Congress Declares War on File Leakers 1345
An anonymous reader submits "Bush is expected to sign a law that essentially makes it a crime punishable by up to three years in jail for a user to put a single 'copy of a film, software program or music file in a shared folder and should have known the copyrighted work had not been commercially released.' Whichever side you're on in the copyright debate, you have to agree this legislation is draconian and excessive, to say the least."
Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Just when we think it can't get any worse, we see this sort of crap:
From the article:
Nice. Our President lies to us about weapons of mass destruction and drags us into an unjust war that has cost thousands of Americn lives, but I'm the felon.
And look how they got this thing passed...it rode in on the coattails of this:
Also from the article:
Honestly, why are we stealing this crap anymore? Especially as the three most popular movies currently are Hitch, The Pacifer, and Be Cool (thanks to www.the-numbers.com)? Why do we waste our time and endanger our freedom?
Well, I say, it's time to stop. Not just stop pirating mainstream movies, but stop watching them altogether. There's plenty of content to be found out there on the Web (AtomFilms [atomfilms.com] and INetFilm [inetfilm.com] come to mind).
Show the RIAA that we are not sheep. Show them that we don't need to see the latest Keanu Reeves travesty. Show them we're tired of their shit. Don't see their movies. Don't pirate their movies. Don't have anything to do with their movies. If enough of us shake off the yoke, it will make a difference.
Please review text before trolling (Score:4, Interesting)
[S.167.RH] [loc.gov]
Oh, and just a note... (Score:5, Funny)
text of bill (Score:4, Informative)
S 167 RH
Union Calendar No. 16
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 167
[Report No. 109-33, Part I]
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 2, 2005
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
April 12, 2005
Reported from the Committee on the Judiciary
April 12, 2005
Committee on House Administration discharged; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
AN ACT
To provide for the protection of intellectual property rights, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005'.
TITLE I--ARTISTS' RIGHTS AND THEFT PREVENTION
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005' or the `ART Act'.
SEC. 102. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING OF MOTION PICTURES IN A MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITION FACILITY.
(a) In General- Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2319A the following new section:
`Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of Motion pictures in a Motion picture exhibition facility
`(a) Offense- Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense.
`(b) Forfeiture and Destruction- When a person is convicted of a violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to any penalty provided, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all unauthorized copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works protected under title 17, or parts thereof, and any audiovisual recording devices or other equipment used in connection with the offense.
`(c) Authorized Activities- This section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or by a person acting under a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
`(d) Immunity for Theaters- With reasonable cause, the owner or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor--
`(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer; an
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know, but how about showing them we're not thieves and stop "sharing" music/movies/software or anything else that we don't have the rights to.
Of course, we have enough laws that should deal with thi
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people feel that George Lucas raped their childood memories, yet will line up to hand him money?
Of course, if this trend continues, there will be less jail time for shooting an MPAA executive in the face than for leaking a screener, and the fall-out from *that* should be entertaining.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never so much as considered attempting to download a movie. The amount of effort that goes into pirating such things when you could just drive to a video store and pay a very reasonable couple of bucks boggles my mind. But honestly, at this point I'm inclined to just start pirating movies in bulk without even ever watching a single one of them, just for the purpose of distributing them to others. The movie industry feels like their customers are insidious little criminals out to destroy them? Well fine. Then I want to actually start acting like one.
They shit on the laws of my country, I start shitting on them. It's the least they deserve.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but the stuff on AtomFilms and so on are not on the par of quality movies like Merchant of Venice. Sure, there's a ton of crap released by Hollywood annually, and people ignore that anyway, because it is crap. But online movie content is no replacement for a good movie.
The fact remains that many people would go to the cinemas if they weren't that pricey and anally-retentive about food and so on. And don't get me started on cell phones.
In any case, if we were sheep, we wouldn't be "stealing".
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
The main problem seems to be noise and no one talks or answers cell phones in elevators. You can bring your own food into elevators, and the sound system should be quite realistic in such a small space. As for the ads, if you were to watch them going up and down elevators instead of during the movie, I'm sure no one would have any problems with it.
Take my word for it. The future of cinema is the elevator.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
You were saying?
