Slashdot Mirror
Bush Signs Law Targeting P2P Pirates
BlakeCaldwell writes "CNet is reporting that President Bush signed into law the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (previously-reported).
A lawbreaker can land in jail for up to three years for distributing a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet. The MPAA's president Dan Glickman applauded the move, stating he wanted to 'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.'"
Straight from the EFF's Fred von Lohmann:...And the bottom line from the EFF:
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
...they don't have this problem.
They should call it the Federal Entertainment Copyright Act of Law (FECAL). That way, when the FBI goes to bust someone, they can have a press release where they say:
"We here at the FBI take FECAL matters very seriously, and Jimmy here is in way over his head."
No, Mr President, I don't think this has anything to do with the American family. Just say Movie Protection or something.
The MPAA's president Dan Glickman applauded the move, stating he wanted to 'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.
And they would like to thank the MPAA for their contribution.
....in my mouth..
I just can't understand how "buying" laws is considered perfectly natural and good legislation... (I know that's not exactly the context the word was used in, but still)
irony: President Bush signing anything that involves the word "intellectual"
Shouldnt that read 'Intellectual Property Rape'?
kin242.net
I was going to make some cynical, sarcastic comment on this but... damn, what's the point?
With everything going on today we're going to hunt down... filesharers? And sentence them like they've committed assault. Right.
The guiding hand of corporate bribes, excuse me, contributions, was never more obvious.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
"A lawbreaker can land in jail for up to three years for distributing a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet." Some rapists don't even serve this much time. How does putting a copy of a movie on the Internet deserve 3 years in jail?
My spoon is too big.
Yup. FECL... That's right, just consider the acronym now :)
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
Been nice knowing you guys.. wait.. we'll all meet up again in the big house and talk over the old times together.. it'll be fun!
No todo lo que es oro brilla
Start -> Control Panel -> Add Remove Programs
Wait for "The list to be populated"
Click "Remove" next to "eMule, used Frequently"
"Are you sure you want to uninstall eMule?
*sigh* "Yes"
Remember kids, when you use P2P, you're supporting terrorists, and because of that, using P2P will get you shipped to Syria where a confession will be tortured out of you, and then you'll be imprisoned without trial or access to a lawyer until such time as Democrats seize control of the government.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I know, sue americans, take all there money, put them in jail for years for doing things like hmm lets seee.. Oh yea stealing a few movies.
In the meantime lets let convicted murders get out on "good behavior" so they can get another shot and killing someone else.
Lets send rapests to see a shrink who can claim they are now safe for the world again.
Lets focus on every stupid little thing that happens EXCEPT the things that harm and affect us the most!!!
Cause gosh darn it I don't ever want to walk pass some "Axis of Evil" P2P criminal on the streets, the pure inhumanity of it all.
Personal Website
The MPAA's president Dan Glickman applauded the move, stating he wanted to 'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.'
Glickman later added that he would like to apologize to those same congressional sponsors, as their seven figure checks will be delayed for up to two days.
always gives their citizens plenty of reasons to feel guilty so they try to keep a low profile and do not risk civil unrest or a revolution against a corrupted system. Schon Tacitus wusste: Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. The greater the degeneration of the kingdom, the more of its laws.
Source on this? Sounds made up to me.
US law only applies to USians. If you were a US citizen in the UK, sure, you could get into trouble.
Extradition doesn't mean you enforce foreign law on your citizens, it means you agree to repatriate foreign countries' citizens if they're wanted by the courts.
"All I do is eat and poop!" -- Bean
From S.167RH, Title I, Sec 103. which can be found under the Text of Legislation:
a. Criminal Infringement
1. IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed:
C. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
So much for distribution of television shows online. Almost all of them will eventually release a DVD of the series (commercial distribution) therefore anyone posting last nights tv show as a torrent will be a criminal.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
If we're caught, we'll do less time than if we somehow managed to get a low quality copy of a movie from the theater. Heck, we can even lose control, slam into another vehicle, and kill an entire family on their way to visit grandma, at most we'll be slapped with a small fine and told how naughty we are.
Welcome to MegaCorp, where we make the rules, and frankly, human life is far less important than our profits.
Since mr. GW Bush is a known pirate, I suggest the DOJ investigate him first. Any other course of action would make a mockery of the supposed blindness of lady justice.
Seriously, Zonk, can you cite anybody in the Administration who has said that enforcement of IP laws is part of the War on Terror?
No, I didn't think so. So why the cheap shot connecting the two? It's funny how slashbots talk out of both sides of their mouths, that the technology shouldn't be procescuted, it should be the violators. Now the violators are being targeted, you guys still whine about...something.
This law seems to target distributers only .. does that mean downloading is ok? But what if you use Bittorrent where you download and upload segments of the file simultaneously, does that make you a distributer?
Now that this law is passed, unauthorized peer-to-peer filesharing of copyrighted materials will be stopped and we can move on to more important subjects.
So if you trade with an American you can expect a free holiday in an American prison. I don't know about that though it's possible. However, realize that enough "extraditions" will probably have the effect of boosting anti-American sentiment in other countries, and if the government is seen as pro-American, I'd say this might have some effect on the government opinion polls in that country. I think you know where I'm going with this... :)
Isnt just downright amazing how out of sync sentencing is for certain crimes?
Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed.
Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*. This means that Person A can walk into a physical record store and almost wipe the store clean via theft, and get sentenced the same as Person B who shares one copyrighted song online.
That is just amazing to me.
'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.'
Translation: You're our , that's the least you could have done for us...
how long until
I WAS a Bush supporter...but this bugs the doo doo out of me. Of all the things that are going on in the country why has this become a priority? What about gas prices Mr. President? What about the healthcare fiasco Mr. President? What about all these children that are being kidnapped and nurdered by sex offenders Mr. President? What about the crappy education system in which our children score well below the rest of the world in nearly every category Mr. President? Maybe I expect too much for our elected officials...like concentrating on things that will make life better for Americans, and for the rest of the world.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
"strong advocacy for intellectual property rights"
The same law allows ClearPlay to edit hollywood movies against the creators' wishes. Despite the hype to the contrary, it does NOT allow consumers to rip and edit movies. That'd violate the DMCA!
How is allowing corporations to edit movies a "strong advocacy" of property rights?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
This piece of legislation has a particularly interesting act in it called the Family Movie Act. The legislation allows companies to market filters and equipment to skip over parts of a DVD. The idea is that people who don't care to see the more raunchy side of Hollywood can skip the profanity and sex. (Yes, I don't want the profanity and sex in the movies that I watch. I've heard all of the jokes, so let the rants begin.)
This part of the legislation was promoted by ClearPlay, a company that distributes filters and DVD players that can utilize the filters.
Not only do I like the ability to skip the raunchy stuff, but I like the fact that this promotes the idea that people can have control over the content that they pay to license. Hollywood considers the filters to be an "edit" of the original movie, but since the original DVD isn't altered, I don't see any difference between this and manually skipping content. It empowers the user and I like that. The implications are broader than just "Family Friendly Movies."
