Bill Would Criminalize Attempted IP Infringement

ianare writes "H.R. 3155, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007, has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). In most cases, the bill appears to simply double existing penalties. One big change however, is that people could now be charged with criminal copyright infringement even if such infringement has not actually taken place. Not surprisingly, the EFF has condemned the legislation."

Comments

FP?

[dosius]

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ? Oh wait, that went out the door back in the 50s with McCarthyism.

-uso.

Re:FP?

[AvitarX]

I thought my inability to actually sing would protect me, now they are going to raid my shower.

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought my inability to actually sing would protect me, now they are going to raid my shower.

Future headline, some campus newspaper, some university: "Campus police raided sorority showers today on reports of attempted violation of copyright."

Re:FP?

[srmalloy]

But after all, isn't stopping file sharing an integral part of the War On Terror? If we cease our eternal vigilance against these evil people, our American way of life will be destroyed by the flood of shoddy knockoffs of CDs and DVDs. And after all, isn't a little bit of presumed guilt worth knowing that your next purchase of a music CD is, as it should, going straight into the coffers of a legitimate recording studio, rather than to some pirate or -- *gasp* -- the musician.

--
And remember, boys and girls -- "We had to destroy your freedom in order to save it."

Re:FP?

[Wansu]

  Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

Oh, we leapfrogged that and then blew past "guilty until proven innocent". Nowadays, you're guilty when nifonged.
 

Re:FP?

[FiniteElementalist]

I'm concerned with what is their justification for doubling prison terms in terms of proportionality of punishment. Let punishment fit the crime, etc.

Are pirates that big of a threat to society that they merit a doubling of imprisonment? I can see how commercial pirates represent much more tangible harm than personal copyright infringement does, as sales take place, though at potentially at a much higher quantity than at the legitimate price. But this just going through the database and multiplying everything by two, which suggests considering these matters was at best done in a haphazard or arbitrary manner.

Is this just a matter of our good friend and his 'constituents' thinking that eye-for-an-eye is not enough and upgrading it to head-for-an-eye, because I can think of a better use of prisons and related resources than for this.

Re:FP?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's different. You are still innocent until proven guilty, it's just that now you can be found guilty of intent to pirate. They still have to prove that before they can dish out any punishment.

Re:FP?

[tomhudson]

"You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary."

In other words, you're charged with a different crime - "attempted burglary, not borglary. If you read the article, the charges, penalties, etc., are the same for an attempt as for the actual crime.

Attempted burglary can include a spur-of-the-moment going up to a closed door and seeing if its locked - the actual damages of an unsuccessful attempt are none, and its certainly not in the same league as successfully attacking the door with a crowbar which you brought along (premeditated) for that express purpose.

Instead of doubling jail terms for this, why not double them for white collar crime, perjury, and rape? Oh, right ... the perps of white collar crime own the politicians, the politicians and their friends want to be able to continue perjuring themselves, and they're too busy raping over the electorate to give a sh*t.

Re:FP?

[CautionaryX]

A week or two later: "Campus police officers charged with sexual assault and battery involving raid on shower singers."

Re:FP?

[StikyPad]

Maybe they should put a banner on the entrance to the Capitol. Something like, "In this house we obey the laws of the US Constitution!"

Re:FP?

[jamstar7]

m concerned with what is their justification for doubling prison terms in terms of proportionality of punishment. Let punishment fit the crime, etc.

Probably just making sure of a good supply of slave labor for companies who do business inside of prisons. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/pris-m08 .shtml for starters...

Re:FP?

[pyrrhonist]

you're charged with a different crime - "attempted burglary, not borglary

Borglary - the act of assimilating all of someone's stuff into your own collective.

Re:FP?

[geobeck]

Attempted burglary can include a spur-of-the-moment going up to a closed door and seeing if its locked - the actual damages of an unsuccessful attempt are none...

I've often wondered about the sense of having lower penalties for an attempted criminal act than for a successful one. Let's say a person plans to kill someone. It's a pre-meditated, malicious act by a sociopath who openly tells the court that he will try to do it again when he is released. Should he receive a lesser sentence than someone who flies into a rage and kills his daughter's rapist? The former is a continuing danger to society. The latter will probably never re-offend.

But that's not the case here. This is just an excuse by IP associations to criminalize the possession of file-sharing software, mp3 players, and creative ideas.

Re:FP?

[DJCacophony]

Another week or two later:

"Asshole ruins joke, completely missing the point"

Re:FP?

[Evilest Doer]

But after all, isn't stopping file sharing an integral part of the War On Terror?

No, it's more of a derivative of the War on Terror.

Re:FP?

[jZnat]

There's something called first degree murder (the first example) and second degree murder (arguably, the second example, but it could also be covered by intentional homicide or something like that instead due to the situation).

Re:FP?

[geobeck]

I just realized I didn't make it clear that the first example was supposed to be an unsuccessful attempt, whereas the second succeeded. Are there any "degrees" to attempted murder? Or is it always treated as less serious because it did not succeed?

Re:FP?

[purpledinoz]

In 100 years, every American is going to be forced to give up 50% of their income to the Department of Media, which will be the department created by VIACOM, who will buy up every media company and become a mega-monopoly. The only movies that will made would be "Speed x", "Rush Hour y", and "Rocky z", where x, y, z are integers > 0. Anyone who refuses to pay will be put to death. To me, this is the direction I see America going.

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you people quit fucking blaming Nifong for your own injustice and stupidity? Nifong never questioned the players, sure - is it his fault nobody noticed? He jumped all over the players, sure - so was it him writing all the accusing editorials for papers all over the nation? Did he, along with 87 of his fellow professors, release a message to the rest of the lacrosse team that they should own up, and that the whole community should be ashamed at its social injustice?

Re:FP?

[tftp]

To have the Supreme Court then explain that those laws apply only within that particular building, and only to people who physically painted the text?

Re:FP?

[LindaMack]

We want some of those mod points

--
Resistance is futile

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not often do I wish comments could be modded to +6 or +7. :)

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah fuck you, I bet you think that when a woman isn't given 'in'justice for lying that it's misogyny huh? He fucking withheld evidence. Now maybe in your hippie land where men = shit or whatever that may be okay but in the real world that is some pretty serious fucking shit. So quit trying to clear him as being a pawn of the media. You know, no matter what the paper's say, those men could only be convicted in the court. In short, Fuck you asshole.

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attempted first degree murder is by far a more serious crime than an actually committed second or third degree murder. In most places in the US an attempted first degree murder is still punishable by life inprisonment - but usually with chance for parole in 25. A second or third degree murder conviction usually comes along with a sentence of 10-25 years with parole in 7. It's rare to be convicted of "attempted second degree" or "attempted third degree" murders as those are typically crimes of circumstance or passion - and if you don't actually murder the person - you are generally charged with "assault causing bodily harm", "assault with a deadly weapon", or "simple assault" - not "attempted murder" - the "attempt" charge indicates it was your goal and you had intention and malice and forethought as to the outcome or result - i.e. you wanted the person dead -- thus automatically a first degree offense. On topic to this - attempted IP infringement and committed IP infringement could indeed have the same or very close to the same penalty if it could be shown that your "attempt to IP infringe" had malice and forethought involved just the same. Perhaps there should be some thought put in to a lesser charge of "unintentional IP infringement" - you thought you might be doing something shady - but you weren't doing it with forethought and malice - it was a byproduct of normal activity. The difference being - someone buys a device for the purpose of taking it apart, taking the "brains of it" out and putting them in a device of their own, and sells that device as a competitor to the first device. That's pretty cut and clear IP infringement. Same person the next year is found ordering a transport truck full of the same device and they are delivered to a chop shop where people are pulling the "brains out of it" - but they haven't started putting them in new devices (however the new devices are sitting right there waiting for the brain implant) and haven't sold any yet. That's a pretty clear cut case of attempted IP infringement - again - similarly punishable as the first case. Unintentional IP infringement could be for example selling a digital jukebox or movie device or something like that - and 95% of the music or movies in it are licensed properly and fees paid etc - but somehow 5% was just thrown in without proper due diligence - not exactly malice and forethought - just oversight. That shouldn't fall in the same category as before. Posting anonymously because IAAL - and this is not to be taken as legal advice.

Re:FP?

[plague3106]

Well, the reason is that we have a belief that the punishment should fit the crime. If you stole something from me, you've harmed me in some way. If you attempted to steal something, you didn't harm me as much, but you did do something wrong.

Its the same reason we don't put people to death for stealing a candybar.

Re:FP?

[MysteriousPreacher]

A Funny mod doesn't do that justice. "Coffee all over keyboard" would be better.

Re:FP?

[MysteriousPreacher]

I think it's a case of "Well fuck me lads, Afghanistan was a push-over. Let's go have a poke at Iraq and then we'll be back home by Christmas!"

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

As lil' Bush put it.. "If you don't have anything to hide then you don't mind being searched, and if you don't mind being searched then you don't mind being detained .. and if you don't mind being detained then you don't mind being in jail. See, that's what I call circular logic!"

