Slashdot Mirror
File Trading Law Would Include 'Willing' Traders
mgessner writes "From InfoWorld comes a story on the U.S. House's approval of a new, tough law against trading files online. 'The bill expands the definition of file traders eligible for criminal penalties from individuals who 'willingly' distribute copyright files to those who 'knowingly' do so, an escalation that could result in jail time for file swappers.'" (The bill has yet to go through the Senate.)
with boxes checked by default, and programs scanning ur hd's for stuff to share, how do they determine just where the thin line of knowingly and willingly is???
Let's have:
people who illegally photocopy books go to jail
people who illegally perform plays and musical pieces go to jail
people who plagiarize or don't cite references go to jail
Hell let's just have anyone who says anything in a non-free speech zone go to jail.
If I "knowingly" share files, aren't I "willingly" sharing them as well.
Does this apply to people who KNOW that they share files, but don't WANT to???
I'm confused!!!
In abone head move Congress outlaws file trading amoung willing participants.. ..hmm they seem to have flunked intrnet 101 as your borwser reads afile/shares a fiel with the server to give you that nice graphical page..
Sonny Bono must be hitting that tree again and again and again
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I have to be totally honest in asking WTF is going on with all this emphesis on file trading? Seriously, America has the single largest murder numbers in the western world (Larger then Canada's and Europes combined - excluding ww2) I think that there are far bigger issues that the US could do with addressing then kids getting some singles on the cheep (free)..
That said, how long until Europe decides to follow suit, well, if not Europe, England (who have their own version of the DMCA, have tried very hard to keep their copyright laws in step with the US etc etc)?
regards, the_leander
You know, one of the reasons I take this position is because studies have shown that most people DON'T VOTE. Most people just bitch and moan. The people have the power, but they don't use it, and Big Biz knows this. The vast majority of Right Wing Assholes smile with their mouths shut as they vote. The vast majority of Liberal Thinkers scream and yell about rights, and don't vote.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
why I am glad that I do not live in America...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Actually, it almost certainly will happen, since it will be on the taxpayer's dime rather than the RIAAs. There is no disincentive to the RIAA asking for and eating up millions in taxpayer funds chasing down those using p2p networks.
In my opinion, laws like this should be to defend those without the resources from those with the resources. This is the other way around (using rich government resources to support an already rich organization against common individuals). There is no reason for the government to pass new laws (since trading copyrighted files is already illegal) when the RIAA already has the ability to defend itself using existing law and resources.
Said person supposedly operating in ignorance could be given the benefit of the doubt with exactly _ONE_ warning, and given a finite interval (perhaps 2 weeks) in which to rectify the situation. Failure to comply within that interval would leave them without any excuse for not knowing they were distributing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That's interesting because everybody accepts cops setting up speed traps and using radar guns to catch speeders. And investigating murders and fraud in order to capture criminals. Yet we don't like the idea of an organization that would police the internet in order to stop the theft of music and movies. Without considering the state of the music and video industry, downloading mp3s and ripped movies without paying for them is illegal. Whether the laws need to be adjusted to allow copyrights to expire or prices to come down is beside the point. Right now these things are illegal, but no one advocates that policing the internet is a means to making it safer or more enriching.
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
possesion
with intent to distribute
and any other bogus charge that will get you sent to jail to do hard time for something that really doesn't harm anyone.
Think of all those people who are doing hard time for just having one joint!
Clearly the wording of the bill needs to be changed so that it would only apply to distribution without the consent of the copyright holder. Otherwise, this bill would make it illegal for a coypright holder to distribute his very own material! (effectively negating the actual meaning of copyright completely.)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
-
Because we all know that passing laws to make, say, speeding in cars, murder, fraud etc. illegal has put an end to all those activities.
And regular lawsuits against multiple people trading files online, including 12yo girls and grandparents who didn't even know that their grandkids had installed the software have worked too. But yep, a law will do the trick, heaven knows people won't break a law but are happy to risk financial ruin.What do we expect though? It seems that one business or another owns every member of Congress, "We the people" is now "We the corporations" as far as representation in Congress goes. *sigh*
Lots of things are different between the US and the UK. For instance the UK is banning fox hunting, while my state (MN) consideres hunting a legal right that is now part of the constitution. UK bans many more guns than the US. The UK has more cameras watching their streets than any other country. (Though the US is trying to catch up)
In short: there is plenty wrong with every country. I don't like the Induce act, but it isn't enough to make me exchange the rights violated in the US for the rights violated in the UK.
Murder victims have little effect on corporate contributions.