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
I am a subscriber and saw the prerelease headline for this story. It was slated before the recent OS X story, then was pulled before general release. I wondered why, and now I know:
The original story led with a headline covering the aspects of the bill that make it explicitly legal to *filter* DVD content, certainly a positive side to this legislation for the tech industry and fair use. Apparently, that headline wasn't sexy enough, though, so they pulled the story and resubmitted it as yet another whine about the entertainment-industrial complex abusing all those poor shmoes who think they should be able to get other's creative works for free.
(Yeah, I'm editorialzing too, but I don't have Editor in my title)
Disclaimer - I own all my music.
What scares me here is the absolute disparity (right word?) between the punishment of virtual-space crimes versus violent, sexual and other more "real" crimes.
When you see murderers/rapists/etc walk free 12 months after their committal to jail and yet people can get 3 years for file-sharing... wow, I'm disturbed.
I think it's time more people in congress suffered to violent crime.
This line is interesting: "C. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution" So will you be subject to this new act if the "work" was already commmercially distributed?
Absolute Bollocks.
Extradition laws apply only to laws which are punishable with jail sentences > 1 year in both countries. Generally this means serious offences like murder, abduction etc.
Now, once the UK starts banging people up for swapping movies you may have a point...
Prefix any bill with "Family" and it will surely pass. For exable
... ???
* Family Security and Iraq Invasion Bill
* Family Privacy and Public RFID Tagging Bill
* Family Protection and
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If you also look at Title II of the bill it also has an "Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures" This will allow manufacturers to legally create players to skip over crappy content and effectively lower the moving rating.
Back when DVDs first came out, this was supposedly one of the big "features" that the industry was touting: the ability to select a G, PG, PG-13 or R rating for the movie. So far, Hollywood has never delivered on that. Then, when a companies (like clearplay) enter the market to fill the gap, they get sued. This bill protects that right to skip the content you don't want to see. There are a lot of good movies out there that would be a lot better if they would just leave out some unnecessary obscene material
Yorkspace
"Some rapists don't even serve this much time." Gee, you mean that some criminals don't serve the maximum possible jail time for their crimes? Unless this law is the one exception in all of US law, movie pirates won't all be serving the maximum time either, so they can still expect to serve less time than rapists and murderers. Since you'll probably get just a few months, go ahead and steal as many movies as you want! After all, it's all in the name of "privacy" - which obviously no-one except criminals have a right to. By the so-called "logic" of most slashdotters, anyone involved in the movie industry certainly can expect no right to privacy - unless it's to protect their cocaine.
So if you trade with an American you can expect a free holiday in an American prison.
They're not so bad -- just don't drop the soap!
you can steal hundreds of millions from shareholders and get a slap on the wrist. enron, adelphia, worldcom, dot-bubble, arthur anderson, xerox, tyco, haliburton, qwest, health south. where are the crack downs on these villains who steal real money from citizens? this doesnt even count the recent plague of ceo's stealing 10-20-30 million dollar salaries while golfing.
but if you duplicate binary bits that happen to form images when passed through an appropriate transmogrifier you go to jail for 3 years.
this people in this country are fooked! the only way to 'get ahead' in the new economy appears to be to break the rules and go for a winner take all one-time-fuck-everyone. if you want to survive, fuck your shareholders, fuck some government contract, fuck some competitor, send someone to die for oil, get a hundred million bucks, and then you're part of the "other half", you can live safely in your guarded conclave. sit at home, programming, sharing bits==go to jail.
its whistleblower versus pistol holder, demograns republicats one party system, they all gain from larger corporate subsidies.
Congress: The entertainment industry is evil and is hurting our children and families, it must be stopped! Congress: We need to protect entertainment industry so it can keep making products for our children and families!
"Beware of him who denies you access to information."
- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "For I have tasted the fruit"
I wish broadcasters and movie studios would learn from P2P instead of trying to eliminate it. I do not fit inside the typical demographic model they have for programs. I have a 55+ hr a week job and a 1 year old. I usually cannot watch my favorite shows when they are scheduled, and it is a real pain to get a babysitter so I can go to a theatre just to get mad at little teeny-bopper punks running in and out of the theatre and talking all the time. What I want is non-commercial TV on demand and first release movies that I can watch at home without waiting 4-8 months for the DVD. I will pay $100 - $150 a month for this type of service. They need to wake up to a missed financial opportunity.
Umm, no. The UK-US Extradition Treaty defines an extraditable offense as one which is a crime in both places. As long as this is legal in the UK, or does not qualify as a felony in the UK(as this now does in the USA), you cannot be extradited.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Usenet? I dont think thats P2P, and your not sharing anything unless you opt to upload something. And besides who actually downloads the latest movies off of "kazaa" or one of those programs, the quality is typically terrible. Somehow I don't think this will truely effect the more techy of people. imo
Even countries that have an extradition treaty do not extradite for every offense! They also have the right to impose conditions. For example, Canada will not agree to extraditing people wanted for murder if there is no prior agreement not to seek the death penalty, as that would go against Canada's laws http://www.ccadp.org/deathpenalty-canada.htm
I seriously doubt that any country will agree to extradition in such cases.oh and the "normalization" of copyright laws under FTAs isn't going to count? Australians are going to get a shock after July this year, you can bet on it.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
and this is the perfect example of why usenet / newsgroups are my best friend.
I don't know how the word "pirate" came to be associated with the downloading of movies or songs, but it makes no sense in this context. A pirate is someone who boarded other ships on the high seas and robbed them of their treasures. Providing a movie or song for download without authorization may not be ethical, but it's not piracy. By calling it such the MPAA/RIAA have managed to raise the perceived level of badness by several orders of magnitude.
The bill is not targeting "p2p pirates," but rather people who put movies up for download before release (which, really, they should be hunting down the people who got access to the movies in the first place). Calling them pirates implicity plays into the ??AA's game of criminalizing anything that doesn't net them a profit.
rooooar
I hope the ClearPlay exception is a wedge that get people thinking about who should be in control of what is viewed not just by children but by adults. Why should I be forced after purchasing anything to view parts of it I don't want, this would include preview, adds, FBI warnings, anything. Look I bought it now leave me alone. If I want to copy it to my computer hard drive and store the original in a safe place, let me do it and leave me only. I bought it, I didn't rent it I bought it.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
My friend who is Chinese tells me you can get any DVD you want on the street in China, even some movies before they even come out in the US. So does this mean that we impose sanctions on China for pirating American movies? Or do we only prosecute those that can not retaliate by threatening to cut off an endless supply of cheap labor?
Movie theater profits go up every year so I don't see the justification of this legislation, maybe they will start taking away DVD copiers and any other means to capture an image (VHS) that is copyrighted in order to solve this problem?
This article says the net profit margins on DVD sales are 50-60%, while the lingering VHS business sees 20-30% net profit. To put this into plain English, your average $20 DVD apparent costs around $9 to produce, advertise, distribute, etc., leaving about $11 on top as pure profit. For an industry supposedly under dire threat from piracy, things look pretty rosy.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Remember kids, when you use P2P, you're supporting terrorists, and because of that, using P2P will get you shipped to Syria where a confession will be tortured out of you, and then you'll be imprisoned without trial or access to a lawyer until such time as Democrats seize control of the government.