The war on terror is the corporate way of saying we've declared war on those whom are not brainless sheep. It's scary thinking back at all the changes/events since the Bush administration took over. How much power / control corporations are gaining within the legal system here in the US. I don't believe in coincidences .. The catalyst .. It's not a coincidence that 3 towers fell into their footprints on 9/11 (4 planes went down is not a coincidence) .. brainless sheep I tell you ... feel free to think I'm crazy .. I don't give a f#$%. We all know that that 4th plane was aiming for the White House cause that's what the media tells us. BRAINLESS SHEEP! Conspiracies.. whatever..

Re:FP?

[pintpusher]

doubleplusgood

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The war on terror is the corporate way of saying we've declared war on those whom are not brainless sheep. No, you have to modify that to include Stupid fucks like you. Here I will show you haw to make an accurate statement.

The war on terror is the corporate way of saying we've declared war on those whom are stupid fucks that see everyone coming from everywhere and they are out to get them. Because you know, in the 8 years that I know about politics everyone told me it is going bad and I have to take their word for it.

See, I fixed that and now your statement is truthful and reflects how everyone with half a brain views you. And you know, it isn't coincidence, It was a plot. And that plot involved terrorist. I'll just be sorry when enough people believe the lies you spew and the next terrorist hit takes your life or your families life. It is fun watching your imagination run wild but fun at any cost isn't worth a life.

Re:FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say he was a pawn of the media, jackass, nor did I say men = shit. In fact, those are the exact opposite of what I believe, but they're completely irrelevant. Nifong withheld evidence, and nobody cared - that's the problem. Everyone needs to stop blaming him, because EVERYONE vilified the players - not because he misrepresented the case but because people, especially in and around Duke University, think that to be liberal and progressive and modern they have to give black people special treatment.

Re:FP?

[sumdumass]

I don't understand this insistance on being fair with convicted criminals. They weren't being fair in most cases when they broke the law so why do we need to do this for them.

The idea of a law is is to define something that cannot be done. Hence the legality and violation is illegal. Now, we place penalties with the law for several reasons. One is to punish the person violating it and another is to deter future violations. Sure, If the punishment was all that was needed, then the law would have both the deterrence as well as the punishment. But when the law is ignored and violated, you increase the penalties in order to increase the deterrence. And as far as I am concerned, you are being fair when you increase the penalty because people are not deterred from committing the crime.

So yea, I would say that pirate are a big enough threat to warrant doubling the penalties. Not because Piracy is some grave injustice but because of the flagrant disregard of the law. If the penalties of violation isn't enough to deter the majority of people, then it needs to be increased to the point where it does.

Look at stuff like speeding tickets. There are plenty of times where I could justify paying a fine if I could go over the posted speed. One time was trying to get 70 miles away to pick up my 9 year old that missed the bus going home from school somehow and the babysitter doesn't have a working car by some strange act of coincidence(it broke down that very day). Needless to say, I made it in 25 minutes. But another situation was when I am going to a work site. I get paid $85/hour for time working not traveling. The sooner I get there and the sooner I get home means the less time I waisted not having the potential of making more money.

But they attach points to speeding tickets. So I'm not just paying a fine that equates to one or two hours of work. If I get caught speeding I get points and after a certain amount of points, the state takes my license. This is not to mention that my insurance rates go up a disproportionate amount and everything else associated with traffic violations. Going to pick up my little girl, the points are worth it. Getting to and from job sites faster, they aren't. Therefore there is an extremely low set of circumstances where I would break the law and speed on purpose. This is called deterrence.

Now, take any law that people are ignoring, increase the penalties and you will have a deterrence to some degree. Even if it seems disproportionate to the crime committed. There is a reason something is illegal and whatever that is, it deserves the effect of making it illegal.

Re:FP?

[Shadowlore]

You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary.

Actually, no it would be attempted breaking and entering. Successfully picking a lock is not burglary - that requires theft. If you forced the lock by bashing the door open it would be vandalism unless intent to enter the facility could be proven.

That said, B&E or burglary are crimes. Simple IP infringement is not, it is a civil matter. Why do you think the RIAA and MPAA are suing people, instead of the government arresting them?

This would criminalize, at best, attempts to commit a civil violation. Attempting to do something that is not a crime should not be a crime. That's absurd, or "absurdis extremis".

Take this into another context to better understand it. You sign a contract to love a person for the rest of your life "in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer", until death do you part. Should it be a crime to attempt to not live up to that civil agreement? Would flirting become illegal for those who are married, as it could be said to be attempting to commit adultery or infidelity, even if adultery isn't illegal?

What this is is a very bad deal. The RIAA is baiting people online with files that are not the music they claim to be. People download these. No copyright infringement has occurred as they do not have the song they thought they were getting. This would shift the onus from the RIAA suing people to reporting them to the government for arrest, accusation, and trial, followed by imprisonment. Now, with that in mind, and without regard to whether filesharing is moral or not, would that be moral, right, or even legal?

IMO the answer on all three accounts is not just no but hell no.

Re:FP?

[Shadowlore]

Yes but the implementation differential between the two is decreasing exponentially.

Really now...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Do they give the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

Re:Really now...

[Remusti]

No, but they'll lock you up for attempted suicide.

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

damned liberals - they should have maintained execution for attempted suicide - serious crimes like that need a proper deterrent!

Re:Really now...

[false_cause]

I hope so. I attempted chemistry twice in college.

Re:Really now...

[DeVilla]

Do they give the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

I could have sworn people have been award prizes for attempted peace in the middle east or attempted peace with the IRA.

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

You (and Sideshow Bob) win.

Re:Really now...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Well you know what they say, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

Re:Really now...

[Air-conditioned cowh]

"Do they give the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?" - Yes. I believe Albert Hoffman may have received such a prize.

Re:Really now...

[iminplaya]

Oh, somebody will make a much worse punishment for that. They'll keep the guy alive forever.

Re:Really now...

[adona1]

As if suicidal people need to know that there's another thing they suck at : P

Re:Gotta love it

[krahli]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE FIX THE FUCKING FLAG Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

open secrets

[ArchieBunker]

Heres the open secrets link to his finances:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.as p?CID=N00003689&Cycle=2002

Freudian slip?

[Vexler]

Read the title again: "Bill Would Criminalize Attempted IP Infringement".

That wouldn't be "Gates", would it?

Re:Freudian slip?

[dantezco]

That wouldn't be "Gates", would it?

Dunno, man... seems more like a plan that only the more twisted, evil, stupid mind on Microsoft could concoct.

Of course, I'm referring to Steve "MonkeyBoy" Ballmer.

Re:Freudian slip?

[quadra23]

That wouldn't be "Gates", would it?

Considering this is politics, that could actually be Bill Clinton.

Since Hillary is planning to enter the 2008 Election there could actually be some truth to this (time will tell).

Re:Freudian slip?

[thebigbluecheez]

I think it's probably "Stickers"

Bill Stickers

Fear

[Joebert]

Every time I read somthing like this, I'm driven further away from wanting to participate in the exchange of ideas outside of a physical conversation with someone.

I'm afraid of being locked up & not being able to understand why I'm locked up.

Re:Fear

[ScrewMaster]

Oh, you'll understand why ... you just won't know the specifics.

Re:Fear

[Firehed]

Don't worry. This doesn't have a catchy acronym; it won't get voted in.

Re:Fear

[PCM2]

Don't worry. This doesn't have a catchy acronym; it won't get voted in.

Does nobody read TFA anymore? It's the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal enforcement Act of Congress ... IPECAC for short.

Re:Fear

[glindsey]

Does nobody read TFA anymore? It's the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal enforcement Act of Congress ... IPECAC for short. Well, it sure makes me want to throw up.

Re:Fear

[infidel13]

Ever read The Trial by Kakfa?

Re:Fear

[Joebert]

I didn't read it, nobody saw me read it, you can't prove anything !

My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[Anonymous Coward]

I call "dibs" on IP 127.0.0.1
Any IP infringers out there...be warned...that's MY IP you're infringing upon

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[corsec67]

Sweet, then I can have 192.168.0.1.

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[verbatim_verbose]

Pfft. I'll take the whole 127.x.x.x network. For my own use only!

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[Gazzonyx]

I call "dibs" on IP 127.0.0.1
Any IP infringers out there...be warned...that's MY IP you're infringing upon
Fine... if that's how you want to play; I get ::1! We'll see who's laughing in 10 years!

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[erpbridge]

Can I have 169.254.*.* ?

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[wc_paladin]

sure, as long as I get 10.X.X.X

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[pyrrhonist]

I call "dibs" on IP 127.0.0.1 Any IP infringers out there...be warned...that's MY IP you're infringing upon

I just hacked into your box! Now I'm deleting your root disk! You are so f^^#

%(^%#**(((

NO CARRIER

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[RulerOf]

So, does this mean that if I attempt to turn on my TCP/IP enabled computer that I'm going to get a settlement offer from the MAFIAA?

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[Anonymous Coward]

no settlement just tons of black cock in your mouth cause you would be heading to prison. About 12 in your mouth, 18 in your ass and 6 gallons of cum day and not. Don't do the crime if you can't suck 15 cocks. The only torrent you will be seeing for the next 10 years are the aids infested cum-cock parties. Bring your tears.

