MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns

An anonymous reader writes "The EFF has gone into detail about why it opposes 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,' or COICA. It has the potential to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down any domestic website, or block any foreign website it so chooses, setting the stage for Internet censorship in the United States. Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

Comments

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime I read COICA, my mind wants to say Cloaca. I think a better name is needed.

Re:hmmm

[cayenne8]

Someone should attach an amendment to this bill that if passed, rolls back copyright terms to 15yrs from publication retroactively, and then let's see how much they are for it?

If they rolled back copyright length, they there'd be much less likely hood any site would need to be blocked.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

My mind is making the same jump--but I don't think it needs another name.

Re:hmmm

[camperslo]

We certainly shouldn't blindly trust proposed free speech and privacy regulatory changes.

People will thing it is personal privacy being protected, but we'll see corporations wanting "privacy" as if they were individuals. AT&T is already looking for less transparency.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/eff-brief-privacy-protections-corporations

Re:hmmm

[tehcyder]

Someone should attach an amendment to this bill that if passed, rolls back copyright terms to 15yrs from publication retroactively, and then let's see how much they are for it?

If they rolled back copyright length, they there'd be much less likely hood any site would need to be blocked.

What difference would it make? If someone's going to ignore copyright, the length is irrelevant.

No-one seriously thinks to themselves," I'm quite happy not to infringe copyright for 15 years, but as soon as it's 16 years I'm going to ignore it completely."

Re:hmmm

[Targon]

The problem with your argument is that you fail to address the differences between film, music, and print media. You also fail to address the problem with royalties and when artists/authors actually get paid for their works over time. The issue that I see is that most people look at the music industry and how bad that industry is as their reason to dislike copyright. In the music industry, the artist generally gets very little money from the sale of recorded music, and has to count on money from performances. This means that those who own the copyright, the recording labels get the money for the terms of copyright, and all of those sales on iTunes do not benefit the artist. Most people don't have a problem with the idea of stealing from record labels when it doesn't hurt the person who writes/sings/performs.

Film on the other hand is far more expensive to make and distribute. How many thousands of people are involved in making each movie, and the movie studios pay all those people before any revenues come in at the box office or from DVD/BluRay sales. Considering the cost of a movie tends to be the same as a music CD, most people should see why the MPAA really does have a fair argument since a movie that does not do well at the box office will often LOSE money for the movie studio. From that point of view, movie studios need to bring in as much money as they can, just so they can afford to continue to bring out new movies, the good with the bad.

Then you have books and print media. If an author releasing a great "best selling" book, it is very possible that will be the only book that author will write. Now, if other people enjoy that book and others want to read that book, why shouldn't the author make money for the rest of his/her life from each sale of the book? Seriously, if you like something enough to want to download it, doesn't the author deserve money? Many people spend $5-$15 a day on food, so if a book that you buy and can read for years on end costs you in that same price range, why shouldn't the author make money from each new person who wants his/her own copy?

Going back, the only people who really dislike copyright are those who want something for free, or disagree with the prices. The music industry is really the one area that ENCOURAGES music copyright infringement since most music artists don't make money off the sale of CDs.

Re:hmmm

[mcgrew]

No-one seriously thinks to themselves," I'm quite happy not to infringe copyright for 15 years, but as soon as it's 16 years I'm going to ignore it completely."

I do. But the cutoff is 20 years, not 15.

Re:hmmm

[ATMAvatar]

We aren't talking the difference between a 15 year copyright and a 16 year copyright. We're talking about what started as a 14-year copyright (with extension possible to another 14) which mutated into 75 years or life+25 years. Additionally, free use have been eroded away while more and more draconian protections have been put in place. Let us put away the straw men, shall we?

Re:hmmm

[mcgrew]

The problem with your argument is that you fail to address the differences between film, music, and print media.

All the differences are meaningless when it comes to copyright.

You also fail to address the problem with royalties and when artists/authors actually get paid for their works over time.

That's a contractual problem between artists and publishers.

The issue that I see is that most people look at the music industry and how bad that industry is as their reason to dislike copyright.

No, most people dislike the current state of copyright law, not copyright itself (although there are some who want to abolish copyright completely). It's way too long; art comes from previous art, just as science and tech come from previous science and tech. Like the scientist, the artist stands on the shoulders of giants.

This means that those who own the copyright, the recording labels get the money for the terms of copyright, and all of those sales on iTunes do not benefit the artist.

You don't own a copyright, you hold a copyright. That's not pedantry, the difference is important. Disney doesn't own Steamboat Willie, they hold a "limited time" monopoly.

Most people don't have a problem with the idea of stealing from record labels

File sharing isn't "stealing", it's copyright infringement. Again, that loaded language is disingenuous. If I make copies of DVDs and sell them, then yes, I am stealing. The money I make selling the DVDs rightfully belongs to the movie studio. But if I give a copy away, nobody has lost anything. The fact is, piracy increases sales.

Considering the cost of a movie tends to be the same as a music CD, most people should see why the MPAA really does have a fair argument since a movie that does not do well at the box office will often LOSE money for the movie studio.

If Ford starts making crappy cars, you think they have a right to profit from crap? Crappy movies do crap at the box office because they're crap.

If an author releasing a great "best selling" book, it is very possible that will be the only book that author will write.

That's one thing that's wrong with current copyright lengths. Copyright is supposed to encourage artists to produce more art. If I write a book that earns me a million dollars a year for the rest of my life, what's my incentive to write another one?

And the fact is, most writers that only write one book aren't really very good writers, and don't write more because the book doesn't sell. You'd be hard pressed to name more than a handful of books written by an unknown artists ten years ago that hit the best seller list and the author never wrot another. Isaac Asimov said it himself in the short story "Dreaming is a Private Thing" -- writers write because they have to. They can't stop writing any more than a heroin junkie can stop shooting heroin.

Seriously, if you like something enough to want to download it, doesn't the author deserve money?

You're buying into the fallacy that no one will buy something if they can get it for free, but best selling author Cory Doctorow has proven this wrong. He puts all of his books online, in many formats, for free, and he credits his status as a best seller to that fact. And in fact, there's a copy of "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" on my bookshelf because of this. Read this:

The multi-million selling author Paulo Coelho has demonstrated that online book piracy has increased sales of his books in hard copy.

Going back, the only people who really dislike copyright are those who want something for free, or disagree with the prices.

Wrong again. Most who dislike copyright dislike it because in its present form it discourages artistic innovation and creativity.

Re:hmmm

[GameboyRMH]

Then just rename it CLOACA, it's a better name. It means "sewer" in some dead language and is the scientific name for a bird's combined asshole/peehole/genital opening. Considering that birds swoop in, shit all over the place, and leave all while too high up to have to deal with their own shit, it's a very fitting name.

Re:hmmm

[elrous0]

Yeah, now all we have to do is find a Congressman who isn't in the pockets or Hollywood and/or the corporations. So, will all Congressmen who aren't beholden to either Hollywood or big business please raise their hands...anyone...anyone?

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the one part I wholly disagree with. If you give away a copy, you are interfering with a the copyright holder's legally created right to control how that work is copied and distributed. There is a real world value associated with that, just like part of the price of a piece of land is the legal right to kick someone off it. Thinking that just because money hasn't changed hand, people haven't lost anything is a fallacy.

And while I disagree with most of your post (anecdotal evidence is anecdotal), at least it is reasonable.

Re:hmmm

[LrdDimwit]

I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking at best. Pirate groups are in heavy competition with one another to make sure they get the highest number of downloads. They place a high priority on getting pre-release leaks (which would be actionable even if copyright was only one day) and on high-quality same-day rips of commercial releases. And studies have shown that the most pirated material is the most popular and recent material.

No matter how short the copyright term is, this material will always be infringing. Even if the term of copyright was only two months, sites like The Pirate Bay and Rapidshare* would still be loaded with media under copyright.

(* -- You say Rapidshare is legal? So do I; but don't even try to tell me the content industry doesn't want this law aimed at Rapidshare and its ilk.)

Mr. Bob,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

I would like you to review the text of the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

I also feel it would be helpful for you to review the writ of habeas corpus to better understand the Suspension Clause:

Aritlce I, Section 9, Clause 2 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Of course, I already know your rebuttal: Murphy's Golden Rule.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[bugi]

Please also review the 14th amendment and the concept of due process.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[dougmc]

Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

Actually, thanks to the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean just what it says.

It now applies to the states and local governments as well, not just to Congress.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[eleuthero]

um... not just thanks to the Supreme Court--this was a reasonable interpretation of Amendment 14 (the "Equal Protection Clause," specifically).

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what net neutrality means, but you know that already.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The evidence does not support this theory. Read Government by Judiciary by (liberal) Raoul Berger. In it you'll learn that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to give freedmen the right to enter contracts, to own property, and to sue. The Supreme Court may have twisted the meaning to suit their own purposes, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Berger.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Dracos]

Also, since you are obviously a Constitutional scolar, which of the several Amendments guarantees corporate profits or states that the Congress shall act to protect said profits?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[ScrewMaster]

Just think, so many Slashdotters were in favor of net neutrality. I bet the MPAA was ecstatic over the idea of lobbying friendly politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic.

As Gollum would no doubt ask, were he present: "What did he say?"

Re:Mr. Bob,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The Constitution grants Congress specific powers. Anything beyond the stated powers is beyond Congress's purview.

Article I, Section I All legislative powers herein granted...

Re:Mr. Bob,

[squidfood]

The Constitution grants Congress specific powers.

Devil's advocate: those do in fact include copyright.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[DragonWriter]

Actually, thanks to the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean just what it says.

It now applies to the states and local governments as well, not just to Congress.

More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which expressly applies to the State by its own plain language, imposes essentially the same requirements on states depriving people of rights, including but not limited to those specifically protected against federal action by the Constitution, as the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause (which applies to the Federal government) does.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant scholar. If you're going to poke at someone's credibility, you might want to spell-check before hitting "submit". Also, refresh your grammar skills, specifically the part about what constitutes a pronoun that needs to be capitalized (hint: constitutional, ammendment, and congress aren't pronouns).

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Shakrai]

No, it's not the equal protection clause that forces the states to comply with the Bill of Rights. The framers of the 14th amendment intended it to be the privileges and immunities clause. Unfortunately SCOTUS neutered this clause over a hundred years ago and instead opted to incorporate the Bill of Rights piece by piece against the states through the due process clause.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[angelwolf71885]

it also applys to private individuals too because if the cops or the government dose nothing to someone trying to limit or control your free speech then they are effectively making a law prohibiting free speech

Re:Mr. Bob,

[jedidiah]

Yes. And there is a specific rationale stated for granting the Congress the power to create copyright.

It is not meant to make people in California richer.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anonymous Coward]

um... not just thanks to the Supreme Court--this was a reasonable interpretation of Amendment 14 (the "Equal Protection Clause," specifically).

I think you mean the Due Process clause. That's how the first Amendment was applied to states. In Gitlow v New York.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Thinboy00]

No, it's not the equal protection clause that forces the states to comply with the Bill of Rights. The framers of the 14th amendment intended it to be the privileges and immunities clause. Unfortunately SCOTUS neutered this clause over a hundred years ago and instead opted to incorporate the Bill of Rights piece by piece against the states through the due process clause.

Interestingly enough, Clarence Thomas recently "revived" the clause.

ObTopic: Did we really expect the MPAA, of all people, to say anything other than this?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anthony Mouse]

Devil's advocate: those do in fact include copyright.

They also include operating the Post Office. That doesn't mean Congress can pass a law requiring the Post Office not to carry your mail if you're a member of the Pirate Party.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean proper noun. If you're going to poke at someone's grammar, you might want to know what you're talking about before hitting submit

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anonymous Coward]

"...not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means..."

Umm, doesn't the MPAA steal, irrespective of the means?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[polle404]

Aritlce I, Section 9, Clause 2 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Pardon me, but didn't you guys loose the right to habeas corpus in one of the 'terror laws' passed after 9/11?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[rich_hudds]

Why are Americans so obsessed with the Constitution. Make your own laws for your own time rather than basing everything on what some guys wrote down a couple of hundred years ago. The reason your laws are ok is because they're based on English law and you're a democracy. The constitution is just a piece of paper that stops you from banning handguns.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[tehcyder]

I think you meant amendment. If you're going to poke at someone's credibility, you might want to spell-check before hitting "submit".

Re:Mr. Bob,

[commodore64_love]

Plus Amendment 10 and the concept that Congress is limited to approximately 25 enumerated powers, and no more.

Most of the governmental powers are reserved to the Member States, in the same fashion that most powers are reserved to the EU's States.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Targon]

While the first amendment will not stop you from saying anything, it does not say that you may record or redistribute the work/property of others without their consent. You can't copyright a concept, but you can copyright the exact wording of said concept, and that is the real key to any copyright issue. Did YOU make the movie, or sing the song, or write the book that you want to make a copy of and give to others? If you have not done the work, then you should not have the right to make money off the work of others without permission.

Now, most web sites that are out there and offer up copyrighted materials are making money from the advertising space they sell, even if it is not profitable overall. This is EXACTLY what the problem comes down to, making money off the work of others without there being a formal agreement between the source of the materials(authors/copyright holders), and the site that is redistributing said materials. If you work for a company, you have signed a contract that basically says that the company owns the results of your work for that company, and if you leave, you can't take that work with you. It is fair, you have been paid to produce something for the company, and the company reaps the rewards. When it comes to copyright, the same idea applies, where web sites should not make money off the work of others without paying for it up front, or paying as they go for those materials.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Targon]

The MPAA and RIAA are there to protect the copyrights of the copyright holders. Now, if you consider that even the lowest budget movie can easily cost over $1 million to make in some cases, I don't see a problem with enforcing copyright for the movie studios when sales of these movies cost $20, give or take. Those who make movies deserve to get paid for their efforts since the expense is in the creation of the movie, and not so much on the distribution side. The RIAA on the other hand is about the music labels, since the recording artists/bands generally get very little money from the recording process.

