Congress Pressures DoJ With PIRATE Part II

Anonymous Pirate writes "Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have re-introduced the 'PIRATE Act' (pdf) to Congress. According to Ars Technica, the purpose of this act is to get the DoJ to go after individual copyright infringers. It would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil lawsuits instead of criminal ones so that they would be able to prosecute copyright infringers with only a minimal burden of proof, rather than the heavier burden required for criminal prosecution." Took a long time to do a sequel; we first talked about this proposal quite some time ago.

Comments

Huh?

[Elemenope]

While IANAL, I've never heard of the state bringing a civil suit against an individual citizen. Does that ever even happen?

Re:Huh?

[gravesb]

I think that, for instance, EPA can bring suits against people, but more often corporations.

Re:Huh?

[faloi]

It happens, but I think it's pretty rare (IANAL either). And usually for something pretty major, like to try to remove someone from office.

Re:Huh?

[Elemenope]

That makes sense, but in a case like this, how could the state even have standing to sue? It's not like they are the copyright holder. With a polluting corporation, the state could argue that the offender is damaging the public commons, and thus demonstrate harm; where is the harm to the state involved in one person making a copy of a book, movie, or song, or in helping another to do so?

Re:Huh?

[shystershep]

It's a statute. If it says the DoJ has standing, then it has standing. Unfortunately, it doesn't have to make sense.

Re:Huh?

[Mr. Underbridge]

While IANAL, I've never heard of the state bringing a civil suit against an individual citizen. Does that ever even happen?

Also not a lawyer...but I can't possibly see how the state could bring a civil suit since it's not the aggrieved party. How is the state damaged? Please tell me they're not going to try some dumb thing like lost tax revenue from the RIAA's sales that didn't occur. Leahy's comments certainly suggest it:

"Copyright infringement silently drains America's economy and undermines the talent, creativity and initiative that are a great source of strength to our nation," said Leahy. "When we protect intellectual property from copyright infringement, we protect our economy and our ideas."

Oh boo hoo.

Re:Huh?

[The Only Druid]

Standing is an artificial object: it is created by law, and needn't correspond with anyone's intuitions about who has the right to complain. While standing exists in a highly limited capacity for non-statutory claims, almost 100% of claims which can be filed in court (criminal or civil) have their issues of standing defined by statute.

If the Legislature passes a law creating standing for the DOJ in civil cases such as this, then standing exists. Of course, like all laws, such a law could be challenged (and depending on the merits, be overturned), but that's all standing is.

Re:Huh?

[nomadic]

It happens, but I think it's pretty rare (IANAL either). And usually for something pretty major, like to try to remove someone from office [nctimes.com].

Actually it's not as rare as you would think. First of all the state is oftentimes a party to a contract, and if the other party breaches they can bring them to court the same way a private citizen can. Then you have civil forfeiture proceedings, lawsuits seeking injunctions against people who threaten to reveal intelligence info, the Federal Election Commission can sue people who it thinks are violating election laws, etc.

Re:Huh?

[TheSpoom]

It doesn't matter.

Follow the trail. This act is being brought forward by congressmen bought by lobbyists, this time the **AA. They want this bill passed so that the government can end up doing their work for them.

Basically, so they can force the government into paying for their own lawsuits, and complain when they feel not enough people are being "prosecuted".

This seems transparently corrupt to me, but I would imagine they're able to pull the wool over on others because of the catchy name.

Well, at least I'm Canadian.

Re:Huh?

[Retric]

Like many laws it's unconstitutional, but who knows what's going to happen in the court system.

Re:Huh?

[trolltalk.com]

> Follow the trail. This act is being brought forward by congressmen bought by lobbyists, this time the **AA. They want this bill passed so that the government can end up doing their work for them."

Elections are coming up in a year ...

> "Well, at least I'm Canadian."

So you have to stick your 2.1 cents in :-) Maybe they should be lobbying Canadians - more "buck for the bang".

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to point out that everyone is saying "I anal."

Re:Huh?

[shystershep]

How is it unconstitutional? Not saying it isn't, just curious why you think that.

Re:Huh?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Standing is an artificial object: it is created by law, and needn't correspond with anyone's intuitions about who has the right to complain. While standing exists in a highly limited capacity for non-statutory claims, almost 100% of claims which can be filed in court (criminal or civil) have their issues of standing defined by statute.

OK. So the state wins, no problem. What's the judgement, $1, since they weren't harmed?

Again, I realize I'm not a lawyer and am well out of my depth, but this just doesn't make sense.

Re:Huh?

[encoderer]

There is an argument to be made that rampant infringement DOES hurt our economy and society as a whole. If infringment deterred real artists, etc, all of US (and thus World) Culture would be negatively affected, although we wouldn't ever know what we're missing.

Let's just be real, here.. I'd challenge anyone here to claim that they've NEVER infringed on a copyright. We've all done it. I was a Senior in High School when Napster reached its apex. I've probably downloaded 3-4 thousand songs from P2P networks. I've run unlicensed copies of a dozens of software titles. I've made copies of CDs for friends and mixtapes and things.

I'm a PIRATE..

But, I'm not going to try to justify what I've done--what we've all done--as morally or legally right. It's not. I do think that it's the copyright holders own fault. Music at the quality of what's being produced today is dramatically overpriced. I'm 25 now and a professional with a professionals salary and I pay for everything now (usually iTunes, but some physical media) but I have no qualms about what I did as a HS & College student. Screw'em. They fu*k us so we fu*k them back. End of story. But still, two wrongs don't make a right.

And our beef is not--at least in this particular case--with the Gov't. I absolutely don't think the Government should price-fix IP. Their role is to enforce the laws, period. And copyright law is a good thing. With few exceptions, I don't think many people here have issues with the existence of copyrights. I think we have issues with being price gouged for an inferior product.

So I have to respect what the Gov't is trying to do. If I produce a software title and self-publish it and it gets pirated and I lose 50% of my five-figure sales, that's not some faceless corporation. That's money out of my pocket, and I'm just a normal, middle class software developer. I would really LIKE and even EXPECT the government to do their job and enforce the laws and stop people from stealing from me.

Our beef is with the labels/etc not with copyright law (for most of us, anyway). Don't confuse the two.

Re:Huh?

[clubby]

If I produce a software title and self-publish it and it gets pirated and I lose 50% of my five-figure sales

What if the 50% who pirate it couldn't afford it in the first place? Your revenue is the same as it would be without the piracy, but you're pissed because you made someone happy without losing anything of your own. Not that that exact scenario is terribly likely, but something like it is pretty normal. And I'm not really taking issue with what you wrote, it's a good post that makes good points, but I always have to interject when piracy is described in terms that include implicit assumptions, which are seldom addressed directly, much less supported by fact.

Re:Huh?

[encoderer]

Because piracy begets piracy. It devalues things. If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?

There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer. To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.

You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can. Pretty soon the ones that can are going to feel swindled and they're going to at least be TEMPTED to think that if it's free for everyone else, it ought to be free for them, too.

Re:Huh?

[iminplaya]

Yes, the IRS does it to collect back taxes. And RICO laws are essentially the same thing since you don't have to charged with any crime yet they can still come and steal your property. It's not right, but the public allows it.

Re:Huh?

[The Only Druid]

Well, I haven't read the congressional history so I don't know for sure what damages are alleged. However, the State has a vested interest in, among other things, the property rights of its citizenry, not to mention the economy. Presumably - though this is a guess - that's the source of damages.

Re:Huh?

[statemachine]

If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?
No, no, NO! Stop taking a plastic knife to a gunfight. Your example does not make any sense with copyright.

To fix yours: It is like everyone on your block is making copies of their houses and land at an extremely low cost (or none) and then giving them out to anyone for free.

YOU are arguing that your house *design* and lot *design* is now being devalued because those with similar (or maybe exact, depending on how cookie-cutter your subdivision is) houses and lots are available elsewhere for free. And when you go to sell your house copies, people will either just make an exact copy of your house or lot and not pay you at all, or just pay you a lot less than what you wished for.

It isn't a perfect example, but, if you don't understand the distinction, I suggest you read up on the topic of copyright some more before you get laughed out of the room.

Re:Huh?

[encoderer]

There is little difference between what you said and what I said. You used an esoteric and needless amount of detail. The point is still the same. If somebody is easily making exact replicas of my home at no cost to them, why would anybody ever pay me for my home? They wouldn't.

Or, we can remove the analogy altogether and talk about something concrete:

A CD bought in 1985 had resale value. There was a rich aftermarket for these wares. Today, that market is almost entirely defunct. It used to be, anybody that desired a quality copy of John Does newest release and didn't want to pay full prices would buy in the resale market. Today, the market is only people who want a quality copy of John Does newest AND actually care about the physical media, liner notes, etc. Because if they just want a quality copy of the music, that's easy to get at no charge.

A shrinking market means less demand and therefore less value.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it before an I'll say it again. The Grateful Dead never needed promotions or labels to push their music. They had the largest show recording/trading fan base ever, long before the internet came to be. I have a show where Jerry gives a person recording them tips in the audience to step back about 20 feet for the best possible sound. They toured for 30 years. All the trading/recording that way done allows the music to continue to be shared, long after the band stopped playing.

Nobody will be listenting to 95% of the crap being put out 10 years from now. If you don't suck, then you don't need a label. If you do suck, then find something you are actually good at and stop waiting for a label to "correct" your sound.

Re:Huh?

[misterjbryan]

That is making a rather ridiculous assumption that you have a fundamental *right* to get paid for your house. In fact, what you describe is exactly how the housing market works. If some developer moves into your neighborhood and builds a large number of cheap replicas of your house, your house will get devalued. Legally. You will lose money and be pissed, but then oh well, you gambled assuming that your house would be of value in the future and lost. This is precisely what is happening to the music industry (i'll later make the distinction between the industry as a whole and individual musicians). The industry gambled that their cd's would be of value in the future. However, other industries came along and suddenly undercut the over priced pieces of plastic that large record companies gambled on to retain value. I am a musician and absolutely believe in musicians getting paid. However, most musicians do not make the majority of their money in cd sales (note I said most musicians, not most top 40's musicians). In fact, many musicians see cd sales as primarily a good advertising method, and the records sales usually barely pay for themselves. So, if I can put my music out into the ether, and get the same advertising without having to deal with record execs, why shouldn't I. I don't believe musicians will be hurt by this changing business model, but recording labels that fail to adapt to new business models in the face of technology will.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can. Pretty soon the ones that can are going to feel swindled and they're going to at least be TEMPTED to think that if it's free for everyone else, it ought to be free for them, too."

Yeah, I'm sick and tired of those people getting free food down at the homeless shelter while I have to go out and pay my hard-earned money for it. It ought to be free for me too!

Re:Huh?

[clubby]

Because piracy begets piracy.

To a point, yes, but the shape of that curve has a lot to do with psychology of the users. I agree that we've seen correlations between piracy and value, but I would argue that in many cases, its often arbitrary price is devalued to the point of its true value. In other words, I think that when people feel cheated and/or exploited, they pirate gleefully, with a clear conscience, but when the price is perceived as fair, or sometimes even more than fair, people feel like shit when they pirate.

I paid for Orange Box. I would have felt like the second coming of Hitler if I'd grabbed those 5 magnificent games for free when they were only asking $39.95. I think I would've happily paid up to $80 for the set. If they were asking $500 and wouldn't sell them separately, I'd be bragging to my friends about how quickly I pirated all of them, even the ones I had no intention of playing, and hand out free copies.

There are some people who will pirate guiltlessly no matter what, but I think we should ignore them because they can't be converted or stopped. Others pay for everything no matter what, and are not part of the problem. Our policy should address the people who pirate when they feel exploited, and I think there are more people who work the way I described above, than people realize.

There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer.

Granted, and that's messed up, but consider how uniformly exploitive the music companies are. We (I'm 30) see little moral value in sending $14.85 to a company that hates us and $0.10 to the artist. iTMS is doing very well, due in part to two major factors: the DRM is so easily defeated (burn & rip) that they might as well be unprotected, and a perception that they're pushing for fairer prices ($1/song is cheaper than most brick-and-mortar, standing up to NBC about pricing, etc.)

There really is a sense that two wrongs may not make a right, but it's a better situation than just being bullied by rich jerks.