Signed,
The Recently Paroled Niggers

Re:My IP is 127.0.0.1 so don't infringe on it

[Vexorian]

wtf, you bastard stole my IP!

Not law yet

[ianare]

Keep in mind this bill is not passed into law (yet ??). So there is still time to try to stop it!

Ya I know, online petition is not the best way. Write to your representatives if you can.

Re:Not law yet

[UncleTogie]

Already did. I'm not being criminalized for being 70% deaf and needing to watch DVDs on my PC with headphones.

Re:Not law yet

[QCompson]

Write to your representatives if you can.

Also, send them lots of money in the form of campaign contributions. They seem to really like that.

Re:Not law yet

[tomhudson]

"Write to your misrepresentatives if you can."

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Not law yet

[CrimsonAvenger]

Keep in mind this bill is not passed into law (yet ??)

Not only not passed into law, not out of Committee. Barely into Committee, as it happens, since it was submitted just six days ago.

In other words, completely ignorable. It won't be an issue until next year, most likely, or never, quite possibly.

There isn't yet a companion Bill in the Senate, so it might as well have been submitted to /. as to the House Judiciary Committee for all that it's going to matter this year. And next year, people will be too busy playing at making the other Party look like the spawn of Satan to bother with it this side of 2009.

Re:Not law yet

[Purple Screws]

Ya I know, online petition is not the best way. Write to your representatives if you can.

Precisely. Emailing your Representative is better than nothing, but not by much. With all the email these folks get, it's going to take more than a bunch of Slashdotters sending in EFF form letters to make a difference. Much better is a real letter; at least that way they know you care enough to spend the time composing it yourself.

Phone calls are also good, and a lot faster, since mail to the Capitol is severely delayed for security reasons. If even looking up your Rep's phone number sounds like too much work, just call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Re:Not law yet

[Shadowlore]

In other words if we ignore it now, it will sail on through next year because there will be no impetus to resist it.

Re:Not law yet

[CrimsonAvenger]

In other words if we ignore it now, it will sail on through next year because there will be no impetus to resist it.

In other words, wait until there's a reason to get excited before wasting time preparing to "resist it". When there's a companion bill in the Senate, and either bill gets to the floor, then it's time to resist it.

Committee is meaningless - you won't accomplish anything by protesting a bill in Committee. The Chairman of the Committee can kill any bill he wants to, and push any bill he wants badly enough through the Committee, so it's pointless to waste your time fighting it in Committee.

Fight it when it starts to look likely to be a Floor fight. Which won't be till both House and Senate have a version of the bill to look at, and one or both of those versions is on the Floor of whichever Chamber.

However, if you must panic over a Bill in Committee, I suggest that you wait till it has at least a dozen sponsors - chances of the Bill moving at all without that many Congresscritters trying to get credit for it are close to nil.

Question Copyright.

[misleb]

Methinks the time is ripe to question copyright.

Re:Question Copyright.

[Microlith]

That much is obvious. However, bad copyright laws are not the problem, they are a symptom of our Congressmen showing far too much loyalty and giving much too great an ear to malevolent corporations like the RIAA and MPAA, and not thinking of the greater implications these laws have.

Once we can fix the political problem, then we can fix the damage done to copyright, both on the legal end and on the end of the users who show the creators no respect.

Re:Question Copyright.

[misleb]

That much is obvious.

Is it? To whom? Most people I know go right along with the current model of "intellectual property."

However, bad copyright laws are not the problem,

You're right, it isn't the law that are the problem. It is the idea that people can own information that is the problem.

-matthew

Re:Question Copyright.

[Microlith]

It is obvious to the people you're speaking to, namely the readers of Slashdot.

It is the idea that people can own information that is the problem.

Indeed. That said, they got it right when they wrote the Constitution and we need to put pressure on the source of the problem, namely Congress, to fix it.

My Vote Didn't Count

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I vote against this guy every single time I get a chance. He stopped by my house and asked to put a sign in my yard for his reelection campaign (my front yard is on a very busy east-west corridor in Cincinnati). I said yes, not wanting to be ignored by him with future requests, but then removed it after he left. I really really wish this guy would get it.

Folks in Cincinnati, please get together with me and vote against Chabot.

Re:My Vote Didn't Count

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

I suspect your vote did count, unless your concept of democracy is different than the normal one.

Re:My Vote Didn't Count

[SanityInAnarchy]

He stopped by my house and asked to put a sign in my yard for his reelection campaign (my front yard is on a very busy east-west corridor in Cincinnati). I said yes

Why?

I mean, if you say no, he might ask why. Then you get to tell him. Maybe he'll even listen.

If not, so what? If he's as bad as you seem to think, what makes you think he'll listen to your future requests, either?

Re:My Vote Didn't Count

[sxpert]

nothing is less assured as you guys are voting on those hilariously stupid voting machines

Intent of the bill

[Antony-Kyre]

The article mentions "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" and it also mentions it has to have a value over $1000. I'm thinking it is an attempt to clamp down on piraters, the true pirates, the ones that steal and sell other people's copyrighted material.

However, intent needs to be proven, and the fact that it is "attempting" and not "actually committing" the infringement brings up some problems. How do you prove it exactly?

Re:Intent of the bill

[hardburn]

Read again. Those sections outline what the current law is. This new bill goes much deeper.

Re:Intent of the bill

[Stanislav_J]

The article mentions "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" and it also mentions it has to have a value over $1000. I'm thinking it is an attempt to clamp down on piraters, the true pirates, the ones that steal and sell other people's copyrighted material.

But doesn't the MAFIAA already assert that every song track distributed on P2P has a value of thousands of bucks? And couldn't they claim that avoiding spending $15 on a CD by downloading it instead constitutes "private financial gain?"

However, intent needs to be proven, and the fact that it is "attempting" and not "actually committing" the infringement brings up some problems. How do you prove it exactly?

I'm thinking this leads to the criminalization of any tool that could be used to potentially breach copyright -- ripping software, duplicators, software that strips DRM. After all, the concept of fair use is pretty much dead in the water, so if you possess any of these hardware or software tools, obviously your "intent" is to infringe, hmm?

Never try to analyze a proposed law in terms of what it actually says and the logical interpretations that follow -- always look at it in terms of extrapolating the most convoluted and contrived possible "interpretation" that smart and well-paid lawyers could derive to serve the needs of a big client with a crusade and very deep pockets.

Re:Intent of the bill

[Oligonicella]

No, you're wrong. I've just read the pdf. Those are the proposed sections, not current law. The bill doesn't go deeper. If you think it does, please either cut and paste the section you mean or at least point out which it is.

Re:Intent of the bill

[hardburn]

The current law is US Code 17, section 506 (a), which contains "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".

Re:Intent of the bill

[Antony-Kyre]

Interpretation is key, and I hope judges have enough common sense to do what was intended.

Re:Intent of the bill

[Stanislav_J]

In other words, we're doomed?

Re:Intent of the bill

[Antony-Kyre]

In other words, let us hope that the judicial branch of our government attempts to stay true to its purpose.

Re:Intent of the bill

[Stanislav_J]

Right, we're doomed.

Re:Intent of the bill

[mink]

Ah, Rincewind. How goes the reasearch into breakaway oxidation phenomena in certain reactor types?

FP?

[westlake]

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

Why, nothing at all.

You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary.

God damn lawyers!

[Linkiroth]

IP was ours first! INTERNET PROTOCOL. Get your own! Intellectual Property my ass.

Precrime!

[cicatrix1]

Finally!

Criminalize wasting tax dollars?

[HitekHobo]

Between the DMCA, the BSA, the RIAA and the MPAA, we have legislation and watchdog groups to cover every imaginable form of piracy. The courts are already having to deal with lawsuits over pathetic amounts of money to make an example of people. Do we really need to have federal agencies doing the investigation as well and make room in the criminal judicial system as well?

Re:Criminalize wasting tax dollars?

[BoberFett]

The system needs more criminals. Ideally, every average citizen would be considered a criminal. That makes them much easier to control. You can tag them, harass them, tell them where they can live, where they can work, who they can socialize with, you can dictate their life to them. Look at "sex offenders" and you'll see where politicians and corporations would love to see everyone.

Re:Criminalize wasting tax dollars?

[TechForensics]

I really hate to say this because I am rabidly against copyright enforcement abuses, but it did occur to me that the US's major product of value may be someday, if it is not now, intellectual property. This is especially likely to be true as software and virtual techniques become more proliferated and complex. There's no excuse for legislation such as that being proposed, but I have to think-- it may be in a nation's interest to protect its IP, and it may become more so. It is a dilemma- I want maximum freedom for individuals, but I don't want our gross domestic product to evaporate.

Re:Criminalize wasting tax dollars?

[muuh-gnu]

> It is a dilemma-I want maximum freedom for individuals, but I don't want our gross
> domestic product to evaporate.

When abolishing slavery? I'm sure 100 years ago this was an similar "dilema" to some of the south planters. It was such an dilemma that they fought a whole war for their "primary source of income", which, similary to copyright, was based exclusively of denying other people a natural right and then profiting of that situation.

