Slashdot Mirror
Stiffer Penalties for Copyright Violations
smallfries writes "US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proposed much harsher punishments for copyright violations, including jail time. The Intellectual Property Protection Act [PDF Warning] doesn't appear to change the fundamentals of US copyright law but does allow more leeway for the police when investigating suspected crimes, and harsher punishments for those convicted. A response with a link to one site's look at the bill is up on Linux Electrons. Now that attempting the crime has such severe consequences, who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?"
I am against illegal P2P, and I think that downloading songs is wrong, but why is it considered such a terrible crime. Lighten the penalties, and maybe people will buy from you!
Help Fight SPAM today!
Welcome, darknets!
I think copywrite laws are terrible, the only thing the do is punish teenagers who use the computer to get free songs. The artists who write them already have more money than they know what to do with.
Visit Tevlog
It seems all the important crimes have been stamped out.
And in tomorrow's news...
President Bush is pleased to introduce the Protect Democracy Act which would ensure the death penalty and forfeiture of all assets for singing a song written in the past 500 years without written permission from the copyright holder.
The nation's test case is already in the pipeline, with an entire boy scout troop under indictment for singing The Star Spangled Banner before playing a game of wiffle ball.
It is hoped that these new regulations make the world safe, in our continuing war on terror.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
Attention all folks who are against copyright protection! There is something I would like you to do.
Please write a book that will become wildly popular. Then publish that book and waive all copyright protections. It might take a year to write that book with no income coming in but that would be a small price to pay to make your point.
You see friends, we already live in a world where copyright is a matter of choice. You don't have to participate in the universe of copyright protection. As a consumer you don't have to consume copyrighted works. As a publisher you are free today to publish something and waive copyright protection.
Well I guess this is part of the quest for cheap labor. Pretty much everyone that could be locked up for drugs is, so now it's time to fill the prisons will evil p2p downloaders who will get paid $1 an hour answering phones or making license plates.
Throughout history, this has always been the way. Can't stop people stealing in droves? Make stealing punishable by death. Can't stop people blasphemy? Mak the crime punishable by death!
It is a natural reaction to make the laws tougher when people start to defy the law in droves but I urge people to ignore that reflex because often it is more instructive to look at root causes. Why do people pirate? Because the CDs are overpriced. Your average individual actually prefers the boxed CD to an MP3 but is not prepared to spend £15 on it. If you priced your CDs to reflect this desire then you could reverse the decline in CD sales.
Often, real change does not come from politics but from the sound of a million feet. Politicans still believe that people want the artist to be compensated to the tune of £15 for a crappy manufactured album. The people do not. In the end the people will win; they always do. The question is how much political capital are they willing to spend fighting this change?
The Internet has changed everything. I was working a project for a band a fairly high profile band in the UK who have totally ditched their record label in favour of a web-based approach. I can't blame them! Why get 1% of the CD record sales when I can get 100% and make more money than the labels were are paying?
Another thing, They REFUSED to use DRM. Saying that DRM protects the artist is rubbish. It protects the label's reveune stream, that's all. This band understands the internet. They're saying they want you to copy because it's a bonus to them just to get heard by that one new fan. That one new fan might spend £50 on a ticket to see you at a concert. They may even by the tracks off the site just to support you. It builds loyalty when you trust your fans rather than hold them in contempt.
The future is just getting started and we're about to see the big labels get their wing clipped.
Simon.
As long as the argument keeps getting framed as a battle of pirates cheating honest American companies out of their God-given profits, we will continue to see a push for harsh penalties. But frankly, this creation of a whole new class of criminals is not a world that I want to live in. So how can we convey to people that the bulk of IP violations don't deserve to be criminalized?
* Tape a TV show for a friend
* Play the new White Stripes CD at your office party
* Forward an interesting email rumor
* Make a cool picture you found on the web into your desktop background image
These are all things that people frequently do without any sense of transgression. Are we as a society going to start sending grandmothers, middle school students and so on to jail? Are we prepared to start using web browsers without "save" functions, email programs without "forward" functions, software that reports on us if we're doing anything possibly illegal? The illegalization of non-DRM'ed mpg, avi, txt and mp3 files? Because that is where we're heading unless we put a stop to it.
No - when everyone can be put in jail as and when needed. Criticising the government or protesting a war may remain legal, but they can go through the list and find something else to arrest you for as and when needed.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
It seems to me that if the government goes further down this path then even possessing works that aren't redistributable is going to be like playing with a loaded gun. One false move and the consequences are severe, even if there wasn't the intent to infringe. Is there a point where the potential consequences will be so severe that consumers might just start avoiding anything that has this risk?