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
I am on the side of reducing copyright to a more reasonable time-frame. Five years after the death of the author would be plenty, IMHO.
Were I a King of the US, I would declare that getting rid of copyright entirely would be even better. People wrote some pretty good stuff before the concept of copyright existed, so I disagree that it would all disappear after it was wiped out.
And I do not "have to agree" that it's "draconian" and in fact, I don't agree.
If you are going to bother to have copyright law matter at all, the only way to effectively enforce it is to come down hard on the first person to illegally distribute it. Once it's scattered all over usenet and various torrent sites, it's too late to do jack shit about it.
So, unless everybody wants to agree to my kooky libertarian ideal of abolishing copyright entirely (and we all know that such a thing will never happen), then we need a big hammer to enforce the law as it exists.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people who steal actual property which causes a real, measurable loss, and real upset to the victims get significantly higher sentences?
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
What we use instead now is a mix of punishment (eye for an eye), rehabilitation (make criminal a part of society again), and Renumeration (heal the harm done community/society).
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer fixed terms of no more than 56 years in length (preferably shorter, maybe around 20 years). Why?
Life+5 years gives $BigPublishingCompany or $BigFilmCompany large incentives to see that Stephen King (or any other big-selling author) has an unfortunate "accident". Five years later, they no longer have to pay his estate any royalties on his works.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Adapted from Dune:
"This is the bond of knowledge. We know the rites. A man's flesh is his own; the knowledge belongs to the tribe."
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Good lord, what are the schools teaching kids these days?!
Corporations are psychopaths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, unlike proprietorships or partnerships in which liability of the firm is distributed to its owners, a corporation has its own legal identity separate from the people who own shares of its stock; if a corporation suffers losses, it has to pay debts, not its owners. By doing this, stockholder liability is only limited to what they've invested in the firm (not their entire fortune) whereas proprietorships and partnerships can potentially have unlimited liabilities (someone makes a big mistake) meaning that entire fortunes can be collected to pay debts.
The catch is that corporations, existing as a legal identity are taxed whereas proprietorships and partnerships are not... This means that owners are taxed on corporate income in addition to the corporation being taxed on the same income (or double taxation).
So this is the extent to which a corporation is considered a person... it's purely financial. So how exactly does a purely financial construct resemble a psychopath? I mean, if you're embracing an abstraction of that degree, why not extend the argument to basically anything centered around a theoretical basis? I'm curious, what would be the psychological evaluation of the /. copyright opposition crowd (considering that it seems to oppose the RIAA/MPAA, but supports copyright enforcement concerning GNU efforts)?
Go ahead and call me a capitalist, republican, conservative, bible-thumping pig as that seems to be the common response here (to opposing opinions of open minds of course).
Note: I did not make any statements in the hopes of diminishing open source efforts (as I would be quite the hypocrite considering I made this post using Linux and Mozilla). I just get tired of the whole faceless corporations are evil and that's that argument. Corporations have problems (such as the issue of corporate governance) but absurd comparisons to psychopaths have got to go.
Re:Corporations are psychopaths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you won't agree with some of the conclusions the author has drawn, but the basic point that corporations have a lot more rights/powers than what is needed to allow for limited liability is pretty obvious. And comparing them to psychopaths really isn't absurd. They are treated, legally, as another person like you and me, but they don't act like normal people. Perhaps you don't want to say they act like psychopaths, but I'd like to hear a better description of why they act how they do, and and explanation why their behavior would be ok for a person with the same rights.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
You are making the all-too-common mistake of confusing "libertarianism" with "corporate anarchy."
Understandable and forgivable, but please become more informed before accusing me of being a corporate shill. That would be great, thanks.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, perhaps you should do a little more reading on "what libertarianism truly means" before you start lecturing me on it, because you clearly only half-understand most of the principles.
Thirdly, I never said anything which advocates your ad absurdum scenarios. Stop knocking down straw men and acting like you've proven anything.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Free market is what allowed/will allow corporations the power to do what they want, including spewing tons of pollution into the environment (which would only increase with de-regulation), enforcing censorship (walmart), utilizing sweatshops, and abusing a protection put in place for individual people's property rights (copyright).