Re:Criminalize wasting tax dollars?

[Anonymous Coward]

or people like you could stop taking stuff that isn't yours.

I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[MichaelCrawford]

At Repeal the Copyright Act!

Re:I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[misleb]

You know, I only recently came upon this idea (not original, of course) of questioning copyright during a recent discussion here on slashdot. At first I was just making a logical argument like one might in a formal debate... sort of playing the devil's advocate. And it suddenly stuck me that it was more than a debate exercise. It really made sense. Copyright and patent laws as we know them are fundamentally broken. You can't own information. It is totally absurd. I mean, I still believe in giving credit where credit is due for ideas and ensuring that creators are not plagiarized, because that would be fraud (what copyright should be about), but there is absolutely no moral or logical basis for the ownership of information. People seem to think that they have a right to make money off of their ideas. And that is just absurd. They have the right *try* and make money off of their ideas, but nobody else is obligated to ensure that their business model is profitable. If you decide to make some information public, it is out there. You can't control it.

-matthew

Re:I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[moeinvt]

What the hell are you trying to say?

"You can't own information. It is totally absurd." . . . "I still believe in giving credit where credit is due for ideas and ensuring that creators are not plagiarized."

Are you attempting to dissect the semantics of the argument by narrowing or broadening the scopes of "information" and "ownership"? What do YOU call it when someone has created a work, and there is a mechanism for "ensuring" that it is not plagiarized? Is there some sanitized synonym for "own" that we should be using?

"People seem to think that they have a right to make money off of their ideas. And that is just absurd. They have the right *try* and make money off of their ideas . . ."

There is obviously no guarantee that a particular idea will be valuable. However, the people that come up with the idea should have a right to "try" to profit from the value of their idea WITHOUT a hundred other people and large corporations exploiting the idea at the same time!

I agree that the whole system of patents and copyrights has severe flaws, but the anarchists who think that brilliant ideas and creative works should be "free" and universally exploitable once they become public are an obstacle to the implementation of a better system. That line of reasoning is absurd, and if you bring it to its logical conclusion is even more unfair than the system we have now.

Re:I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[bdjacobson]

There's a great journal out there I would recommend to anyone interested in some of the deeper issues with copyright, patents, intellectual property, etc. I found it the other day when skimming through the school library's periodicals. I went and found the website for the journal. While the articles on the website are years out of date, they are still certainly interesting and applicable considering how slowly legislation slugs along anyhow. The more recent additions are available for subscription for a quite reasonable price of 25 odd dollars/year if you're a student, $70 if not.

IDEA - The Intellectual Property Law Review.

Re:I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[einhverfr]

IANAL....

My understanding is that your view is fundamentally flawed. We need copyright and patent reform but based on what copyrights and patents have become, not what they are not.

The only form of IP protection that actually allows the "ownership of information" is that of trade secrets. I.e. if you steal my customer list in bad faith... well I own that information as it relates to my business and I have a right to go after those who unfairly try to steal my trade secrets in order to unfairly compete against me. Unlike patents or copyrights, trade secrets don't expire.

Copyright does not give ownership of information. It gives ownership of expression. Nothing in copyright law prohibits you from taking information in one copyrighted source, using that in your own work, and copyrighting that.

Similarly patents give rights to implementation, not information. I would expect that if you could simulate a patented computing device in your head based on patent applications, that would not be infringing as the algorythm itself is not patentable.

We need copyright and patent reform because these areas of law were originally intended to essentially provide a free and limited lease of creations back to their creators while retaining full ownership by society. In short the idea is supposed to be that copyright law encourages the development of works that will soon become public domain, and that patents are used to provide some incentive for those who create real inventions to disclose those so that the public will soon benefit from competition in this area. Both areas of law have been extended, I believe, well beyond their original intent.

Copyright now amounts to outright ownership in that some important rights (such as the right to control access to copyrighted works) which were retained by the people are now given to copyright owners. Furthermore, there are areas such as computer software where the term of copyright is effectively unlimited. I believe that copyright should be limited to a single 28-year term and that to get substantive protection, software vendors should be required to submit copies of both the source code and binary distribution to the Library of Congress.

Similarly patents have been extended to cover new breeds of plants which are vegetatively propagated, business processes, and other areas where the public has no business granting patents. I am waiting for someone to patent a variety of strawberry so that everyone who buys a plant will infringe shortly after...

Re:I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[misleb]

"You can't own information. It is totally absurd." . . . "I still believe in giving credit where credit is due for ideas and ensuring that creators are not plagiarized."

Are you attempting to dissect the semantics of the argument by narrowing or broadening the scopes of "information" and "ownership"?/i>

The definition of information is fine the way it is. It is the idea of ownership (of information in particular) that I question.

What do YOU call it when someone has created a work, and there is a mechanism for "ensuring" that it is not plagiarized?

I call that copyright.. or at least what copyright should be, IMO. What's the confusion, here? Plagiarism is fraud.

Is there some sanitized synonym for "own" that we should be using?

It wouldn't be much of a synonym, would it?

"People seem to think that they have a right to make money off of their ideas. And that is just absurd. They have the right *try* and make money off of their ideas . . ."

There is obviously no guarantee that a particular idea will be valuable. However, the people that come up with the idea should have a right to "try" to profit from the value of their idea WITHOUT a hundred other people and large corporations exploiting the idea at the same time!

But isn't that it works today? Some musician comes up with a song, for example, and large corporations exploit it? This idea that there are lots of independent people out there trying to profit on their own from their ideas is largely a myth. All the small time indie musicians I know would love to see their music get out there and be traded and heard. It isn't the indipendent creators that are clammoring for intellectual property "rights." It is the large corporations who exploit ideas.

Read up on that site I linked to, questioncopyright.org. Karl Fogel is much more eloquent and persuasive than I.

I agree that the whole system of patents and copyrights has severe flaws, but the anarchists who think that brilliant ideas and creative works should be "free" and universally exploitable once they become public are an obstacle to the implementation of a better system. That line of reasoning is absurd, and if you bring it to its logical conclusion is even more unfair than the system we have now.

So where do you think the severe flaws are? Do patents and copyright just last a little longer than you'd like?

-matthew

Re:I just gave them a link from my copyright piece

[moeinvt]

"It is the idea of ownership ...that I question."

OK, I see the difference between "owning" the exclusive rights of distribution and control of a particular work(copyright) vs. actually "owning" the work.

"What's the confusion, here?"

I think it was the context. Your comment stating that someone has a right to "try" to make money off a particular idea, but that nobody else had to respect their business model seemed like a suggestion that the creator have no financial rights to their work whatsoever. That's obviously inconsistent with your suggestion that creators be protected against plagiarism as we NOW define it. I therefore thought you were arguing that taking someone else's work for commercial purposes should be OK, as long as the source was not misrepresented. We agree that such a system would be exploited by those with the means to mass produce and mass market the work(i.e. corporations), and it would be worse than it is now.

In "brief" response to your inquiry, patents and copyrights definitely last longer than I'd like. Fair use should be clearly defined and the interpretation broadened, there has to be a much stronger distinction between "invention" and "discovery", and the flaws in the process by which patents are reviewed and granted are too numerous to list.

"Attempted" Infringement

[hardburn]

So what evidence do you need of "attempted" infringement? Will having a BitTorrent client on your system be enough? I can easily see a RIAA lawyer taking that stance in court.

Re:"Attempted" Infringement

[Anonymous Coward]

So what evidence do you need of "attempted" infringement? Will having a BitTorrent client on your system be enough? I can easily see a RIAA lawyer taking that stance in court.

"Copyright Infringement Paraphernalia"

Secret formula?

[RealGrouchy]

Let's say, for example, that my friend John had a company that produced a beverage based on a secret formula. For the sake of simplicity, let's call his company "Coke".

If I were to create another company (let's call it, oh, I dunno... "Pepsi") and created a similar beverage from reverse-engineering John's Coke-Drink, would I be guilty of attempted IP infringement?

- RG>

Re:Secret formula?

[Lockejaw]

Either the formula is a trade secret, and you are free to reverse engineer it, or the formula is patented, and there should be no need to reverse engineer it.

Re:Secret formula?

[stony3k]

Ah! but with software you can have stuff that is trade secret (closed source), copyrighted (if it's a trade secret then what exactly is being copyrighted - the binary form?), patented (the idea is patented and not the code itself) and even trademarked (like Windows).

So it's not quite so cut and dried.

Check those citatations!

[westlake]

The Cornell link has a small but dangerously misleading typographical error:

506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, - OR -

(2) 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
Copyright Law of the United States of America

ILLINOIS MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO POSTING '24' TELEVISION SHOW ON INTERNET PRIOR TO FIRST BROADCAST ON FOX

A Chicago man pleaded guilty today to a felony charge for posting the first four episodes of this season's "24" on the Internet before they were originally aired on the Fox television network earlier this year.
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section [July 2, 2007], The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [February 18, 1998]

Criminalizing Download Too, as "Conspiracy"

[twitter]

From the bill:

CONSPIRACY- If two or more persons conspire to commit an offense under paragraph (1) and one or more of such persons do any act to effectuate the object of the conspiracy, each shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

This paragraph is more disturbing to me - language like that can be used to rope in just about anyone.

