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?"
... as a matter of principle, that any time the government wishes to criminalize what was previously a civil offense, it should have to demonstrate an overriding interest in doing so. I mean, this goes way beyond IP law. Basically what they're saying is, "Anything you can get sued for, we can also put you in jail for." They're erasing the line between civil and criminal law. Where the hell does this end?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The spyware that Sony installs on the computers of music fans does not even seem to be correct in terms of copyright law.
t icle&sid=215.
w topic=38700
It turns out that the rootkit contains pieces of code that are identical to LAME, an open source mp3-encoder, and thereby breach the license
http://dewinter.com/modules.php?name=News&file=ar
Sony rootkit violating GPL?, Seems to include parts of LAME?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?sho
That's my point. Creating popular art is hard. The artist deserves to decide how to be compensated.
No. It is not hard. At least not in the way you imply. Artists (true artists, not product placement fabrications) create because they are driven to by whatever force it is that gives most of us some small measure of creativity and a select few an over-abundance. I'm nothing saying that its effortless, but they certainly don't view it as work . The artist is compelled to create, it is his or her raison d'être, and they will do so whether they are wealthy beyond measure or indigent and incarcerated. The original idea behind copyright was that society could both show appreciation and help enable those who are so fortunate (or mis-fortunate, depending on your perspective) by protecting them from being taken advantage of. In doing so, a society recognizes that there is intrinsic value in art which a mere pricetag can never match; and that is what fosters creativity.
The modern thought process which so easily equates creation with a monetary value is a nightmarish twisted version of this intention, and does far more to damage the arts than any lack-of-copyright ever could. It is the ultimate devaluation.
I had exactly the same thought as the parent post -- the day is fast arriving when even possessing non-redistributable content is too risky.
I can see this being extended to a form of unreasonable search and seizure: Wandering the net, you find yourself on a filesharing site. You nose around a bit, then leave without downloading anything. A week later, the copyright nazis arrive at your door (armed with a warrant) and inform you that since your IP address was seen on a P2P site, you are automatically a suspect. They arrest you, confiscate your computer, and march the lot off to detention. Now it's up to you to prove your innocence.
But... you've got a few ripped MP3s on your computer, from a CD you legally "own" (well, that you licensed from the record label) which in itself goes to show intent to distribute, as does possession of the tools to rip said MP3s.
Now you're in REAL shit.
Oh, and if you're a resident of a country where the DRM laws prohibit even discussing circumvention (frex, Finland if a current bill passes) you can't complain to anyone about this treatment, not even your lawyer.
Yeah, right now this scenario seems an hallucination induced by a too-snug tinfoil hat. But it's certainly the direction things are headed.
And given all that, out of sheer self-preservation it would behoove folk to buy ONLY those materials produced by bands and studios that specifically ALLOW free redistribution of ripped copies. (Or cloned copies if the artist so allows.)
Note that I specified "ripped copies" and "free redistribution", NOT unauthorized hardcopies (ie. counterfeits intended for sale without payment to the artist), and NOT pay-to-download without paying the artists (PTD with micropayments to the artist should naturally be encouraged). Those activities should indeed be prosecuted, as they would be for any other counterfeit goods.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
At the very least, it makes putting a copyright file on a network riskier, even if you have no intention of letting anyone else know about it. An easy and common example would be sharing music with yourself by sftp. They could claim it's an attempt to share with others.
The real endgame is to make the internet look like broadcast TV. Only a few will have the power to share anything. Running a server is already forbidden by your ISP, despite the fact that many commercial applications do just that and would not work otherwise. The big publishers are closer to getting their way every day and it makes me sick. So much for free press in this country.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Well, if all the Slashdotters out there would simply send me ten dollars each, I would be happy to buy the Congressman of your choice. Minus a small handling charge, of course.
What would happen if each of us made a personal contribution to our elected representatives, along with a letter explaining that if they vote intelligently on certain important issues, there will be more where that came from. Maybe if four or five hundred thousand technjocks start putting their money where their mouth is, we could eliminate the entertainment industry influence entirely. Sure, I know about campaign finance laws, but if a given representative or senator got all he could legally receive directly from his constituents before the first RIAA lobbyist showed up at his door, it would go a long way to restoring a little balance.
And even if he has to give it back, the sight of a half-million small white envelopes, each containing ten or twenty dollars of actual cash might make him think a little. I mean things such as logic, reason, "doing the right thing", Truth, Justice and/or the American Way just doesn't seem to be enough anymore. So maybe we need to provide a little incentive.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
To me, this speaks to a much bigger problem than so-called "intellectual property" (quoted because I agree with Stallman that the term is absolute propoganda BS).
Recently, Denver became the first city to pass legislation that totally legalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 years and older. This happened because anti-WoD organizations got the bill up for public consideration, and finally, the citizens voted in favor of it.
Of course, possession is still illegal in the state, and also on the federal law, so it's still not really 'legal'. What bothered me so much about the news is the psychotic response from the government, saying "We will still jail you under state law!" in a very draconian tone.
The big point here is that this is supposed to be a government by the people, for the people.
The people have fucking spoken, and you've openly told them that you're going to ignore their will?
Anyone have any statistics on this so-called P2P epedemic? It seems to me that with the excessively large number of Americans (hell, people WORLD WIDE) that actively participate in P2P, it's the system of content distribution that needs to change -- not the further criminalization of the practice!