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 use BitTorrent so I KNOW I'm safe...
... 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.
To jump ship? Someone tell me when.
who will be the first to go to jail for running a p2p client?
I hope it will be US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's daughter. THAT would be real fun.
You are under arrest for the copyslaughter of [insert artist name/software title here].
MTSBWY
It seems all the important crimes have been stamped out.
Embezzlement of countless billions : 5 years
Stealing a slice of Pizza : life
Murder : life or death penalty
Copyright infringement : Life , then the death penalty , then your family are sold into slavery
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
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?.
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
Correction: the corporate masters of the artists who write them, and some of the pretty faces and breast implants that jiggle while they sing them, already have more money than they know what to do with.
The actual artists aren't so lucky.
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.
Remember - the law is a neutral weapon - much like a landmind. It can be used against friend and foe alike. The key is to see how a law can help your cause - even if taht was not the original intent.
The proposed law adds a new weapon against someone who violate Linux' EULA - and now makes it a criminal action to even try to violate it.
Think of the law a giant real world RPG - you need to understand teh rules and bend them to your ends.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
it will be cheaper to simply murder all the witnesses.
--Larry
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
But unfortunately copyright is already criminal law. This doesn't call for such a fundamental change; it just calls for harsher penalties.
I could almost support this bill if it wan't that the entertainment industry openly bribes the senators who'll vote on this legislation, example, Orin Hatch, entertainment contributions for the 2004 cycle were $180,000+.
If you follow the trail it looks like most of this kind of legislation is bought and paid for by the very people it benefits.
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.
You're right.
I think we SHOULD still be paying john lennon and many other dead artists royalties despite the fact that when they recorded the songs the copyright limits were much shorter. Because I agree that all artists need to know that they will be compensated 20 or more years -after they are dead- in order to encourage them to write a song, paint a movie, or write a book.
---
Heard the latest? they are now going after royalties on resales of USED books.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You are wrong. Considering that downloaders are nothing but communists, and communism killed 170 million people, downloading is a far more dangerous crime than speeding.
Downloading songs is wrong? Sorry, I was under the impression that under copyright law the user also has rights, not just the producer of media. I have a right to go and download a copy of a song I already own, as backup copies for personal use are fine. Also, fine are songs that are given away free by the artists themselves. Not all free downloading of music is wrong, regardless of what RIAA says.
Let's not also forget Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' hardline stance against porn depicting consenting adults as well. This is someone who is clearly the most dangerous man for the job.
And I'm speaking as a moderate conservative. This guy scares the shit outa me.
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.
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.
Just so you know, there are maybe 3 people whose attention you've just reached. The rest of us believe in limited and reasonable copyright protection, for a finite, purely innovation-driving amount of time--which, if you notice, is just what the Constitution calls for. Our current system of copyright is nowhere near this.
Honestly, very very few of us would dream of pronouncing that we are 'against copyright.' While it might be easy to respond to some sort of anarchist straw man, please take a little more time and thought to respond to the much more complicated reality. As it is, you're wasting everyone's time.
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!