ACTA Could Make Nonprofit P2Ps Face Criminal Penalties

dan of the north writes "Based on sources and leaked documents, Knowledge Ecology International now asserts that ACTA drafts are in fact 'formally available to cleared corporate lobbyists and informally distributed to corporate lawyers and lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the US.' — The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter. Both KEI and Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who has been working his own sources, say that the current proposals require all signatories to 'establish a laundry list of penalties — including imprisonment — sufficient to deter future acts of infringement.'"

Comments

With such a clear definition of the scale required

[AvitarX]

There is no way this could be misapplied.

Europe, Japan, and the US......and so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how Russia and China are conspicuously absent from that list of countries....

Re:Europe, Japan, and the US......and so?

[Mystra_x64]

It's just our laws are optional anyway ~

Re:Europe, Japan, and the US......and so?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Notice how Russia and China are conspicuously absent from that list of countries....

We all know who to proxy through now, don't we?

Re:Europe, Japan, and the US......and so?

[ScrewMaster]

Notice how Russia and China are conspicuously absent from that list of countries....

We all know who to proxy through now, don't we?

No kidding. The way things are doing, it won't be long before a Russian Business Network server will be the safest place in the world to put your stuff.

"Criminal Matter"

[nurb432]

The ultimate goal of all the "industries". This shifts the burden ( and cost ) to the government ( tax payers ) and even further stigmatizes a 'non societal' act.

It also introduces jail times, long term detention during proceedings and a life time of persecution after prison..

All they will have to do is randomly accuse people with and sit back and watch the show and collect money.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[aurispector]

This the other shoe dropping now that the RIAA claims they have stopped filing suits.

The problem here is that citizens of signatory countries will have no recourse within the laws of their own countries since it's a treaty. This will get very ugly if the bastards get their way - and they probably will. This makes me physically ill.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[nurb432]

While people call me nuts ( tho they said that when i talked about this entire mess decades ago and who is laughing now.. ) i still expect to see random seizures of music players on the street. "prove ownership of these songs".

Wish my ipod was encrypted.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[davidbrucehughes]

This is just another symptom supporting the diagnosis that the media business has become toxic waste. The best antidote is a broad movement to convince artists to release their work under the Creative Commons licenses. The big recording and media companies are exploitive rascals; drive them out of business by voting with your money and simply not doing business with them.

For example, on our site we have tons of original music, videos and text. Similar to many open-source software companies, we get paid when people buy training or counseling services related to the material.

The Information Economy does not work by legislation, but by taking advantage of the inherent nature of networks to copy stuff. *Please* copy our stuff! Put it on all the P2P hosts and download it all day and night. We love it!

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[diewlasing]

Actually in the US, if I'm not mistaken, even treaties are considered part of federal law. Many times the people negotiating the treaty will provide a caveat saying they won't sign if it violates the Constitution. Also I believe, just like federal laws, they can be ruled unconstitutional. In any case, Obama is appointing a new US Trade Rep. Whether or not things will change is something only time will tell.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[modmans2ndcoming]

While I hold out a lot of hope for the change that Obama can bring, some of his appointments (like our pro-globilization trade secretary)worry me.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[that this is not und]

Wish my ipod was encrypted.

Don't worry about that. You bought a brand-new iPod, and not some 'inferior third party player,' right?

And you always use the current version of iTunes to sync, correct?

"We're happy to say you appear to be in compliance, citizen. Please move along."

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[that this is not und]

Oh, please. In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives. He's headed down DLC lane.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[nurb432]

Tho you are kidding, i have both Ipod and Sansa, and dont use the official sync for either.. I also dont use Amazons service to feed the Kindle, i scan my own paper books or use free documents.. ( and my laptop is already encrypted )

If it does come down to random searches, you can bet ill be using alternative firmware. Even if i'm 100% legit, its none of their damned business.

Scary times ahead folks.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Anonymous Coward]

This will get very ugly if the bastards get their way - and they probably will.

I'm almost certain they will, now that Obama's filled the ranks in the DOJ and his administration with strong copyright and RIAA advocates.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Stanislav_J]

In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives.....

Um...none that we know of...yet. You never know. Obama seems like a pretty upstanding guy, but so did Clinton at first. Anyway, to me, Bubba getting blow jobs from interns is his own business -- as far as I am concerned, if it put a smile on his face and enabled him to face the country's business in a more relaxed and less stressed frame of mind, all the better. It was the way he tried to fudge, obfuscate, and lie his way out of it that diminished his stature in my eyes. A flawed man, but we had a pretty good 8 years under him -- a fantastically great 8 years compared to the last 8.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Truekaiser]

Have you forgotten that he and the vice president has staffed the justice department with riaa/mpaa goons?
Not only will this pass and become law here even if it violates the constitution, but there will be a roundup of file sharers afterwards.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet another example why lobbying should be made illegal and called what it is: Bribery.

These politicians that sell out their people to the highest bidding companies are the biggest criminal scumbags.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Hordeking]

In spite of the right wing screeching about Obama being a far-left stealth candidate, he's a cleaner, more efficient Bill Clinton, without the personal ethical lapses to interfere with his objectives.....

Um...none that we know of...yet. You never know. Obama seems like a pretty upstanding guy, but so did Clinton at first. Anyway, to me, Bubba getting blow jobs from interns is his own business -- as far as I am concerned, if it put a smile on his face and enabled him to face the country's business in a more relaxed and less stressed frame of mind, all the better. It was the way he tried to fudge, obfuscate, and lie his way out of it that diminished his stature in my eyes. A flawed man, but we had a pretty good 8 years under him -- a fantastically great 8 years compared to the last 8.

Have you forgotten that he and the vice president has staffed the justice department with riaa/mpaa goons? Not only will this pass and become law here even if it violates the constitution, but there will be a roundup of file sharers afterwards.

Obama is just better at hiding his improprieties. He's a silver-tongued devil, if I ever saw one. Biden has been one of the biggest copywrong hounds out there, for years. Just pray Berman or Hollings never get into executive office. Those two are already dangerous where they are.

Maybe some of the more well-spoken amongst our numbers should've gotten out there and started bringing this shit to the attention of the unwashed masses before the elections. You know, all of those technically savvy college kids who inexplicably LOVE Obama because they're told to.

I'm normally a pro-lifer, but I think abortion really should've been encouraged in the past 25 years or so. Noone to make conservatives abort, but the liberals seem fond of it, so they would just cut down their numbers.

Don't blame me. I wanted Ron Paul to win (unfortunately any vote cast for him would've been a wasted vote). Neither of the two (uniparty) frontrunning candidates would've gone for what was best for me.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[ScrewMaster]

There's a problem with your scenario. If they're every going to lock media down that tightly, they're going to have to be goddamned precise. They aren't very good at at that. The RIAA's approach of suing everyone regardless of that facts won't wash ... they could very, very easily make using commercial media too risky, and they're just paranoid enough (and greedy enough) to do just that. People might have to go back to entertaining themselves.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting a blowjob is one thing. Conspiracy to commit murder is something entirely different. Do you seriously think he had nothing to do with this?

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Wildclaw]

The US would have been far better off with a real leftist in the presidential office. Instead you got the usual corrupt and/or incompetent centrist that has to pay back favors to the financial interests that bought him.

Well, I could be wrong, but the first few weeks hasn't been very promising in the regard of "change". Expect Obushma to become a far more common term in the months to come.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Kalriath]

It's even worse, since the fucking US government has dictated to all signatory countries that they are not allowed to disclose the contents of the treaty to their citizens, and then required signing it as a pre-requisite to any form of free-trade agreement.

In fact the response from the NZ government to an Official Information Act request for this document is to reject the request on the grounds that disclosing it would violate national security, and/or harm international relations.

So yeah, fuck the United States of the Recording Industry Association of America.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[shmlco]

"For example, on our site we have tons of original music, videos and text."

A YouTube video of some jerk falling off a roof doesn't count (nor is it particularly original). I've yet to see many full length major motion pictures released under CC. (Or ANY, for that matter.)

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

All they will have to do is randomly accuse people with and sit back and watch the show and collect money.