So, you have a group of hundreds, if not thousands of people who are getting paid for their role in a movie and the creation of the movie. Can you really fault the MPAA for making sure that those who are involved in making illegal copies pay for each copy they have made and given to others? It isn't like the recording industry, where $5000 worth of investment can make millions of dollars in profits for the recording label.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[hairyfeet]

Two words: Walt Disney. The man has been dead for what? A half a century now? Yet the vast majority of his work is STILL under copyright, and most likely will be long after you're dead. tell me EXACTLY how this is "promoting the arts and sciences" again? Is it gonna make zombie Walt rise from his grave and make new cartoons?

Everyone in these arguments seem to miss the most important one IMHO: The USA copyrights laws were a CONTRACT, nothing more. in return for a LIMITED copyright We, The People, got a richer public domain, which has been outright stolen from us by treasonous bribery. Until We, The People, actually have a say at the negotiations table again I think we should treat ALL copyrights as what they are: a broken contract. In return for the power of the courts we get NOTHING in return. Why in the hell should we respect the people that robbed us, our children, and our grandchildren?

If the copyrights would have stayed the same as they were as written by the founding fathers you could have an iPod loaded with all the great movies and music of the 50s-70s, absolutely free. Artists could use those media in new and exciting ways. Instead we are supposed to care about a bunch of multinational corporations with NO allegiance to our country, who outright bribe our politicians so that they can make eternal profits? Fuck them. When we actually get something in return for our protection THEN and only then should anyone care. With the extensions what we have is a game so damned rigged it isn't even a sick joke anymore. I strictly buy from local artists now and don't watch anything that I don't get on basic cable (which i only have because my ISP refuses to sell unbundled Internet) so they won't be getting a damned dime from me. The quicker these cartels dry up and blow away the better it will be for all.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[zeroshade]

It isn't like the recording industry, where $5000 worth of investment can make millions of dollars of profits for the recording label

Actually, it's just like the recording industry, just scaled up. Where $3 million worth of investment can make $200 million of profits. When you realize that copying and piracy increase sales and get more people to watch movies in theaters for the experience, you understand that it is good for the movie. If a movie is crap, I might download it just to confirm or otherwise just for the hell of it (maybe to laugh at it's ridiculousness) if a movie is good then I'll watch it in the theater. I have, however, refused to buy a single dvd for years due to MPAA's crusade against filesharing. I'll go to the theater, but I make sure to get some popcorn or something, despite it being overpriced, because I want the THEATER to make money. They deserve the money for the experience they provide. Movie ticket prices, however, are ridiculous in their expensiveness nowadays.

The problem I have is not with people who deserve to be paid. I have the problem that 10/14/25 years later, it's copyright infringement to give my friend/cousin/child/parent a copy of this great movie that is old. Maybe a sequel is coming out and I want them to know about the original? Why should I pay for another copy when I already own it? I could lend it to them, but when it is possible to make a copy easily and quickly, why not just make them a copy that they can watch on their own time and I can keep my original? It's convenient.

Even worse, if someone wants to use a movie for inspiration and make an entirely new movie that is based on it, they have to pay millions of dollars to secure the rights before they can do it. Movies have died before they began due to rights being unable to be secured. In what way is this "promoting the arts" ?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[mcgrew]

You're asking if they set the right to habeas corpus free? Actually, I think it was the reverse.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[zeroshade]

And screw anyone who gets caught in the crossfire because it's much more important to "protect" the profits of the MPAA than it is to protect the free speech of the innocent sites that will be taken down due to a lack of clarity on the definition and corrupt politicians....

Right?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Why are Americans so obsessed with the Constitution.

It's the closest thing to a social contract between individuals and government that we have in the United States. It basically says that we the people delegate a certain set of powers to the Federal government to better secure our liberty, peace, and prosperity. Unfortunately, the Federal government has a nasty habit of overstepping its bounds.

you're a democracy

No, the United States is not a democracy. It used to be a republic in which some of its officials (members of the House of Representatives) were elected by the subset of the American people who had the right to vote. Now it is an oligarchy that puts on a charade every couple of years and has the temerity to call it an "election".

Re:Mr. Bob,

[mcgrew]

Why are Americans so obsessed with the Constitution.

Because it is the bedrock of American law.

Make your own laws for your own time rather than basing everything on what some guys wrote down a couple of hundred years ago.

That would make it VERY easy for politicians and their corporate masters to enslave us all.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Targon]

Anyone can comment about a movie, that isn't something that would lead to prosecution or persecution under the law. Putting up movies for others to watch/download without permission on the other hand IS where people run into trouble.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[zeroshade]

You seem to be missing the point where the first amendment concern comes in. There is no clear definition of "illegal" site in the bill. It's very vague. This means that a site which posts pictures/a story/whatever that some senator doesn't like or is incriminating or whatever, could be shut down by claiming it is "infringing" on someone's copyright or its "primary purpose" is infringement. There is no due process, there is no hearing, as long as they can make a slightly reasonable (or maybe not even) argument, that's it. The site will be taken down.

Always assume that any law passed will be abused and look at how the abuse goes. As others have pointed out, a more realistic example is perhaps a political site which focuses on consumer rights in respect to p2p has a forum or area of the site which discusses various p2p software developments, and discuss the limitations and ideas surrounding copyright and avoiding being accused of copyright infringement incorrectly. Now, someone could accuse them of having the primary purpose of the site be to infringe due to the discussions of p2p software and copyright loopholes etc. Even though they offer no copyrighted material. Thus political speech would be silenced under this law with no recourse by the owner. Can you really say this is an appropriate approach?

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Coolhand2120]

I believe it's right there in the preamble and in article 1 section 8:

...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

So if you're a U.S. corporation made up of U.S. citizens you're protected. Although there is no guarantee of profit, there is tons of precedent for the U.S. government protecting the "profits" of its people.

My question to you is: why do you dislike U.S. citizens making money in such a general way. Me and two of my friends formed an LLC to shield us from liability were one of our programs to accidently take over the world. Am I evil simply because I entered into a capitalist venture (to pay the rent!)?

How about you complain about corruption and nepotism in government instead. There can be no doubt about the evil in corruption and nepotism, and that is the real complaint you have I believe. The best way to lessen this inherently human trait in government is to lessen the scope and size of government.

The simple act of selling goods and services at a profit is not evil. Preventing people from selling goods and services is the evil act. Nobody can know better than the individual what the individual wants and needs. Don't buy into the idea that the government can know what's best for everyone, viz: do you believe that someone, that you have never met and will never meet, knows more about what you want and need than yourself?

The government exercising its power to preserve and protect the “profits” of the citizenry may be the only legitimate function of the government, and is certainly the only reason we resort to government in the first place. All else is explicitly prohibited by the constitution.

Unfortunately the firewalls of the constitution were long ago breached and we can only hope that strict constitutionalist are elected to the various branches of government to try and reverse the massive expansion of the federal government.

Always err on the side of less government control.

This quote from C.S. Lewis best describes the scourge I'm talking about:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[dougmc]

it also applys to private individuals too
because if the cops or the government dose nothing to someone trying to limit or control your free speech
then they are effectively making a law prohibiting free speech

Um, no, it doesn't apply to private individuals.

Quite often when people cry "censorship!" they're really rallying against the idea that "freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press".

You have the right to free speech (with some minor exceptions.)

Individuals can't physically stop you from talking -- that would be assault of some sort. (And the police are supposed to do something about that, though that's not mandated by the Constitution.) But they can ask you to leave if you're on their private property, and they're under no obligation to let you use their printing press/radio station/web site/whatever to get your word out.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[HermMunster]

That question is best answered by asking the same about having a King or Queen.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[rich_hudds]

But they don't have any say in making laws so what's your point? I'm no fan of the monarchy but then they do tend to reduce the pretensions of the governing part leader. What I was meaning is, why do Americans have so little faith in themselves that instead of arguing an issue on its merits, they argue about what some other guys 200 years said. England is a free tolerant country and we have no constitution. Arguably America which has never faced invasion, a tiny side war in 1812 aside, has never had its constitution properly tested. The American Civil War was actually fought over the constitution. Think for yourselves.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

They still have to operate within all of the other limitations, which do not include closing businesses without due process. Closing them by policy I think is nearly a bill of attainder.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The problem is that they generally set the laws up to bypass due process, which is essentially a violation of freedom of speech. There are many cases where the MPAA orders the taking down of things that are later declared by a court to be within the realm of fair use. It should be the opposite, where the work remains available until a court orders it to be taken down.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentle people of Slashdot, I submit for your approval: The most ignorant statement made on Slashdot, ever.

Re:Mr. Bob,

[bugi]

They're out to make a buck. In this search, they're asking congress to abrogate their responsibilities.

Editors!!!

[Dthief]

the power to shut down any domestic, or block and foreign website it so chooses

Editors of /. take a little time reading what gets posted

Too late.

[PsyciatricHelp]

Free speech is currently in a hospice.

Re:Too late.

[countertrolling]

What's the truth about free speech?
There is no free speech

Free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be stolen, so said the kleptocrats.

This wont get abused AT ALL

[benjfowler]

After all, BUSINESS is America's business. And as we all know, if it's possible for a law to be repurposed to protect the profits of a private tyranny, it will happen.

Bob Pissant and his friends need a smack in the head for trying yet another corporatist stunt.

Re:This wont get abused AT ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a turd in the punchbowl. I repeat: Turd in the punchbowl.

Re:This wont get abused AT ALL

[mcgrew]

After all, BUSINESS is America's business.

And America's state religion is the worship of money.

It's sad that FREEDOM used to be America's business, rather than lucre. Business is only a tool, just as money is only a tool. But rather than using those tools to further freedom, they're being used to destroy it.

Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

Well, of course he would say that. The reality is that the First Amendment was not intended to be dismissed so lightly by a cartel composed entirely of bloodsucking leeches.

Re:Bloodsucker

[countertrolling]

That's right. It was intended to be dismissed by a totally submissive public. Mission Accomplished...

Re:Bloodsucker

[Katmando911]

Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Re:Bloodsucker

[mmaniaci]

Modded flaimbait, but I'm having trouble disagreeing with him...

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Yeah. And if he keeps it up, he may find himself on the unemployment line, just like the ex-CEO of BP talked himself out of a job. They aren't even trying to make their rhetoric sound palatable anymore. "Your much-vaunted 'free speech' means nothing to us, and if we can destroy it in order to regain control of content distribution, we will. So, here's a hearty 'Fuck YOU!', America!" Now, that's exactly how you would expect a bunch of foreign-owned corporations to think ... I'm just surprised they're being that open about it. Well, they aren't: it's their paid mouthpieces (the RIAA and the MPAA) that are spewing this garbage on their behalf.

So, the next time you buy a DVD with Sony, Time Warner, Vivendi, Viacom or the name of any of the other major studios printed on the side, remember who you have to thank for it. This is no longer about shutting down torrent sites or suing file-sharers. This is about the ongoing destruction of the Supreme Law of our Land by foreign influences. Remember that when the Feds start blocking your favorite Web sites because some lawyer at the "Justice Department", or some member of Congress who just had his infidelity exposed, has them blacklisted.

Remember also that the top slots at the Justice Department are filled by ex-RIAA attorneys. They aren't going to fight this for you, they're not even going to register a complaint. This is about as direct an attack on the Constitution as we've seen in recent years. And yes, even if signed into law, it may very well be eventually struck down, but this is how they operate. Remember, they always ask for something completely unreasonable, fully expecting to fail, and then they ask for a law that is somewhat less obnoxious (but still awful) but which seems positively benign in comparison.

Re:Bloodsucker

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Would you please not call them "bloodsucking leeches". Leeches are actually very useful, unlike the *AA.

_

Re:Bloodsucker

[Lanir]

...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.

Huh. Interesting he should say that. Anyone know if he ever stole change from his mom's purse or something? Maybe we can shut him up. :)

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

Would you please not call them "bloodsucking leeches". Leeches are actually very useful, unlike the *AA. _

Well, I mean no disrespect to the much, and often unfairly-maligned leech, but the comparison serves to elucidate the parasitic, nay, vampiric nature of these organizations.

I suppose I could call them "bloodsucking fruitbats" instead, but then all the "friends of the fruitbat" would come out and pitchfork me.

Re:Bloodsucker

[frozentier]

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Yeah, it makes about as much sense as saying I'm stealing from Slashdot if I print this thread out and lay it on my desk.

Re:Bloodsucker

[omglolbah]

Why would I ever buy a DVD? The last one I bought had a new idiotic 'mangled index' DRM scheme requiring me to get a patched dvd player to play it....

Until I get a workable online distribution system for movies I'll just spend my time doing something else.. Like playing games or *gasp* borrowing dvds from friends. Hell, here in Norway I'm legally allowed to make copies of media for close friends and family. DRM doesnt matter, I'm allowed to break it :D

So... fuck you RIAA and MPAA, I'm not giving you any more money until you cut this shit out.

Re:Bloodsucker

[The Wooden Badger]

Stick with vampires. Twilight vampires. No one (worth listening to) will complain about comparing the RIAA and MPAA to Twilight vampires.

Re:Bloodsucker

[tehcyder]

Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Plus, you should board his yacht and kidnap him while he's out sailing one day, to teach him the true meaning of the word "piracy".

Re:Bloodsucker

[tehcyder]

A comment like that makes me want to break into this guys house and "steal" all of his stuff so that he can learn the meaning of the word.

Yeah, it makes about as much sense as saying I'm stealing from Slashdot if I print this thread out and lay it on my desk.

What about if you could then sell the printout, wouldn't that money belong to the original author of the thread (or slashdot)? Wouldn't it be stealing if you kept that money yourself?

Re:Bloodsucker

[1u3hr]

So, here's a hearty 'Fuck YOU!', America!" Now, that's exactly how you would expect a bunch of foreign-owned corporations to think...

It seems far more like what a bunch of American executives would think. I don't think they'd act any differently, no matter who the ultimate owners are.

Re:Bloodsucker

[Rysc]

No. That would be copyright violation. Learn to understand the difference.