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No way buddy. Copyright's were invented for people who benefit by artists and inventors and by "people who benefit" I mean regular people. The system is in place to reward artists and inventors just enough to make it worth it for them to do what they do. The point of the system is to create innovation, NOT to make artists rich off their work although our economic system theoretically should do that so its win-win for average people and artists.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Then maybe rapists should get more time.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
To fix this loophole they would have to prosecute the ones that they can prove weren't infected with anything and just did it to themselves to get away.
UK penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
That says it right there. Copyright is far more important than democracy.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, a merchant may be entitled to compensatory damages if the merchandise is not returned in sellable condition, plus compensatory damages of up to $500.
California Penal Code, Sections 490, 490.1, and 490.5 [ca.gov]
However, if someone stole enough copies to pass out to random people on the street, the theft could rise into grand theft,
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems the bastards cannot legally check my non-shared directories without physically taking my machine away, but they can easily see and record what I share.
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
While we're on the topic, this is called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act [loc.gov]. Would it therefore be proper to call it the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Legislation, aka FECAL?
Re:Free Thinkers Declare War on the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Draconian? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? The damages are greater to the copywrite holder.
Yes, I believe copywrite law is being abused (by both the (c) holder AND the (c) violator) -- however, this doesn't appear to me to be an abuse...
Re:Draconian? (Score:5, Insightful)
A good example is possession of a concealed weapon. In Wisconsin it's illegal to do so, but a man recently used a concealed weapon to protect himself from some guys trying to rob him. Although he was breaking the law, the district attorney didn't even press charges. Based on the law he COULD have gotten prison time, but it was never even considered.
The maximum penalty for any law exists for the most extreme violators of that particular law. Just like the death penalty, it's not applied to every situation, just the extreme cases.
Re:Draconian? (Score:5, Informative)
From the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]:
Note that judges were not required before this to always impose the "maximum possible sentence", but rather one determined by sentencing guidelines. And now, with the SCOTUS ruling, the guidelines are purely advisory.
In addition, federal prosecutors retain prosecutorial discretion. So you're 0/2.
Re:Draconian? (Score:4, Insightful)
Plenty of flesh and blood people are getting fucked over by many other issues and losing a lot more money than if a company loses some possible revenue from a movie released ahead of time.
When my insurance rates go down and my prescription medicines no longer cost as much as they do then I feel Congress is free to explore some other avenues.
I pay their salary too.
Re:Draconian? (Score:4, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree. Congress should be spending its time boning up on new weapons, threats to the world, trade issues, technologies, and generally just learning what's going on around them.
There is a sense that I've gotten from a great deal of feedback like yours in the last 5-10 years, that Congress should be doing different things, but can you imagine how much better off as a nation we (sorry, intl. readers) would be if congress would just do fewer, more informed things?
Property rights vs Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite its poor name, "copyright" laws grant a limited exclusive PRIVILEGE to copy information. In other words, they are restricting the natural way of things in hopes of achieving some greater good. (Anyone can copy anything, naturally, as per the assumed right to do whatever you like unless otherwise limited; copyright law is the limit, not the right).
Infringing on copyright law is *not theft*. You have not deprived the original owner of any property, and thus have violated no property rights. You have infringed on a law, sure, but that law is not based on any universal right.
Given that, you're right that there's no right to cheap drugs or insurance either. Which just puts these two issues on the same footing: trying to regulate a naturally unregulated system in order to achieve some greater good. No natural rights violations are being violated in either case.
I believe the GP poster was merely expressing his disdain that things are being regulated in favor of the corporations, instead of in favor of the people.
Re:Draconian? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's quite apt. It's not private property rights we're talking about here. It's copyright. Copyright exists for a reason in the constitution.
So the Constitution says "yes, Congress is allowed to give authors exclusivity to their original works for a limited time, and allow them to control who has access to it, to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
How, precisely, is it "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" to have copyright extended indefinitely? Note also that it says "authors" - not "decendants of authors" or "corporations of which the author is affiliated."
The Constitution spells out very clearly that the reason for copyright is to promote science and the arts.