Guilt is a powerful motivator. It's a factor. Compensating someone fairly for something of value makes people feel righteous and noble, even if only a little, but it doesn't work if you feel like you're paying the biggest rich asshole in town. You feel like you're capitulating instead of contributing. It sucks.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with my perspective, but I do ask that you look at it with an open mind. There are a lot of problems involved in creating a system that acknowledges what I've described, and it may not even be possible. There are a number of moral inconsistencies that may make this hard for people to consider acceptable. But it's an attitude that's out there, a lot of people hold it, and if it isn't dealt with appropriately, it becomes malignant and devolves into an entitlement culture. Once that attitude becomes pervasive (and we're rapidly approaching that point) it becomes very difficult to reverse.

In conclusion, companies should not be overly hostile or exploitive if they want to survive this thing. The End.

P.S. I don't think all rich people are jerks, many are sweet and generous, but because successfully, aggressively exploitive people are often also rich, there's a correlation that could come across the wrong way.

Re:Huh?

[toriver]

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. It only makes sense the granter enforces it, like it enforces the monopolies to kill granted to those executing death sentences, by prosecuting unlicensed murderers.

Re:Huh?

[Stalky]

I don't think the copyright provisions of the Constitution mean what he thinks they mean. They were an attempt to make us a nation of creators. But the laws that have been passed in supposed implementation of those provisions are attempts to turn us into a nation of consumers, served by a few purveyors.

The Constitution is supposed to empower the common man (for varying values of "common"), but this legislation, like that that precedes it, empowers just a few.

I haven't a clue how to convince even the honest members of Congress of the fact, though.

Re:Huh?

[totally bogus dude]

If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?

Why should someone pay you $250k for your house if other people are able to get theirs for free? What's so fantastic about your house that it's worth so much, while other houses are being given away?

You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can.

The evidence we have suggests that that isn't true. Firstly, piracy exists, and is very widespread. What are some of the most pirated pieces of software in existence today? I'd hazard a guess that Windows and MS Office are in the top 10. And what pieces of software are some of the biggest money-earners in the software market? Windows and Office seem to have done a fantastic job of keeping Microsoft profitable over the years, even while they pour money into unprofitable markets. It's almost as if the people that can afford to pay hundreds of dollars for them are doing so, even though those that can't afford the arbitrary price tag don't.

What about the latest high-profile example: Radiohead's latest album. They explicitly gave it away for free, and made paying anything at all for it optional. Yet somehow they still made a profit from it. This isn't merely people finding an alternative way of acquiring the IP: this is a case of the owner and creator of that IP saying they don't believe it has any inherent value in and of itself; just pay whatever you think it's worth and can afford.

Another angle: I'm a slashdot subscriber and have been for ages, even though I don't really get anything out of it. Sure, no ads on pages, but I could just use adblock for that. But I like /. and I think the price is quite reasonable for what they offer, and I'm happy to support them in my little way. I periodically donate to subsim.com, because I find the forums useful. Neil (who runs it) pays for the hosting and bandwidth and so forth out of his own pocket, and tries to recoup some of the costs from people who can afford to pay for it, while letting everyone else use it for free.

So I really think your matter-of-fact statement "You can't give something away for free to those who can't afford it and charge the ones that can" is patently bogus. Charity organisations do this all the time. The OLPC project is doing this directly with the "buy one give one" programme.

To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.

Well, what's so wrong about that? Music is an easily produced and easily distributed commodity. Think about it. When was the last time you paid someone for having a conversation with you? Even if it was a really useful conversation which gave you great insight or clarity? What, you mean you don't pay people you converse with for their creativity and time when they pass on useful thoughts to you? For shame! How can you expect anyone to spend their time and creativity coming up with new original thoughts if you don't pay for every single one you hear?

Perhaps it's time to adjust our thinking, and face the fact that anything digital is a new economic paradigm. We can literally replicate this stuff an infinite number of times at no direct cost to the creator of the content. I have a torrent of Jimmy Eat World's latest album running on my server which I've uploaded 1,672 times over (make that 1,673 times). The cost to JEW of this: $0.00. That's at least 1,600 people who've heard the album because I haven't gotten around to stopping the torrent yet. Seems like a good deal to me.

I think content producers need to accept that not everyone is going to pay for their content, but that's okay, because not everybody has to. It's enough to simply have enough people pay.

In a way, this has been going on since the first days of commercial radio and TV: most people don't run out and buy everything that's advertised during thei

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the legal distributors selling DVDs in China for $3. Tell that to Microsoft cutting deals with third world countries. By the same argument you are making, that means they are making a bad move, because pretty soon, the customers in the first world countries will start demanding that the prices go down. Do you really think you are smarter than they are?

But then, perhaps with what they've been doing lately, perhaps you are.

Re:Huh?

[encoderer]

Alright.. if you want to have a honest, high minded discussion of the issues, I'm all for that. But I'll tell you right now, I don't care about this enough to put up with BS and strawmen and deliberate mischaracterizations.

For example, when I said you can't give something away for free to some people and charge others. It was very clear in my example (record resale, houses on your block) that was talking micro, not macro. The fact that they give away the OLPC in Africa and charge twice the wholesale price in America has NOTHING to do with it.

On a micro scale, it's absolutely evident. It's considered the trick of a slimy salesman if he prices the product, be it a car or whatever, to what he thinks you can pay.

So if you can't handle debating things on their merits, just pass this one up and go harass the next guy.

Now, your excuse that it's free to copy the music so thusly it SHOULD be free, is just absurd to me. You can't just talk about music that's produced by conglomerates and defended by a slimy trade organization.

Use my original example.

I produce a software program that's successful but of limited market. I sell 1000 copies and make $50,000. Now, it begins to get pirated. Why should they have a RIGHT to something that I produced? Tell me that. Don't tell me that at $50k I'm making a profit. Profit margin is IRRELEVANT. You have no standing to tell me how much profit is "enough" for a product. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?

So tell me, why should I just be forced to let somebody use what I produced without a say in the matter? Why do I not deserve exclusive rights to my work? I paid for it. I labored for it. It is MINE. If I want to let somebody use it, I should have that right. And if I want somebody to have to pay $x to use it, I should have that exclusive right.

Please educate me as to why you should just be able to help yourself without my permission?

Like it or not, artists USUALLY chose to delegate that responsibility to their labels. But it's NO DIFFERENT than me directly selling my software.

And if I CHOOSE not to delegate to a label and I CHOOSE to, say, let consumers pay whatever they like, that's entirely up to me. But it would be just as wrong for the government to tell me I MUST use flex-pricing like that as it is for them to tell me that i CAN'T.

So tell me, who are you to tell me I MUST let you use my software for free?

Furthermore, it's almost cliched to say that without copyright, creativity would be depressed. And a common thought is "yeah right." I mean, why would (a good example..) Metallica stop making music because they're only making TEN MILLION and not TWENTY MILLION? Of course they wont' stop.

But the next metallica. And, closer to home for me, the next Will Wright or Anders Heljsberg. Why would I ever spend all my free time writing that example software package if I know that I can't control how it's distributed?

How is THAT good for America? For the Human Race? For You? For Me?

Re:Huh?

[encoderer]

I agree with basically every point you made. In fact, if you read the GP to the post of mine that you replied to, you'll see I make many of the same points.

Piracy in the music industry is as rampant as it is because, as I said before, "price gouging for an inferior product" and I also pointed out that it's a case of 2 wrongs not making a right.

The RIAA works like another 4 letter agency, OPEC. It's a cartel. And I think it's GOOD that consumers have a little power. I think it's FANTASTIC. CD burners are to Music as hydrogen-by-water is to Oil. Moreso, because we actually HAVE cd-burners.

But that still doesn't it make it right from a legal POV. This law is about the Gov't having the best tools at its disposal to enforce laws with the best use of our tax dollars.

And to anyone that says they never heard of Gov't using civil laws to punish people... YES YOU HAVE!! What, exactly, do you think a speeding ticket is? It's a "civil in fraction" and it's a FINE.

Re:Huh?

[yndrd1984]

Because piracy begets piracy. It devalues things. If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?

If people are giving away houses in your area frequently, and over a long period of time, then there are simply more houses there than people want, and your house really isn't worth that much. What do you want to do - sue people that build new houses for devaluing your home? You made an investment, if it doesn't work out, that's your problem (with the exception of actual crime, like fraud).

You can't give something away free for those who "can't afford it" and charge the ones that can. Pretty soon the ones that can are going to feel swindled and they're going to at least be TEMPTED to think that if it's free for everyone else, it ought to be free for them, too.

You might think that, but most people are fairly tolerant of price discrimination, as long as it's for trivial items (5 cents less for a pack of gum) or for reasons that they understand (South Africans can't afford US-priced drugs).

There is a culture now that is very pervasive amongst those that are in the late 20's on down that music should be free as in beer. To many, it's almost outrageous to suggest that music should be paid for.

Why shouldn't music be free? You can't sue someone for singing "You Are My Sunshine" as a lullaby to their kid, or for retelling a "Seinfeld" joke to their friends - if it's that easy to make the copy, you can't control the right to do it. When music is so easy to copy that people are doing it for free, then it's time to stop limiting individual people's access through copyright. Go ahead and force people to pay for commercial use, but what they play on their ipod (or hum to themselves) shouldn't be an issue.

Re:Huh?

[totally bogus dude]

It was very clear in my example (record resale, houses on your block) that was talking micro, not macro.

I'm not sure I follow this. What's the difference? How can something that works "macro" not work "micro"? How does this apply to Radiohead's experiment? Privately-funded websites that get by with the help of donations?

It's considered the trick of a slimy salesman if he prices the product, be it a car or whatever, to what he thinks you can pay.

My examples were all about voluntary payment, where the buyer decides what price they think is appropriate. It's completely different!

Why do I not deserve exclusive rights to my work?

You should be allowed to do whatever you want. That's fine. This is what I have a problem with (from your original post, which gets us back on to the thread's topic):

I would really LIKE and even EXPECT the government to do their job and enforce the laws and stop people from stealing from me.

Why should my tax money, and the tax money of millions of other people who have absolutely zero interest in your niche product, have to pay to help ensure nobody uses it without your permission? What's in it for the rest of society?

Moreover, the only way it's even remotely feasible for the government to perform this function is with invasive monitoring of every single thing we do. Is your program that only 1,000 people in the entire country (or entire world?) thought was worth paying your asking price for really so valuable that we should spend millions or billions of dollars monitoring everyone just so you can make $100,000 instead of $50,000? What makes you so sure those pirates will actually pay you the $50 you think your software is worth if you're enforcing payments, rather than just skip it entirely? If they do that, then our government's crackdown on piracy doesn't make you any more, but costs us all a lot.

Let's assume that it is economically feasible to monitor all digital content using taxpayer money. A society where everyone feels entitled to receive whatever payment they think is appropriate any time they fart out an idea would surely encourage the big corps to game the system (we already know certain record label execs truly believe they deserve to be paid every time anybody hears a song they've published).

But that's a slippery slope argument, so forget all that. I still have issues reconciling such monitoring with the notion of a "free society". I enjoy and value my privacy - real or imagined - and don't think the government has any right to invade it in such a manner. Free will only has value if we're able to use it.

Why should honest people pay -- in terms of taxes and freedom -- to help enforce copyright of things they have paid for the right to use? How does removing free will encourage honesty and ethics and such desirable traits in the members of our society?

And if I want somebody to have to pay $x to use it, I should have that exclusive right.

Sure, you absolutely have that right. But I think you'd be doing yourself and the rest of us a disservice to invoke it, and therefore why should the rest of society help you do it? Why do I think it'd be doing a disservice to the rest of society? You kind of said it yourself:

You have no standing to tell me how much profit is "enough" for a product. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?

Let me reflect that: You have no standing to tell me how much your program is worth to me. How could you EVER make the mistake in thinking that you do?

How do you decide what value of x is appropriate for people to pay? Should someone who's going to use it for 6 hours to help them with a task but never need it again have to pay $50 as well? Are people who simply can't afford $50 somehow not good enough to benefit from your time, skill and creativity?

How does your discriminati

MONEY MONEY MONEY

[dmacleod808]

So its all about the money now? What use is a civil GOVERNMENT prosecution besides to get money?

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[Gregb05]

If they really wanted more money, they'd tax you.

This is simply the Government bending over to corporations, rather than respecting their constituents as they should be.

I hope that these two are pulled out of office, there's better things for the DOJ to be doing. Like forgetting and losing embarrassing information.

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[pla]

I hope that these two are pulled out of office, there's better things for the DOJ to be doing.

Oddly, Leahy usually counts as one of the best pro-privacy, pro-bill-o'-rights, anti-big-brother senators. It really surprises me to see his name attached to this atrocity.