Where the hell does this end?
About the same point the "donations" do.
More laws lead to more criminals; more criminals need bigger jails, and government employees to build the jails and catch the criminals. Hiring more government workers requires higher taxes and additional bureaucracy to track and collect the money. Meanwhile, Joe Senator gets re-elected because he delivered the legislation specified by his large corporate donors.
And the people in charge get more powerful. Everybody wins!
I totally can't wait for a world government to make this process even more efficient.
One thing that I really hate about conservatives (and I am one) is that we get these insane ideas that jail is the right solution for every problem. But this is just really, really stupid. Should we jail people for speeding? It is, after all, a crime. I'd be more than willing to bet (which, by the way, is also illegal where I live) that more people are killed each year by excessive speed than by excessive downloading.
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Let's just throw everybody in jail for everything. That will solve all of the world's economic and social problems, right?
--Larry
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.
Fixed that for you.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Never mind terrorism, the war on drugs, and corporate theft. Let's divert federal resources to go after those pornographers and college kids trading music! They've either got their priorities totally hosed up or they have WAY more people than they need and this is Justice Department busy work.
Ignorance and incompetence rivaled only by those who continue to support a corrupt, ineffective and incompetent administration. Usually justifying their misplaced and hypocritical loyalty by whining that the Democrats aren't any better. Well, it's time to face the facts: The Democrats ARE better. They may not be the ideal but the worst of them could do better than this bunch of corrupt losers.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Gonzales said the new laws are needed because evolving technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft." He added that proceeds from copyright piracy is used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities." [Emphasis added]
There you have it folks. The US Attorney General says that this technology is funding terrorism, presumably with zero-dollar bills. I don't know about you, but I'd say 99% of the intellectual property "theft" (his words, not mine) are going on TOTALLY FOR FREE.
In fact, if they did succeed in shutting down these new technologies for the common man, you can bet that would be the only time the criminals started making massive money on this. Gonzales's plans will actually encourage criminal profits and, therefore by his logic, encourage terrorism. Gonzales is actually taking steps to put the money into this for terrorism and crime lords, not the other way around!
So if you ever wanted damning evidence that our AG both doesn't understand the issues, and is in the back pocket of the content corporations (RIAA, etc.), and that he wants to play the "terrorism" card (like they did about Drugs)... there you go.
Don't forget Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, Columbia, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uraguay.
Then our society will be divided into two classes: (1) those in jail, and (2) those who aren't in jail yet.
More accurately:
An added benefit of this structure is that it makes it very easy to move an individual from class (2) to class (1). Plus Wal-Mart will have a whole new market to branch out into, and something to add to their Superstores.
This seems to me scaringly close to reality. Not funny at all...
-- Cheers!
I'll accept any law as long as I get back the following:
1. Every jury is composed of a truly random selection of my peers -- people from my community who know me and can judge if I am a criminal
2. Every jury is notified of their right to jury nullification. They can judge not only the defendant, but the law.
3. Every arrest is preceded by the charge of two witnesses, and the idea of "the People versus" goes away.
4. The penalties for any crimes are tripled for any employee of any government branch.
Do you read your posts? You've explained 'why', the grandparent explained 'that'. What are you saying, Sony has the right to disregard the GPL licensing to enforce copyright? Who gives a rat fuck if they need code from LAME to accomplish this? If in doing so they break the GPL, they break copyright and are as culpable and hypocritical as the grandparent maintains. They do IN FACT GAIN (caps for your benefit) by including GPL code, by your own words Sony can't detect the software without. Do you have any clue what you're WRITING ABOUT?
Ummm, so it's a GPL violation to even list the name of a GPL'd program? That's all has been shown to be at this point -- a string of letters. Not code, but a fucking name. Do you have any clue what you're writing about?
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
It's a shame that you couldn't come up with something more amusing... or even closer to reality.
Private health insurance - good call... you were showing promise.
Selling above minimal cost - almost kinda there... but it doesn't really track with any events. This ends up as a miss.
Private ownership... it would seem the 2nd point was the start of the slope and now we're picking up speed as we dash away from reality.
Blogs... oooh... nice.... possible save.
Three points about church... nope, the 4th point was a fluke... we're clearly detatched from reality.
Teaching - nice attempt to recover... would have done better earlier on in the list... but at this point, too little too late.
Like all upset Neocons, your list simply shows how detatched from reality you really are. A shame. There's just so much material you could have worked with and you missed.