Hang on a minute. If this is to be a criminal act, shouldn't the fines be treated the same way as those in any other criminal case, so that any punitive damages (in jurisdictions that have the concept) are retained by the government to use for the benefit of all? Big Media might be awarded some financial compensation, but my impression was that in most legal systems, that would only be on the level of provable financial loss in a criminal case, and as we know, the provable financial loss in cases like these is a subject of much debate and courts haven't been quick to accept the "one copy = one lost sale" argument.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[lpq]

The citizenry needs to fight back. IP laws are completely artificial for the supposed benefit of society.
Jailing the citizenry to benefit them is an obvious example of a corrupt government.

Re:"Criminal Matter"

[modmans2ndcoming]

What financial interests bought Obama?

He was supported by small donations.

If anything, the payback will come because of the interests groups that put boots on the ground for him.

Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

By reading this comment, you are not committing an infringement. However, if you are committing this comment to memory, you may be committing an infringement due to the possibility of reproducing this comment, and selling it for commercial gain.

So, if someone records a show off of TV, can it be assumed they're going to pirate it? Betamax decision no more? Fair use is out the window? Whatever happened to common sense? All your rights are belong to ACTA!

Re:Violation

[Ihmhi]

Honestly nowadays I think we need more of the Thomas-Paine-Muskets-And-Cannons Common Sense.

Re:Violation

[BiggerIsBetter]

So, if someone records a show off of TV, can it be assumed they're going to pirate it? Betamax decision no more? Fair use is out the window? Whatever happened to common sense? All your rights are belong to ACTA!

I suspect that this is targeted at the aXXos of the world. 30,000 peers on a TV rip probably qualifies in their eyes as "commercial scale" but not for financial gain. Lending a disk to a mate to get a copy of same probably does not.

The irony of course is that commerce starts with a transaction of 1, and it's the exchange and intent that is important. If we say a file piece has value, and is exchanged for another with intent to gain from the transaction, then perhaps there is barter going on, but really, that's rubbish and not how most P2P works anyway. The other implication is that only big guys do commerce, and frankly, I find that both offensive and very telling.

Re:Violation

[meist3r]

I suspect that this is targeted at the aXXos of the world. 30,000 peers on a TV rip probably qualifies in their eyes as "commercial scale" but not for financial gain. Lending a disk to a mate to get a copy of same probably does not.

My question would be, why try to establish a multi-lateral global framework of fascist information distribution restrictions and not battling pirates with their own weapons? I'd pay for a movie as aXXo style 700MB rip. But only if I can watch a decent sample beforehand (not a shit trailer that gives me all the important moments). They don't try to evolve, what they do is to dig their trenches deeper and try to force everyone to pay for their lack of common sense and flexibility. Sure people trading free stuff is a huge problem but they're not even trying to combat that with improved offers. Screw all those region based single market corporate interest endeavors. They don't realize what their markets oughta be and don't even try to work there.

I can't accept this. There is no reasonable explanation to be such a blockhead and they blame their failure to adapt on their consumers by abusing policy. That's neither right nor justified. I feel ashamed that our politicians even cooperate with this corrupt sack of liars. But then again, what else is politics than a bunch of liars tickling each others balls.

Re:Violation

[Jorophose]

Personally, I don't buy movies or music. I really only buy games anymore.

If it's not on cable, if it's not on the airwaves, it's not fit for human consumption. Think about it. With the exception of some movies (I liked Boondock Saints, for example) the classics will likely air at some point or another. Same for music. I had a friend who would keep a radio hooked up to his soundcard and just record the songs he'd want, as ogg files to boot. When you think the big bad wolf is looking you down, it's an option.

Maybe I'm just a stingy bastard. I'm not paying $0.99 per song for music I'll listen to maybe twice a month (when you have a big playlist and actually listen to people at work, I realised how little I use my MP3 player).

I'd pirate games if only to stick it to companies that make shovelware and movie games. Fuck right off, bud. Let me play it a bit. If I like it, I'll definately buy it. That's what we need more of; the option to download levels from games straight to your PS3/360/Wii. Let me try the first twenty minutes. Generally from that point you can tell what the controls are like, if the game looks ok, and the story starts there (but the story can be looked up; it's the actual "how does it play" that matters the most).

But then again, there's services like Gamefly for that.

I'm not necessarily opposed to buying my media. I've bought movies, I've gotten some as gifts. I rip them, and occasionally friends lend me burnt discs and video files of questionable origins. But it's not like I want something, can afford it, and instead I download it. Music is a bit of a different story. I'm willing to buy a CD if it has good tracks (no filler BS) and for a good price (10$ is the maximum), but only from a singer/band I like.

I have no qualms about downloading crap for the sake of downloading crap. It's not like I would have bought it in the first place. ACTA is ridiculous. People are still buying movies, games, and music. If anything, the rate decreases with more anti-piracy measures, and increases with pro-freedom ones. I'm very tempted to start buying my tunes from Amazon and such just because it's bullshit-free.

DRM and lawsuits aren't going to stop anyone. All it takes is one person and one hard drive.

Re:Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but think that Mr. Paine would, at least prior to January 20, have been considered some sort of terrorist, were he to have published "Common Sense" today.

Now, to be fair, since then, that's probably been downgraded to mere "criminal". Still, not the smartest thing to be voicing support for a dude who advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States, albeit of a different form than it is today.

That being said, I agree. (Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.)

Re:Violation

[s73v3r]

I have no qualms about downloading crap for the sake of downloading crap. It's not like I would have bought it in the first place.

I have never gotten a clear answer to this. If you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, why do you feel entitled to it? Why not just go without?

Re:Violation

[Hordeking]

I can't help but think that Mr. Paine would, at least prior to January 20, have been considered some sort of terrorist, were he to have published "Common Sense" today.

Now, to be fair, since then, that's probably been downgraded to mere "criminal". Still, not the smartest thing to be voicing support for a dude who advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States, albeit of a different form than it is today.

That being said, I agree. (Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.)

No, I'm pretty sure he'd still be considered a terrorist. The Obama administration will not make anything better, and will probably make things worse.

FYI, he was considered a terrorist of sorts in his own time (a seditionist, actually) by the effective gov't, King George.

If Thomas Paine is "currently" wrong, then, baby, I don't wanna be right.

Re:Violation

[Jorophose]

Because everyone talks about it. :)

Really, if you want an answer, it's not going to be easy to find one. I download them because it's there when I need it. I have the tunes I liked when I heard them on the radio. But these aren't the songs I love, and if someone would have asked me to pay for every single one of my songs, you'd likely see a lot less.

Rather than listen to commercials on the radio, I'd rather just download the songs and listen to them. But like I said, if you told me I can't do that, and I have to pay for all of my tracks... well, hello radio.

It stacks up; I'm not interested in spending 100$ on an MP3 player and another 100$ for songs to put on it. (I'm sure you could think of 100 songs that are playing right now somewhere) But even then, I'm not really download-happy.

Again, not necessarily that I'm entitled to it... But it's for the same reason that you find replicas of famous paintings. You're not decreasing the value of the real thing. You'd just like to appreciate the real thing too.

Then again, a lot of music is hit or miss. I'm not hooked up to a large private tracker, so I don't quite get everything, and not at the best qualities. So that's where buying legit has saved my ass. For example, looking for Rachel Ferguson's "Joshua" just nets me 300KB EXE/ZIP files called "FERGY_HOT_SEX".

Re:Violation

[hairyfeet]

To see if it is really as shitty as everyone says? And as far as games go after getting burned one too many times I don't blame anyone who wants to try before they buy and I only buy in the bargain bin. Why? Two games: Max Payne I and Vampire:Bloodlines. I bought both at launch and spent 6 months waiting on a patch for MP and 1 1/2 years for V:bloodlines.So considering the fact they don't get to take it back if it is a $50 coaster I don't blame folks if they want to try first. I personally buy my games in the cheap bin and then chunk their wrapped boxes on the shelf and hit TPB to keep from getting DRM infections that are worse than trojans nowadays. Sad that the "pirate" one is safer than the one from the store, huh? But I think this guy says it better than I can.

But it never ceases to amaze me that folks forget there actually was an original purpose to copyrights, and it wasn't a license for rich old white guys to print money and maximize profits. It was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED length of copyrights so that the artist could profit from their work we got in return a richer public domain. But now that copyrights are essentially 2 human lifetimes that contract is irretrievably broken. We need to go back to the terms we had for 150+ years (before bribery..I mean lobbying bought all our laws) and I would argue that thanks to places like iTunes and Amazon allowing you to turn a profit quite quickly compared to the old days that they should be even less.