Which probably won't result in any more than cosmetic changes. If you have only two political parties it's quite cheap for special interests to buy both of them.
How does this affect, say, last night's broadcasts of network television, the stuff I can get with a simple pair of rabbit ears? Are videotaped/burned copies of last night's shows considered "unreleased" DVDs? Where is the line drawn?
I say go for it. From my point of view, crap like this is only more incentive for real people to make real "intellectual property" and distribute it as they see fit, e.g. via a Creative Commons license.
Let the rich, spoiled pigopolists push and shove until everyone knows them for what they truly are.
Although this law probably takes no account of how lax security may be in terms of allow unwitting would-be publishers getting hold of a pre-release work, it is morally laudable.
I'm all for abolishing copyright as applied to published works, but unpublished works are the only true 'intellectual property'.
If it's unpublished, it remains property. Once published, it belongs to the people and enters the public domain.
The archaic 'copyright incentive' was only a sweetener that granted a publication monopoly for a limited time. It's time that ended (at least on the Internet).
So, yes, if the IP is unpublished and under lock and key, then anyone who steals it and publishes it is a criminal of the first order. Although, someone who privately distributes something under NDA to 50,000 conference delegates does not really deserve as much damages as a movie company who has distributed a DVD to 50 reviewers.
How long until congress goes the final step and auctions off laws? It's obvious that many of the recent laws are simply bought, even if the politically correct term is "lobbyism". Why not go the whole nine yards? In the long run, it'll be the only way to save the exploding deficit anyways.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
you know, the last time i check this country was supposed to be, by the people for the people and of the people. now it seems like its by the corporations, for the Corporations, and of the upper 1%
Not even that. The Corporations doing the lobbying are only a tiny minority of those which exist. It's probably closer to the truth to say that the US is being run by professional lobbyests. Who represent the interests of a few corporations, organised crime, nutcases and possibly even foreign governments.
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Law!
Interestingly here in Italy a similar law was signed about a year ago. So I may guess extradition between US and Italy IS possible..
Don't know, there are extradition difficulties for mass murderers, I can't believe this could be applied for file sharers. Still it might be possible by law.
you just don't care about anything happening outside your country, do you?
"On 31 March, David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, signed an Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK with his United States counterpart, Attorney General Tom Ashcroft, ostensibly bringing the US into line with procedures between European countries. The UK parliament was not consulted at all and the text was not public available until the end of May. The only justification given for the delay was "administrative reasons", though these did not hold-up scrutiny by the US senate, which began almost immediately. The UK-US Treaty has three main effects: - (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals; - (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants; - (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement. An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US). Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments: "Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required."
Other countries deny extraditions if the person the United States wants extradited is convicted of a capital crime and will be killed. Another country doesn't want to hand over a captured bird into the hands of it's executioner. Sometimes the DA will agree not to kill the prisoner, as long as they come back and face the punishment for life in prison or something.
I take it you don't watch "law and order".
Well intentioned laws will ALWAYS be twisted to fit the cause of crooks.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm
"On 31 March, David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, signed an Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK with his United States counterpart, Attorney General Tom Ashcroft, ostensibly bringing the US into line with procedures between European countries. The UK parliament was not consulted at all and the text was not public available until the end of May. The only justification given for the delay was "administrative reasons", though these did not hold-up scrutiny by the US senate, which began almost immediately. The UK-US Treaty has three main effects: - (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals; - (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants; - (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement. An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US). Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments: "Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required."
Mod parent up! Isn't this what we've been asking for for years? "Don't make filesharing illegal!! Make the illegal filesharing (more) illegal and leave the apps alone!!" We just got what we wanted, backpats all around.
Or am I missing something?
--trb
1. Ban all hollywood and other corporate produced products like music and games out of your house. 2. start a community of independant production groups that make their's own movies, music,... 3. license all material under creative commons 4. ...
5. profit! $$$ (oh... wait!)
Point. In reading my post, please replace the line references to Democrats with references to Pigs Flying.
Actually, both parties have changed dramatically in the last few decades, so your comparison doesn't really hold water. Remember that in Lincoln's time, it was the Republicans pushing to free the slaves, but during 60's it was the Democrats, with the Republicans fighting to maintain segregation. Political parties change over time, often dramatically so.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Um... There are a number of people at Guantanamo Bay (and Abu Ghraib) who might disagree with you. US law applies to anyone the Yanks don't like and can lay their hands on.
SO, with the FMA (subset of FECA), a third party is now specifically permitted to distribute works that consist of the following kind of instructions:
"For Movie X perform the following:
Play N seconds
Pause N seconds
Skip N seconds
Blank screen
etc.
".
Obviously, this is pretty much sufficient to produce any order-preserved subset of video.
However, given a set of several of these 'subset' works, and an implicit instruction to add the combined output on a video mixer, what you end up with is sufficient to create absolutely any re-ordering or intermingling of frame sequences.
Now, you may think that no one is going to go and buy 50 or so DVDs necessary to produce the final combined work. You'd be right. However, that's not the point.
The point is, the FMA now permits artists to legitmately distribute 'video subset programs' without committing copyright infringement. An artist just says here's a list of subset programs I've created - I call it my 'Adjunct' Album.
It'll be quite easy for the punter to locate the necessary movie ingredients via filesharing systems. Indeed, they probably just have to search for 'Adjunct' and they get the finished work. The FMA however, permits an artist to openly publish and take the credit for such works.
So, this permits video mashups - derivative works prohibited prior to FMA.
What concerns me about this bill is the potential consequences on sharing of TV shows (I pay a @70USD subsction to Sky TV and their SKY+ service so I just view the ability to download torrents from the US as a show airs to be an extension to my subscription) - are people who share TV programs going to be liable for prosecution? Is this just going to result in the practice becoming more...circumspect and heading underground?
In addition - what about releases of NON-US IP? For example fan-subbed Anime, which while technically a violation of IP rights has quite possibly DRIVEN the creation of the Anime market in the West!
All in all IMO a poorly thought out, knee-jerk bill that may actually end up hurting the business interests of the same market it was supposed to protect.
As long as they declare war on your country and occupy it, this may be true.
America's law is still not world's law and hopefully won't be anytime soon!
I guess that's why we have different nations in the end...
If the US Law did apply to them, that would be a step forward. The problem is that the US detains them but does NOT apply US Law to them, nor any other recognisable form of Law.
How would this apply to bittorrents? Is seeding considered distributing?
cough cough cough .
Welcome to the 21st century.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Yay now in about 6 months are jails are gona be over populated with fileshares and they will let out all the murders and rapest, because filesharing is more serious then all of that !
US law only applies to USians. If you were a US citizen in the UK, sure, you could get into trouble.
No doubt "they" (Tony and George) are working on ways around that.
Extradition doesn't mean you enforce foreign law on your citizens, it means you agree to repatriate foreign countries' citizens if they're wanted by the courts.
Subject to certain conditions.
No doubt someone is working on new wording for a "free trade agreement" to get round this limitation...
"The MPAA's president Dan Glickman applauded the move, stating he wanted to 'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.'"
