's hard to find things. In the future, the balance might shift even further to the side of obfuscation, encryption and low bandwidth.

Now before you start yelling: "But FreeNet doesn't work!". Think again: Since about mid-May, it works well again! Try it!

So: go to their website and download that client! Happy browsing!

Looks like the US Government...

[Luminari]

Finally jumped the shark.

Don't they have anything better to do?

[Quinn_Inuit]

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.)

Ammend the constitution or...

[hoffmang]

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.

American Whoredom

[TempusMagus]

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.

More pain...

[locarecords.com]

Slowly from numerous angles the possibilities of the use and re-use of media is being closed down. This legislation will no doubt help *anyone* wishing to stop copyright issues and can be used to close down freedom of speech.

Instead of innovating past these problems the record label's are effectively allowing the state to mantain their monopoly for them... expect more legislation and more erosion of civil rights just to keep them fat and happy...

DOJ Brings the Suit, Keeps the Money?

[jubei]

If the DOJ initiates the civil suit, it stands to reason that should keep any damages and put them toward the good of the public.

That doesn't make sense? Neither does someone other than the copyright holder initiating the civil suit. The damaged party should seek its own reparations.

Re:Not quite.

[Nixoloco]

I don't think he is suggesting that the copyright beomes invalid if not enforced. He is just stating that the copyright holder has to be a party to its enforcement in order to support charges of infringement.

He is just making a very good point, that this is just to get the DoJ to pay for the RIAA's legal bills. The DoJ will just be able to bring charges on behalf of the RIAA (copyright holders).

How exactly does this benefit taxpayers?

Re:Best Governement $$ can buy!

[pjt33]

vote all the scoundrels out!

You have "None of the Above" as an option in your ballot?

Scarcasm, Denial, Indifference, Despair, Anger

[jstockdale]

Gotta love a great example of Government by the people, for the people. Democracy at it's finest.

*looks around*

I mean it's not like this is a corporate tool to get our tax dollars to work against us.

*cough*

I mean it kinda is, but what can we do.

*wimper*

Yeah it is, damnit, I can't believe this. How can corporations be allowed to do this!?!

*arrrggg*

God damnit this is rediculous. What happened to the Republic that once was!!! ... Orwell was wrong! 1984, that's a typo man. This cannot stand! I mean what next? Will they start attacking free speech-^%

[NO CARRIER]

Today's episode brought to you by the PATRIOT Act, in conjunction with the letters F, U, C, K, E, and D.

Re:Isn't this a good thing?

[PhxBlue]

No, they're not "going after the actual traders." They're lobbying the Department of Justice to waste taxpayer money going after alleged traders. That's what the fuss is about.

Best President $$ can buy.

[JavaLord]

Yep...that's what we have.. and will continue to have until people exercise their responsibility and vote all the scoundrels out!

I'm not big on kookiness, or conspiracy theories, but the two major parties are conspiring even if it's informally to keep third parties out of majority elections. In 1992 Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote and participated in the highest rated presidential debate of all time. After Perot's preformance in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats conspired to not include Perot in 1996. Clinton's aid, George Stephanopolous said:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

In 2000 it was announced that candidates wouldn't be allowed in the elections unless they were polling at 15% of the vote ahead of time. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).

While this has strayed off topic a bit, how can you expect not to have laws against the will of the people when the people are no longer in control of who they can vote for? Politicians do their best to make the Republicans and Democrats look different, and they are on social issues, but surely not on economic issues despite what some democrats and republicans might think. They both spend carelessly, and support big business. As long as these people are in power, you will have crap like the RIAA getting free lawsuits going on.

THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR!

[Stephen Samuel]

There is far better to do than just write a stinkin' letter.

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.

Yes, a porn publisher has sued

[tepples]

I don't know about movies, but regarding pictures, you can read the story of Playboy v. Sanfilippo.

Re:Here's an idea...

[CashCarSTAR]

To be honest, in the long run it doesn't matter what the hell you do..