Do I have a right to copyrighted works? Yes, once protecting them has stopped advancing arts and science, they should no longer fall under Congress's ability to legislate. And if someone can explain to me how protecting "Steamboat Willie" advances the arts, I'd love to hear it. It advances Disney's economic interests, but it surely diminishes the artistic community as a whole to have everything slowly fall under perpetual copyright.
So yes, too much protection is being given to pieces of paper - copyrighted works. They're supposed to fall into the public domain. I have a right to use those works once they've stopped "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and that right is being slowly eroded.
The medicine argument would be even more apt if we were talking about patents, but we're not, so I won't go there.
Can you prove what you just said? (Score:3, Insightful)
What supporting evidence do you have to make such a statement? What makes you think that the number of people who see the unreleased film and decide to not go to the theater is greater than the number of people who look to download the unreleased film because they cannot wait to see it in the theater -- and then they do go to the theater to see it on the big screen?
Re:Draconian? (Score:5, Insightful)
This could also completely stifle online trading of bootlegs (I'm referring to fan-made live concert recordings). Since most of these are never released (if they're recorded in the first place), almost any bootleg would be a "prerelease." The label could theoretically sue someone for distributing a bootleg, seize the copy (and rights to it) in lieu of that $250,000 fine, and sell the work at a profit while the fan sits in jail.
Or consider this: If I download a TV show which is only broadcast overseas (or broadcast overseas before broadcast locally) with BitTorrent, I'm also guilty according to this law. Even though the show would be broadcast for free if/when it does come to my area.
Yes, this seems draconian and excessive to me.
Prereleases are the free market at work- if there's demand, a supply will appear. The movie studios and record labels work up a huge public demand for their works, then act all surprised when an illicit supply appears.
There is no "copywrite" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Draconian? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Draconian? (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, if you are convicted of a Felony, you forfit your right to vote. Gee, how fitting.
Makes it really easy to get rid of voting by making everyone a felon. Like voting matters, anyway.
Re:What is "commercial release" (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'm not a lawyer. I haven't read the legislation either. However, there is certainly room for the grandparent post's concern to be valid.
Going back to Futurama. Suppose Fox (or whomever owns it now) decided that they would put Futurama out for download six months after it was shown on TV. (The Sci-Fi network did put Battlestar Galactica's first episode online, after all. It's not a total stretch.) But somebody watched it on TV, and saved it to their computer, and put that on the Internet. If the product is `Futurama for download', then the person just made it available before release. It really depends on exactly how the law is written.
Another possiblity would be if they took Futurama episodes and saved them to their computer, and then made .iso files for burning to DVD, and put those online. If they did this before the DVD was available with those episodes, it's possible they could get nailed with this new law -- again, it depends on exactly how the law is written.
And laws aren't always used to go after the people that the laws were originally written to go after. It would be extremely naive to assume that this law was somehow different.
I don't think your post was a troll. A bit shortsighted, perhaps, but not a troll. Have you considered that maybe the problem isn't with this place, but with your expectations of this place? This place attracts a certain sort of people, and often people of a certain type think similarly. I realize that you're trying to be insulting with your `groupthink mode', but in reality the moderation was probably done by a few people who honestly felt that the post was a troll (could just be one person too) rather than people who `shared a brain'.Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
We get semi-automated C&D orders from content owners routinely as it is; will they now begin to insist on the involvement of university police or other agencies?
Yeah, there are computer security issues to work out, but on a fundamentally open public research campus with tens of thousands of computers, not all of them will be perfectly protected.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple. Lock up every college kid in the country, and then see what their parents think of this new legislation.
"Common Carrier" - what about sites that host it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Enjoyed my fun little christmas hoax [komar.org] - help me do it for real! ;-) [komar.org]
To avert a flamewar... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:To avert a flamewar... (Score:3, Informative)
That being said, I don't think this is draconian since if you stole the amount of money you could potentially cost a business by doing this, you'd go to jail for much longer. I would agree if you said our Senate has bigger fish to be frying atm...