Re:Criminalizing Download Too, as "Conspiracy"

[Der Ninja]

Well of course, it's even got PIRACY in the name.

Re:Criminalizing Download Too, as "Conspiracy"

[Oligonicella]

Don't see it. Explain how please.

Re:Criminalizing Download Too, as "Conspiracy"

[MysteriousPreacher]

"one or more of such persons do any act to effectuate the object of the conspiracy"

We can take an example. I am the RIAA sterotypical pirate. I make thousands of illegal discs and use the proceeds to fund Islamic terrorist attacks. Anyway, I ask you to loan me your DVD burner. You do so,not realising that I lead a secret double life as Mohammed "Movie Man" Ahmed. If I use your burner to produce pirated discs, you are just as liable as I am - even though my motives are clearly criminal, you were acting innocently. It puts an unreasonable burden on you to police the actions of others. Not only are the feds fighting to protect society from downloaded copies of the Lion King, you'll be part of the fight as well.

At least that's how I read it.

Re:Criminalizing Download Too, as "Conspiracy"

[westlake]

This paragraph is more disturbing to me - language like that can be used to rope in just about anyone.

The paragraph is the standard legal definition of participation in a criminal conspiracy and has been around more or less forever. You were part of the plan. Your or your partner(s) acted on the plan. You all share in the consequences.

The felony murder rule has a similar logic. You and your brothers rob a bank. When a teller is shot, when a teller lies dead, it doesn't much matter that you weren't the one who pulled the trigger. You were part of the crime, you helped make this happen.

What is driving those

[no-body]

IDIOTS?

They got no other topics to focus on than those _important_ issues?

They must - actually are - in a total dream world utterly detached from "normal" (majority in pure numbers) folks.

A healthy mandatory time of 6 month/2 years living with a workers family for every politician could cure that. Provided of cause they can show their butt in public which is, as it is impossible for most "higher up", an irony in itself.

Why does it have to be criminal?

[OrangeTide]

Why can't we just have a copyright system that is handle in civil courts? Why does everything have to be a crime now?

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[QCompson]

Why can't we just have a copyright system that is handle in civil courts? Why does everything have to be a crime now?

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[Sigma 7]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand Nineteen Eighty Four shows a system where there is very few laws - there's no need to have seperate sections for robbery, extortion, fraud, etc when the term "stealing" would do. Other than that, it's pretty easy to avoid being vaporized - don't be a threat to society. Doing so is simple - don't be violent, don't be greedy, and don't think.

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[cpt kangarooski]

That's a good question, but do be aware that some copyright infringement has been criminal in the US since the late 19th century, so it's not that new.

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[QCompson]

Having fewer laws but broader and vaguer definitions is even worse; it invites selective-enforcement by police. Suddenly, unbeknown to you, burning a back-up copy of your Duran-Duran CD falls under the same "stealing" law, and carries the same penalties, as smashing a window and burglarizing a music store.

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[vux984]

Whoosh!

Apparently you haven't read 1984, or it would seem, even heard of it.

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[QCompson]

Oh please. I certainly didn't take his reply as a direct rebuttal to my comment, although I can see how my reply could be misinterpreted (and I admit it was likely superfluous).

But feel free to assume whatever you would like. Simplistic, childish slashdot replies are fun, I'll give you that. Whoosh!

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[Sigma 7]

Having fewer laws but broader and vaguer definitions is even worse; it invites selective-enforcement by police. Selective enforcement is caused by the lack of police forces, a corrupt institution, or a despotism. In the latter of the two cases, selective enforcement is based on the ability to "get away" with the crimes. The number or quality of the laws do not affect this.

The RIAA, as you know, is flinging lawsuits left and right, as they have the resources to do so. They treat everyone equally - if you get detected, you become targetted. However, the DVDCCA allocated much less resources for legal battles and only targetted a small quantity of those who distributed DeCSS. For one reason or another, they couldn't go after the large quantity of "thieves" and needed to target a smaller group.

Suddenly, unbeknown to you, burning a back-up copy of your Duran-Duran CD falls under the same "stealing" law, In that event of the scenario, you've already broken the law and you'd know it - even before you attempt to burn the CD. Also, why would you want that CD? There's already high-quality entertainment played frequently enough that you don't need such low-quality sounds.

and carries the same penalties, as smashing a window and burglarizing a music store. Hammurabi's code of laws contains a concept known as an "Eye for an eye", where the punishment is proportional to the damage inflicted. Likewise, the book of Leviticus uses a "sheep for a sheep" concept. Breaking the law has always been easy to determine - either you steal or you don't.

Also, the comparison you provided isn't exact. For copying the CD, you've committed stealing, and upto two instances of possession (which requires more context to determine the actual answer). In the latter case, you've committed destruction and stealing. These are distinct enough to have different aggregiate punishments.

The punishments can simply be the standard eye-for-an-eye, where punishments are porportional to the damage. Possession is the only gray area even if the penalty happens to be death -- the law enforcement agencies still need to decide on whether or not you get to participate as the star character in the four-minutes of hate, followed by the method of death, and whether the death penality should be reprieved (to make room for waterboarding).

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[OrangeTide]

Oh sure. We've all seen those FBI warnings on VHS tapes. But I don't understand why it has to be criminal. I suppose I could understand if copyright violators were exploiting small individuals who did not have the resources to pursue every case in civil court. But it doesn't seem that way in reality, as a "little guy" who produces a fair number of copyrighted works a year I really don't have the ear of the FBI to search and find people copying my works without license, I have to do all the detective work myself.

Not to sound like some crazy Green Party nut job, but corporations seem to have an unfair advantage in the system over an individual.

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fvzcyvfgvp, puvyqvfu fynfuqbg ercyvrf ner sha, V'yy tvir lbh gung. Jubbfu!

Re:Why does it have to be criminal?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Oh hell yeah. Criminal law is creeping far to much in to what should be civil disputes.

That said, the individual is always going to be at a disadvantage. Corportations have too much legal muscle and influence and can afford to drag things out until you bleed. Even if you represent yourself, they can keep the legal processing dragging on for a long time and effectively ruin your life without ever needing to win or lose in court.

Thankfully in the case of consumer law cases, most companies have agencies that can help. In the case of copyright law, I'm aware of no such agencies. This will hopefully change as more people produce content.

Make those college students pay!

[quizzicus]

In most cases, the bill appears to simply double existing penalties. Good. Because $750 per song was just a slap on the wrist.

Republicans

[Doc Ruby]

Republican. From Ohio, maybe the most corrupt den of Republicans exposed in the past few years.

Please follow EFF Link

[PaddyM]

Hi,
Please follow the EFF link in the article to send a letter opposing the bill to your senators and members of congress. It's very important that this law not be allowed. Thanks.

Re:Please follow EFF Link

[modecx]

To Hell with that. I want the friggin' law to be enacted, and I want a whole slew of people to get arrested with criminal charges.

It'd be the only viable way to get a bunch of people angry enough to gather their torches and garden implements, so we can give the real criminals what they deserve: being "stoned" to death with compact discs.

consider the source

[ReclusiveGeek]

i lived in cincy for some years... chabot was a wannabe then and appears to have grown none in the meantime. this is just more republican ass-kissing, simple as that.

I come from the academic tradition...

[MichaelCrawford]

... where, at one time at least, discoveries were freely shared through publication in peer-reviewed journals. The way of academia was supposed to be that knowledge was free for all.

This lead to my belief that copyright should be strictly limited (in the piece I link to in the grandparent, I conclude that the original term of fourteen years would be best), and further the decision to place my music under Creative Commons.

Unfortunately, the academic world I grew up believing in no longer really exists; Universities patent their professors' inventions, and University researches do contract work for private industry under non-disclosure. It's a damn shame.

Re:I come from the academic tradition...

[kebes]

Unfortunately, the academic world I grew up believing in no longer really exists;

It still exists. Maybe it's "fighting to survive"... but it is not dead. In fact many academics are carrying-on with the tradition of working towards open sharing of information. For instance a large number of academics are actively pushing for Open Access to all scholarly content. It will no doubt be a long struggle, but progress is already being made, such as preprint archives (e.g. arXiv), a growing number of open-access journals (e.g. PLoS), and even some big-name traditional journals are now offering authors the option to pay for their articles to be open-access.

The new generation of academics have grown up with the internet and are accustomed to easy online access to every journal imaginable. As this generation takes over more academic positions, I think this intellectual freedom will spread. In short, I'm hopeful that academia will undergo a mini-renaissance and re-emphasize its roots of "spreading knowledge."

Re:I come from the academic tradition...

[Banzai042]

The problem here is that big-name journals are offering authors the option to pay for their submission to be open-access. Why should anybody who wants their work to be available to all need to pay somebody else to ensure that it happens? I think that in the future we are more likely to see a fork of academic ideals, on one hand we'll have a vast number of wiki style scientific journals, on the other we'll have the pay-access journals.