Unlike civil lawsuits, the standards of evidence are much more strict in criminal cases and you have a right to representation. The prosecution also has a greater burden of proving their accusations.
If the US doesn't want to abide by the Geneva convention then their enemies don't have to either. So the "terrorists" are free to torture as well. Sure they do, but now it's not an outrage because they're just playing by the same rules as the US.
By the way, once they declare war on you, they're not terrorists anymore. Especially not once you declare war on them. "War on terrorism" is an oxymoron. The Geneva convention also covers more than just prisoners of war... it also outlines what you can and can't do to civilians. So if you toss the Geneva conventions the "terrorists" haven't really done anything wrong. They declared war then used a tried and tested (by the US and Britain during WWII) method of attack -- bombing a major population centre.
Since it was November 11th yesterday I think it's a particularly appropriate time to note that people should think for a minute before dismissing as quaint lessons learned the hard way in the worst conflicts in human history.
I call your bull. Please explain why it also includes the "largetbl" table from lame?
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
The central notion of copyright is that the act of making copies was difficult, and therefore served as a kind of chokepoint to control distribution and make sure someone got paid. The justification for legal sanction is more complex, though I like the American version, that encouraging creativity is beneficial for the society.
The copyright premise of difficult copying is totally broken. Staying with BitTorrent as an example, it was trival to distribute thousands of 75 MB copies of OpenOffice 2 in a few days. It could have been millions, and it would have made no difference from the usage perspective. When I got my download, it quickly maxed out my connection. More copies simply make it easier to do so.
Since the foundation has crumbled to sand, it doesn't matter what sort of reinforcements they try to use. Gonzales is just being a typical BushCo idiot and is trying to steer by looking backwards. We need to rethink the entire notion of copyright and how to compensate creativity, not focus on "new" ways to keep a dying publishing industry on life support.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You realize that there is no prominent movement on the left to do any of the things you stated. There are very prominent movements on the right to do the things the parent stated. What legitimate leftist organization wants to criminalize going to church? How many legitimate rightist organizations want to criminalize abortion?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The difference is that not even the extremists on the the atheist left have proposed the death penalty for starting a church.
The extremists on the fundamentalis right have proposed the death penalty for abortion.
So, uh, no, I do think you're being unfair there. Sorry.
I propose harsher punishement for CEO breaking law, and corrupt politician. At the first offense they should get prison for life. After all when they break the law, their action impact negatively of a LOT of people, so they should get cumulative punishment for the amount of people influenced by their action. Small CEO, 10 people : X Year of prison without parol. Medium CEO 100 people, 10*X Year without parol. Big CEO 3500 persons, 350*X year of prison without parol. Same ofr plitics. Break the law in a town of 100 : 1 week of prison per people. Do it in new york...
Think this is stupid ? Well compare the crimes above with copyright infrigement, and compare their negative impact on the citizen... And ince copyright infrigement cam be made worst by the number of copy shared , why not the crime above ?
Yes I am fantasming here. Actualy maybe make the crime for copyrighrt infrigement worst. First offense cut a hand. Second offense : cut second hand. etc... Maybe "citizen" will tehn start reacting.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Don't you guys get it. This is the new Drug War. They have all but run out of political capital on that so now we have this. Pretty soon we will see propganda like P2P madness and other stupid crap to pollute our young peoples' minds into believing this milarky.
> The justification for legal sanction is more complex, though I like
> the American version, that encouraging creativity is beneficial for the society.
I wonder how much creativity it generates that when you make a T-shirt with Mickey
Mouse on it you have to pay royalty to a corporation because Mickey was drawn by
someone who is dead for more than half a century... I know the zombie theme is in
vogue in the films but somehow I doubt that Walt Disney's skeleton comes back during
the nights to dream up new characters and, of course, to take *his* reward for *his*
creation as opposed to make some fatcat directors and shareholders even richer...
so ya suppose there's a big shortage of books out there huh? Something tells me you've never submitted a manuscript to a publisher.
Let me tell ya kiddo, we don't need copyright because there's a lack of books. Perhaps in the eighteenth century that was true to a degree, although I suspect even then it was more about lack of distribution to readers than lack of authors, but it sure aint our problem now. Not a problem at all. You know just about every third year MFA student in the country publishes a novel that will never get read and that enormous mountain of unread, unpublishes novels just keeps piling up year after year. Let's not even get into thesis and dissertations.