They're just going to assume that their lost sales went to piracy, regardless of the reality of the situation.

I'll agree. Taking shit for free that isn't free is unethical. However, I don't see anything unethical about surfing P2P sites for new music to enjoy and go out to purchase when you find stuff you do.

The RIAA is actually more concerned about marketshare than piracy. The big concern is that non-RIAA acts will get equal promotion time as RIAA acts.

The real fear is that in the near future, the next Elvis, the next Beatles, the next U2, will be some person/group in their bedroom using a small computer studio to crank out great tunes, but doesn't want anything more than enough donations to keep them in rent/pizzas. They don't want the fame, don't want the admiration. They just want the music.

The model is there, and believe it or not, it does work. That's what the RIAA is afraid of, and why they're trying to get everything redirected through approved sources. Meaning things that you need to be signed with one of their labels in order to get exposure.

A letter to my senator (Have you written yet?)

[Vancouverite]

Senator Cantwell:

I am seriously concerned about S.2237, and the effects that it will have.

Generally, the difference between a Civil action and a Criminal action, besides the level of punishment, is that the Government brings criminal actions (because they are considered offenses against society), and the offended person or persons bring civil actions. S.2237 changes this balance by having the Federal Government bring civil actions in cases where the Federal Government is not the offended party.

This leads to a large inequity here. In criminal cases, government-paid lawyers represent defendants who want but can't afford an attorney. However, parties in civil cases usually have to represent themselves or pay for their own lawyers.

Thus, this bill has the effect of shifting the costs of prosecuting civil cases from the plaintiffs (the RIAA or Copyright holders in this case) to the Federal government, while leaving the costs of defending the cases with the defendent. Besides being inequitable, this also has the appearance of 'Corporate Welfare'.

I am strongly opposed to the passage of this bill, and would ask that you, too, oppose Senate Bill 2237.

Thank you,
Bxxxxx Hxxx

P.S.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE SITUATION THIS BILL ADDRESSES

The prevalence of copyright violations in our current society indicates to me that either the basic law needs re-thinking, or the organizations marketing the products being violated need to re-think their methods of marketing and/or distribution. However, neither of these are sufficient reason (in my opinion) for the federal government to get involved in potentially thousands of enforcement actions against citizens.

As in dozens or hundreds of cases in American history, mass societal 'rebellion' against a set of laws indicates that the law needs to change, not that society needs to increase its enforcement efforts. From Civil Rights to the right for women to smoke, from Women's suffrage to the ability to drive a car without requiring a flagger to walk in front of it, 'mass' rebellion against a law has shown that the law must change, not that the government must more stringently enforce the existing laws.

Currently, those still using the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) exchange sources must (mostly) be conciously choosing to do so, knowing that these actions are in violation of current statutes. Reading in appropriate venues on line, you can find that many have stated that they will continue with this, and boycott purchase of the copyrighted materials until such time as the manufacturers correct their (perceived) inequitable, unfair, and monopolistic practices, and (in some cases) start treating the artists and the public in a fair manner.

Yes, there are millions (estimated) of people using these P2P applications. Currrently, for example it appears that the average number of people connected to the KaZaa network (one of the larger networks) at any one time averages 2 to 3 million, with perhaps as many as 20 million people connecting to it sometime in a month, with indications that this number may be increasing. The question is: What, exactly, does this say?

Surveys of musicians indicate that P2P file sharing has helped more artists than it has hurt. A Pew survey of musicians indicated that 35% felt that file sharing had helped their careers, and 30% felt that it had increased attendance at concerts, as opposed to only 5% who felt that they had been hurt by file sharing.

However, the P2P programs do affect one group directly: The music distributors, members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). These companies cumulatively control the vast majority of the outlets and methods for distributing music... or they did before the internet and P2P applications became prevalent.

From MP3.Com (now a distribution source for independent musicians) to Napster (now a distribution source for some record companies) and KaZaa (still a P2P application/network), the RIAA has had its mon