Finally for those of you that think copyrights aren't broken I have one sentence for you: Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been dead for over half a century and yet his first work, one created when cars had to be started with a crank and antibiotics weren't even a dream in a doctor's eye is STILL under copyright. And I'm sorry but anyway you slice it that is just fucked up.

It works!

[mangu]

Ah, nothing like learning from experience! Make everything a crime. Let's use some tried and tested methods.

Re:It works!

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to realize that this is different. They're not making possession or use of music, films or movies a crime. In contrast to prohibition and the war on drugs, there is and will be a legal alternative, so raising the price of the illegal method of acquisition is exactly what they want and will have the desired effect. How many people are going to work or pay their way into clandestine file sharing clubs when they can get their fix legally at $1 a pop?

ACTA will have extremely undesirable side effects too, but that is of no concern to the people pushing it.

Re:It works!

[DreamerFi]

They're not making possession or use of music, films or movies a crime

Actually, they are.

Thanks to the vague definition of 'significant infringement', it'll allow random seizures of music players on the street. "Prove ownership of these songs, or spend years in jail".

Re:It works!

[Znork]

so raising the price of the illegal method of acquisition is exactly what they want and will have the desired effect.

The price on IP products is set according to the principles on monopoly pricing, IE, revenue is maximized when the loss of customers who cannot buy outweighs the increased revenue of the ones who do buy. Which means that the tighter the control the more prices will rise, and profitability in any black market will rise as well.

You see that exact function in countries with high taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

How many people are going to work or pay their way into clandestine file sharing clubs

Some, probably as many as are engaged in illicit alcohol and tobacco smuggling. More than enough to subsidize new criminal networks.

However, the vast majority wont be paying for clandestine filesharing clubs, they'll simply move from open networks to friend-to-friend encrypted multiprotocol stealthed darknets. Clandestine cell networks. No 'filesharing club' needed, you just connect to your friends with encryption keys, who connect to their friends, who connects to their friends. Small world theory and all that. Then you simply send out queries, where each friend asks his friends on your behalf, who then ask their friends, etc and the transfers go back. You never see anyone but your friends, hence the networks become inpenetrable yet vast. You'll lose some efficiency, but the question of filesharing and untraceable unmonitorable communications will be settled once and for all.

Re:It works!

[Anonymous Coward]

The price on IP products is set according to the principles on monopoly pricing, IE, revenue is maximized when the loss of customers who cannot buy outweighs the increased revenue of the ones who do buy. Which means that the tighter the control the more prices will rise, and profitability in any black market will rise as well.

You assume that the maximum revenue is achieved with a higher price than today. I'd argue that the people who don't buy today don't increase the balance price because the products aren't even worth the current price to them. What you see in tobacco and alcohol markets is not analogous to this topic, because the high prices are not chosen for maximum profit but artificially inflated via taxes.

the vast majority wont be paying for clandestine filesharing clubs, they'll simply move from open networks to friend-to-friend encrypted multiprotocol stealthed darknets

...and risk criminal charges? They'll either go for legal "fair use" copying (yeah right), in which case they don't need encrypted stealthed darknets, or they'll know that they're on the wrong side of the law. I don't think they'll do it, especially since they'll need software which they'll only get from questionable sources (or a good deal of know how to build something from generic crypto software).

I understand the "bring it on" attitude. The technical workarounds are obvious and it is enraging to witness the collusion of media industry and politicians for the purpose of secretly plotting the criminalization of a pervasive behavior. Nevertheless, confronted with the choice of paying a small price for legal entertainment or risking imprisonment for organizing a friend-to-friend copyright infringement cell, most people will not keep the fervor up.

Re:It works!

[davolfman]

You mean the legal alternative that they break every six months to make a new alternative?

Re:It works!

[shmlco]

"...they'll simply move from open networks to friend-to-friend encrypted multiprotocol stealthed darknets."

Bytes moving through commercial cable or DSL network lines are still bytes, multiprotocol, encrypted, stealthed, or otherwise. Bandwidth caps, bandwidth monitoring, and pay-per-use can and will impact the users and sustainability of those 'nets.

I say we move to pay-per-use, as at any point in time bandwidth is a finite resource anyway. You want to run a torrent server 24/7/365? No problem. But I hope you enjoy your monthly $500 bill from your ISP.

Re:It works!

[Znork]

I'd argue that the people who don't buy today don't increase the balance price

Indeed, but removing the only available 'competition' leads to a price shift higher (if there are actually any lost sales to piracy, which may be debatable). That's fundamental economic rules, and a large part of why IP material has increased in price for so long (pricing follows disposable income, not free market competition). ...and risk criminal charges?

See, with the next-gen nets there is no risk. On one hand f2f darknets are fundamentally impenetrable as you never connect to any untrusted nodes, and on the other hand you're never engaging in anything but copying to your closest friends.

This is a fundamental aspect of psychology: the chance of getting caught, not the severity of punishment is what controls behaviour. You see it every day in traffic and in many other places. It is perhaps unfortunate, and not what the lawmakers would like, but it's the way humans work.

they'll know that they're on the wrong side of the law.

In this case I think there's a very large group who considers the law to be on the wrong side of right. That's the risk of following special-interest lobbyists and avoiding implementing reasonable solutions (there are many, following the radio model and taxing p2p sites with revenues going to artists and writers would be one way). Unfortunately, this also decreases the average respect for law and lawmakers even further.

they'll need software which they'll only get from questionable sources

There are already several unquestionable softwares. Freenet, GNUnet, Turtle, WASTE.

I understand the "bring it on" attitude.

Personally I don't have a "bring it on" attitude. I pay for most of my music. Call it an attitude of inevitability; the move to f2f networks is simply what will happen. For better or worse. While I'm libertarian to some extent I'm not a fundamentalist and I can recognize some good being done in certain network surveillance; the trouble if this comes to pass is that the clandestine cell structure used by some very undesirable organizations will become a common, if not default mode of communication for many.

We get a complete pre-built ubiqutous impenetrable communications network available for every crackpot in the world.

Yay.

organizing a friend-to-friend copyright infringement cell

See, there wont be any 'organizing'. It wont be any more 'organized' than friends handing their encryption keys to eachother. Like 'friending' in social networks. One huge social network without any central point.

The only reason it's not pervasively used already is that the groups using it, dissidents, hard-core libertarians, crypto-anarchists, the curious and various less palatable elements simply aren't such huge groups. With this, the influx will reach far beyond critical mass.

So it simply isn't going to work the way you think, instead it will ensure that most communications go permanently out of reach of any monitoring. Inevitably getting the opposite result; whatever deterrence is felt today through the openness of the networks will be gone as well.

It should be obvious to anyone who's read a paper the last decade; humans as a rule don't react that well to threats. Many are psychologically geared to get rid of the threat rather than comply; in this case it will be a no-brainer.

Re:It works!

[Anonymous Coward]

f2f darknets are fundamentally impenetrable

Networks are used by people. People have different motivations and convictions. People rat on each other. People get caught.

there wont be any 'organizing'

Of course there will. As long as there is some form of closed circle of people, some regularity and the intent to break the law together, you're in organized crime territory.

Besides, any such group has the propensity to grow. With growth comes visibility and undeserved trust. I've seen it a couple of times and it inevitably leads to people getting caught. It does not stop people who can't get their fix otherwise, but as long as people can get their entertainment legally, jail time will work as a deterrent.

Re:It works!

[Znork]

People rat on each other. People get caught.

You need to choose your friends better. :)

The difficulty to penetrate cell networks is well known; despite the massive resources of counterinsurgency, counterespionage and organized crime policing, penetrating a single cell takes massive effort and is often of limited use.

As long as there is some form of closed circle of people

It's not a closed circle of people. It's an interlinked cell structure; you talk only to your closest most trusted friends, they talk only to their closest friends, yet everyone is linked to everyone _through other people_.

You don't know Madonnas sound technician, but through an odd coincidence, your mothers close co-workers daughter is best friends with the girl who goes out with him. Your query for Madonnas latest goes to your mom, from her to the co-worker, to the daughter, to the best friend to the technician. Everyone sees only the neighbours, yet the query is routed through the whole with nobody knowing where it came from apart from the closest hop and the response goes back, without anyone again seeing anything but the closest hop.

