Slashdot Mirror
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."
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ? Oh wait, that went out the door back in the 50s with McCarthyism.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Do they give the Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Heres the open secrets link to his finances:
s p?CID=N00003689&Cycle=2002
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allindus.a
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Read the title again: "Bill Would Criminalize Attempted IP Infringement".
That wouldn't be "Gates", would it?
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.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I call "dibs" on IP 127.0.0.1
Any IP infringers out there...be warned...that's MY IP you're infringing upon
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.
Methinks the time is ripe to question copyright.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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?
I suspect your vote did count, unless your concept of democracy is different than the normal one.
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.
IP was ours first! INTERNET PROTOCOL. Get your own! Intellectual Property my ass.
Finally!
I know more than you drink.
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?
A couple of 30-somethings embark on the ultimate roadtrip
Request your free CD of my piano music.
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.
Not a typewriter
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?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
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 $1,000
Copyright Law of the United States of America
ILLINOIS MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO POSTING '24' TELEVISION SHOW ON INTERNET PRIOR TO FIRST BROADCAST ON FOX
A Chicago man pleaded guilty today to a felony charge for posting the first four episodes of this season's "24" on the Internet before they were originally aired on the Fox television network earlier this year.
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section [July 2, 2007], The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [February 18, 1998]
From the bill:
This paragraph is more disturbing to me - language like that can be used to rope in just about anyone.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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 can't we just have a copyright system that is handle in civil courts? Why does everything have to be a crime now?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Republican. From Ohio, maybe the most corrupt den of Republicans exposed in the past few years.
--
make install -not war
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.
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.
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.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Remember the movie Minority Report? Well, it's HERE!
...and the standard of proof would be any politician holding or running for office.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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..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?
I just started a very good job; before long, I plan to be using some of my newfound salary to donate myself.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
...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>
This is nothing. Just wait 'til the Thought Police get ahold of you.
Most of the stuff on
You cannot copyright a recipe for a beverage. If you can figure the recipe out, go for it.
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...
nothing is less assured as you guys are voting on those hilariously stupid voting machines
I thought the exact same thing.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Write well-formulated outrage on Slashdot?
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 .
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?
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. "
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.
... 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.
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
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?
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.
im in ur
Read my signature. You don't need to spend a fortune - everything counts. Plus you'll be part of the struggle.
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
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?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
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 ).
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Dude, there are a bunch of big differences between attempted murder and attempted copyright infringement, the biggest being that one has an actual victim.
Attempted IP infringement, now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?
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...
"Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
Henry Kissinger got the 1973 Nobel Peace prize for the cease-fire that ended American involvement in Viet Nam.
Attempted IP infringer!
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.
"Little is much when little you need."
Is humming an attempt at infringement? I listening?
-
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
"Make cyberlove, not cyberwar!" -Khaed(544779)
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... :)
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
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.
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.) So while we're burning the Constitution, let's not forget the part about no cruel, unusual punishments.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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 ...."
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
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.
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".
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
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