The congressional sponsors of this legislation would like to thank the MPAA for their strong men who delivered large brief cases stuffed with cash.
One day the gold runs out and the aristocrats lose their heads...
While I don't doubt the Entertainment Industry will consider this angle, the copyrighted work has already be distributed commercially (by broadcast), so I don't see how the law will apply. Now, if a pre-release DVD is distributed, then probably so.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
That would be Morgan's approach. Never liked him... Economic victories just aren't satisfying. Anyway, imprisonment wouldn't be the thing. Nerve stapling for people who watch the movie, and the distributors get the punishment sphere.
P.S. Shouldn't you say "Mwahahahahaaa!" or something at the end? ;-)
The bit about Daleks wasn't enough?
P.S. This little subthread is Offtopic, guys. A post can't be Overrated unless it's already been modded up. Mod me down by all means, Planet knows I've got the karma to spare, but get the classification right ;-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
In which case, it's time for a new political party!
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Um... There are a number of people at Guantanamo Bay (and Abu Ghraib) who might disagree with you. US law applies to anyone the Yanks don't like and can lay their hands on.
Except that US law most definitly does not apply to the people kidnaapped to Cuba. Effectivly the people held in Guantanamo Bay appear to be held somewhere where their kidnappers are not subject to any country's laws.
Consider the Case of Raymond Griffiths. He is better know the to world as Bandido, the former Co-Leader of the "international Piracy Conspiracy" that went by the name of Drink Or Die.
8 24236&from=rss
His Case in fact was covered Here http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/11/1
Despite the fact that he had never left Australia and Despite the fact that he did not Protit from his work, the basis of the crime in Australia, He is being Extradited to the US to face NET Act Charges.
So yes, they can do that.
I'm just glad he's focusing on terrorism.
mbbac
How about just dropping the idea of civil and criminal courts all together? Hell fuck it, while were at it, 'rule of law' is an out-dated idea and not allowing people to pay money to get bills passed is practically to communism!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
God forbid the is ever written a Lil' Brudder Act. It probably would hide the fact they intend to poison anyone who isn't white and right wing Christian.
I'd suggest we start hunting down filesharing criminals related to senators, representatives, the president and his staff, lawyers, leaders of corporations, and members of the **AA.
might as well add the pastors children to the list too.
The only way I can see the stop laws like this is to send the ruling class's children to prison.
Let me see, since I woke up this morning I learned that you can now go to jail for having a movie in a shared folder, in Florida you can shoot someone dead in your house and the prosecutor is to assume you were in the right, a senator is moving to ban all books written by gays or containing gay characters, European digitization of literature is seen as an attack on American interests (Google), Bill Gates wants unrestricted access to import foreign tech workers and Wal-Mart has used the DCMA act to squash a parody. I'm going back to bed before I read the Scopes Monkey Trial will be going back to appeal
Something occured to me
This is the struggle of the past. It's hard shifting humanity's patterns that much.
There was a time it made some sense paying some big money for, say, movies and music. People not only had to create the content, but manage distribution and production. That gave you reason enough to pay. Nowadays, production and distribution can be esentially free - if it's done online. If you only have to pay for the content production costs, it'd be a good reason to pay. If you have to pay for production and distribution, when you know you can get it for free, people start to wonder if anything makes sense.
It's as if someone invented a duplicating machine that duplicated any object. Suddenly, duplicating your furniture or your home appliances would be illegal, and the government would try to force us to keep living in the past by the force of the law. Instead of adapt to what we can be, we must struggle in the line between what's legal and what's a crime and try to find an artificial balance.
We're living on a different world, we just can't accept it. Selling media as if it was a plastic object is dead, but we will stil take centuries to "get" it.
I sure am glad that our government for who I just paid a huge sum of $$$ in taxes, is spending it on this instead of...
-Fixing Roads
-Increasing Eductional spending
-Finding alternative fuels
-Feeding the homeless
-Ending the war in Iraq
-Curing disease
-Feeding Africa
-Keeping jobs from going overseas
-Fixing MS TCP/IP stack
-Preventing Firestations from closing.
-Getting Arnold out of the governors office so we can finish the BayBridge.
I guess sh!t like this is good for a sound bite, but in the grand scheme of things the RIAA/movie studios should be able to fix this problem on their own. Isn't that the beauty of capitalism?
You don't watch much news do you?
The US has been shipping people overseas for "interrogation" for a few years now. It was almost killed by a lawsuit about a year and a half ago, until it was ruled that the US could use information from overseas interrogations, even if torture was used in extracting the information. After that, people who aren't US citizens have been shipped overseas for interrogation in even larger numbers. I believe Syria is one of the major destinations.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
how many years will they get? Oh I forgot, when you hand it over to someone in a brown envelope it isn't d'innernet so that's okay.
Will I go to jail if I download this weeks episode of Doctor Who an hour or so after it airs on the BBC? Does this law cover foreign productions such as this.
Would I also be breaking the law by buying a region 2 DVD of Doctor Who from the BBC when it's released and then hacking my region 1 DVD player to watch it (I live in region 1)? It might be 10 years before PBS picks up the new episodes in the US if they ever do.
If you steal a DVD from a store, you get LESS penalties (even if you used a gun to do it or something) than if you infringe copyright on the movie (by up/downloading it)
Wonderful, With the recent news from France (about removing DVD encryption/DRM) and England (over Music CD's) whose governments work on the side of the people and care for their rights our lovely U.S. of A is right there enacting more laws for the lobbyists and businesses crying the loudest and paying the most. Gotta love how things work here, sure! come up with more restrictive "Family Entertainment" we'll help enforce it... don't try to fix your businesses shortcomings or *gasp* compete and innovate with technology... no, no, just pay us and we'll fix your problems by enforcing restrictive laws on our citizens who pay for you and us! And we keep accepting this, ya know it is really starting to be time to stand up and fight back for our interests. America was founded because of high British taxes, proportionately we are now paying over that amount here in America... people used to be so pissed they left and started a new country over less! We have to wake up soon.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
You have my sympathies, neighbours.
Here's my concern. Say Micronesia passes an identical and reciprocal law, and it honors extradition treaties with the United States. Say further that some college kid uploads a copy of "Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970) to the peer to peer networks tomorrow. But wait! That movie (1970) was never released in Micronesia. (Lets say most movies are never officially released there) Pretty soon the kid has some FBI agent threatening to extradite him to some third world country where he'll likely die in jail unless he signs such and such paper and pays such and such damages. This was not the intent of the lawmakers, but the law could be abused as such.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
I'm sure some Mormons were looking forward to the ability to censor movies for themselves, and frankly they should be able to.
So when are we all going to go turn ourselves in by the guilty millions, and plug up the courts, and bring some ridiculous attention to this?
Oh. Right. We don't *do* things anymore.
Or even better think!
To Slashdot or not to Slashdot. That is the question (that will cause me to fail an interview)
While I don't doubt the Entertainment Industry will consider this angle, the copyrighted work has already be distributed commercially (by broadcast), so I don't see how the law will apply. Now, if a pre-release DVD is distributed, then probably so.
Possibly you could say that of cable programs.