There is no lack of authorship. The relationship between the quantity of authors and the strength of copyright is small enough to be insignificant. There is no real relationship between the two because what you think about when you consider popular fiction authors is a statistically insignificant fringe minority of the total number of writers out there and yet those are the only ones really concerned with copyright. How many authors can you name if you thought about it for a week? A few thousand? A few hundred? There are millions of writers you couldn't a flying fuck about it and it's about time you faced that fact and admit it instead of pretending to be some kind of knight in shining armor coming to rescue the poor distressed authors.
And those authors that you don't even want to know, those authors don't write because of copyright. Those millions of authors you never will bother to know anything about in your tiny little self righteous lifetime --those authors write because they simply have a desire to write.
You could obviously never understand that but I thank you for the opportunity to spank your dumb ass in public.
1. Number of famous people is small compaired to general population.
and
2. If you're famous, maybe you settle out of court. RIAA will be happy to settle, cause they can just take that money and use it to make an example of someone else who won't.
Play Command HQ online
This is just so wrong.
...) methods i.e. the printing press the value of a book decreased, but with it came the idea that the value was actually in the contents. Thus the idea of intellectual propert was born. Unlike the phisical book however this kind of property needed protection, because without it anyone could use your property for cheap once it was out there. Enter the copyright, which is exactly that the copyright holder is the onlyone wioth the right to make a copy, unless he licenses this right to someone else.
Copyright is there because copying is so easy. So copying was easy before the computer? Yes it was!
The problem started with the invention of the printing press. Before the printing press the value of a book was in the physical book, intellectual property was unheard of. Books were hand written and very expensive, so copying was not the problem.
With the invention easy reproduction (of books, you dirty little
There you are Copyright was invented because copying was too easy.
I mean, aren't we at war in Iraq, and isn't that country threatening to break up and devolve into civil war? Maybe they could actually come up with, like, a plan for that? Not to mention there's New Orleans to rebuild and a budget to balance. And what about that Bin Laden guy? You know, the one who blew up the World Trade Center four years ago? Who the White House has still failed to capture or kill?
You're getting off topic. However, I don't think you should regard this action as purely a distraction, but rather a "bid" for more campaign donations. In that sense it is relevant in that BushCo's version of "conservativism" simply means "compassion" for the people who have lots of money, and doing everything they can to help them keep as much as possible (so that they can conveniently and without stress afford to donate more to Dubya's campaigns). Of course the BIG problem there is that time waits for no man. Change is coming, and your actual choices are lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. Propping up dying copyright laws is just another form of getting in the way.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
"BitTorrent and related technologies have broken the copyright system"
No Napster, FastTrack, and now BitTorrent have not broken the copyright system. The problems with the copyright system stem from its moral flaws and not from the fact that technology now exists that can subvert the system. In short the system was always broken Napster and its children mearly exposed it as existing in that state.
For example, imagine that there is a serious flaw in ssh or some other such secure protocal. In that case ssh is broken today. Just because everyone believes it is working correctly does not change the fact that right now it is broken. Now say tommorow a resercher finds and exposes this flaw. Now everyone realises the brokeness of ssh. The fact that it is not realised untill tommorow does not change the fact that it is broken today.
Creative works are, at the heart, nothing more than ideas. Using the barrel of a gun to forcibly control the distribution of ideas is, in my mind, one of the most revolting suggestions immaginable. This is true despite any bennefits claimed, never mind that I strongly dispute such claims. Furthermore, to suggest that a system should exist which can control how, and to whom, ideas may be distributed is to suggest that a system should exist that can control how people think. Peoples thoughts are made up of ideas. If you control the ideas that a person is exposed to you control how they see the world around them and how they behave in it. This is exactly the stuff George Orwell was warning us about in 1948. In the world of 1984, however, 'big brother' used language to control ideas. Today we use copyrights and Patents. The control that comes from a control of ideas is far more powerfull than any other weapon we allow to be used against us. It is not only our right to freely distribute ideas, but if we are to re-create, if we ever had one, a free society it is our duty to do so.
On a side note I find it amusing in the scary kind of way how many good books I read extoling the wonders of the free market and denouncing the evils of state intervention yet they all start with page one "© 2005 Somebody, All rights reserved". Come on guys get your head in the game. Don't you realise actions speak louder than words. Or do you intend to send the message, "Do as I say, not as I do". Really, it is quite revolting.
You realize that up until recently, it was illegal to sell private health insurance in Canada? (The Canadian high court overturned the law making it illegal just a few months ago.)
Are we talking about Canada or the United States?