Think the tech is going to betray his girlfriend? Your mom is going to betray you? Is you asking your mother for something organized crime? Is the tech letting his girlfriend have the file? Would the physical replication of the same function, like friends copying eachothers tapes be organized crime?

With growth comes visibility and undeserved trust.

There is no growth in visibility as growth is organic, personal and disconnected. If someone undeserved gets trusted the penetration stops with the person trusting the untrustworthy person. The untrustworthy person can never see anyone but the person who trusted him. As far as he can see, all queries come from his 'friend', and anything he sends he sends to his 'friend'.

This is nothing like the 'filesharing hubs' or closed servers that that you appear to be thinking about. This replicates the models of clandestine cell systems used by military, intelligence and insurgencies but in a potentially vastly magnified scale.

Status Quo is Minatained

[Anonymous Coward]

so torrent sites all move to physical hosts outside where these (potential) laws have jurisdiction, and...wait for it....nothing will have changed.

If we prepare now, I'm sure we could make a smooth transition with zero downtime.

Re:Status Quo is Minatained

[Truekaiser]

The trackers would be ok, they would just go after the people who download from it.

this would kill

[ionix5891]

the internet as we know it :(

Re:this would kill

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's what they want...

Re:this would kill

[mail2345]

Just like how similar groups in the past wanted radio, VCRs and cable tv dead.

Re:this would kill

[IronChef]

The internet as we know it has been on borrowed time since we first got it.

Yeah, let's kill Debian!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a HUGE threat to commercial Genuine US operating system makers...

Great thinking.

Re:Yeah, let's kill Debian!

[Anonymous Coward]

Score: +200 the only sensible comment in this article. And silly moderators didn't even see it...

If they could stop the copying...

[zotz]

They may not like the result...

The stuff carrying the Free Licenses would get an extra edge...

Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive" - http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html

drew

Re:If they could stop the copying...

[zotz]

Offtopic?

Surely you jest!

The topic is about trying to deter copyright violations with criminal laws and harsh penalties and the comment is that if they do manage to deter copying by these means they may not like the results as it may make works that compete with theirs but offer the legal ability to copy more attractive in comparison.

I may be being a bit dense, but where is the offtopic here?

drew

Re:If they could stop the copying...

[tsm_sf]

Don't try to make sense of anything to do with the moderation system here. It was mis/abused even before the horde of nerd-raging young republicans descended on this site, and it's hopelessly broken now.

Re:If they could stop the copying...

[zotz]

I won't try to make sense of it, but I will ask questions when I can get around to it...

drew

Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[jimbudncl]

I wonder if they've considered the consequences of jail time... throw a bunch of pissed off computer geeks in the slammer together (I know not everyone who shares copyrighted data is a geek, but just employ your suspension of disbelief for a nano second). Hell, throw in some geeks who haven't downloaded a single "illegal" thing in their life, just for good measure (no innocent people have ever been convicted of a crime, that's unfair to all those guilty people!). Now, simmer on medium heat for 3-5 years, good behavior.

I predict a huge swell in the number of computer criminals actually doing harm to society in the next, say... 10 years. Those geeks are going to get out of prison and wreak havoc. And all because someone couldn't adapter their business model. Hope those media companies and their lawyers have no fear of identity theft ;)

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.

In all lesser cases the courts have been sure that individuals downloading music for some personal use and sharing some files hasn't been enough to cause commercial level profit loss for massive record companies. I have heard (from Teosto's - our RIAA - lawyers though that it could be applicable in other special cases. Such as sharing movie before it came to theaters, etc.)

That said, we haven't had those "These 7 songs meant 2 000 000 dollars of profit loss for our company" type of lawyers.

Does this mean Media Exec children not immune?

[erroneus]

I seem to vaguely recall some media executive's child being identified as "a pirate" followed by "official apologies" and a case being dropped. I am sure someone else here can fill in those details.

But if this were to go through and actual CRIMINAL complaints filed, does this mean those same children of media executives could be charged criminally or can we expect the same unbalanced application of the law?

Re:Does this mean Media Exec children not immune?

[sexybomber]

Sure, they'll be charged criminally, but when Daddy shows up at the courthouse and explains to the DA who they are, the DA will quietly drop the charges, issue an official apology, and cut them a check so they don't sue for false imprisonment.

Same end result.

Re:Does this mean Media Exec children not immune?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't the victim of a crime request that charges be dropped against the accused?

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[weber]

If it's not that bad how come you post anonymously?

So?

[EdIII]

They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap. Those networks are not worth anything anyways. While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people. I don't support protecting the stupid out of principle, but we won't miss those networks too terribly. At least I won't have to spend so much effort blocking their installations anymore.

I don't think that this applies to the bittorrent protocol and any of those clients either as that is decentralized. The easy solution is for the client to remove all search abilities. Problem solved. Trackers are another issue, but it's not like any country has had great success shutting down tracker sites and blocking access to them.

In any case, this is moronic. The DMCA prevented companies from manufacturing and selling mod chips in the U.S. The result? Canada gets all the business and it never slowed its pace for a second. You would think that mod chips and pre-modded systems get stopped at the border. Nope.

There will be at least ONE country connected to the Internet that is not a signatory of ACTA. Guess where the repositories and websites will be located? Anyone? Anyone?

Re:So?

[plasmacutter]

Try bit torrent, FTP developers, web hosts..

wherever p2p goes, it will follow, eventually resulting in the evisceration of the entire internet, as it is, fundamentally, p2p in nature.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to correct a few things.

1) Shareaza does not have malware. You can download the source and look yourself.
2) Kazaa and Limewire are for profit.
3) I'm pretty sure Limewire does not have malware for the same reason as point 1.

This extends far beyond what you're thinking of as P2P. They've given up trying to prosecute the misuse of software by users and are instead targeting the people who write the software that enables such illegal use. They're trying to make it illegal for anyone to write software that can be used to transmit copyrighted bits and bytes without permission from the copyright owner of those bits and bytes. That extends to such programs as web servers like Apache or IIS. And also instant messaging programs that allow files to be transferred between users. Essentially every software developer who writes software that allows files to be transferred should be concerned.

Re:So?

[Klaus_1250]

They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap.

I think Kazaa is long dead and neither Shareaza or Limewire contain malware. Most p2p apps don't, it's just a handful that gave all of them a bad name. The p2p networks themselves is something else, but any reasonably sane person can use them without catching malware. The people who download exe's when searching for an mp3 are the problem.

While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people

That is the principle a police state is based on. And it doesn't protect anybody. How am I protected for instance? And who said I needed protection?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTP developers

FTP Developers? like ipswitch?
Also, FTP is client/server, peer to peer means more than just filesharing networks goddamnit.

Re:So?

[plasmacutter]

FTP developers

FTP Developers? like ipswitch?
Also, FTP is client/server, peer to peer means more than just filesharing networks goddamnit.

FTP is client/server in the same way any other p2p is client/server.

Anyone can set up an FTP on their personal computer (with a dyndns if they want a dependable domain)

Re:So?

[EdIII]

While outlawing them is problematic for preserving freedom, it would ultimately protect people

That is the principle a police state is based on. And it doesn't protect anybody. How am I protected for instance? And who said I needed protection?

I did not say I supported this. There are plenty of examples in which laws protect the stupid while restraining the actions of the rest of us. Yeah, you can call that a police state to an extent. More accurate to call it a nanny state.

However, it DOES protect people. Most P2P sharing networks are riddled with Malware. That is an unfortunate fact as anybody can name a file something desirable and push out a Malware infected file. There is a huge financial incentive to do so. Hijacking people's computers is big business now. I know this personally from having to fix systems "infected" with data downloaded from P2P sharing networks. You get rid of those networks, and you will reduce the number of machines entering the botnet swarms.

They are going after non-profit P2P's. You mean like Shareaza, Kaza, Limewire? Who cares? All that stuff is absolute malware riddled crap.

I think Kazaa is long dead and neither Shareaza or Limewire contain malware. Most p2p apps don't, it's just a handful that gave all of them a bad name. The p2p networks themselves is something else, but any reasonably sane person can use them without catching malware. The people who download exe's when searching for an mp3 are the problem.

I never said the source code contained malware, although Shareaza was hijacked for awhile. What do you mean by "reasonably sane"? That is actually a little offensive. All the people I have helped clean their systems seemed like nice sane people to me. They were just ignorant, not insane. Using those networks and not getting infected is difficult. You don't know which file to trust until you download and test it. Trying to tell from the file name alone is impossible.