Enough so, that it makes me wonder if we've missed something about this bill that makes it not quite as bad as it sounds - Like capping liability at some absurdly low level ("Yup, ya got me, will you take a check or should I just pay the $20 fine in cash?") or similar.

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[srollyson]

it makes me wonder if we've missed something about this bill that makes it not quite as bad as it sounds - Like capping liability at some absurdly low level ("Yup, ya got me, will you take a check or should I just pay the $20 fine in cash?")

If it's there, I don't see it. Let me point out section 506a of this chunk o' legislation:

(b) OTHER REMEDIES -
(1) IN GENERAL - Imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, injunctive, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

Of course, anything subversive that Leahy might put in there to protect infringers might require a closer look. I wouldn't count on it, though.

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[vtscott]

If they really wanted more money, they'd tax you.

I have to disagree with that. Politicians love to get their hands on more of your money and still be able to say they didn't raise taxes. Take for instance the abusive driving fees in Virginia. From wikipedia:

In 2007, the need to fund $1 billion per year for pressing transportation projects, resulted in another impass between the House of Delegates and Senate. Rather than approve additional tax increases, the final Republican plan, which was enacted into law, resulted in new abusive driving fees of up to $3,000 which are assessed against Virginia residents in addition to the historic fines assessed on out-of-state drivers convicted of the same driving law violations.

So now those politicians can gloat about how they fixed the transportation budget but didn't raise taxes.

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[onwardknave]

Do you have any idea how much a Piracy Tax would cost?!

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

This is simply the Government bending over to corporations, rather than respecting their constituents as they should be.

One citizen, one vote... however, one corporation, many, many zeros on a vote figure! I am sure that exact monetary value of a vote could be assessed and it wouldn't come out too pricey. In fact, I'm certain that political parties and politicians' "advisers" do operate with that figures when they make their decisions. It is an ugly thought, breaks the rosy picture we have about Democracy, but we should get over the shock and get on with calculations in order to regain the hold of our destiny.

Ad hoc Citizen groups and specific, limited in scope, political initiatives, especially those in favor of common citizens' interests but going against particular interests of corporations, should be able to make independent (from major political parties) pressure funds, "political initiative unions" with sole purpose of lobbying and counter-lobbying.

The rich (i.e. large corporations) get their wealth from the poor(-er then themselves), where most of money lays. It is not a phrase or anecdote: Hypothetic possession of more then half of whole monetary mass in circulation would be a sure sign of loss (sitting on top of claim that can never be satisfied and is therefore void - the rest of the world is bankrupt, your money is worthless paper or meaningless integer number).

That same amount of money, transferred from low density multitude of small "hoards" ("the poor") toward small number of large "hoards" ("the rich") and then from them toward world of politics to be converted into power, could be also used for other purpose, it could be "turned around and pointed backwards", simply take a shorter path and come to destination from other side.

If someone uses money begotten from us to make us pay more by furthering unjust laws made to rip us off some more (common example would be avoiding proper taxation), we should be able to counter that by spending our money on exactly the opposite goal instead. Net effect would be elevation of price of political favors. Equilibrium will shift a little bit toward the people and part of thus gained funds (keeping more money in citizens' wallets) could be "reinvested" to secure the control of public over democratic process.

It is perfectly capitalistic way for masses to limit the power of the plutocrats. No violence, no revolutions, no plunder, just playing the same game as they do, making same moves they do. Organizing masses over common, limited goals is well-known and proven strategy of, e.g. trade unions. It could work in lobbying too.

Money talks, votes babble. As long as people have money, they can have the power too. Just don't try to solve all world's problems at once. First things first, make the system work and keep it safe!

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[srollyson]

You know, another thing that I thought about after I posted this was that the RIAA, MPAA, or whoever is suing to protect their copyrighted works could use gov't investigation from this bill as the basis for their own civil suit. Not only do you get stung with whatever civil suit the gov't hits you with, but the RIAA can try and get their standard $250k/infringement once the gov't has won their case (Although the bill says that damages from a second suit would be reduced by the amount awarded by the first suit). This bill is quite a beast, ain't it?

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[jamstar7]

b) OTHER REMEDIES -

(1) IN GENERAL - Imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not preclude any other criminal or civil statutory, injunctive, common law, or administrative remedy, which is available by law to the United States or any other person.

Looks like a double jeopardy run-around, but IANAL and IANYL.

Thing is, we've got a helluva backlog in the Federal courts, and this will just add more logjams to the load. How much more can we pile on til the whole system collapses?

Re:MONEY MONEY MONEY

[Urza9814]

We don't have a democracy. Votes are worth exactly nothing. The majority of the people voted _against_ Bush in the last election, but he's still our president. Your votes are technically (and occasionally actually) worthless.

how much are companies losing?

[hoyeru]

from all the rampant coping and sharing of games, software, movies, songs, etc etc, etc? I bet it's in the billions. If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net. Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, Radiohead is offering their new album online for as much as you want to pay, but they can afford to. The world economy IS severally affected by all the illegal sharing.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[timmarhy]

yeah wow people aren't spending money on crap they don't need - call in the government the economy will crash if more people don't buy britany spears new single.

your post must be the most retarded in the history of /.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[downix]

You can only claim that if the people in this case were going to buy the game/movie/music but decided not to because they recieved a copy through other means. To make that claim is a stretch by any measure.

CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap. What record companies do not like about file sharing is not piracy at all, it's that they do not control what you can listen to. Like an independent band (I happen to have an Amy Martin CD right here, for instance) you can purchase it without the labels prohibiting it through their channel-lockups.

This measure has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with outdated business models being destroyed by new technologies, and companies unwilling to adapt. They loved the monopoly.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is somewhat true but let's step back and look at the other side of this for a minute. You seem to be saying that the creators are losing billions in dosh every year because of the mass amount of people who download their creations. I honestly don't know many folks who would pay $600+ for Photoshop yet Adobe continues to charge that amount. I know a hell of a lot of folks who have downloaded and use Photoshop but only 1 or 2 that are willing to pay for it and those people are artists and make money professionally from the product. My point is that you can't call the money a loss when it wasn't there to begin with.

We can also talk about music. The big record labels are losing money by the truckload to piracy are they? I don't think so. The 21st Century came and brought with it the digital age. The record industry has made money from a distribution model based on physical media sales for a long time now but that just isn't cutting it anymore. Apple came along with the fashionable media player that everyone loves and it understands the language of MP3 yet the labels had to have their DRM so they chose to buy into Apple's DRM encumbered format. Then they complain about how they lose tons of dosh to Apple when in fact they could easily sell the MP3s themselves without the DRM.

Radiohead isn't the only artist that is profiting from this either. Jonathan Coulton, who has been featured on slashdot a few times, has made enough money to support himself. The Grateful Dead allowed fans to record their shows and distribute bootlegs and those guys all made a lot of money. Rage Against The Machine has sold out almost every show since their reunion and have said they don't give a bloody rip about the fans swapping their music files.

The world economy might be affected by sharing digital works but at the same time we can't turn the entire population into criminals and prosecute everyone. At some point the industry has to wake up and realize that the times have changed and they need to catch up with them.

The issue is simply not as black and white as a lot of politicians want it to be. Under the current copyright laws you can be held for infringement simply for singing the happy birthday song with a group of strangers. I don't think you can honestly tell me that the current system needs more laws to fix it. If anything it needs less and it needs to be more open to the ideas of fair use which the industry doesn't want to acknowledge.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net. Speaking as an artist of some kind, I love when people share my work, as that free publicity not only builds up a community of fans around my stuff, but ultimately nets me artistic gigs.

Yeah, yeah, I KNOW, Radiohead is offering their new album online for as much as you want to pay, but they can afford to. In my business model (you know, the one that makes use of today's technical and social realities rather than futilely trying to put the proverbial toothpaste back into the tube) I can't afford NOT to.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[CRCulver]

CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap.

This sort of dishonest rhetoric is hurting our cause. Ask people in file-sharing communities, and many of them will openly tell you that they stopped buying CDs not because CD releases are crap, but because you can get all that goodness for free online instead of paying money. I regularly frequent two chat rooms on one network for contemporary classical music and this often comes up. Let's start being honest here: we download music because culture should be free in all senses of the word.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Dunbal]

If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net.

Then you deserve to starve to death. There's no reason why any "artist" can't make MORE money than under a record label off the net. Change with the times, we are SICK AND TIRED of paying $15 to the fucking middleman just to keep him supplied with exotic cars, whores, and cocaine.

But then again, you're just an industry shill.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Steve525]

You can only claim that if the people in this case were going to buy the game/movie/music but decided not to because they recieved a copy through other means. To make that claim is a stretch by any measure.

You are correct. There's no way to know. Still, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to believe that many people aren't going to bother to buy something when they can get it for free. (Numerous studies have been done to see what the effects are filesharing are, but all the results seem to tell you is who funded the study, and what their agenda is).

CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap.

Perhaps true, but I think CD sales are down for a number of reasons...

1 - filesharing
We can debate this one, but I do think it has an effect.

2 - sale of singles
For those who don't wish to fileshare, you can now buy singles on-line. The record company has long had a disconnect between what they market (singles on the radio) and what they sell (CD albums). They got away with this because you couldn't buy singles. Now you can, so many people are going to save their money and only buy the one or two songs they really want.

3 - crappy music
I think music has been crappy in the past more than people realize, and people still bought music. Still, it does seem to be at a pretty low point now.

4- people are done replacing their vinyl/tapes
I suspect that most people have been done for a while now, but as time goes on fewer and fewer are still doing this.

(Also, I really wish the moderators wouldn't list anything as troll just because it goes against conventional Slashdot wisdom. Whether you agree or not, the GP has a point).

Re:how much are companies losing?

[BlueStrat]

I KNOW, Radiohead is offering their new album online for as much as you want to pay, but they can afford to.

Bull. Sorry, but that's just completely bass-ackwards. I *am* in an indie band, and these days people can now get a chance to hear our material that never would have before, because of the music cartels' history of locking up radio/TV/CD sales to exclude anyone not owned by them. We've done the same thing as Radiohead has now for a good while. It's been an overall win for us.

We *want* people to copy and share our music! That's free exposure, and the kind of word-of-mouth promotion that can't be bought. We will continue to encourage people to share our music, even if we were to get as famous as U2 or Radiohead or Led Zeppelin.

We sell physical CDs and video DVDs and other merchandise at shows. We state right on the media that it's fine to share, and if they feel what we've created is worth it to them, send a little money our way to help us keep creating. We receive enough to let us keep going.

CD sales aren't the end game, they're a means. They get us fans. They are a promotion tool, nothing more.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Maxo-Texas]

If I have $20 to spend.

And I spend all of it.

Then what is the impact on the world economy for any additional copies of goods I receive?

The fact is that entertainment is overpriced. In reality, entertainment is at the highest supply level it has ever been. It is now impossible to ever catch up with all the entertainment that exists. Why are prices going up then?

Normally when something is in oversupply, the prices go down.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[4D6963]

The world economy IS severally affected by all the illegal sharing.

lol. Somehow the ridicule of that claim proves the opposite of your point.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[jav1231]

I disagree there. I think people are ready to move on to other media. Try as I might, my CD's won't slide comfortably into my iPod but mp3's fit nicely. As for culture being free what exactly are you saying? Performers should perform for the benefit of mankind? They shouldn't be paid? Or should they be paid by the collective? Hate to break it to you but socialist ideals like this fly in the face of human tendencies. We want to compete and excel based on our performance.
That said, there is an argument for free distribution and pay per performance. This is essentially what The Dead opted into. They didn't care about bootlegs because ultimately it fueled concert revenue which they kept the lion's share of.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[sm62704]

If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net.

I'm not going to buy your stupid CD if I've never heard any of the songs. Someone once said (I wish I could find the exact quote) that far more authors have starved from obscurity than from copyright infringement. Actually the number that have starved from copyright infringement may in fact be zero, can you name one?

-mcgrew

Re:how much are companies losing?

[CRCulver]

Performers should perform for the benefit of mankind? They shouldn't be paid? Or should they be paid by the collective?

Most recordings of contemporary classical music are already subsidized by state arts ministries and have been for, well, almost forever. In fact, even if the record label sold every single CD they pressed, they usually wouldn't make a profit anyway without those subsidies. Patronage and subsidizing are a traditional model for the production of high culture--besides classical music, most of the auteur films now recognized as classics were produced that way instead of for profit.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[sm62704]

Radiohead isn't the only artist that is profiting from this either

Indeed, Roger McGuinn has said that the old, outlaw Napster revitalized his career, bringing his music to a whole new generation.