Copyright infringement has nothing to do with who makes a profit but with who reproduces what. The purpose is artificial scarcity. If there is high demand for this article and only one person is allowed to produce copies of it then that one person sets any price he likes, including free, and can control who gets each initial copy. If another person produces copies also then the problem is not "the copyright holder is not making all the money," for if that were the case resale would be prohibited, but the problem is "the copyright holder is not in control of supply."

The internet turns this on its head because the 'supply' of digital copies is always infinite.

Re:Bloodsucker

[mcgrew]

Nice strawman you got there, be a shame if someone set it on fire. Have a light --

If I make a copy of a DVD and give you that copy, nobody has lost anything. Nothing has been stolen. But nevertheless, that's what this guy is calling "stealing". It isn't. It's copyright infringement.

If I sell you that copy of a DVD, then I am in fact stealing; the money I made from the sale rightly belongs to the copyright holder. He did in fact lose something -- but that's not what he's talking about. You're comparing your orange to his apple.

Re:Bloodsucker

[Stevecrox]

How did the exCEO of BP talk himself out of a job? What I saw was a bunch of politicians chase down a British CEO because it would look good with the voters. They didn't perform an inquiry but instead created a stage so they could attack him.

The cynic in me also wonders if forcing out a British CEO for the American who was in charge of the spill area, was done to protect Oil interests (like Iraq). Especially since BP owned up to the spill and have already compensated people while Exxon haven't paid a dime.

I also wonder if Americans realise how much bad will they gained from British public in doing such a thing. Personally I thought Obama's handling showed he was worse than Bush.

Re:Bloodsucker

[sjames]

The part that really sheds light is that the oft maligned leech, a blood sucking parasite, is far more likely to provide benefit to us than the *AA. The leech is also far less likely to damage the foundations of our government for the People.

Re:Bloodsucker

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stick with vampires. Twilight vampires. No one (worth listening to) will complain about comparing the RIAA and MPAA to Twilight vampires."

Complain? No. But it's still a lousy comparison.

Twilight vampires come mostly across as cute. (Which is the main reason they apeal to 'those not worth listening to' ;).

I'd hardly want to call these poor excuses for people 'cute'.

Re:Bloodsucker

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the exCEO of BP talk himself out of a job?

Obviously you're not seeing it from our perspective (nor am I disputing yours) but the man was a PR disaster. Much of his public commentary was about as sensitive as a concrete block. Thousands of people were screwed out of jobs and a future, and a significant part of our food supply has been compromised for the foreseeable future. Yet BP's ex-CEO wanted us to feel sorry for him, because, you know, of all the stress he was under, and that he just wanted all of this to go away so he could get his life back. And, of course, all his hilarious denials, hand-wringing and blame-shifting. Nor has BP owned up to a goddamn thing: they're paying out some money now, in order to try and limit their future liability, and for whatever positive PR they can get from it. Not much, let me tell you: British Petroleum fucked up here to a degree that hasn't been seen since, oh, I don't know ... Operation Sombrero, and their behavior after the fact has been reprehensible.

I'm not an Obama fan either, but I don't want to go down that road right now.

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

I also wonder if Americans realise how much bad will they gained from British public in doing such a thing.

Just remember, it's this continent that is bearing the brunt of BP's corporate incompetence. So, you know, the ill will is, unfortunately, bi-lateral.

Re:Bloodsucker

[Stevecrox]

Why? BP is half American, the rig was run by Americans, the safety mechanism was turned off by Americans, the rig was built by Americans. They followed American standards, yes BP should have properly overseen matters but American Government could not stop falsey referring to BP as British Petrolium so people wouldn't think any Americans were to blame.

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

Why would I ever buy a DVD? The last one I bought had a new idiotic 'mangled index' DRM scheme requiring me to get a patched dvd player to play it....

Until I get a workable online distribution system for movies I'll just spend my time doing something else.. Like playing games or *gasp* borrowing dvds from friends. Hell, here in Norway I'm legally allowed to make copies of media for close friends and family. DRM doesnt matter, I'm allowed to break it :D

So... fuck you RIAA and MPAA, I'm not giving you any more money until you cut this shit out.

Well, I wouldn't get too comfortable. Our Canadian friends used to think that way, until the media companies started pouring money and influence into their government. Believe me, if your country's people consume cartel-generated media, they'll eventually get around to you. My advice? Be ready for them.

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

The part that really sheds light is that the oft maligned leech, a blood sucking parasite, is far more likely to provide benefit to us than the *AA. The leech is also far less likely to damage the foundations of our government for the People.

Absolutely, and not only that, but the leech (unlike either of the American **AA organizations) will tend to lower one's blood pressure, and can even help prevent blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. If these "industry trade groups" could do that, I'd almost say they were worth keeping around. The thing is, just about every time I read an article about those little bloodsuckers my blood pressure goes up. So, not only are they a disaster from a legal, moral and ethical perspective, they're also a health risk for any American aware of the issues.

The leech can, at least when used therapeutically, can be considered more of a symbiote than a parasite, so in that sense I'd say my analogy breaks down. But leeches, useful as they can be in certain contexts, are still pretty gross.

And media companies and their mouthpieces are still bloodsuckers, no matter to what parasitic organism they are compared.

Re:Bloodsucker

[omglolbah]

Apple was told to go nibble on a shotgun last time around by the norwegian consumer board ;)
Ripping dvds is legal, as is ripping bluray.

A while back someone pointed out that one of the laws being passed would make most of the politicians in the room criminals as they all had mp3-players. The law died faaast.

While I have a nagging worry in the back of my head I'm not -that- worried. Unlike the US system we have a myriad of political parties and there isnt really two big ones full of asshats in the same way.

Re:Bloodsucker

[ScrewMaster]

Apple was told to go nibble on a shotgun last time around by the norwegian consumer board ;) Ripping dvds is legal, as is ripping bluray.

A while back someone pointed out that one of the laws being passed would make most of the politicians in the room criminals as they all had mp3-players. The law died faaast.

While I have a nagging worry in the back of my head I'm not -that- worried. Unlike the US system we have a myriad of political parties and there isnt really two big ones full of asshats in the same way.

I hope you're right. Really, I do. I look at what these criminal cartels have been doing to legal systems worldwide and I just shake my head in disgust.

Ripping DVDs is actually entirely legal in the U.S. as well, so long as it's for personal use (e.g., you can't distribute the copies.) The problem is, our much (and quite correctly) maligned DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) makes it illegal to traffic in software that would allow us to exercise those rights, and the vendors of copyrighted materials are not required to make it possible for us to do so. So, in effect, while we have the right, for all practical purposes it might as well not be there.

Yeah, twisted I know. Say, does Norway have any use for experienced software engineers?

Just asking.

wank

[mug funky]

i think there's a slight misunderstanding of how rights work here...

Re:wank

[mcgrew]

To spell it out for him, in constitutional terms free speech is a right "endowed by the creator" and cannot (legally) be taken away, while copyright is a privelege allowed by the constitution.

Of course, free speech goes both ways. he's perfectly within his rights to spout his bullshit.

He's right

[IBitOBear]

And the ??AA is stealing our cultural legacy. They deserve no constitutional or legal protection.

Stop Draconian Restriction Mechanisms whether they are technological or political.

but...

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright infringement is not theft.

You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

You can't steal from corporations.

They aren't people.

They can't be drafted.

They can't be executed.

They never serve a day in jail.

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

No matter what the Supreme Court says.

P.S.: Revert to the original patents and copyrights in the original Constitution if you want us to respect them.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Chyeld]

More importantly, as not all copyright holders are corporations, violation of copyright protections is not theft. It is not stealing. It is not burglary, it is not piracy.

It is violating copyright protections.

And as far as that goes, neither the Copyright Acts or 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act' are permitted to run contrary to the First Amendment, regardless of it's purpose.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Kjella]

Yes, like stealing from business owners and stockholders. Which is what you're doing when you steal from companies. You can pretend you're ripping off just Bill Gates when you pirate Windows, but he is "people" too. Plenty of employees have gone to jail for crimes committed for the company, most often the CxOs. Plenty business owners trying to hide behind their business have gone to jail for their crimes. Maybe more get away with crap than they should, but that damn well true of real people too.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[mccrew]

It is violating copyright protections.

So it's all OK then?

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

No, a business owner is a person.

When in a DBA (Doing Business As) sole proprietorship, it is a literal person.

A person who has legal ramifications.

That's different.

That's theft.

They just let a CEO go free for defrauding stock holders by backdating his options grants - like I said, corporations aren't people.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't people.

They can't be drafted.

They can't be executed.

They never serve a day in jail.

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

Non sequitur. You assume "not a person" equates to "can't be stolen from" but give no reason why this should be considered to be the case.

Following your logic, one could just as easily say you can't steal from a charity, a church, a government, a trade union, or a bridge club.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, holy shit. My teachers were wrong, there ARE stupid questions.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[abuelos84]

It's not stealing. If i download a copy of a digital reproduction of a song, what i'm taking from them? I wasn't going to buy the cds anyway, or any dvd. So what is it that i'm substracting from them?
I give you that the process itself of copying that information from a remote server into your local machine can be considered illegal (if it is so legislated) But, in my opinion, that can't be compared with stealing from a store. Things are not so black and white.
But anyway I really consider this a non-issue, since it is the current model of market as a whole that is so archaic that can't coexist with the reality of what humans want and do.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[windcask]

You can't steal from corporations.

So if I jack a business vehicle off company property, I'm in the clear, then?

They aren't people.

Yes, they are, according to http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202439349140 .

They can't be drafted.

But they can be given military contracts, can't they?

They can't be executed.

Tell that to AT&T. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture

They never serve a day in jail.

No, but their board members and CEOs sure as shit can. http://www.enrontheplay.com/

Thus, stealing only occurs when you steal from people.

No matter what the Supreme Court says.

Corporations are established by people and jointly owned by people. You steal from them, you steal from their board members, their employees and their families. And thank God we live in a country where the opinion of the courts matter.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

I said nothing about any of those other groups, just the legal fictions not mentioned in the Constitution but which precede them, which are called Corporations.

If you wish to steal from these other groups, have at it.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[X0563511]

My physics teacher had a slight modification that I much prefer:

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[X0563511]

Even if you WERE going to buy it, you still didn't steal anything. Until you had actually forked over money, the sale did not exist. Projected sales are just that: projections.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

The courts say they can take away your constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search while flying too.

Doesn't mean they're right.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[windcask]

Oh man, don't take me back to that topic. I'm going to be doomed to 0-start posts and negative karma for life...

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

I said nothing about any of those other groups, just the legal fictions not mentioned in the Constitution but which precede them, which are called Corporations.

Doesn't matter. All of the things you listed as reasons why a corporation can't be stolen from apply to those groups too. Therefore, you must either claim that they also can't be stolen from (which still leaves you with the burden of showing that those reasons apply since you still haven't done that), or concede that those properties don't make it impossible for a corporation to be stolen from.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

Doesn't matter. All of the things you listed as reasons why a corporation can't be stolen from apply to those groups too. Therefore, you must either claim that they also can't be stolen from (which still leaves you with the burden of showing that those reasons apply since you still haven't done that), or concede that those properties don't make it impossible for a corporation to be stolen from.

I see you failed Logic 200.

I got an A in that.

You can't prove a superset from a subset.

If A is True then A + B may be True or may be False.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

"A" in this case is a property ("not a person") which you claimed renders an entity "unable to be stolen from". You explicitly stated that there are no exceptions, thus any potential "B" property is irrelevant in evaluating the validity of your logic. Other organizations posses this "A" property about which you made a specific claim. Does this mean that they can't be stolen from, or does it mean that your claim is incomplete if not wholly invalid?

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever used the phrases

• "stole my words"
• "stole my idea"
• "stole my focus"
• "stole my code"
• "stole my heart"
• "stole a look"

then you've acknowledged that stealing does not necessitate an act of appropriation of physical property. Stealing has many definitions, but is usually used to mean theft - however not all other meanings are equally bad, or illegal, or even necessarily wrong.

Oh. And don't reply to say that you haven't used the above phrases. I don't care.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

If I state that cars are used in Iceland, this does not imply that spaceships are used in Iceland, even if that may - or may not - be the case.

Logic Fail. Go back to school.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

If I state that cars are used in Iceland, this does not imply that spaceships are used in Iceland, even if that may - or may not - be the case.

Your analogy doesn't work. It's more like you stated that everyone in Reykjavik lives in Iceland and therefore is Jewish, and I responded by pointing out that 1)you failed to make a case that living in Iceland means one must be Jewish, and 2)people in Selfoss also live in Iceland and must also be Jewish if your claim holds true.

Understand? You stated explicitly that "not a person" automatically means "can't be stolen from", with no other conditions. Either that isn't true, or it applies to all non-persons.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Shakrai]

The courts say they can take away your constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search while flying too.

Who is the "they"? I hope you aren't implying it's the corporations that are doing this, because it's actually the Federal Government.....

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

Sorry, you attempted to broaden the subset to a superset.

I correctly pointed out that that is not possible.

Go back and retake Logic.

All your corporations preceded the Constitution and yet were never mentioned in it. Even though Wall Street existed in New Amsterdam before it became New York.

We now return you to your legal fiction which does not exist.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not OK, but I don't call stealing murder, nor do I call looking at pr0n raping a wombat.

If people called a spade a spade, then maybe they actually would have some credence.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[HermMunster]

Wrong.

And copyright infringement is about reproduction and distribution for profit.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you failed Logic 200.

I got an A in that.

Ahh...argument from authority, in this case someone who got an A in class. Very persuasive.

The syllogism that the other AC read into your argument was simple: 1) you can only steal from a person, 2) a corporation is not a person, 3) therefore, you cannot steal from a corporation.

The other AC attacked your argument by listing counter-examples of non-persons that one could steal from. This would weaken your argument if the other AC's premise is true that charities, churches, governments, trade unions, or bridge clubs can be stolen from. Your syllogism would no longer be valid and might have to be reduced down to something a bit more circular (and rather unpersuasive) like 1) you cannot steal from non-person corporations, 2) therefore, you cannot steal from corporations.