I have setup my own virtualized machines to test this out many times. After just a few days of downloading files, even while trying to be careful, I get a machine that is infected with some type of trojan. If I can be having a 100% infection rate, what must it be like for the rest of the people out there?

P2P Sharing networks that have "shared folders" are just one big orgy. All you need is for one or two people to have VD, and by its very nature the VD travels through the rest of the orgy like wildfire. It was a nice concept in the beginning, but quickly devolved into something not so nice.

At least with torrents, you have some ability to trust providers. Private trackers tend to have a higher level of trust, especially when upload rights are restricted. Large public trackers have the ability to give feedback on torrents, rate uploaders, etc.

   

Re:So?

[Klaus_1250]

You get rid of those networks, and you will reduce the number of machines entering the botnet swarms.

Have to disagree here. They'll just use new attack vectors. I venture into some of the shadier place's once in a while and it seizes to amaze me how creative some are in finding new scams and ways to infect people. If you get rid of p2p-networks, people will move to other means to get their music, videos and software. Cyber scum will follow in their footsteps.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

LimeWire is not malware. It's nagware, and the nag box can be taken out by modifying the source (it's Free).

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[jeti]

We already had several lawyers arguing that sharing one music album or one DVD counts as distribution on a commercial scale.

just like the death penalty

[naeone]

which deters all murders

Re:just like the death penalty

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Well you don't get much repeat offenses now do you. ;)

Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[plasmacutter]

What is not covered in this article, but buried deep in the links, is that this treaty calls for nations to act immediately upon accusations without any burden of proof, and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.

Imagine DMCA takedown notices for the physical world. Talk about a cudgel for anti-competitive harassment with impunity.

Re:Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[BiggerIsBetter]

We had a lot of noise about this in NZ recently - it got passed anyway. The silver-lining is that the accusations can go both ways, and just wait until someone figures out it can become a general purpose business weapon...

Re:Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[nurb432]

Don't forget door to door searches for internet subscribers, since you know if you are on the internet you have to be a pirate.

No further justification will be required.

Re:Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[Anne Thwacks]

and to absolve copyright companies from any responsibility if they engage in false accusations.

I cant see that being possible to enact in Europe.

Also, in Europe, the loser pays the court fees. That will not change for one particular treaty. It would require a change in the European Law of Human Rights. (On a par with chanigng the US constitution for the publicity it would get).

In the UK, for the state to bring a prosecution, it has to be virtually certain of a conviction before starting (to avoid tax payer's money being sqandered on litigation when there are better things to squander it on). A mere suggestion that the evidence might fall to pieces if challenged by experts will normally crush a criminal charge.

Only if the mass media convince their readers/viewers to believe that CD pirates are worse than Somalian pirates will this to work. Since most of them seem more willing to buy pirate DVDs for $3 in the Asda (Walmart) car-park than buy a newspaper, I would not hold my breath.

Re:Anti-Competitive Harassment.

[andereandre]

yes and no. I can see this to fail in both the European Court of Justice and in the European Court of Human Rights (for non Europeans: the first is the EU "supreme court", the other is continent wide, voluntary and treaty based.) However it will take maybe 5 but more likely 10 years before a resolution comes out of those. In my country (the Netherlands) treaties take precedence above national law, and our constitution is just a piece of paper (no constitutional court, laws can't be checked by courts against the constitution). Add to that that we always want to be the teachers favorite pupil so we will enforce ACTA for many years.

This will die if exposed to the light

[mbone]

They are trying to keep this secret because it would be politically poisonous if revealed.

As I think our friends in Europe have begun to realize, laws based on treaties prepared in secret by bureaucrats without democratic accountability are inherently corrupting of democracy itself. They are also an invitation for the corrupting influence of special interests, who will try and accomplish in secret what they cannot in public.

If these restrictions are worthwhile, let them be proposed and debated in public, as normal laws are. Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[meist3r]

Otherwise, I think this whole process should be shut down. It has been going on far too long for any good that we have been getting from it.

I whole heartedly agree, I also think it should be stopped immediately but what you're not realizing is that the people proposing these legislations don't give a rats ass about what you and me think. They will do that anyway, the politicians are suckered into compliance by payolas and the promise of future support for their ideas so there is no actual way of stopping this. The only way to have a say in the ACTA negotiations would be for a large part of the userbase and public to cry out about the foul play here. Trust me, I tried requesting ACTA documents through my EU parliament people and they all refused on grounds of secrecy laws that don't actually apply to the proceedings and other baseless bullshit.

If you haven't realized it, we are governed. There is no such thing as a people-led democracy, at least in no state that I know of. They're all aristocratic dictatorships that make the appearance of democratic proceeding so there is no civil war. Unless more people realize this and stop paying attention to the farcical sharade that is sold to us as citizen participation there will be no way to stop these people from getting where they want to be.

Prove me wrong, I dare you, prove me wrong. I'd LOVE to see proof that there is actually stuff done in the name of the people and not just in the name of money. Right now, people are sold these ACTA treaties as a means of fighting economy degrading piracy ... what it is in reality is a competition stifling set of rules that will tighten the grip of the industry on the freedom of choice of people and means to make non-compliers obey.

Today the Piratebay, tomorrow independent music labels.

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[mbone]

Like any long term change in the structure of society, these things take time and public education. When the DMCA first passed, it received all of the public attention of plans for the next hyperspace bypass being posted on Alpha Centauri. There is no way that that could be repeated. I am not saying we couldn't have another DMCA, but not at least without public notice. Next I expect to see politicians running on anti copyright industry platforms. The gradient here at least points in a sensible direction.

On your larger point, the eternal desire for extra-democratic control has likewise largely shifted from out-right dictatorships to extra-national bureaucracy. This may have reached its high-water mark recently, with the EU Constitution on one hand, and the WTO on the other, and now the balance of power seems to be shifting in other directions.

I am not going to try and prove anything good about ACTA. On the contrary, I assume that any secret treaty is bad and was done for malign purposes, as secrecy is far more often in my experience used for hiding the bad than protecting the good.

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[Anonymous Coward]

They are trying to keep this secret because it would be politically poisonous if revealed.

Yep, and I imagine that the cowards in US Congress will do just like they have did with the DCMA and other IP related acts and pass it with no one going on the official record (with voice votes and Unanimous Consent measure).

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[Anonymous Coward]

Switzerland is a direct democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

Not every other country in the world has it's government focused on money, Scandinavian countries has traditionally had it's focus on quality of life. So it's not entirely clear cut, even if I on a whole agree with you.

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[JockTroll]

Poor deluded loserboy nerd, Switzerland may be a direct democracy but that didn't stop their government from passing their own version of the DMCA in the general indifference. Some stupid geek tried to gather signatures online to bring a referendum on it, and failed.
The internet is going to be gutted, get over it or suicide.

Re:This will die if exposed to the light

[guywcole]

But those bureaucrats have to work in secret! Otherwise, all the pirates would steal the intellectual property they're creating!

(P.S. - I wonder how continuing these talks fits into Pres. Obama's transparent government?)

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a criminal why are you posting under the alias of 'weber'?

What about copyright extensions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean the next time the US takes music, video and other works from the public via copyright extensions, that we will be able to throw everyone who voted for such a bill (and the president for signing it) into prison? And lobbiests that argued for the bill and the bosses that directed them to do that, found guilty of conspiracy (probably rico would apply)?

Re:What about copyright extensions?

[mbone]

No, of course not. The people doing the taking are the same ones writing the treaties.

We need to write our governments

[jonwil]

If you live in the US, write to your congressmen and senators. If you dont, write to your local elected official (in Australia, you can write to your local MP). Write a physical letter (politicians are a lot less likely to listen to an email than to a physical letter although the anthrax scare in the US may have changed things there). Say that you do not support piracy/copyright violations and that you are not arguing that it should be OK to violate someone else's copyright but that you believe that too much power is being given to large copyright holders to take down content/shutdown distribution methods even when that content or those distribution methods do not violate copyright law. Say that you think that copyright holders should be going after individual people who are violating their copyright as long as there is clear proof that a violation did take place. (remember that in most of the lawsuits to date, the proof hasn't been up to snuff which is why the RIAA keeps dropping them rather than risk a precedent against them) Say that you believe that if these new copyright protection measures are introduced that they should be available for ALL copyright violations regardless of the size of the violation, the size of the holder of the copyright or the financial status of the violator (if they are available for everyone and not just the big boys, then they could be used for GPL violations) Say that you do not support their position on the increasing powers being given to large copyright holders and that this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country (thats assuming that the relavent local representitive is in fact supporting such increased powers, if they dont support increased powers, tell them that you support their position on this issue and that their position on this issue will affect how you vote at the next election in your country)

Another option is to get a real petition going (on real paper with real people signing it) and send this to your local representitive. Come up with real world examples of how increased powers for large copyright holders will affect normal people.