Re:I come from the academic tradition...

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree; the pay-access journals will die and they will be replaced by peer-reviewed online journals, not wikis. At the moment, academics write (and typeset) their papers for free, other academics referee those papers for free, the journal takes the copyrights and sells the papers back to the academics making a huge profit, while adding no value. This is insane.

There are already respected, peer-reviewed online journals, e.g. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics. There is no reason why this trend shouldn't continue.

This is PRE CRIME!

[Newer Guy]

Remember the movie Minority Report? Well, it's HERE!

Re:This is PRE CRIME!

[aadvancedGIR]

There is a major flaw in your reasonning: in that movie, they had an imperfect way to tell that someone was about to commit a crime, but at least the persons in charge were believing they were doing the right thing.
Making a law that can allow to burry anyone under criminal charges without needing to bring up a single proof because more and more civil judges now understand RIAA has difficulties bringing good enouth proofs to back up their clains is simple abuse of power.

How about Attempted Political Fraud Act 2007

[syousef]

...and the standard of proof would be any politician holding or running for office.

Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[LingNoi]

... I assume this bill will only apply to people and not companies as it says..

criminalize some forms of "attempted infringement."

Say for example a company steals some GPL work they won't see any Jail time and/or penalties but a person who steals the companies work will get the full force of this bill. Not that the two are related but its the best analogy I could think of.

This will work well for many companies who favour stealing and ruining peoples lives in the name of profits and just doing my job. As usual the US government will not take a balanced view on the subject and do what their corporate masters tell them to.

For more info see today's other posting about a corrupt US official

On the other hand..

If I am wrong and I does apply to the GPL for companies this quote says..

The bill allows "a judge to dole out damages for each separate piece of a derivative work or compilation, rather than treating it as one work," wrote Derek Slater, "for example, copying an entire album could translate into damages for each individual track, even if the copyrights in those tracks aren't separately registered."

Does that mean a judge could dole out damages for each separate source code files. Say someone is infringing the Linux copyright could a judge charge them per source.c file?

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[hardburn]

Say someone is infringing the Linux copyright could a judge charge them per source.c file?

Why stop there? Why not charge them per line?

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[StikyPad]

Why stop there? Each variable is a unique piece of IP!

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about when GNU/Linux takes BSD copywritten code and infringes on that?

RedHat 5.2 - used BSD LPD code and did not honor clasue 4.
2.0 Linux kernel network code (the file that says 'we took this from FreeBSD' and slapped on a GPL and removed the BSD copyright)
Linux and ATA code (covered as a front page of /.)

Or how about 'a linux project'? Like l4u taking the g4u code?

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[Ash-Fox]

Wasn't these issues already dealt with?

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[IBBoard]

Say someone is infringing the Linux copyright could a judge charge them per source.c file?

That implies you get a judge who knows what this strange "Lee-nucks" is, never mind the more difficult challenge of finding a judge who knows what a source code file is.

It would be interesting to see whether a stolen GPL case would be as successful, though.

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[LingNoi]

How about when GNU/Linux takes BSD copywritten code and infringes on that?

Why is it ok for propitiatory vendors to put BSD code into its operating system and not ok for a GPL project?

When its Apple and Microsoft it is using. When it is the GPL it is stealing. Your post is lame and makes the BSD community look like a bunch of elitist assholes.

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it ok for propitiatory vendors to put BSD code into its operating system and not ok for a GPL project?

Given the thread was about GNU/Linux, your comment is off-topic.

When its Apple and Microsoft it is using. When it is the GPL it is stealing.

Now, the topic was Linux and the GPL. There ya go again, trying to derail the thread.

Your post is lame and makes the BSD community look like a bunch of elitist assholes.

Really? Looks like you have some axe you wanna try to grind. Too bad you don't have the neurons to make a valid point. Try to keep it on topic next time OK?

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The examples (should) not be an issue as they are in the past and the law should not be able to touch 'em.

More to the point - if such a law came into existance and per the original poster was going to 'offer protection' for GNU/Linux - the same laws can be used against *ANY* loosely run GNU/Linux project.

I just gave a quick list of when the shoe was on the other foot, for the benefit of the hand wringing "this will help GNU/Linux". Besides, the only GNU/Linux author who has the stones to actually take matters to court is in Germany, thus a US law won't matter to the blovating American /.ers.

Re:Applies only to people (real ones) ?

[PPH]

... I assume this bill will only apply to people and not companies as it says..

That's an interesting point. There has already been legal precedent established (specifically involving telcos selling customer records) where the right of 'corporate free speech' trumps individuals (and even the government's) rights to protect its own IP.

Expect the same sorts of differentiation here.

Donate money to friendly politicians

[MichaelCrawford]

It's hard for politicians that support copyright reform to raise the money they need to conduct their re-election campaigns. Hollywood pours a lot of money into the coffers of politicians who are then only too happy to pass draconian bills.

I just started a very good job; before long, I plan to be using some of my newfound salary to donate myself.

Re:Donate money to friendly politicians

[Nazlfrag]

I hope it's a really well paying job. Here's taste of what you're up against.

Time Warner - $3,780,000
CBS Corp - $5,440,000
News Corp - $3,420,000
Recording Industry Assn of America - $1,501,400
Motion Picture Assn of America - $1,800,000
Broadcast Music Inc - $1,360,000
Viacom Inc - $1,475,000
Sony BMG Music Entertainment - $720,000
Sony Corp of America -$320,000
Sony Electronics - $445,000
Sony Pictures Entertainment - $400,000
etc.etc.
Total For TV/Movies/Music: $72,433,974

And that's just lobbyists in 2006. I'd stick to writing letters and getting ignored rather than forking out cash and getting ignored.

I wonder when they will raid his home?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone notice a pattern with these media whores sponsoring this crap and then getting busted later for taking bribes?

Corrected link...

[martyb]

FTFS:

...people could now be charged with criminal copyright infringement even if such infringement has not actually taken place.

Reading that made me want to vomit. That's how I learned the link needed to be corrected: "Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal enforcement ACt". Somehow, it just seems fitting to call it the IPECAC bill. Besides, what did you expectorant?

<groan>

Re:Corrected link...

[Anonymous Coward]

...IPECAC bill

Bawhawhawhaahohaahaaa.....

Re:Gotta love it

[Divebus]

This is nothing. Just wait 'til the Thought Police get ahold of you.

Not applicable to the law

[SMS_Design]

You cannot copyright a recipe for a beverage. If you can figure the recipe out, go for it.

The US' original concepts going down the drain

[sxpert]

It appears that every day the US are inching slowly but surely towards a police state, all this to help a bunch of mafioso keep a stranglehold on the entertainment market
This last example of a "Law" appears like the first forays into the world of Minority Report for good. At the same time, it's sort of also going in the direction of Gattaca

This is far, far away from the concepts of the "Land of the free" heralded by the forefathers...

Re:The US' original concepts going down the drain

[Anonymous Coward]

This last example of a "Law" appears like the first forays into the world of Minority Report [imdb.com] for good. At the same time, it's sort of also going in the direction of Gattaca [imdb.com]

In Soviet Russia, science fiction books was often the only means available to an author that wanted to critizise the soviet society. When the book was set in a distant future, the author would not get thrown into jail, even when it was obvious to an intelligent reader that the book really was dealing with modern-day problems in society.

It seems the same method of criticism is sometimes used in the US. Minority Report, Gattaca and now Transformers...

Re:The US' original concepts going down the drain

[Shadowlore]

The most insightful part of this comment:
"It appears that every day the US are inching slowly but surely towards a police state,"

Wonder how many people think that is actually invalid grammar..

Yup.

[RulerOf]

I thought the exact same thing.

So what are you going to do about it?

[MichailS]

Write well-formulated outrage on Slashdot?

Revolving Door Not Contributions

[dmccartney]

According to the codified portions of Chabot's donations on OpenSecrets, he actually did not receive much money directly from the TV/Movies/Music industry. According to Chabot's 2006 Industry Breakdown it was his 19th greatest contributor, giving $31,000.

However, a mischievous explanation of his manipulation can be found by looking to his revolving door(*). Chabot's recently departed Counsel, Etheridge Berkley, was named Vice President and Counsel of the NMPA (Nat'l Music Publishers Assoc'n) in March of 2005.

For more, see Berkley's revolving door profile and the NMPA press release of Berkley's appointment[pdf] ("I know that the U.S. music publishing industry will find her to be a terrific champion on their behalf").

(*) - "Revolving Door" in this context refers to those who go back-and-forth between working on K Street (lobbying) and Capital Hill (congressional committees). For more, see Time Magazine's The Lobbying Game: Why the Revolving Door Won't Close .

Re:FP? Doubling the prison sentence

[ydra2]

Here's the rationale for "slow on the uptake" people. When the laws were originally written, the copywright material was valued in then current dollars. With inflation, those copywrights are worth far more than double their original valuation. So now the penalty must be at least double what it was back then. Similarly with the value of human lives being decreased, the payout for having a relative die in war is reduced. Thats how we can afford to keep killing Americans in Iraq. Are you starting to get the picture now? What we value increases in value and what we don't care about decreases in value. Punishment for crimes against things we don't care about decreases and punishment for crimes against things we care about increases. Downloading a copy of somthing and decrypting it carries a far harsher penalty than killing a brown skinned person. It's all about value. What's wrong with you people? Don't you understand simple economics?