-mcgrew

Re:how much are companies losing?

[KDR_11k]

CD sales numbers are pretty indifferent towards the amount of illegal copying. From what I've seen they're constant and only vary with the number of CDs released in a given timeframe.

If the corporations don't want us to think of music as a free thing maybe they should stop letting radio and TV stations play it, that would reduce the sense of "I can get it for free anyway".

Re:how much are companies losing?

[shystershep]

Oh goody!! That way we'd only get the kind of art that the government wants us to have! That would be neato, considering the wonderful taste and broad-mindedness of the government.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[CRCulver]

If you bothered learning something about how the state subsidizes the arts in the EU, they often give out funds without any specific stipulations on how it is spent. IRCAM, for example, produces plenty of music that government officials wouldn't get into. The programmes of orchestral concerts are determined by the orchestra's music director, not by anyone in the government holding the purse strings.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[maotx]

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter^wband.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[jedidiah]

Performers should expect to get paid when they perform or when they compose.

No one else expects residuals. Why should writers be any different?

In that last (successful) RIAA case, they decided to drive their point
home by playing a 25 year old audio recording. No one should be getting
bent out of shape regarding the "piracy" of 25 year old recordings. They
should be PD by now (or nearly so).

Although in the end the distributors are much better at victimizing the artists than the customers.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[BlueStrat]

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter^wband.

Oh, you don't have to limit yourself to just lil' ol' me. There's a few of us here:

http://www.indie911.com/

Cheers!

Strat

Re:how much are companies losing?

[hummassa]

Your answer is approximately US$ 0.00.

Every single one of the 200-300 people I know that downloads music:
    * Buys the CD or re-downloads the music from Amazon, Terra, UOL, iTMS or something if the music is good, and they have available cash.
    * Wouldn't buy the CD if the music is crap. Sometimes they still keep them in their HD/portable player/cell phone[1], but they would not buy the CD at all.
    * Wouldn't buy the CD if they didn't have the available cash at that moment.

And that's it. There are absolute no lost sales. Au contraire, there are gained sales for good music because good tracks usually don't play on the radio, and the only way the music gets out is via downloads.

And Radiohead is winning a lot of money by letting people download their music.

[1] and in this case, sometimes some friend of this person finds the supposedly crappy music ok, and buys the disk, etc, etc, ...

Repeating: loss of revenue from illegal downloading and/or sharing is a myth.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[NorthWestFLNative]

2 - sale of singles
For those who don't wish to fileshare, you can now buy singles on-line. The record company has long had a disconnect between what they market (singles on the radio) and what they sell (CD albums). They got away with this because you couldn't buy singles. Now you can, so many people are going to save their money and only buy the one or two songs they really want.
The record companies have been selling singles for many years, originally on 45 RPM records with one song per side. The second side song wasn't always released on a full album or to the radio. Then when cassette tape came out they started selling cassette singles with one song per side. Just because they haven't been easy to find doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[shark72]

"CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap."

Most music released has always been crap. 90% of what's released today is crap, but most of the stuff released in the 90's was crap, too. As was the stuff in the 80's, and the 70's, and so on.

It's easy to remember decades past as having better music than what's being released today; this is due to our propensity to remember the good and discard the bad. There's even a common word for this phenomenon: "nostalgia."

Ask many people and they'll swear up and down that there was a magical time in history when the crap level dropped below 90%. For instance, a 50-year-old living in 1926 might have told you that the era of good music ended in the 1890s. Everybody's right, but everybody's also wrong.

At any rate, while I agree with you that most music is crap, pirates love it just the same. The top music traded this week has remarkable parity with the top-selling music. This is why "music is crap" is a great rationalization for piracy, but not the cause of piracy. Piracy is caused by people's natural desire for music, and the natural desire to save money.

"This measure has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with outdated business models being destroyed by new technologies, and companies unwilling to adapt. They loved the monopoly."

There's widespread confusion over what the word "monopoly" means. There are literally thousands of indie music labels whose products are readily available at plenty of retailers, both online and off, and there's absolutely nothing preventing anybody from starting their own label, or even selling their music without working with a label. Sure, going the indie route is hard. So's starting your own independent ice cream shop in this market dominated by the Ben and Jerry's and Baskin-Robbins of the world. You won't have their brand recognition or their marketing budget. But no Slashdotter in their right mind would call the ice cream business a monopoly. So why the disconnect when it comes to the music biz? I suspect that many Slashdotters incorrectly throw around the term "monopoly" not because of a genuine misunderstanding, but because, like the "we pirate music because it's crappy" argument, because it shifts the moral burden off of us, and onto somebody else.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[shark72]

"No one else expects residuals. Why should writers be any different?"

That one's answered in the U.S. Constitution: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

I know it's easy to imagine that people who write poetry, novels, screenplays, songs, and so on must have it so good -- just write a little something and you're set for life. But the reality is quite different: these creative arts often have a 99% unemployment rate. It may be hard to believe, but you and I actually have it easier in a lot of ways: if you have a job, you can keep going to work each day and there's a reasonable chance you'll get paid. Your employer pays for your health insurance and probably kicks in to your retirement plans. Writers typically have no such cushion.

Was this the right thing for the framers of the constitution to do? Who knows. But consider this: take a look at your music collection, or your collection of books. What percentage of them would still be there if the writer were perfectly content without earning money on the sale? While there are those brave souls who write or perform or code sheer for the unbridled joy of it, the sad fact is that many of them wouldn't do it without the money, as they need the money to survive. Or, think of it this way: would you keep doing what you're doing if the collective Slashdotters waved a magic wand and you no longer had the right to be paid for it? There's a good chance that you really enjoy your job (otherwise you probably wouldn't be doing it), but is it a true labor of love that transcends the chance of making money? If not... then it's not fair to expect many artists to adopt such an outlook.

"In that last (successful) RIAA case, they decided to drive their point home by playing a 25 year old audio recording. No one should be getting bent out of shape regarding the "piracy" of 25 year old recordings. They should be PD by now (or nearly so)."

Straw man. The bulk of the stuff that's pirated is recent software, music, and movies. Just take a look at the top lists of your favorite BT tracker. While stuff from the 80's is still pirated, it's not at nearly the volume of the stuff that's popular now.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Shakrai]

No one should be getting bent out of shape regarding the "piracy" of 25 year old recordings. They should be PD by now (or nearly so).

They should be public domain within a reasonable amount of time -- say ten years -- of course, thanks to this however, they remain copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years.

How exactly this advances the progress of "science and the useful arts" is beyond me, but there you go :(

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Shakrai]

Was this the right thing for the framers of the constitution to do?

I don't think the framers of the constitution imagined copyright lasting for seventy years after the death of the author. How exactly does that help your poor staving creative artist?

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Dragonslicer]

we are SICK AND TIRED of paying $15 to the fucking middleman just to keep him supplied with exotic cars, whores, and cocaine. Yeah, that $15 needs to go straight to the artists. It's about time that rock stars have the chance to keep a supply of exotic cars, whores, and cocaine for themselves.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the URL, dammit? :-)

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to pay for something (official) rather than getting it for free (piracy) but there are a few caveats.

When I was a poor college student I couldn't afford to pay for very much software. So in these cases I did pirate a lot of stuff. But it allowed me to enjoy several things in entertainment and also helped me in preparing for a job in the computer field.

Now that I make a good wage, I can afford to pay for my entertainment but there are several things that I insist on:
- Good price (I'm not paying $20 for some album)
- No DRM (I do make a few exceptions here as long as it can be circumvented easily, like by downloading a no-cd crack for a game)
- Reasonable method of getting the entertainment (e.g. DRM free music by going to a site and doing a quick search and downloading it immediately)

If companies aren't willing to provide me with my entertainment under those simple conditions then I'm left with two options: don't consume the media, which is often what happens, or pirate it.

Companies need to understand that in general, people are willing to pay for their entertainment but if they try to force feed the consumer something that they don't want then don't be surprised when you have massive piracy. But just because something does get pirated, it doesn't necessarily mean it would have been purchased had it not been available via piracy. When I was a poor college student I would have had to just do without.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[fatlaces]

Yes we can turn everyone into criminals. The current government doesn't care. It'll be another fun war on citizens(drugs, terror) that they can get tax money for. Who was the immoral jerk who got rid of alcohol Prohibition?

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Anonymous Coward]

A technology shift happened - the Internet.
The new model allowed for a more free exchange of information.
The media industry never adjusted to the new model.

Often not-quite-legitimate-downloads occur when the media is not easily available.

Imagine the choice between these:
  - Go to store, buy CD, bring home, rip, add songs to portable music player.
  - Sit at home, spend time finding song on questionable sites, download lossy quality MP3, upload to portable music player.
  - Sit at home, log into drm-tunes.com, pay for and download legitimate lossy copy of song. Upload to music player. Perhaps it works. It may not work next time.
  - NOT-YET: Sit at home, log into bmg.com or directly to nin.com, pay for song, download lossless, high quality, drm-free song. Upload to player.

Of course, the NOT-YET choice does not really exists, but there is a demand for it.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Miamicanes]

> CD sales are down because what is released on CD is crap.

Actually, I think it's obvious that CD sales are down partly because the huge sales of CDs from a decade ago was an unsustainable once-in-a-lifetime windfall for the recording industry, driven mostly by people buying CDs to replace records they already had, used to have, or "kind of/sort of" wanted to have, but were never sufficiently motivated to buy as LPs or cassettes. CDs were a major improvement over LPs and cassettes, and properly remastered CDs a decade later were a major improvement over the first re-released content.

That can't be said for new formats. Any halfwit can create better-sounding MP3 files from a CD than he could possibly buy in MP3 form to begin with. DVD audio is an incremental improvement over CD audio... but thanks to the DRM, is almost impossible to rip to MP3 for portable use, which pretty much renders it irrelevant to the popular music market. If DVD Audio were as easy to rip as CD audio, sounded at least a little better, and used some of its storage space to make it almost completely immune to even MAJOR scratches (by redundantly encoding high-bitrate compressed copies in multiple places on the disc, with players able to automatically fall back to the redundant compressed copies wherever the uncompressed content were significantly degraded by damange), CDDA would be ancient history by now. But because the industry couldn't get past its control fetish, CDDA will likely remain the preferred source format for purchased music for a few more decades by virtue of being the most flexible source format available to the general public.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[chad.koehler]

This continued even well into the CD era. Yellow Ledbetter was a "b-side" (is there such a thing on CD, I guess not) to the single Jeremy.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[alfs boner]

The world economy IS severally affected by all the illegal sharing.

I know. But, I like getting things for free, so...

sorry!

:)

Re:how much are companies losing?

[toriver]

*sigh* The companies are not LOSING anything, their INCOME is reduced from a potential represented by the people who obtain the unlicensed copies. There is a very significant difference.

A numbers game: Say, a record is printed in 200,000 copies and sold in stores. These somehow manage to sell out, but in addition we assume 10,000 or so illegal downloaders obtain copies without paying for them (in this case they could not have anyway). Did the record company lose anything? No, they sold what they expected.

Now, if the company grossly overestimated sales and only 50k of those 200k copies sold, then the 10k illegal downloaders come inside the "range" of the 150k unsold records. However, instead of admitting their estimates were utter crap, executives now grab onto these downloaders as a decoy to remove the attention from their incompetence.

Getting the State to use the tax payer's money to aid in securing revenue to an industry comes very close to an indirect subsidy, if you ask me.

(Also: Pirates are evil people who raid ships in the China Sea and off the African coast. Abusing the term by applying it to people who leech off the industrial products of megacorporations is an insult to piracy victims.)

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Skapare]

... they stopped buying CDs not because CD releases are crap, but because you can get all that goodness for free online instead of paying money.

That may be true for many people, but it is not the only reason. One reason is, of course, because what they sell is mostly crap. But that reason has been around for a long time and while I believe it is a big reason for not having the level of sales they could have, it is not a reason for their sales level to decline in the past decade.

However, there is one reason I do know to be true for not only myself, but for a few other people I know. Long ago when I bought music, I had little or no way to preview what it was I was buying. Radio played almost as much crap back then as they do today, without covering any of the alternatives. So I ended up buying albums (before CDs) and CDs on speculation based on the cover material, or other factors that never really was accurate about what music I'd be getting. Buying things this way did get some great gems. But it also got a lot of crap (to me ... it was still alternative that maybe someone else would have loved). I was buying more music than what I ended up liking.