Let me offer a syllogism that might make a bit more sense: 1) you can steal from entities that can legally possess property, 2) corporations can legally possess property, 3) therefore, you can steal from corporations.

I doubt you find my argument persuasive. Perhaps you like your original line of reasoning. You might even hold that you cannot steal from charities, churches, governments, trade unions, or bridge clubs (although you did seem to accept that they could be stolen from). Or maybe you don't think a corporation can even be considered an entity.

More likely, you just mean something different than I do when you say "steal." I don't understand your definition, which is likely idiosyncratic. But, if your meaning of what it means to steal is different from my meaning or the other AC's meaning, then there really isn't an argument going on here. You've simply defined the act of stealing in a way that precludes corporations from being stolen from.

You might want to avoid testing out your definition in court though.

One last thing, you fail Constitutional law. The failure of the Constitution to mention corporations has no bearing here. Most corporations are chartered by the states.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[HermMunster]

Given enough planning you can take a bus, drive your car, take a boat, or ride a train (whatever's applicable). By electing to fly you are granting them the temporary authority to grope and scan. You haven't been denied rights. Refusal of one should NOT result in using the other as punishment.

This Bill will grant the policing agencies authority to punish without due process. This isn't about protecting us from terrorism or a local insurgency that threatens the security of the nation. This is about giving copyright holders the power to punish anyone without having to go through the court system to do it.

If you ask me the RIAA and MPAA are taking a page from the book of the Scientologists--they position themselves inside and lobby from the outside in order to get whatever they want.

The MPAA Chief is just showing his ignorance and lack of understanding of Constitutional law.

Even if the bill is passed and signed into law, it will likely be shot down as unconsitutional (immediately), and appealed by whatever party looses.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

And copyright infringement is about reproduction and distribution for profit.

Just a clarification: 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106, Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, says the following:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

17 U.S.C. Sec. 501, Infringement of copyright, says in part:

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A (a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

There are numerous exceptions and defenses in other parts of the code. But, the starting point is that any violation of one of the exclusive rights is an act of infringement. This means that unauthorized reproduction or unauthorized distribution constitutes infringement, whether or not for profit.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[mattack2]

And copyright infringement is about reproduction and distribution for profit.

FALSE.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't attempt to broaden anything. I stayed within the scope of your claim, which was that no non-person can be stolen from.

Does "not a person" mean "cannot be stolen from", or doesn't it?

If it does, then the other types of groups I mentioned cannot be stolen from.

If it doesn't, then any claim that corporations can't be stolen from must be made on another basis.

And of course, you still haven't shown that "non-person" implies "cannot be stolen from" in the first place.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't steal from corporations.

So if I jack a business vehicle off company property, I'm in the clear, then?

So, how do you jack a vehicle off anyway?

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of hard post bullshit on a website like /., when just about every programmer here has read 17 USC Chapter 5, typically many times.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, thieves are still allowed to speak freely... they go to jail, but from jail they can still speak...

And also, jerkoff mcgee (bob pisano) seems to assume that using the First Amendment either to carry out crimes, or to talk about them, is, in itself, criminal..... or that people talking about crimes are inherently already criminal (without trial).... That's just stupid. You don't go around cutting the throats out of black kids, or rich white kids, or people with mental disorders simply because they may use their speech to carry out crimes (don't take offense, i'm just picking people that are more likely to commit crimes for the sake of discussion).

The First Amendment is absolute. fuck bob and the money that influenced him to look like an idiot.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[ShadowFalls]

Wouldn't that then imply that stockholders would then be responsible for any laws the company breaks? Or is it only ok to be protected by law and not punishable by it? Because ignorance of a crime doesn't ofcourse remove you from punishment. How many go to jail when they are in possession of stolen property and have no idea it was in fact stolen? Same with not knowing about the crimes of a company that you have a partial ownership of. You do have a right to be heard when you own stock after all. It all comes down to those responsible. But unless the one making the decisions has a controlling stake in that company, they cannot be said to "own" said company. Only partial ownership would apply.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anthony Mouse]

Let's break it down:

* "stole my words"
* "stole my idea"
* "stole my code"

These are all the thing you're trying to defend, so any argument that says it's right because these things are right is circular.

* "stole my focus"
* "stole my heart"
* "stole a look"

These are all acts not punishable by law or otherwise actionable. This is not the meaning the MPAA is going for. They clearly don't intend for anyone to hear "steal a movie" and think "steal a look." They run ads that say "you wouldn't steal a car" and equate grand larceny with downloading a movie. Their intent is not to use a legally spurious colloquialism, their intent is to conflate copyright infringement with criminal thievery.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[tehcyder]

That is total and utter bullshit.

If I walk out with a TV from a supermarket, I'm stealing from the company that owns the supermarket, not the fucking manager or shop assistants.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[tehcyder]

Well, holy shit. My teachers were wrong, there ARE stupid questions.

Not as fucking stupid as people who won't answer them.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[tehcyder]

Even if you WERE going to buy it, you still didn't steal anything. Until you had actually forked over money, the sale did not exist. Projected sales are just that: projections.

Okey dokey, so in your brave new world, no one ever forks over money for anything, and there is universal peace and love.

Meanwhile, in the real world, if record and film companies receive no money they don't have a business and won't be producing CDs and moveis any longer.

I know, we can all go back to listening to live bands, and doing amateur dramatics for our entertainment..

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Given enough planning you can take a bus, drive your car, take a boat, or ride a train (whatever's applicable).

Yeah, I'll just take a boat across the Atlantic to visit my family. I guess, let's see, the next ship is leaving on 26th April and takes 8 days to cross. I'd have to wait till 10th May for a return journey. To my surprise, it isn't any more expensive than flying, but it's still not an option -- I just don't have enough vacation in a year to spend an entire month on the trip, with half of the time taken up just sitting on a boat.

By electing to fly you are granting them the temporary authority to grope and scan.

I guess you're right. There's no reason why constitutional rights should be absolute or anything.

"By electing to visit Washington DC, you are granting them the temporary authority to restrict your right to peacably assemble and petition Congress for a redress of grievances."

"By electing to own a house near a military base, you are granting them the temporary authority to billet troops in your home."

"By electing to become a Muslim, you are granting them the temporary authority to suspend habeas corpus and inflict cruel and unusual punishments on you until you incriminate yourself."

O brave new world, that has such people in it!

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[hedwards]

Most of those are colloquial in nature. Stealing ones words, ideas and code are legitimate as you're claiming ownership over something which deprives the owner of it's use in many cases, which would make it a reasonable assertion to call it stealing.

There is no requirement that something be physical to be stolen, however it's unusual for a non-physical item to be stolen. The main reason being that conversion doesn't normally take place.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[hedwards]

We should just call that what it is mandatory sexual acts for money. That way the "religious" "conservatives" will want it banned because a subset of the people being molested might like it.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[HermMunster]

People came across the Atlantic on ships to get here to begin with. There are plenty of ships that take passengers even today.

You have a choice. Be groped and/or scanned or to not fly (take some other means of transportation).

We've had laws in place that allow for searches of your person whenever you enter certain places, such as a court house. Most places have clearly marked signs that say you and your baggage is subject to search at any time. If you don't want to be searched then don't go in.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Do I like it any more than you? Absolutely not. And to create an abusive alternative to naked body scans is evil of those who devised the system.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[HermMunster]

Now go back and research how that has been applied. It is about distribution and profit.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[HermMunster]

What I stated is true. Find the application of copyright infringement as case law in the US.

A recent Dutch ruling supporting that linking to content isn't infringement. The ruling stated clearly that it isn't infringement when copying for personal use.

Let's get real. Even Jamie Thomas wasn't found guilty for consuming, she was found guilty of distribution. For profit adds special circumstances.

Please, stop trying to promote the RIAA and MPAAA agenda.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[HermMunster]

The most important thing you can do is speak simply and clearly. He's wrong. Period.

But to prop up your own ego with excessive speak is unproductive, even if you are additionally trying to prove you did well in your Philosophy class in logic at the university.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[zeroshade]

Or simple economics can take over. The people who enjoy the cds and movies will pay money for the cds and movies to ensure their survival so they can continue to enjoy them. It is really simple when you think about it. Without the artificial profits that companies make do to people who will pay for cds and movies instead of pirate them, only the really good movies that the public enjoys would make as much money and therefore be able to continue to make more good movies. Companies would put more thought and creativity into what they produce because it would be harder to make as much money. Thus, all the drek and generic action movie #3 and other general crap that is produced nowadays would slowly dry up leaving only that which is valued by society and that people want.

As I said, it's simply how economics work. People will pay money to so that more of something they enjoyed can be produced. I submit that you can look at all the examples of freely released movies/music and the artists that survive off of merchandise sales/live performances/donations/the general kindness of their fans as a result.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[zeroshade]

The TSA is not the federal government.....

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[mcgrew]

I give you that the process itself of copying that information from a remote server into your local machine can be considered illegal (if it is so legislated) But, in my opinion, that can't be compared with stealing from a store.

If you illegally download a song, nobody has lost anything. It can cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and damages.

If you steal a CD from a store, the store owner has been deprived of his property and if caught, will cost you a few hundred bucks in fines for misdemeanor retail theft.

It sure seems backwards to me.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing ones words, ideas and code are legitimate as you're claiming ownership over something which deprives the owner of it's use in many cases, which would make it a reasonable assertion to call it stealing.

No. I can steal your words merely by reposting them on another website, or by preempting what you say out loud. I didn't take anything from you. Likewise for ideas and code. You're talking about plagiarism, which isn't limited to literature. Plagiarism is one of the other common definitions of stealing, distinctive from theft.

A third definition of stealing, to use another person's conception without his/her permission, is more prevalent. If you overhear a spoken idea, and you use it only in your own presence, then you've 'stolen' an idea. Our culture accredits limited ownership of immaterial creativity - not in order to allow control of ideas, but to encourage respect of the author.

Most of those are colloquial in nature.

I knew someone would go for the "colloquialism" argument. The fact is, the listed usages up above have been in standard text for the last 100 years. If at one point they were unconventional, they no longer are. The English language has no standards committee to decide what is correct and what isn't. English isn't like math; and for that matter, neither is law.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot, and a dangerous idiot at that. Look up the hundreds of cases of businesses being sued for copyright infringement when not distributing. 'Profit' is rarely used by the judge in the case summary, because the proceedings are typically not criminal in nature. RIAA doesn't go after individual copyright infringement because it's not worth suing someone for $750 - rarely do consumers pirate software worth thousands of dollars (CAD suites are the rare exception); and when businesses do it's often damages for ($2,000+)*(50-200+) internal machines.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't see is that the jury's assessed damages on the Thomas' trials were (1+distribution_count)*value. At minimum she was liable for $18,000 (or 24 songs) for willful infringement. Even their lawyers admitted as much.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[jahudabudy]

nor do I call looking at pr0n raping a wombat.

So, uh, could you recommend a good pron site? I think I like your style....

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[mattack2]

"A recent Dutch ruling" has absolutely nothing to talk about the U.S., which is what this discussion was about.

I'm not promoting any agenda, except for being honest and not stealing.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[mgiuca]

They can, however, have their entire business taken out of existence on the whim of the Attorney General.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[WillAffleckUW]

My relatives came here by land bridge.

I don't think there are any to use right now.

Re:You can't steal from corporations

[Shakrai]

Are you really that stupid? Hint: TSA is part of Homeland Security. Homeland Security is part of the Executive Branch of the (you guessed it) United States Federal Government.

Well then Pisano just proved...

[Dalzhim]

... that if their proposed legislation attacks free speech as a consequence of trying to fight piracy, then they haven't engineered said legislation properly. He is right that the first amendment isn't a shield for those who steal and any sane legislation wouldn't change that fact.

Pisano for president!

[RJHelms]

Good thing Bob Pisano is neither a legislator nor a judge!

The First Amendment was also not intended as a shield for people who call the MPAA a gang of turd-burglars, but here we are.

Re:Pisano for president!

[X0563511]

You're wrong about that last bit. Our ability to express our opinion (that the MPAA is a gang of turd-burglars) is protected by that very amendment, by design.

Re:Pisano for president!

[RobertM1968]

Good thing Bob Pisano is neither a legislator nor a judge!

The First Amendment was also not intended as a shield for people who call the MPAA a gang of turd-burglars, but here we are.

Yeah, well you/they are trying to hide the fact that no such law is needed (for the purposes/advantages claimed by the **AA), because copyright laws already cover all of this. The MPAA's statement is a nice way of speaking of something unrelated in a fashion that implies something else entirely - all in an effort to control speech under a different guise.

Way to miss the point!

[Joe The Dragon]

Way to miss the point!

Re:Way to miss the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't miss it, he found it irrelevant to his wallet.

This is really starting to get raw

[ScrewMaster]

Addressing the free speech concerns, MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'"

That's how Mr. Pisano "addresses" free speech concerns? By dismissing them? I have news for you, bub ... you aren't speaking for the Founding Fathers when you mouth that garbage. The reality is, the First Amendment was not intended to be dismissed so lightly by what are essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[cyber-dragon.net]

essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.

The problem is they are doing it legally. It's up to the people to fight it and convince politicians it's not in their best interest to accept **AA party lines or BS, and that we don't want it.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[X0563511]

Indeed. We'll just dismiss "privacy concerns" when we break into your bedroom while you fuck your mistress (or... whatever you call a male "mistress" as the case may be), Mr. Pisano. I'm sure you'll understand.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[ScrewMaster]

essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.

The problem is they are doing it legally. It's up to the people to fight it and convince politicians it's not in their best interest to accept **AA party lines or BS, and that we don't want it.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. The problem is, the people most able to call them on it (Congress and the Justice Department) have already been coopted. But you're right though: this is an issue where We the People had better take a stand.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they really aren't. The fact that many of the illegalities of the entire scheme are not prosecuted does not mean that they're not there.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[Totenglocke]

The problem is that, as has been shown many times over (especially in recent years), politicians don't care what the people want.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they really aren't. The fact that many of the illegalities of the entire scheme are not prosecuted does not mean that they're not there.