Some things just do not go away...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia there was a penal code (58) addressing specifically to state crimes.
According to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipealgo this act was normally interpreted by "judges" in a way which allowed holding person with the intent liable using the same section as the actual event itself. Moreover, special instructions were given to officials to treat anyone with intent (or even means to carry out an act) as if they were actually performed an act. Loosely quoting the author: "A friend saying to another over a glass of beer 'F--k him' resulted 25+ years because the one referred to happened to be a party official and there was obviously a terrorist organisation of 2 members". Or: "A friend of your wife had her dress made by the same taylor as the wife of an American diplomat. Outcome for you: espionage."
Actually, this act did not address only counter-revolutionary activity as one could think of (explosions, sabotage) but everything imaginable such as picking up some stuff fallen off from a truck - sabotage, undermining the state power, was obviously a serious offense.

Time to start writing...

[Jorgandar]

If everyone on slashdot took 5 minutes to write to your local congressman/woman, this would create enough noise for them to notice, it's not OK to be doing this anymore...here is my letter:

"Dr mr Waxman, I am writing you to urge your opposition to H.R.3155, which is still in committee. Should it go to general debate, it will double penalties for copyright infringement, and introduce new crimes in the process. I'm sick of congress making criminals out of innocent people and wasting our tax money enforcing this. This is being pushed by the RIAA no doubt.

Copyright issues are a CIVIL case, they are not criminal offenses, and should be dealt with accordingly. I for one am fed up with the congress that looks out only for big businesses. Its time to make laws that are good for the people. This is not one of them. Furthermore, a punishment should fit a the "crime". Copying an mp3 file or a movie is not a big crime. Nobody died. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was stolen (the original is still there). No property was damaged. Lets treat it as it is. Current laws are ridiculously harsh. We need to roll back the power your friends in congress have given the big RIAA machine and give it back to the people. "

Re:Time to start writing...

[mcvos]

If everyone on slashdot took 5 minutes to write to your local congressman/woman

Problem is, not everybody here has a local congressman/woman, and some of those who have, probably have one that has no influence on this bill.

Ofcourse the good news is that those people will also not be subject to this silly law. At least not for a while.

Re:Time to start writing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, a punishment should fit a the "crime". Copying an mp3 file or a movie is not a big crime. Nobody died. Nobody was hurt. Nothing was stolen (the original is still there). No property was damaged. Lets treat it as it is.

No, no, no -- you don't understand how it works. The point of punishing copyright infringement isn't to punish an act performed but to deter future infringement. And since infringement is (currently) almost impossible to detect, we need to impose seemingly draconian punishments in order to have any effect at all. To understand why, you have to understand how copyright infringers -- or "perps", as we call them -- think:

Just before pirating a hit song, an infringer will briefly consider the potential cost of his actions. If he thinks he would be likely to get caught, then a small punishment -- such as three minutes and twenty-two seconds of community service -- would be adequate to deter him from his act. But the chance of being caught is actually one in 1.4 million, so the infringer mentally multiplies the chance of getting caught by the punishment to get the expected value of punishment. If the small punishment mentioned above is in place, the infringer can expect to do approximately 56 nanoseconds of community service, which is hardly a deterrent at all. Instead, if we place the punishment at $25 million per infringement, then the expected value of punishment is approximately the cost of a CD plus transportation and a light snack, and so the infringer is successfully deterred.

And not only is this an effective means of deterrent, but it is efficient, too. It's much easier to collect a lump sum from an infringer (or his parents, or his academic institution, or his place of business) than it would be to collect millions of little payments. We could really "tighten up" government if we applied this principle elsewhere. Just think... we could entirely eliminate jaywalking by putting 6-7 people to death per year.

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't vote for Bill then

...in Himmel

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Okay, I'd be a criminal if I did something which caused no damage and didn't lead to an actual loss. Now I'd be a criminal if I unsuccessfully tried to do something which would cause no damage or loss.

Well fsck me.

Kafka wasn't a prophet, he was an architect.

This is just ridiculous.

Chabot serves my district

[Anonymous Coward]

Help my spell it out to everyone I live near. How would this affect their day to day lives? Mixed CDs to loved ones? Criminalization of VCR users? Slammer time for someone who tapes something off of the airwaves?

Employees are not shielded from the law ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

... I assume this bill will only apply to people and not companies as it says..

criminalize some forms of "attempted infringement."

Say for example a company steals some GPL work they won't see any Jail time and/or penalties but a person who steals the companies work will get the full force of this bill. Not that the two are related but its the best analogy I could think of.

You are mistaken. A person is not shielded from criminal prosecution because they acted as an employee rather than an individual.

Re:Employees are not shielded from the law ...

[LingNoi]

True but who is to blame in a mega-corp where it is impossible to pin down who did what?

I remember in England a Train company that neglected to take care of the railway to gain more profits. Result? Multiple train crashes with many people dead.

The company was fined and no one went to prison. If you had the same situation where you could point a finger and say "it was him" then I would agree with you but these businesses are super massive and no one is ever to blame.

Re:Employees are not shielded from the law ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

If you had the same situation where you could point a finger and say "it was him" then I would agree with you but these businesses are super massive and no one is ever to blame.

Software is different. Revision control will indicate who introduced the offending code.

Re:Employees are not shielded from the law ...

[PPH]

Software is different. Revision control will indicate who introduced the offending code.

Not really. The chain of possession from the point where the code was originally extracted, through some reformatting, comment stripping, and variable name changes to the person who finally checked it in as a part of a project can be quite easily concealed. If your job is to check in code produced by one team and tested by several others, can the authorities prove who had the intent (necessary for a conviction) to point the finger at you or anyone else?

That was the basic premise of 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

The surveilance society first, so you *could* catch any crime, then the selective enforcement of the current crimes. Spin this to demonstrate tougher laws are needed and eventually everyone is breaking SOME law. Then anyone needed out the way, enforce the law against them.

Big Brother was merely the visible expression of a law system everyone broke.

It's a little annoying that Anne Rand is taken as such a unique visionary...

Leave while you can

[Koraq]

I'm downright scared that so many comment on this is so humorous. If I lived in the US, I'd leave.

In a country where you can be tried for crimes you did not even commit, justice is no longer even a fantasy.

Thanks for a few hundred years of being a beacon if liberty! What a shame it would end like this. I admire the spirit that fueled men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Robert E. Lee. We have had liberal democracies back here in the old world thanks to them, Napoleon and some other guys. I don't know if shall laugh of cry.

Yes, I'm damn serious. Leave while you can, soon it will be illegal too. :-(

Re:Leave while you can

[Oligonicella]

Oh fuckin' please. You'd be more convincing if your skreed contained a modicum of thought instead of simply OMG THE US IS A FASCIST STATE.

You'd let attempted murderers go, I presume?

Re:Leave while you can

[sexybomber]

Dude, there are a bunch of big differences between attempted murder and attempted copyright infringement, the biggest being that one has an actual victim.

Re:Leave while you can

[Bloodoflethe]

While I agree with the intent of this post, both actions have an actual victim. An attempt at murder doesn't necessarily have to be recognized by the intended victim. For example, poisoning someone's water supply would be an attempt at murder, but if that person rarely drinks the water, you may only make that person sick and they would never know that they are the target of a murder. Similarly, a copyright infringement is hard for anyone to notice without strict controls. These are controls that hurt/annoy honest users like me more than they deter dishonest users (well, dishonest users of above average intelligence is probably more accurate). I am strongly against trying to enforce copyright laws on something that is being played on the air somewhere in the world right now (and if it isn't being played right now, it probably isn't making money for the owner anymore anyway). It is a form of expression and, just like any artform, will bring in money if it has any value to the culture in which it was created.

Re:Leave while you can

[sexybomber]

Point taken. Bad choice of words on my part. But I'm glad you have the brainpower to get the idea, unlike the flamebait GP above :^D

amatuers

[Anonymous Coward]

Pah -- Yank amateurs. The UK courts last week imprisoned 3 Muslim kids
for possession of material deemed to promote terrorism!

You have a long way to go to catch up with our pervasive authoritarianism

Law Enforcement or Crime Enforcement?

[mcvos]

Did you notice the name of the bill? Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act. Isn't crime enforcement the opposite of law enforcement? Did we suddenly get surprisingly honest politicians?

Re:FP? Doubling the prison sentence

[It'sYerMam]

When you replace "we" with, "people in charge of the law and, by extension, the money-makers who control them" your post stops being wryly humourous and starts being.. the truth, pretty much.

Read my..

[castrox]

Read my signature. You don't need to spend a fortune - everything counts. Plus you'll be part of the struggle.

Re:FP?THANK the GODS extortion and imprisonment

[OldHawk777]

You must be a female virgin with hymen intact as defined by the Reprobate Intellectual Property (RIP.sux) of America to be possibly considered "innocent" and stupid in the USA and EU.