You realize that the Clinton health-care plan, which thankfully never got past the talking stages, was going to be based on a single-payer plan system modeled after the Canadian system?
The Canadian plan also results in lower healthcare costs and better healthcare, so modeling ours on theirs is probably a good idea. That doesn't mean that we have to outlaw private health insurance along with it! You understand what "modeling" means, do you not?
You realize that one of the most prominent left-leaning advocacy groups is called "Socialist Alternative" and that it calls for the seizure of the 500 biggest American companies and the replacement of their owners and management with committees of citizens?
Prominent by whose definition? You do understand that when one says "left" in the United States, we're talking about leftist relative to the American mainstream, not what would be considered leftist internationally. In the US, the proper term for groups like "socialist alternative" would be "socialist". We aren't talking about socialists here.
You realize that this prominent group calls for making the taking of "excessive profit" a crime, and that their leaders have been running editorials in the nation's opinion pages for years now?
Again, prominent by whose definition?
Name one. Seriously. Name one. I've given you concrete examples. Name one.
The Human Life Amendment. And don't give me any crap about it being intended to merely allow states to criminalize abortion, not force them to. Criminalization of abortion is precisely what they want. See also Operation Rescue/Operation Save America.
Do you know the difference between overturning Roe and criminalizing abortion?
There is a reasonable argument that Roe v. Wade is a bad precedent not on the basis of the abortion debate, but on the merits on which it was argued. With some caveats, I actually buy this argument. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people working towards overturning. Roe v. Wade are not working in favor of reason in law, but because they want to see the criminalization of abortion. There is a war in this country between those who support abortion and those who want to see it become illegal. Roe v. Wade is an icon in that war. Those who oppose Roe v. Wade on principle, but not abortion per se, are simply find themselves on the wrong side of a debate that only has two sides.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The protections it grants give me, as an author, the potential (not the right) to profit from those creations. If the "free market" you expouse decides my work is successful, and it's well received, those profits allow me the time and opportunity to create new works, thus further contributing to our culture.
It helps ensure that the best and brightest authors, writers, singers, directors, and other artists of our time spend their time doing that which enriches us all, and not spending their time greeting people at WalMart just to pay the rent.
I hear a lot about how the system is "broken", and little to nothing about what should replace it, other than nonsense about how book authors should spend their time giving concerts or consulting. Or that, as in the dark ages, they waste their time wandering about seeking patrons for their works.
People might now, as an example, pay the millions of dollars it would take to continue "Firefly" as a series. But how many of those people would have paid that money up front, before the show even existed, simply on an idea? The studio did. And made the investment.
The "ideas" you'd so blithely distribute often take years, or even decades, to create. And without the people who put words to paper and notes to a score, would not exist in those forms at all.
The founding fathers recognized those facts, and as such provided means and incentives for them to do so. They recognized that truly creative people are few and far between, and are pearls beyond price to a culture and society. In essence, writers and singers and storytellers ARE our culture and society.
Finally, if I may ask a question, why is it you somehow believe you are automatically entitled to the results of other people's work? That their time and efforts are yours for free?
That you can freely consume that which I create, simply because it's easy to do so, and I can not walk into your house, and consume yours?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
No, you have that wrong. Lack of copyright law makes sense to the greedy and lazy. Copyright law makes sense to those members of society who value creativity, art, and music. It is not greedy to want something for days, weeks, months, or years worth of effort. It is not revolting to acknowledge an individual's contribution to society by offering a living for thier efforts. What is revolting it the attitude of those who feel entitled to other people's creativity and money.
Me, I have no problem rewarding someone for their efforts to create something that amuses, saddens, enlightens, or entertains. I feel that it fosters growth. There are few limitations on my listening, reading, or viewing material without paying legally, either... I can turn on the radio, check out a CD from the library, borrow a friend's CD, check out a book from the library, borrow a friend's book, borrow a DVD, or go to a free screening.
To use the old line "information must be free" is simply a way to say "I'm lazy and cheap, and value little other than my own personal gratification."
It has only been in the past few hundred years that duplication of art has become easy. In the past, prevention of theft... or infringement, if you prefer... was simple; few people had the means to duplicate works... whether the limiting factor was a medium to duplicate it on, educational level, or financial. Now, all but the most poor can duplicate a work of art and distribute it worldwide. Different situation entirely.
Less specifically, the world of 1000 A.D. and the world of today are vastly different places. You're attempting to apply modern necessities to an ancient culture, and it just does not work. Using the same general logic, one might say that standards in food and medicine are worthless because obviously people could operate without them in the past.