Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bush Signs Law Targeting P2P Pirates

Posted by Zonk on from the another-victory-in-the-war-on-terror dept.

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.'"

15 of 727 comments (clear)

  1. Not that bad... by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Before we hear people slamming this (because it's Bush related), read what the EFF has to say about it...

    Straight from the EFF's Fred von Lohmann:
    April 22, 2005

    As many have reported, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (S.167/H.R. 357), recently passed the House, which also issued a committee report about the bill. Since the identical language had already passed the Senate in February, the measure now goes to President Bush for signature.

    There has been some alarmist reporting about the bill. While it's decidedly a mixed bag, I think the bill should be marked as more victory than a defeat for the public interest side in the copyfight.
    ...And the bottom line from the EFF:
    The real silver lining here emerges when you consider where the entertainment industry started back in 2003, and where they've ended up in 2005. After two years of heavy investments in lobbying Congress for a host of outrageous changes to copyright laws (like the Induce Act), the entertainment moguls managed to enact only a tiny sliver of their agenda, and only by granting concessions to ClearPlay.
    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Not that bad... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real silver lining here emerges when you consider where the entertainment industry started back in 2003, and where they've ended up in 2005. After two years of heavy investments in lobbying Congress for a host of outrageous changes to copyright laws (like the Induce Act), the entertainment moguls managed to enact only a tiny sliver of their agenda, and only by granting concessions to ClearPlay.

      And yet after 229 years of lobbying Congress the flesh and blood people of this fine country and losing their rights sliver by sliver to those "people" created out of paper and ink.

    2. Re:Not that bad... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Informative
      (3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--

      (A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--

      (i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

      (ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

      (B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--

      (i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

      (ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.


      Thus, for a motion picture such as Battlestar Galactica, there is a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution, but it has not been commercially distributed. It has not been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility, however, since the definition for that term is: The term `motion picture exhibition facility' means a movie theater, screening room, or other venue that is being used primarily for the exhibition of a copyrighted motion picture, if such exhibition is open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.

      So since only one or the other has to be satisfied, it is a work being prepared for commercial release. Willfully distributing it on a computer network (e.g. Bit Torrent) is a felony and can result in significant civil penalties.

      Is it so hard to look at the text of the law in question?
      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. In soviet russia... by TrippTDF · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they don't have this problem.

  3. New name for law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

  4. the word sponsor just leaves a bad taste.... by VMaN · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....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)

    1. Re:the word sponsor just leaves a bad taste.... by doublem · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the REAL Golden Rule.

      The one who has the Gold makes the Rules

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  5. irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    irony: President Bush signing anything that involves the word "intellectual"

  6. Re:Not just Americans by ThunderBucket · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  7. Time Shift? by maotx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. lets get drunk and drive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Arrest the First Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Amazing by mattmentecky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Not just Americans by jobsagoodun · · Score: 5, Interesting
    f you break American law (e.g. this one) and live in any country (like the UK) which has an extradition treaty with the USA you can be brought to America and charged with the crime.

    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...

  12. Re:Funny that they stress "Family Entertainment". by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That's what I said, what the fuck does the family have to do with the movie industry. Heck, the bill had to pass, it had the word "family" in, nobody wants to vote against family. The lawmakers are just as dumb and ridiculous as the people who elected them. How exactly is my family now more entertained than before? Why don't they add national security in there too, it would have passed much faster.

    Or, maybe the bill is self-referencial and the whole process of trying to stop people from sharing or distributing by threats is entertaintment for the whole family.

    How about I plant copies of a pre-release on somebody's computer the let the feds come and jail him for 3 years? Don't like your neighbour -put the latest peace of crap from Hollywood in the shares on his windows 98 machine and watch him burn. Can you imagine going to jail for distributing "Big Momma's House" - fun times!