Outlandish people must be charged with criminal copyright infringement allowing legal suppression by perversive dejure sustaining our mediocrity republics. This is the way aristocracies are supposed to function.

You know, dang good and well, that we would have a religious/dogma inquisition republic like Russia and China if not for our mediocrity republic leaders keeping US & EU safe for corporatist-welfare extortion and imprisonment.

IOW::TAI [there were no spelling errors]

Any politician, for gods' sake, can be a marketable/electable flaming Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Nixon/Kennedy/Eisenhower!

!HAVEFUN! I know, it all sounds like spin-perversion, so vary absurd, but "really" is it?

What happened?

[nurb432]

Well, 'intent to commit a crime' and then acting on that intent regardless of its success is already illegal ( i do believe its called conspiracy to commit ) so there is nothing really new here. Not that i agree with passing yet another law that says the same thing as another, just commenting that its nothing new.

I also don't think anyone said that you lost the right defend yourself in a court of law of you are accused of said crime, so your 'what happened' statement doesn't make much sense ( at least in this case ).

Obligatory

[kalirion]

Attempted IP infringement, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?

Justice is more equal for some, Comrade

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it not strange that someone in the Whitehouse can commit treason by exposing an undercover CIA operative and never be punished, yet the justice a common person can expect is to be convicted of crimes he never even committed?

IP?

[amccaf1]

It's my own fault, but I wish "Intellectual Property" had a different abbreviation. Looking at the headline, I thought they were going to criminalize pirates who went around hijacking people's IP addresses...

Re:IP?

[neminem]

Yup, same here. Then again, I thought it might have something to do with Microsoft, as well - the Bill, in that case, being Gates.

Reminds me of something someone posted ages ago, about something they saw in London: "I came upon a wall covered with bills. In the middle of the wall was a sign that read, "Bill Posters Will Be Prosecuted." Beneath it, someone had written, "Bill Posters Is Innocent." I've always wondered how Bill's trial turned out."

As an example

[Linnen]

Henry Kissinger got the 1973 Nobel Peace prize for the cease-fire that ended American involvement in Viet Nam.

Busted!

[MrSquishy]

Remember the movie Minority Report? Well, it's HERE! You just attempted to post a link to the movie and screwed up the link.

Attempted IP infringer!

Finally they found a way to plug the analog hole

[Hillgiant]

Is humming an attempt at infringement? I listening?

Re:FP? Doubling the prison sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

the copywright material was valued in then current dollars. With inflation, those copywrights are worth far more than double their original valuation. So now the penalty must be at least double what it was back then. Similarly with the value of human lives being decreased, the payout for having a relative die in war is reduced. Thats how we can afford to keep killing Americans in Iraq.

I can name two things that are better without a W in the middle: "copyright" and "George W. Bush".

Intellectual Property Protection Act

[Laserwulf]

I recently put my money where my mouth is & emailed my rep, Jay Inslee. I honestly can't tell whether or not this is a stock reply (maybe I should encourage some friends to write him, and see the replies), but it shows that he at least acknowledges his constituents' communications. Also, it seems interesting how he notes that it would be beneficial to the music industry, but makes no mention of putting his constituents' best interests first.

As far as I can tell, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007 looks like some sort of mutation of the Intellectual Property Protection Act, as they appear to do the same thing, but IANAL.

Dear Mr. ______:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the administration's draft proposal for the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.

I agree that it is important to keep the rights of consumers in mind as we work to address concerns from copyright holders about the unfair use of their intellectual property. It is my privilege to represent a region renowned for its cutting edge technology in Congress. Please be assured that I will continue to support innovation in this new era.

As you know, the Department of Justice has recently released a draft proposal for reform of existing intellectual property protections under US law. The proposed Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 would expand criminalization of copyright infringement to include those that attempt to commit a crime, rather than just prosecuting those who actually complete the crime. The law would also permit wiretaps to locate and convict those who are "attempting" to commit copyright infringement. This bill is widely seen as being highly beneficial to the recording industry and would do a great deal to limit copyright infringement of musical recordings.

I also believe we need to allow for fair use of protected content while preventing illegal piracy. As new technologies are developed, we must work diligently to strike a balance between preserving fair use principles for consumers and protecting intellectual property. Unfortunately, I am not a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over this matter. However, as a Member of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, I will continue to look for ways to protect innovation in reviewing legislation that pertains to digital technology during the current 110th Congress.

Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. As a service to my constituents, I maintain a website which contains valuable resources and information on Congressional activities. Please feel free to visit the website at http://www.house.gov/inslee for information on recent issues and to learn more about the services my office provides. If you have not done so already, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm to subscribe to my e-mail updates.

I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name and address, including your zip code, in your message.

Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress

the missing amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"Furthermore, any concealment of one's speech via use of 'l33t' or 'Leetspeak' during the attempted act shall constitute Special Circumstances and be punishable by summary execution."

Perhaps we the people should create a law...

[Sfing_ter]

That punishes ignorant morons that have been elected when they attempt to legislate something they a) have no idea about wtf is going on, and b) are creating such legislation because they got a campaign contribution or an addition to their house... :)

Re:FP?THANK the GODS extortion and imprisonment

[sumdumass]

Yea, It is. You see, if it was true, you could be elected yourself and change it if the right people get behind you.

I don't see that being the case and I think you reject the possibility of your own accusations by the fact you haven't acted on it by now. All attempts on stuff like this fail miserably. And it isn't because of the lack of funding.

No Cruel, Unusual Punishments

[HTH NE1]

I don't understand this insistance on being fair with convicted criminals. They weren't being fair in most cases when they broke the law so why do we need to do this for them. You'd be quite at home in the alternate Earth where graffiti carries the death penalty and where Proposition 199, the "Instant Justice Initiative" was passed, providing for the instantaneous denial of appeals.

Or perhaps you'd prefer the world of Judge Dredd: 1 year for Littering, 2 years for Speeding, 1 year for Flatulism.

Or the law of the Edo, that for every crime there is only one penalty: death. (Apologies to CleverNickName.)

"There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute! Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
"When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?"

So while we're burning the Constitution, let's not forget the part about no cruel, unusual punishments.

Re:No Cruel, Unusual Punishments

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure what the constitution or your idea of burning it has to do with things. Nothing I said approaches that line of thought.

It is interesting however, how you form your opinions base on Hollywood. This might make a good movie some day but the examples are completely off from the point I was making. Somehow, I think you know this.

Re:No Cruel, Unusual Punishments

[MCraigW]

Or perhaps you'd prefer the world of Judge Dredd: 1 year for Littering, 2 years for Speeding, 1 year for Flatulism.

One year for Flatulism?! I'd be doing life!!

My favorite examples

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I own webspace. On my local machine is a mirror copy of what is on my webspace. I work on the webspace locally, then use a simple FTP program to synch up the site with my work. I accidentally save a copyrighted work worth $1001 into the workspace, then it ends up on my webspace. No one knows it's there, and no one ever downloads it. But my ISP finds it, and I am thrown to the feds for attempted infringement.

2. There is a wonderful photo for sale for commercial use for $1001 on a website that I want, but I'm not gonna pay that so I right-click on it to save it to my local disk. Except the website owner has implemented anti-right-click technology and pops up a warning to me that my IP address has just been sent to the FBI for attempted infringement. Guess I should have used PrtScr.

Re:FP?THANK the GODS extortion and imprisonment

[OldHawk777]

I would have said; most "attempts on stuff like this fail miserably," until the past couple decades. Now funding and spin-marketing has proved "attempts on stuff like this miserably succeed for US and EU." There is abundant evidence of everything depending on which spin-market you buy into; Therefor, "Reality is ...."

hitler would love these kinds a laws

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said , don't let anyone enjoy anything made might as well burn all the books and music as no one could enjoy anything under such UNdemocratic laws, can't wait to see the 1st 12 year old kid sentenced to life in prison for just having software on his computer that not only can be used for burning his familly videos but anything else.

HAHA, obsurd isn't it.
Glad i live in canada and oh when the new law come sin spring you bet the word will be out any politician that thinks he is safe should remember the mpaa's defeat last time they supported a candidate.

It's not about *owning* information...

[Randym]

You can't own information.

While that may be true, copyright is not about *owning* information, it is about *organizing* information. Otherwise, someone would have already copyrighted the alphabet and we'd all be SOL.

Remember the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition? This is one of my Rules of Information:

"The organization of information is worth money." [I was thinking of computer programming at the time, but the concept is clearly extensible.]

[Caveat: some forms of information -- certain kinds of lists -- are *not* copyrightable: for example, the White Pages.]

People seem to think that they have a right to make money off of their ideas. And that is just absurd.

People do not make money "off of their ideas". They make money from the *implementations* of their ideas; this is, in fact, the basis of the patent system. And, no, it is not absurd, although it may seem that way to someone with no ideas.

...nobody else is obligated to ensure that their business model is profitable.

Well, I agree with you there. But if their idea is good and its implementation is adequate, people are going to *want to* give them money to possess the implementation, and, unless they are complete fups, they *can* be profitable. It's called the free market system".