Well, shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
John Rowland [wikipedia.org] defrauded the state of Connecticut, and will be serving a measly single fucking year for it. Pimply-faced teenagers will spend more time being rectally plundered by delinquents named "Li'l Dawg" than our esteemed public servant will for racketeering, conspiract, et al.
ARGH!
--grendel drago
Once again, Microsoft to the rescue! (Score:5, Funny)
\\127.0.0.1\c$
So if I leave my door open ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So if I leave my door open ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Draconian (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Draconian (Score:4, Insightful)
The term is a "maximum" not an absolute. You need something sufficiently severe to nail repeat offenders. The current approach of just saying that "If you do that, we will be angry. Very, very angry" is simply not effective in deterring this crime.
Re:Draconian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Draconian (Score:3, Funny)
Thats not so bad. With good behavior, you could be out in less than 2812 years.
Re:Draconian (Score:4, Insightful)
"Force multiplier" (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted it's theft, but theft of one $8.00 movie ticket at the most.
Not at all. They're trying to stop the filesharing at the source with this. Keep people from leaking the movie in the first place. To go with your analogy, it's l
FECAL Act? (Score:5, Funny)
All In the Family (Score:5, Insightful)
Just write a bill, put 'family' in the title, and it's sure to pass.
Re:All In the Family (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
FTA:
"The bill's supporters in Congress won passage of the prison terms by gluing them to an unrelated proposal to legalize technologies that delete offensive content from a film. That proposal was designed to address a lawsuit that Hollywood studios and the Directors Guild of America filed against ClearPlay over a DVD player that filtered violent and nude scenes."
I hate riders like this.
Slashdot bias (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll disagree. You have no right to leak an unrelased movie to the Internet. If you've doing that, you are comitting a crime. This law is just upping the penalties for a crime that's being comitted far too often.
Please don't tell me you're shocked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Phenomenal!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Am glad that 14 year old pimple faced - living in the basement - testosterone pumped teenagers are finally owning up to their evil rebellion against the all encompassing entity which is the Movie Industry. Because they clearly have struck a significant blow AND crippled the dying movie industry by rapidly proliferating Gigabytes of digital movie files costing the Producers millions in revenue that they otherwise would have gotten for the spectacular blockbuster family entertainment movies that they consistently bring to the Silver screen. And I sure dont shed a tear for my evil brethren who run the risk of starving every Movie Industry bigwig's ivy league sons and daughters, with blatant disregard for their needs to live better than us souls.
Whats even more Phenomenal is the ability of Family and Faith based groups who rightly believe that they have a god given right to eliminate filth from the minds of us and to drive our youth to the purest form of abstinence and away from depravity. And their inability to comprehend the meaning of an "Off" switch.
Heres a thought. If buying a DVD does not necessarily provide me with the fair use rights to strip out its content and modify/store it to my needs, how does that provide Clearplay with the right to filter out what they deem filthy?
And did anyone notice the name of the Bill - Family Entertainment and Copyright. with names like that, who would want to not pass it.. Save the KIDS!!
And then MPAA had to go out and sneak this one in, like both parties are always notorious for. Sneak something in which would not have stood alone in its own right. Sneak it in and drive it in before we have a chance to respond..
The whole damn K Street is the first one that needs to be cleansed.
Another Big Brother law (Score:5, Interesting)
But this also appears to apply to anyone who "leaks" information that the owner doesn't really want out there, ever. Without a deadline on the "release" date, material can be embargoed forever. That's how Big Brother can put information into a Memory Hole, and put anyone who lets it out into Room 101. It accompanies the DMCA stream that makes information Go Away Permanently when its DRM is made unreadable: If it's on a short-lived medium (some DVDs and CDs) and can't be copied, or uses a DRM that is time-limited, then once it goes, it goes, and trying to keep the information alive becomes a Crime Against The State. These secondary agendas are not obvious to the mainstream press, but the Fatherland Security Police apparatus is well aware of how these laws can be used against political opponents.
The paper clip! (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should pass a bill that makes this sort of act illegal. That Simpsons episode where they go to Washington comes to mind. Behold the paper clip!