Today, I can sample it. I can sample just about everything. I can figure out what I like and what I dislike ahead of time, without wasteful buying. The level of purchasing I do is now less than what I used to do. A lot less. I only buy about 40% as much. But now I know that 100% of what I buy I like, even before I buy it, whereas before I was only liking about 40% of what I bought.

Some component of the decline in CD sales is from people not specifically buying less ... but buying smarter. But my guess is the RIAA members can't even grasp that concept.

That's not to say there isn't a whole lot of people who download and keep at least some of what they download (or all to trade for more), and just don't buy any CDs at all and just accept the lesser quality of the MP3 encodings they get online. I'm just saying that such theft is not the entire cause of the decline in legal purchasing.

Re:how much are companies losing?

[Rakarra]

If you bothered learning something about how the state subsidizes the arts in the EU, they often give out funds without any specific stipulations on how it is spent.

Yeah, seriously, that would NOT fly here. For many, many reasons.

Oh

[Matt867]

Oh, it looks like someone is tired of losing court cases due to the fact that they don't have ANY proof. It's a good thing they can afford their own senators.

Re:Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. I give up. How can I be greedy and corrupt? Seems like you need a lot of money to start with, and I just don't have that right now - which is why I want to become greedy and corrupt.

Re:Oh

[megaditto]

Well, to be fair to the Senators, most digital copyright infringers do not make large campaign contributions.

Re:Oh

[Rakarra]

Oh, it looks like someone is tired of losing court cases due to the fact that they don't have ANY proof. It's a good thing they can afford their own senators.

I'm not at all a fan of the RIAA and MPAA, but I'll play Devil's Advocate here. This is all coming about because file sharers would get caught sharing movies and songs, but then turn around and say "Well, you can't really prove it was actually -me- sitting at the keyboard of my computer. Teehee."

If you thought that illegal activity wasn't going to be prosecuted because it was difficult to determine which computer behind a NAT did the sharing, this should come as a wake-up call.

Re:Oh

[Hope Thelps]

If you thought that illegal activity wasn't going to be prosecuted because it was difficult to determine which computer behind a NAT did the sharing, this should come as a wake-up call. How so? The very premise of this proposed legislation is that file sharers are unlikely to be prosecuted. Hence the need to open up alternatives to prosecution.

Incidentally, it's unlikely that this particular proposed alternative will help. Alleged filesharers already get sued and it's no big deterrent. It's unlikely that the state footing the bill will change that. It's just a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Oh crap!

[imstanny]

I second guessed myself before I left-clicked into this page. *Scared of Amazon's Patent*

Screw that

[KDR_11k]

There's a reason civil lawsuits are separate from criminal trials.

Besides, why the hell should the DoJ, a government institution, police what happens between other people, shouldn't only the "victim" be allowed to file a lawsuit over this? Hell, how does the govt even knopw when the copyright hlder actually wants a lawsuit? Most holders like keeping fan projects in a legal grey zone of implicit permission which lets them C&D the project at will but doesn't require them to shut it down before they really want to.

Well, as long as the DoJ would pursue infringements of ANY copyrights, not just those held by a select group of large corporations... Yeah, like that'll happen.

Re:Screw that

[Dunbal]

why the hell should the DoJ, a government institution, police what happens between other people

      Buried deep inside the bill is a paragraph that changes the name of the "Department of Justice" to "The Ministry of Love".

Re:Screw that

[toriver]

Because Slashdotters of today aren't the Slashdotters of yesteryear, that was a reference to George Orwell's 1984.

Oh Great!...as if..

[BlueStrat]

...having the *AAs' using questionably-legal tactics wasn't enough. Now we're gonna have the Feds sniffing around anyone using bandwidth or "teh 3v1lz" bittorrent? Prepare for more grannies, dead people and those with no computer to get dragged through the legal 7th level of Hades.

Strat

EFF

[faloi]

Sounds like a good time to make sure you've donated what you can to the EFF. The big fear, obviously, is that the RIAA will get to define what constitutes infringement, and suddenly you can't rip CD's to your MP3 player anymore.

Re:EFF

[rolfc]

There is a good solution to this. Do not buy music, films, games and commercial software. Use open source instead of copying. If everyone do this, the media producers and software companies will lick our feet.

Re:EFF

[sconeu]

At which point the MAFIAA runs to Congress, and says, "ZOMG!!!! All our profits are gone! It's the fault of the Evil Content Pirates(tm)!!!! Give us an Uber-DMCA!!!!"

Re:EFF

[orclevegam]

Nah, they'll try to get open source declared illegal.

Re:EFF

[elhondo]

It's important to remember that the EFF can help you when the fight gets to court, but doesn't necessarily help with the prevention of bad laws in the first place. http://www.ipaction.org/ May be a better site to visit, if you want to influence legislators before they pass laws.

Re:EFF

[CodeBuster]

but doesn't necessarily help with the prevention of bad laws in the first place

The EFF also engages in lobbying, as do the professional lobbying firms hired by the MAFIAA and other corporations, only this time the lobbying is being done on behalf of the people. In fact, I have contributed several hundred dollars to them over the years to support just these types of activities. It is an unfortunate truth in American society that if you want good laws (or a better defense against bad ones) then you have to engage in lobbying and counter lobbying. It is not an option to merely stand on the sidelines (as even Microsoft found out with the antitrust cases), you have to actively protect your interests against those who are trying to take away your rights and subjugate you to their interests. If your lawmakers are only hearing the story from one side (i.e. the MAFIAA and other corporations) then don't be surprised when you lose the battle by default (i.e. forfeit).

The EFF regularly sends out alerts and bulletins concerning pending legislation with opportunities to contact your representatives and make your views known. If you want to get involved then check out the EFF: Effector Newsletter and stay informed.

Re:EFF

[Jedi Alec]

There is a good solution to this. Do not buy music, films, games and commercial software. Use open source instead of copying. If everyone do this, the media producers and software companies will lick our feet.

I've got an even better one...start electing some half-decent people into public office for a change! And if you can't find any, convince a half-decent person to run and then vote for him.

Re:EFF

[belg4mit]

The ACLU would also be a reasonable forum given the whole perversion of public powers for private interests thing.

Me thinks some people in Washington need to go back to high school civics class and familiarize themselves with
John Locke and the social contract. Hint: It does not say, "Bend me over and have your way with me."

Fantastic

[Cyphertube]

Well, this is a bad idea....

Mostly because, well, then we have the government pursuing civil litigation on behalf of corporations. Are we then going to have the copyright holders pay for the cost, or will this be another free federal benefit on behalf of lobbyists?

Moreover, is the DoJ going to do this fairly? Will they contact the copyright holder to make sure that there isn't a license and that there is a desire to go after the person? Moreover, if someone steals my work as an individual, will the DoJ treat it equal with Microsoft, the RIAA, or the MPAA?

If not, then, well, please vote Leahy, etc. out of office.

Re:Fantastic

[michaelepley]

Not to mention the proliferation of these types of government civil action against individuals (Cf. civil asset forfeiture). IMHO, this class of civil cases is becoming dangerously close to the definition of a bill of attainder, in that in many cases the only practical and realized difference between the civil cause of action and the equivalent criminal statute is a lower burden of proof for the government.

Re:Fantastic

[punissuer]

Hear, hear. I would rather Congress do away with the concept of criminal copyright infringement and get the government out of copyright enforcement (almost) entirely, than have the government sue you for it. This is such a bad idea on so many levels. Copyright should be only a civil matter, and the copyright owner should bear the cost and responsibility for taking action regarding it.

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is they can't jail you for a civil offense. They can ruin your life forever instead.

Re:Fantastic

[wytcld]

The problem with Leahy - I'm one of the people who could vote him out of office, but he's been very good on habeas corpus, torture and the like lately, which if I have to choose is more important than whether the feds start getting as stupid about copyright as they currently are about drugs.

What can I say? Too many compromises evident in even the best Democrats. But the Republicans aren't standing up for basic Constitutional rights, let alone understanding how bad IP laws undermine our economic future. Given that choice, I'll take the Constitution. I'm sure not going to toss Leahy for the sort of idiots the opposition party runs against him.

At least I can be happy that my other senator belongs to neither party.

Re:Fantastic

[Cyphertube]

Totally understandable. I live in state with Republican senators who seem to be in line with a lot of people here, but my local Congressman is literally a 'do-nothing' Democrat. Unfortunately, the cost to register to run is beyond my means at this point, otherwise, I'd run and probably win without too much difficulty.

Of course, I remember my parents complaining about how in Pennsylvania, there was a campaign to run a neocon Democrat against Arlen Specter. I don't always agree with him, but the attempt to hijack the vote with the straight-party voters was interesting.

I just wish more politicians would realise what precedent is. I think if it does pass, the challenge in the Supreme Court will be interesting.

This is the bottom of the pit

[noddyxoi]

This is the bottom of the pit. I was going to say that this could be a good thing to linux and all, but forget about it, this just goes to prove what a fascist country America is, when promoting laws that goes against its citizens and that discriminate among them. I see this America of today as writing the history of what no to do (much like Nazi Germany) for the future of humanity.

Re:This is the bottom of the pit

[techpawn]

If a conversation goes long enough SOMEONE will bring up Nazis

Re:This is the bottom of the pit

[kevmatic]

Really? The actions of TWO not-well-known people define the entire country for you? Where ever you're from must be full over-stereotyping sensationalists who classify hundreds of millions of people based on one person. You just 'proved' that.

I, for one, don't live in either of those States, so there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I could have done to prevent this bill from being introduced.

Not only that, but this is just a BILL. HUNDREDS of these get introduced a day. Some are insane and would destroy every right we have. Does it matter? No, its just a stupid bill that will get beat down instantly. Worried about it? Write your congressmen.

This will never pass.

Re:This is the bottom of the pit

[Catbeller]

Godwin's Law is dead. Bringing up Nazism is appropriate when your nation is undergoing a conversion to fascism.

US Constitution - Amendment IV

[blcamp]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Even if this were to pass, and it won't, it won't stand up to judicial review.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

Lessig was hinting at this last week. We are raising a revolutionary generation (which is probably a good thing in the end because the current generation are a useless lazy bunch who will never affect change).

The more corporations hijack the legal system, and the more absurd the laws become the greater the "corrosive" (in Lessigs words) the effect. The rule of law has ceased to be an instrument to serve the people. That is a pretty fucking serious situation if you think about it. We have a generation of people who were born criminals and have lived all their life so far as criminals while doing nothing wrong (ethically, morally, humanly).
Without fundamental respect for law we have nothing to look forward to but anarchy, civil unrest and violent conflict. So it is up to citizens to stop the corporations before they undermine society. Every useless pice of shit you buy from Wallmart, Disney and Sony is just feeding the beast, stop doing it NOW, you are part of the problem.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoting an amendment to the US Constitution with random parts bolded does not constitute "insightful" material... stupid mods.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[sm62704]

I told this story yesterday but it bears repeating (or at least being linked to), as you no longer have any 4th amendment rights. At least, apparently, I don't. My 4th amendment rights against physical unwarranted search were violated twice last year, once on the day we remember those who died defending the Constitution, and as I said in the linked comment I'm a 55 year old white guy. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a 22 year old black guy.

-mcgrew

PS- Funny, the comment, in reply to someone who mentioned the 4th amendment in a story about the EFF, was modded "offtopic". Seems some corrupt police officers and corrupt legislators have mod points. No matter, I have karma to burn; mod me any damned way you want.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[spidercoz]

Yes, yes, very cute, well-intentioned, and completely meaningless. The 4th and several other amendments were chucked out the window years ago with the passage of the PATRIOT Act. You can't even buy that kind of protection anymore. If they want you, they're going to damn well get you. Hell, the next step will be to declare anyone with a high speed connection an enemy combatant and ship 'em off to Guantanamo. The government no longer cares about the law. If it did, it wouldn't be kowtowing to every corporate oligarch with a fistful of cash. The U.S. government has FAILED US. It serves no public interest, only it's own and their financiers. We as a people are neither free to do what we want, nor secure in our persons and possessions. And every year they tighten their grip just a little more, to the point that we won't even realize we're being choked to death until it's far too late. The easiest path to totalitarianism is to do it slowly enough that no one notices, like a frog in a frying pan. That's exactly what's happening now. If this retarded bill actually passes, the government effectively becomes corporate 'merka's strongarm. Really, what's the difference between getting the govn't to do your dirty work and sending Lefty and Guido over to break your knees? Other than the blinding UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of it, of course. Jefferson would be so proud. This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States Constitution*
* Void where prohibited by law.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Jehosephat2k]

Metaphor error -1

"like a frog in a frying pan. "

You mean like a frog in a pot of water. Bring up to boil slowly, the from won't even notice he is boiling until he is dead...