However broadcast distribution OTA of programs is not "commerical" - after all, did you pay for it? Nope. So I could easily see an argument that this law would apply for any network program.
Obviously you could make this exact argument if you were being tried for this but it really leaves the door open and you can see an amendment coming which might exactly specify that broadcast (even cable) was not commercial release.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Indeed, people have been watching edited-for-television movies like Predator for years, and I'm sure there are some that have watched it that have never seen the theatrical release and thus don't know what that Predator's face looks like under his faceplate, or that he's able to speak (well, imitate) English at all.
It's one of the more bizarre edits for television I've seen. It makes the final fight scene a bit incomprehensible.
Apparently it was done so it could run in a 2 hr. timeslot with 40 minutes (or whatever) of commercials as the corresponding content of Predator 2 is intact.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I love how so many /.ers are all in favor of total intellectual property freedom and the ability to do whatever with whoever's IP whenever, but when the conservatives want to make it okay to skip past objectionable content on a DVD they bought, then everyone gets so pompous and self righteous over it. "How dare the Christian right be allowed to skip through scenes they don't want to see? Those were put in to piss them off in the first place! It's not fair!"
That right there sums it up. If it is okay to skip to the naughty bits for some, it should be okay to skip past the naughty bits for others. If DRM is bad then it is bad. Not okay to allow us to do what we want but not okay to allow others to do what they want. It's not censorship for people to have the ability to skip what they don't want to watch. If it is, then it's censoring you when I stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes, right? And if I can't see you, then I'm invisible, right?
Can we try to drop the ultra-leftist claptrap for five seconds and see that the problem is that a bad law, punishing people with penalties out of all proportion to the offense, has been rammed down our throats at the behest of the MPAA which is slowly becoming alarmingly like an unofficial branch of Homeland Security?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Skipping over the R rated stuff in movies is interesting, but I think it can lead to something even more interesting - good re-edited versions.
The thing that comes most to mind it Star Wars EP1. You may recall a re-edited version called "The Phantom Edit". If a DVD player could basically recreate that version from source material, posibly having the ability to inster new subtitles at points and new audio over some parts, then that would be fantastic. And there are other poorly edited movies out there that fans could fix up and basically distribte the movie "patch:" file to give you a whole new expierience with movies you already owned.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
granted i enjoy reading everyones rants and raves on /. as much as the next, but what will that solve? do you honestly think any legislation will read any of these posts? I highly doubt it, maybe instead of all posting or thoughts on here, we should copy it over to OpenOffice and send it out to your respected state representative/senator. Thats the only way anyone will ever know people think otherwise. If the only opinion they hear is from the RIAA and MPAA, thats what they will listen to (Of course the funding they supply doesnt hurt either) but you gotta start somewhere
is FEACAL!
People posting last nights TV show were already a criminal.
Duh.
However broadcast distribution OTA of programs is not "commerical" - after all, did you pay for it?
No, the advertisers paid for me.
And I have never been under any obligation to pay the advertisers in any way for the programs I watch. I don't even have to pay them attention.
And now I'm legally empowered to present television in a derivative form that excludes commercials! (At least so long as a tangible copy isn't made.) TiVo should be releasing their version of ReplayTV's commercial skip feature any day now.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Everything ends up on newsgroups so would that mean a newgroup provider host could be considered someone distributing a pre-release copy of a movie?
A reasonable judge/jury is going to weigh at least a few different factors:
- How serious was the crime? Did the defendent distribute a single episode of Friends, or is he running an international DVD pirating ring?
- Does the defendent have any prior convictions? For what?
- How much damage was done to the copyright owners?
The maximum sentence would only be given in the most extreme circumstances, and it's really there for the protection of the defendent. I can't see your average TV-copyright-infringer getting more than a couple months of probation.The problem is that your very religious friends are much more likely to hate your gay friends than vice-versa. While gays are pained and saddened by the hatred spewed at them by the religious right, you'll be hard pressed to find many who express such hatred in return.
I don't think most on the left would say they hate the christian conservatives. Rather, we fear them, and their control of the political process. We'd be perfectly happy if they just wanted to have their views in the privacy of their own homes. What really bothers us is their need to enforce those views on our lives. If they could just enforce those views on their own lives, everything would be fine.
The left is all about the freedom to be different, the right is all about enforcement of uniformity.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Or refuse extradition for anything at all. The UK will not extradite even a mass murderer to the USA if he/she will face the death penalty, for instance. But any country will extradite someone on any excuse if they have their own reasons for wanting that person out of their country.
That said...
Despite the fact that he had never left Australia and Despite the fact that he did not Protit from his work, the basis of the crime in Australia,
Just finished reading the Australian Copyright Act. Copyright Infringement does NOT require profit. "Infringement by Sale and Other Dealings" is only one mode of infringement, and the only one that requires profit to be sustained.
In fact, section 10AB defines a "non-infringing copy of a computer program" as:
A copy of a computer program is a non-infringing copy only if:
(a) it is made in a qualifying country; and
(b) its making did not constitute an infringement of any copyright in a work under a law of that country.
which looks like an infringement under US Law is an infringement under Australian Law by definition. And thus extraditable.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"If the movie is well made with an entertaining story line, the gratuitous scenes are not necessary." You're probably right about that. I wonder, though... what if the point of the movie isn't to entertain? Your argument can be applied to any part of a movie that someone would like to censor. An entertaining movie can be made without using the word "fuck." Such a movie can be made without depicting criminals who do not pay for their crimes, which never implies that anybody has sex, and which shows no drug use or behaviour disrespectful to those in authority. The fact that a good movie can be made without these elements is no justification for removing them. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is an excellent example, because it is chock full from start to finish of unpleasant scenes with bad people doing ugly things. A bowdlerized version that has any of the value of the original simply cannot be made, because it is portrait of the real consequences of terrible behaviour. It is also a brilliant film. If a brilliant film can be made which cannot be reasonable censored, then the artist should have the right to ensure that piece is not distributed in a mangled version. Particularly dangerous is the subject of rape. If a rape scene is edited to be implied, rather than explicit and challenging, a significant change has been made to the message of a movie. The sanitized media environment of the 50s is part of the reason that women of the time had so little recourse when raped. It was as shameful thing to be hidden from, not an evil to be confronted. Talking of "entertainment" when discussing film censorship is specious. Entertainment is rarely the primary aim of truly great films, even if said films are entertaining.
... Cool! ... oh, wait, it said lawbreakers ...
never mind.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You might find the work going on at www.i2p.net rather interesting. They've already got anonymous HTTP, NNTP, FTP, streaming audio, and, yes, bittorrent up and running rather nicely - decent speeds, good anonymity and security (though it's still in beta, the security is already impressive, and getting stronger with each release)
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
I am so tired of the hate that is spread all over. People need to move closer to each other again instead of amplifying polarization.
I agree.
It's the modern way to assume that once you've made your decision about an issue that it is the 'correct' opinion and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, intolerant, stupid, ignorant, going to hell, etc.
We need to transition to a place where we can discuss things without ending up hating each other.
I've got a comment about the actions of the multimedia moguls but it's really unprintable. So no comment ...
closer to 25k
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Alright so music... BAD! movies... BAD! TV shows ...?