Shared folders? (Score:3, Funny)
Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sue them! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now there's a name... (Score:5, Funny)
the Family Entertainment Copyright Act Legislation
With luck, we'll end up with an enforcement branch being created and the Supreme Court refusing to get involved under the ground, "We feel that, ultimately, copyright control in this country is a F.E.C.A.L. matter."
They do know it's the 20th, no the 1st, right?
What about the money?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see 2 major problems with this law.
But this law is not going after someone just sharing. It seems to be going after those who share a movie, before it is released to the theaters.
Still, I wonder if this law is excessive. I would not be as troubled if I did not believe this law was passed for lobbyists, not for the public benifit. The only way to stop laws like this is for massive capmaign finance reform. Until then, groups like the RIAA will own members of Congress.
To play devil's advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparison to other laws and punishments is not helpful. The legal system isn't coherent and just because a punishment is out of line with other punishments doesn't make this one excessive; it could just as easily be that some others are too lenient. You can easily find other even more egregious examples, especially in the case of drug laws. (Some terribly high percentage of prisoners is in for simple marijuana possession if urban legend is to be believed.)
Part of the reason is that punishment serves many different purposes: rehabilitation, restitution, vengeance, deterrence. Any punishment is a mixture, depending on what they want to accomplish. Deterrence is particularly strong in this case: they're going to able to track down very few offenders, so they "amortize" the punitive aspect to try to scare others off.
There's also the notion that the punishment should fit the damage done. Arguably, the damage done by sharing movies and CDs is very high. If 1% of the people who downloaded a movie would have bought it, that can easily be 10,000 people. If the studio nets ten bucks on each sale, that's $100,000 in damage. (I don't care if you wish to call the crime "infringement" or "theft" or "piracy"; I'm trying to figure out economic losses. And unless you have some hard numbers for your argument that the studios are benefitting from your free advertising, please start a different thread.)
Such a crime would be "grand theft" if it were theft, and three years is not an unusual punishment for the crime of grand theft. As I said, it may not be classified as theft, but it's a case where damage is arguably done, and done to the tune of a whole bunch of money.
As the title suggests, I'm just playing devil's advoctate here. The criminals at Enron will get only slightly more jail time for the far greater, far more concrete damage they did. Compared to that tracking down file sharers is an immense waste of time, money, and jail space. I'm just not a fan of the common Slashdot "if it's not nailed down it's mine, and if I can break the copy protection it's not nailed down" argument, and we'll see how many of those respond before I get modded to negative infinity.
Talk about class warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
See your future now! Only 15 cents! (Score:3, Insightful)
If people had actually read "Mein Kampf" they would have seen the future Germany; it was all there. But it was just so damn boring nobody paid attention.
Think about that the next time you hear our President or the likes of Mr. Delay or Mr. Kennedy drone on in flag-waving political doublespeak.
Win some, Lose some (Score:4, Insightful)
The act doesn't criminalize the act of filesharing, it criminalizes the act of uploading copyrighted media before it is released. Big difference. I believe in P2P but pirating a movie/CD days before it is released is crossing the line.
I see "draconian" a lot in the comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, it's a little nuts, but think about it -- some kid starts seeing a PSA on TV and reading online hearing about other kids getting threatened with 3 years max. for violating the law? Shit -- if I were a parent, I'd think "family" in terms of this law, 'cause spending money to defend my kid for something he probably shouldn't have been doing in the first place affects my fucking "family" financially.
Personally, it sounds like a horseshit law in the works, but most of the ones coming from DC these days are horseshit. However, as a deterrant, 3 years for, say, my kid violating the law is plenty effective.
IronChefMorimoto
Doesn't the existing law work well enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
If signed into law, as expected, the bill would significantly lower the bar for online copyright prosecutions. Current law sanctions criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for "the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more."
Isn't it enough for the xxAA to be able to use an argument similar to "it caused us more than $2,500 in damages" in order to levy the heavier penalties on people they want to prosecute? I wouldn't think that $2,500 in damages would be all that hard to prove for a leaked pre-release film or CD...
It seems to me that all this bill does is lower the bar on what is considered a felony for distribution (which was formerly 10 copies or $2,500 in worth).