Clearly the wording of the bill needs to be changed so that it would only apply to distribution without the consent of the copyright holder. Otherwise, this bill would make it illegal for a coypright holder to distribute his very own material! (effectively negating the actual meaning of copyright completely.)
Wrong - it would just make it illegal to distribute any copyright material online.
Tell me, who is sponsoring all these anti-file-trading laws? Oh yes, the RIAA and MPAA.
Now, tell me, which two major industry groups represent industries which want to continue to lock people into traditional media, instead of moving forward to a 21st-century digital distribution network?
Hmm... maybe it's a conspiracy theory too far, but do you REALLY think the RIAA would be upset if Congress accidentally made iTunes illegal?
Isn't that what they're doing now, going after those breaking the law. You can still file share legal stuff all you want.
This is a great example of the ways in which big business can manipulate government to its advantage.
It's perfectly within reason that copyright holders can sue, , in civil suits, to stop the unauthorized distribution of their works. Copyright violation is a matter between two parties: the copyright holder and the violator.
But with a law like this, the onus to police copyright matters falls on the government, and not the copyright holder.
What we're seeing is a push by big business, through legislation, to reduce their attorney fees. When copyright matters are criminal cases, not civil actions, the violators are punished-- justly or not-- at the expense of government, rather than at the expense of the corporation.
A number of others are living in border states and are working on getting to know the Canadian technology world so that if they have to, they can emigrate quickly. In Canada, we take privacy seriously; there is a strict Federal Privacy act that all governmental institutions have to answer to, and at the beginning of this year, a new business privacy act went into place as well, protecting individuals from shoddy business handling of information.
Slashdot has covered our copyright laws and trials enough that I won't get into that side of things. The UK probably hasn't given the US emigration possibility a huge amount of thought, but believe me, in many Canadian provinces, it has been a major item of consideration when modifying our IT-related laws.
This bill came up as a Suspension Bill in the House. Suspension bills are usually only lightly debated (if at all), are unable to be amended, and must pass by a 2/3'rds majority.
/.'er may know more than the average American, I doubt any of us know a ton about what it specifically does.
The most common use of a Suspension bill? To rename a Post Office.
I honestly don't know much about this bill, and while the average
It is shameful that this bill was put up and passed without any serious debate or review (outside of committee, if even there) by the actual Members of Congress.
Oh well, it happens all the time.
As intrusive as a bill like this might seem at first glance, it bothers me that there are those who think it's their God-given right to free music or movies simply because they're available to download.
As righteous as a bill like this may seem at the first glance, it bothers me that there are those who think that copyright is a God-given law, and not something some fat-walleted corporate assholes came up with fairly recently, around a 100 years ago. I really don't see any reason why copyright law shouldn't be abolished altogether. I doubt that a significant percentage of musicians, artists or computer programmers would suffer financially because of it. The only people who would loose profits are the RIAA labels, the commodity-software companies, book authors and song writers. Only the book authors and song writers have my simpathy, so I would just keep copyright for text only, just the way it used ot be before sound-recording devices ever appeared.
And don't give me the "starving artist" bullshit. Most musicians make lots more money off concerts than off recordings. And those that do could easily compensate by doing more concerts, and selling t-shirts or what-not. And commodity software is best done OSS-style anyways.
Now about software. Most software, line-count wise, written in the world, is custom software, written to order. Commodity software companies employ just a small percentage of all programmers. Try to think, of the software developers you know personally, how many would loose, or have to change, their jobs if the copyright law were abolished? I doubt it's more than 1%.
I suppose, without copyright, companies like microsoft would have to get payed by the hardware manufacturers, and would make a lot less money than they do now. But they make obscene amounts of money now, and I don't see why we should help them to do that by having copyright law.
Now, call me commie, mod me troll -1, and go pay your 10yr old sons $100,000 bail to get him out of jail where they put him for copying some stupid Britny Spears CD.
Threatening to throw people in jail for sharing files is akin to say, huge sentences for selling marijuana.
I thought they still have huge sentences for selling marijuana. So, I suppose, they still think that solved that problem:-).
As intrusive as a bill like this might seem at first glance, it bothers me that there are those who think it's their God-given right to free music or movies simply because they're available to download.
...off rant.
Rant on...
I don't think anyone is saying it is their god-given right to download music. But as we all know, being technical verse in how the 'net actually behaves, knowing what we know about Zombie PC, the ease to spoof IP addresses, the rise of viruses and trojan horses, it's very easy to see innocent people being dragged into court, expensive attorney fees for an uncommitted crime.