I'm really curious to see how this might be applied to P2P websites which distribute copies of network TV shows. No matter how we look at it in the end if you're downloading a movie/song/software package that you'd otherwise have to pay for to get access to you're doing something "wrong." Now the magnitude of that wrong might be blown out of proportion by isolating you from the free world for 3 years, but still it's going to be considered wrong.
Now for TV shows which I could either turn my TV on and watch when the network decides to spew them at me (which may or may not be the most convenient time for me to watch), record it on my good ol fashioned VCR or new-fangled Tivo, or right now download it from one of these TV torrent websites.
Unfortunately every article I read about these TV torrents seems to refer to them as "illegal" yet I haven't seen any law that differentiates between my VCR tape and my 24.e401.avi copy of a TV show I got either from my Tivo or online. I could possibly see producers using this law though claiming someone is distributing their work which they planned to profit from (via series DVD sales later on or whatnot). I'm hoping it doesn't happen, but this may be a step in that direction.
I thought conservatives were against big goverment getting into our lives...such as how they want to deregulate industries that contribute to them, uphold segregation and lower taxes on the rich, but when it comes to what we do in our bedroom, the right to decide if we want to have children, what scientists can research, whether we have the right to end our lives or even what we do on the internet the conservatives stand for big brother and want to control what we do. Please be consistent, if you want to promote less intrusive government for business have the moral consistency to support it for the private citizen as well, other wise the Republicans might appear to value campaign contributions and religious values more than the constitution.
Its a long slipperly slope, who gets to say what ought to be shown. If you don't want to see it, vote with your wallet and don't.
I partially agree however, many movies go overboard and many others have sex or violent scenes when it doesn't forward plot or character.
Or at least that is how it used to be, now its "We the corporations..."
The people are no longer being represented. The government has defaulted on its contract. Its time for a replacement.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This law appears to target the Distributor (pirate) not the consumer or the distribution method.
Why does that matter?
It sets a precedent against criminalizing a large portion of the population. (See the U.S. prohibition of alcohol) If the only ones who land in jail are the ones willfully breaking the law, I won't shed a tear and frankly, the average consumer will go where the best price can be found regardless of the seller so it is impractical to try to "turn" public opinion on the subject or jail everyone who has seen or purchased a copied movie. You can't just illegalize P2P protocol applications either there is far too much legitimate use, besides, where do you draw the line? P2P is just one computer connected to another, the basis of all Network communication.
Piracy is wrong but the movie industry will not be able to guilt us into doing right, so the only option is to go after the distribution of illegal copies and give the customers what they want so they do not feel the need to go elsewhere.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
but now whose gonna protect me when i come up with the hundred million dollar script that those hollywood execs will steal from me and refuse to pay me a dime for what i wrote? hey you never know it could happen....
How many has he liberated from oppression? How many are now free to walk the streets? How many are women are getting educated? Its not that I don't disagree with you, but I just look at things from a different perspective. That, and my numbers are larger than yours. I'll put your 25,000 vs my 25 million who have freedom and the rights to make their own decisions using their own elected government officials. where did I get my facts? CIA world factbook 25,374,691 (July 2004 est.)
Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting someone else to do the work. --John G. Pollard
Here he is signing a law that helps a big business (the movie industry) - a traditionally Republican thing to do.
Yet according to Republicans, the movie industry (the big business that is helped by this law) is full of people who are anti-traditional values, anti-decency, liberal and anti-Republican - all characteristics that make the movie industry one that a good Republican ought to want to help quash.
Accordingly, if movie piracy really threatens the existence of the movie industry, wouldn't Bush be better served not to sign bills that are designed to help eliminate piracy (and thus preserve this thorn in the side of the Republican party)?
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Almost as interesting as this one.
Otherwise known as FECAL!
This does nothing but make people upload and release a pre-releases from servers overseas. How will America enforce a 3 year sentence to someone who did not commit a crime in the United States and not an American citizen?
The number of federal inmates on death row is 37, Federal Death Roll Inmates, the number in Texas alone, 447. Death Roll Inmates By State
When the Feds do become involved, the sentences are rarely lightweight and the prospects for early release are negligible. California man sentenced to 30 years in sex case
From BoingBoing, but above is the link to the real article. It doesn't answer that buring question: Does Bush listen to the Dixie Chicks?
Think Deeply.
Its cheaper and less jail time to rape, pillage, etc.. than it is to download a movie?
Yep..... where are we going?? and whats up with this hand basket?
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
The Battlestar Galactica mini-series is being re-run tonight on the Sci-Fi channel, so you shouldn't have to worry about it.
could someone please explain to me how the hell they plan to inforce this waste of taxpayers money because i don't get it you get cought only if you share is that it
You cannot seriously believe that all art will come to an end.
No business model has a right to exist in an inherently unsuitable environment. Copyright was created in an era when only a few publishers existed, and was only to grant publishers the ability to protect a brief, exclusive monopoly over publication. It was not intended to permit multinational megacorps to bankrupt non-commercial citizens on the roll of a die.
Open Source and the Creative Commons are beginning to demonstrate that even when copying is expressly permitted, the creators are not necessarily denied reward for their labours.
The abolition of copyright will not see artists on one side of a chasm and willing consumers on the other, unable to do business with each other. That prospect comes from a lack of imagination.
Now that we have taken care of the important issues like hunger, disease, and national security, we can now worry about civil manners like copyright violations.
Yes, I realize he just make this one a criminal issue due to the signing of the bill into law, but its wrong.
As much as I support my country, its getting to the point that its really the corporations country, and its about time to move out.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The problem is that your very religious friends are much more likely to hate your gay friends than vice-versa.
Can you not seee that you are spewing intoleant bigotry here? You're judging this guy's friends, none of whom you actually know, based entirely on your prejudices about these groups. Don't live your life by stereotypes.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Family Entertainment Copyright Act legislation (needed the "L") ;)
"... thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights... " and, for FREEDOM!
So we should tear down the exisiting system for music, movies, and books, completely, without anything to replace it.
There are significant differences between open source code development, and mass media "art".
Working on open source code can get you a paying job somewhere. Providing support for the applications, or by doing other programming work, since you have a demonstrated talent for coding. It can also be done fairly efficiently as a hobby, as well. Since different pieces of the code can be worked on by various people, in a distributed manner, quite easily. And there isn't really much in the way of capital costs to produce code, either. A PC is pretty damn cheap, all things considered.
That is emphatically not the case with music, and writing, and film.
In Music, you *might* be able to get a job as a musician performing live. But that won't begin to cover the production costs of recording a studio quality album. I have friends that are in major label bands. And they don't make anything at all from their releases. They don't cover the advance at all. But they do make enough to survive on, by touring. If the labels disappeared, then they wouldn't be able to tour either, however. Because they would not have any marketing behind their album. And in all likelyhood, would be a local bar band instead. Not a band that can tour the US/World, and play for a wide group of fans.