So this just makes it WAY easier for the xxAA industries to go after people, as their burden of proof is just about nonexistant. All they have to prove to prosecute someone successfully now is that the media in question was in fact "pre-release". They don't even have to prove that is was actually ever downloaded...
File swapping = life? (Score:3, Interesting)
Axe murderer: What are you in for?
File swapper: I shared a master copy of Britney Spear's newest cd before it was released.
Axe murderer: The Villainy!
Pirate Hatch strikes again. (Score:3, Interesting)
An excert:
(a) Prohibited Acts- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(a) Criminal Infringement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
`(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
`(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
`(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
`(2) EVIDENCE- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
`(3) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `work being prepared for commercial distribution' means--
`(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution--
`(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
`(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
`(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture--
`(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
`(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.'.
Am I a criminal? (Score:3, Interesting)
A literal reading of this would say that some music files that I and a few friends made and put online are going to become illegal. Consider:
1) The files are copyrighted by default (by us).
2) We haven't released these files commercially.
3) The files are online, on my web site.
Are they really making it illegal for people to put their own files online without first releasing them commercially?
This sounds like they're basically outlawing the act of giving things out for free. You can only sell things; you can't give your own things away as a present.
I suppose this wouldn't be surprising, coming from the Bush administration.
I've also put a number of small scripts online, for the benefit of anyone who might find them useful. They're too small to sell. They must be copyrighted since in the US, everything is copyrighted by default. So it sounds like those giving out those little scripts is soon to be an illegal act.
I wonder what the chances are that the courts would toss this law?
Re:Am I a criminal? (Score:4, Informative)
> friends made and put online are going to become illegal. Consider:
(snip)
> Are they really making it illegal for people to put their own files online
> without first releasing them commercially?
(snip)
No.
The problem was taking a literal reading from news.com.com instead of the actual law
See the law here [loc.gov] for a copy of the quote below...
(Sec. 103) Establishes criminal penalties for willful copyright infringement by the distribution of a computer program, musical work, motion picture or other audiovisual work, or sound recording being prepared for commercial distribution by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if the person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(bold added by me)
It's only going to be illegal to give something away for free if both:
a) it was a copyright infringement, and
b) it was being created Only for the purpose of selling
In your case, as you are the copyright holder of your own works, you can distribute them anyway you see fit, thus are not infringing copyright in the first place.
Second, for someone else whom you did not grant license to, whom does infringe on your copyright and distributes your work aginst your will, this law only applies if you 1) intended to sell it, and 2) that should have been known.
As you said, you have given scripts and files away in the past on your site for free, so even if I broke in to your system and grabbed some files and put them out there on the net, I can claim I had no idea you planned to sell those works since your track record so far is to release them for free. This law would not apply then.
It definatly only applies to people who only* make things in life to make a buck off them.
*(It almost has to be only and not usually/sometimes/occasionally, as that does not satisfy the 'should have known' clause of the law)
Now, if it was taken from a company/corporation instead of a person, i'm sure the court will rule 'should have known' to be in the 'always true' logic state, as its rare to have an answer for 'what else do companys exist for?'
WAR on Viruses (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words: How do you know the files in my shared folder weren't put there by hackers who exploited yet another vulnerability in Microsoft Windows? (remember the case of the planted warez [slashdot.org] in Sweden?)
Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously how is this stupid US law going to translate in the real world.
Lets say for example that some movie is made in Canada, by a US Producer. Lets also say that they send a copy to an animation server farm down in New Zealand (I think Peter Jackson has such a facility down there).
If the movie is leaked from Canada onto the web, is the law enforceable?
If the movie is leaked from New Zealand onto the web, is the law enforcable?
In either case probably not. In which case the law really only exists for two purposes. One is to stop people in the US, from doing leaks. Two is to keep the Movie industry centeralized in the US market.
Lets face it all this is, is a way that the US can promote their industry without having to compete. Usual scare tatics. How much money do you think these corporations REALLY lose due to this leakage. How much PR do they get from it (unless their movie sucks balls I suppose)...
Anyway it seems I have entered into the tinfoil hat territory, and they are probably watching so I am out of here!