Well, at some point it's going to get so over-the-top that we may end up having an "AmendmentGate" scandal or something like that.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[Anonymous Coward]

are you blind? they already own the federal government. they owned bush. they own obama. obama hired riaa and mpaa lawyers to run the justice department.

Re:This is really starting to get raw

[Anonymous Coward]

essentially foreign-owned criminal cartels illegally extending their influence into our Federal Government.

The MPAA, RIAA etc. are foreign-owned? You do have a good point, otherwise, but this would be news to me. As far as I can tell, they're as American as apple pie.

Not that them being foreign-owned would make things any worse, anyway; if something's bad when a foreigner does it, it doesn't get better just because an American does it instead. To suggest otherwise is nationalistic and xenophobic.

Stupid

[bigstrat2003]

This goes way beyond the potential for censorship (though that is, indeed, egregious). What about the violation of due process?

Jack said it best ...

[dougmc]

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

Bob should just say this again, but replace VCR with Internet.

I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!

Re:Jack said it best ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!

Where's my "Scroll of Resurrect the Founding Fathers" when I need it? Actually, it is the role of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to decide what the Founding Fathers intended. Although, it would be interesting to see what Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would think about Bob Pisano's opinions.

Jefferson: "This dick-brained piece of shit is trying to wield power using our Constitution!?!"

Franklin: "Dude, we must have like totally fucked up when writing that bastard."

Re:Jack said it best ...

[ScrewMaster]

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

Bob should just say this again, but replace VCR with Internet.

I'm sure glad the MPAA is here to tell me what the Founding Fathers intended!

Replace "Internet" with "any technology that we don't happen to like."

Re:Jack said it best ...

[JesseMcDonald]

Actually, it is the role of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to decide what the Founding Fathers intended.

Their self-appointed role, which just happens to be a major conflict of interest. In what other area would anyone permit an agreement as important as the U.S. Constitution to be interpreted entirely by one side—and worse yet, the side whose powers that document was specifically intended to strictly circumscribe? Separation of powers or not, in the long run that effectively amounts to handing the federal government a blank check.

Re:Jack said it best ...

[Nefarious Wheel]

Their self-appointed role

Marbury vs. Madison, wasn't it?

Re:Jack said it best ...

[hedwards]

Well Bob Crane was beaten and strangled in connection with the production of hardcore pornography, so clearly it is dangerous.

Re:Jack said it best ...

[JesseMcDonald]

Marbury vs. Madison, wasn't it?

That is correct. The ruling was half-right; I see no problem with judicial review per se—the Supreme Court ruling that a particular congressional action is unconstitutional. That is an internal matter regarding balance of power within the government. The problem is that the mere fact that the S.C. does not declare something unconstitutional does not automatically make it constitutional, and there is no official forum through which the other side (the People) can enforce their position on the matter. That makes the government, in the form of the S.C., the final arbiter of its own legal limits (short of a full-blown revolution).

Re:Jack said it best ...

[mcgrew]

Wasn't Valenti's maiden name "Golf"?

Of course not

[Anonymous Coward]

No it wasn't intended for people who steal. But repeating information is not stealing, so that doesn't matter.

Of course they'd say that

[Beardo the Bearded]

Well, it is true. The 1st Amendment of the US allows for ... let me look it up...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Okay, so the part about religion doesn't apply unless there's an esoteric branch of Hinduism that allows for the reincarnation of bits as MP3s.

Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?

For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Kjella]

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

Not to mention the Internet as a place to assemble, as in meet like-minded people. And unlike demonstrations and other mass gatherings that they have some semi-legitimate grounds of public safety, rioting and so on to regulate it, there's very few excuses to stop people from "assembling" online. True, many of these "sign this" or "join this" don't amount to much by themselves but it makes people realize they are many and maybe could force change.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate sponsors religion is money. Their ability to receive it freely is their practice of religion, by not making this law congress is impinging on their ability to practice their first amendment rights.

Wait a minute, maybe I'm thinking Scientology... damnit I always get those evil corporations mixed up.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, so would putting a news item on the front page of a web site be enough to prevent it from being blocked?

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop.

We don't complain about these laws because we want to distribute copyrighted stuff under the facade of 'Free Speech'.

We complain about these laws because we don't want the government to be able to delete information under the facade of 'Copyright Infringement'.

It'd be great if all laws were used to pursue the objectives they say they intend to pursue, but here in the real world, we have to assume that every law that's written will be abused. This is the first amendment concern.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[lavagolemking]

Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?

The internet is used for a lot more than downloading music, and is often used as a way of distributing information. For the common citizen (who doesn't own a TV station), short of speaking in a street/park with a megaphone, this is often the only way they have of communicating. The internet a medium of communication, facilitating speech even if in electronic form.

For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.

Well, if I want unbiased information about politics, the internet is probably where I would start. The internet is the only form of media where anyone regardless of how wealthy they are can put something, and if you take that away, making the only form of free speech privately owned and controlled, then it's not quite free anymore. Sure it's free for the people who own the media, but anyone else only gets to say something if it's in line with the message the owner wants expressed. Truly free speech means even the people you (or the elite class) does not like, and currently the internet is the only place where that (usually) happens.

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

People actually do use Twitter for this sort of thing, though I more often see Facebook used for that. Also, use of one's own online service, like hosting your own website for coordination of protests, collaborating over an IRC channel or other chat room, web streaming (or use of YouTube), or just plain e-mail communication, are all perfectly legitimate uses of the internet for assembly, and very prone to use for political motives by the masses. If the powers that be can argue there is copyright infringement (or linkage, like with thepiratebay.org) going on from protest-gathering-website.com, then they can justify blocking it just like any other website and thereby prevent assembly on it. The way the DMCA works now (and I don't think this law will be any better), any time an issue is time-sensitive or the defendants lack resources to defend themselves in court, you (the powers that be) don't even have to prove you own the copyrighted work. The DMCA wasn't even intended for censorship, while this particular bill is. Same goes for pretty much any other website.

Aside from religion (unless they decide Islamic websites are illegal or something), the ability of the government to censor parts of the internet does apply to the 1st amendment. Futhermore, copyright has already been (ab)used many times to censor free speech, so this is not just a hypothetical scenario. To claim copyright cannot, was not, or will not be used for online political censorship or that a law aimed at online censorship will not be abused is either naive or lying.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Beardo the Bearded]

My tongue was firmly in cheek. ;)

Re:Of course they'd say that

[hedwards]

Why is this dribble being modded up? The proposed legislation is a very clear violation of the first amendment as it would involve the legislature censoring web sites which are accused of piracy without due process from the court.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[zeroshade]

woosh! =P

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Beardo the Bearded]

I assumed that the reference to an esoteric branch of Hinduism would alert you that my post was, in fact, meretricious.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[sjames]

The problem here is a law that calls for the suspension of a website with no due process on the strength of an ALLEGATION of copyright infringement. It practically begs to be constantly abused to silence anyone you don't like and the lack of due process is rather explicitly unconstitutional.

Re:Of course they'd say that

[Beardo the Bearded]

For the third time, this was a joke. You don't have to get a warrant to laugh, sjames.

Oh the irony...

[rs1n]

If it's thieves he's worried about, then he and the rest of the "marketing" industry should just take salary cuts (i.e. be happy with 5-digit salary like the rest of us) and give the rest of the profits to the actual creators of the intellectual property. Until they are willing to do that, they are just as much as thieves as the pirates. So we're just trading for legislation that protects one group of thieves as opposed to another.

Re:Oh the irony...

[X0563511]

There is indeed no honor among thieves.

Re:Oh the irony...

[ScrewMaster]

There is indeed no honor among thieves.

Honor? No, certainly not. But there are plenty of backroom deals, and that's what makes these outfits so dangerous. They are about the most egregious example of why lobbying and corporate funding of political campaigns should be completely outlawed that I've ever encountered.

It would be such a shame....

[Anonymous Coward]

if something harmful happened to mister Pisano.

Re:Grammar much?

[Nadaka]

No they are literally setting the state. As in, they are explicitly specifying how the government is going to be.

Pisano ducked the question.

[blair1q]

Pisano is correct in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means."

He is incorrect in saying that all traffic coming from a site hosting an infringer is the result of stealing, nor is he correct in saying that a conviction for theft is necessary before this law shuts down a site (it requires only a request for a preliminary injunction), nor that the law even restricts its scope to actual theft (it applies if the site is merely to linking to another site that may or may not already be accused of thieving).

At the point where Pisano guarantees that not one innocent person will have their data cut off from the net for even one second, and can prove it with the text of the bill that accomplishes his goals while doing that, then he may claim he's stopping theft without abrogating the First Amendment.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Well said.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[joeboomer628]

I hope you are not implying that the mpaa or other institution would overreach on this. Look how much illegal (or at least in opposition of their point of view) posting of material has been thwarted with takedown notices.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[guruevi]

Pisano is INcorrect in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means". The First Amendment was/is intended as a shield for any US Citizen irrespective of their means. The First Amendment still applies to people that have committed a crime.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[ScrewMaster]

Pisano is INcorrect in saying "the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means". The First Amendment was/is intended as a shield for any US Citizen irrespective of their means. The First Amendment still applies to people that have committed a crime.

Yes. You may not be able to vote ... but you can still speak. The fundamental problem here is that law enforcement and the courts have, quite unreasonably in my opinion, failed to connect the dots. Information published on the Internet is still speech, even if the communications technology did not exist in the Founder's time. This attempt to create a false dichotomy between online activities and traditional physical activities is a smoke screen, no more and no less.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[Targon]

To take the work of others and then reproduce it and give that reproduction to others is NOT free speech. If you memorize the entire script and want to do your own performance, then that would be covered under free speech if the wording is not copyrighted as well.

Have you noticed that many movies, TV shows, and books tell the same basic story over and over again, but use different wording, character names, etc? The reason this is allowed is that you can't copyright a concept, but you can copyright the exact expression of that concept. So, if you personally want to sing a song, or write your own book(without copying from another book), and then want to give it away to the world, THAT is covered under free speech. The information published on the Internet is the same way, you can write your own interpretation of anything and put it online, but you can't take the words of others and claim it as your own without giving due credit.

Think about that a moment, claiming the work of someone else as your own does not mean your claim is covered under the first amendment. The right to say what you want, without fear of prosecution is what is protected, but the act of making an exact duplicate of what others have said is not. There are some exceptions, such as recording a speech made in public being allowed, but you can't make a copy of a recording of that speech without the permission of the person who actually made that recording. There are also clear cases where you are not allowed to make a recording without permission, such as in a concert hall that has restricted/paid admission since the concert is not a "public" concert.

There are also "fair use" rules in play, where you can make PERSONAL copies for yourself, as long as you do not give out those copies. The idea that each person who wants to OWN a copy has to get permission from whoever made the original.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental problem here is that law enforcement and the courts have, quite unreasonably in my opinion, failed to connect the dots.

No no. I think they just don't *care*: it would be tantamount to admitting they don't have the right to judge you.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[hedwards]

Technically speaking, that's not quite correct, as prison officials can hold a person in solitary confinement indefinitely, which would effectively prevent an individual from free associate, assembly and most speech of any sort.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[DutchUncle]

This attempt to create a false dichotomy between online activities and traditional physical activities is a smoke screen, no more and no less.

Sadly, techies like us are somewhat responsible. In trying to convince people to use the Internet commercially, the differences were overemphasized. "Visiting" a web "site" was totally different from reading a magazine or catalog; ordering through a web site totally different from mail order that existed since the previous century. Now we're trying to turn that around, convincing the general public that email and VOIP are just like phone calls, and that "net neutrality" should be just like "phone call neutrality", and that automatic packet inspection would be like automatic wiretapping; but we're fighting the industry's own earlier marketing.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[blair1q]

He's not saying that their freedom to speak is to be taken away if they steal, he's saying that free speech is not a defense for theft. In that, he's correct. And by "means" he doesn't mean their economic condition, he means the way in which they commit the theft.

Regardless, this aphorism he leads with is no excuse for a law that risks the prosecution of innocent people.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[ScrewMaster]

To take the work of others and then reproduce it and give that reproduction to others is NOT free speech.

Didn't say it was, and I think you took the wrong idea from my post. I'm rather sorry you spent so much effort trying to refute a point that I wasn't actually making.

The mere fact that our lawmakers could even propose such a law indicates that "speech" on the Internet is not considered the same as identical speech reproduced through more traditional (i.e., easily-controllable) means. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be so cavalier about the collateral damage that will invariably be created by this stupid law.

Regardless of your stand on copyright and file-sharing issues, I hope you can understand one important point. From the "what's best for everyone" point of view, eliminating one of our most cherished Constitutionally-guaranteed rights from our most powerful communications medium, merely to protect the revenue streams of a half-dozen foreign-owned and operated corporations is a mistake, and one that is of not merely Biblical proportions.

The uncomfortable truth is that we've allowed these corporations to exert a very powerful, dangerous influence upon critical sectors of our legal system, and the only ones benefiting from it are like-minded litigious companies. Take the DMCA: it's been used to suppress all sorts of speech, ideas and technologies that were (ostensibly at least) never intended to come under its purview, yet did anyway. Do you really think that this law, which has infinitely greater disruptive power, won't be misused in a similar fashion?

Those of you who know me will remember that I've been defending my government's position regarding Internet governance for some time now, largely because that position has been, for the most part, hands-off. Specifically I'm talking about the Domain Name System. Now, what's astounding to me is that this kind of law can be tabled without the slightest thought for what the rest of the world is going to think. I'm starting to realize just how far out-of-touch with basic reality that Congress has become. Sorry guys, you don't own the Internet, we just have control over one critical subsystem, DNS. Other countries have allowed that to continue because we gave them no real reason to try and take it over, but this law will make us into a definite liability.

Talk about poking a stick into a nest of fire ants, this is just asking for trouble, both here and elsewhere.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[ScrewMaster]

The fundamental problem here is that law enforcement and the courts have, quite unreasonably in my opinion, failed to connect the dots.