Re:We need to write our governments

[Darkness404]

The problem is, they don't care. How many candidates have you seen that actually have a sane copyright platform (excluding the Pirate Party)? The answer is zero. Copyright just isn't a major platform for them, and if the *AA can claim how much money is being "lost" due to "piracy" they will vote for stronger copyright. Very few elected officials understand the internet, computers and the devastating effect things such as the DMCA have on the US economy. Even our "tech savvy" president Obama doesn't seem to have a clue about how dangerous our current copyright laws are. Elected officials only see made-up stats on how much "piracy" is "costing" the *AA, and they see no reason to weaken copyright laws because they don't understand how things work on the internet or how computers in general work.

Re:We need to write our governments

[ntk]

The EFF has an action alert that help you get started, although calling your representative directly is good too.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies have to do with this? I wish folks submitting stories wouldn't be so fucking lazy and print out the words in full that the acronym refers to at least once before using the acronym. Why do people always assume that everyone should know what all these short forms refer to? Give those of us who aren't into memorizing acronyms a break so we don't have to google every submission to figure out what they are talking about.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[easyTree]

Or how about acronym namespaces ?

Re:Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[easyTree]

It's all good then, isn't it - because the same people run the prisions and profit from every crime punished by jailtime.

Oh yeah!

[Opportunist]

Harder punishments always caused people to refrain from breaking the law. That's why there are no murders in states that have the death penalty.

Nobody will heed a law that they don't consider "morally" wrong and that has a very low chance of getting caught. A law that has no public support will not work out. For reference, see prohibition laws.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Jurily]

It isn't that bad. We have similar law here in Finland. That part has only ever been applied once: When Finland's largest bit torrent tracker was busted a few years ago. The people who ran it got charged with criminal charges.

That doesn't mean it's a good law. At most it indicates a sane legal system.

Which is proven not to be the case in the US.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[LordSnooty]

Mod up. In fact the word 'Canada' is only mentioned in relation to the law professor, so I had to read (skim) the paragraph several times before I knew which country this story was about. Another bad, bad summary.

They still won't get $1 a pop

[Mathinker]

So what will happen is that they'll sell one song at $1 to someone, and he'll share it, the manual way (but losslessly), with all of his friends (or as many as the legal system has indicated is "non-commmercial").

I wonder if we'll get to the point where putting up a semi-public list of all the content you own will be considered illegal.

Re:They still won't get $1 a pop

[Sparx139]

And when the price for pirated music becomes too much, then all that stands in the way of the various companies raising prices is each other, and they will wise up to this.
As the free alternative dies, it will open up the door for I-tunes and the other various online music stores to raise prices as they see fit (this would be an international price fix, so there wouldn't be a national corporate watchdog to stop them), knowing that consumers will have no choice but to pay for music at the increased prices. (Sure, they could go to a CD store, but it's not like they will always have the music you want)

It won't remain $1 a pop for long.

Re:They still won't get $1 a pop

[Mathinker]

I admit that I don't understand your post at all. Especially if you meant it as a reply to mine. It just makes no sense whatsoever.

> And when the price for pirated music becomes too much

How is this connected with my post? My post claims that even if P2P as we know it now would stop dead in its tracks, the media companies would need draconian laws to prevent every one of their sales from being distributed to more than one person.

> As the free alternative dies

How could this possibly happen? Non-cartel music will be outlawed? It's not even reasonable to think that free illegal music would disappear, since the cartels use free distribution (e.g., via radio broadcasting) widely as marketing tools. You think that copying music from the radio will be so illegal that people won't do it? I think that long before we get to that point, something in society is going to break --- either the appetite for cartel music or society's swallowing the cartel's gaming of the legal system.

> it will open up the door for I-tunes and the other various online music stores to
> raise prices as they see fit

The cartel can do this now, except for one thing. They always have competition, even if it's just from other cartel entertainment (free broadcast TV, cable TV, movies, computer games). And if they raise prices too high, then things like eating and paying the electric bill start to be competitors!

Re:They still won't get $1 a pop

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply meant that there is a possibility that the music stores will raise prices with the death of piracy.

If for some reason in the future prices increase due to a cost thing (some law introduced, needing to upgrade their mainframes and using profits to fund this, etc.) which affects all the stores, prices are unlikely to go back down.

Take for example the petrol price increase. A bit off topic, but hear me out. I'm not sure what it's like overseas, but in Australia the price of petrol is only just coming down, even though the various disasters they blamed for raising prices are over.

It's my fear that we could see something similar here: While competition will slow it, prices will eventually rise.

Then again, I may just be paranoid. Or a blathering idiot.

If so, just disregard this post.

GPL violation becomes criminal, then?

[Mathinker]

Somehow, I don't think that's going to do anything except discourage industry from touching open-source with even a thousand-foot pole...

And I wonder who's going to end up in jail? It wouldn't be the embedded software engineer who did what his boss told him, eh?

Ugh.

Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really so hard? Are you a paedo that just can't stop? Here's an idea - DON'T DO IT! And that includes GPL infringment, too, to keep the locals happy. You can't have it both ways, children.

Re:Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Apparently their inability to stop is entirely the *AA's fault for being such pricks.

Either that or it's not a problem, and they can quit any time.

Re:Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)

[Anonymous Coward]

"without copyright the gpl would be unenforceable. it would also be unnecessary".

I'd be fine with binary-only competing with source-available on a level playing field, a free market without copyright or patent monopoly grants. - i.e. if neither's redistribution could be restricted. Guess what? People with a clue would always prefer source-available, and the natural collaborative advantages of source-available would mean it would rapidly outpace the binary-only weenies in most fields.

So while copyright exists, I support the GPL - it only restricts people who observe copyright law anyway.

Re:Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)

[Anonymous Coward]

So while I am a weenie

This is not disputed. Carry on.

Re:Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the americans are afraid of letting the people in Guantamo bay loose. If they weren't anti-American before, they are now.

New penalties

[macraig]

Expect these any day now:

- Copyright Infringers' Registry
- Scarlet letters: tatooing the foreheads of infringers with a big red "P2P"

Re:Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)

[Anonymous Coward]

aww diddums, did an anonymous coward get upset their point was refuted?

And when were all in prison hollywood can die

[Anonymous Coward]

And when were all in prison hollywood can die quickly and we can start over after our life in prison for that mp3 tune is over.

The canuck govt already tried and failed to get a copyright law that would have seen 7 year prison terms PER infringement ( yup no matter if it was a mp3 , a tv episode or movie )
AND it muddled public domain to include a provision that if the non copyrighted material was on a dvdr and you break that so called digital lock for a copy you get a 20000 fine
in fact all xvids and avis are dvdr copies and thus that simple 500$ download fine does not apply alone , the actual fine is 20500$
and thus when you cant pay its 10$ = 1 day in jail and that new govt wants all sentences to be consecutive aka
two mp3s = 41000$ fine or 4100 days in jail
ENJOY the new order

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[deathy_epl ccs]

You operate under the assumption that the international courts are as likely to react in a sane manner... My gut says that the content industries will just start filing in the international equivalent of the east Texas court where they file them in the U.S.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[AceofSpades19]

I really don't understand how a torrent site can be taken down because of copy right infrigement, all they do is host .torrent files and track them, they don't actually have copyright infringing material on the site itself

My thesis about IP

[AcidPenguin9873]

Here's what everyone on Slashdot seems to miss. IP goods - those easily-reproducible but hard-to-think-up-or-produce-in-the-first-place goods - are the future of modern society. Capitalism requires that IP creators be rewarded *monetarily* for their effors, so that they can buy the non-IP goods they need to survive, things like food and shelter and clothing and transportation.

We can either a) hope that somehow society will evolve to the point where the non-IP goods will become free or easily accessible to those of us involved in the production of IP (some sort of non-corrupt communal/communist state?), or b) we can try to make money from the things we're good at! I'm not betting on a non-corrupt a), which is why I have a hard time completely opposing these types of things which ostensibly to reward IP creators for their work.