With writing, again, some jobs may be available for staff writers doing internal documentation, etc. But by and large there aren't going to be many writing jobs at all. Once you kill off all IP law, and copyrights, then suddenly whole swathes of the economy are bankrupt. Newspapers, magazines, book publishers, all gone in the blink of an eye. When everything they produce is released free by others, immediately, then the advertising revenue will vanish as well. The market just dissolves, and disappears.
And the TV, and movies will suffer as well. When there's no chance of recouping the investment on a multimillion dollar movie, they will cease to exist. You may not like big budget movies. But obviously many people do, or they wouldn't pay to see them. Once they are available for free, and there's no chance to earn box office revenue, then they will disappear. No future Star Wars epics, HHGTTG is gone. All of it is no longer economically viable at all.
So again, I ask. How do you propose to replace the current system, so that there is still a means for artists to produce on the scale they do now? By trashing all IP and copyrights, you're depriving everyone of vast sums of art which we appreciate.
Just because you can arrange to get art for free, doesn't mean you have the right to take all you want for free.
It's a luxury good, anyhow. And so arguing that mega-corps bankrupt citizens through their control of copyrights, is absurd. If you don't want to pay for arts, then you have the option to not consume. And the only person harmed by your failure to pay, and consume, is yourself. Don't deprive me of the vast wealth of choices, just because you're too cheap to pay for what you like.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Sorry, what did you say is the definition of bigoty?
eBayDig 1s a typo saerch engien
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act... So it's still ok to download porn right?
a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
Admittedly what is on display is a more specialized form of bigotry - intolerant of the opinions of the religious right.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
" Since mr. GW Bush is a known pirate, I suggest the DOJ investigate him first. Any other course of action would make a mockery of the supposed blindness of lady justice."
More reputable news sources claim the songs on Bush's iPod were purchased through iTunes
Vote for Pedro
" Isnt just downright amazing how out of sync sentencing is for certain crimes?
Take for example Massachusetts Sentencing Guidlines. And compare it to this new federal law that was signed.
Larceny on a scale of $10,000-$50,000 can get an offender 36 months (in some cases, less!) than someone breaking copyright on a *single file*. This means that Person A can walk into a physical record store and almost wipe the store clean via theft, and get sentenced the same as Person B who shares one copyrighted song online."
The law is targeting people who make copies of unreleased movies and put them on the web before theatrical release. I'm betting the amount lost in ticket sales for Star Wars Episode II is at least $10K to $50K
Vote for Pedro
The problem is that your very religious friends are much more likely to hate your gay friends than vice-versa.M
First of all, remember that mix I was talking about? Some of my gay friends ARE also quite religious! You are engaging in a dangerous and common stereotype. There are a LOT of gay people who are also very conservative and religious and the sooner people wake up and realize this the sooner they may be more widely accepted than they are now, because right now when people say they are gay it comes with all sorts of baggage that may not even belong to the person coming out.
Secondly, I have seen more people that are made uncomfortable by religion than by someone's sexual orientation. One of my friends cannot even stand to sit through any kind of event with any religious overtones as it "freaks her out" too much. To me that's kind of sad. In my mind you should be able to sit down and enjoy anything from a gay marriage to a full-blown religious ceremony and enjoy them for what they are. But people get built-in preconceptions of different groups of people in thier heads and it colors experiences they have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's your "get out of jail free" card for today, folks.
Read the thing.
It makes it a crime to distribute unreleased works, that are destined for commercial release.
And your suggestion that people will pool their resources to produce works on the scale of a Star Wars, is pretty absurd. There's FAR too many variables that are unknown to the masses at the beginning of a project like that, for people to be expected to invest.
Further, by and large people will take the attitude that they can just wait and get it for free anyhow. And that their contribution won't measurably speed up the the process. So why bother.
I don't see the system as disintegrating at all. Think that it could be made to work, effectively. Without some of the draconian retrictions that are proposed by the *AA's hopefully.
We live in a market based economy. It's fairly well established that the market works, by and large to promote the betterment of society. The public is supplied with a wide variety of arts thanks to the ability of artists to make a good living, if they provide things that the masses like. The odds of them getting to a mass market are MUCH smaller if the mechanisms for marketing are stripped away and discarded.
I don't think that artists would be denied payment under a no IP law world. I just think they wouldn't make enough to actually qualify as more than a hobby for virtually all of them. And I'm not willing to discard all the choice I have now, thanks to a relatively reasonable copyright system.
I don't think it's perfect. I'm positive that they are issued for FAR too long, at least. But I think it's FAR preferable to the alternatives.
For those artists that chose to, they absolutely have the right to release their works under something akin to the GPL at any time. Let me know when one of them manages to produce something on the scale of a Star Wars, or a John Grisham, or even something like a Sin City.
I don't expect in my lifetime to see it tho.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I've also pretty much stopped going to the theator (except with friends really want to go). All of you complain that you don't like what they are doing, but clearly you upset that you can't watch the movies for free or it wouldn't matter. Ex. If a law was passwed that made it illegal to eat dog crap, then no one would complain because it doesn't really effect anything.
Further, all the hand-wringing over the artist's "rights" is a crock. Untalented "artists" try to compensate for lack of talent with sensational special effects, gore, sex, etc. Most of them should study the classics (Citizen Caine, Casablanca, The Magnificant Seven, et al) and get a clue about what real artists do.
Sorry, you don't get to decide what is or isn't art based on what you find distasteful. A lot of us don't agree with your criteria at all - your line between appropriate and "gratuitous" violence or sex is not universal.
Freedom: "I won't!"
In other news, the US Congress passes law targeting P2P pirates.
Before you start dressing in sackcloth and ashes over Bush's signing of this bill, first ask yourself if your own representatives or senators voted for it. The reason we're in this mess is because people like you find it easier to blame the big guy on national television instead of little guy who only makes your state and local newspapers.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
There is some similarity to what Tacitus said, in Tao Te King by Lao Tse:
- Voice of Ambience -
Exactly what percentage of piracy takes place on p2p networks anymore? That's the domain of 12 year olds and grandmothers. If these people knew anything, they'd be going after usenet, but that'll never happen. They'd have an easier time going "All this pirateseness is on teh intarweb, so uhh...let's turn it off!"
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
that in the footseteps of the U.S.A. - P.A.T.R.I.O.T act that this is F.E.C.A.Legislation?
You suggest that there are alternate systems that will be much more effective than the current copyright system.
Why don't we test it.
You say that releasing everything under a GPL like license is the best way to promote the arts. I say that system wouldn't work.
You say that the current system is broken, totally and needs to be ripped out, and thrown away.
The system we have works. Maybe it's not ideal, but it is a system that has a decent track record for allowing artists to thrive under it.
Fortuantely the system you envision as the ideal could operate in parallel to the current copyright system.
Artists that want to work under the current system, and have the protections for their works that it provides, can continue to do just that. They can work through existing channels, and continue to have legal enforcement of the copyrights to their works.
Other artists can freely choose to operate under your system. They can freely distribute their works, and accept donations for doing so. And people that feel the way you do, are welcome to flock to those artists.
Since you have such a strong feeling about the fact that the system we have is broken, I heartily endorse your immediate adoption of the newer system. Make like RMS, and Tridge. Refuse to use anything that is not totally open. Dump all your commercial CD's etc. Only watch PBS on TV, you can even freeload off my tax support of PBS since I don't watch my "share" for what I'm forced to contribute by the government. Really live by what you are preaching.