No no. I think they just don't *care*: it would be tantamount to admitting they don't have the right to judge you.

Oh ... the courts may or may not care, but there are certain people in government who do care. Very much. That they are megalomaniacal sociopaths doesn't change the fact that they have the power to screw everything up for the rest of us.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[ScrewMaster]

Technically speaking, that's not quite correct, as prison officials can hold a person in solitary confinement indefinitely, which would effectively prevent an individual from free associate, assembly and most speech of any sort.

That's very true, of course, and such treatment of prisoners carries its own share of Constitutional issues. But I think my point is still legitimate, that even a convict doesn't lose his right to free speech. That the government can, possibly illegally, deny him the ability to exercise a right doesn't mean that he's lost that right.

Re:Pisano ducked the question.

[ScrewMaster]

and can prove it with the text of the bill that accomplishes his goals while doing that, then he may claim he's stopping theft without abrogating the First Amendment.

It's worse than that: he's not claiming that he won't violate the Amendment, he's claiming that it doesn't matter because that right simply doesn't apply in this case. Pretty twisted reasoning, but I think we've come to expect that from this man and his friends.

in the words of Wen Jiabao

[kwoff]

http://www.wimp.com/chinesepremier/

Hey...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you toddle on over to http://mpaa.org/contentprotection/report-piracy and report the MPAA fucks for pirating our freedom of speech.

Re:Hey...

[Shark]

You know, that's an awesome link... Isn't the MPAA already being sued for unpaid royalties all over the place? Their Canadian equivalent is. If someone can dig out a list of every case, it'd be pretty awesome to make a script that reports every place where any one of those albums is being sold in every state.

It's not a law, or even a treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would like you to review the text of the 1st Amendment:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government > for a redress of grievances.

> Please take note that the first word of the amendment is Congress and is followed by the absolute term "...shall make no law..." This means just what it states.

Unfortunately this won't be a law, or even a treaty. It's an executive agreement and so therefore the 1st amendment may not apply.

Re:It's not a law, or even a treaty

[Doctor_Jest]

It always applies. This simply does an 'end the round' to try and lock it in the courts while they violate rights... by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, it has already had the intended effect... and they can dismiss the order and not care. :)

And I am SO GODDAMNED tired of hearing the word "steal" when these assholes talk about infringement. Fuck off and die, MPAA/RIAA.

Re:It's not a law, or even a treaty

[hedwards]

The President lacks the authority to do such a thing. Executive Orders are limited to things which the Executive Branch can do. While the President has in the past been given great leeway, he does still have to keep it within his powers. Meaning that he can issue an order that institutes a dress code for officials and prevent the CIA from assassinating foreign officials, but he can't order the DoJ to block websites as that requires a court order and executive orders don't extend beyond the Executive Branch.

Is this a joke

[h4rr4r]

His name is Pisano? Next I will hear his middle name is Guido. The MPAA is like the MAFIA jokes are starting to look rather realistic.

Re:Is this a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

'tis MAFIAA: Music And Film Industry Associations of America.

Burden of proof

[Mistakill]

i wonder how the RIAA would feel if i accused them of say, IP infringement on some code id written, and had their site shut down (note, theyd be shutdown, whether or not i had written such code), it just takes an accusation, as the RIAA requires no burden of proof

note to the RIAA... this is a big part of the reason people hate you

Counter

[peacefinder]

Copyright law was not intended as a shield for those who censor, irrespective of the motive.

Re:Counter

[EasyTarget]

Thankyou; of all the arguments against copyright; this is by far the most succinct I have ever heard.

som what you're saying is...

[Anonymous Coward]

that in communist china, the state supports free speech?

Re:som what you're saying is...

[interval1066]

You need to follow the link. Wen said that free speech was important. When Chinese official media distributed his interview, however, his words were removed from the loop. His speech was "harmonized" by the state media outlets. Talk about irony...

Re:som what you're saying is...

[ScrewMaster]

You need to follow the link. Wen said that free speech was important. When Chinese official media distributed his interview, however, his words were removed from the loop. His speech was "harmonized" by the state media outlets. Talk about irony...

"Harmonized." Whenever I hear that word being applied to laws, potential laws, or treaties I just cringe. What it really means is that something good is about to be overridden.

Mod Parent Informative

[Sylak]

I'm not quite sure why, but it appearers that according to some moderator pointing out a problem with the summary is Offtopic. A better Mod please fix this

Re:Mod Parent Informative

[itsenrique]

Seconded.

I have an idea...internet...bla,bla,bla

[greenmean11]

Why is it that the government is always trying to take away our freedoms? Its so hypocritical of them, I mean why can they use Guantanamo Bay as a loop hole for freedom? And if they censor the internet whats next? Listening in on our phone conversations......(whispers).....O, they already do that? Invading personal freedom when traveling......(whispers)...O they already do that? Well what don't they do? If someone were to really try you could probably find a loophole for all the amendments, but just like excuses, just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should. The only thing I kind of understand with the whole internet censorship thing is censoring some foreign website because of internet viruses they could make, but even so, people living in the U.S. could make viruses too, there are dicks all over the world. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think anyone should censor the internet because it is our one very free medium.

Re:I have an idea...internet...bla,bla,bla

[Shark]

For many of those, there aren't even any loopholes... They just ignore the law. Taking them to court for that seems fairly futile too, they appoint the judges.

You think WHAT????!!!???

[rewt66]

You think that an "executive agreement" both:
- has legal force, and
- is exempt from the first amendment?

Tell me your kidding.

More to the point, tell me that the Supreme Court does not agree with you...

Boycott

[digitalPhant0m]

That's it. I'm boycotting COICA Cola

So, so angry, so helpless

[Anonymous Coward]

So. Fucked. Up. I see this going two ways if it gets passed... either Americans continue to take it deeper in the ass, a la airports, or heads will be rolling, a la French Revolution, and this guy is on the list.

Big Tobacco also..

[ewhenn]

Big Tobacco also dismissed that nicotine was not addictive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs).

Does it really surprise you that mega-greed industry representatives will lie through their teeth to try and rake in more profits? Yeah, go after individual files and links, that's fine, but to think that taking and entire site offline, won't at some point violate someones free speech is embarrassingly full of shit.

Re:Big Tobacco also..

[mug funky]

actually, big tobacco don't particularly care.

therapeutic nicotine is still made from tobacco, costs a lot and can be advertised with impunity. they're riding the "let's quit" gravy train.

Trying to shut down a distro channel.

[MarkvW]

The movie people will have a hard time squaring this with the First Amendment.

You can't shut down a speaker in the future for unlawful speech acts committed in the past--unless you convict the speaker of a crime. Even then, the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause imposes limitations. This idea comes from Nesson's (self-promoting) arguments in the Tenenbaum case.

You also can't have speech laws that selectively target movies and music.

If I was a file sharer, I would add a meaningful political message (relating to reform of the copyright laws, maybe) to every single file I shared. Let the fascist SOBs try to shut me down in total, after that.

I've got no sympathies for people who share pirated material, but I have less sympathy for corporations who want to shut down ALL file sharing (including legal sharing).

Don't forget that some of our best antitrust cases resulted from the movie studios' attempts to tightly control their product--all the way from film studio to local movie house. Those pricks would dominate all distro channels in a heartbeat unless government regulation keeps them from it.

 

Re:Trying to shut down a distro channel.

[cyber-dragon.net]

They do it anyway via shell corporations and off-shore holdings.

No, it's Off-Topic

[mister_playboy]

I know grammar/spelling/composition critique is a time-honored /. pastime, but I definitely consider all such posts categorically off-topic. Boring at best, and a premeditated attempt to derail discussion with minutiae at worst.

Re:No, it's Off-Topic

[tehcyder]

I know grammar/spelling/composition critique is a time-honored /. pastime, but I definitely consider all such posts categorically off-topic. Boring at best, and a premeditated attempt to derail discussion with minutiae at worst.

But when you reach the point where a summary/article/post becomes ambiguous, incoherent or just plain wrong it is entirely reasonable to question it.

If you're reading a simple sentence and you have to go over it a couple of times to work out what the author was intending to say, that is simply rude. Also, it undermines whatever point the author was trying to make, as it destroys confidence in the writer.

Congressmen and the Constitution

[NonSenseAgency]

'...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.' Let us try this again...the First Amendment makes no mention of stealing or being a shield for those who steal. It is quite simple really, CONGRESS (emphasis mine) shall make no law....the rest is pretty straightforward. I would venture that the honourable Congressman Leahy needs to be recalled by his constituents since he obviously has NO clue as to the meaning of the Constitution and therefore cannot be entrusted to represent the great state of Delaware adequately. As for Mr Pisano, well look here the pot is calling the kettle black.....

Re:Congressmen and the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

by that logic we'll have to remove almost all of them

Re:Congressmen and the Constitution

[PotatoFiend]

Leahy is a Senator for Vermont, not Delaware. That said, this fact seems incongruous with his rather extreme position on this issue -- I thought Vermont had a history of fair-mindedness.

To be fair to the MPAA...

[nick_davison]

No one likes a COICA blocker.

The MPAA is stealing my rights. Shut it down.

[Rivalz]

Dear Supreme Court,

Based upon the willful actions of the MPAA they have stolen my rights away.
I respectfully request that a immediate injunction is placed on their website, lawyers, and letterhead.
I furthermore request that all assets and IP be transferred to me from hence forth to compensate for damages suffered upon my intangible asset of known as rights.
I also request compensatory damages in the amount of 25 trillion dollars be paid to FRAA to be distributed to each of the 310 million American Citizens at a rate of 79,000 per infringement ( based on the tenabaum case of 79k per song infringement awarded. )

Sincerly,
FRAA
Free Rights Association of America

Re:The MPAA is stealing my rights. Shut it down.

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's "Faithfully" when you don't know the name of the person you're writing to.

"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[macraig]

I think what is really needed is legislation that outlaws this sort of attempted perversion of the words "theft" and "stealing".

Once we've put a stop to that perversion, the rest of Big Media's FUD campaigns will abruptly end. Since digital media by its very nature can be replicated endlessly with virtually no material cost, exactly what is being "stolen" here? NOTHING! Sure, packaging has material costs, but the "pirates" (infringers) aren't getting that packaging, are they? The cost of producing the "art" contained in the digital file was incurred ONCE, and the expectation of recouping those expenses is SPECULATIVE; the price of the packaging is a guesstimate, based on a hoped sales volume to result in some net profit. What if simply no one actually buys the package, even in the absence of "piracy"? There would have been no "theft" by this perverted definition, yet they still lose their shirts and don't get the desired profit. There's not a shred of certainty that denying people the ability to copy digital media will guarantee an equivalent increase in actual PACKAGING sales, so that argument is also FUD.

Bender says...

[mmaniaci]

"We're DOOOOOoooooooooooooomed!"

Re:FIrst post!

[X0563511]

You didn't even manage first fail. ... you also for got that important little checkbox...

MAFIAA?

[baKanale]

Pisano? Sounds like paisano to me! They really are the MAFIAA!

Look at this another way. No More Sampling.

[bigdogpete]

Should this become law (which I highly doubt) at least we will be able to shut down every artist webpage that has "sampled" another artists music.Oh wait that is alot of artists. Be careful what you say MPAA "...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means".

Re:Look at this another way. No More Sampling.

[tuxedobob]

Amen Break, anyone?

Steal doesn't apply to imaginary things

[noidentity]

"the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means."

And steal was not intended to describe theft of imaginary things.

Well, if it isn't apparent to you by now...

[Anonymous Coward]

that MPAA/RIAA and their lawyers are a bunch of sociopaths, then you're in need of a whack with a clue stick...

yea no

[Charliemopps]

"MPAA chief Bob Pisano dismissed the First Amendment issues, saying '...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'""

The first amendment was intended to protect the speech of all US citizens, weather criminals or not. Even Criminals still retain their first amendment rights. I would argue however that Lobbying groups and large corporations are NOT US citizens and the idea that free speech extends to them is an abomination. The American people need to rise up and demand reform. We no longer need the likes of Mr. Pisano bribing our elected officials with millions of dollars to get his agenda passed into law.

Stealing?

[cheekyjohnson]

What are they stealing? Certainly not the product itself, as they're merely copying that and depriving no one of it. Merely having the product itself, then, is irrelevant.

He must mean "potential profit," then. For one thing, basic logic states that for you to be able to steal something, it must first exist (potential profit doesn't exist). Second of all, if it was possible to steal potential profit, everyone in existence would be 'guilty' of doing so. You 'steal' potential profit merely by choosing not to give someone your money for whatever reason or by interfering with someones flow of profits. This effectively means that not buying a product from a store, for example, means that you 'stole' potential profit from the store. The store would have had more money if you would have given it to them and therefore would have been better off, which means, like a 'pirate' apparently does to artists (going by their logic), you have 'harmed' a legitimate business, and as such, people.

Artificial scarcity is bad. Don't blame the 'pirates' (who aren't taking anything or harming anyone) for a system that has been broken since the beginning, as this is merely putting the blame on someone who has nothing to do with it. You might as well blame everyone in existence. Instead, try to fix this broken system. But we all know that won't happen, as that would interfere with their flow of profits.

Also, they never described how (going by their logic, of course) websites that merely talk positively about 'piracy' (but don't contain any torrents or copyrighted materials) are 'stealing'. Funny, that.

Re:Stealing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Big corporations have for the past decades sought to (and successfully so) make very ideas and thought "property" in the same way material goods are. It have sneaked in upon us by first "mending" copyright into patents gradually. First whole computer systems were patented, then parts (programs), then algorithms, then ideas for algorithms then ideas in general. as wierd_w states below, this have been done by scared politicians to secure a future revenue for a country that are loosing its revenues on other markets.

There is nothing wrong with persecuting "pirates" they fringe copyright and as such have always been eligible for persecution. And yes a digital copy of someones copyrighted material is just as bad as physical copy of someones copyrighted material. Photocopying a book is the same law in effect.