I understand the corruption involved in rewarding IP creators (middle men like the RIAA taking all the profits, leaving the IP creators with nothing), but assuming THAT can be fixed, we're back to the basic question: how do we protect the value of IP so that we can be rewarded *monetarily* in our capitalist society?

P.S. - On one hand, I understand that most people on Slashdot are left-oriented "free" folk, but a lot are also employed in some sort of tech or IP-related field. Your future depends on getting this right!

Re:My thesis about IP

[calmofthestorm]

Then maybe it's time to look for a new business model. Not necessarily one where imaginary property is free, but one where the system works. Clearly the current one doesn't.

I say we quit patching the problem and actually solve issues. But of course that would require a government that cared about its people.

Re:My thesis about IP

[plasmacutter]

Here's what everyone on Slashdot seems to miss. IP goods - those easily-reproducible but hard-to-think-up-or-produce-in-the-first-place goods - are the future of modern society.

no, real goods are the future of our society.
This idea of yours is nothing but a dot-com pipe dream.
The point of the information economy is to boost the real economy

You can't extract revenue from goods which require another nation, often an enemy, to voluntarily honor your arbitrary valuation.

Additionally, the populace of your own nation is not going to take kindly to you destroying their own consumer rights.

They can change all the laws they like, the people have spoken, governments are dealing with mass civil disobedience and it will not stop.

Re:My thesis about IP

[AcidPenguin9873]

Well, thanks for offering that lovely response which starts off by you effectively saying "No, you're wrong!", and then argues that we should just roll over and accept a zero-value-in-IP society because everyone can get shit for free from P2P networks. Wake up and realize that there's more at stake here than your fucking pop music and episodes of Grey's Anatomy.

I don't know how you define real goods, but a lot of them are just IP goods which are subsequently transcribed or created in physical form. That nice Core 2 processor running your laptop? Until it gets fabbed, it's just a bunch of Verilog in a CVS repository somewhere. And then after that it's some pictures of some lines and rectangles. Both forms are just bits on a hard drive somewhere, easily replicated at no cost.

The value in that processor is as much in the *design* of it - which is an IP good - as it is in the silicon and metal and packaging. Take away the design (which everyone on Slashdot so proudly calls Imaginary Property), and all we have is a really, really expensive hunk of sand. Hope you enjoy it!

In your Real Economy, should IP creators have to sell shoes to pay the bills while also designing microprocessors?

Re:My thesis about IP

[plasmacutter]

In your Real Economy, should IP creators have to sell shoes to pay the bills while also designing microprocessors?

a straw man, read the rest to see why.

I don't know how you define real goods, but a lot of them are just IP goods which are subsequently transcribed or created in physical form.

those would be called real (as in physical) goods. You see, unlike individual citizens or other nations, you can actually apply meaningful pressure on a company if they want your permission to market to your citizens. Notice how I said your citizens, because they could feasibly remain in their home market of china and pirate all they want, which is why goods produced physically here are the future, not some arbitrary and imaginary concept our enemies could care less about.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[s73v3r]

The argument is that they are showing you where the infringing material is. That they are aiding and abetting copyright infringers, and they are becoming distributors of the content themselves, which is against copyright law in most countries. Not saying I agree with it, just presenting their argument as I see it.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[AceofSpades19]

But then shouldn't google, yahoo and live search be shut down too, because you can use them to find copyright infringing material?

Re:Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)

[ScrewMaster]

Is it really so hard? Are you a paedo that just can't stop? Here's an idea - DON'T DO IT! And that includes GPL infringment, too, to keep the locals happy. You can't have it both ways, children.

Larger issues here, dude.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[shmlco]

Well.... personally I'd tend to agree that "sharing" one album or DVD with 10,000 or so people equals distribution on a "commercial" scale...

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

OK, but if you have an insane legal system trying to enforce laws that are reasonable in principle, then it's the mechanics of your legal system that need fixing, not the laws.

I don't get the problem people have with this. You don't accidentally run a service that people use to commit commercial scale copyright infringement. Such infringement is bound to be damaging to some degree to the legal rightsholder; claiming that this is not so is no more credible than the opposite extreme of claiming that every copy represents a lost sale. And last time I looked, you didn't have to commit murder or GBH for financial gain in order for it to be considered a criminal activity.

I get that some people just have a problem with copyright in the first place, but I don't understand why anyone else would have a problem with a law that punishes exactly the people who knowingly commit acts that are certain to be significantly damaging to the holders of the legal rights. What other kind of law do you want, one that punishes accidental infringers, one that punishes minor/incidental infringers who do little real harm, or one that protects someone other than the legal rightsholder?

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[BlueStrat]

But then shouldn't google, yahoo and live search be shut down too, because you can use them to find copyright infringing material?

But those entities have more money & lawyers, so are not low-hanging fruit for lawsuits or criminal charges.

With sufficient money & lawyers you can flout almost any law anywhere, and/or have them written to suit.

With sufficient money, guns, and lawyers you become government.

Cheers!

Strat

Here, let me clear this up for you

[DaveV1.0]

The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter.

Even if you give the money away and derive no direct financial gain, robbig a bank is still a crime.
Rape engenders no financial gain and it is still a crime.

Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.

Re:Here, let me clear this up for you

[Darkness404]

Not benefiting financial from a crime does not mitigate the crime. The ends do not justify the means.

Um, yes they do. If no one was harmed, it should not be illegal and "piracy" doesn't hurt anyone either financially or physically. Think of "piracy" as radio today, it serves to promote the band so they can make good sales on their concerts which are the primary means that artists get money. A copy of a file does not delete, alter or otherwise distort the original nor does it make it work any less. For example, if I set the Mona Lisa as my desktop background, does the actual painting devalue itself? No, because thats not how art works.

Downloading music illegitimately only hurts the record companies. Now, you might think that the record companies deserve a cut of the profits, however, in this digital age, its akin to preventing the release of cars because a saddlemaker might lose some money. The record company is dead. Saying that by going to a different distributer rather than the record company to get music is stealing, then I steal on a daily basis when I look at a computer in a store but decide to buy the same model from a different site.

Then there is the fact of the insane laws that can charge almost $10,000 for downloading and sharing a single song. These laws that allow for outrageous copyright claims to be made need to be abolished. If you got caught stealing a physical CD from Wal-Mart and you weren't running away, I'm sure that paying Wal-Mart three times the price of the CD would be good enough to set you free with little to no criminal charges.

Re:Here, let me clear this up for you

[DaveV1.0]

The ends does not justify the means.

Downloading music illegally only hurts the record companies.

There, fixed that for you.

its akin to preventing the release of cars because a saddlemaker might lose some money.False analogy.

Then there is the fact of the insane laws that can charge almost $10,000 for downloading and sharing a single song.

Yes, because the financial penalties for commiting crimes are always the same as the effect of the crime. If one values the song at $1 and one violates the copyright laws and "shares" it with 10,000 other people, the effect of the crime is a $10,000 in revenue had those same 10,000 people bought the song. When one robs a bank, one is put in put in jail and often given a fine of many thousands of dollars. The average bank robbery take is less than $5000.00.

You are just a pathetic, greedy, little pig who thinks because something is good for you, it should be OK, regardless of if it is bad for anyone or everyone else.

So, if the ends justify the means, I can kill you for being stupid because the ends ( cleaner gene pool and a greater chance of survival for the human race) justifies the means (putting a bullet in your head), right?

Re:Here, let me clear this up for you

[Darkness404]

Yes, because the financial penalties for commiting crimes are always the same as the effect of the crime.

No, but honestly they should be.

If one values the song at $1 and one violates the copyright laws and "shares" it with 10,000 other people, the effect of the crime is a $10,000 in revenue had those same 10,000 people bought the song.

Yes, but show me in any of the RIAA's lawsuits that it can be solidly proven that someone shared a song with 10,000 other people. You can't.

When one robs a bank, one is put in put in jail and often given a fine of many thousands of dollars. The average bank robbery take is less than $5000.00.

Yes, but, the cost in equipment damages (such as broken glass, etc), people who had their human rights violated (not to feel threatened), etc. Usually justify the penalties. On the other hand, no human rights are violated, minimal profit is "lost", it is non violent, no one possibly gets injured, there is no loss to the original product, etc.