As more artists come to realize that your way is better, they can abandon the "older" way, and more and more works will be released into the public domain from day of release. Eventually as everyone comes to realize that your system is far superior, the old laws will be come irrelevant. The vast sums of material being released freely will make the small amounts of copyrighted material irrelevant.
So you go live that life. Only watch/read/consume that which is free. But DO NOT for one second force me to. What I've just proposed would work. And you would have all the free media that your fellow spirits can create. While I choose to consume copyrighted materials still. Perhaps with time, I'll see that your "side" has the better selection and I'll join you. Don't count on it. My money says that "commercial arts" will continue to thrive on my side of the fence for a LONG time.
By trashing the current system you, without a provable model for a replacement, you are depriving people of the arts they have grown used to. That is not your right. You want to limit you choices, do it on your own. Don't force me to join you, just because of your ideology.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
On the contrary, that's a great story. If only one in one thousand christians actually lived their lives that way, we'd be so much better off!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
No, it is copyright infringement, "plain and simple." (I am really starting to HATE this phrase!) It is still illegal (before you accuse me of saying it is not illegal), but the reason it is not theft under law, and not so philosophically and morally to me, is because I was taught that theft requited loss of something you had, and that if you still had something while it was supposively "taken" it was copying, or something else that was wrong in certain cases, pre-release leaking included.
I don't, and I think only a minority here in THIS topic so far, actually have done what you have stated. Most of us know/accept that copyright infringement is illegal. And no, you "stole" nothing by copying "Dragostea Din Tei" for example, just copied and have the potential, which is undertain, of illegally reducing the potential to make money by the copyright holder.
Untrue (I am a living example of this being untrue), I have shared files, and never shoplifted, who the hell are you to say this will happen, and if it does to everybody? This is just baseless FUD and bullshit. Sharing files doesn't automatically instill the idea that shoplifting is o.k.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
NO, Copying and redistributing copyrighted works without permission
Copyrighted is not the issue, pauyment is not the issue, permissions is the key issue, and statements like what I just wuoted just make this less apparent. Think about it, independent artists share their own copyright music for free, which would be illegal under some mis-quotation/understanding/misconception of copyright laws shown by certain copyright advocates unintentionally.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Have you checked out Mute? It implements an anonymous P2P network, as you describe.
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
I'll probably be modded down for this...
But I worry that we're already in a society where people can tailor their information stream to precisely match their pre-conceived biases.
I hear you on this one, it seems unsettling. However I think the trend is inevitible - so in my view the best thing to do is accellerate the trend as much as possible so people can see the excesses of it early on. If you pull on the brake eventually it just lets loose anyway so let go ad see where the ride takes us.
That's why I'd welcome a DVD player as I outlined, along with the "Bible Thumper" (nothing derogitory meant there for you bron-again guys/gals out there) version of "Inherit the Wind" so people could think "Hey! That's kinf of happening to me already, perhaps I should get out a little more, metaphorically speaking". Also excesses like that will just been seen as humurous by many, again taking some wind out of the dangerous side of the trend.
I think in the end real life will generally force people to meet other different people enough that people can't really shut themselves into one tiny sliver of opinion. And I think people will end up seeking sources that are "leaning" the way they like but are at least fuzzy around the edges if not well-rounded.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What if I produce a movie and don't want people to distribute it in edited form?
Ah! At last, a use for that "disk will self-destruct in five seconds" technology that was being touted a while back.
I think The Fountainhead would be a good choice for a proof-of-concept here.
Is that it also allows third parties to strip offensive content from movies without creators' consent.
So I suppose that also means that The Phantom Edit is now a legitimate and legally distributable video.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The MPAA's president Dan Glickman applauded the move, stating he wanted to 'thank the congressional sponsors of this legislation for their strong advocacy for intellectual property rights.'"
Wait a minute. Dan has to do post-thanks as well as pre-thanks? How much money do these "sponsors" need to push bills through?
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
I'm really not religious myself, I've not attended a service in years. But I can still hear people talkimg about God and be OK with that.
I gre up with a really mixed bag of some people that were very religious and some that were not. I wound up in the middle I guess. But it doesn't seem like it would be that special to be tolerant of a lot of different viewpoints.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What can I say? This Bush guy.. he seems to have a real knack for falling on the right side of the fight between the rich and powerful and the meager and loose-knit.
Thank goodness we have a few more years of him.
If I were forced to live in an America where our political leaders made conscientious choices not in the gratuitous interest of stuipdly rich, avaricious plutocrats.. well, I don't think I could toe their party line any more.
The only political cause I can really pledge my portfolio to these days is bare-knuckled monopoly.. anything else, and the competition is just too great to ensure rising profits. And it's rising profits that keeps me sipping G&Ts at the club all week long. Can't argue with success!
I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide upon whose soil a hacking attempt takes place. It's definitely ambiguous, to put it nicely.
As for the Ukranian guy, it sucks, but them's the breaks of international travel. If you wander into a country with extradition laws that can screw you over, you stand to get screwed over. That's not to say I like it, just how it is.
It seems like extradition laws themselves aren't the problem, just the flagrant misapplication of their intent. (Skylarov, much?)
"All I do is eat and poop!" -- Bean
You don't have to hold even one bit of conmtent of a 5GB video file in order to make its content available.
Take the file. Xor it with a random 5GB string of bits. Computer A holds the random string. Computer B holds the result of the xor operation, that is also a perfectly random string of bits. Computer C holds the info on the locations of A and B. Computer A has absolutely no info on the contents of the original file. Not even one bit! It just has a string of random bits. So does Computer B. If the owners of computers A or B scan their file system for content, they will not find any info related to the original file. Computer C holds info on how to reconstruct the file, but it doesn't hold even one bit of the original file. If the owner of computer C scans her file system for content, she will not find even 1 bit of the content of the original file! So this is a case where 0+0=1 (the + here is on computer C, of course).
You might think that still each of A and B holds half the info, but they don't. If you get what's on A, you still need to get 5GB from B to reconstruct the file, and 5 GB is the whole file!
So, you don't need to pass the info through computers that need to refrain from scanning their files so they don't know what's in them. You just have to divide the info between several parties so that each party holds no info at all!
Second, I can imagine them having a tough time convicting anyone of this. After all, what defines the media? The hundreds of thousands of tiny pictures and sound trak on a film reel, after all, are entirely different than the ones and zeros you are downloading on your computer. It's like saying you can't sell the statue of liberty - well can you sell pictures you took of it? Nobody is redistributing a studios work - nobody is redistributing the reels or even copies of the reels.
from the law...
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
`(B) 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; or
phonorecords? Are you serious?! I hope someone recorded congress using the word "phonorecords" on their dictaphone!
or else!
I think P2P forces the movie industry to release their movies on DVD or tape.
:-)
Also because of region codes on DVD's. Like here in Europe the DVD-release is about a month later. When a movie is released somewhere everyone can start looking for it.
I like P2P-networks because it's a working chaos!
Cheers
make install, not war