But I digress...

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Drgnkght]

Since you're being picky, he won't notice then either. He'll just be dead.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Jedi Alec]

Just out of curiosity, are you planning on taking any steps concerning the above? Would love to hear the rest of the story tbh, if there is one.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[sm62704]

I thought seriously about filing a lawsuit, but then thought about all the police harrassment it might cause. Some friends of mine have some activities that aren't exactly legal (although they should be; the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to outlaw the illegal things these ladies do), and they could be hurt badly and in the end my rights still wouldn't be respected (although I could probably retire).

About ten years or so ago the cops did something or other to piss off my ex-wife (which wasn't hard to do at all) and she complained to the Mayor. I got pulled over daily for a while.

I'm too old for that shit any more. More of my life is behind me than in front of me and I don't want to spend it fighting the damned cops, that's no fun at all.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that all of that was quite reprehensible, the cops should be glad they didn't find anything. Having a case thrown out for improper procedure is embarassing for the DA, the police force, and all the way down to the original cop, who could very well get sacked.

I suppose it's a shame that the 4th amendment only protects the guilty now, but we're approaching an age where everyone is guilty of something, so at least there's some consolation, as small as it may be.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[blcamp]

Those weren't "random" parts, Coward... nor was that Amendment.

Nor, unfortunately, is the intent by some to undermine it.

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[sm62704]

The funny thing is what they were looking for was Chris, who was sitting on my toilet when they were looking around my garage. All they had to do was ask, which they did after looking around the garage.

If you're referring to the FBI/DEA/Local cops thing, they said they had every right to search me and my property "bacause that place is a known drug house." Not wanting to be a smartass to the cops (from the Monty Python sketch, "Blimey, whatever did I give to the Missus?") I didn't ask why, if they knew it was a drug house, they didn't just have a judge sign a warrant and search the house.

What was almost more disgusting than disrespecting my Constitutional rights was what the cops were talking about before they let us go - it was a Goddamned GAME to them. Apparently there were teams of cops in competetion to see who could bust the largest number of dopers.

I'm now firmly convinced that the USA is a police state.

-mcgrew

Re:US Constitution - Amendment IV

[Stalky]

"You mean like a frog in a pot of water. Bring up to boil slowly, the from won't even notice he is boiling until he is dead..."

Except that it's just not so:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

This is disgusting.

[beavis88]

Senator Leahy, I used to respect you as a person and as a Senator, and value your dedicated service to the State of Vermont. Today, it is clear to me that you need to be put out to pasture.

Re:This is disgusting.

[RandoX]

...says the Great Cornholio... :)

Re:This is disgusting.

[Billosaur]

When I lived in Vermont as a kid, he was someone to look up to. He's been a Senator for a very long time, and I believe his judgment on a great number of issues has been without reproach. This, however, appears to be a case where he is out of his league. I also find it disturbing given some information from his Wikipedia entry:

In 2004 Senator Leahy was awarded the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Champion of Freedom Award for efforts in information privacy and open government.

So on the one hand he's trying to champion the people's cause. On the other hand:

In March, 2004, Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the Pirate Act backed by the RIAA as part of an on-going crusade against Internet file sharing.

In July, 2004, Leahy and Orrin Hatch introduced the INDUCE Act aimed at combating copyright infringement.

Obvious

[Steauengeglase]

Well, at least we know what employer Mr. Leahy and Mr. Cornyn really work for.

Re:Obvious

[Etrias]

Well, not surprising once you find out who three of his top five campaign contributors are Disney, Viacom and Time Warner.

Here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Leahy#Money_in_politics

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are the other two? I guess we'll never know...

A dark day if this passes

[downix]

Upon this passage, it would mean that the government by the people and for the people had turned it's backs on the people.

Re:A dark day if this passes

[Anonymous Coward]

That day passed a LONG time ago.

Re:A dark day if this passes

[Anonymous Coward]

By the people and for the people?
Haha.

But how do I make sure that I don't copy?

[tepples]

If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net. If I hear your song and then ten years later I write a song that happens to be like that, is that copying? If so, should such be illegal? If so, what do you recommend that authors do to prevent themselves from accidentally copying your works?

Re:But how do I make sure that I don't copy?

[hoyeru]

when I used the word artist I also included people who paint, make comic books, make movies etc. You question has nothing to do with what we are discussing. But to answer it, look up a band called Led Zeppelin.

Re:But how do I make sure that I don't copy?

[celle]

"If I was an artist of some kind today I'd be really worried about all the people making copies of my work and "sharing" them with their friends over the net."

Funny, they used to call it free publicity.

imagine you are a game maker

[hoyeru]

and you make a hawt new game and you offer it for sale. Yet it gets copied and shared the same week by thousands of people all over the net. You would be singing a different song then my friend. Name calling is easy.

Re:imagine you are a game maker

[grimJester]

and you make a hawt new game and you offer it for sale. Yet it gets copied and shared the same week by thousands of people all over the net. You would be singing a different song then my friend. Name calling is easy.

Not really. I'd want as many as possible to pay for the game. If others download it for free, I lose nothing. To put it another way, if a million customers buy the game and a million download it for free, the sum of sales is still exactly one million; not zero.

Re:imagine you are a game maker

[Anonymous Coward]

If the game went on sale for a reasonable price it would get bought more. I've seen console games at $70 each, music CDs at nearly $40, DVDs at $40. The companies producing the 'media' are ripping people off. It is plain and simple greed. If they honestly have overheads big enough to force prices that high then they are in the wrong business. Eventually they will realise that if this stuff is offered at a reasonable price they would sell a lot more and most of the piracy problem would disappear.

Warner/Paramount will be releasing DVDs in China at $2.90 each to combat piracy. If we keep it up hopefully they'll do the same in other markets. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/07/warner-battle-piracy-cutting

Re:imagine you are a game maker

[aztracker1]

Don't know... if I had a business model like WoW or EQ, I think I could care less who copied/pirated the game disks... hell, imho the "expansion" packs shouldn't cost what they do.. but then again, I don't play games like that... My wife and son do though..

I honestly feel that for the most part, people pirating sofware and/or music wouldn't have bought it even if there weren't pirated sources available. Just my $.02 ... Then again, if it were up to me, copyrights would only last 5 years once "owned" but a non-person (business/corporation) or passed from the original owner, or after the original owner dies... Basically IMHO copyright (and patents) should be owned by living people... and once that original owner no longer owns it (by death or sale), or it's owned (whole or in part) by a company... 5 years...

Re:imagine you are a game maker

[Anomalyst]

I dunno, http://www.stardock.com/ http://www.galciv.com/ seems to be doing all right over the decades without Digital Rectal Manacles or rootkit copy protection that the MAFIAA asstunnels insist are needed.

Re:imagine you are a game maker

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Galactic Civilizations II. One of the reasons I bought the game was due to them not having any type if DRM, or CD Key type of restrictions. I was rewarded with an excellent game that I love to play.

However, I am now a Linux only computer user. I want to continue to play their game and the expansions. I wish they would have at least one dev check their game against each release of WINE and see if it works. If they did that little bit of extra work, they could have more sales. I have not purchased any of the expansions yet. I really want to, but I would like an official statement from them about Linux and WINE.

As Stardock contributed to the Vista GUI a bit, I constantly wonder if they are even allowed to openly check on a working Linux through WINE operation.

Not enough crime?

[sjs132]

What, we don't have enough crime for the feds to track and work on? Now we gotta make busy work up by letting them do "civil" suits for RIAA? How much to buy a seat in washington today? How about we work on our F#CKIN6 Boards and Drugs and REAL criminal cases, and THEN if we have time at the end of the year worry about "he said/she said" civil cases. This is SAD that our government is so blatently BOUGHT by the corporations today.

I used to consider myself a republican until I realized that BOTH sides are essentually the same and will abuse their power in an instant to take what is not theirs and line their own pockets to keep power. This is getting REAL OLD... I now consider myself a libritarian, but if it keeps going the way it is, I may have to consider myself a revolutionist and start dumping tea. I already gave up Music and movies because of the RIAA and the such... (Along with the fact that their hasn't been anything good to hear/see in a number of years.) I hoped they would get the message but they don't. They just keep shoveling more sh*t into our graves... Anyone for a CD Tea Party? Real Pirates can steal boxes of CD's and we pick a good harbor to dump them into.

Re:Not enough crime?

[sheph]

Amen!! My thoughts exactly. I'm not particularly prone to violence, however it's starting to look like the only way we're going to see positive change in this country is if we stand up for ourselves. People standing up for what they believed in is what made this country great in the first place. It's the blind apathy that's killing it.

Re:Not enough crime?

[ScaryMonkey]

I agree with almost all of your post, I just had to take issue with your lumping "Drugs" in with "REAL criminal cases" The so-called "War on Drugs" was just the government's previous smokescreen for gradually eroding the people's rights. It's rather disturbing to hear someone clearly see through the "War on Piracy" nonsense but then reflexively invoke the phantom menace of an earlier era as the REAL bogeyman.

IMHO the greatest threat to our peace and freedom is not criminals at all; Criminals may hurt individual citizens, and should certainly be caught and punished, but they have never been a large-scale threat to the nation at large. The real threat is corporations that have the power to not only tread on individual citizens, but buy exemptions to the Law from the government.

Re:Not enough crime?

[sm62704]

How about we work on our F#CKIN6 Boards and Drugs and REAL criminal cases

How about we legalize the broads and drugs (and gambling and other victimless "crimes"), as the war on (some) drugs (and the prostitutes who are addicted to them) are what has caused the constitution to be meaningless. Then the cops would have a little more time to go after violent people, and more room in the prisons to hold them.

A friend of mine was shot and killed by an armed robber a couple of decades back. The killer spent two years in prison. Meanwhile, another friend's brother spent five years for loaning money to a drug dealer at the very same time. Ass backwards if you ask me.

-mcgrew

Re:Not enough crime?

[sjs132]

I guess I don't have a problem with the drug users... I know a few. But, the Cortels and Gangs that use Drugs to fuel their warfare against the commen citizen to push more drugs to get more money results in a never ending cycle of death. So when I said about drugs, that was the general feeling I was trying to convey...

But, is legeal use of drugs any better? I dunno...... :(

Re:Not enough crime?

[sjs132]

Ah... Hmm... I just have to post an Editors note here. I guess that should read "BORDERS and Drugs and REAL criminal cases..." Not "Boards and Drugs and REAL criminal cases"

But I guess It could work either way... My typo... my bad...

carry on now... nothing to see...

No worries...

[Karl0Erik]

...a "NINJA Act" is on the way.

Piracy Should be Stopped.

[odin84gk]

To find the culprit, they only need to look in a mirror.

But seriously, they do need a reform. First, it is illegal to take your CD, make a copy of it, and give it out on the web. However, the system is being abused. Its like kindergarten.

Billy joins your ball game
You don't want Billy in your game.
Billy steals your ball
You tell the teacher on billy, but don't have enough proof that he stole your ball
You beat billy up
You get in trouble for beating Billy
The next day, you put your name on the ball and tell the teacher its your ball
Billy steals the ball again
Teacher finally steps in

Life would have been so much better if you would have just let Billy play.

Mr RIAA, Can we play ball? On all of our devices? On every device in our home? If not, i might have to steal your ball...

Re:Piracy Should be Stopped.

[Steauengeglase]

Shouldn't it be, "Billy makes a copy of your ball", not steals?

Re:Piracy Should be Stopped.

[epee1221]

I don't get it -- why did the game have to stop if you still have the ball?

Re:Piracy Should be Stopped.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Life would have been so much better if you would have just let Billy play."

That was a long time ago. Now you call family lawyer, sue Billy's family, the costs bring Billy's family below poverty level. They lose all their possessions and their home. Billy Sr can't find a job anymore, nobody wants to hire him. Billy's family lives in seedy motel rooms and, when what money was left is gone, in the streets.

One day a bunch of gangstas come upon Billy's family, they kill his father and rape his mother and sister. Billy is stabbed in the stomach and dies among piles of dog feces after hours of agony. His rotting body is discovered after months, and since nobody cares about Billy and his family, they're all buried at Potter's Field.

Here, that's what happens today.

This could be the end of the system

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Criminal Justice system is built upon the higher burden of proof for criminal acts for a reason. The government shouldn't be harassing people everyday for trivial things. You can file a civil action against a bologna sandwich. These options are still open to any and all copyright holders. It would be nice if American Citizens were smart enough to realize that this is so fundamental a sellout to some special interest lobby that could be qualified as treason. Unfortunately one of the by-products of knowing anything about the law or how things work is that you know the majority of Americans believe what someone is willing to tell you in a 15 second soundbyte. Those soundbytes are distributed by the major media outlets who are trying to pass this garbage. We are fucked. No lube.