No doubt people are stealing content on these online services, but the question is what is the true damage? If someone downloads a crappy Metallica song, would they necessarily bought the piece of crap song or bother listening to it on the radio start to finish? Is this a felony or a misdeamenor? A joint or a ton of coke?
The RIAA/MPAA doesn't care about a single individual, they complain sales are down, when the entire US economy is down. Do they think they are exempt from changes in the economy? This is a corporate blame game to keep stability in big these corporations market caps.
Finally, the entire US Patent/Copyright system is fucked. There is no sliding depreciation of value with intellectual property. Patents starting value last for 17 years, then becomes zero over night, is that natural? Copyright law is even worse, and life term is continually extended. Things depreciate in value with time, this concept needs to be embraced into the intellectual property law.
Before you mod a dissenting voice to -1, Troll, hear me out.
Why is this a problem? Our copyright laws protect the property of the creator. Illegally "sharing" files is a crime. The only people concerned and complaining about this are the criminals who violate our copyright laws. Sadly, our world is heading towards more and more socialism where people somehow believe they are "entitled" to other's property.
When the basic respect for one's property no longer exists in society, that society breaks down. Stealing music, movies, and software is no different than shoplifting. Both are crimes and both contribute to the decline of society.
Waiting until you have enough money to legally purchase music, movies, and software instills discipline, patience, and hard work. These are all essential values for a successful society.
With that said, however, I do not like some of the ways copy-protection laws have been implented such as the DMCA. They are too draconian.
The text of the bill states "infringes a copyright willfully." I would assume (IANAL), that the term infringes carries to existing copyright law as to what is and is not an infringing activity, i.e. if you have the permission of the copyright holder, it is legal.
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
5.56mm, 600 metre accurate range, $.15 per round
.50 BMG, 1500 meter, $2.50 per round
30.06 , 900 meter,$.45 per round
number of Congresscritters dying of high velocity lead poisoning,550
time required, less than a week.
If you need to make a statement, make it a LOUD one.
This sort of fascinated and horrified me when I finally realized it was true, but then upon reflection, one sees that the U.S. was essentially born out of a property rights dispute with the English crown(taxation without representation), and in the Civil War, nearly tore itself apart over a property rights issue, that being human slavery.
I guess we take them seriously here.
I coulda swore Coporate America killed music .. UK and the likes still put out good music that people buy .. I mean what a coporate utopia where crap music is made and if you don't buy it you're tossed in jail. I think the solution to everyone's problem is to never watch TV or listen to mainstream music. Remember the elite collective is smarter than the average person .. don't think for once that they are acting in your best interest ..
Murder rates (even in the US!) are down since the introduction of the court system. The period of introduction is different in different parts of the world, but were-ever it's been introduced, it seems to have played a large part in stopping people from killing each other (vengeance belongs to the judge)
Fraud is, and has always been a huge problem. It seems that we find fraud less abhorrent to murder. For example, if you were talking to a guy in a bar, and he told you he'd got out of jail for [murder|fraud] would you re-act, at a basic level, more negatively to murder? I think many people would.
As for speeding... since the introduction of laws, a campaign by the police, both in the media and on the roads, both speed and road injuries due to speeding have decreased dramatically in Australia.
The real change came when speed cameras were introduced... everyone slowed down since there was no chance you wouldn't get caught if you speed habitually. Now everyone just drives at the speed limit and it's not a problem.
In brief, my point is that laws _can_ and _do_ help. My point is not that we need more laws, or that this particular law is a good idea.
A democracy introducing a law that makes most of it's citizens into criminals for the benefit of a few seems a little... ironic?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What bothers me more is a bunch of greedy privateers who rob us of the culture we all helped to create. Getting people to pay toll for every piece of art/music/writing for 150 years is insane.
If the copyright expired after 28 years, we would be less likely to to pass things around for free.
Who exactly am I harming when I share recordings of Charlie Parker from 1946?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Yep, Here in the US, We have the best politians that money can buy. This is just another example.
Only public property is considered a free-speech zone really...and even then it only applies to the government...not individuals (which is beside the point you are making). If you are in my house and use language I don't approve of I can have you removed because I own the property (actually I would ask you to leave first...then have you removed if you didn't comply).
Real (as opposed to personal...i.e. land ownership) property rights are what should trump everything else.
Unfortunatly these rights are being eroded as well. Thst is why "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyiness" used to be "life, liberty, and property".
Vote the peeps out of office that erode these rights already!
That's silly.