What they are trying to do however is making the idea forbidden. In effect reversely make the photocopier forbidden for being able to produce copies of copyrighted materials. Loosing that battle (Or at least they got a longer fight on their hands than they first thought trying to ban the internet) they have started to persecute anyone who talks about "photocopiers". This have followed an already lost battle fighting "photocopier producers" and "salesmen".

Re:Stealing?

[cheekyjohnson]

There is nothing wrong with persecuting "pirates" they fringe copyright and as such have always been eligible for persecution.

What the law says does not matter in regards to what is perceived to be 'right' and 'wrong'. The law has nothing to do with that. The law has been used to persecute and harass innocents before, just like it is being used to do now.

There is something wrong with persecuting persecuting pirates because they haven't really harmed anyone. As I explained above, this is entirely the fault of a broken system. If artists suffer merely because people aren't giving them money (but also not taking anything from them), which is a category that nearly everyone fits into, and they must likely introduce artificial scarcity in order to 'secure' future revenue, then the system that they live in is fundamentally broken. They put the blame on people who in reality have hurt no one instead of the system itself.

Unless I misunderstood something. In which case, I apologize.

Why not turn it around?

[Old time hacker]

If legislation is passed that requires websites to be shutdown based on copyright infringement accusations, then I doubt that any of the RIAA member companies websites would last for long. They use a vast amount of copyrighted material all the way from the music that they think they have rights to (but what about all the samples used) down to the individual icons used on a web page, and the javascript to control the cheesy animations. If *any* one of these is used without permission, then it is a copyright violation.

I know websites that have ripped off my work (though I normally grant free permission if they ask in advance).

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Validate argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Bob's points are accurate, theft is theft. However, in this particular circumstance the prevention of the commission of a crime inhibits the freedom of all internet users (or at least has the potential). In this instance, it is prudent and correct to err on the side of freedom. In my view, no web site should be blocked by a government agency of any form. Ever. Period. If the site distributes material illegally, this is another matter, and the site owner should be subject to prosecution, but the site should never be blocked.

Politicians have a terrible habit of solving the wrong problem. They lack critical thinking skills in many instances and this often causes them to incorrectly define the problem.

What I want to ask the MPAA is this...

[jonwil]

What I want to ask the MPAA is:
"Copyright law has existed since long before the movie industry even existed and has always contained clear guidelines for what you do if you believe someone has copied your copyrighted works without your permission. What does the MPAA believe is wrong with the existing law and why do they think new laws are required?"

Obligatory Star Wars Quote.

[crhylove]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Seriously though, this is EXACTLY why all traffic on the internet should already be onion routed, encrypted, and otherwise anonymized and secure.

Fuck the US government, and fuck the other totalitarian regimes that are as bad or worse (I'm looking at YOU, China!). And also fuck the corporations that own and operate said puppet governments.

This law will pass.

[wierd_w]

Here is why:

1) The democratic congress is a lame duck congress. They are looking for new jobs. They have nothing to lose, and the senate is still democrat controlled.
2) The democratic party has a long standing unspoken agreement with the entertainment industry. (Much like the GOP has a similar agreement with big oil, and big biz.)
3) The incumbant congress wont pass up on the windfall that this gives them; With one side of their mouth, they would state that they would never propose such legislation, with the other they will happily enforce and use said legislation. Such action has been the de-facto norm for at least 2 decades now.
4) The supreme court will bend over backwards to support this measure, and pull the constitution through a knothole backwards to make it fit, for similar interest reasons.
5) The government in general LIKES the idea of draconian IP protection, BECAUSE it makes an end-run around that nasty first amendment; AND because the US has pretty much NO real tangible goods exports in the world market other than food stuffs (which as the 2nd world rises to prominence, is becoming less and less profitable.), and as such, it sees the handwriting on the wall if it doesnt take drastic measures to keep a firm grip on the reigns of invention and ideas. "IP" and "Patents" are just about the only profitable things left in the US, and they go bye-bye if corporations leave. The corporations use this fact to control the US government. This is what it means by "Too big to fail."-- it means that the government cannot afford to have them go under, because if they did, the government wouldnt have anything to replace the income/bargaining power in the world market with.

Thus, even if this bill is shot down, it will be reintroduced silently as a rider, and passed later.

The ONLY way to make this bill NEVER pass, is if a French Revolution-style mob descended upon Hollywood, while simultaneously, on the other side of the country, another angry mob did the same in DC. The people have no power in this matter; they have delegated it to government, and government is complicit in the crime. You cannot expect to get justice from a corrupt constabulary. That leaves ONLY vigilante-ism.

As the founding fathers demonstrated, the intrinsic power of the people, is the power of the people to revolt. That's the reason for the second amendment, and the reason for much of the rhetoric of Jefferson and Co. in the federalist papers. Voting is a proxy for that power, to channel it into a less destructive force for change in government. However, when voting has been rendered useless, the only recourse left is violence.

So, unless you think you can organize such a revolt, (or even a passive one, ghandi-style,) this bill will pass, the MAFIAA *WILL* get what it wants, and we WILL get bent over the barrel by both them AND our government, and we will be ridden, and ridden, and ridden.

[Note: For those that think that violence never solves anything, Tell me-- what power do you think you as a voter have over a lame-duck congress, which is demonstrating that it doesn't care about your interests? They are going out the door anyway, and your vote does not have the power to put them in jail, or to stop them in any way.]

Welcome to the USA-- Where everyone is equal, but some 'persons' are more equal than others.

Re:This law will pass.

[Dhalka226]

I can appreciate the cynacism, but in this case I just don't see any insight behind it.

2) The democratic party has a long standing unspoken agreement with the entertainment industry.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories aside, the Democrats will support such a bill. So will the Republicans. Just as an example, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was passed in the Republican Senate by a margin of... there was no margin. It was passed by a voice vote with unanimous consent. It was passed in the House on the very same day, again by a voice vote. A few minutes of digging didn't turn up the margin there, but if they didn't even think it was worth debating enough to show up you can bet it was substantial if not also unanimous.

The Democrats are cozy with the entertainment industry as the entertainment industry. The Republicans are cozy with them as a big business where money can be made.

Which brings me back to...

The democratic congress is a lame duck congress. They are looking for new jobs. They have nothing to lose, and the senate is still democrat controlled.

So what? Not only does control not matter one lick, but neither does it being a lame duck session. A lame duck session only matters when either 1) somebody who couldn't have supported it for fear of backlash now can or 2) when this Congress would pass it and the other wouldn't.

The bill will suffer no lack of support from either side. Painting it as some sort of democratic conspiracy just makes you look like a twat.

The supreme court will bend over backwards to support this measure, and pull the constitution through a knothole backwards to make it fit, for similar interest reasons.

If you're accusing the Supreme Court of corruption I think you'd better offer something more concrete than "similar interest reasons." The entire setup of the Supreme Court was to avoid politics and influence peddling. That's not to say it fully succeeded, but the burden of proof is clearly on you and all you've offered by way of evidence is some sort of backward tie-in to a corrupt democratic conspiracy to exploit a lame duck congress to satisfy interests they're in bed with on behalf of members no longer employed in Congress. That's pretty fucking out there, even for conspiracy theories.

It might pass the Supreme Court, it might not. I honestly don't know; this is where I have the most hope of it being stopped. Still, the Court leans conservative and conservatives tend to let Congress have their way.

For what it's worth, I mostly agree with you about #5; the reason the US pushes so hard for IP protection is because things related to IP are pretty much our only exports at this point.

But again you take it too far. According to you, we're to simultaneously believe that the US economy would collapse if bills like this were not allowed to pass (something I can actually get somewhat on board with) -- and yet that it is the improper thing for the Congress to do and thus we should send angry mobs to Washington (and Hollywood though I fail to see why) and go vigilante-style and guillotine some bitches until we get a government more to our liking, that will acquiesce and allow the economy to collapse. And you present that as the responsible course of action.

Yes, this bill will pass -- overwhelmingly. We will get "ridden, and ridden, and ridden" to the tune of IP laws actually getting enforced. And all we'll have to show for defeating these IP-related bills is an economy not plunged into something that makes the Great Depression look cozy. Woe is us.

This particular bill may be a horrible idea. Enforcing IP protection is not. If Congress is only going to understand half of that, I'm glad it's the latter. The reality is it will probably pass and actions that will simply under the label of censorship will probably be slapped down by the courts while Slashdot gets an extra few years of income from stories about how evil people protecting movies and music are.

Eh, I'll take it.

Re:This law will pass.

[wierd_w]

The option for applied violence was tendered, not as the recommended course of action, but to be informative that it was the ONLY way to prevent the legislation, for those individuals that would find keeping their rights preferable to having food on the table. (the latter outcome I think we both well explained.) It was not intended as a rallying cry, but instead as a matter-of-fact pronouncement.

The "lame duck" issue does hold relevence, as right now the new congress-elect will be under heavy scrutiny, having been elected under very noteworthy conditions in terms of voter confidence in their predecessors. Further, the new crowd has a liberal spattering of untested politicians that ran under the teaparty banner. We could contest how important that might be later, but the possibility that these new congress critters might actually oppose this kind of legislation needs to be considered. It is possible, if somewhat dubious to assert, that the new congress would strongly debate and derail such legislation. (at least at first anyway.) That is why I think it is being tried now, in the lame duck congress.

I agree that IP protection is vital to the continued economic prosperity of our nation, however, I disagree that giving the entertainment industry carte-blanc is the best solution; Look what it did to the banking industry, when they permitted deregulation.

Re:This law will pass.

[cheekyjohnson]

"Enforcing IP protection is not."

I beg to differ. It's a waste of time and an illogical 'solution'. 'Pirates', as they call them, are merely symptoms of an already broken system. In actuality, they are not depriving anyone of anything (unless you think potential profit exists, but basic logic disagrees with that notion) or harming them. The solution is not to go after people who have done nothing wrong for personal gain, but to come up with a system that actually works. What is that system? I don't actually know, but that does not change the fact that the current one is terrible.

Er, yes it was

[scurvyj]

'...the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.'

Bnnnnarrrrrrp!

Wrong.

Its purpose is universal protection, buddy. What it doesn't apply to is your profit margins and fat lard ass.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[AcidPenguin9873]

The cost of producing the "art" contained in the digital file was incurred ONCE, and the expectation of recouping those expenses is SPECULATIVE;

This is exactly right, but you failed to take it two steps further and find negative consequences of free copying that no one on Slashdot will ever agree to. If musicians find that they always lose in their speculation that enough people will pay for their art to cover the one-time cost of producing it - due to everyone copying it for $0 and not paying them - then they will stop bothering to speculate at all and they will have to go do something else to make money. And society loses by losing an artist. And investors will stop investing money in an industry that can't make money, and even more artists will be without a means to produce their art.

Slashdot says that people will still make music/write books/make films/write software "for the love of it". I think that's a load of crap, and if peoples' monetary needs are not being met, then they have to devote most of their time and energy into some other means of making money. I'm sure some people would still make art for the love of it, but I don't think that model is good enough. Feel free to disagree with me there, but that's where the argument always dead-ends.

Slashdot also likes to invoke Shakespearean times when playwrights wrote plays for fun and writers wrote for fun and painters painted for fun. Actually they made money by being hired by wealthy people and organizations (like churches) that would commission them to create art for themselves, and the general public didn't really have much access to it. I don't think that's good enough either.

Wrong amendment

[russotto]

Of course the First Amendment isn't meant as a shield for those who steal. That's what the FOURTH amendment is for, with those pesky search and seizure provisions. The First Amendment is meant as a shield for those who infringe copyright.

How do we fight copyright infringement?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have this one question, how do we prevent these foreign websites from infringing the copyright of our companies? What is the legal process?

I mean, a website like fileserve.com is hosting millions of files that have american companies copyright. Hardly any file there doesn't infringe some copyright. How do we shut this website down, or at least how do we prevent american citizens from accessing it? Most people on Slashdot defend the copyright law, so what are the solutions for this issue?

The funny thing on Slashdot is that I still haven't found people telling about an alternative solution, I mean, a better solution than what the MPAA suggests.

Re:How do we fight copyright infringement?

[cheekyjohnson]

"The funny thing on Slashdot is that I still haven't found people telling about an alternative solution, I mean, a better solution than what the MPAA suggests."

So because people haven't given an alternate solution, that means we should enact this freedom-violating garbage for the sake of there being no other suggested solution even though it's clearly a terrible idea? The solution is to come up with a logical business model, not blame people who don't harm anyone or take anything for our current systems failures. Here's my original post on this, as I don't feel like posting it again.

We knew the MPAA doesn't understand.

[Chas]

They refuse the validity of any laws they didn't write themselves.

As such, the 1st Amendment is meaningless to them.

Especially since they feel free to define anything except forking over your life savings to them for merely existing in the same universe as their product as "theft".

The **AA has our best interests at heart

[erroneus]

They have more than enough of our money already and they know it. Look at how easily they spend it on lawyers and politicians! They have recognized long ago what we are all failing to see. Our society has become addicted to media. It enables us to shut down our brains which is not such a good thing. So many of us are unable to enjoy the simple things in life. We cannot even laugh at something funny without a laugh track to tell us when we should laugh.

And it's not as if we don't have a clue already. We have been saying for a very long time, "it's a bad business model to sue your customers." And that's true. And they are quite aware of it. But what's more, they have learned that it doesn't work to discourage us from being their customers either -- we are still giving them our money at a rather high rate. So now they are seeking to cut us off from having access to their stuff.

Here's what I'm getting at:

They see that the public has a dangerous addiction to media. They see the damage it causes to us as individuals and what it has done to society as a whole. It's really very bad. Someone has to stop the cycle. Suing the customer is only a part of the plan to break our addiction. The next step is blocking us from feeding our addiction. Following that will be an intervention by means of the FBI breaking in our doors and hauling us off to jail.

I think we have all misunderstood the motives and intentions of the **AA. Isn't it about time we all got the message and broke our addictions to their stuff? Clearly, it's what they want. Clearly, it's what we need.

I want testimony

[fishbowl]

I want to hear his sworn testimony accusing a party to a copyright case of anything legally defined as "theft."