You are just a pathetic, greedy, little pig who thinks because something is good for you, it should be OK, regardless of if it is bad for anyone or everyone else.

No, I am simply someone who values freedom and has a dose of sanity.

So, if the ends justify the means, I can kill you for being stupid because the ends ( cleaner gene pool and a greater chance of survival for the human race) justifies the means (putting a bullet in your head), right?

No, because you are violating human rights by killing someone, and hurting (or killing) someone. Something that is wrong by almost every moral and logical standard for everyone.

Re:Here, let me clear this up for you

[DaveV1.0]

I see, so the ends justifies the means only when it benefits you. If it would hurt you, but benefit everyone else, then it is wrong.

Thanks for proving my point, piggy.

Re:Here, let me clear this up for you

[Anonymous Coward]

haven't you heard?

SHARING = STEALING

when your kindergarten teacher told you to share your toys, what she really meant was "steal money from the toy manufacturers, because now your friend doesn't have to go buy his own toy to play with."

if you let your friends use your toys instead of buying their own, the toy companies will all go out of business! no one will have any incentive to make toys anymore! the people who used to make toys will all lose their jobs and starve to death!

Re:Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[russotto]

Those geeks are going to get out of prison and wreak havoc.

Not bloody likely. If the RIAA has their way, those geeks are going to meet real (by their own definition) criminals in prison. Some of them (likely including myself) aren't going to be able to eat sufficient shit and will be killed by the other prisoners. Most of the others, when they get out, will be _broken_ by the experience, and will likely die young after slouching through a series of minimum wage jobs.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Coward]

The fools think they have won with their ACTA treaties and threats of jail time. All the while unaware of the true threat: LIBRARY pirates! We lurk in the corners of public libraries, borrowing and copying music and DVDs and it's all free. Mwahahahaha

Please take note

[MacWiz]

The ACTA proposals currently include language that would make copyright infringement on a 'commercial scale,' even when done with 'no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain,' into a criminal matter.

Those who would equate filesharing with theft should note that the ACTA proposals are intended to do exactly that. Theft is criminal.

But until (if) it is adopted, that comparison is false. And it always has been. Not-for-profit filesharing is not illegal, or they wouldn't need to pass a new law (or sign a treaty) to make it so.

Until now, it's not whether you share that determines the legality, it's what you share. Not every artist agrees with the RIAA. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell the difference without more mental effort than Americans will spend. You'd think that after 6 years of suing people, the labels would start marking the leaked stuff as illegal so law-abiding people can block all of it from the search results.

Finally, what is a "commercial level"? The RIAA is suing one kid for a million dollars -- for 7 songs. Supposedly, they only sue "aggregious" file sharers. So I'm betting a "commercial level" is five songs.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[supernova_hq]

HAHAHAHAHA, I think decriminalizing pot is about to find itself on the back-burner!

Re:Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[Voyager529]

*REAL* geeks would be in jail for having DVD-rips of the first season of Prison Break.

The solution is simple + Reply to AcidPenguin

[tuxidriver]

The solution to treaties like the ACTA as well as laws like the DMCA is simple:

1. Stop violating copyrights (so that the *AA have no leg to stand on legally).
2. Stop buying copyrighted material from companies that support the treaties such as ACTA as well as laws like the DMCA (to drive the *AA supporting members out of business).

The only way to stop the stupidity is to pull the rug out from under the corporations and organizations that support this stupidity in the first place, both financially and legally.

Besides, how many songs or recent movies are worth the plastic they're distributed on anyway ?

To AcidPenguin9873: You're comment is really on a larger subject than treaties like the ACTA and DMCA. You're right that western cultures are moving towards an information based economy. A big part of the problem is that the existing laws help the large players in the entertainment industry but cripple smaller players and also cripple other industries. Therefore, these treaties and laws are really not beneficial to our society as a whole. The laws also marginalize existing rights under copyright: first sale rights and fair use rights, both of which are important to allow commerce on used material continue and to allow commentary, satire and, in some cases, innovation.

Why: For the most part, at least in engineering and also to a somewhat lesser extent in entertainment, every new idea (or song, or movie plot) is simply a rehashing of existing ideas with some new wrinkle or improvement. Innovation is almost always incremental, not revolutionary. I have seen this over and over at multiple employers over my 30 year career (I used to work in professional audio, I now work in data storage).

For one product I worked on, legal pared down the number of possibly infringing patents to over 60,000 which a team of 20 of us spent months reviewing over evenings and weekends while also working on product development. Of that 60,000, roughly 100 actually overlapped what we were working on in some way and caused us to find ways to work around them or cross-license them.

Question: What happens when this number of patents (or trademarks, copyrights) increases 100 fold ?

Question: How will smaller players and start-ups ever be able to compete if they must cross-license with a larger player that does not want them in the market ? The chance of this occuring increases with the number of companies that the small player must negotiate with which also increases with the number of overlapping patents.

Question: Given how the laws are going and if the number of patents, and/or copyright increases substantially (which will happen in an information society), how can smaller players with limited cash flow successfully compete with larger players with much greater cash flow.

Point is that, should such a society develop with the laws moving in the direction they're moving (and assuming their fully enforced):

1. Innovation will effectively stop, except at large companies with cross-licensing agreements or large defensive portfolios, because the task of working around existing ideas when trying to develop something that incrementally improves on other products in an industry will become impossibly daunting.
2. Small innovative companies will no longer be able to exist in high-tech or entertainment because they will be unable to navigate the legal minefield created by the volume of (mostly poor quality) patents, trademarks, and/or copyrights produced by larger players. I have already seen, first hand, cases of small start-ups failing because of this.
3. Companies in countries that decide to selectively refuse to accept some apect of a treaty or simply not enforce those treaties after accepting them will have a clear advantage in the world-wide markets those companies play in. For a clear example of this right now, look at China.

While protection of ideas and content is important for

Re:Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[Anonymous Coward]

What will happen is some geeks may die, some will mix well with the hardcore criminals.

Most criminals get caught because they are stupid.

Most geeks are not really stupid.

Guess who the next overlords are going to be? They will be smarter then the average criminal, and they will have all the contacts they need to do whatever they want in a smart manner.

I hope enough of them get pissed off with the **AAs and start hit squads on them.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Anonymous Coward]

They would be, if 99% of their use was for illegal activity. Contrary to popular belief, there's quite a difference between "this technology can potentially be used for illegal purposes", and "in the vast, vast majority of cases, this technology IS used for illegal purposes".

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[rastilin]

I think I just took 36d6 of sarcasm damage.

Re:With such a clear definition of the scale requi

[Teancum]

The question here isn't really if people who perform extensive duplication of copyrighted material on a large scale should be punished, but what the limits are that define that act.

I've seen "commercial scale" duplication... and often little effort to get it stopped as well. It is a matter of perspective. I do support shutting down DVD duplicators that make copies without permission of the original copyright holder... or of video games and more.

One interesting question does lie with those who make tools that can be used to make duplications of both copyrighted and "legal" content. It doesn't matter if it is a Xerox machine, a CD-ROM burner, a flash card, or in this case a P2P distributed file sharing network. Are the makers of these tools liable for the duplication of content done by individuals who use these tools for illegal duplication on a large scale?

The answer is typically "yes" until somebody can prove that the tool is necessary for ordinary life. P2P networks suffer from the problem that their use is mostly for infringing copyrighted material, in spite of the fact that legitimate communication systems and file storage can happen with these protocols. In fact, I've seen far too often when legitimate content is put onto P2P networks, cries that it is a waste of network resources often happen by those using those protocols.

a good analysis of ACTA

[ogai]

The FFII has a page about ACTA including an analysis.

Re:Here;s a novel idea: don't fucking INFRINGE (C)

[AvitarX]

FAIL

What you would have is draconion even by today's standards copy-protection, and rampant trade-secrets.

Auto-cad would have dongles, inter-net activation and more.

So would Adobe.

In areas with really expensive software, they may even force you to use purpose-built appliances, to protect their revenue stream.

And there are industries where it would be a requirement to use that software still.

Re:Geeks unite! (in prison...)

[sjames]

Broken people in minimum wage jobs are prime candidates fro committing crimes to support themselves. They may likely feel that they have little to lose at that point and everything to gain.

Since they will have had it thoroughly demonstrated that they can never again be really part of society, society becomes the enemy.