I agree that is act is a bad idea. Consumers/voters clearly don't want it. It only serves to protect an industry that has been ripping consumers and the majority of artists off with its sudo monopolistic behavior. At this point there is ZERO chance of going back to the old paradigm. We are better off embracing P2P as the tool that it is and let liaise fair capitalism find a way to adapt as it always has in the past.
However, as to this causing a mass exodus from the US, that's not going to happen. First of all, I think you are grossly over estimating the impact an act like this could have. Annoying sure, but business would survive just fine. Second, I don't think you understand the economics involved. Not that the UK or any other place in Europe is a bad place to live but the standard of living in the US is MUCH higher, provided you have an in-demand skill. You make more here, pay about half the taxes, and housing and other expenses are dramatically lower. Specifically speaking about the UK, I know people that have jobs based there, but live here in the US and just work remotely and travel back and forth all the time because that is actually cheaper to do it that way. Worst case scenario you just change job fields.
For the longest time it has irritated me that "the other side" doesn't get it when talking about file sharing and peer-to-peer. There's always a sense that the only thing these technologies are good for is infringing copyright.
Now I'm beginning to see our side talk about it that way.
This will not do. Leaving aside any discussion about whether sharing copyrighted files (against the will of the copyright owner) should or should not be illegal, we have to face the fact that it is.
But we must also never forget that sharing files (even copyrighted ones) within the will of the copyright owner is legal. If we forget that, then we surely will lose this war.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to infringe using p2p will simply clear the way for a culture where those copyrighted works which allow sharing replace those works which don't; a victory for those who create.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to use p2p at all hands the victory to those who own other peoples creations and exploit them for profit. RIAA, MPAA and crew.
I just can't understand why young people today are willing to forgo their only chance to create a culture for themselves in exchange for a chance to buy (or obtain illegally) a piece of somebody else's culture.
Come on, now. Boy George just wasn't that good.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
The music executives. And the people they bribe. And maybe their investors. That is who you are hurting. You are easily knocking them down to the top 2% of the wealthy instead of the top 1%. You greedy bastard.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
That's interesting because everybody accepts cops setting up speed traps and using radar guns to catch speeders.
Well, you don't do time when you are caught speeding. Which is even more psychotic because driving dangerously can actually get people killed whereas pirating music could potentially lose someone a tiny amount of money.
It looks like, if you really look at it with a sense of "the big picture", that the U.S. Govt. doesn't like the internet. Just like it's easy for citizens and average computer users to be "infringing" without knowing or realizing it, it's easy for the legislators to be disliking the internet without realizing it. So the end result is, is some ways, not unlike China - although on the surface it simply appears that the legislators want to pick and choose those parts of cyberspace that will please the campaign contributions for the incumbents. But they are rapidly becoming enemies of the internet and free speech, without even realizing it.
But it's also time to move on. It's not the responsiblity of the content distributors to enforce copyright laws. So in that sense, this bill makes some sense - if there are laws to enforce, it's the government that should be enforcing them.
The problem is that it's way to easy to get in trouble without even realizing what you are doing - sort of like driving a car that has no speedometer - better yet, driving a car that has no windshield so you can't see who you are running over. Anonymous p2p is going to solve this problem in the future. It is going to 1) further free speech, freedom of expression, and create a forum where artists and fans can share and learn and experience new things; 2) protect unwitting, inexperienced computer users from breaking harsh laws unknowningly. It may also protect parents from their kid's evil friends, and roommates from each other.
Furthermore, I don't see how you can pass a bill that places the enforcement of a three-year or greater felony in the hands of minimum-wage movie theater employees. Someone is bound to get hurt.
Well, what law has ever stopped a crime
The 21st ammendment.
I'm wondering with P2P criminal limits set, if the RIAA will just save money and knock off the civil lawsuits and spend it s days whistleblowng to DA's for people that exceed the criminal limits. If that happens at least there will be a clear "Do Not Cross" line for the small potato sharers out there. The section about Retail Value, and the different ways it could be figured is disturbing. Of other intrest (and possibly due to me not fully understanding the text) the exemptions for the audio/video skipping of motion pictures...seems to outlaw the practice of pausing record on a device to bypass recording commercials.
I would say that what slashbots say and want are not necessarily contradictory, but rather hint towards a different ideal regarding intellectual property.
If we MUST live with idiotic laws saying what we can and cannot think/write (ie. ridiculous copyrights, software patents), then yes, at least we have the GPL protecting our work from exploitation.
On the other hand, in a world with no such laws, ideas should/would be free and open (including Music) for everyone, and supporting p2p sharing just re-inforces that.