 

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[macraig]

Musicians don't "lose". No one has ever actually PROVEN that so-called piracy affects sales. What the **AA have claimed as proof isn't proof at all... it's FUD. There is of course credible evidence that hints that even the exact opposite may in fact be true: that piracy is an unintuitive form of free advertising that has actually been increasing sales... or WOULD BE if they had been selling the art in a fashion that people now want. It's possible that without the extra exposure that piracy engendered the allegedly shocking sales loses might have been much worse. For instance, you and I both know that the majority of music buyers would ALWAYS have chosen to skip albums and choose the specific music they wanted, just as they would have eagerly chosen individual cable TV channels rather than the "bundles" they were offered, both in take-it-or-leave-it fashion.

Why didn't they demand those things earlier? They didn't know they had a choice. Now they DO. Well, at least with music.

Hey Jackass

[WillyWanker]

And copyright law was never intended to be used by billion-dollar corporate entities for extortion against ordinary citizens. Nor to bankrupt them with million dollar judgments. But you do it anyway. Hypocrisy much?

He also needs a primer in the difference between "stealing" (a criminal offense) and "copyright infringement" (a civil offense). But what do you expect, he's the chief of the MPAA. Clearly not a job that requires any kind of intelligence.

While the MPAA are on the topic of original intent

[UnCivil Liberty]

Someone should bring copyright in to the conversation - the whole limited time (14 years in the first bill) "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" bit seems to have been forgotten.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[JesseMcDonald]

And society loses by losing an artist.

No disrespect intended to artists, but (largely due to copyright) we already have far more "art" than we need—quite a bit of which barely qualifies as mediocre entertainment just a way to stave off boredom for a while. Certainly the end of copyright would lead to fewer artists, full-time or part-time. Those who remain will do so because (a) they want to, regardless of the degree of compensation; or (b) because they are good enough to attract the notice of individuals or organizations both desiring the creation of original work and having the means to pay for its production; old-fashioned patronage, essentially, but to membership- or donation-based groups (e.g. cultural societies, endowments for the arts, private libraries, fan clubs) rather than just a few wealthy individuals. I imagine (b) would be the dominant factor, but one need only look to sites like Magnatune and Jamendo to see that free distribution of copies is not an impediment to creativity.

Copying is not stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep saying stealing, when they mean to say copying. There is a huge difference. The later implies scarcity.

Blackhole the "content providers"

[grapeape]

If it comes down to blanket censorship of websites simply to cater to the MPAA and RIAA why not respond in kind by black holing the content providers no one is required to forward DNS...if they want to make sure no one can get their content...we might as well assist in making that happen.

Yes it was!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first off, as many have said, copyright infringement is not theft. But secondly..

".the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means."
          Yes it surely was intended that way, it is a guarantee that EVERYONE has an unrestricted freedom of speech. The framers of the Bill of Rights wanted to avoid the situation they had under the British, where some of them were considered criminals just for speaking and writing. If you start saying "well, OK, except for these cases where freedom of speech is NOT respected", well... hell.. even in East Germany or under Stalin one could say "Well, you can say whatever you want as long as the powers that be don't disapprove.", you end up being under the same situation here then.

          Laws already exist that allow the pigopolists to take down copyright-infringing content ("pigopolist" is the term the Register www.theregister.co.uk uses for the MPAA and RIAA, since they tend to use their monopoly status to line their own pockets while not paying the actual artists). As copyright infringement is a civil matter, if there are sites that deal almost exclusively in content that violates their copyright then via due process, they can be effectively shuttered via the court system. Therefore a law such as COICA (which presumably allows an entire site to be shuttered without due process) is deeply inappropriate and is not only a violation of the First amendment, but even worse while violating the First Amendment it doesn't actually gain anything compared to the preset status quo, even for the pigopolists.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[AcidPenguin9873]

No one has ever actually PROVEN that so-called piracy affects sales.

That's true. No one can prove anything about piracy because data is hard to come by, and even if someone got good data about it, no one really knows if a person that downloaded something for $0 would have bought it otherwise. This is the fundamental problem anytime anyone makes any claims about piracy affecting sales.

But I didn't make that argument - instead I made a theoretical microeconomic argument on why piracy is bad. The theory may not even come true - and I hope it doesn't and I don't really think it will, honestly - but it doesn't have to to make my point. But people just keep making excuses and justifying piracy and refusing to acknowledge that it can be harmful.

There is of course credible evidence that hints that even the exact opposite may in fact be true: that piracy is an unintuitive form of free advertising that has actually been increasing sales...

That may certainly be true, but the decision to give away music for promotion lies (or, rather, should lie) with the copyright holder, not with random people who want to get things for $0. If groups are successful using that as a promotional tool and making money from other things like concerts, then maybe more groups will start doing it, and great, more free music for everyone.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[macraig]

... no one really knows if a person that downloaded something for $0 would have bought it otherwise. This is the fundamental problem anytime anyone makes any claims about piracy affecting sales.

Yet Big Media claims to KNOW, and you give THEM the benefit of the doubt. What's your bias?

But people just keep making excuses and justifying piracy and refusing to acknowledge that it can be harmful.

Conversely, very rich and influential people - who happen to have our country's vice president in their back pocket - keep making excuses and vilifying "piracy" and insisting that it is harmful... when they have no objective proof at all. What's your bias?

That may certainly be true, but the decision to give away music for promotion lies (or, rather, should lie) with the copyright holder, not with random people who want to get things for $0.

It should be MY right to pay for only the minutes I use; it should be MY right to only pay for the specific music I want to hear; it should be MY right to only pay for the TV channels I actually value. I had those rights very deliberately taken away from me by greedy people to serve their selfish interest. What goes around comes around. What's your bias?

Then that means...

[Anonymous Coward]

The EFF is now in FAVOR of "COICA Interruptus"?

What's next, pRIAAmature ejaculation?

A major constituional issue

[Anonymous Coward]

What the MPAA is asserting is that the corporate "right" to protect their intellectual property, which is not in the constitution, trumps the right to free speech , which IS in the constitution. Corporations are outgrowing their usefulness. The original reason for allowing corporations at all was to limit the liability of the investors in order to encourage them to invest their money. For example - if I buy stock in BP, and they kill a bunch of people on an oil rig by neglecting safety regulations, then I as a stockholder can't be arrested for murder.

But here's an idea - maybe the whole concept of incorporation has long outlived its usefulness to society. Given that corporations now pretty much bribe our legislators at will, and have far more influence than citizens are given, added to their manifest irresponsibility on safety and environmental issues, and now their insistence that their imaginary property rights trump citizens rights, maybe its time to do away with the whole concept of incorporation.

By this I mean, stop limiting the liability of investors for the behavior of the companies that they invest in - for example, if you own 0.01% of BP stock, you personally would have to kick in 0.01% of the $20Billion damages they incurred. If BP commits what amounts to murder through negligence, ALL the stockholders spend some time in jail.

This would clean up corporate behavior pretty DARN quick, I'm thinkin.....

Infringement is not theft!!!

[xenobyte]

How many times do we need to repeat it before the morons at MPAA (and RIAA probably) understands this?!?!

Re:Infringement is not theft!!!

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, since profit is on the line for them, it's no surprise that they purposely continue to cling to this inaccuracy. So, probably as many times as is needed for the indoctrinated drones known as the general public finally understand that nothing is being stolen.

Why do we still talk to the MPAA?

[Letharion]

The MPAA(and RIAA) exist for a single purpose. Being the media Mafia. If they were to one day wake up with a conscience, they'd also be without a job. MPAA is just the front that gets to take the betting, and we should really focus more attention on those who fund the MPAA/RIAA. Universal, Sony, EMI, Warner and friends. If _they_ decided that respecting their customers mattered, MPAA would be gone overnight.

Re:Mr. Bob, -- back at you

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear mr MyFirstNameIsPaul,

    Every well-thinking human-being can see that the so-called "fair use" excuse is simply a case of rebellion, which gives us, by that first amendment you quoted, the right to do whatever we please to protect the "public safety".

Sincerely,
MPAA :-) A fitting captcha : "prohibit".

Copyright vs. free speech?

[portnux]

Others might say that our founding fathers never intended for copyrights to be a vehicle for supressing the freedom of speech. But WTF did they know?

Stealing what, the interwebs ?

[N1ckR]

Okay, so what does the MPAA think is being stolen ? Where I come from stealing and theft requires the taking of property without the owners permission. Copyright infringements and counterfeits have never been a kind of theft.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[AcidPenguin9873]

It should be MY right to pay for only the minutes I use; it should be MY right to only pay for the specific music I want to hear; it should be MY right to only pay for the TV channels I actually value. I had those rights very deliberately taken away from me by greedy people to serve their selfish interest.

Those are not rights.

What's your bias?

I work in an industry - software - where the same thing is going on.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[hedwards]

Unfortunately, lying is protected free speech under most circumstances. Unless it crosses the line into fraud it's perfectly legal. Which is why you haven't seen any of the Republicans sued or imprisoned for lying about the death panels that were allegedly included in drafts of the healthcare legislation.

Correction to summary:

[GameboyRMH]

"The EFF has gone into detail about why it opposes 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,' or COICA.

Should be:

"The EFF has made a very TL;DR friendly post on why it opposes 'The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act,' or COICA, which is short enough to copy into the summary, but we'll make you follow the link instead.

First Amendment?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

What part of the following mentions "stealing" in any manner?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" does this MPAA shill not understand? Is he illiterate, or just unfortunate enough to have a brain composed primarily of brown matter?

Re:Counter (clarification)

[peacefinder]

It's amazing how much fun can be had just by turning pithy arguments inside-out. :-)

Note that I'm not against copyright, but against the abuse of copyright. That is, i think Lessig has it right.

Re:Counter (clarification)

[EasyTarget]

:-) and I'm with you on the importance of copyright; it's the abuse of it that annoys me too.

Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

the First Amendment was not intended as a shield for those who steal, irrespective of the means.
 
No, it's an inalienable right, which means that it can't be trampled on by a random gang of professional idiots like the MPAA.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[mcgrew]

I think what is really needed is legislation that outlaws this sort of attempted perversion of the words "theft" and "stealing".

The trouble is, freedom of speech protects their freedom to lie. His bullshit needs protection far more than reasoned discussion does.

Fight speech with speech, just make sure your rounds are higher caliber.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[mcgrew]

Boy am I tired of refuting these bald faced lies. Forgive me if you've only swallowed them.

If musicians find that they always lose in their speculation that enough people will pay for their art to cover the one-time cost of producing it - due to everyone copying it for $0 and not paying them

That's a complete and utter fallacy that's been disproved time and time again. Studies have shown the "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates. A study done by a book publisher to find out how much revenue he was losing to piracy showed that rather than a drop in sales after the books hit the net, there was a sales spike.

Rather than costing the industry money, it's making money for them.

Nobody has ever lost money to noncommercial piracy, but many artists have had to find different carrers because of obscurity. The RIAA artists have radio and want the internet gone because their competetion, indie bands, don't have radio and rely on the internet.

Here's how piracy hurts the RIAA label: Pirate DLs RIAA Band A and Indie Band B. He has a $20 budget for music. Ban A's music is stale, commercial, and uninspired while Ban B's music is fresh, exciting, different, and listenable. Who is Mr Pirate going to spend his music budget on?

Piracy only hurts artists that suck. Quality always sells.

Now stop spreading the MAFIAA's bullshit. You now know better, any more posts from you saying "if you can get it for free you won't buy it" can only be trolling. So please stop it.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[AcidPenguin9873]

That's a complete and utter fallacy that's been disproved time and time again. Studies have shown the "pirates" spend more money on music than non-pirates.

I hate to do this, but you need to cite these studies and their funding/sources, because there are similar studies funded by the MAFIAA (that you will immediately discount due to their funding) which show the opposite.

The RIAA artists have radio and want the internet gone because their competetion, indie bands, don't have radio and rely on the internet.

Agree completely.

Who is Mr Pirate going to spend his music budget on?

Neither, in your scenario. He just downloaded the indie band's music for free - he's not going to pay them for another identical copy of it. Maybe he'll donate to them out of a sense of charity, I don't know. Is that the point you're making - that people will download music for free and then if they like it, they will donate? I think charity is nice too, but it's not a good business model.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[mcgrew]

Linky; Google failed me when I tried to find the study the book publisher commissioned.

Neither, in your scenario. He just downloaded the indie band's music for free - he's not going to pay them for another identical copy of it.

Maybe, maybe not. He still has his twenty bucks and he still loves music and he's still going to spend money on it. If he's one of the younger "I don't need no stinkin' CD" folks maybe not, but he's listened to Indie Band and likes it, and he'll be buying the next one.

As to RIAA music, just tune to a top 40 station and sample it for three hours, you'll have all the latest pop music with a a lot less effor than trying to download it from edonkey or morpheus, where you're liable to get bad rips, incomplete files, etc.

Of course, they said first that radio would kill the recording industry, then they said cassettes would kill the industry. Why in the world do you lend credence to anything they say whatever?

I can get a book from the library as easy as I can get one from the bookstore, and it's free, but for some strange reason I have shelves and shelves of books I've bought.

And Explain KSHE's "7th Day" show.

Re:"Theft"? "Stealing"? No.

[cheekyjohnson]

But people just keep making excuses and justifying piracy and refusing to acknowledge that it can be harmful.

By definition it can't be considered harmful because they're not actually interacting with the artist in any way (as in, the artist hasn't been deprived of anything). I don't care if piracy does affect sales, saying it's 'wrong' is like saying that telling your friends who were originally going to buy a product not to buy it (and they decide not to) is wrong. After all, it could 'hurt' sales.

Besides that, don't you think a system that blames people who do no harm in the first place for the woes of artists, and practically forces said artists to introduce artificial scarcity, is flawed? Blaming people who in reality haven't deprived anyone of anything or hurt anyone instead of the system that is fundamentally broken is illogical. All of this effort should be going into making a system that isn't completely broken (that may be difficult, but in the end, it would be worth it), not trying to introduce artificial scarcity and blaming everyone in existence for the shortcomings of said system.