So let me get this straight...

[MarkusQ]

So let me get this straight: we can't even get a commitment from this DOJ to enforce to enforce things like the laws against torture or the constitutional authority of congress to conduct oversight into the actions of the executive branch, trust them not to use their power for partisan purposes, or even to hire qualified people who graduated from real law schools, but we're going to let them start filing civil suits on behalf of plaintiffs who (generally) could well afford to file for themselves, and would, if they had a shred of merit?

Great. That's just great.

--MarkusQ

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're on the list.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome to the U.S.S.A.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[darkmeridian]

Don't you love America, you socialist, treasonous liberal? We need torture to conduct our missions abroad! Why do you hate the soldiers so much--they're sacrificing so you can have your freedom of speech to complain about them! If people like you ran the country, we'd be Muslims by now!!! Why do you hate God so much?

Well, that's the BS I've been hearing from the war-mongers.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[BeerCur]

The English department at Harvard has contacted the DOJ and urged civil prosecution against you for that run on sentence.

In their summary affidavit, they referenced the great harm to any child that read your comment, and now thinks it is okay to have 95 words in a row without a period or semicolon. In addition starting a paragraph with "So" is just bad sport.

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, it gets worse.

It'll be the same thing over again...

[inject_hotmail.com]

I think that this will essentially fall upon deaf ears. It'll go on the books, and be used a couple times -- maybe.

The problem with distributed infringement is that it takes such a large amount of resources to prosecute a single person, with the prospect of retribution (after investigation, court, and accounting costs) of far less than a monetarily positive result. They might be gung-ho at first to set examples, but once they realize that they've already sucked every last dollar out of 95% of all citizens by way of taxes, they will quickly learn that there's no more money at the bottom of the money well (prosecute counterfeit distributors, not their consumers!). Seriously, does congress or the DoJ believe that we have bundles of cash ready to hand over like they do? (Forgive this digression, but that's actually one of the biggest problems in our society. The people with oodles of money make social policy, and they think that everyone else lives like them -- a suburban household income of $200,000 a year or more...but only in a situation like this would this legislation be tabled in the first place)

The end result isn't going to be deterrence. Everyone in the electronic community will do the equivalent of standing around the train wreck staring and gasping "Oh my god, is there no humanity", for five minutes and carry on as normal (downloading and buying $5 DVDs). The counterfeit vendors will continue to pander their crap, and people will continue to buy it. The government will (in the publics eye) be scrambling and grasping for every last possible stranglehold on its citizens they've be aiming for, for the last 7 years.

How can they believe that persecuting their citizens is a good idea?

If we go a little deeper into the problem, you might agree with me that it's sociological in nature and fairly inevitable and inexorable. Can I get a comment from any sociologists?

This is thoroughly evil.

[thisissilly]

This is because companies don't want to foot the bill for lawsuits, they'd rather have it funded by taxpayers. Of course, the DOJ eats this up, because then they get to demand more money to hire more people for all the investigations and prosecutions they'd be doing, and claim to be "tough on crime". People wouldn't be able to point out the RIAA's actions, because it would be the government going after them.

I don't like the idea of the government getting involved in civil suits on behalf of a third party. What's next, investigating people for adulterous behavior, and then filing divorce proceedings on the spouse's behalf?

Re:This is thoroughly evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the idea of the government getting involved in civil suits on behalf of a third party. What's next, investigating people for adulterous behavior, and then filing divorce proceedings on the spouse's behalf? Even better. Retroactive divorces so it wasn't even adultery in the first place.

What? Telcoms seem to think that made sense.

Re:This is thoroughly evil.

[ppanon]

Nope, it's worse than that. The RIAA companies realize that their lawsuit strategy isn't working. First they are starting to encounter some real push back because they've been very sloppy and it's only a matter of time before somebody sets a precedent in court that they won't be happy with. Second, it's a lot harder to sue the government for malicious prosecution, and the government has even more tools at its disposal for information gathering with carnivore and the PATRIOT act.

Oversimplifying.. but..

[mindstrm]

Here (Tha'ts Costa Rica) I thought for a long time there were no or few copyright laws... as most rental DVDs seem to be copies, and all the video-game stores in the malls sell pirated games and chipped consoles. It's great as a consumer... but I wondered why. It's not a lawless country, after all.

The real issue appears to be that the authorities simply don't have time to go chasing copyright laws.

If you, as a copyright holder, want to come down here and file some court papers.... you can take peopel to court, and win... but you can't just expect the public authorities to crack down on this for you, unless you come here personally and make a big stink about it.

In other words, if you don't care enough to come here and complain, they really don't care enough to chase people down.

Mod me redundant

[sm62704]

Because I've said it before and I'll say it again: we have the best governmnet money can buy.

-mcgrew

Fucking-A, Right On.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is up to citizens to stop the corporations before they undermine society. Every useless pice of shit you buy from Wallmart, Disney and Sony is just feeding the beast, stop doing it NOW, you are part of the problem.

Amen to that, bro.

And quit feeding China too. Buy products made in your own country or if you really don't absolutely need that item, use the money to pay some extra against your debts or put it into savings.

Funny thing... the captcha I have to enter to post this as AC is "anarchy". How long will it be until the evil corporations try to get laws passed that basically say if the consumers (not citizens anymore), don't buy enough useless crap to satisfy their corporate profit margins enough then the consumers are guilty of criminal anarchy charges.

Mismatched, anyone?

[russotto]

The RIAA has found its own team of lawyers is no match for individual citizens with no legal resources whatsoever, and it therefore needs to bring in the terrible (as in "Ivan the") power of the state to defeat them. If that doesn't work, what is the poor RIAA going to do then?

Instead of Impeaching

[Doc Ruby]

When Congressmembers (like Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee) tell you they're too busy "working on the people's business" to impeach guilty officials, they're talking about creating, promoting and passing laws like PIRATE II.

Priorities.

Re:Instead of Impeaching

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just about priorities. Even having Congressmembers sit on their thumbs and do nothing would be preferable to passing laws like PIRATE II.

wtf

[pak9rabid]

this is complete horse shit. she purpose of civil law is so that individual citizens can resolve issues amongst themselves, not so the government can go after people w/minimal proof...i think its about time for a mutiny.

The real pirates are working for the RIAA.

[argent]

Not only do they have outrageous penalties written into civil law, but now they want to get the taxpayer to pay for their larcenous lawsuits? I think we need to recognise that the closest thing to real piracy in this situation is what the RIAA is doing. Not only have they been granted letters of marque by the US government to exact punishment in civil suits, but now they're getting the government to pay for it. All that remains would be for George II to start handing out knighthoods (after all, it worked for Francis Drake).

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Iguanadon]

Have you tried logging in?

Acronyms

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What is it with Americans and Acronyms? Is it absolutely necessary for nigh every single act, invention, process or term to have an acronym, and furthermore, for that acronym to become its de facto name?

Sometimes, it's not so bad, e.g. RADAR, HTML. But making, PATRIOT or PIRATE or INDUCE the actual name of your legal bills makes a joke out of the entire legislative process. Must everything become a marketing ploy?

Re:Acronyms

[dave420]

Some people are stupid. They think "Oh! It's called PATRIOT, so anyone who thinks it's a bad idea is obviously not a patriot!". They don't realise that the name has nothing to do with the legislation. It's all about PR, looking good, and getting paid. The legislators want their jobs so they can get paid. It's a massive conflict of interest, and it's here to stay, until real politicians are found. Hehehe.

Re:Acronyms

[jamstar7]

Sometimes, it's not so bad, e.g. RADAR, HTML. But making, PATRIOT or PIRATE or INDUCE the actual name of your legal bills makes a joke out of the entire legislative process. Must everything become a marketing ploy?

It makes it easier to spin so they can sell it to the electorate. Joe Sixpack isn't going to read these bills and call his Congresscritter, he'll glance at the name, think 'This is a Good Thing' like the spin doctors want him to, and go his merry way, not knowing that Good Thing just made him part of the growing criminal class.

Re:Acronyms

[HBI]

The legislation is too long for anyone but the aides to have read, so you have to have a name that holds Congress' attention.

If you think that's stupid, I was in a meeting once where a certain military program was referred to as the acronym E-FAT. Some GS wanker says abruptly "We've got to change that...".

Whatever.

Re:Acronyms

[Rakarra]

Some people are stupid. They think "Oh! It's called PATRIOT, so anyone who thinks it's a bad idea is obviously not a patriot!"

It's not really that sort of a rational decision, it's more that words like Patriot work on a subconscious level. They may not support it simply because it's titled that, but it does give you sortof a warm fuzzy feeling. And, of course, it aligns your side with the forces of light.

Write your Senators

[WPIDalamar]

I just wrote both of my Senators urging them to vote against this if and when it comes time for a senate vote. I urge everyone else to do the same.

The system can't work without feedback from citizens.

Re:Write your Senators

[celle]

There is feedback, it's called a lynching. We need to bring back necktie parties for public officials.

It's the national sport.

[argent]

Making a joke of the legislative process, that is. :(

EFF and Leahy

[argent]

Let's hope the EFF is prepared to go after one of the "good guys". They've got a relationship with Leahy, and they've lionized him in the past, but now it's time to call in their markers.

the DoJ isn't interested in "real" crime

[QCompson]

From the Ars article:

The Department would no doubt rather be busting gangsters, child molesters, and even actual counterfeiting rings, but it seems like some members of Congress are intent on pressing Justice to get involved in the P2P lawsuit game...

I highly doubt that the Department of Justice would rather be investigating actual crimes (in which people are actually harmed). The DoJ, the FBI, and most other law enforcement agencies seem to go after whatever "criminal issue" is the easiest to investigate and whatever will garner the most sensationalist headlines. Hence the rise in all of these sting operations involving drugs and the "to catch a predator" type sitations where citizens are arrested based on the theory that they would likely harm someone in the future (sure, the 14 year old girl is really a 45 year old cop, but there could be a real 14 year old girl who entices this guy over to her house sometime in the future).

It's no wonder that law enforcement agencies are all jumping at the chance to investigate myspace and facebook "criminal activity". It's a lot easier to sit at your desk and surf the web all day instead of being out on the street and arresting people who are actually harming others (violent acts, robbery, rape, etc.).

You Brave Americans!

[Kvasio]

Americans, I admire your will to sacrifice well-being of entire national economy just to make one industry's executives even richer.

Simple solution

[nurb432]

Lest just stop all this silly incremental nonsence and jump to the 'end game': Make everyone in the country a criminal, convict them via proxy of something, then strip whatever rights they had as a citizen away since they are now convicted felons and dont get any rights.

Then we can go ahead and have the 2nd revolution and get this segment of the 'civilization cycle' over with.

Re:Simple solution

[KudyardRipling]

I LOVE the sound of Brandenburg v. Ohio being run through the shredder. The problem is too many people have popped blue pills (cushy jobs, nice homes, big SUV's, monstrous entertainment systems, fat retirement accounts, boats, vacations, etc). Simply not enought people are desperate enought to revolt.

Truth is the red pill.

PIRATE Part III: The Next Step

[idontgno]

(ooooh, nifty movie title)

Having lowered the bar in evidentiary burdens against copyright infringers by shifting prosecution into the civil court system, I think the obvious next logical step is to declare content piracy* as a terrorist act, eliminating the requirement for evidence entirely!

*not my phrase, not my idea, I'm just sayin' it like the pigopolists would.

Re:PIRATE Part III: The Next Step

[The_Mr_Flibble]

I laughed at that then I thought.
Isn't taking money away from the state providing financial aid to terrorists ?

Gulp.

Music doesn't wear out

[Anonymous Coward]

so we have the *best* of the stuff from the 80's, 90's, etc to pick from. Oh, they aren't selling them. guess we'll have to find someone who does have it and get a copy.

Re: File-sharing fines

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of persons ordered by law courts to pay damages to recording-industry firms, I propose that these fines be delineated into "recompensatory" and "punitive" portions. The "recompensatory" portion goes to the firms in question, naturally. The "punitive" portion goes to the government for generically 'socially beneficial' uses.

This is proposed as a more impartial settlement than what is currently being practised.