GPL == necessary for current fscked up world
P2P Sharing == ideal of what world should be
doesn't seem contradictory to me.
Just what we need. More stupid fucking laws keeping more Americans in jail per capita than any other country in the world.
"Land of the Free" is the biggest bullshit line I've ever heard/read.
(2)Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
What part of the above did you not comprehend? The bill punishes schools that do not allow voluntary prayer. The bill favors FINANCIALLY ones who do. Which part of your brain shut down when you read that? If this is not coercion or strong arming schools in to allowing prayer, then I dont know what to tell ya.
I have no problem against religion, just state sponsored ones. The Govt should stay the fuck out of my religion, my sexuality and the four walls of my humble abode.
Rapid Nirvana
Fact. If you illegally share copyrighted materials online you are in the wrong.
I never contended that what they did was legal, only that the lawsuits have NOT stopped the downloading. Of the two examples I gave one was a 12yo girl who reportedly had only a few songs, she'd downloaded the theme song from her favorite show. In any other context everyone would be claiming she was too young to know better, but now you feel she not only should have known better it was justifiable for the RIAA to not only sue her but refuse to drop the case when the facts surfaced? What if it'd been your kid, I'm quite sure your reaction would be different.
Of the other example the grandfather was not aware his computer was sharing songs. His grandkids had installed the software when visiting without his permission or knowledge. They downloaded some music, and left it running, set to start on startup. So the real violaters were his grandkids, he was an innocent bystander. Yet again your reaction is he got what he deserved.
Funny that there was no accusation in my post. Wow, I point out that the lawsuits aren't working and that if folks aren't willing to stop downloading music when facing the prospect of financial ruin a law isn't going to help and you're angry about that? I suggest taking Yoga, it's supposed to do wonders for anger management. Whether you like it or not the facts support my post. There are already laws against downloading and sharing music, there are already lawsuits being tossed about galore, there are already numerous victims (yes victims, victims of an industry unwilling to change) financially ruined yet the public overwhelmingly continues to download and share music online. No law is going to stop that, it's a cultural phenomenon now. You might find it distasteful, but you know what? The sheet music printers found piano rolls to be very distasteful and illegal (which they were at the time) yet they didn't succeed in stopping them.
What fucking victims? The artists are victims, but not of the downloaders, they got ripped off when they signed their contracts with the record companies. Those who recorded/produced/pressed/distributed the CDs are going to be your next group right? Sorry but while CD sales are down there is no proof it's being caused solely by downloading online. How soon we forget the studies that have shown that active downloaders buy more music. The music industry can claim it's because of downloading all day, and I, and many others, can claim it's because of shitty content, overpriced CDs and a bloated, immoral, antiquated industry. I suspect that it's a bit of both. But a "serious crime"? Oh come on, are you serious? We're not talking rape, murder or assault here. We're talking copyright infringment. On the list of serious crimes it's pretty damned low. I'm far more concerned about things like that being prevented that Congress wasting time and money to pass yet more laws to go after music downloaders. The way they're expanding things is frankly disturbing too. Knowingly instead of willingly? Well what's knowingly? If someone trojans your machine and starts sharing files off of it, then you find out 3 weeks later and spend 2 weeks trying to get it stopped weren't you "knowingly" sharing for those 2 weeks, even though you were trying to stop it? Yes you were, and you too could wind up in jail thanks to this law.
And frankly your smart-ass example isn't far fromt he truth. If everyone's getting a drink during commercials and it'
The combination of both, makes it pretty easy to setup 'zombie P2P' machines..
Hard to prove it wasnt intended.. ( ie: 'willing' )
And before you say ' people should know better and be responsible for their actions' , most average people cant figure out how to put files on a floppy.. you cant expect them to secure their 'network'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Can you imagine how boring sports would be if there were only two teams? They'd each tailor their offense against the one other team's defense. There would be only slight innovation as each reacted to counter the other.
Now look at the two party system. What gets argued about? Big vs. really big government, higher vs. much higher taxes, barely distinguishable environmental policies, ad nauseum. They keep the voters focused on issues that polarize them but aren't much acted upon in the end (or are very similar in position).
If you're in a swing state, by all means vote Kerry rather than your preferred candidate, as I absolutely agree that while Kerry is bad, Bush is far, far worse and vastly more dangerous.
However, if you're not in a swing state, vote however you want, for more than the presidency is determined by your vote. Votes for third parties increase their campaign funding, ballot access and perceived credibility.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Make sure you're using the unstable build and network. The stable build/network sucks. Pump up your data store size. A LOT. Read the freenet mailing list archives, this issue is discussed periodically