DarthVain
I'm not so sure this is draconian (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one thing to make your l33t protest about poor commercial models by pirating music and movies. It's another thing to pirate something before the company even has a chance to provide a commercial alternative.
I'm no fan of Bush, ridiculously long copyrights, or the commercially available music and movie distribution system, but I think the punishment here actually fits the crime.
Interesting acronym (Score:5, Funny)
What's happening to America? (Score:4, Insightful)
And the saying goes that what happens in the US now will happen in Britain five years later. Boy, 2010 is going to fucking suck.
3 years "not so bad" (Score:4, Insightful)
unless you've personally done 3 years, or, in fact, any time, kindly STFU. I have not served any time, so I can not speak from experience on how bad it is. All I know are witness accounts.
After 3 years in jail, your life is over. Period. You are permanently unemployable (no one wants to hire an ex-con). You are facing a choice of flipping burgers for the rest of your life, or becoming a hard-core criminal. You can never vote again (as an ex-felon, anyone with >1 jail time). Your psyche will be permanently altered, and most likely destroyed. You will be abused by whoever happens to be bored. If you resist, you will get beaten and then abused. And by abused I mean serially raped anally and orally. All of your conceptions of decency, honesty, and goodwill of all men will get crushed. Your personality may potentially survive somewhat intact if 1) you are phenomenally, exceptionally strong inside, and 2) you don't turn into a raving maniac as a self-defense mechanism. The chances of surviving as something close to your former self - almost 0. You will leave prison a burned-out husk, a grey shadow of your former self. Don't let the kindly, heartwarming prison movies fool you. You will turn into the most dreaded image of yourself, a living, breathing zombie that's totally dead inside. That's the good case. The bad case is you'll become a hardened criminal with no regard for human life, and will spend the rest of your pathetic existence taking advantage of normal people as a means of psychological revenge.
I base my comments on descriptions of prison life both in the US and the former USSR, as written by inmates who have survived.
So, this debate is essentially the following: is sharing a movie worth destroying a person's life? It is contended that their actions result in financial loss for some company. The exact amount, or even the fact of loss is *highly* questionable, and is disputed. Is the action of sharing a movie sufficiently grave that we see it fit to strip the offender of their humanity as punishment? What this law contends is that someone who infringes on a copyright has rejected the social contract to the same extent as, say, a rapist, a child molesterer or a murderer. 3 or 10 isn't relevant, guys. The person's just as dead either way. Longer sentences are a means of 1) isolation, or 2) giving the inmate more of a chance to become a hardened criminal. So the question stands: is the loss of corporate profit a grave enough offence to remove someone's humanity?
The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.
Sponsored by none other than.. (Score:5, Informative)
Title: A bill to provide for the protection of intellectual property rights, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 1/25/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.357
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
House Reports: 109-33 Part 1
Text of Bill [loc.gov]
There is only one thing to do (Score:5, Insightful)
The facts (Score:3, Informative)
Kenneth Lay stole US$7 trillion from Enron and he gets off scott free WITH the money while the employees have all lose their pensions. But the poor guy who shares a file ends in jail.
Dyncorp sells children for sex in the Balcans, but thanks to their friend Rumsfeld, they get off scott free. But the guy in Colorado who loads a plate of salad at a salad bar at a Chuck E. Cheese gets beaten up by the police.
These are facts.
Typical straw man... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, so? That doesn't speak in favor of the guy who shares files. It speaks against the people who allowed the mass-murderer-or-worse to get free.
If you consider that the penalties for file sharing are unfair, SAY SO, but don't compare with the evil guy etc etc.
If you consider that it is your right to share files because you're protesting against the RIAA monopoly who's feeding on our taxes, then say so.
But don't mix things,
Re:Rider authors conspicuously absent... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that Bush has signed the bankruptcy bill, [washingtonpost.com] people abusing bankruptcy won't be costing me $400 personally and once that $400 savings is passed on to me from my credit card issuer I'm going to go out and buy a ton of CDs. And no, I'm not going to share them with you! Heh heh heh. Jesus himself said it's easier fo
Check out the bill's co-sponsors (Score:5, Informative)
Couple of well-known right-wing Republicans there.
Oh, wait...