Better acronym?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps a better acronym is: EXpected Termination Of Recording Technology Impedes Our Nation. I'm sure the *AA special interest groups would love to see the technology that facilitates this alleged illegal activity require a license to own and operate.

silent drain

[infiniphonic]

"Copyright infringement silently drains America's economy and undermines the talent, creativity and initiative that are a great source of strength to our nation," said Leahy. I thought that was what the government did.

Why? So you can piss off the environmentalists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just dump the politicians into the harbor?

People don't even know what unalienable means.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm - people can't even agree that the right to bear arms is unalienable and attributed to the people where the 3 entities the Constitution speak of are the people, states, and Federal Government so you expect them to be able to agree on what is or is not reasonable?

More accurately..

[Leuf]

You demand that all kids pay their lunch money to play your game.
Billy starts his own game.
You tell the teacher Billy stole your ball, while you are still holding your ball in your hand
The teacher starts playing Billy's game too.
You go to the superintendent to try to get a new school policy that all games belong to you.
The superintendent starts playing Billy's game too.
You go to the ball manufacturers and demand they install a remote device in all balls allowing you to deflate them at will
The ball manufacturers start playing Billy's game too.

You take your ball and go home

You forgot the big reason... at number 5:

[Catbeller]

5- People despise the content companies now, and are refusing to buy as long as they act like vicious life-destroying bastards. No one ever loved the labels, and that was BEFORE they decided to "educate" the population into believing that copying and listening to music was criminal. They've made enemies of their talent and their customers. Please, sue some more. I stopped buying music in 1999 and stopped listening to radio music about the same time. I've a lot of company. Next up: DVD's and TV programs. Want to sue us? Please, commit financial suicide. Go ahead. It'll work, really.

PIRATE vs. global warming

[xPsi]

"Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have re-introduced the 'PIRATE Act' (pdf) to Congress. According to Ars Technica, the purpose of this act is to get the DoJ to go after individual copyright infringers. It would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil lawsuits instead of criminal ones so that they would be able to prosecute copyright infringers with only a minimal burden of proof, rather than the heavier burden required for criminal prosecution." Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is making more sense. It wasn't high seas pirates they were referring to, rather wasteful acts of congress called PIRATE whose resources and manpower energies could have been used to to fight global warming instead, thus becoming correlated with its rise.

Two Supreme Court decisions that killed democracy

[Catbeller]

The two SCOTUS decisions that destroyed the democratic United States government:

1. Decision that corporations were individuals, same as we meat puppets, endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the freedom of speech. A decision, BTW, that never happened, as it was an interpretation by a SC clerk, not a Justice, that was seized on by the Guilded Age corporations as the institutionalization of their organizations as immortal citizens.

2. 1990s: decision by SCOTUS that political donations were protected speech, same as spoken words or writings.

These idiot ideas lead to the present day: corporations as legal individuals, spending as much as they like to influence government. After the 1990's, they simply bought the government, floor to ceiling.

To stop this horror, we have to kill those two SC decisions. Corporations go back to being government-licensed TEMPORARY legal shelters -- not people, not individuals, NO rights to buy government. And money is not speech. End of discussion. Remove money from the political campaigns. NO paid media time, none, end of insanity. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine on government licensed media for unpaid shilling for candidates in media as well. Separate Commerce and State, as some earlier poster beautifully called it.

Call your Congressman

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright fellow slashdotters, I am a constituent of John Cornyn's, I have called the office and voiced my complaint. I have stated that this is blatent corruption and he is obviously ignoring the well-being of the people who voted him in. I also said that I will do everything in my power to ensure that his political career comes to an end at the next possible moment.

Anyone else who has these people as their reps do the same yet?

Forget About Constitutionality

[immcintosh]

What a tremendous fucking waste of our country's resources. How about we go after actual CRIMINALS, rather than copyright violators? You know... stuff that actually MATTERS?

Thank the lord the Dems are in charge

[N3WBI3]

And corporate lobbyist are no longer writing legislation /sarc

Re:It's not us

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not the revolutionary generation. We are their forerunners, their heralds. We were not raised by our complacent parents to be revolutionary, and thus we will not be. At best, we will make a lot of noise.

It will be our children, in ten, twenty years time, who're growing up with us as their guardians, who will be the revolutionaries. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the government and corporations are trying to prevent through social legislation and engineering. They're putting in the measures now to subvert our behavior so that it will not be transmitted, so that the revolutionary generation will never materialize.

Shows you where my mind is this morning

[Linux_ho]

I read the headline as, "Congress Pleasures DoJ With PRIVATE Part II."

Thought I was on the wrong website for a second.

Corrected question

[tepples]

when I used the word artist I also included people who paint, make comic books, make movies etc. Nor did I intend to limit the discussion of cryptomnesia to music. Replace "song" with "work" as in the following:

CORRECTION: If I see or hear your work and then ten years later I create a work that happens to be like that, is that copying? If so, should such be illegal? If so, what do you recommend that authors do to prevent themselves from accidentally copying your works? Does this question become more germane?

But to answer it, look up a band called Led Zeppelin. Well-known professional bands like Led Zeppelin have the cash to settle with songwriters who allege subconscious copying. Do amateurs?

def maximize_money

[magus_melchior]

consumers.each do |x|
  # Those who can, do
  media = self.mass_produce
  x.sell (media, media.wholesale_price * 5)
 
  if x.download?
  # Those who can't, sue
  lawsuit = sue (x, media, x.shirt + x.arm + x.leg)
 
  unless lawsuit.mucho_dinero?
    # Those who still can't, buy and lobby
    bill = self.lawyer.law.new
    congress.each do |c|
    unless c.buy? then c.lobby
    end
  end
  end
 
  end

(Pardon the messy Ruby code and hyperbole)

Call 'em - Here's some numbers

[The Breeze]

It's most likely better to call their offices in their home states, but here are their numbers in Washington:

Leahy: (202) 224-4242, DC - (802)863-2525, Burlington, (802)229-0569, Montpellier

Cornyn: (202) 224-2934, DC - SE Texas: 713-572-3337, Central Texas: 512-469-6034

Be polite and respectful, but bring up the points:

* Introducing legislation to reduce the legal expenses of multi-billion dollar entities is one of the reason that people are losing faith in the democratic process.

* There are grave flaws in some of the civil suits the RIAA have brought and innocent people are often being caught in the net; bringing the full power of the US Government against people in a civil suit is tremendously unfair.

* Why is the DOJ focusing on this instead of terrorism?

* Civil suits have a much lower burden of proof than criminal cases and there is no constitutional requirement for the government to provide lawyers; this will ruin lives.

* The RIAA has a documented history of trying to bribe congressman and sneak inherently unfair legislation into bills; this also explains why people have lost faith in Congress.

* Our copyright system is fundamentally broken, copyright terms are ridiculously long. We should not be spending government funds to reinforce a deeply flawed system.

* The RIAA is getting more resistance from judges who can see the unfair nature of their cases and this is an effort to get free legal help for a corrupt industry at taxpayer expense.

* The recording industry has been exploiting artists and consumers for decades and now they're trying to use legal force to preserve a dying business model; if the manufacturers of buggy whips had the legislative clout back in the early 1900's that the RIAA a buggy whip would be required equipment in each automobile.

* Finally, you will occasionally get a staffer who will attempt to defend the bill. If they are wired in to the lobbying machine, you can scare the hell out of them with this phrase: "Well, since the recording industry believes that copyright should last forever, like land and real estate, would the Senator support a yearly tax on the possession of copyrights, much like land is subject to annual property taxes?" This is an extremely dangerous idea for the recording industry.

Call 'em. Be polite but firm. If you are a member of their party, mention that, too and let them know if you think are representing their party poorly.

They do track how many calls they get on an issue. It does make a difference.

Re:Call 'em - Here's some numbers

[Fantastic Lad]

Call 'em. Be polite but firm. If you are a member of their party, mention that, too and let them know if you think are representing their party poorly.

AND report back with your stories. If I were an American, I'd be on the phone in a flash.

-FL

Odd that it's Leahy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange that it's Pat Leahy doing this. He usually has more sense in such matters.

I covered the PATRIOT Act hearings, and he was one of the only voices against it (mind you, he didn't actually have the nerve to VOTE against it, which everyone on the Hill considered political suicide at the time) - but he was one of the few to say it was wretched overkill and was being rushed through too quickly.

Not-SO-Trivial Trivia: Every time the bill came up for consideration, the terror alert level (Homeland Security Advisory System "current threat level") shot shot up to red ("severe"). Or at least mauve.

Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now:

"I have proof that prove to the court, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my client is innocent."

"Bah! Don't burden us with your 'proof'!"

Idiocracy anyone?

Federal Reserve Act?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although not a Supreme Court decision, the Federal Reserve Act took the power to create money out of the hands of our elected leaders and put it into the hands of a private banking cartel. This was the beginning of the end for the Republic as it allowed a small group of people who were never elected to manipulate the financial system (see also: the great depression, the housing and tech bubbles, and the ongoing manipulated "boom-bust" cycle.)

Two interesting videos about this topic on Google video: "Money as Debt" and "The Money Masters"

Fantastic News!

[crhylove]

We really need to spend money on this. There is no way that improving our deficit or infrastructure would be a smarter move. I mean, a couple of ignorant kids from redneck/inner city USA downloading some of the absolute crap that passes for music these days is clearly our priority number one. Let's not worry about going after the corporate monopolies that are never going to give us solid, reliable electric cars. Let's skip the illegally wire tapping and bandwidth throttling telcos. Let's not get to the bottom of the JFK thing, or how the twin towers fell, or back to the moon. Let's spend all of our money on locking up teenagers with no taste in music. BRILLIANT!

Is there no American willing to beat these idiots with the clue stick? I've got a good right arm, I'll take a couple of swings, get me a ticket to Washington....

Attached is a photo of my proposed "Clue Stick":
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11509025/Sledge_Hammer_With_Wooden_Handle.jpg

Disagreement with groupthink is not trolling

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators are abusing mod points to forward their point of view. It's not like there aren't clearly two arguments on the piracy issue. Expressing an opinion that does not fall on the side most /.ers happen to agree with does not deserve punishment.

So you're saying it's overvalued?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because piracy begets piracy. It devalues things. If half the people on your block got their homes for free, how could you convince somebody to pay you $250k for YOURS?

That's supply and demand you're talking about there. If there's a free supply, of course demand will slack off at high prices. So does this mean that you're suggesting that people shouldn't be able to give away copyrighted things for free, even if they "own" them? Because that's what you're doing. Mind you, neither of our posts are that great, but they are copyrighted, and we both gave them up for free.

If you're going to give analogies, why don't you give one that at least involves non-rivalrous goods? You know, things you can make copies of. I'm pretty sure no one has invented a house-copier, let alone a land-copier, so they're rivalrous goods. Copyrighted things aren't: the supply is arbitrary and the producers all want government protection from competition (i.e. copyrights).

Re:So you're saying it's overvalued?

[encoderer]

What apart my advocation of COPYRIGHT makes you think I would want to RESTRICT rights by saying you're FORBIDDEN from giving it away.

Likewise, if a builder wants to build a house and give it away, more power to 'em. But, if somebody who didn't own the house gave it away without the builders consent, that's clearly wrong. And you say, "it doesn't hurt the artist" Well.. what if the artist doesn't sell anything? They spent $100K to record the album and now you're giving it for free. How is that right? It cost me REAL MONEY and now you're getting benefit without my approval on my dime?

I agree with music piracy as guerilla warfare, but how can you possibly claim it's RIGHT and that the gov't shouldn't have tools to enforce existing laws?

Furthermore, to accommodate your pedantic tendencies, I used a CD-resale example somewhere around here. Find it if you can stretch your mind around the home analogy.

Valued Senator

[Anonymous Coward]

The senate just confirmed Mukasey who said, in his confirmation hearings, that the president gets to determine the laws. Since that means that the Senate won't have any meaningful work, I think we should cut their salaries back accordingly. To about $1/year.

Re:Valued Senator

[ScrewMaster]

Better yet, fire their collective ass and replace them with ordinary citizens who might care about having to live under the laws they make while in office. This bunch doesn't, because they're effectively above it. The law, that is. Al Gore was once asked about his position on term limits for Congresspeople. His response? "But ... but, that would deny the American people the benefits of professional politicians." A dubious benefit indeed, Mr. Gore, and one that I believe we can well live without, regardless of one's party affiliation.

Good work, Feds!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you must have finally caught that Osama Bin Laden! Hooray, congratulations, good work, fellas. ...Errrr, although somehow, I seemed to have missed the stories of his capture in the news...

But, that's got to have been the case, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have any time to be wasting on nonsense crap like this bill, right?

Would you?